What a masculine imperative would look like

Vox points out the feminine imperative in action in his post Regulating sex:

Women desperate to become mothers are increasingly signing up for sperm donation websites where men are offering ‘natural insemination’ only.

See Vox’s full post for the larger quote from the Daily Mail, but this single sentence captures the essence of the twisted frame.  These noble women are trying to create life, but the evil men want to force them into having [dirty] sex!

If this were instead an example of a masculine imperative the sentence would read:

Women are setting out to have illegitimate children in as cold and clinical a fashion as possible, yet men are insisting on a human connection as a minimum requirement for their first act of fatherhood.

Of course neither frame represents true sexual morality.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Fatherhood, Feminine Imperative, Frame, Illegitimacy, Motherhood. Bookmark the permalink.

309 Responses to What a masculine imperative would look like

  1. okrahead says:

    Imaging their horror when they discovered the evil men had first gotten vasectomies! RAPE!!!!!
    lolzlolzlolz

  2. ahlstar says:

    Pride certainly does form an impenetrable shell after a while. What horrible levels are they prepared to sink to before they will finally admit they’ve been wrong for fifty years.

  3. I was very enthusiastic when I got the email linking to your post, but became disillusioned that you had not gone into a more comprehensive discussion on what a real masculine imperative would look like. I have my own ideas but believe these should be agreed to by all those involved or willing to be involved in upholding it – and, sadly, even mentioning the idea of a ”masculine imperative” to women would bring them into tantrum mode.

  4. Jack says:

    Amazing that women have come to the point where they have to go to a sperm bank to have a child. Pretty sad.

  5. Rickenbacker says:

    This here is the true horror and price of modern day feminism/hypergamy we all have the privilege of paying.
    You don’t develop the traits to become a faithful, supportive wife by bouncing between ONS and casual hookups, bailing ship whenever things get a little though or boring. You don’t become a mature, caring and sensible mother by partying every weekend and riding the carousel. You don’t even become a self-sufficient independent adult by continuously trading, or alluding to, sex in order to get men to provide for you.

    So here are we now, legions of “pushing 30″ girls in women’s clothing, unfit in every aspect of parenthood, suddenly deciding they’re ready to become mother’s on no basis or qualifications whatsoever besides the tick of their biological clock.
    They FEEL they’re ready, FEEL it’s their prerogative to have a child without spending a single second considering the rights of this new life, its right to a stable home and parents who’ve put in the time and effort to learn what’s required.
    Because *that’s* the true test of growing up, not doing so for yourself but doing so so you can teach your children how.

    But they ignore this, they get insemination or get “accidentally” pregnant and rob their child of its right, its future, out of willful ignorance and self-righteous entitlement only to breed another generation of emasculated whipped boys and sociopathic narcissistic womenchildren spoonfed from birth on lies of the evil that men do.

  6. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It would be an interesting question what a masculine imperative would look like, but I’m wondering if it even exists since men in general (average men) differ and have differences between them (they are not a herd like women). A small to moderate sized group seems natural to them, but a big centralized empire doesn’t seem right and imperative comes from “empire” (femme empire?).

    Of course neither frame represents true sexual morality.

    I think that true sexual morality is both sexes accepting each other and living in a way that is not combative. Like learning each other’s innate languages.

  7. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    It’s an interesting thought experiment.

    My wife has a 30+ year old coworker whose baby rabies flared up. She married a guy she met at church after a 3 month acquaintence. No counselling or serious thought was put into the idea. And now she’s divorcing him, because in spite of all the icky sex she puts up with (and a surprise STD he forgot to mention), she can’t get pregnant. No cash and prizes for her, though. He’s an illegal immigrant with no assets.

    Of course, the focus at the office is entirely on what a horrible person the ex-husband is, etc. And I wouldn’t argue that point. But no mention is made of the woman’s serious lapse in judgement caused by her baby rabies, or her decision to devote her fertile years to an office job, rather than to a husband and family. Or her followup decision to abandon the marriage because it no longer serves her immediate interests and (hey, whaddya know?) the husband isn’t behaving like the well mannered accessory to her life that she assumed he’d be.

    And I get that you don’t want to go into all that within the office if you’re having to work with the woman. However, whenever the story comes up in other circles, invariably the man is a horrible person who she’s better off without. No comment about her role in the fiasco (until I bring it up, anyway).

    Oh, both the husband and wife are ‘christians’ and regular church goers. So they got that going for them.

  8. deti says:

    Masculine imperative:

    Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible.

  9. deti says:

    By the way: I’m not saying this is sexually moral. It is, however, what every man wants.

    Everything a man does, he does to fulfill this imperative: Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible. This is why he listens to instruction, gets an education, gets a job, increases his earning power, lifts weights, gets fit, socializes, buys products, buys cars and houses.

    The only moral way to address the imperative is to marry. So what he bargains for is unlimited access to sex with one woman who he wants to be as attractive as possible. Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry. If a wife said to her husband before marriage that she wouldn’t guarantee sex, he would not marry her.

  10. Opus says:

    Clearly we have had it back-to-front the whole time. Whereas previously, we had assumed that the female was the limiting factor in reproduction such that even the local wilder-beats and beached-whales had absolutely no problem in securing the services of at least some male no matter how unprepossesing and frequently to stick aroung and pay the bills; now we know that in fact it is males who are the limiting factor and no matter who you may be as a male, women will be queueing up to be serviced by you. Why am I betting that the males in question are in fact being vetted first and have the approriate abs and pecs? – and are thus merely unpaid gigolos. (Queueing – rather than lining-up – because these women are British and I just refuse to believe that any American woman is so desparate – at least not from what I read here).

    Of course it may be that what these women ‘really really want’ is to have sex with complete strangers but under the guise of only doing it so as to have a child, (which of course they are at liberty to abort – always assuming that they aren’t on the Pill) and thus hiding from themselves the fact that they are rampant sluts. It is shocking that an organisation which seems to have State backing is in fact (on my reading) indulging in unpaid male prostitution. I could not see that any of the good people commenting at the Mail had picked up on that.

  11. Novaseeker says:

    I would say that the core of the feminine imperative is setting up the social order so as to give women the best access to the best combination of resources and male genetic material that is possible given the technological constraints of the age. Note that neither of these needs to come, necessarily, by means of a sexual bond with a specific man — resources can be procured through state confiscation and redistribution, or simply through self-procurement, and today we have a combination of both of these based on social class. Similarly male genetic material can be procured through sexual intimacy of either the long or short term variety, as well as through a
    sperm bank type of thing. The imperative will generally resist restrictions on the freedom of an individual woman to procure either resources or genetic material at her discretion — as is the case here, where the man is placing certain conditions on his provision of his genetic material, and, as such, is therefore placing some restrictions on her ability to procure it for herself.

    To the extent that there is a masculine imperative that runs counter to this, bit would have to do with procuring eggs and gestational womb space/time — the more the merrier. That’s a bit different from procuring merely unlimited access to sex, because women are also a reproductive resource for men, as men are for women. So a system that would be completely skewed to the male side would not just involve a huge amount of no strings sex, but would have to involve pregnancies, and paternity rights with respect to these. It has to do fundamentally with controlling womb access.

    I think, however, that because men are fundamentally competitive with each other, it isn’t really accurate to speak of some kind of parallel here, because there are rather various masculine imperatives, which run in competition with each other probably more than they do in opposition to the FI. That is, the primary struggle over womb space is not with women (at least not for most of history), but with other men –> either as competitors for that womb space or, for most of history, as the gatekeepers of the womb space of their female relatives. For this reason, I don’t think we’ve really ever had a MI type world. The idea of “patriarchy” (i.e., hard monogamy, women passed from fathers to husbands, etc.) is more of a compromise among men and their competing imperatives than it is something that existed to counter the FI. In fact, it likely provided the FI with the best arrangement of resources and genes that was possible at that historical moment, while also serving the purpose of ratcheting down sex-related violence among the men in order to foster greater collaboration and a redirecting of energies towards other ends.

  12. I wonder what the church would have to say about this? All these hero moms in the making!

    Last one out the bathroom, please flush society down the drain when you’re done. Thanks.

  13. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    What I find most interesting about the article Vox Day linked to was this part:

    But while such donations are traditionally carried out artificially, a rising number of women are opting to do so naturally, by having sex with their donors, because it is believed to be more three times more effective than artificial insemination….

    So, women are selecting high status men and having sex with them to have babies? It’s kind of twisted in a way. The natural procreative impulse is good, but the whole unmarried sex is fornication, hence wrong. There’s also the whole “co-parenting” thing displayed (I think this is a method that divorced women use in childrearing after divorcing their husbands?). Tough choice to make about this change of events.

  14. earl says:

    I think I now know what the world was like before the great flood of Noah’s time came.

  15. Hopeful says:

    “a rising number of women are opting to do so naturally, by having sex with their donors, because it is believed to be more three times more effective than artificial insemination….”

    Well, duh. That’s why it’s step up that way. I heard a story a some time back about sperm banks having to turn away certain men (i know red-heads were one group) because they were unpopular. Women didn’t choose them. And some sperm banks, I believe it was in Europe somewhere, actually set their donors up on dates with women looking for donors. So I guess sperm banks are the new dating services. Seems like a bad business model. Wouldn’t matchmaking make sperm banks nearly obsolete?

  16. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    From Vox’s thread, this comment was good: earl said…
    Wow…you get to bang a woman on the wrong side of the wall with the great reward of the government saying you get to pay the kid’s child support.

    Pass.

    May 1, 2013 at 9:47 AM

  17. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    Women are setting out to have illegitimate children in as cold and clinical a fashion as possible, yet men are insisting on a human connection as a minimum requirement for their first act of fatherhood.

    Only women earnestly speak this way. It’s still an intrinsically feminine passage because so much of the print industry has been conformed to women’s preferences. A Masculine Imperative* could only come from a masculine frame.* It would produce something along the lines of:

    “Women are choosing unnatural means to get children because they prefer to not be responsible to another person, yet men still acknowledge that the natural way is best.”

    *These phrases are synonymous, and therefore redundant.

    [D: Good point.]

  18. Novaseeker says:

    I heard a story a some time back about sperm banks having to turn away certain men (i know red-heads were one group) because they were unpopular. Women didn’t choose them. And some sperm banks, I believe it was in Europe somewhere, actually set their donors up on dates with women looking for donors. So I guess sperm banks are the new dating services. Seems like a bad business model. Wouldn’t matchmaking make sperm banks nearly obsolete?

    It depends on what the woman is looking for. If she is looking just for genes and doesn’t want a husband (wants more control, independence, power, etc., or is just “done with men”), she wants a sperm bank rather than a dating service. The banks screen for more than just red hair. Most of the better ones have minimum height requirements, minimum IQ requirements, and a host of other standards as well — which makes sense, because sperm banks are commoditizing male genetic material and commercializing it, so it makes sense that the buyer wants to select for quality of product, in genetic terms.

  19. imnobody00 says:

    It is difficult to imagine what a masculine imperative would look like because no society in history has had such a thing (and no society will). We can only imagine but it would be far more radical than the things that have been stated here.

    Deti makes a first step.

    Masculine imperative: Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible.

    It’s more than that: it’s the society considering MORAL this behavior (polygamy, the male form of promiscuity) and shaming people who don’t enable it, the way serial monogamy (the female form of promiscuity) is moral today and men are shaming for not enabling it.

    Something more accurate would be like this (taken from John – the alternative male blog to Jezebel in this alternative universe):

    As everybody knows, men are more loving than women. While women are petty because they can only love a man at a time, men have such a big heart that they can love many women simultaneously. Men are so full of love that they don’t have enough with one woman while women only have love for one man, and this only for a limited period of time (until the 4 year itch kicks in). Women are selfish and want only one man for them (the basic animal instinct of possession), denying other women to enjoy the same man. Men are more spiritual and loving and know that real love has no boundaries.

    This is why our laws forbid serial monogamy and protect polygamy, which is the basis of society. Women who want a man only for her own are dirty whores and the law punishes them without mercy. They are sent to prison.

    Women work for men while men are in the home enjoying their kids and watching Omar (the alternative male version of Opprah). Kids belong to the father. Omar tell men to follow their heart so there has been a fashion of men leaving the oldest of their wives so they can marry younger wives. When a man repudiates a woman in a polygamous marriage the kids stay with the father and the mother has to give half her assets, alimony and child support to the father.

    It’s really hard to imagine this. Most men are not aware to the extent the feminine imperative dominates every society in the world.

  20. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I think procreation can be somewhat linked to the “masculine imperative”, because while some men seek abortions for their sexual dalliances, the whole infanticide thing is definitely female (the same way ONS is the male variant of promiscuity and serial monogamy is the female variant of promiscuity). It’s a New Age inner goddess type of thing (like human sacrifice and bowing down to idols, killing children to appease false gods). Why the feminine imperative goes this way is a good question. Is it security? Sterility to feel secure (security and instinct of self-preservation)? Rampant promiscuity and lack-of-self control (have sex impulsively and the abort/kill impulsively)? Perhaps it’s a combination of factors.

  21. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    But still, the term itself (“masculine imperative”), is way off. Men aren’t united as some empire.

  22. earl says:

    Masculine imperative.

    It’s building and maintaining civilization.

  23. deti says:

    “It’s building and maintaining civilization.”

    Yes, for the purpose of making women’s lives easier and/or impressing them, so they will have sex with us.

    It all comes back to getting a woman (women) to have sex with him.

    Everything a man does, he does to satisfy this base desire.

  24. sunshinemary says:

    Masculine imperative: Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible.

    But if that is the masculine imperative, why the PUA burn-out? Deti just explained it yesterday on my site (hope you don’t mind me quoting you here, Deti):

    I’ve heard reports from the PUA community describe player burnout. The thrill of the chase, the pursuit, the close and the sex just aren’t all that interesting or fun anymore. Bedding the slut of the week just isn’t fun because they can do it so easily, the outcome is so predictable, and the routine so mundane, that they derive scant enjoyment from even that which is the height of supreme earthly pleasure. It’s no fun. It’s routine, like eating or breating or brushing one’s teeth.

    Unlimited polygyny seems like it should be the masculine imperative, but guys who are living it seem unfulfilled. Shouldn’t they be in hog heaven for life?

  25. deti says:

    don’t know why, SSM. Maybe it’s because we’re talking about the 80% of men who have to break their asses just to get one woman to sex them.

  26. freebird says:

    Deny them sperm and wallet.

    (If you ever want to get your human rights back for your or someone’s sons)

  27. imnobody00 says:

    Unlimited polygyny seems like it should be the masculine imperative, but guys who are living it seem unfulfilled. Shouldn’t they be in hog heaven for life?

    Because it is not that simple. Besides sex, men also want a emotional connection. The masculine heaven is having a long-term intimate relationship and as many casual sexual relationships as they can (evolutionary psychology can explain that). A PUA with a wife, so to speak. The female equivalent is the woman who has a wealthy ex paying her bills while she is tasting alpha c*ck.

  28. freebird says:

    Because men bond with sex and women do not.

    Plain and simple.

    They use our emotional wiring as a weapon to steal our resources,then move on to the next ‘mark.’

  29. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    Unlimited polygyny seems like it should be the masculine imperative, but guys who are living it seem unfulfilled.

    It might be because bedding the slut of the week is equivalent to empty calories? There’s nothing to build on, because there’s no future there. Sooner or later a man wants to build, and you can’t build when the foundation keeps changing. Just a guess. I haven’t had that particular problem, myself.

  30. earl says:

    “Yes, for the purpose of making women’s lives easier and/or impressing them, so they will have sex with us.”

    Well sure…testosterone is the reason why men build things, adhere to laws, or sex up the ladies.

    But there should be an order of things so that women don’t get out of control. Adhering to laws, building things, sex drive in that order. Now we have things in reverse.

  31. Opus says:

    There can of course never be a Masculine Imperative (despite imnobody00’s brilliant description of one above) because the Masculine Imperative would give each man a Harem. This is Arithmetically impossible and so men will always fight each other and seek to do each other down to ensure the best possible result for themselves which is usually going to be one Ordinary Female. A woman can of course have as many Men as she wants, but as she will not either have the finances or the motivation to pay, she either gives it away for free (Slut) or charges (Whore).

    I have just been watching a film of Euripides’ Trojan Women, (the aftermath of the Trojan War) which shows what happens where you have Male Imperative – a few top Greeks sharing out the surviving Trojan women – and don’t they complain! Would any man complain were the situation reversed? Better a concubine/slave than mutilated or dead one might have thought but the Women don’t see that.

  32. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I think (maybe?) masculine instinct is a better word (empire doesn’t cut it). Also, like Sunshine Mary pointed out, the PUAs are getting tired. They were bound to be. Chasing skirts isn’t inherently masculine. It’s just hedonistic or caddish.

  33. sunshinemary says:

    The masculine heaven is having a long-term intimate relationship and as many casual sexual relationships as they can (evolutionary psychology can explain that). A PUA with a wife, so to speak. The female equivalent is the woman who has a wealthy ex paying her bills while she is tasting alpha c*ck.

    So both genders’ imperatives want unlimited and unrestricted sexual variety? So the natural ideal is a PUA with a wife and a wife with a pool boy?

    Novaseeker:

    there are rather various masculine imperatives, which run in competition with each other probably more than they do in opposition to the FI.

    You’ve written about hard monogamy as a response to male competition and as a way of reducing male-male violence before. Can you link to that article?

  34. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    These noble women are trying to create life, but the evil men want to force them into having [dirty] sex!

    Good point. The funny thing about this, is that it’s the precise opposite. Men create/produce/invent, but women have dirtier minds concerning sex. Men are outward oriented, women are inward oriented. Not that men can’t be dirty or anything, just that the sex impulse appears differently in both sexes and can be observed in various matters.

  35. Anonymous Reader says:

    The male equivalent to this is the harem.A collection of fertile women, who are kept under total control by a man, thereby guaranteeing his sole sexual access to them & thus ensuring all children they bear are his (at least in theory). The unstated premises include a very high level of control of resources on the part of this man, in order that he can provide for the women, their offspring, and the security arrangements a harem requires. The harem can provide many, many sons to a man in a single generation, which in turn provides him with an army of sorts, or the core of a much larger army, provided all the sons are loyal to him. His genetic line is assured of continuity even if one or more women fail to conceive, fail to bear sons, etc.

    Various times in human history we can find them. Chinese emperors had many wives. Some dynasties had a system of reward; a man who performed well within the emperor’s service was rewarded with a second or third wife. The harem is a way of propagating that sperm regarded as superior, and I doubt any potentate in ancient China would have lost any sleep over the idea that his second wife deprived some other man of a wife – the superior man should have many children, and a man with no wife should perform exemplary service to the state in order to prove his worthiness. If he can not do that, then he is not a superior man…

    The harem is seen in middle eastern cultures from ancient to modern. It is seen in many different versions in the history of India. It is seen in some parts of Africa from time to time. Clearly a surplus of resources is required, and some outlet for the excess men. Conquest and tribute can provide the former, war to obtain more conquests and tribute the latter.

    In the short term, say, one generation or so, the harem no doubt looks attractive, and in those times when tribe/clan/nation is expanding and taking lots of female prisoners, it makes a kind of sense. Nothing grows without limit, and so at some point the harem will become a burden rather than a benefit to the monarch/leader/etc. but by then he cannot imagine not having it.

    In the long run, unless managed very carefully, the harem is a destabilizing force. Women always want “more”, and so given their inherent nature the harem can surely become a huge drain on the treasury. Women constantly compete with each other within the herd, and so the harem can surely become a place of constant conflict, that must be controlled and mediated by the man who possesses this harem. Some way to serve the kingdom/state/emperor/etc. must be provided for every son of the harem, otherwise an army of rebellion is created. Some means to provide lesser men with a chance, however slim, to obtain a woman must exist, for the same reason.

    People tend to assume that institutions can just run themselves, without anyone really being involved. This is true from the micro (family) to the macro (town, province, nation). No doubt history is littered with kings whose harems came to consume every spare scrap of resource, until the young men decided that they were doomed to die no matter what, and they might as well perish while taking down the king.

    There are resource parallels between the male harem, and this facet of the FI…

  36. sunshinemary says:

    but women have dirtier minds concerning sex.

    Agree.

  37. deti says:

    @ SSM:

    “So both genders’ imperatives want unlimited and unrestricted sexual variety? So the natural ideal is a PUA with a wife and a wife with a pool boy?”

    No. the female sexual ideal is serial monogamy. A series of ever hotter alphas for sex and commitment, until a hotter alpha comes along offering better sex and more commitment in the form of resources and his reservation of sex exclusively for her.

    This is different from, but is a part of, the female IMPERATIVE. The female imperative is pretty much as Nova outlined above: Ordering society so as to permit women the greatest access to the best men for sex and other men/everything else for extraction of resources.

  38. sunshinemary says:

    the harem can surely become a huge drain on the treasury [...] No doubt history is littered with kings whose harems came to consume every spare scrap of resource, until the young men decided that they were doomed to die no matter what, and they might as well perish while taking down the king.

    Hah. The analogy to the relationship between the slut/baby mama vote and the current president is striking.

  39. ahlstar says:

    God knows what we need more than we do. He designed them to be help mates and He demands a pair bond for life. No sowing of oats, no experimentation. PUA’s are operating outside of the grand design, so it’s no surprise it leads to unfulfillment. Sin is pleasurable for a season. Not the long term.

  40. Joe says:

    @Novaseeker

    If she is looking just for genes and doesn’t want a husband (wants more control, independence, power, etc., or is just “done with men”), she wants a sperm bank rather than a dating service. The banks screen for more than just red hair. Most of the better ones have minimum height requirements, minimum IQ requirements, and a host of other standards as well — which makes sense, because sperm banks are commoditizing male genetic material and commercializing it, so it makes sense that the buyer wants to select for quality of product, in genetic terms.

    It’s called eugenics.

  41. TFH says:

    ‘Natural Insemination’ is extremely risky! For one thing, the man would be liable for ‘child support’ and thus come under extremely punitive laws.

    I speak as a donor to two separate official banks some years ago, where confidentiality and legal layers of anonymity are secure.

  42. Novaseeker says:

    You’ve written about hard monogamy as a response to male competition and as a way of reducing male-male violence before. Can you link to that article?

    Probably the most recent one is this one (http://bit.ly/162TmOs), but I think it’s something that’s come up a lot in comments in various places over the past few years, really.

  43. anonymous says:

    Masculine Imperative….

    What is best in life? To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentations multiple orgasms of their women as they surrender to you, their new Alpha.

    …when the LORD thy God hath delivered it into thine hands, thou shalt smite every male thereof with the edge of the sword: But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself; and thou shalt eat the spoil of thine enemies, which the LORD thy God hath given thee…

  44. anonymous says:

    ah, the good old days…

  45. Novaseeker says:

    It’s called eugenics.

    Yes, but of course people select flesh and blood mates and spouses for eugenic reasons, too.

  46. imnobody says:

    @ssm

    So both genders’ imperatives want unlimited and unrestricted sexual variety? So the natural ideal is a PUA with a wife and a wife with a pool boy?

    No, men want unrestricted sexual variety (and a emotional connection). Women want only the best: an alpha only for themselves (and be provided to).

    We are talking about what the ideal state is when it comes to basic instincts. Of course, religion, moral ideas and other things can modify that. And besides that, reality curbs this intincts: you only can get what you can get.

    But yes, if you were to give a feral man or woman what they want with no limitations, the result would be that: a PUA with a wife and a wife with a pool boy (or even better, a millionaire pool boy).

    Women are in a double bind: they want alpha genes but beta providing. This is why the ideal state is being provided and having an alpha. It is ideal because all the desires are fulfilled with no contradiction or conflict.

    Men are also in a double bind: if they invest in their kids, their kids will have more chance of surviving of carrying their genes. But if they spread their seed, their genes will have more chance of surviving to the next generation. But they don’t have resources to invest in all the kids they can sire. This is why the ideal state is having a wife and investing in her legitimate children while having illegitimate children with other women which you don’t support. This is the ideal evolutionary strategy for men. This is why powerful men in history have had a wife and lots of mistresses and casual sex.

  47. imnobody says:

    The male equivalent to this is the harem.

    No, it isn’t. The harem is not the male imperative because you still have to economically support these women. The male imperative would be having sex with lots of women without HAVING TO WORK FOR IT.

    Some African societies have something like that (see the “Evo and proud” blog, now I don’t have time to look for the post that explains it). In some African societies, agriculture does not require male strength so women support themselves and their kids. So women are free to choose their partners only in terms of attractive (read: alpha). They are polygamous societies where men live off their wives. Of course, they are a lot of men without wife. Historically these men went to war so there was a male scarcity that supported the model.

    This is the closest a human society gets to the male imperative (but only for the alphas).

  48. “Women desperate to become mothers [because they spent the prime of their youth and fertility pursuing nebulous career goals and riding the carousel] are increasingly signing up for sperm donation websites where men are offering ‘natural insemination’ only.”

    When a man pays a woman for sex it’s called prostitution. We call the man a disgusting cad and think of the hooker as another Julia Roberts who just needs a rich sugar daddy who believes in her to make her real dreams come true.

    When a woman has sex with a man for free, it’s “natural insemination” and the men are disgusting cads for preying on vulnerable women who are desperate to be mothers but just can’t find a sufficiently alpha male to marry or date in their local social scene.

  49. en-sigma says:

    How does this work again? Surely the women don’t just contact you and show an interest in your sperm? That would be too close to dating. Maybe the clinic/website contacts you, the donor? Not like a dating site where a man would watch his profile. Then you would have to set up a time to, uh, “meet.” Surely these women are not having these unknowns over to their house, do the assigned task and then leave? They would probably meet somewhere and have to get comfortable – what makes the clinic/website have a better success rate with filtering out the dangerous over OKStupid or whichever dating site? I would bet that “donor” line is getting longer by the second.

    What if it does not take? Follow up session the next month? Don’t we call that a second date? What if homey gets a good look at the future mother of his kid, realizes he could not stand to have his progeny raised by mean ugly cows and can’t get into pitching form? I would guess there is a charge for the service right?

    All of this seem fraught with hilarity, though. Women are crazy – we keep giving them more room for crazy-er and they keep snatching it up.

  50. My theory is that this is a prostitution ring where women get to have sexy time with Alpha McBadboy. I bet they’re on the pill when they go to get “inseminated”. Any protests on their part is just rationalizations. The sign on the clinic will read “Sperm donors wanted: Only hunky men need apply.” …they have to make sure he’s a fit specimen, after all. Only the best for my tingles…errr…I mean…precious baby.

  51. Sexual Marxist says:

    “There can of course never be a Masculine Imperative (despite imnobody00′s brilliant description of one above) because the Masculine Imperative would give each man a Harem. This is Arithmetically impossible”

    That’s why war and war widows were invented. ;)

  52. Sexual Marxist says:

    “‘Natural Insemination’ is extremely risky!”

    What to speak you sometimes end up with a baby of a completely different ethnicity than the one you wanted because the donor lied about his background.

  53. en-sigma says:

    second thought….The donor is a good part of the Masculine Imperative. He is willing to donate his seed, but only on his terms. He can tell Ms. Hideous to take a hike if he wants to. She contacts him so has to arrange the location. And if you want access to my fellers, you are going to have to buy me dinner.

    Good gravy feminists are crazy.

  54. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Women desperate to become mothers are increasingly signing up for sperm donation websites where men are offering ‘natural insemination’ only. Sites including co-parents.net, co-parentmatch.com, spermdonorforum.com, donordaddy.co.uk and pollentree.com advertise themselves as ‘dating websites’, forums aiming to link people wishing to conceive or ‘co-parent’ a child.

    But while such donations are traditionally carried out artificially, a rising number of women are opting to do so naturally, by having sex with their donors, because it is believed to be more three times more effective than artificial insemination….

    Zita West of Zita West Clinics, an HFEA-regulated site, told Croydon: ‘When a woman’s ­desperate for a baby and can’t afford a ­clinic, she’s vulnerable. She may be panicking about her biological clock ticking and might then risk meeting one of these men. ‘But she won’t know anything about his genetic background or if he’s been screened for HIV. These sites should be regulated.'”

    So basically this is prostitution. Paying men to have sex with them so they can get preggers.

    But it says “co-parenting” which indicates the two will be raising the child together, so if this is true, these are actually some type or form of “relationships”.

    I have read that single people who are not in a romantic relationship are agreeing to have and raise kids together in a platonic setting. The insemination in those cases is artificial. Sometimes 1 of the two “friends raising kids together” is gay.

  55. donalgraeme says:

    @ imnobody

    “Some African societies have something like that (see the “Evo and proud” blog, now I don’t have time to look for the post that explains it). In some African societies, agriculture does not require male strength so women support themselves and their kids. So women are free to choose their partners only in terms of attractive (read: alpha). They are polygamous societies where men live off their wives. Of course, they are a lot of men without wife. Historically these men went to war so there was a male scarcity that supported the model.

    This is the closest a human society gets to the male imperative (but only for the alphas).”

    No, what you have described is the feminine imperative’s utopian vision. A world where women don’t need men to provide for them. Where women can focus all their efforts upon securing sexual access to Alpha males. That is not a world built for men, it is a world built for women. It is a showcase of what the West is slowly turning into.

  56. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Why am I betting that the males in question are in fact being vetted first and have the approriate abs and pecs?”

    Of course. And IQ, degree and bank account.

  57. imnobody says:

    @donalgraeme.

    I agree that this is not the male ideal because not every man is an alpha. But, if there were born less men than women and every man could be an alpha, this is how the male ideal look like: lots of sex with a variety of women, with the possibility of emotional connection and with no work.

    It is not the complete female ideal either, because women have to work in this African societies. Being provided to is a big part of the female ideal.

  58. Sexual Marxist says:

    ” In some African societies, agriculture does not require male strength so women support themselves and their kids. So women are free to choose their partners only in terms of attractive (read: alpha). ”

    Been in village environments like this. The men are often lazy alcoholics drunk on the local moonshine and create problems for their families and communities with rowdiness, violence and just overall instability and rabblerousing. Its by not means ideal for the women or children.

  59. @ssm: the answer to your question of why PUA burnout exists, if the masculine imperative involves having sex with as many beautiful women as much as possible is this: feminine virtue. Roosh has explained that unkind, un nurturing, un feminine women, just arent very fulfilling. The full masculine imperative seeks frequent sex with as many, physically attractive, sexually available, and feminine women as possible.

  60. Ton says:

    The masculine imperative is a man ordering his life in the way he best sees fit, for his own purpose and best interests

    Men do not need to come to a consensus on this. The only time a man should follow a herd is when he is stalking prey

  61. donalgraeme says:

    @ imnobody

    If the male/female ratio was like that, then you might be on to something.

    “It is not the complete female ideal either, because women have to work in this African societies. Being provided to is a big part of the female ideal.”

    True. Women do like being provided for, but they don’t like having to rely on men to do it, or at least, having to give men something in return for it. Seems like another one of those instances of women desiring toasted ice to me.

  62. Marellus says:

    Masculine Imperative : Relief from sexual urges in order to face life.

    Feminine Imperative : Relief from life in order to indulge sexual urges.

  63. Cautiously Pessimistic says:

    The men are often lazy alcoholics drunk on the local moonshine and create problems for their families and communities with rowdiness, violence and just overall instability and rabblerousing. Its by not means ideal for the women or children.

    You mean the pursuit of a feminist utopia that seeks to make men unnecessary yielded unexpected results and now everyone’s miserable? I did not see that coming.

  64. Pingback: The world we live in (an increasingly fatherless one) | Save Capitalism

  65. Novaseeker says:

    No, what you have described is the feminine imperative’s utopian vision. A world where women don’t need men to provide for them. Where women can focus all their efforts upon securing sexual access to Alpha males. That is not a world built for men, it is a world built for women. It is a showcase of what the West is slowly turning into.

    Right.

    I don’t really think there is a male version of the FI, because men are in reproductive conflict with each other. There is only the choice between systems which are more male egalitarian or less male egalitarian, and that choice will depend on the degree to which the top men are threatened by male sexual access inegalitarianism. In a situation where technology had made the top men less dependent on the lessers for labor (he can get this from women as well, and this often comes with sexual access as an additional benefit he does not get from having, say, middle management stuffed with betas instead of stuffed with women), and the state is armed to the teeth on a huge scale, thereby making any kind of beta/gamma rebellion more fantasy than a realistic threat. Under these conditions, the need for a compromise in sexual access between men breaks down, and it reverts to full-blown sex access competition, full stop, which, in a system without hard monogamy, is a game where the dice are decidedly stacked. Conditions, environmental and otherwise, determine social structures, and the conditions that supported/required relative access egalitarianism among men no longer really apply. So, we’re seeing a reversion to old ways of more pure competition, based on the top men needing the collaboration of lesser men much less than at any time in history, while also being in a position to absolutely obliterate any real opposition or threat from the lesser men. Technological developments relating to labor (the rise of non-physical labor to the top of the economy) and reproduction have certainly created the conditions to support these changes and resurrect the natural alliance between the bulk of women and the top men that we currently call “feminism”.

  66. donalgraeme says:

    @ Novaseeker

    Robotics I think is the key to that vision. An army of men, however well equipped, is still composed of men. And unless you provide special benefits and access to those men (essentially pushing them to the top along with the other top tier men), they won’t have any reason to crush the lower tier men in rebellion. But once robots are thrown into the mix, all bets are off.

  67. Entropy is my God says:

    A masculine imperative: To crush your enemies, to see them driven before you, to hear the lamentation of all women.
    A nobler calling has never been had. The true task is now to determine who your enemies are and how to crush them.

  68. imnobody says:

    True. Women do like being provided for, but they don’t like having to rely on men to do it, or at least, having to give men something in return for it.

    Right. This is why feminism is so popular. You can extract money from men’s taxes and give it to women (welfare, etc.) without no obligation from women to men. No strings attached.

    Women working hard until they die -> Not the feminine imperative.

  69. Is it just me, or are there a lot more radio and billboard advertisement for fertility clinics these days–correlating with how women are “finding themselves” in their 20’s and waiting until 30 try to get married? Funny how that evidently comes back to bite them.

  70. deti says:

    We need a primer refresher on our alphas.

    1. Alpha McGorgeous: The smooth cad/player.
    2. Harley McBadboy: The brooding, leather jacketed, do-rag wearing, motorcycle riding loner.
    3. Frank Fratboy: The college big man on campus douche dickbag. Might be in a fraternity; might be in official athletics. He has done something to distinguish himself and is of high value. Not an average male college student.
    4. F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer: Member of a local garage band. Might or might not actually have talent. Usually unemployed, freeloads off others.
    5. Alan Assistant Pastor: Young unmarried pastor. Situational alpha.
    6. Will Worship Leader: The Christian version of F*ckbuddy Rockbanddrummer. Gainfully employed. In a past life he was F*ckbuddy, but he’s rocking it out for Jesus now.

  71. Martian Bachelor says:

    What a masculine imperative would look like…

    No cuckoldry, and totally sass-free and hassle-free women would get you 90+% of the way there IME.

    “…not many men take any notice of women spontaneously. Nine men out of ten would be quite happy, I believe, if there were no women in the world, once they had grown accustomed to the quiet. Practically all men are their happiest when they are engaged upon activities — for example, drinking, gambling, hunting, business, adventure [, and com-boxing @ Dalrock's] — to which women are not ordinarily admitted.”
    – H.L. Mencken

  72. Earl says:

    The masculine imperative: “Be fruitful and multiply. Fill the earth and govern it. Reign over the fish in the sea, the birds in the sky, and all the animals that scurry along the ground.”

  73. Sexual Marxist says:

    ” the answer to your question of why PUA burnout exists, if the masculine imperative involves having sex with as many beautiful women as much as possible is this: feminine virtue. Roosh has explained that unkind, un nurturing, un feminine women, just arent very fulfilling. The full masculine imperative seeks frequent sex with as many, physically attractive, sexually available, and feminine women as possible.”

    Isn’t Roosh burned out and retired from pick up now despite banging Eastern European and Latin American women whom he described as feminine and nurturing?

    Cautiously Pessimistic, “You mean the pursuit of a feminist utopia that seeks to make men unnecessary yielded unexpected results and now everyone’s miserable? I did not see that coming.”

    No Feminism in those parts. Women organized themselves in ways that were consistent with their survival. The men started drinking and slacking off so the women, who didn’t drink, had to take full responsibility for everything otherwise they and their children would die.

    In some places they managed to get the moonshine banned and order has been restored.

  74. HanSolo says:

    Here’s an example of a radfem who, according to police, anonymously posted an online threat to hatef@ck Meg Simons Lanker, who, as it turns out, is none other than herself.

    http://conservativehideout.com/2013/05/01/liberal-blogger-meg-lanker-simons-accused-of-embracing-letist-tradition-stages-own-rape-threats/

    Combine this with the kangeroo courts that some men face as accused rapists on college campuses and you can see why some good men feel a little more leary. (And, I’m not excusing or trying to deflect from the problem of rape.)

  75. Entropy is my God says:

    @ Sexual Marxist

    There are not words sufficient to deride you and your pinko suppostions.
    “No Feminism in those parts. Women organized themselves in ways that were consistent with their survival. The men started drinking and slacking off so the women, who didn’t drink, had to take full responsibility for everything otherwise they and their children would die.
    In some places they managed to get the moonshine banned and order has been restored.”
    Oh yes, we have heard this before. Man up, men, stop drinking, these singles moms didn’t get themselves pregnant and you are just a bunch of lazy lay-a-bouts who beat and abuse the women who you impregnate and take advantage of.
    You, sir, are a lying sleaze bucket. A statist who seeks to control all men, their thoughts and actions. You are perverse and disgusting, unwilling to compete, you seek to use the apparatus of the state to punish men and enrich women.
    I have no word to describe you aside from evil.

  76. Retrenched says:

    @ deti

    Yes, for the purpose of making women’s lives easier and/or impressing them, so they will have sex with us.

    It all comes back to getting a woman (women) to have sex with him.

    Everything a man does, he does to satisfy this base desire.

    Yes, which is why men can become very lazy in an environment where hard work and productivity has little effect on their ability to gain sexual access.

    What we see now are a lot of men who aren’t engaging in civilization building behaviors, either because 1. they can get laid without doing them, or 2. they realize that doing them doesn’t make it any easier for them to get laid. It’s sexiness and alpha behavior that women reward with sex, so that’s what men focus on.

    Incentives matter. Remove the incentives for a behavior, and you get less of that behavior. As surely as night follows day.

  77. deti says:

    1. they can get laid without doing them, or 2. they realize that doing them doesn’t make it any easier for them to get laid.

    Yes.
    I was specifically told by nearly everyone that industriousness, ambition, earning power and provider status are ATTRACTIVE. Not that they are desirable or that women desire men who have those characteristics. No, they told me that those things TURN WOMEN ON and MAKE THEM WET and MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.

    Bullshit. All of it just the worst kind of bullshit.

  78. Entropy is my God says:

    @Deti

    It was, lies of the worst kind, meant to obscure, and hurt. I have heard some people say never ascribe to malice what can be explained with incompetence. That is wrong though, all these “innocent” mistakes were evil of the worst sort, veiled and with a hint of good intentions.

    I don’t want to enjoy the decline, I want to become it.

  79. LC says:

    Men on this website all seem to assume that women are being bombarded by offers of marriage at the age of 18, declarations of love at 20, eternal fidelity and marriage, but we’re turning this down. The truth is anything but that. I never slept around with anyone at college because all the guys wanted was to hook up. So I kept on studying and trying to make something out of myself. When I got married at age 25, my husband didn’t want me after I broke my neck at age 26. So I was back on the market. Now I get the assumptions that I was on some sort of cock carousel or that I have “baby rabies.” Not all of us are evil. Men are also sleeping around and not wanting relationships during their college years and long after that. It takes two to tango. You would do yourselves a favor to judge each woman you meet one at a time and not assume we’re all whores.

  80. Entropy is my God says:

    @LC

    Let me untagle your filthy web of lies and half truths. when you say this:

    “Men on this website all seem to assume that women are being bombarded by offers of marriage at the age of 18, declarations of love at 20, eternal fidelity and marriage, but we’re turning this down. The truth is anything but that. I never slept around with anyone at college because all the guys wanted was to hook up. ”

    The truth is this “I had offers of marriage and love from men, but they were not hot enough, not sexy enough, weren’t on the sports teams I liked, didn’t fight and beat up other boys, and didn’t give me the tingle. All he guys that gave me the tingle dumped me”

    Oh I am so sorry, did I wreck your hamster?

  81. Sexual Marxist says:

    Women getting a lot of attention are in the highest percentile of looks. The exceptionally good looking of both sexes report getting free stuff and seat upgrades on air planes frequently. Oppurtunities of all kinds from careers to travel to love open themselves up to the exceptionally good looking.

    The above average looking who are slightly higher in percentile than the exceptionally good looking, also get a taste of this but to a much, much, lesser degree.

    The average looking don’t really get much play in any department. We have to work for what we get out of life. People we are attracted to are often not attracted to us. We can experience unrequited love and heart break.

    The below average looking, life for them is sad and lonely or it can be full and fun if they have a social life with other below average looking people, which, going by the couples I see in public daily, they do. However I also meet some very sad people, often the morbidly obese, who lead quiet lives of desperation and loneliness.

    In short, women are not getting offers of love, commitment or marriage on the regular. However the exceptionally good looking are getting all kinds of attention and free stuff. They quickly learn how shallow this Earth and its inhabitants are, which can cause them to wax philosophical at times.

    This goes for exceptionally good looking men too.

  82. Sexual Marxist says:

    deti, “I was specifically told by nearly everyone that industriousness, ambition, earning power and provider status are ATTRACTIVE. Not that they are desirable or that women desire men who have those characteristics. No, they told me that those things TURN WOMEN ON and MAKE THEM WET and MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.”

    You have got to be kidding me. May I ask what sub culture you grew up in?

    “Bullshit. All of it just the worst kind of bullshit.”

    It is. And its the first time I’m hearing it.

  83. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Oh yes, we have heard this before. Man up, men, stop drinking, these singles moms didn’t get themselves pregnant and you are just a bunch of lazy lay-a-bouts who beat and abuse the women who you impregnate and take advantage of.
    You, sir, are a lying sleaze bucket. A statist who seeks to control all men, their thoughts and actions. You are perverse and disgusting, unwilling to compete, you seek to use the apparatus of the state to punish men and enrich women.
    I have no word to describe you aside from evil.”

    WTF? These women were not single moms. They were married women. If you scroll up and read the original comment I am referring to villages in conservative, family oriented 3rd world countries where “the state” does virtually nothing for its people and therefore poor villagers take matters into their own hands and “get ‘er done”.

  84. deti says:

    “Men on this website all seem to assume that women are being bombarded by offers of marriage at the age of 18, declarations of love at 20, eternal fidelity and marriage, but we’re turning this down. The truth is anything but that.”

    Translation: I did receive offers of marriage and declarations of love, but the men who offered them to me were not hot enough, not sexy enough and didn’t tingle me enough.

    “I never slept around with anyone at college because all the guys wanted was to hook up.”

    Translation: I wanted the hot men to offer me commitment but they wouldn’t. I never noticed the remaining 80% to 90% of men because they aren’t hot. Still don’t see ‘em.

    “So I kept on studying and trying to make something out of myself.”

    Translation: I worked toward my feminist merit badge.

    “When I got married at age 25, my husband didn’t want me after I broke my neck at age 26.”

    Seriously, I am sorry this happened to you.

    “So I was back on the market. Now I get the assumptions that I was on some sort of cock carousel or that I have “baby rabies.” Not all of us are evil.”

    Are you unable to explain that to the men you might be interested in? Are you lowering your standards so as to widen your attraction filters, and date men you otherwise might not consider? Are you doing all you can to improve your appearance?

    “Men are also sleeping around and not wanting relationships during their college years and long after that.”

    Apex fallacy. A FEW VERY, VERY ATTRACTIVE men are doing that. But since these are the men you notice, you erroneously conclude ALL men are doing the same thing.

    “It takes two to tango. You would do yourselves a favor to judge each woman you meet one at a time and not assume we’re all whores.”

    You should judge each man you meet (or at least notice men) one at a time and not assume we’re all pigs or getting laid like tile.

  85. Entropy is my God says:

    @ Sexual Marxist

    Once again you peddle filth and lies in the guise of heartfelt emotional snuggles. ALL women (once again for the math minded two standard deviations on eaither side of the mean, 95%) get gifts, prises, trinkets, dinners, etc.. thrown at them. Sure, female 1,2, and 3 and 4’s don’t but 5’s and up who are not morbidly obese (which is a self fixable problem,) have life pretty easy just by being born female. Say they don’t, say they don’t with some shred of evidence you annecdotal reciting waste.

  86. deti says:

    “You have got to be kidding me. May I ask what sub culture you grew up in?”

    No I’m not kidding. And I’m not the only one who was told this. Conservative tradcon protestant midwest. WASP.

    Under what rock (or bridge) did you crawl out from? Umm, first time in the United States, Marxist? Or are you from the Northeast, where “flaming commielib leftist” is considered moderate and middle of the road?

    “Bullshit. All of it just the worst kind of bullshit.”

    It is. And its the first time I’m hearing it.

    Ahhh. So you ARE from the Northeast. let me guess. Concord? Montpelier? Nashua? Providence? Brookline, perhaps?

  87. deti says:

    “The average looking don’t really get much play in any department. We have to work for what we get out of life.”

    No. Average looking MEN don’t really get much play and have to work for what they get out of life.

    Average looking WOMEN get college educations and make work do nothing cubicle jobs in HR or PR or marketing or consulting. They never do without male attention or dates unless they want to. Any woman in this SMP at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex any day of the week and twice on Saturday (it’s just that she might not be able to get it from the hottest guys; but she can still get it).

  88. whatever says:

    A woman said:

    “When I got married at age 25, my husband didn’t want me after I broke my neck at age 26.”

    I’ll give you a good example of what a “sorta kinda not really even close” male imperative would look like. It means what he did would be greeted with nods of approval FROM WOMEN. That’s what a functioning TINY TINY male imperative would look like. In the good old days of lunatic whoredom, the 1940s, the good old whores of that age mass divorced any man that came back even remotely injured. Not crippling neck injury honey. I mean limping. Missing a figure. Maybe a bad shoulder. Them good bitches just took off. They did so without batting an eye or any censure. And today it’s way worse. Them whores today see the +20% unemployment rate for men and they dump “loser” men who “can’t keep a job”. Cause, ya know, 1 in 5 ain’t THAT BAD. Athol Kay gave some wise advice to a whore, who had engaged in the noble act of “Oops Pregnancy!” to get married in the first place… after she was already a single mother… to dump that loser ASAP.

    I can pretty f’king safely say that him dumping you after you broke your neck is totally covered by even the tiniest little bit of masculine imperative. It don’t even register on the masculine imperative scale.

  89. Happyhen says:

    @LC

    Most men here don’t assume all women are whores. But they do understand women. The glaring examples and constant glorification of slut culture in pop culture is real and many men here (and maybe even their families) have been the victim of that culture. The animosity is not directed at all women though generally after men first become acquainted with the red pill they have a certain amount of justified righteous anger and they vent it at all women. My advice… don’t wear your emotions on your sleeve, get some thicker skin, take all chips off your shoulder, come at this with a fresh eyes, read, think, read, think and seldom post. Some men here are hurting, most here are straight shooters, and most argue with a degree of logic we woman rarely have to contend with on a daily basis. Lots of good info here.

  90. Frank says:

    LC: Men on this website all seem to assume that women are being bombarded by offers of marriage at the age of 18

    Notice she generalizes right before she accuses us of generalizing. That’s some weapons grade fem-logic right there.

  91. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Average looking WOMEN get college educations and make work do nothing cubicle jobs in HR or PR or marketing or consulting. They never do without male attention or dates unless they want to. Any woman in this SMP at a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex any day of the week and twice on Saturday (it’s just that she might not be able to get it from the hottest guys; but she can still get it).”

    Sure, whatever you say. Keep in mind though that most women won’t approach strange men and ask for sex or see being able to get a “yes” out of such proposals as anything worthy to aspire to. The original topic was about AVERAGE women getting CONSISTENT offers of COMMITMENT from men. Which they are not.

    “No I’m not kidding. And I’m not the only one who was told this. Conservative tradcon protestant midwest. WASP. ”

    Ahhhh, that explains it then. I wouldn’t be surprised to hear that those out of touch delusionalists also told you to look past a woman’s face and body and exclusively focus on her “character and godliness”.

  92. Frank says:

    In the good old days of lunatic whoredom, the 1940s, the good old whores of that age mass divorced any man that came back even remotely injured

    I recently watched Foyle’s War and there’s a character on the show who comes back from the early stages of WW2 after losing one of his legs. Despite finding work again and being promoted as a detective, his wife insults and derides him on a daily basis, as if losing his leg was akin to being a drunkard, before she finally decides she can’t take it anymore and runs away.

    I always wondered how much of that was actually true for a lot of the WW2 injured veterans who came home from the war.

  93. Anonymous Reader says:

    The male equivalent to this is the harem.

    imnobody
    No, it isn’t. The harem is not the male imperative because you still have to economically support these women.

    Yes, it is, because the man who controls the harem does so by control of his own sperm, and control of resources. He directs his resources as he sees fit, to those women and offspring whom he chooses to support. He is in charge, and this meets the “spread your seed” imperative as well as the “control paternity” imperative. Variety of women and surety of paternity are met, thanks to the control of resources implied in the harem. Perhaps this should be referred to as a “strict harem”, in order to differentiate it from a “soft harem”. In this harem, women only have sex with the man who controls / owns them.

    The male imperative would be having sex with lots of women without HAVING TO WORK FOR IT.

    In some superficial sense, perhaps, but that meets only one of the two male imperatives: seed spreading. It also carries with it as a premise some degree of control of resources by women…

    Some African societies have something like that (see the “Evo and proud” blog, now I don’t have time to look for the post that explains it). In some African societies, agriculture does not require male strength so women support themselves and their kids.

    Yes, such societies exist. The women generally control much of the food. That is a key resource, is it not? Paternity is never certain, so only maternity can be known with sureness .We call them “matrilineal”, in some cases, or “matriarchies” in others. Men who do not serve the feminine imperative likely will find it difficult to get food. This is not a masculine imperative, to depend upon women for food.

    So women are free to choose their partners only in terms of attractive (read: alpha). They are polygamous societies where men live off their wives. Of course, they are a lot of men without wife. Historically these men went to war so there was a male scarcity that supported the model.

    This is a soft harem – where the women choose the men to breed with, and the women support their children – they are their own beta men. This is a form of the feminine imperative that is not all that different from the original article in which single women choose the man with whom they wish to breed, and otherwise keep the child to themself (implied).

    This is the closest a human society gets to the male imperative (but only for the alphas).

    No. This is the feminine imperative, obviously. You are confused, perhaps, but surely wrong.

  94. 8oxer says:

    Dear Novaseeker:

    I don’t really think there is a male version of the FI, because men are in reproductive conflict with each other.

    Bingo. It goes deeper than just reproductive conflict, though that’s the catalyst for it. It’s a very embedded complex, constellated partly in the unconscious.

    I’ve written about this phenomenon before. The only dudes I know who do not immediately begin flinging me shit about MGTOW/PUA knowledge, and who I feel comfortable being totally open with, are a crew of mostly gay guys who work out at the gym.

    Other heterosexual men will never understand the raw truth, because they instinctively see “women” as represented by the one or two women they’re banging at the moment, and will instantly flip to white knight mode whenever one starts discussing things honestly. I’ve often wondered what would happen if I tweaked someone’s tail by explicitly applying the truth they’re afraid to face about women to the specific women who are fueling their delusions.

    “You mean your wife has never lusted after anyone else, like, ever? She’s a perfect person?”

    I’m guessing that I’d probably never hear from those brothers again, which is why I don’t push things. It’s not worth losing friends over, and that’s exactly what would happen. Men are more loyal to their women than they are to one another. We’re just hardwired in that direction.

    Men can never form an imperative, because we’re mostly heterosexual, and our life/eros instinct (see Freud for a concise definition) prevents that sort of unilateral unity in anything.

    Regards, Boxer

  95. Anonymous Reader says:

    Note that whenever a posting deals with bad behavior by women, at some point in the comments there must be a round of “Men Do That Too!” or “Women Suffer More From This Than Men!”, often followed by some White Knighting demands that teh menz ManUP! and stop making teh wimmenz feel bad. This can be explained simply: the female imperative cannot tolerate criticism of women by men. Full stop. Period.

    Also note that from time to time some women will contest the pity party – these women in almost all cases have placed their loyalty in a man, and are in a Captain / First Mate relationship. Thus their personal feminine imperative needs have been met, and they are able to take a longer term view.

    IMO.

  96. Sexual Marxist says:

    ” Men are more loyal to their women than they are to one another. We’re just hardwired in that direction.”

    We know where our bread is buttered. ;)

    “Some African societies have something like that (see the “Evo and proud” blog, now I don’t have time to look for the post that explains it). In some African societies, agriculture does not require male strength so women support themselves and their kids.

    Yes, such societies exist. The women generally control much of the food. That is a key resource, is it not? Paternity is never certain, so only maternity can be known with sureness .We call them “matrilineal”, in some cases, or “matriarchies” in others. Men who do not serve the feminine imperative likely will find it difficult to get food. This is not a masculine imperative, to depend upon women for food.

    So women are free to choose their partners only in terms of attractive (read: alpha). They are polygamous societies where men live off their wives. Of course, they are a lot of men without wife. Historically these men went to war so there was a male scarcity that supported the model.

    This is a soft harem – where the women choose the men to breed with, and the women support their children – they are their own beta men. This is a form of the feminine imperative that is not all that different from the original article in which single women choose the man with whom they wish to breed, and otherwise keep the child to themself (implied).

    This is the closest a human society gets to the male imperative (but only for the alphas).”

    Can’t see how being poor, working from sun up to sun down growing, gathering and preparing food and taking care of the kids while a lazy and or drunk/high husband just chills out and still expects to eat is a “feminine imperative”. Keep in mind these third world rural societies get no help from the State either. They MUST self-organize and be self-reliant in order just to survive. Moreover these women don’t even choose their husbands because such societies usually have some form of arranged marriage.

    Women are not laboring from sun up to sun down in these villages due to any personal choice that empowers them. They are doing it because they have to. They would much rather the men pulled their own weight too.

  97. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer, your example is too ethnocentric. Or perhaps too limited in time. I have seen subcultures where the fickle / cuckold nature of women is a given, and therefore they are closely supervised by their men and other women. Note that this view of women naturally includes a notion of female inferiority in some key ways.

    Men can never form an imperative

    You seem to be using the word ‘imperative’ in a very different manner than others. Perhaps you could define the term as you are using it?

  98. whatever says:

    HappyHen said:

    Most men here don’t assume all women are whores.

    But why shouldn’t they? If we REALLY want to do the male imperative thing, it’s a selfish whore who we don’t owe anything until it proves itself otherwise.

    Of course, you whores ain’t never like judgmental with men. If a man asked you out for a date, then you would refuse even one hour of your precious time and if he thought he deserved a single hour of your time then, well, he obviously thinks women owe him sex.

    Well, okay, you are like that. In fact, you are SOOOOO way worse than the example of women being considered idiot, selfish whores until proven otherwise. Cause you see, the men are giving you the CHANCE to prove you aren’t a dumb selfish whore while you don’t give the men any chance at all. So the men in my example are so much better than you.

  99. Looking Glass says:

    @Sexual Marxist:

    The African example is still the Feminine Imperative, it just isn’t a “nice” existence. Further, the society isn’t really stable on its own. That development is down to exterior forces that allow that society to act like that. If they had to defend themselves from invasive forces, the society would be very, very different.

    We all need to keep in mind the concept of the “Omega Wolf”. These are observed wolves at the absolute bottom of the wolf social hierarchy. But they *ONLY* exist in Zoos. In the wild, the wolf leaves and joins up with a different pack, figures out a way to start its own or dies. It’s a social position that only exists because of an exterior force. Tribes aren’t actually disassociated from their environments.

    Two important concepts to keep in mind on any of these discussions.

    1) Elders guide a society by -> Controlling the “Young Men”. You control “Young Men” through the “Young Women”. And you control the “Young Women” through the “Older, Married Women”.

    Any society where there is a breakdown of that pattern is at best in decline, at worst about to be conquered. So long as the incentives roughly work together, the society will thrives, until one of the “deals” gets too far off to handle. (Though when its going good, it tends to be the “Elders” end up fighting amongst themselves for a larger piece of the pie. Power being the greatest intoxicant known to Man.)

    2) The college sex scene study had 20% of the Men get 60% of the sex. And, I believe, it was 10% of the Men get 45% of the sex, but I’d need to pick through the subsections again to check that. (Probably should, really)

    It’s a study that explicitly shows the Apex Fallacy. But, to our poster up thread, you simply didn’t notice or subtly rejected the Men that wouldn’t have had a problem wife-ing you up and staying. But, yeah, you get to pay the consequences of making a bad marriage decision. Enjoy, our feminist society says that’s a good thing. Remember, you’re now “free” to choose someone else.

  100. Anonymous Reader says:

    Strict monogamy, on the other hand, provides men with their own woman. As with a strict harem the man has sole sexual access to the woman, providing sureness of paternity and he controls the resources, ensuring her loyalty at least in the practical realm. The “seed spreading” imperative cannot be met as a rule, but the sureness of paternity and male control of resources affords a high investment in the upbringing of children, and this makes for a more stable society than either the strict harem or the feminine imperative’s preferred serial polygamy via soft harem.

    The feminine imperative therefore is always in conflict with both strict monogamy and the strict harem, however given a choice, the FI will prefer….the harem. Why? Because of the chance, even if only a lottery-ticket probability, of alpha sperm.

  101. Happyhen says:

    @whatever

    My comment was not directed at you but at a fellow woman that seems new to the manosphere. I do not believe it is my place as a women, even a happily married submissive wife, to instruct men on these topics but I do have a heart for women who too suffer from this destructive female imperative that is encouraging them in their sinful pride and willfulness. The men here with years of marital experience are far better teachers for the men seeking answers to question. Please forgive me if my comment was taken out of context.

  102. deti says:

    @ whatever:

    Whoa, pardner. Easy on the HappyHen. She’s a good egg.

  103. J.M. says:

    @8oxer

    Your post is well articulated but what you are describing I think it has a more environmental tan biological basis, men being more loyal to their women than to other men. If that were the case, almost none of the great deeds of yore would have been accomplished and army units would have been formed since men had to make do and tolerate each other in harsher conditions. You have to take into account that we are almost 3 generations since the majority of men had a meaningful masculine influence in their childhood and youth, starting maybe with the babyboomers since men in other ages had a greater influence in the raising and the culture of the societies. Nowadays the role of men raising children and transmitting culture is marginal at best.

    @Sexual marxist
    Experiments already have confirmed that your statements are incorrect and, may I say outright lies in reference to how hard women have it in the dating world:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/results-from-an-online-dating-experiment/

  104. Buck says:

    8oxer says:
    May 2, 2013 at 4:13 pm
    @
    “Other heterosexual men will never understand the raw truth, because they instinctively see “women” as represented by the one or two women they’re banging at the moment, and will instantly flip to white knight mode whenever one starts discussing things honestly.” I

    I think things are changing fast in this area. I routinely hear men editorializing on the base nature of women in general and the woman they are currently banging in particular.
    Society is rather merciless on singles, so for most, having a love interest, even if an ongoing, life sucking, pain in the ass, is better than being single. I do think men are far better equipped to be happily single (no love interest) than women ( see the Mecken quote above).
    As has been said before, a woman, no matter how worldly successful, without a love interest, considers herself a failure.

  105. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sexual Marxist (who really needs to learn how to quote, either via block quote or italics)
    Can’t see how being poor, working from sun up to sun down growing, gathering and preparing food and taking care of the kids while a lazy and or drunk/high husband just chills out and still expects to eat is a “feminine imperative”.

    Then you need to think about it some more, perhaps?

    Keep in mind these third world rural societies get no help from the State either. They MUST self-organize and be self-reliant in order just to survive. Moreover these women don’t even choose their husbands because such societies usually have some form of arranged marriage.

    You need to provide much more concrete examples than just waving your and at the globe and saying “It happens, somewhere, out there”. Point to the societies in question. Are you referring to Africa, South America, South Asia, South East Asia, Oceania, or some other place? Be more specific, and perhaps you can make your point more clearly. For now, you’re just handwaving.

  106. Looking Glass says:

    @Anon Reader:

    I think the breakdown should be something like this:

    Women can have a “group” Imperative, as they can play “Team Women” or “Team Her Man”.

    A *Man* can have his own Imperative. He will quickly realize this is, naturally, the Hobbes “State of Nature”. He will quickly figure out how to make a small society, as it provides a higher net benefit to himself.

    However, a Man will never have a complete “group” Imperative. He can form a group of individuals (religion, race, location, country), but that group will always have a competitive interest against others. Further, he will be very cognizant of the ability to abuse and secure more within the group, thus individuals within the group will always be at odds and, unless there is an exterior force, internal competition will always reign.

    That is, so long as there is an advantage to be had. When there is no advantages, laziness and slaughter are the only possible outcomes.

  107. whatever says:

    Oh, and to all those rambling insanely about how “there could never be a male imperative”, I’d just like to say you are a fool. You don’t have to raise another man up to lower your wife/whore/FB DOWN. It’s easy. Let’s start with the basics.

    1.Make them whores legal. It’s time to bring back prostitution. Let us find the market value of a woman’s “most valuable” resource.

    2.Paternity fraud is immediately punished by the loss of ALL marital property by the wife and the husband may have custody of all kids that are genetically his if he wants.

    3.All forms of “rape” except rape by threat of real physical violence and those of children under 14 are struck from the books.

    4.Single mother welfare is reduced to the absolute minimum required for survival and no more.

    5.Abortion requires the consent of the father.

    6.Verbal testimony of the wife alone is insufficient grounds to arrest the husband. Actual physical bruising, cuts, ect. most be present.

    7.Needless to say, IMBRA is repealed.

    And that’s just getting started. That’s not even “fair”.

  108. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Strict monogamy, on the other hand, provides men with their own woman. As with a strict harem the man has sole sexual access to the woman, providing sureness of paternity and he controls the resources, ensuring her loyalty at least in the practical realm.”

    Paternity cannot be guaranteed even in a harem, especially one that has slaves, servants and other domestic help milling about, which was all of them.

  109. deti says:

    @ Sexual Marxist:

    “Sure, whatever you say. Keep in mind though that most women won’t approach strange men and ask for sex or see being able to get a “yes” out of such proposals as anything worthy to aspire to.”

    Be that as it may, male companionship is available to the average woman if she wants it, literally ON DEMAND. For men, female companionship must be begged, eked out, worked for, or purchased.

    “The original topic was about AVERAGE women getting CONSISTENT offers of COMMITMENT from men. Which they are not.”

    An average woman can get consistent offers of commitment and whatever else she wants from men. It’s just that the men making the offers are not the ones she wants.

    LC was talking about all the guys in college just wanting to hookup. So you read into it that she wanted a boyfriend. If we accept that as true, then LC wanted a man on HER terms and to HER liking with the characteristics meeting HER criteria. No thought of what the man wants, no thought of his desires, wants, or needs.

  110. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Single mother welfare is reduced to the absolute minimum required for survival and no more.”

    It already is. Clinton’s Welfare Reform in the 90s took care of that.

  111. deti says:

    “Paternity cannot be guaranteed even in a harem, especially one that has slaves, servants and other domestic help milling about, which was all of them.”

    Maybe it couldn’t in third world countries, but it can here and now. For the low, low cost of about $200 and a couple of q-tips you can find out whether that child is yours or not.

  112. Sexual Marxist says:

    “An average woman can get consistent offers of commitment and whatever else she wants from men. It’s just that the men making the offers are not the ones she wants. ”

    You really think that average men are following average women around making consistent offers of commitment to them? Did your midwest conservative tradcon wasp community really shelter you that much?

    “LC was talking about all the guys in college just wanting to hookup. So you read into it that she wanted a boyfriend. If we accept that as true, then LC wanted a man on HER terms and to HER liking with the characteristics meeting HER criteria.”

    Obviously. We all want a mate who attracts us.

  113. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Strict monogamy, on the other hand, provides men with their own woman. As with a strict harem the man has sole sexual access to the woman, providing sureness of paternity and he controls the resources, ensuring her loyalty at least in the practical realm.”

    Sexual Marxist
    Paternity cannot be guaranteed even in a harem, especially one that has slaves, servants and other domestic help milling about, which was all of them.

    If the only set of functioning testicles ever allowed to enter the harem are those of the man who controls it, and the women never set foot out of it,then paternity is guaranteed. Hence the tradition, in various places and times, of eunuch harem servants…

    Some museums in countries such as Morocco feature elaborate wooden boxes with rich carving, poles to carry them and secure fastenings for the doors. These are the way that brides were transported from the walled compound of their father to the walled compound of their new husband; and their foot never touched a grain of sand that wasn’t controlled by one of the two men. There is a lot of cost, “overhead” if you will, in a strict harem system, no doubt about it, but it is not an insoluble problem so long as the resources are available.

  114. deti says:

    “You really think that average men are following average women around making consistent offers of commitment to them? Did your midwest conservative tradcon wasp community really shelter you that much?”

    You’re being stupid. You know very well what I mean. Whatever an average woman wants, she can find a man to give it to her. It’s just that the men willing to give her those things aren’t the ones she wants. If she really wants a relationship, she can find a few beta men willing to be her BF or even wife her up. It’s just that she’s not attracted to those men.

    “Obviously. We all want a mate who attracts us.”

    SO what you’re saying is she’s entitled to what she wants; without regard to what HE wants. Got it.

  115. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Paternity cannot be guaranteed even in a harem, especially one that has slaves, servants and other domestic help milling about, which was all of them.”

    “Maybe it couldn’t in third world countries, but it can here and now. For the low, low cost of about $200 and a couple of q-tips you can find out whether that child is yours or not.”

    There are no harems in the here and now.

    Harem comes from the Arabic word “haram” which means “forbidden” or “kept hidden”.

    It comprises a man’s family, all of his female family members that are living with him such as mother, grandmother, wives, daughters, sisters, and their children. The family was housed in a section of the home that was more interior located than the part of the house where non-family associates were hosted and entertained. A bevy of domestic servants were employed that served the family. Eunuchs (castrated men) were employed as guards and servants of the women.

    In other words, a haram is a FAMILY, with all the expectations that entails.

    Today’s married, polyamorous sexual relationships are not “harams” and there is no expectation of fidelity from anyone involved.

  116. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Today’s married, polyamorous sexual relationships are not “harams” and there is no expectation of fidelity from anyone involved.”

    Sorry, that should read “Today’s UN-married……”

  117. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Single mother welfare is reduced to the absolute minimum required for survival and no more.”

    Sexual Marxist
    It already is. Clinton’s Welfare Reform in the 90s took care of that.

    It is debatable whether this is true or not, but in any event it is moot. Because Clinton’s “welfare reform” was repealed in 2009 as part of the “stimulus” package. All the time limits, work requirements, etc. were all done away with. I know this to be true, because some friends and relations who work with single mothers have been informing me of various regulation changes for 3 years.

  118. deti says:

    Thanks for the etymology/law review article on the origin of “harem”.

    The point still stands that if you want to know if the rugrat is yours, swab his/her cheek.

  119. It already is. Clinton’s Welfare Reform in the 90s took care of that.

    You should take that act on the road.

  120. The African village scenario where the women grub in the fields all day and share the village’s Big Man at night may not be the goal of the female imperative, but it’s the eventual result. You can already see it starting to happen in the US, where the women grub in cubicles instead of the fields, and the concubinage is no less real for being unofficial.

  121. deti says:

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again, and I stand by it.

    Every single woman in this entire God-forsaken country over the age of 25 who wants a husband COULD GET ONE TOMORROW. All she has to do is lower her standards and improve her physical appearance. There are a couple of beta men out there who will WIFE YOU UP TOMORROW. It doesn’t matter if you’re a virgin or have had 100 men turn you out ON CAMERA. You can find a man willing to marry you.

    But you don’t want those men because they aren’t attractive to you. You still want the hot alpha stud to wife you up.

    He’s not going to. He never was going to, he won’t now, and he never will. You all have GOT to get past this idea that the hot alpha stud is going to ride in on the trusty white steed, dismount, and then present you with a ring. IT IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

  122. Sexual Marxist says:

    “If the only set of functioning testicles ever allowed to enter the harem are those of the man who controls it, and the women never set foot out of it,then paternity is guaranteed. Hence the tradition, in various places and times, of eunuch harem servants…”

    Ahhh, we cross posted. Yeah, I covered the eunuchs in my comment. What I didn’t mention however is the intrigue and espionage that often took place in these environments. Women formed emotional alliances with their servants, both female and eunuch, who would often do favors and keep secrets for them. An affair or two was not entirely out of the question, nor was a fleeting moment of passion with someone other than their husband – be it another male, female or even the eunuch!

    deti, ” Whatever an average woman wants, she can find a man to give it to her. It’s just that the men willing to give her those things aren’t the ones she wants. If she really wants a relationship, she can find a few beta men willing to be her BF or even wife her up. It’s just that she’s not attracted to those men. ”

    So now you’ve changed your tune from average women getting offers of commitment consistently to “she can find a few beta men willing to be her BF or even wife her up”

    You also seem to poo poo the idea of attraction, personal types and compatibility with this statement, “It’s just that she’s not attracted to those men. ”

    Am I also obligated as a man to date women I am not attracted to? Is that what the tradcon wasps taught you growing up in the midwest?

    deti, “SO what you’re saying is she’s entitled to what she wants; without regard to what HE wants. Got it.”

    Not at all. We all have our types. Sometimes we end up being their type too and a relationship happens. Often not. See above.

  123. Sexual Marxist says:

    “All she has to do is lower her standards and improve her physical appearance.”

    Anyone who improves their appearance and simultaneously lowers their standards is a fool.

    The more attractive you become, the more attractive mates you deserve.

  124. deti says:

    Sexual Marxist:

    Do you really agree with the conventional zeitgeist of “Where are all the good men”? That there are NO good men available for the average woman to meet, date, fall in love with and marry? NONE? NOT ONE? She can’t find ANY decent men in a nation of 300 million souls?

    No. It’s that the average woman won’t give the men in her SMP range a chance. She doesn’t want them. She doesn’t even NOTICE them. Do you truly not understand this?

  125. deti says:

    “The more attractive you become, the more attractive mates you deserve.”

    True colors always come out. She DESERVES a more attractive mate.

    Thanks for playing, Marxist. I see where you’re coming from.

  126. whatever says:

    I’ve been extreme in my posts. Because the “male imperative” article and the corresponding idiotic comments ticked me off. “No way could you make it better for all men”. Dalrock’s idea of “male imperative”, which is IN THE REAL WORLD actually selfish stuff that benefits men and hurts women…. isn’t even close to an actual Male Imperative. Even my seven point list doesn’t even count. All the stuff there is actually fair. So I haven’t even got to “unfairly benefits men”. Haven’t even got there. But it’s not hard to.

    As we can see, serious discussion of serious male imperative blows female and American male minds alike. Even the tamest of the tame, the “let’s legalize prostitution” gets the whiners raving about “bestest of bestest all possible worlds we no have prostitution!”. Well, I can safely say, people, that we are not anywhere close to that. And the moral quality of the people raving against it indicates that they are against find the market value of women… I mean whores… I do repeat myself. I must admit, it’s a messy way to do it, but let’s find the market value of women… I mean whores. Whatever.

  127. Sexual Marxist says:

    “True colors always come out. She DESERVES a more attractive mate.”

    Was I gender specific? Remember now Mr. Midwest Wasp – I’m not the one who grew up in a community feeding me lies about human sexuality.

    “Thanks for playing, Marxist. I see where you’re coming from.”

    The real world. Where men and women are allowed to have types and sexual triggers – guilt free, and where no one is obliged to date you “just because”.

    Welcome to reality deti, here’s your red pill. Take it with some water, it will go down smoother.

  128. imnobody says:

    No. It’s that the average woman won’t give the men in her SMP range a chance. She doesn’t want them. She doesn’t even NOTICE them. Do you truly not understand this?

    Agreed. The problem is insanely high hypergamy. I know of a 33 y.o. woman (a friend of mine) who comes to my mind. There was a man (also a friend of mine: we belong to the same book club and we have made some trips together) interested in her but she rejected it with contempt. No big deal.

    But then I started thinking about her and she has rejected men for the last years (if not more). Then I thought: How do these two guys compare?. And they compare this way:

    1. He is more beautiful than her.
    2. He is wealthy. She is one of the poorest women I know.
    3. He is more intelligent than her. He has four as many degrees as her. He has more culture than her.
    4. He is in good shape. She is fat.
    5. He dresses well. She dresses as a bag lady.
    6. His biological clock is better than hers.
    7. She is one of the ugliest women I have known in my entire life. She is getting uglier and uglier (and fatter and fatter) very quick.

    She is a 3 at most and he is a 7. So why so much contempt? She had a fling with a 9 guy some time ago (a pump and dump thing). After that, it seems to me that she thinks she is entitled to guys like this. If you were able to hear them talking about guys we both know…It talks like Eva Longoria talking about garbage collectors.

  129. Johnycomelately says:

    The often overlooked aspect of unrestrained hyperagamy and liberal marriage laws is the dearth of female sexual losers.

    These women are patently sexual losers, they are female omegas who couldn’t even get a one night stand with a pretty boy.

    Artificial insemination is their safety net, it’s virtually the female equivalent of prostitution.

  130. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Even the tamest of the tame, the “let’s legalize prostitution” gets the whiners raving about “bestest of bestest all possible worlds we no have prostitution!”.

    Third Wave Feminism is all about decriminalizing sex work.

  131. Sexual Marxist says:

    “The often overlooked aspect of unrestrained hyperagamy and liberal marriage laws is the dearth of female sexual losers.

    These women are patently sexual losers, they are female omegas who couldn’t even get a one night stand with a pretty boy. ”

    You mean male losers/omegas are not consistently offering these women relationships?!

    You don’t say!

    “No. It’s that the average woman won’t give the men in her SMP range a chance. She doesn’t want them. She doesn’t even NOTICE them. Do you truly not understand this?”

    I understand that all around me are AVERAGE COUPLES in average relationships doing average things like shopping in the same average stores I shop at.

    whatever – the only people who make a big hullaballoo about decriminalizing sex work is the far right, tradcons and religious folks. Everyone else is either pro-decriminalization or neutral, since its not a topic many people think all that deeply about if think about at all.

  132. Every single woman in this entire God-forsaken country over the age of 25 who wants a husband COULD GET ONE TOMORROW.

    Absolutely. An average woman can get a marriage proposal more easily than an average man can get a date.

  133. deti says:

    “I’m not the one who grew up in a community feeding me lies about human sexuality.”

    Right. You come from a community and a mindset where liberalism is the norm and no one could possibly reasonably believe anything other than the “conventional wisdom”.

    “The real world. Where men and women are allowed to have types and sexual triggers – guilt free, and where no one is obliged to date you “just because”.”

    Really? What is this “real world” you speak of? You mean the one where men are shamed for not wanting to date fat women or unattractive women, and are shamed into dating and marrying them anyway? Or the one where the best an attractive high status man can do is a fat 4 because the 6s and 7s are sharing the hot alpha studs? That world? I’m quite familiar with it. Are you?

    I’ve just come across yet another female college friend who rode the carousel, married in her early 30s, and is now divorcing her hopeless hapless beta hubby because he just doesn’t do it for her. IF she had turned her efforts to finding a husband at 21 instead of at 31, she might have been able to do better for herself. Meanwhile, the girls I knew who married in their early 20s are still married to their husbands, happily, as far as I can tell.

    These girls who are putting off marriage to the last possible second are miserable and unhappy. They f*cked their way through all their “types” of men – all of whom were happy to f*ck the sh*t out of them, but wouldn’t marry them. That’s because their “types” were the same as 80% of the other women around them — top, hot alpha studs who aren’t the marrying kind. But she was just fine with that when she was 22. Now she’s 45 and it’s too late. She’ll divorce and become a post-marital spinster. She’ll never marry again because her SMV is basically 0.

    That’s how dating and f*cking her “types” worked out for her. And that same g**Damn story is being played out all over this country, over and over and over again.

  134. whatever says:


    Third Wave Feminism is all about decriminalizing sex work.

    That’s nice honey. By the way, as a stupid, selfish whore do you feel that if a man expect you to go out on one date with him before rejecting him that he thinks women owe him sex?

  135. vascularity777 says:

    @HappyHen:
    I liked what you indicated very much:
    “Most men here don’t assume all women are whores. But they do understand women. The glaring examples and constant glorification of slut culture in pop culture is real and many men here (and maybe even their families) have been the victim of that culture. The animosity is not directed at all women though generally after men first become acquainted with the red pill they have a certain amount of justified righteous anger and they vent it at all women. My advice… don’t wear your emotions on your sleeve, get some thicker skin, take all chips off your shoulder, come at this with a fresh eyes, read, think, read, think and seldom post. Some men here are hurting, most here are straight shooters, and most argue with a degree of logic we woman rarely have to contend with on a daily basis. Lots of good info here.”

  136. but women have dirtier minds concerning sex.

    @SSM: http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/04/women-sex/

  137. 8oxer says:

    Anonymous Reader sez:

    8oxer… You seem to be using the word ‘imperative’ in a very different manner than others. Perhaps you could define the term as you are using it?

    From the online dictionary, it describes “an unavoidable obligation or requirement”

    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/imperative

  138. Sexual Marxist says:

    “You come from a community and a mindset where liberalism is the norm and no one could possibly reasonably believe anything other than the “conventional wisdom”.”

    You were the one who told us which community you grew up in, not me. Suffice it to say I didn’t grow up in one that taught me women’s panties get wet hearing that a man is a responsible citizen with a lucrative job.

    “Really? What is this “real world” you speak of? You mean the one where men are shamed for not wanting to date fat women or unattractive women, and are shamed into dating and marrying them anyway?”

    Nope. The one where I date whoever the hell I want, contingent on being wanted back, of course. Marriage is optional and any man who allows himself to be “shamed” into it is a fool who deserves whatever he gets. Sounds like your religious cult really fcuked you up. Not my fault!

    “Or the one where the best an attractive high status man can do is a fat 4 because the 6s and 7s are sharing the hot alpha studs?”

    Bwahahahaha! I’m not high status and my looks are probably just slightly above average but I have never “had” to date a fat 4.

    “That world? I’m quite familiar with it.”

    Oh I’m sure you are.

    “Are you?”

    Nope.

    “That’s nice honey. By the way, as a stupid, selfish whore do you feel that if a man expect you to go out on one date with him before rejecting him that he thinks women owe him sex?”

    Dude, I’m a dude. But I don’t have to go out on a date with a woman first in order to figure out if I’m attracted to her or not, do you?

  139. Frank says:

    She is a 3 at most and he is a 7. So why so much contempt? She had a fling with a 9 guy some time ago (a pump and dump thing).

    Unless the 9 was a heavy drinker, I don’t understand this at all. You never see the inverse of this either (a 9 girl banging a 3 guy.) No wonder even the biggest whale mountain beast-hags rumbling amongst us are so narcissistic.

  140. Novaseeker says:

    Who is sexual marxist? Anyone have the 411? Is it Schwyzer or Futrelle or Forney?

  141. Novaseeker says:

    Men are more loyal to their women than they are to one another. We’re just hardwired in that direction.

    Men can never form an imperative, because we’re mostly heterosexual, and our life/eros instinct (see Freud for a concise definition) prevents that sort of unilateral unity in anything.

    Yup.

    This is why religion is important, because it serves the function of providing a rather large “in group” for men, which tends to take the harder edges off of intra-male competition, although never eliminating it. Women have a natural “in group” right out of the box — studies verify this. Men do not. If you take away the common bonds between men — ethnic, religious, communitarian, etc. — you end up where we are today –> full on sexual competition and very low levels of cooperation among men. Part biology, part culture, but even if you lean on the latter, it’s hard as the dickens to change at this point because of the way that children are being raised.

  142. “Whatever” said, “Make them whores legal. It’s time to bring back prostitution. Let us find the market value of a woman’s “most valuable” resource.”

    You can already check craigslist or backpage for that, lmao.

  143. imnobody says:

    Unless the 9 was a heavy drinker, I don’t understand this at all. You never see the inverse of this either (a 9 girl banging a 3 guy.) No wonder even the biggest whale mountain beast-hags rumbling amongst us are so narcissistic.

    It’s easy. The guy was from another country and came to the country I live only for a few days in a business trip (day full of meetings, etc). He knew nobody here. He banged her and came back to his country. She was the international equivalent of a booty call.

    She says doesn’t know why the guy disappeared and never wanted to continue with “the relationship”, which she remembers as the best of her life. LOL.

    Furthermore, where I live, guys are dumpster divers (is this the word?). They pride themselves in having as many women as they can, even if the woman is hideous. It is the macho thing. Not about enjoying sex, but about pride.

    She had a real relationship with a guy for three years when she was younger (and less hideous and less fat). The guy was a 6 or so and ended up cheating on her, so she dumped him. In a trip we were making with a group of friends (and we had a lot of time to chat), I told her that this was the kind of guy she could realistically expect commitment from. She was horrified as if I have condemned her to the bleakest future you could imagine.

    As you say, “No wonder even the biggest whale mountain beast-hags rumbling amongst us are so narcissistic.”

  144. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Unless the 9 was a heavy drinker, I don’t understand this at all. You never see the inverse of this either (a 9 girl banging a 3 guy.) No wonder even the biggest whale mountain beast-hags rumbling amongst us are so narcissistic.”

    He obviously overrated him. A 9 man can have casual sex with women 7 and above very easily. He isn’t going to need to have it with a 3. The man was probably closer to a 6, which is still above average enough to look better than your average Joe at Walmart.

  145. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sexual Marxist
    Yeah, I covered the eunuchs in my comment. What I didn’t mention however is the intrigue and espionage that often took place in these environments. Women formed emotional alliances with their servants, both female and eunuch, who would often do favors and keep secrets for them. An affair or two was not entirely out of the question, nor was a fleeting moment of passion with someone other than their husband – be it another male, female or even the eunuch!

    Yes, well, leaving aside various romantic, fictional, fantasies, the fact remains that a strict harem provides the man with the resources to maintain it an outlet for his “seed spreading” desire for variety and sureness of paternity. You can focus on the 4-sigma outlier opera-plot case all you want, it won’t change the reality. The strict harem has existed in multiple places and times – ancient China, ancient India, ancient Middle East, just for a start. It provides certain short term advantages at a longer term cost. It is likely that one sign of a decline in such a system is more and more successful conspiracies by the women of the harem, but that doesn’t matter. There are strict harems, of course, in the house holds of some Saudi Arabian royalty but they are a tiny minority. They exist, but they do not matter to the rest of the world at this time if for no other reason than the Saudi’s are not exporting their culture to other places nowadays, not as they did in the 8th century.

    Soft harems, of course, are all around us. All one has to do is look, with the right glasses on.

  146. Sexual Marxist says:

    “You can already check craigslist or backpage for that, lmao.”

    Massage parlors with beautiful half naked women in their ads advertise “full body massage” quite openly. Everyone knows how to read between the lines. The kind of prostitution that gets busted in this country is the lowest income kind of crack hos and their tricks trolling the open streets.

  147. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Soft harems, of course, are all around us. All one has to do is look, with the right glasses on.”

    There’s no expectation of fidelity though. And if anyone does expect it, he’s a naive fool. Naive fools are not the men with soft harems. Naive fools are usually the sheltered men who have been lied to about women, human sexuality and monogamy.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    8oxer… You seem to be using the word ‘imperative’ in a very different manner than others. Perhaps you could define the term as you are using it?

    8oxer
    From the online dictionary, it describes “an unavoidable obligation or requirement”

    Ok, so when you refer to men “forming an imperative”, what do you mean? It is imperative to me that I breath, I don’t “form” it. In the sexual area, I assert that men have an imperative – a deep desire, a requirement – to have sex with many women in order to attempt to make many babies, and another imperative -desire, requirement – to be sure of paternity in selected children (the ones they invest resources in).

    I do not see where any of this can be described as ‘forming an imperative”, unless you’re thinking of 3 year cell phone contracts in some way.

  149. an observer says:

    Long live the q36b hamsterlator…

  150. Sexual Marxist says:

    freebird, “Because men bond with sex and women do not. Plain and simple.”

    Is that a fact?
    Sounds like some social or religious conditioning if you ask me.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Soft monogamy is arguably the most common form of pairing in the modern world. There is some degree of expectation of paternity, however without testing there’s no way to be sure. There’s opportunity for variety for the man, and cuckolding / serial polyandry for the woman. I believe that this is the preferred form of pairing for the Female Imperative, as it offers the opportunity of alpha sperm and beta provisioning. I suggest that the rapid spread of this form of pairing, starting from the overthrow of strict monogamy in the late 1960’s and culminating in the universality of soft monogamy across the industrialized world in 10 years or less is evidence of its desirability to the feminine imperative.

    Consider just how fast an entire court system – the family court – was created / revised / turned around in the US. Is there anything like the speed with which this was done, at least in US history? It is obvious there was a great demand for the women to be able to extract resources from men without having to service them sexually.

    It is an open question whether soft monogamy is stable in the long, multi-generational, sense.

  152. The discussion has progressed well beyond this point, so I will be brief, but I just wanted to address the concept of PUA burnout that SSM brought up. The idea of a gender “imperative” just covers what would appear to be the subject’s gender-optimal utopia. It is very often based on “what I think I want” rather than “what is best for me?”

    Just as a child who gives into his/her “imperative” to eat all candy ever will eventually get sick and realize that only eating candy isn’t as good as it sounds, so do men and women who oblige their gender imperative. For women, the unrestrained FI leads to spinsterhood and cats in most cases, and for men, the unrestrained MI (apparently!) leads to PUA burnout, although I think it’s premature to assume if this is a few/many/most kind of ratio. So, the question is not, “How come men living the “MI” aren’t happy with it?” (because many women live the FI and are quite miserable in it) but merely, “What would the unrestrained MI look like if it were to replace the current, unrestrained FI?”

  153. Anonymous Reader says:

    Obvious fact:
    “Soft harems, of course, are all around us. All one has to do is look, with the right glasses on.”

    Sexual Marxist

    There’s no expectation of fidelity though.

    Of course not. Because the soft harem serves the Feminine Imperative, and the FI only.

    As I already stated here:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-a-masculine-imperative-would-look-like/#comment-81776

    … a soft harem – where the women choose the men to breed with, and the women support their children – they are their own beta men. This is a form of the feminine imperative that is not all that different from the original article in which single women choose the man with whom they wish to breed, and otherwise keep the child to themselves (implied).

  154. Anonymous Reader says:

    peoplegrowing
    So, the question is not, “How come men living the “MI” aren’t happy with it?” (because many women live the FI and are quite miserable in it) but merely, “What would the unrestrained MI look like if it were to replace the current, unrestrained FI?”

    I think this question is just silly. It is like saying “What if every man just did anything he wanted to do, regardless of law, custom or physics?” The word for this situation is “riot”, and riots don’t last. Oh, they may go on for hours, even a day, but they end one way or another. And even in the middle of a riot, there are limits to what one man, or a group of men, can do.

    Men won’t tolerate other men’s bad behavior for an indefinite period – the worse the behavior, the swifter the reaction. So it is ridiculous to posit a situation where every man is free to try to have sex with every woman he sees – one way or another, in a short time a whole lot of women will become non-visible.

  155. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Soft monogamy is arguably the most common form of pairing in the modern world. There is some degree of expectation of paternity, however without testing there’s no way to be sure. ”

    I can agree with that. Soft monogamy wherein people form exclusive committed relationships for a time, either long term or short term, then break up and form exclusive relationships with new partners, there is an expectation of fidelity involved, especially if the couple is married. Paternity cannot be 100 percent certain unless tested, but it is assumed.

    However soft harems are multiple concurrent relationships. Fidelity is not only not assumed, its not expected. That’s also known as polyamory.

  156. @smarxist: Roosh is all about the feminine, nurturing chicks. who wouldnt be?

  157. Johnycomelately says:

    Marellus
    Brilliant and concise.

    Nova
    “In a situation where technology had made the top men less dependent on the lessers for labor… the need for a compromise in sexual access between men breaks down, and it reverts to full-blown sex access competition.”

    I’ve racked my mind over this and you have expressed it perfectly in that post.

  158. Sexual Marxist says:

    “@smarxist: Roosh is all about the feminine, nurturing chicks. who wouldnt be?”

    Yeah but the point was about pua/casual sex burn out. If the masculine imperative is to just go through life bedding as many loose (but attractive) women as possible, then why is Roosh and other PUA wannabes burned out? The answer came because its like eating Cheetos or other junk food, activates the taste buds and gives a false feeling of satisfaction for a short while, but contains no nutritional value and ultimately can neither satisfy hunger nor sustain life. In order for a man to reach his potential and be truly happy he has to build something of substance and you cannot build with Cheetos (casual sex with people you form no bond to). We need a complete, homecooked, nutritious meal.

    Which brings us to the final conclusion, the women Roosh has casual sex with are NOT feminine, nurturing or family oriented because those types of women do not have sex with strangers.

    He is sleeping with the type of women the men in those countries avoid for marriage.
    And yet he’ll claim American women are skanks and hos.

  159. sunshinemary says:

    @ Rollo
    Thanks for the link. That’s not exactly what alcesta and I were talking about, but I agree with you completely that it’s absolutely absurd to think that the average woman’s libido is as high as the average man’s. However, alcesta said we have dirtier minds, which is slightly different than saying we have higher libidos. But actually, after reading your essay, I don’t think we do have the dirtier minds. I think it’s something else altogether, but I don’t want to derail this thread, so I’ll make it a post on place this weekend.

  160. sunshinemary says:

    on place = on my place

  161. Sexual Marxist says:

    “I think it’s something else altogether”

    Its an insatiable appetite for sex, once you do get going. We men have to rest in between and get it up again. You can just keep going, and going, and going. Like the Energizer Bunny. :)

  162. Deti says:

    Sexual Marxist lives in a world of its own imagination in which it claims to date whoever the hell it wants. This is clearly not the United States. Oh well. Keep dreaming! I’m sure your dream world is a lovely place.

  163. greyghost says:

    Masculine imperative would be a single dad with 3 kids. Ex wife paying 2200 month CS with no visitation. and no girlfriend.

  164. Sexual Marxist says:

    “Sexual Marxist lives in a world of its own imagination in which it claims to date whoever the hell it wants. ”

    I claimed, ” I date whoever the hell I want, CONTINGENT ON being wanted back, of course. ”

    Sometimes people who actually like each other end up dating, you know?

    Life isn’t always the battle you make it out to be.

  165. 8oxer says:

    peoplegrowing sez:

    the unrestrained MI (apparently!) leads to PUA burnout, although I think it’s premature to assume if this is a few/many/most kind of ratio.

    One thing the hardcore PUA types do lie about is this. There is (or at least there used to be) some silly idea that men do not get jaded with a high turnover of female companions. At least in my case, this is nonsense.

    Sex loses much of its mystical (dare I say subversive?) allure after you’ve banged a few dozen women, and with that allure goes much of the general attraction. Call it burnout or whatever else, I don’t think it gives you a better outlook on life.

    Boxer

  166. I think this question is just silly. It is like saying “What if every man just did anything he wanted to do, regardless of law, custom or physics?” The word for this situation is “riot”, and riots don’t last.

    I don’t see how you come to that conclusion. The question of “What is the FI?” comes down to “How would/do women structure society to their benefit?” Alternatively, “What is the MI?” is not “What if man just did anything he wanted to do…?” but “how would men structure society to their benefit?” You suppose that the way the MI would turn out would be a riot, but many men here have supposed very differently. Without actually tallying up the different ideas, it seems to me most commenters suppose the MI would involve keeping a strict harem, and possessing the necessary resources to do so.

    Riot may be the final result of a real MI just as societal decline is the clear result of the FI, but that doesn’t mean that’s what the MI IS, just what it LEADS to – and no one has seriously pushed that the MI be instituted over the FI – just hypothesizing what that would look like.

  167. 8oxer says:

    Masculine imperative would be a single dad with 3 kids. Ex wife paying 2200 month CS with no visitation. and no girlfriend.

    I don’t think men would be hardwired to want this. If we were, we’d be women.

    The masculine imperative, if there is one, would be every man finding fulfillment by overcoming obstacles. These obstacles are different for every man, of course. If we sat around full time taking care of kids and having someone else conquer the world on our behalf, we wouldn’t find life very satisfying.

    Novaseeker pointed out (way up above) that men are hardwired to mate and be loyal to the woman/women these men mate with. Of course there are outliers (gay dudes, etc.) but in general I think that’s right.

    Women have evolved with a shocking (from our perspective) interiority. They seek status in the female herd, which derives from the things they acquire (male resources being one of these “things”). They seek male resources, don’t care about the men themselves, and view men as machinery embedded into the horizon of the lifeworld,

    Of course there are outliers there too, I’m sure. NAWALT and all that. In general though, I think he nailed it.

    Regards, Boxer

  168. “The more attractive you become, the more attractive mates you deserve.”
    Define attractive.
    What passes for good looking women are simply not attractive due to their personality, lack of morals, and bad behavior. The feminized American women is simply not “attractive”. She is lacking in virtue and beauty. Btw, feminine behavior bumps a average women women up a couple of points imo.
    Sorry to say but the feminized American women has the appearance and behavior of a prostitute and is poor marriage material. So much for the typical educated feminized attractive American woman of which the far majority fall into. I’ll pass, thank you very much.

  169. sunshinemary says:

    LC –

    Men on this website all seem to assume that women are being bombarded by offers of marriage at the age of 18, declarations of love at 20, eternal fidelity and marriage, but we’re turning this down.

    SM –

    The average looking don’t really get much play in any department.

    Has this changed a lot over the past two decades, then? I’m 44, so I don’t know much about the current MMP, but I am only average looking, and yet I received a marriage proposal at 18 and another at 22. During the four years in between, I was single for maybe five minutes. And I’m only average. I know lots of women who married in the 18-22 age range, and most of us are just regular women, nothing unusual about us.

    Young women might not be getting “bombarded” by marriage offers, but I am suspicious of the idea that even now young women who are serious about marriage and behave accordingly are unable to find any decent man to marry. If that is the case, then I think perhaps the men who would marry them are invisible to these girls.

  170. Johnycomelately says:

    New term, Socially Infertile:

    http://www.mamamia.com.au/parenting/socially-infertile-single-childless-and-turning-to-ivf/

    Baby shopping: ‘I chose my child’s father over lunch':

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/parenting/baby-shopping-i-chose-my-childs-father-over-lunch/story-fnet08ck-1226617362798

    Given a third of Australian Graduate women never marry I am not surprised Australia is leading the trend for unmarried women getting IVF.

    And wouldn’t you know it, gays are ruining it for everyone.

    Gay community helps ease sperm shortage for aspiring mothers:

    http://www.dailylife.com.au/health-and-fitness/dl-wellbeing/gay-community-helps-ease-sperm-shortage-for-aspiring-mothers-20120509-1yc5v.html

    It’s getting to point where it’s almost like fast food, “I’ll have the man money and man juice but hold th man, thank you.”

  171. greyghost says:

    Don’t quit your job just live with out the the sword of damocles. The whole reason for the MRM is ridding the world of men of the sword of domacles. View every comment and idea from me as that as it’s subroutine imperative.

  172. Sexual Marxist says:

    ” If we sat around full time taking care of kids and having someone else conquer the world on our behalf, we wouldn’t find life very satisfying.”

    And yet who amongst us is “conquering the world”?

    “The more attractive you become, the more attractive mates you deserve.”

    “Define attractive.”

    Its relative to personal tastes though there are a few universals like facial symmetry and hip to waist ratio. But the context of that conversation was what women could do to get mated up and Deti said, “lower standards and increase attractiveness” to which I suggested women (or men) who put effort into increasing their attractiveness and succeed (such as losing weight or whatever) would and should increase their standards.

    If I work out at the gym 4 nights a week and get 6 pack abs I’m going to increase my standards to pursuing women that are as physically fit as I have become (adjusted for the female anatomy, of course), NOT women who are as unfit as I used to be.

    I agree with you that there is much more to attractiveness than just looks.
    That’s a whole other conversation.

  173. greyghost says:

    Johnycomelately
    See how much fun a male pill would be. Multiply that by 10 and see the hysteria.

  174. Sexual Marxist says:

    “And wouldn’t you know it, gays are ruining it for everyone.
    Gay community helps ease sperm shortage for aspiring mothers:”

    Being that these are “socially infertile” women who men their own age or even older don’t want to wife up or have kids with, the gay community is doing us all a favor

    “I’ll have the man money and man juice but hold th man, thank you.”

    I’m pretty sure these are working women, possibly even upper middle class.

  175. whatever says:

    And now the group that is “threatened” by the thought of prostitution being actually legal is claiming being illegal except when the local police and government “feel” it should be legal… and they can at any time “change their minds” at any time is “the same” as actually being legal.

    No. It’s not the same at all.

  176. Sexual Marxist says:

    “And now the group that is “threatened” by the thought of prostitution being actually legal is claiming being illegal except when the local police and government “feel” it should be legal”

    If the local police and gov are far right wingers, trad cons or religious folk, they will never “feel” prostitution should be legalized. What about the children?

  177. whatever says:


    If the local police and gov are far right wingers, trad cons or religious folk, they will never “feel” prostitution should be legalized. What about the children?

    As compared to the liberal who will only enforce anti-prostitution laws against people they don’t like? That’s the big giant hole in your “it’s the same” argument.

  178. Sexual Marxist says:

    Who opposes sex work legalization besides the “family values” pimps?

  179. 8oxer says:

    Dear Sexual Marxist:

    And yet who amongst us is “conquering the world”?

    Everyone on this forum is conquering the world, every time we discuss issues that the world would declare verboten. More generally, the “will to power” is best described in this context by Alfred Adler, though its a concept that is as old as Thales.

    Men gain status by mastering themselves and their environment. For some men this mastery is hermetic, e.g. a monk who raises himself above earthly concerns. For others it’s material mastery. Businessmen and military officers are of this type. It’s true that after a man achieves great success he often finds his destination hollow. This is because the masculine imperative was in the journey toward success, and not in the basking around afterward, with no more need to fight.

    Some men may find fulfillment in staying home while his female partner brings home the bacon, and I definitely don’t want to knock any brothers who find that works for them. For most of us, we want to go out and make our mark.

    Regards, Boxer

  180. Al says:

    So, if ‘conquering the world’ just means participating in an online forum, or doing whatever other bullshit thing you like that allows you to feel all puffed up and important, this idea that men conquer the world and women stay at home and let men do the heavy lifting is just nonsense. A woman sitting at home with a toddler on her lap, writing about sensitive social and political issues on her laptop, is just as much conquering the world as big, strong, manly man!

    Maybe you should all just stop complaining.

  181. 8oxer says:

    Dear Al:

    I’m not complaining, and you actually make a good point. If the masculine imperative were to be defined, I think it’d include the “will to power”; but as you point out, most men sublimate this psychologically. Jack Donovan’s book “The Way of Men” goes into this in some detail. Men (some more than others) want to feel important, so they make whatever they’re doing seem important. Some men are able to do this almost entirely within their heads. For those who may be doing the homemaker thing, they likely are building a “power” structure in raising up the next generation.

    I still think that for the majority of us, that wouldn’t work, however.

    Best, Boxer

  182. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Nova

    “This is why religion is important, because it serves the function of providing a rather large “in group” for men, which tends to take the harder edges off of intra-male competition, although never eliminating it.”

    It can serve that function but it doesn’t necessarily serve it. Victorianism and modern-day American Churchianity are ample evidence that religion can easily be used to manipulate, demoralize and betaize the common man in order to prevent him from exploring his potential sexual options in life and thus turn them into eunuchs of the Feminine Imperative. Religion is rarely used against women due to eggs being expensive and all that. It’s very easy to use it against men. From men’s point of view, religion is a neutral factor in society, a double-edged sword. The religious readers here need to keep that in mind no matter how much they believe that their faith is great, that the Scripture is truth and all that crap.

  183. Höllenhund says:

    “I don’t really think there is a male version of the FI, because men are in reproductive conflict with each other.”

    If there’s one thing common in the sexual strategies of all men from gammas to alphas, the one thing that doesn’t do much to get them into that reproductive conflict, it’s this: all men prefer male-female relationships where their responsibilities are voluntary, instead of mandatory as decreed by the church, the state, social norms or whatever. This applies as much to alpha louts as to omegas. And all women recoil with disgust and rage from it.

  184. Mark Minter says:

    Just doing a little research.
    It appears a market is trying to be creating for donor eggs.

    http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=5888

    Because apparently there was breakthrough

    http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.578.html

    Two Korean firms are in kind of “space race” and are at the forefront.

    http://www.biopoliticaltimes.org/article.php?id=6038

    Women will have to take some baby steps. They have push those ethics around, but hey, never underestimate them. In 2006, loads of states were banning same sex marriages, even looking to write it into constitutions. And by June, women will prove once again that what they can’t get done in the legislature by dominating media and shaming anyone that would get in their way, then they can do it in the courts. I would say they have really successful in that arena Roe v Wade, Obamacare, and now, Same Sex marriages.

    This market thing would be a first step, above will allow younger women to sell eggs to get money to party in their 20s. And then after “leaning in” in their 30s and 40s, then they should have to money to “buy back” eggs from a younger version of their carousel riding self. Of course, today, 3-way IVF has been approved, meaning an egg from one woman, the inside the egg stuff from another woman, the “mother”, but the drawback for now is that they ….

    still need a man.

    But never underestimate the will of women to (1) get more money to party in their 20s. I mean, drinks might be free but Louboutins are not. Those shoes can run a grand, easy (2) Stomp the crap out of any economic, social, ethical, or cultural impediment, or especially, moral objections to them getting a child regardless of the impact on a) men b) society, and especially c) children, because in the end, “it is for the children” (3) most importantly, they can usually shove men out of the whole reproduction thing because we all know, “men are not necessary”.

    So cloning should just about solve all the problems for the dears. Carousel until 40, then over lunch, using a iPhone app, go ahead and put that order in for that “mini me”, a reproduction of themselves, a rebirth, if you will. But there are a few ethical and technical hurdles to overcome.

    But chin up ladies, Those Koreans and the New York Stem Cell Foundation Laboratory are pushing hard to eliminate that requirement. So maybe 10 years. This Korean guy is serious:
    ““I will do it faster than them,” Prof. Park said, noting that Cha Biotech & Diostech have the skills to do it, but not the patents that he has. “Whoever develops it…comes the wealth, comes the power, comes the money,” he said, adding that this breakthrough will bring forth a new era in medical science. ”

    And a new era in relations between men and women. I think maybe outright warfare.

    But men just may trump them.

    We are pushing ideas so far past mere genetic reproduction into the realm of “pattern reproduction”, meaning your brain may be off loaded into substrate, or interface with substrate and then can exist in a state connected instantaneously to massive amounts of computational power.

    Imagine, fellows, you could quickly rip through all the centerfolds from Playboy and create an amalgamation of all, and then virtually have her as your girlfriend, or heck, girlfriends, all while you solve interesting fluid dynamics problems, access NFL films databases of “all 22″ end zone views of this seasons games to play fantasy football .

    And that, my companeros, will be the real deal, the Male Imperative.

    Because, women won’t be necessary.

  185. Tam the Bam says:

    Frank :-
    “I always wondered how much of that was actually true for a lot of the WW2 injured veterans who came home from the war.”

    Not just WW2.
    Mellor the gamekeeper had more than a walk-on part (cough) in Lady Chatterley’s Lover due to the nature of the eponymous Lady’s wealthy husband’s WW1 injuries.
    Part of the scandal over the book was the “shocking amorality” of a wife overtly cheating with the aristo equivalent of the pool-boy on her mutilated war-hero husband because of his inconvenient, selfish, and utterly un-faaiirrr inability to deliver a good solid rogering.
    Based on a true-life story, it seems.

    Plus ca change … nowadays she’d have a government-subsidised support group, free tickets to Gigolo-Land for life ‘to help her fulfil her potential as a woman’, her husband would have been divorced, and sued to the poorhouse for human rights abuse.

  186. Tam the Bam says:

    Dude, I’m a dude. But I don’t have to go out on a date with a woman first in order to figure out if I’m attracted to her or not, do you?

    Novaseeker, I was having a hard time disassociating her from that Desi troll-wife who drivelled on and on about nothing in particular, a while back, mainly round at Rollo’s gaff. “Hopeless Romantic” and other ‘nyms, I think.
    But this one has an excellent grasp of my native tongue, and is mercifully in the greater part comprehensible.
    But even a daft old foreign man like me can easily tell that it’s a woman. Men don’t (?can’t?) “think” like that.

  187. Tam the Bam says:

    Tsk. Wrongo linky. Meant the previous comment.

  188. Tam the Bam says:

    Anon. Reader, only a bit O/T, this.
    Imperial Roman upperclass wives were at one time intensively supervised and guarded, and would cuckold their patrician men by all sorts of odd methods.
    One particularly sensational case involved the lovelorn swain presenting himself at the (presumably barred) mansion window or balcony and suffer for his ladylove by allowing one of her lady’s maids to chew him off. Then he’d scarper, sharpish, and she’d scuttle off to Madame with a gobful (strictly no swallowing!) for a spot of lesbo executive relief/rug-munching, during which the illicit cargo would be discharged forcefully to the critical spot.

    Hubby would not be any the wiser, and at worst might look up from his campaign maps, grumping “You girls, keep the noise down, don’t you know I’ve got a bunch of Gauls to massacre on Monday?”.
    Wifey would smirk a bit, and commence incubating Biggus Dickus the Ace Gladiator’s spawn …

  189. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Bingo. It goes deeper than just reproductive conflict, though that’s the catalyst for it. It’s a very embedded complex, constellated partly in the unconscious.

    I’ve written about this phenomenon before. The only dudes I know who do not immediately begin flinging me shit about MGTOW/PUA knowledge, and who I feel comfortable being totally open with, are a crew of mostly gay guys who work out at the gym.

    Other heterosexual men will never understand the raw truth, because they instinctively see “women” as represented by the one or two women they’re banging at the moment, and will instantly flip to white knight mode whenever one starts discussing things honestly. I’ve often wondered what would happen if I tweaked someone’s tail by explicitly applying the truth they’re afraid to face about women to the specific women who are fueling their delusions.

    8oxer, I think this may partly explain why civilizations like Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome appear alien and different to modern eyes. They bucked the feminine imperative in a weird way (well before those societies entered the empire phase and became decadent) and had were a religious pagan Patriarchy.

    But I don’t think that in the end they approved of the LGBTQPPI (I think modern feminists accusing Ancient Graeco-Romans of “misogynist gayness” is overblown, most of them would have preferred celibacy or lack of sex than becoming a homo, in reality the gays were more influential in the decline/destruction of their way of life) and that widespread reports of their homoish tendencies is either some misinterpretation or anger by various entities at not bowing down to the FI.

  190. an observer says:

    Ssm,

    Lc is playing the ‘where have all the good men gone’ card. Marriage offers from suitable alphas that she already finds attractive are nonexistent.

    The good men havent gone anywhere. But shadows are not easy to spot, remember?

  191. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Much of the dynamics in African societies are the result of the feminine imperative and where it will surely lead (even if it’s denied on the surface). Most women of course, don’t really think of it that way. They want to have it both ways. They want to be harlots, but want the “good men” and a “real man” to take care of them. It’s almost like having water and fire at the same time and in union. Unfortunately, slut behavior and caddish behavior is intertwined. But it’s quite difficult to say this out in the open. Most people don’t like to hear this. The feminine imperative likes itself, but doesn’t like the men it produces and instead will blame the men for what it has done by its own hands.

  192. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    African societies are matriarchal (soft egalitarian?).

  193. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The often overlooked aspect of unrestrained hyperagamy and liberal marriage laws is the dearth of female sexual losers.

    These women are patently sexual losers, they are female omegas who couldn’t even get a one night stand with a pretty boy.

    Artificial insemination is their safety net, it’s virtually the female equivalent of prostitution.

    Even ugly women (both inside and outer ugliness) can find another ugly man to marry and have children. The question isn’t whether one will end up alone (one may end up alone). This isn’t the problem. Marriage isn’t the issue. The issue is sex for them and being desirable.

    The problem comes when these female 1 to 3’s (way below average 5’s and 6’s) have a sickening desire to score with the big men. This can be seen from college campus (an artificial environment, not replicating the real world) to the workplace to almost everywhere.

    These type of women have despicable double standards. A man should satisfy a 100 bullet point list (be high MMV and high SMV), but she can be ill-mannered, quite poor, dangerous, smell bad, be obese, bad facial features, display bad temperament (scream like a banshee) and so forth.

    I think two stereotypes of feminists are valid: the ugly types who couldn’t score the best men and are part of the radical feminism fringe. They create the philosophy.

    The average women, who also want to score the best men, but do it with “I’m not a feminist and don’t call myself one, but have feminist values”. These women are nicer and better, but if they keep swallowing the poison of feminism, sooner or later there’s nothing to little different between them and the true core of liberal modernity. It’s more of a frog slowly bollied in the pot tactic.

  194. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Also, if hypergamy runs without constraint, there’s a possibility that it may never be fulfilled.

  195. Young women might not be getting “bombarded” by marriage offers, but I am suspicious of the idea that even now young women who are serious about marriage and behave accordingly are unable to find any decent man to marry.

    You’re right to be suspicious; it’s just not true. A very shy, average-looking girl who actively avoids boys might find herself in that situation, but if she’s halfway socially available, nature will take its course and she’ll get attention that will escalate if she lets it.

    The question of “What is the FI?” comes down to “How would/do women structure society to their benefit?”

    I’d alter that a bit to, “structure society to appease their whims.” Objectively, it would be hard to say the FI has benefited women. The divorced mother of three who puts her kids in day-care so she can go push papers all day while she wonders where all the good men is gone isn’t better off than her married mother in any way. Financially, even with a sizable chunk of her ex’s paycheck, she’s probably behind, and just playing husband to herself on that stuff messes with her mind. Her kids are probably wild and developing personality disorders of their own from not having a dad around. When they get to the age where they could have started being a help around the house and making her life easier, instead they’re rebelling and making more work for her.

    But she’s free to satisfy her whims. She can blow her child support check on hats. She can paint the living room pink and decorate it with stuffed animals. Most importantly, she can have sex with Mr. Alpha I-Just-Had-To the moment he comes along. That’s the one way she’s “benefited” from the FI: she can do what she wants without justifying it to anyone.

    So the equivalent MI — structuring society to appease the whims of men — might result in football games being played 24/7, a beer keg and cigar humidor in every refrigerator where the vegetable drawer used to be, and prostitutes delivering pizza — free handjob with every large pepperoni! And all this would be paid for with Someone Else’s Money. Of course, such a society wouldn’t really benefit men either; they’d become obese and lethargic and disgruntled. We’d start getting articles from the nephews of the “masculinists” who created the situation, wondering why they aren’t blissfully happy sitting on the couch enjoying a Hawaiian Hooker Combo the way their grandfathers never could. But like women today, they’d think they should be happy, because after all, they’d be getting what they wanted. So their unhappiness must be someone else’s fault: where have all the good women gone? Why don’t any women want to sit on the couch and snuggle up next to a 400-pound guy who needs a shower?

  196. greyghost says:

    all men prefer male-female relationships where their responsibilities are voluntary, instead of mandatory as decreed by the church, the state, social norms or whatever. This applies as much to alpha louts as to omegas.

    That’s it right there Hollenhund. Free men of faith are always more productive. When it is voluntary beta men don’t have to game, kindness is sexy. Empathy will make her horny. Some thing almost magical will happen a supplicating man will no longer supplicate he won’t have to. You have yourself an alpha male (an attractive man) that isn’t a defective man. Alpha male in the world of misandry are defectve men.

  197. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Average women can get married easily (unless they are seeking attention, and become attention whores). Men in general are more forgiving of women (actual misogyny in men is most times a myth, how many men really hate women? not many) and a woman doesn’t have to be the best, she just needs to be good enough.

    Be suitable, not perfect. But I do think that a woman whom combats her man, disrespects/insults him and makes his life a nightmare or behaves badly (the recent case of a college liberal female student who made a false rape allegation against herself, either for herself or to further politics) isn’t going much. For men, women are like an economic floor (basic standards in various departments). Just satisfy a couple of standards, and that’s it.

  198. For men, women are like an economic floor (basic standards in various departments). Just satisfy a couple of standards, and that’s it.

    I honestly think that most men would be satisfied if their wives stayed reasonably fit (not hot-bodied, but below the obvious double-chin level), cooked a meal or two every day and kept the house cleaner than your average guy’s dorm room, and offered enthusiastic sex every night plus the occasional morning surprise. That’s it. Yes, there are some natural wolves who would still stray even if they were getting properly sexed-up by a good wife. But I think they’re rare. I think most guys would be perfectly content with a lifetime of regular sex with a woman who takes care of herself and their home.

    Women don’t realize how important sex — and especially the knowledge that sex is on-tap for you at any time — is to a man. They think they know how important it is, and they say things like men are pigs because they think about sex all the time, but they really don’t know. It trumps everything. When men have that, you get civilization: cathedrals, innovation, exploration. When they don’t, you get dysfunction, dissolution, and disengagement from society.

    The main reason men are turning away from women to video games and porn isn’t that they’re afraid of divorce specifically. Divorce is only a symptom. It’s because they can’t trust anymore that marriage will mean a lifetime ticket to sex. They know that sex can be yanked away from them at any time — within or without marriage — and that’s the thing that made marriage worth the costs.

  199. @Sexual Marxist”I agree with you that there is much more to attractiveness than just looks.
    That’s a whole other conversation.”
    I agree, however, this is the crux since the American woman value is based upon her fading looks, education, and supposed accomplishments that are useless for the makings of a wife / mother.
    Are you suggesting to totally ignore what makes a women actually enjoyable and increasingly attractive despite decreasing outward beauty ?
    Very bad move imo.
    I might have some insight on this topic (I’ll do my best without sounding arrogant). All women that are in the 8-10 range that I have dated, courted, and been in relationships over the years have not been anywhere near the physical condition less one exception (she had a Dara Torres build year round) and all were hopelessly neurotic, insecure, egocentric severe mental / emotional / sexual issues and hence totally unfit for relationships/courting, let alone marriage.
    This begs the question of “why is this ?”.
    External change is quite easy vs internal change. It takes a very healthy robust individual to subscribe to a healthy emotional/mental/spiritual wellbeing. This goes against the grain of the American message of having a hardbody, showing it off to everybody, and ignoring the inside. Btw, every exceptionally physically healthy female I have met is a emotional basket case – the hypergamy / feral traits destroy all inner beauty.
    Allow me to suggest it is because of the lack of introspection of ““The more attractive you become, the more attractive mates you deserve”. Dumping all of ones energies and resources and focusing on a depreciating trait is pretty stupid. I dont care how beautiful a woman is, her “altitude” will disqualify her in 5 seconds.
    If attractive is major focal point of ones criteria – they are a casualty without knowing it. All women are insecure when it comes to physical appearance – all (A truly attractive woman in my book is a solid 7 in looks and a 10 in morals, sacrifice for others, kindness, feminine( inner qualities will raise that 7).
    As mentioned lack of inner attractiveness makes a person ugly, very very ugly – this cannot be denied.
    As Deti alluded to- this is shallow, self serving, and lacks the depth that are needed for a real life long commitment of marriage & children and is of personal autonomy.

  200. Novaseeker says:

    The main reason men are turning away from women to video games and porn isn’t that they’re afraid of divorce specifically. Divorce is only a symptom. It’s because they can’t trust anymore that marriage will mean a lifetime ticket to sex. They know that sex can be yanked away from them at any time — within or without marriage — and that’s the thing that made marriage worth the costs.

    I think that the guys who prefer video games and porn to relationships with women are doing that because they cannot attract/retain a woman whom they find attractive — for the most part that’s what it is. I don’t think it really has to do with fear of divorce — it has to do with a combination of female hypergamy (making SMV peer women unavailable to them) and their own relative unattractiveness, for the most part. Note, I’m not talking about the guys who are trying and striking out, but the guys who have given up.

  201. @Novaseeker – I dont think all men dont give up. They have simply changed venue and venture into other cultures than the US. I no longer look at American / Western women and simply avoid them. This is very simple and can simply be seen in how a female acts acts and dresses ( a attractive feminine woman is quite a rare sight here in the USA).
    American and/or feminized women are immediately disqualified unless there are multiple “divine” interventions (none to date) along with her really going out of the way to prove herself (again, none to date).
    The best thing for the younger male generation to do is to get educated/established and go elsewhere and leave the egotistical feminized / feral American venal females to her own devices.
    One reaps exactly what they sow.
    Shalom

  202. Marellus says:

    From wikipedia :

    Interracial marriages are rising.

    In these marriages, White women prefer black men over Asian men, and White men prefer Asians over Africans. The interesting thing is, that the divorce rate between White women/Black men are twice as high as that of white couples.

    The divorce rate between Asian women/White men are almost similar to that of White couples.

    But the really interesting thing is this : The divorce rate between Black women/White men is almost 50% less than that of white couples.

    So White women’s chances of divorce increases in interracial marriages, while that of White men, stays roughly the same, or decreases.

    Hence one can say that Robert de Niro is smarter than Kim Kardashian.

    Black men and Asian women are the most likely to marry inter-racially, but not with each other; their intermarriage rate is one of the lowest.

    Black women and Asian men are the least likely to marry inter-racially, and almost never with each other; their intermarriage rate is the lowest.

    Of the Asian men there is one group that is an exception; the men will marry more interracially than the women, though their levels of interracial marriages are the lowest of all races :

    Indians.

  203. Novaseeker,

    Yes, that’s true too. But I think what’s new, and what women are noticing and writing articles about, is men who could attract a woman but just aren’t as excited about it as they used to be. The men you’re talking about are invisible to women, so women wouldn’t notice them missing. But you also have young, good-looking guys who can get laid now and then, and they’re satisfied with that. A generation ago they would’ve gotten busy advancing their career so they could propose to a girl, but now they don’t see the point in working so hard for all that, because what’s in it for them? Marriage would get them some sex with a woman who could take it away at any moment, but they can have that without marriage and leave time for gaming. Only a serious Christian who’s unwilling to fornicate has much incentive to marry at all.

    I don’t think much of that is conscious, but it underlies the decisions men are making. Some don’t marry because they can’t attract a woman, and others don’t because they can get milk that’s just as good for free.

  204. zlzozozzolozozo

    zlzozozoozozozlzozzkqozzqkozq

    nice postszzz!!!!! it made me go zlzoozozozoozoz before my first threee cupsz of coffee eevenana todya zlzozlozozozozozlozozz

    orry i did sorry did not repsosnde yesterday, but apply to stsarbucckkzz to become a barista to pay ofof my beenenrkkeekek loaalz is a full time job!!!!

    yes all the wall streeteetetet nitwit proetestors

    are forgetting to

    protest

    the right people

    the neoconc warmonhgering, debt-creating, honor-hating federal reserver private bankers who create moneyz
    out of thin air by placing everyone in debt
    who
    privatievze protssics and socialize risk
    who
    fund
    feminism and war (as feminism is war)
    who fund
    asscocking in spirit and in literal cockckass in assess zlzozolz
    who finance
    tucker max rhyme sitwh goldman sax secretive tapers of butthex (with your future wife who they need to desoul to make her loyal to the fita doallr and not god man family) to get the world used to being butthexed as once you are butthexed by the neoocn cockas you are more servile obedienet will die in tehir wars
    who fund
    the phahameecuatical companies who drug up all our boys
    who funed fund the fmeinsit movement
    to deconstruct the great books and classics on all our campuses
    hollow them out and get rid of homer and dante and shakespeare an dthe bible
    leave them with noting but femlit classes on entitlement and welath transfer lzozlzl

    the federal resvere private banksters

    implementing the ten planks of ths e communist manifesto

    who created
    the welath transferirng dot com bubble
    the welath transferirng dot com bubble real estate bubble marriage bubble college studnet loan bubble funding professors who agree with the fiat dolalrz and degreess until the fiat degreees only funcion is to put the studnet in debt while dumbing them down teahcing them to obery horrid ugly evil dsoulles harpy womenz zlzozl
    the welath transferirng dot com bubble

    detsorying the family
    butteheinxnxin

    llzozozlzlzlzl

    how the fatassed in the beltway neocon jonah goldber william benenetes operate lzozllzlzlzlzlzozo:

    1. deconstruct the great books on univeristy campuses
    2. tell men they need to man up
    3. dumb down the entire schools system
    4. tell men they need to man up
    5. assrape men in divorce court
    6. tell men they need to man up
    7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neoocn wars
    8. tell men they need to man up
    9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
    10. tell men they need to man up
    11. encourage woem to giver thie aholes and ginaholes early and often to douchebags
    12. tell men they need to man up
    13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neocon movies, replacing them with asscocking gay cowboys
    14. tell men they need to man up
    15. print money from thin air and inflate and dlate bubbes to seize a man’s home and property
    16. tell men they need to man up
    17. enocurage women to become fat, whiney bitches
    18. tell men they need to man up
    19. publish, promote, fund, and finance asscokers licke tucker max who film secrtive tap9ng of assockinhg session without the girl’s consent, tucker ma rhymes with goldam sax, repeating tucker’s lies that he is six fet tall inthe neocon weekly standadth .
    20. tell men they need to man up
    21. transofrm the church from an instititution where a man coul once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three asscockers go to rope in a betabmale to pay for the assocker’s spawn
    22. tell men they need to man up
    23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
    24. tell men they need to man up
    25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neocon women exalting asscockers, asscokcing, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great book and men, and rewading the servile future nannies of teh nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
    26. tell men they need to man up
    27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocns) and taped it secrtly without her conthent lzozozlzoo. remove all men form the publishing industry and repalce deep, prodoufn real great books for men with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty rape fanatsatsy “roamance” novels
    28. tell men they need to man up
    29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalzize men and force them o hand over their assetts to women
    30. tell men they need to man up
    31. financially incentivizee womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their futrue assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assetts
    32. tell men they need to ma up
    33. fill the law schools with fatm, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks an spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, an replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with bernake’s banker laws whichexlats theft via the inflation tax
    34. tell men they need to man up.

    lzozoozozo

    what aalalz am i mizssing here:???

    feel free to addodoon ti oit! lzozlzl zlzoz omg zlozlzlzozqosihuisg

    lozozozozoz

  205. I think that the guys who prefer video games and porn to relationships with women

    I don’t think many men prefer those things to relationships with women (I certainly didn’t, even when I resorted to them); many of them still have relationships with women when they can. It’s marriage 2.0 that they’re turning away from. When these women complain that they can’t find men, they don’t mean men won’t have sex and even relationships with them; they mean the men won’t commit to marriage. With marriage carrying no guarantee of sex — and in fact the common joke is that marriage is the antidote for sex — it’s not hard to see why.

  206. greyghost says:

    A lot of those guys just don’t know how to get a girl friend. Nobody really tells men how to meet and attract women. Those vidoe game types are truely nice guy types and don’t want to be offensive. That holds them back (removes their confidence to approach women) Also any advice they do recieve is the lie the church and the feminie imperative puts out in the first place. Women do not gina tingle for that. A defective man that doesn’t concern himself with that , the bad boy does what it takes and gets the gina tingle and the pussy.
    Doing what it takes to get a woman is not good for society in the long term.

  207. earl says:

    “Doing what it takes to get a woman is not good for society in the long term.”

    Men need to learn that getting a woman is a side effect of being masculine.

  208. Anonyous Reader says:

    AR
    I think this question is just silly. It is like saying “What if every man just did anything he wanted to do, regardless of law, custom or physics?” The word for this situation is “riot”, and riots don’t last.

    peoplegrowing
    I don’t see how you come to that conclusion. The question of “What is the FI?” comes down to “How would/do women structure society to their benefit?” Alternatively, “What is the MI?” is not “What if man just did anything he wanted to do…?” but “how would men structure society to their benefit?”

    This is not the question that was previously asked. Here is what you said before:

    So, the question is not, “How come men living the “MI” aren’t happy with it?” (because many women live the FI and are quite miserable in it) but merely, “What would the unrestrained MI look like if it were to replace the current, unrestrained FI?”

    “Unrestrained” means “without restraint” or “with no restraint” or “with no constraint” or “with no limit”. “What would the unrestrained MI look like?” is not at all the same question as “how would men structure society to their benefit?” as the latter question obviously implies many restraints, constraints, limits, etc.

    You suppose that the way the MI would turn out would be a riot, but many men here have supposed very differently. Without actually tallying up the different ideas, it seems to me most commenters suppose the MI would involve keeping a strict harem, and possessing the necessary resources to do so.

    I do not know why you assume most men are thinking that way, it seems more likely that there is support for strict monogamy on this site than strict harems. However, you don’t seem to grasp what an unrestrained pursuit of the strict harem would look like. It would look like your neighbor deciding he wants another wife, and your sister is the one he wants, and if you get in the way he kills you dead on the spot. Unless, of course, you kill him first. That kind of unstable situation can’t last. Either the toughest guy in the neighborhood succeeds in killing every man he encounters, and becomes “king of the block”, or he fails and gets killed, one way or another it cannot go on.

    This kind of silly, “Oh! What if all the men just ran around raping!” nonsense is the sort of feverish fear that the women stoke up for themselves, it has almost nothing to do with reality.

    Riot may be the final result of a real MI just as societal decline is the clear result of the FI, but that doesn’t mean that’s what the MI IS, just what it LEADS to – and no one has seriously pushed that the MI be instituted over the FI – just hypothesizing what that would look like.

    Four different pairing modes have been explicated: strict harem, strict monogamy, soft monogamy, soft harem. Two serve the male imperative in varying degrees, two serve the female imperative in varying ways. In the west, we live mostly in a soft monogamy environment with some soft harems visible to those who know what to look for. These things matter because while the grass-hut, subsistence farming culture can exist indefinitely under soft monogamy/soft harems, industrial society requires some number of people who are physically able and mentally alert and not emotional train wrecks, to function. The FI – ordered culture does not necessarily produce such people. The MI does. Thus the FI tends to degrade any society above the grass hut level, due to decline in competent, thinking, men. That’s us, folks, that’s our world we are discussing.

    That’s why it matters.

  209. mackPUA says:

    So …. this begs the question

    Why Is the masculine imperative immoral, while christianity … also known as the twatniaty, see’s the female imperative as moral?

    Who controls the morality?

    & more importantly wouldnt the masculiine imperative lead to a larger society, with more children, hence a more stable society?

    Instead of the shithole society we have today …. thanks to the centuries of monogamous parasite stayathome women, who refused to help the men dying in coal mines & slave labour, just to put food on the table …

    Seriously why bother with monogamy, when all it does is kill millions of men?

  210. Social Tags says:

    The masculine is the will to power. We want to act on the world in order to validate our own existence and self-esteem. The feminine is the will of seduction that seeks to entice the masculine into changing the world for the feminine will.

    Civilization is a social contract where the will of power and the will of seduction are organized into a hierarchy of dominance and submission. In traditional western society, the masculine will to power enters a bargain where it submits to “alphas” in the social world while retaining its dominant will to power over one’s woman and household. The feminine will to seduction enters a bargain where it submits to the will of one’s husband in exchange for provision for herself and her children.

    Because this traditional hierarchy of civilization is leveling and losing its hierarchy, the social contracts are coming apart. Individuals are coming apart. Symptoms of this include betas that go crazy in their will to power and start blowing shit up, betas seeking to validate their will to power by gaming and dominating women outside the institution of marriage and the family, women seeking to adopt the will to power rather than then will to seduction (and then wondering why they are so conflicted and confused when their biologically derived will to seduction conflicts with their ideologically trained will to power).

    So what does a masculine imperative look like? I would argue that we should argue for a masculine identify rooted in a civilized hierarchy of relations that fit our biological imperatives. The traditional Christian society is a masterpiece of the harmonization of the masculine and feminine in the family and social spheres. As such, the masculine imperative would be to be the heads of our households while retaining a proper social station of service and respect for authority within society.

  211. As time goes on, men will find a rebirth and renaissance in reading the Great Books and Classics lzozozozzlo

    As time goes on, men will find a rebirth and renaissance in reading the Great Books and Classics in their original languages, or in translations penned before 1950. For the bible I recommend the KJVB, or, if you must, the NKJVB. The Judeo-Christian tradition contains man’s greatest assets–his greatest myths–the very souls and spirits of his exalted fathers–their trials and tribulations–their exalted advice on women, marriage, justice, money, and life. Beside your bible, keep a copy of Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey and Socrates’ Apology, for you will find that they have far more in common than not.

    The Bible begins with Moses’ heroic, physical journey–liberating his people from the corrupt King. On the first page of the Iliad, Achilles rebels against his corrupt King. Both Moses and Achilles appeared to exalted Natural Law–of Zeus and Yahweh–and tough Mill and Locke would expound upon Natural Rights millennia later, Jefferson referenced not Mill and Locke, but our Creator in the Declaration of Independence. Indeed–liberty’s poet Thomas Jefferson wrote, “As we advance in life, they all fall off, one by one, until we are left with Virgil and Homer, and perhaps Homer alone.”

    So fellas, go forth and read Shakespeare and the Bible as the Men that You Are. Read Homer and Virgil. Exalt in your classical, Judeo-Christain Heritage, for it was paid for in blood, sweat, and tears, and then given freely, to you.

    And as Dalrock points out in the above video, understand that you will be attacked–often to the degree that you serve the spirit of Socrates and Jesus who internalized the external voyages of Moses and Achilles and blazed the hero’s journey of the spirit–understand that you will be attacked and persecuted by the false prophets, pedants, scribes, and pharisees–by the state officials who wash their hands while the feminist scribes author your crucifixion.

    And remember, that even Jesus lost faith at the end. After the chief scribes and pharisees persuaded the people to free the murderous sinner Barabbas and leave Jesus to die, in the same way they do today, Jesus asked, “My God, My God, why has thou foresaken me?”

    One can easily imagine the following playing out in our own time, with the controlling feminist’s/woman’s/corporation’s/university’s/mob’s preference for the perverse and sinful–for the debauched and degraded:

    27:20 But the chief priests and elders persuaded the multitude that they should ask Barabbas (the murderer/buttcocker), and destroy Jesus.
    27:21 The governor answered and said unto them, Whether of the twain will ye that I release unto you? They said, Barabbas.
    27:22 Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified.
    27:23 And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified.
    27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.
    27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
    27:26 Then released he Barabbas unto them: and when he had scourged Jesus, he delivered him to be crucified.
    27:27 Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into the common hall, and gathered unto him the whole band of soldiers.
    27:28 And they stripped him, and put on him a scarlet robe.
    27:29 And when they had platted a crown of thorns, they put it upon his head, and a reed in his right hand: and they bowed the knee before him, and mocked him, saying, Hail, King of the Jews!
    27:30 And they spit upon him, and took the reed, and smote him on the head.
    27:31 And after that they had mocked him, they took the robe off from him, and put his own raiment on him, and led him away to crucify him.
    27:32 And as they came out, they found a man of Cyrene, Simon by name: him they compelled to bear his cross.
    27:33 And when they were come unto a place called Golgotha, that is to say, a place of a skull,
    27:34 They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall: and when he had tasted thereof, he would not drink.
    27:35 And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.
    27:36 And sitting down they watched him there;
    27:37 And set up over his head his accusation written, THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
    27:38 Then were there two thieves crucified with him, one on the right hand, and another on the left.
    27:39 And they that passed by reviled him, wagging their heads,
    27:40 And saying, Thou that destroyest the temple, and buildest it in three days, save thyself. If thou be the Son of God, come down from the cross.
    27:41 Likewise also the chief priests mocking him, with the scribes and elders, said,
    27:42 He saved others; himself he cannot save. If he be the King of Israel, let him now come down from the cross, and we will believe him.
    27:43 He trusted in God; let him deliver him now, if he will have him: for he said, I am the Son of God.
    27:44 The thieves also, which were crucified with him, cast the same in his teeth.
    27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.
    27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

    Now think about that. Jesus Christ–the man who has single-handedly influenced and exalted Western Civilization and the World as no other, lost faith in God in his final moments.

    Aye, but let us explore one layer deeper, as we realize that “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” is but the beginning of the famous Psalm 22:1:

    22 My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me? why art thou so far from helping me, and from the words of my roaring?

    We don’t hear the rest, as Jesus has passed through the other side, but yet, we know what Jesus is saying, as we continue on in Psalm 23:

    23 The Lord is my shepherd; I shall not want.
    2 He maketh me to lie down in green pastures: he leadeth me beside the still waters.
    3 He restoreth my soul: he leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
    4 Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

    What this means Men, is that as long as you hold true to your ideals, the false prophets and apologists have no power over you, neither in life, nor death. For as Jesus, the King of Ideals stated, “My Kingdom is not of this world.”

    Thanks again to Dalrock and Heartiste for bringing those classical, exalted ideals to life with with and humor, day in and day out.

    “Better sleep with a sober cannibal than a drunken Christian.” -Herman Melvillelozozolzlzozolzozozozozzolozozolzozozozozozozo

  212. Bluedog says:

    Yesterday I got down to comment #91, I have to get to work so don’t have time to read the rest, I hope I’m not being redundant of anyone, but here goes …

    I’ve been thinking about this question for about a year, after reading Rollo on the FI at length. I’ve actually written a lot about it myself and if I do publish any of it, it will be at Bluedogtalking.com, which I’m still laboring to get up so not much there now.

    But here’s a stab.

    To start with the end – the answer is: look to the animal kingdom.

    The FI, carried out to its extreme with all impediments to its total control of a species, occurs in bees.

    The MI, carried out to its extreme with all impediments to its total control of a species, occurs in lions.

    But … to really “get it”, let’s talk a little theory first.

    First – to answer the question we should definitively define an Imperative as it is used for FI and MI.

    Here is my definition. The FI and MI are “genetic imperatives”. That is: they are emergent properties arising from the mass of behaviors, activities and transactions that results from behaviors that are themselves the result of genetic rule (heuristic) systems. The rule systems themselves are pure rule systems – they are unconscious. But the emergent property – the imperative, becomes a system in itself that acts upon and interacts with conscious agents such as you and me.

    So – FOR EXAMPLE – when you swipe your credit card at a card-reader in a grocery store. It executes a rule-based system. It will execute that system whether you swipe your driver’s license, an expired credit card or a good one. What happens when you swipe is it there is processing – possibly in a basement computer system in Iowa, that transacts money from your account, possibly in San Francisco, and from the merchant’s account, possibly in New York, and registers it all with the appropriate geographical Fed exchange.

    The RULE-BASED-SYSTEM interacted with you – and with loads of other people actually – all you did was swipe your card and walk out with your groceries.

    The FI is a genetic, heuristic rule-based system embedded in X chromosomes that is intended to preserve and pass on X chromosomes. It results in female attraction triggers, but also in larger-sweep female mating behaviors.

    Women don’t CHOOSE who or what they are attracted to. Their genes drive this based on rule-based programming. When all of those rules for female mate-selection come together on a mass-basis, you get the feminine imperative.

    Men also do not CHOOSE who or what they are attracted to. Men’s genes – we assume here Y chromosome – basically tell them to look for young, hot, tight, thin, right waist/hip, etc. Now – men are capable of IMPOSING our conscious agency – our will – on our mate choices, and I think most men do. Women are also, of course, capable of this. But men and women alike need to be asked and/or required by the culture to do this, otherwise we are left to blindly following the instructions of our genes.

    In any case, to best see an imperative at work – look for a species in nature where one or the other imperative has completely taken over.

    So in other words – in order to understand the debit-card system – ask what happens when you stripe the conscious-agent, the merchants and customers, out of the system. What is left? What remains is the heuristic, rule-based system which we can study in its own purity.

    To do this for the FI – that is clearly bees. In bees you see a “culture” where alpha-primacy has totally taken over. There CAN ONLY BE ONE. But the FI is so supreme with bees that men have been taken out of the picture. The ONE is the queen bee. All other bees exist to serve the genetic needs of the queen. Males PURELY exist as sex-drones. Literally nothing else at all. When a male mates with a queen, he quickly dies. When winter comes, if there are drones left over, they are pushed from the hive. Female worker bees are not allowed to reach sexual maturity. Everyone has a definitive place in the hive. Feminine Imperative.

    For the MI – lions. An alpha lion finds a lioness and adopts her into his harem. Alpha lions encounter each other, challenge each other – winner gets the harem, loser loses everything. The winner kills the losers cubs. Lion harems – “prides”, travel together and while they can grow pretty big (I’ve heard of prides with 30 females), they are still not totally dominating the way a bee colony is.

    Me personally – I believe that what we can do is call for a “human imperative”. The human imperative recognizes that we have these genetic rule based systems, but also recognizes that we have conscious agency. We can choose to be something more. We can choose to put the “human” ahead of “male” and “female”.

    But it would take some changes in culture. I appreciate that at Dalrock, it is mostly Christians here, but if we wish to build a human imperative together, we need to find a way to do this that isn’t inconsistent with Christian ethics (and it need not be), but which succeeds on its secular merits alone. The human imperative, to succeed, must be persuasive to Christians and non-Christians alike.

  213. greyghost says:

    Men left alone will create civil society like they already have. The MI is civilization and that includes making women comfortable and safe and secure. The female imperative is basically what we are enjoying now with all of its selfish childlike nature. Only women (defective men) think purely of whats in it for them. Even a woman using a man will not think of keeping the guy alive and well. Notice the college grad rate being 60% women and cheared on as girl power and the same women having a lack of hypergamy satisfaction later because there are not enough Mister Bigs to go around.

  214. greyghost says:

    Even before women voted men did make laws of responsibility and support to a wife. I don’t see women ever doing that. Look how they sceam and holler about making it illegal to kill a child.

  215. Bluedog says:

    To take me earlier comments as baseline and directly answer Dalrock’s question:

    A human MI society would be a society where the MI has totally dominated over the FI, so again I’d look to lions as a template for this. You would expect to see high concentrations of women around highly dominant “alpha” males, and you would expect to see men “in between” prides – either because they haven’t established a pride yet or because they got kicked out of one.

    The human nuance in this is that I think you would see both men who freely choose to not have prides, who “go their own way” as it were, as well as men who are between prides but wish strongly to have them. All in all, I would imagine this to be a fairly violent and dystopic society.

    Not asked but I’ll answer is: what would society look like if the FI became dominant? Arguably we have an FI that has been in ascendance, but if we look at bees I think the “bee kingdom” makes clear that we have a long way to go before total domination of FI over MI. Hypergamy in a total FI dominant society is one where hypergamy has turned inward on itself so that – men having been removed from the picture, women compete for the dominant position and there can only be one, and she becomes “queen” and her genetic legacy becomes THE imperative, with all other female genetic legacies giving way to hers. Male impositions of preference on the female phenotype are also probably stripped from the picture. All that matters is which female can dominate the others.

    Men are kept around as sex drones only and are disposable in the extreme. There are no “alpha” or “beta” males – just sex drones. Women in service to the dominant alpha female get a role dictated to them, but they do not get to pass on their genetic legacy.

    Bot the MI and the FI are dystopias. I suspect the FI is a more horrible one, but we are picking between worst of worsts here.

    Either way – good people – people with values and agency and who reject the unconscious amoral values of the gene – should bind together to try to create a cohesive Human Imperative and resist all of this.

  216. Bluedog says:

    Last addition:

    In both MI and FI I think you see stochastic limits placed on both prides and colonies. So – a single alpha male lion has a limit on how large his harem can be, so you have a variety of prides roaming and interacting. A single alphafemale queen has a limit on the size of her colony or hive – but this operates on a different set of economics as a lion. Organizational logic that is embedded in the hive allows for a meaningfully larger hive colony of 10-30 thousand bees, than is possible with a pride.

    One guesses that MI imposed on humans – you would see organizational hierarchies that set up concentrically around a large pride – so a strong alpha male starts to be like a gang leader or organized crime family head.

    With FI imposed on humans – I think it starts to look pretty sci-fi. Corporate, urban, defined, robotic – but highly organized.

    Back to distopias though – I think you are picking between gang-warfare and warlords on the MI side versus geographically limited but cosmopolitan, total-fascisms on the other. So – semi-random gang violence or industrialized violence. Take yer pick. If I had the choice I would choose neither.

  217. Cane Caldo says:

    @Bluedog

    A human MI society would be a society where the MI has totally dominated over the FI, so again I’d look to lions as a template for this. You would expect to see high concentrations of women around highly dominant “alpha” males, and you would expect to see men “in between” prides – either because they haven’t established a pride yet or because they got kicked out of one.

    The human nuance in this is that I think you would see both men who freely choose to not have prides, who “go their own way” as it were, as well as men who are between prides but wish strongly to have them. All in all, I would imagine this to be a fairly violent and dystopic society.

    You just described the complaints and realities of this society, and called it the Masculine Imperative.

    I’m not arguing; just highlighting.

  218. greyghost says:

    Cane Caldo
    When the feminie imperative is all you know as a blue pill type that discription is seen as masculine. It is just so plain and out in the open and yet completely hidden from view or comment. That is the innedr city matriarchy supported and carried by welfare guided by feminism as it’s cultural foundation. Defective men the thugs and bullies are most sexually desirable in a world of feminist women. And people think women were excluded from voting because of some hatred of women.

  219. Bluedog says:

    @Cane – in human society you have both MI and FI operating. It is two different rule systems, both unconscious, acting on one another.
    When the FI acts on the MI its seeks out alpha. When the MI acts on itself it seeks to be alpha.

    Strip men from the picture, i.e.: bees – and you have the FI acting on itself. It still seeks alpha, there just aren’t men to be alpha, so you get alphafemale instead. Plus – with no MI to interact and create many alpha male prides, there can only be one alpha.

  220. Bluedog says:

    To Cane’s point: I guess one shortcoming in my metaphor is that the MI dominant lion society isn’t equally MI dominant as bees are FI dominant. That’s a biologically imposed limit due to the fact that the uterus is a bottleneck in the system, so you wouldn’t expect to find an MI dominant society on the same level as is possible with an FI dominant one.

    The most you would expect is high-MI dominant, like lions, on the masculine side, versus total FI-dominant, like bees, on the female side.

    Just the same we best understand the system by looking at its pieces. When do FI rules do when the MI is completely removed from the picture – when it is utterly neutered? I think you get bees.

    The FI, on the other hand, can’t be totally neutered because if you neuter it, you don’t pass on genes. The furthest we see this going in nature is high MI dominance.

    Acting on a genetic level without human values – as befits my definition of an “imperative” here, the MI does have men trying to gain the most sexual access to females and the most exclusive sexual access at the expense of other males.

    Specifically to Cane’s observations – the issue is not the “masculine” or “feminine” imperative … it is the “imperative” … or as I put it, the “genetic imperative”.

    Genes, X and Y, are AMORAL. So as moral beings, when acted on amorally by unconscious genes carrying out their struggle to survive and carry on … we hurt.

    I would push back on anyone saying the solution is “masculine imperative”. It isn’t. It is human imperative, where we agree together to impose our conscious, moral agency, over all genetic imperatives, male or female.

  221. alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I’m repeating this, but a problem is that there is no masculine “imperative”. Maybe masculine nature or instinct, but empire isn’t a good word to sum it up.

  222. greyghost says:

    alcestiseshtemoa
    you are right, when made to think about it there really is none.

  223. Casey says:

    @ Dalrock

    Just noticed the following article……with which I’m sure you can make hay.

    http://www.theloop.ca/news/all/you-ask/article/-/a/2335725/Why-are-women-sluts-and-men-players-

    Enjoy your posts, and the knowledge I am not alone in my outrage at modern female behaviour.

    Casey

  224. Höllenhund says:

    Re: Cail

    “I’d alter that a bit to, “structure society to appease their whims.” Objectively, it would be hard to say the FI has benefited women. The divorced mother of three who puts her kids in day-care so she can go push papers all day while she wonders where all the good men is gone isn’t better off than her married mother in any way. ”

    You don’t get it, and the reason you don’t get it is that you aren’t putting yourself in her shoes. For the average woman, her nightmare is living with an average beta chump in marriage 1.0. It’s a bottomless pit of horror, as far as she’s concerned. She’d rather get abducted and raped by three hairy, obese computer programmer beta nerds. There’s only one fate worse than that: starving to death. If her only way of avoiding that is putting up with a beta in marriage 1.0, she’ll do it. Otherwise she’ll avoid it in any way she can.

  225. Frank says:

    alcestiseshtemoa says: These type of women have despicable double standards. A man should satisfy a 100 bullet point list (be high MMV and high SMV), but she can be ill-mannered, quite poor, dangerous, smell bad, be obese, bad facial features, display bad temperament (scream like a banshee) and so forth.

    I know who you had in mind when writing this too, and the problem is they keep getting rewarded for this behavior. Imagine acting like that and STILL being able to bag a husband. Where’s the incentive to stop? I fail to understand the mentality of any male, even the most dweeby omega pansy of them, who’d willfully marry such an odorous beast.

  226. The MASCULINE IMPERATIVE is HONOR.

    THE THUNDER OF MOSES
    THE SAMURAI CODE
    THE CODE OF CHIVALRY
    THE TEN COMMANDMENTS OF MOSES
    THE HONOR OF ACHILLES
    THE HONOR OF SOCRATES
    THE HONOR AND GLORY OF CHIRST
    THE LAW OF MOSES WHICH JESUS CAME TO FULFILL

    And so one can see why the Churchians DETEST MOSES, HOMER, AND JESUS.

    As they DETEST the masculine imperative.

  227. greyghost says:

    Frank
    The player and the PUA doing the lords work. That’s where that comes from. (not a way of life but a way to end the madness) (either that or a shooting war,take your pick) From there is where I get my comments and half jokes of Dalrock being a cultural leader. When men make the shift and hysteria and change comes someone needs to remember how to be civilized again. (blue pill churchianship isn’t cutting it any more) I hope all understand the evil of the churchian church trying to get duped christian men to marry sluts and baby mammas.

  228. Michael says:

    @ greyghost

    “Even a woman using a man will not think of keeping the guy alive and well.”

    -It comes down to an entitlement mentality. My neighbor, an engineer, awesome, great guy, nice guy was plunged into debt one year into his marriage by his hot wife. She is the typical hot 8 you would find with an ‘Alpha’. The only difference is, to her credit she was smart enough to marry a nice guy at 26 years old vs. waiting until 30’s.

    Here is the deal:

    She doesn’t have a job and spends his money. She deserves to go shopping everyday. She deserves to go to Whole Foods all organic groceries. She deserves to go on trips once every 2-3 months. If he doesn’t take her on a wine tasting excursions, sailing or Vegas weekends, she stomps her feet and will not stop talking about it until he gives in.

    She deserves a BMW. Not the used $30k model. The brand new $80k+ model. She deserves to host parties. She deserves to get an expensive dog that chews up all the leather furniture. She goes shopping then talks about how her day was “so busy” after he comes home exhausted. The guy is working overtime to pay minimums on credit cards. Hot wife continues to spend. Everything she is doing goes against the marriage. I feel like she knows what she is doing. She is hot but she is a hottie that does not age well. If that makes sense.

    “Notice the college grad rate being 60% women and cheared on as girl power and the same women having a lack of hypergamy satisfaction later because there are not enough Mister Bigs to go around.”

    Yes and you know what’s interesting? Women college graduates outnumber men but MOST of their degrees are in worthless areas like Psychology, Human Growth and Development, Sociology, Nutrition etc.

  229. Social Tags says:

    GBFM — on Jesus’ recitation of Psalm 22 on the cross:

    Jesus had to experience the despair of man’s separation with God in order to fully experience what it is like to be human in a fallen world. In that way, we can know that God understands and loves us even when we feel God is absent and we are cut-off. He has shared that experience.

    By the way, I appreciate your role as the resident Shakespearean fool of the internet. Masterfully done.

  230. Social Tags says:

    Falstaff – Henry IV part 1

    “Well, it doesn’t matter: honor spurs me on. Yeah, but what if honor spurs me off once I’m on, and picks me out to die? What happens then? Can honor set a broken leg? No. Or an arm? No. Can it make a wound stop hurting? No. Honor can’t perform surgery, then? No. What is honor? A word. What is in that word, “honor?” What is that “honor?” Air. Quite a bargain! Who has it? A guy who died last Wednesday. Does he feel it? No. Does he hear it? No. It can’t be detected, then? Right—not by the dead, anyway. But won’t it live with the living? No. Why? Slander won’t allow it. That’s why I don’t want any part of it. Honor is nothing more than a gravestone, and that concludes my catechism.”

  231. GBFM,

    I prefer the venerable Douay-Rheims Bible. The Sacred Scriptures translated into Elizabethan English without the Protestant editing lzzolozolzozzolozozololz

    Dalrock said that neither the FI nor the MI represent true sexual morality. What is it then? Between men, honor. Toward women, relaxed old school chauvinism.

  232. whatever says:

    It would be nice if any of these retarded MI examples involved negative things for women.

    I liked the one where men had no obligations to women or their children. Now that is legit.

  233. Sexual Marxist says:

    @ Michael Singer says
    ”I agree with you that there is much more to attractiveness than just looks.
    That’s a whole other conversation.”
    “I agree, however, this is the crux since the American woman value is based upon her fading looks, education, and supposed accomplishments that are useless for the makings of a wife / mother.”

    Education is very important for motherhood. In this country the demographic with the lowest divorce rate is the university degreed upper middle class. Their kids grow up the healthiest and do well for themselves. Women with out or just a high school degree are the ones with the highest out of wedlock birthrate, poverty and child abuse issues as reported by CPS and police records.

  234. Sexual Marxist says:

    “African societies are matriarchal (soft egalitarian?).”

    Which African societies? There are literally hundreds, if not thousands of them.
    The immigrants and students from the Continent I hang with all come from in tact families with strong fathers and grandfathers. They are shocked by America’s lack of family values.
    They are not all from the same countries. They are not all upper middle class.

  235. Bluedog says:

    When you transact with a merchant there are two conscious agents: the customer and the agent. There are any number of rule-based unconscious systems that may or may not interact. Your credit card with its magnetic strip and the information on it. The account that references. The exchange managing the transactions, the one or two banks involved, ACH, the Fed.

    When humans engage in mating behavior, there are conscious, male and female agents involved, exercising their forebrains, making choices, governed by the priorities and values. If there is any “imperative” involved with that at all, that is a human imperative.

    Meanwhile there are at least two genetic “imperatives” – rule-based, unconscious systems, acting on the conscious agents – not unlike the debit-card system acts upon the merchant and customer – and involving itself unconsciously in their otherwise conscious affair.

    The Y chromosome and the instructions it carries do not CARE about their effect on the feelings or life outcomes of the corresponding XX-chromosome holder – the Y chromosome is no more aware of the XX-chromosome holder than the ATM card is aware of the account it references or the reader that reads it or of the ACH. The X chromosome, or double-X for that matter, does not CARE about their effect on the feelings or life outcomes of the corresponding Y-chromosome holder.

    Both are unconscious agents operating in the affairs of two conscious decision makers.

    When you take the sum-total of all of the actions of the XX chromosomes acting in society, on people, that is an emergent property – an “imperative” – rule-based, unconscious, but existing to propagate itself.

    Ditto, when you take the sum-total of all of the actions of the XY chromosomes acting in society, on people, that is an emergent property – an “imperative”.

    Calling the “masculine imperative” “honor” or whatever is imposing your personal values on a genetic system.

    Your values come from your agency. The genetics that give rise to an emergent property “imperative” acting in society have no values. No “thunder of Moses”, not “Samurai code”, no “chivalry” … nothing.

    Genetic imperatives, male and female, propagate. End of story.

    The point at which we intervene and say “Oh my God, I got out to my car and saw there was this box of wine in the bottom of the basket that you didn’t charge me for and I’m bringing it back to pay for it or return it” … is the point at which you intervene with human values … or the point at which you say, “you know – I’m sorry how you got treated by that clerk I need to fire, this one is on the house” … human agency, values.

    The “imperatives” only make sense if you strip them down to their bare, unconscious, genetic, heuristic essence.

  236. Bluedog says:

    “When you transact with a merchant there are two conscious agents: the customer and the agent” … meant to say “When you transact with a merchant there are two conscious agents: the customer and the merchant”.

  237. Asher says:

    @ deti

    Masculine imperative:

    Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible.

    By the way: I’m not saying this is sexually moral. It is, however, what every man wants.

    It is not what every man *wants*. It’s what almost all men are biologically programmed to do. I have no desire to want unlimited sex with an unlimited array of women, and that is because of my upbringing.

  238. Thanks Social Tags,

    you write, “Social Tags says:
    May 3, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    GBFM — on Jesus’ recitation of Psalm 22 on the cross:

    Jesus had to experience the despair of man’s separation with God in order to fully experience what it is like to be human in a fallen world. In that way, we can know that God understands and loves us even when we feel God is absent and we are cut-off. He has shared that experience.

    By the way, I appreciate your role as the resident Shakespearean fool of the internet. Masterfully done.”

    Jesus was referred to as both “Son of God” and “Son of Man.” He was both.

    I understand many churchians here hate Thomas Jefferson, Homer, Moses, the Bible, and Freedom, but I enjoy Jefferson’s take on Christianity.

  239. Pingback: She was used! | Dalrock

  240. A Northern Observer says:

    @Asher – agree, I feel the “pull” too.

    Being an adult male, it’s something that’s always “there”, and I live with it with it all the time. Just because it’s there doesn’t mean I desire to actually follow through with “as many different women as possible.” Such behavior would hurt both myself and these “many women”, and hurting others just so I can feel gratified isn’t a hit I’m willing to take to my faith or my self-respect.

    God made humanity to work a certain way, and there are consequences to going against that design. And so I live with it. And I’m fine with that.

  241. Sexual Marxist says:

    Masculine imperative:

    Unlimited access to unlimited sex with as many different attractive women as possible.

    By the way: I’m not saying this is sexually moral. It is, however, what every man wants.

    “It is not what every man *wants*. It’s what almost all men are biologically programmed to do. I have no desire to want unlimited sex with an unlimited array of women, and that is because of my upbringing.”

    Not even in the animal kingdom to see unlimited sex with unlimited partners.

  242. You don’t get it, and the reason you don’t get it is that you aren’t putting yourself in her shoes.

    I get it fine, but I wasn’t talking about how she feels in that paragraph; I was talking about the objective truth of whether she’s better off thanks to the dominance of the FI. She thinks she is, because, as you said, her worst nightmare is to live in a nice little house and iron shirts for a guy who doesn’t turn her on, as she’s been taught all women were forced to do until 1965. But she’s not really better off, which she starts to realize at age 40, give-or-take 5 years — though she still can’t put her finger on why, since she’s always defined her “freedom” as an unquestionable good.

  243. Novaseeker says:

    The “imperatives” only make sense if you strip them down to their bare, unconscious, genetic, heuristic essence.

    Interesting posts.

    Rollo’s idea (he was the first to use the phrase, I think) is that it isn’t the genetic-based component of people’s individual motivations, but rather the construction of social, cultural, societal, legal, etc. norms, mores and rules concerning the interactions between the sexes, around the interests of one or the other sex to one degree or other. Hence not individual motives per se, but the social grease that tilts in favor of the female sex. Steve Moxon noted something much the same in his book “The Woman Racket”, but he didn’t use the phrase.

  244. I’m repeating this, but a problem is that there is no masculine “imperative”. Maybe masculine nature or instinct, but empire isn’t a good word to sum it up.

    Imperare — to impose, command, requisition, give orders. It doesn’t just mean empire. So “masculine imperative” simply means “men imposing their own rules.” I don’t know if that means there is no such thing, or if that’s the way the civilized world was throughout all of recorded history until the 1960s. We could sit around and theorize about what men would do if they made the rules — taxpayer-funded prostitution, perhaps? — or we could just look at history and see what men did when they ruled. For the most part, I think they did pretty well.

    One difference between the MI and FI is that men (at least until recently) haven’t held any grudge against women. Most men actually like women a lot, so when men made the rules, many of the rules were designed to keep women safe and make life nicer for them. Feminism, on the other hand, has always had a strong element of payback in it. So when women (or sycophantic feminist men trying to do their bidding) started making the rules to serve the whims of women, some of those whims involved punishing men. Also, because men do most of the producing, men could fund their own imperatives. Women can’t, so they necessarily must rob men to do so.

  245. Sexual Marxist says:

    How about an HI – HUMAN IMPERATIVE?

  246. Anonymous Reader says:

    Sexual Marxist, what would that HI look like? Equalitarian, perhaps?

    Cail Corishev

    One difference between the MI and FI is that men (at least until recently) haven’t held any grudge against women. Most men actually like women a lot, so when men made the rules, many of the rules were designed to keep women safe and make life nicer for them. Feminism, on the other hand, has always had a strong element of payback in it. So when women (or sycophantic feminist men trying to do their bidding) started making the rules to serve the whims of women, some of those whims involved punishing men.

    Yes. And many men, having learned through painful experience, will not forget the lessons that women have taught about “trust”, and what happens to men foolish enough to extend trust to women.

  247. Sexual Marxist says:

    This guy pretty much sums up the feminine imperative;

  248. @ Cail:

    I’d alter that a bit to, “structure society to appease their whims.” Objectively, it would be hard to say the FI has benefited women.

    You’re absolutely right. Thank you for rewording that for me to be more reflective of the truth. ^-^

    @ Anonyous Reader – May 3, 2013 at 10:06 am

    I did change my tack there, didn’t I? My apologies; it was not my intention to be disingenous. Still, you mentioned:

    Without actually tallying up the different ideas, it seems to me most commenters suppose the MI would involve keeping a strict harem, and possessing the necessary resources to do so.

    I do not know why you assume most men are thinking that way, it seems more likely that there is support for strict monogamy on this site than strict harems.

    I do think there is more SUPPORT for strict monogamy, in realistic terms, but strict harem (at the time I originially posted) seemed to be the most highly proposed vision for MI. Not that the commenters “supported” that, just that it seemed to be the most suggested for what a MI would look like – and, in fact, since there has been more conversation, a few more ideas have come up which seem to make more sense and have supporters (as an idea for MI, not as a realistic way to structure society) as well. Anyhow, sorry for not being more clear.

  249. Sexual Marxist says:

    “We always wanted women to make sex easier to get. We just didn’t expect that they would. Be careful what you ask for, you just might get it.”

  250. Anonymous age 71 says:

    @imnobody says: May 2, 2013 at 11:52 am

    One of my favorite books is: MYTH OF THE NEGRO PAST, printed sometime in the 40’s. I used to read it when we visited my wife’s (black) foster mother.

    It seems many years ago a group of researchers wanted to know how badly the African blacks treated their women. So, they sent a messenger to a tribe, and asked to be notified when the PLANTING was to be done.

    The men worked for weeks at heavy manual labor, chopping down trees, and rooting up the stumps. Once the land was prepared, the messenger was sent to the researchers, who came and saw the women all working, planting and covering seeds, and other light work, while the men sat around and rested. The idiot researchers then reported tribal men did nothing, while the women did all the work. Proving that blacks were less than fully human.

    Enough already.

  251. Asher says:

    @ Anonymous

    I am a race realist but I have long held that it is proximity to white civilization that is a significant cause of African misbehavior in the modern world.

  252. Hey Beefy–which parts did the Protestants edit out?

    “I prefer the venerable Douay-Rheims Bible. The Sacred Scriptures translated into Elizabethan English without the Protestant editing lzzolozolzozzolozozololz”

    lzozozozozoz :)

  253. When Dalrock asks what the masculine imperative is, I am surprised that nobody answered Christ, nor Moses?

    Were Christ and Moses not men?

    What about Aritsotle, Plato, JEfferson, and Homer?

    Why are men forsaking the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN? Have they all been bernkaaiidikfied bernanaidifieidk? lzozlzlzlzl

  254. Sexual Marxist says:

    “I am a race realist but I have long held that it is proximity to white civilization that is a significant cause of African misbehavior in the modern world.”

    Enjoy the decline. Its wherever whitey goes. Joking. Kind of. There’s a reason why all the parents of the international girls I dated in college didn’t want them dating me. There’s a reason why not everyone is thrilled when white western tourists rolled through the hills and villages I backpacked through from age 22-28.

  255. Hey Beefy–which parts did the Protestants edit out?

    I would have thought “Great Books for Men” would know the answer to that already. Martin Luther removed seven books and parts of two others from the Septuagint — the Old Testament as codified by Jews in 280 BC, used by the Catholic Church since the first century, and reaffirmed as canon over the years by the Councils of Hippo, Carthage, and finally Trent. They are included in the version found in the Dead Sea Scrolls dating to 160 AD or earlier, and some are quoted in the New Testament. I won’t say why Luther removed them; you can look it up if you’re interested.

    Early Church Fathers such as St. Cyril and St. Athanasius also debated whether those seven books should be considered primary or secondary (deuterocanonical), though they all agreed that they belonged in Scripture on some level and should be read by Christians. Ultimately they decided to include them where they fit in with the other books.

  256. Sexual Marxist says:

    Is he a white knight or balanced?

  257. I thought Beefy was stating that the KJV edited out parts of the Gospels. IT doesn’t. Does it?

    When manning up and reading Homer:

    “yes read three transalations at least

    start with Lombardo
    then Fagles
    then Fitzgerald

    then Pope
    and Butler

    and CHAPMAN

    John Keats. 1795–1821

    634. On first looking into Chapman’s Homer

    MUCH have I travell’d in the realms of gold,
    And many goodly states and kingdoms seen;
    Round many western islands have I been
    Which bards in fealty to Apollo hold.
    Oft of one wide expanse had I been told 5
    That deep-brow’d Homer ruled as his demesne:
    Yet did I never breathe its pure serene
    Till I heard Chapman speak out loud and bold:
    Then felt I like some watcher of the skies
    When a new planet swims into his ken; 10
    Or like stout Cortez, when with eagle eyes
    He stared at the Pacific—and all his men
    Look’d at each other with a wild surmise—
    Silent, upon a peak in Darien.”

  258. Luke says:

    greyghost says:
    May 3, 2013 at 9:44 am

    “A lot of those guys just don’t know how to get a girl friend. Nobody really tells men how to meet and attract women.:

    A) The “how” is to be at least 6’2″, very fit, young-Brad Pitt handsome, millionaire wealthy, in the correct 4-year age span, exotic in some way, and either powerful (think Senator or Fortune 500 CEO) or at least nationally famous.

    B) The way in this society for a man who is a “6” to meet “6” women, when the latter are all holding out for a “9” or “10” (at least before she hits the wall so hard she become a sub “4” from age-related ugly and infertility? No one knows that.

    Very, very apt cartoon:

  259. Pingback: What Are We Doing Here? | Things that We have Heard and Known

  260. The Masculine Imperative
    is NOT defined
    by how many chcix
    you buttehxt nor ginasexth
    nor is it defined by how big your churchian church is
    nor is it defined by
    how buff or big you are
    but it has EVER BEEN DEFINED
    by the HONOR OF YOUR SOUL

    how strange that on a Christian Blog for MEN
    nobody points out
    that the MASCULINE IMPERATIVE
    is defined by
    JESUS, MOSES
    HOMER, VIRGIL
    DANTE

    but rather so many of ye define it as sex and butethxtzzlzlzlozozlzoz
    like the fatherless berneakified fabnboyz they made you into zlzozzlozzz

    The Masculine Imperative is not to be confused with the
    MAstshcucuccline Buttehxtual IMeperthahive

    The Masculine Imperative is THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ

    Many churchians here have raged and seethed here against the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Well, I would like to invite you to RAGE AND SEETHE against Homer, Honor, Moses, and Jesus here:

    http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/05/04/honor-your-fathers-honor-the-great-books-for-men-read-the-great-books/

    Ye can show the world why it is that the West and the Church are declining, and why your future potential wives have been desouled and buttcockedz zlozzolzlozzo. Come one, come all ye Chruchians, and sentence Socrates to death all over again, as yer Fathers did back then.

    29 Woe unto you, scribes, Churchians, and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous,
    30 And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
    31 Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets.
    32 Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.
    33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
    34 Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:

    The renaissance hath begun.

    As Athena called Telemachus to adventure–to sail forth and learn the news of His True Father Odysseus, so too does GBFM call upon ye to man up, sail forth, and learn the news of your true Fathers.

    Like Hamlet you came of age in a world where your father–THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN–had been murdered. Where they had been debauched, debased, bernenekfified out of the fiat-debt curriculum. And just as Hamlet’s Father called upon Him to Avenge his Death and Set the World Right, so too do I call upon all of ye buton-mashing gamersz and manboob betasz churchians to Man Up and Honor Your True Fathers.

    Like Odysseus’s son Telemachus you came of age in a house occupied by false suitors trying to buttehxt your mom Penelope alongside your future wife, deosuling her faster than Bill Bennett can gamble away a million dollars in Vegas. You came of age in a home absent of your true Father–Odysseus and THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Like Telemachus and Hamlet, you were born to know of your Fathers and do the work of your Fathers, as did Jesus. And like Jesus, you were born into a fallen world occupied by arrogant neeoconth Scribes and Pharisees, lorded over by intellectually-indifferent Pontius Pilates, ruled by mobs (and female prison wardensz lzozlz) who vote to set the murderer free, while sending Jesus to die upon the Cross.

    But all of that was then, and This is Now.

    Do not fail to Honor your Fathers by neglecting to live for the Classical, Epic Honor that so many of them not only Lived for, but Died For.

    Do not turn away from the vast Gifts they bequeathed you with–THE GREAT BOOKS AND CLASSICS.

    Begin today, begin today, all ye fanboyz mashing buttonz in your single-mom’s basements, all you PUA artsitsz trying to get your occkas wet in sterile bungholez and sterilized ginaholez made sterile by the fed’s before and morning after pillz. Begin today, all my fatherless, ritalin-addicted, gold-farming sons and READ the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Learn of the HONOR of your FATHERS form Achilles and Moses on down. The tiny-cckcoaaks white-knighting Churchians will scowl and stamp their feet and scream at you that Jesus cam to Abolish the Law, while Jesus himself stated that He came to Fulfill it.

    When you were a child ye partook in childish things–in mashing buttons in your meaningless videogamez.

    But now that you are a Man, it is time to Man Up, which does not mean marrying a babebrnekified beenrnakified butethxted, desouled, single monz, but reading THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN.

    Begin today my firendz. BEGIINZ TODAYZ.

    I propose that a renaissance in the Great Books and Classics is needed so as to re-instill a more traditional Code of Honor which will enrich the lives of men, women, and children, and liberate us all from the debt-financed debauchery, deconstruction, and debasement.

    All men should begin immediately by reading the following books which the central bankers and their fellow churchians hate, fear, and detest:

    0. THE BIBLE
    1. Homer’s Iliad
    2. Homer’s Odyssey
    3. Exodus & Ecclesiastes & The Psalms
    4. Virgil’s Aeneid
    5. Socrates’ Apology
    6. The Book of Matthew & Jefferson’s Bible
    7. Plato’s Repulic
    8. Seneca’s Letters from a Stoic
    9. Aristotle’s Poetics
    10. Dante’s Inferno
    11. The Declaration of Independence
    12. The Constitution
    13. John Milton’s Paradise Lost
    14. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    15. Newton’s Principia
    16. Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments
    17. Henry David Thoreau’s Walden
    18. Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn (& all of his work)
    19. Shakespeare’s Hamlet
    20. Ludwig von Mises’ A Theory of Money and Credit
    21. F.A. Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom
    22. Herman Melville’s Moby Dick
    23. Einstein’s The Meaning of Relativity
    24. Joseph Campbell’s The Hero With a Thousand Faces and The Power of Myth
    25. Ron Paul’s Revolution & End the Fed
    26. THE BIBLE

    And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.

  261. @ Sexual Marxist. “Education is very important for motherhood. In this country the demographic with the lowest divorce rate is the university degreed upper middle class. Their kids grow up the healthiest and do well for themselves. Women with out or just a high school degree are the ones with the highest out of wedlock birthrate, poverty and child abuse issues as reported by CPS and police records.”

    Allow me to point out some observations.
    – Women made it through centuries without higher education – This cannot be denied.
    – The higher education of women has contributed NOTHING to the increased moral values of the majority of women. IMO, all it has done is create a vast number of educated sluts in which is glamorized by the media – This cannot be denied.

    Could you please explain to me how the hypersexualization of young women via higher education and opportunity has benefitted society or even the family ? Btw, the last time I checked the birds & bees / values/ morals should be discussed / demonstrated by the father /mother and not the the education system.

    I liken it the allegorical Garden of Eden – the education of Eve of eating the fruit of the “knowledge of good & evil to make one wise ” worked against and all parties involved.
    The education of women has contributed nothing or as Gibbons stated “giving a women a voice in the senate” was one of the major downfalls of Rome. Allow me to suggest, the same is true today as history repeats itself again, again, again, and again.

  262. But it would take some changes in culture. I appreciate that at Dalrock, it is mostly Christians here, but if we wish to build a human imperative together, we need to find a way to do this that isn’t inconsistent with Christian ethics (and it need not be), but which succeeds on its secular merits alone. The human imperative, to succeed, must be persuasive to Christians and non-Christians alike.

    There is a traffic jam above the fray.

  263. Kaehu says:

    When reading Bible translations, stay away from the New Revised Standard Version (“NRSV””) and the The New International Version (“TNIV”). Both are intentional mistranslations of Scripture to feminize it. One of the passages of the NRSV that irritates me the most is the rewriting of the Massacre of the Innocents to state that Herod killed both boys and girls, when it is obvious, both from the gender used in the original and using commons sense, that Herod would have only killed the boys since he was trying to eliminate the new King that the Magi had traveled to see.

  264. Perspective says:

    @deti

    “The only moral way to address the imperative is to marry. So what he bargains for is unlimited access to sex with one woman who he wants to be as attractive as possible. Regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry. If a wife said to her husband before marriage that she wouldn’t guarantee sex, he would not marry her.”

    So this may seem naive to ask, but really? “regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry?” I mean, I knew that sex was a major factor as to why men marry, but I didn’t think it was the “only” reason they did so. Again, this may sound naive, but what about for love? Or even to have children?

  265. Ton says:

    Lol, for love LOL. Your girl is more in love with you, more attentive, more caring, more loving etc before you marrying her. Loving being the con game she is playing on the man (and with herself). Women only have the tingles, the more tingles the more loving and marriage is where the tingles stop and the attempts at changing you began

    Most men are not fired up to have kids.

  266. Perspective says:

    @Ton
    “Lol, for love LOL. Your girl is more in love with you, more attentive, more caring, more loving etc before you marrying her. Loving being the con game she is playing on the man (and with herself). Women only have the tingles, the more tingles the more loving and marriage is where the tingles stop and the attempts at changing you began

    I guess if that’s your opinion or what you’ve observed then I can see why you’d think that. But what about the married people who’ve had lasting marriages and are happy? I would think (or at least hope) love played a factor in it. If not that, then what?

    “Most men are not fired up to have kids.”

    Maybe not, but a lot of men, on here at least,seem to want to have them at some point if they’ve not already.

  267. Ton says:

    The tingles kept the marriage going and I personally only know 2 married men who are actually happy with their marriage. Many men will say they are happy, but I don’t see it being played out. They don’t rush home for example

  268. Social Tags says:

    Jesus Christ is the Ideal of all men, just as Mary is the Ideal for all women. They unify perfectly our biological and spiritual imperatives. Society is only good in so far as it harmonizes with those ideal biological and spiritual imperatives.

  269. Social Tags says:

    Hey Ton. I am a happily married man. I do actually enjoy being at home. It is nice to go back to work on Monday sometimes, just because as a father and husband I am constantly in the service of others while at home, and at work I get a little time for silence and reflection. But by the end of the work day, I enjoy going back home to be with my wife and kids.

  270. Social Tags says:

    GBFM — what’s up with Mises, Hayak, and Ron Paul being in your list? They are not consensus A list authors.

  271. mackPUA says:

    Geryghost sums up the masculine imperative brilliantly …

    Men left alone will create civil society like they already have. The MI is civilization and that includes making women comfortable and safe and secure. The female imperative is basically what we are enjoying now with all of its selfish childlike nature. Only women (defective men) think purely of whats in it for them. Even a woman using a man will not think of keeping the guy alive and well. Notice the college grad rate being 60% women and cheared on as girl power and the same women having a lack of hypergamy satisfaction later because there are not enough Mister Bigs to go around.”

    “Even before women voted men did make laws of responsibility and support to a wife. I don’t see women ever doing that. Look how they sceam and holler about making it illegal to kill a child.”

  272. Z. says:

    @ Sexual Marxist.
    “Education is very important for motherhood. In this country the demographic with the lowest divorce rate is the university degreed upper middle class. Their kids grow up the healthiest and do well for themselves. Women with out or just a high school degree are the ones with the highest out of wedlock birthrate, poverty and child abuse issues as reported by CPS and police records.”

    @ Michael Singer.
    “Allow me to point out some observations.
    – Women made it through centuries without higher education – This cannot be denied.
    – The higher education of women has contributed NOTHING to the increased moral values of the majority of women. IMO, all it has done is create a vast number of educated sluts in which is glamorized by the media – This cannot be denied.”

    This wasn’t directed at me but I’m going to add my 2 cents. Higher education itself may not be what is keeping this particular demographic married and having progeny within the context of a very well planned out marriage, home and family life. However it is a modern PROXY for the values and characteristics that have always kept the very same demographic from divorce, out of wedlock child birth, and other dysfunctional human behaviors that signal low future time orientation.

    In by gone ages the women (or men) of this particular demographic may not have had their parents paying out of their bazookas for a high falutin’ elite education, HOWEVER, they would be engaging in the activities that for their era and environment would indeed signal intelligence and future time orientation.

    Let me explain further. A successful academic record and a completion of a degree, and especially multiple degrees, requires self restraint, self discipline, ability to organize time, an ability to put off immediate gratification for long term gains, goal setting abilities, and other qualities of high character.

    People are impressed with multiple degree holders because of the focus, discipline and hard work they envision to be involved in obtaining that degree. Its a proxy for those qualities and it signals resilience of character.

    @ Marc Singer.
    “Could you please explain to me how the hypersexualization of young women via higher education and opportunity has benefitted society or even the family ?”

    Higher education didn’t bring hypersexualization into our society. The Media did.

  273. lzozoozozoz

    hey dalrocksz i wrote da great hearstsietz a peomz aand thought i woudl share it with youz zlzlooozz

    i will also wriete you a apeomenz peortery soon too!!

    zlzozozozozo

    yo yo yo drop me a beat heartiste
    yo yo yo
    da butthurt hatersz gonna hate
    hate da heartiste so great
    dey have a bernankifed womenz in their fate
    but for now dey just masterbate
    da hatersz gonna hate
    though heartiste didn’t fill their plate
    the table was set by feminist freight
    who make you wait while they gain weight
    make you wait for what they gave 4 free
    when they were younger hotter tighter
    and now you have got to pay a fee
    for what da gbfm got 4 free when it was 50 pounds lighter
    da butthurt hatersz gonna hate
    homer shakespeare moses and jesus
    to please their churchian elders oh so great
    who deconstructed the honor of zeus
    da haterz gonna hatez
    when you demand what your forefatherz had
    a virginal wife who don’t need butthext to sate
    who won’t seize your kids when u become a dad
    a woman who wasn’t buttehxted bernankiifed in college
    a woman who don’t hate GBFM knowledge
    women who weren’t taught to seize your assets
    after dey bernankified them in their asses
    da little hatersz gonna hate
    as their single mommies taught them to do
    hate is the primary butthurt beta schlub’s trait
    as his mommy was desouled through her hole for poo.
    she was bernankifed in college
    so the beenrnkae state could tell her what to do
    divorced & exiled your FATHER’s gbfm knowledge
    dates a biker who serves her hole for poo.
    yes da fanboy butthurt haterz gonna hate
    hate heartistez for opening their eyesz
    with the truth that sets us free so great
    but da butthurtz haterz perfer da butthext Matrix’s liez

    lzoozlzoozozlzoz

    da hatersz gonna hate the Truth
    but time and rhyme doth offer proof
    you don’t need to be no supersleuth
    but just watch the magician heartiste go poof
    da fed central banks always play both sides
    crushing the nice beta guy in the middle
    funding both porn and feminist alpha cock rides
    then the beta they collectively diddle
    blaming the nice beta guy for their sore buttholes
    announcing they’re entitled to the beta’s taxes
    he never got his cockas in any of her holes
    and poetic the white night beta waxes
    as the women run around with felons
    and rhianna runs on back to chris brown
    ruled by butt and gina tingle turn ons
    in da gina juices civivilzation doth drown
    then they accuse the beta of sexual harrassment
    for simply asking a single mom on a date
    as she and bernaneke grow the government
    she banged an alpha last month, now she’s late
    and they fund all the white knight manginas
    who blame all of mankind from the TED stage
    as the technocrats never, ever pause
    in their leveling assault on Achilles’ NOBLE RAGE.
    as they deconstruct and outlaw manhood
    and laud and applaud every manboob
    as the fed must convert its fiat debt into property
    sending fmeinists forth to seize beta pay
    promsing womenz all the buttcockng they want
    before during and after marriage
    the fed’s wealth transfer from betas they front
    as men from ebernakes law shools they disparage
    lzozolozlololozolzozzlozlzlzoz

  274. hurting says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-a-masculine-imperative-would-look-like/#comment-81823

    This accurately describes it.

    I suspect that to some extent it’s alwasy been this way, but in the age of Marriage 2.0 and all that comes with it, women simpy can be far choosier (to a point).

    Even average men (e.g., not hideously deformed or morbidly obese) are literally invisible to women. Yet even average women can, and do, garner tons of attention from men, yet these women don’t even recognize. They’ve grown to adulthood knowing nothing but supplication and servitude from men, so that can’t perceive the word in the same way men do. It’s a bit like living in south Florida all of your life and then moving to Alasksa – you just find it hard to ever get used to the cold.

  275. mackPUA says:

    Michael Singer. “- Women made it through centuries without higher education – This cannot be denied.”

    You dont need to goto college to get a higher education …

    Home schooling was the norm, along with apprentices & access to hundreds of mentors through the family businesses the families ran

    This whole feminist bullshit about women not having access to education is totally wrong

    Women had plenty of access & opportunity to education, in fact women back then were probably more intelligent, as the literacy rates in the 1800’s was around 80%

    Corporations bastardised & ruined family businesses on a massive scale

    It was corporations who destroyed womens education

    Destroy family business’s & you destroy womens access to education

    THAT’S where the decline of women began …

    Basically women became hypersexual & feral, precisely because of a lack of womens preferred form of education … home schooling & the mentorship of large nuclear families

    Women thrive in close knit social structures

    Unless women get back to creating large nuclear families, women will continue to grow more feral & hypersexual

    A womans preferred form of education is through a large family

    Going to a school or a university outside of the family is masculine

    Women become highly dysfunctional & devolve when they go outside the social structures created by their nuclear families

  276. hurting says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/05/02/what-a-masculine-imperative-would-look-like/#comment-81916

    Cail,

    Again, spot on. Most married men would happily undertake any of trappings of marriage if they were just getting regular action from their wives. The problem is the horrific imbalance of power in modern America in domestic relations courts – what he’s he going to do if he’s not getting it? Even registering a complaint is likely to get him subjected to the divorce meat grinder.

  277. Buck says:

    Perspective says:
    May 5, 2013 at 7:01 pm
    @ “So this may seem naive to ask, but really? “regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry?” I mean, I knew that sex was a major factor as to why men marry, but I didn’t think it was the “only” reason they did so. Again, this may sound naive, but what about for love? Or even to have children?”

    Deti is correct!
    Regular sex in the only reason we put a ring on her!
    I would love to see a scientific survey on this question, something anonymous, double blind, whatever. When a few beers are tossed back and guys are being honest, the reasons they got married are:
    1) I knocked her up and had to.
    2) Regular sex.
    3) She has money/political connection.

    The reasons they are still married…
    1) cheaper to keep her
    2) they’re used to the arrangement
    3) they love the kids too much to leave

    I really do think my father would be lost without my sainted mum, but that is the only case I’m aware of, and that’s a previous generation…wed in 1955.
    Almost every guy I know born after 1955 look on their marriage as the worst decision of their life.

  278. Gilgamesh says:

    I really don’t think marriage offers regular sex anymore and I’ve never met a woman who deserved a husband of any kind. Why should a man turn his life upside down for a woman with nothing to ffer but a used up pussy, a mountain of debt, and another man’s kids?

  279. Z. says:

    “Basically women became hypersexual & feral, precisely because of a lack of womens preferred form of education … home schooling & the mentorship of large NUCLEAR families
    Women thrive in close knit social structures
    Unless women get back to creating large NUCLEAR families, women will continue to grow more feral & hypersexual
    A womans preferred form of education is through a large family
    Women become highly dysfunctional & devolve when they go outside the social structures created by their NUCLEAR families”

    Nuclear families, by their very definition are not large. Nuclear families are the first step in the breakdown of the traditional extended family structure. Nuclear families are a post-industrial, modern form of family formation. Nuclear families are a bastardization (for lack of a better term) of traditional family structures which are multi-generational, extended, and all under one big roof or at least on the same land or close by.

    I would be careful about praising the nuclear family structure as it is one that by its definition kicks out (literally) grandparents, great grandparents, and other family members, thus weakening the large extended family structure and isolating generations from one another.

    I agree with you for the most part about womens’ education within the realm of the family. This is also how men were traditionally educated. Industrialization changed everything, for women, for men, for children and for the traditional extended multi-generational family structure.

  280. Z. says:

    “Regular sex in the only reason we put a ring on her!”

    Never was there a time in history when you had to put a ring on it to get sex. Prostitution is the world’s oldest profession for a reason. It has always been cheaper to regularly see prostitutes than to marry and have kids. If a man marries just for regular sex then he marries for the wrong reason and should not marry at all. Marriage has always been about family. Having children, carrying on a lineage, passing down heritage, and creating a portal for that lineage and heritage to be further passed down to grandchildren and unseen future generations.

    Humans derive a lot of satisfaction from the above – emotional, perhaps even spiritual.

    If its just sex you are after – DON’T GET MARRIED.

  281. greyghost says:

    Rebuilding that ant hill huh Z. Don’t want any ideas no fitting the the imperative getting out.

  282. mackPUA says:

    Wtf is wrong with that Z guy …

    Nuclear families arent large? Why the hell do you think theyre called nuclear families

    Z another typical imbecile white knight, imbecile

  283. sunshinemary says:

    One of my readers left this link on my site, and I thought readers here might find it of interest:

    http://www.salon.com/2013/05/06/my_virginity_mistake/

    If you are interested, here is the conversation we had at my place:

    http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/05/07/why-do-modern-women-have-such-filthy-mouths/#comment-3582

    I invite readers to leave their thoughts in the comment box at Salon, as I have done. We ought to refute what appears to be blatant lies about adhering to Biblical sexual morality whenever we encounter them.

  284. 8oxer says:

    OK… Now I’d be convinced that “Mack PUA” is David Futrelle; but Futrelle doesn’t have the capacity to be this (consistently) funny.

    Wtf is wrong with that Z guy …Nuclear families arent large? Why the hell do you think theyre called nuclear families… Z another typical imbecile white knight, imbecile

    My hat’s off to whoever is running the “Mack PUA” sock. Hopefully I can get the coffee out of my sinus cavity before lunch.

  285. deti says:

    Perspective:

    “So this may seem naive to ask, but really? “regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry?” I mean, I knew that sex was a major factor as to why men marry, but I didn’t think it was the “only” reason they did so. Again, this may sound naive, but what about for love? Or even to have children?”

    I firmly believe most men marry to lock in a regular sex partner. It’s the incentive. It’s why men break their asses and throw themselves on the gears of society. Our early western Judeo-Christian society’s forefathers understood this. It’s why we had monogamous marriage and assortative mating. Everyone who wants a mate gets one. Probably not the best, and maybe not perfect, but you get one.

    Does anyone really believe a man would promise to work 60 or more hours a week and jeopardize his health and safety if there isn’t going to be a willing and available woman to comfort him? Look at today’s MGTOW or incel. What incentives do they have to overproduce, or produce more than they need to survive?

    And Buck is right. Men marry because they want sex (most common), she got pregnant (much less common since 1973) and she has money/connections (pretty rare). We don’t marry for love or kids. Managing love is a burden. Children are a burden. Sorry to put it that way for the oversensitive types, but it’s the truth as men see it. Children are a great blessing for sure. But children have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, provided medical care, disciplined, educated, played with, socialized, guided and directed. Most of that burden falls ultimately on the father.

  286. Höllenhund says:

    Traditionally young men have mostly married in order to gain and protect social status. Whatever amount of social status they had was dependent on the approval of older people, especially older men. And older men have traditionally shunned young men who refused to get married. If they didn’t marry, they couldn’t get jobs and so on. It was mostly social pressure behind all this – there’s no reason to romanticize it. We know the score – older people want to have grandchildren who inherit the land and so on. Sex, love and all that were part of it, but those were secondary. You can find romance outside marriage. And even betas had access to sex outside marriage due to prostitution, which has been widespread in every society in history.

    Children are a different issue. I have to disagree with deti on that one. Children have traditionally been an economic asset after, say, age 8. Plus you needed someone to take care of you when you turned old and sick. Plus someone had to inherit the wealth, keep it running. Plus you pretty much had to have children if you wanted social status. It was all very practical. Now, of course, it’s all a very different story, but we know that contemporary society is dysfunctional in a million ways.

  287. Z. says:

    “Nuclear families arent large? Why the hell do you think theyre called nuclear families ”

    They are called so because they are small, atomic. Not large and explosive ;)

    Traditional multi-generational families is still how most of the world lives. The nuclear family is the first break down of that and it comes after complete industrialization.

    After nuclear families have been established in a society, then comes divorce.

  288. Martian Bachelor says:

    Sex is the last thing marriage guarantees. Maybe under Marriage 1.0 that was part of the contract, but that’s ancient history, and Marriage 2.0 confers no substantive rights on the man – only obligations. The entire concept of “marital rape” would be impossible if marriage guaranteed sex. I’ve watched enough daytime women’s teevee to know supplying men w/sex (much less good sex) is the farthest thing from their minds.

    There is nothing you can do married that you can’t do unmarried (except go around saying you’re married), so there’s no reason to marry, in the civil/non-religious sense. You can get into plenty of woman-trouble without marrying, and marriage is no longer the refuge it used to be.

  289. Z. says:

    “The entire concept of “marital rape” would be impossible if marriage guaranteed sex. ”

    Not true.

    Huge difference between consensual married sex and non-consensual married sex.

    Also, if either spouse refuses to sexually consumate the marriage altogether, that is grounds for legal annulment.

  290. Z. says:

    Who says never-married 40 year old spinsters can’t find love? Here’s one who did and I’ll bet she’ll pop out a few babies before 45 as well.

  291. Luke says:

    Z. says on May 12, 2013 at 11:38 pm:

    “Who says never-married 40 year old spinsters can’t find love? Here’s one who did and I’ll bet she’ll pop out a few babies before 45 as well.”

    You apparently don’t know much about how geriatric would-be mothers biology works. Women who’ve not borne any children while younger (spinsters would presumably generally be this) have a considerably harder time cutting it close WRT menopause. Look closely at newsstories of women even slightly past 40 who managed to bear live, apparently relatively healthy children then. They will largely have had children when younger (the ones actually using their own ova, as many are not, but using egg donors instead).

  292. Pingback: What Are We Doing Here II: That Rock Has Moral Value | Things that We have Heard and Known

  293. Opus says:

    I like the way in one post Z is waxing lyrical about over-40 marital happiness for Career Spinisters, and in this case to a complete stranger (together with the fantasy of a full family) – personally I’d guess it will end in Divorce with an allegation of D.V. or worse within two years; the Bride-Groom looks pretty miserable and must have been desparate to propose within just two days of meeting – who knows what horrors and skeletons are locked in her carousel-cruising cupboard never mind his – all that submissive (read: cloying and demanding) affection she is laying on, I don’t buy it and I am not even going to suggest that she is obviously ugly, so ugly that she dare not show her face. That’s not Alpha behaviour that he is exhibiting, but claustrophobia induced fear; and then in the previous post she has invented non-consensual married sex (a contradiction in terms) as an equal probability – thus marriage for the over 40s is either happy or not depending on how SHE feels, and that is all it is about – never mind the rareness of over 40s Marriage for Spinsters (see many of Dalrock’s charts) or Biology or the very concept and meaning of Marriage – Marriage being interchangable with Divorce. In the world of Z anything is possible no matter how unlikely or implausible; in fact, in the world of Z, everything is just as she imagines it: Reality and Fantasy are fused.

    Reminds me of that Russian two-headed eagle looking in different ways at the same time.

  294. Perspective says:

    @ Perspective -May 5, 2013
    “So this may seem naive to ask, but really? “regular sex at reasonable intervals is the only reason men marry?” I mean, I knew that sex was a major factor as to why men marry, but I didn’t think it was the “only” reason they did so. Again, this may sound naive, but what about for love? Or even to have children?”

    @Buck-May 07/13
    Deti is correct!
    “Regular sex in the only reason we put a ring on her!
    I would love to see a scientific survey on this question, something anonymous, double blind, whatever. When a few beers are tossed back and guys are being honest, the reasons they got married are:
    1) I knocked her up and had to.
    2) Regular sex.
    3) She has money/political connection.
    The reasons they are still married…
    1) cheaper to keep her
    2) they’re used to the arrangement
    3) they love the kids too much to leave ”

    It doesn’t surprise me that many men would marry for the reasons stated above, however, I still find it somewhat hard to believe that no man (or very few men) are not motivated by love to marry and remain married to their wives. If not for love, then wouldn’t some of the other motives at least be because she’s someone you like and care for? Or even like spending time with?

  295. Perspective says:

    @Deti-May 08/13
    And Buck is right. Men marry because they want sex (most common), she got pregnant (much less common since 1973) and she has money/connections (pretty rare).”

    Do you think it might also be religious conviction that motivates most male believers to marry for access to a regular sexual partner, as opposed to just engaging in one night stands or hiring an escort? I know it doesn’t seem to be the case considering how many speak openly (and sometimes boastfully) speak of their sexual experiences before marriage but perhaps it could be a possibility?

    “We don’t marry for love or kids. Managing love is a burden.”

    I know it’s not easy to love someone but how or why would it be considered a burden? With the right person and compatibility, wouldn’t it be a source of security? What about companionship? I sometimes hear of single men who speak of wanting to marry and start a family, but feeling lonely when they come home to an empty house.

    “Children are a burden. Sorry to put it that way for the oversensitive types, but it’s the truth as men see it. Children are a great blessing for sure. But children have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, provided medical care, disciplined, educated, played with, socialized, guided and directed. Most of that burden falls ultimately on the father.”

    So even in spite of children being a blessing, do you think most men could go without them if their wives did not want children as well?

  296. Ton says:

    Love is a burden dear, because a woman must be managed at all times. It’s like having a second full time job, but one where the work is covert and always changing. Sort of like taking out IED teams down range, but more likely to end badly

  297. Perspective says:

    @Ton
    “Love is a burden dear, because a woman must be managed at all times. It’s like having a second full time job, but one where the work is covert and always changing. Sort of like taking out IED teams down range, but more likely to end badly”

    This might sound slightly off topic but your comment about “taking out IED teams down range” reminded me of a former college classmate who had been in the military for several years before being deployed at the age of 27 due to PTSD. He’s married, has a daughter who he refers to as “the love of his life” and says that having her, along with marrying his wife (who’ve been together since 19) is the “best thing he ever did.” His wife and child seem to be a source of comfort for him, and I never got the sense that he saw them as a burden.

  298. mackPUA says:

    @Perspective

    Reading comprehension please …

    Ton explained why women are a burden …

    “because a woman must be managed at all time”

    Women have to be micro-managed, you have to baby sit their emotions, walk around on egg-shells, pass their shit tests

    & then theres the endless explanations of obvious crap

    The mansplaining you have to do, when she has meltdowns & fits of hysterics

    Then theres the shit tests & endless bitching

    On top of all that you have all the bullshit bitchy intra-personal competitive catfighting & infighting women have with each other

    The pointless retarded conversations women have about absolute fuck all … which you have to cut off constantly

    Living with a woman is a serious act of sado-masochism

    Most of the time’s spent trying to restrain yourself from rolling your eyes, everytime she opens her mouth …

    I have yet to find a woman who knows how to keep her trap shut & not be an annoying drama whore 24 hours a day ….

    Men should just get a shock collar, attach it to her ass …. instead of trying to micro-manage the typical woman …

  299. Pingback: Gaming the Curse of Eve | Songs to Download for Free

  300. Perspective says:

    @MackPUA

    “Reading comprehension please”

    I feel that I did understand what Ton was explaining and I realize that living with a woman can be considered a burden to men for the reasons you’ve listed. However, my point in sharing the story about my former classmate was just to show that in spite of these burdens, a woman who is a suitable match for the man she is with can also add to a man’s quality of life, rather than just detracting from it.

    “On top of all that you have all the bullshit bitchy intra-personal competitive catfighting & infighting women have with each other”

    I notice that many men make this observation, but I’m just wondering which way in particular is this a burden to them? Is it when a woman gets mad about her significant other checking out other women? Or competition for male attention? etc

  301. Anonymous Reader says:

    Perspective, you can sava a lot of time and keystrokes by just typing NAWALT, over and over.

  302. Perspective says:

    @Anon, June 10, 3:25 p.m.
    You don’t believe in NAWALT, but wouldn’t you at least agree (even a little) that NAWALT to the same extent?

  303. deti says:

    Perspective:

    Some men marry for religious conviction, because that is the moral way to engage in sexual relations. But almost all men who are marrying now are doing so to lock in a regular sex partner. When I married, the first and foremost concern in my mind was that we would have sex, moral sex, and that the sex continue as before. (Didn’t exactly work out that way for a long, long time.)

    A wife does not provide security to a husband. She requires security FROM her husband; she does not provide that to him. A wife can provide companionship, when she feels like it and wants to, which does not always coincide with when he wants or needs her. Other men actually make better companions and friends.

    A man can definitely go without children if his wife does not want them. The imperative to reproduce, to actually spawn children, resides far more in the woman than the man. Most men I know are fine with having children, or not.

  304. Perspective says:

    @deti

    “A wife does not provide security to a husband. She requires security FROM her husband; she does not provide that to him. A wife can provide companionship, when she feels like it and wants to, which does not always coincide with when he wants or needs her. Other men actually make better companions and friends.”

    Thanks for the reply deti. What you’re saying makes sense and I believe it can be true for the most part, but what about when wives work and contribute financially? I know of many couples where it’s roughly a 50/50 when it comes down to dividing the expenses. As for companionship, I also know of many couples who refer to each other as best friends, pretty much do everything together and seem to like it that way.

    ” A man can definitely go without children if his wife does not want them. The imperative to reproduce, to actually spawn children, resides far more in the woman than the man. Most men I know are fine with having children, or not.”

    That’s interesting. I always thought that most men would at least want a son to carry on the family name and legacy. I don’t see anything wrong with a man not wanting children, and apparently it seems like neither does the rest of society. But I’ve always been confused as to why a woman who chooses to remain childless is perceived quite differently. “Selfish and crazy” are some of the descriptions I often hear even though they may be far from true.

  305. Ton says:

    Regarding dual income families where it’s a 50/50 net, the woman still is not a source of security because she consumes extra resources. you need a house in a nicer area, a safer car, etc etc.

  306. Know How says:

    @Deti,
    “. Managing love is a burden. Children are a burden. Sorry to put it that way for the oversensitive types, but it’s the truth as men see it. Children are a great blessing for sure. But children have to be fed, clothed, sheltered, provided medical care, disciplined, educated, played with, socialized, guided and directed. Most of that burden falls ultimately on the father.”

    Wow, is it possible to find another lower opinion of marriage from a man? Wow, such a sad outlook about marrying a woman. If that is the way you really feel, stay away from and please do not marry a woman. Exactly why are you so consumed with hate for women? Who hurt you? Just keep that evil outlook and stay away from women. I feel sorry for you and any woman you get in a rlationship with. I often wonder if men like you have a mothers, sisters, or daughters. That comment was so disparaging, so sad and so unbelievable.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s