Headlines vs Reality

Reality:  More young men and women are now living with their parents.

This first item I saw the other day while looking for data on the elusive Peter Pan Manboy.  Back in August of 2013 a Pew Research Center study found that 36% of Millennials still live with their parents:  A Rising Share of Young Adults Live in Their Parents’ Home.  While most Millennial men and women live on their own, young people of both sexes are more likely to live at home now than in the past.  Men are a bit more likely to live with their parents (40%) than women (32%).  Note that these figures count men and women living in college dorms as living with their parents.

Headline:

Marketwatch picked up the study with the headline: Women leave nest, men stay with parents.

Gen-Y men seem less able or willing to cut the apron strings

Neither the headline nor the statement quoted above is an accurate description of the data.  Most Millennials of both sexes leave home, and the gap between men and women is not new. In fact, the current 8 point gap is smaller than the 11 point gap in 1968.

Reality:  Recent spike in heroin use and deaths.

In March of this year the CDC released Data Brief 190: Drug-poisoning Deaths Involving Heroin: United States, 2000–2013.  Figure 2 shows that heroin deaths increased for both men and women between 2010 and 2013, with nearly four times as many deaths of men than women:

fig2

Figure 4 shows that death rates have increased for all races.

fig4However, death rates for 18-44 year old whites have increased so much that they now have the highest rate of death due to heroin:

In 2000, the highest rate for drug-poisoning deaths involving heroin was among non-Hispanic black persons aged 45–64 (2.0 per 100,000) (Figure 4). In contrast, in 2013, the rate was highest among non-Hispanic white persons aged 18–44 (7.0 per 100,000).

Figure 3 shows the breakdown of deaths by age, although it would have been more helpful if they had split out the middle age bracket into two ten year groups:

fig3

On July 7th 2015 the CDC followed up with a Vitalsigns article titled Today’s Heroin Epidemic, including the infographic:
heroin-graph_1185px

Note from the infographic that despite the fact that whites now use (and die from) heroin at greater rates than other races, heroin use is still skewed strongly to people with lower socioeconomic status.  Those with low incomes as well as those on Medicaid or with no health insurance have much higher rates of heroin use than those with higher incomes and private insurance.

Headline:

The Boston Globe picked up the Vitalsigns article, and their headline reads:  Heroin use spikes among women, higher-income groups

Study finds new faces of addiction

Women, people age 18 to 25, and those with higher incomes and private insurance have been increasingly falling victim to the drug.

Dr. Sarah E. Wakeman, a specialist in substance abuse treatment at Massachusetts General Hospital, said the report reflects her experience in treating addicts. “It highlights the fact that this has become an equal-opportunity disease,” she said. “Basically, everyone I see is white, they’re equally male and female, they’re younger and affluent — a very different demographic.”

This entry was posted in Data. Bookmark the permalink.

247 Responses to Headlines vs Reality

  1. The irony is most of the heroin grown on the planet comes from Afghanistan. Around 90%. They have a high fertility typical of more agrarian societies because families need more children to work and harvest ‘crops’.

    This is a nice contrast post that journalism is a dying field of study in the mainstream media. All one needs do is make politically correct click-bait.

  2. Pingback: Headlines vs Reality | Manosphere.com

  3. Looking Glass says:

    So, if you don’t live in the ghetto, you’re more likely to OD and die to Heroin than to be murdered. Is that the first time the drug dealer is LESS dangerous than the drug?

  4. Pingback: Headlines vs Reality | Neoreactive

  5. ayatollah says:

    I’m skeptical about those first two headlines because I’ve heard too many stories of 20-something chicks shacking up with older men who pay their rent or taking advantage of beta boyfriends by having them pay their rent. I don’t hear very many stories of guys doing that sort of thing. There is the occasional story of the cohabiting couple where the guy is a loser who just plays video games and doesn’t pay rent, but it seems like the default for those situations are for the guy to pay more than his share of the rent.

  6. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    When I said I was moving out of the family home, my father told me it was about time. But when I actually left, my mother was crying because she didn’t want to see me go.

    The large number of single mothers likely has something to do with men staying at home. Many mothers don’t want to see their “babies” leave. If the adult kids do stay, mom is less likely to complain or push them out of the nest.

  7. Tilikum says:

    people act how they can. when you are bored with an artificially easy life, you get high as a kite yo!

  8. Spike says:

    All of the data demonstrates we live in a Matriarchal Society in the English speaking West. Instead of journalists analysing why there is disparity such as poorer prospects, lower tertiary education for men, higher mortality in men etc, they will take the lazier way out:
    “Women are “Stronger than Men!

  9. Tom C says:

    Six companies control 90% of American media: GE, News-Corp, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS. Marketwatch is a subsidiary of Dow Jones which is a property of News-Corp. The Boston Globe is separate, owned by John Henry, owner of the Red Sox, but still has to service the Feminine Imperative, I guess.

  10. SirThermite says:

    OT, Dalrock, but I don’t see an email address to send you this relevant article. “Basketball Wives” reality character divorcing a (recently fired?) NBA player for not treating her “like a queen” with the headline that she “Relies on Her Faith to Help Her Through Her Divorce” http://www.wetpaint.com/2015-07-13-malaysia-pargo-faith-divorce-exclusive/

    “In a recent chat…Malaysia explained to us that her faith in God lead her to the decision to move on from the love of her life…while Malaysia called the transition to being a single parent “bittersweet,” she did add that she tried to make the marriage work…[but her husband] wasn’t willing to do the work and seek individual counseling like she asked…It was then that Malaysia realized that Janerro just may not have been the “king” that she thought he was… or rather, that he wasn’t really ready to treat her like the queen that she is.”

    The Churchian rationalization hamster doesn’t get any more blatant than that…

  11. rugby11ljh says:
  12. Novaseeker says:

    This culture is obviously evil. No other conclusion, really.

    And, yes, women want to cut the strings on the margins a bit more because they want to make use of their sexual power and access, which is impeded by not cutting said strings.

    More of the “weak men are messing up feminism” meme, all over again.

  13. MarcusD says:

    Divorce, Visitation Rights, Support Payments, and recent history
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=969760

  14. Women good, men bad.

  15. Hells Hound says:

    And, yes, women want to cut the strings on the margins a bit more because they want to make use of their sexual power and access, which is impeded by not cutting said strings.

    Impeded in what way? That she can’t lure her latest alpha “conquest” to her own bedroom? I very much doubt that impedes her sexual access in any meaningful way. The situation for men is very different, of course. On a different note, I’m sure many young single men are bound to have impeded sexual access whether they live with their parents or not.

  16. Hells Hound says:

    Note that these figures count men and women living in college dorms as living with their parents.

    Why?

  17. Opus says:

    Perhaps you have yet to catch the motion picture going by the title ‘Danger Grows Wild’ otherwise known as ‘A Poppy is also a Flower’. That alternate title should leave you in no doubt as to what the film financed by The United Nations is all about. It did not, I suspect, have any effect on the stemming of the use of Heroin.

    It is one of the strangest of motion pictures (given its cast) and progeny. The story is by none other than Ian Fleming and directed by Bond-director Terence Young; it begins with the most insincere of voice overs by Grace Kelly who points out that Iran are the good guys, but it gets odder: the two male leads are played by aging character actors (Trevor Howard and E.G. Marshal clearly modelled on Bond and Felix Leiter) and the other roles are all taken by big stars, who if you blink you miss them; thus Omar Sharif briefly turns up as a diplomat, Yul Brynner a general and so on before as quickly disappearing, but it gets weirder as the movie stops to allow Trini Lopez to sing a couple of songs including La Bamba. Having said that any movie with Jocelyn Lane, Angie Dickinson and Senta Berger is going to be worth watching. Perhaps the real take away however is the hypergamy, for both Lane and Kelly traded-up and married European Royalty and then there is the slightly veiled suggestion from Hugh Griffiths that what what might really be available for sale are pre-pubescent females.

  18. ace says:

    “Men are a bit more likely to live with their parents (40%) than women (32%).”

    Women have husbands/wallets, men – typically- don’t. The fact that single mothers tend to treat their sons as substitute husbands might also play a role. Daughters are competition (especially if the mother is still young). So, the sooner she leaves the nest the better.

  19. Longtorso says:

    Not to side with the feminists, but I have noticed that while it doesn’t have to be that way by definition, many churches that take a vocal hard line about wives submitting to husbands tend to cross ethical lines concerning everyone in the pews submitting to church leadership.

    Comments on the article?

    Church disciplines wife for wanting to divorce husband who admitted paedophile leanings
    A Dallas megachurch is facing accusations that it has failed to deal with one of its members who viewed images of child abuse and instead made his wife a subject of church discipline…..

  20. Stephen Ward says:

    @Longtorso

    Read the article. No ethical line was crossed. The man repented, was removed from ministry, required to be supervised while he was in the church, and banned from the Children’s wing. His wife was disciplined when she decided to divorce her husband anyway.

  21. infowarrior1 says:

    @Longtorso
    By all means the man should be discipined. But the question Is porn adultery proves pertinent.

  22. Regular Guy says:

    Reality
    Women are the primary customers of useless retail college degrees with less rigorous curricula.
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/rampage/wp/2015/01/27/women-falling-behind-in-stem-bachelors-degrees/

    Headline
    At Colleges, Women are leaving Men in the dust.
    http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/09/education/09college.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

  23. Regular Guy says:

    @ Longtorso

    What the Church did was 100% biblical, like it or not. They addressed his sin of lust as a Church and they did not allow the man’s wife to return Evil with Evil. Cut and dry.

    The real question is, why are so many “Christians” outraged at Church discipline that should be as ubiquitous in their spiritual life as going to Church on Sundays? What gave these people impression that living up to a genuine, biblical marriage covenant would be a daily bowl of cherries?

  24. Regular Guy says:

    Divorce is not biblically permitted if a spouse looks at another with lust (pornography).
    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1371-is-lust-the-equivalent-of-fornication

  25. Phillyastro says:

    Fentanyl is the new heroin. More potent and can be made cheaper in a lab.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2015/03/18/surge-in-overdose-deaths-from-fentanyl/24957967/

  26. J N says:

    @Longtorso

    I know two people who murdered a child. They ended up getting a divorce. (One’s in prison, the other’s on tightly monitored parole / work release sort of thing. I’ll let you guess which one!)

    There was no biblical or scriptural reason for them to divorce. As far as God is concerned, they need to reconcile and get back together.

  27. Dalrock says:

    @The Real Peterman

    Women good, men bad.

    That is clearly the case in the story about living at home. In the heroin story it was something different. In that case they tortured the data to sell the narrative that heroin was now a danger for young pretty MC and UMC women. Hence the “new face” of addiction. It is a sympathy play, with pretty white women as the victim. See also: “missing white woman syndrome”.

  28. J N says:

    @Longtorso,

    Great job finding an appeal to emotion with “Think of the CHILDRENN!!!!!” fallacy. Pornography is bad, and child pornography is especially bad.

    Around here, we think the best way to root out those evils is to strengthen families so that children are less vulnerable and have active fathers in their livse. We think that children in single-parent homes, without an involved father, are very prone to being abused.

    We take a hard stance against divorce / single motherhood precisely because we care about kids. And part of that hard stance is holding a woman accountable who chooses to marry a guy with the predilections this guy did. I would be dead positive sure she knew about his “issues” before they got married, and she chose to overlook it and marry him anyway. Unfortunately, it’s a pattern I’ve seen play out a number of times.

  29. Regular Guy says:

    @ Dalrock

    ” In the heroin story it was something different. In that case they tortured the data to sell the narrative that heroin was now a danger for young pretty MC and UMC women. Hence the “new face” of addiction.”

    Society values the lives of women more than men. The poor darlings have it so rough after all.

  30. Dave says:

    On another front, 22 year old woman blows her $90,000 college fund, blames her parents for “not teaching me to budget or something“.
    To add insult to injuries, she felt that her parents, who have been working “for like a million years” should liquidate their retirement savings, and bail her out.

  31. Renee Harris says:

    @ Divorce is not biblically permitted if a spouse looks at another with lust (pornography).
    https://www.christiancourier.com/articles/1371-is-lust-the-equivalent-of-fornication
    Um if husband sinned sexual, no Divorce is allow. However if the wife sinned sexual and her husband no longer want her( she become a problem for his able to do god will ) than he can divorce her.
    A man can should not divorce his wife . But he can…

  32. feeriker says:

    We take a hard stance against divorce / single motherhood precisely because we care about kids.

    I wonder how many women realize that not only is this done for the sake of the children, but for their own sakes as well.

    Far from being indifferent misogynists who hope that women perish in slow agony in the wake of their own reckless actions, most men are, as we’ve so often mentioned here, hardwired to want to care for and protect them. This explains the pervasiveness of “Captain Save-a-Ho.” In bygone eras this attitude actual enjoyed widespread societal approval. Today, in the Age of the SIW, it’s at best a waste of time and energy and at worst a path to certain ruin.

    Men concerning themselves with women’s welfare: the ultimate in thankless tasks and the one good deed that never goes unpunished.

  33. feeriker says:

    On another front, 22 year old woman blows her $90,000 college fund, blames her parents for “not teaching me to budget or something“.
    To add insult to injuries, she felt that her parents, who have been working “for like a million years” should liquidate their retirement savings, and bail her out.

    As many a parent has lamented “I undrrstand now why certain animals eat their young.”

    Gotta love millennials …

  34. Joe says:

    i Suspect that more Gen Y women rather than men will get help from mom and dad to pay the rent.

  35. Michelle says:

    You can almost never trust a headline to be accurate. The point is to get you to read the article. They are just click bait.

    @longtorso – I think that the wife was right to seek an annulment and a civil divorce. Her husband had to know that he was attracted to children and that if he told his wife that before marriage that she would run the other way. I see no reason that this poor woman should be stuck with a pervert who will probably molest any children that she may have.

  36. PokeSalad says:

    Another variant of the “Planet-Killing Meteor Strikes Earth, Woman and Minorities Most Affected” crap-journalism idea.

  37. Striver says:

    Save-a-ho made some sense where there were relatively few whores. Then you could get the ho into a new environment, and she might actually feel shame about her past behavior, or something approaching shame for a woman anyway.

    Now? There’s mostly hos out there. Most don’t even want to be saved, they’re proud of it.

    There is a speculative bubble. Yes, men like to save women, and with the high number of whores out there and high number of single betas, many women can still make that play. But I’m guessing that number of whores is shooting upward, while number of betas is in a decline phase. So hopefully this bubble will pop at some time.

  38. jsr says:

    @ Michelle
    “I think that the wife was right to seek an annulment and a civil divorce.”

    Of course you do. You are long on feels and short on bible.

  39. Michelle says:

    @ Dave

    Headlines about women tend not to be accurate either. If her school tuition is 20k a year and she paid for three years then she spent 60k on school and blew through 30k or 10k a year. She sounds like an entitled brat with budgeting issues, but the headline is still misleading.

  40. Dave says:

    It was then that Malaysia realized that Janerro just may not have been the “king” that she thought he was… or rather, that he wasn’t really ready to treat her like the queen that she is.”

    Note that the man is a king ALL BY HIMSELF and she is not expected to contribute anything to his life. On the other hand, he is expected to TREAT HER LIKE A QUEEN. In other words, the work of the marriage falls squarely on the shoulders of the man, at least in her mind. Never mind that she did not elaborate on the qualifications that made her a queen.

  41. joe says:

    Those of you attacking a woman for divorcing a pedophile need to get a grip. That’s not a frivorce. He was getting off on seeing children being raped.

  42. Dave says:

    @Michelle

    The main issue here is that she totally refused to take responsibility for her actions. As the article said, she admitted that she mis-spent her money, but blamed someone else for her foolish choices. Worse still, she wanted her parents to actually suffer for the choices she unilaterally made.
    Her tuition obviously was not $20k a year, or she would have complained that the money was not enough.

  43. feeriker says:

    Never mind that she did not elaborate on the qualifications that made her a queen.

    Qualifications for a queen:

    1. Has a vagina
    2. Exists
    3. Wants to be a queen (and therefore is entitled to be treated like one)

    That’s pretty much it.

  44. feeriker says:

    Those of you attacking a woman for divorcing a pedophile need to get a grip. That’s not a frivorce. He was getting off on seeing children being raped.

    Unless I overlooked something, no one here has said anything in this case about “frivorce” or that she should remain with this guy. Biblically speaking, she can (and probably should) separate from him, permanently. But divorcing him isn’t an option. Nowhere does Scripture allow a wife to divorce her husband.

  45. Bucho says:

    @ Dave

    RE: College girl blowing 90K college fund.

    I listened to all 4 Segment’s on the Bert Show’s page this morning. I loved how she said she used some of the money to travel to Europe and that it justified as an educational expense. I wished they had asked her what she was majoring in….

  46. J N says:

    Michelle’s reasoning here is a good example of the problem with annulments; basically, Michelle feels that the wife is having bad feelings, thus, an annulment is OK because of some imaginary sin the husband committed before they got married.

    In short, there is no situation that can’t be stretched and distorted into being OK for an annulment.

  47. J N says:

    @joe,

    Those of you attacking a woman for divorcing a pedophile need to get a grip. That’s not a frivorce. He was getting off on seeing children being raped.

    And by condoning divorce for that, the next woman who considers marrying a known pedophile will decide it’s safe to do so, since she has an easy escape clause.

    Women are notorious for choosing to marry vile, perverse men. We need to make sure they feel unsafe doing so.

  48. Boxer says:

    A Dallas megachurch is facing accusations that it has failed to deal with one of its members who viewed images of child abuse and instead made his wife a subject of church discipline…..

    In a healthier (i.e. patriarchal) society, such a man would have been identified by his own father early on, would not have been allowed to marry, and would probably have been sent to a monastery or some sort of retreat, where he could make a contribution to society without being tempted (at least during his raging hormonal teenage and 20 something years). It’s clear that he didn’t personally act on his urges, which is a good thing, though he shouldn’t be buying videos from those who do. Dysfunctional people (not just sex perverts, but people with violent tendencies and poor impulse control also) ought to have avenues opened to them so that they don’t need to marry and become a burden to their neighbors. The church and society used to provide these things.

    In any event, who chose this man to be her husband? In our society, women have the “right to choose”. Clearly, this wimminz chose poorly. It is nobody else’s fault and tough luck for her.

    Boxer

    P.S.: In case Mark is reading, I have been in Toronto for two weeks. Such stories I could tell, my brother. Counting the days to get back home, too.

  49. Michelle says:

    @dave

    The main issue here is that she totally refused to take responsibility for her actions. As the article said, she admitted that she mis-spent her money, but blamed someone else for her foolish choices. Worse still, she wanted her parents to actually suffer for the choices she unilaterally made.
    Her tuition obviously was not $20k a year, or she would have complained that the money was not enough.

    The article that you linked to reads that “Karen has one year of school left and no way to cover the remaining $20,000 tuition balance.” Even if she’d been careful with the 90k she was probably going to need loans, a job, money from her parents or some combination of those things to finish school as the remaining 10k (90k less 80k in tuition) isn’t enough to live on for four years. She should take responsibility for her poor planning and spending, but she didn’t just blow 90k like the headline would have us believe.

  50. Boxer says:

    Women are notorious for choosing to marry vile, perverse men. We need to make sure they feel unsafe doing so.

    That’s an excellent point. There were probably quite a few “nice guys” that this wimminz allowed to buy her dinner, take her to the movies, take her to concerts and museums, etc. She wouldn’t marry any of those men, though. In the end, she chose a man with a proclivity for child porn.

    As TFH has pointed out, feminism has not helped women. It has merely unmasked them and laid bare their true natures. Under a patriarchal system, women were mythologized. This is evidence that all the supposed glories of womanhood are a blatant farce.

  51. Michelle says:

    @joe

    Those of you attacking a woman for divorcing a pedophile need to get a grip. That’s not a frivorce. He was getting off on seeing children being raped.

    I read the blog post and emails that were linked in the article. The wife was concerned that that her husband hadn’t confessed the full extent of his actions because he took a lot of jobs that put him in a position of trust and authority over children. She thinks that he molested some children and she is probably right. I don’t blame her one bit for trying to get that annulment. The church should’ve been tripping all over itself to grant her one. They were probably hoping to downplay their own mistakes (putting a pervert in charge of the children) and thought that it would be easier if she played ball.

  52. Dave says:

    @Michelle:

    Karen has one year of school left and no way to cover the remaining $20,000 tuition balance

    We definitely don’t know how much tuition she paid for each year, or how much financial support she got from home. As anyone who has gone through college in America knows, tuition varies with each year of college and with the number of credits being taken.
    That said, I suggest we don’t create an excuse for this woman where she did not claim one. She admitted that she blew her education fund. Her parents who knew more than any of us agreed with this, and they refused to help her financially until she took some responsibility. Her words:

    “Years ago my grandparents set up a college fund for me, which was amazing, and I haven’t been very good with my budget for school…..I used it to budget for school clothes and college break money. I probably should have not done that. I took a trip to Europe. The Europe thing I thought was part of my education and that’s how I tried to justify that…I know they’re trying to teach me a lesson and blah blah blah and character building…

    A smarter person would know that $90k, divided into 4 would be $22500 on average, and she would have known if the trip to Europe was within her budget.

    Let us stop trying to find excuses for someone who knew they didn’t have any.

  53. Regular Guy says:

    @ Michelle

    “The wife was concerned that that her husband hadn’t confessed the full extent of his actions because he took a lot of jobs that put him in a position of trust and authority over children. She thinks that he molested some children and she is probably right. I don’t blame her one bit for trying to get that annulment. The church should’ve been tripping all over itself to grant her one. They were probably hoping to downplay their own mistakes (putting a pervert in charge of the children) and thought that it would be easier if she played ball.”

    Thank you Michelle for demonstrating precisely why women were forbidden from most positions of authority by the bible. Women’s feelings aren’t relevant in a Church that exercises discipline based on sound doctrine for the purposes of renewing people’s relationship with God.

  54. J N says:

    “Annulments” are a Catholic thing anyway. If she wants to get an annulment, she would need to become Catholic first.

    Or she could just go to a church with easy divorce & remarriage. There are plenty.

    Also, I don’t see how the church made a mistake by letting her husband be in charge of children – it’s not like they knew he was a pervert and he failed some kind of background check. In fact, it sounds like the church is what made him end up confessing his sin.

    Believe it or not men are pretty good at dealing with other men who are perverts especially towards children. I’ve made sure to cost someone their job & their girlfriend before, using the most underhanded techniques you can imagine, once I found out the kind of utter sick things he was into. And I don’t feel an ounce of remorse for doing so. And neither would any other man.

    Women aren’t capable of thinking like that.

  55. J N says:

    Oh, and the real question here is why the wife didn’t do something a lot sooner. I guarantee she knew what her husband was up to. She just didn’t care or didn’t think it was a big deal until he was publicly exposed. Then she wanted to save face.

    I certainly never had space when I was married to indulge in pornography without my wife knowing about it; not that she minded, but she knew exactly what I was into, and she would’ve known if I were hiding something. Wives can just tell when a man’s doing that… or at least they can if they’re regularly having sex with him, and I would suspect this wife went dead in the bedroom well before all this came to light, and thus had no idea if his sexuality was a bit “off”.

  56. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Nice Post!

    I lived at home until I was 28.Upon graduation from the U of T my father gave me house as a graduation present(the house I live in at the present).I rented it out for 5 years.The reason is that I was working for the Family….and trying to do my MBA at the same time.It was for “time saving” and …..CONVENIENCE!
    My brother lived at home until he was 30.Basically,took the same route as I did.He was living at home(in Mom & dad’s basement) all the while drawing a 50k/month salary from the Family Office…….While living at home,working for the family and going to school! Back in those days.I used to like inviting a woman over to my “parents place”.They used to say….EWWWWW!…you live at home with your parents?…..I would invite them over to my parents place…..A 37,500sq/ft mansion,equipped with indoor/outdoor pools,tennis courts,indoor/outdoor Jacuzzis,a live in Butler/Chauffeur,live in Maid and a Chef.Then to my surprise?……they could not get enough of ME!….Imagine that????? That is when I started to get a grip on this thing called “HYPERGAMY”…It it is going stronger today that we have ever seen! The ‘Supreme Irony’ in all of this?….The guys will “Fuck them”….but,not get “INVOLVED” with them?…….Go figure!! There is no reason to buy the cow when the milk is readily available…….and the cost of running a “one cow dairy”….is absurd!!!!
    As far as the “heroin” is concerned? That is not my “crowd”.But,I do see a lot of “wimminz” that get addicted to “hillbilly heroin”(the opiate garbage that the doctors give away like f*****g candy! And there are A LOT of people that are hooked on this junk…..A lot of WIMMINZ like to take the “Percs”….and then they drink like Fish on top off that.A recipe for DISASTER! That is their business!

    @Boxer
    “”In case Mark is reading, I have been in Toronto for two weeks.””

    Just so you know.Just because I am not posting?…not mean that I am not reading!

    L*…….Be VERY careful of these TO women!…….They are extremely evil,sadistic…..and they are looking at you for “financial” reasons!……..Don’t fall that that garbage! Let them be the “strong,independent career women that they are”…………and;let them tell you that while they are on their knees for you! In Toronto……..you do not get down on your knee with a diamond ring…..you stand up and give her a pearl necklace!………..Shalom!

  57. Mark says:

    @TFH

    “”“Years ago my grandparents set up a college fund for me, which was amazing,””

    YES!….so did mine……and I am eternally grateful for that.May they RIP!

  58. Maunalani says:

    But Obama now wants to let drug dealers out of prison as “non-violent criminals.”

  59. Boston to Providence says:

    I think we’re getting a little off the wall when accusing a woman of knowingly marrying a pedophile in the absence of supporting information. I have no comment as to what the bible has to say on the matter.

    As usual, we are left in the dark as to the approximate ages of the children involved, and thus the quality of the behavior, as mainstream thinking generally obscures the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia in virtually all cases involving a man.

  60. Boston to Providence says:

    College has declined into just another social experience. Normally, I’d say that most attending should be learning a trade (and for most women, that trade would be homemaking, a not-unimportant role), but the sad dissolution of our country’s manufacturing sector limits these prospects for men. (If it returned, we’d find The Dream Chasers looking down their noses at these jobs.) When the economy is service-sector fluff, what is an unquestioning milquetoast dad to do but to tell his kids to follow their hearts and pursue Fluff Studies? BS has become the coin of the realm, its exchange rate with the dollar is non-trivial.

    If anything, kids are more coddled while away at college than they are at home with their parents in high school. College finance is another anchor dragging down our lives, and its reform is at least near to family law reform and monetary policy reform in importance. I don’t think anyone is listening. The travesty is less that our problems are unsolved and more that they are unrecognized.

  61. Julian O'Dea says:

    MarcusD

    Yes, an icy blonde.

    As for the woman in the original sting video, this is what I just said somewhere else, “And, for sheer “nightmare fuel”, it will take me a while to forget the wretched woman chatting about crushing the right part of the foetus as she stabs with her fork at her lunch.”

  62. JDG says:

    Before I believe a charge against a man for any sex crime, I need to actually see the details of said crime.

    At 18 years old, Phillip Alpert was arrested and charged with sending child pornography, a felony. He was later sentenced to five years probation and required to register as a sex offender. The “child” pornography was a naked picture of his 16 year old girl friend whom he had been arguing with.

    Sexting is treated as child pornography in almost every state, and thirty-eight states include juvenile sex offenders in their sex offender registries.

    Then factor in all the false accusations of sexual abuse made by frivorcing wives, and the false rape charges made against men on a regular basis.

    Granted men should avoid fornication all together, but that doesn’t mean that the state (often at the behest of women) should be able to punish them unjustly.

    Also, as already noted, looking at porn (even “child” porn) is not justification for divorce. It is disgusting and should be pointed out as such, but not an excuse to put asunder what God has joined together.

  63. Boxer says:

    Dear Mark:

    Just so you know.Just because I am not posting?…not mean that I am not reading!

    Glad to see you bro. I spent a couple of weeks at the Royal York, and now I’m out in Mississauga by the airport. I like Toronto (it’s like a cleaner, nicer NYC) but a huge slice of the women I met were incredibly annoying, and I thought of you with each new one that came within earshot.

  64. Dave says:

    @TFH:

    Unfortunately, the people who will game this system are the kids of single mothers, etc. since CS is not reported as taxable income, so a woman receiving a lot of childimony can still report income low enough for the kid to attend for free.

    Hopefully, too few children of single mothers can gain admission to these schools, even after layer upon layer of AA.

    This also erodes the caliber of these very institutions over time.

    On the contrary, if the kids of a single mother were to be so good as to gain admission into Harvard, that would generally be a good thing actually. It means the kid is less likely to become a single mother/absent father, less likely to be involved in a life of crime, and more likely to make valuable contributions to society, and become a responsible citizen.

    I would say that is a plus.

    But most kids of single mothers are a scourge on society.

  65. infowarrior1 says:

    @JDG

    Its strange that in more ancient times 16 was the age of adulthood. Now its 18 in the states.

  66. Hells Hound says:

    I’m skeptical about those first two headlines because I’ve heard too many stories of 20-something chicks shacking up with older men who pay their rent or taking advantage of beta boyfriends by having them pay their rent.

    Another usual course of events is even more simple, namely when she just moves in with her boyfriend.

  67. Hells Hound says:

    On another front, 22 year old woman blows her $90,000 college fund, blames her parents for “not teaching me to budget or something“.
    To add insult to injuries, she felt that her parents, who have been working “for like a million years” should liquidate their retirement savings, and bail her out.

    It’s hilarious that she added “or something”. And also completely predictable. These dumb frivolous broads can’t put together a sentence without saying “like”, “kind of like”, “so i was just like”, “you know”, “or something”, “i can’t even” etc.

  68. Hells Hound says:

    I took another look at that Yahoo news column. It reminded me how much I can’t stand all these fucking SJWs creating one .gif file after another with some feminist/gynocentric message.

  69. Hells Hound says:

    Headlines about women tend not to be accurate either. If her school tuition is 20k a year and she paid for three years then she spent 60k on school and blew through 30k or 10k a year. She sounds like an entitled brat with budgeting issues, but the headline is still misleading.

    It isn’t. The article makes it clear that she indeed has budgeting issues and a huge sense of entitlement, and has indeed spent all the money in the fund, and now blames her parents.

    The funny thing is that her situation isn’t even that bad. First of all, she technically has no college debt. Well, societal gynocentrism being what it is, I doubt the federal government would ever make a serious attempt to force her to pay, but she has no debt in the first place. She complains she has no job experience. Well, duh. That’s not uncommon when you’re 22.

    Bloody hell, she’s an American woman! She belongs to the most pampered demographic in known history. She can practically do anything and get celebrated for it. She can do porn, become a prostitute, an escort or a hostess. All those pay well. She can start a new life in another country. She’ll have no problem finding some beta chump who marries her and pays the money necessary to finish her studies.

  70. Hells Hound says:

    A Dallas megachurch is facing accusations that it has failed to deal with one of its members who viewed images of child abuse and instead made his wife a subject of church discipline.

    “Images of child abuse” and “child pornography” are rather wide and blurry categories in current discourse. It’s possible he was merely watching some hentai, or common porn featuring young women appearing to be underage.

  71. Hells Hound says:

    Her tuition obviously was not $20k a year

    The article makes it rather clear that it actually was: “Kim has one year left of school and no way to cover her remaining $20,000 tuition balance”. I didn’t bother to listen to the radio show, but it appears to me that the college fund was intended to cover most, if not all, of her tuition. I think her parents expected her to keep her expenses low, like not going to Europe for some frivolous reason, and to find some part-time job.

  72. Hells Hound says:

    I loved how she said she used some of the money to travel to Europe and that it justified as an educational expense. I wished they had asked her what she was majoring in

    Medieval European history maybe?

  73. Hells Hound says:

    Even if she’d been careful with the 90k she was probably going to need loans, a job, money from her parents or some combination of those things to finish school as the remaining 10k (90k less 80k in tuition) isn’t enough to live on for four years. She should take responsibility for her poor planning and spending, but she didn’t just blow 90k like the headline would have us believe.

    She received that money to put herself through college, and probably to gain some experience in part-time jobs in the process. Now that money’s gone, she hasn’t graduated and has no job experience. Pretty much her only probable accomplishment is getting dicked by French guys. I think it’s accurate to say she blew that money.

  74. Dave says:

    The article makes it rather clear that it actually was: “Kim has one year left of school and no way to cover her remaining $20,000 tuition balance”.

    Actually it didn’t. I know, this is a minor point, but we were only told of the “remaining tuition”, not the total. Very often, tuition could vary widely during a four-year college program depending on the year of study, and the number of credits that the student takes. It is certainly possible to take fewer credits in certain years, and lots of credits in others, making the cost of tuition to vary. Granted that some courses are considered “prerequisites”; many of them are not.

    So this student could have deferred some heavy weights until her last year, or the expenses associated with final year events could have pushed her 4th year tuition cost to $20k, we don’t know. At the same time, we were not told how much financial or other support she has from home during her previous 3 years in college.

  75. Boxer says:

    I think her parents expected her to keep her expenses low, like not going to Europe for some frivolous reason, and to find some part-time job.

    I know a lot of kids like this, and many of them take out loans to go to Europe, on school group tours (not all that much fun, and certainly more expensive).

    A young man in Canada or the US who feels he needs an education ought to go to to community college for the first two years. Ride the bus, get a little apartment or (even better) live in your mom’s basement. Do all you can and get as high grades as possible. If you get very good marks, you should be able to do your last two years at a state university for free or almost free (scholarships).

    Don’t do as I did. Studying pure math and physics is fun, but not very practical. The world needs nurses, engineers, and technical writers. If you like abstract stuff or fine art stuff, you can study that after you get into a career. You can go all over the world after you get into a career, and you can pay for it all yourself (or have your boss send you). No reason to do this as a teenager.

    Well, societal gynocentrism being what it is, I doubt the federal government would ever make a serious attempt to force her to pay, but she has no debt in the first place.

    If you are in North America, the student aid/debt path can be a viable last resort for men also. Take out the loans, go to class part time, and start a business with the surplus. No one will ever demand repayment anyway, and the income based repayment plan makes it almost impossible to collect unless you succeed. Eventually, you will either end up with a degree or with a viable enterprise.

    As an aside, for you young bros, Being a diesel mechanic can be quite lucrative, if dirty, work, which is in demand everywhere. Check it out. It’s also a mobile job. It’s not like the government is going to do much if you set up a shop in Costa Rica or Uruguay or Zambia, you know?

  76. Opus says:

    When I read the term Europe, I don’t think the term can refer to where I am, but then I have to force myself to understand that that is indeed what is being included in the term. May I thus recommend a viewing of – and the title explains it all – ‘If this is Tuesday this must be Belgium’, however if Ian MacShane is not to your taste I suppose you can watch the Griswalds on their European Vacation. Only Americanadians ‘do’ Europe – and I suppose Lord Clark of Civilisation fame – how pretentious that all now seems.

  77. Boxer says:

    When I read the term Europe, I don’t think the term can refer to where I am, but then I have to force myself to understand that that is indeed what is being included in the term.

    I remember discussing “Europe” with an old Londoner. He looked at me like I was crazy, and with great patience informed me that he wasn’t a European.

    On the flip side, if you ever visit Newfoundland, and talk to any old duffers there, they’ll insist that they’re Europeans. An overseas department of France is a half hour ferry away, and the UK is just a short hop across the water, so I guess they have a point…

  78. Opus says:

    ‘Fog in Channel: Continent cut off’ is indeed how we see it, but worse they don’t even speak English, so you see how it is. I am reliably informed, for example, that there is no Spanish equivalent of UKIP. We not only do not perceive that we might be European, we simply hate having anything to do with it.

    …yet, going round Europe and getting shagged senseless seems to be a right of passage for females as with the one we have been discussing.

  79. DeNihilist says:

    Boxer – “A young man in Canada or the US who feels he needs an education ought to go to to community college for the first two years.”

    Best advice from a buddy (regarding other parents sending there kids to “name” university’s, half a continent away so th kids could get a life experience), “Noboby hiring gives a shit where you get your B.A.. If the boys get through that, then want to get a Masters or Doc, then you may consider a name school. B.A.’s are a dime a dozen”

    He probably saved the wife and I thousands!

  80. Mark Citadel says:

    Japan: Slowly but surely, it is happening here.

    True manhood has been squashed and in its place, couch-bound masturbators are the new faces of American masculinity. Does this bode well for any future war? Not likely.

  81. Retrenched says:

    It’s very simple.

    When…

    1. you toss out absolute moral standards, leaving the concept of right and wrong to be decided by majority vote,

    and

    2. women have more votes than men,

    then

    3. the female id becomes the greatest moral good and the highest standard — replacing the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Christ, or whatever other moral standards might have existed before it.

    Here we are.

  82. Longtorso says:

    “Images of child abuse” and “child pornography” are rather wide and blurry categories in current discourse. It’s possible he was merely watching some hentai, or common porn featuring young women appearing to be underage.

    Before I believe a charge against a man for any sex crime, I need to actually see the details of said crime.

    The husband is under church discipline for it; the church that won’t let her divorce believes him to be guilty.

    “Annulments” are a Catholic thing anyway. If she wants to get an annulment, she would need to become Catholic first.

    I believe her argument is that this isn’t a “divorce”, because his not disclosing that is a big enough lie that she made the commitment under false pretenses. At what point is a lie by one partner before the marriage large enough to invalidate it?

    Biblically speaking, she can (and probably should) separate from him, permanently.

    Her church objects to her separating her finances from his. A permanent separation would require that.

  83. Pirran says:

    @Dalrock
    Aaaannd….just when all headlines seem to be a Poe, along comes this (hat-tip @Nero):

    http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

    Everything you ever wrote about women in marriage 2.0 “missing out” on their party years coming together in one hideous confla(gra)tion. An abused and cuckolded male “feminist” desperately trying to rationalize his doomed marriage and humiliated existence whilst his wife bangs random strangers as he looks after the kids. Being a house-husband won’t save him from divorce theft in a few years as he’s thrown out of the house when she finds that “special” hunk to replace him. The pain and fear comes through in every sentence as he smiles his rictus smile and parrots the party line.

    It really is a glimpse into Hell.

  84. Pirran says:

    @Novaseeker

    Ahh…you saw it too, huh?

  85. Mark says:

    @Boxer

    “”Glad to see you bro. I spent a couple of weeks at the Royal York, and now I’m out in Mississauga by the airport. I like Toronto (it’s like a cleaner, nicer NYC) but a huge slice of the women I met were incredibly annoying, and I thought of you with each new one that came within earshot.””

    The Royal York?…..on Front St……….across from the train station.NOT CHEAP by any means.Now you are in Mississauga by the airport?…..I know exactly where you are.In fact,you are a $10 taxi ride to my house. Next time,you hit TO?….let me know as I will meet up with you.All food,entertainment & drinks are on me.Annoying women?…..L* That they are!…..DO NOT take a Toronto women home as a souvenir……it will only be misery for you!

  86. Escoffier says:

    At least he’s catching hell in the comments.

    Though I suspect that propaganda like this will continue–not until everyone agrees, which is an attainable goal, but until it becomes taboo to publicly disagree or criticize. Given their recent astonishing successes in turning thousands of years of received wisdom upside down overnight, and making it mandatory to treat nature as a fairy tale, I am hesitant to bet against them.

  87. Escoffier says:

    UNattainable goal.

  88. Gunner Q says:

    feeriker @ July 17, 2015 at 1:56 pm:
    “Unless I overlooked something, no one here has said anything in this case about “frivorce” or that she should remain with this guy. Biblically speaking, she can (and probably should) separate from him, permanently.”

    Over mere porn? I disagree. There’s so much trash in circulation that if any level of porn was grounds for ending a marriage then all marriages would be doomed. When society tries constantly and shamelessly to tear men down, the last thing I want is to see men be punished harshly for falling.

    Take confession, get the guy help, cut off his access, help police track down the supplier, sure. But ruin his marriage, his only God-acceptable sexual outlet as part of redirecting his sexual desires? That is as foolish as debtor’s prison. Porn is so pandemic these days, I wouldn’t even remove him from church authority over this (excepting youth ministry, of course, but even then only to ward off temptation).

  89. greyghost says:

    JDG
    Sexting is only child porn for a male. The girl that manufactured (took the nude selfie ) and distributed it (texted it to her boyfriend0 is not charged with anything. she is the victim

  90. Anonymous Reader says:

    The NYTImes article about a cuckold brings to mind a recent posting by Rollo Tomassi.
    http://therationalmale.com/2015/07/05/hats-off-to-the-bull/
    The cartoon at the top says it all. Mildly NSFW.

    A summary in my opinion: AF-BB is not enough for the new, Sheryl Sandburg taught women. Now they want children from the AF and resources from the BB – no children, just resources. So it appears another turn of the FI is upon us, the pre-cuckolded beta bucks marriage, who never gets to reproduce but is expected to support her thugspawn.

    This is completely in keeping with hypergamy, obviously, although plenty of women, White Knights and other usual suspects will deny it as a trend.

    I won’t be surprised to see some form of polyandry being pushed in the media in the next 5 years. Call it, oh, “Will & Bob & Grace”, where alpha Will gets access to Grace whenever he wants, beta Bob gets limited sex that cannot ever impregnate Grace, and guess who’s going to work to support this modern “family”?

  91. Escoffier says:

    This seems to be a little different in that, apparently, the kids are biologically his. Also, she’s the sole breadwinner. Still, he’s contributing resources, in the form of childcare, but one wonders what she gets out of keeping him instead of just hiring a nanny. Even for the “polyamorous,” is there a status boot in being married, and to your kids’ biological father? If so, yet another illustration of how inherently contradictory these people’s self-justifications are.

  92. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    This seems to be a little different in that, apparently, the kids are biologically his.

    The article reminds me of Rollo’s posting because it’s clearly a step in that direction, while not the final destination. And how do we know that those children are genetically his? Because she says so?

    Also, she’s the sole breadwinner.

    Yes, it’s a step towards something else, not the something else. If I did not make that clear, my apologies. This is AF-BB 1.0, Rollo is pointing to the next step, AF-BB 2.0, the pre-cuckolded man.

    Still, he’s contributing resources, in the form of childcare, but one wonders what she gets out of keeping him instead of just hiring a nanny.
    Even for the “polyamorous,” is there a status boot in being married, and to your kids’ biological father? If so, yet another illustration of how inherently contradictory these people’s self-justifications are.

    Uh, she’s a woman. So there’s some status to being able to wear a ring on 4th finger left hand, and call herself “married” and speak of “my husband”, of course. Just as her hypergamy is surely sated by her various affairs. It’s win-win-win for her: “husband”, “my kids”, and hot sex with other men. Of course it’s lose-lose for him, and lose-lose for the children, but surely it is obvious that doesn’t matter.

    I am certain that while 2nd stage feminists may have some “ick” reactions to this, the 3rd stage sex-pozzies are bound to love it. What will 4th stage feminism look like, I wonder?

  93. Escoffier says:

    Is the culture now so rotten that she even gains status for having a “husband” even thought they’ve made it public knowledge that she’s a tramp? If so, that’s completely incoherent. I know that modernity thrives on incoherence, but this one seems exceptionally transparently idiotic. In what sense is she “married” in a way that grants her status in any of the ways that marriage used to confer status on women?

    Perhaps we are moving toward a new type of marriage status for women. “I am so high value that I can get a man to give himself to me as my housekeeper, voluntarily castrate himself, and talk openly about how wonderful it is to be serially sexually humiliated by me.”

    I am not typically optimistic, but it seems to me that no matter how low we sink, this will not have many male takers.

  94. Escoffier says:

    Put another way, how much status can a woman derive from being married to a man that other women will absolutely, viscerally despise?

  95. Julian O'Dea says:

    I have only glanced at the article, but there are a lot of cuckold fetishists. He may simply be one of them. Dressing it up as supporting feminism could just be rationalisation.

  96. Novaseeker says:

    I suppose it does still confer some status to her.

    What’s more interesting is that, despite the comments, it does seem like there are more women who are having a kind of sexual mid-life crisis now. The author of the “Wild Oats Project” book comes to mind, as does this woman. It appears that for women who marry before they fully mine the “AF” lane, there is a significant risk that they will later regret that they didn’t mine that lane, and try to catch up later on, eve though they are married.

    I think the other interesting thing is that this shows what this kind of thing really is:

    ” It does work both ways and, yes, I too enjoy sexual carte blanche. I just don’t use mine as much as my wife uses hers. What’s important is equality of opportunity, not outcome.”

    Well, duh. Women have more sexual access than almost all men do (and certainly in the case of a SAHD). When a marriage is “opened up”, the woman easily acquires attractive lovers, while the man … less so, in most cases. It really is much more a case of open cuckolding than it is polyamory (which implies a kind of equality), because women will almost always have more sexual access than their husbands do, especially if they are looking for a primarily sexual relationship, or one that starts that way. That this guy realizes this and openly accepts his cuckolding just makes him all the more pathetic.

    From her point of view it’s an ideal situation. Having bio dad raise the kids is preferable to having a nanny do it, and she gets to have sex and romantic relationships with whomever she wants, regardless of her being married. It’s the optimal solution for a woman who wants the benefits of marriage without the restrictions of it. I fully expect that this will catch on, and that there will be increasing pressure on men to accept it on grounds that to do otherwise is to be a sexist oppressor of women and is akin to domestic abuse due to being “controlling”.

  97. Novaseeker says:

    I have only glanced at the article, but there are a lot of cuckold fetishists. He may simply be one of them. Dressing it up as supporting feminism could just be rationalisation.

    That’s possible, but as he describes it, she came up with the idea and he needed a lot of convincing over a period of time to consent to it. That’s usually not the way it works for a cuck fetishist — he usually brings it up in that situation, and not the wife. This is a woman who wanted to cuck her husband because she wanted to fuck other men without getting divorced.

  98. Anonymous Reader says:

    Is the culture now so rotten that she even gains status for having a “husband” even thought they’ve made it public knowledge that she’s a tramp?

    You horrid, horrid bigot! You’re just a polyphobe, determined to stamp out women’s choice and chain them to a sink, barefoot and pregnant! I feel triggered!

    Or to put it another way, “yes, in the social circles she moves in”. Because if it were otherwise, she’d keep this arrangement a secret, rather than blurt it out via the Carlos Slim Times.

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    I fully expect that this will catch on, and that there will be increasing pressure on men to accept it on grounds that to do otherwise is to be a sexist oppressor of women and is akin to domestic abuse due to being “controlling”.

    Sheryl Sandberg may be adding a bullet point or to on her list for her next husband. And I’ve no doubt she will remarry if she wants to do so.

  100. Retrenched says:

    In the past open marriages were generally male dominated and worked to the advantage of the husband. A woman would marry Mr. Big, and allow him to get some action on the side (sometimes with the same mistress for years) as part of the price of getting to me Mrs. Big — and she would be okay with it, more or less, as long as he didn’t flaunt it in front of everyone. (Sometimes it would even go both ways. Hulk Hogan, for example, banged lots of groupies on the road, but he also got off on setting up other WWF wrestlers with his wife Linda.)

    Under this new system, average men would have to accept cuckoldry as part of the price of being married to an average woman — and they wouldn’t even get the benefit of their wives “keeping up appearances” in public, as it were – their wives wouldn’t even try to make it seem as if they still loved, respected or desired their husbands.

    Have we really reached the point in the sexual revolution in which the sexual market is so skewed in women’s favor that they can openly demand the privilege of cucking their husbands, and expect to get it? Are there really that many millions of sex-starved betas who are so desperate for action — any action — that they’d not only marry the alpha’s leftovers, but continue sharing them with the alphas during the marriage itself, in exchange for a small trickle of sex from their slut wives?

    Meh. I’m not sure why this surprises me, really. It’s not like men haven’t given women everything they’ve demanded since they first got vote, so I don’t see why their demands for cucking privileges would be any exception. Especially considering that it would work to the advantage of the wealthiest and most powerful men anyway. Most men would of course lose out, overall, but isn’t that the way pretty much everything else works these days?

  101. Escoffier says:

    this was actually in New York Magazine, not the Times.

    There’s not a huge difference, but there is a difference. The Times is not (yet?) ready to go this far. The Mag has always been culturally avant guarde.

  102. Escoffier says:

    Sheryl Sandberg, though, is literally a billionaire. No doubt there are plenty of men who sign up for that just for the money. Doesn’t seem obviously applicable even to a Manhattan career wench making $500K.

  103. Escoffier says:

    Regarding the argument that women benefit more for this arrangement … the ‘sphere in general posits that women hit the wall much sooner and harder than men. Rollo’s chart, etc. That would seem to contradict or at least not support this thesis. It ought to be the ~35-45 y/o men out there having more success than their comparable aged peer-wives.

    Not that I doubt that the dynamic is true. More than one similar “confessional” from some poor cuck moron has been posted where he laments agreeing to this that I think it is generally true. But this circle has to be squared somehow.

  104. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to the OP and the last article about heroin, I don’t know how I missed this the first time:

    Women, people age 18 to 25, and those with higher incomes and private insurance have been increasingly falling victim to the drug.

    Yes, women are “falling victim” to heroin. I’m sure young women are just walking down the street, minding their own business, when a syringe of smack just jumps out of the shadows and sticks them. The total passive, zero agency, language is very telling.

    A better question to ask would be this: how is this all that different from the increase in prescription meds for women in that age group?

  105. mrteebs says:

    @Michelle

    She should take responsibility for her poor planning and spending, but she didn’t just blow 90k like the headline would have us believe.

    How’s this. “Entitlement princess blows 30K of college fund. Blames parents.”

    Frankly, I don’t think their version is as dishonest as you would have us believe. To wit, she still does not have a degree. That sounds a lot to me like blowing the whole wad with nothing to show for it, other than a gun to her parents’ head.

    Why are you spending so much as one syllable even partially defending her? Whatever happened to working part time to pay those living expenses, particularly given the $10k padding from her parents? I can guarantee you she was pursuing some frivolous degree that leaves dozens of hours per week free, unlike a STEM-related field of study where people stay up all night for reasons other than partying. But, she’ll certainly be a prize for some lucky guy that will be expected to support her in the manner to which she has become accustomed. And when things go south, as they surely will, she’ll be well-rehearsed to blame him.

  106. feeriker says:

    I fully expect that this will catch on, and that there will be increasing pressure on men to accept it on grounds that to do otherwise is to be a sexist oppressor of women and is akin to domestic abuse due to being “controlling”.

    I very much doubt that this will ever become widespread, unless we reach the point of becoming a full-blown, overt gynodictatorship in which men are literally forced at gunpoint to comply with every aspect of the FI. It crrtainly won’t ever gain acceptance among married men, or men serious about LTRs.

    Sure, cuckhold fetishism is more common than it should be, but I really see zero evidence of a large thirsty beta/gamma/delta population so lacking in self-respect as to tolerate this arrangement. Unless dystopian science discovers a way to change men’s biological hardwiring, this is never going to fly.

    I really think that this article is a typical example of lib-left New York journalism attempting to portray as “normal” or “progressive” something that is a niche perversion among a very narrow segment of the prog upper class. This is really nothing more than that. It’s irrelevant to the mainstream majority, and certainly not acceptable to the overwhelming majority of men in any sociosexual category.

  107. Escoffier says:

    I agree with feeriker. This won’t catch on.

    That said, here’s what I do expect.

    1) I do expect an all out push to make this “respectable” and if not strictly so, then to punish and harass open dissenters. Much the same way you cannot today say “Bruce Jenner is still a dude!” and keep your job or status anywhere in the top 20% of the economy or society, so fairly soon you will not be able to say that “polyamory” is in any way objectionable–religiously, morally, or otherwise and retain you status or career. I think that is within reach of our socio-political overlords.

    2) But most men will still be viscerally repelled by this. If and to the extent that women make this a requirement for marriage or an LTR, MTGOW will explode exponentially. The only way I see that could be wrong is if “the thirst” is so powerful that men will literally put up with anything in order to get missionary twice a year and be serially humiliated the other 363 days. I just doubt that is true of the majority.

  108. Pingback: The broken credential bubble. | Dark Brightness

  109. greyghost says:

    MGTOW and surrogacy is starting to seem smart and rational now. She is a helper

  110. JDG says:

    You horrid, horrid bigot! You’re just a polyphobe, determined to stamp out women’s choice and chain them to a sink, barefoot and pregnant!

    You forgot the sammiches! Don’t forget the sammiches.

  111. JDG says:

    the female id becomes the greatest moral good and the highest standard — replacing the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Christ, or whatever other moral standards might have existed before it.

    Then it all goes down the drain.

  112. greyghost says:

    When women join a haram it is her choice when a man in cuckolded it is at government gunpoint. he also doesn’t have a choice to not be one, Also the women has no concerns what so ever if her husband is happy at all. This cuckold thing I don’t thick will catch on for men. women that try this kind of thing with the wrong guy tend to get beat up or killed and she is very reliant on the government force to keep her safe from consequences.

  113. JDG says:

    infowarrior1 says:
    @JDG

    Its strange that in more ancient times 16 was the age of adulthood. Now its 18 in the states.

    IMO our whole society is strange when compared to most throughout history. Even comparing current western society with western society 100 years ago makes today’s culture look pathetic.

    @JDG

    http://www.freerangekids.com/thanks-for-assuming-im-a-pedophile-just-because-i-was-out-with-my-grandson/

    This one was bad, but there was another incident I read about where a woman literally followed a father and his small daughter out to his car trying to talk to the daughter out of fear that she was being abducted. She wouldn’t even talk with the father even though he addressed her repeatedly. Someone commented that this was the “professional” way to handle it. If this is true then “professionalism” has gone down the toilet.

  114. Novaseeker says:

    Regarding the argument that women benefit more for this arrangement … the ‘sphere in general posits that women hit the wall much sooner and harder than men. Rollo’s chart, etc. That would seem to contradict or at least not support this thesis. It ought to be the ~35-45 y/o men out there having more success than their comparable aged peer-wives.

    Not that I doubt that the dynamic is true. More than one similar “confessional” from some poor cuck moron has been posted where he laments agreeing to this that I think it is generally true. But this circle has to be squared somehow.

    I think it’s that women continue to have access to easy sex — as long as they are presentable/maintained — well into the later 40s and even early 50s today, but of course the men who are the lovers are in no way similar to the men they could attract at 25. There are always male “takers” when sex is on the table as long as she is capable of generating an erection for them. But the takers are different than they were when she was 23.

    There is *always* an inequality of pure sexual access between average men and average women. What changes over time is that the man gets more “equitable” access (ability to attract a SMV peer) as he ages, whereas a woman’s ability to actualize her hypergamy dwindles as she ages. That doesn’t mean her ability to access casual sex dwindles — it means the men who she attracts for that (and there will always be many, as long as she is attractive for her age) are a different set of men than the ones she could attract for it when she was a tight-bodied 22 year old superhottie. She’s not at her SMV peak, but she still has more access to casual sex than her peer-SMV male, because there is a large inequality of demand for such casual sex as between men and women in general, such that a woman who is in any way attractive can always easily find takers, even if they are not the same quality as they were when she was 22.

  115. Pirran says:

    It’s a veritable quote-mine, that piece. I can see why people would think it a Poe, but urban male feminism is at this level of prostration now. Two, in particular, come to mind:

    “Before my wife started sleeping with other men, I certainly considered myself a feminist, but I really only understood it in the abstract…………………When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.”

    the implication being that to be a REAL feminist, a man MUST allow his partner to explore her sexuality with other men. Polyamory is not merely expected, but a prerequisite.

    “Whenever I tell someone I stay home with the kids, they invariably say, “Hardest work in the world.”…………….But there’s a subtext in the compliment that makes it backhanded: We both know no one ever says it to a woman.”

    Apart from in every other episode of Opera, every campaign speech, every Talk show hosts sanctimonious preamble and every Fox News discussion panel. Single-Mom, the “hardest job in the world”, became a trope long ago. Mike knows this, of course, but the lie is so transparently obvious he is daring us to challenge his world-view and hence expose ourselves as evil, misogynistic bigots. That will certainly be his reaction to the waves of derision in the comments section.

    The comments of self-identified feminists were of note, though.They were backing away from Mike’s revelations as fast as possible. “No, no, this isn’t REAL feminism. How could you possibly conflate this pathetic man and his selfish, skanky wife with REAL FEMINISM. RF is about equality, and respect and love and unicorns….”. Perhaps there is a little fear or even….doubt? in some of their remarks.

    Either way, it’s clear that Mike and his urban feminist male bonding contemporaries clearly identify Feminism with subjugation and they’re quite happy with that. Apart from when he leaves the kids with the wife and pretends to go on a date, but really sits alone in the bar until his sobbing attracts the attention of the management. His wife knows that too, of course, which is why she doesn’t mind him going.

  116. Retrenched says:

    Thanks, Novaseeker, for saying what I was going to say – probably better than I would have said it anyway – so now I don’t need to.

  117. Dale says:

    Longtorso said:
    >I believe her argument is that this isn’t a “divorce”, because his not disclosing that is a big enough lie that she made the commitment under false pretenses. At what point is a lie by one partner before the marriage large enough to invalidate it?

    I do not recall ever hearing words to the effect of, “provided you have given full, honest disclosure in everything,” in the wedding vows. Perhaps you will want to change this, but as the vows currently stand, they claim to be irrevocable. Of course, because our hearts are hard (Matt 19:1-12) we divorce anyway. But it was not meant to be this way (again, Matt 19:1-12).
    Divorce is only acceptable for cases of adultery or the departure of an unbelieving spouse. That’s it. No exceptions for lack of disclosure, illness, bad luck, cheapness, anger, pornography, flirting, or anything else.
    Now, I think separation for safety can be appropriate. If a man’s wife leaves, he is not required to find whatever bed she is sleeping in each night and join her there. He can be separate from her.

    Some may disagree, but I would even agree to a legal divorce, for the sake of separating finances for financial safety, but I still would see them as married in God’s eyes, and thus the remarriage or extra-marital sex would be adultery (Matt 5:31-32). The then-cheated upon spouse could truthfully state the other has broken the marriage vows by adultery. As previously discussed, this might give the offended spouse the ability to remarry, but certainly not the adulterer.

  118. Dale says:

    “Thanks, Novaseeker, for saying what I was going to say – probably better than I would have said it anyway – so now I don’t need to.”

    +1

  119. Julian O'Dea says:

    Novaseeker:

    ” That’s possible, but as he describes it, she came up with the idea and he needed a lot of convincing over a period of time to consent to it. That’s usually not the way it works for a cuck fetishist — he usually brings it up in that situation, and not the wife. This is a woman who wanted to cuck her husband because she wanted to fuck other men without getting divorced.”

    Yes, cuckold fetishists usually need to convince their wives. But he may still be “getting off” in the situation he has found himself in, like a man accepting and coming to enjoy passive homosexuality in a prison.

    It is also possible that he had a pretty good idea what she was like. Perhaps she was pretty slutty before they met too. Cuckold fetishists swap stories not only about the number of men their wives have slept with since marriage, but also before marriage.

    Another possible take is the Steve Sailer approach, that he is signalling extreme “hipness” among his in-crowd. There was a case recently of a man claiming that he was really a “woman”. Not only that but he was “pregnant” and wanted an abortion.

  120. A.B Prosper says:

    I’m not sure that more people living at home with the parents is a bad thing so long as they pay some of the bills.

    Its leads to healthier tighter families, is a great way to save money and is less lonely which is good for mental health.

    Heck humanity basically lived this way through most of the past and still managed to have children. For modern life I actually think families and relations owning swathes of contingent properties is the smart way to go. Keeps foreigners out and provides a strong safety net.

    And yeah in such systems people consume less. So? More to life than buying stuff.

  121. Novaseeker says:

    The comments of self-identified feminists were of note, though.They were backing away from Mike’s revelations as fast as possible. “No, no, this isn’t REAL feminism. How could you possibly conflate this pathetic man and his selfish, skanky wife with REAL FEMINISM. RF is about equality, and respect and love and unicorns….”. Perhaps there is a little fear or even….doubt? in some of their remarks.

    Oh they are now, for certain. This is in the very early stages. Everything is met with derision in the early stages, and as recently as 20 years ago the idea of gay marriage was met with widespread derision. When Justice Scalia noted in his dissent to Lawrence v. Texas that the “logic” of the majority opinion would inevitably lead to recognizing gay marriage, he was widely laughed at as a catastrophist. Well, now …

    The point of articles like that one (and similar ones about polyamory and so on) is to get the memes out on the table. Float some balloons. It’s to get the conversation started. It won’t reach endgame for quite some time (neither did gay marriage, and the balloons about that started to be floated in earnest in the 1990s), but it will certainly come. The logic of feminism, in its dominant/sex-positive variant, inevitably leads to this as surely as Lawrence inevitably led to gay marriage as a constitutional right.

  122. Novaseeker says:

    Julian —

    Hmm.

    He says specifically that she had not a lot of sexual experience before marrying, and that her motivations were to get the sexual experiences that she felt she lost out on by marrying young. Now, it’s possible that this isn’t true, or that he was snowed or what have you, but at least from the text it isn’t saying he knew she was always a slut, and in fact he is saying the opposite.

    It could very well be that he is getting off on what is happening now, I don’t know. That’s possible. But it isn’t the standard script for a cuck fetishist, really. He could have become one, however, after his wife proposed to open the marriage and convinced him over time to do so.

    I do think that there is a certain amount of hipster peacocking involved, yes. But I think more fundamentally he doesn’t have a lot of options, and so he is trying to make lemonade out of lemons. If his wife leaves him, she likely still gets the kids, or at least a large chunk of them. He is a SAHD and can retool economically, but that takes time and he has likely lost a LOT of ground in the market compared to other men. His life options are limited, his wife has him by the balls, and so he is choosing to make the best of it, would be my guess, for as long as he can ride it out. I expect she will leave him once she finds an acceptably more masculine man who would fit into her life well with the kids (i.e., makes money, too, to afford child care and so on), at which point she will drop beta cuck like a hot potato.

  123. Pirran says:

    @Novaseeker
    “It won’t reach endgame for quite some time (neither did gay marriage, and the balloons about that started to be floated in earnest in the 1990s), but it will certainly come.”

    But how many moderate feminists will it drive away in the meantime? At what point do the beliefs of the radical hard-core become so reprehensible to the majority that they become impossible to enforce? How inflatable, exactly, is this balloon? NYMag is not America. When the culturati become such a tiny echo-chamber that most liberals think they’re nuts, there’s nowhere left to turn. Comments from such self-identified feminists as retrostripes on that post come to mind:

    “And if this is what feminism is now, I want off of this ride. Having multiple sex partners, to me, seems degrading. I love having only one guy to myself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being monogamous and loving that lifestyle.”

    We’re already at a point where such gay icons as Andrew Sullivan are consistently attacking the censorious fascism of gay elites and we’ve recently seen what’s happened to Gawker. At the nadir, we tend to forget that pendulums swing both ways.

  124. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, that mostly seems reasonable Novaseeker.

    The trajectory for these guys does seem to be that the wife often leaves them.

    On the other hand there was one who posted a picture of his wife (she did have “good genes” and had lasted well) with a long list of the men she had slept with (offices not names). One was a “state senator”, which detail I found amusing for some reason.

    They were apparently still together, but the thing is inherently unstable. If hypergamy is even slightly in play, she will grow bored with her cuckold. The only exception might be a woman who has found him useful as a general factotum. Maybe that will apply in this latest case.

    Open marriages as an aspiration are not terribly new. There was a minor fashion for them a few decades ago. I actually knew a couple who entered into one. In that case, I think the woman was the one who suffered, partly perhaps because the man was bisexual.

    Some of this may have its roots in the old hippy-dippy philosophy, that “all you need is love”. In reality, jealousy tends to get in the way.

  125. Don Quixote says:

    Dale says:
    July 18, 2015 at 9:55 pm

    Divorce is only acceptable for cases of adultery or the departure of an unbelieving spouse. That’s it. No exceptions for lack of disclosure, illness, bad luck, cheapness, anger, pornography, flirting, or anything else.
    Now, I think separation for safety can be appropriate. If a man’s wife leaves, he is not required to find whatever bed she is sleeping in each night and join her there. He can be separate from her.

    It’s worse than you think. You might find the following interesting:
    http://oncemarried.net

  126. Julian O'Dea says:

    Speaking of cuckoldry, here is a short story I wrote recently on the topic:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2015/07/14/the-young-wife/

  127. feeriker says:

    …the female id becomes the greatest moral good and the highest standard — replacing the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Christ, or whatever other moral standards might have existed before it.

    Then it all goes down the drain.

    Plenty of “churches” out there are doing their very best to help flush it down the drain.

  128. MarcusD says:

    Marriage Testimonies?
    http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=970093

    If people want to provide advice, I (or anyone, for that matter) can point him here.

  129. Julian O'Dea says:

    From the NYMag article:

    “I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing.”

    Getting off on the humiliation?

    “She’d had sex before me, but only with a handful of people a handful of times. She never had a boyfriend, never had a lover. I was the first man she ever had the chance to get to know intimately.”

    There is some internal inconsistency here.

    ” It took me about six months — many long, intense conversations, and an ocean of red wine …”

    He hit the bottle hard.

    “From everywhere comes the message that what I’m doing is for weaklings, losers, failures, pussies; that if I had money and status, I could keep my wife “in line”; that her self-discovery comes at the expense of my self-esteem. My open marriage has made heavy demands on my ability to silence the voice of doubt in my head, that gnawing feeling of worthlessness. But I find I can meet those demands, and that I am able to build my self-confidence out of nothing more than the basic dignity we all possess.”

    Now he sounds like every battered wife ever.

  130. Julian O'Dea says:

    And notice how his slutty wife is giving it up for “creative” types and guys called “Paulo”, at least the way he presents it.

    I would make a sporting bet that “Paulo” is delighting in screwing another man’s wife.

  131. DeNihilist says:

    Julian et al, I think that the article was written by a woman. The wording is weak. I think this is a 3rd wave fem, trying to show what a 50’s wife went through, having her dreams dampened by being a SAHM. I have never heard a man talk about his children as being a “withering drudgery”. Only a woman thinks that way about the brats!

  132. DeNihilist says:

    J O’D – “I would make a sporting bet that “Paulo” is delighting in screwing another man’s wife.”

    Hmmm, sounds like an omega playa that posts here often and boasts about how easy it is to bang married women. Funny thing is, a lot of men on this site look up to this twat.

  133. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, “Michael Sonmore”, the “author”, only has one credit at NYMag. That is suspicious in itself.

    Normally, I am a trusting soul, but I am also becoming a bit dubious about the sex of this writer. Some of the stylistic touches sound a bit feminine; too whiny for a man.

    It does indeed read like a wish fulfillment fantasy written by a feminist.

    As for banging married women, this is aspirational for some men. I noticed that one of the first things the new “James Bond”, played by Daniel Craig, says is that he only sleeps with married women.

    There is a fellow who used to frequent Manosphere sites and say that he regularly visits women whose virginity he had taken and enjoys their favours as married women. I felt terribly sorry for the husbands, but then maybe he was just making it up.

  134. mrteebs says:

    I’m tempted to submit this to NYMag and ask the gushing hipsters in the editorial department as well as the large number of “progressive” commenters on their website to please distinguish between the moral implications of Michael’s story and the entirely fictional account below…

    “My wife told me to dress in a Lord Fauntleroy suit while eating a cereal bowl of her feces. It pleased her. Sure, for a while I retched and felt humiliated. But in time, I came to see that this was selfish of me and I had to move past it. I was constraining her pleasure – all for parochial concerns like my physical and mental well-being. I’ve now grown as a person and have come to really see and appreciate the world through her eyes. I’ve acquired a taste now for her feces, particularly after she’s had Mexican food. In fact, I look forward to it. When I know she’s frequenting Taco Bell, I like to play Loretta Lynn on the stereo. At her suggestion, I found some other women who have overcome their own inhibitions and blossomed, as I have. We’re all OK with a fully fecal diet now. In time, the world will come to embrace it too, and see that this taboo limits us all from being fully human. Of course, we don’t force this on our small children. One of us stays home while the other fecals. We like to call this an “Open Diet.””

  135. Julian O'Dea says:

    mrteebs, I think that is called “giving them ideas”.

    The photographer Mapplethorpe was into coprophagy. So, there is a celebrity endorsement to start with.

  136. mrteebs says:

    Jessica Valenti – somewhere around 273 on a 1-10 scale of feminist leanings – calls Sonmore’s article …utterly fascinating.

    Shocker.

    https://zfem.wordpress.com/2015/07/19/michael-sonmores-utterly-fascinating-discussion-of-his-open-marriage/

  137. Dave says:

    There is a fellow who used to frequent Manosphere sites and say that he regularly visits women whose virginity he had taken and enjoys their favours as married women. I felt terribly sorry for the husbands, but then maybe he was just making it up.

    I wish he was making it up. But it is unlikely. The first sexual exprience for a woman is so pivotal because it can stay with her for life and soulishly tie her to her first sexual partner for life.
    I once read about a practice in a certain part of the world where would-be brides (virgins) would sleep with the local priest as part of the wedding ceremony. Rather than the marriage being consumated with the new husband, the new bride would have to sleep with the priest, and return to her husband on the morning after the wedding. It was later discovered that for many years, these wives would secretly go back to meet the priests to have sex with them, often without the knowldge of their husbands.
    Any Christian man getting married these days to a nonvirgin bride ought to pray that the soul of his new bride be restored, just as David stated in Psalms 23: “He restoreth my soul”. Otherwise, he might end up with a woman with souls fragmented all over the world among many past lovers, and who struggles to love him the way a wife should love her husband. Gary Greenwald went into further details about the role of sex and soulties in his highly recommended book: “Seductions Exposed“.

  138. Julian O'Dea says:

    CS Lewis had some interesting things to say about every “one flesh” experience enduring forever. That is one reason why men as well as women should be very careful whom they sleep with. You always pay eventually.

  139. Opus says:

    I read it last night and thought it fiction, but whether it is or not I would like to hone in on the specificity of the new lover being called Paolo: not only does the husband know the name of his latest rival (hmmm) and only the first name but the name shouts gigolo (latino fancy man) to me. Paolo is surely considerably younger than the wife, vaguely ethnic and obviously a real loser who cannot get a woman his own age or perhaps sees going with a white woman as a feather in his cap.

    Having said that, as I wrote here a few weeks back when we last discussed this, back in 1978, 1982 and 1983 I was romantically linked with women two of whom were suggesting sexual freedom for themselves as perfectly reasonable such that were I to object I would be a controlling insecure bastard and the other seemed to get off on making me jealous even as she bemoaned that Alpha Dudes (of which I might have been one) pumped and dumped her. This has not happened to me since.

    Is cuckoldry perhaps merely the outsourcing of sex, much as one might outsource education to a school such that a happy outcome for the wife is seen by the husband as a success just as parents (who have forgotten how to do differential equations) bask in the good school results of their offspring.

  140. Julian O'Dea says:

    If Paulo exists he may have a string of women. Cuckolding a male feminist might just be one of the strings to his bow. I would not be surprised if the wife is providing him with some sort of payment, other than her body of course. She seems to go for creative types. Maybe she is buying his paints or something.

    The whole thing sounds a bit unlikely to me. One bit that rings true is that “his” feminist bullshitting sounds a bit off, as if he is not quite sure of his facts. Nobody ever validates SAHMs? Really??

    A lot of people write stories that are wish-fulfillment fantasies. This reads a bit like one of those, written by a feminist.

  141. Julian O'Dea says:

    Another point, if “Paulo” exists. I would love to be a “fly on the wall” when he discusses the wife with his friends.

  142. Novaseeker says:

    But how many moderate feminists will it drive away in the meantime? At what point do the beliefs of the radical hard-core become so reprehensible to the majority that they become impossible to enforce? How inflatable, exactly, is this balloon? NYMag is not America. When the culturati become such a tiny echo-chamber that most liberals think they’re nuts, there’s nowhere left to turn.

    Again, almost every radical social change began with trial balloons which were laughed at. Gay marriage is the most recent one. It was literally “AYFKM” laughable as recently as 20 years ago for most people, and now it is rigidly enforced social orthodoxy. And it started with balloons that were laughed at. I think it’s dangerous to assume that we are at the maximum swing of the pendulum.

    We knew that after gays the trannies were next in line. And that is now also being forced down everyone’s throats and is becoming rigidly enforced social orthodoxy virtually overnight. The legal changes will follow along. And we can also see that the next in line after the trannies are the polys. Cuckolding isn’t exactly the same thing as poly, but it’s related in a way that if poly also becomes social orthodoxy, incredible amounts of pressure will be placed on the norm of monogamy in straight marriages. It’s inevitable.

    The only variable which I think may give pause is the degree to which women want to pursue this. They will control what happens — the herd decides that cucking is the thing, then it will become the thing, and trying to deny it to a wife will be seen as outright abuse akin to trying to control her finances today. If the herd decides that it doesn’t want this, then it will never become bigger than a niche. A lot rides on what happens with the poly movement in the next ten years, and just how much meddling the more activist gays like Dan Savage do to straight marriages and the norm of monogamy (something he’s already been going on about for a few years now).

  143. Hells Hound says:

    From her point of view it’s an ideal situation. Having bio dad raise the kids is preferable to having a nanny do it, and she gets to have sex and romantic relationships with whomever she wants, regardless of her being married. It’s the optimal solution for a woman who wants the benefits of marriage without the restrictions of it.

    It’s optimal because it’s a false compromise that conveniently serves female primacy.

    A real compromise is when the wife shares access to her body and orifices with men other than her husband, and the husband shares access to his provisioning with women other than her wife. Good luck trying to convince women that this is actually fair, even though it is.

  144. Hells Hound says:

    It does indeed read like a wish fulfillment fantasy written by a feminist.

    Well, duh. It should be fairly obvious to everyone that the main consumers of cuckold porn are frustrated married middle-class women resentful of not having spent enough time on the carousel, and psychopathic alpha louts who get off on humiliating married betas whom they despise.

  145. Hells Hound says:

    But how many moderate feminists will it drive away in the meantime? At what point do the beliefs of the radical hard-core become so reprehensible to the majority that they become impossible to enforce?

    How many “moderate” feminists have been driven away so far by the radical fringe? Yeah, that’s what I thought. There’s your answer.

  146. Hells Hound says:

    I’m not sure that more people living at home with the parents is a bad thing so long as they pay some of the bills.

    Its leads to healthier tighter families, is a great way to save money and is less lonely which is good for mental health.

    Heck humanity basically lived this way through most of the past and still managed to have children. For modern life I actually think families and relations owning swathes of contingent properties is the smart way to go. Keeps foreigners out and provides a strong safety net.

    Except that this used to be the norm when the extended family was one economic unit engaged in substinence farming, with people marrying young and taking their vows seriously, living under the close supervision of their elders throughout the early part of their marriage. In other words, the norms of a society completely alien from the one we now know.

  147. Julian O'Dea says:

    HH:

    “It should be fairly obvious to everyone that the main consumers of cuckold porn are frustrated married middle-class women resentful of not having spent enough time on the carousel, and psychopathic alpha louts who get off on humiliating married betas whom they despise.”

    Not from what I have seen. Google it. It is a very common fantasy among men. Read the discussion groups. Much time is spent discussing how to encourage wives to adopt the lifestyle. Pictures of wives are shared around.

    There also seems to be a shortage of “bulls”. There are probably risks in playing that role.

    Also Google “hotwives”.

    As with most perversions, it is largely driven by men. Most perversions are invented by men because of our greater imagination and sex drive. I doubt that a woman has even invented a sex position, let alone a perversion.

    About the only female perversions I can think of are the “bimbo fetish” and masochism, both of which are probably just normal female propensities taken to an extreme.

    A woman following her hypergamous instincts is not thinking about humiliating her husband, I would imagine. She is thinking about the attention she is getting from Paulo the handsome and creative man.

  148. Not from what I have seen. Google it. It is a very common fantasy among men. Read the discussion groups. Much time is spent discussing how to encourage wives to adopt the lifestyle. Pictures of wives are shared around.

    There also seems to be a shortage of “bulls”. There are probably risks in playing that role.

    Also Google “hotwives”.

    As with most perversions, it is largely driven by men. Most perversions are invented by men because of our greater imagination and sex drive. I doubt that a woman has even invented a sex position, let alone a perversion.

    Are you trying to tell us something? Anything and everything seems common on the internet because your searches take you right to the source. Even if just 1 to 2 percent of men enjoyed it, the increase on the internet would be big.

  149. Julian O'Dea says:

    It seems to be a perversion with a lot of active bulletin boards. It is relatively common. Other perversions have a lot less interest.

  150. Bucho says:

    “When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself. When I understood that, I finally became a feminist.”

    Well, as he’s reaping the effects after she passes on some incurable strain of the clap on to him after getting it from a drunken romp with Paulo, will he still be saying “This is what feminism looks like.”?

  151. Retrenched says:

    1965: “Homosexual lifestyles will never be accepted by the mainstream and will alienate moderates”

    1995: “Gay marriage will never be accepted by the mainstream and will alienate moderates”

    2015: “Cuckoldry will never be accepted by the mainstream and will alienate moderates”

    We may be about 20 years away from nationwide, mainstream acceptance of cuckoldry, but it’s coming.

    Most likely the idea of open marriages will be sold with a false promise, like the sexual revolution was. The sexual revolution promised that every man would be able to be a playboy, to get plenty of action from the millions of newly liberated women. In reality only a few men would be able to live that life — most men would lose out overall.

    Similarly, open marriages will be sold with false propaganda from Hollywood. You’ll see TV shows about open marriages in which the MILF gets the pool boy, but then her shlub hubby will get some action from a hot 20 year old waitress (as if that would ever happen in real life). So open marriages, when they are sold to America, will be presented as fair and beneficial to both men and women rather than the ridiculously one-sided arrangements they actually are.

  152. Dale says:

    Bucho
    >Well, as he’s reaping the effects after she passes on some incurable strain of the clap on to him after getting it from a drunken romp with Paulo, will he still be saying “This is what feminism looks like.”?

    Actually, a diseased and dying body is exactly what feminism and the results of feminism look like.

  153. “We married young. She’d had sex before me, but only with a handful of people a handful of times. She never had a boyfriend, never had a lover. I was the first man she ever had the chance to get to know intimately. By her mid-30s, having already had our children and entering her sexual prime, she felt keenly her lack of sexual experience.”

    A handful of people is “a lack of sexual experience”?

  154. wibbins says:

    Dalrock, what do you think about this schmuck that’s praising his wife for being so brave for getting her jollies off with other men? http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-open-marriage-taught-one-man-about-feminism.html

    Here’s an except: “When I quit working to stay at home with the kids, I began to understand it on a whole new level. I am an economically dependent househusband coping with the withering drudgery of child-rearing… Still, as a man, I could, if I wanted to, portray what I’m doing as “work,” and thus claim for myself the prestige men traditionally derive from “work.” Whenever I tell someone I stay home with the kids, they invariably say, “Hardest work in the world.” They say this because the only way to account for a man at home with the kids is to say what he’s doing is hard work. … We both know no one ever says it to a woman.”

    Does this idiot not see that every year we have people adding up the “true” value mothers bring to families, while for father’s day there’s a little mention of something about sports, funny “lazy dad” cards, and bbq grills?

    Then he continues: “In this way, my masculine self-image was stretched but not broken. Diaper bag notwithstanding, I was still a Man. It wasn’t until my wife mentioned one evening that she’d kissed another man and liked it and wanted to do more than kiss next time that I realized how my status as a Man depended on a single fact: that my wife fucked only me.”

    No, your status as a man depends on the fact that you can satisfy your wife and she ONLY wants to screw you, but since you’re a feminist beta you couldn’t possibly be the smooth PUA’s your wife is getting tingles from every time they wink at her.

  155. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    The only variable which I think may give pause is the degree to which women want to pursue this. They will control what happens — the herd decides that cucking is the thing, then it will become the thing, and trying to deny it to a wife will be seen as outright abuse akin to trying to control her finances today. If the herd decides that it doesn’t want this, then it will never become bigger than a niche. A lot rides on what happens with the poly movement in the next ten years, and just how much meddling the more activist gays like Dan Savage do to straight marriages and the norm of monogamy (something he’s already been going on about for a few years now).

    This is true in the near term. Longer term the very kind of safe, stable, permissive society this requires to exist relies on a traditional (or somewhat near traditional) marriage based family to function. You might get a few generations out of inertia, but it isn’t a sustainable model. This isn’t to deny the sort of grass huts matriarchy that feminists get so giddy about, but what we are talking about is something different than grass huts matriarchy.

    More near term, the big (practical) problem with this model is it doesn’t meet the modern woman’s needs as well as is being claimed. Women want both to be promiscuous and to be seen as respectable. They want unfettered sexual freedom and the ability to point to the line that separates themselves from sluts. This is the genius of marriage 2.0. They get maximum sexual freedom during their most sexually powerful years, all while claiming this was needed for them to find out what kind of man they need to marry. Women haven’t pushed for an abolition of the rules of sexual morality, they have instead redefined sexual morality around two related concepts: romantic love and one at a time. By this new set of rules as we have discussed, divorcing after falling out of love becomes the moral and courageous choice, instead of a hallmark of sluttiness.

    The key thing to keep in mind is even modern sexually libertine women want to know where the line is between good girl and slut. This has been a moving target with regard to clothes as well as premarital sex and post marital serial monogamy, but the desire is strong to not just push the boundaries but have boundaries. This all ties back to the core women’s intrasexual competition; children. AF/BB only works if the child isn’t significantly disadvantaged by the mother’s sexual incontinence. The MC and UMC will put up with an awful lot, but a lifestyle that is seen as producing less competitive kids will always be frowned upon. Right now the acceptable line seems to be a fairly high level of promiscuity when the woman is young, followed by a one and done marriage at 29-31 or one divorce with a respectable and stable remarriage (sticking the landing). Women who divorce but aren’t seen as at least on the path to remarriage lose a great deal of status, and risk becoming unwelcome in the playdate social circle, etc. Officially of course the women who shame the divorcée who failed to stick the landing will be vocally supportive of said woman’s bravery in not being satisfied trapped in an unhappy marriage and instead seeking out the moral good of true love. But the loss of social standing while generally denied by all parties will be all too real. There will also always be gossip in the background, even if it is framed as:

    That poor dear, look at how hard it has been for her to find a good man to be a stepfather for her children. Where have all of the good men gone?

    The woman who openly cucks her husband is threatening the whole jig. She is making a mockery of the line between good girls and sluts, by violating both the one at a time rule and making no pretense that her promiscuity is badly needed research in her quest for true love. Her children will also be harmed by this profoundly dysfunctional family. I don’t see the herd following her, I see it ostracizing her while claiming she shouldn’t be judged. Claiming the slutty woman shouldn’t be judged is a subtle and deniable way of pointing out that what she is doing is in fact quite slutty, not unlike when one woman calls another woman fat by asking if she has lost weight when it is obvious that she has not.

  156. “Nobody ever validates SAHMs? Really??”

    Feeling persecuted is one of the baseline qualities of a feminist. See “War on women” and “1 in 4” and so on.

  157. Opus says:

    Persuasive though Novaseeker’s gloomy prognosis and prediction is of what is to come I can’t help but remind myself that at the end of the seventeenth century Restoration Comedy dealt very much with the kind of situation we are discussing. Here for example from 1697 is Lady Brute in Vanbrugh’s The Provok’d Wife: “These are good times. A woman may have a gallant as well as a separate maintenance too” In other words AF/BB, but from the arrival of the Hanoverians and for the next two centuries Vanbrugh, Congreve and Wycherley were unprintable and unperformable.

  158. Society is terminally sick so nothing would surprise me. However, I don’t think many men would voluntarily accept being expected to support a wife that fucks around with other men. Indeed, some may get off on it but the idea invalidates marriage itself as the wife would be forsaking her husband everytime she sleeps with other men. Why would men marry knowing their wives would cheat on them daily with other men. They wouldn’t, they just would not get married to begin with.

    Just don’t get married, that is the best recourse to all of this crap. That’s what articles like that are detailing. Marriage is dead, it can no longer function when it is not respected as an institution. There is no such thing as an open marriage, it is merely a dead marriage with one party still expected to support the other. It’s one step up from being divorced and enslaved via alimony and child support.

  159. Dalrock, that post was awesome. Yes to all this….

    This all ties back to the core women’s intrasexual competition; children. AF/BB only works if the child isn’t significantly disadvantaged by the mother’s sexual incontinence. The MC and UMC will put up with an awful lot, but a lifestyle that is seen as producing less competitive kids will always be frowned upon. Right now the acceptable line seems to be a fairly high level of promiscuity when the woman is young, followed by a one and done marriage at 29-31 or one divorce with a respectable and stable remarriage (sticking the landing).

    …that is sticking the landing. And yes, the MC and UMC does approve of this (particularly) if she didn’t first have any children with husband #1. That was her “starter marriage” to figure out what she liked… s-xually, so to speak.

  160. Dave says:

    By her mid-30s, having already had our children and entering her sexual prime, she felt keenly her lack of sexual experience

    If this man was defending his wife’s “right” to go have sex with other men, it shows that some men are too far gone they cannot be helped.
    Does it even occur to him that his jealousy is actually reassuring to her that she means something to him? If he readily gave her up, and even makes excuses for her to go taste other men, that is not helpful to her at all. It is so wrong on too many levels.

  161. feeriker says:

    So open marriages, when they are sold to America, will be presented as fair and beneficial to both men and women rather than the ridiculously one-sided arrangements they actually are.

    Upon further reflection I might have to reverse my earlier statement that Socially Sanctioned Cuckholdry will never become mainstream.

    Sold to America” is the operative phrase bere, especially the first word. While America has arguably exemplified the benefits of capitalist commercialism over its 240-year existence, the darker side is that its people have become subsumed by shallow materialism and avarice, the eager marks of any huckster skilled enough to tickle their ears and stoke their hearts with rationalizations for their basest wants. Freed of any moral framework within which to pursue their desires, they seek out vile pleasures with unrestrained hedonistic abandon, no mind given to consequences of surrendering to every lust. Anyone who has lived in the country for a lifetime hardly needs to venture far (or anywhere at all, really; just turn on the TV) to see this in action.

    Tl;dr version: the Amerikan majority is a mass of amoral imbecility that would eagerly buy and drink by the gallon liquid cyanide if you could convince them that it was gourmet coffee (or liquid viagra).

  162. fh,

    Society is terminally sick so nothing would surprise me. However, I don’t think many men would voluntarily accept being expected to support a wife that fucks around with other men.

    Society expects (and has created laws) for men to financially support their ex-wives. My brother-in-law’s c-nt of a wife divorced him unilaterally, so she could have s-x with her boyfriend and my brother-in-law is expected to not only put up with this (he is required to) but to support her with alimony and child support. To society this is right and moral and just. And the law.

  163. Exactly IBB, would your brother in law still have married this slut had he known he would be supporting a whore?

  164. He had to marry her. The doctor told them they were in love. Myself, I’m sure she conveniently forgot to take a pill one month.

  165. Escoffier says:

    I am now reasonably convinced that the article is a fake. That is, there is no “Michael Sonmore.” Note that the magazine does not identify the name as a pseudonym. Yet it does not turn up in any of the various databases that include the name of pretty much every (legally) residing person in the US.

    Possibilities:

    -This was written by a woman to express her dearest wish.
    -This was written by a man or woman to propagandize on behalf of “poly” (highly likely).
    -If a woman, she knew that the argument would seem more powerful if bylined by a man, as an “admission against interest.” By a woman, it would have just sounded selfish. Also, for the propaganda to work, they need to “show” that men can be OK with this.
    -Alternatively, it might have been written by a man and intended as a reduction/horror story. Perhaps the editors didn’t get it, sort of like a famous academic prank when a prof wrote a piece of jargon-filled nonsense that said less than nothing and got it published in a peer-reviewed journal.
    -The editors know full well that this is a hoax and published it anyway (unlikely).

  166. mrteebs says:

    As long as it is the underdog calling for the outrageous, it is not outrageous.

    I’m more pessimistic than some here as I don’t think the deviance – such as open marriage – will necessarily self-correct. It will eventually hit a boundary condition called “The Second Coming” but likely not before then. Besides, we thought self-correction would reign in radical feminism (redundant) and homosexuality – not that there’s anything wrong with that – and next, transgenderism. Although some of these practices may never go mainstream, they will grow along with every other imaginable deviance and there will be no pushback as long as it is the “oppressed” class that is the impetus behind it.

    Which is key.

    As long as these things are initiated by the “oppressed” class, it’s OK. And not just OK. Eventually, it must be promoted with vigor and assignment of some new ribbon color worn by the non-practicing majority to demonstrate their solidarity with the minority – lest they be shunned by the elite arbiters of what will and will not be tolerated. It begins with not that there’s anything wrong with that and ends with full on campaigning.

    Case in point: Had the cuckold at NYMag suggested the new arrangement, feminists would have trampled one another to shout him down. But since it was all at his wife’s insistence, he’s celebrated.

    I found myself trying to image the most repugnant form of sexual deviance to most people, and coprophagia came to mind in my comment above. My point was that nothing seems to elicit outrage anymore, as long as it is the perceived “oppressed” class that suggests or insists upon it. In this case, as soon as it could be linked to feminism in some way, it became instantly outrageous-not. Had the guy initiated the new arrangement, it would have been open season for the feminist critics, but because she insisted upon it, it was helping the cause and therefore worthy of adulation. Quite seriously, had he written an article on his wife’s “need” for coprophagia, and found a way to spin it into female empowerment, the auto-immune response for revulsion would have been summarily suppressed because there was a much higher good at stake here: female empowerment.

    Because women are deemed oppressed, we can have people like Cecile Richards apologizing for the “tone” of her employee’s remarks, but not the content, without universal and instantaneous calls for her resignation and a full stop to federal support. Because muslims are deemed oppressed, they can suggest Sharia law in their adopted countries without being drowned out instantly by calls of “outrageous.” Because blacks are deemed oppressed, they can riot to demand a double-standard when it comes to how law enforcement personnel behave.

  167. mrteebs says:

    @wibbins

    Does this idiot not see that every year we have people adding up the “true” value mothers bring to families, while for father’s day there’s a little mention of something about sports, funny “lazy dad” cards, and bbq grills?

    The average husband/dad would probably be worth half a million a year using the same crazy accounting methods employed in those annual “what’s a SAHM worth” reports. Notice how they never bother to give you the dad figure – only the mom – because an apples to apples comparison of all the thing the dad / husband does would be astronomical.

    They also assume there would be no change in behavior by rational people if a spouse was lost, and they would instead just outsource everything rather adjust for the new reality and do some of it themselves. Like paying a taxi to take junior to karate. Like paying a nurse to make a housecall if Susie has a sore throat. They assume her cooking is on part with a personal gourmet chef, rather than a teenager being taught to microwave frozen convenience meals or hamburger helper. In short, they seem to assume nearly best-case throughout rather than real world.

    The most disgusting part of this is all of the “Likes” these annual reports garner on Facebook and all of the bandwidth that is wasted sharing them as the thumbs of the world unite in frenzied pounding/posting.

    In my own household, I am the IT department, the roofer, the groundskeeper, the mechanic, the plumber, the exterminator, occasionally a personal shopper, a therapist, the financial planner/advisor, the guidance counsellor, the math / science / history tutor, the electrician, the “got junk” service, the internet trading post when we have stuff to sell, the furniture mover, the lightbulb replacer, the major/minor appliance repairman and help desk, and a whole lot more. This is on top of a 6-figure salary and the usually benefits package that comes with it. I don’t think I’m alone. In fact, I think I’m rather average and were I to add up the cost of outsourcing each and every one of these things the way those “value of an SAHM” studies do, it may well be the mid- to upper 6 figures.

    Rant over.

  168. Novaseeker says:

    @Dalrock —

    We shall see. As I say, it depends on what the herd determines. If the herd accepts it and embraces it, the behavior will ipso facto be respectable, and complaints about the impact on children will be as pooh-poohed as they were when the herd embraced divorce with enthusiasm. It really does depend on where women come out on this — you may be right that they will prefer perpetuating the current model, but it may also be the case that there aren’t enough men to sustain the current model to marry in general, such that poly/cuck/harem becomes more mainstream (and therefore by definition respectable) of necessity.

  169. mrteebs says:

    @Novaseeker –

    The herd seems to have embraced homosexuality just fine, although I can’t necessarily think of a resulting benefit derived by the herd. Fewer “good men” in an already herd-lamented dearth? Seems counterintuitive to me, but maybe the ratio of lesbians to gays is a wash, and the net reduction in the size of heterosexual pool is balanced.

    Perhaps there is a benefit, and perhaps it has even been posted here or elsewhere in the manosphere. I just don’t know what it is.

  170. Escoffier says:

    I still don’t see men signing up for this, except for a tiny minority of fetishists and various losers. Plus, what men do sign up will be advertising their omega-loserdom in bright neon. Hence this model is not merely unsustainable, it has a nanosecond half-life before it burns itself out.

    That’s if it gets adopted at all, which I really doubt.

  171. Novaseeker says:

    The herd seems to have embraced homosexuality just fine, although I can’t necessarily think of a resulting benefit derived by the herd. Fewer “good men” in an already herd-lamented dearth? Seems counterintuitive to me, but maybe the ratio of lesbians to gays is a wash, and the net reduction in the size of heterosexual pool is balanced.

    Perhaps there is a benefit, and perhaps it has even been posted here or elsewhere in the manosphere. I just don’t know what it is.

    It’s more that women are much less inclined than men to see homosexuality as being revolting, because they are often sexually fluid, whereas almost no men are. So they aren’t on the same wavelength about gays, viscerally, as many straight men are.

  172. Pirran says:

    @Novaseeker @Dalrock @Hellshound

    There’s a real danger in becoming too fatalistic about this. The idea that a majority of men could be sold on the idea that open cuckoldry is a good thing is remote. If it became more acceptable amongst the urban hip minority of women who regard it as a good thing, we would continue to see a marked decline in marriage and long-term relationships. As has been noted on this blog, feminism has a real image problem with the majority of women. Only 20% – 30% self-identify as feminists on recent polls, much to the chagrin of Jezebel and Feministing. More men dropping out does have a knock-on effect.

    @Hellshound
    “How many “moderate” feminists have been driven away so far by the radical fringe? Yeah, that’s what I thought. There’s your answer.”

    You mean like Christina Hoff Sommers or Camille Paglia? There are plenty of women who come to see it as pathologically unpleasant the further they go down the rabbit hole and realize it wasn’t about equality at all. If we end up viewing all women as closet Jessica Valentis or Amanda Marcottes, we’ve created a distaff “all men are rapists” paranoia that leads to atomized oblivion. This smacks of the loonier end of MGTOW that made Rob Fedders disown it in the first place.

    By all means attack and satirize the Rad-Fem loons, the willing cuckolds and the disproportionate influence that these figures have in education, health and government. Indeed, this is necessary and important. But don’t give in to the impulse that all women think their agenda is fair and reasonable.

  173. Sarah's Daughter says:

    mrteebs, regarding your husband list, one of the most expensive to replace and one of the most valuable in my opinion is night security guard.

  174. Looking Glass says:

    @Novaseeker:

    A female homosexual doesn’t come across as “not a real Woman”. Most Women have functionally little resistance to living in a Harem, as well.

    But a male homosexual is simply a broken, conquered and defeated Man. He isn’t completely trustworthy and he is nott capable of, man to man, being a “friend”. It also brings in a sexual dynamic to a non-sexual situation. So, for Men, the response is much more visceral.

    There’s also the issue that female homosexuals aren’t competition for normal Women. And Male homosexuals aren’t something normal Women view as an object of sexual desire. That’s why they’re treated something like human puppies by a lot of Women. (This is the FI angle that’s involved. And don’t underestimate the moral superiority aspect at play.)

  175. Novaseeker says:

    If it became more acceptable amongst the urban hip minority of women who regard it as a good thing, we would continue to see a marked decline in marriage and long-term relationships. As has been noted on this blog, feminism has a real image problem with the majority of women. Only 20% – 30% self-identify as feminists on recent polls, much to the chagrin of Jezebel and Feministing. More men dropping out does have a knock-on effect.

    We will see. Among women it isn’t the feminist branding that is important, it is what behavior the herd is endorsing which is important. The herd ditched the feminist label long ago, yet it did not ditch the behavior. Self-identification as feminist is irrelevant — the check on female behavior is the female herd. We can imagine that men check female behavior, but it appears that when female sexuality is unfettered, men succumb (almost all of them) to their sex drive, which effectively subordinates them to women due to the testosterone-based differences in sex drive. Men are not currently a check on female behavior because of that. We can imagine that there is a “bridge too far”, such that past such bridge, men will buck and will not cave — I will believe that when I see it, but I do admit that it is possible.

    Listen, Pirran, I am not a fatalist or a catastrophist, but my gosh, social conservatives have made the mistake again and again and again of underestimating the future impact of current trends, so color me skeptical that mass male resistance will curtail female behavior here. The most relevant factor, from my perspective, is whether the behavior actually becomes endorsed by the herd. It is not currently. It may never be, for the reasons Dalrock points out. Yet if the “acceptable man” shortage becomes acute, I think all bets are off in terms of what the herd will endorse. And I do not expect that men will be the wall of resistance. I could be wrong, and I well admit that, but I am saying what I expect.

  176. GeminiXcX says:

    Pirran
    @Novaseeker @Dalrock @Hellshound

    As has been noted on this blog, feminism has a real image problem with the majority of women. Only 20% – 30% self-identify as feminists on recent polls, much to the chagrin of Jezebel and Feministing. . . There are plenty of women who come to see it as pathologically unpleasant the further they go down the rabbit hole and realize it wasn’t about equality at all. . . But don’t give in to the impulse that all women think their agenda is fair and reasonable.

    If, as a woman (or man), you agree with any of feminism’s talking points, then you are a radical feminist.
    If, as a woman (or man), you agree with the notion that Western females were ever “oppressed” as a group, you are a radical feminist.
    If, as a woman (or man), you do not actively speak out against feminisn, than you are a radical feminist.

    “Radical feminist”, “moderate feminist”, “[insert justification term] feminist” are the same thing.

    Feminism is a marxist, anti-male, hate movement that has been deliberately engineered to destroy the family. There is no benign or middle ground on this.

    -GXcX

  177. GeminiXcX says:

    It seems that I have, in error, ended up blending Pirran’s comment with my response. The italics should have been ‘turned off’ at the conclusion of Pirran’s sentence. . .
    women think their agenda is fair and reasonable.

    I regret any confusion caused.

    -GXcX

  178. GeminiXcX says:

    @TFH

    Your comment appeared just after I clarified a formatting error with my post before that.

    Your analysis is spot on.

    -GXcX

  179. GeminiXcX says:

    Looks like you’re on a roll, TFH.
    “comments

    -GXcX

  180. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    Yet if the “acceptable man” shortage becomes acute, I think all bets are off in terms of what the herd will endorse.

    Consider the shift over serial polyandry. 50 years ago divorce was difficult to get in most parts of the western world, and the female herd largely enforced that. Once no-fault divorce was instituted, it took fewer than 10 years for the female herd to embrace it and demand the anti-family court system to enforce resource control.

    As Novaseeker has pointed out, the UMC will tolerate some degree of deviancy so long as the competitive aspect of child raising is preserved. It takes little imagination to conceive of a not too distant future in which UMC men have UMC wives as well as one or more MC mistresses on the side, creating a soft harem. If that is not enough to solve the “good man” shortage then other means will come into play.

    Escoffier
    I still don’t see men signing up for this, except for a tiny minority of fetishists and various losers.

    I imagine something similar was said regarding men’s-fault divorce laws back in the 1970’s. “Oh, these laws will only affect bad men, not good husbands”. One very likely side effect of the normalization of homosexual male preferences as “marriage” will be to further erode the notion of fidelity. Once women as a herd decide that faithfulness is relative, or that they have the right to variety even in marriage, men will either go along or wind up frivorced. It would not take more than 5 to 10 years to normalize this, using the same media tools that are in the process of normalizing homosexuality.

    Like Novaseeker, I’m not saying this sort of arrangement is inevitable, or even on the way. But looking back at the last 20 to 30 years, it is clear that a major social change can be forced by a relative handful of people, leveraged by mass media. So if the herd of women decides they want this, then it will be normalized enough for those who want it to get it.

    Men will do what we must to get sex, if that means sharing a woman with other men, well, some will do so. And women are more than capable of using their sexual “cartel” to get what they want.
    Perhaps Escoffier has quite a bit more trust in the innate goodness of women than I do.

  181. Boxer says:

    Dear Pirran:

    This smacks of the loonier end of MGTOW that made Rob Fedders disown it in the first place.

    A few years ago, I disagreed with Rob Fedders. Because the poor dear couldn’t come up with a coherent defense of his looney tirade, and because I laughed at his paranoid delusions, he decided to “dox” me on the old Spearhead blog.

    He subsequently posted the name, home address, work and home telephone numbers of a professor of history at Simon Fraser University, and encouraged all of his faggot friends to harass this man’s employer. Some of this human garbage is in the audience here today. Why he thought I was this character, I don’t know, but it’s all in the history (lol) books at this point.

    When I provided enough evidence to the webmaster that I wasn’t who Fedders said I was, Bill Price (the host of the Spearhead) pulled Fedders’ “dox” attempt from the comments. Unfortunately, this took a couple of days, and I imagine this man had a few headaches. Price also banned me (but not Fedders) for the trouble. Fedders subsequently followed me over here, and tried (with some success) to convince people I was some sort of soviet agent, held over from the cold war days (hey, I wasn’t born then, but whatever).

    While I don’t know Fedders personally, I believe him to be the stereotypical pathetic looney whose greatest real-world accomplishment may be extended sessions of jerking off to internet pr0n and writing insipid posts on his no-traffic internet blog. He had all manner of hangups about his sister (who he admitted was far more intelligent and accomplished than he) and would often lapse into raging resentment against his mother. It’s quite a sickly little personality he has. Typically Freudian.

    Fedders’ departure from MGTOW / MRA /Traditionalist circles is only a good thing. He never contributed anything except derisive laughter at his pathetic antics, and he worked tirelessly to pit men against one another and destroy any sort of cameraderie among people who ought to be working together. Many consider his a feminist doing black propaganda, and while I don’t think he was intelligent or stable enough to be doing this officially, he certainly played the part well enough for such a conspiracy theory to be understandable.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  182. Opus says:

    As I indicated I had three proto-cuckolding girlfriends some decades ago who saw their behaviour as entirely reasonable, and so this is not new. I also mentioned one of Vanbrugh’s plays. The Provok’d Wife is entirely Red Pill. Early on we are introduced to the character Heartless (might as well have been Heartiste) who invites a somewhat vain woman out and then negs her mercilessly – and this gives her the tingles even as she complains as to his behaviour. Lord Brute wants to divorce Lady Brute, but it is pointed out that if she sleeps around he will be a cuckold and that divorce will force him to pay money to her by way of alimony. He thinks better of it. All the latter Restoration Comedies (with rare exceptions) have the libertine (that is to say Pick Up Artist) repenting of his evil ways, but no PUA will even get to first base unless a woman allows him to do so. Men always get the blame for female promiscuity – as much today as they did then.

    Cuckoldry is perhaps inevitable in a world that permits divorce on demand. A woman can hardly be blamed for sleeping around when there is no legal sanction against doing so and with the invention of queer marriage – the younger male (in the place of the woman) will not be expected to be exclusive, thus the cuckolding meme will spread to straight marriage. That a woman cuckolds or wants to do so is the man’s fault; that too was the view of Lady Brute’s.

  183. Boxer says:

    If, as a woman (or man), you do not actively speak out against feminisn, than you are a radical feminist.

    That’s the sort of “if you’re not in lockstep agreement with me, then you’re an enemy” rhetoric that feminists are good at spewing.

    In reality, many men and women are reasonably happy, and they don’t care a bit about feminism. Some of these people describe themselves as feminists, in a halfhearted sort of way, though it’s just some word they have been conditioned to believe is generally good. These people don’t have any reason to actively speak out, because feminists, to them, are suffragettes from the 1910s or kooky bra-burners from the 1960s. If your life is happy and things are going well (or at least not terribly) then you don’t waste time speaking out about anything.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  184. Boxer says:

    Hmmm, sounds like an omega playa that posts here often and boasts about how easy it is to bang married women. Funny thing is, a lot of men on this site look up to this twat.

    I don’t see why anyone would idolize such a person. I look at PUA types who brag about banging married women as clearly having homosexual tendencies. That goes just as well for “bulls”.

    Repressed homosexuals almost certainly get off on banging another man’s wife, as it’s a very quick step to having a sexual experience with the husband. The woman is just sort of a conduit for the real sex the homo craves, so that he doesn’t ever have to admit what he’s really doing, or be in a subordinate position. The thought of contact with the husband’s semen, being in the husband’s bed, etc. all work to further his sublimated homosexual desires.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  185. DeNihilist says:

    Boxer, interesting take. Never thought of it that way before.

  186. Julian O'Dea says:

    I think the more likely homosexual in the cuckold relationship is the “cuck”. One of the obsessions among cuckolds is enjoying the “cream pie”, which is tasting the lover’s ejaculate from the wife’s vagina.

    However I doubt this is homosexual at base. I think it is masochistic.

    As more men find themselves married to women whom they cannot control, fetishisation of the cuckold state will continue. However, there are plenty of men who encourage their wives along this track. Leopold von Sacher-Masoch (cf. masochism the word) wrote a novel, Venus in Furs, about a man whose wife was unfaithful and used to treat him like a servant. Sacher-Masoch used to make his wife in real life, Wanda, play the role.

    I doubt the “bulls” are homosexuals. I think they just enjoy conquering another man’s wife, and by extension the man. Some of them seem to like the wife to keep her wedding ring on, for example, as part of the scenario.

    It is fairly easily explained as intra-male competition.

    Desmond Morris, one of the first of the “sociobiologists”, had some interesting insights, and he reported on an English professional soccer team that went away on holiday together, to Spain I think. Morris noted that all the team members ended up sleeping with the one girl. No doubt she was attractive, but Morris surmised that it was a form of bonding ritual among the men via the same woman. They shared the woman and therefore they emphasised their cohesion as a team. Perhaps that had some homosexual overtones. (I must check that passage in his book again, but I think that was the gist of it.)

  187. Dave says:

    As usual, woman is good and man is bad.
    Did anyone notice how Mr. Rodham was portrayed as a brute beast, and his wife a “struggling” victm of his?

  188. Opus says:

    Despite what I wrote above I am to be convinced that cuckoldry will be the next big thing. Women may be hypergamous but that implies one guy at a time; more than one at a time means slut. Women do not tend to be like that though they usually set the next guy up in advance; I can only think (from my miserable days of being a Divorce lawyer) that I only ever came across one woman who openly had a husband and also an extra lover. I told her off: told her she was a very naughty girl; the next day she sacked me, which was odd because I had been informed on what I took to be good authority that she liked, in a masochistic sense, to feel bad about her behaviour – nothing to look at either. The really interesting question to my mind is whether and to what extent Queer Marriage (sic erat) will influence Heterosexual behaviour. Trannies are a side show; no one is or ever has been too much bothered; they tend to look like circus freaks. Whatever is next will surely be something that no one predicted.

  189. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus, not all trannies look like circus freaks. “Caitlyn” Jenner is a poor example.

    Some of them look pretty good:

    https://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2014/08/29/if-a-guy-can-look-like-this-what-excuse-do-girls-have/

    And “she” is not the best I have seen on the ‘net.

  190. Hells Hound says:

    Despite what I wrote above I am to be convinced that cuckoldry will be the next big thing. Women may be hypergamous but that implies one guy at a time; more than one at a time means slut

    There isn’t more than one in such a case. When a husband accepts open marriage, he practically relegates himself to an eunuch with a wallet. He no longer exists as a potential sexual partner. Female serial monogamy is still in effect.

  191. Julian O'Dea says:

    Yes, women tend to only have one at a time. I think a lot of cucks don’t understand that. Once she has gone onto the better quality man, she is unlikely to be satisfied with the old one again.

  192. Dave says:

    With the rise of the manosphere, and the availability of instant and cheaply available worldwide communication (i.e. the Internet), it will be extremely hard for feminism, or any of its branches, to advance as it once used to do. This may not be readily apparent to many, but the progress of feminism is on the decline, and will continue in this downward trajectory until most women will deny being a part of it, and the politicians notice, and begin to change their leanings. Look for politicians promising to “reform family courts” as part of their capaign promise. It won’t be too long from now. The handwriting is clearly on the wall.

  193. Julian O'Dea says:

    Dave, the biggest thing the Internet has done is to allow men to “share their stories”, realise that they face similar challenges in dealing with women, and realise both from those discussions and from the comments and admissions of women, that women are not angels.

    Feminists always did well out of networking and “consciousness raising”. Men as a class were more atomised, especially as feminists took care to take away “men’s spaces”. But the Internet, invented and maintained by men, has given us another chance to discuss these matters with little fear of personal hardship.

  194. Opus says:

    It also comes back to me now; a further recollection from matrimonial law: I represented a guy who fancied a threesome between him, his wife and another guy. The wife agreed, fell for the bull and divorced the husband to the husband’s considerable frustration: not what he had planned or foreseen atall.

    I once had a girlfriend – and this really goes way back – who asked whether we might become swingers: I almost choked in my coffee, though in hindsight that might have been interesting: notice that was her idea and certainly not mine.

  195. Pirran says:

    @GeminiXcX
    I’m hardly a feminist. I simply don’t assume that every woman I meet is Lindy West. I know a number of women who explored feminism as teens assuming it was about equality and ended up rejecting it in its entirety when the true nature of what it had become was revealed. But that’s in the real world away from the paranoia of the keyboard. Respond to women by how they behave (not what they say) and act accordingly.

    @TFH
    I think Rollo’s observations on the Feminine Imperative are good ones, I just don’t think we’re utterly powerless in it’s face. We’re an adaptable species (both sexes), so there is no inexorable slide to slavery and oblivion, controlled by our dominatrix ice-queens and their male feminist / trad-con minions. This might be the fantasy of Mike and the male feminists, but we don’t have to comply. Yes, men are the disposable sex, but you don’t have to live your life in despair as a victim of misandry, you can adapt.

    @Boxer
    Interesting. I didn’t know you had personal experience of Rob Fedders. However, even if he has disappeared off the deep end, the circle jerk dangers of many elements within MRA/MGTOW remain.

  196. feeriker says:

    It also comes back to me now; a further recollection from matrimonial law: I represented a guy who fancied a threesome between him, his wife and another guy. The wife agreed, fell for the bull and divorced the husband to the husband’s considerable frustration: not what he had planned or foreseen atall.

    I don’t doubt that every divorce/family law attorney maintains, even if just in his own memory, a “Moron Client Hall of Fame.” This guy sounds like a charter inductee.

  197. Julian O'Dea says:

    Pirran:

    “Respond to women by how they behave (not what they say) and act accordingly.”

    We men need to be reminded of this constantly.

  198. Opus says:

    @feeriker

    It is the only thing we remember: like the male client of mine – a biker type – who married a woman with four children. Immediately after the ceremony they fell out and parted. Later that night they made up and consummated the marriage. The next day she departed for good. He was now faced with paying alimony to her and maintenance for each of her four children. Had they not had sexual intercourse just that once he would have been in the clear.

  199. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    We shall see. As I say, it depends on what the herd determines. If the herd accepts it and embraces it, the behavior will ipso facto be respectable, and complaints about the impact on children will be as pooh-poohed as they were when the herd embraced divorce with enthusiasm. It really does depend on where women come out on this — you may be right that they will prefer perpetuating the current model, but it may also be the case that there aren’t enough men to sustain the current model to marry in general, such that poly/cuck/harem becomes more mainstream (and therefore by definition respectable) of necessity.

    As you point out, this would be a move of desperation by women who couldn’t secure a husband any other way. Even if the herd fights formal censure of a woman who does this (just like it does today for a woman who repeatedly divorces and remarries), you will still see the more subtle but very important social distance by women who don’t want to be associated with:

    A) Women who are clearly MMV losers.
    B) Women on the wrong side of the good girl/slut line.

    You could have both, as we often see today. Women might publicly defend the right of women to be depraved, while simultaneously looking down on and separating themselves from the individual women in question. Even with hard core feminists we see them simultaneously railing against the evil of slut shaming (in general), while carefully positioning themselves as good girls and slut shaming specific women they dislike.

  200. new anon says:

    For the first time, I watched one of John MacArthur’s live sermons (yesterday’s 6 PM one). He made sense out of the recent chaos by emphasizing some points.

    1) The Devil is behind this, and this is just another step to undo his plan. There will be more coming after this. Sooner rather than later.

    2) The goal isn’t gay marriage; the goal is to eliminate marriage and the family structure.

    3) We are living in the times of Romans 1, where God has given them up to a REPROBATE mind. We will not be able to discuss this issue logically with them, because their mind no longer functions as God intended.

    4) We (Christians in America) over the last 100 years or so have experienced an unique time in world history–a time when we could proclaim our religion openly without fear of persecution. That time has come to an end. We are entering a time when both the institutional church and individual Christians will be persecuted unless they “get with the program.”

    Overall, it was a depressing sermon, but I couldn’t argue with his take on the times.

  201. new anon says:

    Most people here are missing the bigger point of the cuckold story. The point was to normalize the it via repetition.

    This was a story in a major newspaper. It’s shocking, but every time another story is done on this subject, it will become less shocking. This is how gay marriage became mainstream. Over the past 20 years, the media has repeatedly presented gay marriage until it became normalized in people’s minds.

    The 1984 TV series “Three’s a Crowd” (the follow up to “Three’s Company”) failed, according to John Ritter, because the main couple were living together instead of married. That would never be a problem today, because the repetition of couples living together in media since then has normalized it.

    The open marriage story was simply thrown out there to get the ball rolling. Every time there is another one, it will serve to normalize the idea. It is a slow motion version of using propaganda to brain wash, but I suspect it won’t be nearly as slow motion as living together or gay marriage.

  202. J N says:

    I’ve been saying for a while that the next things to be normalised will be: polyamory (primarily with one woman openly taking on multiple partners whilst a husband still financially supports the home); female pederasty; male pederasty; polygamy; prostitution; full blown pedophilia and child prostitution. (And expect the pederasty to be integrated into our educational system, with parents expected to comply.)

    Each step will be hailed as a great “liberation”, and mainstream Christian churches will embrace each step. Expect to see polyamorous “blessing ceremonies”.

    God help us all.

  203. Escoffier says:

    Perhaps Escoffier has quite a bit more trust in the innate goodness of women than I do.

    Maybe, but that’s not the point I was making. I think the rejection will come from within men themselves. I agree with Nova that this is a trial balloon to get the meme out there (though I do still think the article itself is fake and there is no such person as “Michael Sonmore”). Then the next stage, as Nova points out, is to see how far this can be pushed. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won’t. At a minimum, the Left-Industrial Complex will be able to make this a sacrosanct “cause” about which no public disagreement is permitted. But that’s a separate question from how widely it will actually be practiced.

    And that does not depend in any way on any alleged “innate goodness of women” but on men’s willingness to sign up. I believe that they won’t–that this will be “too far” and “too much” for most men to tolerate. The thirst is strong, but it’s not this strong. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. Men’s inner nature will rebel and reject this.

    To suppose otherwise is, in effect, to accept one of the tenets of modernity, which is that man’s nature is “infinitely malleable.” I believe this to be one of modernity’s foundational errors. Modernity seems to have been right that man is more malleable than the classics supposed and that his nature can be adjusted, or corrupted, by human means much more easily than the classics thought. But there still are limits, and this would exceed those limits.

    That said, I don’t expect this to be some kind of Bastille moment when men finally rise up en masse against radical feminism. I don’t even expect MTGOW to suddenly explode in overt popularity. But I would expect a lot more men to simply, quietly “drop out” of the mating game rather than accept this.

    I also don’t think the no-fault analogy is that apt. First, because it was sold on grounds that sounded like basic fairness and equity, and even as an advantage to men (who, pre-no fault, were the majority of those being sued for fault). Second because most people, including in the original authors of the law, didn’t have a clear idea of what its effects would be. They, or some of them, apparently just thought that fault was a clumsy, inefficient way of handling the issue, it clogged up the courts, it forced people to air embarrassing things in public and violate privacy, and so on.

    With this, on the other hand, there is no mistaking what it is. You can try to sell it as “equality and fairness,” but the majority of men will still viscerally react with disgust and want no part of it. They can be intellectually bludgeoned into public professions that this is the only just arrangement and that “progress” and “the times” demand it. But unless they are somehow forced to actually take part themselves, most men won’t.

    That’s what I expect, at any rate.
    Perhaps Escoffier has quite a bit more trust in the innate goodness of women than I do.

    Maybe, but that’s not the point I was making. I think the rejection will come from within men themselves. I agree with Nova that this is a trial balloon to get the meme out there (though I do still think the article itself is fake and there is no such person as “Michael Sonmore”). Then the next stage, as Nova points out, is to see how far this can be pushed. Maybe it will catch on, maybe it won’t. At a minimum, the Left-Industrial Complex will be able to make this a sacrosanct “cause” about which no public disagreement is permitted. But that’s a separate question from how widely it will actually be practiced.

    And that does not depend in any way on any alleged “innate goodness of women” but on men’s willingness to sign up. I believe that they won’t–that this will be “too far” and “too much” for most men to tolerate. The thirst is strong, but it’s not this strong. Naturam expellas furca, tamen usque recurret. Men’s inner nature will rebel and reject this.

    To suppose otherwise is, in effect, to accept one of the tenets of modernity, which is that man’s nature is “infinitely malleable.” I believe this to be one of modernity’s foundational errors. Modernity seems to have been right that man is more malleable than the classics supposed and that his nature can be adjusted, or corrupted, by human means much more easily than the classics thought. But there still are limits, and this would exceed those limits.

    That said, I don’t expect this to be some kind of Bastille moment when men finally rise up en masse against radical feminism. I don’t even expect MTGOW to suddenly explode in overt popularity. But I would expect a lot more men to simply, quietly “drop out” of the mating game rather than accept this.

    I also don’t think the no-fault analogy is that apt. First, because it was sold on grounds that sounded like basic fairness and equity, and even as an advantage to men (who, pre-no fault, were the majority of those being sued for fault). Second because most people, including in the original authors of the law, didn’t have a clear idea of what its effects would be. They, or some of them, apparently just thought that fault was a clumsy, inefficient way of handling the issue, it clogged up the courts, it forced people to air embarrassing things in public and violate privacy, and so on.

    With this, on the other hand, there is no mistaking what it is. You can try to sell it as “equality and fairness,” but the majority of men will still viscerally react with disgust and want no part of it. They can be intellectually bludgeoned into public professions that this is the only just arrangement and that “progress” and “the times” demand it. But unless they are somehow forced to actually take part themselves, most men won’t.

    That’s what I expect, at any rate.

  204. feeriker says:

    It is the only thing we remember: like the male client of mine – a biker type – who married a woman with four children. Immediately after the ceremony they fell out and parted. Later that night they made up and consummated the marriage. The next day she departed for good. He was now faced with paying alimony to her and maintenance for each of her four children. Had they not had sexual intercourse just that once he would have been in the clear.

    I guess we owe this guy a certain debt of gratitude for volunteering to serve as an example of how a man should NOT engage with women if he has any self-respect (I know better than to add “common” sense). It’s just too bad his story wasn’t turned into a public service advertisement (“Don’t Be This Guy”).

    Let’s just hope that, for posterity’s sake, either through a vasectomy or natural sterility, this guy is incapable of breeding.

  205. J N says:

    @Escoffier

    Men are, unfortunately, already accustomed to watching cuckoldry on-screen, often for an hour or more every single day. The average male’s sexual outlet is primarily through watching hardcore pornography, with the focus typically being on another man’s genitals and semen.

    It does not seem like a wild leap at all to foresee that men will accept this more and more in their real lives.

  206. Escoffier says:

    Wouldn’t the availability of porn be a point against this being accepted? The ‘sphere in general argues that men dropping out thus far, to the extent that they have dropped out, is partly driven by porn. They feel less need to get a real woman because porn is to some degree an adequate slaker of “the thirst.”

    As Dalrock has said, there is no formal “strike.” But there is general decline in participation in the SMP/MMP by men who calculate that the effort is not worth the reward. Part of that calculation is the widespread availability of free or cheap porn.

    Forcing men to accept “poly” from any potential GF or wife would dramatically increase the downside to any relationship, much above where it is now. It would seem, then, that more men would “drop out”–and that easy porn would be an inducement to do so. “I don’t want a woman on those terms, and who needs one anyway, there’s always porn.”

    The question appears to be, How strong, generally, is “the thirst”? I don’t think it’s strong enough for this arrangement to appeal beyond a small fraction of men. Especially when it can be so easily slaked by porn at negligible cost.

  207. J N says:

    @Escoffier

    The point is that porn is making men accustomed to the idea of watching other men, naked, having sex with attractive women. They’ll end up wanting to pursue the same thing in real life.

    I agree that many men will continue to drop out and not pursue real life relationships at all. The problem we’re facing is that some men will continue to pursue real life relationships (and women will continue to try to pursue such relationships with men). I also predict that relationships will end up more and more with women pursuing and men passively accepting.

  208. Escoffier says:

    “The point is that porn is making men accustomed to the idea of watching other men, naked, having sex with attractive women. They’ll end up wanting to pursue the same thing in real life.”

    I don’t think this follows. Porn has been around forever, and in its current mass media form, since the early 70s, and in its current Internet-everywhere-and-for-free form since about 2000. We’ve not seen that happen. It goes against nature.

    But if you are right, then I suppose it means that the moderns were right after all, that man is in fact almost (if not totally) infinitely malleable. If so, we have much to worry about and rethink.

  209. J N says:

    @Escoffier

    Porn significantly changed in the 1990s, and didn’t become ubiquitous until the 21st century. The modern era where every young male has viewed significant amounts of it from age 8 or 9 is not normal.

    Back in the day, young boys would see a few Playboys, with pictures of naked, normal, attractive women.

    Nowadays, they see a lot of males engaging in sex acts, and the way women are presented is not really normal – until the 1990s, there was little emphasis on anal sex or anuses, and less emphasis on oral sex. Hairless models were also not ubiquitous either, and before the 1980s were quite rare. Pornography has been changed to make homosexual behaviour seem normal. And it’s worked: the majority of people under 30 think homosexuality and same-sex marriage is entirely normal.

    Sexuality is quite malleable. Greek society eventually became almost 100% homosexual. Modern Pashto sexuality in Afghanistan is almost entirely homosexual and oriented towards young boys. Combining sexual pleasure with repeated exposure to certain images is creates a very powerful positive association.

    Disgust is malleable, too. In many cultures, using nightsoil (human waste) as fertiliser is normal, along with all the attendant diseases that brings. In my culture, that’s not acceptable, because we have a proper association of disgust with that. I think cultures that associate disgust with harmful behaviour are superior to cultures that encourage harmful behaviour.

  210. Opus says:

    Perhaps it is already here. Most of those I know seem to have a Beta Orbiter hovering around (just as did Lady Brute). Should the husband become jealous he will be met by his wife with the butt-hurt accusation that she is not trusted and so the husband will start back-pedalling, but it is a bad and dangerous thing for women to have male friends because women do not tend to be as firm in their resolve as they think they will be (Cosi Fan Tutti by American citizen Lorenzo da Ponte is the literary model here). I keep my distance but one wife was certainly up for it with me a while back – I declined as tactfully as I could. Another wife (as I said and as she told her husband) was visiting a swingers club with an ex-lover. She said she did not indulge and did not much care for the place. As the late great Mandy Rice-Davies would have said ‘she would say that wouldn’t she’. Indeed. Perhaps modern husbands are acquiring the Nelson Touch. Women work in mixed environments and usually under a man – their day-time husband – and so it is only one step from that to having male-friends.

  211. Escoffier says:

    I agree that modern, free, ubiquitous porn is new and having new effects. I just don’t see widespread acceptance of cuckoldry being one of those effects. The appeal of porn is that one gets to see very pretty girls (at least in most cases) doing things that one would like to do with a pretty girl, but either cannot or can’t without great effort, which one may or may wish to exert at a given time. It’s also, for most men, the only practicable way for them to indulge in intrinsic desire for sexual variety. None of this seems to lead to cuckoldry acceptance.

    Combining sexual pleasure with repeated exposure to certain images is creates a very powerful positive association.

    I think this is right, or can be in some cases, but that’s not what goes on with porn. I think for most men, they imagine themselves in the man’s role. Only a tiny % of fetishists imagine that’s THEIR girl with some other dude. The man in the scene is a prop. I think it was Heartiste who argued that it’s not an accident that porn tends to show men’s faces as little as possible and to avoid showing the man “in full” as opposed to the woman. That’s so that the average viewer can A) focus on the girl and B) substitute himself into the scene in his own imagination.

    I also think you greatly overestimate the extent, and somewhat mischaracterize the purpose or nature, of Ancient Greek homosexuality. But that’s a large topic that would take us way off course. Suffice to say that, yes, sexuality is malleable within limits, but even the Greeks reached those limits and they turned out to well short of “100% homosexuality.”

  212. J N says:

    The cuckold imagines himself in the bull’s role, too. That’s exactly the problem here.

    It’s not normal for men to be around or watching other men engaging in any kind of sexual activity, and it should incite disgust. Once this barrier is breached, things go awry.

  213. Escoffier says:

    It’s not normal for men to be around or watching other men engaging in any kind of sexual activity, and it should incite disgust.

    I agree with that too. It’s very bad. Destructive and contra nature. I still don’t think it will lead to mass cuckold acceptance, though. I think the jealousy instinct is hard wired. Porn may help double the cuckold fetish rate from 1% to 2% (whatever the real numbers are, I have no idea.) But it won’t take it to 50% or even into double digits.

  214. Laura says:

    @Escoffier: Back in the olden days, divorcing couples often negotiated everything in private, and then participated in Divorce Theater. If the man wanted the divorce, he played the role of Guilty Party, and if the woman wanted the divorce, then she usually had already lined up Husband #2, so she was often willing to compromise on the financial aspect of the divorce if Husband #1 would agree to play the role of Guilty Party even if she, in fact, was the adulterous one. Some adulterous women were willing to give up claims to substantial assets in exchange for being able to be the “victim” of the husband’s “mental cruelty.” That way she could stay on the proper side of Dalrock’s good girl/bad girl line.

    Eventually, the divorce process became so laughable that reform seemed like a good idea. But the messy divorces of the 60s simply became the horrendous custody fights of the 80s & later. And the idea that you can get a divorce at any time leads people to marry carelessly and also makes marriages more fragile. Why try so hard to please someone who will probably divorce you sooner or later anyway? Better to work on your career!

    Some commenters on this board assume that the Plaintiff in every divorce case is the spouse who “ended the marriage.” This is not accurate now, and it wasn’t accurate then. These days, where there is little remaining stigma to “living in sin,” many people will walk away from a marriage, shack up with someone else, and leave it to the partner left behind to hire an attorney and start the ball rolling on the divorce. Many couples have no assets to worry about, so if the person walking away can be classified as “judgment proof” then he/she may indeed just walk off without a legal separation.

    @Opus: What was the legal theory behind making a man divorcing after a very brief marriage pay support to children who were not his? I have heard some war stories about men being sweet-talked into marriage, then adoption of the step-kids, and then being divorced and sued for child support, but the adoption was what put them on the hook, not the marriage. In California, the courts used to allow ex-step-fathers to have visiting rights to children from previous marriages, if the marriages had been long enough for the step-father and step-children to form a deep bond, but a one-day honeymoon would not have qualified.

  215. new anon says:

    Escoiffer,

    The number of trans men is estimated to be less than 1/2 of 1 percent (0.3%). Only 3 out of every 1,000 men. Yet, that was a large enough number to allow it to be normalized.

    A year ago, I would have said polyandry would never be accepted,but now?

    Economically, women don’t NEED a husband. Financially, they can earn themselves, get child support, or get money from the government. If anything, a husband gets in the way of the latter two. “Cheat on me and I’ll…” I’ll what? Leave? So what, that will just make it easier for the woman to get child support, alimony, and government assistance. Husbands/men have no leverage to keep women in line.

    We also live in a day when men have been feminized. We’ve gone past the point where masculinity is discouraged. Men are now encouraged to adopt feminine characteristics.

    Will polyandry become dominant or even common? No, it will always be an outlier. But, it will become “common enough” to be accepted as a legit alternative by society.

    God help us.

  216. new anon says:

    @Laura,

    I don’t know about today, but I do know that was the law at one time in GA.

    If a man married a woman, he became legally responsible for her children.

  217. J N says:

    @Escoffier,

    Jealousy is hard wired in masculine men. The problem here is a lack of masculinity amongst men along with a culture pounding into their heads that jealousy is the most grievous, evil thing a man can feel about his wife.

  218. J N says:

    @new anon

    You raise a really good point about a very, very tiny minority (auto-gynephillic transsexuals) have been able to control the feminist narrative and indeed have co-opted the entire leftist social justice movement.

    It’s worthy of more study how a tiny group of fetishists have been able to rally such a huge amount of people to their cause. It is not normal for perverts with deviant desires to succeed in this.

  219. Opus says:

    @Laura

    Short answer: child of the family.

  220. thedeti says:

    “the check on female behavior is the female herd. We can imagine that men check female behavior, but it appears that when female sexuality is unfettered, men succumb (almost all of them) to their sex drive, which effectively subordinates them to women due to the testosterone-based differences in sex drive. Men are not currently a check on female behavior because of that. We can imagine that there is a “bridge too far”, such that past such bridge, men will buck and will not cave — I will believe that when I see it, but I do admit that it is possible.”

    If this is the case, the only thing that will curb this or discourage it is men refusing to play along. I agree with Esco, at least at present, that increasing numbers of men just won’t sign up for this and will drop out entirely.

    “The point is that porn is making men accustomed to the idea of watching other men, naked, having sex with attractive women. They’ll end up wanting to pursue the same thing in real life.”

    That’s not the appeal of porn. The porn consumer puts himself in the place of the male actor. The man is a stand in for the consumer, who fantasizes himself in the actor’s place.

    “Sexuality is quite malleable.”

    Not that malleable.

  221. Boxer says:

    Dear Fellas:

    This is going to be NSFW, but there’s no way to openly discuss the topic otherwise. Apologies to any sensitive types in the audience.

    Interesting responses. Please see below…

    Julian O’Dea:

    I think the more likely homosexual in the cuckold relationship is the “cuck”. One of the obsessions among cuckolds is enjoying the “cream pie”, which is tasting the lover’s ejaculate from the wife’s vagina.

    Any man who has sex with another man present is, in my view, in possession of homosexual tendencies. Bull, cuck, doesn’t matter. Think about the popular college frat house past time of a “spit roast threesome” (google it if you don’t know what this entails). Basically you have two or more men who want to be intimate, but no male participant wants to be dominated by another man, so they use a woman as stand-in. She’s really immaterial. These are, if we’re honest, homosexuals who are having gay sex with each other, without the stigma.

    The PUA type who bangs married women and boasts about it is only a short distance removed from this. Think about it… do you want to fuck some ho’ who just had another man’s dick in her? Kiss the lips that sucked him off a few hours (minutes?) before? I didn’t think so. You’re not gay. For gay men who are in the closet, though, this is very exciting. They can get off without even admitting their own true nature — even to themselves.

    Personally, I don’t have any problem with homos, but I wish they’d be open and honest about their status. Jack Donovan likes dudes, big deal. But, Jack Donovan doesn’t lie to people (or himself) about it. He doesn’t break up families chasing the gay sex by proxy that he craves, or ruin marriages.

    John N.:

    It’s not normal for men to be around or watching other men engaging in any kind of sexual activity, and it should incite disgust. Once this barrier is breached, things go awry.

    A long time ago, I tried to psychoanalyze my own hangups about banging married women. I have never knowingly done this, but on a few occasions I have learned that women I had been banging were actually in steady relationships with other men. My first reaction was wanting to vomit. This gradually gave way to rage — not against the dude who didn’t know about me, but against the ho’ who had lied.

    It’s not some high-minded respect for marriage or monogamy, but a very visceral, uncontrollable disgust. Again, I don’t have any problem with gay dudes in general. I just don’t swing that way and don’t find the prospect of another man’s semen appealing.

    Regards,

    Boxer

  222. J N says:

    @Boxer

    Correct. The normal, masculine response is for a woman who’s had sex with other men to incite disgust. (The reverse is not true. Women do not feel disgust if their man has had sex with other women.)

    Men who overcome this either are de-masculinising themselves, or else have fetishised having sexual contact with other males.

    Even amongst PUAs, there is a general distaste towards having sex with women in committed relationships, with husbands, boyfriends, etc. If a woman is seeing other men, you’d just rather not know. I always dropped a plate once I couldn’t ignore the fact she was seeing other women, and whenever a married woman managed to sleep with me (without my knowledge), I felt like I’d been conned.

  223. J N says:

    @thedeti:

    That’s not the appeal of porn. The porn consumer puts himself in the place of the male actor. The man is a stand in for the consumer, who fantasizes himself in the actor’s place.

    That’s not what the avid porn consumers who write about overcoming porn addiction on nofap forums report. Instead, they report needing to use harder and harder stuff, with less focus on normal, attractive females and more focus on stranger and stranger fetishes. Reports of ending up looking at gay porn (despite not being gay and having no desire for gay sex) are not uncommon.

    No matter how much people talk about “stand in for the consumer”, looking at another man’s penis and being sexually aroused by it, is homosexual behaviour.

  224. Escoffier says:

    Transexualism has been “normalized” in the sense of “you can’t criticize it publicly and keep your job or status.” Not in the sense of masses of men signing up.

    I’ve said repeatedly that I think it’s within reach for the left to place “poly” beyond public criticism. But masses of men are not going to sign up.

  225. Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/07/19) | The Reactivity Place

  226. GeminiXcX says:

    Boxer

    In reality, many men and women are reasonably happy, and they don’t care a bit about feminism. Some of these people describe themselves as feminists, in a halfhearted sort of way, though it’s just some word they have been conditioned to believe is generally good. These people don’t have any reason to actively speak out, because feminists, to them, are suffragettes from the 1910s or kooky bra-burners from the 1960s. If your life is happy and things are going well (or at least not terribly) then you don’t waste time speaking out about anything.

    I agree with you.

    Re-reading my original response, I came across as rather “focused”, didn’t I? I’ll see if I can clear this up. If not, oh well.

    I wasn’t trying to convey the idea of existing to make it your duty to somehow usurp every conversation into “feminism this; feminism that” — I’ll leave that to certain emasculated faggots of AVFM, and radical MGTOW.

    Aside from forums like this (online), I don’t really discuss these types of issues in the so-called ‘analogue world’ to any significant extent.

    However, if someone does present any anti-male nonsense, would these “don’t care a bit about feminism” individuals agree with it, ‘have no opinion’, or say ‘that’s not right (or similar)’.

    Secular and Christian women (and men) have, for the most part, sat back in silence and allowed every little piece of legislation to be passed that has got us to where we are now.

    Was I able to provide clarification as to my position?

    My life’s goal is attaining what’s best for myself, and those who I bring into my world. I will engage in dispensing Red-pill truths when appropriate, but it isn’t my job to protest and ‘save the world’, so to speak.

    What has to happen can’t be stopped now anyways. I just find it beneficial to know where people actually stand on the issue, which goes well beyond the plague of feminism.

    Appreciate your input.

    -GXcX

  227. GeminiXcX says:

    Pirran on July 20, 2015 at 8:31 am

    @GeminiXcX
    I’m hardly a feminist. I simply don’t assume that every woman I meet is Lindy West. I know a number of women who explored feminism as teens assuming it was about equality and ended up rejecting it in its entirety when the true nature of what it had become was revealed. But that’s in the real world away from the paranoia of the keyboard.

    *Respond to women by how they behave (not what they say) and act accordingly.*

    That is the only way. Of this I am well aware, Sir.

    I wasn’t trying to accuse you of being a feminist, so I’m clearing that up right now.

    I also don’t subscribe to the “AWALT” analogy, that every woman is just a ticking time bomb ready to nuke her family, scream false-rape, or some monster that can’t be trusted with anything.

    The “men angels, women devils” mindset that is regularly found in many MGTOW spaces — and even finds it’s way into forums like this one sometimes — is an incredible source of aggravation to me.

    -GXcX

  228. Opus says:

    I don’t recall people becoming overly upset by men dressing in frocks. The Sumptuary Laws were repealed four centuries ago, at which time a few women aped men (as they still do). What is new is that men (especially those from east Asia) can look as hawt if not hawter than women; a case of men once again outshining women even where women have a built in advantage.

    There is a short story by De Sade where a man dresses as a woman for the purpose of seducing a woman who is dressed as a man. Rather charming, as is Georgette Heyer’s 1928 novel The Masqueraders where the two main characters – a young man and his sister – cross-dress throughout.

    The Scots of course have been wearing skirts for a while without anyone doubting their virility.

    Even so…

  229. Julian O'Dea says:

    What is the Sade story?

  230. Opus says:

    I am sorry that I cannot accurately recall the title of the De Sade story, nor can I easily trace it – my volume has disappeared. It was named after one of its characters, female I think, so something like Justine de Villeneuve – but it was not that. You as a paid-up member of the Roman persuasion should be able to trace it in The Vatican’s Index and thus you are forbidden from reading it, but perhaps you would prefer his Self-Made Cuckold, another one of his stories, and not immaterial to this blog: let us know how you get on.

    What really appalls me is that Wiki have him down as an LGBT author. The Marquis would surely be most surprised and perhaps not a bit put out: traduced in his life and traduced in the present century. His crime, for which he was sent to The Bastille seems to have been debauching maidens (i.e. willing sluts) and I can’t quite see how that makes him either Homosexual, Lesbian or a cock-in-a-frock; what he might have done or dreamt whilst incarcerated is surely not enough to infect him with the Rainbow coloured virus. The long-suffering but devoted Mme de Sade might also have greatly objected to this slur on her much-maligned husband.

    I read the story along with many of his other stories when I was a mere lad of fifteen, so you can see that I was precociously wayward even then.

  231. Julian O'Dea says:

    Opus, I only have his Juliette these days, as well as a number of books on the man himself. I threw Justine out because it is the sort of thing I like too much, what we Catholics call “an occasion of sin”. As I am sure you know, the Index is no longer in operation, so I can read these books if I like, and of course the Index did not apply to serious scholars.

    I am sorry to say that Sade WAS a bit LGBTish. Mme de Sade used to be deputed to order and obtain leather dildos for her husband. The devoted woman used to suffer agonies of embarrassment because people thought they were for her. In fact, the Marquis used to use them on himself in prison.

    In Juliette, even the worst male monsters seem to relish being sodomised.

    So, yes, Sade is a hero to the LGBT folk, as well as one of the first defenders of abortion.

    He could also be said to have been the spiritual father of a lot of naughty novels, right down to 50 Shades of Grey.

  232. Opus says:

    LGBT are the new oppressors; you only have to have once so much as looked at a dildo and they have you press-ganged into their ranks. They (with their Baker-bashing) are even worse than the self-righteous Heteroes who used to stalk the land (and now like Peter are denying thrice before the cock-crows their former views) distancing themselves and in the most unpleasant way possible from anyone who might have even temporarily fallen into sin – Christians seem to me on the whole to have been exemplary when it came to human weakness.

    For me, De Sade, is an Aristocrat, and thus a man who felt that the ordinary rules of anything did not and could not apply to him. His writings are fantasy, a sort of, ‘what if’. I am sure if I were locked up as he had been I too might have become a little inventive.

  233. Boston to Providence says:

    GXcX, your frustration with that black and white attitude is legitimate, but there are legitimate causes for that outlook, still apart from the fact of individual men being actively and personally burned by women and gynarchy. Much of the manosphere’s mission involves practical analysis of the fundamental nature of women, and that requires generalizations by definition. I don’t think the NAWALT disclaimers are necessary anymore, for when they apply, they can be assumed. Half the arguments on earth could be avoided if emotional trolls would restrain themselves from pulling out the old chestnut of “you forgot to make the topically-appropriate, politically correct apologia, you’re worse than Hitler/not enough like Hitler!”

    We can’t solve problems and hold pleasurable delusions at the same time. One of the most treasured of these is our belief in the infinity of individual differences that gives us our sense of uniqueness and free will. Apparently, all humans are 99.9% genetically identical, share 98% of our DNA with chimpanzees, and I daresay that there but for quaint, middle class upbringings and the gift of social stigma go we all. Suburban men have capitulated to the feelgoods with forced smiles. The scions of the middle class, male and female both, are confused and sad with their pointless, sex-based relationships. Social stigma is gone. So, here go we all, indeed.

  234. GeminiXcX says:

    @Boston to Providence

    I’m not sure how to address your post; as I don’t know if it’s attempting to directly accuse me of something (“emotional troll”), or is making a general observation.

    The nature of women is fact, but there is another fact as well:

    Romans 3:23, “*All*”

    Men are just the same, in the deserving of the sentence of death for missing the mark.

    There’s a number of self-righteous blowhards I’ve encountered in my online travels who take the philosophies of feminism, and just reverse the sexes.

    -GXcX

  235. Hells Hound says:

    I simply don’t assume that every woman I meet is Lindy West.

    Lindy West strikes me as an average, run-of-the-mill Western woman. Snarky, arrogant, relatively ignorant, of mediocre intelligence, overweight, frumpy, solipsistic. A media whore desperate for attention. A typical representative of her generation and social class.

  236. Hells Hound says:

    Yet if the “acceptable man” shortage becomes acute, I think all bets are off in terms of what the herd will endorse.

    Assuming the “hypergamy crunch”, to borrow an expression of yours, has not yet happened, the average middle-class woman probably remains a spinster if the alternative is to marry an omega cuck who’s willing to enter a marriage that is declared to be an open marriage from the outset. At least that seems to be your theory, and it’s probably true. If the hypergamy crunch does happen, she’ll probably opt for this alternative. This, however, assumes that the omega cuck in question is viewed as eligible for marriage due to other reasons, namely that his social status does at least equal hers. I think this a very small segment of all men.

  237. Micha Elyi says:

    Michelle’s reasoning here is a good example of the problem with annulments… there is no situation that can’t be stretched and distorted into being OK for an annulment.
    J N

    OK, that is, until the Marriage Tribunal of the Church puts the kibosh on the daydreams of annulment by affirming the marriage exists and refusing to grant her the Declaration of Nullity she desires.

    So many people want to affirm King Henry VIII regarding divorce and declarations of nullity. It’s a shame.

  238. Micha Elyi says:

    “Annulments” are a Catholic thing anyway. If she wants to get an annulment, she would need to become Catholic first.
    J N

    The Marriage Tribunal of the Church will hear the case of a non-Catholic who wishes the Church to determine if she is married or if she has a supposed marriage that is actually a nullity. That a non-Catholic would approach the Church for that is surprisingly common.

    There are two other distortions of fact in J N’s remark. What they are I leave for the interested student of marriage to discover.

  239. Micha Elyi says:

    Its strange that in more ancient times 16 was the age of adulthood. Now its 18 in the states.
    infowarrior1

    You’re equivocating the modern concept of the age of legal adulthood with the age of adulthood generally. In today’s US, adulthood is not generally attained suddenly all at once but in gradual steps. There is the minimum age at which one must be to lawfully drive a car on the public roads or pilot an aircraft, the age of religious adulthood (usually accompanied by a religious ceremony among Jews and faithful Christians–I do not know what the Separated Christian Brethren do), the legal age of marriage, the age of marriage itself, the age at which one moves out of the childhood home, the minimum age of military service, the age at which men may be subject to military conscription (draft or draft registration in the US), the age at which a citizen may vote, serve in political office, the legal drinking age, the age at which one becomes a parent, etc.

    Moving from childhood to adulthood is more a continuum of status changes than a sharp jump from one former state to the latter. This was also true in “more ancient times”.

    The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  240. Micha Elyi says:

    The average husband/dad would probably be worth half a million a year using the same crazy accounting methods employed in those annual “what’s a SAHM worth” reports. Notice how they never bother to give you the dad figure – only the mom – because an apples to apples comparison of all the thing the dad / husband does would be astronomical.

    In my own household, I am the IT department, the roofer, the groundskeeper, the mechanic, the plumber, the exterminator, occasionally a personal shopper, a therapist, the financial planner/advisor, the guidance counsellor, the math / science / history tutor, the electrician, the “got junk” service, the internet trading post when we have stuff to sell, the furniture mover, the lightbulb replacer, the major/minor appliance repairman and help desk, and a whole lot more. This is on top of a 6-figure salary and the usually benefits package that comes with it. I don’t think I’m alone. In fact, I think I’m rather average and were I to add up the cost of outsourcing each and every one of these things the way those “value of an SAHM” studies do, it may well be the mid- to upper 6 figures.
    mrteebs

    Dr. Warren Farrell made the same point in his 1993 breakthrough book, The Myth of Male Power. Every man should read it and his earlier work, Why Men Are the Way They Are, too. The examples are dated but the points Farrell makes are enduring.

    P.S. You left out Bodyguard.

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