Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon.

Cane Caldo coined a hilarious term in his comment on Submission with a twist, and denying rebellion.

A concubine is a committed slave who may not leave without her master’s command, and she receives no more providence when that occurs. What Wilson actually sees are tattooed sluts. A slut is an informal whore who loves her work. In the twenty-first century, sluts not only aren’t concubines, they have have legal rights to extract from their johns future pay for past work; a sort of whore pension. That isn’t anything like concubinage. If we fix Wilson’s phrase so that it reflects the real world it read (“…the twenty-first century is characterized by the tattooed slut.”) it makes sense.

Which gives the lie to Wilson’s sentiment that it’s not progress for women. If twenty-first century women as a group are characterized as tattooed sluts (informal whores), then a clear-eyed observer might call a government enforced whore pension as progress; at least from an economic perspective.

As Zippy observed:

 “Whore pension,” as a succinct and accurate description of alimony granted to a woman who chose to divorce her husband, is a stroke of genius.

While I’m sharing Cane’s brilliant term, I thought I would share another term coined by a M.A. Shaw in his Amazon.com review of Jim Geraghty and Cam Edwards’ book Heavy Lifting: Grow Up, Get a Job, Raise a Family, and Other Manly Advice.  Shaw aptly notes that the term No Fault Divorce makes as much sense as a No Fault Foreclosure:

Good advise for any young man to marry early but what is needed is a companion novel for young women. It has been my observation – as a 63 year old – that it is women that are equally responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage as the Peter Pan mindset. I recall the motto “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” as a teen. No fault divorce (makes as much sense as no fault foreclosure) has led to the present situation where nine of ten divorces are initiated by the wife. Combine a fifty percent divorce rate with the family law paradigm of “What’s hers is hers and what’s his is theirs” in the division of community assets does not make marriage a good business plan for any man. The racetrack gives better odds.
Jim and Cam are obviously very lucky to find their wives but not everybody can be lucky. Still the book was an enjoyable and easy read I would recommend it to anyone.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Cane Caldo, Jim Geraghty, Lexicon, Men's Sphere Humor, Men's Sphere Lexicon. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon.

  1. Pingback: Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon. | @the_arv

  2. Gary Eden says:

    Whore pension shouldn’t be limited to just alimony. As we all know, child support is widely abused and is often little more than alimony with a ‘do it for the kids’ cover story.

    If we really cared about the kids, we wouldn’t let them go with her.

  3. earlthomas786 says:

    that it is women that are equally responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage as the Peter Pan mindset.

    Right…because its 50 50 on who initiated the divorce and men putting off marriage to get a useless degrees and hip from career to career.

    They probably had to say that but it’s quite unequal.

  4. Gunner Q says:

    We stopped using “thief” when gov’t got involved, right? Because gov’t is incapable of theft…

  5. 8 in the Gate says:

    To ensure there’s no lack of subvention,
    When they revoke the man’s claim to retention,
    Since she’s put in her time, gets to play on his dime,
    Sits back and collects her whore pension.

  6. Frank K says:

    “The racetrack gives better odds.”

    That pretty much sums up modern marriage: it’s a gamble and the odds are in her favor, not yours.

    And they wonder “Where have all the good men gone?”

  7. OT, but The Rational Male – Positive Masculinity is now the number 1 best seller in Fatherhood, number 2 best seller in Parenting Boys and number 4 best seller in Family Relationships/Fatherhood on Amazon now. Suck on that Aunt Giggle & IB

  8. earlthomas786 says:

    We stopped using “thief” when gov’t got involved, right? Because gov’t is incapable of theft…

    Yes…now they are just ‘correcting an inbalance’.

  9. Damn Crackers says:

    So, what is the difference between a whore pension and outright prostitution?

    I guess one is made illegal because it is the equivalent of subprime mortgages vs. loan sharking.

  10. Pingback: Two additions to the men’s sphere lexicon. | Reaction Times

  11. Joe Ego says:

    One is legal because they sure did mean well, at the time. Or so they told you, the minister, and the witnesses.

  12. Dalrock says:

    Congratulations Rollo! I saw your comment right after I published my post on your book.

  13. Cane Caldo says:

    @Damn Crackers

    So, what is the difference between a whore pension and outright prostitution?

    Time preference.

  14. Caspar Reyes says:

    Time preference, indeed: the prostitute gets paid to get laid. The future ex-wife gets laid to get paid.

  15. earlthomas786 says:

    The man pays the prostitute to leave…the ex-wife pays the courts to make the man leave the house and wealth. It’s really about who is in the position of power.

  16. Congrats to Rollo and “Whore Pension” is a really good phrase.

  17. @Cane:

    I’ve seen “Professional Ho” show up for the Women that chase star athletes, trying to have their child for the 18+ years of “support”.

  18. earlthomas786 says:

    I did notice in the description of the book it seems to have a lot of male shaming too. Peter Pan syndrome they call it. And while it does lead to a lonely existence I didn’t see anything about how the modern promiscuous feminist is not bringing anything to the table to motivate men out of that syndrome.

    What has happened to men in America? Once upon a time, men in their twenties looked forward to settling down and having children. Today, most young men seem infected by a widespread Peter Pan syndrome. Unwilling to give up the freedom to sleep late, play video games, dress like a slob, and play the field, today’s men wallow in an extended adolescence, ostensibly unaware that they’re setting themselves up for a depressing, lonely existence.

  19. Does he have a source for the “nine out of ten divorces” statistic? I would love to have that nailed down.

  20. It is man-shaming, Earl, pure and simple. Peter Pan chose not to grow up. A man who can’t find a good job because all the ones where he lives have been sent overseas, can’t find a woman who will give him the time of day, and can’t afford college because they are all throwing scholarships at women–the poor things are only 58% of college students!–isn’t making a choice. He’s not Peter Pan, he’s Robinson Crusoe, stranded in a bad place against his will. Why shouldn’t such a man sleep late and play video games?

    (Of course, if I remember correctly, Peter Pan provided leadership to some lost boys, defeated an evil pirate, and saved his friend Tinkerbell, so he wasn’t useless.)

  21. Lost Patrol says:

    He’s not Peter Pan, he’s Robinson Crusoe, stranded in a bad place against his will.

    Thanks for that one The Real P. I plan to use it when the Peter Pan reference next gets trotted out in my vicinity.

  22. mmaier2112 says:

    Some excellent discourse on this post.

    “Whore pension” is classic.

  23. earlthomas786 says:

    He’s not Peter Pan, he’s Robinson Crusoe, stranded in a bad place against his will.

    That is certainly a more apt description.

    Heck I have a job, live on my own, and try to be a productive member of society…but since I haven’t done the right things in the men bashers eyes…I’m a Peter Pan.

  24. Tom C says:

    The “sluttery lifestyle” is another useful term I learned here. And whenever I mention Harley McBadboy and Steady Eddie together in the same sentence, women quickly grasp my meaning even if they have never heard of them before.

  25. Anon says:

    Jim Gay-ratty.

    Few things are more depressing than the fact that his book has four stars. His video on YouTube (“Ward Cleaver is a Stud!”) also has upvotes outnumbering downvotes 4 to 1.

    Cuckservatives are hopeless. Jim Gay-ratty is not getting his just desserts…

  26. Mark says:

    @Dalrock

    Great Post Mister “D”.

    “”the division of community assets does not make marriage a good business plan for any man. The racetrack gives better odds.””

    With divorce rates at 50/50 and a 75% chance of your wife filing?…..as a gambling man I assure you that these are not good odds.That is a “sucker’s bet”. I assume that everyone here is familiar with the game of Russian Roulette? 6 chambers in the pistol with one of the chambers containing a bullet? Did you know that the odds are 16.67% that you pick the “right” chamber.So we have Russian Roulette being a much “safer” game than marriage to a modern woman.Kind of explains modern marriage to a “modern woman” in a nutshell!

    @Rollo

    Congrats on the new book.You deserve the high rankings.Keep up the good work!

  27. Spike says:

    Tom C says:
    July 31, 2017 at 9:27 pm
    The “sluttery lifestyle” is another useful term I learned here. And whenever I mention Harley McBadboy and Steady Eddie together in the same sentence, women quickly grasp my meaning even if they have never heard of them before.

    Hi Tom: Just worth a mention: This sounds strange to Australian ears, because Steady Eddie was a stand-up comedian with cerebral palsy who was popular a few years back. I know what you mean, but I just have to do a double-take every time I read it.

  28. Peter Pantsless says:

    ‘my observation – as a 63 year old – that it is women that are equally responsible for the decline of the institution of marriage as the Peter Pan mindset.’
    Nah not equally. Women are more responsible. And lol at ‘whore pension’.

  29. Peter Pantsless says:

    Also didn’t Peter Pan start an orphanage? More than can be said about whore pension recipients.

  30. BillyS says:

    Hey, my ex-wife thanks me every month for her monthly extortion payment, I mean spousal support. I can’t wait until that is done….

  31. Trust says:

    It’s amazing how many ascend to positions of power in government without a basic understanding of the Law of Supply and the Law of Demand

    The Law of Supply says “an increase in price results in an increase in quantity supplied.” It should have been obvious that the more you pay women to have illegitimate children, the more illegitimacy you will have. The more you pay wives to divorce their husbands, the more broken families you have.

    The Law of Demand says “as the price of a good increases, demanded decreases.” It should have been equally obvious that as the cost of wives and children increases, often to the level of lifetime servitude even if the wife is sleeping with another man, less men will be willing to marry. It’s not a Peter Pan syndrome, and it is not a failure to “man up,” it is simple cost-benefit.

    This is all to buy the votes of left leaning groups with the money of right leaning groups.

    I’m a huge Dennis Prager fan, but this is one area where he misses the boat. He should do a Prager U video titled “Be A Lady, Stay Married.” He’s a man of rare courage, but I think even he would flinch at how much of a pariah he would become.

  32. Boxer says:

    Hey, my ex-wife thanks me every month for her monthly extortion payment, I mean spousal support. I can’t wait until that is done….

    Reminiscent of the old joke (of a thousand variations): Why is it so expensive to divorce a bitch? Because it’s worth it to get rid of her!

    May you never forget the injustice of it. Don’t get married again.

  33. DrTorch says:

    Whore pension?

    Don’t they have to put out to be an actual whore? The word is many don’t even fulfill that part of the agreement when it’s in place.

  34. Trust says:

    @DrTorch on August 1, 2017 at 9:09 am
    Whore pension?

    Don’t they have to put out to be an actual whore? The word is many don’t even fulfill that part of the agreement when it’s in place.
    ____________

    Probably a reference to the significant percentage of them who leave their husbands (who they neglected) and immediately put out to other men.

    A woman is never a whore for sex with her husband.

  35. DrTorch says:

    A woman is never a whore for sex with her husband.

    Excellent point.

  36. Anonymous Reader says:

    I’m a huge Dennis Prager fan, but this is one area where he misses the boat. He should do a Prager U video titled “Be A Lady, Stay Married.” He’s a man of rare courage, but I think even he would flinch at how much of a pariah he would become.

    Prager is on his third marriage. He’s learned how to “lean in” to his leash without going so far that the choke collar engages.

    Chances of such a Prager U video are zero. Absolutely zero.

  37. Gaza says:

    @Cane. Re: Time Preference

    This touches on a recurring theme of mine as I peter-pan my way past all of these woman left waiting at the Wall to fulfill their Plan B’s. The theme being that my ability to buy into female rationalization of her value as a function of her past experiences is hindered by the logic trappings of her Time preference.

    Unfortunately for her I can’t follow her maths, so I am forced to fly on and leave her Tindering in my wake. But I’d really like to Man-UP moar, so I’m working on my proofs.

    It seems her propensity for contorting time in order to conform her past preferences with her current preferences (morality) and the tacit – or increasingly more common, explicit, expectation that I sign-off on her proofs is a recurring impasse I can’t break thru even though I am already doing nearly everything that low-T, pudgy, aging, myopic comedians tell me is manly.

    You see, the gift of female solipsism seems to have its way with Time; Time is not just the ONLY variable in her Law of Experiential Relativity, it is also somehow both finite and infinite – an elasticity that generously affords her a sort of quantum multiverse of possibilities.

    Example. She can exist as a tattooed slut and a Wife in wait AT THE SAME TIME. It is just a matter of perspective. Which is to say, my perspective. Should I view Time according to some archaic and limiting lens and conclude that her past choices indicate sluttery or even just an indifference (at best) toward something like “monogamy”, well then by her calculations I am obviously in error.

    My mistake as I see it: I’m not accounting for her Time preference. But I can’t seem to do this because “past” choices could mean 10 years or 10 days and any attempt on my part to parse out the (only) variable of Time fails to prove out. Worse, it seems my very perspective – the act of me observing her past without the benefit of her Time Preference lens, distorts the (her) value of time and thus alters present reality in a bad way.

    The problem is not the value of time, but that she determines the value of time according to her preference. A perspective that I cannot hold being that I am not Her.

    This Experiential Relativity is how a tattooed slut can demand the price of a Wife. Or how a Wife can retroactively demand the pension of a whore. On the meta, this Time preference variable is what prevents Serial Monogamy from imploding into oxymoron.

    As long as there is/was Time between men she bedded, monogamy is preserved. Now, you may be lured onto a slipper slope by asking “How much Time between men?” thereby erroneously implying that it is the measure of Time that holds value when, in fact, it is her value of Time according to her preference (at x point in time) that holds value.

    Trust me, don’t split hairs. This is an intricate, dare I say delicate, theory. “How much” might as well be “how many” and, of course, “many” falls through the trapdoor of relativism. “Many” men blinks into irrelevance when Time is stretched according to her preference. So we come back to Time.

    In the moment (of Time) when she decided to bang him in the club restroom, monogamy is still preserved because (a) it was just him, as in one, as in ‘mono’; and (b) Time was compressed such that the “now” (finite) moment holds the same value as the future (infinite) string of moments.

    Be warned. Before you assume that this means monogamy (with you) can exist in such a finite moment in Time, you must remember that it is about her Time preference. Remember that elasticity. Now, with you, she prefers to wait. Until Time stretches such that Monogamy (with you) computes.

    Life Hack Side note: If we could all just “live in the now” more, a lot of this would be avoided.

    Recall that her preference for monogamy can exist in Time as both a fixed (finite) preference, e.g. she is banging (only) him now, and a variable (infinite) preference as “now” becomes “later” and she decides she prefers the next guy (in that future now.)

    You may be lucky enough to be the next guy, but being that time – and her preference, is subject to fits of infinity, there is always a next guy. He exists. He could be here right now. Think of it like the sign that reads: “Free Beer Tomorrow”. Her Time preference is wily like that. Don’t get caught watching the paint dry.

    At a certain point in our shared time, as I call it out of pure convenience, her Time preference approaches the event horizon of the Wall. The subsequent vibrations of dissonance disrupt the balance and a black hole is formed. And into that hole goes those past events that no longer conform to her present preference; they simply *Never Happened*. They exist. Just in one of those other infinite multiverses. Like the Next Guy. See: Club Restroom Boy above.

    I know, its confusing. But she makes it work.

    ———–

    The problem is me. I just can’t get my stubborn head around it. As I reckon, if Time is the only variable, then the unifying strong force revealed through observation alone is actually sluttery, not something like “monogamy” or “commitment”, which are more like weak forces that only exist after Time has been modulated according to her preference.

    And since for her time is both finite and infinite there is no way to ever know without actually occupying the same place and time as her, which is rather like BEING her, which is obviously a non-starter, absent some kind of Being John Malcovich wormhole. And even though CERN is working on this very thing, I can’t wait because for me Time Goes By and I fall further behind in the Jim Geraghty handbook to multiverse straddling.

    Now, my maths have weakened over time, largely due to my own time preference for lifting weights and building my business, but even without the clarity afforded by numbers, my intuition is triggered when a tattooed slut serves up her Experiental Relativity for my signature and I balk. Every TIme. Perhaps I am missing something?

    Sorry about the wordsalad. I hope this hasn’t been a total waste of your Time.

  38. earlthomas786 says:

    Probably a reference to the significant percentage of them who leave their husbands (who they neglected) and immediately put out to other men.

    Yes…the whore part is to the irresponsible men, the pension part comes from the poor bastard who married her. It’s a state sanctioned hell.

  39. Trust says:

    I’ll give Prager credit for walking the talk. He doesn’t just tell men that it is better to marry and divorce than never marry, he lives it. I may disagree, but he lives by his own advice.

    I think Prager underestimates how much of an impact government meddling plays in the demise of marriage. Contrary to conventional wisdom, women marry for resources and men marry for relationships. Women provide relationships for resources and men obtain and expend resources for relationships. What has happened is government has guaranteed resources to the wives even if they withdraw from the relationship. Even if they provide the relationship to another man.

    Prager is unwittingly an enabler for those who create broken families. He rightly advocates for children to have fathers, without deal with the primary reason so many do not have a father in the home. Specifically that we pay mothers to be without the fathers.

  40. earlthomas786 says:

    He doesn’t just tell men that it is better to marry and divorce than never marry, he lives it. I may disagree, but he lives by his own advice.

    He must be really deep into delusion…I haven’t ever heard any man who thought divorce was preferrable to not being married.

  41. Trust says:

    @earlthomas,

    He assets that marriage matures people even if the marriage fails.

  42. earlthomas786 says:

    LOL…marriage matures people. He sounds like a marriage worshipper (or women or self).

    If that were the case, women would be maturing in it too.

  43. Mike says:

    I look at it all and simply think ” This too will pass”…Societies do not function well without stable family/tribe units. It’s just a matter of time now to another swing of the pendulum .

  44. feministhater says:

    He assets that marriage matures people even if the marriage fails.

    In the same way as National Service would or perhaps indentured servitude would.. in the same way as forcing someone to work does. The coercive marriage model that now exists, both during and after marriage, has punishment instead of reward as its functioning tool.

    That’s not maturity, that’s fear… dipshits like tradcon fuckwit prager run off of fear. Not fear of God but fear of the state.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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