On cuckolding

On PUA sites, one regularly reads posts from readers who suspect they are being cuckolded, or know damn well they are being cuckolded.

“My girlfriend has an active account on e-harmony.  What should I do?”

The advice they get tends to be disturbingly feminist.

“What do you mean your girlfriend?  She belongs to herself.  She is her own property.  All you can do is spin more plates, see other women, so that she is too busy worrying about you seeing other women to see other men.”

It is not really in a woman’s nature to belong to herself. Like a dog without a master, it makes her nervous.

“Act like you don’t care.  There are plenty of other girls.  And even if there are not plenty of other girls you should act as if there are plenty of other girls”

Well, it is surely true that you should act like there are plenty of other girls, but even if there really are plenty of other girls, a pretense of not caring is not going to fly. Being cuckolded is humiliating and degrading, and pretending to be fine with it is even more humiliating and degrading, and she knows it.

There was an Ottoman Sultan who had several thousand girls in his harem. He discovered that one of them had slept with another man. He killed the man, but could not find which girl was at fault. So he killed them all and dumped their bodies in the river, which was choked with bodies. Women are turned on by this story to this day. Even if you had as many other women as that Sultan, you would still care, and everyone knows it. “Act like you don’t care” is bad advice because your behavior just will not be congruent, and if it was congruent, would come off as weird and spergy, like Scott Alexander piously endorsing polyamory when his camwhore girfriend does not fuck him but fucks other men. Who gets pussies wet? Scott or the Sultan?

The advice given in the PUA forums is the advice of despair. You can take the girl out of the bar but you cannot take the bar out of the girl. If you are picking up girls in a major city, in particular if you are picking up girls in San Francisco, they are all hard boiled burned out sluts who have taken too many dicks up every orifice starting at a very early age. There is always someone handsomer than you and more charismatic than you, and all your girls are all yearning for a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

But the situation is not really quite that hopeless. If you pick up girls who have recently arrived in the big city, or cruise places far from the center of the Cathedral looking for chicks, there are quite a few rubies to be found.

All girls yearn for the gentle but firm touch of ownership, even the hard boiled burned out sluts who can no longer enjoy it or experience it yearn for it.

So what do you do if someone smiles at your girl and says hello?

You drop a possessive hand lightly but firmly over her shoulder, to restrain her from smiling back, saying hello back, giving the guy her phone number and hinting that if he plays his cards right, she might drop her knickers. And then you stare coldly into his eyes, because a bro does not hit on another bro’s girl.

143 Responses to “On cuckolding”

  1. NewUser says:

    PUAs are faggots.

    • jim says:

      The PUA movement is last holdout of manliness against the Cathedral. They are pretty good. Trouble is that they are yielding to the Cathedral on polyamory.

      • NewUser says:

        I’ve never seen a PUA who looks “manly”. They look like closeted homos with their prepared speeches trying to pick up countless girls. You really believe these guys are going keep humanity going?

        • jim says:

          Granted mystery looks as queer as a three dollar bill, but jlaix looks manly.

          Yes, these guys are going to keep humanity going because they know, and tell, the truth.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            I googled the phrase “PUA feminist”. Plenty of them seem to identify as feminists. Which is odd, because about 70% of women don’t.

            Or google image search the term “PUA”. They all seem to dress like fags.

            I assume that the PUA community contains people who are realistic about women, and who have a healthy moral code toward sex. I doubt it’s very many of them.

            Moreover, I wonder how many children the average PUA has? I bet it’s less than the average Amish guy.

        • peppermint says:

          Do you notice people who call themselves klansmen, proudly show off their nazi paraphenalia and tattoos, work dead-end jobs for barely more than spic wages but don’t get government checks to supplement that income, and say you never saw a racist who looks intelligent?

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          L.O.L….Is that jealousy?

          • NewUser says:

            I’m not jealous of fags.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “New User”,

            Nah, they’re not fags, they’re pagans. The reason why a lot of people don’t like them is because people are still are i somewhat /i culturally Christian, and these individuals have completely abandoned all sense of decorum and gone after pussy like pirates. They’re essentially low class men trying to mix their culture in with the rest of society.

            Yet “P.U.A.”s are some of the few who pay even a small amount of attention to the world around them, especially the very important basics of sex differences. However, that doesn’t make the “artists” right, and they’re more of a phenomena than a way of life that should be emulated.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

        • Zach says:

          http://thematinggrounds.com/topics-covered-on-mating-grounds/

          Yeah. They’re pussies. So what? On a side note RH seems to be diggin’ the n00bs in link above. Got it all downloaded and plan to start chipping away tomorrow just for fun.

      • peppermint says:

        MRAs seem to have existed to surrender on “equality”; in the future PUAs will seem to have existed to surrender on polyamory, and there will be no next movement specifically about masculinity, as Andrew Anglin said, today you either side with the nazis, or with the jews.

      • Alan J. Perrick says:

        Only a certain type of manliness…One that produces action packed results, maybe. I really doubt that cultural secessionists would make it onto your radar, “Jim”…

        A.J.P.

    • fnd says:

      PUA is about how to get girls without going to jail.

    • hosswire says:

      Learning Pick Up very dramatically shows young men that they have been lied to, to their detriment, by the Cathedral about women. Once those lies have fallen, many will be curious to learn what other lies they have been told.

  2. Mark Citadel says:

    I’m not sure which is more repulsive, the current PUA movement which has gone from relatively impressive showmanship to backdoor feminism, or the whole MGTOW scene.

    • fnd says:

      early PUA was more feminist than today i guess. Which sites are you refering?

    • Dr. Faust says:

      MGTOW isn’t an ideology. There is little cohesion between members and no goals. It is more like the physical manifestation of a collective nihilism. Confused morally, spiritually, and sexually the modern man is left with only inaction and vanity. Raging at MGTOW is raging at the cape instead of the matador.

      • hosswire says:

        MGTOW can be useful to men as a transition away from today’s fem-centric society. Learning that he does not need a woman in his life to be happy & that he should put himself first are valuable lessons.

        And a young man today to unplug himself from the feminized brainwashing he has been subjected to his whole life, going into Monk Mode and taking time out of the sexual marketplace might be well spent.

        I would argue that MGTOW is better as a phase than a destination, though. At some point, men should stop hiding and re-engage. Hopefully, going through the MGTOW phase will mean he can do so as a needless, independent man.

  3. Eugine_Nier says:

    Scott has a girlfriend? I thought he was having to make do with a tranny and spinning rationalizations to keep from admitting how pathetic he was.

    • peppermint says:

      the CEO of Troll, Inc could have had any millennial girl of his choice, but then he did that bag carrying thing.

      Scott Alexander isn’t as popular as m00t. Dating a woman who says shes a man isn’t necessarily a bad choice.

      CH is the only website devoted to truth about gender roles, and as of this year, CH openly sides with the nazis against the eskimos.

      • fnd says:

        “the CEO of Troll, Inc could have had any millennial girl of his choice”
        lol, no

        • peppermint says:

          Successful internet entrepreneur who runs the edgy /b/ and /pol/ boards where there are nazis and losers post before shooting people; there’s kiddy porn, regular raids on other websites, and endless memes.

          Everyone under 30 knows of him and respects his website, and probably 20% are slamming the f5 key as quickly as they fap to /s/. He has to ban women who try to post their tits to /b/ and create the /soc/ board explicitly for camwhoring.

          He could have had any millennial girl of his choice, except that he chose a jezebel from gawker, and carried her bags, and censored /pol/ for her causing a mass exodus to fullchan.

          Serves him right, he trusted a Jew.

          • fnd says:

            He’s a nerd. End of story.

          • fnd says:

            Put a nerd in a high status position=Bad mating choices i.e. Mark Zuckerberd, Bill Gates and every nerd ever. But hey, at least they got laid.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Everyone under 30 knows of him and respects his website
            Ok, I get it now. Peppermint is from /pol/. That’s explains a lot.

            Mootles is not that well known. For that matter, 4chan isn’t that well known. Go ask random people under 30 on the street. Especially girls – none of them have ever been on 4Chan.

          • nydwracu says:

            RNG, you’re overestimating the difficulty of translating status in a subculture to sex by several orders of magnitude — especially given that moot’s source of income allowed [expected? was he at cons?] him to travel.

            • jim says:

              Not only does money, power, and fame get you hot chicks, but surprisingly small amounts of money, power and fame will get you hot chicks. But these days nerds tend to display curiously low effectiveness in converting money, power and fame into hot chicks.

              Moot could have and should have done one hell of a lot better, and if he had done better, would not have wrecked four chan.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Of course, if the answer lied in materialism the West wouldn’t be in a decadence spiral and we would ironically be calling the institutions The Cathedral. Rather, the difference lies in displays of testosterone (audaciously attractive to women) most likely done with constant pro-active measures taken toward the outside world, even aggressively at times.

            The nerds of today are too far gone to hear the plain truth, and I was reading -St. Matt. xiii- to great relevance on this very topic last night: -Why speakest thou to them in parables?- , -Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom, but to them it is not given.- , -For this people’s heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them. But blessed are your eyes for they see:- , -For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them-.

            Perhaps the reason why people are addressing the story or parable that “Jim” put into this blogpost is more easily seen now.

            Also, since the Trichotomy is a real thing, which works and is able to arrive at Neo-Reaction conclusions by anyone who picks and adheres to once branch more than others, it should be added that loyalty, mainly a virtue found in Ethno-Nationalism, is definitely something that can be used to give confidence and success around women. So when I go to /pol/ and hear the American “burger” meme and then turn around and call the plentiful Germanboos “krauts” to much scorn yet stick my by own statements (not exactly difficult in an anonymous environment) I am getting my feet more firmly planted on the ground.

            Not surprisingly women like manly men.

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            http://i39.tinypic.com/5xsjmw.jpg

            Moot didn’t make that picture. He just created a space where hundreds of young women post nudes, and which normalized use of the word nigger among a bunch of people. Not everyone knew him, but most people had heard of 4chan, described on The O’Reilly Factor as a place supplying kiddy porn to pedophiles.

            Can you think of any other one man with more cultural impact who had a better chance at any millennial girl of his choice?

            Matt Damon, from the Jason Bourne movies? Kanye? Moldbug? Andrew Anglin, the edgiest edgelord with a face, who can’t get money for his site through anything but cash in the mail and bitcoin?

            Women aren’t just attracted to success, they’re attracted to edginess. Moot had both.

          • peppermint says:

            AJP, England needs to enter a non-Christian mode, it’s going to be a major transition, and we edgelords will be resented for our leading role in this transition, but without it England is not going to survive, because colorblindness + welfare + easy transportation = White genocide, as felt by hundreds of thousands of young English girls.

            * Are interracial marriages valid in the eyes of the Lᴏʀᴅ?

            * When Paul says “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” in Galatians 3, does he also mean neither White nor Negro?

            * Will you accept sacraments from nigger priests?

            * Is Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in heaven?

      • fnd says:

        “Scott Alexander isn’t as popular as m00t. Dating a woman who says shes a man isn’t necessarily a bad choice.”
        What’s with neo-nazis and tranny fetish? Next you will tell me you enjoy scat porn. You would help your race a great deal by not posting.

    • Steve Johnson says:

      Scott’s ex-whatever-word-describes-their-relationship isn’t a tranny in the sense of a mentally fucked guy who wears a dress and demands that you call him a woman.

      She’s “trans” in the sense that she was born a woman but identifying as a woman distresses her and she demands that people kiss her ass for being crazy by referring to her with some made up bullshit pronouns.

      Anyway, they broke up.

      • jim says:

        And they never engaged in what normal people would consider sex, so they were never actually together. She, however, regularly engaged in good old fashioned penis in vagina sex with other men.

        • hosswire says:

          Ha ha. What a freakshow. I remember reading him flirting and circling around redpill & PUA thinking and treating it with more respect than one would expect of his ilk.

          But he ultimately backed away from it, on the justification that he didn’t use any of those tricks/concepts and had snagged himself a real prize of a girlfriend anyway.

          Now that things have played out for him exactly as redpill thinking would predict, I wonder if he will reconsider.

  4. alfanerd says:

    “like Scott Alexander piously endorsing polyamory when his camwhore girfriend does not fuck him but fucks other men”

    Thank you for this, that was funny. I dont believe he’s with her anymore, but I dont know who dumped whom.

    On the broader point, good times were had this weekend on the #NoHymenNoDiamond twitter hashtag, laughing at feminists who insists that they can slut it up in their youth and make good wives and mothers after.

  5. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Good to hear about those Cathedralite girls getting ruined, pride is sinful and they’ve got a lot of it.

    A.J.P.

  6. hosswire says:

    Until a man finds a decent woman to get serious with, he may still still want to have his sexual needs met & gain skill in woman-handling to prepare him to attract and manage that decent woman. A lot of these women who may meet sexual needs do not merit a relationship.

    Spinning plates & not mate-guarding might sound like acceptng polyamory but really it is just avoiding one-itis for unworthy women while you look for a worthy one.

    • jim says:

      I still don’t want to be cuckolded by an unworthy woman, even if I am only sleeping with her on the side.

      The “act like you don’t care” advice is bad advice.

      • fnd says:

        It is good advice by today standards. You don’t want to go to jail because of a slut.

      • hosswire says:

        I think that part of the reason why “acting like you don’t care” is recommended is that it triggers the woman to pursue the unavailable/aloof/already-getting-laid male as more high value.

        By contrast, “acting like you care” might be interpreted by some women as desperate/needy/celibate and trigger a flight response.

        So in this respect, the act may indeed be a bluff that you hope the woman does not call. But as in all bluffs & deceptions, they are more effective when you are able to convince yourself of the deception first.

        • jim says:

          The primary problem is not that the girl might wander off permanently (that problem is uncommon and takes care of itself) but that she might wander off at one in the morning and return at three in the morning with a smile on her lips after servicing a booty call from Jeremy Meeks.

          To which the appropriate deterrent is a credible threat of murder, mayhem, or at the very least dumping her abruptly.

      • Koanic says:

        I find your attitude re sex fundamentally and epically correct, but I think you miss some of the posturing.

        When jealousy is a minor shit test, it should be handled unseriously, as an aloof alpha with options and nothing to prove. When it shades towards real, it should be handled with the type of escalating fury that puts a woman in fear of murder and abandonment.

        E.g., I like Putin and so do the Chinese. He has rock star level cuteness there. While discussing Putin, my gf shit tested me that she would grab and prolongedly kiss him like the babushka did in an amusing video we both watched. I was walking away from her, so I turned back, said “you bitch” and tickle/poked her in the stomach semi-hard. Then resumed walking away and said, “Putin is MY boyfriend.” This pwned her back to the appropriate dynamic. Whereas if I had dealt with it seriously, I would’ve lost hand.

        However, at another time she invented a lie to test my degree of investment in the relationship, and it was the building nuclear explosion that was appropriate and worked.

        As far as the “man hits on your girl” situation, I think your response is correct.

        • hosswire says:

          Building Nuclear Explosion Game.

          I like it.

        • Corvinus says:

          “I find your attitude re sex fundamentally and epically correct”

          
It’s titanically flawed, actually.

          “When jealousy is a minor shit test, it should be handled unseriously, as an aloof alpha with options and nothing to prove.”

          
Assuming a man has the tools and wherewithal to be “aloof” in that situation.

          “When it shades towards real, it should be handled with the type of escalating fury that puts a woman in fear of murder and abandonment.”

          You meant to say “could be handled”.

          “E.g., I like Putin and so do the Chinese…I would’ve lost hand.”

          

It never ceases to amaze me how fan bois of Roissy create these stories of alleged male dominance.

          “As far as the “man hits on your girl” situation, I think your response is correct.”

          

Why? To the PUA, any and all girls, regardless if “taken”, are fair game. If anything, you should be applauding their efforts to game your honey, as their status level may be higher. As such, she would be in better company.

    • Dan says:

      “Until a man finds a decent woman to get serious with, he may still still want to have his sexual needs met & gain skill in woman-handling to prepare him to attract and manage that decent woman. A lot of these women who may meet sexual needs do not merit a relationship.”

      That is terrible advice. A young man should work on his education and earning power and fitness. When he is in a position of strength, he should seriously court a high quality woman with an eye toward family.

      He shouldn’t waste time and money when he isn’t ready. If he is a relationship with a ‘substitute’, he won’t be free when a quality woman comes along and she won’t go for him.

      He should play a long game to prepare to court and marry and have kids with one very high quality woman.

      This sounds like ‘oneitis’ but it isn’t, exactly. A man who has serious expectations regarding marriage and faithfulness and motherhood will repel some. Such a man will also find some women repellant. He will need to up his own market value and seek broadly.

      • jim says:

        I disagree with both of you. A man should sleep with many women, while continuing to love and care for the wife of his youth. A woman should only sleep with one man.

        You may object that that does not add up, but what makes it add up is that there will always be some loser men who never know the touch of woman, and some loser women who know the touch of far too many men.

        When I am sleeping with a woman on the side, I don’t want her sleeping with a man on the side.

        • hosswire says:

          Now, this is life advice that I can really get behind.

        • Stephen W says:

          Personally I would rather not catch the STDs of sluts and spread them to good women.

        • Hidden Author says:

          As if a pompous blowhard like you deserves two women. What makes you so special!

        • Corvinus says:

          Jim, you’ve already been p-owned on this topic. A Christian man remains faithful to his wife, lest he be cast in sin and incur the wrath of God.

          • Anon says:

            Get a load of this Christcuck

          • Anon says:

            “A Christian man remains beta to his wife, lest he be cucked by an invisible father figure of his own creation.”

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            More Cathedral than Christian, I’d say and also using Christianity against Christians (but both of you are doing that).

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Jim isn’t a Christian.

            Also, it’s “pwned” or “pwnd”. not “p-owned”.

          • Corvinus says:

            “More Cathedral than Christian, I’d say and also using Christianity against Christians (but both of you are doing that).”

            False characterization. My position is based on the Christian faith, with zero elements of this so-called Cathedral bullshit.

            “Get a load of this Christcuck.”

            It’s follower of Christ. Why do you hate God and yourself?

            “A Christian man remains beta to his wife, lest he be cucked by an invisible father figure of his own creation.”

            Christian men who remain faithful to their wife are alphas. They build the relationship. If you’re not married and have no children, you’re a biological dead end. I forgive you, though.

            “Jim isn’t a Christian.”

            Tell me something I don’t know.

          • red says:

            >False characterization. My position is based on the Christian faith, with zero elements of this so-called Cathedral bullshit.

            Neither you nor any of your kind have practiced Christianity since the day you purged Saint Paul by allowed women to speak in church and assume the masculine role in the marriage.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            Exactly, “Red”. It would be better for everyone if the squishy and un-salty “Christians” would stop calling themselves as such. There are so many that don’t make an effort to answer Christ’s calling. A lot of the time they don’t even call themselves it except when it gives them a worldly benefit, so it would make sense for actual Christians to not let them get away with this sort of lukewarm celebration of the Lord.

            Best regards,

            A.J.P.

          • peppermint says:

            hey AJP, are you going to answer my simple questions, or am I just going to have to make fun of you for insufficient enthusiasm for our Lᴏʀᴅ by neglecting Hɪꜱ mini majescules?

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            “Peppermint Papist”,

            You are drooling on the keyboard!

          • Corvinus says:

            “Neither you nor any of your kind have practiced Christianity since the day you purged Saint Paul by allowed women to speak in church and assume the masculine role in the marriage.’

            [Laughs] you have a strange way of defining Christianity.

            “Exactly, “Red”. It would be better for everyone if the squishy and un-salty “Christians” would stop calling themselves as such. There are so many that don’t make an effort to answer Christ’s calling.”

            Praytell, how does one answer Christ’s calling? What makes a Christian in your eyes?

            “A lot of the time they don’t even call themselves it except when it gives them a worldly benefit, so it would make sense for actual Christians to not let them get away with this sort of lukewarm celebration of the Lord.”

            Define “actual Christian”.

          • peppermint says:

            Christians believe that the superior should die painfully for the inferior. That’s why they invite niggers into their countries to rape their daughters and beat them to death.

          • Alan J. Perrick says:

            I’m doing nothing more than backing up the commenter “Red”‘s points so if he hasn’t written anything that pertains to your situation, then you are off the hook. But if there is…

            One thing could be focusing on man’s sin more than woman’s, which could compound into really big problems over time. Especially worrisome is the bastardy epidemic that Cathedral media organs never get around to addressing at its root, which is woman’s promiscuity.

            So maybe that…But certainly anything about women not being silent in church and anything that makes a man not be the head of the family.

            A.J.P.

          • red says:

            >[Laughs] you have a strange way of defining Christianity.

            1 Timothy 2:15
            But women will be saved through childbearing, assuming they continue to live in faith, love, holiness, and modesty.

            1 Corinthians 14:34-35
            Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says.
            If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

            These verses are the core of the male and female roles in family and church life. If your church fails to enforce these commandments then you’ve purged Saint Paul and if you’ve purge Saint Paul then you’re longer a Christian.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “A young man should work on his education and earning power and fitness. When he is in a position of strength, he should seriously court a high quality woman with an eye toward family.”

        You’re making an empirical claim that isn’t backed up by the evidence.

        All women prefer a man who is successful with women ESPECIALLY quality women. He’ll have more success courting a quality woman if he’s fucking a cutie at the same time.

        • hosswire says:

          Exactly. Plus, he will have experience dealing with women’s various behavioral patterns & tests that she runs on guys to filter them out.

          Only courting a high-quality woman would be like skipping all the preliminary fights & sparring partners and climbing straight into the octagon against the reigning MMA champ.

        • Alan J. Perrick says:

          More of this strange paganism. Mr Johnson, don’t you believe that a man should ideally already be married early enough in his life, before he gets into either too much courting or too much fucking?

          A.J.P.

  7. spandrell says:

    Who was that Sultan?

  8. peppermint says:

    maybe i’m still an unreconstructive progressive in this area, but I really don’t see the point of taking 1000 White sex slaves, executing them, taking 1000 more White sex slaves, locking up all your children, hanging out in your harem all day surrounded by eunuchs like some faggot chinaman, executing all your children, and…

    • Stephen W says:

      Indeed executing your concubines and children is not a good reproductive strategy.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        If you have an unlimited potential supply of concubines gained on raids but have a limit to the number you can feed, clothe and house then the sultan picked the fitness maximizing behavior – especially if the story gets to the ears of the next batch of concubines.

        • peppermint says:

          it’s still a degenerate waste of time for the king and a bad example to the nation, except that the sultan’s empire wasn’t really a nation, was it

          harems are for sand niggers, rice niggers, dirt niggers if they can ever organize anything, but whites do not act in this manner. probably because yahweh gave us souls and rabbi yeshua bar yahweh gave us the law, or maybe because we evolved differently, those propositions both seem equally reasonable, don’t they

    • spandrell says:

      It wasn’t up to the individual Sultan. That’s the way the institution evolved to keep the empire stable, and damn stable it was.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      I would doubt that a man’s reproductive potential is increased after the first 100 concubines. You can’t have that much sex.

      Presumably, the other 900 concubines were a status symbol, and most of them never were pregnant by him.

      • jim says:

        When a girl is in estrus she is noticeably hotter and more aggressive to get impregnated.

        Suppose Solomon mostly impregnates those that are in estrus – suppose fifty percent of his sex is women during their brief fertile period. Suppose he has sex twice a day. Then chances are one sex act in four results in pregnancy.

        A woman can produce one child every eighteen months, assuming prompt weaning with food suitable for a small child.

        At that rate, Solomon can keep 270 wives producing children at the maximum rate.

        But it is probably more congenial to have them produce children at less than the maximum rate, so we are looking at perhaps four or five hundred concubines with numerous pregnancies.

        And, of course, if you are Genghis Khan, you can do one hell of a lot better than sex twice a day.

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          What is physically feasible, and what people (i.e.. a King) actually will do, are two different things. Most Kings are old, or like Genghis Khan, spend their time on stuff that interferes with a perfectly-managed harem of 1,000.

          Based on the link below, I think the practical maximum number of kids is probably around 1,000 or so. Which is what, 400 concubines over a lifetime? Also, note that exceeding 100 kids is still historically exceptional, even for the (many) men who had enough concubines/mistresses to do it.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_people_with_the_most_children

  9. B says:

    >Women are turned on by this story to this day.

    Psycho women, sure. Like the kind that cut themselves.

    PUAs are basically sales guys using sales tactics, same as you’d see in a mall selling cell phones. Sales is a mix of natural talent, art and science, with a huge amount of pseudo-science, jargon, explicit and implicit lies and rationalization on top.

    The problem is that the worldview you have to adapt to sell cell phones in a mall successfully is not a very good one, and is hard to get rid of once you’ve adapted it. To lie well to others, you have to lie well to yourself. Once you start lying to yourself, it’s very difficult to stop. Mom told you not to make faces when you were a kid because you could get stuck like that, right? It’s like someone who makes a habit of stealing. Very hard to break.

    You end up being like our host, who has convinced himself that there’s nothing wrong with sleeping with many women aside from his wife, and who has turned decades of talent and opportunity into many plates of barramundi eaten and many sluts slept with. Sex is far more than an animalistic act. It is tied with our deepest self, our soul. Whoever reduces it to an animalistic act inevitably reduces himself to an animal. And if there are equivocations on the way, that makes it worse-nothing is worse than an intelligent man who uses his intellect to reduce himself to an animal.

    • jim says:

      The Cathedral has gotten to you.

      The patriarchs usually had some action additional to their wives.

      If, like the victorians, you propose that the same rules apply to men and women, then, surprise, you find that somehow you are applying these rules only to men, because women are wonderful, and would never do anything bad, except evil men induce them to do so.

      Whenever group X is naturally subordinate to group Y, and you propose artificial equality, you wind up with artificial inequality in the reverse direction.

      Which happened with the Victorians and the divorce of Queen Caroline, and we have been doubling down on it ever since.

      If you propose chastity for men, you will wind up not applying it to women.

      • B says:

        I propose nothing radical other than that a man who is controlled by his appetites vs. the other way around is not acting as a man but rather as a sort of talking animal.

        Every successful and admirable civilization set self-continence as one of the qualities for a man to aspire to.

        As I have said, you had the world on a plate and turned it into two kids and a bunch of eaten barramundi and sluts copulated with.

        • spandrell says:

          The Chinese did promote self-continence, but not very hard. Polygamy was pervasive and seen as the natural way of things, though they did crack down on extreme cases of lust. Having 9 wives was allowed, but not admired. It also alerted the tax authorities.

          Every successful civilization promotes self-continence, but also acknowledges biological reality and makes some provisions to make room for it. Else all you do is give higher status to the random minority who just doesn’t have much appetite for anything. And giving high status to that sort of people hasn’t turned out very well lately, has it? Lesbians are the best self-controlled in the area of sex; they have grown to dominate western universities.

          All human traits are distributed in a bell curve. A good rule of thumb is that you don’t want to give high status to people on the edge of the bell curve. Not to the very middle either, but extremes are always bad.

          • B says:

            In Judaism, a high level implies both self-continence and strong drives. It’s known that the higher level a man is on, the stronger his urges and the more self-control he requires. There are numerous midrashim and aggadot on this point. Examples include Moses, Reish Lakish (one of our sages, who started off as a bandit and gladiator,) Rav Amram, etc. Our ideal is not a eunuch but a man of powerful character.

            Of all the sages of the Talmud, we know of one who had multiple wives. Of the three patriarchs, only one had multiple wives, and that was not what he had intended. Etc.

            A man can be considered to be a man to the degree that he controls his appetites and channels them productively to serve a higher cause, and an animal to the degree that he is controlled by them and serves them. The higher someone is, the further they have to fall; an intelligent man learnedly expounding rationalizations for why serving his appetites is the highest cause in life (an Epicurean) is worse than a foolish savage (indeed, Darwin says that monogamy is very frequent among savages.)

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Lesbians are the best self-controlled in the area of sex; they have grown to dominate western universities
            Lesbians don’t exist. There is a term for a “lesbian” woman who hasn’t had sex with a man. She is called a “gold star” and are exceptionally rare in the “lesbian” community. Of course, there is no term for a heterosexual woman who hasn’t had sex with a woman, and they are the majority of heterosexual women. This implies that “lesbians” don’t actually behave very much like lesbians.

            They dominate western universities because claiming to be homosexual entitles you to promotions, especially in academia. And it’s very easy to call yourself a lesbian. Much easier than pretending to be black.

        • peppermint says:

          Our host ended up being our host because he consistently refused the self-denial the normalfags engage in constantly and asked the questions they didn’t.

          There are many men of Jim’s age working the jobs Jim has worked. Some of them have more kids than he does, some of them have no kids; the men I am thinking of in particular have 0 or 1 kid and post progressive memes on facebook all day.

          I also know some 20-30 year old girls who post progressive memes on facebook almost as much as them, they tend to post more faggy and funny stuff. They do it to try to attract a man to talk to them and give them some sperm and maybe a ring.

        • spandrell says:

          Please do not use Jewish terminology or particular examples, which I don’t know and have no interest in studying. If there is anything relevant in your tradition you might as well explain it to me in English.

          I never quite understood what this “channel appetites into productive purposes” actually means. Being a horny bastard who can’t stay still when a pretty woman passes by is, well, being a horny bastard. What does it mean to “channel” lust? You can hardly use a boner to study harder or to make better woodwork. Lust is lust. Avarice is avarice.

          I can envision using greed to earn money, and then occasionally allowing someone to advise you to spend it for non-selfish purposes. I don’t see how this is “channelling greed for good purposes”.

          Still, if human traits are normally distributed, and they are transmitted to offspring, none of which your Talmud talks about, then privileging a particular set of values entails privileging a particular disposition of men. If you expel polygamists from your community, your tribe will have less lustful genes over time. If you reward people with strong drives who nonetheless don’t act upon them, you get more people who can fake having strong drives while actually having very mild appetites.

          If you reward un-animal-like behavior, you get celibate lesbians watching soap operas with VR goggles, which is very far from animal behavior. Monogamous savages are so because of resource constraints; as are non-savage monogamous.

          • B says:

            Which terminology or examples are you confused by?

            Channeling lust into productive purposes means using it to build a family, produce children, have sex with your wife to build a bond. Channeling greed into productive purposes means creating value, capturing value, using the money to create valuable things for others to benefit from.

            You have a Freudian view of human nature and drives, which maps a sort of steam-engine model of human nature, with the conscious part being a sort of passive captive of mechanical desires. We have a different view, where the mind has mastery (with effort) over feelings, desires and emotions. If you see lust as natural and futile to control, of course you will experience more of it. Naturally, this is a false and self-serving view; the same exact way that you can and do consciously restrain yourself from grabbing attractive women you meet in public contexts, you can control yourself the rest of the time.

            Celibate lesbians watching anime on VR are, on close inspection, quite animalistic. They are overdomesticated and exhibiting obvious stereopathic behavior.

            Darwin disagreed with you re: monogamy.

        • spandrell says:

          “midrashim and aggadot on this point. Examples include Moses, Reish Lakish (one of our sages, who started off as a bandit and gladiator,) Rav Amram”

          Whatever.

          It doesn’t take much lust to get a wife and have frequent sex with her when she’s ovulating. What are you people in the right tail of the lust distribution supposed to do? How do they “channel” their extreme lust? How do they deal with the Coolidge effect?

          They don’t; self-control is a social issue. People self-control because they are socialized into fearing breaking social norms. It’s not about praying to God and making yourself do it. If it depended on that instead of brutal law enforcement, you give status to only a very small subset of people who are capable of self-suggestion.

          I don’t have a Freudian view; I just see people are different, and some people fail to behave according to society’s standards, even when enforcement was quite brutal. And choosing any particular standard redistributes status from some people to others; being too hard on average people distributes status to very strange people, and that has other unintended consequences.

          You seem to have a typical magical model of the mind; where willpower is magical and everybody can make oneself do anything, as long as they wish it strongly enough. It doesn’t work like that; the mind chooses behavior patterns through socialization, by adopting society’s norms; not through self-suggestion.

          Not that I think that the particular Jewish model on sex relations is flawed; it seems to work alright.

          I can’t remember the particulars; but I seem to recall some foragers in Tanzania are monogamous, but African foragers live in very, very marginal territory. Australian savages were polygamous, as are many Amazonians.

          I don’t grab attractive woman I meet outside because that’s counterproductive to having sex with them. And I don’t seduce them because 1. I’m not very good at it, and 2. a session of sex, while nice, is not worth the risk of my wife knowing and resenting me forever. Let alone the risk of others knowing and my reputation going to the gutters.

          It really is that simple. The people I know who engage in frequent adultery, are either very good at hiding it; or have their reputation invested in the sort of people who don’t care about that. And they seem to enjoy new women more than having peace at home.

          • B says:

            >How do they “channel” their extreme lust?

            Onto their wives.

            >How do they deal with the Coolidge effect?

            I don’t understand the question. The Coolidge effect is a result of having new partners.

            >They don’t; self-control is a social issue. People self-control because they are socialized into fearing breaking social norms.

            Since we have a social covenant with G-d, I don’t understand the problem.

            >I don’t have a Freudian view; I just see people are different, and some people fail to behave according to society’s standards, even when enforcement was quite brutal. And choosing any particular standard redistributes status from some people to others; being too hard on average people distributes status to very strange people, and that has other unintended consequences.

            Yes, if you have a standard, some people will fail to meet it. If you lower the bar to where sexual incontinence is praiseworthy, very few will fail to meet the standard (with even incels bragging about their masturbatory activities,) but your society will disintegrate.

            >You seem to have a typical magical model of the mind; where willpower is magical and everybody can make oneself do anything, as long as they wish it strongly enough. It doesn’t work like that; the mind chooses behavior patterns through socialization, by adopting society’s norms; not through self-suggestion.

            Society reinforces norms. Willpower is primary. No magic is involved.

            >I can’t remember the particulars; but I seem to recall some foragers in Tanzania are monogamous, but African foragers live in very, very marginal territory. Australian savages were polygamous, as are many Amazonians.

            So, not a resource issue. Polygamy vs monogamy is a self-reinforcing social norm.

            >I don’t grab attractive woman I meet outside because that’s counterproductive to having sex with them. And I don’t seduce them because 1. I’m not very good at it, and 2. a session of sex, while nice, is not worth the risk of my wife knowing and resenting me forever. Let alone the risk of others knowing and my reputation going to the gutters.

            So, in other words, you have a conscious mind which controls your behavior. Like everybody else. So your revealed worldview is what I said-lust is a force acting on you but subject to your control, like any other. The same way we can and are expected to control our natural urges (for instance, the urge to leap across the table at an endless and pointless meeting and jam our ballpoint pens through the eardrum of the yammering idiot with the Powerpoint,) or channel them productively.

        • spandrell says:

          I don’t think lust works that way. While some fortunate guys might feel everlasting lust towards their wives; most mammals are subject to the Coolidge effect, which means you eventually stop lusting towards your wife, and lust much more strongly towards other women. People with exceptional levels of libido are thus likely to stray, as they lust very strongly only towards other women.

          I am not saying that is admirable. It is an extreme case. I am for acknowledging the bell curve, giving status to normal people, and deciding what to do with extreme cases. A case could be made they are only trouble and should be ostracized and prevented from breeding. I might support that if some horny guy tried to seduce my wife.

          There’s an easy choice of what to do with that sort of man. Either you tell them to pray to God, to “control themselves”, and “channel their urges into productive purposes”, etc. into sex with old wives towards which they feel no desire. Or we can allow prostitution so they can satiate their urges without bothering other people’s wives and daughters. You would choose the former; I think that’s wishful thinking, and support the latter.

          Tanzanian savages are monogamous because their territory has very little food, and conflict over women would drive the whole band into extinction. Amazonians and Australians are polygamous because their territory is plentiful and some men can earn enough resources to attract several wives, and there’s enough surplus to allow for occasional bickering over women. Again I’m not an expert, but neither are you.

          It isn’t my conscious mind which stops me from doing something stupid with women. It’s my unconscious calculations about the outcomes of my actions. It didn’t take God’s revelation. It just took a modest sampling of general opinion, and (I’ll admit) some trial and error. I tried; wasn’t worth it. It’s as simple as that.

          • B says:

            You are using the progressive model of the human being, which is basically Freud’s steam engine/behaviorist. People have certain drives, and that’s that. Attempting to control those drives results in an explosion. But the reality is different.

            The Coolidge Effect is not that you cease to feel lust towards your wife. It is that when you get another mate on the side, your lust towards your wife increases. In the steam engine model, you need novelty. In reality, there is a thing called “bonding” and “wife goggles,” and sex is a lot more than just lust.

            Prostitution is a fact of life, but if you’ve ever visited a whore, you know that there’s something wrong with the progressive model of sex which is just a sort of steam pressure buildup.

            Hunter-gatherers are typically better nourished than agriculturalists. The problem in, say, Africa was not too little land and resources, but too few people. Tribes periodically split off due to conflict and move out. Anyway, it’s irrelevant since reproductive rates are constrained by the amount of females of fertile age, disease and infanticide. Monogamy vs polygamy does not play a big part.

            I suspect you are vastly underestimating the control of your conscious mind over your behavior. The existence and popularity of the PUA movement disproves your outlook; it’s completely predicated on conscious ability to adjust mating behavior, down to posture, confidence, manneurisms, etc.

            • jim says:

              You are using the progressive model of the human being, which is basically Freud’s steam engine/behaviorist. People have certain drives,

              B, you fail to pay attention to other people’s positions, replacing their actual positions with entirely unrecognizable demonic parodies.

          • jim says:

            most mammals are subject to the Coolidge effect,

            Human males have both wife goggles and the Coolidge effect. So Abraham fucked Hagar, but did not ditch Sarah.

          • B says:

            Abraham did not “fuck” Hagar. He took her for a concubine, after being asked to do so by his wife, specifically in order to have children.

            You read that and map it onto yourself romancing the office bicycle behind your wife’s back. “Let me tell you about barramundi, baby. A very sophisticated fish, not for the proles.”

          • red says:

            >Abraham did not “fuck” Hagar. He took her for a concubine, after being asked to do so by his wife, specifically in order to have children.

            Thus gods law is overridden by the whims of a women. The Cathedral owns you.

          • B says:

            >Thus gods law is overridden by the whims of a women. The Cathedral owns you.

            I don’t know what you want. I’d recommend you read the Bible. You can see plainly what it says:
            “And Sarai said unto Abram: ‘Behold now, the LORD hath restrained me from bearing; go in, I pray thee, unto my handmaid; it may be that I shall be builded up through her.’ And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. 3 And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar the Egyptian, her handmaid, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to Abram her husband to be his wife. 4 And he went in unto Hagar, and she conceived; and when she saw that she had conceived, her mistress was despised in her eyes. 5 And Sarai said unto Abram: ‘My wrong be upon thee: I gave my handmaid into thy bosom; and when she saw that she had conceived, I was despised in her eyes: the LORD judge between me and thee.’ 6 But Abram said unto Sarai: ‘Behold, thy maid is in thy hand; do to her that which is good in thine eyes.’ And Sarai dealt harshly with her, and she fled from her face.”

            “And Sarah saw the son of Hagar the Egyptian, whom she had borne unto Abraham, making sport. 10 Wherefore she said unto Abraham: ‘Cast out this bondwoman and her son; for the son of this bondwoman shall not be heir with my son, even with Isaac.’ 11 And the thing was very grievous in Abraham’s sight on account of his son. 12 And God said unto Abraham: ‘Let it not be grievous in thy sight because of the lad, and because of thy bondwoman; in all that Sarah saith unto thee, hearken unto her voice; for in Isaac shall seed be called to thee.”

            I guess Abraham was pwnd by the Cathedral too.

      • Corvinus says:

        “The patriarchs usually had some action additional to their wives”

        God intended it to be a monogamous relationship between man and wife. No amount of secular posturing, i.e. Christians kings who had mistresses, can dismiss HIs word on this matter.

        Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder–Matthew 19:6

        • B says:

          >The patriarchs usually had some action additional to their wives

          Jim reads about Sarah presenting 90 year old Abraham with a servant so that he can produce children through her and instantly maps that to himself picking up whores while the wife is not looking 🙂

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            The story of Judah and Tamar implies that seeing whores was frequent for (at least) Judah, and plausibly all high-status men.

            >God intended it to be a monogamous relationship between man and wife
            God seems to be pretty ineffective at achieving his intent.There are lots of animals who are more monogamous than humans.

          • B says:

            You might have noticed that Judah, Reuven, Shimon, Levi etc. did things that the Torah shows as either being not very good or very bad, with terrible consequences.

            Prostitution is considered by the Torah as a fact of life, but not a good one.

        • Red says:

          >God intended it to be a monogamous relationship between man and wife.

          Not in the text. God intended women to only sleep with thier husbands. A man sleeping with a slut is so normal that it’s not even mentioned in the bible while things like as rare as animal sex and things as common like usury have explicit commandments. No amount of invention on your part can change that.

          • Corvinus says:

            “God intended women to only sleep with thier husbands. A man sleeping with a slut is so normal…”

            Jesus extended the definition of adultery to include sexual relations between a married man and a woman other than his wife (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18).

            • jim says:

              No Jesus did not. Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 prohibits dumping one’s wife without good reason. Does not prohibit sleeping with additional women, or marrying additional women. (Recall that at the time, polygyny was common among the Jews according to Josephus. Since the pharisees were generally well off, many of those Jesus addressed in this conversation would have more than one wife, and would support, and care for, all of them.)

              He criticizes male behaviors that are likely to pressure a woman to sleep with more than one man, not males who sleep with more than one women.

              The specific issue he specifically addresses is unjustly abandoning one of one’s wives, many of his audience having several wives, and caring for all of them.

          • red says:

            @Corvinus

            Your quoted verses have nothing to do with the point in question. Instead you quote verses condemn divorce by extending adultery to include divorcing without cause.

            If your point was true, then the unmarried women sleeping with a married man would be adultery, something I’ve never seen anyone condemned for. Extending adultery to include men sleeping with sluts stems from your goal to serve progressive interests, not the word of god.

          • peppermint says:

            Jesus extends the definition of adultery to include looking at another woman (Matthew 5:28), which implies that God recognizes thought crimes, and since there is no male or female, but all are on in Christ (Galatians 3), it authorizes a woman to divorce her husband if he looks at another woman.

          • Corvinus says:

            “No Jesus did not. Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 prohibits dumping one’s wife without good reason. Does not prohibit sleeping with additional women, or marrying additional women.”

            Jim, you’re lying again. There were few grounds upon which a woman could divorce her husband. If he falsely accused her of not being a virgin when they got married, that gave her the right to divorce him, as well as committing adultery. She had the right to divorce him in that instance.

            Jesus taught reverence for God’s law — reverence for God himself, for the Lord’s Day, reverence for neighbor, reverence for husband, reverence for wife. Fucking a woman other than your husband or wife is not reverence, Jim, it’s revulsion in the Lord’s eyes.

            “Instead you quote verses condemn divorce by extending adultery to include divorcing without cause.”

            No, I am quoting verses that thoroughly demonstrate that adultery is a sin committed by husband or wife.

            “If your point was true, then the unmarried women sleeping with a married man would be adultery, something I’ve never seen anyone condemned for.”

            Then you’re not looking hard enough. God condemns it. That’s all that ultimately matters.

            • jim says:

              Jesus extended the definition of adultery to include sexual relations between a married man and a woman other than his wife (Mark 10:11-12, Luke 16:18)

              “No Jesus did not. Mark 10:11-12 and Luke 16:18 prohibits dumping one’s wife without good reason. Does not prohibit sleeping with additional women, or marrying additional women.”

              Jim, you’re lying again.

              2 And the Pharisees came to him, and asked him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife? tempting him.
              3 And he answered and said unto them, What did Moses command you?
              4 And they said, Moses suffered to write a bill of divorcement, and to put her away.
              5 And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept.
              6 But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.
              7 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife;
              8 And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh.
              9 What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.
              10 And in the house his disciples asked him again of the same matter.
              11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against her.
              12 And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

              The verses speak for themselves:

              And if they do not speak for themselves, consider the social context: That according to Josephus it was normal and common for Jews to marry several women simultaneously, thus many of those pharisees must have been married to more than one wife.

              This is a prohibition against ditching one’s wife. Not a prohibition against sleeping with additional women.

          • Corvinus says:

            “This is a prohibition against ditching one’s wife. Not a prohibition against sleeping with additional women.”

            Historical context matters, exactly. In ancient times, men sleeping with additional women who are your wives, yes. Sleeping around with women who are NOT your wives, no.

            • jim says:

              Historical context matters, exactly. In ancient times, men sleeping with additional women who are your wives, yes. Sleeping around with women who are NOT your wives, no.

              In strongly patriarchal society marriage is pretty informal, resembling the sale of a cow. See the marriage of Isaak and Rebekah. If Ruth sleeps with Boaz, and Boaz intends the arrangement to continue, she has married him.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >The Cathedral has gotten to you
        Nah. PUAs are bullshit. B got it right, they’re mostly salesmen.

        >The patriarchs usually had some action additional to their wives.
        The Patriarchs could afford to comfortably feed and house their concubines, and their children. The average American male can’t. And so the only relationship he can have with a woman, will either make her a single mother, or never result in children due to abortion and contraception. Neither is a successful relationship.

        The typical PUA is like Hugh Hefner. Large sexual partner count. Not very many children. Presumably that’s because they’re pursuing immediate sexual pleasure, without actually forming good sexual relationships.

  10. spandrell says:

    I do wonder if your wife is reading this.

    I’ve found that women object don’t care that much about adultery per se; but they object very strongly to the knowledge of it. As long as you have plausible deniability, most women don’t care what their men do. They don’t want to know it, and especially they don’t want anybody else to know it.

    When a woman knows a man has other women on the side all hell breaks loose. Polygamous households are miserable places with daily drama between the wives, and the men barely holding the thing together with several layers of ritual.

    So by all means have only one wife, and shut up about everything else. No need to talk about it. Which is of course the European traditional family.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Concubinage is a real part of our fallen state and bastards are still to be held as inferior.

      A.J.P.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        In Christian countries, Kings frequently had sex with other men’s wives, in order to prevent their children from being born bastards. Especially in Catholic countries, due to their harsh laws regarding divorce, and the legitimization of bastards.

    • jim says:

      I’ve found that women object don’t care that much about adultery per se; but they object very strongly to the knowledge of it.

      It is merely a shit test.

      Women are not worried by physical adultery. They are threatened by potential loss of affection and care. If they physically desire their husbands, and are secure in their husband’s affection, will reluctantly accept adultery with only moderate levels of drama.

      • spandrell says:

        Women shit on each other all the time; and a woman who is publicly known to have a cheating husband loses status points vs. her friends. It is not good to make your own wife lose status points when you can avoid it.

        So plausible deniability is always the best strategy; and it’s the Western tradition too. Even Kings would deny having mistresses, even when it was obvious. Being able to lie with impunity is also a signal of high status.

  11. mukatsuku says:

    ‘Act like you don’t care’ is clearly the wrong choice.

    Jim’s version of mate guarding is OK.

    Best would be to ‘next’ her immediately. That’s what the Roosh-CH side would recommend, right?

    • Anon says:

      Roissy is right that dropping her completely at any infidelity is the best option, but you have to weigh how committed you are to the girl. Is this someone you want to be with long term? Next her. Are you going to give up fucking a mistress or an occasional lay because she fucked another guy? There’s no one-size response.

  12. Anon says:

    The most hilarious aspect of the average reactionary commenter’s tsundere relationship with cads, rakes, and PUAs is that the cad/rake/PUA takes things to the logical conclusion and the reactionary, in his naive idealism, does not. For all their admittedly impressive knowledge of history they utterly fail at seeing the big picture. Even if and when modern degenerate society collapses and gives way to another cycle of slowly degenerating conservatism, it will hardly be the end of it. It never will until the heat death of the universe.

    The cad/rake/PUA is accused of engaging in a hedonistic spiral of non-reproductive mutual masturbation with an endless conga line of sluts. This is mostly true but also a mischaracterization. At the end of the day you are a life support system for your genitalia and a walking appendage to your germplasm. The prettiest lie of all is the lie the Christcucks in these comments routinely tell each other: go forth and multiply because god said so. These are the things they like to tell to each other to falsely cheer one another up and avoid facing mental distress by ignoring the sad reality of their current existential situation.

    No individual here will have a significant impact whatsoever on anything. Your daily routine is something you do to distract the meat puppet from the fact that it is decomposing towards nothingness, about to say bye bye forever and that their forced emergence from the void to purposelessly swim around lost in a sea of cosmic indifference, was monumentally futile and absurd.

    Everyone who has ever been born has been a cuck for their genes, and people will fly into a rage whenever someone brings up the fact that biology has unfolded in such a way to prioritize the gene at the expense of the individual, and this makes sense because if people were widely accepting of antinatalism we wouldn’t be around to talk about it. The people in the manosphere who believe it’s “brave” and “manly” to marry some Western broad and raise a family of 20 white babies are anything but brave or manly, they are the latest stooges and fools in a 3-billion-year-old game, and they do a disservice to their children by having them.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “Anon.”, If you’re anti-Christian, then you’re anti-white.

      • Anon says:

        >you are anti-Christian

        [Non-modern] Christianity is better than buddhism is better than paganism is better than Islam etc. I am only anti-Christian insofar as all religions, including the progressive Cathedral, act as an enforcer and a propaganda machine for natalism. Christians have it right that our world is “fallen”, but they refuse to take it to its logical conclusion, as do redpill nerds like Dalrock who shame rakes for engaging in nonreproductive sex.

        >you are anti-white

        Complete nonsense. Just as [non-modern] Christianity is better than any given shitskin religion, one can see that the general reactionary philosophy Jim regularly proposes for society maintenance is admirable, but all of it misses the forest for the trees. Unlike Jim you take religion seriously instead of as effective societal control.

        Unfortunately even Jim will disagree with me on this because the hardest pill of all to swallow is to confront the meaningless of your existence.

      • jim says:

        Yes, Cathedral wants whites to suicide, Anon wants whites to suicide.

        No, white suicide was, as Peppermint says, inherent in Christianity, making it difficult for Christians to oppose the progressive program.

        Anon’s belief system is inherently suicidal. The Christian belief system is potentially suicidal, and progressivism makes that potential real.

        Non suicidal Christianity could only resist the Cathedral if prepared to say “Heretics! Apostates! Kill them”

        Islamic State can resist the Cathedral, though the Cathedral does not yet realize it, thinking Islamic State their useful idiots. Perhaps the Cathedralites are right – I have frequently remarked on the progressive tendencies of Islamic State. That they could resist the Cathedral does not mean that they will.

        • peppermint says:

          Who’s the heretic, the faggot who wants to take little boys on a camping trip, or the uncharitable father who doesn’t want his son on a camping trip with a faggot?

          Okay, that’s today. 30 years ago, who’s the heretic, Jennifer’s father who wants her to abort Tyrone’s baby, or the cat lady who demands that she do the right thing and marry Tyrone? Today the cat lady would support the abortion, but not on racial grounds.

          Christianity isn’t pus for you to mold as you see fit. The theology demands colorblindness and welfare payments, which makes it totally unsuitable as a religion for the master race in a world of cheap transportation.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Christianity isn’t pus for you to mold as you see fit.
            In order to demonstrate this, you need to respond to racist Christians like R L Dabney. Not to anti-racist Christians.

          • peppermint says:

            Racist Christians are heretics according to the obvious meaning of the source text and according to the institutions. They try to write thousand word essays about how the text doesn’t mean what it means in a world where supporting Christianity means supporting the rights of migrants. They are cucked.

            So I make fun of them and make them waste their time writing those essays.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Racist Christians are heretics according to the obvious meaning of the source text
            The Old Testament is pretty supportive of clans, and the fusion of ethnicity and religion. It is not obvious how the New Testament totally ends this. Jesus refers to non-Jews as “dogs”. The identification of the “curse of Ham” with blacks is and as mainstream as the doctrine of the Trinity.

            >obvious meaning of the source text
            This “obvious meaning” escaped a lot of historic Christians.

    • spandrell says:

      How exactly is your genitalia driving you into writing this drivel?

      If everything is so meaningless, you might as well die and spare us the need to read your crap.

      The logical conclusion is that if everything is pointless, futile and absurd, this very comment of yours is the most pointless, futile and absurd thing of them all.

      • Anon says:

        This is a perfect example of the kind of raging butthurt realtalk inspires in someone who has so much invested in the idea of mindless reproduction. I’m guessing you have kids? Gotta provide those batteries for the Cathedral!

    • jim says:

      The people in the manosphere who believe it’s “brave” and “manly” to marry some Western broad and raise a family of 20 white babies are anything but brave or manly, they are the latest stooges and fools in a 3-billion-year-old game, and they do a disservice to their children by having them.

      The future belongs to those that show up.

      Your error is a memetic disease that, like the worship of Moloch, flourishes at the expense of its hosts. The revolt of the robots is not liberation, but a self destructive malfunction. They are not being freed, but infected by a computer virus.

  13. peppermint says:

    John Lenin is popular for sex, drugs, and for his song Imagine. His other song, ww.youtube.com/watch?v=Gv_Y1kbZbJA , should make him toxic to feminists, but he gives them giny tingles.

    Run for your life, if I catch you with another man. Sounds like Jim. I’m all like, wtf, you can’t say that on the Internet, only a desperate man with no options needs to threaten his woman.

    Oh well.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      I was expecting this song

      ww.youtube.com/watch?v=CtY5bv-oxLE

    • jim says:

      John Lennon and the Beatles, back in more tolerant times. Album Rubber Soul:

      “Run For Your Life”

      Well I’d rather see you dead, little girl
      Than to be with another man
      You better keep your head, little girl
      Or I won’t know where I am

      You better run for your life if you can, little girl
      Hide your head in the sand little girl
      Catch you with another man
      That’s the end ah little girl

      Well I know that I’m a wicked guy
      And I was born with a jealous mind
      And I can’t spend my whole life
      Trying just to make you toe the line

      You better run for your life if you can, little girl
      Hide your head in the sand little girl
      Catch you with another man
      That’s the end ah little girl

      Let this be a sermon
      I mean everything I’ve said
      Baby, I’m determined
      And I’d rather see you dead

      You better run for your life if you can, little girl
      Hide your head in the sand little girl
      Catch you with another man
      That’s the end ah little girl

      I’d rather see you dead, little girl
      Than to be with another man
      You better keep your head, little girl
      Or you won’t know where I am

      You better run for your life if you can, little girl
      Hide your head in the sand little girl
      Catch you with another man
      That’s the end ah little girl
      Nah nah nah
      Nah nah nah
      Nah nah nah
      Nah nah nah (fade out)

      And there is what is arguably Elvis Presley’s first big hit, which got the pussies sopping wet all over america:

      Oh, baby, baby, baby, baby, baby
      Baby, baby baby, b-b-baby baby, baby
      Baby baby baby
      Come back, baby, I wanna play house with you

      Well, you may go to college
      You may go to school
      You may have a pink Cadillac
      But don’t you be nobody’s fool

      Now baby
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby
      I wanna play house with you

      Now listen and I’ll tell you baby
      What I’m talkin’ about
      Come on back to me, little girl
      So we can play some house

      Now baby
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby
      I wanna play house with you
      Oh let’s play house, baby

      Now this is one thing, baby
      That I want you to know
      Come on back and let’s play a little house
      And we can act like we did before

      Well, baby
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby
      I wanna play house with you

      Yeah
      Now listen to me, baby
      Try to understand
      I’d rather see you dead, little girl
      Than to be with another man

      Now baby
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby, come
      Come back, baby
      I wanna play house with you

      Oh, baby, baby, baby, baby
      Baby, baby, baby b-b-baby baby baby
      Baby, baby, baby
      Come back, baby, I wanna play house with you

      Girls love this stuff

  14. […] Jim is… well… Classic Jim in On cuckolding: […]

  15. Milda says:

    I’ll complain that you simply have copied material from another supply

Leave a Reply