Skittles guy and female agency

There has been a tremendous amount of research in how to sleep with as many women as possible, and it is relatively easy to obtain good scientific data on this question, because the experimenter can try one thing on a statistically significant sample of women, then another thing on a significant sample of women, then form theories based on the results, and test the theory with yet another significant sample of women. Heartiste is your best entry point into this research. Be warned that not all experimental results can be easily and accurately expressed in words. If having trouble with the words, check the words against a frame by frame analysis of video. Ninety percent of it is in movement and body language. Mating preceded language, and still does.

The optimal strategy for sleeping with as many women as possible is exemplified by Skittles Man.

However, this strategy is suboptimal for keeping women around. You are not going to fulfill your Darwinian imperative unless you keep a woman around.

We don’t have the scientific knowledge for keeping women around that we have for getting them into bed in the first place, but I probably know slightly more than most. Research on this topic is costlier and more time consuming, and one is always facing samples that are statistically inadequate and unlikely to be comparable.

After being sexed a while, girls want signs of love, which Skittles Man conspicuously fails to provide – but not signs of neediness, they want behavior that show you care for them, but not behavior that shows you want to please them.

Believing that women lack agency helps with this. If you think that what she wants is not necessarily relevant, that women lack agency, then giving her what you think she needs does not show neediness, but affection.

Women want to be owned. They want to be owned by someone that loves them, but not someone that needs them. If you don’t think women are entitled to make decisions, nor good at determining their best interest and acting on it, you will not be acting needy. If you simply believe that decisions are yours to make, that her decisions are made by your permission and are ultimately subject to your approval, if you don’t believe that women have agency, in the sense that they are not morally entitled to agency and are not good at exercising it, you will express that belief non verbally and she will gladly accept that belief – provided of course that that belief comes out of love.

If you want to reproduce, you should believe that women should be property, should be pets, are happier that way, and that a society that allows them agency is corrupt, ridiculous, immoral, and absurd.

146 Responses to “Skittles guy and female agency”

  1. Handle says:

    This is basically the way good traditionalist fathers treat their daughters, and from my observations, the daughters love and worship their fathers for it, and are always looking to have someone in that role over them throughout their lives.

    That is the ‘loving joy’ part. For wives, one complements that with the ‘lusty’ fun stuff one can learn from Roissy and Athol Kay.

    I think if one wants to get statistically meaningful samples, try to extract the patterns from those fathers who have the least trouble with their teenaged daughters. For wives, do that, plus the Roissy stuff.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      Traditionalism done right, at least. There seem to be an awful lot of permissive “traditionalists” around, “Handle”.

      Best regards,

      A.J.P.

    • Corvinus says:

      “For wives, one complements that with the ‘lusty’ fun stuff one can learn from Roissy and Athol Kay.”

      This “lusty” fun stuff, from a Christian perspective, is deemed immoral. Roissy’s sexual chops is the stuff of liberalism at its finest.

      “There has been a tremendous amount of research in how to sleep with as many women as possible”

      Again, this advice is considered immoral from under the context of Christianity.

      “There seem to be an awful lot of permissive “traditionalists” around, “Handle”.”

      Indeed. Our blog host seems to think that the Bible condones single men having sex outside of marriage.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >“There seem to be an awful lot of permissive “traditionalists” around, “Handle”.”
        Anybody who claims to be a “Traditionalist”, and isn’t regularly attending a Tridentine Latin Mass, or some similar type of worship service, is probably not a Traditionalist. Especially on the internet, people with radical opinions rarely follow through.

        >This “lusty” fun stuff, from a Christian perspective, is deemed immoral.
        I’m not aware of your denomination, but in the historic Christian churches, sex between a man and his wife is not considered immoral.

        “If any one shall condemn marriage, or abominate and condemn a woman who is a believer and devout, and sleeps with her own husband, as though she could not enter the Kingdom [of heaven] let him be anathema”
        – Canon 1, Council of Gangra

    • Dr. Faust says:

      The practice of contraception detaches man from God by removing life from sex. Instead of sex being a celebration of new life it is transformed into base matter, devoid of meaning and purpose. It detaches man from the future by placing his focus on satisfying his lust in the moment. And the itch when scratched returns anew with virility and man is left wondering why he feels empty and void.

      It is difficult for the mean to understand an abstraction like this or to the successive chain of events which leads from contraception to all manners if evil but it is there. It’s best to teach man to master his lust instead of being a slave to it.

      • Mark Citadel says:

        Sex is for the purpose of creating life as the primary directive. People like to point to animals that have sex for social purposes, forgetting that humans don’t really need this since they have a million more avenues for social engagement than animals do. Look at each of the seven deadly sins, you’ll find each has a place on the Modernist mantelpiece.

        • jim says:

          Non reproductive sex is part of the human bonding mechanism. It makes family possible. That is why humans have cryptic estrus.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            Humans have sex that does not result in children, but before the advent of contraception, the only way to actually intend this was the cycle-watch method which wasn’t very reliable. Unless a pregnancy is already in effect, all sex has the potential to bring forth offspring, and this is healthy. Sex without the possibility of reproduction gives women way too much freedom.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Look at each of the seven deadly sins, you’ll find each has a place on the Modernist mantelpiece.”

          By your own metric, Roissy is a Modernist acolyte, selling his wares of single-hood sex without commitment.

          “Sex without the possibility of reproduction gives women way too much freedom.”

          Corrected for accuracy –> Sex without the possibility of reproduction gives people way too much freedom.

  2. Dave says:

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html

    “the third [father], with whom she had been living, had demanded that she should leave his apartment because, a week after their child was born, he decided that he no longer wished to live with her. (The discovery of incompatibility a week after the birth of a child is now so common as to be statistically normal.)”

    The obvious solution here is to legalize fourth-trimester abortion, which Progressives will set to work on as soon as the current PP scandal quiets down.

    • Alrenous says:

      Is Exit important for families?

      If it is not, then you’re ontologically committed to family members being unable to murder each other. Kill, sure, but it can’t ever be wrong. Up with 80th trimester abortion.

      If instead what a parent does to a child is morally equivalent to any other innocent, then we have a huge issue with child abuse.

      • peppermint says:

        » Exit

        » ontologically committed

        » morally equivalent

        NRx is dead. Moldbug and anarchopapist both left, Nick Land is a gibbering idiot, Anissimov went crazy. GNON is no longer a useful abstraction because only Andrew Anglin still pretends to like Christcucks and he would never be caught dead using a faggy word like that.

        your blog is pretty cool though, except for bullshit like “Chaos = Δpower” whatever the fuck Δ means

        • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

          “Δ” is the greek letter Delta. Usually used to indicate “change” in chemistry or physics.

          • peppermint says:

            funny. in physics, δ is used to indicate variations, while Δ is usually read as either the laplacian or occasionally a discrete version of a first differential operator

            but sure, Chaos = Δpower makes sense with this hermeneutic

    • jim says:

      High IQ high socioeconomic status women do not have children by those guys, because winding up being supported by Uncle Sam the Big Pimp would lower their status. But they still have sex with those guys.

      Proving that women should not be allowed to choose who they have sex with. Sex with an unauthorized suitor should be a crime of similar gravity regardless of whether the lady consented or not.

      • Corvinus says:

        “Sex with an unauthorized suitor should be a crime of similar gravity regardless of whether the lady consented or not.”

        Well, Roissy would be drawn and quartered using this metric, yet you continually defend his immoral behavior.

        • Roissy’s theory is good, but in a sane society, he would have been hung by now and he knows it.

          • jim says:

            In a sane society he would have married a virgin, and would perhaps have one mistress on the side.

            In his latest post he is doing the work of the lord, while Bruce Charleton’s sect encourages single motherhood and undermines marriage

          • Samson J. says:

            Don’t slam Bruce too much. I see him and Roissy as complementary.

          • peppermint says:

            christcucks will get slammed until they get butthurt enough to stop being cucks

          • Corvinus says:

            “In a sane society he would have married a virgin, and would perhaps have one mistress on the side.”

            This comment only shows God that you betray Him and His work.

            “christcucks will get slammed until they get butthurt enough to stop being cucks”

            Christcucks has no meaning. Dear Lord, do you even think before you speak?

            • jim says:

              “In a sane society he would have married a virgin, and would perhaps have one mistress on the side.”

              This comment only shows God that you betray Him and His work.

              Remember Abraham: One son by his wife, one by his wife’s maid.

              Christcucks has no meaning.

              When Christian men take their wives and daughters to mainstream Christian Churches they get told that if their wife fucks someone else, she is a hero and they are at fault, and if their daughter gets pregnant to an unknown black man, the daughter is a hero.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Peppermint

            Are muslims cuckolds?

          • peppermint says:

            I don’t care about mudslimes.

            Conservatism became cuckservatism, in the middle of the last century in particular, due to cucktianity. The only reason there’s ant alt right at all for Andrew Anglin to post maudlin pictures of Jesus, George Washington, and Hitler to, is that the cucktian worldview has been largely supplanted in the youth who were raised with evolution and The Discovery Channel, by a more pagan view of human nature, where pagan means farmer.

            Either a nigger is made in the image of God, or it isn’t. Either we are commanded to use our resources to clothe the naked, or we aren’t. Either a life of lying and being cucked and selling the birthright will be rewarded with a mess of pottage and a pat on the head from Yeshua bar Yahweh in the hereafter, or it won’t.

            And half the comments on Andrew Anglin’s website are from various strands of ‘pro-White Christianity‘ arguing over who are the true Israelites or whatever.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >When Christian men take their wives and daughters to mainstream Christian Churches they get told that if their wife fucks someone else, she is a hero and they are at fault, and if their daughter gets pregnant to an unknown black man, the daughter is a hero.
            When claiming controversial things, it is important to be very accurate and very precise. Otherwise, people will dismiss you without taking the statement seriously.

            1) Men are told that if their wife cheats, they are at typically at fault.
            2) (contrary to Jim) Wives are not told that if they cheat, they are heroes. You get the impression that wives rarely cheat.

            3) Men are condemned as sinful for using pornography and premarital sex.
            4) Women are not condemned for promiscuity.
            5) Men are seen as at fault for all sexual choices. If a woman is a slut, it’s because some man pressured (or forced) her to be a slut.

            6) Daughters who get pregnant outside of wedlock, and have the child, are venerated for not having an abortion.
            7) Daughters who get pregnant are not condemned for having premarital sex.
            8) Men are routinely bashed for insufficiently supporting single mothers.

            9) Pacifism is taught as obligatory. Exceptions to the pacifism doctrine routinely occur for Progressive groups – negroes, women, et cetera. I once had a conversation with my pastor where he denied that Nelson Mandela’s car bombs were violent.

            10) Homophobia is condemned. Gay marriage is not supported. Gays are equal, except for marriage.

            I’m saying this as someone raised in an evangelical Christian church.

          • Corvinus says:

            “Otherwise, people will dismiss you without taking the statement seriously…Women are not condemned for promiscuity.”

            Corrected for accuracy –> Men and women are not condemned for promiscuity.

            “Daughters who get pregnant are not condemned for having premarital sex.”

            Corrected for accuracy –> Sons who get a parent’s daughter pregnant, as well as the daughter, are not condemned for having premarital sex.

            It doesn’t matter, because according to Jim, premarital sex is morally acceptable. Roissy, his God, promotes it.

            • jim says:

              Men and women are not condemned for promiscuity.

              In the church, men are condemned for sex before marriage, and women are not. But, more importantly, we have a thousand progressive substitutes for chastity, such as the rules against “sexual harassment” and “rape”, which are rules against heterosexual men engaging in sex, but not against women and gays engaging in sex.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Men and women are not condemned for promiscuity.
            In my experience, men are condemned, and women are not condemned. My experience could be atypical, but the literature I see from mainstream evangelical sources makes me doubt that.

            The pastor at my childhood church, when he spoke about men, routinely condemned fornication and pornography. When speaking about women, he did not condemn fornication, or discuss pornography. When he would talk about fornication in general, he used language implying that fornication was primarily a “male problem”.

            >Sons who get a parent’s daughter pregnant, as well as the daughter, are not condemned for having premarital sex.
            In my experience, the son is condemned for having premarital sex. Though there weren’t many teenage pregnancies in my church. Only one I can remember.

            My Father’s friend actually condemned one girl in the church, who got pregnant. But he only did so in private, and his body language when he spoke it implied that he felt he ought not say it in public.

            For contrast, her boyfriend (who attended church a couple times) was met with significant hostility on the part of a couple members of the congregation. A leading woman and her husband. They decided to semi-publically shame the boyfriend for his premarital sex.

            This example is not statistically significant.

          • Corvinus says:

            “In my experience, men are condemned, and women are not condemned. My experience could be atypical, but the literature I see from mainstream evangelical sources makes me doubt that.”

            I would like to see that literature. Links?

            “The pastor at my childhood church, when he spoke about men, routinely condemned fornication and pornography. When speaking about women, he did not condemn fornication, or discuss pornography.”

            Perhaps your pastor is aware that 70 percent of men aged 18 to 24 visit a porn site at least once per month, and that the largest consumer group of Internet porn is men aged 35 to 49. So, it is reasonable for your pastor to make this assessment.

            “In my experience, the son is condemned for having premarital sex.”

            Probably because men are, supposedly, the more moral of the sexes than women, yet succumb to the pressure of temptation. Not saying women are blameless, but men lead by example. They don’t use Game to prey on single women for sex, as Roissy advocates.

            • jim says:

              “In my experience, men are condemned, and women are not condemned. My experience could be atypical, but the literature I see from mainstream evangelical sources makes me doubt that.”

              I would like to see that literature. Links

              Any sermon on chastity theoretically applies to both men and women, but immediately focuses on porn. I walked down the Embarcadero yesterday and it was full of chicks cruising for alpha dick. Further, most romance novels feature appalling behavior by the heroine, who is generally unattractive, unpleasant, and immoral, but winds up getting the undying love of the super alpha billionaire athlete vampire king.

          • peppermint says:

            porn is an individual moral failing that harms the individual temporarily

            slutting up the place harms the slut in a much more permanent way, the person the slut sluts it up with, whoever gets stuck raising a son of a whore, and the society that views the person the slut sluts it up with as some kind of heroe

            and if you think men fapping causes a porn industry to form, consider that according to united states law, obscenity is ineligible for copyright protection. But instead of wanting to kill the porn industry, in the ’90s, the government wanted to put censorship in the internet to prevent us from questioning the six million.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I would like to see that literature. Links?
            I would be difficult to find a clear, concise explanation of the topic. Also, given your apparent bias, I doubt you’ll treat the material honestly. But try searching for a discussion of premarital sex here;

            http://search.focusonthefamily.com

            Any other evangelical website will do. You’ll find that when describing fornication, the authors will consistently talk about men.

            >Perhaps your pastor is aware that 70 percent of men aged 18 to 24 visit a porn site at least once per month
            Fair enough. The disproportionate discussion of porn is reasonable. Of course, women, who are less visually motivated, have their own versions of porn, which are never discussed. Emotion-driven sin is often treated as more moral, than visual-driven sin. No pastor talks about romance novels, or teen girls obsessing over boy bands.

            >Probably because men are, supposedly, the more moral of the sexes than women, yet succumb to the pressure of temptation. Not saying women are blameless, but men lead by example.
            So you admit that pastors focus primarily on male fornication, and largely ignore female fornication?

            I’m pretty sure that most modern Christians consider women to be the more moral gender. Puritans and Victorians certainly did.

          • Corvinus says:

            “slutting up the place harms the slut in a much more permanent way, the person the slut sluts it up with, whoever gets stuck raising a son of a whore, and the society that views the person the slut sluts it up with as some kind of hero.”

            Is Roissy your hero?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Any sermon on chastity theoretically applies to both men and women, but immediately focuses on porn.”

            Because porn is largely a male-generated endeavor.

            “I walked down the Embarcadero yesterday and it was full of chicks cruising for alpha dick.”

            Exactly what Roissy promotes. You mad, bro?

            “Further, most romance novels feature appalling behavior by the heroine…”

It’s called fiction for a reason. I’m sure “most” books who have heroes demonstrate “appalling behavior” as well.

            “porn is an individual moral failing that harms the individual temporarily.”

            Not unless the individual requires it on a daily basis to function.

            “and if you think men fapping causes a porn industry to form, consider that according to united states law, obscenity is ineligible for copyright protection.”

            ???

            “You’ll find that when describing fornication, the authors will consistently talk about men.”

            I queried “women condemned for sex” on the link you provided. TONS of sources in which the author takes women to task for premarital sex.

            “So you admit that pastors focus primarily on male fornication, and largely ignore female fornication?”

No, I am saying that PORN is primarily a male driven phenomenon.

            “I’m pretty sure that most modern Christians consider women to be the more moral gender.”

            “Modern Christians” are to be mocked (according to Jim) or are referred to as “christcucks” (thanks, peppermint). Furthermore, from what I read here, women need men to lead them, suggesting that women are LESS moral than men.

            • jim says:

              “Any sermon on chastity theoretically applies to both men and women, but immediately focuses on porn.”

              Because porn is largely a male-generated endeavor.

              Actual unchastity, however, is largely a female generated endeavor. For example, the vast majority of divorces are female initiated and result from female adultery. The christcuck position, however, is that women are wonderful, so when a woman fucks some stud, must be the husband’s fault. See Dalrock’s examples of “Christian” divorce romances.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I queried “women condemned for sex” on the link you provided. TONS of sources in which the author takes women to task for premarital sex.
            I queried the same thing. Found lots of material condemning premarital sex. Didn’t find any pages singling out women. Found several pages singling out men. Also found several pages that were gender neutral.

          • peppermint says:

            Corvinus, if cucktians had wanted to suppress the evil porn industry that was paying human females to engage in beastiality (see in particular the case of Lara Roxx, who was infected with HIV on set) and other degrading sex acts, they could have pointed to the part of the copyright law that says that obscenity does not get copyright protection.

            No copyright, no industry.

            Instead, they wanted to destroy the Internet, presumably to make it safe for the original version of neoreaction, which was pretty much an open justification for direct Jewish control over everything, with the promise that if the Aryan cattle would openly surrender, the negro street crime jihad would be called off.

            The existence of the porn industry is good for Christianity, isn’t it? It helps make masturbation actually harmful beyond that one person for the few days their body is pushed out of homeostasis or whatever. And the most important thing about Christianity is making men feel bad. Not informing them about the natural consequences of their decisions and entreating them to make better decisions.

          • Corvinus says:

            For example, the vast majority of divorces are female initiated and result from female adultery.”

            True on its face. What are the reasons involved?

            “The christcuck position…”

            
Jim, Jim, Jim…you’re also a christcuck.

            “Didn’t find any pages singling out women.

            ”

Didn’t look hard enough.

            “Corvinus, if cucktians had wanted to suppress the evil porn industry that was paying human females to engage in beastiality (see in particular the case of Lara Roxx, who was infected with HIV on set) and other degrading sex acts, they could have pointed to the part of the copyright law that says that obscenity does not get copyright protection.”



            Ever heard of the “moral majority”? Ever heard of the Reverend Jerry Falwell? They fought those battles in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Something got in their way…the First Amendment. I may find those sex acts morally appalling, but even conservatives and libertarians in general will fight to the death for free speech.

            “No copyright, no industry.”

            Per usual, a simplistic notion on your part.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Something got in their way…the First Amendment.
            Because porn was totally legal in the US prior to 1960. Did nobody understand the first Amendment until then?

          • Corvinus says:

            “Because porn was totally legal in the US prior to 1960. Did nobody understand the first Amendment until then?”

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roth_v._United_States

            • jim says:

              If I get the job of grand inquisitor, pretty much all romance novels will be banned, in particular and especially those with the plotline: very ordinary girl wins super duper alpha despite the fact that realistically he would bang her against the wall and then completely forget about her.

              I would ban porn that featured men having sex with partners incapable of reproduction, or depicts forms of sex that fail to promote the unitive function of the sexual act, but most porn would still be permitted. The thing that really needs banning is romance, for romance is what got us into this trouble in the first place. Should have executed those troubadours for corrupting women. You are not supposed to marry for love, nor fall in love outside marriage. Romeo and Juliet was OK because they got the ending they deserved, but no more happily ever after romances. All romances, what few of them are permitted, to end in despair and madness with both families outraged.

          • Corvinus says:

            “If I get the job of grand inquisitor, pretty much all romance novels will be banned…All romances, what few of them are permitted, to end in despair and madness with both families outraged.”

            That’s why I love ya, Jim. You’re batshit insane.

            • jim says:

              You, Corvinus, cannot see disgusting degeneracy when it is right in front of you.

              We should have executed the troubadors for corrupting women.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim

            And that’s why nobody wants you to become Grand Inquisitor. Don’t ban porn. Don’t permit all porn. Prohibit a semi-arbitrary category of porn, and permit the rest.

            @Corvinus

            Did you not read the link you posted? For the first 180 (or so) years of this country, the first amendment has been interpreted in a way that permits prohibition of pornography. You said that the first amendment got in the way of prohibiting pornography. That is obviously not true.

  3. anonymous says:

    Actually many of those seduction techniques simulate natural relationships, in a way. Then again most drugs work by interacting with natural biochemistry.

    Dalrock had a post on romancing your wife where he explained that a reasursnce-gift need not be large, provided reassurance was the purpose and called for.

    Skittles man was a perverse application of this!

    Also, “If he marries another woman, he must not deprive the first one of her food, clothing and marital rights.” -Exodus 21:10

    In a way he did the right thing, in regards to lifestyle… :/

    • Corvinus says:

      Recall that single men and women did NOT exist in Biblical times. Single refers to living on their own.

      Recall that single men and women were “owned” by their parents until they were married.

      Recall that single men and women could only have sexual relations when their parents approved of their impending marriage.

      So, Jim, if Roissy had sex with your daughter, and he refused to marry her, what would you do about it?

  4. peppermint says:

    Good. Now we need a post about how to recognize Jewish facial features to avoid wasting time dating only to discover that your prospective wife’s 23andme results show her out as a Jew.

  5. OldStudent says:

    Women want to be owned?
    You are so full of shit you stink to the highest heaven.

    • jim says:

      Works for me.

      And, as I have often said, every long lasting stable successful marriage is quietly eighteenth century. Maybe there are exceptions, but I have not seen them.

      • Corvinus says:

        “And, as I have often said, every long lasting stable successful marriage is quietly eighteenth century.”

        SOME marriages are based on that tradition. Others are “modern” and work perfectly fine.

        • Mark Citadel says:

          no, they don’t. All marriages in which the woman is not subordinate to the man are failures, and typically end with the man paying out thousands for kids he’ll never see.

        • peppermint says:

          oh look, the Christcuck is back, blatantly lying about anything and everything in this world, including his own sacred text, in order to receive preferential treatment in the next.

          because the only way to prove your love for Jesus and things not of this world is to deny the things of this world #cucktheflesh

          • Corvinus says:

            “because the only way to prove your love for Jesus and things not of this world is to deny the things of this world”

            “Christcuck” is a term that observably means little to anyone. It’s merely a phrase. Furthermore, Mark Citadel and your blog host are also “Christ cucks” by your own metric–blatantly lying about anything and everything in this world, including his own sacred text.

            Put it this way–do you believe men and women should have sex outside of marriage? What say you, Mark, as well? Because if you say yes, well, then, you’re a liberal.

            “All marriages in which the woman is not subordinate to the man are failures”

            That is observably false.

          • peppermint says:

            Mark Citadel is trying to mix Christianity with an awareness of and respect for things of this world. He’s probably arguing that the Book of Nature is completed, not replaced, by the Book of Scripture, that God gave men intelligence and intends that we use it, and that God’s command to go forth, be fruitful, and multiply is an individual and national mandate.

            His hermeneutic is in the minority. Yours has much more support.

            Shall we care for the sick, even when it means handing out life-prolonging drugs to AIDS patients, thereby enabling them to continue to subvert our culture?

            Shall we feed the hungry, just to allow niggers to breed?

            The Christian response appears to be #cucktheflesh

          • Steve Johnson says:

            “observably means little ”

            “That is observably false.”

            You use the word “observably” a lot for someone who things observing things is a sin.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            I’ll take any rare round-about compliment from Peppermint I can get, so thank you.

            As to the ridiculous inquiries of Corvinus, he doesn’t seem to understand the effects that people getting married at 15-16, as they used to, would have on sex outside of marriage. Men want sex as soon as they hit puberty. Women do to, but not the same high extent. The way to countermand the potential of destructive immoralities (i.e – sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, de-sacrilization of sex) is to have men and women getting married in their mid-teens.

            This requires of course, a culture in which children have to grow up fast. We don’t have this today, so frustrated kids unprepared for actually starting a life due to the limits placed on them by our economic and societal limitations, are stuck. Thus, it is natural that men at large are going to try and fuck every living thing in sight. You can’t stop it, you can’t prevent it. Even in a much more religious society, it WOULD still happen. Morality enters a lens of the realities of condition. I wish to change the conditions, clearly you don’t, and so you support the continuing destruction of this Occidental people.

            God gave a moral dictat. This moral dictat was largely adhered to in the past because societies had Patriarchal norms. Return the Patriarchy if you want morality.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I’ll take any rare round-about compliment from Peppermint I can get, so thank you.”

            It wasn’t a compliment. He merely described your interpretation of Christianity is one of many competing versions.

            “The way to countermand the potential of destructive immoralities (i.e – sexually transmitted infections, unwanted pregnancies, de-sacrilization of sex) is to have men and women getting married in their mid-teens.”

            Your solution is an antiquated notion, fitting for a time that has long since past.

            Your diversionary attempt aside, answer this straightforward question—Should men and women have sex outside of marriage?

            “I wish to change the conditions…”

            Then actually physically become involved in facilitating that changer rather than repeatedly engaging in intellectual masturbation.

            “Return the Patriarchy if you want morality.”

            
Morality is not predicated on a patriarchal or matriarchal society. It is incumbent upon the citizens of a society to set forth the laws, rules, and regulations of what is right and what is wrong under the auspices of a higher power.

            Bear witness to the patriarchal societies of yesteryear, when men of those various time periods lamented how they were revolted by prostitutes, characterizing them as “fallen women” who deserved the shame and disrespect—yet made no concerted effort (with the exception of the religious minded) to make prostitution illegal because whores provided a “basic service of satisfying men’s uncontrollable needs”. Seems to be you are debasing yourself in the eyes of the Lord.

            • jim says:

              Your solution is an antiquated notion, fitting for a time that has long since past.

              A woman is like sticky tape. You can stick it to one thing, then peel it off and stick it to another thing, but after you have done that a few times it will no longer stick to anything.

              So, if marriage is to work, girls have to marry as virgins.

              Which means they have to either be locked up before marriage, or marry young, because there is no way a young woman is going to remain virgin if allowed to wander loose.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “Your solution is an antiquated notion”

            Yes, we Reactionaries have had these same six words screamed at us from Robespierre right up to you in the present day. Your weakness is your arrogance in the face of our ancestral wisdom. I just hope when you ‘wheel-re-inventors’ are done, and people get back to just using ‘antiquated’ wheels, that nobody will ever touch the damn wheel for another few thousand years at least.

          • Corvinus says:

            “So, if marriage is to work, girls have to marry as virgins.”

            That’s not Roissy’s plan, boy. He plays for keeps that “alpha male”. He teaches his boyzzz to tickle the female amygdala with sweet nothings until her panties are moist. Does Roissy stick around? Heh, sure, he does, long enough for the woman to wipe off the filth. So it’s both BOYS AND GIRLS who have to be virginal if a marriage is to work.

            “because there is no way a young woman is going to remain virgin if allowed to wander loose.”

            Corrected for accuracy–> There is no way a young man or woman is going to remain virgin if allowed to wander loose.

            “I just hope when you ‘wheel-re-inventors’ are done, and people get back to just using ‘antiquated’ wheels, that nobody will ever touch the damn wheel for another few thousand years at least.”

            First, it is human nature to make progress. We are naturally curious. It is a feature, not a bug. Those who make efforts to curb humans’ desire to move forward find themselves in a conflict–in some cases, it’s winner take all. Are you prepared to fight to the death to deny the liberty of someone who seeks to improve that wheel?

            Second, you assume that when the “reboot” occurs, people will be clamoring for the type of society you envision. Unless you are willing right now to have the neo-reactionaries show their faces and actively conduct a door-to-door campaign for converts (I mean, literally, knocking on people’s homes), your vision will merely be a fantasy.

            • jim says:

              “because there is no way a young woman is going to remain virgin if allowed to wander loose.”

              Corrected for accuracy–> There is no way a young man or woman is going to remain virgin if allowed to wander loose.

              Women are the uncontrollably lustful sex.

              • jim says:

                Second, you assume that when the “reboot” occurs, people will be clamoring for the type of society you envision.

                People will be clamoring, are clamoring for peace, order, and prosperity. They will be slightly shocked at what is necessary to provide it.

                Consider Venezuela. The people vote for free goodies, and find the shops are empty. When, eventually, their votes are ignored, but the shops are full, will be content that the shops are full and their votes ignored.

          • Corvinus says:

            Again, “Mark”, should men and women have sex outside of marriage? Simple question you avoid answering. “Yes” or “No”?

            • jim says:

              Not a simple question, for women should never have sex outside marriage, but it is OK for men to have sex with women outside marriage – this is bad behavior by the woman, not necessarily the man.

              If the man is willing that the woman should stick around permanently, but the woman does not, or subsequently sleeps with another man, then she has done wrong, not him.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            No, and yet they do primarily not due to their own moral failure, but because we have imposed impossible conditions upon them. You cannot grasp this because you are simple. This is typical idiotic Liberalism. Expect morality from men and yet have the state impose immorality by fiat. Have the state murder manhood with the imposition of ‘women’s rights’!

            Patriarchy is a KEY Biblical principle in terms of family structure. As in all major Traditional religions, women are to remain subordinate for the good of everyone. Your rebellion against this ideal which you dare describe as ‘antiquated’ reflects your own unacknowledged apostasy. You are no different to the Liberal who declares that to limit marriage to men and women is ‘antiquated’. You do not worship any divinity. You worship ‘Progress’. For you, the devil is the white man’s bigoted ancestry, isn’t it? Just admit that you think all Christians preceding you were bigots, the disciples, the early church fathers, the great monarchs, all of them.

            Patriarchy is a reflection of God’s will. End of discussion.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Patriarchy is a KEY Biblical principle in terms of family structure.
            Undoubtedly a principle of the Old Testament. The New Testament however, elevates celibacy above the family.

            Luke 14:26 (ESV) If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.

            Matthew 19:12 (ESV) For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let the one who is able to receive this receive it.

            Judaism traditionally regards single people as incomplete. Priests and Rabbis are required to be married. Contrast this with Roman Catholic Priests, who are required to be celibate. And Orthodox churches, who encourage celibacy.

            Genesis 2:18 (ESV) Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.

            You can argue that avoidance of marriage will lead to fornication. You can point out that celibate priests have usually had concubines. This is realism.

            But you can’t disagree that Progressives are fulfilling the spiritual ideal of Christianity, by discouraging marriage. There have been many Christian splinter groups that took very strong anti-marriage positions – Cathars, Gnostics, et cetera.

            • jim says:

              >Patriarchy is a KEY Biblical principle in terms of family structure.

              Undoubtedly a principle of the Old Testament. The New Testament however, elevates celibacy above the family.

              Acts requires, or strongly recommends, deacons to be married, and bishops to be married with children, in order to set a good example of patriarchy. Paul clearly doubts that most people were made for celibacy.

              Priestly celibacy was introduced around 350AD or so, and has never worked very well. Looks to me like the residue of an early holiness spiral.

              And even if we accept priestly celibacy as legitimate, that women are thoroughly subordinate to men is a key new testament principle.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >And even if we accept priestly celibacy as legitimate, that women are thoroughly subordinate to men is a key new testament principle
            Nuns are usually subordinate to other nuns. Though ultimately, they are under the Pope. The New Testament teaches that wives should submit to their husbands, but doesn’t really address daughters or nuns. Though Paul mentions celibate women, which would imply that nuns exist.

            >Acts requires, or strongly recommends, deacons to be married, and bishops to be married with children
            The passages you are referring to, are understood by the Catholic church, and the Orthodox church, to be a prohibition of male unchastity, not a recommendation of male marriage.

            Often, the original meaning of a religious concept is shrouded in complicated interpretation. Regardless of “the original meaning”, the way the text has been interpreted for nearly all of Christian history, it is not a recommendation of Patriarchy.

            >Priestly celibacy was introduced around 350AD or so
            Not true. The most radical period of Christian monasticism was in the first few centuries. Early Christians had all sorts of hang-ups about extremely normal stuff. Some Christians condemned marriage altogether. Church leaders prohibited remarriage after the death of a spouse. Communion was often only given to those in Monastic orders.

            Moreover, much of Jesus’ theology seems to have come out of Essene sectarians. They are unique among Jews for having a Monastic Tradition, which included Celibates. Jesus’ comments on celibacy reflect this.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Essenes#Rules.2C_customs.2C_theology_and_beliefs

            • jim says:

              Regardless of “the original meaning”, the way the text has been interpreted for nearly all of Christian history, it is not a recommendation of Patriarchy.

              The reason the Bishop should be married with children over which he successfully exercises patriarchal authority “one who ruleth well his own house, having his children in subjection” is in substantial part to set a good example to the congregation.

            • jim says:

              >Priestly celibacy was introduced around 350AD or so

              Not true. The most radical period of Christian monasticism was in the first few centuries. Early Christians had all sorts of hang-ups about extremely normal stuff. Some Christians condemned marriage altogether. Church leaders prohibited remarriage after the death of a spouse. Communion was often only given to those in Monastic orders.

              According to Wikipedia:

              On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: “There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century.”[22] Peter Fink SJ agrees, saying that underlying premises used in the book, Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy, “would not stand up so comfortably to historical scrutiny”.[23] Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.[22]

              Similarly, Philippe Delhaye wrote: “During the first three or four centuries, no law was promulgated prohibiting clerical marriage. Celibacy was a matter of choice for bishops, priests, and deacons. … The apostolic constitutions (c. 400) excommunicated a priest or bishop who left his wife ‘under pretense of piety’ (Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio 1:51).”[24]

              Which is consistent with my own research on the topic.

          • Corvinus says:

            “No, and yet they do primarily not due to their own moral failure, but because we have imposed impossible conditions upon them.”


            FINALLY. Correct, men and women are not suppose to have sex outside of marriage (Here that Jim?). Yet, you have a qualifier, an excuse if you will. Tsk, tsk, tsk, that liberal notion will not earn you points around these parts.

            
“You cannot grasp this because you are simple.”

            Simple is as simple does. Mighty fine living.

            “Expect morality from men and yet have the state impose immorality by fiat.”


            Corrected for accuracy–Men, as agents of the state, impose immorality by fiat. Besides, since men are morally superior than women, men have the agency to curb their sexual hungers. Except that Roissy and his merry band of PUA’s give men a bit of a push to sate their cravings.

            “Have the state murder manhood with the imposition of ‘women’s rights’!”

            Don’t be so overly dramatic like a pre-teen about to go to her first concert.

            “Patriarchy is a KEY Biblical principle in terms of family structure. As in all major Traditional religions, women are to remain subordinate for the good of everyone”.

            Biblical and traditional being the operative words. How do you propose to impose these standards from the comforts of your computer, considering that human beings have liberties?

            “You are no different to the Liberal who declares that to limit marriage to men and women is ‘antiquated’. You do not worship any divinity. You worship ‘Progress’.”

            Actually, God made human beings to progress in His image, to have domain over what He created. Corinthians 15:58–Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain.

            “Just admit that you think all Christians preceding you were bigots, the disciples, the early church fathers, the great monarchs, all of them.”



            Let’s stay on topic, shall we, rather than go down another Jimeseque rabbit hole?

            “Patriarchy is a reflection of God’s will. End of discussion.”



            Trying to exert your own limp patriarchy, huh? You do realize that Jesus thumbed his nose at patriarchy in these contexts–He ignored ritual impurity laws: In Mark 5:25-34, Jesus cured a woman of her menstrual bleeding that she endured for 12 years, despite his conduct being considered a major transgression for a man to talk to a woman other than his wife or children. He also (gasped) talked to foreign women. In John 4:7 to 5:30, Jesus conversed with a woman of Samaria–men were not allowed at that time to talk to women, except within their own families. In Matthew 15:22-28, it is recorded that Jesus cured a young woman of her demon-possession.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Patriarchy is a reflection of God’s will
            >Jesus thumbed his nose at patriarchy

            Citadel wants to follow the Old Testament. Corvinus the New Testament.

            Did Abraham go to Hell? He had neither the Old or New Testament. So what was Abraham’s religion? You both presumably believe his religion was the correct one. God recommended him as an ideal of piety.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >to set a good example to the congregation
            If celibacy is the highest ideal, then a celibate priest is promoting the highest ideal.

            • jim says:

              If celibacy is the highest ideal, then a celibate priest is promoting the highest ideal.

              So now we have celibate priests teaching single mums that they are heroes.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            One of the difficulties with understanding the early Christian church, is that no matter your theology, 90% of them are heretics. Early Christianity was very diverse, and you can construct widely varying theologies, depending on which sources you listen to.

            You can listen to the Saints, or Church Fathers. But the selection of the Saints, and Patristic writings, was not done by neutral observers.

            Gnostics, Arians, Judaizers, and other types of sects all had a major presence in early Christianity. But have been written out of the history of the Catholic/Protestant/Orthodox church.

            >On the other hand, George T. Dennis SJ of Catholic University of America says: “There is simply no clear evidence of a general tradition or practice, much less of an obligation, of priestly celibacy-continence before the beginning of the fourth century.”
            Firstly, I’m referring to monastic celibacy. Not priestly celibacy. For one thing, the entire concept of a “Christian priest” didn’t really exist prior to the fourth century. The Jewish predecessors of Christianity, the Essenes, were not Priests. Christian presbyters (english: elders) were not understood as successors of the Jewish priesthood, but as successors in teaching.

            Prior to the legalization of Christianity, there was “no clear evidence” of huge chunks of Christianity. We don’t have extensive records of Christians from that period, and the records we have, were the ones preserved by people who hated gnostics, arians, judaizers, et cetera.

            In general, gnostics were uncompromising celibates. The Orthodox (or proto-Orthodox) were the ones most in line with Traditional Roman moral norms. Groups that splintered from the Orthodox (or proto-Orthodox) church, like Arians, Donatists, and other groups, were usually moral sticklers, who strongly opposed remarriage, and elevated celibacy, as the New Testament teaches.

            >Dennis says this book provides no evidence that celibacy had apostolic origins.
            We both know that this is false. Paul and Jesus’ recommendations of celibacy are not later additions to the text.

            • jim says:

              We both know that this is false. Paul and Jesus’ recommendations of celibacy are not later additions to the text.

              Both Paul and Jesus recommended patriarchal marriage for the vast majority. Peter married and had children. Paul takes for granted that Bishops have children.

          • Pragmatus says:

            Quick pointer:

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

            Josephite marriages were held in high regard in traditional catholic societies. The notion that Catholicism encourages fertility is a modern reaction against birth control and abortion in our currently non-Malthusian age.

            @jim:
            If you want to enforce monogamy, the burden is indeed on women. But not because they are the more lustful sex (I disagree), but because they are the choosy sex. Even a slut rejects most men. A whore rejects everybody except for the highest bidder. The average woman rejects all but a single digit number of men. Men on the other hand have to approach many women just to get one wife.

            So it is for pragmatic reasons much more economical to increase the female rejection rate by a tiny bit. This is indeed an unfair double standard, but it is the only workable approach given our human nature.

          • Mark Citadel says:

            “Actually, God made human beings to progress in His image,”

            There you have it, folks. This is the creed of the Cult of Progress, except usually it leaves that messy ‘God’ business out. It’s all about Progress. They do not worship a changeless entity. The thing is, the Reactionary knows that Progress is BS.

            Progress = degeneration

            (Side note: Jim is correct on celibacy. Couldn’t have put it better.)

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Both Paul and Jesus recommended patriarchal marriage for the vast majority.
            Paul did. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke did. The Jesus of the gnostic gospels opposed all sexual activity.

            And both Jesus and Paul recommend celibacy for the most self-disciplined, and holy. It’s a rather natural development that the Pope (who ought to be a very, very holy man) should be celibate.

            >Peter married and had children.
            Peter was probably not Catholic/Orthodox/Protestant. He was a Judaizer, and Paul condemns him for this.

            >Paul takes for granted that Bishops have children.
            To clarify, I am saying that

            1) The New Testament however, elevates celibacy above the family.
            2) Christian monasticism was most intense in the first few centuries.

            You’re deriving your theology from a New Testament that was compiled and edited by Orthodox and proto-Orthodox teachers. This is long after Christianity had been forced to conform with conservative Roman society. If the New Testament were compiled and edited by gnostics, then it would probably condemn all sex.

            • jim says:

              >Both Paul and Jesus recommended patriarchal marriage for the vast majority.

              Paul did. The Jesus of Matthew, Mark and Luke did. The Jesus of the gnostic gospels opposed all sexual activity.

              Mathew Mark and Luke were written not long after the events, since their Jesus gives vague and misleading prophecies of the fall of Jerusalem, therefore written before the fall of Jerusalem. Also, contains multiple slightly different accounts of the same events, differing by roughly as much as we would expect of eyewitnesses. Gnostic gospels written late.

              And both Jesus and Paul recommend celibacy for the most self-disciplined, and holy. It’s a rather natural development that the Pope (who ought to be a very, very holy man) should be celibate.

              No, the pope should not be a very very holy man, because then you get holiness spirals, which both Jesus and Paul sought to prevent. Paul clearly envisages a Church run by regular mortals.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >So now we have celibate priests teaching single mums that they are heroes.
            A position with a lot of precedent in Christian history.The Cathars regarded marriage as sinful, but were relatively tolerant of fornication, because it was private, and didn’t publicly promote the vice of sexual activity.

            • jim says:

              >So now we have celibate priests teaching single mums that they are heroes.

              A position with a lot of precedent in Christian history.The Cathars regarded marriage as sinful, but were relatively tolerant of fornication, because it was private, and didn’t publicly promote the vice of sexual activity.

              If you are a Christian, all such churches are heretical, evil, and enemies of civilization

              If you are not a Christian, all such churches are evil and enemies of civilization.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            > Gnostic gospels written late
            Yep. But lots of people followed them c. 200 AD. And the Gospel of John is either Gnostic or semi-Gnostic. Cathars actually removed Matthew Mark, and Luke from their canon, and placed the Gospel of John alongside various gnostic gospels.

            >No, the pope should not be a very very holy man, because then you get holiness spirals, which both Jesus and Paul sought to prevent.
            Sure. And they were neoreactionaries too.

            Nearly everybody thinks the pope should be a very, very holy man. Only exceptions are people who don’t believe in the religion. I.e. you.

            >all such churches are heretical, evil, and enemies of civilization
            All variants of Christianity are heretical. With the exception of some (extinct) Judaizing sects. Attempting to reclaim “true Christianity” is a lost cause. Not unlike “restoring the Constitution”.

            • jim says:

              >No, the pope should not be a very very holy man, because then you get holiness spirals, which both Jesus and Paul sought to prevent.

              Sure. And they were neoreactionaries too.

              In the sense that they were realistic about human nature and human institutions, they were reactionaries. Neoreaction is recognition of and understanding of reality. It is the Gods of the Copybook Headings.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            Of the three Abrahamic religions, the only one whose “true origins” are similar to it’s current form, is Islam. Muhammad is far, far better documented than Jesus or Moses. And no large theological inconsistencies occur when we study early source material, and contrast it with modern teachings.

        • Corvinus says:

          “Women are the uncontrollably lustful sex.”

          Roissy and PUA’s completely blow your theory out of the water.

          “People will be clamoring, are clamoring for peace, order, and prosperity.”

          Unless the neoreactionaries get their message out to the masses and makes considerable headway, your bag of goods will be one of many choices for people to consider IF, IF, IF this reboot takes place. Why on earth would people want to be shackled to an absolute Christian monarchy led by aristocrats? Besides, Christian sects have major philosophical and theological issues among them. You expect them to set aside their differences? Moreover, the wealthy and powerful will NOT be subject to that tyranny. Good luck!

          “but it is OK for men to have sex with women outside marriage – this is bad behavior by the woman, not necessarily the man.”

          Your twisting and turning the Bible to suit your narrative. “But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband.” Paul states that marriage is the “cure” for sexual immorality, because PEOPLE cannot control themselves. Even if a couple is betrothed to each other, they are commanded by God to abstain from sex. The seventh commandment clearly states that adultery is a sin.

Keep embarrassing yourself, Jim.

          “Men on the other hand have to approach many women just to get one wife.”

          Corrected for accuracy–>Men and women each have to approach the opposite sex to secure marriage.

          “This is the creed of the Cult of Progress, except usually it leaves that messy ‘God’ business out. It’s all about Progress.”



          Are you NOT part of this “Cult of Progress” by being a bitch to technology when furthering your agenda? Do yourself a favor. Put on a digital hairshirt. That is, abstain from using the Internet for an entire year as penance for your transgression.

          “Progress = degeneration”

          Depends how one defines “progress” and the metrics involved. God ordained human beings to move forward in their own lives.

          “If you want to enforce monogamy, the burden is indeed on women.”

          The burden is on men and women.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Roissy and PUA’s completely blow your theory out of the water.
            All six of them. Do you think everybody here is a PUA?

            >Christian sects have major philosophical and theological issues among them.
            If “Christian sects” refers to Orthodox Christianity, Catholic Christianity, and Reformation-era Christianity, then this isn’t true. Relations between Lutheran and Catholics, Presbyterians and Lutherans, and Orthodox and Catholics, have never been better.

            However, if we include groups like Pentecostals, Baptists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, 7th Day Adventists, et cetera, then the differences are large. These groups are not part of historic Christianity, and have developed various peculiar doctrines. And they make up almost half of the US Christian population.

            Regardless, I don’t think we’re going to restore Christianity. If we had the Pope on our side, we might have a chance. But the Pope has been a hardcore progressive since the 1960s.

            In 2015, the most plausible theocratic system is Islamic. Not in America, obviously, but in much of Europe, Africa, Asia, et cetera.

            >The seventh commandment clearly states that adultery is a sin
            Look up the definition of the Hebrew word translated as “adultery”. It does not include a married man having sex with an unmarried female.

            You can argue that Jesus changed the definition, but that creates a difficulty. Why did God define the word differently in the two different testaments?

          • jim says:

            “Women are the uncontrollably lustful sex.”

            Roissy and PUA’s completely blow your theory out of the water.

            You are not reading the PUAs

            Here is what PUAs observe women doing.

            Unless the neoreactionaries get their message out to the masses

            In all of history the masses have never mattered, except that sometimes the elites piously invoke them as mascots.

          • jim says:

            Substituting child support payments for marriage means that most children are fathered by a guy with sixty children, room temperature IQ, and no declared income.

          • Corvinus says:

            “All six of them. Do you think everybody here is a PUA?”

            
Jim seems to think so.

            “However, if we include groups like Pentecostals, Baptists, Mormons, Messianic Jews, 7th Day Adventists, et cetera, then the differences are large. These groups are not part of historic Christianity,”

            

As I correctly stated, Christian sects.

            “But the Pope has been a hardcore progressive since the 1960s.”

Depends on how defines “progressive” in the context of the Roman Catholic Church.

            “Not in America, obviously, but in much of Europe, Africa, Asia, et cetera.”


            
I’ll believe it when Sharia law becomes the law of the land in one European country.

            “Why did God define the word differently in the two different testaments?”

            

God defined it. Humans defiled it. Big difference.

            “You are not reading the PUAs…”

            

Roissy and his henchmen are liberals. They seek to screw as many women as possible without marrying them and/or having children. Sex without commitment. No marriage. No kids. Wrap that fact around your little brain.
Men, being allegedly the more pious sex, could easily put an end to women having sex…say no. Except the PUA’s say, why? Slay the poon.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >
I’ll believe it when Sharia law becomes the law of the land in one European country.
            For Muslims in Western Thrace, Sharia is the law of the land. How many European countries have Catholic, Protestant or Orthodox law?

            Sharia is also used by state-sanctioned courts in the UK and many other European countries. Muslims are allowed to regulate their marriages and other areas of family law by Sharia.

            >

Roissy and his henchmen are liberals. They seek to screw as many women as possible without marrying them and/or having children.
            I’m not sure how that makes them liberals. Liberals generally seem to advocate monogamy or serial monogamy for men, and don’t regulate female sexuality.

            But the second sentence is obviously correct. Jim doesn’t want to admit Roissy is a bad guy because he

            1) Thinks that Roissy’s approach is driven by feminism (correct, but doesn’t make it a morally blameless action)
            2) Jim doesn’t ever condemn male sexual sins. Not unlike most modern pastors, who refuse to condemn female sexual sins. Jim has a tenancy to adopt the opposite opinion.

            >[
Jim seems to think] everybody here is a PUA
            I doubt that.

            >

God defined [adultery]. Humans defiled it. Big difference.
            When God stated the 10 commandments, he could have used a different word than “adultery”. He could have said “sex outside of marriage”, or something similar. Why didn’t he? Why did he only consider something adultery if the woman was married?

            • jim says:

              2) Jim doesn’t ever condemn male sexual sin

              Sure I do. I condemn gays all the time.

              Thing is, I think that unowned women, like unowned fish in the sea, are up for grabs. The legitimate and morally correct solution to our existing society is swift propertization of the women. When a woman belongs to a man, then sex with that woman by other men will be immoral for both the man and the woman. Until then, only immoral for the woman (since a woman should never engage in sex, except with the man whose property she is).

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >I condemn gays all the time.
            Gays are of ambiguous maleness. Notice how they dress like women?

            >I think that unowned women, like unowned fish in the sea, are up for grabs.
            Are nuns “unowned women”? And the line between “nun” and “slut” is not a precise one. Lots of modern monastic orders are of questionable moral quality, and a large portion of modern non-monastic women are genuinely chaste or semi-chaste. (semi-chastity – a substantial fraction of women haven’t had a sexual partner in the past six months)

            And PUAs are not taking these women as concubines/wives. They’re having sex with them, and then moving on to other women. No intention of a permanent relationship.

            • jim says:

              Are nuns “unowned women”?

              To the extent that they are subject to proper authority, obviously owned. However actually existent nuns seem to be mostly goddess worshiping foul mouthed heavily tattooed lesbians who preach a feminist version of the story of Adam and Eve, so, the Church is a bit lax in exercising proper authority.

              And PUAs are not taking these women as concubines/wives. They’re having sex with them, and then moving on to other women. No intention of a permanent relationship.

              The pattern rather is that a girl suspects that she is number two, or number three, or number seven, creates some drama that verifies it, and then bangs some one else in order to get a position with more benefits with one guy or another. The men would like to keep as many plates spinning as they can, but the more you have, the trickier it gets. The girls move on, rather than the guys.

              While girls tend to sleep with only one guy at a time, that time is not always all that long.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >The girls move on, rather than the guys.
            And what happens if the girl doesn’t move on? Does the PUA stick with her?

            Obviously not. Both the PUA and the woman are engaging in short-term, promiscuous relationships. You can argue that the woman should be blamed more, and you’d probably be right. But they’re both behaving wrongly.

            • jim says:

              >The girls move on, rather than the guys.

              And what happens if the girl doesn’t move on? Does the PUA stick with her?

              If the girl did not move on, PUAs would have way better success than they do in setting up threesomes. Few or no threesomes, therefore, always the girl who moves on.

              When a few men have all the power, and women have no power, the powerful men do not put the women in a brothel and share them around.

              PUAs engage in short term relationships because they are dancing to a tune that the women are calling. A PUA wants to get new girls and keep his existing girls, but if they were each able to do that, pretty soon no more new girls.

          • peppermint says:

            You can argue that the woman should be blamed more, and you’d probably be right.

            blaming women for the actions of women is retarded

          • peppermint says:

            I have had long term relationships and set up two different threesomes with the same girl (I’ve since decided to cut back on the degeneracy).

            How? Women who are lost in schooling and more schooling and don’t know what they’re doing with their lives (LGTBBQ) are easy to play the long game with. And with a verbal IQ high enough to be able to think straight while lying continuously about everything, and women told that they need to be open minded, well, women are programmed to go by feels anyway.

            Women also like it when you’re flagrantly degenerate in front of everyone else. That’s a show of power. Power is sexy. Women don’t like faggots, unless those faggots are making other people uncomfortable. They do like being told that they’re special for being bisexual. They like men who push the boundaries of political correctness, especially those who other men fear because they’re pushing them in the left direction, while saying disgusting things to imply that they’re in control. I know that not all women are like this, but, the kind that would double up on a guy like me…

            By the way, the one girl I chose is not the girl I had two different threesomes with. Oh, and she had a father in her life. I know I hurt all those women I did degenerate stuff with, and it helped me get in the pants of the women I did want.

            I would never have forced an abortion, and I never slept with anyone I wouldn’t want to reproduce with. But I can understand that some men need to increase their notch count through beastiality, and I guess I respect their decision.

            I blame society for my actions, like I blame society for all these Jew movies that I would fingerbang women in the theaters during.

            I’m a degenerate and there are men who were more successful than me at getting married. But not enough.

            I look forward to the day when the colleges are shut down.

          • Corvinus says:

            “I have had long term relationships and set up two different threesomes
            with the same girl (I’ve since decided to cut back on the degeneracy).”

            Pictures or STFU.

            “I’m a degenerate”.

            No shit, Sherlock.

            “I look forward to the day when the colleges are shut down.”

            Never going to happen.

            • jim says:

              “I look forward to the day when the colleges are shut down.”

              Never going to happen.

              That which cannot continue forever will stop

              Today’s college degree is inferior to the early twentieth century school leaving certificate. The continual inflation of academic credentials forces everyone to waste their time. The colleges are too fat, too useless, and militarily too weak.

              Deflating academic credentials is equivalent to the dissolution of the monasteries. All that wealth, all that power, and such feeble defense. Someone is going to go after them sooner or later. Credential inflation is like the Church getting too fat and corrupt before the counter reformation.

              There are just too many dimwits learning victim studies at college. It is the twenty first century equivalent of selling indulgences. There is going to be a reformation, and if some part of academia survives the reformation, a counter reformation.

      • Glenfilthie says:

        I have to disagree too, Jim. The faggotification and pussification of the male is not a recent development – that program was already in high gear during the 60’s. Elderly greasy hippies married to loud mouthed socialist women with bad haircuts have become a stereotype. My in-laws and their sphere of friends spring to mind.

        They are truly revolting people to be around…but they seem happy enough to me. I will admit though…their marriages certainly wouldn’t work for a real man – but those are slowly dying off too…

    • Lars Grobian says:

      There’s no actual debate about whether women are equal to men. Feminists believe men should help women pretend to be equal, and that both should pretend to *believe* that men and women are equal while consciously acting on the knowledge that they aren’t. Sensible people think that men should make practical allowances for female inadequacy without pretending otherwise.

      But everybody, literally everybody, knows that women are on average inferior to men in male areas (female areas are different, but in a feminist culture the feminine virtues are regarded as disgusting). Any female talk to the contrary is meant to be understood to be just talk. Women say a lot of things they don’t mean, and mean a lot of things they don’t say, and you’re supposed to know that without being told.

      • peppermint says:

        Women even want you to tell them what to eat, how to cook it, and how to dress their wounds when they get injured. I thought that was bizarre because I was under the impression that women are supposed to know and want to show off their abilities in these areas. But they are never taught even the most basic domestic skills by the feminist culture, and prefer to be told stuff instead of showing off anyway.

        I mean, of course, White women. Jew women are behaviorally different, and they and their men pushed feminism to support their way of life.

    • Mark Citadel says:

      Your misconception is based on a juvenile understanding of the word “own” which can mean varying things depending on the subject. Perhaps if it would sooth your qualms, we might say a woman wishes to be ‘dependent’, that is reliant on a man. While reliant on their fathers until marriage, women ultimately wish to be reliant on a husband who can make decisions for them, and allow them to fulfill their true calling as lovers and mothers. It is unfortunate that the world today has completely annihilated true femininity and masculinity, replacing it with an abomination.

  6. Pragmatus says:

    “The optimal strategy for sleeping with as many women as possible is exemplified by Skittles Man.

    However, this strategy is suboptimal for keeping women around. You are not going to fulfill your Darwinian imperative unless you keep a woman around.”

    You are mistaken. Keeping women around is no longer necessary. Skittles Man is fitter than you, says Darwin.

    Your advice is about triggering instincts in (European or Asian) women that used to be adaptive for women in the past in order to fulfill your own emotional preference of possessing women that used to be adaptive for men in the past.

    Markets, machines and the state enable r-strategy and have abolished the economic function of the family. Your wife doesn’t actually need you. And your male ancestors did not need to study female psychology and social engineering in order to keep their wives around.

    • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

      >Keeping women around is no longer necessary. Skittles Man is fitter than you, says Darwin.
      When the famine comes, the person with 200 pounds of body fat does the best. In non-famine years, he has a lot of trouble reproducing. Overall, that kind of excessive fat is less fit.

      Over the past 10,000 years, the primary (Eurasian) way of reproducing has been committed relationships. We are living in an era where committed relationships are artificially dis-incentivized by the government. But that era will die. If nothing else, the disproportionate birth-rate between Afghanistan-type countries and French-type countries will eventually result in a world primarily populated by Muslim tribalists.

      Also, the average Amish birth rate is 6 children/woman. 100 years from now, who is likely to have more descendants – skittles man, or an average Amish man? Skittles man may have 12 kids, but the Amish man will have 6. And Skittles man will have 50 great-grandchildren, and the Amish man will have 200.

      • Pragmatus says:

        The Amish rely on Modern Man for protection, infrastructure, healthcare and even their income. Their products are in the same category as organic food, hipster craftsmanship and fair trade goods. Their outmoded farming practices and lifestyle are sustained, sheltered and protected by modernity, much like SWPL-lifestyles.

        In a famine situation, we would simply seize their farms and hand them over to big agriculture.

        A cutback in the welfare state would hit both poor r-strategists and poor k-strategists alike. Skittles Man would suffer, but so would a low income single beta or omega male. Hypergamous women would shift their preferences to higher income philanderers to father their children. Muslim women would have to go out in the workplace.

        Industrialization and markets trump family based production. Women can work in female professions; many of them are vital; and trade for goods and services with men, just like men specialize and trade with each other. Committed relationships have lost their economic utility and therefore also their evolutionary advantage.

        P.S.: The fertility rates in muslim countries are in free fall.

        • jim says:

          Show me a Muslim country where fertility rates are in free fall, and you will find that country is affirmative actioning women in education and academia, that the schools teach that marriage is bad, children a burden, patriarchy and chastity are obsolete.

          • Pragmatus says:

            Saudia Arabia.

            What they teach doesn’t matter. Economic forces are relentless.

            http://www.arabnews.com/saudi-arabia/news/691761
            “The number of unmarried Saudi women over 30 reached 33.45 percent in the last 10 years, or 1.52 million of the total population of 4.57 million women, local media reported on Sunday.”

            Marriages in muslim countries are arranged and fathers choose spouses, just like you propose. Marriages used to be economically productive based on comparative advantage between men and women. This is no longer the case. Men don’t need women either thanks to modern appliances and prepared foods.
            So why should a muslim father give his daughter away? It is of no economic benefit to her or him. She could even enter the job market and hand him her paycheck, or, this being Saudi Arabia, her welfare check. He doesn’t need grandchildren either.
            And which dad likes the idea of some dude fucking is daughter?

            You correctly assume that fathers in control of their daughters sexuality and mate choice would increase the number of virgins. Spinsterhood is the ultimate form of virginity.

            • jim says:

              What they teach doesn’t matter. Economic forces are relentless.

              Since the poor outbreed the rich, economic forces are irrelevant.

              What matters is that progressivism is an anti motherhood, anti wife, religion, and girls are being taught this religion on television and in school.

              Marriages in muslim countries are arranged and fathers choose spouses, just like you propose.

              University in Saudi Arabia, like university in the west, is Sodom and Gomorrah on steroids.

              Parentally arranged marriages continue in a few weird places like Afghanistan, which continue to have sky high fertility.

              Complaints about patriarchy in Saudi Arabia happen not because there is patriarchy in Saudi Arabia, but because once progressives have their victim unconscious and bleeding on the ground, they cannot resist continuing to kick him.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @Jim @Pragmatus

            Saudi Arabia is very far from homogenous. It has a massive population of non-Arabs who work in oil-related endeavors. Then it has a certain Arab-populated highly modernized areas, and certain Arab-populated traditional areas, with widely varying norms of behavior.

            I don’t know, but I’m guessing that Parental selection of spouses still happens for a lot of Saudis. Particularly in the more traditional areas.

          • Pragmatus says:

            @Jim:
            >Since the poor outbreed the rich, economic forces are irrelevant.

            Economic forces used to be relevant in promoting marriage and monogamy.

            The poor have enough money to afford children, most of them even without welfare. Earning more than that is unnecessary from a reproductive point of view.

            >Parentally arranged marriages continue in a few weird places like Afghanistan, which continue to have sky high fertility.

            The secular muslim kids (mostly Turks) I grew up with all had wives and husbands pre-arranged for them.

            But it is true that arranged marriages are in decline and are replaced by nothing. Saudi Arabia is busy setting up dating agencies. Boys and girls aren’t allowed to mingle. Even if they find someone, the father has the veto power to make sure she remains a virgin.

            http://www.saudigazette.com.sa/index.cfm?method=home.regcon&contentid=20131101185354

            “The main problem lies sometimes with parents who refuse to allow their daughters to get married because they want to be in control of their daughters’ salaries. Other parents exaggerate when it comes to paying dowry.”

            “Heba, 39, said she blames her father for her not getting married. She said, “My father is very picky, always asking about the groom’s background and his family line. After meeting my father, the groom becomes confused and ends up leaving and canceling the marriage proposal. My father lives in the dark ages, when it comes to the way he thinks. He is racist and thinks that he is better than everybody.””

            • jim says:

              >Since the poor outbreed the rich, economic forces are irrelevant.

              Economic forces used to be relevant in promoting marriage and monogamy.

              It has been tried.

              Women are unresponsive to future oriented incentives, particularly in matters of sex and reproduction. Recall those women on “the Island” sleeping on the mud in the rain, and not attempting to build themselves a shelter. Sad experiment has repeatedly demonstrated that they will “follow their hearts”, which is to say, follow their pussies, even if the result is that they give birth in the gutter and the child dies while sleeping on the mud in the rain.

              The welfare state is not the cause of bad behavior in women, but a response to our failure to control that bad behavior. It was either welfare state or children dying in the rain and the mud.

              As we saw on “The Island” women without male supervision are irresponsible and lack future orientation, and as I just saw yesterday on Embarcadero, women are the uncontrollably lustful sex. So future oriented material incentives just do not work.

              Women will follow their pussies into big trouble unless restrained by male authority and severe social disapproval.

          • Pragmatus says:

            Btw. I was previously unaware of these quotes of Saudi women. I merely hypothesized as to why Saudi fathers stopped marrying of their daughters. Turns out I was spot on.

            @Jim:
            Do you have any daughters? Have you yet come across a young man that you would like them to marry? And if so, why?

            • jim says:

              I have nieces, and if it had been possible to put them in irons and force them to marry a suitable husband at an early age and make them stick with that husband, would have done so, to prevent a great deal of distressingly unwise behavior.

          • Pragmatus says:

            But did you ever come across a specific guy that you would have liked them to marry?

            The inhibiting aspect of fatherhood involvement has to be actively counterbalanced with active matchmaking somehow.

            Your case for an early and monogamous marriage of your nieces is defensive in nature. It would have prevented “unwise behavior”. But under a patriarchal system you could have banned them from engaging in “unwise behaviour” from the outset. So a husband would no longer be required as a lesser evil under such a system.

          • peppermint says:

            There was some black and white gangster movie set in the Great Depression in which the gangster guy wants to marry this okie girl, and her father, not knowing he’s a gangster, approves and tries to convince her to marry him. Then she cries and says she doesn’t want him, so he says that’s okay too, but warns her of running out of options.

            That is apparently how marriage worked a hundred years ago. It could work like that again.

      • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

        >P.S.: The fertility rates in muslim countries are in free fall.
        Fertility all around the world is in decline. Muslim fertility no more than average.

        >In a famine situation
        The famine was a metaphor.

        >A cutback in the welfare state would hit both poor r-strategists and poor k-strategists alike.
        Genetically, the maximal k-selection strategy would be to breed the top 1% of men, with all the women.

        Socially, the maximal k-selection strategy is something fairly close to monogamy for both men and women.

        • Pragmatus says:

          >The famine was a metaphor.

          I know. But I picked it up as a drastic scenario to shows the unsustainability of the Amish lifestyle.

          I used k-strategy as a sloppy shorthand for monogamy. I shouldn’t have done this, because I actually believe that family patterns have become detached from the r/k dichotomy.

          Since committed relationships have lost their economic utility, they also no longer matter in terms of providing parental investment. The child is protected, sheltered and educated by the state, the market and industry. A promiscuous single mother can be either of the r or k type.
          Child support from the father is important, but this can be enforced by the state or as a market service (for the ancaps out there).

          >Socially, the maximal k-selection strategy is something fairly close to monogamy for both men and women.

          What do you mean by “socially maximal”. In terms of how you would prefer a good society to be like? That is a matter of taste.

          Or do you argue that this strategy will outcompete any others? Here I disagree. Modern societies overinvest in children as it is. Childlessness in educated liberals is actually an overshoot of k-strategy thinking. And monogamy is not necessary in any case, as I have pointed out before.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Child support from the father is important, but this can be enforced by the state
            The state is inherently inefficient in these matters. Would you rather live with your dad and mom, or live with your mom, and get child support?

            >I picked it up as a drastic scenario to shows the unsustainability of the Amish lifestyle.
            They’ve been around 400 years. I doubt you’ve got anything they haven’t seen before.

            Your objection that they’re dependent on modern technology is superficial. I’m not suggesting that 100% of the US become Amish. Nor are they. But they still have a birth rate that is 3x the normal.

            >What do you mean by “socially maximal”.
            I didn’t use that phrase.

            If you want to maximize high-investment parenting, people are going to need to be fairly monogamous. If half of the men aren’t fathers, then you’re losing out on almost half of potential parenting.

            If you want to maximize genetic fitness, breed the top 1% of men with the rest of the women.

            Presumably, a society will balance genetic fitness and high-investment parenting. And will thus be mildly polygynous.

            >do you argue that this strategy will outcompete any others?
            Long-term, if there is a large disparity, the religion with the highest birth-rate wins. The only way to circumvent this is to invade Afghanistan, and brainwash the people into progressivism. Doesn’t appear to be working. Look at the UN demographic estimates for 2050 and later. In population, the world is going to dominated by tribalist Muslims.

            • jim says:

              Presumably, a society will balance genetic fitness and high-investment parenting. And will thus be mildly polygynous.

              Exactly so. We want all good men married with children, to draw all good men into being productive, investing, and willing to defend their society against internal and external enemies, and almost all women married with children, which means moderately more women in marriage or concubinage than married men, thus monogamy should be normal, but far from universal.

              The trouble with a government child support society, is that with no opportunity to raise their sons, there is no reason for men to work or fight.

          • Pragmatus says:

            >>Child support from the father is important, but this can be enforced by the state
            >The state is inherently inefficient in these matters.

            Deadbeat dads wouldn’t contribute in a committed relationship either and spend their money on booze and gambling. If your wife divorces you they will make you pay quite effectively.

            >Would you rather live with your dad and mom, or live with your mom, and get child support?

            The former of course. But that is again a preference, not analysis.

            >They’ve been around 400 years. I doubt you’ve got anything they haven’t seen before.

            Everybody used to live like the Amish. My great-grandparents lived like them. Amazonian Indians have been around much longer. Those are sheltered pockets of pre-modernity. Small family farms have turned into state subsidized hobbies.

            >If you want to maximize high-investment parenting, people are going to need to be fairly monogamous. If half of the men aren’t fathers, then you’re losing out on almost half of potential parenting.

            Parenting used to mean personally protecting children from predators, the elements, putting food on the table, teaching them how to survive in the world…. This was done with direct home production by parents. Today those are commodities or services that are purchased on the market or provided by the state with specialized and mechanized means.

            Fatherhood today means going to the Zoo with your kid. Lovely, but not necessary.

            >Long-term, if there is a large disparity, the religion with the highest birth-rate wins.
            A religion that reinforces an evolutionary successful strategy is adaptive. That would be a religion that promotes having children and accepts single motherhood and divorce. Evangelical Christianity looks like a good bet.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Deadbeat dads wouldn’t contribute in a committed relationship either and spend their money on booze and gambling.
            Men have biological incentive to support their children. They support them to the degree that they have certainty of paternity.

            Attempting to force fathers to support their children, means that the state is supporting the children, and taxing the father. Which is why a child whose mother is receiving child support, usually has a terrible home life.

            >Those are sheltered pockets of pre-modernity.
            So what? Still have a birth-rate 3x the norm. What is the birth-rate of isolated Amazonian tribes? If we include the higher death rates, it’s probably not much higher than ours.

            >Evangelical Christianity looks like a good bet.
            Birth-rate is much lower than the birth-rate in Yemen or Afghanistan. Unless they can forcibly convert the Yemenis, evangelical Christianity will grow much slower than Islam. But you’re right that evangelical Christianity will survive, where mainline Protestantism has long died.

          • Pragmatus says:

            > They support them to the degree that they have certainty of paternity.
            Not an issue with DNA-testing.

            >Attempting to force fathers to support their children, means that the state is supporting the children, and taxing the father. Which is why a child whose mother is receiving child support, usually has a terrible home life.

            It is not a form of taxation. You are supposed to hand over part of your paycheck for your children, whether you happen to live in the same household as them or not.

            >>Evangelical Christianity looks like a good bet.
            >Birth-rate is much lower than the birth-rate in Yemen or Afghanistan. Unless they can forcibly convert the Yemenis, evangelical Christianity will grow much slower than Islam. But you’re right that evangelical Christianity will survive, where mainline Protestantism has long died.

            Let’s be careful and not compare Apples with Oranges. You are comparing different countries. The Amish btw. are not just religion either, they are a nation with their own language and economic system. Yemeni birth rates are in steep decline.

            Religion evolves and adapts. It is a moving target. I believe that the evolution of Evangelical Christianity we are currently witnessing is in line with the long term economic and evolutionary forces I have laid out. Reactionaries can’t rely on Christianity to do the job for them. Neither can they rely on economic forces.

            • jim says:

              It is not a form of taxation. You are supposed to hand over part of your paycheck for your children, whether you happen to live in the same household as them or not.

              Children need fathers, not money. If you hand over money to a fertile age woman who lacks supervision, she will invite an ever changing parade of alpha males through her bedroom. Almost all of them will be, by the biological nature of all men, hostile to step children, many of them homicidally hostile.

              A woman by herself is likely a better carer than a man by himself, but a man with a parade of girlfriends is not a danger to his children, while a woman with a parade of boyfriends is intolerably dangerous to her children. Therefore, fertile age women should never receive custody or child support if there is any way to avoid it.

              If a woman has left the father of her children on her initiative, not his, she is doing it to get nailed, and this is going to be quite dangerous for the children. Further, the money given for the support of children is likely to be handed over to the males passing through her bedroom.

          • Pragmatus says:

            > Children need fathers, not money.
            That is wishful thinking on you part.

            > If you hand over money to a fertile age woman who lacks supervision, she will invite an ever changing parade of alpha males through her bedroom. Almost all of them will be, by the biological nature of all men, hostile to step children, many of them homicidally hostile.
            >If a woman has left the father of her children on her initiative, not his, she is doing it to get nailed, and this is going to be quite dangerous for the children. Further, the money given for the support of children is likely to be handed over to the males passing through her bedroom.

            Google tells me that about 450 children are killed by parents every year. Darwin is not impressed. Stepchildren are abused und mistreated, but they make it to fertile age.

            An alpha can be monogamous or not. Let’s talk specifically about philanderers instead.

            Women keep dating the same kinds of men. They don’t leave conscientious betas for shiftless studs. Promiscuous women prefer one philanderer after another and they may have kids with some of them along the way.

            Others prefer faithful providers. They get a divorce if a better provider comes along, if they get bored or if he loses his job.

            So divorce doesn’t necessarily change the relative reproduction of these different categories of men. Both the philanderers and the providers have an interest in the enforcement of child support, as both of them don’t want to pay for somebody else’s kids. The philanderers are not interested in joint custody. Neither do any of the women.

            • jim says:

              > Children need fathers, not money.

              That is wishful thinking on you part.

              It is observation. Observe the fatherless.

              Google tells me that about 450 children are killed by parents every year

              I don’t think it does, but supposing this statistic to be true, the overwhelming majority of these were killed by their biological mother, who was likely trying to please a lover. Try to find some data on children killed by biological father as distinct from biological mother or stepfather. And then actually link to it rather than claiming that “google says”.

              You will find that children killed by stepfathers overwhelmingly outnumber children killed by biological mothers, and children killed by biological mothers, usually as part of an unsuccessful attempt to please a lover, overwhelmingly outnumber children killed by biological fathers. Stepmothers, despite their deservedly villainous reputation, tend to mistreat children in sublethal ways, poking them with pins rather than chopping them up with an axe.

            • jim says:

              They don’t leave conscientious betas for shiftless studs

              Happens all the time.

            • jim says:

              So divorce doesn’t necessarily change the relative reproduction of these different categories of me

              In every case, divorce with children involves dumping a provider dad for a succession of cads, with a corresponding grave risk to the children.

              A woman with children cannot switch from one provider dad to another, because no man is going to volunteer to provide for someone else’s children. The flow of money goes in the other direction. Dad gives money to mum, mum gives money to cads.

          • peppermint says:

            When a zebra woman marries a zebra man (zebras are, by the way, polygamous), if he thinks she gives birth too soon, he will kill the baby. She will put up token resistance to ensure that he is man enough to protect her next baby.

            Presumably, the reason zebras have marriage at all is not the threat of lions or alligators, but the threat of infanticide if a baby does not have a father.

            The threat of infanticide forces patriarchy on zebras just as the threat of exposure and starvation forces patriarchy on Whites. Nigger babies don’t have either threat, and thus, niggers are matriarchial by default.

          • peppermint says:

            no man is going to volunteer to provide for someone else’s children

            From around the middle of the last century to right now, the word ‘cuck’ was completely unheard, and some somewhat decent men were willing to marry a woman with previous children, even previous niglets.

            I know of some families like that.

          • Dave says:

            Pragmatus thinks that if Marriage 2.0 gives men no incentive to work, no problem, the state will force them to work. If your chilimony check is late, expect a 4×8 cell and an AIDS-infected black dick up your ass, capiche?

            Despondent dads often commit suicide. If they start taking a lot of judges and lawyers with them, most divorces, if there still are any, will end up with the husband getting full custody and the wife getting nothing.

            If men won’t fight back, they’re still dropping out of the workforce and the marriage market at an accelerating rate, while technology increases the productivity of the remaining workers at a decelerating rate. When those two lines cross, BOOM.

          • Pragmatus says:

            http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/10/parents-kill-children-fbi-data/15280259/

            A USA TODAY examination of more than three decades of FBI homicide data shows that on average, 450 children are killed every year by their parents”

            I am aware that stepdads are more likely to kill. I mentioned their abusiveness. But the absolute numbers just don’t matter in darwinian terms. The selection differential is miniscule.

            In every case, divorce with children involves dumping a provider dad for a succession of cads

            The commonly accepted view on Game Blogs and in the Reactosphere is the exact opposite. Women are alleged to start out with cads/alphas and move on to beta providers at a later stage.

            I believe in neither story. I have no data, but my experience is that women keep engaging with similar men. A woman who is married to a beta provider might have a lover on the side. But that is no reason for her to file for divorce.

            @peppermint:
            A man who chooses to marry a mother is not considered a cuckold.

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

            The term cuckold refers to the husband of an adulterous wife. In evolutionary biology, the term is also applied to males who are unwittingly investing parental effort in offspring that are not genetically their own.

            @Dave:
            The state doesn’t have to force dads to work, but only to hand over a part of their paycheck.

            History doesn’t start in the 1950 with its idle housewives. Traditional Marriage 1.0 was a mode of production and made male and female labor more efficient. Women would milk the cows, feed the chickens, churn butter, do the laundry without washing machines or laundry detergent, cook, preserve food, carry water, etc. There was no need to artificially engineer incentives for men to work for their wives.

            • jim says:

              The commonly accepted view on Game Blogs and in the Reactosphere is the exact opposite. Women are alleged to start out with cads/alphas and move on to beta providers at a later stage.

              The commonly accepted view in PUA circles is also that divorce is caused because marriage makes a man too powerless, so she finds him too beta to tolerate, so goes back to cads.

              Another common phenomenon is, as with the notorious shrew Kate Gosselin, is that the woman is unaware of the decline in sexual market value caused by kids and aging, so dumps her husband in the expectation that she can then form a permanent relationship with one of the studs who has been dumping cum into her, and, of course, finds that she cannot.

              I believe in neither story. I have no data, but my experience is that women keep engaging with similar men.

              But a divorced woman with children is not going to be able to engage with dads. Only cads.

            • jim says:

              I am aware that stepdads are more likely to kill. I mentioned their abusiveness. But the absolute numbers just don’t matter in darwinian terms. The selection differential is miniscule.

              There is also the highly convenient accident. The stepdad has a great deal of opportunity.

              “Hey kid. Want to see how squeaky you sound breathing helium. Let us put this plastic bag full of helium over your head, while I keep blowing fresh helium into the bag.”

              Kid dies mysteriously with no apparent cause.

              Also, the more guys pass through her bedroom, the more chances the children have to be murdered. If the guy just dumped a few loads into her once a month, the normal case, they will not count him as a “parent”

              When they are counting fatherless children, they are eager to count guys who blow by once a month to confiscate the child support money as dads. When they are counting murdered children, they are reluctant to count such guys as dads.

          • Red says:

            A large chunk of the spousal murder rate is over child custody. Media refuses to report on it. If they ever did there would be a lot less child snatching by mothers.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Not an issue with DNA-testing.
            Male instincts evolved before DNA-testing. Men will still invest in their children to the degree that they have paternal certainty. Paternal certainty is defined, not by DNA-tests, but how it would have been defined in the ancestral environment.

            >It is not a form of taxation.
            Involuntary cash payments to the state are, by definition, taxation. Any other definition is Orwellian.

            Child support is a tax policy. It is implemented in order to force men who don’t want to invest in their children, to invest in their children. In general, these are men who don’t have paternal certainty.

            Child support is subsidizing children, whose fathers have low paternal certainty. This is equivalent to subsidizing sluts. Or more accurately, sluts and their children.

            Child support is also taxing men who have non-contraceptive sex in situations of low paternal certainty. I’m mildly supportive of this aspect.

            >The Amish btw. are not just religion either, they are a nation with their own language and economic system
            They’re a highly segregated subculture, not a nation. No government is controlled by the Amish.

            @Jim
            >The welfare state is not the cause of bad behavior in women, but a response to our failure to control that bad behavior. It was either welfare state or children dying in the rain and the mud.
            If we had no welfare state, we would find some other way to help the women. In both the early Mormon and early Muslim communities, polygamy was seen as a sort of anti-poverty system. You marry a widow, support her kids, and in exchange, she gives you sex/status/etc.

            @Peppermint
            >zebra woman marries a zebra man
            Zebra FEMALE. There are no zebra women, unless I missed something very large.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            @jim
            Killing someone with a bag of helium is far, far too deliberate.

            I’m guessing that most stepfathers “accidents” are genuinely accidents, where the stepfather failed to take basic safety measures. If you notice that your kid is going to eat ammonium, or put a screwdriver in an electric socket, you will tell him to stop. A stepfather might not tell him to stop, or might not be paying any attention to the kid in the first place.

          • Dave says:

            “The state doesn’t have to force dads to work, but only to hand over a part of their paycheck.”

            You obviously never heard of the “imputed income” ratchet. Child support is based not on your current income, but on the highest income you ever earned in your life. This is especially brutal for athletes and actors (e.g. Robin Williams), whose earning power tends to peak at a young age.

            “[paternal certainty is] not an issue with DNA-testing.”

            A DNA test proves that one particular baby is mine, but says nothing about its future siblings. If my baby-mama later decides to have sex with cute broke-ass surfer dudes, she will surely divert resources from my children to theirs.

            • jim says:

              Observe Steve Jobs dropping very large amounts of money on his Baby Mama, and that money instantly disappearing in mysterious ways, leaving his daughter stony broke.

              Women who are sufficiently irresponsible to deprive their children of fathers, are unlikely to be sufficiently responsible to handle child support money.

          • Pragmatus says:

            6,455 children below the age of 18 died in accidents in 2013 according to CDC. That’s still nothing in terms of selection pressure, even if all of those accidents were caused by stepdads. There are about four million live births.

            Involuntary cash payments to the state are, by definition, taxation. Any other definition is Orwellian.

            Enforcement of contracts are not taxation.

            I don’t defend the excessively feminist american child support and divorce laws. The MRAs demand DNA-testing and an end of imputed income. Paternal misattribution is rare. And most men make whatever income their job pays regardless. Quantitatively, these are non-issues.

            There used to be lots of young widowers and widows prior to modern medicine. People married them for the same economic reasons I laid out repeatedly. Children worked too. In fact, you probably could work step-children harder. Widowers and Widows frequently married each other.

            Only a small number of upper class men could afford to marry a girl because of looks, sex and status only. Everybody else had to look at the labor productivity of a potential bride.

            P.S.: The Amish don’t have a nation state, but they are a nation.

          • Richard Nixon's Ghost says:

            >Enforcement of contracts are not taxation.
            If you’re talking about voluntary contracts, sure.

            But we’re talking about child support.

  7. peppermint says:

    Off-topic, but,

    http://www.worldcat.org/title/true-selma-story-sex-and-civil-rights/oclc/3820583

    Does anyone live near one of these libraries and want to sch a few pages?

Leave a Reply