Unowned women should be unprotected and fair game

You want Roissy ran out of town on a rail. There is a good chance he “raped” your girlfriend, and if he did not, he had her before you, or will have her after you.

But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.

So if you want a society where Roissy gets run out of town on a rail, or better, shot like a dog, you need a society where husbands and fathers have legitimate, socially recognized, legally recognized, and legally enforced property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services, where a husband or a father can legally and morally legitimately shoot Roissy for sniffing around where he should not, as he can shoot a burglar for sniffing around where he should not.

And if you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy (“oh the poor things”) you are abandoning male property rights in women.

The system that Victorians liked to pretend that they had, where unowned, unprotected, and uncontrolled women were presumed to be chaste and of comparable value to owned, controlled, and protected women, is not incentive compatible. No one has strong motivation to protect the society that you piously pretend that you have. You are not upvaluing unprotected women. You are downvaluing wives and daughters.

You cannot have the supposed Victorian and the supposed Puritan system, for the same reason as the Victorians and the Puritans could not have it either. The Victorian system resulted in far too many women giving birth in the rain in dark alleys, resulting in far too many Oliver Twists, resulting in the welfare state, resulting in far too many women marrying Uncle Sam the big Pimp. And here we are.

If you start “protecting” unowned women from Roissy you are not going to succeed, because unowned women are uncontrolled women. And your entire intended system goes down the drain.

You cannot “protect” unowned women from seduction and “rape”, because women are notoriously uncooperative with anyone trying to “protect” them.

Whereupon, surprise surprise, no one runs Roissy out of town no matter how much the preacher vainly rants about chastity.

If chastity is based on male property rights in women, unowned women are outside the system and are presumed to be unchaste – and need to be outside so that they can be discriminated against and treated as of lesser value and lesser worth. Roissy screwing unowned women cannot be allowed to matter, because unowned women cannot be allowed to matter.

High estimates of the number of whores in the eighteenth and early nineteenth century were not based on the modern usage of “whore” to mean a woman rents her pussy for cash by the hour, but rather, were estimates of the number of unowned, and thus presumed to be unchaste, women. Similarly “sluts”.

You cannot keep women permanently chained to the wall. You are going to have to let them loose every now and then to take care of the baby, pick up the socks, and cook the meals. So you need to have a system that is incentive compatible with what women want. If women get entirely their way, civilization collapses, because most men will not have posterity, so will not plant trees for their grandchildren to enjoy the shade. So you need to have a system where male ownership of women is incentive compatible with what women want, where women have reason to cooperate in a system that restrains their worst excesses. So you have to downvalue unowned women and upvalue owned women. And if you downvalue unowned women, you cannot allow yourself to care about what Roissy gets up to. (Unless of course, he starts sniffing around your wife or daughter, in which case you shoot him like a dog, and the cops shrug their shoulders and say “needed killing”.)

The problem is not that women want to bang multiple high value alpha males. They want to bang only one high value alpha male, and that high value alpha male also wants them to bang only that one high value alpha male. The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value. The solution is to associate this tactic with being low value. And if allow ourselves to care about what Roissy gets up to, we are upvaluing women who employ this tactic. No one should care about what unowned women get up to, or about what happens to them, thus motivating unowned women to come in from the cold, and owned women to stay where it is warm.

It does not matter if the archbishop proclaims that all fertile age women are the property of their father or husband. He can, and should proclaim that all fertile age women should be the property of their father or husband, but short of keeping them all permanently chained to the dungeon wall, not all of them are going to actually be the property of their father or husband. Hence Roissy.

If we could stop unowned women from seducing Mohammed, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But we cannot.

Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

222 Responses to “Unowned women should be unprotected and fair game”

  1. Cavalier says:

    What if we’re looking at this thing all wrong. What if it’s really about whether _grandparents_, especially _grandmothers_, have the power, and male property right in women is just the fig leaf and enforcement mechanism? With government authorities standing in as an imperfect substitute, as I suppose they must have done Down Under.

    • Cavalier says:

      I guess for moral authority, because of manorialism, big daddy gov has been standing-in longer for Hajnaliens.

    • Cavalier says:

      Also, the optimal male strategy really is fuck and chuck, zero-investment-style parenting, if you have the genes to get away with it.

      • jim says:

        Following the supposedly optimal male strategy implies zero cooperation between males, which is seldom optimal. If males are allowed to cooperate to apply collective organized violence against women and against male interlopers, they can make women property, in which case the optimal strategy is no longer fuck and chuck, but husbanding your women.

        Obviously for this to be an optimal strategy you only provide collective violence in support of property rights in women for cooperating males. Outsider males, you might politely ignore their property rights, while predating on their women as opportunity permits, or you might take collective action to kill them and take their women.

        You should only defend the property rights in women of men who defend your property rights in women. The wives and daughters of men who are not playing by your rules are fair game. Depending on the likely consequences of war, you either seduce their wives and daughters, or kill them, kill their sons, and take their wives and older daughters.

        War is coming. We should be willing and able to reward our heroes.

        • Alrenous says:

          Claiming the losers’ wives and daughters is dysgenic.

          Here’s a fake but accurate myth.

          There was a just tribe. Bad was punished, and good was rewarded.
          Women were selected for being good wives, because good wives got husbands, but bad wives only got babies. Selection for looks was weak, as wombs work regardless of what she looks like. All the men who earned a wife got one, so being marginally hotter only bumped her up to a marginally better husband.

          There was also an unjust tribe. The members grabbed what they could get away with, and viciously fought anyone who tried to stop them. Women snuck off with whoever won fights or stole the most. Selection for looks was fierce, as the cad would get several sneaking-off offers, and would obviously go with the hottest one.

          The just tribe prospered, and the unjust tribe were paupers.

          Eventually they met. The unjust tribe tried to steal from the just tribe, because that’s just how they do. The just tribe attempted to sanction the thieves under colour of law. This started a fight, just as the unjust tribe wanted.

          They lost. The prosperous, disciplined tribe utterly crushed the pauperous, impulsive tribe. And took their hot hot women.

          The just tribe more or less doubled their wives overnight. And subsequently demoted their ugly just wives in favour of the hot harlots. Even among those that didn’t, their sons married the daughters who inherited more harlot genes and were thus hotter. Their preference for good wives was overwhelmed by sudden sexual superstimulus.

          Thus men are largely descended from the ugly angel tribe, and women from the beautiful devil tribe.

          During war, generally the losers are a bunch of losers. With loser women who give birth to loser kids. If the winners take them as wives, they end up with a bunch of loser in the gene pool.

          • lalit says:

            This is not entirely accurate. It would be silly for the Winners in the just tribe let the women in the unjust tribe go waste. But it would also be silly to upgrade the women of the unjust tribe to wives. The optimal solution is to make the women of the unjust tribes into concubines and maids. And this is, how I believe it has worked unless some historians on this board can come up with counter examples. No one upgrades women of loser women into wives. Concubines and maids. That’s how they did it.

          • Steve Johnson says:

            That’s a very bad story.

            Here:

            “There was a just tribe. Bad was punished, and good was rewarded.
            Women were selected for being good wives, because good wives got husbands, but bad wives only got babies. Selection for looks was weak, as wombs work regardless of what she looks like.”

            Babies without a husband isn’t weak selective pressure on women, it’s immensely strong – among human groups (pastoralists and agriculturalists). Among horticulturists it’s weak.

            “The members grabbed what they could get away with, and viciously fought anyone who tried to stop them. Women snuck off with whoever won fights or stole the most. Selection for looks was fierce, as the cad would get several sneaking-off offers, and would obviously go with the hottest one. ”

            Here’s where your story really falls apart. The limiting factor isn’t how often men choose to sneak away with any particular woman – eventually all of them will get impregnated so there’s zero selective pressure on the women for attractiveness (or pleasantness of personality) only selection on ability to work to produce enough for her and her babies. The women wind up ugly and the men wind up lazy, shiftless, violently impulsive, and viscerally appealing to women who share that mating strategy.

            • StringsofCoins says:

              First story makes neotenous ice people women. Second story makes apish warm people women.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                When you think about it it’s amazingly obvious.

                Every woman can easily get pregnant – no matter what the social structure.

                The only possible selection filter is one of two things:

                1) Which women get husbands in addition to babies – hence which babies starve to death or are sickly and fail to reproduce or die in childhood, etc.
                2) Which men impregnate women when all babies survive to adulthood (or more precisely, where the probability of surviving to adulthood is independent from paternal provisioning – babies that die randomly to disease don’t count).

                That’s it. Either some men are impregnating all the women who have babies or babies are dying without fathers.

                • Jack Highlands says:

                  It’s practically impossible to overstate how far from being random is disease and who dies from it in natural selection.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  True enough – adaptation to malaria and tropical disease is huge.

  2. Antipas says:

    Despite feral, unowned women having low status, You still have the problem of Roissy’s occasional kid popping out in the rainy dark alley.

    • Nelson says:

      Besides, if war is coming, who else is going to do the drudge work manning the ships? (Though syphillis was indeed a great concern of the Victorian navy…)

      And when, I wonder, was the last time high status Western men had much interest in taking the wives or daughters of their enemies, besides the occasional fling with the occasional beauty. Prostituting some of them was, i imagine, the preferred option when posted abroad. I’m reminded of the feminist genius who declared IDF soldiers racists because they don’t rape the Arabs.

      Anyway, just what were the numbers of Victorian women who were not under any significant male authority? Because surely there will always be some…

      • jim says:

        During colonialism the colonialists had a fun time, but the practice went very much out of fashion during imperialism, when supposedly the job of the imperialists was to morally improve and uplift.

        Notice that during colonialism, we were winning, and during imperialism, we were losing.

        Obviously there are no statistics about male control during the Victorian era, but Jane Austin was not under significant male authority, and appears to have behaved embarrassingly badly. When her family was through expurgating her life and letters there was not anything left. Her characters have fathers but their fathers are absent, weak, or ineffectual, so her characters are seldom under significant male authority when important plot developments arrive, and catch flack because of it from old women who have the old fashioned view that women not under male authority are not respectable. This may not necessarily reflect reality, it might just be the Disney rule that all child characters are orphans so that parents will not forbid them to engage in exciting adventures and send them to bed without any supper, but it seems to have been true enough of Jane Austin herself.

        Florence Nightingale was not under significant male control, and there are reasons to suspect she behaved very badly.

      • B says:

        >And when, I wonder, was the last time high status Western men had much interest in taking the wives or daughters of their enemies, besides the occasional fling with the occasional beauty.

        The Western aristocrats had a great interest in the wives and daughters of their fellow aristocrats, which is why you couldn’t hit a dead cat without hitting some royal or noble’s bastard.

        • jim says:

          Your ignorance is exceeded only by your arrogance. Again, you are reading whig history. The aristocrats kept their wives under control, and were profoundly embarrassed, in a career ending fashion, when they failed to do so.

          The whigs demonized the aristocracy and declared them to be unfashionable, in order to take power. You are credulously and ignorantly accepting their stories.

          • B says:

            Now you’re just telling tales.

            You can go on Wikipedia and see hordes of bastards.

            Like a communist, you explain inconvenient facts away by attacking the messenger-“of course he’d say that, he’s a capitalist/whig/has false consciousness!”

            • jim says:

              Nothing wrong with having hordes of bastards in addition to legitimate children. That is what aristocracy does. Wives of equal rank give you legitimate children, girlfriends from lower ranking families give you hordes of bastards. That is how aristocracy is supposed to work. You are accusing the aristocracy of screwing each other’s wives, a very different thing.

              Now it sometimes happened that a high status aristocrat screwed a lower status aristocrat’s wife, but it was not common, and it had bad consequences for everyone involved.

              You are buying into the rhetoric of evil aristocrats oppressing chaste women.

              The aristocracy would be degenerate if they screwed each others wives, and they would be degenerate if they had bastards instead of legitimate children, rather than as well as legitimate children.

              • B says:

                You are strawmanning.

                Those aristocrats were knocking up each others wives and daughters, and they were in fact degenerate.

                Which is why, for instance, Cromwell was able to stomp all over them.

                • B says:

                  Nobody said their women were chaste. Similar to how you and your women are rotten, they and their women were rotten.

                • jim says:

                  Whig history.

                • B says:

                  “Have you heard of Plato, Socrates, Aristotle? Morons!”

                  You know history better than Macaulay. It’s amazing!

                • jim says:

                  The standard B technique of argument: Authoritative sources supposedly confirm your position in some an unspecified way on some unspecified page.

    • jim says:

      If they are low status, no one cares. You get problems when people visualize them as the hapless virtuous victims of evil male aristocrats.

      • Antipas says:

        Jim, I don’t think you’ve taken into consideration what happens if Roissy gains too much status, as men who get a lot of action are prone to. More women than you anticipate could be persuaded to leave the reservation. It’s the Jeremy Meeks problem all over again.

        • jim says:

          It is inherent in the nature of the world that Roissy gains status, especially amongst women. A lock that opens for any key is a shitty lock. A key that opens any lock is an awesome key. The only effective measure is male property rights over women, and unowned women are low status and low value, because presumed to be whores and sluts.

          • Antipas says:

            Then you still fall into the welfare trap if you have too many magic keys opening all the locks. The number of women giving birth in rainy dark alleys could very well spiral.

            I suggest an added counter-incentive. That low status women who leave the reservation, act irresponsibly against their better interest and give birth to the children of itinerant manwhores will have any children taken from them. We all know that leaving these kids in their mothers’ hands will lead to eventual decline or at least an even bigger problem.

            Perhaps they can be given up for adoption. In any system, there will always be good, upstanding people who married well, played by the rules, did everything right and yet find themselves unable to conceive. Have them adopt these kids instead of being raised by their loser moms. That way loser moms will not be rewarded with joys of motherhood for their behavior. They will not given opportunity to chase after willing beta males to help raise the child.

            She will instead witness her child taken from her and placed in the hands of people who are good and upstanding and played by the rules. A mother’s biggest fear is to see her child taken from her before her very eyes.

            Shame and status are not enough. You need to play on people’s fears to get them to truly behave.

            • StringsofCoins says:

              Let those women D&C or disappear to aunt’s house for a year. They come back without any baby but people still whisper. That girl can still be marriage material cause she won’t precuck her future husband.

            • Cavalier says:

              If you caringly and lovingly raise the children of irresponsible mothers, you’re just promoting those genes.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Jim, you did not address the problem of soft polygamy, which is not much different than actual polygamy. Nor did you address the issue of male profligacy leading men to waste their brain and brawn acquiring additional pussy, instead of being preoccupied with civilization building. But this last paragraph is patently absurd:

    >Or if we could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned, then we could have the system that the Victorians and the Puritans pretended that they had. But that would require measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing, and, worst of all, inconvenient.

    Your favorite “ancient friends”, the Orthodox Jews, would tend to wildly and vehemently disagree here. As would many other populations — see Amish, Mormons, Shia Muslims, Salafists. I don’t think anything all these groups do is too inconvenient to try.

    Most of them don’t practice cliterodectamy, but the Semites do practice foreskin-chopping because they want to control male unchastity (they’ll give you other excuses; don’t listen), though the method isn’t particularly effectual – mostly it’s masturbation control.

    The problem isn’t and has never been male masturbation. The problem is males incentivizing female unchastity, by building harems, which women love, thus male unchastity leads to female unchastity, as well as vice versa.

    If by “don’t worry about male unchastity” you mean that I shouldn’t worry that — shockingly! — men masturbate to videos of hot sexy women doing hot sexy stuff, then indeed I don’t worry. I think the alt-right’s fixation against porn is exactly similar to vegans who can’t shut up about how horrible meat is. Show me any anti-porn argument, I’ll give you the exact same argument in the form of a vegan equivalent argument against meat consumption. Ascetics gonna ascetic.

    But if you tell me not to worry about men incentivizing female unchastity by building harems, by building harems instead of entering stable monogamous relationships (an alpha man who can build a harem by seduction, can definitely build a monogamous relationship), then you’re wrong, and I should worry. Women seduce and tempt men, but unchaste men who behave like Roissy incentivize this conduct.

    Roissy can get married. If all Roissies got married, the problem of female unchastity would greatly diminish. That they refuse to get married, preferring instead to pussy-hop, incentivizes unchastity on the women’s part, because the women get sex with the Roissies. So we should lower the status of unowned women, but also lower the status of don juans.

    How to lower the status of don juans, there’s the rub.

    • jim says:

      If anything is up for grabs, there will be a whole lot of energy and effort wasted on the grabbing. The solution is to propertize what is up for grabs, not to tell people to stop grabbing.

      If women are up for grabs, there will be a whole lot of energy and effort wasted on the grabbing. The solution is to propertize women, not to tell men to stop grabbing.

      Even if your plan is to marry one woman and be faithful to her all her days, you have to approach the problem using the same tactics and attitude as if your strategy is to pop as many virgins as possible. You have to be a total asshole and have preselection. If women were propertized, you would need to get her dad’s approval, and her dad would ask about your career and such.

      Roissy can get married. If all Roissies got married, the problem of female unchastity would greatly diminish.

      Pretty sure it would not diminish, because Roissy would not stop screwing other women in addition to his wife. Why would he?

      The problem is that your plan is not incentive compatible. Individuals and small groups are not motivated to actually enforce it, so it does not in fact get enforced. If we attempt to apply pressure against the Roissy’s of this world, we will not in fact have much effect on them, while we will have a huge effect on women, because the pressure we unsuccessfully apply to Roissy tells unowned women that they are high value.

      • Anonymous says:

        Ask B if enforcing minimal male chastity, in addition to strict female chastity, is impractical.

        He will lie. Orthodox male Jews fuck like minks at every opportunity. Orthodoxy has women under control, but they do not have men under control.

        • StringsofCoins says:

          Ah the old emasculate all men argument favored by weak pussy worshipping betafaggots everywhere. Here’s what’s wrong with what you are suggesting, which also happens to be what we are doing as a culture right now anyway. If you emasculate Roissy I’ll just add his sluts to my rotation. If you come emasculate me some other cad out there will just fuck both my and Roissy’s sluts. Even if you somehow manage to emasculate 99% of all men by getting them when they are little boys, forcing them into giant education facilities where they are forced to act like girls, told that acting like a girl is the greatest, drugged if they show any hint of masculinity, forced into seminars teaching them that “rape” is wrong, hell criminalize “rape” in addition to the actual property crime of rape, add estrogen to the water supply, etc etc there will still be the 1% of emotionally abused little boys who resist your insane evil emasculation and they will happily go about fucking 100% of the sluts.

          Not to mention now all the women who do want to get married are stuck trying to marry emasculated men who they despise. Who cannot control them. They will get less and less happy and start to invite the neighboring tribes men to come in and “rape” them and put them under control. Women don’t feel safe unless they are under control.

          But if we recognize that women are a reproductive asset and hence are property, and we incentive women to choose to enter the property/wife system by only giving those women male protection, and say we get 30% of women to choose to accept being a reproduce asset and a man’s property, then 30% of guys will be able to have a wife and family.

          So your pussy pedestal path where we just can’t allow the wee women to suffer the consequences of their own choices and we must protect all the womens by emasculating all men is literally what we’ve been doing. With absolutely disastrous effects.

          • Anonymous says:

            Where have I suggested emasculating anyone? Your entire first paragraph is a complete non-sequitur. Is that a PUA trick you’ve learned from Roissy? Am I being seduced here? I don’t feel seduced.

            >Not to mention now all the women who do want to get married are stuck trying to marry emasculated men who they despise.

            Women always bitch about how this group of men, or that group of men, is just “not good enough” for them. Of course men should be dominant – and use their dominance to get women into submission, whether they like it or not.

            >So your pussy pedestal path where we just can’t allow the wee women to suffer the consequences of their own choices and we must protect all the womens by emasculating all men is literally what we’ve been doing. With absolutely disastrous effects.

            Srsly doe, go read my posts here and in the previous thread – where have I suggested any of those things?

            Men can be masculine without being “cads”. You may not have had a real father as a role model, so you attempt to imitate and ape some PUA blogs in order to fill in this gap in your life, but in reality it is possible to be very masculine and, without any contradiction, not behave in any way similarly to Roissy. Masculine =/= cad.

            • StringsofCoins says:

              How do you propose to stop men from being cads? If not by emasculating all men? Which is exactly what our culture is trying to do. The proper answer is up elevate the status of owned women who submit to being reproductive property (wives) and lower the status of unowned whores and single mothers. Bring back bastardy laws, allow men to use force to protect their reproductive property, get rid of VAWA and Duluth, and allow whores and their bastards to suffer for the whores shitty decisions. Allow private charity to help the whores and require them to change to receive the assistance.

              The common white knights instinct to protect all the womens by subjegating all little boys into emasculated half eunuchs is what got us to where we are. It’s why the red pill came about. Because those emotionally abused psychologically castrated little boys grew up and realized being a simp half eunuch isn’t gonna work. Alt right fags need to realize that their pussy worshipping ways are what has gotten us to where we’re at.

              Let roissy fuck the sluts. Let me fuck the sluts. But stop giving those sluts and single mothers (I’ve made two) the same male protection and resources and respect as a woman who becomes a man’s property. Allow the slut subhuman scum single mothers to rot and throw themselves at the mercy of charity (low status) and you’ll get fewer of them. Give them the same status as a wife and mothers and it leads to me fucking your wife and the police arresting you when you threaten me over it.

              • jim says:

                Exactly so. Puritanism and Victorianism is exactly what gave us our present situation.

                If you “protect” unowned women from Roissy, you necessarily wind up “protecting” wives from husbands and children from fathers.

                And I am pretty sure that is exactly what the Puritans had in mind. “Protecting” sluts went hand in hand with desecrating marriage and introducing divorce. They protected sluts from Roissy so that they could fuck the wives and daughters of their congregation.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >If you “protect” unowned women from Roissy, you necessarily wind up “protecting” wives from husbands and children from fathers.

                  You can make it unpopular to be a cad, by making it a losing strategy, and by rendering cads as losers under the established male hierarchy, and it got absolutely nothing to do with “protecting unowned women”.

                  If men are allowed our own hierarchy, should put monogamous men as role models at the top of the hierarchy, and sleazy men who hit on everything that moves at the bottom.

                  And the raison d’etre and motivation for putting the sleazebags at the bottom are to uphold the ideal of patriarchal monogamy, not to protect sluts.

                  I don’t want to protect sluts. I want sleazeball cads at the bottom of the male hierarchy, and I want the male hierarchy to be the legitimate and the exclusive hierarchy. I really see nothing wrong with my proposal here.

                • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                  It makes more sense to pay more attention to controlling female sexuality than male sexuality because females are more apt to make strange, dumb, and/or wrong choices than males.

              • Anonymous says:

                >How do you propose to stop men from being cads? If not by emasculating all men?

                a) Stigmatize bachelorhood*;
                *needless to say, for both men and women

                b) Now the majority of women are married;

                c) Roissy no. 1 hits on a married woman, is shot dead;

                d) Roissy no. 2 also hits on married woman, also shot dead;

                ++

                e) Men and women see that male unchastity (in addition, of course, to female unchastity) is a losing strategy. Treat unchaste men as losers;

                f) Roissy no. X goes around hitting on plenty of women. Women see he’s unchaste. Treat him as loser, reject him. Men shun him;

                g) Roissy no. X comes to his senses, becomes monogamous. Or, more likely, runs himself out of town.

                ***

                So Jim and I agree that the solution is to make unowned women into owned women. But how can you do that if they want to stay unowned so they can get Roissy’s cock in their arse?

                I don’t know the answer. But it has nothing to do with “emasculation”. Actually I’ve got an idea: make male hierarchy, not female hierarchy, the acceptable normative hierarchy. Once male hierarchy is accepted as legitimate by everyone, put cads at the bottom. If cads at the bottom, no incentive to be cads.

                So we need to replace the female hierarchy, which favors cads, with a male hierarchy, in which cads are low-status, and monogamous men are high-status. Treat cads as pariahs.

                I see no reason why Jim should disagree with this. He’s written before about replacing female hierarchy with male hierarchy as the established hierarchy, so why not add a “condition”: that cads be put at the bottom of the male hierarchy? If under male hierarchy cads are treated as losers by other men, cads actually become losers – by definition. Problem solved.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Let roissy fuck the sluts. Let me fuck the sluts. But stop giving those sluts and single mothers (I’ve made two) the same male protection and resources and respect as a woman who becomes a man’s property.”

                Clearly you are other than a Christian man. Christian men remain virginal until married. Now, should you be a Christian man, stop giving yourself the license to fuck women whom you did not properly secure permission from their fathers, for you are to only fuck the woman you are to marry. You are claiming Christian cover for non-Christian behavior.

                “Give them the same status as a wife and mothers and it leads to me fucking your wife and the police arresting you when you threaten me over it.”

                You would be hung from the nearest tree for fucking another man’s wife.

                • jim says:

                  What you call Christianity, I call demon worship.

                  Come the restoration, if there are such a large number of demon worshipers that it is impolitic to proceed with heresy charges and executions, we are going to make them low status, teach their children that they are bad people, and give them a hard time, pretty much the sort of treatment the Cathedral currently gives Nazis.

                  How do I know that they are worshiping demons? Because they promote divorce romances and cheer single mums and transexuals as stunning and brave. It seems to be psychologically difficult to oppose male bad behavior without supporting female bad behavior.

          • Anonymous says:

            Commentator “StringsofCoins” thinks that if you don’t hit on every woman you see, taken or not taken, then you’re a pussywhipped beta faggot. Is that how your dad behaves? Does he hit on every woman he sees, taken or not taken? Do you think this is what a man should be like? No, wait, you’re not connected with your dad, are you? That’s why you believe that only Roissy-like cads are masculine – you have no father figure.

            Tell your single mother I said hi, faggot.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Choosing not to hit on women is fine.

              Not hitting on women out of fear is ball-less emasculated behavior. Attempting to enforce monogamy exclusively on men rather than women is emasculating because everyone knows this – people can smell fear.

              Even worse – it’s sexual anarcho-tyranny. Men who have the most to lose from social sanctions will walk on eggshells around women out of fear of the sanctions. Men who have nothing to lose will act cocky and high status.

              • Anonymous says:

                >Attempting to enforce monogamy exclusively on men rather than women

                Idiotic strawman. I said explicitly that chastity is inherently more essential for women than for men, BUT there should also be minimal chastity for men, by which I mean that cad-conduct should be treated as inferior to monogamous conduct, and cads should be treated as inferior to monogamous men.

                (Not everyone who wants minimal chastity for men is “white knight feminist”. Lol – I said several times that I don’t actually care if unowned women get raped, yet somehow I’m “white knight feminist”. Come on. You should address the argument I make, not the argument I don’t make)

                Nor do I want the Feminist Regime — whose dismantling I ardently support — to “emasculate” or “intimidate” men. I want it to be legitimate for monogamous men to put cads in their place – that’s all.

        • jim says:

          > To incentivize the propertization of women, need men to seek women as wives rather than mere disposable fuckholes, and need women to see men as more than walking dildos. Roissy is a walking dildo (albeit a high IQ one), and he sees women as disposable fuckholes, therefore he’s a problem. As long as Roissy is there, women want to be “raped” by him. Roissy needs not to be there.

          Again, your solution is not incentive compatible. Substantially reducing the problem of unowned women is incentive compatible. Substantially reducing the problem of Roissy is not. Further, any attempt to reduce the Roissy problem will not only fail, but substantially worsen the unowned woman problem. If you go after Roissy for going after unowned women, you are telling women that being unowned is high status and high value, and being owned by a man is low status and low value.

          When women hear someone ranting against Roissy, they correctly hear someone saying “Those unowned women are high value and precious. No fair Roissy gets them all. I want some!”

          Ranting against Roissy is scarcity mentality, and women intuit it from a mile away.

          No matter how much you believe you are not speaking from scarcity, women will never believe it. Which is why trying to suppress Roissy will never work.

          • Anonymous says:

            >Substantially reducing the problem of Roissy is not.

            If you can artificially lower the status of women, as your friends the Orthodox Jews do, then you can artificially lower the status of cads, as was the norm before Romanticism became a thing. To lower the status of cads, need male hierarchy in which cads are at the bottom, and need this male hierarchy to be the only acceptable hierarchy.

            >Which is why trying to suppress Roissy will never work.

            Roissies thrive under sexual chaos, because under sexual chaos women favor cads over dads. If sexual order is put in place of sexual chaos, and male hierarchy put instead of female hierarchy, then no need to “rant” against Roissy – enough to treat him as inferior, and he is automatically transubstantiated into being inferior.

            If Roissy is inferior, being considered low-status, then Roissy doesn’t get laid, or doesn’t get laid as often as he likes, or with the kind of women that he likes (hot sluts), and men don’t look up to him, but rather look down on him, and eventually what happens is that he ends up physically removing himself from society, or less likely, becomes monogamous.

            That cads are “cool” rather than sleazy malcontents is a meme, and memes are subject to change. Dark Enlightenment should seek to change the meme according to which cads are cool, and and put forth instead the meme that cads are low-status sleazy malcontent losers.

            Put Roissy at bottom of male hierarchy, reduce him to misery, and he runs himself out of town.

            • ron says:

              “and he runs himself out of town.”

              Alternatively he does a Hamilton and marries high.

              There is a reason for the “tomcat gene”. That’s the agressive badboy gene that Get Shit Done TM. When that character quality is given proper incentives and disincentives to misbehave (and he will, that’s just who he is), then he will tame himself enough to work with the system.

              Societies that provide such an environment for their Badboys tend to start dominating everyone around them.

          • Anonymous says:

            Roissy seems especially averse to fat women. If Roissy is rendered low-status, and all hot women are monogamously married, and the only women available to his courting, the only women with whom he can score, are fat low-status sluts, then Roissy will flee for his life, and everyone will be better off for it.

            The meme should be that Roissy is low-status, and the male hierarchy should back up that meme.

            • ron says:

              “Roissy seems especially averse to fat women.”

              Most normal men are.

            • Cavalier says:

              He’s high-status if he can subvert the male hierarchy, and low-status if he cannot. If you live in an age in which it is high-status to subvert the male hierarchy, it is low-status for you to conform to the male hierarchy and low-status to play by the rules.

              I believe Jim’s example of this was DiCaprio’s character in the movie The Titanic.

              To make Roissy low-status, simply make it rather hazardous to one’s health to subvert the male hierarchy.

        • Jack Highlands says:

          This only works for Orthodox Jews because Jews are a parasitic ethnicity, not a self-contained one. Their parasitism has many facets, from banking to entertainment, but here it is sexual: clearly the opportunistic minking of these Orthodox men is with Gentile minxes, not Orthodox harridans. If they had to plow and weld and build for a living, only among their own, there would be few to no such opportunities.

          Of course, if they had to plow and weld and build for a living, their religion would be something quite different than it is: Judaism is in reality a huge set of mythological and legalistic excuses for a parasitic evolutionary strategy, masquerading as a religion.

          • Anonymous says:

            You are 100% correct about Orthodox Jews being parasites, but if you think the average black-hatter is fucking Gentile women on a regular basis, you’re wrong. B the hypocrite won’t admit to it, but his folks masturbate to porn all the time, especially during niddah. Also, during niddah they visit prostitutes, who may or may not be Gentile.

            During niddah, B is either getting blowjobs from his wife, or jerking off. You don’t go 2 weeks without an orgasm, especially if you’re a horny Jew. But he can pretend that this is not the case, because we don’t have cameras in his bedroom.

            • B says:

              I’m not going to lower myself to a detailed discussion.

              Let me put it this way:

              1. Nobody here is important enough for me to lie to.

              2. Amazingly, contrary to what your cathedral has been telling you, you can go for weeks without orgasm, with absolutely no ill effects. Your head will not explode, you will not get cancer, nothing bad will happen to you. This isn’t some secret.

              3. I practice my religion in good faith, and from what I understand, most of us do as well.

              4. Jews in Israel do the same jobs for a living as Americans in America. My local plumber, builder and welder are Jewish. My house is surrounded by Jewish vineyards and fields, tended by Jewish labor. If you go to Orthodox neighborhoods in the US, it turns out that people there work for a living as well. Not many hang drywall, but then again, you won’t find many Americans with a moderately high IQ/education hanging drywall either. You should read less propaganda.

              • Anonymous says:

                The people in Bnei Brak and Mea Shearim are parasites, you damn well know it. Enough with the obfuscation.

              • Jack Highlands says:

                NAXALT, bro. No one is implying there are no Jewish plumbers, builders and welders in America, just disproportionately few.

                But clearly, historical White attempts to get Jews to do these jobs in greater proportion are quite misguided. A people who evolved to fill useful roles in Carolingian times as the literate and numerate scribes, lawyers, accountants and tax farmers for the largely illiterate Dark Age Germanic aristocracy has their collective talent mostly wasted in these occupations.

                Unfortunately for both you and us, we long ago became literate and numerate enough to do these jobs for ourselves, at which point the relationship morphed from symbiotic to parasitic, which it has been in the West now for centuries – frankly destructive for us. Jews are like women: once emancipated, the very same talents that were once useful and constructive, become destructive.

                In the long run, )))we((( seem to have only two options. One is to remain slaves to a malevolent foe and the other is to absorb what little Jewish element we can (history says this is very difficult) and send the rest packing, perhaps to Israel, where you will have to bank, plumb, notarize and weld as best you can.

                BTW, we also need to remember that a Jew who owns a plumbing company with 5 White foremen and 25 Squatamalan plumber’s laborers, is not a plumber, even if that’s how he got started. (I know, I know, it’s all education and work ethic – if only we goys had some.)

                • Anonymous says:

                  Again you’re correct, but you haven’t taken your argument far enough, because you’re too generous towards the Jews. In reality, it’s not just proletarian stuff that Jews fail at; it’s also engineering and the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture, music).

                  Engineering is the most important issue in this case, because all the technologies that sustain the world come not from “muh high verbal IQ” “Jewish geniuses”, but rather from White engineers; and when you realize how *little* Ashkenazim have to do with actual technological invention and actual technological progress, you can’t even compel yourself to give faint commendation to the much-touted “Jewish scientists”.

                  Everything you utilize and enjoy which involves technology of any kind, that thing has been brought to you by White engineers, not by Ashkenazi physicists.

                  In the alternative-universe timeline, not the one where Hillary won, but the one where Hitler won, scientific progress has obviated aging, eradicated a plethora of malignant and debilitating diseases, and allowed Man to conquer space – for real. Contrast that counterfactual vista with our all-too-factual timeline, and then ask yourself whose triumph has been achieved in WWII? (not the triumph of humanity)

                  Now when you realize all this — and I’m not going to write here about Jewish “art”, that issue has been thoroughly dissected elsewhere — and then you reflect on the “down side” of Jewish influence: Marxism 1.0 aka Communism in all its manifestations, Marxism 2.0 aka Modern Progressive Liberalism in all its manifestations, and all of the rest of it, then how can you come to any conclusion other than that the world has suffered and lost tremendously due to Jews, and that — this is key here — Jewish influence has been neither a net-benefit, nor an equilibrium, but an outright NET-LOSS, and indeed a great loss, to the entire human race?

                  And the cherry on top of the cake is this:

                  https://aeon.co/ideas/if-babies-were-randomly-allocated-to-families-would-racism-end

                  Read this venomous bile coming directly from Satan’s mouth, look at the names of those who wrote it, and then tell me: do (((they))) offer even a mild net-benefit, or are they a great net-loss for everyone?

                  (Close your eyes and imagine that all A. Wyatt Mann cartoons about Jews were exaggerated – then open the eyes, and see that if anything, he was way too soft on them)

                • Cavalier says:

                  >In reality, it’s not just proletarian stuff that Jews fail at; it’s also engineering and the arts (painting, sculpture, architecture, music).

                  The arts, yes, but engineering? I seem to recall the roster of Los Alamos reading much like a Yeshiva yearbook.

                • Anonymous says:

                  If I ask you to look around in the room where you currently sit, and tell me who created all this, all the stuff you see around you, there’s good chance you’ll say that 100% of what you see was invented and created by males, not females.

                  If I ask you further, you’ll note that, with all due respect to East Asian manufacturing, it is European and European-descended people who furnished the brainpower and the ingenuity to create everything you see in the room around you. Am I wrong? Was the room and all that is in it built by lesbian Muslim crippled otherkin black women? Let’s not be ridiculous.

                  Now, how many things you see in the room are the product of Jewish engineering, versus White engineering? I bet that nothing you see is the result of Jewish engineering – it’s only “ughh fucking cishet white males” who created all of it, really all of it. Not Jews.

                  And it’s not just the room, it’s the streets, it’s the factories, it’s everywhere you look. White prodigies invent, White proles build. If Jews have contributed so much to engineering, why can’t you point your finger at anything around you that was invented by a Jewish engineer or a team thereof?

                  Jews lack visuospatial IQ and visuospatial imagination (which, my theory goes, is distinct from IQ), so Jews can theorize and ruminate, but they still need Whites to build civilization for them, because abstract reasoning alone is insufficient for civilization construction. Construction, literal and figurative, from the laborer-brawn side and from the engineer-brain side, is essentially a Gentile thing.

                  Jews can be engineers and not create much of value, just as they can be artists and likewise only make the world uglier. Jews are “successful” but the sole beneficiaries of this “success” are their bank accounts and their bellies, which both grow fatter and fatter, at your expense.

                • Cavalier says:

                  There are legitimate arguments against Jews, financial parasitism and degenerate art among them, but not against their intellect. They are far over-represented in engineering, along with science and math.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Overrepresented =/= a positive influence on the field.

                  They’re overrepresented in many good things or potentially good things. And they turn those potentially good things into actually bad things. That’s the whole point.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Women are now overrepresented in academia. Has academia benefited?

                  Jews are overrepresented among medium and upper class professions. Have those professions benefited?

                  No, and no.

          • Sir Charles Pipkins says:

            The last line is the most succinct definition of jews ever.

            It is the most efficient group evo strategy to restrict your women’s freedom but give more hand for yoir men to spread their seed wider. Googles call this coalburner skank strategy ‘P’lutin’.

    • safespaceplaypen says:

      lol there literally is not enough “don juans” for your concern to be legitimate. You make it seem like a significant enough percentage of males are able to seduce multiple women, and maintain multiple relationships, with ease. sorry bud. ain’t happening. Good game is simply too hard to learn, which is why the pua attrition rate is so high.

      In a society where monogamy is highly valued and is taken seriously, most women simply will not be available for these “soft” polygamist lifestyles. I recall a book by the pimp iceberg slim, that emphasized on girls who end up getting “pimped” were generally bad, vice loving girls to begin with. converting a girl who was raised well and honors her father into a slut or a whore is very very difficult, so difficult that 99.99999999% of men aren’t going to be willing to learn the necessary skills in order to do it.

      also, the status of don juans can’t be lowered. not happening. they have their status due to their ability to obtain (puss) what most other men are not able to obtain. Their scarcity and skill is what gives them their associated admiration. So long as men respect other other men for participating in something thats very rare and difficult (i.e. obtaining lots of puss) then men will always respect don juans lol

      • Jack Highlands says:

        I agree somewhat about the difficulty of good game, and it’s only getting tougher, in part because the reaction of chicks becoming vaguely aware of some of the basic aspects of it (eg the word ‘friendzone’ has been mainstream vocab for several years now) has been that they need to be gamed all the harder.

        However, I disagree about converting a girl who was ‘raised well,’ unless you want to argue that almost all girls HB>5 now are raised poorly, since almost all girls HB>5 now will have >5 sexual partners by age 30, and most of these partner men will have either natural game or acquired game. (The common saw of ‘20% of the men are fucking 80% of the HB>5 women’ implies that moderate game skills, at least, are not quite as rare as you suggest, though we do seem to be sliding headlong toward 5% of the men fucking 95% of the HB>5’s.)

        The optimal number of lifetime sexual partners for women in a society where monogamy is highly valued and is taken seriously, to use your own words, is one. Average that up past 1.2 or so (to account for the odd clandestine fornication that slips by the patriarchs), or worse yet, make it socially OK for that number to be >1, and almost all the HB>5 women in the society, even those ‘raised well’, will eventually become sluts. As we see today.

    • B says:

      The worst thing about modern Western society is that it knows exactly how to pander to each man’s desires according to his level in order to corrupt and enslave him.

      With dumb men, it just needs to show them ostentatious consumption and prostitutes, and watch them degrade themselves to the level of dumb beasts.

      With smart men, it seduces them into spinning extensive narratives in order to justify and rationalize doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place. This is actually more degrading than the first case. The smart not only degrade themselves but enslave their faculty of intellect, which is the highest part of themselves, to their appetites, which are the lowest part. This is the ultimate degradation.

      Masturbation is categorically prohibited by Judaism, and I think also by Muslims, and for very good reasons.

      Porn is, in fact, the devil, on many levels. Any society where it is openly produced and consumed is deeply ill. Any man who respects himself will avoid it.

      No normal man in a normal society will look at a man bragging about his sexual conquests with anything other than disgust or pity. The same reaction that a heroin addict with open sores or a morbidly obese man elicit in the healthy.

      But, hey, that’s just my Jewish perspective. You can always listen to Uncle Jim’s elaborate rationalizations on how you should pander to your animalistic instincts. If you want his results.

      • Anonymous says:

        >With smart men, it seduces them into spinning extensive narratives in order to justify and rationalize doing whatever they wanted to do in the first place. This is actually more degrading than the first case. The smart not only degrade themselves but enslave their faculty of intellect, which is the highest part of themselves, to their appetites, which are the lowest part. This is the ultimate degradation.

        Spoken like a true-believing vegan.

        Btw, I agree that (((pornographers))) are scum, and porn whores are scum, and ideally both groups should end up in forced labor camps. But to claim that a man with a normal testosterone level, normal sex-drive, who occasionally rubs one out to pics or vids of hot sexy women doing hot sexy stuff, to claim that he’s literally possessed by the Devil, is puritanal and manichean.

        If you think that occasionally watching hot sexy women doing hot sexy stuff is sick, you should spend some time with no-fappers and MGTOWs. Then you’ll encounter true sickness. Ascetics are invariably worse off than those whom they accuse of moral or spiritual contamination. Invariably.

        But no one will stand up for it, because puritans always get the “moral high ground”, and shame their adversaries relentlessly, plus there’s the issue of hypocrisy, in that 30% of the internet is porn, but due to the official and unofficial dominance of Puritanism, everyone has to pretend to be against it. Same reason why age-of-consent never falls, only rises. Puritanism is entrenched.

        • StringsofCoins says:

          It fools your brain into believing that you just busted a nut into that picture girl. It’s fake and part of the fakery. It gives men unrealistic expectations of women and normalizes porn whores as what they need to get aroused. So then the ugly no game men don’t get aroused by the women in their league, don’t go ask them on a date, and then to get married, and then sex a baby into them.

          You can blame the (((pornographers))) just like you blame the cads with game up above. At some point you need to take responsibility for your own life and stop scapegoating.

          • Anonymous says:

            >It gives men unrealistic expectations of women

            Here it is again…

            >normalizes porn whores as what they need to get aroused. So then the ugly no game men don’t get aroused by the women in their league, don’t go ask them on a date, and then to get married, and then sex a baby into them.

            Why don’t you guys actually have any evidence to back you up? Look, if there was absolutely no mobility, in that men who get laid never bust a nut to a pic of a hot chick, and men who bust a nut to a pic of a hot chick never get laid, then maybe, perhaps, you had a point. But that’s the thing – it just doesn’t work that way.

            I’ve never heard from any man, ever, that he’s only aroused by pornstars and not “real women”. Never. In fact, go to any porn site – plenty of BBWs, MILFs, midgets, other stuff in there. It’s not the prevalent norm, usually men watch hot chicks, but you guys should make up your mind, because I’m hearing two conflicting arguments from the anti-porn crowd, and it’s getting tiring.

            1) first argument: porn makes you only attracted to blondes with big boobs who are in their 20s and symmetrical in the face, so you’re no longer attracted to “realistic” women. This argument is common among women.

            2) second argument: porn desensitizes you, and makes you attracted to ever more strange and bizarre things. This argument is common among those actually familiar with porn.

            The thing is, the anti-porn people can never make up their mind which is it – is porn making you into a pervert who’s attracted to everything, or to a high-expectations dude who doesn’t get a boner for regular women? Obviously, it’s either this or that, can’t be both.

            And I mean, you must be a woman to think as you do. Are you a woman? Because what you describe is 100% the opposite of reality. It’s literally 100% the opposite of every Manosphere blog ever. In reality, men almost always date BELOW their league, while it is the average woman who finds the average man unattractive.

            You write: “ugly no game men don’t get aroused by the women in their league” but everywhere I observe, I see the direct total opposite: ugly bitchy women not attracted to the men in their league, fucking around with men above their league, while ugly men complain that ugly women don’t look at them, going instead after the alphas. And average men complain that average women ignore them. This is every manosphere blog ever.

            You can’t just turn reality upside down. It is women who have the unrealistic high expectations (naturally), and it is women who are the rejectors in the vast majority of cases.

            You think the ugly woman is refused sex by the ugly man, rather than vice versa? Are you retarded or just a woman?

            Men today seem to not have any expectations at all, but every time it turns out that men do have some, not hard to fulfill, expectations, the entire Feminist-Conservadad complex is weeping and wailing about how hard it is to be a woman these days, when in fact it’s never been easier.

            • StringsofCoins says:

              If you couldn’t have sex with your hand and fake women you’d feel the pressure to go have sex with an ugly white women and put some babies into her.

      • Anonymous says:

        Btw B, Jim has two sons, and you have either one or two children. What gives you the chutzpah to belittle Jim’s “results”?

        • B says:

          1) How do you know how many children I have?

          2) How do you know how many children I will have before I am done?

          3) The typical family in my community/group has between 5 and 10 children, and most of those children stay in the community when they grow up, and go on to have 5-10 children themselves. This is due to values driving behavior. If you want the same results, you need the same behavior. If you want the same behavior, you need the same values.

          4) The difference between asceticism and Torah is that ascetics believe in the annulation of human drives and appetites, whereas the Torah teaches us to channel them appropriately. In other words, so that those drives serve our intellect as our intellect serves G-d.

          5) The no-fappers are completely correct on their flagship issue, and their emergence as a movement from the nuthouse which is the chans actually gives me some hope for the alt right and Western men.

          6) I’ve met quite a few drug addicts in my life, and generally they all had a rationalization about how their use of heroin or coke or meth “once in a while” was totally compatible with them leading a normal human existence. Masturbation is more addictive than heroin, coke or meth, and much harder to give up.

          7) Think about the feeling you get when you finish watching pornography/masturbating. Is it a good feeling? Are you proud of yourself? Do you feel manly? Typically, good things do not leave you feeling disgusted with yourself.

          8) Think about the people who made pornography, masturbation, sterile sex and promiscuity acceptable and praiseworthy. People like the Rockefellers, or Jocelyn Elders, or Kinsey. Do you think these are good people? Do they have your best interests at heart? Are they trying to help you, or help you destroy yourself?

          • Anonymous says:

            >How do you know how many children I have?

            You wrote in some comment that you have 1, and another is on the way, or some such. Unless something gruesome has occurred since then, you should have 1 or 2 kids. Of course, it could all be made up, but I take you at your word.

            >How do you know how many children I will have before I am done?

            Don’t need to. Right now, it is a fact that you don’t have more kids than Jim. Hence, no point bragging about “results”. When in a decade or so you actually get the intended results, then you could condescend. [at this junction I’m supposed to praise the virtue of humility, but what that would be futile]

            >I’ve met quite a few drug addicts in my life, and generally they all had a rationalization about how their use of heroin or coke or meth “once in a while” was totally compatible with them leading a normal human existence.

            On the other hand, most alcohol consumers aren’t alcoholics, and actually are capable of consuming in moderation. Of course, comparing your brainwashing-target to “addicts” is standard vegan tactic:

            Vegan: “You’ve made up a bunch of rationalizations why you won’t give up meat, but the truth of the matter is: you’re addicted.”

            Human: “Nope. Pretty sure I just like the ol’ steak for lunch.”

            Vegan: “Obviously you’re so deeply attached to your rationalization for your addiction that you can’t even imagine breaking out from the cycle of addiction.”

            And on, and on, and on it goes. Same with no-fappers. Of course, an argument of the “you’re addicted” type can be made about anything, essential or non-essential. The point being is that the brainwasher will misrepresent all explanations you give him, however sound and rational, as “evidence” that you are so very deeply in denial about “reality”.

            The vegan “knows” that you are better off eating lettuce, and he “knows” that you know it yourself, deep deep down inside your heart, and he sees it as his job to disabuse you of your addiction to meat (false consciousness). Oy vey, such a thankless job.

            Someone should compile a list of all vegan arguments, and a list of all anti-fap arguments, and compare between them, because it’s basically the exact same argument — same appeal to misguided emotion, same ascetic impulse, same unwarranted sense of superiority, etc. — but with a different subject matter du jour.

            >Think about the feeling you get when you finish watching pornography/masturbating. Is it a good feeling? Are you proud of yourself? Do you feel manly? Typically, good things do not leave you feeling disgusted with yourself.

            Do you guys copy from each other, or what? I’ve had the exact same words told me by a Jew, a traditionalist guy who attempted to become “baal teshuva” but failed. Anyway, the answer is that of course masturbation is a horrible thing. But not because it’s a “sin” or whatever [insert moral panic] you want to call it, but because every time you masturbate, it’s a time you didn’t jizz inside a pussy – so Nature made sure you’ll regret it, and try next time to jizz inside a woman, thus spreading your DNA.

            So of course you’ll feel bad. You should feel bad every time you jizz in your hand and not inside a woman. That doesn’t mean that masturbation/porn consumption equals LUCIFER. It means that sexlessness is bad and unhealthy, and in contrast, sex is good and healthy.

            I believe that promiscuous sex with lots of sluts is not at all an ideal one should aspire to. Yet, evolution made it so that after you bang 20 sluts in 2 months, you don’t feel bad about yourself, you don’t feel ashamed (whether or not you *should* feel ashamed is something else entirely).

            Whereas, once you jizz in your hand, you do feel ashamed. A binary-thinking normiefag would conclude that banging 20 sluts in 2 months is, therefore, better than jizzing in your hand, relatively speaking. But in fact, while the evolutionary incentive is clear, from a human perspective it’s better to jizz in your hand than inside slut no. 15, or whore no. 8. Sexual shame exists for a reason – it exists to compel you to seek an optimal sexual outlet. Nothing more, nothing less.

            Many “no-fappers” are worse degenerates than “fappers”, at least according to my definition of degeneracy, because they promote one-night-stands, short-term sexual relationships, and PUA. One-night-stands, short-term sexual relationships, and PUA are infinitely — yes, infinitely — more socially destructive than spilling the semen on your palm, leg, and floor while watching a large breasted chick doing something erotic every now and then.

            No-strings-attached sex, pump-and-dump sex, friends-with-benefits sex – all those things, at the end of the day, are more degenerate than jerking off to whatever, because when you jerk off to whatever, you merely empty your balls of accumulated ball-juice, but when you play around with actual human beings, you influence society.

            Puritans and other histrionics can pretend all they like, but people need sexual release, and men especially need it on a regular, basically daily basis, because our balls are full of juice. Jizz-in-hand is bad, because one needs actual sex, but it’s not socially destructive, and if that’s all you have, then that’s that. Jizz-in-hand is bad for the same reason eating a crappy meal, instead of a delicious and nutritious meal, is bad – not necessarily because the crappy meal contains cyanide, in fact it doesn’t contain cyanide, but because you are programmed to seek something better, and something better actually is, well, better for you.

            So I have no problem with jizz-in-hand per se, because if that’s what you have, that’s what you have. I do have a problem with the fact that jizz-in-hand is the only outlet for sexual release for many men. Regardless, the REAL degeneracy is hopping from one cunt to another willingly, that is, being a slimeball who instead of building a family focuses on “cool” (purposeless) promiscuity. That actually, tangibly, materially harms society.

            >The difference between asceticism and Torah is that ascetics believe in the annulation of human drives and appetites, whereas the Torah teaches us to channel them appropriately. In other words, so that those drives serve our intellect as our intellect serves G-d.

            Standard Stoic argument about subduing emotions to intellect, which you can claim is from “The Torah”, yet strangely enough, the Torah is completely silent about emotions giving way to intellect, though I’m sure you’ll find a way to torture the text. Like a good rabbinic, you can always just claim that it is the Stoics who stole the idea of subjugating emotion to reason from you, and that it’s a mere coincidence that the rabbis “discovered” this idea buried deep inside the text of the Torah only after their Gentile neighbors informed them of the good news.

            But in fact, when there is a certain impulse you’re trying to make go away, either by “channeling it” (Freudian bullshit) somewhere, or by praying really, really hard that it disappear, you’re still engaging in a form of asceticism. Because asceticism is not what you think and how you rationalize your conduct, but what you actually do. Vegans are ascetics in deed, and their thoughts are irrelevant. Likewise, people who decided upon a life of celibacy are ascetic, and whether or not they believe that they “channel” their pent-up sexual desire into something else, ascetics they remain.

            Torah or no Torah, Stoicism or no Stoicism, people are ascetic if they behave ascetically, thus, I define vegans and no-fappers as ascetics, based on what they do, or rather what they don’t do, and their arguments (which, as I said above, are literally identical) are wholly irrelevant, because it’s actions that count, not the words used to rationalize them.

            • B says:

              1500 years before the Stoics, G-d told us as follows:

              You shall love the Lord your G-d with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might.

              And we say that three times a day.

              Obviously, if you love G-d with all your being, you will channel all your impulses into His service. Askesis involves the nullification and suppression of desires, not their subjection to a higher service.

              The very fact that you need extensive rationalizations for engaging in behavior that your own soul tells you is degrading and contemptible tells me you know you’re wrong. And you’re smart enough to know veganism is a non-sequitur. A more reasonable metaphor would be someone who eats organic meat in limited quantities as opposed to gas station beef jerky 8 times a day.

              By the way, whoring around won’t make you feel much better.

              Regarding kids-I’ve averaged one per year of marriage so far. It is, of course, possible that G-d will stop blessing us in this way. Some very heroic and holy people I know have had difficulties in this area. But I’ve done and am doing everything possible to ensure that this will not happen. This is despite the fact that the mileu I grew up in was explicitly anti-child, and that the majority of my non-religious peers think that a family with two children is big.

              As for Jim-he grew up in a mileu where 1-3 children were normal for a straight man to have, and he had the average number of children. I can tell you that the way of the world is that a normal, healthy married woman gets pregnant and has a child every 1-3 years, depending on nursing and other things. So if someone was married for 20-30 years and produced 2 children, that tells you that either there were fertility problems, he was in jail or castaway on an island for most of that time, or they used birth control to reduce the number of children they would have. I have no idea what the case was for Jim specifically, but I fail to notice neoreactionaries with large families. If you want their results, you should adapt their beliefs.

            • Anonymous says:

              >The very fact that you need extensive rationalizations

              I rationalized nothing, vegan. It’s always ascetics who concoct excuses for their prohibitions, not the people who outright reject those prohibitions.

              You can tell me all day long, with a very concerned countenance, that a bottle of beer every week is SATANIC and if I disagree and claim it isn’t, I’m just rationalizing my alcoholism. Likewise, you can claim that meat consumption is spiritually contaminating and when I disagree, you can accuse me of rationalizing.

              I rationalize absolutely nothing. I reject your asceticism – period.

              >And you’re smart enough to know veganism is a non-sequitur.

              You are using word for word, literally, vegan argumentation. E.g: “you’re rationalizing your behavior”, “you are addicted”, etc. Simply replace masturbation/porn with meat, and you needn’t change a single word in the rest of the argument. Of course ascetics who share one form of asceticism, but not others, don’t like it pointed out to them.

              “Oh no, vegans are just mouth-frothing loonies. Whereas, I’m just trying to help!” No, you’re still an ascetic telling others what spiritually contaminates them using typical language. And like vagans and Prohibitionists, you can’t keep the asceticism to yourself – your whole fun is derived from getting others involved.

              >By the way, whoring around won’t make you feel much better.

              Right, but you don’t feel shame after climax as with masturbation. Of course ideally everyone should be married monogamously, but empirically there are many kinds of situations.

              >I fail to notice neoreactionaries with large families. If you want their results, you should adapt their beliefs.

              Nick B Steves claims to have 8. But I do get your point.

            • Anonymous says:

              >Askesis involves the nullification and suppression of desires, not their subjection to a higher service.

              [Muh Superior Morality]
              [Muh Superior Rationality]
              [Muh Superior Religion]
              [Muh Superior Philosophy]

              You see, it doesn’t really matter what words you’re using to rationalize ascetic prohibitions. You’re arguing against spiritual contamination, like Prohibitionists and like vegans.

              You’re not arguing against something in the material world, that affects material reality. You’re arguing metaphysics, and you appeal to emotion mostly. I reject your metaphysics.

            • Anonymous says:

              It’s nothing new that people with a religious/moralistic agenda accuse others of “rationalizing” when it’s they who rationalize their own stuff. Take Biblical Onan.

              Onan’s crime, which made God furious at him, is that he had an obligation to impregnate his deceased brother’s wife, but when he fucked her, he pulled out, spilled his seed outside of her, thus not impregnating her.

              “8 And Judah said unto Onan: ‘Go in unto thy brother’s wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her, and raise up seed to thy brother.’ 9 And Onan knew that the seed would not be his; and it came to pass when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest he should give seed to his brother. 10 And the thing which he did was evil in the sight of the LORD; and He slew him also.”

              Now ladies and gentlemen: do you see here anything about masturbation, in and of itself, being a horrible crime? I don’t. It’s not in the text. Yet, B and others with a religious agenda will argue that, why, of course that’s what is meant, and I’m just rationalizing.

              In fact, the Bible is silent about masturbation. It’s a fact. According to the text, Onan’s crime was pulling out and spilling outside, when he was supposed to cum inside. But B will have the audacity to claim that I’m “rationalizing”, which is really what he is doing.

            • Anonymous says:

              I’m not rationalizing anything because I don’t need to. I merely state that X is okay in my view. Since you claim X is wrong, I counter your accusation. X can be meat or beer or whatever. Rationalizing is what you do, because you’re trying to get me to feel your feelings about an issue. I merely refuse to feel your feelings.

            • Anonymous says:

              To think about this issue objectively, replace [insert spiritual panic] with something you’re not viscerally averse to, such as music. From the perspective of someone who doesn’t think music is degenerate, the Islamic fundamentalist who preaches against it is seen as nothing but a histrionic.

              Or to take another example, I’ve once had an argument with someone over the net, whom I presume to be a low testosterone low sex-drive fatso, who attempted to convince me that “too much sex” with one’s own wife is degenerate. He didn’t even both to give any solid definition of “too much”, but that’s beside the point – the point is that I didn’t share his sentiment at all, that I don’t think that “too much sex” between husbands and wives is something one should, ever, worry about. (When I impersonate alt-righters, I make the same argument, to see what responses it elicits)

              If you’re worried about people having too much sex, or listening to music, or eating meat, or drinking a beer bottle once a week, or sometimes jerking off – if you worry about any if these “moral contaminations”, you’re an ascetic, and it’s your emotion-based argument that contains implausible rationalizations. The person who doesn’t share your view isn’t “rationalizing”, just rejecting your agenda, whatever it is.

            • Anonymous says:

              “But my definition of moral contaminations is valid, whereas their definition isn’t valid!”

              You can think that, but don’t be so solipsistic as to assume others share your sentiment “deep inside” – they don’t. People who don’t share your sentiment about music/meat/beer/whatever — you better believe it — actually genuinely don’t share your sentiment. Shocking, I know. Oy vey.

            • Anonymous says:

              Just as you “instinctively know” that this or that is a spiritual contamination, the bearded Islamic preacher knows that music is spiritual contamination, and the SJW knows that privileged microaggressions are spiritual contamination, and the Mormon knows that coffee is spiritual contamination, and the vegan… you get the point.

              If I disagree with the Islamic about music and with the Mormon about coffee, it’s not because I’m “rationalizing addiction” to those things or what have you. It’s because my metaphysics are not their metaphysics, and what morally freaks them out, doesn’t morally freak me out. It’s a simple point I’m making.

            • Anonymous says:

              And if it weren’t clear, I support the Islamic’s right to prohibit music in his community, the Mormon’s right to prohibit coffee in his community, the vegan’s right to (form a community and then) prohibit meat in his community, etc etc. But I don’t share their sentiment, and I don’t share yours.

      • Cavalier says:

        Prohibiting masturbation is just dumb, but I have to agree with you on the porn thing; there’s just something obscene about getting off to the image of another man fucking a woman.

        • Anonymous says:

          Hence “lesbian” porn and female-solo porn.

          • StringsofCoins says:

            All fakery. All girls you’ll never touch. You’re still faking your brain into believing you had that, and you didn’t. Lol go have sex with your hand. No babies. You make no babies cause you have sex with the fakery.

            • Anonymous says:

              Do you impregnate your partner every single time you fuck her?

              • StringsofCoins says:

                How many babies do you have? How many do I have?

                How many are you gonna make? How many am I gonna make now that I’ve figured it out and decided to take a cute size zero girl and allow her to come along on my ride? For only as long as I allow? While she goes and does all my laundry and cooks and cleans and begs to stay with me and not have me up rough up another girl and take her cucks money?

              • Cavalier says:

                >your partner

                Please rectify your Proglish.

                • Anonymous says:

                  My interlocutor claims to have “made two single mothers”, should I assume he has a normal wife rather than a partner/companion he cohabits with, assuming he has one at all?

                  Yes, living with a “partner” is degenerate, which means that “girlfriends” are degenerate by definition, yet the fact of the matter is that overwhelming numbers of people today live in sin, un-sanctified by any religious authority.

                  Most bloggers in this sphere live or have lived in sin with “girlfriends”, including our host. A few decades ago, I would have assumed that the woman my interlocutor is fucking, if indeed there is such a woman, is his wife; today, I just can’t make such an assumption.

                • jim says:

                  Being a father to your children is almost illegal. I have been talking to lawyers about a pre-nup for my pregnant girlfriend, and these days it is really hard. It was easier back when I was young. In the present environment you cannot criticize people for spawning bastards. It is very hard to do anything else.

                  If we had a legal system that did not demonize and punish husbands and fathers, then you can criticize. I really am doing everything I can to marry my pregnant girlfriend without risking my existing children losing their inheritance and it is not easy.

                  We have a legal and social system designed to enforce black African style mating, and you should not complain about about people failing to resist coercive authority. Christian position is to obey Caesar, and what to you do if Caesar forbids fatherhood?

                • Anonymous says:

                  My explanation here was not at all meant as criticism of StringsofCoins (or of you) for cohabiting. My point is that my use of the word “partner” rather than “wife” was not due to my thinking about the issue being pozzed, but was deliberately intended to cover additional arrangements besides marriage, which today are very common, indeed more common than marriage.

                • Anonymous says:

                  Personally, I’m quite indifferent as to whether or not a cohabiting couple is declared “married” by state authorities or religious authorities, since what matters is who fucks whom, and who doesn’t fuck whom. But if Cavalier wants to criticize my use of the word “partner” instead of “wife”, claiming that it is prog-speak, then he should know that there is a reasoning behind this use.

                • jim says:

                  No one is actually married any more, or if they are, it is by personal charisma and personal violence, not by church and state.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >But if Cavalier wants to criticize my use of the word “partner” instead of “wife”, claiming that it is prog-speak, then he should know that there is a reasoning behind this use.

                  Actually my focus was not on “partner” substituting for “wife”, but on the gender-neutrality of the term. The Cathedral has relinquished the moral legitimacy necessary to sanction a man and a woman’s fucking, so I just don’t give a shit about that anymore.

                  I would go with the commonly accepted “girlfriend”, the appallingly topical niggerspeak “baby momma”, or the respectably possessive and somewhat ambiguous “my woman”.

                  I’m fairly young, and I was in the Cathedral until pretty recently, and when I hear the words “my wife” when used by anyone married for less than 20 years, all I hear is “this chastity belt is uncomfortably tight”.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “anyone married for less than 20 years”

                  And by this I mean basically anyone under the age of 50.

                • Anonymous says:

                  >And by this I mean basically anyone under the age of 50.

                  Oh, don’t worry. They’ll put chastity-devices even on Silent Generation folks. See the case of Henry Rayhons:

                  https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-04-22/iowa-man-accused-of-raping-wife-with-alzheimer-s-is-acquitted

                  I’m sure the acquittal will only induce the Cathedralites to expand further the definitions of “sex crimes”. The Cathedral ideology on sex boils down to:

                  “I have no problem with sex, why, it’s not like I’m a raving unhinged Puritan or anything. No, no no, in fact just the opposite: I’m a Free-Love advocate, you see. It just so happens that I define 99.99% of sexual situations as “rape”, and that I firmly believe that this “rape” phenomenon must be stamped out root-and-branch; furthermore, the only sex of which I can positively and unreservedly approve occurs in the abstract realm of imagination. But otherwise, setting aside these mild reservations, I’m absolutely totally fine with sex, you bet I am. Free-Love!”

                  That’s the official Cathedral’s position about sex.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “That’s the official Cathedral’s position about sex.”

                  It may not seem like it, but the official Cathedral position on sex is a hairsbreadth away from the official reactionary position. You just have to use the reactionary definition of “rape”, which is “sex without the consent of the legitimate guardian of the female”. The “free love” position of the 60s, that people can have sex when and with whom they want without regard for propriety, is much further away. Once you start caring about where caddish men put their dicks, you necessarily start caring about where slutty women put their pussies, and then you start accusing the other side of feeling how you feel, because that’s the prog way with everything: race and racism, sex and sexism, trannies and trannyism, little kids and pedophilia, marriages and traditional family norms, racial cleansing of poor white neighborhoods and 1950s-esque lily-white leafy-green SWPL neighborhoods, and so on. Hate crime for thee, but not for me.

                  The hysteria of “rape culture” betrays their inner thoughts on the nature of female consent.

                • jim says:

                  “Rape Culture”, as those who say “Democrats are the real mysogynists” point out, is in practice an admission that females of all ages lack the competence to consent to sex.

                • Koanic says:

                  “Christian position is to obey Caesar,”

                  That is not the Christian position.

                  Jesus’ position at that time was to obey the GOOD Caesar, who was humble before God, when his conquest of Israel was righteous and legitimate.

                  In fact, it was more specific than that – render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s. The coin with his face on it is clearly his – Pax Romana and prosperity earned it.

                  But your children? If Caesar’s face is stamped there, you have more problems than politics.

            • Anonymous says:

              Everything that stimulates your reward centers in the brain is “fake”, in fact, all neurological processes are “fake”, if your definition is accepted. It’s only real in your mind, after all, right? Yet, without your mind, you don’t exist. Go figure!

      • ron says:

        “The worst thing about modern Western society is that it knows exactly how to pander to each man’s desires according to his level in order to corrupt and enslave him.”

        All of this can be dealt with. With proper training in an honor bound aggressive culture, the modern culture of shaming and bribery is ineffective.

        Look at the Muslims. The intention of the Western globalists was to import these barbarians into their cities, feed them bribes, whores and status symbols in the expectation that they would become docile. The actual result was to increase the hunger for gain and contempt that the Muslims had for the West.

        We even see this among the settlement youth, albeit to a lesser degree, because even they see themselves as members of the same culture as the dominant Western-Liberal culture in Tel Aviv. This will all change once an aggressive culture rooted in the past emerges. The problem is that our culture has been one of survival, not expansion. Aggression is heavily discouraged out of fear for what the entire community will suffer. Resulting in self-emasculated males, and highly aggressive noisy women who have fantasies about being tied up by swarthy men.

        But this will change very soon.

        • Cavalier says:

          “The worst thing about modern Western society is that it knows exactly how to pander to each man’s desires according to his level in order to corrupt and enslave him.”

          The really interesting thing is that this is done overwhelmingly with only three tools: public education, TV, and the Internet. If you cut it all off, you essentially secede from Cathedral culture. If you intelligently ration the public education, the TV, and the Internet, what you get is basically vaccination against Cathedral memetic virii.

        • Anonymous says:

          >the settlement youth… see themselves as members of the same culture as the dominant Western-Liberal culture in Tel Aviv.

          Interesting. Have you considered that the settlers are racially mostly Ashkenazim, and likewise the Telaviberals are also racially mostly Ashkenazim, and that these two groups stand in stark and vivid contrast to the rest of Israel, which is shitskin territory, and so such an affinity would be all but natural?

          “Cohesive instinct is as vital to race as gravitation is to matter.” – Lothrop Stoddard

          • Cavalier says:

            Natural selection doesn’t operate at the level of the race. If you want a race to act as a unified, cohesive whole, it must be governed by a unified, cohesive sovereign state.

    • Dave says:

      “How to lower the status of don juans, there’s the rub.”

      The way ISIS does, by beheading them in front of a large crowd in the town square, and leaving the bodies on display until they start to rot.

      Winners commit evil deeds and don’t die. Men doing life in prison get piles of love letters, but the instant the rope snaps a bad boy’s neck, he’s written off as a loser.

  4. safespaceplaypen says:

    this is a very well put article

  5. Glenfilthie says:

    Hmpfffff.

    I don’t know. Why can’t women grow up and look after themselves? I think the problem we have is the same as it was for the Victorians – we let them act like unreasonable children and let them get away with it. Single moms are portrayed as superheroes. Working females are seen as more worthy and admirable than working men – even if they’re incompetent.

    But what do I know…?

    • Jack Highlands says:

      “Why can’t women grow up and look after themselves?”
      Female nature.

      “We let them act like unreasonable children and let them get away with it. Single moms are portrayed as superheroes. Working females are seen as more worthy and admirable than working men – even if they’re incompetent.”
      Ie, most won’t grow up and look after themselves, so patriarchy has to adapt to coerce them to.

      • Alrenous says:

        The internet opposite of Cathedralism is not wisdom.

        Women manage to pay their rent. They don’t get evicted all the time. More often than men probably, but not all that much more often.

        Women are capable of being responsible. The question is the terms and conditions of this capability.

  6. viking says:

    It seems this idea of a wife for every beta has led to a surfeit of betas, now this seems to make us more asian like civility wise but seems to be the direct cause of our cultural suicide

    • Oliver Cromwell says:

      In the current system alphas don’t have wives either. Roissy is a childless cosmopolitan.

      • B says:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_B._Calhoun#Mouse_experiments

        After day 600, the social breakdown continued and the population declined toward extinction. During this period females ceased to reproduce. Their male counterparts withdrew completely, never engaging in courtship or fighting. They ate, drank, slept, and groomed themselves – all solitary pursuits. Sleek, healthy coats and an absence of scars characterized these males. They were dubbed “the beautiful ones.” Breeding never resumed and behavior patterns were permanently changed.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Interesting parallels but I don’t see any useful information on cause. Do you think our problems are due to population density? Then why do we see the same sorts of TFRs in Russia and Japan?

          • Cavalier says:

            The cause wasn’t lack of physical space or nutritional space, but lack of social space. The social space was monopolized by the old, established generations, whose members continued to live long after they would have been naturally culled in the wild.

            On top of that, the mice never had redistributive parasitism from young to old, e.g. Social Security.

          • B says:

            No. I think the mice had no purpose for living.

            When you face scarcity and challenge, that serves as purpose enough.

            However, anyone on this site (practically) has no scarcity or challenges to speak of.

            • Cavalier says:

              Life has no purpose except to propagate.

              The actual reason commonly cited for the breakdown of the mice colony is “social breakdown”. Well, all of social behavior is just a complex rationalization of who gets to mate and who doesn’t. We’re just fucking animals. If all the high-status positions are occupied by mice males past their prime but just won’t die, they aren’t adapted for that because it just doesn’t happen in nature, so crazy shit happens.

              And we aren’t adapted for it either.

              • Oliver Cromwell says:

                Don’t understand.

                All the females getting fucked by elderly mouse warlords like in Africa doesn’t mean no more kids.

                It might suck for the younger male mice but the elderly mice aren’t really past it if they are able to defend themselves.

                B proposes not enough scarcity, but there was more scarcity later in the experiment than there was initially.

                • Cavalier says:

                  I have two explanations, each of which I think contributes somewhat.

                  First: the old ones have the power, hold on to it for way too long, so long that the younger generations go completely dysfunctional, and then when the old ones die off the young ones are still dysfunctional and the whole thing collapses.

                  Second: we’re obviously adapted to stop at least a little bit short of the Malthusian limit. There’s a certain point at which it’s possible to have a larger population but each individuals will be weaker and sicklier and thus less competitive. It seems to me that one’s fertility is in large part influenced by this simple calculation: if you don’t think you can produce viable offspring capable of growing up healthy and reproducing successfully, you’ll delay — or abort — fertility until such time as your instincts say “okay, it’s safe to reproduce again”. So, times of famine, disease, war, tremendous social upheaval, etc.

                  From Calhoun’s wikipage:

                  “The last surviving birth was on day 600, bringing the total population to a mere 2200 mice, even though the experiment setup allowed for as many as 3840 mice in terms of nesting space. This period between day 315 and day 600 saw a breakdown in social structure and in normal social behavior. Among the aberrations in behavior were the following: expulsion of young before weaning was complete, wounding of young, increase in homosexual behavior, inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females, aggressive behavior of females, passivity of non-dominant males with increased attacks on each other which were not defended against.”

                  Here’s a key line: “inability of dominant males to maintain the defense of their territory and females”.

                  In any case, something about the social structure went permanently and irrevocably awry, and I think it was lack of social space because the mortality rate from predation and disease led to a significantly skewed age distribution of power.

                  It’s not entirely unlike how Donald Trump has been kicking around New York since literally the 1970s. Donald Trump, Jr. is 39, and probably won’t inherit the business until he’s pushing 50, if not longer, considering how incredibly spry Donald Trump is at the age of 70. If Junior were an 18th-century aristocrat waiting for his father to die off so he could inherit the estate, marry, and father his own children, he would be 50, optimistically.

    • lalit says:

      But some how it does not seem to turn the asians into cucks. Exhibit A: Japan. Japan took 6 refugees last year. That number is 6, no mistake. So if the west is now more beta-asian like, how come the Asians are not commiting suicide via mass Islamic immigration?

      • Cavalier says:

        It isn’t just about “beta-ism”, whatever that is. Asians have less gameable religious circuitry. Just look at Buddhism, which is hardly even a religion by Western standards. Anyway, they’re less susceptible to liberal infection, and when they take up liberal causes they’re much more likely to be doing it cynically, because they have to or because they have something to gain, rather than because they truly believe.

      • Nancy Pelosy says:

        Not suicide -murder
        Japan isn’t ruled by a hostile elite

    • Oog en Hand says:

      Finally someone who understands stuff. During twelve centuries of West-Islam conflict, save for a short space of two centuries between 1750 and 1950, it was Islam that had the upper hand.

      Oil? If the oil had lain under our feet, the Muslims would have taken it in short order. Think of Biafra and South Sudan.

  7. Alrenous says:

    There’s no such thing as an unowned woman, as a simple consequence of men being physically stronger and not numerically overwhelmed.

    The question is who owns her and what they do about it.
    A whore with no pimp is owned by her john.
    A ‘feral’ daughter is still owned by her dad, it’s just that dad’s not exercising his control.
    Right now, women are owned by the state. And the state isn’t exercising its control.

    But yes, exercising this control is often inconvenient. Women hate when men bow to convenience, and due to being very wise, react by making it more inconvenient.

    >The problem is that finding themselves of low rank the high value alpha male’s ever growing harem, they start playing off one high value alpha male against another high value alpha male in order to raise their value.

    The problem is alpha males can be played against each other. There’s no reason to allow themselves to be played like that.
    Not that I’m saying I ever expect otherwise.

    • jim says:

      There’s no such thing as an unowned woman, as a simple consequence of men being physically stronger and not numerically overwhelmed.

      What about all the daughters of single mums?

      Men are not allowed to use their superior physical strength or their superior ability to coordinate.

      To ensure zero unowned women, we would need to coordinate, we would need the “Homes for wayward girls”, or the “Female factories” of late eighteenth century, early nineteenth century Australia, a place where mishbehaving women are detained, and not allowed out till engaged or married. The magistrate would need to endorse the husband’s capability to beat his wife for misconduct by having women beaten for being disrespectful or disobedient.

      A ‘feral’ daughter is still owned by her dad, it’s just that dad’s not exercising his control.

      How is he supposed to exercise his control and not go to jail? Even with state backing it is not easy. A ten year old girl snuck off when her dad was not looking, crept into a married middle aged man’s bed while he was sleeping off a few beers, climbed aboard his erection and rode him to a happy awakening, after the style of Ruth in the Book of Ruth. How do you stop that?

      It is not easy. And when they get bigger they just wander off and raid the fridge of whoever’s bed they are sleeping in.

      You tell them to clean their room and make their bed, and the next thing you know they are in a blanket on Arlie beach at a midnight beach party. If they are half drunk in a blanket on Arlie beach at a midnight beach party, definitely unowned. To make them owned, need the police to drag them off to a home for wayward girls until they get engaged or dad collects them.

      Until we have cops patrolling Arlie beach at midnight for half drunk wayward treenage girls deploying their underwear as bikinis, superior strength is of limited effectiveness.

      • Alrenous says:

        >Men are not allowed to use their superior physical strength or their superior ability to coordinate.

        Not allowed by whom? Women?

        > A ten year old girl snuck off when her dad was not looking

        A toddler crawled into an open ape pit while his mother wasn’t looking.
        Turns out you need to keep looking. I don’t know why this is difficult. Inconvenient, sure, but not difficult.

        Again, note that I’m not in any way expecting this looking to actually happen. I’m just saying that if you want to, it’s not hard, the problem is largely wanting to.

        • StringsofCoins says:

          By the leviathan and police. If I go fuck your wife the police will protect me and her, take your house and kids, protect me as I move in to eat your food and beat your kids in your house, that you still have to pay for, and slap you with a restraining order. And then force you to pay for it with threat of prison.

          • Alrenous says:

            Meaning ‘my’ wife is actually owned by…?

            • StringsofCoins says:

              By the leviathan. Unless you realize it and you step outside. I’ve given up my caddish ways to own a woman, illegally, to illegally take her from the state. Because I’m gonna make even more kids and raise them this time. But all everything I do is illegal from the leviathan, waiting to consume me. And my girl protects me from that. But I’m a criminal in every way in (((modernity))).

              • Cavalier says:

                Even when the state sponsors real marriage, coming down like a ton of bricks on the man’s side against the woman, it’s still kind of like the state owns her. It’s intervening and regulating her behavior for you, often in ways that you simply cannot do alone, and often you have no control over the state’s behavior, even when your interests are aligned with the interventions of the state. For that matter, it’s kind of like the state owns you.

                • jim says:

                  Which makes you kind of beta, especially in her eyes, even if the state is backing you. Hence the necessity that the state should allow and encourage married property owning men to personally uphold order and property rights. And among those property rights that they should personally uphold is their property right in their women, against outsider males, and against those women.

              • Cavalier says:

                Also, by assuming this kind of control the state relaxes selective pressure on male “mate guarding”-ish behavior.

        • jim says:

          >Men are not allowed to use their superior physical strength or their superior ability to coordinate.

          Not allowed by whom? Women?

          The puritan preachers, being alpha, double crossed the men in their congregation so that they could fuck the wives of their flock.

          And the line that the Puritans used when they first desecrated marriage back in the 1640s is the line that you are using. “Save those poor fallen women.”

        • jim says:

          > > A ten year old girl snuck off when her dad was not looking

          > A toddler crawled into an open ape pit while his mother wasn’t looking.

          toddlers do not have a powerful urge to assault apes. And ape pits are not open.

          • Alrenous says:

            Harambe’s pit was open.

            I dunno. Maybe his was the only one.

            Watching kids goes like this: keep your eyes on them. If for some reason you need to take your eyes off them, put a hand on them. No exceptions. There may not be open ape pits nearby, but there’s bleach bottles, wall sockets, knife drawers, delicate ceramics, and so on.

            If you have to wander off, or e.g. sleep, then the watchee needs to be caged away from dangerous things. Though we call them ‘cribs’ when they’re young.

            If not willing to cage them, it doesn’t mean they’re unowned. It just means decided not to cage them. If they end up on a beach or committing a break-and-be-entered, it means reaping the effects of that decision. Caging was at no point impossible.

            Being unwilling to cage them but also unwilling to accept the consequences is simple anti-Cnut style immaturity.

            • Cavalier says:

              We can choose to let people regulate themselves, in which case women are de facto assumed to be owned rather than unowned—by someone or God himself, it hardly matters—, and are treated as such by everyone. This is the traditional White way.

              Or, we can choose to have zero social trust, in which our future society every woman is de facto assumed to be unowned rather than owned, and thus open to “taking”, i.e. rape, and treated as such by all horny men. This is the traditional nigger way.

              Choose carefully.

              P.S. If you’re wondering why white peoples are more prone to leftism than other races, this is why: because we’re inherently prone to socialism, i.e. de facto social trust because everyone is trusted to not defect from the equilibrium, and collective ownership of property — shared spaces, that everyone can be expected to maintain just because —, the thing that is commonly mistaken for “altruism”, and occasionally weaponized as “white guilt”.

              • jim says:

                women are de facto assumed to be owned rather than unowned—by someone or God himself, it hardly matters—, and are treated as such by everyone.

                This is the Victorian strategy of assuming all women to be of good character and potentially wife material – even if they are partying on Arlie beach at midnight in their bikinis by the light of the full moon.

                This strategy fails catastrophically for glaringly obvious reasons.

                Like socialism, it has been tried repeatedly, and catastrophically failed repeatedly, in exactly the manner you would expect it to fail.

                • Cavalier says:

                  In a society in which almost nobody defects, i.e. traditional white societies, especially traditional white societies of the Hajnalien variety, you don’t molest women on the street because you de facto assume them to be owned by someone or something. Someone, their father or their husband, or something, the orphanarium, or whatever.

                • jim says:

                  Well, we have mass defection right now, you can be pretty much guaranteed that any girl on Arlie beach is defecting, and even back in traditional white societies, there was a reasonable assumption that working women were out of control, that women in certain parts of the town were probably out of control, that women on the wrong side of the railway tracks were out of control.

                  In traditional societies, it was common that respectable places, respectable restaurants for example, had a rule that no unaccompanied women were allowed to the restaurant, which indicates a presumption that any unaccompanied women were disreputable and immoral.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Well, we have mass defection right now, you can be pretty much guaranteed that any girl on Arlie beach is defecting”

                  Nope. They’re behaving exactly in line with their received moral programming. White behavior is ruled by moral prerogative. The moral prerogative is dictated by the culture. 12-year-old white girls around the world are plugging into the Cathedral Matrix to receive their sacraments from the church fathers, and this is the sort of message they’re receiving: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGLxoKOvzu4

                  I strongly encourage you to watch the whole thing. Then turn off the sound, set it to 0.5x speed, and watch it again.

                  (Yes, that’s 43 million views in 2 weeks.)

                • jim says:

                  Yes, heading to Arlie beach to perform the Cathedral sacraments in the sand dunes.

              • Steve Johnson says:

                “Or, we can choose to have zero social trust, in which our future society every woman is de facto assumed to be unowned rather than owned, and thus open to “taking”, i.e. rape, and treated as such by all horny men. This is the traditional nigger way. ”

                Nah. The true nigger view is that property rights in women is incomprehensible. What you’re describing is what Steve Sailer called the “jealousy belt” – where property rights in women are a recognized concept but one that has to be enforced strictly by her kinsmen or husband because men are looking to cheat and women are looking for men with whom to cheat.

                It’s the difference between a thief and a communist – thieves acknowledge that property rights exist.

      • Alrenous says:

        The daughters of women owned by the state are also owned by the state. Slaves don’t have property, they have leases from their masters.

        • jim says:

          Well then, in this case the owner is whoring out his women, which is a problem with the owner, not the customers.

  8. Turtle says:

    It’s interesting that the “rape” link from Reddit Jim links to involves the “I was drunk” defense. It seems to imply women cannot safely be intoxicated. But no feminists say women should not party. They insist there is a “right” to party with dangerous substances and strange, violent men. Therefore, feminists like rape, at least they do not dislike it enough to advocate for *real* rape prevention. I suspect feminists believe rape empowers them, by making betas feel guilty about their gynophilia (wanting pussy), and tricks them into hating men, especially themselves, for callously hurting women and un-heroically not preventing ‘sexual violence’ against women.

    This simple conclusion is important- only men reliably, truly don’t like rape. And “society” only punishes rape with prison time, not death or exile. Even child molesters are surprisingly punished more severely by other prisoners than the state.

    The connection between male chastity and female sluttiness involves the “criminal justice” system. Nobody normal actually wants to punish women for anything, while almost everyone (evil doofus betas, malevolent cads, and most women) wants to punish men for anything and everything. A big part of this desire is that alphas are scarce, and all men are blamed for the lack of alpha male abundance. Betas are considered responsible for “providing” women with access to alpha pleasure. In other words, a “nice guy romantic partner” is a cuckold by definition.

    I really think people should know about how in the tepid, already post-civilized New England small town, mid-20th century, the official excuse for female promiscuity was extortion, not women’s rights: “If we don’t let them fuck whenever they want with whomever they want, they’ll get cranky.” So fear of female anger is a big issue.

    Even the rationalmale.com (Rollo T.) writes in his most recent post, a cucked post disappointingly, about male anger being the greater kind, without mentioning that female anger’s significance is exaggerated into a myth, by the feminine imperative. He won’t mention that women can’t actually enforce their anger much, and get betas to defend them from the consequences of their actions, and do violence for them. He’s generous and tactful, but pretty cucked about the biggest issues. As he However, as Rollo does mention, women’s anger is also treated as holy, an expression of divine justice and perfectly righteous emotion. So…unowned female emotions and behaviors, especially attitudes towards children, betas, wives, sluts, etc. must be criminalized if any women are to be owned at all. Unowned women tend to hate children, and those sluts who feel like they are good mothers (doesn’t fuck in front of the kids, has a “good” job, few STDs or mental issues I guess) are very proud of themselves for standing out from the slut crowd. Really, the common female standards for being a good woman are shockingly low.

    Respecting men’s sexual and familial property rights leads to pseudo-monastic chastity for women- no partying with strangers, no ugly levels of intoxication, no skimpy clothing or vain cosmetics outside, no vague dating, no romance novels or dildos, and so forth. And very importantly, at the biosexual level, no birth control even for married couples (slippery slope: if husbands can legally control their wives’ fertility, then pimps and gangs can control families and entire communities). Perhaps making birth control criminal, but only enforcing this law against actual criminals would work. I doubt it- plenty of husbands want to be cuckolds, at least demonstrating this by actively refusing to be strong husbands and fathers.

    • Cavalier says:

      If a husband can control one woman’s fertility, the woman who he is by law recognized to own, then his state-sponsored control is limited to one woman, and he’s all by himself if he wants more than one. The state obvious owns the monopoly on violence, which would preclude the formation of gangs, unless the state loses or refuses to enforce the monopoly of violence, especially the refusal to enforce its monopoly on violence equally (say, on whites and not on niggers), in which case it becomes inherently illegitimate by way of failing to maintain its hegemony.

      The “plenty of husbands want to be cuckolds” thing is easily explained by that in the ancestral environment of our people, the government and miscellaneous social institutions were sufficiently strong to make it difficult to be cuckolded. The selection would then have been on people who cross the party line of your authorities, the guys preventing you from being cuckolded, the selection on actual instinctual cuckold-prevention would have loosened. So basically, Darwinian inertia leads white men to fear the reigning moral authority more than real-world cuckolding. This also has some parallels in other areas.

  9. Turtle says:

    Jim: “…the pressure we unsuccessfully apply to Roissy tells unowned women that they are high value.”

    Not so simple. Pressure we attempt to apply to Roissy ends up directly harming betas, which is exactly what bad women want- easy, facilitated hypergamy. Also, any pressure applied to men will be co-opted by women. Even punishment of men’s crimes will be treated as evidence we need more feminism, no matter how much feminism we already have. Pressuring women is not as effective as pressuring men, because women are stubborn and seek the alpha males they can get, not being respected alpha women. So, there’s not much point in slut-shaming.

    I don’t think [Jim: “measures that are extreme, cruel, disturbing…” “could prevent significant numbers of women from becoming unowned.” ]

    I do think slutty women will be sluts, even if there aren’t an men willing to fuck them. In other words, if men were decimated by war, a monasticism fad, or were all eunuchs, thus not available to fuck or date women, I imagine some women would still act slutty, partying with nobody. It’s an autonomic behavior, not a rational pleasure- or status-seeking choice. It’s kind of mysterious.

    • Jack Highlands says:

      Nothing mysterious about it. Because Darwinism, every human on this planet is wired to compete, no matter how remote the drive seems. We all desperately need to feel we’re better than at least one other person out there. Men have multiple ways to compete because theoretically capable of siring thousands: pulling hot women, hunting, meta-hunting, fighting and meta-fighting. But women basically compete as sex objects for men, because eggs are scarce. If their sexual choice is limited to one man per lifetime, then they will plan intensively with their parents, and yes, no doubt Cavalier’s grandmothers too when available, to try for the best man they can show off for the rest of their married lives.

      If their sexual choices are unleashed, they will slut it up for one higher-status man after another, in often ill-fated attempts to gain commitment. And yes, I suppose if no men were available at all, they would have play-slut competitions with their girlfriends because, to repeat, sex is how they’re wired to compete.

      • jim says:

        > If their sexual choices are unleashed, they will slut it up for one higher-status man after another, in often ill-fated attempts to gain commitment.

        A man simply prefers to have sex with as many women as possible. Women don’t prefer to have sex with many men, but upon finding that they are number four in some alpha male’s harem, try to get to position three by playing another alpha male against him. So wind up with having sex with a large number of different high value males.

        As I said earlier, pump and dump is male bravado. Reality is more like pump and get dumped.

  10. Turtle says:

    In effect, only betas are punished, for being beta enough to allow alphas to offend women, whether the betas follow the official rules or not. Betas are punished by women for not owning *their* women, through cuckoldry, divorce, spite, running away, feminism, importing merciless foreign invaders, all sorts of misbehavior. The important cause is men’s false mercy, not women’s cruelty.

    Jim, what do you think of “false mercy”? Is it a moral failing, or fallen church issue?

    A huge issue today is that a normal jury will not punish alphas or whores for anything (cuckservatives still cannot believe their dear friend Bubba got away with LewinskyGate, which was barely even noticed outside of comedy, ribaldry, and a possibly fake vote to not convict him of perjury). Everyone “respects” sexual miscreants and their “human rights” prerogative to wreak havoc. So, female /cuck juries and judges are very dangerous.

    It is safer to have no judiciary, and let lords judge their subjects themselves or with supervised officers, as was the accepted custom before popcorn enlightenment (the enlightenment was decadent, a figurative waste of food compared to cornbread or grits, which represent humility and decency; “the light enlightenment” is redundant to say) globalism (see Scotland before fallen England conquered them, for the justice libertarians wish they strived for).

    I do, however, believe any pregnancies caused by rape must be respected as much as marital ones, because God’s will is mysterious. The only alternative is to kill raped women, presumably together with their unborn babies, or turn over the fatherless and usually mostly (not all rape-mothers are like that) motherless orphans to foster families and/or monastic institutions once they are weaned, which is arguably sad. Maybe the children would prefer that though.

    • StringsofCoins says:

      Bastardy laws and withdrawal of male protection from whores. Allow them to suffer until they crawl to the local church and beg for alms. Have to allow them to suffer first though. For the good of all.

    • Cavalier says:

      “for not owning *their* women, through cuckoldry, divorce, spite, running away, feminism, importing merciless foreign invaders, all sorts of misbehavior”

      Man is an inherently social creature. These are all results of apathetic or downright malicious government, not things any man can singlehandedly rely on for himself. A decent government would allow cuckoldry to be punishable by death, would outright laugh at female initiations of divorce, would stand its moral hegemony at the patriarch’s back against the spite, would return runaways to their rightful owners, would burn feminists at the stake, and would obviously repel all foreign invaders. All those activities are examples of legitimate and righteous socialism; performed by the state, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, and yet somehow still remarkably civilized and eugenic.

      • jim says:

        Well, actually not. Any place where you rely on the police to protect you is not a very safe place. Full socialization of violence works rather badly.

        The normal social order is that the respectable important man uses violence as necessary. If opposed by a strong evildoer, or several strong evildoers, he gets swift backing from neighboring important men, and this goes all the way up to the King bringing in his army to restore order if the threat is really big. But the Kings men, which is to say the police, do not normally deal with ordinary shoplifters and the like.

        The more socialist the provision of something is, the more it draws on and exhausts moral capital, more it is likely to result in the tragedy of the commons.

        You are telling me that nineteenth century Victorian morals and the twentieth century police state worked great. No they did not.

        The King just cannot declare any social outcome he wants and make it stick. He depends on a multitude of enforcers up and down the line and they have to have their own reasons to make it stick.

        Which is why socialism fails.

        • Cavalier says:

          Walking down the street, you assume owned before proved unowned.

          In a court of law, you use the extant social ties between the father and his most local state apparatus, e.g. the neighborhood cop, and a dash of Bayes.

          In the hunt for a marriageable woman, you use reputation sourced from female social circles and from fathers’ reputations. Where do fathers’ reputations come from? Once again I suppose that the grandparently collective is one very important vector.

          As a father, you exercise your fatherly will through the enormour force-multiplier that is the state. The state, the organized institution of Extremely Violent Men acting according to well-established traditions, is in fact the wellspring of male control over women — patriarchy. Without the state, you’re just one guy feeding and watering a nubile, sexy young thing. If she decides to take a Greyhound to Tijuana, your genetic future is totally fucked…unless you have the omniscient, omnipresent Ultimate Manly Collective to fetch her and return her to you and ask if you want them to give her a good flogging while they’re at it. These are social services provided to all law-abiding fathers without respect to their individual tax contribution, so even if you don’t have two nickels to rub together, let alone give to the taxman, you’re still taken care of. We’ve had this system for so long it’s coded into our genes, and with the shitfest that is our ovenworthy government it’s the only reason our women can still leave the house and go to the grocery store…alone!

          “Walking down the street” would include include day game, unless you want us to devolve to catcalling niggers.

          How can a man enforce his property rights unless he hold sovereignty himself or is sanctioned by his local authority, who in turn is backed up all the way up to the ruling sovereign? In trading savagery for civilization our forefathers surrendered their personal violent initiative and relinquished it to The State. In exchange, the state committed to judge them fairly to the best of its ability — hence courts, law, etc., and in the best legal traditions, justice is kept as local as possible, as in “a jury of one’s peers”. Historically defectors from this arrangement met a swift and violent end, at the end of a rope, in the middle of the town square. This is the story of what some call the genetic pacification of our people.

          Your proposition that men personally gun other men down for slights, real or perceived, is nuts. It is an echo of your libertarian proclivities — “every man a king” — and like libertarianism is subtly insane. Overlapping, “patchwork” spheres of sovereignty have never worked and will never work. Fuzzy borders bring only war.

          • jim says:

            We have gone overboard in centralizing violence in defense of property and order. Within my memory, it was less centralized, and in 1915 in California, one hell of a lot less centralized. In such circumstances it was easier for females to read status. They are more likely to find males who are high status in the male hierarchy hot in their eyes, and less likely to be attracted to small time loser crooks like the love interests in “The wild one” and “Titanic”

            In order that women will feel like complying, we have to make civilization look a little like the pre state world.

            • Cavalier says:

              Probably.

              I think it would be nice to provide upstanding citizens — fathers — with the ability to wield certain centralized state powers. What we have now is women wielding a whole lot of centralized state powers.

  11. Anon1 says:

    Given the current non-property environment, how would you raise hypothetical daughters?

    • jim says:

      I don’t have daughters. I have nieces. When in heat, extremely resistant to advice and guidance. I have not been a success in guiding my nieces.

      You need a broader community, from which sluts and women who divorce get excluded, so that their social circle is only chaste women. And that we do not have. Also need to encourage them to marry young to someone with the capacity to support a stay at home wife. Tell them they can get an education and a job at any age, but cannot bear and raise children at any age. You cannot fight hormones for ten years.

  12. Alrenous says:

    I don’t know the actual frequency, but adult men often/usually don’t fit inside ten year olds.

    Unless the ten year old has been abused.

    In which case the problem with a break-and-be-entered event isn’t being feral, moral decay, or insufficient parental supervision.

    • jim says:

      Not all the way in, hence the popularity and preference among little girls for the cowgirl position.

      • Jack Highlands says:

        Jim, is this really something you wish to claim, or publicize, expertise in?

        • jim says:

          I observe that progs simultaneously hold that underage sex by little girls is perfectly fine and dandy and normal, by insisting on vaccinations against a sexually transmitted disease for nine year old girls, when more highly targeted vaccinations would be far more effective, and teaching little girls how to put a condom on a banana, and getting indignant that anyone who does not like it is an old fashioned fuddy duddy, while at the same time insisting that sex between a seventeen year old high school football hero and a twenty two year old female teacher is the worst possible thing in the entire the world.

          No, I am not interested in sex with girls with no boobs. But girls with no boobs have been interested in sex with me.

          People obsess over underage sex in the same way and for the same reasons that they obsess over rape, etc. It is not what they actually want to forbid, it is the smallest and least important part of what they actually want to forbid, but it is what proggism allows them to forbid.

          Reflect on all the drama and righteous indignation about Milo seducing a middle aged priest when he was fourteen. If he had been 21 would it have been any better?

          No, it would have been worse.

          People actually do not care all that much about sex with very young girls, because hey, such sex is not actually all that sexy. What they really care about is sex with fertile age females, but they are not allowed to object to what they really object to.

          What they really want to do is control their wives and their fertile age daughters, and “underage” is just an prog acceptable excuse for controlling the least interesting and least important part of what they actually want to control.

          The bible scarcely mentions the matter, because back then they did not think that women could consent at any age, and if we went back to that rule, people would lose interest in the issue.

          • Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

            LMAO.

            I love your blog Jim and totally agree that girls should be married in early teens but I think you’ve taken a little too many trips to Cambodia.

            • jim says:

              I have not been to Cambodia, but I have been to similar places, and very young girls in similar places are way more chaste than very young girls in modern white society.

              You are thinking it is not middle class whites, it’s blacks, wiggers, and foreigners. You are thinking it is poor people different from us.

              No, not so, anywhere children are unsupervised and undisciplined, then there is a sex problem. I am pretty sure that in Cambodia children always have family keeping an eye on them, whereas the typical ten year old white girl has two working parents, or one working mother, and no other family.

              • Hidden Author says:

                Sexualized underage girls indicate one of two things:

                1) A promiscuous peer group, supposedly what sex Ed is supposed to address.

                2) A grooming ring–In your case, your friends coach underage people to solicit sex from old, fat friends–thus you “know” that prepubescent girls “lust” for old “alpha males” like you “know” that homos are all pederasts.

                • jim says:

                  By “address” you mean “enforce”.

                  Hence the nine year old being taught to put a condom on a banana.

                  But the trouble is that some nine year olds girls, not the majority, but not a small proportion, will in fact engage in sex if there are no social and family restraints against doing so. And we are demonizing and denigrating those social restraints as “slut shaming”.

                  The biological design is that girls become interested in sex on first menstruation, start developing substantial breasts on first menstruation, and become capable of bearing children once they have developed substantial breasts, a couple of years after first menstruation.

                  And the biological design is that males become interested in sex when they start generating substantial amount of sperm and are capable of having large erections and are interested in the youngest available girls with substantial breasts. This seems to work quite well for males, but females frequently develop an interest in sex substantially earlier or substantially later than the design time.

                  Probably in the ancestral environment, females did not get a lot of say in when they started having sex, so there was not much selection against dysfunctions in the time of development of interest in sex.

                  So, we have a substantial minority of nine and ten year old girls who are experiencing powerful and compelling biological urges, have two working parents or one working mother, and are taught in school that fucking is totally OK, in fact it is a Cathedral sacrament. What do you think is going to happen?

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Yes, I have no doubt that Sex Ed normalizes promiscuous sex and that forcing students to attend undermines parental authority.

                  But what do you mean by “enforce”? Are 9 year old girls ordered to have sex by their teachers–I’m sure that would be highly illegal! In fact, in many, if not all cases, teachers are required to have signed parental approval before including a student in their Sex Ed class!

                • jim says:

                  Just as businesses have signs saying “Nobody smokes here”, to mean nobody should smoke here, sex ed teaches that no girls are virgins, to mean that no girls should be virgins.

                  “Nobody smokes here” is not a statement of fact, but a command, and no girls are virgins is not a statement of fact, but a command.

                  in many, if not all cases, teachers are required to have signed parental approval before including a student in their Sex Ed class!

                  Nowhere are teachers required to have signed parental consent forms. Rather, in most places parents have a theoretical option to opt out – which option they are not informed of, and if they find out about it, find it almost impossible to exercise.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  This, Jim, Sex Ed classes have parents sign a waiver so no one bitches later about which values are taught as normative…

                • jim says:

                  Really? I never signed such a waiver. Never heard of anyone signing a waiver. I think you have this backwards. That in order to opt out you have to sign three forms in triplicate, and the forms are kept in the cellar behind a locked reinforced door, and no one knows who has the key, or even the location of the cellar.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  In my previous post, I meant to say “Thus” not “This” to start the post.

                • Hidden Author says:

                  Maybe so, Jim, but perhaps Sex Ed is more Established deep in secular, blue-state territory than deep in religious, red-state territory. I know that the Religious Right bitches about it more than say, a martial rape ban or the abolition of slavery…

          • Anonymous says:

            It’s too late anyway, if they need my profile, they’ve probably already got it. Still, it’s generally a good advice to never associate yourself, even tangentially, to any crime or knowledge of crime.

            • Cavalier says:

              Eh. Who cares? I don’t; I stopped long ago. I’m not going to go van-bomber. I’ll never go on a Dylan Roofie rampage. If USG continues, I’m no threat to it. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t matter.

              I am a simple man with simple ambitions: lots of money, several beautiful women, many capable sons, and to be casually referenced in the history books 300 years from now as an amateur Saint Paul.

              • Anonymous says:

                These lines by Chesterton have resonated with me ever since I read them:

                “And the paradox is this; that we never find our own religion so right as when we find we are wrong about it. I mean that we are finally convinced not by the sort of evidence we are looking for, but by the sort of evidence we are not looking for. We are convinced when we come on a ratification that is almost as abrupt as a refutation.”

                This may appear apropos of nothing, but it isn’t.

          • Jack Highlands says:

            Good point about teaching little girls the condom and I anticipated you would probably have one of your excellent ‘watch what is done, not what is said’ examples.

            But I didn’t see the argument about ‘allowable discourse’ coming, though I should have. So hard to fully feel the water we’re swimming in; in this case, the water of unleashed, hypergamous, patriarchy-destroying feminism.

        • Anonymous says:

          >Jim, is this really something you wish to claim, or publicize, expertise in?

          Well, for what it’s worth, Jim and everyone commenting here are probably under the surveillance and monitoring of the spooks. If someone claims a first hand account of sex between a 10 year old girl and her dad’s middle aged friend, it’s not unlikely that the spooks also have some clue as to what’s going on. For my part, I don’t even bother using TOR. It’s too late, if they need my

  13. A.B. Prosper says:

    So John Norman’s Gor series?

    In that society there are free women who are somewhat like Muslim woman culturally, typically veiled and dressed with extreme modesty who are essentially property of the husband

    or there are slave women or women who seems to be slave women who wil quickly become actual property .

    • jim says:

      John Norman was beta, and portrayed a society where women obeyed beta men and submitted to them. If his characters had to deal with actual slave girls, the girls would chew him up and spit him out.

      • Hidden Author says:

        And here we have it, folks: a far-right virtue-signaling spiral! Congrats on being a boob, Jim!

      • Ray Manta says:

        If his characters had to deal with actual slave girls, the girls would chew him up and spit him out.

        Slave girls on Gor could be whipped or even killed by their owners with no repercussions. Gor was also a very hostile environment where women generally couldn’t survive without male protection. That might help reign in some of their worst behavior.

        Having said that, Norman still devoted a lot of time to the trouble that women can cause. Usually it was free women, but often enough it was slave girls too.

        • jim says:

          No matter how much power law, the state, and society gives men, nature gives women so much power as to make successful reproduction difficult. It is not in fact so easy to impose and implement patriarchy as John Norman imagines. Whippings and executions do not suffice, indeed are rather irrelevant.

          If we look at successful patriarchal societies, drastic measures taken against women to keep them in their place are generally undertaken and managed by women, because women are more capable of resisting female power. Men are softies and easily manipulated.

          The girls depicted by John Norman are unrealistically and implausibly humble, docile, and easy to manage. It is a beta male fantasy. The girls never cheat, never play one male against another, never nag, never shit test.

          • Cavalier says:

            >If we look at successful patriarchal societies, drastic measures taken against women to keep them in their place are generally undertaken and managed by women

            *old, post-menopausal women, i.e. grandmothers

          • A.B. Prosper says:

            Quite correc. the society doesn’t make much sense for exactly the reason you said .

            Still while Gorean men do have some beta traits, most are brutal killers and outright thugs even the Merchant and Scribe castes are fairly dangerous.

            Weak men don’t really exist on Gor in numbers, I’ve seen professional chess players (Kiasa its a local variation) players with brutal commanding personalities in the series

            Everyone is a bit of the parody of the hard alpha and the book and his other works, the dreadful Imaginative Sex are fantasy pleas for men to man up

            Also in defense of John Norman je was at least cognizant of the traits you mention, he notes repeatedly that slave girls quite easily manipulate many Gorean men have a lot of power over them .chastity belts are a thing (and common!) and nagging gets punished rather harshly

            I remember a scene from book #12 Beasts of Gor I think which was one of the interminable BDSM breaks in an otherwise exciting sword and planet story in which the protagonist Tarl Cabot asks something like

            “Why is that slave girl is a locking gag?” to which the reply was “Because I felt like” which is one way to stop the nagging I guess

            the ideas here being there were three kinds of beast Space Yeti (don’t ask) men and slave girls

            Silly and a pure fantasy but not clueless

            As a one time enthusiast of the series it took my a long while to realize that its a science fantasy about a specific alien breeding program, selecting for what Norman though were complimentary traits . Its deeply weirder than its seems upfront which is saying something and in truth an females as property society like you mention, if widely supported would resemble Gor in more than a few superficial ways

            If you like the series for any reason try Hitchhikers of Gor a fan-fic r which is what happens when real people with real behaviors meet Gor . Not pleasant , well that and House Plants of Gor which is fun and get the silly submissiveness angle

            • jim says:

              Weak men don’t really exist on Gor in numbers,

              They seemed weak to me. The core gimmick of the fantasy is it is a world where you do not need to be strong in order to deal with women. There will never be such a world, even if we permit and encourage Gor type methods for dealing with women.

              As one of the other commenters pointed out, I could do anything to my dog that John Norman’s male characters do to their women, but not only would I not do it to my dog, it would not actually be nearly as useful and effective against my dog as it is against John Norman’s female characters. The measures that John Norman’s male characters deploy against his female characters are unreasonably, unrealistically, and implausibly effective.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                Gor certainly is unrealistic and of course we have no real experience with White European people living in a rigid caste system with rampant female slavery and ISIS style roles for women .

                They don’t have aging on Gor so its a very SF world

                Also White people from West of the Hajnal line have been domesticated for centuries by the Catholic Church and the rest Its no wonder they behave as they do,

                Combine that with the fact that using significant force on a woman justified or not by a White man draws massive state force in many areas and you have a recipe for passivity

                Hell beating a dog can get you a SWAT raid in some areas

                However despite that not all white people are like this and more than a few are willing to beat a wife or a dog as they see fit.

                Also if the society was changed to encourage it whether by the imposition of some “Handmaiden’s Tale” style fundamentalism or just too many feral whites , you’d see more of it.

                The question of this being good or bad is entirely separate, its unlikely for some years in any case and no one much wants it as it is.

                Frankly as crowded as the West is, so long as we remove cans and kebab and keep the borders tight, we’ll be fine

                No reasonable person thinks Western Europe is underpopulated and baring either emigration into low habitability areas like Siberia or Wyoming or genocide there will never be a frontier

                We have what we have and ought to make the best of it

                • jim says:

                  Actually we had a fair bit of white female slavery until the nineteenth century. It has been erased from history in order to make slavery equal racism. And yes, the main job of female slaves was providing “comfort” to their owners. And until the nineteenth century the magistrate would punish women for scolding, disobedience, and suchlike.

                  Cromwell enslaved enormous numbers of Irish girls.

                  Women, of course, had to consent to marriage, but if you kept women from any potential males other than the parentally selected one, they always did consent. Women were subject to their husband’s absolute power. He could beat them with a stick, they would theoretically be dragged back if they ran away – though if they ran away to someone more powerful than their husband this does not seem to have happened reliably. They could not possess money or property in their own right, hold a job without their husband’s permission etc.

                • A.B. Prosper says:

                  You are correct about Irish slavery and feudalism even was a caste system but that was many centuries ago well out of memory of even those of us who have some grasp of the past

                  I don’t think the current society is anywhere near ready for that situation.

                  Now after a collapse , certainly. What man wouldn’t want a pretty Irish or White slave girl ?

                  Cromwell though was a thoroughly modern person with the worst of the Puritans instincts. Good leader so he died in bed but what he wrought was unwrought

                  Also I don’t think that wives and slaves were ever treated the same, Any sane society has specific roles and rights and in the West free women normally had some rights , more than in many places and for the most part it worked

                  Frankly the West issues outside of Germany are easily fixed,after deportation. We are out of carrying capacity and lebensraum everywhere we own and its natural and healthy for urban societies to have low fertility

                  So long as we control the capitalists and leftist rapacious need for novelty and money we will be fine and it will self correct with the natural higher fertility rate of the religious

                  The Left will die off without support

                • jim says:

                  We are out of carrying capacity and lebensraum everywhere own

                  Far from it. Look out the plane window. There is room in the west for ten billion more, and then we reconquer Africa and Latin America, then settle Antarctica and Siberia, then Mars. Hence the prog argument that we need to import a hundred million black male military age Muslims screaming for infidel blood and white pussy to replace the missing grandchildren.

                  and its natural and healthy for urban societies to have low fertility

                  Natural as decadence and the fall of empires is natural, but far from healthy. Our cities are gene shredders. Smart people go there and fail to reproduce.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “Cromwell enslaved enormous numbers of Irish girls.”

                  My respect for that regicidal bastard just went up a notch.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          “Slave girls on Gor could be whipped or even killed by their owners with no repercussions.”

          How many people would really do it, even with extreme provocation? Among the same people who vote the immivasion, etc.?

          Many people cannot handle dogs, despite the fact that the laws on control of dogs are still quite sane, and the state even enforces laws against people who fail to control their dogs. People don’t like beating their dog (not that it’s the best way either – but better ways are even harder).

          Europeans are built for the feudal system which is distributed polygyny: the women all belong to a few strong men, but the few strong men distribute most of their women among their retainers. The women are not afraid of their retainer husbands, but of the lord. Now we have no lords, the women like the economy are owned by beta bureaucracies, her owner always takes her side in any dispute, the retainer husbands flail helplessly. Finally, have ceased to be husbands, as marriage only imposes obligations on them and grants no rights.

          • Cavalier says:

            >Many people cannot handle dogs, despite the fact that the laws on control of dogs are still quite sane, and the state even enforces laws against people who fail to control their dogs.

            That’s a really excellent point.

          • jim says:

            People don’t like beating their dog (not that it’s the best way either – but better ways are even harder).

            Exactly so. And women are more difficult than dogs.

          • Ray Manta says:

            How many people would really do it, even with extreme provocation?

            Not many men, unless they’re psychopaths. But those guys have too many other deficiences to be retained as slave girl discipliniarians. My larger point was that it would help to have the law at the
            man’s back, not the woman. Men (in general) will do things to benefit
            their families and the larger society, women will not.

            Europeans are built for the feudal system which is distributed polygyny: the women all belong to a few strong men, but the few strong men distribute most of their women among their retainers.

            Hmm, I hadn’t thought of it that way before. Europeans seem to have stumbled onto a system that spreads out the reproductive wealth to a wider variety of men than just classic “alpha” males.

            Now we have no lords, the women like the economy are owned by beta bureaucracies

            It’s female nature for women to try and surronud themselves with as many substitute boyfriends and beta orbiters as possible. Not to mention some thugs to round out her selection menu. The results are visible in the public sector, large corporations, and in our educational and legal systems.

    • A.B. Prosper says:

      Jim, I’ve lived in Wyoming and other places . Siberia Lite.

      Long and short, it sucks.

      There are places with worse climates and even some of the places we live now are over carrying capacity with stressed water reserves

      We don’t need MOAR BIOMASS just to turn everywhere into cities.

      This serves no purpose.

      As for the other lands, that’s the genocide option I mentioned before, Africa maybe we could manage it if the Chinese don’t do it first but we can’t do that in Latin America . There isn’t enough manpower. they aren’t that stupid as to make it easy (they are actually developed and have some smart people) and no one wants to sacrifice their life or well being for a plot of dirt to farm.

      Those days are long gone .

      And in the West? Far from it., Europe is full and while Siberia is plenty empty it averages 23 Fahrenheit . No one wants to live there for a very good reason , its sucks worse than Montana or Wyoming and they suck hard, same with taxes which is too hot and arid

      Same with a lot of other areas

      The vast bulk of White people want a better life not to become Conan of Cimmeria and its not that hard to get such a life without cans a kebab and others around.

      • jim says:

        You don’t want kebab around? OK. Lot of empty space in the west. If we don’t fill it, someone else will.

        It is like a game of go. Winner is whoever grabs the most fastest.

        • Cavalier says:

          Everything has already been grabbed. If the almighty USGod doesn’t want you on its turf, it’ll hunt you down like a dog. We don’t need to fill up the West, but Mexico, Central America, South America, SEAsia, India, Africa, and the Middle East need us badly. Should we not make the world great as England once made America, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand great?

  14. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Whenever a women says pretty much anything about sex-politics, it is almost inevitably a proximal justification for harem fantasy.

  15. Corvinus says:

    Here we go again with Jim’s lies. All women are owned. Single Christian men are prohibited from having intercourse. They must secure the permission of fathers in order to marry their daughter and then have sex with them.

    “But who is going to run Roissy out of town on a rail? No one has incentive to do so, or legitimate authority to do so, unless husbands and fathers have property rights in women’s sexual and domestic services.”

    You have that duty as a Christian man.

  16. Ray Manta says:

    Here we go again with Jim’s lies. All women are owned.

    http://judgybitch.com/2016/08/16/reblog-research-find-that-as-a-group-only-men-pay-tax/

    Looks like whoever it is that owns them, it’s the aggregate (male) taxpayers that are paying for them.

    You have that duty as a Christian man.

    Even Christian men have to pick their battles wisely. In scenarios like running Roissy out of town, they’re extremely likely to court huge medical bills along with legal trouble. The girls they’re helping aren’t going to want to be rescued either.

    • Corvinus says:

      Judgy Bitch’s source is from one fiscal report from people at a university in New Zealand. She then made generalizations which are completely unrelated to that data.

      “Looks like whoever it is that owns them, it’s the aggregate (male) taxpayers that are paying for them.”

      The authors of the study acknowledged that “considerable heterogeneity of fiscal incidence for both men and women is observed with the distributions of various fiscal incidence measures showing substantial overlap…We can speculate that the reason for women paying less tax is partly because women more commonly stay at home than men to look after their children, so in turn they receive more of the related tax credits and allowances…Statistically, women live longer too, so they are receiving pensions for a greater period on average than men. It may also reflect the gender pay gap that exists in this country, and the fact that when women return to the workforce after having children they often take on part-time or lesser-paid roles”.

      “Even Christian men have to pick their battles wisely. In scenarios like running Roissy out of town, they’re extremely likely to court huge medical bills along with legal trouble. ”

      No, Christian men with guts would run Roissy and his crew out on a rail, with any medical bills or legal trouble taken care of by the grace of God.

      • Steve Johnson says:

        “No, Christian men with guts would run Roissy and his crew out on a rail, with any medical bills or legal trouble taken care of by the grace of God.”

        Ok, what’s stopping you?

  17. Ray Manta says:

    Judgy Bitch’s source is from one fiscal report from people at a university in New Zealand.

    You have anything that contradicts it? The abundance of real-world data such as the fact that women make the majority of public sector jobs and overcrowd low-wage, low productivity jobs lends support to her conclusions.

    Statistically, women live longer too

    Which means they’re negative economic producers for longer. Thanks for buttressing my point. Your long-winded prose consists of one excuse after another as to why women are so unproductive.

    If you want an idea of how women would fare without the support of men, take a look at this.
    http://cydoniansignal.com/2013/10/07/patriarchy-pt-2-what-if-men-disappeared/

    No, Christian men with guts would run Roissy and his crew out on a rail, with any medical bills or legal trouble taken care of by the grace of God.

    The understanding that fighting for a whore’s honor is a fool’s errand predates recorded history. So it’s a losing proposition and a loser proposition.
    Interesting how you’re so gung-ho about pushing it. Could it because you want them to squander their resources on idiotic, counterproductive battles?

    I suspect your “You’re a hypocrite” argumentation tactic is going to be tuned out by most of the posters on this blog anyway. I believe that Jim himself has stated that getting things done takes precedence over principles.

    • Corvinus says:

      “You have anything that contradicts it?”

      It’s not the source itself, it’s the extrapolations. She, as a typical woman, took extensive liberties. For starters, she assumes that the data from a nation with roughly half the population of New York City is totally representative of the world as a whole. Moreover, she fails to acknowledge that there have been increased labor force participation particularly for women which raises the market income of both groups, increasing their tax liabilities, which has reduced gender differences.

      “If you want an idea of how women would fare without the support of men, take a look at this.”

      Fantasy porn. Wonderful.

      “The understanding that fighting for a whore’s honor is a fool’s errand predates recorded history. So it’s a losing proposition and a loser proposition.
      Interesting how you’re so gung-ho about pushing it. Could it because you want them to squander their resources on idiotic, counterproductive battles?”

      It’s actually Christian men fighting for a woman’s honor against cads who willingly use their charms to seduce another man’s girlfriend or wife. Roissy and his anti-Christian henchmen are in a perpetual rutting cycle. “Taken” women are on their radar, including your mother, sister, and daughter. Would you not fight for their honor?

      • Ray Manta says:

        It’s not the source itself, it’s the extrapolations.

        Oh yes, I forgot your debating style. You never, ever want to make generalizations from existing facts. Especially not if they make you uncomfortable.

        she fails to acknowledge that there have been increased labor force participation particularly for women which raises the market income of both groups,

        They overcrowd bureaucratic jobs that involve shuffling paper around and other low-value, low productivity jobs.

        Fantasy porn. Wonderful.

        Well ok, smart guy. Why don’t you tell me how women are going to get past the first few weeks when the power plant operators suddenly drop from 100% to 0% and water treatment personnel go from 95.5% to 4.5. Or mechanized transportation comes to a grinding halt. What happens next?

        While you’re at it, why don’t you tell me how “A Day Without Women” went? I personally didn’t notice anything different. Did you?

        It’s actually Christian men fighting for a woman’s honor against cads who willingly use their charms to seduce another man’s girlfriend or wife.

        Roissy’s blog suggests that he does the bar scene full of women doing the sex and the city thing. So that’s bullshit.

        Roissy and his anti-Christian henchmen are in a perpetual rutting cycle.

        So what? If screwing women who want to drop their drawers anyway is his hobby, that’s his business.

        “Taken” women are on their radar,

        “Taken” women shouldn’t be showing up in the venues that he frequents.

        including your mother, sister, and daughter.

        None of the above are going to be in the places he’s going to go to pick up women.

        Would you not fight for their honor?

        No, since I would only fight over clear threats to their well-being. A libertine guy looking for an easy lay from a sleazy woman doesn’t qualify as one.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        Don’t be captain save-a-ho.

      • jim says:

        If your mother, your sister, your girlfriend, your daughter, and your wife are hanging out in bars unaccompanied, you have a problem more serious than Roissy.

  18. Alrenous says:

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/unowned-women-should-be-unprotected-and-fair-game/#comment-1568757

    I’m interested in hacking this system.
    If your children are generally cooperative, what about handing them their inheritance now? The court shouldn’t be able to take things that are already out of your hands. If necessary, have them, legally speaking, lend it back to you until it’s time for them to de facto inherit it.

  19. […] also thinks Unowned women should be unprotected and fair game. At least from an official policy […]

Leave a Reply