Why women are sleeping with chads

The problem is that dads are being emasculated and chads are not being emasculated

Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons. If we preferentially give children to the husband in the event of divorce, women will not wish to divorce – not because they don’t want to lose their children, but because husbands will not behave in ways that make their wives wish to leave them.

If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away, we severely weaken every man that loves his children. If we weaken him, his wife will despise him, and will take his children away, and his daughters will be raped and his sons beaten by some black rapper

It is not that women like being beaten, though some do.  What they like is that they could be beaten. To successfully raise children, needs to be a man and a woman forming one household. One household, one captain.  If cannot be beaten, not really one household.  So women feel insecure.

They want to be held by strong hands.  If not held by strong hands, will fuck black rappers.

They want a husband who is an oak, against whom their wild storms beat in vain. Women want men who actually have power in the relationship, despite the intemperate female urge to get their way in arguments.

Emancipation was a shit test that we failed. Women demand stuff, but when they get what they demand, are more unhappy

What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship.  But men want a secure relationship, and a mistress, or two mistresses, or two secure relationships plus some fly girls.  And women want a secure relationship with a male that is way more alpha than they are, the billionaire vampire of romance novels.  So they shit test their husbands by making demands, which demands are tests for weakness.  They want a secure relationship with a strong man, and current rules make all men weak.  

Prisoner’s dilemma ensues:  Nobody gets what they want.

The deal that everyone would choose if they could is illegal and unenforceable, except by personal charisma and the potential of personal violence.

Women truthfully complained that the traditional deal meant that some women were apt to be severely oppressed and ill treated.  But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted.  The result is that everyone gets ill treated.  If a woman gets her way, she will feel insecure, and go looking for a man who denies her her way. Because if a woman gets her way, it is not really one household, one flesh, and if not really one household, difficult and dangerous to raise children in it.

The telos of sex is children.   But because humans take a long time to raise children, must form a unitary bond.  And so the Roman Catholic position on the natural law of sex is wrong, for the telos of sex is not children directly, but the unitary bond, the formation of one flesh, sex as an expression, the primary expression, of erotic love.  Hence wife goggles.   And because a ship must have one captain, because raising children requires a single household, sex is also an expression of female submission and male domination.  More so for women than for men.  Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination.   Hence men look at women’s boobs while women shit test men.  Women want to be taken, want to be commanded to submit to sex.  They really hate this affirmative consent stuff.

If one household, then husband has sex whenever he feels like.  If husband begs wife for permission every night, not one flesh, hence not a safe environment to raise children, hence women do not really like it. Moment to moment consent is a shit test.  Women demand it, but if they get it, they really hate it.

If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex.  Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond.   A safe place to raise children in.  They both want it and neither can get it.

The type of relationship women need is illegal, not because women didn’t like it, but because they think they don’t like it. They struggle against it, but that is to test the strength of the husband, not because they actually don’t like it.  They think they don’t like it so that they will only submit to a worthy man, but under current rules, no man is worthy.

Women were not fooled on manipulated into asking for this.  It is what they really asked for, and what they think they really want. It is in the nature of a woman to rebel against a man.  But if she successfully rebels, she loses interest in that man.  He completely ceases to exist for her.  She forgets that he ever existed.

So women only see men that dominate them and push them around, they are completely blind to the current American reality where women walk over men all the time as if they were carpets. Hence the common complaint that men continually interrupt, talk over, and ignore women, when in fact it is the other way around.

If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.

If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.

If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.

If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.

198 Responses to “Why women are sleeping with chads”

  1. Jack says:

    To have a normal family with obedient wife and 3+ children, need to dispose of the CIA-funded (((cultural programming))) that comes in the form of television shows, movies, radio programs, “education”, etc. There is a reason East Asian females are obedient in their homelands but behave like shrew obnoxious cunts when raised in the West and enter Western academia to be brainwashed by kikefessors. The Cathedral is trying to disarm (literally) and weaken the White middle and working classes

    • Jack says:

      Continue comment

      so they could rule unchallenged over the masses. To this end they, exactly as it’s laid out in 1984, are using all kinds of mind programming techniques to turn White men into softbabies and White women into bitch slut catladies. Environmentalism, veganism, SJW politics, million sexual fetishes on tumblr, it’s all part of the long term goal to reshape society so that members of the Inner Party could do as they please everywhere. Their biggest enemy is normal, functional White families

      • Robert says:

        Agree, so what do we do about it? I think the answer is to form new traditional institutions. Let’s say when you want to get married instead of the USA issuing marriage certificates, you had another institution issue it. You should check out knightsofthewest.com

    • Corvinus says:

      “To have a normal family with obedient wife and 3+ children…”

      Definitional error. “Normal families” are the creation of what each family decides is normal. What is considered “obedient”, for example, is the result of the groundwork laid by the couple, not you.

      “The Cathedral is trying to disarm (literally) and weaken the White middle and working classes so they could rule unchallenged over the masses.”

      Assuming that to be true, then you are no different than the Cathedral in your own brainwashing program. Do you not see the
      2qqqq

      • jim says:

        “Normal families” are the creation of what each family decides is normal

        So when two gays gay marry for the purpose of hunting down little boys and fucking them, that is a normal family. Right.

        And when gays gay marry for the purpose of adopting orphan boys from Africa as sex slaves, that is a normal family also.

        • Steve Johnson says:

          The Mason family? Totally normal.

        • Corvinus says:

          “So when two gays gay marry for the purpose of hunting down little boys and fucking them, that is a normal family. Right. And when gays gay marry for the purpose of adopting orphan boys from Africa as sex slaves, that is a normal family also.”

          You took two extreme positions which are definitively other than normal.

          It really bothers you that you are impotent in stopping today’s men and women from exercising their liberty to marry inside or outside their race, or adopt outside of their race, which are clearly normal things.

          • peppermint says:

            » today’s men and women

            » clearly normal things

            never was normal, never will be normal, was forced during the boomers’ reign of terror, which is ending

          • jim says:

            A normal family consists of the biological father, the biological mother, and their children. Anything else is horribly defective – hence the wicked stepmother trope. Stepfathers tend to get rid of stepchildren. Even if they don’t commonly murder them these days, they drive them away. And as for stepmothers, they are still pretty much the way they are depicted in fairy tales.

            And in fact they rather do tend to murder them. Murder by stepfather or stepmother is politically incorrect, so when it happens, police decline to notice.

            If Hansel and Gretel are not getting lost in the forest, they are getting lost in the ghetto.

            • Corvinus says:

              “A normal family consists of the biological father, the biological mother, and their children. Anything else is horribly defective.”

              The only thing defective is your logic. The “normal” family is a father (man), a mother (woman), and their children, either conceived or adopted, either “racially pure” or a “mixed race”. Regarding stepmothers and stepfathers, that is the business of the “new” couple, not you. Why do you despise individual liberty?

              • pdimov says:

                “Why do you despise individual liberty?”

                What is your stance on speed limits?

              • jim says:

                Stepdads and stepmoms mistreat, and sometimes murder, stepchildren. Adoptive children are not mistreated, but are treated as pets, rather than real children.

                Observe that most cases of prepubertal child getting a sex change operation are adoptees. It is like spaying a dog.

                In civilizations that worshiped Moloch, it was high status to sacrifice one’s children to Moloch in the fire, so the upper class would adopt some bastard, and then sacrifice him to Moloch, rather than their real children. Now it is high status to sex change your children, so they adopt some bastard and sex change him.

                • Corvinus says:

                  SOME Stepdads and stepmoms mistreat their stepchildren.

                  “Adoptive children are not mistreated, but are treated as pets, rather than real children.”

                  No, they are treated like children by parents. Stop making shit up.

                • jim says:

                  You just have to look at what goes on in a family with adoptive and natural children both. The natural children are treated as children. The adoptive children are treated as pets at best. In the case of whites adopting blacks, as fashion accessories rather than people. Just look at what is in front of your nose. Similarly, some children are adopted for the purpose of surgically changing their genitals to suit fashion.

                  And as for stepdads and stepmums, they are infamous, as ever they were. Stepmums are apt to lose their stepkids, as Hansel and Gretel were lost in the forest, stepdads beat their stepsons and rape their stepdaughters. Stepsisters beat and murder each other. The old fairy tales are as true as ever they were, and with so many stepchildren around these days, there are lots of people to tell you they are as true as ever they were.

                  http://www.nytimes.com/1998/02/10/science/genetic-ties-may-be-factor-in-violence-in-stepfamilies.html?_r=0

                  Dr. Martin Daly and Dr. Margo Wilson, evolutionary psychologists at McMaster University in Hamilton, Ontario, found that the rate of infanticide was 60 times as high and sexual abuse was about eight times as high in stepfamilies as is in biologically related families.

                  “We demonstrated a very large excess risk to stepchildren, an increase of thousands of percentage points,”

                • jim says:

                  You refuse to believe your lying eyes.

                  If not all stepdads beat, rape, and deliberately lose their stepchildren, nearly all mistreat their stepchildren.

                  And all parents with real children and adoptive children in the same family, though they treat their adoptive children kindly enough, as they treat their pets kindly enough, do not treat their adoptive children like their real children. Just look at what is in front of your nose.

                • Brit says:

                  Prepubertal children are not getting sex change operation. Youngest case I can see in the papers is 16. The prepubertants are given hormones.

                • jim says:

                  Oh, great. Hormones.

                  That is a relief.

                • Dave says:

                  Jim, suppose you could spend a few weeks quietly observing a middle-class white family with several white children, all of whom look plausibly related to the parents. Which ones are “real children” and which are “pets”?

                • jim says:

                  Middle class white families do not have adoptees that are plausibly related to the parents.

                • Dave says:

                  What I’m asking is, absent gross abuse like sex-change therapy, what’s the difference between a “real child” and a “pet”? E.g. do “pets” get more hugs and fewer math lessons?

                • jim says:

                  A child will play with a doll as if the doll is a real child, and then casually toss the doll to one side as the mere inanimate object that it really is. A man will treat a pet dog like a child, but when the medical bills get a bit high, euthanize the pet, when he would go bankrupt to keep his child alive for a few months longer. Parenting of adopted children and foster children is inconsistent, erratic, and capricious in the same manner as pet care and doll care, often from moment to moment.

                • Dave says:

                  My childless family members were recently talking about all the advanced treatment their dying dogs got in “intensive care”, visits to specialists a hundred miles away, and finally driving to the hospital at 4 AM to collect the body. For them, dogs, cats, rabbits, etc. are the real children.

                  I have a son who’s mentally handicapped and dote on him like a pet. I’m tougher on his siblings because they have to grow up and live in the real world some day.

                • jim says:

                  If your childless family members had a real child …

                  And even not having a real child, pretty sure that the pet was euthanized long before the hospital bills all that bad.

                • Dave says:

                  For my cats: When moderately sick, an exam to see if it’s easily treatable. When deathly ill, euthanasia. I had a good income and no kids, so I could have afforded cancer treatment, organ transplants, etc., but didn’t see any point in it.

                  I’m glad that animal hospitals exist, however, because they give a good measure of what medical services cost when lawyers, politicians, bureaucrats, and insurance companies are removed from the equation.

    • Corvinus says:

      “To have a normal family with obedient wife and 3+ children…”

      Definitional error. “Normal families” are the creation of what each family decides is normal. What is considered “obedient”, for example, is the result of the groundwork laid by each couple, not your perceptions as to what constitutes “normalcy”.

      “The Cathedral is trying to disarm (literally) and weaken the White middle and working classes so they could rule unchallenged over the masses.”

      Assuming that to be true, then you are no different than the Cathedral in your own brainwashing program. Regardless, it is absolutely insane for a person to think that tens of millions of white people are being manipulated by Jews.

      • peppermint says:

        Haha, now to inject a little racism with the proposition that Whites instinctively want nuclear families and instinctively act like they’re trying to form them when they date even as they loudly claim otherwise.

        This whole sexism meme was invented by Boomers and will die with Boomers. Soul theory is dead the arc of moral history is dead with it. Soon you will be dead too, Corvinus, and you either have a nuclear family, making you a hypocrite, or leave nothing behind, like a good cuck.

  2. Laguna Brach Fogey says:

    Nailed it.

  3. Rhetocrates says:

    I like the part where you say RC gets it wrong and then go ahead and recapitulate RC doctrine on matrimony.

    “In order to have a good moral object, each and every sexual act must be marital and unitive and procreative. Each and every moral sexual act always has these three meanings: marital, unitive, procreative. The deprivation of any one or more of these meanings from the moral object causes the sexual act to be intrinsically evil and always gravely immoral.”

    If Bergoglio says otherwise, that makes him a heretic.

    • jim says:

      Re read. I explicitly and in detail reject the Roman Catholic position on marriage.

      The telos of the sexual act is not reproduction directly but erotic love, male domination, and female submission, thus not every sexual act has to procreative. However every sexual act should be directed towards household formation.

      This argument does not prohibit sex, but serial monogamy, since serial monogamy goes against the telos of providing an environment capable of raising children.

      Serial monogamy is deeply disturbing to both men and women. As I said earlier:

      Yes, a harem is better than just one wife, but a changing rotation of whores is not a harem. The point of having more than one woman is having more than one woman. If I sleep with several women that is really great. If one of them sleeps with another man that is really bad and I will certainly dump her, probably beat her, and might well kill her. I will be very angry and sad for a very long time.

      Look at the typical male polyamorist. He is psychologically scarred and mentally crippled for life. Having a bunch of whores rather than owning a woman, or better, owning two women, just really sucks brutally. Those guys are traumatized for life.

      It unmans men, as if every day a bully beat them up, and they could do nothing about the daily humiliation but suck it up. Just look at what it does to men. It would be kinder to cut their balls off, which is pretty much what progressives are planning to do to us.

      The typical male polyamorist looks as if a fat blue haired feminist has been beating him up every day – indeed, he would probably love it if a fat blue haired feminist beat him up every day.

      Whores are a marginal improvement on beating off to anime. When men are reduced to such desperate straights, it totally crashes their testosterone and they buy an anime cuddle pillow and weep bitter tears upon it.

      It is not that sleeping with whores is bad for men, though being a whore is extremely bad for a woman. It is that sleeping only with whores is bad for men.

  4. Mycroft Jones says:

    Rhetocrates is mistaken. Jim wasn’t saying that all sex has to be “procreative”. That is a big mistake by the church. Also, the Roman Catholic church has put “dignity of the person” and “mutual submission” as the main things in marriage. I consulted with several priests last month. Talked to them at length. Their narrative and message was unanimous. They are well schooled in it.

    Roman Catholicism is cucked. This, it will not recover from. For at least 500 years. That is how long it took to go from Gay Marriage (which sparked the Muslim uprising in 600 AD) back to a position of power 500 years later.

    After careful examination, working up to it by degrees, the priest told me point blank: if a husband tells his wife not to cook a certain dish, she has no obligation to obey him. This was after wading through all the usual BS about “some men abuse their authority”. Scripture says wives must obey husbands as the Church must obey Christ. Except it doesn’t meant that at all, cultural context, you see.

    After 3 priests in a row gave the exact same answers and defended their position for over an hour, I have now forbidden my children any contact with the Catholic church.

    • Kgaard says:

      Mycroft … I don’t see how the church can be expected to survive both Darwin and the fabulous wealth that has been created in western societies. To the extent Christianity was a system for repressing female sexuality (and thus upholding the nuclear family), the necessity for that has dwindled drastically. Our society is so productive that old-time K-select morality just isn’t as critical. Granted much misery ensues down the road from all this, but that’s a separate issue.

      • jim says:

        If we don’t repress female sexuality we fail to reproduce and get conquered by hostile patriarchal outsiders.

        So it looks to me that the necessity for repressing female sexuality is exactly the same as ever it was. Peoples, nations, cultures, religions, ethnicities, that control their women will be around in the future. Peoples that don’t will be conquered, enslaved, or simply vanish altogether, which is the way things have always been.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          If I want my progeny to survive and thrive, does it make more sense to marry an Asian (who would be easier to dominate without social backing) or a black (who will bear me more caddish children)?

          The answer to this question is not obvious to me.

          • pdimov says:

            Can’t think of a reason, given the implicit criteria, why moving to Russia and marrying a Russian girl doesn’t beat either of those.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Having to learn Russian, live in a poor country, live in a somewhat crazy country?

              I maybe agree that Russia has the best long-term future of any white country today, with the possible exception of Australia.

              • Dan says:

                Forget Australia. We are nothing more than a US subsidiary. At least the US has had witnesses to the growth of progressivism: here we just adopt it all and no one even realises.

                Individuals or groups opposing the Cathedral are almost non-existent. We have no ‘alt-right’, no ‘NRx’, not even libertarians. There are tiny pockets of ineffectual trad-catholics who are not even humored in the mainstream.

                Just in the last two days alone driving home from work, the 5 stories on the news were:
                1. Discussing how our anti-discrimination laws must include the right of people not be be insulted or offended.
                2. Quotas to get female 50% representation in politics and industry
                3. The inhumanity and racism of our youth detention system
                4. Gender neutral bathrooms, and check-box options on the national consensus
                5. Banning the word ‘guys’ in the workplace

              • Harold says:

                Russians may be ‘white’ but I want Western Europeans to survive.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Also Russia’s birthrate is through the floor, which suggests that they have all the same feminist nonsense. From the outside I cannot distinguish a genuinely reactionary country from a country that is merely in the 1970s or 1980s stage of our own progressive death spiral. Note that the 1970s were far to the right of the 2010s yet the birth rate was just as low.

              • TheBigH says:

                Russian birthrates are increasing year after year.

              • A.B. Prosper says:

                The Russian TFR is around the same as or higher than ours by a fraction right now

                Its higher than most of Europe as well.

                Life expectancy are also increasing quickly while ours are dropping

                A few years we will be equal, if Russia keeps getting better and we keep falling, they will be better off than the West.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  Russian TFR 1.6
                  US/UK 1.9

                • jim says:

                  You want the white TFR

                  Which is generally not revealed because it is so bad.

                  Even the white TFR is misleading because in countries like Sweden, a whole lot of them are fatherless black bastards. You want to look at the proportion of white babies born. If TFR is high, but few white babies born, which is the Swedish situation, Swedes are hosed. Black bastards are going to be tax consumers and criminals, not taxpayers and soldiers.

                • pdimov says:

                  1.6 is 2012.

                  “As of 2014, Russian TFR of 1.750 children per woman[7] was the highest in Eastern, Southern and Central Europe.”

                  Was 1.2 in 2000. Trends up.

                  US White is 1.75. Trends down.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            The answer is neither case, because that won’t be your progeny in either case.

          • TheBigH says:

            You don’t want either. Due to the anti-cuckold instinct you’ll end up hating any sons that don’t look like you once they hit a certain age. Interacal families are disasters.

      • deltahedge says:

        > Our society is so productive that old-time K-select morality just isn’t as critical.

        Which K-selecting society are you talking about? The US one, which is being overrun by r-selecting Hispanics, or the Western European, which is being overrun by r-selecting Muslims?

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Islam seems to have got the scrape of the barrel in terms of converts so far, but to its credit it enforces k-selection.

          If Muslims can take over Europe without spoiling the genetic pot too much, we may see a real revival of the white race, for those who care about that.

          If right-wing Europeans would convert to Islam en masse and take over, they could kick out the Muslim immigrants as ruthlessly as the House of Saud kicks out undesirable Palestinian immigrants, and begin the process of moral revival.

          • Dave says:

            The problem with converting to Islam to defeat Islam is the high likelihood that our descendants won’t get the joke, and their society will fail for the same reasons Islam has failed everywhere else that it didn’t have a non-Islamic host to feed on.

          • TheBigH says:

            Islam is incapable of maintaining a civilization. The holier than thou cycle gets out of control very quickly and people fall back into tribes to survive.

        • Corvinus says:

          K-r selection theory is pseudoscience.

      • Dave says:

        > much misery ensues down the road

        “The divine wrath is slow indeed in vengeance, but it makes up for its tardiness by the severity of the punishment.” -Valerius Maximus

    • Robert says:

      Agree, so what do we do about it? I think the answer is to form new traditional institutions. Let’s say when you want to get married instead of the USA issuing marriage certificates, you had another institution issue it. You should check out knightsofthewest.com

  5. deltahedge says:

    Nothing shows this pattern better than the modern institution of marriage. It literally incentivizes women to divorce their hubby. Of course you cannot feel attracted if you were actually better off (in terms of responsibilities, financials, and opportunities to fuck other men) without him.

    The Muslim talaq has its merits – three strikes and she is out. Good way of reminding her who is the alpha in the relationship.

  6. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    >But what if all wite wimin r liberel slutes? that means u shud cuck ur heritage lolo.

    The idea of ‘finding a good woman’ is backwards logic; most women women are conditional solipsists (and by most women i means all women, +obligatory respect for the enormity of being); the dearth of imagination is the dearth of agency; if one cannot conceive more transcendent teleologies, one cannot channel their powers into being or participate in them save by accident.

    A woman is like a sailboat on a placid sea; blown hither and tither by the winds of validation; or directed by the strong hand of a captain. In any case, their direction comes from without.

    You don’t ‘find’ a good woman, you *make* a good woman. And to make a good woman, you need good founding stock; not third world mud creatures or hivemind insectoids.

    • jim says:

      This sounds suspiciously like “Man up and marry those sluts”.

      The problem is precisely that it is hard to have an old style marriage when the surrounding society defines that as rape and spouse abuse and your Church stabs you in the back.

      I managed it because a young virgin chose to stick with me and subject herself to my authority, despite my bad conduct. Or perhaps because of my bad conduct. But that was a long time ago, and she was raised conservatively and was a virgin. Harder today, and there is a grave shortage of virgins.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        I thought I had a good thing when I married a traditional Catholic woman of low N count. No divorce, no abortion, no contraception, etc. I was puzzled by her strange behavior. After interviewing her three priests, I see that they are directly responsible for the chaos in the household. A lot of key phrases I heard from her mouth, I heard also from the priests. And she wasn’t misinterpreting them either. I interviewed them at length to make sure I understood their intent and meaning behind the words. The wife was taking them at their word, the way they intended it.

        Catholicism is anti-family, and bad for marriage and family formation.

        • Robert says:

          I had a lot of troubles in the beginning of my marriage. Looking back now I see it was basically me failing a bunch of shit tests. When I finally said, “bitch there’s the door” things got much better. A couple years ago she was pushing me again, she yanked something out of my hand, I got up, took her down, got on top of her and slapped her a few times. She has acted much better since that. Word of caution, she got a black eye and I would have went to jail, but I took her phone and had to say I would instantly divorce her if she tried to tell the cops. I would spank her on her butt if I had to do it again.

          • jim says:

            You should never hit a woman in the face.

            1. Their faces are fragile, you can quite easily kill them or cause major brain damage. It is disturbingly easy to kill a woman.

            2. It is undignified and humiliating. You punch your equals in the face. Women are not your equals. Treating them as equals is horribly beta. You are giving her too much status and yourself too little.

            Put her in a half nelson with your left hand pinning both her hands behind her back, and spank her.

            Punching her shows your failure to internalize patriarchal attitudes. If you felt that you had rightful authority over her, that you were entitled to obedience, it would scarcely occur to you to give her a black eye.

            • A.B. Prosper says:

              The only exception is the rare woman who is dangerous and armed with a proper weapon usually a gun but a knife is she has training.

              Knives and swords require less strength than you imagine and even a woman can kill you fast if you are caught by surprise.

              Its best to disarm but its not unmanly to use force in such a case

              Why any man would marry or be in a relationship with such a person is beyond me but it happens.

              • JRM says:

                Haven’t checked recently, but traditionally women have favored administering poison, which kind of short-circuits the defense portion of the program.

    • Corvinus says:

      “You don’t ‘find’ a good woman, you *make* a good woman. And to make a good woman, you need good founding stock; not third world mud creatures or hivemind insectoids.”

      Fathers make good sons and daughters. So, how do YOU “make” a good woman, assuming you have a girlfriend or are married. Please, offer us insight into YOUR tricks of the trade. Specific details, not broad generalizations. I also assume she is white, and that you already have four children under the age of 6.

      If not, you are a cuck.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >offer us insight into YOUR tricks of the trade.

        I fuck your ass and make you humble, the obvious display of dominance making her gina tingle and thus putty in my hands.

  7. orochijes says:

    I’ve been meaning to ask this completely irrelevant question for a while now, but why do you often skip words after commas? “If they want X, they should do Y” becomes “If they want X, should Y”. I don’t think that’s grammatically correct.

  8. Alan J. Perrick says:

    Yes, I think the case for the mystical union is the most compelling one. More than natalist arguments which I think kind of suck, and more than even the coolness found in organisational functionality, the mystical argument challenges pedestrian concepts of reality itself.

    A.J.P.

  9. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    A logical extension of the above premises is that fat shaming and slut shaming are public goods. A shibboleth is necessary.

    That said, the main thrust of my point is more towards disgusting reprobates implying miscegenation is in anyway preferable in cases of ideological match/mismatch.

    Such is placing the cart before the horse. Ideologies emerge from essence; change the essence, and you lose both that and your ideology too. Its not even being cucked, its cucking yourself. Accords between disparate entities based on apparent ideological overlap are ephemeralities.

    Also mischlings are malformed and disharmonious chimaeras prone to mental illness and health problems

    Bringing more Elliot Rogers into the world is child abuse.

  10. TheBigH says:

    Cuckoldry is becoming more common and socially accepted:

    http://i.imgur.com/8ns9iIh.jpg

    • jim says:

      If moment to moment consent is right, then cuckoldry is right. The Roman Catholic Church has accepted moment to moment consent, so logically and necessarily it must accept cuckoldry. And it has.

      If a woman is entitled to refuse to sleep with her husband, she is entitled to sleep with someone more to her liking.

      • A pint thereof says:

        “If a woman is entitled to refuse to sleep with her husband, she is entitled to sleep with someone more to her liking.”

        No she’s not. A Catholic wife, or husband, is only permitted to sleep with their spouse. If divorced, they are to remain a lifelong celibate.

        You either know this, and you’re trying to deceive the less informed readers here about the true nature of Catholicism. Or you don’t know this, in which case you shouldn’t be passing comment.

        • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

          Slippery slopes are a law of nature. ‘Women have the moral authority to decide whither she fucks her husband’ smoothly and easily becomes ‘Women have the moral authority to decide whither she fucks’.

        • jim says:

          No she’s not. A Catholic wife, or husband, is only permitted to sleep with their spouse. If divorced, they are to remain a lifelong celibate.

          Bullshit. That is the Church’s teaching in theory, in yellowing documents hidden behind the hot water heater in the basement. It is not the teaching in actual practice. In actual practice, divorced fertile age women, who are always either remarried or openly engaging in casual sex, are permitted to take communion.

          Further, almost no one in the Catholic Church marries as a virgin. They were theoretically supposed to marry the first man they had sex with or remain celibate for life, so almost no fertile age woman who takes communion is theoretically entitled to take communion.

          Almost all fertile age women are engaging in sex. They are almost never engaging in sex with the first man they had sex with, unless they are thirteen years old, so theoretically none of them should be allowed to take communion.

          Theoretically the Roman Catholic Church rejects moment to moment consent, but in practice endorses moment to moment consent. If endorses moment to moment consent, then logically must endorse cuckoldry. And theoretically the Roman Catholic Church rejects cuckoldry, but in practice endorses cuckoldry.

          • A pint thereof says:

            What you’re saying here is simply not true.

            The Church does not, never has, and never will permit a married person to have sex with anyone other than their own spouse. Unmarried folk cannot have sex at all.

            If anything, the Church is the only institution on earth that publicly articulates this position – it is up to individuals to conform their own lives towards this teaching.

            Where a parish priest or high prelate says anything contrary to marital fidelity, then they do so as heretics. And heretics do not define what the Church teaches…..

            • peppermint says:

              The advice to men whose women cheat on them is together cucked.

              The advice to infertile couple is not IVF but to get cucked.

              If you believe in the lottery of souls, you believe that cuckoldry is just fine.

              The other day I saw a car commercial in which two White girls stepped out of a car and said thanks mom to a Black womyn. At first I lolled, but then I realized she probably adopted them as embryos because #alllivesmatter as Black womyn are more often Christians than other demographics.

            • jim says:

              By the same evidence – yellowing and ignored documents hidden behind the water heater in the basement – you can argue that the Church supports the duty of each spouse to sexually gratify each other, and the right of the husband to have sex with his wife – except that it obviously does not, and to say that it does would be too blatantly absurd.

              They are not issuing a new and improved version of the bible, but old and obsolete doctrines are simply being quietly ignored. Female adultery is one such old and obsolete doctrine. When they quietly obsoleted the wifely duty to have sex, female adultery would necessarily follow after a little while. A little while has now passed, and it has quietly followed into quiet oblivion behind the water heater in the basement.

              Given common sense observation of the lustful nature of women, and Saint Pauls observations on the matter, if you accept that women have the right of moment to moment to moment consent, you cannot logically deny them the right to adultery. The Church has quietly and furtively abandoned the doctrine of matrimonial duty, which is now another doctrine, one of many, that is still on the books but obsolete. Adultery necessarily follows the abandonment of matrimonial duty, and it has.

              A church that will not preach that wives have duty to honor and obey their husbands and submit to them sexually, will not for very long preach that wives have a duty to not submit sexually to whoever is leading the top forty. And now the entirely predictable has come to pass.

              If you will not preach that wives have a duty to honor and obey their husbands, and that spouses have a duty to gratify each other sexually, then you will not preach the one flesh doctrine. And without the one flesh doctrine, nothing that the church has to say about marriage and sex makes any sense whatsoever. It is all old fashioned silly arbitrary nonsense. If the one flesh doctrine means nothing, then adultery means nothing.

              You cannot have one doctrine without the other doctrine. The Roman Catholic Church quietly stopped preaching one flesh, and now they have quietly stopped preaching female adultery.

            • jim says:

              On Divorce And Remarriage, Pope Calls For More Grace, Less Dogma

              How can there be less dogma when no one has heard any dogma on unfaithful wives for a very long time?

              And if anyone was inclined to preach the dogma about female infidelity, it would make no sense without the one flesh doctrine.

              When has a woman been refused an anullment on the grounds that she fucked around, left her husband, and fucked around some more?

              To say that opposition to female adultery is part of church doctrine, show me opposition to female adultery: Where do we hear criticism of female adultery? What women has been denied an annulment because she was adulterous?

              • A pint thereof says:

                Jim, you’ve just destroyed your own point.

                When _even_ Francis has to publicly acknowledge the Church’s teaching on fidelity within marriage, it’s then a hard sell to say that the Church isn’t publicly preaching its teaching on fidelity within marriage.

                Look, I get it; you’re making an edgy point about female sexuality, a point which gets the legs of a neoreactionary blog’s audience trembling with excitement. But it says nothing about Catholic doctrine – despite the repeated barrage of non sequitur assertions you throw at it.

                • k says:

                  joe biden still gets communion, right?

                  i suppose the church position is “we can’t do anything about it now, but he’ll certainly pay in the afterlife”

                • jim says:

                  Well, what does the church actually say its position is?

                  I mean actually say out loud from the pulpit – not in yellowing documents in the basement hidden behind the water heater.

                • jim says:

                  When _even_ Francis has to publicly acknowledge the Church’s teaching on fidelity within marriage,

                  He “acknowledges” it by dismissing it as cruel and old fashioned – and, once you have abandoned the one flesh doctrine, prohibiting female adultery is cruel and old fashioned.

                  But it says nothing about Catholic doctrine

                  The Catholic Church long ago stopped preaching the one flesh doctrine. It has not preached against female adultery in quite some time, nor has it rejected an annulment sought by an adulterous woman in recent times.

            • Corvinus says:

              “The Church does not, never has, and never will permit a married person to have sex with anyone other than their own spouse. Unmarried folk cannot have sex at all.”

              Of course you’re right.

              Jim thinks he can be married, tell her what do to whenever he wants (and she obliges), and have all the sex on the side as well without any moral consequences. He conveniently twists and turns the Bible to suit his own demented form of Christianity.

              • jim says:

                The Church applauds single mums as heroes.

                When have he heard the church condemn an unfaithful wife?

                When has the Church refused annulment to an unfaithful wife in North America?

                • JRM says:

                  I find it increasingly difficult to take Catholic doctrine on anything seriously. I’m not RC, but I’d be willing to acknowledge the Church as a valuable social force, if it acted as one.

                  Instead, we see the inversion of traditional values, either explicitly or implicitly.

                  If this current Pope has had anything non-corrosive of White European tradition to say, I must not have been able to understand him; perhaps he was speaking while his mouth was full of a random Mohammedan’s toes.

  11. JRM says:

    In total agreement with 90% of the article. Especially important for men to take note (if their own instincts have failed them) from your teachings re: the implications of their woman interrupting or talking over them.

    One area of quibble:

    “Men fantasize about having sex with a woman, but women fantasize about submitting sexually to man’s masterful domination.”

    I think this used to be true; or at least should be true; but if we puzzle over the popular porn sites, a problem arises (no pun intended).

    Perhaps you are speaking strictly about the “fantasies” that go through a man’s mind unaided as opposed to the “fantasies” available for consumption on porn websites? Because in my own experience I would agree; no elaborate stories, just visuals…

    BUT- if you take a look at on-line porn (I’m thinking of a popular free video website with categorized types of pornography) it seems that perverse fantasies certainly dominate “healthy” ones- and those very much do involve a “story”.

    I’ve not done a run-down (but I’ll bet someone has), but the categories of perverse erotica are dauntingly masochistic. There are shameful amounts of porn that deal in cuckoldry and feminine domination of the male. Also, sex videos with one woman and many men seem to be incredibly popular, and would seem to be an implicit endorsement of infidelity on the part of a woman.

    Suicidal self-loathing: videos of male parts being crushed under women’s heels; videos of women whipping men; although there are also many videos of women being subjected to abuse. But even there, one hesitates to deem it much of an improvement.

    I guess my questions would be: how sick is the average Western male? Or how sick has he been encouraged to become?

    Why the fascination with being cuckolded by one’s wife? Is it some frantic signal for help based on the very kind of social dynamics you are outlining in your article?

    By God, and I’m no apologist for women, we may be sinking lower than them.

    Has the Western male forfeited his *moral* supremacy over the female? Because the male moral superiority over the female has been the hallmark of Western thinking on the relationship between the sexes.

    • jim says:

      BUT- if you take a look at on-line porn (I’m thinking of a popular free video website with categorized types of pornography) it seems that perverse fantasies certainly dominate “healthy” ones- and those very much do involve a “story”.

      Cuckold porn is a totally new genre. Just cannot find it before female emancipation. No eighteenth century English language cuckold or several males on one female porn, no early eighteenth century French language cuckold or several males on one female porn. Most of the other deviations are older than civilization.

      So yes, suicidal self loathing and a cry for help.

      As one of the few remaining normal men who had a normal sex life, I see the men around me horribly broken and traumatized by their inability to attain a normal sex life.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        I beg to differ. Reference the works of Marquis de Sade. Lots of cuck, and multiple males on one female in his writing.

        • A.B. Prosper says:

          One demented syphilitic incarcerated for his writing does not a trend make

        • JRM says:

          After I posted the above, I realized that someone would bring up famous sexual deviants of the past. Here’s the difference: de Sade was jailed for his perversity (and if I recall correctly, because his Mother-In-Law hated him).

          There were men who enjoyed being trampled in the past, too: Krafft-Ebing wrote about a couple of them, and K-E also cataloged enough perversities to build a web-site on.

          But K-E was writing about *outliers*. All his case histories are there because these men were considered sick.

          Now we have mainstreamed perversity, as someone mentioned.

          We can’t point to K-E, or other cataloguers of sexual perversity, as a kind of rationalization that something new isn’t going on, because Mr. X in 1899 paid a prostitute to walk on him. The point is, in 1899 Mr. X was acknowledged by social consent to be mentally ill. Today, he’d be producing a blog and thanking his followers for reposts!

          I’ve always been a proponent of freedom of speech, but looking at the perversity on display on the internet, one wonders if it needs to be shutdown, for the sheer sake of reproductive sanity.

          • peppermint says:

            Free speech is fine. The only reason people listen to these cucks is government force. Also, we don’t need more welfare to solve poverty, simply repeal civil rights and there will be jobs.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        Unless I read “early 18th century” wrong, in which case, ignore my reference to de Sade, he was late 18th century.

      • A.B. Prosper says:

        Very much so.

        Its new enough that there is a coined word using Anglish (Anglo Saxon English) for female cuckholds , cuckquean (yes that is the spelling) apparently this is a fantasy for women as well

        That is also sick as hell. A healthy woman might tolerate her alpha guy having a mistress, she might have too but she always wants him to herself exclusively

        • peppermint says:

          the best example of a female cuckold is http://imgur.com/a/BZ4td.jpg

          but yeah, Hillary Clinton is the cuckquean candidate.

          Offering a man non-exclusive access is fundamentally different from offering a woman non-exclusive access, and when you look at the cuckquean sites, you see women masturbating to anime and normal women trying to figure out how to like the ethical polyamory lifestyle that they’re told to.

          • peppermint says:

            derp, http://imgur.com/ArP1kA6h.jpg

            If you believe in the lottery of souls and reject abortion, you approve of cuckoldry.

            If you approve of cuckoldry, you degrade marriage.

            If you degrade marriage, you subvert the family.

            Traitors will be shot.

            Gas the christcucks, weltanschauung war now.

            • Corvinus says:

              Men and women can choose for themselves to have children or adopt.

              Regarding the “shooting of traitors”, be a good little boy and start having white babies rather than being a drain on my society. Hopefully they are boys, then you can teach them about “gassing christcucks”. Regardless, all you have are words. Take actual action, then I will believe you.

        • jim says:

          cuckqueen is different from cuckold. Not perverse.

          A cuckold is self destructive, a cuckqueen is not. A cuckold is apt to wind up raising other men’s children. A cuckqueen is not apt to wind up raising other women’s children.

          cuckqueens are just women highly motivated by preselection, and all women are disturbingly and startlingly motivated by preselection.

          Women like polygyny, even though they make a drama to the contrary. That is one of the reasons why nearly all Christian converts to Islam are single fertile age women, and very few Muslim converts to Christianity are single fertile age women. In Islam women get an alpha male, and protection from the eyes of beta males.

          • Learner says:

            Most converts to Christianity in Africa are single fertile-age women. But it’s not an individual decision. Women are expected to get their husbands’ religion and belong to their husbands’ “tribe”. This same old-fashioned rule may be affecting European converts, too. If you want to marry a Muslim woman, there are only two possible options: either she renounces Islam (and converts e.g. to Catholicism) or you convert to Islam. The decision is usually a question of how violent (or rich) her Muslim family is.

          • peppermint says:

            — Women like polygyny, even though they make a drama to the contrary.

            Yeah, no, look at the Millennial dating scene with its “ethical polyamory” and how the women feel about it. Women will put up with it and will offer it to get the man they want.

            It’s still degrading to deny a White woman her proper role as her White man’s other half.

            • jim says:

              It’s still degrading to deny a White woman her proper role as her White man’s other half.

              Yes it is, but women rather like being degraded, and have to be restrained by male authority and female social pressure from degrading themselves.

      • Greg says:

        Humans can’t change their sexual preferences as fast as markets can respond to changing economics.

        I’ve seen my share of porn on the intertubes, yet never felt an inclination to pay for any of it. I guess that not many with sufficiently normal tastes want to pay for porn anymore. The net is so stuffed tight with normal (and “mainstream abnormal”, if such a thing makes sense) porn, can people ever exhaust it enough to want to pay actual money for more of the same?

        This must be different with niche tastes that haven’t been yet been exhausted because they were too tiny to turn a profit.

        The net connects niche providers with niche pervs much more efficiently, while at the same time mainstream is declining from oversupply.

        What would you expect? I’d expect more niche stuff. No change in any actual perv proclivities involved.

        • peppermint says:

          Great theory, except that

          * Race cuck porn isn’t even profitable. Jews make it to insult Whites and it’s ironically promoted by feminists as the most ideologically acceptable

          * Porn servers are usually paid for with paid camgirl site popups and “dating site” popups like adultfriendfinder and so on

          * Niche audiences have their own forums (some of which are open to googling), but the biggest fetish forum is probably fetlife.

          * Not every niche has a paysite and there are plenty of paysites for mainstream content

          • JRM says:

            peppermint said:

            “Race cuck porn isn’t even profitable. Jews make it to insult Whites and it’s ironically promoted by feminists as the most ideologically acceptable”

            A couple of points about “race cuck porn”:

            1. There is an insane amount of privately produced “amateur” content in this category. Unless this is a hoax, and is actually being done by semi-pros. Taken at face value, these purport to be amateur productions, not studio supported. I mean a great deal of it, not all.

            This is even worse than professional perversity. It means that there is a sort of “grass-roots” movement to bastardize the White race that is being advocated by Whites. Imagine a husband who allows his wife to be taken by a black (or several of them); then imagine what it takes to film it, and post it to the internet. If this isn’t a defective human being, how would we define one?

            2. This pornography has an “ideology”. Unlike other forms of porn, which are strictly about voyeurism, this form presents itself as either a guilt reducing correction employed by Whites to redeem themselves from racism; or is promoted as a panacea for the rest of the world in the promise of eliminating evil Whites. There is a self-righteous “porn for a higher purpose” shtick I don’t recall seeing in other perverse tropes. This is porn that is going to “fix” the unjust world.

            3. Jews produce most professional porn, and always have. But I doubt there is any other form which gives them so much job satisfaction as this one. Especially when the girl is a blonde.

            • jim says:

              A couple of points about “race cuck porn”:

              1. There is an insane amount of privately produced “amateur” content in this category.

              Amateur means “not for profit”. Not for profit usually means government funded social justice warriors. Almost certainly, race cuck porn is your taxes at work.

              • JRM says:

                @jim: “Almost certainly, race cuck porn is your taxes at work.”

                I reflexively thought “what an outrage!” upon reading this. But upon a moment’s reflection, I think that would be preferable to the idea that dozens, possibly hundreds, of White couples are degrading themselves in this manner.

                I also suppose it could be one of those things where, the GOV starts the ball rolling, and then foolish civilians jump on the bandwagon. In which case, the GOV is/was acting as a Judas goat.

                As someone who suspects Facebook and Twitter are GOV subsidized operations (if they aren’t they must be one of the greatest gifts a people ever bestowed upon its rulers), this theory seems plausible.

              • peppermint says:

                there’s amateur content in every category, and you can read what they have to say about it in the forums.

                There could easily be thousands of couples involved in race cuckoldry.

                It’s worth noting that British of British descent women have been getting AIDS and bringing it home to their husbands after sex tourism trips to Africa.

                This isn’t a huge problem numerically, but it’s interesting because of the differences in sexual behavior that partly drive it, and of course because of the way it reveals cracks in the Narrative and can be used to insult cucks.

                If you’re autistic enough to laugh at it instead of however normalfags are supposed to react, fetish forums are a google search away.

    • TheBigH says:

      I read a post on reddit once about a young guy who confessed that the only way he could get off is by watching black men fuck white women. He felt disgusted after he was done but he kept going back to it. I’d say he’s broken.

      • peppermint says:

        Race cuck porn is full of irony. Niggers are perceived by liberals as powerless and are a race of beta males eager to have access on whatever terms are set, which makes them safe, even though they are predators, while feminists call White men dangerous and shame women away from submitting to White men even though White men are safe.

        But keep in mind that while bondage porn is totally about respecting the woman, race cuck porn is in some sense the result of too much respect for women, and is unambiguously degrading towards women. That’s the kernel of truth in his sexual proclivities that may lead him out of his disgusting habit.

        • jim says:

          But keep in mind that while bondage porn is totally about respecting the woman

          Most bondage porn has women in bondage.

          Of course this stuff is in substantial part produced for female viewers.

          Bondage as practiced by progressives has affirmative consent, but no one wants to watch bondage with affirmative consent.

          • peppermint says:

            that has a complicated apparatus that the woman is tied up into and the guy is totally focused on pleasuring her. I can appreciate if you say it’s degrading towards her anyway, but it’s entirely about her feelings.

            Race cuck porn is inherently degrading.

  12. Stephen W says:

    Never seen cads spelt with an H before, last time I read about chads it was something to do with the year 2000 presidential election in Florida.

    • peppermint says:

      To the rest of the alt-right, Chad is a name that’s associated with White frat boys.

      Jim’s choice could be because he is assuming that those White frat boys are the only ones who have the male organization to teach them to behave sexually like niggers, acting interested around women that they’re not really all that interested in and getting in when they actually have no intention of sticking around.

      If that was once so, then it is an example of the White male privilege that used to exist immediately following the breakdown of marriage and the family back when the Boomers and GenXers were growing up, which the Milennials and Post-Milennials are currently being punished for.

      For more examples of actual White male privilege, check out the ’90s romcom High Fidelity.

  13. Alf says:

    Shared this with brothers and some close friends. ‘Will fuck black rappers’ produces expected blowback, but perhaps something sticks.

    • jim says:

      People chronically underestimate female depravity.

      Women follow their pussies, so you have to arrange the social environment that their pussies lead them into good behavior – husbands and children – rather than bad behavior, sharing their husband’s underage daughters with black rappers.

  14. Jack Highlands says:

    Re Russians above: The Slavs are the only major European branch of the Aryan ethnolinguistic family who have yet to have a crack at a leadership role for Europe. Greeks, Celts and Latins have all had their time. Western civ is basically Germanic civilization, and we see it dying before our eyes.

    The cycle of Aryan civilization is the cycle of feminization: barbarians, but the right, Aryan barbarians mind you, take up the torch when the civilized become too fey.

    That is why the alt-right meme of ‘brother’s wars’ is so foolhardy.

    Russia’s turn has been slowly growing since Ivan Hrozny, with the Siberian expansion, with Petr Velky, with late Soviet imperialism. The collapse of Communism was merely a temporary setback, and a price especially well worth paying for a large amount of (((emigration))). Their arrival is the sign of a nation’s decay, not of its ascent.

  15. Corvinus says:

    Jim…

    “Men want children, children are hostages against them, the hostages make them weak, so their wives despise them and fuck a black rapper, who fucks their husband’s daughters and beats their husband’s sons.”

    You have an extremely wild imagination. Most fathers do not believe that their sons and daughters are “hostages”, nor do their wives have sex with darkie songsmiths.

    “If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away…”

    What is the actual frequency of this exact occurrence? Hard data, not your bullshit analysis.

    “What nearly everyone wants is a secure relationship.”

    Which is determined by couples themselves, not you.

    “But abolishing the traditional deal is not what anyone wanted. The result is that everyone gets ill treated.”

Actually, it is what men and women wanted in order for each to be treated better.

    “If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.”

    You meant to say, for accuracy —> you do not really exist in her universe at that particular point in time.

    “If a woman interrupts her husband, then in her mind she is single and has been abandoned.”

    You do not speak for all women here. Besides, where is the psychological evidence that this is EXACTLY what she is thinking?

    “If a fertile age woman interrupts her husband, she is cruising for a dick, because every single fertile age woman is cruising for a dick.”

    Again, how do you know exactly this is the case in all circumstances? Answer—> you don’t.

    “If your fertile age wife interrupts you and talks over you, you are probably being cuckolded.”

    Probably not. You would have to know about the background of every relationship in human history to make that judgement.

    • Alf says:

      >“If irresponsible and reckless women can take their husband’s children away…”
      > What is the actual frequency of this exact occurrence? Hard data, not your bullshit analysis.

      you are bullshitting.

      > “If a woman interrupts you and talks over you, you do not really exist in her universe.”
      > You meant to say, for accuracy —> you do not really exist in her universe at that particular point in time.

      Corvinus, you have gamma written on your forehead. Have you read http://alphagameplan.blogspot.nl/2016/07/a-letter-to-gamma.html

      • Corvinus says:

        “Corvinus, you have gamma written on your forehead.”

        It is clear you are projecting, as if you were serious in attacking my arguments, you would make an effort rather than link to the website of someone’s own interpretation of what is a man.

    • JRM says:

      @Corvinus: “Again, how do you know exactly this is the case in all circumstances? Answer—> you don’t.”

      Is there more to this argument than NAWALT?

      I doubt Jim believes he knows all the workings of every human mind, and the circumstances of each person, which seems to be the bar you are setting.

      He can make arguments based on observation. We can all make arguments based on observed tendencies and rational global statements.

      If you were writing a blog, would you muse over every question and conclude with “well, I can’t know what goes on in every person’s mind; so we’ll just have to reserve judgement”.

      You have every right to create that blog, but I wouldn’t get my hopes up for much profitable discussion in the comments section.

      • Corvinus says:

        Jim is well known for making shit up, backtracking, making more shit up, and backtracking again. He acts as if he knows every single male-female tendency. Rather than be a cuck, why don’t you challenge him on occasion on that bullshit?

        • jim says:

          When have I backtracked? My recollection is that every time you claimed anything, you got completely shot out of the water.

          You keep confidently asserting lunatic PC fantasies, without evidence or argument, and I keep pointing out that they wildly false.

          For example your most recent assertion was that anything that people chose to call a family was fine. Tell it to Hansel and Gretel.

  16. peppermint says:

    You know what’s even more annoying than the cases of White women being fed to niggers by ((various forces))?

    The way White women try to sound like nigger sows when they sing.

    Corvinus would correct me for accuracy and say that White women have the right to sound like whatever they want to. He’s a leftist stuck in the ’90s.

  17. Learner says:

    Jim’s ideas are intriguing, as always. Let’s try and separate his real ideas with the background noise:

    1. Jim is anti-geneticist. Jim thinks education/brainwashing is more important than genes. (Which is rather strange for a blog with such racial overtones.) Whites were very strong in the past, but that was because there was no feminism, he seems to argue. Once feminism is created, Whites are weak and about to disappear. Well, if brainwashing (you know, spanking on films, etc.) has such a huge force, don’t worry about genes. They will be easily overruled by brainwashing.

    I am a geneticist. I think our era could be easily called the “antigeneticist era”. Genetics matter a lot. Marxism doesn’t allow for this, hence our systems brainwash us into thinking otherwise. This, however, has no real-world consequences. Women have always fucked aggresive men; Blacks are more aggresive (braver, if you want), hence women fuck them. Where is the brainwashing? It’s all in the genes. A female wants to fuck more aggresive (more muscular, healthier, braver) men to have more aggresive (more muscular, healthier, braver) children. Yes, intelligence is important, too. But remember that 1 out of 6 black men are smarter than the White average man, and half the White husbands are below-average in that department. Every White girl has millions of smarter, stronger Black men (vs. her boyfriend/husband) to fuck.

    The only difference between now and the past is that White men killed Black men fucking White women. Now they don’t. Why not? Because White racist killers didn’t receive a fair punishment in the past, but they do receive a fair punishment now. Now, you can say that a husband has the right to kill his wife, and his wife’s lovers, and Black children flirting with his daughters, and even his daughters, too. OK. That’s esentially sharia law. But don’t blame the fact that we don’t have that state of affairs as of now on Marxism, feminism, brainwashing, Jews, etc. Blame it rather on people behaving naturally and not wanting to live under sharia law. A very Western thing to do, if you ask me.

    2. Jim is right that judges must not favour women regarding children. Custody should be shared, and access to the children must be granted to both ex-wife and ex-husband. That’s the reasonable thing to do. That’s what’s being done in other countries, by the way.

    3. Catholicism bans sex outside the marriage. It also bans abortions. It also bans husbands visiting prostitutes. It also bans porn (including cuck porn). All this doesn’t matter at all, because people still fuck, get abortions and visit prostitutes (and watch all kinds of porn). That’s not the Church’s problem.

    4. Porn does not define us. I think I have watched all kinds of porn ever produced. Most of it excited me in the right circumstances. Humiliation, sex and violence stirr something in the human nature; just watch Game of Thrones. That doesn’t make us any demons. It’s our acts, not our fantasies, not our unsaid thoughts, and certainly not the fiction we watch or read, what defines us. (Again, genes vs. brainwashing).

    • jim says:

      1. Jim is anti-geneticist. Jim thinks education/brainwashing is more important than genes. (

      Not so is. It is not that brain washing is more important than genes. it is that collective action is more important than genes.

      From 1938 to 1963, Holly wood showed society approving of wife beating.

      In “McLintock” the patriarch, representing authority, custom, and wisdom, authorizes his son in law to give a well deserved beating to his daughter. Subsequently the patriarch gives a very well deserved beating (I might have killed her had I been in his shoes) to his wife. in front of the entire town, including the governor.

      Now, you can say that a husband has the right to kill his wife, and his wife’s lovers, and Black children flirting with his daughters, and even his daughters, too. OK. That’s esentially sharia law. But don’t blame the fact that we don’t have that state of affairs as of now on Marxism, feminism, brainwashing, Jews, etc. Blame it rather on people behaving naturally and not wanting to live under sharia law. A very Western thing to do, if you ask me.

      Pretty sure it is not natural for me. Feels like prison or an armed home invasion robbery. Feels like I am being intimidated off my own property. And white males that have psychologically adapted to it and fully internalized it look and act broken. For example Scott Alexander. They are psychologically and emotionally crippled in their interactions with females.

      Patriarchal families, what you are calling Sharia law, are natural to white males, and what we are seeing is utterly unnatural, the state violently smashing its way through men’s doors into families to break up families, to take men’s sons away to use as hostages against them. Nothing natural about that.

      There is nothing natural about the state throwing men out of their houses or abducting their sons to be used as hostages against them.

      And if it is a very Western and natural thing, how come we did not have it in the previous two thousand years of Western history?

      • Learner says:

        There are two ways you can project power: 1) imposing your will through absolute power; 2) imposing partly your will through negotiation, making some concessions reflecting the real balance of power.

        Female power, for most of history, was zero. OK, seduction. OK, parents’ family ties. OK, some unpaid work. OK, even prostitution. But, more or less, female power was zero. Hence male power was, in comparison, absolute. There you have your patriarchy and parents killing their daughters.

        A small problem came later, when females could work and get paid for it. When females could even fight (!) because of firearms and bombers and all that stuff. After all, it doesn’t matter if the finger pushing the nuclear button is male or female. I won’t argue if female work is worth exactly the same as male work, or rather two thirds, one half or one third. It doesn’t matter. Female power increased to a significant fraction of male power, Therefore, strategy 1 became obsolete. We are in strategy-2 times.

        If you try to impose strategy 1 in strategy-2 times, you (not the State, but you) are putting your family on the break-up road. Patriarchy is still OK, but in a rather non-absolute (not daughter-killing) way.

        Negotiation is a naturally Western value. The West didn’t need it for 2000 years. The West and its families need it now.

        • jim says:

          Hence male power was, in comparison, absolute. There you have your patriarchy and parents killing their daughters.

          The traditional arrangement was that parents beat, but never killed, their daughters, the female was entirely free to refuse to marry a parentally selected suitor, and that post menopausal spinsters entirely 100% owned themselves. That is quite a lot of power. But she was not free to fuck whosover she chose, and if she did fuck someone, had to marry him – or had to marry someone, thereby giving up all power to some man – but she had veto power over which man it was.

          A small problem came later, when females could work and get paid for it. When females could even fight (!) because of firearms and bombers and all that stuff.

          Read “Smart and Sexy”. Most female jobs are artificial, created directly by government intervention. The differences between men and women are such that women are incapable of genuine independence without massive direct taxpayer subsidy and massive affirmative action. Most female jobs produce negative added value, for example HR and female marines.

          Female economic independence is totally a government creation, and the great majority of women in the workplace are value subtracting.

          As for females fighting, I suggest you read “Pussycats: Why the rest keep beating the west and what can be done about it”. Females are not only incapable of organized collective violence, but the presence of a quite small number of females disastrously and very conspicuously disrupts male attempts at organized collective violence. See also The feminized police force and army.

          • pdimov says:

            “Female economic independence is totally a government creation, and the great majority of women in the workplace are value subtracting.”

            https://nkilsdonkgervais.wordpress.com/2016/08/10/research-finds-that-the-state-is-entirely-funded-by-male-taxpayers/

            • Learner says:

              A sentence from the original report: “Nevertheless, considerable heterogeneity of fiscal incidence for both men and women is observed with the distributions of various fiscal incidence measures showing substantial overlap.”

              In other words: some women pay taxes, some don’t. Some men pay taxes, some don’t.

              On average, females pay fewer taxes because many of them are not working, others are working fewer hours than men, in worse-paid jobs than men, and they live on average much longer than men.

              You could argue that anonymous men are paying anonymous women so women can raise the children of anonymous fathers. You could also argue that anonymous men (bankers et al.) are getting rich by gaming the system and they are shameless enough to whine about having to pay taxes because, you know, they are men (not because they are getting rich by gaming the system). Both interpretations are equally true.

              • pdimov says:

                > many of them are not working

                “The first thing that comes to mind is that half of women might be at home raising kids. However, the workforce participation rate gap between men and women doesn’t seem to exceed 10% in either age group. (see figure 4 in source)”

                > and they live on average much longer than men.

                Doesn’t matter. Look at the cumulative graph. At no point are they close to breaking even.

              • jim says:

                On average, male subsidies to females are enormous. Women receive welfare, men pay for welfare. Health insurance costs are artificially equalized for men and women, meaning that men pay for women’s health. Despite significantly lower average IQ, women are affirmative actioned into jobs above men, and jobs are artificially created for women and paid for by men, for example HR.

                That some woman, being artificially helicoptered into the board and management, and then running the company into the ground, for example Carly Fiorina, paid substantially more taxes than most men does not make her a net contributor. On the contrary, men built Hewlett-Packard and she destroyed Hewlett-Packard.

                Any woman you can point to as being a net tax contributor looks pretty much like Carly Fiorina of Hewlett-Packard – looks like affirmative action for women causing catastrophic and ruinous costs for men. In a genuinely free market economy, or indeed a socialist economy that did not have an ideological belief that women were equal to men, women not participate in work outside the home except under the supervision of their husbands and in a few specialty occupations like nursing, because it just does not work, they just do not work. They are disruptive and unproductive.

                Females simply do not contribute to the economy of paid employment and work outside the home. Their presence is largely artificial, a result of heavy handed government intervention, and is disruptive and damaging.

    • jim says:

      2. Jim is right that judges must not favour women regarding children. Custody should be shared, and access to the children must be granted to both ex-wife and ex-husband. That’s the reasonable thing to do. That’s what’s being done in other countries, by the way.

      That is not a reasonable thing to do. Children should be the property of the father, male children until puberty and the capacity for economic independence, female children till marriage or menopause. Divorce should only be for grave fault. Women should be obligated to sleep with their husbands and only with their husbands, men should be obligated to support their wives and sleep with their wives. (Those were the rules till about 1860 or so)

      We need those rules because men and women are instinctively driven to create an environment suitable for raising children, a home, one flesh, and if marriage is not enforceable, prisoner’s dilemma ensues, and neither men nor women can get what they want.

    • jim says:

      3. Catholicism bans sex outside the marriage. It also bans abortions. It also bans husbands visiting prostitutes. It also bans porn (including cuck porn). All this doesn’t matter at all, because people still fuck, get abortions and visit prostitutes (and watch all kinds of porn). That’s not the Church’s problem.

      Bullshit. Unless the Church mobilizes social pressure against those thing, for example by denying communion or refusing church marriage, it does not ban any of them.

      The Mormon church mobilizes social pressure against female misbehavior, especially collective female disapproval. The Roman Catholic Church does not.

      The Roman Catholic Church preaches against porn, prostitutes, and abortions. It does not preach against female adultery, does not preach against wives denying their husband his conjugal rights, and it grants women authority for moment to moment consent. Opposition to female adultery is inconsistent with support for moment to consent. If a wife owns her own body to the extent that she can deny it to her husband, she owns her own body to the extent that she can give it to a black rapper who has hit the top forty.

      • peppermint says:

        When I was about fifteen I confessed to a (Catholic diocesan) priest that I was looking at porn. He looked very uncomfortable and said something to the effect that it isn’t necessarily a problem, and offered to give me a few prayers as penance.

        • Learner says:

          He gave you a few prayers as penance because it is a sin (from a Catholic point of view), hence it is banned. However, it’s not so big a sin as fucking someone. A good Catholic would need to confess it, as well as masturbation, even if only in a general, non-detailed way.

      • Learner says:

        “If a wife owns her own body to the extent that she can deny it to her husband, she owns her own body to the extent that she can give it to a black rapper who has hit the top forty.”

        No, they are different things. From a Catholic point of view, husbands can deny their women sex if they are tired, or they are very concentrated on another thing (e.g. a sport competition), or they don’t want to get her pregnant, or they just don’t feel like it. That doesn’t mean they can fuck any women. Same with men.

        The Catholic Church has always been a male chauvinistic/patriarchal force, and it still is a patriarchal force in most Third-World countries (including most of Latin America). Slut shaming is widespread in churches there. (Not so for husbands visiting whores). In the USA and Europe, that was also the general rule til sometime in the 80s/90s. They can’t anymore, because European and US societies wouldn’t tolerate such misoginistic discourse.

        Let’s make something clear, though. The Catholic Church allows spouses to deny sex a specific day, or even a specific month, but not forever. A woman or a man cannot make a vow of chastity after entering marriage; it goes against the rules. But that doesn’t mean they have the obligation to make love every day.

        • Learner says:

          Well, there is a small exception to the last thing I said. They can make a vow of chastity if the other spouse agrees. They cannot make it without their explicit permission.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          Sex-striking forces the other person to seek sex elsewhere.

          That means that adultery must be viewed as legitimate if the other partner is sex-striking.

          If that is the case, sex-striking is a legitimate way of dissolving the marriage. Since anyone can sex-strike at any time, that means the marriage is at-will.

          • Learner says:

            Adultery is not viewed as legitimate under any circumstances from a Catholic point of view. Catholic marriage cannot be disolved ever. By the way, that follows from Jesus of Nazareth’s words as according to the Bible. Dissolving marriages goes against Jesus’ words, thus it is difficult to see how it can be labeled “Christian” in any way.

            • Oliver Cromwell says:

              Then your religion endorses women sex-striking, forcing men to commit adultery, and then punishes the men. Which is exactly what Progressives endorse.

              • Learner says:

                It’s not my religion. You all must have pretty frigid wives. You know, wives usually want to fuck.

                • Oliver Cromwell says:

                  So do girlfriends, but the point of a marriage is that you have to stick together even if you don’t want to.

            • jim says:

              And yet the policy is not preached from the pulpit, nor am I seeing women criticized, subjected to social pressure, denied communion, or denied an annulment, for ceasing to fuck their husbands, then fucking someone else, and then leaving their husbands.

        • jim says:

          Slut shaming is widespread in churches there. (Not so for husbands visiting whores). In the USA and Europe, that was also the general rule til sometime in the 80s/90s. They can’t anymore, because European and US societies wouldn’t tolerate such misoginistic discourse.

          Actually opposing female adultery being misogynistic discourse.

    • jim says:

      But remember that 1 out of 6 black men are smarter than the White average man,

      However blacks are substantially less capable of cooperating than white man. So a smart black in your organization will probably use his smarts to steal stuff, shirk work, get away with committing violence, and so on and so forth.

      So if you have a fighting organization, such as police, army, militia, guards, rentacops, very bad idea, disastrous idea, to employ blacks. Thus the natural order is that whites have the upper hand over blacks.

      The pool of blacks that are both moderately smart and moderately cooperative is very small, as demonstrated by the inability of the Ivy League to find sufficient black professors that are not hilarious stupid and inappropriately violent. Obama is culturally part of the group that thinks they are the smart people, the self congratulating Jon Stewart fans, but he is stupid and lazy. If you cannot find one black guy who is simultaneously smart and diligent and can be trusted not to punch out fellow heads of state to be president, you are hard up.

      • theshadowedknight says:

        1 out of six black men smarter than average white men mean 5 of 6 are dumber, and 1 of 6 competes with above average white men. How many black men are smarter than +1SD white men? Compared to white men where 3 of 6 white men are smarter than average white men. Far more superior white men than black.

        No black Newton, no black Beethoven, no black Michelangelo. Shaka Zulu approaches Alexander the Great, but hampered by Zulus, not Greeks. No Greece, no Rome, no France, no England, no America. Let us not pretend that these black men women are being encouraged to fuck are more than base thugs.

        The Shadowed Knight

        • peppermint says:

          » some Zulu king who fought one good battle approaches one of the greatest generals of Western history

          lol

          • theshadowedknight says:

            He is the best they have to offer. He did well enough, considering that he had no Socrates to teach him and he was hampered by having to use Zulus. Whether he was equal to Alexander is not the point. He is their greatest general. He is their Alexander the Great. They have no Caesar, no Scipio Africanus, no Joan of Arc, no William the Conqueror, no Patten, no Rommel, no Eisenhower.

            They have one great general. No great artists. No great musicians. No great builders. No great statesmen. No great leaders. No great thinkers. Nothing great besides the one man. The insufficiency of greatness damns them with faint praise.

            The Shadowed Knight

          • jim says:

            I would say that Shaka was probably roughly as smart as the average white officer. Supposing the average white officer to be about one and a half standard deviations above the average white, and the average subsaharan black to be two standard deviations below the average white, this would make Shaka about three and half standard deviations above the average black, which would mean about one black man in three thousand was as competent as Shaka. (American blacks are only one standard deviation below whites, because of substantial white admixture).

            • theshadowedknight says:

              Who is the greatest European military mind? Alexander the Great. African? Shaka Zulu. Who is the next greatest European military mind? Say Charles Martel. Next African? Who is the greatest European thinker? Leonardo da Vinci or Isaac Newton. African? Who is the greatest European artist? Michelangelo. African?

              Do you see my point? Even if Shaka Zulu was the greatest military mind of all time, he is still the only great man in African history. A corollary to the poster girl premise, where the poster girl is the only one to do X.

              The Shadowed Knight

              • peppermint says:

                can someone who knows about military history come up with a Western general to compare Shaka Zulu to?

                Someone famous for organizing a bunch of tribes into a human wave assault on a technologically superior enemy. How about Boudicca?

                • jim says:

                  Human wave assaults using massively superior numbers are characteristic of inferior peoples fighting superior peoples. Whites have generally been by far the most militarily effective race – hence whites are inherently fractious and always at war or near war with each other, and hence there has never been, nor will there ever be, a white general launching human waves against his technological superiors.

                • theshadowedknight says:

                  Peppermint, try to follow along. Repeat after me: Shaka Zulu’s competence is not the salient point. Shaka Zulu’s unique competence among Africans is the point. They have one great man, while Europeans have so many it is hard to keep track. That is the point. No one cares about how good he was, only that no African before or after was capable of matching him in capability, whether at war or in any other field.

                  Human wave attacks sounds like the defense of Stalingrad. You of all people should be familiar with that.

                  The Shadowed Knight

              • morkys says:

                hannibal you fucking retard

              • Learner says:

                It’s funny that you admire Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo and Alexander the Great at the same time as you despise Southern Europeans for not being “white enough”. By the way, if you take a very long perspective, Europe didn’t have any Leonardo da Vincis, Michelangelos and Alexanders 3000 years ago, and Northern Europe didn’t have anything like that just 1000 years ago, so why would we expect all continents to have them in the same 3000-year span? Obviously, geography, history, and even population numbers matter. Race values are not absolute; Jews were extremely intelligent half a century ago, they are now average at most, and if ultra-religious (ultra-stupid) Jews keep on making babies like rabbits, they will become the most stupid race in a matter of decades. Whites may go the same way if the welfare state is not overhauled (or, at least, made sterilization-dependent).

                • jim says:

                  Over periods of a thousand years, or even a few hundred years, races change substantially and rapidly in intelligence and character.

        • Learner says:

          Why would smart, strong, aggresive Black guys compete with smart, not necessarily strong, not necessarily aggresive White guys? Why would a bitch in heat want an extremely intelligent man, instead of a muscular, aggresive, just-above-average man? Why are you all whining here, because you think Whites are not being intelligent enough or rather because you think Whites are not being aggresive enough? Women are just thinking along your lines. It seems their descendants need not so much brains as aggresiveness.

          That’s why they are not fucking Chinese men.

          • pdimov says:

            “That’s why they are not fucking Chinese men.”

            The TV does not show them day after day how fucking Chinese men is cool, so you have a confounding variable in your mental experiment.

            • Learner says:

              Brainwashing beating genes?

              • pdimov says:

                More like the opposite. If brainwashing was pro-Chinese but women still preferred blacks, you’d have an obvious case of genes beating brainwashing. As it stands, you don’t, because the brainwashing currently deployed works in the same direction as your alleged genetic effect.

          • theshadowedknight says:

            Smart, strong black men? There are not enough of them to make a meaningful impact. If women want muscular, aggressive, above average men, there are far more white men that fit the description than black.

            The Shadowed Knight

        • pdimov says:

          “1 out of six black men smarter than average white men…”

          “Black” here means pre-1965 African-Americans (85), not Africans.

    • pdimov says:

      Genes are important, but brainwashing obviously works in affecting behavior. Genes are racist (“is your baby racist??”), but brainwashed people aren’t. Genes don’t exactly like blacks, brainwashed women do.

      Genes can’t have changed that quickly since 1964.

      (There are indications that sexual preferences are unusually malleable, which explains all the weird fetishes that make absolutely no sense to a normal person (some of them positively disgusting), and there are indications that watching porn indeed has the power to affect sexual preferences. A crude explanation for that would be that one learns quickly what gets him laid and develops an attraction for that, however unusual or disgusting.)

      “The only difference between now and the past is that White men killed Black men fucking White women.”

      Before 1964, whites killed blacks on sight whenever they feel like, with impunity, right?

      • pdimov says:

        *felt like it

      • Learner says:

        “Before 1964, whites killed blacks on sight whenever they feel like, with impunity, right?”

        If they were flirting with White girls? Indeed. At least in the South.

        • pdimov says:

          Citation please?

        • pdimov says:

          Your “at least in the South” clarification presents an opportunity for a testable prediction, by the way. If you are right, there should have been a statistically significant difference in the rate of married white women running off to fuck blacks in the North and in the South.

          Whereas if brainwashing and 1964 are to blame, there should not be such a difference.

        • jim says:

          You are insane. Or rather the lies that everyone is required to pretend to believe are insane.

          If one black man in the south had been killed in a clearly unjust fashion and with impunity, in all of the South in all of history, you would have a better poster boy the Emmet Till, who did not “flirt with a white woman” but groped someone else’s wife, which is apt to get you murdered regardless of race, now as then, (try groping some black men’s wives and see how long you survive) and was not killed with impunity, was not lynched, but was killed furtively and secretively.

          Just as Marie Curie proves there are no great female scientists, Emmet Till proves that all lynchings had plausible justification, that there were no obviously unjust lynchings.

          • Corvinus says:

            The only person insane is you for even attempting to justify the Emmitt Till lynching as plausibly justifiable.

            • Erik says:

              No, you.

            • jim says:

              Emmmitt Till was not lynched. He was killed furtively and secretively. Which is apt to happen to any man, regardless of race, then as now, who gropes someone else’s wife. It is a stereotypical reason for murder. Happens all the time. And because it happens all the time, we really should legalize it, regardless of race.

              Poster boy principle applies. If in all of the South, any black man was ever unjustly lynched, that man would be the poster boy, not Emmet Till. Therefore no black man was ever unjustly lynched in the entire United States and in the entire history of the states that became the United States.

              • Corvinus says:

                “Poster boy principle applies. If in all of the South, any black man was ever unjustly lynched, that man would be the poster boy, not Emmet Till. Therefore no black man was ever unjustly lynched in the entire United States and in the entire history of the states that became the United States.”

                Boy, that southern hooch ditch shit you drink kills your brain cells even more.

                You’ve made a number of moronic statements, but clearly this one you made here is definitive Top 10 of your degeneracy.

                • jim says:

                  Give me one example in the entire history of the united states of a black man plausibly innocent of any very serious crime being lynched.

    • JRM says:

      @Learner: “Women have always fucked aggresive men; Blacks are more aggresive (braver, if you want), hence women fuck them. Where is the brainwashing? It’s all in the genes.”

      But wait a minute. It’s BOTH genes and “brainwashing” (aka socialization).

      Before the Civil Rights era, White women having sex with blacks were considered outliers. They certainy existed; but were fw in number. Some were around as early as Colonial days, usu. female servants who succumbed to working in close proximity to black servants. later on, some prostititutes were known to “take up” with black men, and perhaps live on the outskirts of town in disrepute and as ostracized citizens.

      Remember the blacks marching with “I am a man” signs? Most women aren’t interested in men who have to claim they are men because they are so low in status. Outliers excepted.

      Women are dependent on social acceptance. When the media began to cultivate an image of blacks as strong, dangerous alphas, women got intrigued. Then blacks became trendy, and dating one brought a woman not opprobrium, but approbation, esp.among her “you go girl” giggling peer group.

      So we have a complex (or maybe not) interplay of genetics (attraction to alphas) and “brainwashing” (social indoctrination and peer group values) resulting in dysgenic White female/black male couplings.

  18. morkys says:

    nice post,jim. Next do one about why they fuck dogs. You can look up the “omegaverse” tumblr fandom for clues.

    It’s all very “jim.com” in terns of what it says about female psychology.

    • jim says:

      While dog fucking is totally consistent with what I know about women, I don’t have any direct information about dog fucking.

      • cloudswrest says:

        Thirty years ago in Silicon Valley, more or less before the World Wide Web and before the resultant porn inundation, there was a Porno BBS service called “Amateur Action” where members published their home made porn. Some of it involved animals, mostly women and dogs. The BBS was shut down by the Feds and the owners convicted on obscenity charges. Interestingly, they didn’t prosecute in California. They used agents in Tennessee to call the BBS and download porn in violation of local Tennessee law, hence interstate commerce. The owners were dragged to Tennessee, a place they had never been, and prosecuted. Interesting legal corruption in my opinion. The porn wasn’t “pushed” to Tennessee. It was “pulled” there. Here’s a legal link on the case: http://www.spectacle.org/795/amateur.html

    • JRM says:

      @morkys: re: women having sex with dogs, I would probably require some kind of evidence that this occurs in fairly large number; otherwise it can be dismissed as the mentally unstable (or morally bankrupt) fringe.

      Apropos your point, I recently saw a video wherein a young women enumerated 10 reasons she was having sex with her dog (a German Shepard IIRC) instead of a human male. This was on YouTube, I think, and was not explicit, it was just the woman giving the list a reading while her dog sniffed and licked about her, appearing to be agitated or aroused.

      What does strike me as peculiarly feminine is the passive aggressive expression of obvious hatred and disappointment in men that she displayed.

      Historically, I believe most prosecuted cases of bestiality involved men, but I haven’t researched it. Nevertheless, I can’t imagine a man making a video about why he prefers sex with an animal to sex with a human female. And then posting it on a public site.

      • jim says:

        Knowing the nature of women, I am pretty sure that female bestiality is far more common than male bestiality, but I have no direct data on the issue.

        • Koanic says:

          http://www.jameslafond.com/article.php?id=4024

          Instance of female bestiality.

          Transmitter is honest; honesty of eyewitness unknown. Story appears true.

        • JRM says:

          @jim: ” I am pretty sure that female bestiality is far more common than male bestiality”

          Very possible. I am more familiar with trial transcripts from the 18th century than the recent past. Bestiality as practiced by men seems to be a byproduct of working with livestock. Men (almost all were farmers or working on a farm, tho’ bear in mind also that many men owned a horse or two even if not employed in agriculture) who were caught in flagrante delicto with livestock were brought to trial, hence we have records of them.

          Female bestiality was not unknown, and was feared in a primal sort of way for the possibility of “monstrous births”, although not all monstrous births resulted from relations with animals; some were thought to be signs from God, being universally regarded as ill omens; and another idea was that if a woman was unduly impressed by a scene of some sort involving an animal during her pregnancy, that a hybrid creature birth could result via suggestion.

          My guess would be that in today’s world, female bestiality, principally with dogs, might surpass in number male transgression, because dogs are a commonplace in the home, and far fewer men work with livestock.

          • peppermint says:

            Responsibility for punishing women for sexual misconduct rests with the father, husband, or other patriarch, and kept quiet because it looks bad.

            Men engaging in sexual misconduct with animals are feared because if left unpunished they will talk about how sexually adventurous and open-minded they are to women.

  19. lalit says:

    Seems the Islamic world is not immune as well. Look at this, a Qatari Princess paying for a gangbang with 7 european men.

    http://middleeastpress.com/english/sexual-intercourse-of-qatari-princess-with-seven-men/

    • Learner says:

      Even if the story were true, the Financial Times would never publish it. So it is false.

      • lalit says:

        Say What?

        • Eli says:

          Where is the actual link to the alleged FT article? It’s an attempt to scandalize, a sham.

          • jim says:

            Poster girl principle: If Marie Curie is the poster girl for a female scientists, there are zero or close to zero female scientists. Similarly if Carly Fiorina is poster girl for women in the workforce, there are zero or close to zero productive women in the workforce in high status jobs.

            Supposing that some women in low status jobs working under male supervision are productive, for example supermarket checkout girls, those girls are still massively net tax consumers – they pay little taxes, and consume disproportionate welfare, health care, education, and subsidies.

  20. Jim,

    I’ve realized I find it hard to contribute to discussions like this, because my wife is really not like this, almost like she is breaking all these well established statistical patterns. (I used to know many women like this but was not stupid enough to marry them.) She never interrupts me, she is full of respect but also has low libido and desire for sex. She feels always overworked and harried, job, motherhood, housework, all that, because she has an internal drive to always give 110% and then gets exhausted every evening. Alpha moves do little because my problem is already being in a certain sense too alpha (not pretending to be emotionally distant: actually emotionally distant, sometime I wonder if I might be a bit schizoid, I am really clammed up), although I rarely do anything heroic and super manly. Interestingly, beta moves help more, like a trip to a nice place that makes her relax and forget about her duties for a few hours. Interestingly, when I, very rarely, show skill in something that does not involve a keyboard or a barbell and sew back a button on my pant or grill a meat or dress our child or generally just make myself more useful than a weight lifting keyboard jockey who generally does not do anything at home, which I usually am, she gets horny, and I don’t even know if these are alpha or beta moves. I suppose both of us are very unusual, my showing certain alpha “don’t care” traits while being nerdy, and her libido problems coming from being exhausted from being 110% conscientious in her duties which is a rare problem for women these days. (But her mom, and my mom has it, too, both the types who would die of shame if a visitor would find dust in any nook or cranny of the flat.)

    I suppose I should just accept we both are statistical exceptions and our experiences don’t matter in discussing statistical averages. I remember when she explicitly asked me not to get a wedding ring more expensive than a simple €60 silver band because our funds are better used for making a home. How many women say something like that these days? 1%? 2%? The vast majority of women think it is a mans duty to pamper her on her “big day”. Hence the vast majority of women are not marriable in my eyes.

    Of course I knew plenty of statistical average women as well. They were good for a fling except that I have low libido too, I sort of tend to live in my head and not in my body, and was rarely interested in flings without love. But I would have never married them. Who the hell marries the statistically average woman? This is basically what I could contribute to the discussion at large. How is it not obvious they are not wife and mom material? How does a man ever get the idea to wife up a girlfriend who doesn’t respect him or seems calculating and selfish?

    • jim says:

      Reading between the lines, I get the feeling, perhaps incorrectly, that your wife decides when you will have sex. In that circumstance, all women have low libido, except for a disturbing tendency to look for men who will grab them, forcefully take them, and command them have sex more frequently. This morning I initiated sex with my girlfriend by rolling her over in her sleep and hauling her pants down. She seemed to enjoy being woken up in this fashion.

      As I remarked earlier, men always look at women’s breasts, women always shit test men. When a man looks at a woman’s boobs, he is thinking about having sex with her. When a woman shit tests a man, she is thinking about submitting to his sexual demands.

      What a woman wants is to be seized, commanded, and possessed by a man burning with dangerous lust and desire. Women don’t want to decide when to have sex.

      • I suppose this makes sense, but the precondition is that at least the man should have a fairly strong libido i.e. burning lust and desire. Men like me who tend to live in the head not in the body lack this. And interestingly it is not the same as lacking dominance! My father was very dominant, the kind of guy who gives irresistible commands with just the eyebrows. And yet nearly asexual as far as I can tell. I know it is weird – both are theoretically functions of T. Yet in practice there is sometimes one without the other, there are limp young nerds who are submissive but still always horny, and there are dominant men who are a bit like a monk. This is an a archetype that needs to be explored a bit more – the archetype of the inquisitor type (Dominican) monk who is dominant as hell and yet almost asexual.

        If I had to explain this phenomenon, I would do it so: it happens when a dominant man strongly dominates himself, exercises too strong self control, in that case the natural desires and instincts get suppressed or inhibited to a certain extent, he is not in touch with them because he cannot just “let go”. This is the “inquisitor monk mode”.

Leave a Reply