In defense of Hugh Hefner

Why is Hugh a pevert for having sex with numerous fertile age women at the age of ninety? Here is a toast to 20 milligrams of tada and 12.5 milligrams of caber.

It is stupid and counterproductive to blame men for sexual revolution, and particularly stupid and particularly counterproductive to blame alpha males for the sexual revolution.

Blaming Hugh Hefner for the sexual revolution is stupid. Blame Queen Caroline. Hugh Hefner was just watching the decline from poolside.

The problem is not that Hugh Hefner had sex with lots of women, the problem is that women want to have sex with alpha males. The problem is that women want to party till their youth and beauty runs out.  Rather than contrasting the sexuality promoted by Hugh Hefner with one hundred roses monogamy that only existed up to the early nineteenth century, we need to contrast it with today’s sexuality.

Starting with Queen Caroline, and following up with Florence Nightingale, the problem always has been women out of control.

She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you.   They don’t want to waste a day more of their youth and fertility on their husbands than absolutely necessary

Monogamy and chastity are an agreement between males for equitable sharing of pussy, which deal was imposed on women with a stick, and the stick needs to re-applied from time to time.

“Hypergamy” means that women prefer to fuck Hugh Hefner. Since we have suppressed all the Hugh Hefners, , since today’s elite is unmanly and emasculated, it now means they prefer to fuck Jeremy Meeks.

We were better off when they were fucking Lord Byron and Hugh Hefner, than with them fucking Jeremy Meeks.

Suppress the Hugh Hefners of the world, and you will find your ten year old daughter is fucking a forty year old motorbike gang leader and ice dealer.

The problem is not Playboy magazine. The problem is that Queen Caroline did not receive a whipping.

In Victorian times they said that the problem was aristocratic wealthy male military officers. Make the army plebeian, it will solve the problem.

Then in Hugh Hefner’s time, they said the problem was wealthy and cultured businessmen, make business politically correct, it will solve the problem. What are they now saying about Jeremy Meeks?

We are targeting affluent high IQ males to make them terrified of women, thus “A rape on Campus” and “sexual harassment”. The man who did twenty years in prison for torture, rape, murder, and cannibalism gets a free pass.

This whole business started out as an attack on King and Aristocracy. Women are wonderful, it is just aristocrats and military officers forcing them to behave badly. Free and empower women, raise their self esteem, make the military plebeian, and they will behave well.

Have they been behaving well?

We observe women doing bad things with powerful men.  We conclude that powerful men are using their power to make women behave badly.  So we take power away from men and give it to women.  “Sexual harassment” law makes eunuchs of wealthy men.  The reason that lawyerettes have sex with criminal lowlives is that the judges and senior partners they associate with are terrified of them, and are therefore unattractive.

Are women now behaving better?  Is it better that lawyerettes have sex with judges, or sex with criminals?

Well, actually, it is better if they get married, cook meals, and have babies.  We now have profoundly dysgenic fertility, as cooking and babies is only for women too stupid to become cat lady PhDs.  A woman has all her life to get an education and career, but only a short time to get married and have children.

I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person.  I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet.  I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

We cannot get out of defect/defect and into cooperate/cooperate by calling on only one side in the war of the sexes to cooperate. In fact we cannot get out of defect/defect merely by calling on people.  To end the war will take some enforcement, which enforcement was abandoned with Queen Caroline.

205 Responses to “In defense of Hugh Hefner”

  1. Garr says:

    If “alpha” is now the (confusing) label for court jesters such as Hugh Hefner and Mick Jagger, what’s the label for natural leaders-of-men?

    • jim says:

      Where are the natural leaders of men? The only one we have is Trump, who has a great deal in common with Hugh Hefner.

      • Garr says:

        Most pick-up artists with high notch counts certainly aren’t natural leaders of men. A lot of their sexual success is due to the fact that they give women the impression of being entertaining, undemanding clowns. To the extent that Trump resembles Hefner, he’s a court jester. And, in fact, Trump is a celebrity-entertainer with a crowd-pleasing comedy act and a fairly feminine manner. He especially appeals to old Midwestern ladies such as the ones who post cat-pictures at theconservativetreehouse.

        To theshadowed knight (below): are you reclaiming the label “alpha” for leaders of men or suggesting that it be used in lower-case for girlfuckers, upper-case for menleaders?

        One possibility would be to call girlfuckers “alphies” and menleaders “alphas”.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          The techniques that get men laid are the same techniques that let men lead other men. How men use it is up to them, and there is little reward for leading men these days, so you do not see many leaders. Why bother? What is in it for them?

          The Shadowed Knight

          • Garr says:

            “The techniques that get men laid are the same techniques that let men lead other men.”
            No, most men who get laid a lot get laid a lot by being entertaining inoffensive non-threatening jesters. The woman’s attitude is “It almost wouldn’t matter if I had sex with him — it would be like playing with a puppy — so why not?”
            What was the notch-count for each of the following?:
            Hitler.
            Stalin.
            Mussolini.
            Tojo.
            Churchill.
            FDR.
            ?

            • jim says:

              > No, most men who get laid a lot get laid a lot by being entertaining inoffensive non-threatening jesters.

              Pretty sure I am an offensive and threatening jester, pretty sure that that is what works, and that being an inoffensive non threatening jester will fail horribly.

              Reflect upon the primary love interest in the anime “Yona of the Dawn” Maximum possible threat, maximum possible offense.

              • Garr says:

                Pretty sure your act works for you. Pretty sure that’s not the act preferred by the pretty-boys who tend to have the highest notch-counts. Also, pretty sure your girls don’t actually feel offended or threatened by you; they think it’s cute of you to put on your act for them.

                You’ve noted several times that you’re a rump-smacker, not an eye-blackener. You might want to keep reminding the kids here of this point — you wouldn’t want to be responsible for their imprisonment. The whole point of smacking a woman’s rump is that it doesn’t hurt her and makes her laugh.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Pretty sure that’s not the act preferred by the pretty-boys who tend to have the highest notch-counts.

                  It depends on the environment, i.e. the economy, i.e. the eddies and currents of literal energy through the tribe, village, town, city, or country. If the man controls the resources, he controls the woman, and possessiveness and violence are a high priority — dominance, in other words. If the woman is self-sufficient (“I don’t need no man”), then she selects for other traits, and man becomes a boy toy. The prototype of the former is Europe, the latter, Africa.

                  Female sexual preference does literally change depending on the environment.

                  Dominance can work, because dominance is always attractive, but the optimal strategy in a society with lots of free energy (and thus free women) is to be very good-looking, have a moderate amount of prestige (not dominance), and a bit of dominance, which is superficial because you’re not really telling the woman who to fuck, when, where, and how, and she can always eject at any time.

                • jim says:

                  Female sexual preference does literally change depending on the environment.

                  Not seeing it. Women seem to be the same in the time of Casanova and Machiavelli.

                • jon dough says:

                  You keep doubling down. Not a winning strategy.

                  I’m not a Jim level artiste but I can hold my own.

                  I’ve beaten my woman’s ass hard and she says stop and makes sounds and yelps and jumps but…she never leaves. And the sex goes on and on until she tires.

                  I’m 61 and partially crippled by a back injury…and we go on for hours. And I always get what I want, as much of it as I want, and I never have to ask for more.

                  The last thing she always says is, “Who are you?”.

                  Jim, I’ve appropriated your line “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go”. Never. Fails. Full Stop.

                • Garr says:

                  “You keep doubling down. Not a winning strategy.” — Yeah, I don’t know how to argue. I just imagine something clearly and then describe what I’m imagining. And if people don’t agree I just figure that I’m not describing it vividly enough.

                  Okay, maybe Jim’s girls don’t think that he’s cute. But I certainly do! Like a fiercely wise old panda bear educating adolescent raccoons.

                  “And the sex goes on and on … and we go on for hours.” Yeesh, that sounds boring and gross. Is this what normal humans want? Ugh.

                • jon dough says:

                  Touche, Garr. I admit my superiority to normal humans.

                • peppermint says:

                  my woman once asked me if it’s the wife’s duty to submit to her husband whenever he wants or the husband’s responsibility to give her the sex she needs

                • jim says:

                  Saint Paul answers this.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >You keep doubling down. Not a winning strategy.

                  If the only thing that mattered was personal dominance, none of us would care about the divorce-rape tort court.

                • Garr says:

                  “If the only thing that mattered was personal dominance, none of us would care about the divorce-rape tort court.” — what do you mean, Cavalier? Talk slowly; I’m not very bright. (I pay $850/month. Dunno how I’m going meet my expenses next spring — only 4 courses to adjunct, down from 6. Fuck. I’m thinking of keeping my stuff in storage and seeing if someone will let me crash on his couch for like $60/week.)

                  Peppermint — yes, I’ve always ended up feeling as though sex is service to my woman … because it all revolves around her fucking orgasm and that little fold of flesh between her labia. Have you noticed how women refer to their clitorises as “she”, as though they’re distinct persons? Women aren’t like us. It’s very disturbing. I mean, do any of us refer to our dicks as “he”? I sure don’t.

                • jim says:

                  > Pretty sure that’s not the act preferred by the pretty-boys who tend to have the highest notch-count

                  Not seeing it. Is jeremy meeks pretty?

                  > The whole point of smacking a woman’s rump is that it doesn’t hurt her and makes her laugh.

                  She does not laugh, she weeps, and I am pretty damned sure it hurts. When my hand cannot take it any more I use a stick.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Is jeremy meeks pretty?

                  Yes. Or do you think the ladies went crazy for his photo because they could see his personality leaking through? Granted, he has nigger lips along with his stunning blue eyes, but also a highly masculine facial structure and perfect symmetry; facially, he wouldn’t look out of place in any “mixed” category in any model agency anywhere. Actually, if you can get past the negroid admixture, he’s better-looking than most models, I’d say.

                  No homo.

                  Still trash.

                • jim says:

                  > > Is jeremy meeks pretty?

                  > Yes. Or do you think the ladies went crazy for his photo because they could see his personality leaking through?

                  They went crazy for his photo because it identified him as a criminal, and they could take one look at him and see that the criminal justice system did not intimidate him.

                  So yes, they did see his personality leaking through.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >what do you mean, Cavalier?

                  Just as no man rules alone, no one man can control a woman. The woman can run away, or shack up with someone else, or otherwise rediscover her true, free, and liberated eat-pray-love self.

                  In the modern world, the state is so powerful and all-pervasive that it regularly throws men off of their lands and out of their houses or apartments so that “their” women can continue to live there peacefully on the proceeds of the men’s continued employment, with the children and their lovers.

                  Try to personally dominate the state and report back.

                • Cavalier says:

                  “control” should really be “own”

                  There was a truly insightful comment on this site a while back. Let me dredge it up.

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

                  I don’t remember who posted it. Feel free to take credit, that person; or to others, simply paste it into your search bar and nigger it.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >Women seem to be the same in the time of Casanova and Machiavelli.

                  Neither Casanova nor Machiavelli would be particularly successful today. Neither are good-looking by today’s standards. Machiavelli looked like an average chap, and Casanova, though a half-breed, nevertheless looked more stereotypically overbred than the Western aristocracy amongst which he flitted. If you think this highly elegant and refined fruitcake would be wildly successful today, you’re deluded. He would look wildly out of place. As far as I’m concerned, the Western aristos were phenotypically divergent enough to be considered another race. Man, the phrase “high brow” originated as a physical description.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >They went crazy for his photo because it identified him as a criminal, and they could take one look at him and see that the criminal justice system did not intimidate him.

                  There are lots of African-looking criminals with unintimidated-looking criminal mugshots. 99.9% of them look like ten pounds of shit in a five-pound bag. Literally nobody cares about them. Jeremy Meeks good enough, facially, to be a legitimate medium-high-end model. He wouldn’t look out of place at a conference for “mixed” male models, and most “mixed” male models don’t have his stunning blue eyes (they’re almost as blue as mine, for god’s sake).

                  “They” went crazy because they identified him as an extraordinarily handsome man with a dash of dominance.

                • jim says:

                  “They” went crazy because they identified him as an extraordinarily handsome man with a dash of dominance.

                  Not that extraordinary, and a lot more than a dash of dominance.

                  This criminal is more handsome that Jeremy Meeks, but the chicks did not go crazy for him because his mugshot shows the police were successful in intimidating him.

                  When I show you a photo of a girl looking to be beaten up and gang raped, you tell me she is ugly. When I show you a photo of a guy that they want to fuck, you tell me he is handsome. You are rationalizing.

                • Cavalier says:

                  >When I show you a photo of a girl looking to be beaten up and gang raped, you tell me she is ugly.

                  ?

                • Cavalier says:

                  >This criminal is more handsome that Jeremy Meeks

                  As much as I hate to admit that the nig is better-looking, he is — and dramatically so. I also reverse-searched the image and found this photo, which is much more flattering, but not enough. Compare.

                  God, I can’t believe you have me defending that fuck.

                • jim says:

                  You are rationalizing. Jeremy Meeks is handsome, but not unusually handsome.

                • alf says:

                  Jeremy Meeks really is a border-case. He has the jaw and cheekbones the ladies like, but it looks to me like he wears blue contacts for the icy eyes. Great peacocking, Mystery would be proud.

                  http://media.tmz.com/2014/06/20/0620-meeks-jeremy-three-mug-shots-tmz-7.jpg

                • alf says:

                  I think Meeks is a border-case. He has the jawline and cheekbones the ladies love, but it seems to me he does his utmost best to look as handsome as possible, including wearing icy blue contacts. If so, 10/10 peacocking. Mystery would be proud.

                  http://uploads.poplyft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10224740/multi-mugshots.jpg

              • Corvinus says:

                “Pretty sure I am an offensive and threatening jester, pretty sure that that is what works, and that being an inoffensive non threatening jester will fail horribly.”

                Only those women who are psychologically damaged will be drawn to the offensive and threatening jester. Otherwise, most women find the “inoffensive, non-threatening” jester to be the safe bet.

                When a woman finds a man attractive, and she develops trust with him, then she will allow herself to be “dominated”, because it is of her volition and selection as to when, how, and why.

                “I’ve beaten my woman’s ass hard and she says stop and makes sounds and yelps and jumps but…she never leaves. And the sex goes on and on until she tires.”

                In reality, you love tap your bitch, and in two minutes you finish.

          • TBeholder says:

            >The techniques that get men laid are the same techniques that let men lead other men.
            Directly, should not work (normally, anyway) due to different social protocols. Beyond “demonstration of generic desirable qualities”, that is.
            Indirectly – yes, in that being a “chief” among at least some dudes is an obvious advantage at impressing and picking up women. Psychopath Code has a temporary version as an example of how indirect exploits work, BTW.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Alpha.

      The Shadowed Knight

    • StringsofCoins says:

      Women are less concerned (less not none) about the leaders of men then they are about the leaders of women.

  2. peppermint says:

    Okay, but Boomers and Xirs were bribed with sexual access to Xir and Millennial women to go along wih the rest of the neoliberal project. He could fuck our women so that we have to compete with mud “people” for our women, who all have had scores of dicks by the time we’re ready to marry.

    Yes, it’s envy. The generation war just went hot and it’s easier to monger hatred for Boomers as a group than for their ideology that’s so unprecedentedly ridiculous it’s hard to name.

  3. Mister Grumpus says:

    OK but tell me this, and I swear I’m not trolling here:

    Why not just honor your disgust with defect-defect and just refuse to play it at all? Have you ever consciously considered that as a life option?

    • jim says:

      It is tough to be alone. My objective is to replace my wife, but I have been having a hard time getting there from here. For women, the path for getting a husband should not go through laying lots of men, but for men, the path for getting a wife goes through laying lots of women. Note that Hugh Hefner was dumped by his wife, installed a harem, then eventually practiced one hundred roses monogamy again, and was practicing monogamy when he died. If you want a replacement wife who is reasonably young, that is the most practical path for a man.

      The trouble with Hugh is that he was a bit weak, a bit gay. Women are tigers, and he wished that they were bunnies. That is why he got divorce raped twice. You have to be strong. A lion tamer needs a chair, a whip, and a great deal of totally fake bravado.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        > It is tough to be alone.

        It’s a bad look to reveal this, but I wish I had some perspective/understanding on just how “tough” you mean here. Us cold-water frogs don’t know what warm water feels like.

        Or maybe I shouldn’t even ask because fuck if I’m taking up amateur lion-taming at this age.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        I’m not even sure how guys go be alone. If I’m alone for any basic amount of time I just start to go crazy, and become more and more reckless, until I am no longer alone. It’s worked out pretty great, except for the poor odd fatty who was filled in by my need until I could replace her.

      • j says:

        “divorce raped twice.”

        Nicely put.

      • Corvinus says:

        “The trouble with Hugh is that he was a bit weak, a bit gay. Women are tigers, and he wished that they were bunnies.”

        Hef was 100% alpha. No gayness, no weakness. Just hardcore strong.

  4. Rape says:

    >I don’t behave badly because I am a bad person. I behave badly because in this environment, that is what it takes to get my dick wet. I don’t like defect/defect equilibrium at all.

    I know this feeling, man.

    • Contaminated NEET says:

      >I know this feeling, man.
      Did you tell your spider girl that the normies were coming with torches and pitchforks?

  5. Stripes Duncan says:

    This is no different than a heroin dealer throwing up his hands and saying “don’t blame me, it’s what people want.”

    Your argument boils down to “if I don’t ruin these women, someone else will.”

    America: where everyone knows everything is all fucked up, but nobody is part of the problem.

    • StringsofCoins says:

      If you do not control your woman? I will.

      • Corvinus says:

        “If you do not control your woman? I will.”

        Assuming that you even act in this manner. Regardless, you are talking and acting like a true sociopath. You have zero internal mechanism to restrain your urge to rut, regardless of the situation or circumstance.

        • StringsofCoins says:

          I am completely in control. You are the one who has no control.

          • Corvinus says:

            You have no control over your own actions. You are a sociopath. I do not expect you to acknowledge this immutable fact, as sociopaths lack empathy and lack the ability to differentiate right from wrong. Assuming, of course, that everything you have stated is other than inaccurate.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Note the abject failure of Drug Prohibition. Extrapolate that to the Sexual Revolution. Prohibition does not work, whether it is drugs, sex, guns, or just about anything else. If society was less fucked up, then people would not have to rely on drugs to numb the pain. People would not have to plow their way through a thousand thots to find a wife. People would not kill themselves with guns or drugs to escape their miserable lives.

      The argument is more like, “I want to get laid, and these girls are ruined. No loss for me.” Women today reach adulthood already ruined. They start in grade school and high school, and by the time they are college bound they are essentially worthless for anything long term. The choice is no wife, no sex; wife, no sex; or no wife, sex. Not hard to see how things end up the way they are.

      You are super-duper special moral for not partaking, but that is not a solution most men are willing to make. It comes at great personal cost, and given the absolute shit-pit that is America today, “Fuck you, pay me, I got mine,” is as sensible an approach as not.

      The Shadowed Knight

      • Your Wife's Son says:

        >The choice is no wife, no sex; wife, no sex; or no wife, sex

        Wrong. “Wife, sex” is a legitimate choice, as not all marriages are sexless. The problem is that modern society is not marriage incentivized, and modern marriage is not sex incentivized. The former probably stems from the latter, and the latter stem from numerous factors which we’ve been discussing at length.

        Other than that, agree with your post.

        • jim says:

          But to get there, you are going to have go through a lot of pussy and a lot of drama.

        • Theshadowedknight says:

          Technically speaking, you are correct. Realistically speaking, I am more correct. There are a lot of sexless marriages out there, and a lot more that are nearly there. The difficulty of achieving the wife, sex option is what rule it out for most men. It is obviously the ideal, but reality and ideals are almost always in conflict these days.

          The Shadowed Knight

          • peppermint says:

            Realistically, Boomercucks could fuck their wives if they wanted to, but they don’t, because they’re immortal philosophers unconcerned with the details of their existence.

  6. StringsofCoins says:

    I started as a nice guy, back when I was a young man. But being very tall, very good looking, and having spent my high school years wrestling and lifting weights I still had the looks for girls to ask me out. Though they all defected on me after discovering that I was a nice man who would never harm a woman. It culminated for me at 23 when my then girlfriend called me on my birthday to tell me that she had been lying to me, she was not a virgin when I met her, and rather she had been in a Jeremy Meeks harem. Where she did *everything*. *Every single thing*. With him.

    That she would not do with me. In fact had absolutely refused to do with me, while I smiled and thought, “I’d never force a woman to do something”.

    After that I started to smoke pot, later started to sell it, started cheating on her, and discovered that other women would do all kinds of crazy things we me because I was a drug dealer who was cheating on his girl. I found an UC trust fund girl fresh out of college and moved in with her. Those were some great years, but eventually I let her convince me to marry her, put a baby in her, and turn back into a nice man. And she started fucking some local cads. When I objected she called the police and they turned me into a criminal. So I bailed. Utterly bailed. And turned back into a bad man.

    When I met my current wife I was dating three women, two of them had boyfriends, the other was married, and my wife was married as well. I started fucking her. About two hours after we met. When she talked back to me I hit her, when she threatened to never see me again I said goodbye, and when she asked me if I was afraid that her 11 years in the army husband would find out I told her I hoped he would, and then he’d come try to kill me, cause my life was getting boring.

    So she went and told him. And he cried. In front of her. Two days later she packed a large purse with some clothes and left him. She texted me on a bus and told me that she was coming to live with me and begged me not to leave her homeless. Hmm I thought. Well she is a decade younger than me and super hot, so why not? I’ve only cheated on her twice, and I’ve told her all about it, and had her get wasted the first time and throw a bottle at me. Because she told me she was going to break up with me and I shrugged and said I didn’t care. So I gave her two black eyes, and she spent the next month being an even better girl than she usually is.

    I wish all the alt-knight fags would listen Jim. But they won’t. Doesn’t matter if I tell them my notch count (they’re all sluts! Including all the ones with graduate degrees or the trust fund baby who actually married me, or my current wife, who left her husband and has been with four guys). Hell I bet they think the girl whose n = 1 before she met me, but cheated on her boyfriend with me for a year, knowing the entire time that I was sleeping with other women. Another slut. Lol guys wake up. They’re all sluts. And now I’ve got four kids from three different women, who would never go after me for child support (lol that’s only for dumb betas), and I’m working on kid number five.

    Guys either you start controlling your women or I’ll do it for you.

    • jim says:

      My observations and personal experience confirm your account.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        And all these stupid worthless faggots can think is that they will control me. Control me? Lol you dumb fags, I have nothing to lose. Never did. That’s why you can never control me.

        I tell them to control their women. And all these worthless faggots say back is that they will go even harder to control ‘me’. Lol stoooooopid fags. You can never control me because I. do. not. give. a. fuck.

        Control your women. But oh my those fags could never do that. Ok fine fags.

        I’ll go do it for you.

        • jim says:

          This summarizes the problem. People want to control men, because men are less scary and less powerful than what actually needs to be controlled.

        • Cavalier says:

          There are many problems, but worthless faggots acting like they have something to lose, even when they have almost nothing, is probably the biggest — for themselves individually and for society as a whole.

          https://youtu.be/KZ_7br_3y54

          • StringsofCoins says:

            No the problem with your let women run feral and just emasculate all the men idea, which we have been trying for hundreds of years I might add, is that it only works if a man has something to lose. All those worthless drug dealers living at home with mom at 35? Why they are out there acting recklessly and banging virgins left and right. They act alpha because of problems of scale.

            In a small tribe a guy acting recklessly acts in such a way because he is king of the tribe, or a lord in the tribe, and nobody can stop him. So women wet their panties to this behavior. If someone in a small tribe was to attempt to act as a lord he would be dispatched or punished in some way. Certainly he would be assigned low status. We have reached such a scale as humans that this no longer occurs.

            As to the crap you said alt-knight? No. The problem isn’t some man acting like he has something when he has nothing. The problem for guys, trying to pick up feral women, is that betafags like yourself act like they have something to lose. Like someone else could take it from them. After my divorce from my incredibly rich trust fund ex wife, who married me, a drug dealer going nowhere at the time, I had nothing to lose. I was sleeping in a sleeping bag on the floor of a friend’s basement. I was swimming in tight young pussy. In a sleeping bag. On the floor. With dirty laundry underneath to make the ground softer. I had nothing to lose so I acted like it. And women’s panties exploded.

            Oh and you know what my pickup line ended up being for my UC, true upper class, ex wife? When we happened to meet? I told her that I would like to choke her to death and bury her in the woods.

            You think far too highly of women. They are mostly half retarded trash and should be treated like pets. If they act up whack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper. Don’t be a savage though, seriously, when you need to beat your woman use an open hand. We’re not niggers.

            Anyway yet again you are completely wrong. The problem isn’t uncivilized men. It’s emasculated betas and completely uncivilized feral women. Going ten times as hard to cut off the barely existent balls of even more poor little boys isn’t going to solve the problem. I seriously do not get why you stupid faggot alt-knights want to quadruple down on feminism.

            • Cavalier says:

              Reading comprehension.

              • StringsofCoins says:

                I do wish you had it. Men evolve ten times as fast as women. Multiply this a million years of time? Women have still only evolved to the small tribal level, and they can’t function at this scale. They can’t evolve in 12,000 years time. Men though? What happened when agriculture was discovered? What like 10% of men reproduced for awhile? Women though?

                Finally we are at the time when women are evolving, because dumb feminist cunts only have cats. Or maybe one child. But this means the tribe next door, Islam, who controls their feral cunts, is poised to conquer us. What’s the choice? Let white women evolve by letting feminist cunts genetically die and possibly get conquered by Islam? Or institute controls on feral women who have not even come close to evolving, and somehow getting dumb betas to realize you have to stand up to your masters and tell them what to do, and make them do it?

                Anyway yeah I know you don’t understand. I’ll just hang out here with my steaks grilling, my hot wife half my age, and the few kids that are still here with me. While you go figure it out.

      • Corvinus says:

        Unless StringOfCoins has visual evidence of his conquests, his womenfolk having black eyes suffered from his fists of fury, and his bastard children, he is a charlatan.

        • Mackus says:

          Sure thing ‘officer’. Why not also his full name, home address and social security number?

          • Corvinus says:

            If String is that proud of his “accomplishments”, he has nothing to hide. Otherwise, all he is doing is posturing for the crowd.

        • Mackus says:

          He doesn’t owe you anything.
          You didn’t earn it, you didn’t even treat him courteously.
          What have you done for him to offer you trust or evidence?

        • Steve Johnson says:

          Post your home address and someone will come by with photographs to prove all of this to your satisfaction.

    • Garr says:

      Of course, the flip-side of the collective controlling of women is the hanging of stringsofcoins-types by the neck until dead. (But I guess you’d say, “Yeah, but if you collectively controlled your women I’d still be a nice guy — and part of that women-controlling collectivity — not a stringsofcoins-type guy who’d have to be hung.”)

      • lalit says:

        Better StringofCoins controls your women than some immigrant, eh what now?

        • Cavalier says:

          Existence is a war of all against all. There is no real difference between being cucked by a countryman and cucked by a foreigner. The one exception is if the countryman is your identical twin brother.

          • Theshadowedknight says:

            I would still kick my identical twin brother in the groin and remind him to keep his hands off of my woman if he wants to keep his balls.

            The Shadowed Knight

            • Cavalier says:

              Punching your clone in the balls is like punching yourself in the balls, and punching yourself in the balls is like punching your domino-toppling descendants in the face, off into the mists of time.

              For a lion, having a twin brother is an unprecedented advantage.

          • peppermint says:

            》Existence is a war of all against all.

            This is Boomerism of the late 20c, a reaction against the grand nationalisms and grand nationalist wars of the early 20c.

            Everyone knows deep down inside that existence is a war of persons, families, nations, and races.

            Ultimately, marriage will be restored, and the actual nations of Europe, smaller than the grand nations under states, will regain autonomy.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >There is no real difference between being cucked by a countryman and cucked by a foreigner.

            That’s right goy, there’s no real difference between an englishman and a somalian, so go ahead and let those dreamers in! You don’t want to be a bigot, do you?

            • Cavalier says:

              If it’s literal cuckoldry, then yes, there really is no difference.

              • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

                You mentioned how nice it would be (in terms of genetic reproductive advantage) to have a clone or identical twin, but you did not carry the implications of that thought further.

                If a twin you find more agreeable on account of it’s nearness, the same dynamic is at play also in incremental part for brothers, or nephews, or cousins, and so on and so forth further out the reaches of relatedness.

                It is differences of degree, not kind.

                A man has a racial soul beyond and before he has an individual soul, from which his individuality was generated, and to which, if he is successful, he returns and is continued through (such being also why mischlings are abominations both ways, as can be readily observable from their myriad deformities, mentally, emotionally, and physically).

                All the greatest races in history were a large group of contiguously interrelated peoples, forming a distinct block of common features isolated from others, the interoperability of which greatly simplifying coordination problems (and such being amongst the many factors of multikulti societies chronic underperformance and failings). Researchers in Iceland have even begun putting more definite figures on that particular golden mean (marriage between 3rd or 4th cousins being around the ‘goldilocks zone’ for greatest fitness).

                The sort of ‘categorically imperative’ thinking at work in simplisticly grasped formulae like ‘There is no real difference between being cucked by a countryman and cucked by a foreigner’ is a hallmark of solipsistic ‘blue team’ modes of thought, which so often serve as an impetus or rationalization for their tendency to side with farther against nearer.

            • Garr says:

              If it were a Somalian I wouldn’t feel that humiliated because I would realize that my former woman is just a stupid flesh-machine; if it were an Englishman I WOULD feel humiliated (and therefore a lot angrier) because I would worry that she accurately sees him as being superior to me.

              But of course I’d rather live among Englishmen than among Somalians, because the Englishmen are tidier and know how to fix things and can figure out for themselves what information you’re looking for so that you don’t have to keep rephrasing your questions.

    • Eli says:

      Any fantastic story can be told on the Internet. Ascertaining its reality is the challenging part.

    • Corvinus says:

      String Of Coins, your account, IF true, only confirms that you are a psychopath hell bent on destroying Western Civilization. Clearly you lack any control of your rutting instinct.

      Now, if you want to offer proof of this “super hot” girl, and your knack for giving black eyes, show us actual visual evidence of your conquests and your brood of bastard children.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        You want to know something even better? About a year after my current wife left her ex, after she finally initiated the divorce so I could marry her and not have to pay for her pregnancy, that poor nice guy hung himself in his closet. And then I inherited his house and retirement through marrying his sweetheart. I mean what a nice guy.

        I could tell you a lot of really awesome stories. You wouldn’t believe how dumb betas are. It’s almost like they’re blind.

  7. Mediocre IQ White Nationalist says:

    Narrator: but it was becoming a PUA blog

    • StringsofCoins says:

      You fags need help

      • Corvinus says:

        You are a psychopath. Offer visual proof of your conquests and black eyes.

        • jim says:

          I confirm StringOfCoins account of female nature.

          • Corvinus says:

            That would be anecdotal evidence, and NOT necessarily indicative of a general truth.

            Regardless, it is certain that StringOfCoins is pulling your leg. And you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

            Now, of course, if he provides hardcore visual evidence of his various lovers, their bastard children, the scars on their faces from getting beaten, etc. then perhaps he is telling the truth about his life.

            • jim says:

              The plural of anecdotes is data.

            • Steve Johnson says:

              Anecdotal evidence beats no evidence.

              • Corvinus says:

                Anecdotal evidence is rife with confirmation bias and thus needs further verification.

                Besides, Jim’s “data” is faulty, as proven time and time again.

                Furthermore, StringOfCoins has only offered his own stories via the Internet. We ASSUME he is telling the truth. His tales require visual confirmation.

                You lose, AGAIN, lil’ Stevie.

                • Steve Johnson says:

                  You make assertion after assertion and provide zero evidence (because you flatly refuse to even see things that contradict your ideology).

                  Provide any evidence for your assertions. Any at all. Oh wait, evidence is racist.

                • jim says:

                  It is clear from your posts that you don’t have much sexual interaction with women. You keep posting that the sky is purple with polka dots.

                • Corvinus says:

                  String was the one who has made all of these assertions with zero evidence. You desperately want to believe him because his stories serve to confirm the narrative you created. String is a sociopath. OR, he is a compulsive liar. The only way to confirm that his tales are not absolute lies is for him to offer visual evidence.

                • jim says:

                  Regardless of whether he personally has done these things, if you had much contact with women, you would know that a significant minority of men, and the overwhelming majority of women, do do these things.

                  Marriage, as traditionally understood, is now criminal. Thus only criminals have real marriages. Marriage 2.0 does not count.

                • peppermint says:

                  Just because he’s evil doesn’t mean he’s lying. He’s probably exaggerating a little, but everything he says is plausible enough for a movie setting (Lex Luthor did this to get money in one of the Superman movies).

                  Remember: movie plots can be ideological garbage, but if the setting isn’t full of natural morality and normal if taboo human failings, people will find it disorienting.

    • Cavalier says:

      lol.

  8. Cavalier says:

    The problem is not that women want the alpha’s alpha and don’t want anything less.

    The problem is not that Hugh Hefner fucked 1,000 smoking hot nubile young maximally fertile women from age 9 to age 90.

    The problem is that Hugh Hefner fucked 1,000 smoking hot nubile young maximally fertile women from age 9 to 90, and produced only 4 children.

  9. Will says:

    Women are the gatekeepers of sex so if there’s too much harmful and self-destructive sex occurring, then obviously we should be primarily restricting female sexuality.

    However, let’s not let males completely off the hook. Even in today’s society I would argue it’s immoral to sleep with another man’s wife and to pump and dump a low n-count girl. There’s a difference between enjoying the decline and actively ruining marriages and marriageable women.

    And even enjoying the decline is self destructive to males. Spending large amounts of your free time studying the best routines and tactics to pick up sluts is a shitty way to spend one’s life. If all one cares about is meaningless sex with sluts then one is only marginally better than a sodomite. “A whoremonger shall never inherit the kingdom of heaven” still applies even if said whores don’t require payment.

    • jim says:

      If you don’t wage the battle of the sexes successfully, women will despise you. If your wife despises you, she will divorce you, destroy the family assets, and wreck the lives of your children.

      • Will says:

        I don’t disagree. All I’m saying is one shouldn’t fuck other men’s wives and one shouldn’t fuck marriageable women without the intent of marrying them.

        In your own words
        http://blog.jim.com/culture/on-cuckolding/

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

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

        • Cavalier says:

          >All I’m saying is one shouldn’t fuck other men’s wives and one shouldn’t fuck marriageable women without the intent of marrying them.

          Yeah, but who’s going to stop you? There has to be a regulator. Even with the moral essence itself, there has to be a coercive force behind the code. For example, either the Church has to have Galileo under its sordid thumb, or a Bismarck needs to have a Kultursieg instead of a Kulturbesieg.

          • Will says:

            >Yeah, but who’s going to stop you?

            Ideally, the local authorities as well as the woman’s husband (in the case of adultery) or the woman’s father (in the case of fornication). A few hundred years ago if you slept with another man’s wife, you and the wife would both face the death penalty and if you slept with an unbetrothed virgin, you’d be shotgun married to her.

            But the point I was making was that restorationists should have a certain code of conduct where one can enjoy the decline without necessarily furthering it.

            • jim says:

              Marriage no longer exists, except some bold and lawless men have the balls to make it happen. In this environment, restraints on male behavior are inappropriate.

              If you are part of a social group that supports your relationship by arranging for your wife socialization with well behaved women, and which excludes badly behaved women, and therefore threatens your wife with social exclusion should she split, obviously you should not hit on girls under the authority of males in that group. If the group supports your relationship, then you follow the group rules.

              But coming up with universal rules that we should obey in a decadent and collapsing civilization, which we should apply in interactions with all people regardless of their relationship to us? That is stupid.

              We will have to rebuild civilization starting with small groups of good people. Universalist rules are not going to work.

              • Will says:

                I get where you’re coming from, Jim, really I do. Maybe a hypothetical would better illustrate my point.

                Suppose my next door neighbor is a decent enough guy, we exchange pleasantries from time to time and he never gives me any trouble, but we’re not best friends or anything. Suppose he has a wife and two kids and makes 80k a year.

                Suppose with a few weeks of concentrated effort, I could fuck his wife. If I did that, he’d eventually find out, they’d get a messy divorce, he’d lose his house and half his salary, he could probably only see his kids on the weekends. I would not only be ruining his life, I’d also be ruining the lives of his wife and children.

                I could just never imagine doing that to someone who hasn’t wronged me in any way, regardless of whether or not he’s in my in-group. It seems so obviously immoral to tear apart a man’s household and emotionally scar his kids just to get your dick wet.

                It’s like how you’d never steal another man’s car. And I need a new car way more than I need my wick dipped and a new car is way less expensive than a divorce, financially and emotionally.

                • jim says:

                  The hypothetical assumes you are in control, and the wife lacks agency. This is not in fact realistic.

                  Realistic case 1: Wife makes excuses to visit you in your house, in private.

                  Realistic case 2: Wife takes a trip without husband. Neglects to mention to anyone that she has a husband.

                  Realistic case 3: “we have an open relationship.”

                  Realistic case 4: For job related reasons, a woman asks you to visit her in her house – perhaps you have to install some equipment. You arrive, there are kids but no husband. Woman offers you some wine, and acts seductively. You ask about the father of the children. She is kind of vague about the whereabouts of her husband, their father.

                  I am not discussing what a man should do in these cases. I am making the point that we need to think in terms of controlling women, that we need to think not about bad male behavior but about bad female behavior. That discussing male behavior and thinking about restraints on male behavior is a distraction from what matters.

                  If a wife is acting appropriately, no one is going to have the opportunity to seduce her.

                • Javier says:

                  Men who think women never try to seduce men have never had a woman attempt to seduce them.

                • Will says:

                  With airtight game you can get a girl to beg to sleep with you when she initially had no attraction to you whatsoever, making my hypothetical somewhat realistic.

                  Though your cases are more realistic, yes. But in my experience it’s usually the man who gets the ball rolling. Say the husband invites you over for a dinner party, there you flirt with the wife a bit, crack a few politically incorrect jokes and then a few days later she starts making excuses to visit you in private.

                  (Though sometimes all one needs to do is be an offensive jester with your pals within an earshot of a woman and she’ll begin striking up flirtatious conversations with you).

                  I agree we need to focus more on controlling women rather than men. Most divorces are the woman’s fault as are most cases of adultery. The modern age has negatively affected women 100x worse than it has affected men. We need to start giving thots public lashings before we start focusing on bad male behavior.

                  But that doesn’t mean that bad male behavior doesn’t exist and men can do no wrong. I wouldn’t steal another man’s car, regardless of what group he belongs to, regardless of how decadent our civilization. The same applies to wives. It’s simply an immoral and uncivilized way to act.

                • jim says:

                  Sure, but you have to get her to give you the opportunity to game her.

                  Explain how you hypothetically got the opportunity to apply airtight game to someone else’s wife?

                • jim says:

                  I have repeatedly recommended the policy of Deuteronomy and Proverbs – killing the unfaithful wife, the unfaithful betrothed, and the man who had sex with them should be totally OK.

                  But in an environment where women have a free hand, any restraints on male sexual conduct towards women end up as victim blaming, wind up as anarcho tyranny.

                • Koanic says:

                  The Biblical policy is that both adulterers die, male and female.

                  It is a property crime against the husband.

                  Men who visit a whore, an unmarried loose woman, do not get punished.

                • Will says:

                  Ah ok I think I understand your point. In the current environment, if we put restraints on men for the minuscule amount of male misbehavior we’d end up blaming men for the massive amounts female misbehavior. You’re absolutely right.

                  I was trying to make more of a moral/metaphysical argument that cucking a guy who has done you no wrong is always evil no matter the state of civilization. I was thinking in the abstract rather than a specific practical application of policy.

                • jim says:

                  In war, you often blow up people who have done you no wrong and take their stuff, or just destroy their stuff in order to deny it to the enemy.

                  And you are frequently right to do so.

                  The current situation is morally similar to war. All is fair in love and war. For better rules to apply, war must result in victory, victory in order, order in law, and law in liberty. And for war to result in victory, it is frequently necessary to napalm bomb children.

                • Will says:

                  >Explain how you hypothetically got the opportunity to apply airtight game to someone else’s wife?

                  I could think of a hundred different scenarios, really all you need is ten minutes alone with her. After which she’ll either drop her knickers or go to great lengths to put herself in situations with you where sex is likely to ‘just sort of happen’.

                  In “Horrible Bosses” Jason Sudeikis’ character strikes up a conversation with Kevin Spacey’s wife at a dinner party while he’s out mingling with his guests. She proceeds to blow him in a bathroom while her husband isn’t looking.

                  In “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” the title character goes out to see one of the field hands working at the manor about some task that needs to be done. Worker treats her like shit, she’s simultaneously very offended and very turned on, makes a couple excuses to go see him again within the following few days and they fuck like rabbits.

                • jim says:

                  The final phase of seduction needs to be carried out in private – certain stimuli trigger innate, pre rational, and pre verbal responses, which in turn trigger innate, pre rational and pre verbal responses in the other party. A woman does not make a conscious decision to have sex with a man, she does not intend to have sex with the man. It “just happens”.

                  However, a woman does make the conscious decision to go into a private place containing a horizontal surface with man.

                  And if a wife makes that decision, she is a very bad wife.

                • Corvinus says:

                  Please be aware, Will, that Jim has a history of flinging shit on the wall and hoping that it sticks.

                • Will says:

                  I’ve been reading this blog for years Corvinus. Jim has a habit of writing concise blog posts filled with ancient knowledge, long forgotten in this desolate era, and masterful insights on how to apply said knowledge both in practice and in theory to maximize one’s personal success and rebuild civilization from the ruins.

                  And he flings these blog posts against an under-appreciative internet and then stubbornly refuses to give an inch to anyone with even the slightest deviation from his narrative. Still a more accurate narrative than anyone else is presenting and still the best NRx writer since Moldbug.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Jim has a habit of writing concise blog posts filled with ancient knowledge, long forgotten in this desolate era, and masterful insights on how to apply said knowledge both in practice and in theory to maximize one’s personal success and rebuild civilization from the ruins.”

                  Wow, have you ever been bamboozled and hoodwinked.

                • StringsofCoins says:

                  Once again Jim is completely correct. I know that I can sleep with any woman who will let me isolate her. Women choose to be isolated with you. If she does? She is DTF. And if you do not fuck her she will tell everyone what a pathetic loser you are. There you were, with her, alone. If your woman ever allows herself to be alone with any non eunuch man? You’ve got some serious problems.

                • Dave says:

                  https://beta.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/why-are-good-men-so-hard-to-find/article36365252/

                  Here an aging feminist bemoans the collapse of the “women’s cartel”. Like the fiasco that is OPEC, cartels always fail in the absence of a strong enforcement mechanism. Fertile-age women never had a cartel, they had a system of control imposed on them by men and post-menopausal women.

                • Will says:

                  Will: “Suppose with a few weeks of concentrated effort, I could fuck his wife.”

                  Jim: “The hypothetical assumes you are in control, and the wife lacks agency. This is not in fact realistic.”

                  StringsofCoins: “Once again Jim is completely correct. I know that I can sleep with any woman who will let me isolate her.”

                  Seems like you’re siding more with me than with Jim. Also if you’re gonna cuck guys, do you mind sticking to journalists, bureaucrats, academics and other brahmins? We need to rebuild cohesion among the vaisya caste not disintegrate it further.

                • jim says:

                  The key is “let me isolate her” Any woman who lets herself be isolated is letting herself have sex.

                  Any wife who lets herself be isolated is looking for a man who can and will cuckold her husband.

                  Any situation where you could rape a woman is a situation where you could seduce a woman, though seduction takes a bit longer.

                  Thus we should not define rape as sex without consent, for once a woman is isolated, she can neither meaningfully give, nor meaningfully withhold, consent.

                  The way we need to handle sexual misbehaviour is that if a woman allows herself to be isolated for substantially longer than it takes for an elevator to go between floors, and sex does not ensue, we execute her.

                  If sex ensues, execute them both.

                  If she resists isolation kicking, screaming,biting and clawing, execute him but not her, regardless of whether sex ensues or not.

                  But if we permit women this misbehaviour, it is absurd to place any restraints whatsoever on male sexual misbehaviour.

                • Will says:

                  The only problem is the term “isolate” is rather vague. If you’re using it to mean ‘have a 5+ minute conversation alone with a man’ then there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate reasons for a woman to isolate herself.

                  Ex: taxi ride, doctors appointment, having over a plumber/repairman/carpenter/electrician to fix something, giving instructions to the gardener, male neighbor invites himself over to borrow some eggs and flour, door-to-door salesmen, etc.

                  Obviously if she’s making excuses to visit a man in private or flirtatiously offers men alcohol while in her home, then that’s clear cut misbehavior. But unless we’re chaining our wives to the wall while we leave for work and permit no other man to enter the house, then there’re valid reasons for a woman to put herself in a situation where seduction may ensue.

                  Though I suppose forbidding any male contact is essentially what the muslims do and it’s working out rather well for them.

                • jim says:

                  > The only problem is the term “isolate” is rather vague. If you’re using it to mean ‘have a 5+ minute conversation alone with a man’ then there are hundreds of perfectly legitimate reasons for a woman to isolate herself.

                  Five minutes is arguably OK, and a taxi ride is OK provided the taxi sticks to busy streets, rather than lovers lane, but fifteen minutes behind closed doors with the door locked from the inside definitely merits the death penalty, for whenever a fertile age woman is alone with a man she is very much aware that something might happen, and the fact that she is alone with him shows that she is not altogether averse to something happening.

                  You may be confident that she would never do anything naughty, but I know for sure that she is not similarly confident.

                • Will says:

                  That’s pretty fair, can’t say I really disagree with such a policy. Thanks for the conversation Jim.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “The key is “let me isolate her” Any woman who lets herself be isolated is letting herself have sex.”

                  Except if the man is the primary means of isolating her, he is squarely at fault. He should be shot. Jim and String, by their own logic, would be dead.

                  “Any wife who lets herself be isolated is looking for a man who can and will cuckold her husband.”

                  As it was noted, the term “isolated” is broad and vague, and means different things to different men. Jim speaks only for himself, not men in general.

                  “Any situation where you could rape a woman is a situation where you could seduce a woman, though seduction takes a bit longer.”

                  Again, by your own admission, you and String would be dead. You willingly isolated a woman, knowing full well she is married, and through brute force have sex with her. The result? A pine box for you.

                  “If sex ensues, execute them both.”

                  Yes, you and String would be dead. Hung by your own logic.

                • StringsofCoins says:

                  Before you hang me you really need to put those whores in stocks and throw some tomatoes at their whore faces, after you cut off all of their hair and brand them with a scarlet letter on their breasts. While they scream.

                  Your bigger problem is that I can and will do that to women, and you won’t. Which is why they keep picking me.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Your bigger problem is that I can and will do that to women, and you won’t. Which is why they keep picking me.”

                  You’re right, I won’t do that to women, because I’m not a sociopath. OR, you are an absolute liar who is trying to curry favor here.

                  Either way, you have mental health issues.

    • peppermint says:

      whoremonger means pimp, not john

      • Will says:

        It can mean either and fornication is a mortal sin regardless so it applies to both

        • Cavalier says:

          >fornication is a mortal sin

          Tell that to the white steppe people who conquered most of the world. 6,000 years later, and many of their descendants are still going strong.

          • Will says:

            I’m sure they were already told when they were converted to Christianity at sword-point while their pagan texts and shrines burned in the background.

  10. Garr says:

    What sex is for the most part really like:
    (1) “Come on, get wet, get wet”
    (2) “My tongue is tired, my neck is cramped, I can’t see anything”
    (3) “Can I keep it up while I put this thing on? Ugh.”
    (4) “This is idiotic; I feel like a machine-part”
    (5) “Would you come already? God this is boring!”
    (6) “Glad that’s finally over. Now she’ll be in a better mood tomorrow.”

    • jim says:

      You are doing it wrong.

      If you are licking her pussy, you are supplicating. And you should not be wearing a condom. And you should show no sign of caring whether she comes or not, even if you do care, which you probably do.

      • Javier says:

        This is good advice. Alphas don’t eat pussy.

        I was amazed when I read about a sex robot that you have to woo and try to physically satisfy. Even when men are making sex objects for themselves, they still care about their pleasure. No woman has ever cared if her vibrator came.

    • peppermint says:

      Women get wet faster when they suck your dick. The only way licking pussy gets a woman off is when she starts on your face and you shove her off and force it in.

      She’s supposed to cum when she feels you cumming, if at all. The condom interferes somewhat.

    • peppermint says:

      Go look at porn tumblrs curated by women to find out what kind of sex women really want.

      • Garr says:

        I wrote long iambic-pentameter torture-porn poems for my last womanfriend; she dug them. (I’m probably the best iambic-pentameter torture-porn poet in the world, the best that’s ever lived. But, being a lover of women, I set these narratives in “Alterna”, where the utmost agony doesn’t really hurt.)

        • peppermint says:

          Have you considered tying her up and whispering annoying things while fucking her mouth?

          Also, women can sense when a man isn’t actually interested in them and that’s a huge turn-off.

          • Cavalier says:

            >Have you considered tying her up and whispering annoying things while fucking her mouth?

            10/10 would cackle with uncontrollable mirth again

        • Contaminated NEET says:

          >I’m probably the best iambic-pentameter torture-porn poet in the world, the best that’s ever lived.
          Post a sample for us. C’mon, it’ll be fun.

  11. lalit says:

    Sometimes I think that the German military from 1812-1945 was so kickass primarily because the military was so high status in Prussia. The best minds joined the Prussian Army and came up with so many kick ass doctrines, training techniques, strategies, tactics etc. You see real innovation there. Democracy, communism, theocracy are very, very bad for the military in the sense that the military become low status and people with wither no choice, or due to tradition become the only ones joining, even as officers

    • Cavalier says:

      “A less loaded name for fascism might be neomilitarism. The ideology of Wilhelmine Germany was generally described as militarism, a perfectly accurate description. It was certainly reactionary, and also quite populist – for a monarchy. (World War I was extremely popular in Germany, as in all countries.) Under the Kaiser, the highest social status available was conferred by military rank. You might be a distinguished professor of physics, but if your reserve rank as a military officer was low or (worse) nonexistent, no one would talk to you at parties. Even for Americans who know something of the military, it’s almost impossible to imagine living in a true militaristic society.”

      http://unqualified-reservations.blogspot.sg/2008/04/open-letter-pt-2-more-historical.html

      • lalit says:

        Yes, Wilhelmite Germany makes sense to me. In Japan, the Samurai being the highest caste makes sense to me. What does not make sense to me, is Brahmins being the highest case in India. This is the source of all our troubles, perhaps. The Kshatriyas should have been the highest caste. What skin in the game do brahmins have? What are they really risking? Their lives? Nah! Money? Nah!

        It makes sense that the highest social status be offered to those who join the military. After all, he who risks/sacrifices most for the society/nation, must receive the highest status that is available. And what is more precious to a man than his own life? Ergo, he that risks his life for the society must be high status. Yes, the military must be high status for well functioning society. Congratulations Americans. You are now enjoying Rule by Brahmins, even if not hereditary. The same damned thing that did us in.

  12. John Q Public says:

    Jim, you’re right about the big picture, but Hef still sucks. Any guy out there addicted to porn, you can piss on Hef’s grave.

    • Theshadowedknight says:

      Hugh Hefner is not to blame for porn. Women are to blame for porn. If porn is competing with women, women have already lost. If porn can offer you everything you can get from a woman, then porn will do it better. If a man has a choice between porn and a woman, and porn wins, is that the fault of the man, or of the woman? What worthless cunt is so unappealing that a man would rather jerk off than fuck her?

      The Shadowed Knight

  13. Markus says:

    Have you seen this Jim?
    http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/
    It’s basically a christian site for spanking, they are too nice and ask women for their consent but there are some good accounts of what the wives think about it. Could save countless marriages.

    • jim says:

      Christians are cucks.

      Women don’t actually want to consent to being beaten.

      “The wife is to reverence her husband. She is to obey him, so long as his instructions are not in opposition to God’s commands. See Titus 2:5, Acts 5:29.”

      The actual biblical position is that she is to obey him even if his commands are in opposition to God’s commands, while trying to inspire him to give more appropriate commands and trying to find a Godly way to obey him.

      “We do not condone truly nonconsensual CDD. See this article regarding “Non-Consensual Consent” for more information.”

      Cucks.

      Unless she is chained to the dungeon wall, she consents by choosing to not run away.

      • Corvinus says:

        The term “cucks” is overused.

        Christians are not “cucks”, they are Christians.

        What makes you the sole arbiter as to what constitutes female behavior and the word of God?

        • jim says:

          Christians that let their women walk all over them are cucks, because when a women feels weakness, she will fuck other people, and he will let her.

          The word of God is entirely clear and unambiguous on this matter, and the current PC interpretation is straightforward heresy, and a very recent heresy. Interpreting Christianity to allow female equality is like interpreting Christianity to allow gay marriage.

          • Corvinus says:

            Again, what makes you the sole arbiter as to what constitutes female behavior and the word of God?

            • jim says:

              The word of God is entirely plain and clear on sex and unambiguous the proper relationship of men and women, and until about 1930, no one in the past several thousand years tried to impute to it the meaning moderns do.

              As for female behavior, it is apparent that I see it in life, and you only sse it in the movies.

    • peppermint says:

      women come up with elaborate BDSM restraints to avoid consenting

      • StringsofCoins says:

        A safe word means she’s still in charge. If you gave her a safe word you better go break it and choke her out. Let her hamster 🐹 rationalize it after she wakes up.

        • jim says:

          BDSM with safe words is a sexual perversion: Progs imitating the form, but not the substance, of the proper relationship between men and woman. If there is a safe word, she is topping from the bottom.

    • Garr says:

      “Unless she is chained to the dungeon wall, she consents by choosing to not run away” — or by not saying, “Stop it, Jim, I’m not enjoying this!”

      And if she IS chained to the dungeon wall, she stays there until she says, “Jim, let me go for a minute — I have to pee.”

  14. Zach says:

    Off topic:

    Everyone should go see the new Blade Runner this weekend.

  15. j says:

    I read Jim’s “In defense of Hugh Hefner”. In what sense is it a defense of Hugh Hefner?

    BTW, Viagra was launched in 1990 so it was unavailable in the early Playboy clubs. And yes, Playboy magazine had excellent non-masturbatory articles.

  16. Offtopic: Jim, is it true that in Alabama Judge Roy Moore defeated President Trump’s nominee by being MORE right-wing ?! This seems to be accepted view around teh Internets, I wonder what you think about this.

  17. Mister Grumpus says:

    Take all the time you want, but I know you can do a great piece on the Vegas Shooter event.

    • Your Wife's Son says:

      I’ve been on /pol/ since the beginnin’ – and my head is spinnin’.

      • Cavalier says:

        And?

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          Nothing, except I have personally trolled them into obsessing over Paddock’s earlobes. Yep – ’twas me.

        • Your Wife's Son says:

          And now there’s this feeling that…

          It’s happening.

          • Cavalier says:

            What’s happening?

            • Your Wife's Son says:

              #DeepStateDidVegas

              Waiting for a Jim post about this shitshow.

              • jim says:

                I generally do not comment on events that are hot off the presses, because the true nature and importance of events does not become apparent until years, often centuries, after the events.

                Now if you after the latest news on the Queen Caroline and King George divorce, you have come to the right place.

                • Your Wife's Son says:

                  What? You generally *do* comment on various recent events, big and small, even as they unfold. Notable examples are Trump, Syria, even Charlottesville. You document in real time the progress of the leftist holiness spiral, which is obviously still ongoing.

                  However, I agree that it’s often much more productive to discuss historical events than current affairs, for the reason you stated.

  18. Javier says:

    It seems like all the complaining is coming from weak beta guys, and their main complaint is that Hugh treated his harem women poorly. These complaints are from women who were ejected from the harem.

    Typical beta rage/revenge fantasies. “If I had women like that I would treat them better”was the idea that drove Eliot Rodger to murder people.

    The thing these guys don’t realize is if they had a rotating harem of beautiful women for their entire adult lives, they’d probably treat them similar to Hugh. Like it or not, Hugh has to be recognized as a foremost authority on the subject of women, having ten thousand times more experience with them than most other men who have ever lived. If he treated them like crap, he was probably on to something.

  19. Inquiring Mind says:

    http://www.harpersbazaar.com/culture/features/a12063822/emotional-labor-gender-equality/

    Guys:

    Forget about hyper gamy and Queen Caroline and Hugh Hefner harams. This “freelance writer” not only wants a house-cleaning service, she wants her husband to do the “emotional labor” of vetting the available house cleaning services and hiring one that won’t send workers who will case their house and then send MS-13 gang members to kill her husband, rape her, and take all of their valuable belongings.

    She really sounds entitled. Dudes, this what we are up against.

  20. alf says:

    For whatever reason I can’t post this comment in the correct thread. Repost:

    I think Meeks is a border-case. He has the jawline and cheekbones the ladies love, but it seems to me he does his utmost best to look as handsome as possible, including wearing icy blue contacts. If so, 10/10 peacocking. Mystery would be proud.

    http://uploads.poplyft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10224740/multi-mugshots.jpg

  21. alf says:

    Jim my comments aren’t posted?

  22. Harry Manjaw says:

    test 123

  23. Harry Manjaw says:

    Jim my comments disappear when I post them as alf.

  24. HarryManjaw says:

    But here it does work, or at least awaits moderation.

    I think Meeks is a border-case. He has the jawline and cheekbones the ladies love, but it seems to me he does his utmost best to look as handsome as possible, including wearing icy blue contacts. If so, 10/10 peacocking. Mystery would be proud.

    http://uploads.poplyft.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/10224740/multi-mugshots.jpg

  25. Garr says:

    Where’s Viking? Viking, are you okay?

    • Cavalier says:

      We each have only so much time in the world. Our entire lives are a process of deciding what’s worth doing and what isn’t — the careful optimization of our time. Sometimes we stop doing things because we have better things to do. I wish Viking well. In this way, he is a prophet.

  26. Glenfilthie says:

    Ol’ Hef was probably chugging Viagra and Cialus by the pound at that age.

    If some idiot wants to think a 91 year old man can pour the salami the way a youngster can I have no problem with it. Gotta wonder about the gals involved though, they would certainly substantiate your critical views of women.

    I don’t envy him one iota, myself. A slutty tire biter is what she is no matter how good she looks. I am one of those men that has to have a woman that is as good out of the sack as she is in it.

Leave a Reply