Irresponsible Ejaculation Causes Abortion

One wimminz impeccable argument on how abortion is the direct result of men’s irresponsibility.

Readership: All

“Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” ~ Matthew 7:13-14 KJV

I just came across this article from exactly one year ago, and I can’t resist reposting it with a commentary. It’s utterly hilarious!

Design Mom: My Twitter Thread on Abortion (2018 September 13)

H/T: Just Ambitious to Serve Communications (JATSC): ‘Irresponsible ejaculation causes abortion’ (2018 September 16)

This could have very well been published on the Babylon Bee, and no one would have suspected that it wasn’t satire; that a woman actually wrote this with sincere convictions.

This is an excellent example of what I meant when I wrote that a person can have a seemingly rational argument, but still be ridiculously in the wrong.

The problem with her argument is that she conveniently omitted the pertinent facts and information. I’ll attempt to fill in the blanks with my commentary.

♦              ♦              ♦

Today, I tried something new. I wrote a Twitter thread for the first time. It’s about abortion, and how I think we need to approach the topic differently.  I thought I’d share it here, because I know many of you don’t use Twitter.

So here’s the thread, broken up into small Tweet-size pieces. : )

I’m a mother of six, and a Mormon. I have a good understanding of arguments surrounding abortion, religious and otherwise. I’ve been listening to men grandstand about women’s reproductive rights, and I’m convinced men actually have zero interest in stopping abortion. Here’s why…

Mormon… that says something, but I’m not sure exactly what.  (I’ll ask Boxer to comment.)  Reading between the lines, I’m already getting the feeling that this woman hates her life, and maybe her husband too, but she’s lazy and doesn’t want to do anything about it, even something as simple as changing her attitude to be thankful for her family.

It’s All Menz Fault!

If you want to stop abortion, you need to prevent unwanted pregnancies. And men are 100% responsible for unwanted pregnancies.

100% men’s fault, you say?  Heh…  Men are not 100% responsible for the fact that the woman they just impregnated doesn’t want to bear their offspring.  Men are not 100% responsible for her unilateral choice to abort either.  From the man’s perspective that’s a classic bait and switch.  “Here’s my body. Insert your c0ck in my vagary… (intercourse commences)  Oh, you actually came in me!  What a surprise!  Didn’t see that one coming!  (A month later…)  Ohhh, I’m pregnant!  No, I changed my mind, I don’t want a baby.”

No for real, they are. Perhaps you are thinking: IT TAKES TWO! And yes, it does take two for intentional pregnancies. But ALL unwanted pregnancies are caused by the irresponsible ejaculations of men. Period.

Translation: Sex can be great, except for that annoying risk of getting pregnant.  Never mind the fact that God created the male-female union to result in procreation; Itz duh manz fault!

Don’t believe me? Let me walk you through it. Let’s start with this: women can only get pregnant about 2 days each month. And that’s for a limited number of years.

Not true! I’ve known women who conceived while on the pill and/or from having sex during their menses. In reality, anytime you have sex, there’s a chance of pregnancy, even when using many forms of birth control.

That makes 24 days a year a women [sic] might get pregnant. But men can cause pregnancy 365 days a year. In fact, if you’re a man who ejaculates multiple times a day, you could cause multiple pregnancies daily. In theory a man could cause 1000+ unwanted pregnancies in just one year.

There’s a twang of penis envy here. Note how she’s assuming polygyny. She’s a good Mormon wife.

And though their sperm gets crappier as they age, men can cause unwanted pregnancies from puberty till death. So just starting with basic biology + the calendar it’s easy to see men are the issue here.

Starting with basic biology, fertile women get pregnant. It’s easy to see how women who spread their legs are the issue here.

But what about birth control? If a woman doesn’t want to risk an unwanted pregnancy, why wouldn’t she just use birth control? If a women [sic] can manage to figure out how to get an abortion, surely she can get birth control, right? Great questions.

She portrays men’s fecundity as a power to be envied, while the fertility of women is little more than a risk of pregnancy. Where is the honor for women as child bearers?

Modern birth control is possibly the greatest invention of the last century, and I am very grateful for it. It’s also brutal. The side effects for many women are ridiculously harmful. So ridiculous, that when an oral contraception for men was created, it wasn’t approved… [she inserted a pregnant paragraph break here] because of the side effects. And the list of side effects was about 1/3 as long as the known side effects for women’s oral contraception.

Men are smart enough not to ingest hormone altering drugs which are intended to screw up their body chemistry.

There’s a lot to be unpacked just in that story, but I’ll simply point out (in case you didn’t know) that as a society, we really don’t mind if women suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for men.

A classic example of Psychological Projection. What she means to say is, “(in case you didn’t know) …as a society, we really don’t mind if men suffer, physically or mentally, as long as it makes things easier for women.”

But good news, Men: Even with the horrible side effects, women are still very willing to use birth control. Unfortunately, it’s harder to get than it should be. Birth control options for women require a doctor’s appointment and a prescription. It’s not free, and often not cheap.

So she is inadvertently arguing that using abortion as a form of birth control is easier and cheaper than using birth control pills. We already know too many women think this way.

In fact, there are many people trying to make it more expensive by fighting to make sure insurance companies refuse to cover it. Oral contraceptives for women can’t be acquired easily, or at the last minute. And they don’t work instantly.

Yes, sin is rather frustrating. You can’t fool God, you can’t revamp biology on the fly, and you can’t change human desire to F*cky F*cky. When will you learn to go with the flow?

If we’re talking about the pill, it requires consistent daily use and doesn’t leave much room for mistakes, forgetfulness, or unexpected disruptions to daily schedules. And again, the side effects can be brutal. I’M STILL GRATEFUL FOR IT PLEASE DON’T TAKE IT AWAY.

She’s coming closer, but she still won’t come out and say that abortion is a one-off visit to the clinic, making it more convenient than using birth control pills.

Wimmin want Men to Trust Condoms to be Miraculous

I’m just saying women’s birth control isn’t simple or easy. In contrast, let’s look at birth control for men, meaning condoms. Condoms are readily available at all hours, inexpensive, convenient, and don’t require a prescription. They’re effective, and work on demand, instantly.

…and she doesn’t have to do anything about that. If she asks him to wear a condom, then it’s no longer her responsibility. The perfect solution!

Men can keep them stocked up just in case, so they’re always prepared. Amazing! They are so much easier than birth control options for women. As a bonus, in general, women love when men use condoms. They keep us from getting STDs, they don’t lessen our pleasure during sex…

Women love using condoms? In my experience, women hate using condoms even more than men do.

… or prevent us from climaxing. And the best part? Clean up is so much easier — no waddling to the toilet as your jizz drips down our legs. So why in the world are there ever unwanted pregnancies? Why don’t men just use condoms every time they have sex? Seems so simple, right?

Ouch! I’m getting the impression that she’s a frigid whife who’s never known anything other than duty sex. A woman who is really crazy about her man wouldn’t waste a precious drop.

Oh. I remember. Men don’t love condoms. In fact, men frequently pressure women to have sex without a condom. And it’s not unheard of for men to remove the condom during sex, without the women’s permission or knowledge. (Pro-tip: That’s assault.)

Women do the same thing to men. What is it called when a woman tries to trap a man by having his baby? But women wouldn’t think of that as “assault”.

I’ll say it again; if you’re having sex, there’s always a chance of pregnancy.

JATSC adds here, “Stealthing’ is a new sex trend where men remove condoms without partner’s consent.”

If women remove or puncture condoms without partner’s consent, would that be stealthing? If the condom accidentally breaks, would that still be stealthing? Where do you draw the line?

Guess what? You’re already way past the line and into the thick of it. So you’re just complaining because things did not go as you wished, and your actions actually led to the natural consequence.

Why would men want to have sex without a condom? Good question. Apparently it’s because for the minutes they are penetrating their partner, having no condom on gives the experience more pleasure.

It’s not just about pleasure. For many people, commingling swill is a deeply emotional bonding experience. It also alters one’s body chemistry.

So… there are men willing to risk getting a woman pregnant — which means literally risking her life, her health, her social status, her relationships, and her career, so that they can experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure? Is that for real? Yes. Yes it is.

Yes, sexual relations can change a woman’s life, health, social status, relationships, and career, as well as produce children. Has she ever considered the longitudinal consequences of engaging in sexual relations?

What are we talking about here pleasure-wise? If there’s a pleasure scale, with pain beginning at zero and going down into the negatives, a back-scratch falling at 5, and an orgasm without a condom being a 10, where would sex with a condom fall? Like a 7 or 8?

She seems obsessed with the pleasure aspect of sex, and fails to consider any of the other cofactors.

So it’s not like sex with a condom is not pleasurable, it’s just not as pleasurable. An 8 instead of a 10. Let me emphasize that again: Men regularly choose to put women at massive risk by having non-condom sex, in order to experience a few minutes of slightly more pleasure.

Women already put themselves at massive “risk” simply by entering into a situation where sex could occur. Would a woman ever see that “risk” ahead of time and take precautionary measures? No, that’s too much work. It’s easier to just blame the man.

Men should have self-control, so they can do what Wimmin want them to do

Now keep in mind, for the truly condom-averse, men also have a non-condom, always-ready birth control built right in, called the pull out. It’s not perfect, and it’s a favorite joke, but it is also 96% effective.

If a man can make himself pull out every single time, he’s either a porn actor, or he doesn’t feel that passionate about the woman. Losing control is a big part of what makes sex “good”.

So surely, we can expect men who aren’t wearing a condom to at least pull out every time they have sex, right?

Nope.

And why not?

Perhaps a man might be overwhelmed by lurrve, passion, and desire, perchance? If he’s not, that’s a shamefully poor reflection on the female.

Well, again, apparently it’s slightly more pleasurable to climax inside a vagina than, say, on their partner’s stomach.

Here we go back to the obsession with pleasure. Give me a break! The pleasure is not without a purpose.

So men are willing to risk the life, health and well-being of women, in order to experience a tiny bit more pleasure for like 5 seconds during orgasm.

Men are also risking their own life, health, and well-being in their gambit to procreate, especially in our modern gynocentric, pound-me-too society.

And… don’t underestimate those 5 seconds of orgasm – that’s the culmination of thousands of years of breeding being thrown into the future (or a latex bag).

It’s mind-boggling and disturbing when you realize that’s the choice men are making. And honestly, I’m not as mad as I should be about this, because we’ve trained men from birth that their pleasure is of utmost importance in the world. (And to dis-associate sex and pregnancy.)

More Projection about pleasure and dismantling it from procreation. Pleasure is obviously a running theme of her monologue. Do you think she’ll bring it up again?

While we’re here, let’s talk a bit more about pleasure and biology. Did you know that a man CAN’T get a woman pregnant without having an orgasm? Which means that we can conclude getting a woman pregnant is a pleasurable act for men.

Hasn’t she ever heard of the potency of precum?

But did you further know that men CAN get a woman pregnant without HER feeling any pleasure at all? In fact, it’s totally possible for a man to impregnate a woman even while causing her excruciating pain, trauma or horror.

True, pregnancies are typically painful. But if you don’t enjoy the sex, and you don’t want a child, then why are you doing it? Duty sex confirmed.

In contrast, a woman can have non-stop orgasms with or without a partner and never once get herself pregnant. A woman’s orgasm has literally nothing to do with pregnancy or fertility — her clitoris exists not for creating new babies, but simply for pleasure.

There’s that P word again… Are we surprised? She says her clit is only for her pleasure, not for making babies, but somehow, for reasons unbeknownst to wimmin, that pleasurable clitoral orgasm has suckered her into procreating. The joke’s on her!

No matter how many orgasms she has, they won’t make her pregnant. Pregnancies can only happen when men have an orgasm. Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly.

Only? So let me be sure I’m following correctly here. Fapping to RedTube is more pleasurable than duty sex, but I’d consider that to be an irresponsible orgasm. But she says, “Unwanted pregnancies can only happen when men orgasm irresponsibly”. So can we conclude that watching internet porn can cause a pregnancy, and one that is unwanted, no less? Taking this one step further, if we outlawed internet p0rn, then abortion would never be necessary!

Wouldn’t it be more reasonable to assume a correlation between duty sex and unwanted pregnancies?

What this means is a women [sic] can be the sluttliest slut [sic LOL] in the entire world who loves having orgasms all day long and all night long and she will never find herself with an unwanted pregnancy unless a man shows up and ejaculates irresponsibly.

Toxic masculinity strikes again! How dare you interrupt a s1ut’s joyride with your pleasurable ejaculation!

Women enjoying sex does not equal unwanted pregnancy and abortion. Men enjoying sex and having irresponsible ejaculations is what causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.

It takes two to progenerate.  Women who abort go to clinics on their own initiative, often without even informing the man.  I’d say “a women” who wants to be sexually active with a living man, but who also considers abortion as a preferred alternative to bearing a child, is the one who causes unwanted pregnancies and abortion.  If we must foist the responsibility onto men, then the solution is not to bang “a women” who want to withhold the fruit of their loins.

Feminine Responsibility

Let’s talk more about responsibility.

Heh… Of course, what she means by “responsibility” is Wimminz opinions about what they believe should be Menz responsibility.

Men often don’t know, and don’t ask, and don’t think to ask, if they’ve caused a pregnancy. They may never think of it, or associate sex with making babies at all. Why? Because there are 0 consequences for men who cause unwanted pregnancies.

Zero consequences?!?!?  Paternity suit?  Child support?  Wait, those are benefits (for her), not consequences!

Next, she details three possible outcomes. (1) She aborts secretly. (2) She has the baby secretly. (3) She has the baby and uses it for sextortion.

There are a couple more possibilities which she never mentions: (4) She informs him that she’s pregnant by him and that she’s getting an abortion whether he agrees or not. (5) She informs him that she’s pregnant by him, and carries the baby to term while maintaining proper health and nutrition, which is her reasonable service. Meanwhile, she is grateful to have been chosen by God to become a progenitor of future generations.

These last two responses would be the most honest responses of all. But an honest response is not feasible for the obvious reason that it would show her to be the savage, scamming Sheila she truly is.

If the woman decides to have an abortion, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation.

If the woman decides to have the baby, or put the baby up for adoption, the man may never know he caused an unwanted pregnancy with his irresponsible ejaculation, or that there’s now a child walking around with 50% of his DNA.

Let me correct your inadequate reasoning for you. If the woman decides to never tell the man about her pregnancy, the man may never know he fathered a child with his bullseye shot. Her having an abortion has nothing to do with him not knowing, except that it makes it easier for her to prevent him from knowing.

If the woman does tell him that he caused an unwanted pregnancy and that she’s having the baby, the closest thing to a consequence for him, is that he may need to pay child support. But our current child support system is well-known to be a joke.

Yes, the child support system is a failure because it can’t give her any more money than what he earns. Weak men always screw feminism up.

61% of men (or women) who are legally required to pay it, simply don’t. With little or no repercussions. Their credit isn’t even affected. So, many men keep going as is, causing unwanted pregnancies with irresponsible ejaculations and never giving it thought.

Some men might consider it irresponsible to continue offering financial support to a wimmin who frivorcenapped his child to extort monthly installments of ransom.

When the topic of abortion comes up, men might think: Abortion is horrible; women should not have abortions. And never once consider the man who CAUSED the unwanted pregnancy. If you’re not holding men responsible for unwanted pregnancies, then you are wasting your time.

Of course, we could never hold wimmin responsible for forcing themselves into having unpleasurable duty sex that results in a child they don’t want to have.

Image: taking control of your life

News flash! The most effective way to prevent unwanted pregnancies and irresponsible abortions is to abstain. That means stop hopping on cock! Why is she omitting the most obvious solution?

Stop protesting at clinics. Stop shaming women. Stop trying to overturn abortion laws. If you actually care about reducing or eliminating the number of abortions in our country, simply HOLD MEN RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS.

Holding people responsible for their actions sounds reasonable. Let’s repeal Roe vs. Wade and make sexual promiscuity and abortion punishable offenses!

What would that look like? What if there was a real and immediate consequence for men who cause an unwanted pregnancy? What kind of consequence would make sense? Should it be as harsh, painful, nauseating, scarring, expensive, risky, and life-altering… [here’s another pregnant pause] as forcing a woman to go through a 9-month unwanted pregnancy?

Her Argument for Castration

In my experience, men really like their testicles. If irresponsible ejaculations were putting their balls at risk, they would stop being irresponsible. Does castration seem like a cruel and unusual punishment? Definitely.

Not so fast. I know several young men who would give their left nut to empty their sack into a supermodel of their choice. I would call that a grotesque trade, or even a reward of sorts, but not a punishment.

But is it worse than forcing 500,000 women a year to puke daily for months, gain 40 pounds, and then rip their bodies apart in childbirth? Is a handful of castrations worse than women dying during forced pregnancy & childbirth?

She subscribes to the feminist emasculation/castration rhetoric. <Sigh…>

Put a castration law on the books, implement the law, let the media tell the story, and in 3 months or less, tada! abortions will have virtually disappeared. Can you picture it? No more abortions in less than 3 months, without ever trying to outlaw them. Amazing.

Legislating mandatory castration – an idea we’ve heard before. A not-so-subtle power grab.

For those of you who consider abortion to be murder, wouldn’t you be on board with having a handful of men castrated, if it prevented 500,000 murders each year?

Imagine that. She believes castrating men is preferable to the risk of pregnancy, or a normal world without Roe vs. Wade. And she never seems to realize that wimmin, not men propagate those murders – a very convenient omission.

And if not, is that because you actually care more about policing women’s bodies, morality, and sexuality, than you do about reducing or eliminating abortions? (That’s a rhetorical question.)

Wimminz actually care more about policing men’s balls with legislated castration, eliminating their progeny, and maintaining the upper hand, than they do about reducing or eliminating abortions.

Hey, you can even have the men who will be castrated bank their sperm before it happens — just in case they want to responsibly have kids someday.

That’s a cute argument, just in case they find a responsible woman who is not obsessed with abortion.

Can’t wrap your head around a physical punishment for men? Even though you seem to be more than fine with physical punishments for women? Okay. Then how about this prevention idea: At the onset of puberty, all males in the U.S. could be required by law to get a vasectomy.

A vasectomy at puberty would not eliminate toxic masculinity nor male thirst. You’ve got to remove those gonads at birth to do that.

Vasectomies are very safe, totally reversible, and about as invasive as an doctor’s exam for a woman getting a birth control prescription. There is some soreness afterwards for about 24 hours, but that’s pretty much it for side effects.

(So much better than The Pill, which is taken by millions of women in our country, the side effects of which are well known and can be brutal.)

Who would not agree that scalpels and stitches are better than pills?

If/when the male becomes a responsible adult, and perhaps finds a mate, if they want to have a baby, the vasectomy can be reversed, and then redone once the childbearing stage is over. And each male can bank their sperm before the vasectomy, just in case.

A backhanded stab at males there in the first clause. She must think she’s being kind to men by allowing them this option, but it’s not much of an option. Vasectomies can be reversed with 30-50% success. Published rates of artificial insemination in women under 40 years are about 10-15% per cycle. After 6 months of inseminations, about 50% of women are pregnant. In other words, she’s saying that female control over procreation takes precedence over male fecundity.

It’s not that wild of an idea. 80% of males in the U.S. are circumcised, most as babies. And that’s not reversible.

Hey, female “circumcision” is “not that wild of an idea” either! 80% of females in central Africa undergo genital mutilation, most as babies. And that’s not reversible either! I’m sure feminists would agree, since they value equality so much.

Don’t like my ideas? That’s fine. I’m sure there are better ones. Go ahead and suggest your own ideas. My point is that it’s nonsense to focus on women if you’re trying to get rid of abortions. Abortion is the “cure” for an unwanted pregnancy.

A moment of silence for all the babies lost at abortion clinics. She gotta be free to climb dat stairway to heaven by sending her child to ћǝll!

Final Delusions

If you want to stop abortions, you need to prevent the “disease” – meaning, unwanted pregnancies. And the only way to do that, is by focusing on men, because: MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES. Or. IRRESPONSIBLE EJACULATIONS BY MEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED PREGNANCIES.

Dicks cause abortions. Ho hum… We hear similar vague, overgeneralized arguments from the Left all the time. Guns cause shootings. Alcohol causes drunkenness. Drugs cause addictions. Society causes incarceration.

If the Right were this irrational, we might hear arguments like, Tingles cause affairs; miniskirts cause rape; mouths cause beatings; and bosses cause unemployment. We could also say that WOMEN CAUSE 100% OF UNWANTED ABORTIONS.

If you’re a man, what would the consequence need to be for you to never again ejaculate irresponsibly? Would it be money related? Maybe a loss of rights or freedoms? Physical pain?

Men are willing to endure untold severities for the sake of sex and procreation. Modern marriage and all the inherent risks are at the top of that list. There is also a growing number of men who refuse to accept those risks and forsake sex and women altogether. They’re called MGTOW’s. It’s hard to say which is worse, but as wimmin get worse, MGTOW is looking better.

Ask yourselves: What would it take for you to value the life of your sexual partner more than your own temporary pleasure or convenience?

Why does there need to be a false dilemma? Love and life should proliferate in a healthy relationship, producing mutuality, not a parasitism. To insist otherwise sounds like (more) Projection.

Are you someone who learns better with analogies? Let’s try this one: Think of another great pleasure in life, let’s say food. Think of your favorite meal, dessert, or drink.

I am guessing she is a conscientious vegan.

What if you found out that every time you indulge in that favorite food you risked causing great physical and mental pain for someone you know intimately. You might not cause any pain, but it’s a real risk.

I know exactly what you mean! Chickens, cows, and potatoes are brutally and systemically destroyed every day because McDonalds. We should pass a law to ban the cruel mockery of clowns serving horse lips in a box.

Well, you’d probably be sad, but never indulge in that food again, right? Not worth the risk!

I would be sooo sad in a world without the hamburglar! But I’ll sacrifice my carnivorous nature for the sake of not offending vegans and for the rights of soybeans.

And then, what if you further found out, there was a simple thing you could do before you ate that favorite food, and it would eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone else. Which is great news!

We could switch to vegetarian “meat” substitutes, which are comprised mostly of soybeans.

BUT the simple thing you need to do makes the experience of eating the food slightly less pleasurable. To be clear, it would still be VERY pleasurable, but slightly less so.

Lack of sufficient grease causes perpetual global hunger.

Like maybe you have to eat the food with a fork or spoon that you don’t particularly like.

The Chinese don’t like forks at all, and so instead, they eat oryza seeds and tofu with sticks. That’s why they are thin. Likewise, outlawing silverware in Murica would solve the obesity epidemic. In addition, soy reduces testosterone, further combating the toxic masculinity crisis.

This is turning out to be a great idea. We could eliminate hunger, obesity, cruelty to organisms, and toxic masculinity, all by eating processed soy and outlawing forks and meats.

Would you be willing to do that simple thing, and eliminate the risk of causing pain to someone you know intimately, every single time you ate your favorite food?

OF COURSE YOU WOULD.

Condoms (or even pulling out) is that simple thing. Don’t put women at risk. Don’t choose to maximize your own pleasure if it risks causing women pain.

Did she ever think, “Maybe I should just not have sex?” Or, “If I’m absolutely sure I never want to have a child, maybe I should get my tubes tied.” No, she always puts the responsibility on men.

Men mostly run our government. Men mostly make the laws. And men could eliminate abortions in 3 months or less without ever touching an abortion law or evening mentioning women.

Again, she is putting all the responsibility on men and she blames men for the outcome. In our modern feminista culture, men are not as powerful as she imagines.

In summary: STOP TRYING TO CONTROL WOMEN’S BODIES AND SEXUALITY. UNWANTED PREGNANCIES ARE CAUSED BY MEN.

The sentence in bold reveals wimminz true motives. If wimmin start controlling themselves and taking responsibility for their actions, then others will not need to do so.

♦              ♦              ♦

Although her argument might seem reasonable to the solipsistic hamster, her naïve self-centeredness, ignorance, and fear of the male viewpoint, transforms her essay into hilarious satire.

Selfish immature people always focus on their desire to engage in profligate sex at their whim for their own enjoyment, but they never want to take responsibility for their behavior. If things don’t go the way they want, then they blame someone else.

All these arguments about abortions, condoms, pills, castrations, vasectomies, laws and legislation, and who is responsible for what, amounts to nothing more than a Pandora’s box of selfishness and sexual sin.

Related

• The Rational Male: Selective Breeding (2019 September 3)
• Boxer: Feminism is Hell (2019 September 4)
• Boxer: Abortion as Pastime (2019 September 5)

 

Advertisements

Crunching the Tinder Whoard

A nationwide, cross-sectional overview of your average female Tinder user.

This study was conducted by the author of Lexet Iustitia, and was first published on 2019 July 16.  A revised version appears here with the author’s permission.

Readership: RP Men, especially those using the Tinder app.

Introduction

Recently, I developed a curiosity about the quality of people on Tinder, after being off of the app for quite some time.  Tinder is still the most used app out there, but the quality of the users has taken a dive since I was last using it.  After noticing many of the profiles on the app were trashy, I decided to record and analyze the demographic data of the users that I saw.

The screenshots added throughout this post will provide the reader some insights as to what is on Tinder, without having to join.

Methodology

To be certain that my sampling was a true representation of all Tinder users, I paid for an upgraded account.  Many dating apps are free, but they encourage users to upgrade or pay for special services.  These dating sites “throttle” the availability of people you have access to until you pay for an upgraded account.  Apparently, the better quality users are only accessible through paying for an upgrade.  Upgrading also allowed me to switch my location and browse users from other locations.

I conducted a “survey” of hundreds of profiles in 10 cities, and for this study, I picked out data from 2100 accounts of women aged 18-30.  I viewed at least as many accounts in the same locations, or outside of those locations, without recording them.

In each location, I surveyed 100 profiles at a time.  (I considered it a day’s work).  Each group of 100 profiles is referred to as a block.

I chose six cities located in the Southern region of the U.S.A.  Three of these cities are considered tourist friendly or touristy areas.  Two locations were in the Western region, while another was in the upper Midwest.  Finally, I had to include Washington, D.C., since it is famous for its dating culture.  With the exception of D.C. and one of the western locations, my search radius was 100 miles.  D.C. and the 1 western location had a higher population density, so I narrowed the search down to within 10 miles.  I viewed several cities outside of my 10 city sample, but I decided that the results were so similar to the other samples that they were not worth recording.

Yes, some profiles were that disgusting!  On some profiles, I only recorded the first few red flags I observed before swiping left, so as to preserve my vision.  For the most part, my observations were from the pictures, and the portion of the text shown on the first picture.  If I had to open the rest of their body of text to read their profile, let’s just say I didn’t read it or record it.

I recorded visible tattoos (obviously), body piercings in “nontraditional” locations (lip, tongue, nose, eyebrow), weird hair (shaved, super short, or dyed an unnatural color), overweight (technically severely overweight or obese – I was actually very conservative with how many I placed in this category), and women who were single moms.  The last category I had was “E Thot/Sex work.”  These accounts had any of the following features.

• Asked for $$$ to be sent via other apps.
• Offered sugar daddy relationships.
• Apparent strippers / sex workers.
• Linked to Instagram accounts that seemed very professional and way too suggestive.

Although I recorded accounts that I thought were fake, were of couples, or featured drug and alcohol use, I stopped recording alcohol related photos, unless nearly every picture in a profile featured alcohol, or it was apparent from the text that they were alcoholics.

As time progressed, I found additional categories to track, so the data is incomplete, and only useful to show the bare minimum of each category out of its sample size.

There are a few important characteristics I didn’t track at all, including the following.

• The number of accounts by “pregnant women”.
• The number of accounts listing their preferred pronouns.
• The number of profiles that were sexually suggestive, or offering blatant innuendos.

On the last point, my low ball estimate for the number of profiles that were sexually suggestive would be at least 40% of all profiles.

Demographic Findings

The spreadsheet of the data collected looks like this.

T/NT: Tourist or Not Tourist area;  S/W/MW/DC: geographic location

• 28% were severely overweight.
• 17% of users had at least 1 tattoo visible in the photos.
• 16.5% had odd piercings.  Most of these are septum piercings.
• 6% of users are advertising sex work or nude photoshoots for $$$.
• 5% had butchered their hair.

Single Mother Users on Tinder (SMUT)

5% of Tinder users identified themselves as single mothers, and many of these women had multiple accounts.  (I did not track how many.)  Many of them had several children of young ages.

Overall, if you took the fact that they were single parents out of the equation, single mothers would have the highest quality profiles on Tinder.  However, several single mother accounts showed clear drug use, in either their video clips or pictures.

Nearly every single mother profile had “high standards” for any prospective men, and tried to give the impression of being high quality and religious.  I found it mighty convenient that they “found God”.  Of course, it is unreasonable for these women to hold their prospective partner to these standards since they cannot meet the same high standard as a wife or LTR partner.

Being a single mother is a significant sloot tell, indicating that the woman in question has been promiscuous, at least in the past.  Whether a particular woman has truly reformed is a questionable matter, despite their higher quality of appearance.  But by virtue of the fact that she’s on Tinder, it is likely that she has not reformed, or at least not enough to realize that the motives of the vast majority of Tinder users are not consistent with what she is looking for.  Single mothers who are seriously looking to find a man and settle down should not be looking for men on a hook up app like Tinder.

Noteworthy Observations

• Although I did not track race, female Tinder users are predominantly white.
• Women residing in cities frequented by international tourists were of better quality than those living in Non-Tourist areas. [SF: I call this the Rubyshoe effect.]
• Washington D.C. and the one Western urban location had the lowest number of single moms, women with weird hair, or overweight women.
• Nearly all of the D.C. profiles were of locals, judging by the number of pictures with them at known D.C. locations.  Interestingly enough, many women in the “touristy” areas of the South also had pictures taken in D.C.
• I observed a profound sense of entitlement in most of the profiles.  There is no way to quantify this observation, but it is based on viewing at least 10,000 photos while on this app (2,100 profiles at the bare minimum, with each having several photographs = 10,000 easy).
• Many of the pictures indicated travel, concerts, and similar social activities.  None of the activities were free events, but indicated some form of expectation about spending excessive amounts of money to keep up with their lifestyle.
• Many of the photographs focused around alcohol in party/vacation environments.
• Several pictures clearly showed operation of a motor vehicle while drinking.
• One account was advertising their personal business that had nothing to do with dating, and it was quite funny.
• I viewed several college towns of well-known conservative/Christian schools that are outside of this sample.  There are plenty of women using Tinder from prominent conservative Christian colleges and seminaries.

Trends and Cofactors

• Many of the profiles with linked Instagram accounts are clearly imitating the raunchy behavior of more professional Instagram users or celebrities.
• Piercings, tattoos, and bizarre hairstyles appeared as cofactors.  That is, if a woman had weird hair, she nearly always had piercings and/or tattoos.
• Common tattoo locations were: thigh, forearms, clavicle, the area underneath the bikini top, or on the side of the thorax.
• Many women are getting tattoos of Roman numerals.
• Sleeve style tattoos are becoming more common.
• While only a few did this, it is a trend: Women taking mirror selfies while they are sitting on the toilet.
• Most “funny” profile jokes were not unique, and I saw the same few jokes over and over again.  I am not sure if this is because of some shared sense of humor, fake accounts, or lack of originality.  I saw one incredibly hilarious original profile description.  But most profiles in general did not attempt any sort of humor.

Anomalies

In each block (of 100 profiles), I came across some anomalies listed below.

• Each block had exactly 12 profiles that were extremely polished in their presentation, and appeared to be professional “E thots/sex workers”.  The quality of these accounts appeared to be in a league above all the others.  I would consider these profiles to be fake, paid, or promotional accounts.
• Tinder would regularly match me with people I never swiped on, meaning the app itself is spamming its users to keep them using their app.

Its important to understand that Tinder operates on algorithms, and throttles your use by providing you a “swipe surge,” and then trickling new accounts to you throughout the day.  When using Tinder, users should be aware that approximately 12% of the profiles appearing in swipe surges are fake, paid, or promotional accounts.

Fake User Accounts

As just mentioned, about 12% of Tinder profiles are fake, meaning that the profile presents data that is not true to life.

Certainly, there is some degree of art in composing a profile, and few would present what they feel are the worst qualities of themselves.  So mild forms of falsities can be expected.  For instance, women think nothing of posting photos of themselves when they were 5 years younger, and/or 5 kg. thinner.  (BTW, this poses a constant source of irritation among male users. It’s refreshing to find someone who is authentic.)

In the worst case scenario, the person behind the account is quite different from the person you might imagine while viewing their profile.  We might imagine a geeky, bearded programmer at the Tinder office trying to stimulate user interest in order to bump up his commission, or a person of the opposite sex going for an incognito adventure of discovery, or an undercover detective doing demographic research (such as myself).  As bad as this might be, it doesn’t even touch on the next level of deception, such as cosmetic surgeries, or gender reassignments.

For example, Tinder matched me with a high number of Eastern Europeans and Russians of significantly better quality.  I suspected that these accounts were fake accounts designated to attract messages and attention.  I imagine they were probably formed by lonely, post-wall spinsters seeking affirmation, or a Gamma incel who’s just messing with people for the ћǝll of it.

Better quality profiles entice users to continue using the app, but the person behind these accounts is not “available” for selection.  For this reason, such accounts are misleading and deceptive.

At first, I recorded the data for fake accounts, but after I became more familiar with the app, and was better able to identify them, I skipped these profiles instead, meaning they weren’t evaluated at all.

Some indicators for identifying a fake account are as follows.

• The quality of the photos and text are a cut above the others, as mentioned in the previous section.
• Seeing the same person in several different locales.
• There are images of the same person in two different account profiles, possibly using different names.  Even if we assume the photos represent a real person it makes you wonder why they would need two accounts.
• Photographs that are incongruent with the self-descriptions.  For example, a person who describes herself as someone who “does not drink/smoke”, but who has a photo of herself holding a beer/cigarette at a party.  Another example is a person who identifies as “single, never married”, but who is wearing a wedding band in a photo.

Conclusions

While thinking about how I would phrase my conclusions, I realized that nearly every person I came across indicated in some way they wanted to be entertained.  I can’t pretend to have insight into why so many women posted photos of themselves in raucous party or nightclub environments, but I believe the simplest explanation is that these profiles attempted to signal their social standing by showing how much fun they were.

While these party photos do show they have fun and have friends, they also reveal a lack of responsibility and high-maintenance lifestyle.  Red Pill men like to say that women see what they want in men, and try to be that themselves.  I believe this is true when it comes to the pictures women use on online profiles.

Women do not initiate conversations with men on this app.  Normally, this is a sign of femininity and traditional roles.  However, the girls who expect men to initiate conversations on Tinder aren’t exactly feminine or traditional.  Quite the opposite, actually.  To me, I do not see this as some form of coy virtue signaling, but the action of a narcissist who expects men to entertain them by operating within their Frame.

From a comprehensive view of this study of Tinder users, it is obvious that Tinder has the following defacto purposes.

• It is predominantly an internet forum serving the hookup culture.
• It serves as an outlet for various forms of internet prostitution, such as Instagram wh0ring, escort services, sugar babies, and others.

If you’re just looking for wimmin who are DTF, you’ll find a smorgaswhoard on Tinder, provided that you’d be willing to settle for the quality.  But if you’re looking for a credible LTR mate, Tinder is a waste of time.

Due to the widespread popularity of Tinder, I recommend husbands currently being frivorced and/or attorneys in custody battles to create an account (each time they need to use it for their client), to see if the other person is on Tinder (or other dating apps), and what type of behavior that person is exhibiting or participating in.  If more attorneys did this, fewer skanky mothers would have custody, and fewer cucked dads would be paying a court ordered child support to post-wall party pros who leave the kids at home.  Perhaps this might be the best use of Tinder (and similar apps).  The internet lives forever you know.

Related

• Σ Frame: Analysis of People on Dating Sites (2014 October 8)
• Σ Frame: DTF Cupid (2017 December 17)
• Cave Man Circus: Guy Made A Tinder Experiment To Show How Women Respond To Creepy Messages From A Hot Guy (2019 April 3)
• The Other McCain: Insta-Whores (2019 April 30)

How much is Virginity worth?

An overview of the Virgin Market Place (VMP) and a rundown of prices around the turnpike world.

Readership: All

From source [1].

A 19-year-old New Zealand student, known only as Unigirl, sold her virginity to a stranger for $32,000. Her online ad was viewed by 30,000 people and received over 1,200 offers. Thanks to the Internet, women like Unigirl are putting their sexual initiation up for sale in the very public marketplace. Though these auctions have a new global reach, the pricing of virginity is an ancient human practice – according to the book of Deuteronomy, a girl’s virginity is worth 50 shekels, paid to her father. In today’s economy, how much is a woman’s virginity worth?

The passage in Deuteronomy 22:28-29 (NKJV) reads,

²⁸ “If a man finds a young woman who is a virgin, who is not betrothed, and he seizes her and lies with her, and they are found out, ²⁹ then the man who lay with her shall give to the young woman’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife because he has humbled her; he shall not be permitted to divorce her all his days.

That last clause in boldface stipulates that he is required to feed, clothe, and house her for the rest of his life. It’s difficult to put a price tag on that, but we can find the approximate value of fifty shekels by doing a little calculation.

A shekel is a unit of weight, so the implied value would be the equivalent weight in gold.

1 shekel (Biblical Hebrew)            11.4 g.          0.402 oz

50 shekels (Biblical Hebrew)        570 g.          20.1 oz

These days, gold is worth about US$1,500 an ounce. So that sets the Biblically proscribed value of virginity at about US$30,150, which compares closely to Unigirl’s price tag of US$30,000. Other virgin wh0res being gaveled on the mattress are selling for figures on the same order of magnitude. But if the laydie has particularly excellent genetic breeding, she can fetch seven digit figures for a night’s work.

The Slate breaks down the @$$essment further, explaining that virginity sells for…

At least $10,000 if the woman is reasonably attractive and under 25. The exact price ultimately depends on the “quality” of the virginity: how young and hot the virgin is. Models can fetch over $1 million. In 2005, Peruvian model Graciela Yataco was the first to break this threshold, although she eventually declined her top bid of $1.3 million. In January 2009, 20-year-old Italian model Raffaella Fico received an offer of nearly $1.5 million, but also allegedly retracted the auction. She is now dating a professional soccer player.

One Russian website, One Love Night, now offers bonerfied virgins for sale, with prices starting at US$10,000. Reading through some profiles of the Slavic vixens, it is common for them not to care at all whether the man offers any level of commitment or not, nor even if he is married. They just want the financial freedom and social independence that comes with the influx of cash. True wh0res! Some of them say they would like to retain a sugar daddy from the experience, but most just want their first experience getting poled in the sack to be with a wealthy powerful man.

This phenomenon is not unique to Western, White, or Latino countries. In Taiwan, I’ve heard stories of impoverished families living in the reclusive mountainous areas informally “renting out” their daughters to wealthier “friends” in exchange for high-end electronics and cash amounting to roughly US$2,000, which is equivalent to two months’ wages in Taiwan, and perhaps up to a year’s wages in that particular neck of the bush. A year’s wages in western countries stands at about US$30,000 (for the lower-middle class), so the hymen markup in backwoods Taiwan also compares closely to the Biblical figures.

As you might imagine, these people have a very simple life, which inevitably invites innocent girls to get down and dirty in the backroom. Some of these girls are as young as 14, because that is where the market demand is. Once a girl starts to develop her own opinions about things, the demand drops sharply, as does the price she can fetch.

In Laos, desperately impoverished farmers are selling their teenage daughters to brokers who are operating under the lugubrious guise of a matchmaking service for wealthy Chinese men seeking virgin brides. In fact, the customers are elderly, crippled, and disease ridden, and they have no intentions of marriage whatsoever. After the deed is done, these girls are dumped on the street to fend for themselves. Understandably, they don’t wish to return to the place they once called home.

According to the Bangkok Post [2], deals for these innocent tootsie rolls are cut between US$185 to US$310, in addition to a throng of bribes for law enforcement, immigration agents, and middle men. The fact that this price is much lower than the standard year’s wage in Thailand (US$7,974.90 per capita in 2019) stands as a testament to the abject destitution of the indigent subculture. Meanwhile, the fathers remain ignorant of their daughter’s fates, thinking them to be the pampered housewives of well heeled foreigners.

As bl00dy evil as this practice is, the point is that virginity is in high demand, and is widely recognized to have a cash value. Shockingly, the market demand and cash value of a virgin courtesan is even higher than the initial cost of a virgin bride! SMH

But in rural parts of the United States, it is not uncommon for a teenage girl to give up her purity for a good laugh, an empty promise, two tall beers, and a joint. But no one ever gives a flip about that. Murican wimmin may be the cheapest wh0res in the world!

By contrast, women from other parts of the world have a sense of purplepose in “entering womanhood”.

Yataco was a devout Catholic who needed money to care for her sick mother. Fico was also religious and planned to use the profits from her sexual foray for acting classes once she bought a house in Rome.

I don’t know what it is about Catholics. They’re expressly forbidden from having premarital sex, extramarital affairs, and divorce. Abortion and birth control are also verboten. But if/when given the right circumstances, they’ll eagerly dive into all these iniquities. Catholic school girls and Catholic clergy don’t have sexualized stereotypes for no reason. My apologies to Earl, Richard, and Bonald, but what is it about Catholicism that breeds sexual dalliances? Could it be the overt repression of the human nature?

In the nominally Catholic Philippines, it is rather common for young daughters of tenant farmers to migrate from rural areas into the cities where they “work the street” until they can find a regular job (usually through a friendly “customer”) and get off their @$$es and back on their feet (literally, heh…). A young girl working the streets in Manila can earn as much money in a week as a farmer in Mindanao can make in a year.

With a resigned yet determined attitude toward reality, these girls consider this the “price of admission” to enter a higher socio-economic class. (Young male migrants, on the other hand, find ample opportunities doing hard manual labor.)

Little do they realize that they’re simply trading socio-economic value for Marriage Market Value (MMV). From a spiritual perspective, it’s a sacrifice to Ashtoreth.

The narrative of self-sacrifice is ready-made for the media, and this good publicity inflates demand. In 2007, 18-year-old Carys Copestake from Manchester managed to make $23,000 to finance her physics degree, even though the only physical information she provided was, “brunette, 34C, green eyes, all in proportion and good looking.”

Yes, that’s all that really matters to wh0remongers.

In spite of the obvious iniquity and self-abasement attached to the practice, the shame of resorting to prostitution in order to advance socioeconomically is habitually overlooked, rephrased (e.g. escort, sex-worker, purposeful companion, etc.), or somehow transformed into something less inglorious, especially if the girl has succeeded in making a particularly lucrative transaction.

Branding is also crucial. According to Gawker [2], current co-eds have the priciest hymens, as “college girls are simultaneously Girls Gone Wild and nubile pillow-fighting naifs.” To maximize gains, a woman should also disclose her identity, preferably with revealing pictures and a detailed sexual history. The most successful for-sale virgins package themselves as pure and virtuous virgin/wh0res.

I think The Slate means “branding” as in commercial branding, but there are many sex trafficking agencies that utilize branding with tattoos or even a hot iron, so that the pimps can keep tract of which hoes belong to which bros. Many of these gun molls are willing accomplices, looking for an alternate lifestyle of drugs, material luxuries, and illegal thrills with bad boys. Considering the cash value of virginity, these gang lords and sex traffickers know exactly where the money is. More reasons to avoid nonvirginal women with tattoos.

But as bad as these girls might be, they still adhere to a male-led hierarchy and are loyal (even if not faithful) to their main man. The hardest core wh0res of all are those who reject all authority of any kind and run independent leases on their own @$$es, all for the sake of personal freedom, sexual power, and socio-economic independence.

Natalie Dylan is the ultimate virginity-marketing mogul. A 22-year-old women’s studies graduate from Sacramento State, Dylan needed the money to pay for her master’s degree in family and marriage therapy. She announced the auction on Howard Stern’s radio show in September 2008 and justified her decision in the Daily Beast and on The Tyra Banks Show. After her media blitz, Dylan received over 10,000 bids, half of which were for over $1 million.

Dylan approached her virginity like a good capitalist. “The value of my chastity is one level on which men cannot compete with me,” she said to Tyra. “I decided to flip the equation, and turn my virginity into something that allows me to gain power and opportunity from men.”

…like a good capitalist. Heh… Dylan approached her virginity like a good feminist! She even said that she sold herself off explicitly “to gain power from men”.

She might as well cash in on the bl00dy cherry now, because once she starts college, that cool million will be p!ssed away in a frat house within the first two weeks of her freshman year.

Maureen O’Connor, the author of the piece at Gawker wrote a revealing lie in the sky.

Since upper education is a tool of the upper class and upwardly mobile, college girl prostitutes belong (or will someday belong) to the same social class as their rich johns. What’s more, Natalie and Unigirl portrayed their virginity auctions as one-time things — they’ll go on to professional careers, respectable marriages, maybe even white picket fences. The fantasy that these girls are different (better, even, than Tiger’s mistresses!) keeps their value high.

LMSAO! That’s a fantastically solipsistic Sinderella (or Ho White) claim if I ever heard one! It sounds similar to the Laotian “hotel wedding” broker’s fraudulent sales pitch, except catering to upper crusty particulars. The Red Pilled view on that illusion goes something like the following.

If a sufficient number of nubiles buy into that phantasm, the market for virgin snatch could take off within the next decade. Young girls will be increasingly allured by the quick lucrative sale of their cherry blossom, kick starting an avalanche of V-auctions to the highest bidder. Rich boys will develop soft harems comprised of all their virgin flings – wimmin who will afterwards become alpha widowed by their first diamond d!ck, and find themselves unable to “settle for a lesser man” in a proper marriage. Even if they could break the yuppie’s soul mold and then resist the lure of a serial monogamy styled independence, would there be any man willing to marry a woman who’s been bought, sold, f*cked like a wh0re, then rode the carousel for at least 4 years, all while being professionally edgecated to scold cucks?

NRFW! She has already received her reward in full.

For the majority of cases, virgin wh0res are simply trading Marriage Market Value (MMV) for other socio-economic opportunities in which they are more self-reliant, and not dependent upon any one man. This bifurcated ontology hearkens back to the Feminine Dilemma.

How is the bourgeoisie virgin auction any different from black market sex trafficking in the squalid shantytowns of Asia? The difference is that the So Cal’ed “cultured laydies” are choosing their johnsons to suit their flakes, and are willingly prostrating themselves to be defiled, whereas, the poorer women of the world are often coerced or beguiled into becoming an accessory. But both contexts buy into the lines of socioeconomic come uppance.

Virgins for sale right here! Now going for 50 shekels of gold or a year’s wages, whichever one fits the glass slipper!

References

• Slate (feat. Claire Gordon): How Much Is Virginity Worth? (2010 February 9)
• Bangkok Post: Lifting the veil on virgin brides for sale (2016 October 16)
• Gawker (feat. Maureen O’Connor): A Guide to Maximizing the Price of Your Hymen (2010 February 4)

Related

• Christianity and Masculinity: Lori’s Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos (2018 July 20)
• The Other McCain: Insta-Whores (2019 April 30)
• Dalrock: Insta-Whores: Is money the real problem? (2019 April 30)
• The Transformed Wife: Marrying A Virgin Is No Big Deal? (2019 August 19)

Eunuchs of the New Feminist Order

Explore the beautiful future in a world without Peter Johnson.

Readership: All

There was once a time, centuries ago before male excision was imposed, when all human males retained their gonads and penises after birth. These appendages are now considered a vestigial remnant of our re-evolution. But because of our modern religious practice of ritual excision 8 days after birth, the world is now a better place, free from all forms of toxic masculinity, including human sex trafficking, rape, Betarape, Metarape, stalking, and many other forms of distracting, onerous lusts which had once waged war against our souls.

For those unfamiliar with these archaic terms, rape is the anatomical coitus with an unsubmissive male unfit for procreation. Betarape is coitus with a submissive male unfit for procreation. Metarape is coitus with an unsubmissive male fit for procreation.

It is difficult for us to imagine the shame and frustration caused by any form of rape now, because the males of our species no longer experience an unpredictable, overpowering, feral desire for rutting during adolescence. We have now evolved past that dark phase of our evolutionary history.

Ever since the processes of human genome selection, DNA quality control, reproduction, and cloning were perfected in 2095, it finally allowed us to achieve our age old dream of liberating our neuroreflexive joy (once called an “orgasm”) from the reproductive burdens of coitus and puritanical monogamous marriage. Since reproduction is now entirely carried out in specialized laboratory incubators, modern women can experience rapturous joy at will, without the fear of enduring months of pain and disability in order to produce an inferior child of random quality.

Our modern feminine-primary culture all began exactly 100 years ago, when one philosopher (known at that time as a “Spanish professor”) in what is now the Iberian Caliphate, introduced the dream of a world without superfluous testosterone…

******************

End of proleptic transmission.

Do you think this couldn’t happen? It’s happening.

Pluralist: Feminist Teacher Tells Boys That Women Will ‘Cut Off Your Dicks’ Once They Take Over (2019 June 7)*

* H/T: Farm Boy

“An audio recording released this week captures Aurelia Vera, a school teacher who is also a socialist city council member in the Canary Islands town of Puerto del Rosario, telling teen students that “boys should be castrated at birth” as part of a thought experiment in which students were asked to envision a matriarchal society.”

Actually, this is a great thought experiment. There has been a lot of condemnatory focus on “toxic masculinity”, but outside of the Manosphere, “toxic femininity” is assiduously swept under the rug. It is inspiring to hear of a professor who led her class to imagine the possible course of events, should feminism continue raining steam through the coming decades.

The problem with certain thought experiments, is that they don’t always remain as mere abstract concepts confined to comfortable classrooms, for the purpose of expanding student’s imaginations. Remember, once upon a time, Communism was merely a thought experiment.

“[The news site] El Diario reported that Vera prompted students to imagine a society in which the roles were reversed and women physically subjugated men. This is the alleged context of Vera’s remarks, heard in the Okdiario recording.”

“Boys should be castrated at birth, but selectively, to avoid the extinction of the species,” Vera said in response to a student’s question. “We must make men stop governing so they give power to us. Will they voluntarily do it? No. We have to resort to selective castration.”

“If they cut your dicks off, it’s no big deal,” she told male students.

At its core, feminism is a rebellious battle for power. Therefore, Vera carves out the point that the most elementary way to eliminate penis envy, is to eliminate the penis.  Simple!

“At one point during the debate a student asked, “So, what system do you think is needed?”

“Vera responded by saying, “the matriarchy,” a system based on “the power of women.”

Uh oh… she came right out and said it! Let’s hope she didn’t jinx herself! The motives and goals of Feminism need to remain a secret so long as it is in the incubative stages.

“The recording, published Thursday by Spanish newspaper Okdiario, kicked up a firestorm of backlash that included a denunciation of the educator’s behavior by Francisco Serrano, the anti-feminist leader of Spain’s Vox political party**.

Serrano has filed a complaint in the Spanish court system against Vera, claiming he has received numerous messages on Facebook from concerned parents of students in her class.”

** Not to be confused with the prog website, Vox, nor the Manospherian author, Vox Day. In Latin, Vox means “voice”.

Serrano is purported to be anti-feminist, and so his constituents include parents who are upset about a thought experiment that explores the odious toxicity of a feminine (dis)order as a real possibility. It’s encouraging to know that there still exist parents who are concerned about what their children are learning in school. But wouldn’t you think the male students would immediately reject male excision as an impotential outcome? Or could it be that Spanish students are so incapable of critical, independent thought, osmotically absorbing whatever they are told to believe, that the parents’ concerns are legitimate?

Being an educator myself, I’m inclined to believe the latter.

Some might argue that women don’t have that kind of propensity for violence. Heh… Think about it. If a woman would be willing to kill her own child through abortion, voluntarily enduring the trauma, pain, and heartbreak of losing a child (or else, the denial thereof), which I’ve heard is more debilitating than losing a spouse or parent, then the cruelty of emasculating sub-par SMV men would be assumed as child’s play, once given the power to sexecute.

As horrific as this may sound, snipping the reproductive appendage is not a novel nor isolated concept among women.

Let’s not forget Lorena Bobbitt, the woman who wielded a sharp kitchen knife and sliced off her husband’s poon poker while he slept in 1993. She justified her actions by claiming she lost her mind after her husband “raped” her. 26 years later, she says she has no remorse or regret over the incident. Her biggest fear is becoming the laughingstock of the community.

More recently, Suzanne Titkemeyer clearly stated, presumably towards Larry Solomon (the author of Biblical Gender Roles),

“Castration is starting to look like an attractive option right now for some of these men.”

It’s admirable to see a strong independent woman emulate the apostle Paul, who wrote,

“As for those agitators [who insist on circumcision], I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate themselves!” ~ Galatians 5:12 (NIV)

Eliminating penis envy is not the only benefit of truncating bratwursts. It also eliminates the possibility of fornication. Consider what Jesus said.*

²⁷ “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ ²⁸ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. ²⁹ If your right eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. ³⁰ And if your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it away. It is better for you to lose one part of your body than for your whole body to go into hell.” ~ Matthew 5:27-30 (NIV)

¹¹ But He said to them, “All cannot accept this saying, but only those to whom it has been given: ¹² For there are eunuchs who were born thus from their mother’s womb, and there are eunuchs who were made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He who is able to accept it, let him accept it.” ~ Matthew 19:11-12 (NKJV)

Once this catches on, any Churchian man who insists on retaining his manhood will be condemned and excommunicated for choosing a default life of unrepentant sin over helpless holiness. Why else would he want to keep his pecker, if not for wanking and raping?

The only snafu with this eugenic plan is exactly what Aloe Vera pointed out. Men will not voluntarily give up their power, authority, or their peckers. The problem remains of what women can do to discourage male ‘rebellion’ and force men to submit to their loving, corrective care.

Unlike helpless fetuses developing comfortably in the womb of their mother’s nurturing bodies, men have been emboldened by testosterone, and hardened under the duress of living, and therefore possess the agency to actively resist becoming worker-ant eunuchs for the feminisocialist state.

Vera suggests that women need to dominate politics so that this can be legislated into action. After all, surreal smotherly love forces one to submit, no matter whether it is in their best interest, nor whether they like it or not.

Cheer up men! There are a few smooth sides to this.

Can’t resist the lure of enervating internet porn?

Losing confidence and passion because of too much wanking?

Afraid of falling in love, only to be cucked, frivorced, impoverished, and heartbroken?

Get out of the cat race once and for all. Losing your tool is an easy solution!

Consider the Bunny Fits of the Eunucelibate Life.

• You’ll no longer feel sex starved, nor struggle with the constant urge to merge. Instead, your life energy will be freed up to serve the Theocratic Feministate with ultra-loyal diligence.
• Think of all the money you’ll save by avoiding the inevitable frivorce rape, alimony, and paternity suites, not to mention all those condoms that won’t be necessary. The Deep State will be happy to keep that extra cash in a safe place from you.
• No fear of having a mid-life crisis! Your future is subsidized.
• Thinking with the little head will no longer entrap you in sticky situations with Venus fly traps.
• People, especially women, will never again doubt the sincerity of your stated purposes.
• You can only be castrated once in your life!
• You’ll never have to shave again!
• You can eat as much tofu, soymilk, and soylent green as you like!
• Best of all, joining the simphonic choir in your local converged Choich of the Siren Sistren, and singing praise hyrz in perfect falsetto can now be your new hobby!

* For those immune to satire, the scriptures cited in this post have been cherry picked for satirical effect. So before you pick up that cleaver, go read those scriptures in context. Jesus never instructed men to lop off their willies, neither to avoid sin nor to achieve holiness. On the contrary, if you ever manage to escape the Bizarro World of the Feminazi’s, you’ll need your pepperoni stick to ravish your wife into willing submission and to produce those Godly offspring.

Related

• Purple Motes: Castration culture promotes vicious, jealous eunuchs as officials (2017 February 12)
• Purple Motes: Misandry & castration culture repress alternate lifestyles for men (2017 October 8)
• The Orthosphere (feat. J. M. Smith): The Power of the Eunuchs (2017 November 9)
• Hommunism: Sweden: How feminist emasculation broke a State (2018 December 19)
• The Rational Male: Selective Breeding (2019 September 3)

Paul Harvey “If I were the devil”

A jocular overview of 20th century radio host, Paul Harvey Aurandt, and the everlasting value of his words.

Readership: All

In 1965, the American broadcaster Paul Harvey aired “If I were the Devil”, one of the most astonishing monologues ever aired on public radio.

Now, 54 years later, everything that Paul Harvey said the Devil would have to do to rule the world, has come to pass. Was Paul Harvey a prophet, or were his words a prophetic message? How then did 100% of what he said in 1965 come true?

Perhaps the Devil himself listened to the broadcast and took it into his stony cold, calculating heart…

Or maybe Paul Harvey was a brilliantly talented orator for the Masterminions of Mammon, speaking in coded language to members of the Noo Odor, giving them general goals for which to cooperate, and directions about how to proceed?

Could Paul Harvey really have been the Devil himself?

What to believe?

You know, the Devil is in the details, so let’s frisky fisk Paul Harvey.

During his lifetime, Paul Harvey was known to be a strong, professing Christian. So it’s fair to believe that he wasn’t aware of the significance his words would have a decade after his death at the age of 90.

Unless he were the devil.

Britannica encyclopedia offers this information. [1]

Paul Harvey, in full Paul Harvey Aurandt, (born Sept. 4, 1918, Tulsa, Oklahoma, U.S.—died Feb. 28, 2009, Phoenix, Arizona), American radio commentator and news columnist noted for his firm staccato delivery and his conservative but individualistic opinions on current events. He enjoyed an almost unparalleled longevity as a national broadcaster [for the elphebat nooz].

Harvey was descended from five generations of Baptist preachers. He and his sister were brought up by their mother after their father was shot to death under uncertain circumstances.

Why would a preacher be shot to death? Why, he must have been the Devil!

The Devil can quote scripture for his own purposes, and from the pulpit no less.

Wikipedia [2] says Paul Harvey was “the son of a policeman who was killed by robbers in 1921”, and this interesting link is included as confirming evidence. Perhaps his grandfather et al. were preachers.

Note: Gunner Q has chased down the fascinating story surrounding the death of Paul Harvey’s father in a post, Why Paul Harvey was Anticommunist (2019 August 26). He was assassinated as part of a race war between the KKK and the communist fueled African Blood Brotherhood. This background explains much of Paul Harvey’s complex political stance, covered below.

From Britannica [1],

Harvey often opined on rising taxes, bloated government, and the decay of American values. He called his particular conservative cast “political fundamentalism.” Though he was associated with prominent figures of the American right — he once hosted Sen. Joseph McCarthy at his home and was short-listed among George C. Wallace’s potential vice presidential running mates in 1968 — Harvey resisted identification with any ideology but his own. A supporter of the Vietnam War for several years, in 1970 he changed his mind and publicly urged Pres. Richard Nixon to abandon the war. In the 1980s he decried several of President Ronald Reagan’s conservative positions.

His comrades were a conservative bunch who mostly supported the Vietnam war. McCarthy was famous for his vitriolic anti-communist stance. Wallace fought for segregation on grounds of populism during the civil rights era, and ran for president with the anti-liberal American Independent Party in 1968.

Now, Boomers would all agree Paul Harvey is definitely the Devil. So why did he change his mind in 1970 and challenge Reagan in the 80’s?

He was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2005.

Ahh… Did he converge?

Other recipients of this award include Walt Disney, Bill Gates, Alan Greenspan, Sandra Day O’Connor, David and Nelson Rockefeller, Sam Walton…

Speak of the Devil… most recipients are political allies and supporters of their nominators.

Guilty by association. He must be the Devil.

There was once a rumor that Paul Harvey supported Planned Parenthood for many years. I could not find any support for this rumor online. An internet search showed that one named Iris E. Harvey was the CEO of the Planned Parenthood of Greater Ohio. But I found could not find a link between Iris Harvey and Paul Harvey Aurandt. I suspect the name Harvey is why people thought they were related.

Other possible prophetic mouthpieces include Ayn Rand’s novel, Atlas Shrugged, and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four.

If Paul Harvey were the Devil…

Then Harvey Weinstein took on his secret daddy’s middle name.*

See the family resplendance?

If Ayn Rand were the Devil…

“Meet me in the cemetery for Ouija at midnight!”*

If George Orwell were the Devil…

George Orwell, AKA Eric Arthur Blair, in a passport photo looking very Hitleresque. (ca. 1922-1927) This style of mustache was very popular in Europe at that time.

Can’t decide? You’re better off with the Devil you know than the one you don’t.

I’d like to play the Devil’s advocate here, but I’m caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea, so it beats the Devil out of me.

* Quotes and claims are not true, but are only offered here as entertainment for the readers’ imagination.

References

1. Britannica: Biography of Paul Harvey, American Broadcaster
2. Wikipedia: Paul Harvey

Related

• Σ Frame: The Art of Inventing Hot Media Topics, and Then Trivializing Them (2015 November 12)
• The Conversation: What Trump’s picks for the Presidential Medal of Freedom say about him (2018 November 17)
• Gunner Q: Why Paul Harvey was Anticommunist (2019 August 26)

As the Worlds Turn…

Speaking loosely, there’s been a 120° rotation of the political world since 1991. That is, the Third World has become Second World, the Second World has become First World, and the First World has become Third World. What is at the heart of this revolution?

Readership: All

Introduction

In his post, National Review Wants California Gone (2019 June 21), Gunner Q rips apart some broad brush claims in an article from the National Review (feat. Victor Davis Hanson): America’s First Third-World State (2019 June 18).

Gunner makes the point that although California is not as bad as what Hanson describes, it’s definitely been on a downward spiral for the last three decades – just like the rest of the West.

Gunner took issue with Hanson’s claim that California was “Third World”. This is a shticky subject, because the original definitions of the “three worlds” were based on the political polarization between the Western and Eastern Blocs after the Cold War. The Western Bloc (e.g. the United States, United Kingdom, France, NATO, et al.), were called “First World”, and the Eastern Bloc (e.g. Soviet Union, Poland, China, et al.) were termed “Second World”. All other countries not allied with either the U.S. or the U.S.S.R. were labeled “Third World”. The general connotation associated with the dialogue about those countries was that they were so poor, backwards, or reclusive that they were irrelevant to world politics.

Gunner’s post illustrates that there is now a problem with using these old definitions of “Worlds”.

1. The most obvious problem is that the Eastern Bloc no longer exists. Many of those countries that were once Second or even Third World, are now part of the European Union.
2. The context of the First and Second World nomenclature pits the United States against the Soviet Union – a context which continues to be touted by the American Political Left as a real threat to Presidential elections, but which is no longer a central issue in world politics, as it was during the Cold War.
3. The original connotation of the term “Third World” (no centrally organized political entity, low-tech civilization, lacking infrastructure, and economic destitution) now no longer represents those countries once deemed Third World except for a few small pockets of the globe.
4. For some countries, the denotations are different from the connotations. For example, the Third World included certain “free” countries with a high standard of living, such as Austria, Ireland, and Switzerland, but they were deemed Third World simply because they were not “aligned” with either the Eastern or Western Bloc.

From a broader perspective, poor indigent countries have bettered themselves, China and Russia are on track to becoming world powers on par with the United States, and America and Europe are slowly sinking into anarchy.

In other words, there’s been a 120° rotation of the political world since 1991. That is, the Third World has become Second World, the Second World has become First World, and the First World has become Third World. Of course, not all countries apply to this generalization.

The Confusion Surrounding Terminology

Even though the terms, First, Second, and Third World no longer retain their original meanings, these labels are still commonly bandied around within social commentary. The connotation that is commonly understood is something of an international caste system based on the relative economic development of a country.

But how do you classify the economic development of a country, and the comported average standard of living? Should it be based on GDP, the standard deviation of wealth distribution, crime rate, birth rate, some measure of political freedom, or would a more subjective measure of “Happiness” be more appropriate?

Or why do we need to classify the economic standing at all, if not for our need to compare ourselves to poorer countries, to give our ego a little pat for being “more civilized”, and preen like peacocks? Aren’t people in poorer regions more virtuous based on their level of oppression? No, because the local god of social intersectionalism must submit to the higher order potentate of materialism. Virtue signaling is therefore unique to the wealthier sub-societies of the world.

There are caveats. It could be argued that many countries once categorized as Third World now have a higher standard of living, solely based on the fact that they are not encroached by the glowbo-techno-socialist (dis)order of the Fist World.

The Fist World is everywhere, it seems.

A New Classification

Obviously, the “Three Worlds” terminology is horrendously outdated. A new nomenclature is in order.

Perhaps new terms are now necessary to describe those countries that used to be called “First World” (organized civilization, infrastructure, and strong economy), that are now “Third World” by political standards, and are experiencing creeping communism). Here, major countries (> 50 M as of 2019) are given as examples. Populations of each are given in parentheses.

Foist World – Wealthy, developed countries which are now coming apart at the seams, mostly due to unbridled immigration, a below replacement level domestic birthrate, and/or internal political conflicts. Yet, some of them still insist on proselytizing their brand of Globulized Demolitocracy around the world. Examples include the United States (329 M), Japan (127 M), Germany (82.4 M), United Kingdom (67 M), and France (65.5 M).

Fecund World – Countries with a growing economy which are gradually becoming more socially, economically, and politically stable. Examples include China (1.42 B), India (1.37 B), Indonesia (270 M), Brazil (212 M), Pakistan (205 M), Russia (144 M), Mexico (132 M), Iran (82.8 M), and Italy (59.2 M).

Turd World – (A hat tip to Trump’s term, “Sh!t Hole”). Examples include Nigeria (201 M), Bangladesh (168 M), Ethiopia (112 M), Egypt (101 M), Congo (86.7 M), Tanzania (60 M), Myanmar (54 M), and Kenya (52.2 M).

There are several major countries that do not fit neatly into any of the above rudimentary pigeonholes. These are briefly detailed as follows.

Philippines (108 M) – Gangster politics combined with a growing economy that is propped up by income from citizens working overseas.

Vietnam (97.4 M) – Growing economically and politically, but suffering from high emigration and a below-replacement fertility rate (due to having the highest abortion rate in the world).

Turkey (83 M) – Has a strong economy, but only because it rides camel-back on its bizarre inclusion in the European Union. Immigration is pumped positive because it is the nearest pseudo-European nest for middle eastern refugees.

Thailand (69.3 M) – Growing, but only due to immigration.

South Africa (58 M) – A strong economy, positive immigration, but a political bloodbath.

South Korea (51.1 M) – Strong economy, positive immigration, but not suffering from typical Foist World ills.

Conclusion

The common denominator that no one cares to address is the world-wide growth of discontented greed in the Fist World, which spreads from country to country like the plague, waxing and waning in due season. Wherever the iron Fist of control and greed exploits, social disintegration, political corruption, and restructuring result, and this is soon followed by the spiritual rot of pride characterized by economic comparisons, and materialistic virtue signaling.

References

1. Wikipedia: Third World
2. Worldometers: Countries in the World by Population (2019)
3. World Population Review: Worst Countries to Live in 2019

Related

1. National Sentinel: Expert: ‘Exodus’ from high-tax states like New York, California ‘just beginning’ (2019 June 21)
2. Amerika (feat. Brett Stevens): How The World Is Changing (2019 July 6)

The QTBGL agenda gets down on its knees to Islamic Law

News commentary on those who support Islam and/or gay rights in the U.S.A.

Readership: Americans; Christians;

The National Sentinel: Reps. Tlaib, Omar SILENT after Palestinian police ban all LGBTQ activity in the West Bank (2019 August 19)

According to a report in the Jerusalem Post, the Palestinian Authority and police have even threatened to arrest members of the LGBT group Al-Qaws for Sexual & Gender Diversity in Palestinian Society. The paper noted that Al-Qaws was planning an event for members in Nablus at the end of August; the group currently only has offices in East Jerusalem and Haifa, both cities in Israel.

Luay Zreikat, a Palestinian Police spokesman, said that LGBTQ activities are “harmful to the higher values and ideals of Palestinian society.” In addition, Zreikat added that Al-Qaws’ activities are completely “unrelated to religious and Palestinian traditions and customs, especially in the city of Nablus.”

He then accused “dubious parties” of working to “create discord and harm civic peace in Palestinian society.”

I’m wondering who those “dubious parties” might be. I’m guessing it’s either Israel, the CIA, or both.

Zreikat went onto warn that Palestinian Police officers would chase down anyone behind the Al-Qaws event and bring them to court after they’ve been arrested. He then appealed to fellow Palestinians to report anyone associated with the group to police, which Al-Qaws condemned as “incitement.”

Nothing surprising so far, but it gets interesting when we see the reactions of U.S. congresswimminz who support both the gray agenda and Muslims.

Tlaib, who is of Palestinian decent, and Omar — as well the the other two members of “The Squad,” Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.) — are generally very quick to condemn President Donald Trump and his supporters for any perceived slight of LGBTQ persons in the United States.

But as of this writing, PJ Media reported, they’ve been strangely silent regarding the Palestinian Police threat.

Their allegiance to Islamic law and the principle that an independent state should have the right of self-government takes precedence over their support for ghey rights. If they condemned the Palestine Authority for prosecuting fluffys, then they would become the target of all American Muslims. So they are forced to keep their traps shut this time around.

Western Churchianity has already converged and cannot be counted on to take any meaningful action. The question is, why aren’t American Muslims outraged about rainbow activism in America, just like they are in Palestine? Or maybe they are, but the MGM is censoring this news, as it goes against the narrative. Such news would encourage Christians to do the same, and in general, hamper the Deep State’s plans to create an American Socialized Society (ASS). If the American Muslim community is truly being silent on this issue, we can presume that they are merely lying low until the time is right (if ever) to demand Sharia law in the West.

Related

 

The Sinful Savior Complex

Summary: Women hoping to change bad boys into decent men, men trying to save a ho by marrying her up… In God’s view, it’s nothing more than the blind leading the blind in a grand denial of Christ.

Readership: All

Foreword: I only stumbled across the Manosphere after I had married for the second time, and then gradually, everything made sense. I’ve had to learn these things the hard way, and I’m passing it along so that others might not make the same mistakes.

The inspiration for this post came from Wintery Knight’s article, Why Are So Many Women With Good Careers Being Forced To Freeze Their Eggs? (2019-7-20).

The Savior Complex

WK notes,

“…once a woman reaches 30, she’s actually chosen not to marry, and not to have children. Marriage is something that men are willing to do with women in their early 20’s. They want a woman to commit and invest herself in his life early. They don’t commit to a woman who has spent her 20’s running up debts, traveling, being promiscuous, etc. The pattern of selfish behavior that women get into damages their ability to be good wives and mothers later.”

Then WK goes into the reasons behind this behavior in the remainder of the article, which covers how women choose good looking bad boys in the hope of “changing them”, AKA the Savior Complex. Another variation of the Savior Complex is when men choose to marry smoldering carousel riders with the intentions of transforming them into decent wives. The latter is known in the Manosphere as playing Captain Save-a-ho.

The Savior Complex is a common, but very evil form of idolatry, because she wants to be his savior, not Christ. God certainly uses relationships to bring people closer to Him, but when we choose the person who makes our reproductive organs throb and swell, and then start a Pygmalion project to Chaaange™ that person into someone who “pleases God” or some other absurd justification, we have entered into the synagogue of the Most Low. We might have the notion that we are in control and we are changing the other, but in fact, we are the one being changed and controlled, because we’ve already bowed the knee to Lust, Covetousness, and/or Envy. (I use the pronoun “we” because both men and women are guilty of this.)

There were many good comments under WK’s post, including this one from Earl,

“What attracts them to ‘bad’ men is that these men are ruled by their passions and not right reason which often comes from living a fearing God/moral way of life. Hence these type of men produce the ‘tingles’… and they are easier to control (an immoral man has as many masters as he has vices). Now some women find out after the fornicating and fact that a man ruled by his passions can also be very abusive, objectifying, domineering, and controlling themselves.”

Long story short, women are drawn to bad boys because they are bad themselves.

What’s App? Me Badoo Twoo?

The big realization for me was that I am (or was) bad too! This is why I had always been attracted to bad women, and they to me!

Now, I wasn’t a Chadwick embarking on mass Beelzebub formication. I was another kind of bad, maybe worse by some estimations. My immaturity, desperation, frustration, lack of discernment, and my heavy reliance on conscience, were a witches brew of characteristics and conditions which proved to be a latent form of evil.

I had the foolish notion that women who tolerated and forgave my weaknesses really loved me, when in fact, they were only high on an ego kick of controlling me through those same weaknesses. Now, I recognize this too, to be a variation of the Savior Complex.

In another nuanced particular, I had the Churchian idea that I had to play the Savior to her, since I was the man in the relationship. So she played the Savior by allowing me to play the Savior. Although through doing so, she remained firmly in control of the relationship, and milked the cow for all it was worth.

Deception cloaked in denial, all done to prop up our codependent life of sin. But denial requires one to be unaware of the Truth, on some level.

Yet, Truth comes eventually, and I know this to be true, because as I slowly grew out of those weaknesses, they grew mad as ћǝll because they could no longer control me. Then they blamed me for pretending to be “someone I am not” earlier in our relationship. They said I lied to them, and ironically, I now see that this much was true, although the blinders of idolatry had made me out to be a sincere and honest liar at the time. And to add insult to injury, I had learned some of their habits, and had started to control them in return.

I was also wrong about what kinds of characteristics would make a good wife. The things that I thought were important (e.g. socio-economic-political fit, personality, attraction or “chemistry”, and even professing to be a Christian – which is nothing more than a cognitive assent to having faith in Christ, similar to Churchianity – and which might not represent the true state of her soul) don’t really matter that much, and I wasn’t very well aware of the things that really mattered (e.g. Heart Trust, spiritual compatibility or “vibes”, shared values and life goals).

I naively believed I was doing right by getting married. I just assumed that things would work out if I was “obedient to God’s will” by getting married. I expected God to do a lot of the things necessary to make my marriage work out, but actually, God wanted me to take responsibility for those things. As you can see, my Idol-Blinded Faith was my Achilles heel.

Extra-marital Sex as a Locus of Control

It is the nature of women to desire a man. But women’s desire to control a man is part of her fallen nature. Since sexual desire is perhaps the only area in which women genuinely have visceral power over men, especially younger women with younger men, it is a no brainer solution for her to combine her desire for a man with her desire to control a man simply by applying her thighs to the stud.

WK wrote,

“I mentored a brand new Christian who had had an abortion before becoming a Christian, and she flat out told me that women like men who can be controlled through premarital sex. Men who refuse premarital sex are usually also trying to lead the woman into marriage, which requires her to grow up. It makes perfect sense why the bad boys are deemed preferable.”

The majority of women I’ve dated have tried this with me, including the two that I married. Women like this will reject a man if sex doesn’t happen by the second or third date. There are men like this too – men who’ll dart if she’s not putting out. Men and wimminz like this are looking to either control or be controlled by the Pizzle Itch or Tingles, respectively.

In this scenario, you might imagine that a woman thinks of a man as a kid’s wind-up toy. The first part of the game is to determine his winding style and strength. This exercise allows her to become familiar with, and “own” her Poozle power. If she shows a little bit of cleavage, or a lot of leg, will that get him wound up? Maybe a bare-breasted titty show might get him to see things her way. Not enough? Some popsicle slurping will surely get him to conform to her wishes.

The challenge is an integral part of the game. If he gets too excited from a gesture too small, then a gaming broad might throw that small fish back into the pond and go fishnet stalking for a bigger challenge. She’s hunting for the high SMV man that can hold out for the grand finale. Men who can get a lot of action from many women are under less compulsion to toss their load, and are more likely to hold up to her sexpectations.

You might think that someone having a low pressure cooker type of self-control might serve as evidence that he/she is an unreliable, promiscuous player, but instead, in Tinderworld, it’s taken as a preselected confirmation that he’s a big fish.

Many women have the onerous idea that love must necessarily be dramatic and controlling. Other women are only humbled and “fall in love” with a man when they realize that they need him, but they cannot control him. Until that point is reached (if ever), she’ll be wanting to master his heart by playing in the pudding.

I’ve even heard Millennial males advise each other to masturbate before going on a date as a way to relax, and to safeguard against looking too desperate.

Lies beneath lies… Lies which are patently unavoidable when the whole system revolves around the carousel of sexual idolatry.

Lord, why should my life be wasted by growing up in this mess, in times like these?

The Grand Eliminator of Marriage

It is commonly believed that women dream about getting married, but truth be told, they only dream about marrying a hunk so wealthy, so well hung, and so high up the MMV ladder that they couldn’t refuse. They dream in vain. It’s not just Western Feministas either; it’s the same way all around the civilized world.

Any woman who postpones marriage until her 30’s is not that serious about it. If their desire for matrimony were truly authentic, then women would be getting married in their late teens and early 20’s, instead of blowing their financial and spiritual inheritances on college and tourism. As it stands, marriage is little more than a Plan D that is only seriously considered after all other opportunities have been either explored to their fullest possible extent, or else lost to the Wall.

But why is marriage so unpopular that it takes a back seat to everything else in life? As WK notes, most women avoid marriage because that would require them to “grow up” – that means to forsake their opportunities to fornicate, to willingly put responsibility over having fun, and to live a life that glorifies God rather than to indulge in an O-fueled rebellion.

Even the few women who have “grown up” are often times worse than their baby twisted sisters. For example, some women who appear outwardly obedient and are actively seeking marriage are only doing so because they have a self-serving purpose, such as gaining influence, money, or citizenship.

Since women are intuitively familiar with using sex as a method of control, one might think that they would continue to flex their perineal muscles even after marriage, which might actually be helpful in terms of marital closeness and bonding. But this seldom happens because marriage changes the ontology of the relationship. Before marriage, she had no sense of responsible agency, only the thrill of passion, affirmation, and the illusions of liberty and control. But after marriage, all these motivations vanish. Familiarity and selfishness kill the passion, the affirmation is a done deal, and her notions of liberty are transformed into adultery and thereby become a liability.

In short, all her previously dearly held idolatries are eliminated in one fell swoop. The true nature of her depraved spiritual state is revealed in all its gory, leaving her floundering for some other idol to grasp on to. Concerning her mistaken sense of control, this too is affected. She becomes acutely aware of the consequences of her actions, and the relevant responsibilities. With this information added into the equation, she now seeks to evade this responsibility, and so her desire to be ruled over begins to kick in, but the relationship has already started off on the wrong foot with her in control, and now she’s stuck with a man who has been selected for his inability to take the lead. Her continual depraved grasping, now amplified to ћǝllish proportions, will all but guarantee he does not succeed in leading.

Not long ago, there was some debate about the nature of sanctification in marriage. If sanctification means being farther from idols and closer to God, then marriage truly offers the opportunity for a growing state of sanctification. However, it won’t be agreeable to those who have grown comfortable with the ecstatic pleasures and painful yearnings of sexual idolatry.

All this explains why fewer and fewer women are getting married, and why so many marriages have a rocky start for the first 2-5 years, and why 50% of them end in the divorce courts. In other words, many of these 50% can’t swallow the sanctification medicine of marriage, and prefer to return to the idolatries of their youth. Among the other half of those who stay married, there’s a large number who are merely tolerating it, while empowering themselves to “stay faithful” by dreaming of the Asherah poles of the past.

Related

• Laughing at Feminism: Little Miss Can’t Be Wrong (2019-8-10)
• Wintery Knight: Even Alpha Male Bad Boys Are Disappointed By The Sexual Revolution (2019-8-10)
• Laughing at Feminism: Some things to chew on (2019-8-24)

Lest we forget, Marriage was once intended to Glorify God

In all the squabble over power games, frivorce rights, and marriage equality, have we forgotten that God instituted marriage to glorify Himself?

Readership: All

While I was writing the previous post, News Flash: One year on, Men STILL Prefer Debt-Free Virgins without Tattoos! (2019-07-16), I browsed several other WordPress blogs that had responded to Lori Alexander’s article. Nearly all of them tore down Lori’s arguments with familiar narratives. Some of these arguments are worth revisiting because they don’t line up with scripture.

The Truth: We are created in His image, Male and Female

The modern doctrine of Equalism is a weak eisegesis, at best, and the doctrine of demons, at worst. Since this particular false doctrine is currently very popular, the idea of shepherding one’s wife will seem odd to those tainted by Churchianism.

One blogger named Diana Rice wrote,

“What bothers me most about Alexander’s views is her sense that women and men are not equal image bearers of God. Specifically, she quotes that “The husband will need to take years teaching his wife the correct way to act, think, and live since college taught them every possible way that is wrong.”

Of course, it would be maddening for them to admit that male-female equality is not mentioned anywhere in the Bible, neither as a social virtue nor a spiritual precept, nor are women ever commanded to go to college to be initiated into Shatan’s Shex Showowity, or… <cough> becum edgumecated, or so we are told.

However, the idea of men and women being image bearers of God deserves further consideration. God created man and woman in His image, as male and female.

²⁷ So God created man in His own image; in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. ~ Genesis 1:27 (NKJV)

Perhaps the one creation that best represents and glorifies the nature and personhood of God in this world is a marriage between a man and a woman – not a man and a man, not a woman and a woman, not Chivalry, not Game, not Feminism, and not MGTOW.

That said, I’ve seen some pornographic videos that are more God glorifying than some family sitcoms on TV.

A male and female joined in marital union can become an entity greater than the sum of its parts. That additional sum is the glory of God.

That’s right! Married men, you can tell your wife,

“Tonight honeyslot, you shall %*&@ your man and glorify God… and you’re going to looove it!”

However, some relationships produce unions that are less than the sum of its parts. Proponents of mirage equaluhty fail to recognize that anything that detracts from the marital union of a man and a woman, also detracts from the potential glorification of God that could otherwise be achieved.

Glory appears to be something easy to ignore these days, maybe it’s because it’s something rarely seen, or maybe it’s because we’ve forgotten the Lord.

True, humans have the self-centered disposition to think lightly of God’s glory, but it’s extremely important to God. So much so, in fact, that if you’re frustrated and having difficulties in life, perhaps it’s because you neglected to allow God to be glorified through whatever it is you’re doing.

Hey wimmin… Can’t attract a man? Can’t latch down that hawt hunk’s commitment? Maybe you’re not giving God the glory.

“But if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her; for her hair is given to her for a covering.” ~ 1^st Corinthians 11:15 (NKJV)

Take this time tested hint from the sages of antiquity. Don’t ever cut your hair shorter than your nips! That’s just one way among many, that women can add to the total sum of glorification.

Going back to Lori’s now famous article… If, because of tattoos, debt, and past sexual indiscretion, a woman is passed over for another who is without those qualities, it is to further enhance the glory of God.

The bottom line is this: Obedience serves to manifest God’s nature, love, and glory. A strong marriage is a reward of continual obedience, and as such, is a powerful way to glorify God in this life. If you want a good marriage, you have to glorify God.

If God hasn’t called you to marriage, then he intends for you to glorify Him through some other way. But if God has called you to marriage (which I believe is the majority of people), but you make other priorities in life which don’t glorify God as much as marriage does (e.g. being an underemployed soy boy, or a blue-haired feminist with a Ph.D.), then you are failing to fulfill God’s purposes for your life, one of which is to glorify Him.

The Lie: Your obedience is required by God

In another rebuttal, Pastor Chris Legg wrote,

“…there are many passages in which “obedience” is required by God.”

Legg is playing the Pharisee card by claiming that obedience is required by God. “Required” is too strong of a word here, because obedience is a free choice. Instead, I would say, God tells us the best way to go about living, but life itself challenges us to be obedient.

Why is spiritual obedience important? It can’t really improve your standing with God. It can’t save your soul. It might ease a guilty conscience. But really, what it does is allows you to become a blessing, a source of love and inspiration, to the people around you.

If we are truly obedient, then those around us should reap the fruits of our obedience. But if one is obedient only because he hopes to gain a particular fruit of obedience from God, then he will most likely become frustrated in this attempt. God doesn’t cut deals. Those blessings are given to us as free gifts, not as wages for being good or righteous, which we could never do to God’s satisfaction.

God obviously allows people to be disobedient, and if we choose to be disobedient, God will use that situation efficiently for His purposes. He often uses such an opportunity to show us the following,

• A greater depth of self-understanding.
• The nature of our misconceptions.
• A deeper awareness of what is truly important, and how things actually work.
• The benefits and blessings of obedience.
• To extol His everlasting lovingkindness and mercy.

Now, being obedient to God is perhaps the most positive motivation a man might have in opting into the wimminz-take-all institution of marriage these days. Since obedience (and marriage) is open to election, then only those men who are seeking to be obedient will care to bother with the responsibilities thereof.

For all the sacrifice and risk a man must accept in marriage, he should be holding out for a wife who is a source of companionship, respect, and regular, enthusiastic sex, as well as love, inspiration, and babies, and who is not a source of STD’s, debt, and collegiate-quality debate tactics. These latter things are absolutely worthless, if not counterproductive towards enhancing the glory of God in marriage.

Why should men be so particular? Because a beautiful marriage is what would glorify God, and that is the point that too many are missing.

If a man goes to all the trouble and risk to be obedient by glorifying God through a marriage, then you can rest assured that he’ll want to find a wife who is likewise committed to spiritual obedience – and not only to God, but also in her dealings with him as well. One might even argue that this is (partly) what it means to be equally yoked in marriage.

The Lie: What’s truly important is merely a preference

In the same post, Pastor Legg wrote,

“So, as in the case of premarital sex, God would certainly “prefer” that we all obey his teaching to wait until a covenant marriage to embrace sex!”

Here, Legg is playing the Herodian card by schmoozing holiness with obedience and claiming that sexual purity is preferred by God. “Preferred” is too soft of a word here. The verb Commanded is a better descriptor.

³ But fornication and all uncleanness or covetousness, let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; ⁴ neither filthiness, nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. ⁵ For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God. ⁶ Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. ⁷ Therefore do not be partakers with them. ~ Ephesians 5:3-7 (NKJV)

Illicit sex is not merely an issue of casual disobedience, such as a woman cutting her hair too short or getting a tattoo. Illicit sex is an issue of idolatry. Getting free from idolatry is significantly more important than being obedient. As stated in verse 6, it is the idolatry of the thing that destroys one’s spiritual inheritance and calls down God’s wrath, and not merely disobedience. So it naturally follows that promiscuous whiminz cannot possibly be obedient to God or (future) husband, because obedience to the Tingling Ashtoreth has taken polarity.

Even if sexual liaisons were merely a preference, as Feminists would have us believe, the problem remains that there are too many Churchians who do not prefer what God requires for our own sanctification. Yet even so, many wicked women worn wide and weary by the Alpha widow makers feel entitled to have a “worthy” man (by their independent estimation) who is also impeccably obedient to God such that they may obtain all the blessings of a Christian marriage.

“Those who regard worthless idols Forsake their own Mercy.
But I will sacrifice to You with the voice of thanksgiving;
I will pay what I have vowed. Salvation is of the Lord.” ~ Jonah 2:8-9 (NKJV)

RP Translation: Whiminz who ride the Carousel forsake their chance to have a joyful Christian marriage. Sorry, NRFS!

The Big Comfortable Lie of License without Consequence

This was also written by Rice in the first post cited above,

“That fundamental aspect of our character cannot be undone by going to college, having a career, having debt, or even having tattoos. We are not less loved by God for having made any of these choices.”

Character is a result of one’s choices in life, be they good or bad. Maybe bad choices or disobedience will not cause one to be less loved by God, but it can render a woman less loved by men seeking a wife for a marriage that glorifies God.

Third Legg extends,

“…[Lori’s] article, if you aren’t careful in your reading of it, will communicate that women who are not virgins, in debt or have tattoos cannot get the best men – godly men – high quality men.

Not true.

You are not “damaged goods” (or at least not any more damaged than the rest of us) or something less lovely or less pure (see above).

Good men, godly men, understand God’s value of treasure. And we make decisions based on His measurements rather than our own.

There are men who submit their “preferences” to God’s perspective.”

Here is a nice pep-talk for carnal or spiritually immature women who are feeling guilty about their choices, which may very well be most of his congregation. But Legg is dismissing the nature and consequences of idolatry. To spell it out more clearly, a disobedient woman is one marred by short blue hair, tattoos, and debt, and who holds disdainful attitudes towards male authority and masculinity. This disobedience is what makes her “damaged goods”, because she fails to bear God’s glory. However, these things can be forgiven, as Legg exerts strenuously. But an idolatrous fornicator, on the other hand, is “destroyed goods” – one we are admonished to avoid altogether, according to Ephesians 5:7.

Rice and Legg are denying reality – the reality of the SMP, the MMP, and God’s Word, which says,

“Can a man take fire to his bosom, And his clothes not be burned?
Can one walk on hot coals, And his feet not be seared?” ~ Proverbs 6:27-28 (NKJV)

Sin has consequences. If a man marries a woman who once engaged in a sexually promiscuous lifestyle, then he too will have to bear those consequences.

Ms. Rice and Pastor Legg seem to imply that good, godly men will simply ignore their own desire for marital bonding and blissful joy, and gladly accept these consequences as their duty to God to “carry their cross”. After all, Jesus’s sacrifice doesn’t cover college debt, tattoos, and the alpha widowhood associated with poor marriages. Honest, hardworking husbands must also do their part to save a ho. The problem is that men fail to recognize God’s precious pearl in the ruff (probably because it’s covered with mud from the pigsty), or they’re too lazy, or too selfish, or too wimpy to play the savior.

For those readers not following my sarcasm in the previous paragraph, we’re not talking about saving a soul here, we’re talking about saving a rebellious brat from the consequences of their actions. But how can the Word of God in Ephesians 5:5 be redacted, such that idolaters can regain their inheritance?

So Rice’s and Legg’s messages are merely a stroke of the feeelz gooed variety – which is exactly what those wimmin need to hear to keep their adulatrous hopes alive, and postpone an authentic repentance. But to the men, it’s just another smack in the face “Man up and marry that slore!” message.

It should be noted that the basic “Man Up and marry” message is an attempt to shame men into being obedient unto granting commitment, cash, and prizes to women. Of note, shaming men into being obedient, is in itself, disobedience, as it is merely a manipulative parley for damage control and indemnification. This heavy handed tactic has become necessary because all the intrinsic rewards of obedience have already been burned up and the ashes blown to the wind. Should a man marry such a woman, there is little joy or benefit, and much risk to be undertaken. Furthermore, a marriage of obedience, in this case, offers but a token gesture of hollow homage to the glory of God.

But… if every woman becomes a tattooed, debt-ridden humpty-dump, then men will have no other choice!

Cheque mate!

Everyone Woke applauds, but no one is asking, How does this glorify God?

A disobedient woman going into debt in the hopes of becoming a CEO, and postponing or avoiding marriage all together, simply will not glorify God as much as if the same woman were obedient, got married, and spent her passions on husband and children.

If a bad woman goes to the dog pound for ten of her ripest years, spends her best on the worst, with nary a thought about her responsibilities, marriage, nor family, how does her idolatry glorify God?

If you believe it does, then who is your God?

Heh… Sound check.

It only glorifies the revelries of rebellion.

Final Statements

Lori Alexander’s article sought to point out what would enhance God’s glory and our joys of obedience. Detractors took many approaches, including the following.

• They sought to confuse the major difference between disobedience and rebellion.
• They offered comfortable lies that prevented the Holy Spirit from speaking to the guilty conscience of individuals, thereby delaying or bypassing their repentance from error.
• By failing to divide the uncomfortable Word of Truth, they enabled the Churchian rebellion to stampede further away from truth, beauty, goodness, and the glory of God.
• The “true lie” most resorted to was the overemphasis on God’s love for the disobedient and rebellious (AKA “Herodianism”).

The Word is a living sword that divides joints and marrow (Hebrews 4:12), and so was Lori’s article, which effectively divided those in society according to their core values. God wants to separate the sheep from the goats, in order to protect the sheep and give the goats their due. Revisiting another translation of Ephesians 5:7,

“Come out of her, and do not partake in her transgressions.”

Related

• Wintery Knight: Are men allowed to have preferences about which women are best for marriage? (2019-2-13)
• Dalrock: Marriage and Children were always her priority (2019-7-17)

News Flash: One year on, Men STILL Prefer Debt-Free Virgins without Tattoos!

Quality never goes out of style!

Readership: All

Believe it or not, it’s been exactly one year since we saw the Fembo power game being exhumed in the skirmish around Lori Alexander’s article, Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos (July 16, 2018).

The crux of the fracas was largely caused by the fact that a woman (Lori) declared that men (should) also have (at least) a share of the decision-making power in the spouse-choosing process.

This bit of truth seems intuitive to me, but obviously, western society has become so riddled with feminist hamstertalk, that this truth is no longer obvious, nor goes without contention. But obviously, the matrixarchy really doesn’t want alternate models to be considered, discussed, or explored.

Just in case anyone had absentmindedly dismissed that men’s fetish for undeflorated virginas as just a passing fad, or an outdated, overrated gimmick designed to trap unsuspecting men into marriage, our undercover correspondents have just reported that this illogical craze continues on, unabated.

Imagine that!

Related

Lori’s article received quite a lot of attention in the Manosphere. For anyone interested in a refresher, the aftermath was discussed in the following posts.

• Christianity and Masculinity: Lori’s Men Prefer Debt-Free Virgins Without Tattoos (July 20, 2018)
• Dalrock: Hysteria. (July 23, 2018)
• Spawny’s Space: Missing The Point Deliberately (July 24, 2018)
• Dalrock: Well played. (July 26, 2018)
• Wintery Knight: Lori Alexander is right – serious Christian men prefer debt-free virgins without tattoos (2019-2-2)