The Sexual De-Evolution

A throwback to the 50s would only lead us to where we are now.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: I said I would write this post a long while back, 2017 December 14 to be exact.
Length: 1,800 words
Reading Time: 6 minutes

“More lonely, fewer friends, less sex… But we have smartphones and the internet!”

The Atlantic (feat. Jean M. Twenge): Have Smart Phones Destroyed A Generation? (August 3, 2017)


There is a widespread conception that middle America in the 1950s was a conservative’s tree house. OTOH, there is also the notion that the 1950s was a period of stodgy puritanism. This analogy is usually mentioned whenever a female gets called out for dressing seductively.* The cliched retort is, “The 50s called… they want their narrative back!”

This post will blow both of these notions apart.

While it is true that the 1950s were a “High” in American socio-economic-political history, therein lay the rot that led to the unraveling in subsequent decades.

Boxer (Secret King of All Gamma Males) wrote,

“The most obvious problem [with the Alpha/Beta/Gamma/etc. socio-sexual hierarchy heuristic] is that they’re clearly socially constructed. Basing a hierarchy on who gets most sex would have our married, potbellied, Ward Cleaver type grandfathers as the “alphas” of the 1950s, and the motorcycle-riding cad as the “beta” who wanders from town to town, having sex with prostitutes. Most women in that era wouldn’t touch him, and he was run out of town (and sometimes got his ass kicked) when he ran day game down at the laundromat. The current regime is only in place because of artificial surpluses due to mechanization and immigration, and only the most shortsighted would think it meaningful.”

Is the Alpha/Beta hierarchy, and by extension, the intrinsic sociosexual marketplace in which women favor Alphas, merely a construct that only applies to the current SMP? Or does it run back farther?

To address this question, first we’ll look at the prevalence of fornication in the 1950s, and then compare that to the trends in recent years.

* As Earl once noted, women love to dress to entice but hate being called on it. It pops the bubble of two narratives, (1) “Women good, men bad”, and (2) “Blame the men for everything bad that happens to women”. Women have seemed to lose all common sense and decency with feminism. Men are going to look at cleavage and tight fitting clothes and most women already know this…they aren’t fooling anybody. The hypocrisy is so thick, you could cut it with a butter knife. Perhaps if somebody put into their brains that dressing modestly shows off their dignity and ’empowers’ them it might change minds.”

Trends in the Prevalence of Fornication in the 1940s and 50s

Alan Petigny wrote an article in 2004 [1] that identified the following cultural shifts.

  • Between 1940 and 1960, the frequency of single motherhood among white women increased from 3.6 to 9.2 newborns per 1,000 unmarried white women of childbearing age.
  • Among all women, single motherhood rose from 7.1 to 21.6 newborns per 1,000 unwed women.
  • Between the beginning of World War II in 1941 and the inaugural issue of Playboy in 1953, the overall rate of single motherhood more than doubled.
  • The silent generation may have been silent about what they were doing, but they weren’t all that complacent.
  • The crucial distinction between the ‘40s and ‘50s and the 1960s are in differences between conventions and conduct — what people said versus what they did.
  • During the ‘60s, Americans simply were more willing to acknowledge the extracurricular sexual activities of the young than they had been during the previous decades.
  • Rather than a sexual revolution, an upheaval in social conventions is what occurred in the 1960s. What was publicly respectable changed enormously as social conventions came into line with personal conduct or as public manners converged with private morals.

Petigny’s article concluded that…

“The evidence from our study using census data suggests that the ‘40s and ‘50s experienced a sizeable increase in the frequency of premarital intercourse…”

A review of Petigny’s article is available for non-scientific minds. In addition to the above points, it says,

“Lawrence Friedman, a visiting professor in the history of science department at Harvard University, calls Petigny’s findings “very revolutionary.” Petigny tells us that “during the ‘40s and ‘50s big social and cultural changes occurred, and we acknowledged them and they became part of ‘60s headlines when the changes had already occurred…”

This agrees with what L. B. Finer [2] wrote in a report on trends in premarital sex in the United States between 1954 and 2003.

“…there is a common popular perception that most or all of those who came of age before the “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s waited until they married to have sex, and that it is necessary to revert to the behaviors of that earlier time in order to eliminate the problems of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases. However, research has questioned whether such a chaste period ever existed.”

So if I am getting this straight, the sexual revolution didn’t really begin in the 1960s. What made the 1960s unique was that people started to be candid about what had already been going on for decades. In other words, extramarital sex had been so prevalent, for so long, that it had become commonplace by the 1960s. So much so, that people felt no qualms nor shame about discussing such things openly. Therefore, Christian social mores had already began to give way to a cultural-wide hedonism before that time.

Recent Trends in the Prevalence of Fornication

A research article written by Twenge, et al. [3] states,

“American adults had sex about nine fewer times per year in the early 2010’s compared to the late 1990’s in data from the nationally representative General Social Survey (N = 26,620, 1989–2014). This was partially due to the higher percentage of unpartnered individuals, who have sex less frequently on average. Sexual frequency declined among the partnered (married or living together) but stayed steady among the unpartnered, reducing the marital/partnered advantage for sexual frequency. Declines in sexual frequency were similar across gender, race, region, educational level, and work status and were largest among those in their 50’s (Generation Jones), those with school-age children, and those who did not watch pornography.”

From this concise paragraph, we can presume the following.

  • More people are single.
  • Single people have less sex than married couples.
  • The decline in sexual frequency has affected the entire culture.
  • Partnered couples (married or cohabitating) are having less sex than the same cohort did in the 90s. Extrapolated, we can presume that Gen X and Millennial couples have less sex than Boomers did at comparable ages.
  • As a whole, Generation Jones was probably the most hedonistic generation in modern history. The sexual promiscuity they enjoyed in their youth has led to sexual burnout later in their lives.
  • People who have children have more sex.
  • People who do not watch pornography have more sex.

Twenge, et al. [3] confirmed my assumptions about generational cohorts in this paragraph.

“In analyses separating the effects of age, time period, and cohort, the decline was primarily due to birth cohort (year of birth, also known as generation). With age and time period controlled, those born in the 1930s (Silent Generation) had sex the most often, whereas those born in the 1990s (Millennials and iGen) had sex the least often. The decline was not linked to longer working hours or increased pornography use.”

The Silent Generation was the generational cohort experiencing their sexual prime in the 1950’s. The next time I see Liberals and Feminists scorn traditional norms and customs for “being a throwback to the 1950’s”, my default response will be, “The 1950’s offered more sexual opportunity to the broader society than our post-modern, Feminist-controlled society, you lying, denying, hypocritical bigots!”

Twenge, et al. also notes (unsurprisingly) that…

“Age had a strong effect on sexual frequency: Americans in their 20’s (late Millennials, early iGen’s) had sex an average of about 80 times per year, compared to about 20 times per year for those in their 60’s (Boomers).

This study did not cover the effects of the divorce rate on premarital sexual frequency, but I’m willing to bet there is a correlation there.

Polygyny and Polyandry are on the Rise!

The U.S. National Health Statistics Report 36 [4], and the data from the Center of Disease and Control [5], both indicate that sexual activity outside of marriage is on a slow decline, and apparently more so for the younger age bracket (18-24). This agrees with Twenge, et al.’s study. However, a closer examination of these two sources indicates there is a rise in the number of people who are sexually active with multiple people!

Think about that for a moment. This means that…

  • The majority of people are having less sex on average.
  • Singles are having less sex.
  • Married couples are having even less sex.
  • But the subset of people engaging in polygyny/polyandry is increasing!

The current state of the sexual market is a sexual paradise for top SMV individuals, and a death camp for all others. If Hitler and Stalin had introduced Feminism into their genocide and eugenics programs, then they would have been much more successful in producing a super-race, since birth control then, was not what it is now.


Judging by the above information, it appears as though the Sexual Revolution started much earlier in the 20th century than what we were led to believe. I would guess it had its origins in the post WW1 period. At that time, men were rare due to battlefield casualties and the Spanish flu epidemic, and women’s suffrage was introduced. These seeds of destruction grew and eventually blossomed after WW2. By the 1960s, it was already in full swing, at which point, people accepted sexual saturation as a societal norm which had entirely superseded the pre WW1 norm.

So actually, more people had more sex in the 1950’s than they do today, and it was most likely more enjoyable too, because it happened within a cultural context that supported healthy sexual relations, not the laissez faire mess we have today. People had sex with a person they knew and were in love with (and most likely were married to), and went through life experiences together (both good and bad). The current Don Juan-hookup scene will never have that important emotional aspect cast within a stable community setting.

The cited research articles suggest that, today, Americans are having sex less frequently due to two primary factors:

  1. An increasing number of individuals without a steady or marital partner.
  2. A decline in sexual frequency among those with partners.

Here’s another way to think of this. If we could somehow ascertain the total number of coital orgasms experienced each year by all Americans living in the 1950’s up until the present day, and divide that number by the total running population to get a function of orgasms per capita versus each year, and then use this number as a general indicator of happiness, then I am certain this estimation of happiness would closely resemble the surveyed results on happiness taken from the 1950’s to the present day – that is, slowly and steadily declining.

Those traditional norms have a very clear purpose. They set up a society-wide, coital orgasm generation machine, which maximizes sexual efficiency by decreasing the total cost investment and increasing the total number of sexual liaisons available. And it does so for most every person in society, not just for top class Alphas and genetic jackpot Gina’s. In addition, people operating within a traditional sexual market could retain a sense of honor, dignity and purpose surrounding their sex lives. Not so much for people living today, e.g. incels, MGTOW’s, and Feminist s1uts.


  1. Alan Petigny, “Illegitimacy, Postwar Psychology, and the Reperiodization of the Sexual Revolution”, Journal of Social History, Volume 38, Issue 1, Pages 63–79 (2004 October 1).
  2. L. B. Finer, “Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954­–2003”, Public Health Reports 122:73-78 (2017).
  3. J. M. Twenge, R. A. Sherman, and B. E. Wells, “Declines in Sexual Frequency among American Adults, 1989–2014”, Archives of Sexual Behavior 46(8):2389–2401 (2017).
  4. U.S. National Health Statistics Report 36: Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008 National Survey of Family Growth Trends in Attitudes About Marriage, Childbearing, and Sexual Behavior: United States, 2002, 2006–2010, and 2011–2013 (March 3, 2011).
  5. Center of Disease and Control: Key Statistics from the National Survey of Family Growth – N Listing (Data from 2002, 2006-2010, and 2011-2015)


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Collective Strength, Courtship and Marriage, Discernment, Wisdom, Elite Cultural Influences, Female Power, Feminism, Holding Frame, Male Power, Models of Failure, Relationships, Reviews, Running the Gauntlet, Science, Sphere of Influence, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to The Sexual De-Evolution

  1. Elspeth says:

    My working hypothesis for several years has been that the feminist revolt/sexual revolution was at its original zenith in the 1920s, but that the Great Depression brought it to a grinding halt. Nothing injects reality into folks like lack. Hedonism can only really run amok in the presence of material comfort.

    The devastation of WWII produced a solemnity in many people that kept the madness at bay for a time (or under wraps at least) so that the economic boom was directed toward family formation rather than widespread decadence. But the spirit of the 20s was still there, waiting to be unleashed.

    And then the 60s…

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      Wow. I’d never thought of that before, but it sure sounds plausible. They didn’t call it “the roaring ’20s” for nothing. The “flappers” were definitely feminists. They were known for masculine (for their time) traits like butch hair, smoking, boobs deliberately flattened down, promiscuity, etc.

      That’s a lot to think about.

      Liked by 2 people

    • dpmonahan says:

      I agree, but technology helped unleash the revolution too: penicillin in the early 40s helped control STDs, and the pill came on the market in 1960.

      Liked by 3 people

    • eutrapelia2001 says:

      Let us not forget the timing of the 1930 Lambeth Council statement that approved or started the approval of contraception in the Protestant communities. All of this also occurs, in a purely coincidental way of course, with women’s suffrage movement.

      Liked by 2 people

  2. cameron232 says:

    “Is the Alpha/Beta hierarchy, and by extension, the intrinsic sociosexual marketplace in which women favor Alphas, merely a construct that only applies to the current SMP? Or does it run back farther?”

    I use alpha/beta/gamma the way Nova does. Just means how viscerally/erotically/romantically attractive you are to women. Not frequency of coitus (which was still probably greater for alpha males in the old days.)

    Alpha – high attractiveness to most women
    Beta – low (non-zero) attractiveness to most women
    Gamma – zero attractiveness to most women (no distinction from “repellent to women”)

    I’ll allow for a “greater-beta” who is transitional between alpha and beta if you insist.

    Alpha men generally married back then. Alpha men weren’t all non-committal, motorcycle riding outlaws. This is where caricatures hurt our understanding.

    Women always strongly preferred alphas but unless there’s polygamy most can’t get marriage out of them. In the old days, if they slept with them without marriage they risked getting pregnant with a bastard and no support as well as ruining their future prospects with betas. They don’t feel those pressures any more.

    If we could do things like the good-old-days then we’d force them to negotiate with us from a position of (their) weakness. They’re negotiating from a position of strength right now (at least when they’re under 40 years old or so).

    Alphas a real thing. Always has been. If alpha weren’t real or if all men were alphas, (beta) men wouldn’t have to negotiate with women for sex.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Oscar says:

      @ Cameron

      This is where caricatures hurt our understanding.

      I’m not a proponent of the alpha/beta dichotomy, but Vox’s (Ted Beale) “Social-Sexual Hierarchy” does seem to make sense. That doesn’t necessarily mean he’s right, but it makes a lot more sense than dividing men into alphas and betas.

      According to Ted, an “alpha” is a natural leader, the kind of man other men look up to, and naturally want to follow. Think of Generals Patton, or MacArthur.

      “Betas” are men who naturally tend to be an “alpha’s” right-hand man, like Subutai to Genghis Khan.

      “Deltas” are most men. They’re competent, and build and maintain civilizations, but rarely get credit for it. If you’ve ever watched “Band of Brothers” (a true story I highly recommend), Richard Winters is a good example of a “delta” that became a leader out of sheer hyper-competence. He had zero charisma, but he knew his job inside and out, and cared for his Soldiers like no one else.

      Herbert Sobel from “Band of Brothers” is a good example of what Ted calls a “gamma”. He’s selfish, craven, cowardly, and incompetent, and thankfully gets replaced before the invasion, because his own NCOs refuse to follow him into combat.

      I can’t think of a real-life example of an “omega” that everyone would know, but the fictional example people cite most often is the comic book guy from “The Simpsons”.

      That’s Ted’s reasoning, as best as I can understand it, and explain it. Again, I’m not saying he’s right, but you can definitely see those patterns play out in real life.

      Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:


        That sounds more like hierarchy from a man’s perspective to me. And even that seems to leave out some types. High functioning sociopaths and sub-clinical psychopaths don’t seem to be included there e.g.

        I think we’re interested in women’s perspective and, like a number of commenters around here, I think women’s visceral/erotic/romantic attraction matters a lot in a world where people marry (or want to) based on romance and not based on necessity.

        Women’s visceral/erotic/romantic attraction is more discriminating than men’s. A few men are highly attractive, a bunch of men are marginally attractive and a bunch of men are unattractive.

        Everybody “settles” but I think a higher proportion of women “hard settle.”


      • cameron232 says:

        Even when women needed (actually needed not wanted) men some of them still blew it up for a chance at alphafux (before marriage or during marriage).

        Women don’t need men anymore.


      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        That sounds more like hierarchy from a man’s perspective to me.

        It definitely is.

        And even that seems to leave out some types. High functioning sociopaths and sub-clinical psychopaths don’t seem to be included there e.g.

        I’m not saying Ted’s model is right or wrong. I’m just saying that it’s more helpful than the more common alpha/beta dichotomy.

        I think we’re interested in women’s perspective

        I think we should be interested in both, but it seems to me that a woman would ideally prefer an “alpha”. If she can’t snag one, then she’ll settle for a “beta”. If she can’t get a “beta”, then she’ll settle for a “delta”, etc. That being said, I think some women forego the “alphas” all together, because they don’t want the constant, lifelong competition for their attention.

        I’m pretty firmly in the “delta” category – the very personification of Steady Eddy the Engineer, down to the black-rimmed dork glasses. Except, mine are milspec dork glasses.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        By the way, one major reason why the ’50s are seen as a paradise of conservative, traditional values is that popular culture – probably for the first time in history – celebrated the ordinary “delta” dad.

        Shows like “Leave it to Beaver”, “My Three Sons”, “Father Knows Best”, “The Andy Griffith Show”, etc. portrayed “delta” dads as competent, hard working, and wise, and with the exception of Andy Griffith’s character, they all had pretty wives who adored them. Even though some of these shows are from the ’60s, people today associate them with the ’50s.

        You continue to see the heroic “delta” dad in “The Brady Bunch”. It was in the ’70s that the “delta” dad began to be portrayed as an out-of-touch buffoon, although sometimes that backfired. People liked Archie Bunker a lot more than his son-in-law, Mike.

        Liked by 1 person

    • I think I discussed this before in a post, but the ‘sphere uses several different terminologies which adds to the confusion.

      AF/BB is the representation that women tend to prefer direct alpha traits (e.g. power, status, athleticism, looks (PSAL without the M) over money (the M part of PSALM) generally. However this fails to encompass the whole spectrum

      Alpha/beta/others can also refer to as you noted attractiveness vs non-attractiveness. In the above money (M) is actually part of attraction, it’s just lower on the totem pole. The whole spectrum of traits of attractiveness and conversely unattractiveness.

      Alpha/beta/etc can also refer to Vox’s sociosexual hierarchy which you noted is more of a male order ranking than a female one, although women do go through some type of ranking in their own mind as they can rate men higher or lower than others in a pecking order of who they would prefer to date or marry.

      Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The word “alpha” to me means the personality trait of social dominance. The temperament of the Rottweiler with grapefruit gonads vice the neutered Golden Retriever. But people aren’t dogs. That’s only part of what women find attractive – thus the emphasis on “top males” in terms of what attracts women.

        Both sexes want to marry someone they are viscerally attracted to. In general, men have a lower attraction floor than women.

        The traits that are viscerally attractive to women are: handsome, physically imposing (height/muscular/strong), social dominance/confidence, status (which CAN include but isn’t limited to money).

        I don’t doubt that the exact preferred mix of these traits varies somewhat from woman to woman. I think virtually all women find the top physical specimens viscerally attractive. Some also find confidence and status viscerally attractive. Note: these qualities are often paired – the most popular, handsome, athletic boys, the ones who were the team captains are often also confident/high status. I can also see where women have different attraction “floors” for the different traits they find attractive.

        I think the key (and challenge for Ernie Engineer) is that women find most men below average in attractiveness (the exact mix of attractive traits for HER) and their attraction drops fairly rapidly below x-percentile men (you can debate what number x represents). That doesn’t mean it goes to 0 at the 79th percentile (or whatever). “He has some nice traits.” “He’s less likely to cheat/defect with his fewer options.”

        Alpha/beta/gamma. She’s either viscerally attracted to you (at a high level), she has much lower attraction to you but sees “potential”, or she’s not attracted/repelled by the thought of getting it on with you.

        Liked by 1 person

  3. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: speaking of cowardly, craven, selfish military “leaders” who don’t give a damn about their subordinates’ lives….

    Or do you believe that every one of these 50 and 60-year-old men [Flag Officers ~ O] suddenly realized that they’d been wrong all along? That Bradley Manning isn’t a traitor and that Chelsea Manning is a civil rights hero? Be serious.

    The only thing worse than men crazy enough to believe this nonsense is men cowardly enough to pretend they do. And that’s precisely what they’re doing. They’re pretending in order to protect the careers they love so dearly.
    And don’t expect exemption on religious grounds. The DoD is wholly unconcerned with its members’ constitutionally guaranteed right to the free exercise of religion. I’ve spoken to senior members of the military – people in genuine decision making positions – about the problem of compelling speech impermissible to most world religions and the response has universally been “Get in line with the new policy or get out of the military.”
    The Soviets mastered the art of demoralization: forcing people to tell lies they knew were lies, knowing that each lie you tell chips away at your moral standing until, having become complicit in the deception, you have no moral standing left at all. If history has taught us anything, it’s that those bought off by comfort and devoid of moral fortitude are ready tools in the devil’s hand.

    Ask yourself what the Founders would think if they knew the American military would one day only accept members who affirmed that men with permanently festering wounds where their penises used to be are actually women. Better yet, imagine today’s DoD taking a piece of pork, announcing that it has “transitioned” to beef, and demanding Muslims eat it or leave the military.

    COL (RET) Schlichter seems to have reached the same conclusion I have, that the US military is being deliberately demoralized, and its core (middle class, Christian, white men from the Midwest and South) is being deliberately gutted. The question remains, qui bono? Who benefits?

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      They’re probably getting conservative white men out so they can use the military to terrorize half the nation – the deplorable half.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I think you’re right, brother.

        Liked by 1 person

      • feeriker says:

        Do these imbeciles not realize that the very men they’re driving out of the military are the ones best able to resist it if it becomes a force for tyranny and terror?

        I don’t envy today’s General and Admirals. Their treasonous, oxygen-thieving lives aren’t worth a piece of dried rat excrement, as they’ll all soon discover once things genuinely get hot.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ feeriker

        Agreed on all points. Back in 2015, I had this conversation with a buddy in the oil field. I said the same thing you said. Trannies and wokesters aren’t exactly the kind of people you can entrust with even the maintenance, or procurement of modern combat equipment, much less its employment under fire.

        What I didn’t realize back then is the number of American politicians (of both parties) on China’s payroll. It wouldn’t surprise me at all if, in the near future, American politicians invite the PLA to send “advisors” to help them quell uprisings the woke American military can’t handle.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      I read Schlichter’s article yesterday and his comparison to Soviet style demoralization is correct. The left has infiltrated every meaningful aspect of society and the goal of the left is always power and control. They may say the goal is to achieve a utopia here on earth, but when it is obvious that utopia will not come from the current means of trying to achieve it, nothing changes and the power and control remains. Hence, that is the goal and the utopia is the slight of hand.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Jack says:

        Anytime you see promises of a “utopia”, your Satanic bait detector should start buzzing. Americans have the highest standard of living of any nation in history. Yet, they are still discontent enough to jump on promises of “utopia”. This discontentment (AKA thanklessness) will be our undoing (among other things).

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack – The reason most of us men are here can be summed up this way.

        Discontentedness (envying what you don’t have and it’s corollary, not being thankful for what you do have) leads to bitterness. Harboring bitterness, along with making people unattractive to others, ends up causing strife because that is what sin does every time. This is feminism.

        Contentment (being grateful for what you have without feeling you deserve different) causes joy, and a genuinely joyous person is attractive to others. This is why there is little humor or good natured action on the left, including feminism. The entirety of it is built on being discontent and envious.


      • Jack says:


        “The reason most of us men are here…”

        Regarding Discontentedness vs. Contentment, I’ll admit that this was one of my original motivations for blogging. I couldn’t understand why contentment (in marriage, but life in general too) was so elusive and difficult to apprehend. Then I got a clue from Dalrock, Rollo, Illimitable Men, et al., and then things started to make sense. This blog took a different turn after I took the Red Pill (ca. late 2017).

        Figuring out all the lies we have swallowed over the years helps greatly.
        Understanding the situation and readjusting one’s mindset and expectations helps immensely.
        Knowing how things are “supposed to be” helps us gauge reality and gives us an idea about what needs to be done.
        Writing blog posts/comments about it helps refine our understanding of the complexities.
        Discussing it with other men helps.
        Knowing that you’re not all alone helps.

        Men need other men in this regard.

        Liked by 2 people

    • jvangeld says:

      The founders wouldn’t be able to imagine feeding pork to Muslims in the military because they would not be able to imagine having Muslims in the military.

      Liked by 2 people

  4. info says:

    Ever since 1840 in Seneca Falls feminists have been trying to overthrow traditional family:
    Please watch this entire interview.

    Its not just about the vote. Its about overthrowing Christ:

    “According to the Bible, Eve was the first to heed Satan’s advice to eat of the forbidden fruit. The notion of woman as the Devil’s accomplice is prominent throughout the history of Christianity and has been used to legitimate the subordination of wives and daughters. During the nineteenth century, rebellious females performed counter-readings of this misogynist tradition. Hereby, Lucifer was reconceptualized as a feminist liberator of womankind, and Eve became a heroine. In these reimaginings, Satan is an ally in the struggle against a patriarchy supported by God the Father and his male priests. The book delineates how such Satanic feminism is expressed in a number of nineteenth-century esoteric works, literary texts, autobiographies, pamphlets and journals, newspaper articles, paintings, sculptures, and even artefacts of consumer culture such as jewelry. The analysis focuses on interfaces between esotericism, literature, art, and the political realm. New light is thus shed on neglected aspects of the intellectual history of feminism, Satanism, and revisionary mythmaking. The scope of the study makes it valuable not only for historians of religion but also for those with a general interest in cultural history (or specific aspects of it like gender history, romanticism, or decadent-symbolist art and literature).”

    Oxford Scholarship Online: Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as the Liberator of Woman in Nineteenth-Century Culture (2017)

    To attack the Headship of the Husband and of Men in general over women. They are in fact ultimately trying to overthrow Jesus Christ and God the Father.

    The highest form of Patriarchy in existence, From whom all Fatherhood (Patria) on Earth and Heaven bears its name:

    Its like equivalent of inversion of the Christ and Church relationship.

    Its also no coincidence that the Early Church had Shepherds who were the Patriarchs of their respective Flocks.

    Various Patriarchates with various Jurisdictions.

    Liked by 2 people

    • info says:

      Isn’t it ironic that demonic influence can show who exactly they are fighting against. Just as Demons proclaimed the true nature of Jesus Christ?

      Matthew 8:29

      “What do You want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have You come here to torture us before the appointed time?”

      Luke 4:34

      “Ha! What do You want with us, Jesus of Nazareth? Have You come to destroy us? I know who You are— the Holy One of God!”

      Through their opposition they show what is truly Righteous.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. rontomlinson2 says:

    Men are having virtual sex (pornography)
    Women are having virtual babies (cats/puppies)
    Women have a virtual husband/father (The government/System)

    It’s funny. Traditional relationships are increasingly simulated and abstracted away from real life.

    But not funny haha. Presumably there’s more such to come before things get better.

    Liked by 1 person

  6. Lastmod says:

    It a combination of things…… I’ve read, studied much about the post-war era. Today, yes… we look back… and say, “Wow… Things actually were better back then / actually were pretty good!”

    Sure, they were; the cost of living compared to inflation and real wages was better. Much better. A guy could finish high school and after his two years of service in the military could afford a decent newer home. A family could indeed live on one wage have a modest vacation every year. Afford a new car every few years… They could actually save money! Yes, there were poor people back then. There were social ills in society.

    Even today, people look back on the 1970’s as a simpler time. That’s a hoot because at the time the world seemed to be falling apart (hence the HUGE 1950’s revival in the 1970’s). I purported in the early 1990’s to my college peers that “If there ever was a 1970’s revival, you would have to have a 1950’s revival with it, because aside from Disco, well over the second half of the decade was a huge 1950’s revival.”

    Sha-Na-Na, Happy Days, Laverne & Shirley on TV. Even the punks of later end of the 1970’s were wearing shades, leather jackets and driving beat-up 1950’s cars. Oldies weekends on the radio stations. Elvis’s death in 1977 was a capstone to this “simpler” time that was already nostalgic. The cars of the 1950’s looked futuristic by comparison to the sad sack of cars rolling off the production lines in Detroit in the 1970’s. I even remember as a boy in the later 1970’s the adults saying, “How come they don’t build cars like that anymore???”

    People do long for stability or at times a consistency in their lives. It’s easier to gloss over the bad of an era or time and make that unfair comparison to the times we live in now.

    Sure, I live a “legislated nostalgia” in my own life. I love the fashion, style, and design of the early 1960’s. We as a people did seem to carry ourselves better back then. I still sometimes ponder the question, “How can I live or admire this when I wasn’t there?”, and its a question that can never be answered. All I can say is that “It means something to me.”

    I was a 1980’s teen. I am a bit surprised on how much this decade has been in a revival since 1995. I still find most of the music from back then terrible, but some of it has indeed aged well. I even find myself liking some stuff from back then that I hated when it was on the charts. Reagan was a bad actor who almost nuked the planet……. Maybe its because, on an economic level, my part of the USA didn’t benefit from the economic boom that did happen in many parts of the USA back then. I saw everything close, go out of business. I saw small mill towns and cities shutter up. By the end of the decade, I saw a horrible combination of welfare, bad music, horrible fashions, and an attitude of “Just get married after school, go live on welfare, and live in a trailer park” mentality, as if so many people just “gave up”.

    I don’t have the answer.

    As for Ward Cleaver. It was a TV show. We can mock it, and say, “It wasn’t really like that back then”, but we can also watch and smile for some of the good values it tried to purport, and really enjoy it for the fact that indeed….. sometimes, its hard being a kid.

    The 1950’s called, but the connection was bad, and my neighbor was listening in on the party-line (which most of rural America had until the 1980’s. (btw… We had one.) Drop by for coffee…… Relatives showing up unannounced for a visit…… Only a few TV channels. TV signing off at midnight / 1am and playing the national anthem. Yeah, a simpler time. It’s fun. It’s neat. It’s okay…. and now it’s gone!

    Liked by 3 people

    • Lastmod says:

      WCAX 3 (CBS affiliate) Burlington, Vermont. Sign off from 1987. This it the CBS affiliate I grew up on, it was beamed across Lake Champlain into the Adirondacks of New York. The NBC and ABC were out of Plattsburgh. Fox was beamed upfrom Albany. PBS was from Schenectady

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Did you have any independent channels? We had channel 34 locally and could get channel 44 from Tampa Bay. Lots of good stuff like Saturday afternoon creature feature movies.


      • Lastmod says:

        Though during the 1980 WInter Olympics, we watched the “miracle on ice” live. During the games, the PBS affiliate had exclusive rights to telecast live to the local region over the big networks! So my area heard about the victory hours before anyone else!

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      In my market……in the 1970’s and well into the mid-1980’s we only had CBS, ABC, NBC, and PBS. We got our first independent station in my region during the summer of 1983 (WXXA 23 out of Albany, NY). Sometime in 1988 it became the local / regional FOX affiliate.

      Northern New York was one of the last areas in the USA that did not have a local / independent TV station. Which is surprising for the fact that WRGB (Schenectady, NY) was one of the first broadcast TV stations in the USA (Started by Gneral Electric out of their flagship Schenectady labs/ operations back then), and the PBS Station WMHT also in Schenectady was one of the first Public TV / NET stations in the USA.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lastmod says:

        We have music piped into our office….you know the “at work radio station, that everyone can agree on at the office” type of station. They seem to play three 1980’s songs ten times a day…..that annoying “Come On Eileen” also, “Heart Of Glass” by Blondie (cannot stand them, one big hit album, and the same three songs played non-stop since 1980 we’re told how she was punk…she wasn’t) and “We’ve Got The Beat” by The Go-Go’s.

        I could already go the rest of my life without hearing these three songs. I swear, this station plays these three songs at least once an hour. Must be a so-cal thing.


  7. Oscar says:

    It occurred to me today that we can link several things together in this thread. Above, we discussed Vox’s (Ted Beale) model of men’s Social-Sexual Hierarchy.

    Cameron commented “That sounds more like hierarchy from a man’s perspective”, and he’s right. That leads us back to Jack’s “broken windows” post.

    It also leads back to old posts from Dalrock, and Cane Caldo, which I’m not going to take the time to search for right now. Essentially, Dalrock and Cane made the point that women tend to be attracted to men that other men respect. The men that other men respect the most (natural leaders, “alphas” in Ted’s model) are most attractive to women.

    That brings us back to the comment I made about the ’50s.

    From movies like “It’s a Wonderful Life”, to shows like “Leave it to Beaver”, for a while there, American popular culture paid a lot of respect to the “everyman” – the “delta” in Ted’s model.

    I can’t think of another time in history when that happened. Sure, you can recognize men of varying status levels in historical literature and plays, but the main characters were almost never the everyman “delta” type. The “deltas” are almost always relegated to minor side characters.

    Except, for a short period of time from about the mid-’40s to the mid-’60s. After that, the heroic everyman became a lot more rare in popular culture, and is now so rare that the exceptions really stand out, and tend to be based on true stories. “Deepwater Horizon” comes to mind.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      I’m pleased to see readers integrate many ideas and then “look at the big picture”.

      “Cameron commented “That sounds more like hierarchy from a man’s perspective”, and he’s right. That leads us back to Jack’s “broken windows” post.”

      This might seem odd to some readers (and I don’t mean to come off as “holier than thou”), but some of my posts “come from God”. That is, something will come to the forefront of my attention, and I get a strong conviction that I should study that more and chase it down. (In the “Broken Windows” post, this came in the form of Lastmod’s comment, which I thought deserved a clarification.) After I work on it a while, I suddenly realize the “big message”. (In this case, it was about how men like to attack and belittle other men out of a position of “reverse envy” for lack of a better word.) After this epiphany, I’ll write a second draft of the post with a focus on that issue, instead of the original issue I started off writing about. I’ll also remember several reader’s comments and other “case studies” that support the main point, and so I’ll weave these into the writing somehow. Only in retrospect do I understand the significance of the issue. (In this case, it took a bit of introspection. I am prone to dismiss some of Lastmod’s comments as annoying gripes. But while I was writing this post, I realized that this is exactly the same attitude that God was trying to tell me was wrong. My apologies to Lastmod.)

      That said, ever since I wrote that post, I have come across many comments and even statements in my own writings, certain assumptions about what makes men attractive, references to AF/BB, the SMV hierarchy, etc., and I am struck by how often I/we have bought into the female frame of judging men by women’s standards. This rot runs deep in our subconsciousness. I apologize for that, and I’ll be sure to keep this in mind from now on.

      “…women tend to be attracted to men that other men respect…”

      This is one type of preselection that relies on the larger herd mentality with respect to a man’s reputation. This trait seems to lie at the intersection between the male and female views, and so I do not think it is gynocentric or inverted to admit this idea into our world view. However, we would do well to recognize how secular culture (and churchian culture) can have this kind of impact on us, i.e. it determines what we find attractive and what we value in other people, etc. Americans have an impervious individualistic outlook that clouds the nature of this influence. I think we do not fully recognize the impact that culture and community has on our world views.

      It is deeply humbling for me to realize these things.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:


        If women are attracted to men that other men respect it’s because those men have high status and/or socially dominant personality. That’s two of the things I listed as being attractive to women.


        Unless they go MGTOW, what choice do men have but buy into the female frame of judging men by women’s standards? We can’t force women into relationships so what attracts them matters. It seems to me it’s female biology not female “frame.”


      • Jack says:

        You’re making an assumption that creating attraction is a goal.

        In Avoiding the broken Window Effect, I wrote,

        “There are a number of men who are called by God to marriage and family (including myself), so for men like this, there is more of a valid reason for gauging his performance with a hat tip to its impact on women as a type of feedback look. But in general, this is an inversion of priorities according to God’s archetype of authority (i.e. Headship).

        This is about men being aware of how they are judged by women.

        What we need to be careful about is men judging other men based on his perceived attractiveness or “success” with women.

        There is some overlap between the conclusions of these two views, but there are also some important differences. We need to be aware of the differences.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:


        This doesn’t make sense to me. Women judge men to assess if they are good providers, attractive enough, basic marriage material stuff. Why would men judge other men on those female biological standards? A huge part of the patriarchy is father’s vetting men as marriageable options for their daughters and using the characteristics of men as the standard for whether or not the men in question were adequate or not. Just because we live in a feminist infected society does not mean that we have to use women’s standards in how we view other men.

        Those standards still exist. They are littered throughout the Bible. As men, we merely need to adjust the lens through which we view other men. The man who is low on the LAMPS characteristics, yet does his best with what he has been given is worthy of respect. The man who has been blessed with LAMPS characteristics but fetters his life away on meaningless things is not, even though this is who the women would go for.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure- yes – we shouldn’t judge other men by those standards. I missed the point of Jack’s initial comment. I’m all on board with this. We crap on each other because we’re in constant competition with other men over women. “Gamma loser!”

        Just saying men need to understand what attracts women and whether or not you have enough of it to risk marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “I missed the point of Jack’s initial comment”

        Just to be clear, the point was that men crapping on other men for being unattractive to women is a sin.

        “Just saying men need to understand what attracts women and whether or not you have enough of it to risk marriage.”

        Yes, this is extremely important, even crucial in this day and age.

        Men would do infinitely better with women if we put them on the back burner and focused on building competitive partnerships/comraderie with other men. This helps us develop a “detached” psychological outlook with respect to women, and it also improves our standing with other men. Both are perceived as attractive to women.

        I wish I had realized this much earlier in life.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        If women are attracted to men that other men respect it’s because those men have high status and/or socially dominant personality.

        Agreed, but men also respect each other for other reasons. For example, integrity, loyalty, reliability, and competence. I mentioned Richard Winters before. He did not, in any way, have a “dominant personality”, or any charisma. He did possess the other traits I mentioned, plus many more, and his Soldiers revered him for it. Granted, those were extraordinary circumstances, but I think you get my drift.

        Women may not necessarily find those traits inherently attractive, but women do find men attractive when other men show them respect, because that is a form of status.

        I’ll give you an example from my own life.

        I did ROTC in college. After one summer spent on active duty out of state, I returned to the town where I went to college. I stopped at an ROTC buddy’s house, and found that a whole crew of guys, some with girlfriends, were already gathered there. There was also a girl there I’d never met. She approached me, we started talking, and we ended up dating. Later, she told me that the reason she approached me was that all they guys greeted me so warmly that she figured I must be a good guy.

        That relationship didn’t work out, because she didn’t want to marry a career military man, but the fact remains that the reason she was initially attracted to me is that my ROTC buddies respected me.

        Obviously, that kind of thing can only happen within a community. Women need to see the respect conferred onto a man in real life for it to have an effect on her attraction to him. That is yet another reason why being part of a community is so important.

        And, no, online doesn’t count.

        Liked by 2 people

  8. Pingback: Why do most societies have 90-95% marriage rates (at some points) | Christianity and masculinity

  9. Devon70 says:

    We live in a gynocentric society but guys don’t have to have a gynocentric mindset, It is a choice.
    Guys should judge themselves and other guys based on what they do and not how women react to them.
    Guys basing their self-worth on what women think of them causes a great deal of misery and depression in the US.

    Liked by 2 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      “We live in a gynocentric society but guys don’t have to have a gynocentric mindset, It is a choice.”

      True enough, but I think men need to help one another instead of trying to out-do one another for women’s attention. Tall order! I think we spend a lot of time and energy when younger trying to ‘win the chick’ and beat the other guys out for ‘her’, that we get ourselves into all kinds of trouble, from getting off our purpose to some really very messed up life circumstances.

      We can’t underestimate the length and breadth of blue pill conditioning in men today in our society. I’m part of a men’s group and I find myself subtly trying to introduce red pill views to help them out in the situations they find themselves in with women. It works, but it is like ‘eye dropper full’ amounts that I give them, it’s about all they can handle.

      I’ll give you an example. I shared with a couple of the men struggling with wife/girl friends shit testing them a lot. I related to them during a Teaching (a meeting agenda item), a) What is a sh!t test?, and b) Why women do them to men, e.g. what they are testing their men for when they crap all over them emotionally about some relatively insignificant thing. You would have thought I was freaking Moses coming down the mount with stone tablets of revelation for them. They were like, “Wow, yeah, never really thought about it like that. Yeah, that makes so much sense. She does that all the time to me. I think I’ll try that out next time!”

      One man, a 34 year old married guy, started dealing with his wife’s sh!t tests from a masculine frame and things started to turn around for him when she pulled her crap and sh!t tested him left and right over basically nothing — just testing his leadership and masculine frame. He struggled a bit with it at first, but I noticed over time his reports to us of handling her frequent sh!t tests got increasingly positive. He even related to us a couple victories over her sh!t testing where he simply told her “No” to something she was adamant about, some little stupid thing she was testing him over. He related to us that she went from nastily testing him to hysterically crying (an attempt at shaming, manipulation) just because he stood his ground and told her “No” to some ridiculous little sh!t test she was foisting on him. From my view of him, I could see his confidence rising over time and his marriage starting to improve, OFF ONE LITTLE BIT of RP KNOWLEDGE/WISDOM.

      But jeez, the going is slow. I feel like I’m at the “See Spot Run” level of RP initiation with the men in my group. But then I remember, it wasn’t too long ago that I didn’t know what a sh!t test was, and the appropriate way to handle them. When I started handling them with my wife in an RP way, they pretty much went away. Now they are very rare and easily dealt with by me in a way that’s a win for me, and also a win for her.

      BUT… I have to keep reminding myself to have some compassion and patience with the men because they just simply ‘don’t know what they don’t know.’ The blue pill conditioning runs deep, but down deep, most of them want, if not red pill knowledge, then red pill results in dealing with the women in their lives.

      Liked by 1 person

  10. Oscar says:

    From the Babylon Bee: New Study Bible For Women Has 30,000 Notes That All Say ‘Go Ask Your Husband To Explain This To You’

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      It’s funny, but true, just like most stuff coming out of the BB.

      I’ve gotten into the habit of telling this to women who ask me about confusing or controversial matters. I am usually met with a steely indignant glare with overtones of annoyance and consternation. It seems they hate being under cover of authority.

      I remember I told this to a female commenter a couple weeks ago, Titus2Homemaker. She said I ran my blog like a church and left. I suppose I should consider this to be a compliment.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        That was definitely a compliment. You’d think someone who calls herself Titus2Homemaker would know better.

        Liked by 2 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Oscar&jack, alot of these enlightened guys seemed to be disappointed that I had to be the one to lead the charge on her ”mysogyny in-is the historic church” cause,she would have ripped many guys apart who think they understand such delicate women! I don’t get all hawt for any women like so called ”in control of their passions real men” act like just because she mentioned titus2&homemaker in her name,just like redpill&MGTOW,everybody dos’nt know MGTOW was the unofficial name of the first anti-feminists that took the internet by storm in the mid-late’90’s!?Hear me keep refering to myself as a MGTOW?


  11. Scott says:

    Within three months of the current administration coming to power, the entire DOD went through an “extremism stand down.” If you don’t know what a stand down is, its simple. The pentagon decides that a particular topic is so important that an entire day will be devoted to a total halt of non-essential operations and guidance will be put out from the top through the service chiefs on down. They are usually in response to an overwhelming trend that they feel must be addressed and cannot wait for the usual dissemination of policy channels.

    During my time on active duty, I went through the PTSD stand downs, several safety stand downs, and the “rescinding DADT policy stand down.”

    We spent a whole day, starting with a briefing from the SECDEF about recognizing these extremists. The thinly veiled impetus of “recent events at the capitol” lent itself to (of course) helping us all keep an eye out for extremists, right of center.

    We broke into smaller focus/discussion groups. Each group had to watch videos with case studies, stop the video, and answer questions as a group.

    As far as I can tell, the current definition of “extremist” is “someone who took their oath seriously.” An entire year of 2020 BLM/ANTIFA lawlessness, where businesses were burned to the ground and entire sections of cities destroyed was completely ignored. Not extremism, I guess.

    The clear contradiction in messaging was never acknowledged: If you are going to MAKE ME take an oath as terms of employment (everyone is required–DOD civilians, officers, enlisted) you cannot then tell me I am being extreme when I read those words onto the very fabric of my heart.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:


      Did you have to do the stand-down nonsense because you’re a contractor?


      • Scott says:

        I go there that day and said I didn’t have to, but I stayed because they paid me.


      • Oscar says:

        My Reserve unit did the stand-down back in March. I was planning to keep my mouth shut, but a SSG spoke up, and I didn’t want him to stand alone.

        The SSG said that it seems as though the DoD is specifically targeting right wing people.

        Before the instructor could respond, I said, “That’s exactly what they’re doing. We had a whole year of left wing rioting, burning, looting and murdering, and trying to burn down federal buildings, and the DoD didn’t say or do jack s**t about it. Then, there’s one right wing riot, and all of a sudden the DoD freaks out, and we all need a stand down.”

        It’s so transparently obvious, I’m amazed so many people still can’t see it.

        November 2022 marks 30 years for me. Looks like it’s time to retire.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        It’s funny, I have raised objections like that in EO, SHARP trainings, etc and nothing ever happens. They just look at you like you have three heads and drive on with the lie.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I have raised objections like that in EO, SHARP trainings, etc and nothing ever happens. They just look at you like you have three heads and drive on with the lie.

        I used to do that. I always approached it from the perspective of the presumption of innocence. If you refer to the accuser as the “victim”, then you’re automatically assuming that the accused is guilty. You’re committing a very real injustice in the name of righting an alleged injustice, and violating the Constitution you swore to support and defend.

        Before my last deployment, a superior officer ordered me to keep my mouth shut from then on.

        I used to think I could do some good. Not anymore.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        The one good it does it lets others know they aren’t crazy or alone in their thoughts. It might not be worth it to end your own career over though.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      One of the clips on that hearing about the riots on the 6th……mentioning former military, extreme Trump supporters, and registered Libertarians are some of the “most dangerous people in the USA”

      Been a registered and card carrying Libertarian since 1996. Libertraianism is dangerous? Most Libertraians I have met over the decades are: Republicans that want to smoke weed and Democrats that want to own a weapon. Hyperbole aside… this the “extreme danger” to the USA?


  12. redpillboomer says:

    Retired military here and I get it! When I heard about the extremism in the military, I happened to be out with my Military Motorcycle riding club. We were having breakfast together, me and four other white guys. Great guys, a Lt Col Maintenance Officer, and several NCOs to include a CMSgt. Three of the four guys are married men with kids, the one young single guy, a graduate of the USAF Academy (University) in Colorado. Like I said, super dudes, loyal, patriotic, etc. As they were talking about the extremism messaging they were being put through, I said to them, “Wow! I never knew I was sitting at a table with four extremists! You guys (white males) are really very dangerous to the military and society!”

    I’ve been retired six years now, and it amazes me each time I hear another devolution of the military into the latest social engineering mandate. When I retired it was sexual assault this, sexual assault that, where you’d think everyone in the military (read: every MALE member) was capable of sexually assaulting another military member (read: every FEMALE military member). I was dumbfounded by the teaching. Did sexual assault happen here and there? Yes it most certainly did. Did it happen anywhere near the scale they were implying? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The real kicker for me came when they said the majority (read: all) female military members were going to experience sexual assault at some point during their careers. Even in my blue pill mindset at the time, I remember thinking, “Whoa, where the h*ll do you come off making a statement like that?” I’d known a lot of female military members, the majority of which were solid performers of the military mission. A few ‘problem children,’ among them, just like the males; however the majority were good troops and performed the mission well.

    The real problem we had was all the fornicating (unlawful according to the Uniform Code of Military Justice) going on between military members who shouldn’t have been doing IT for one reason or another: Officer-Enlisted, Boss-Subordinate, promotion couches, adultery, love triangles, etc, etc. Now that potentially could really affect unit member morale because of the perceived favoritism it could lead to, e.g. opening doors to advancement or something like it. Now there was a subject worthy of a ‘stand down’ day! Think it would ever happen? No way. Acceptable as long as you, cue the proverbial, “Didn’t get caught.” I guess later on it became ‘Didn’t get caught, or didn’t get accused of it by the MeToo brigade.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      Any time the entire US military–all over the globe–hits pause to indoctrinate the force, I think the American people should know what’s being taught, and who gave the green light.

      Liked by 2 people

  13. Oscar says:

    Totally Off-Topic: don’t sucker-punch people, and don’t let hostile people close enough to sucker-punch you.

    A 19-year-old has died after he was struck in a fight at an Applebee’s restaurant, allegedly over a social media post.
    According to the sheriff’s office, Duckworth was punched in the face, causing him to fall and hit his head on the floor, 11Alive reported. The altercation resulted in a severe cut to his face and injury to his brain.
    “He had dinner at Applebee’s, comes out and two boys that he does not get along with were out there…he was arguing with one and the other one sucker punched him,” the victim’s mother, Amanda Duckworth, wrote in a Facebook post on Monday.

    Uh… that ain’t no fight, as I understand the meaning of the word.

    A 20-year-old Dawson County man is now charged with murder after a fight at a Dawson County Applebee’s that fatally injured a Lumpkin County man.

    Dawson County Sheriff’s Office investigators charged Daniel Lee Roberts with two counts of felony murder on Friday, for allegedly causing the death of Kaleb Duckworth, 19, of Dahlonega on Tuesday, July 27.

    Roberts, who already faces charges of aggravated assault and aggravated battery, has been accused of attacking Duckworth outside of the Applebee’s restaurant on Ga. 400 in Dawson County on Sunday night.

    Sucker-punches are extremely dangerous. You can take a lot of punishment if your chin is down, and your hands are up, but if you’re in a relaxed stance, a punch you didn’t see coming can knock you out shockingly easily. If you then hit your head on concrete, the lights can go out permanently.

    So, kids, the lessons here are….

    (1) If you sucker-punch someone, you might end up on trial for murder.
    (2) Manage the distance between yourself and hostile people. As much as humanly possible, don’t let hostile people any closer than two arms’ length.

    I realize we middle aged dads have little use for this info, but our sons might find it far more useful than we do.


    • feeriker says:

      If you live in a state that has legal open carry, or that has shall-issue concealed carry permits (get one), carry a gun. That’s the easiest way to change the mind of someone who would suckerpunch you.


  14. Lastmod says:

    Jack said:

    “I am prone to dismiss some of Lastmod’s comments as annoying gripes. But while I was writing this post, I realized that this is exactly the same attitude that God was trying to tell me was wrong. My apologies to Lastmod.”

    ……you don’t need to apologize cause I wasn’t offended by your answer or you replies. I’m okay. Off the cuff status of Lastmod, end of July 2021.

    Liked by 1 person

  15. RichardP says:

    @ Jason, thanks for the invitation to “do lunch” from several threads back.

    I’m in the middle of the San Fernando Valley, so “lunch” would be doable, but difficult, given the traffic between here and Pasadena or Santa Monica. But I will say thanks but no thanks for the time being (maybe later, if the ship rights herself). I’m not vaccinated, and so I stay healthy by going into crowds as little as possible. When going into crowds without thinking about repercussions comes back (if ever), we can revisit the issue.


    • Lastmod says:

      Im not vaccinated either…..and the traffic will never really “get better” here. We should meet up. Think about it.

      You live in the “valley” the infamous one…..I live in one too…but not “that, like totally other valley” 🙂


  16. Pingback: The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: The Influence of Pornography and OnlyFans on Women | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: Incentives for Bimbofication | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Knowing how things are supposed to be | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: A Literal Military Stand Down | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: 2021 Winter Hibernation | Σ Frame

  22. Pingback: Faux Masculine Archetypes | Σ Frame

  23. Pingback: Hexis Cathexis and Voodoo Catharsis | Σ Frame

  24. Pingback: On Clarifying a Christian Culture of Attraction | Σ Frame

  25. Pingback: The Black Pill is the Natural Outcome of the Secular Mating Paradigm | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s