What is her true motivation for getting an education?

Hint: It’s totally unrelated to her career ambitions.

Readership: All;
Theme: Political Shenanigans
Length: 1,200 words
Reading Time: 4 minutes

Sexual Activity among U.S. College Students

The 2018 National College Health Assessment (NCHA) found that 66% of female college students had sex within the past 12 months, down from 72% in the 2000 assessment. [1]  NCHA reports for specific colleges or universities [2], including some up to the present year, show that this 2/3 figure stands accurate for nearly every college or university.  These reports also estimated somewhere between 45-55% of girls in college having had sex within the last 30 days, and around 30% saying they haven’t had sex in the past year.  (For an example of one NCHA report, see [3].)

The statistics for men show a lower number of sexually active men, but with more men having multiple partners — ~10% had 4 or more partners in the past year.

Image Source: [3]

Motivations

The Feminist Life Script (2020-12-17) and The Upper Middle Class Career Life Script Model (2021-5-17) observed that one of the primary motivations for young women to go off to college is not so much to prepare themselves for a career, but to jump on the carousel.

Up until lately, this has been a more or less speculative assumption without much confirming evidence other than the raw data described above, but with the downfall of Roe v. Wade, young feministas are now showing their true colors – thus proving our earlier presumptions to be 100% correct.

For example, Vice [4] bewails the new reality as follows.

“After the overturning of Roe, millions of college students found themselves attending institutions where they would no longer have access to certain types of reproductive healthcare.  Now, students who had committed to attending colleges or universities in majority conservative states are rethinking their decisions.  Meanwhile, rising high school seniors say they now have something new to consider when compiling their lists of prospective schools: the access and right to an abortion.”

Apparently, if a college is located in a state that bans abortion, then this one fact alone is a deal breaker for bookwormish bimbos to continue enrolling there!

In fact, a growing number of hopeful hoes seeking steamy stomping grounds for their apex SMV years are now making the geography of abortion bans a primary criterion in their selection.  Not only students, but also parents (especially moms!) are saying that they’ll reject any schools located in Arizona, Kentucky, Missouri, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, etc.

Among those females currently attending college or graduating from high school — and their parents — it seems as though the most popular purpose for attending college is not to major in the fabled Communications or Gender Studies, but to take a few rounds on The Carousel!

Sob Stories

As if this news was not dramatic enough, Vice [4] also reports the simpering stories of several young yodelers who are absolutely heartbroken about the newly imposed restrictions in states where they had previously hoped to attend college.

Sasha Rosenfeld (17) dreamed of attending Oberlin because of “its tradition of activism” and the Judaism on campus.  Now she cries, frets, and worries about what she would do if she needed an abortion and couldn’t access “care” at college.

Cora Jackson (18), from Maryland, is looking to turn down a full-tuition scholarship at Vanderbilt University simply because it is located in Nashville Tennessee.

Love Lundy (20) said the fall of Roe “is a big scary thing” and she compared the situation to being involved in a school shooting.  “I would never send any of my loved ones [to a clinic] anywhere in Georgia, or even Alabama.”

Chantal Mann (16) said it would be a major “risk” to attend college in a state that would ban abortion in the future.  She doesn’t want to go to a state where they have restricted “reproductive rights”,* or where there’s a risk that “rights”* could be slashed in the near future.

Ashley Huynh (17) said, “The overturn of Roe definitely solidified my decision to go to a college in a state where it will still continue to protect women’s rights.*  Location has never before been more important to me.”  She cited an “increased threat” of sexual violence on college campuses as part of her justification.  I’m confused as to how a state wide abortion ban leads to an increase in co-ed rape, but I suppose a rape accusation would be a convenient Plan B in the case of an unexpected pregnancy.

Given that the incidence of sex on campus is 66.6% (note the figure), it shouldn’t surprise us to see statements like these from many young women.  But how do they know they’ll be one of the 66.6% of hoes and not one of the 30% of femcels?  It would be a shame if they were dispossessed of a “right”* that they would never need to exercise anyway, and yet the majority of activism appears to come from the sexually disenfranchised.

* Many American’s carry the notion that a “right” is something written into a code of law.  This is a legalistic Murican understanding of rights, and it is ridiculed as naïve around the world.  Properly understood, a right is the ability, freedom, and power to do what is right.  That’s why it’s called a right.

Conclusions

The common consensus is that Red State Colleges are now “restrictive”, “risky”, “scary”, “uncaring”, and “unprotective”, which is, I suppose, about as much derision as their teenage hamsters can muster for calling a state or an institute of learning “misogynistic.”  Note that these adjectives have nothing to do with the educational quality of the institution, nor the perceived benefits to their career advancement.  The new number one qualification for college selection is the quality and service of garden tool manufacturing made available there (i.e. augers, axes, hoes, and rakes).

Politico warns bacchanalians that most colleges are unprepared for the post-Roe landscape. Some colleges have anticipated a stagnation in enrollment as a result of the new ruling and are therefore making “arrangements” to “support” students seeking the “full range” of housing and “healthcare services” not available on their campuses.  (Oberlin is one such college mentioned in Vice’s article.)

It will be interesting to see how the college enrollment in various locations around the country will change as a result of this ruling.  Judging by these young women’s statements, we might expect more liberalated women to attend college in blue states, leaving a concentrated concoction of faithful virgins, nerdettes, prudes, and fuglies in red state colleges.  We might also expect more high SMV augers and rakes to attend to their craft of hoemaking in blue states, while straight-minded men who are more serious about preparing for a career would prefer to attend college in red states. As a result, I would expect the academic reputation of red state colleges to increase.

In summary, the red state colleges will have the best and the worst, and the blue state colleges will have the best of the worst.

This also introduces a new red flag for Red Pilled men to consider: If she grew up in a red state but chose to attend college in a blue state, she just might be a worn out hoe soon to be rehammered into an axe.

Sources

  1. The John Hopkins Newsletter: Why are we having less sex today than ever before? (2019-2-14)
  2. Google Search: “national college health assessment results”
  3. American College Health Association: National College Health Assessment, Spring 2019 [PDF, page 10]
  4. Vice: ‘It’s Scary’: Students Fear Going to College in Red States After Roe (2022-7-1)

Related

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 Abortion and Birth Control, Adultery and Fornication, Agency, Calculated Risk Taking, Choosing a College, Culture Wars, Education, Female Power, Feminism, Hypergamy, Models of Failure, News Critique, Parenting, Solipsism, The Hamster, Zeitgeist Reports. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to What is her true motivation for getting an education?

  1. elspeth says:

    “Many American’s carry the notion that a “right” is something written into a code of law.”

    False. Well, actually you’re right that many Americans think that, but it’s false.

    The true meaning of rights, as outlined by the Founding Fathers, is that a right is given by God. It is inherent with being a free man. Namely: life, liberty, and property (property being the right to that which one has legitimately worked for). Thomas Jefferson, in his flair for poetry, changed “property” to the “pursuit of happiness”, to our peril.

    The Bill of Rights simply reaffirms what God has granted; things on which the government “shall not infringe”. Included are right to conscience (as reflected in the freedom to speak in accordance with one’s beliefs), the right to self-defense, and the right to be protected from confiscation of that which belongs to the person who worked and earned it. It doesn’t codify it. It is, to borrow from the one astute thought Obama ever uttered, an outline of “negative rights” imposed on government. So, yes. We Americans (half of us anyway), wholly reject the idea that government bestows rights on us, or that they can take them away.

    “This is a legalistic Murican understanding of rights, and it is ridiculed as naïve around the world.”

    Up until the late 50s/early 60s, this was not how most educated Americans viewed rights. Most people understood they had some responsibility to the greater society. But you’re right. Most Americans have had any sense of the true understanding of American rights “educated” right out of them. In fact, it’s this evolution of the narrow, individualistic understanding of rights that has led to the wholesale infringement on those rights.

    “Properly understood, a right is the ability, freedom, and power to do what is right. That’s why it’s called a right.”

    I agree that a right is the ability, freedom, and power to do what is right. The issue, at least from where I sit, is that much of the world, including the American left, views obeying government unquestioningly as the definition of doing what is right.

    Of course, founding father John Adams warned us that the American Constitution, as brilliant as it is, would only work in a country populated by a religious and moral people. It is, according to Adams, wholly unfit for any other.

    America is no longer a religious or moral people, so of course her understanding of rights has been corrupted and reduced to the ability to chase our most base passions and appetites unhindered.

    Liked by 7 people

  2. It is amusing to think of the 304s telling their parents why they have to switch schools. No, wait, the parents probably had the idea first. There is no shame.

    Liked by 5 people

  3. feeriker says:

    Since growing numbers of women are making it clear that education is not their real priority in attending college, why waste it on them? If their intention is simply to slore it up, why not just buy them one-way bus or plane tickets to their blue state of choice and let them slore themselves out to the bad boys of their choice? Much cheaper than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on worthless degrees, while having the benefit of concentrating as much of feral American femdom as possible in localities where it can do its worst without offending the sensibilities of decent human beings? No need to involve “education” in this at all.

    Liked by 7 people

  4. thedeti says:

    1) I still don’t believe women are having less sex. I know the stats say this, but I believe women are simply lying about this.

    2) On the other hand, Red Pill is being borne out as correctly identifying what’s really going on: a small percentage of men are reporting having had more sex with multiple partners. If only a group of men were reporting on this to alert everyone to what’s going on…..

    3) So the truth finally comes out – women go to college to find attractive men to have consequence free sex with.

    4) It’s quite something to read that young women (and their mothers) are deciding where to go to school based on where they can get abortions.

    5) I never, ever thought I’d read a story in which a mother of a young woman hopes her daughter is “given the right” to murder her grandchildren.

    6) So this is what the Greatest Generation fought for – middle aged women wishing their daughters can go wh0re it up away from home and then have the “right” to have physicians shove instruments into their genital tracts to “take care of” their “mistake”.

    7) Do people not know how to use birth control? The problem with BC is NOT ineffectiveness – it’s that people don’t use it correctly nor according to directions. What the hell is wrong with people now? I started college in the late 1980s, about 35 years ago. Probably half the women I went to college with were sexually active, and most of them were on the Pill. They knew how to use it correctly. They were halfway responsible because they knew if they didn’t use it correctly they could get pregnant and then need an abortion or would have to carry to term. Most women used it correctly. The condom failure rate is in the high 20s/low 30s percentile — know why? Because people don’t use them correctly. Same with other barrier methods — people don’t use them correctly which drives effectiveness down. The pill and hormonal BC methods don’t work for two reasons — women don’t take the pills at the same time every day or they forget their pills; or because of poor overall health.

    Sheesh. So it’s all about making sure women can do whatever they want. And it’s all about making sure young women can abort their babies, just like Mom could back in the day. It’s so great to know that Whitney and Taylor can get their abortions in Blue states, just like Karen did….

    Liked by 4 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “3) So the truth finally comes out – women go to college to find attractive men to have consequence free sex with.”

      Gone are the days when women went to college and at least had the sense to be open to getting their Mrs. degree as well. The hook-up reigns supreme and their not ashamed of it. This makes me a little sad. Catching someone doing the “walk of shame” can’t be as much fun as it used to be now that the woman doing the walking is proud of her accomplishments.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        “Gone are the days when women went to college and at least had the sense to be open to getting their Mrs. degree as well.”

        Those days are looong gone. Even when I was in college in the mid to late 90s, I heard female classmates gossip about certain girls as being “weird” or “prudish”, and then one of them would chime in with a snarky, “No, she’s here for her Mrs. degree.” There were some real cat fights between these two groups of girls, and the Mrs. degree group was not large. In fact, I knew of only 5 girls (at a Christian college having a student body totaling over 2,000) who were using their time in college to go a husband hunting. Interestingly, 4 out of those 5 succeeded before they graduated. The one who didn’t fell in love with a reformed party boy (a really good guy, actually) and was reluctant to marry him because he had an STD. More interestingly, the Mrs. degree girls subscribed to Purity Culture and read books by Joshua Harris and Elizabeth Elliot. They literally carried copies of those books around with them everywhere they went as a social status indicator — “Look at me! I’m serious about sexual purity and marriage!”

        Liked by 4 people

      • thedeti says:

        I was in college in the midwest in the late 1980s. There seemed to be a 50/50 split between women who were at least open to meeting potential husbands in college; and women who were not because they were career minded. Sure, that latter group wanted to get married, but marriage was for “someday” – after the degrees were earned and steps made toward getting their “careers” started. I dated women in both groups. I didn’t think much of it at the time, but there was a definite split between the two groups.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        I attended college in the early ’00s. My wife got her Mrs. degree, as did a bunch of girls in our friend group, including a former CC rider who’s still married to her college boyfriend. They have 6 kids together.

        Of course, that was 20 years ago.

        More recently, I noticed that most male Army officers marry their college girlfriends. Of course, I left active duty 8 years ago.

        I have no more recent anecdotal evidence, but I just moved to an area with 4 colleges in close proximity, so I’ll have more anecdotes soon.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      “1) I still don’t believe women are having less sex. I know the stats say this, but I believe women are simply lying about this.”

      While I was perusing this data, I remembered “The 3x Rule” from Ye Olde Manosphere (pre-2018):

      Whatever N a woman will confess to, multiply it by 3.
      Whatever N a man will brag about, divide it by 3.

      If we follow The 3x Rule (using the NCHA data from 2019), then that would imply 76.2% of Collegiate men aren’t getting any at all, and 68.5% of women are hopping around. These figures align fairly closely with the earlier estimates that ~22% of the men are sluffing 60+% of the women. But either way, the 2/3 Rule holds roughly true. (As far as I know, the 2/3 estimate is a new figure.)

      Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “2) On the other hand, Red Pill is being borne out as correctly identifying what’s really going on: a small percentage of men are reporting having had more sex with multiple partners. If only a group of men were reporting on this to alert everyone to what’s going on…..”

      Most normies wouldn’t listen, or would get downright hostile if you were to tell them the truth about what’s going on. Their crania are firmly ensconced in their rectums and they’re comfortable with this.

      “3) So the truth finally comes out – women go to college to find attractive men to have consequence free sex with.”

      The modern replacement for the old-time “Mrs. Degree.” Who’d’a thunk? /sarc

      “4) It’s quite something to read that young women (and their mothers) are deciding where to go to school based on where they can get abortions.”

      Given what we’ve all been observing all around us for the past few decades, can we HONESTLY say we’re shocked at this? Sickened, yes, but shocked? Not me.

      “5) I never, ever thought I’d read a story in which a mother of a young woman hopes her daughter is “given the right” to murder her grandchildren.”

      See my previous comment. This is the land of Satan’s Devoted Servants, dominated by Handmaidens of Moloch who delight in savagery and evil. A man might just as well mate with a female demonatrix as one of these modern western women. The consequences are no less severe.

      “6) So this is what the Greatest Generation fought for – middle aged women wishing their daughters can go wh0re it up away from home and then have the “right” to have physicians shove instruments into their genital tracts to “take care of” their “mistake”.”

      The “Greatest Generation” was anything but. Those fools are responsible in the main for the society we now live within, either by their active encouragement of the hedonistic lifestyles that brought it on, or their cowardice/naivete in failing to confront it.

      “7) Do people not know how to use birth control?”

      We rarely stop to think about it, but when we do, we realize that the use of birth control is an exercise in assuming responsibility for one’s actions. Is there anything more anathema to people today, particularly to WOMEN, than exercising self-control/self-responsibility?

      Liked by 1 person

  5. Red Pill Apostle says:

    “Cora Jackson (18), from Maryland, is looking to turn down a full-tuition scholarship at Vanderbilt University simply because it is located in Nashville Tennessee.”

    So you are going to turn down a free education at an elite university because either, (1) you can’t control yourself enough to keep your knees together for 4 years, or (2) you’re not smart enough or responsible enough to effectively use any of the multiple forms of birth control readily available to you. Vanderbilt should revoke their scholarship offer to her based on these alone. They won’t. But they should.

    This is yet one more example of the female tendency towards emotional decision making. Intelligence level does not matter, although it can help. To be fair, she may have other scholarship offers that she prefers over Vandy and Vice ran with the Vandy angle and excluded the other information because it is good for their story. But if Vandy is her best option, which it could be, and she really is basing her decision on TN’s abortion law, that is a special kind of foolish.

    Liked by 7 people

  6. Oscar says:

    So, not being allowed to murder her own baby in the womb is “a big scary thing”. Talk about satanic inversion.

    Liked by 5 people

  7. okrahead says:

    I was at a small Christian college in the 80s, and the Mrs. degree was a BIG thing. I would estimate over 1/2 the young women there (probably more, in retrospect) were actively seeking a husband. Now, if you are actively seeking a husband, then you are actively seeking sex as well…. Hopefully after the wedding ceremony, but nonetheless looking for sex.

    Our society expects young women to give up looking for marriage, and seems to be succeeding, but biological imperatives being what they are, women will still look for sex. SSRIs and Xanax may reduce the drive, and obesity may make them less appealing, but they still find themselves looking for Mr. Right Now. Biology trumps ideology.

    If these twits had two functioning brain cells in their collective heads, they might realize that getting knocked up by some young fella who can make it into an elite university might not be anywhere near their worst option. But society, and the herd mentality, have them convinced that career is the only way to go and pregnancy is death.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Yep. I was at a state school in the early 80s. Yes, even the “Christian” gals had sex before marriage, but they were mystified if girls slept around without a relationship. The idea of 10+ partners would have boggled their minds. Even having 5-10 put them in the sl*t category.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. okrahead says:

    For women, it’s not whether, but with whom they are having sex. For men, it’s “Are you top tier or off the menu entirely?”, at least for college aged women. Top tier means multiples, of course. If you are a female giving it up to a top tier man, the smart play is still to get pregnant, “accidentally” or otherwise. There’s a biology behind females of a species that intentionally destroy their own young, but that’s a lengthy post I’ll have to think about for another day.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. redpillboomer says:

    “Gone are the days when women went to college and at least had the sense to be open to getting their Mrs. degree as well.”

    “Those days are looong gone.”

    Yes, when I went to college in the early 80s that was the case. By the late 80s, when I attended my ten year high school reunion, at least half the women were still single and partying like high school seniors. I’ll never forget that. We held the ten year reunion at some hotel ballroom and quite a few of my HS classmates were heading to rooms to party, getting rooms together, etc.

    So, even in the late 80s, the marrying during or right after completing college, the Mrs. Degree, was already starting to fade a bit. IOW, the women were beginning to NOT see college as necessarily the place to find a husband, that could wait apparently for later down line. I’m guessing they figured they could find him out in the work world or some other place just as easily as in the college setting, because the late twenty/early thirty somethings were still getting quality men for husbands after their “Sex in the City Days” were over. My understanding of this from RP lore is that the women were mostly successful back then at landing a Beta Bucks man. It wasn’t like it is today in the SMP/MMP with MGTOW, men’s widespread understanding of the current SMP, and the lessons learned from widely circulating divorce rape scenarios in the court system, etc.

    One thing about the SMP/MMP back then, it didn’t seem like the males understanding of how the SMP/MMP was changing had caught up with them yet. It was the pre-Internet era after all. Guys were still looking at the decent to good looking girls in their late twenties as marriage material. The males had seemingly not learned to do the math yet, “Let’s see… We graduated from college at 22 or so, and now these girls are 28. Gee… I wonder what they have been doing in the half decade plus since graduation?” No, I faintly remember the atmosphere at my ten year reunion that these girls were still considered catches, marriage material, especially the attractive ones for marriage minded men. I was one of them. However, I was a Christian at the time, and had my one-itis thing going with the girl from my church that I’ve mentioned in earlier posts, so I wasn’t looking among my female classmates for which one would make a good wife. I do remember thinking something along the lines, “If I was looking, there are still some quality, marriageable women available…” Little did I know what was actually going on around me because I was still blue pill to the core. I couldn’t see the “lines in the Matrix” yet.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      Only one girl at my 10 year reunion was still single. I was in Afghanistan for my 20 year reunion.

      The eye-opening things about my 10 year reunion were that…

      1) Almost everyone was already out of shape, except for for those of us who were in the military.
      2) Girls I thought were hot in high school were no longer attractive to me.
      3) Girls that wouldn’t give me the time of day in high school were paying me all kinds of compliments.

      And we were only 27-29. How quickly things change.

      Liked by 2 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        What part of the country did you go to HS in Oscar? I was in the east, Maryland, outside of Washington. I’m sure that played a factor on why half the class was still single at the ten year HS reunion. We were already experiencing the effects of feminism in my generation with the younger women having the mindset of “My career and traveling the world comes first, and then I’ll settle down.”.

        The three points you made, I saw all of that at my twenty year reunion. I’d add to your #2, some of the “plain Jane’s” in high school had blossomed and were quite attractive. I remember one. I didn’t recognize her at first. She looked super good and was sporting quite the bounteous rack too! As for the best looking girl in the class, she was still good looking for the most part, but not what I remembered her as in high school, like no longer “drop dead gorgeous.” I remember thinking at the time, “Given the choice between the two, I’d have taken “blossomed plain Jane” over the former high school beauty queen any day.” BTW, “blossomed plain Jane” seemed particularly friendly and quite conversational; while the former HS beauty queen was not so friendly and still a bit full of her self even at 38 years old. Oh, and guess what? She was still single; although I think she might have been divorced.

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        RPB,

        I attended high school and college in the rural Pacific Northwest.

        As for my reunion, the prettiest girl was still the prettiest – a sweet, freckled beauty with curly red hair – and was married to a guy who looked to be in his late 30s.

        The biggest lesson I learned is that, if you’re a guy, time is on your side, as long as you stay in shape and work on your career. I wish I’d understood that earlier. It would’ve saved me a lot of anxiety.

        Liked by 3 people

  10. Jack says:

    “One thing about the SMP/MMP back then, it didn’t seem like the males understanding of how the SMP/MMP was changing had caught up with them yet. It was the pre-Internet era after all. Guys were still looking at the decent to good looking girls in their late twenties as marriage material. The males had seemingly not learned to do the math yet, “Let’s see… We graduated from college at 22 or so, and now these girls are 28. Gee… I wonder what they have been doing in the half decade plus since graduation?” No, I faintly remember the atmosphere at my ten year reunion that these girls were still considered catches, marriage material, especially the attractive ones for marriage minded men.”

    From the earliest days of the sexual revolution, men were just as willing as women to abandon traditional sexual mores, because they thought they’d be getting more sex. On the average, most men did get more sex in the late 1960s and 70s, but by the 1980s, the bohemian lifestyle of the hippies went out of fashion and the risque novelty of “free love” wore off. In spite of the relative ease and widening acceptance of getting laid, women started being much more selective in the late 1970s to early 80s, according to their hypergamic instincts. Apparently, all these men didn’t know anything about hypergamy, which is largely responsible for the mating glut that we’ve been familiar with for the past 20 years. Hypergamy never entered male consciousness until the PUAs came along in the 2000s and blew the market apart. Men started to wake up to the true nature of women and the realities of a “free love” market, but by then the SMP had already gone to hell in a handjob.

    All these changes can be seen in the comments above.

    Eternity Matters (attended college in the early 80s) — Sex before marriage was common, even among “Christian” girls, but it was always within the context of a relationship.
    RedPillBoomer (attended college in the early 80s) — About 1/2 of women marry during or soon after college, while the other 1/2 party on for more than a decade.
    Okrahead (attended a Christian college in the mid 80s) — The Mrs. Degree was a BIG thing with over 1/2 the young women actively seeking a husband.
    deti (attended college during the late 1980s) — There was a 50/50 split between women who were open to marriage and women who were not.
    Jack (attended a Christian college during the mid to late 1990s) — 5 out of 1,000 women were explicitly marriage minded.
    Oscar (attended college in the early 2000s) — Some women found a husband in college simply by chance (and men’s ignorance). Most did not.

    I’ll guesstimate that no matter whether women were looking for a husband or not, The 2/3 Rule has held steady since the early 80s.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      “…by the 1980s, the bohemian lifestyle of the hippies went out of fashion… …women started being much more selective in the late 1970s to early 80s, according to their hypergamic instincts. Apparently, all these men didn’t know anything about hypergamy, which is largely responsible for the mating glut that we’ve been familiar with for the past 20 years.”

      Yeah. Most men weren’t being taught anything about women… They had to learn it on their own, or believe what women told men about themselves. All I remember of being taught about hypergamy was its traditional dictionary definition: Women want to marry up. But that was MARRY up, not “have sex with the best men they can find”. No, what we were told back then was, “These men that increasing numbers of women were having casual sex with were POS scumbags, and the women having sex with them were crazy / slutty / stupid / broken / damaged.” Churchgoing young men like me were told we were “better” than that, and them. No education about what women want. No acknowledgment of what we men wanted, or who we are as men.

      “Hypergamy never entered male consciousness until the PUAs came along in the 2000s and blew the market apart. Men started to wake up to the true nature of women and the realities of a “free love” market…”

      Yeah, and even then it was relegated to the dark web, and before that, to the ads in men’s magazines like Penthouse, Hustler, and Gent. Anyone telling the truth about women’s nature and behavior was shouted down even then. The shouting has only swelled since then. And what we have now is a society where around 60% of women are having sex with 20% of men, and 80% of men are languishing. Most of society doesn’t care about this — they care more about the J6 kangaroo court show trial and who Kim Kardashian is banging than about the coming collapse.

      Liked by 5 people

      • feeriker says:

        “Most of society doesn’t care about this – they care more about the J6 kangaroo court show trial and who Kim Kardashian is banging than about the coming collapse.”

        We recoil in horror at the idea now, but the collapse, for all the pain and suffering it will induce, will be the best thing that could happen to this society, the bitter medicine needed to cure the fatal disease. The patient won’t be the same upon recovery, but will be healthier for all the experience.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        I wanted to rename the post-collapse USA the Republic of Gilead to scare away feminists. Now I realize it’ll actually draw them in droves.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      The other thing that struck me were the number of divorces, and changing attitudes toward divorce. We also found out the truth about divorce — it’s just a way for women (not men) to get out of their poor choices and then force men they don’t want to pay for it.

      In 1980, I was a 12 year old 7th grader. Ten years later, in 1990, I was 22, held a bachelor’s degree, and was in my first year of law school.

      In 1980 in the midwest, divorce was a big deal. I didn’t know a lot of divorced people. I knew some, and it was viewed as a great tragedy. I met many more divorced people and children of divorce in college. By then it was viewed as more “liberating” and “being able to get out of marriages that don’t work” so that people can be “freed” from “bad marriages”. Divorce wasn’t “bad”, it was just an “option” for people who felt they needed to end bad marriages that “didn’t work”.

      Of course, women worked very hard to conceal the truth: “Our marriage doesn’t work” was really just a euphemism for “I’m not sexually attracted to you and never was” and “I just don’t want to have sex with you (anymore).” Most women won’t ever admit this, but that’s the true basis for most divorces now. It’s not money, it’s not incompatibility, it’s not “we don’t get along” or my personal favorite, “we just grew apart”. No, it’s that the women just don’t want to have sex with their husbands and increasingly never did. This was always the truth, and it was always women’s design — to advantage themselves at men’s expense.

      Liked by 2 people

  11. Oscar says:

    On Topic: Conservatives Waffle on Abortion and Women’s Accountability

    “Such a female-centered discussion is not unique to commentators for the Daily Wire, of course, and it raises a number of questions about conservative positions on women and abortion, particularly concerning the utility of progressivist victimology. Why do conservative talking points about abortion’s harms to women sound so similar to progressive-feminist talking points about other harms to women? Why do conservatives engage in male-bashing nearly as enthusiastically as progressives? Why do conservatives so assiduously promote feminist myths about male sexual brutality and female powerlessness? Most centrally, perhaps, why are conservatives so averse to holding women responsible for their bad acts?”
    ……..
    “Or is it simply because, like many people in our society, conservatives are unable to admit the reality of female evil: that hundreds of thousands of women every year in America make the decision to kill their unborn children not under duress or out of fear or because they were lied to but for reasons of convenience, selfishness, and gross indifference to the life within them.”

    PJ Media: Conservatives Waffle on Abortion and Women’s Accountability (2022-7-3)

    If evil can be measured objectively — and I’d say murder is a pretty good objective measurement — then American women are far more evil than American men. Nothing American men do — not even war — approaches the sheer carnage of the abortion industry.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Oscar says:

      Speaking of which, starting at 11:57, Scott Ott tells a story of when he interviewed a welfare queen who had six living children, and had aborted five more. One reason she gave for aborting is that the father was ugly. Scott asked her if she’d ever wondered if what she was doing was right. The question had never crossed her mind.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Devon70 says:

      We know the mainstream cuckservatives are the biggest feminists on the planet and they want everyone to know this. It’s nauseating and this is why more young men are turning to the dissident right that echoes a lot of red pill points. Scott Greer regularly pokes fun at the “Where are all the Good men” articles.

      Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      I told everyone why: Because women vote as a bloc on matters involving sex, reproduction, and intersexual relationships. Women stand shoulder to shoulder on these matters, regardless of ideology or religious belief. Women stand in direct opposition to men on this. I have seen it repeatedly on reddit and I’ve seen it right here at this blog and others where the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary comment and post. Women in the MLA are just as “progressive” and “liberal” on these matters as any other women are.

      Women demand never to be called to account for their past misdeeds, because that’s “mean” and it “hurts” them. Their mantras are “Give me what I want, or I will not have sex with you” and “If you bring up my past, you’re just a mean a-hole, and I won’t have sex with you” and “If you try to hold me accountable, you’re just being mean spirited/incel/jerk, and I will not have sex with you.”

      For women, when it comes to sex, relationships, and reproduction, men are sexual pigs who abuse and exploit them. Men are evil horndogs who just want to get laid; women are paragons of sweetness and virtue who just want to be wives and mommies. Men are evil jerks plotting to use women; women are hapless victims who can never be held responsible for their choices and acts. You can’t call women’s choices and acts “immoral” or “bad” because that would imply agency, which these people believe women don’t have.

      I told you this a week or so ago — women vote as a bloc on sex, reproduction, and intersexual relationships. They always have, they always will, and nothing — including Dobbs — is going to change that. Ever.

      Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        And cuck men like the Recucklican/Stupid Party cave in and give women what they want. The Cuck Party has been doing this for 50 years now. They have caved on every issue. No reason to think they won’t cave on this one too.

        Like

      • feeriker says:

        “I told everyone why: Because women vote as a bloc on matters involving sex, reproduction, and intersexual relationships. Women stand shoulder to shoulder on these matters, regardless of ideology or religious belief. Women stand in direct opposition to men on this. I have seen it repeatedly on reddit and I’ve seen it right here at this blog and others where the Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary comment and post. Women in the MLA are just as “progressive” and “liberal” on these matters as any other women are.”

        I know this doesn’t really need repeating here, but this bloc of “progressive, liberal” women includes self-described “Christian” women as well. Lots of them. Maybe even something approaching a majority of them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        “Their mantras are “Give me what I want, or I will not have sex with you”…”

        Dalrock had a few great posts about this nuclear sh!t test / control tactic that would be good for married men to review.

        “They already know how to use sex as a weapon, and they already have deep fears that by doing this they risk losing the very power they are trying to wield.  They already sensed that misusing sex was making them frigid.”

        Dalrock: Riding the brake (2015 February 28)

        “…imagine being the spreadsheet wife, who has suddenly realized that her V has lost its power through her own misuse. In a fit of terror, hurt, and outrage, she turned to her sisters on the internet. But instead of rallying around her, they were afraid that the disease could be catchy. What if their V suddenly stopped working as well?”

        “With all of the complaining about spreadsheet beta and how he should have communicated better, even more terrifying is the thought of a man who didn’t bother complaining, who simply lost interest in the ever more rationed V.”

        Dalrock: Frigidity and power. (2014-8-3)

        My wife has done this a few times. My response was, “So what? We only have sex when YOU want to have sex, so what exactly is going to change? Why don’t you try viewing sex as an expression of love for your husband instead of a tool to bargain for whatever you want (like a prostitute).”

        I tried the spreadsheet that Dalrock described. It works! I wrote a post about this.

        “…whenever I saw that it had been more than two weeks since our last roll in the hay, I would inform her of this fact. Of course, she would always deny it, so I showed her the calendar on the app to prove it. Within a few weeks after I started this, my wife became more self-conscious about her nuptial performance.”

        Σ Frame: Tracking Raw Sex Performance on a Spread Sheet (2022-1-19)

        The bottom line is this: Sexual denial only “works” if you react in desperation and fear and thereby give her power.* If your wife gives you the “…or else no sex!” line, either verbal or implied, then let her go without sex for a while and count the days until she’s hungry for d!ck and has to swallow her pride to get it from you.

        Caveat: If your relationship has deteriorated so much that your sex life is already dead, there’s probably not much you can do.

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Jack,

        “Caveat: If your relationship has deteriorated so much that your sex life is already dead, there’s probably not much you can do.”

        There is more a man can do than he thinks, and while what I’m about to describe is not a guarantee, it will give better odds than what “not much” equates to.

        The first step for a man is to stop thinking of his wife as if she is rational the way a man is rational, which is based on objective truth. She’s not irrational such that her actions are random, no, her irrationality is due to the basis of her logic’s starting point being an odd universe where emotions are treated as objective fact. A wife becomes much simpler to understand once a husband is cued into the fact that her logic rests on a foundation of her emotions.

        A husband need only make his wife feel less certain about her status with him and now the game is on. Game tactics are usually how a man does this. Heartiste’s 16 Commandments adjusted for the confines of marriage are a pretty good start for a husband’s mental attitude. If she’s a former CC rider, she’s fallen for this stuff before and if she’s not, she’s fallen for her husband before. Of course a man adjusts for his specific woman, but if he’s willing to work hard on himself, then the odds of a marriage at the point described in the quote surviving go way up.

        Whether the wife is worth the effort or not is a completely different conversation than whether the husband has the drive to put in the work. It’s not easy because it involves him tackling his weaknesses and getting better.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Oscar,

      “If evil can be measured objectively — and I’d say murder is a pretty good objective measurement — then American women are far more evil than American men. Nothing American men do — not even war — approaches the sheer carnage of the abortion industry.”

      Abortion is murder + a little extra slice of evil. The extra evil is that there is nearly complete power over an innocent life and that power is used to end the innocent life. This is yet another example of what women do with power and no personal accountability. Emotions rule the day and suffering ensues. This dynamic of power coupled with emotional decisions and suffering plays out with great consistency across all levels of society.

      Liked by 4 people

      • info says:

        The Devil’s minions never lose heart. We shouldn’t either:

        “JACKSON, Miss. — As the sun bore down around 2:15 p.m. on Wednesday, Dale Gibson began affixing signs to the iron fence surrounding Mississippi’s only abortion clinic.

        “The fight is not over,” one read.

        In cursive script, another vowed: “This is not the end.”

        NBC News: The Mississippi abortion clinic at the center of the Supreme Court fight shuts its doors for good (2022-7-7)

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Re: NBC News article:

        You can tell the female news anchor is a sympathizer trying to hide her discomfiture at having to report this news.

        A spokesperson for the Jackson clinic said they’re advising women to go to New Mexico to get an abortion! This shows how ignorant these people are. It’s a 12.5 hour drive from Jackson MS to Clovis NM (or a 6 hour flight to Albuquerque + travel time). Meanwhile, it’s only a 5.5 hour drive from Jackson MS to Cairo Illinois. Do they expect an abortion ban to be implemented in Illinois or is there some other restriction there?

        Anyway, women who have to make such a long trip will have to endure at least 5 hours of introspection before they can get an abortion.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Jack,

        Nearest abortion provider to Jackson, MS is Fairview Heights, IL (east suburban St. Louis), 7 hour 20 minute drive.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        There has to be a stairwell closer than that.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “You can tell the female news anchor is a sympathizer trying to hide her discomfiture at having to report this news.”

        Yes. And her complaint that some women don’t have the money or means or time to get abortions.

        “Anyway, women who have to make such a long trip will have to endure at least 5 hours of introspection before they can get an abortion.”

        Women who want or need abortions badly enough will find ways to get them, legally or illegally. A woman who wants a “safe” abortion in a medical environment will scrape the money together and take the time off and get one.

        If the average woman can afford rent, food, a smartphone and the airtime, and a flat screen TV with six streaming video subscriptions, she can afford an abortion. If a woman has the time to make stupid TikTok videos and post comments on dozens of others; and has the time to snark at people on Facebook and Instagram and Twitter, she has the time to travel for an abortion.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        If a woman can afford $250 on hairdos and hair extensions, she can afford an abortion.

        If a woman can afford $200 mani pedis, she can afford an abortion.

        If a woman can afford $150 fake nails, she can afford an abortion.

        If a woman has sufficient brainpower to follow directions to make a YouTube channel and post videos to it, she has enough brains to figure out how to use birth control effectively and efficiently.

        If a woman is smart enough to follow the directions to subscribe to a streaming video service, she has enough brains to follow the directions on how to use the Pill, a condom, or a NuvaRing.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Joe2 says:

        “Do they expect an abortion ban to be implemented in Illinois or is there some other restriction there?”

        In late June, New Mexico Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham signed an executive order protecting medical providers in the state from “discipline due to an out-of-state resident receiving abortion services in New Mexico.” Grisham’s order also established that “New Mexico will not entertain extradition attempts from other states relating to receiving or performing reproductive services.”

        It seems that New Mexico has implemented safeguards to protect medical providers and out-of-state patients related to reproductive services. It’s possible that other states (such as Illinois) may not have such safeguards yet.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “…protecting providers from discipline due to receiving services … entertain extradition attempts … receiving or performing reproductive services…”

        What does it all mean? Pardon me for saying so, but this word salad sounds like something Biden would say. I get the impression that the confusion is intentional. Is anyone able to interpret the liberalese?

        I think “reproductive services” can be translated to “anti-reproductive medical procedures” or simply “abortion”.

        Like

    • thedeti says:

      Guys… Lexet and I told you this would happen.

      We told you so.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Did you miss the part where I said to expect setbacks? This is one of the setbacks you need to expect.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        Jack,

        I have no doubt the Governor’s executive order was reviewed by and probably written by lawyers such that it passes “legal muster” if it gets challenged in court.

        I posted New York’s proposed constitutional amendment which will be voted on in the 2024 general election under DeSantis steadies de sinking ship. The Governor claims the proposed amendment enshrines abortion in the state constitution. There I pointed out that the amendment is confusing because the intent is to enshrine abortion, but it does so without ever mentioning the word abortion. Lawyers claim the proposed amendment was written to pass “legal muster.”

        So what appears to be word salad to us may actually be written that way to withstand legal challenges — that’s my guess.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. locustsplease says:

    They need to get these sexual statistics with a polygraph and at gun point. Not a chance I believe them.

    Liked by 1 person

  13. thedetiforpresident says:

    “Give me what I want, or I will not have sex with you.” Women always scare me with those ones while I drink alone with another woman.

    Like

  14. thedeti says:

    None of this is going to change until men and women both find the stomach and the stones to start holding women accountable. This will stay the same until women are both held accountable and start experiencing real consequences. I don’t see that happening any time soon.

    And I don’t see anyone who has any measure of power or influence who’s both willing and able even to SAY that, much less to DO it. Look at the link at the PJM post up there. Even movers and shakers in the online conservatalkosphere can’t bring themselves even to SAY “Women are murdering their children in utero.”

    They can’t even F’ing SAY it. They sure as hell can’t be trusted to do it. And they won’t.

    Liked by 4 people

    • anonymous_ng says:

      A non-religious friend asked on FB, “Are you willing to jail or execute for murder women who have abortions, and the people who do the procedure?”

      No one would agree.

      Like

      • Bardelys the Magnificent says:

        You’d have to jail or execute half the female population. Nobody is signing up for that task.

        Like

  15. feeriker says:

    “…women … start experiencing real consequences. I don’t see that happening any time soon.”

    They already ARE experiencing “real” consequences, just not those that are brought about by human punitive action. The “consequences” women are experiencing are those that are brought on by the immutable forces of nature. Some examples include sterility (from multiple abortions or STDs), loneliness (from being insufferable, man-hating feminist beeyotches), substance addiction (by-products of the effects of sterility and loneliness, among other factors), and the additional stresses induced by having to cope with problems that women were never designed to cope with, but have insisted on taking on by playing SIW. These are just a few examples that come readily to mind, but there are others.

    We may not see the effects of this at the speed we would like, but women are already suffering natural consequences for their rebelliousness.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      You could be right. I think it’s less loneliness and more of an “inability to find a man and get one to stay with them.” But they can’t connect cause and effect. To women, they see the effect (no relationships) and can’t see the causes (lack of relationship skills, high N, alpha widowhood, having sex with men who won’t commit, and inability/unwillingness to ratchet up attraction to men who will commit).

      T. J. Zuponcic has an important book out in which he talks about the fact that Christians really do believe women just naturally know how to love and care for their men. The erroneous belief is that “Women don’t need to be taught or trained how to have relationships with men — they’re women, so they just know how to do it.” “They’re women, so they just have an innate ability to relate to their men and love them.” The false belief that springs from that is “If a man can’t accept a woman’s love as offered, then it’s his fault. If the relationship isn’t working, it cannot be the man’s fault, because she already knows how to do this. It has to be his fault. He has to learn how to do relationships the woman’s way, because she knows how to do this already and he doesn’t.” The belief is thus that relationship failures are always men’s fault, because they just don’t know how to love or care for people like women do.

      It’s 100% false and toxic, but that belief system has really infiltrated Christian pastoral and ministerial thinking. People really do believe this!

      Liked by 7 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        thedeti – No one can connect cause and effect in their own life with being personally accountable for the outcomes of the decisions they make. This is why modern women need strong men to lovingly tell them the truth about where the choices they are making will take them. The church universal is not doing it.

        Liked by 5 people

      • naturallyaspirated says:

        To women, they see the effect (no relationships) and can’t see the causes (lack of relationship skills, high N, alpha widowhood, having sex with men who won’t commit, and inability/unwillingness to ratchet up attraction to men who will commit

        It’s definitely inability rather than unwillingness. Their desire is not negotiable. When they’ve been told they are are princesses , ridden the cc guilt free, played marriage in several serial relationships and given their sexual youth to men who aren’t going to be their husbands, there is no coming back. There is no way to manufacture desire at that point for the men that you will have to settle for.

        That’s why there’s such a showdown regarding women’s past behavior. Men are increasingly realizing it’s of the upmost importance. Women have no interest in divulging any information and think only insecure men care. Men are increasingly realizing (as they need to) That these women are damaged permanently regarding ability to properly respond as a wife over the course of a marriage.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “The belief is thus that relationship failures are always men’s fault, because they just don’t know how to love or care for people like women do. It’s 100% false and toxic, but that belief system has really infiltrated Christian pastoral and ministerial thinking.”

        You make it sound like that satanic belief system started somewhere other than within the Mother of Harlots and her whoring daughter churches. Do Buddhists or Muslims have mother’s day sermons where they venerate motherhood and the Holiest of holes from whence we all came? Nah! That’s churchians that are spewing that neo-fertility-goddess worship. Is there a Sunday School group for women to teach them how to adorn themselves with shamefacedness? No, not one in the half a million churches in the USA. They’re all too busy teaching women how to esteem themselves more highly and to find the divine (goddess) aspects (their feelings) within themselves.

        Reading through the comments above, it sounds like some of you have thrown out such dastardly accusations about women’s character, that you might even be close to arriving at the biblical truth that women are in fact defilers. LOL, but I’ll patiently wait for y’all, who can’t just take God at His word, to figure that out the hard way, like I did.

        Old Scratch doesn’t often hop up on a hickory stump and offer to make a deal for your soul. Why should he? When he can get you to worship women above God, just like he got Adam to give Eve the worth-ship to be obeyed instead of God. For they exchange the truth of God for a lie; and worship and serve the creature (woman) rather than the Creator.

        The Bible teaches us that it is shameful for women to speak in the assembly of believers, and shameful for women to pray with their heads uncovered like men who bear the image and glory of God. In these matters, does your church disobey God and offend the holy angels to raise up the worth-ship of women instead? The Great Harlot and her whoring daughters have been the defilers of men, drunk with the blood of the holy martyrs, down through the ages, organized religion is not some organization that men are just recently defiling with Feminism. Organized churches are the original Mothers of today’s Feminism spawned from Satan’s seed.

        Liked by 1 person

      • bee123456 says:

        thedeti,

        “T. J. Zuponcic has an important book out in which he talks about the fact that Christians really do believe women just naturally know how to love and care for their men.”

        I have never heard of this author. How did you find this book?

        Like

      • Jack says:

        “I have never heard of this author [T. J. Zuponcic]. How did you find this book?”

        The author is a regular reader here. deti and I have corresponded with him by email and I have quoted his book before.

        This book is quite good. It has all the necessary Red Pill truths, but it’s packaged in language that is friendly to pastors and women.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        Therefore by the power of Christ. May those false “Churches” be shut down. And those who remain faithful remain.

        See how our God in Revelation 1 is in the business of upholding and shutting down Churches.

        Let us pray fervently that God’s will be done in this regard. As much as convincing Men within said churches willing to embrace to truth get out from there or somehow take them over so that the Leadership is truly obedient to Christ. To the Will of God the Father.

        Like

      • rontomlinson2 says:

        I don’t think they ever learn from consequences; they’re not programmed that way! Bad consequences merely cause women to double down on their morality.

        Problem is that the morality is wrong. It’s been corrupted.

        I can’t speak well to the Biblical description, but I do see the male and female reproductive strategies as opponent processes, i.e. they possess different and conflicting goals but when operating together create a functional system. Or at least they used to create one, the trouble being that it hasn’t scaled well.

        When a women is facing uncertainty during an interaction with a male who is claiming authority or additional authority over her then her impulse is to try to humiliate him — provided it seems safe to do so.

        Biologically it makes sense. Other things being equal she needs ‘strong’ genes for her offspring. She knows nothing of the climb ahead and can only test the ropes stretching up the mountainside by tugging as hard as she can on them.

        Trouble is that modern humans increasingly live not only in vastly larger societies but in more and more abstract forms of virtual reality. For example men can substitute videos of women for real women in order to slake their lust. Women can offset their need to care for offspring by walking pet dogs around in prams/strollers.

        Similarly women can enact a desire to ‘stick it to the man’ by means of activism and laws and governmental roles designed to cause real harm to millions of men around the whole country. They can exchange information (i.e. corrupt each other) about increasingly effective ways and attitudes concerning how to do this.

        These are men she’ll never even meet, let alone receive orders or amorous proposals or unwanted attention from. It’s terribly unjust but she is blind to the consequences. The same spirit of rebellion now predominates in the school system so that even young men will learn to ‘stick it to the man’ which of course is even more messed up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        bee,

        I encourage you to get Zuponcic’s book. It’s very well written and has some insights that don’t get talked about much in the Manosphere.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I do see the male and female reproductive strategies as opponent processes, i.e. they possess different and conflicting goals but when operating together create a functional system. Or at least they used to create one, the trouble being that it hasn’t scaled well.”

        Men’s and women’s reproductive strategies are at direct cross purposes.

        Men: Spread the seed as far and wide as possible. Have as much sex as you can with as many women as you can while expending the least amount of resources possible.
        Women: Have sex with the most sexually attractive men she can find, to get the best possible genes for reproduction. Get resources by any means necessary from the men best able to provide them. (The men having the sex and the men providing the resources need not be, and often are not, the same men.)

        Outside God’s design, this is a zero sum game. Someone wins and the other loses. IF the man wins, the woman loses; if the woman wins, the man loses. Before the sex rev in the 1960s, men “won”. After the sex rev, women “won”. And women are still winning. Not only are they winning, they’re on a Sherman’s March to the Sea. Women are absolutely crushing and destroying men in the sexual dynamics / sexual relationship realm, burning to the ground everything in their paths.

        In God’s design, both sides win. She picks the best man she can and accepts him. He fertilizes her often. She gets full unfettered access to his resources for her and her babies, and access to his body for protection. He gets full unfettered access to her body for sex and her industriousness to keep his home and raise his babies. That’s how it works. Both sides win. They don’t win everything, but they win most of what they want, and that’s good enough.

        Men have a social directive and a sexual directive.

        The social directive is to win: To get into a tribe of men; to defeat other tribes, and to take other tribes’ money, land, stuff, and women.
        The sexual directive is to spread the seed: Have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible while expending the least amount of resources possible.

        Women have three directives.

        The prime: To get the best genes for reproduction.
        The secondary: To get resources for her babies and then for herself.
        The tertiary: If she fails in directives 1 and 2, to get resources for herself by any means necessary.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        I have not talked with Mr Zuponcic by email but would welcome the chance to do so. I have interacted with him in comboxes here.

        Like

      • info says:

        @thedeti,

        God’s design was the original blueprint. What you say are exaggerations and distortions of the original manifest pattern that involves the True Authority paired with Responsibility on the part of the Husband, and the submission, obedience, and love of the woman.

        All that is wrong is those normally good tendencies are taken beyond God’s bonds. Because of sin nature.

        Like

  16. Pingback: Pandora’s Pendulum | Σ Frame

  17. feeriker says:

    “Anyway, women who have to make such a long trip will have to endure at least 5 hours of introspection before they can get an abortion.”

    “Women” and “introspection” are 180-degree polar opposites.

    Liked by 3 people

    • rontomlinson2 says:

      Yes, and as Jack pointed out, a woman relies on a man’s frame for redemptive introspection. If she’s getting an abortion, then either she’s not listening to him or he is not doing enough introspection…

      Like

  18. Pingback: Infiltrating the Minds of the Masses through Suspension of Disbelief and Social Catharsis/Cathexis | Σ Frame

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

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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