Against sexual consent

Castalia house has produced an excellent booklet “Safe Space as Rape Room” 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I, II, III.

Which documents how the fetishization of consent allowed gay science fiction authors to prey upon young boys attracted to science fiction fandom.

In other words, a pedophile with the Delany mindset is given carte blanche under the Scalzi-endorsed code to attract children “desperate to establish some sort of sexual relation with an…adult figure” for invited sexual and physical attention.

“Why? Because I want my friends and fans to be able to come to a convention and feel assured that the convention is making the effort to be a safe place for them.” – John Scalzi

Scalzi’s desire for his friends’ and fans’ safe place becomes a nightmare if just one of those friends or fans happens to be a molester like fellow SFWA member Ed Kramer, who attracted children to his hotel room at the conventions he ran.

When we came down from the trees, children and females were dependent on males for protection from predators, and males were dependent on each other.  Contrary to Locke’s original state of nature, we were not distant and equal, but instead close and unequal.

Chimps and men are unusual among apes in that we hunt, and unusual among mammals in that we make war.  Lions and hyenas are instinctively and permanently at war, but conflicts between lions are normally one on one, and at most one pair of brothers against another pair of brothers.  Chimps, on the other hand, while mostly at peace with neighboring tribes of chimps, are frequently at war, and these wars often total and genocidal.  Since chimps and men are omnivorous killer apes, it is a good bet that the common ancestor of chimps and men were omnivorous killer apes.

When our ancestors first came down from the trees and out of the forest onto the plains, they could not walk or run very fast or far, and to this day, we are lousy sprinters compared to almost any predator.  So, our ancestors avoided being eaten by being the meanest sons of bitches on the plains, with a team of killer apes using their superior ability to cooperate and coordinate against a team of lions.

Under these circumstances, it is unlikely that women got any opportunity to consent to sex or refuse sex.  It is also unlikely that females were shared, as this would undermine group cohesion.  Yes, the male penis is shaped to scoop out competing sperm, but the male hands are designed for a more permanent and final solution to sperm competition.  In the trees, females could screw around because they did not need male protection, and because meat was less important in the trees.  On the plains it would likely be a really bad idea for a female to wander out of sight of her owner.  Human and chimp males are both shaped for violence, but human males arguably more shaped for violence than chimp males.  Humans are more sexually dimorphic than chimps, and the dimorphisms all bear a fairly obvious relationship to the capability for violence.  Almost every human male can easily subdue almost any human female.  This is not true among chimps.

The ancestors of men, the omnivorous killer apes that came down to the plains, survived because they loved their comrades and cooperated well.  And the main thing that they cooperated to do was to slay their enemies.  Humans are more specialized for cooperation than chimps, for example the whites of our eyes that make it easy to accurately tell what direction a human is looking.  Our ancestors were, compared to most other creatures, and compared to chimpanzees, loyal, good, and kind – good to and kind to their comrades – brutal and deadly to everything else.

Consent does not make sex right. Nor does lack of consent make sex wrong. Lots of societies have arranged marriages, and some societies have marriage by abduction. Women seem to like such marriages just fine.

In the early settlement of Australia, the authorities regularly applied shotgun marriage on a large scale, and often assigned a woman to a man without bothering with the formality of marriage or any pretense at female consent, and it does not seem to have led to any difficulties. Whereas porn stars give carefully recorded consent to everything, and usually wind up badly disturbed by all the disgusting things they consented to.

Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved.  And women are not much better at making the decision at thirty than at ten.

72 Responses to “Against sexual consent”

  1. mkb says: One of your premises is wrong, so your argument is wrong.

    • jim says:

      The ability to keep after prey till it drops is not the ability to outrun a predator.

  2. Ahote says:

    Once again Robert E. Howard gets it better than the academics:

    “I mean my characters are more like men than these real men are, see. They’re rough and rude, they got hands and they got bellies. They hate and they lust; break the skin of civilization and you find the ape, roaring and red-handed.”

  3. peppermint says:

    » 1980s – Two senior Dr. Who staffers use their position to sexually exploit young male fans of the children’s television show.

    o/t, but I finally have a talking point to use when people gibber excitedly about Dr. Who

  4. Koanic says:

    “Chimpanzees exhibit sexual dimorphism—adult males are nearly 50 percent larger than females, while in humans the males and females are nearly the same size.”

    Not sure where Jim gets his claim that chimps are less sexually dimorphic.

    For a good example of patriarchal monkeys, see Hamadryas baboons. Also warlike.

    On the other hand, matriarchal Barbary macaques are not warlike.

    Aboriginal promiscuity contradicts Jim’s monogamy thesis.

    The evo psych reasoning is good but the details on the ground may differ.

    • Ray Manta says:

      Koanic says:
      >“Chimpanzees exhibit sexual dimorphism—adult males are nearly 50 percent larger than females, while in humans the males and females are nearly the same size.”

      > Not sure where Jim gets his claim that chimps are less sexually dimorphic.

      Here’s a link to a discussion I had with Julian O’Dea about sexual dimorphism in humans. The conclusion was that it was a mixed bag. Size dimorphism in humans is quite low compared to most of our near cousins, but on other measures, such as upper-body muscularity, it’s very high.

    • peppermint says:

      Jim is, as usual, ignoring the uniqueness of the White race, so when you read his stories about human evolution, just remember that he is referring to AMH, the anthropological term for niggers.

    • jim says:

      Aboriginal promiscuity reflects white progressives suppressing propertisation of women among aboriginals living on welfare in government provided housing.

      Where do you get the evidence that aboriginals were promiscuous before they lived in government housing?

      • peppermint says:

        Circumstantial evidence that niglets were not looked after as much as children of the human races and that nigger sows were used to being strong independent women who don’t need no man.

        I don’t know how the injuns decided what genes go into the next generation and I’m assuming that Napoleon Chagnon wouldn’t have said if they had honor killings.

  5. Oh god says:

    >he strongly believes and is attached to the first, and most costly of contemporary errors; the belief that woman is human
    Edgy faggot spotted
    Noted: Being an edgy teenager is very different from being a reactionary

    • jim says:

      He who believes women are capable of being equal to men is making a huge mistake that will adversely affect his life in the same way it affected Elliot Roger’s life.

      My personal experience is that women like a man who internalizes patriarchy, who treats them like kittens. That women like a man who feels entitled to command them, use them, and exploit them. That women want to be owned.

    • Minion says:

      Anyone unironically holding pre-enlightenment values and mores will be viewed as an edgelord in modern times.

      Pre-modern man did not view women as “human” in the way we usually think of it. They did not let women vote, have political power, engage in politics, or otherwise let her pursue personal fulfillment (except if it coincided with being a good wife and mother).

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      You should have critiqued him on his contextually vapid anti-Christian rhetoric, since it’s completely untenable.


      • peppermint says:

        He’s right that today’s cuckstains believe things about women and sexuality that are expressly rejected in the the Bible, and things that were not believed before the demon Gutenberg and Martin Lucifer let that faggot ((Jesus)) (such a twinkletoes he walked on water) out of the Bible

  6. Xavi' says:

    The consternation, trepidation, astonishment at Jim’s post displayed by the self proclaimed Alpha shows that in the deepest recesses of his mind he strongly believes and is attached to the first, and most costly of contemporary errors; the belief that woman is human. This is followed only by the Christian, who believes she has a soul, despite his book plainly telling him, the breath of life was never gifted to the base halfling.

    • Bo says:

      This is why debating sociology doesn’t work when you’ve got evolutionists and Christians in the mix.

    • Alan J. Perrick says:


      Your typical anti-Christian sneering is duly noted and discarded.

    • Epimetheus says:

      that’s an interesting and provocative thing to say. Can you go into any detail?

    • AE says:

      If women are not human, then of what species are they? Leaving aside rare cases of hybridization, if a male member of a species sexually reproduces, he must do so with a female member of the same species.

  7. […] markets (the natalist angle). Poseidon on fire (1, 2, 3, 4). “Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved” (hardcore). Survive […]

  8. […] markets (the natalist angle). Poseidon on fire (1, 2, 3, 4). “Sex is far too important to be left to the decision of those directly involved” (hardcore). […]

  9. Alan J. Perrick says:

    One more of those words that was relegated to the “wrong side of history” was, of course, _wedlock_.

  10. Jack Highlands says:

    It would be interesting to know when the human ‘scooping glans’ developed, because my understanding is that neither common chimps nor bonobos have it (a priori, one might expect it in bonobos).

    The semen scoop hypothesis is not the only one purported to explain the shape of the human glans, but IMO it’s the best one so far.

    If true, it implies doggy-style ruled in the period when it evolved, since the scoop faces the cervix in that position, not the frontal.

    But I don’t need a primatologist to tell me it rules. Heh.

  11. Bo says:


    So is your daughter going to listen to/obey you? Is she a virgin, or has she been pierced already?

  12. viking says:

    LOL JIM as alpha as they come and a natural reactionary from my teens in the 60s a life long and proud male chauvinist pig but sometimes jim I wonder if youre not playing to the little bitter neck beards that never got any. Im a father now and I have no qualms about assigning my daughter a husband but ordering a society where shes at risk if i am not nearby is a hard sell to even me.
    I think this is a very complicated topic I agree with you [when youre not being full on ISIS] that somewhere like pre victorian england is a place to start,but can the upper class thing be scaled? pre war america? And do you think giving every beta a wife might be what created pajama boy? I would say gene editing would help that but its more likely to acerbate it.
    lefties finds victims creating victims invites leftism so I think answers need to be found everyone will be happy with unless we can be sure this is not possible that we have evolved or women have evolved incompatibly with current environment in which case we might as well consider crispr stepford wives because thats more likely to e adopted than being allowed to knock them out and carry them off, a lot of our problems socially seem yo be caused by exactly that our genes no longer serve.

    • jim says:

      The mid 1790s of Australian settlement were not all that far from full ISIS, and they kept records of punishments and discipline issues. Victorian and modern historians are horrified, and view the women as ultra super extreme sexually exploited and horrifyingly sexually oppressed, though there is good evidence that Australian norms were pretty similar to English norms of the time, but with more record keeping, making it more obvious what was going on. Modern historians have carefully gone through those records looking and looking for poster girl evidence that women were unhappy about their supposed sexual oppression, have not come up with any poster girls.

      The same patriarchal authority that assigns her to some man’s bed, also guarantees a warm bed, a man in that bed, and that man a man who must look after her and protect her. All the evidence is that women under such strong authority found this authority rather comforting and the resulting sex mighty hot.

      A woman who has the option of defecting means that she is more likely to be defected upon. Observe PUAs arguing for spinning plates as the alternative to mate guarding and as a pre-emptive strike against being cuckolded. Thus in the environment of evolutionary adaption, a woman will reproduce more successfully if her man believes she is stuck with him. Thus a woman subject to coercion that sticks her to one man is likely to reproduce more successfully than one who is free to defect. Thus evolutionary psychology predicts that women really do not mind sexual coercion, and find this form of sexual coercion, that guarantees she is looked after, rather comforting, that resistance to sexual coercion is essentially a shit test, rather than genuinely serious.

      • Art says:

        “The mid 1790s of Australian settlement were not all that far from full ISIS, and they kept records of punishments and discipline issues. Victorian and modern historians are horrified, and view the women as ultra super extreme sexually exploited and horrifyingly sexually oppressed, though there is good evidence that Australian norms were pretty similar to English norms of the time…”

        British inhabitants of 1790s Australia were selected for their inability to fit into the British society, which I think makes it a poor model to extrapolate to the British society in general, as well as most other societies for that matter.

        • jim says:

          As I said, we have substantial evidence that England was pretty similar in its treatment of women. It is just that with intact families, dad took care of problem females, which did not generate the embarrassing records that the Australian authorities generated.

          Wards, wealthy orphaned females, got treatment that was more elaborate and dignified, but nonetheless pretty similar to that which convict women got.

          • nemo says:

            > [W]e have substantial evidence

            Links to such evidence for the curious reader, s’il vous plait?

            • jim says:

              I don’t have any links at hand. Google information about wards and guardians in the eighteenth century. Bottom line is that orphaned eighteenth century daughters of wealthy families got treatment not very different to Australian female convicts, except that they were shotgun married to wealthy men, rather than convicts. There was a presumption that fertile age women simply had to be under male authority, and if for some reason this was not happening, the state would, in the case of wealthy families, step in and make it so.

              What happened to poor orphans and fatherless women is not clear, but one cannot conclude from the absence of records that everything was done the way it was in the twentieth century.

              Where we have records, the records of the Australian settlement, they gave Islamic State a run.

          • peppermint says:

            how about novels written by women that describe this as obvious and unremarkable?

    • Alan J. Perrick says:

      “X” marks the spot, as far as Stepford is concerned.


    • jim says:

      thats more likely to be adopted than being allowed to knock them out and carry them off,

      There are existing societies where you can get away with carrying them off, provided you and your family make a very public commitment to sticking with them and raising your kids.

      There is also likely to be a severe and lengthy collapse of order in the near future. We are likely to find ourselves in an environment where you can knock them out and carry them off, and then the forces of order will be trying to change that environment to an environment where you are not supposed to knock them out, and can only get away with carrying them off if you promise to keep them.

      • viking says:

        despite the quadrillion in credit default swaps , the demographic collapse and invasion,The taunting of russia and china and islam etc etc I do not think it likely the cathedral will collapse i think any near collapse like events will be siezed on by them as an excuse to up the security apparatus.There is a small chance of a civil war breaking out but if reactionary forces are not prepared it will be crushed quickly.but yeah sure if we reverted to thunderdome the women would act like aussie sl;uts its our evolutionary default the problem is it doesnt work in a modern world, we need the best of both worlds and wishing it wont make it so. also im not sure your description of the premodern default was so universl my limited understanding is celtic and germanic societies had pretty advanced feminism.this may be in our blood like i think democracy is. Thats not to say it still serves but it argues that it may not be able to be easilly socialized away and alternatives found to edit it out or workarounds. The cathyedral has a wonderful workaround for democracy cradle to grave propaganda and potemkin democracy the poroblen is the cathedral system is put to eveil use. now imagine taking over the cathedral and using its ministry of truth for reactionary ends. women are more suceptable to this aparatus because more social you might be able to re creatre a permanent cusp of the victorian with enough cunt control and yet modern enough to function highly

        • jim says:

          my limited understanding is celtic and germanic societies had pretty advanced feminism

          Feminists find feminism everywhere. The Romans reported that the German husband had power of life and death over his wife.

          Eighteenth century system in the English speaking world was severely patriarchal.

          It was not until the late nineteenth century, 1891 that it became illegal for a husband to administer corporal punishment to his wife, and this law was so severely at odds with custom and nature that it was quietly ignored and only very selectively enforced up till around the 1960s.

          The current system is absolutely contrary to human nature, leading me to believe that the old, eighteenth century, system could be reintroduced with not a dog barking.

    • Dave says:

      “I have no qualms about assigning my daughter a husband but ordering a society where shes at risk if i am not nearby is a hard sell to even me.”

      Take it as a given that your daughter is at risk if you are not nearby; this will only get worse as diversity floods into the former First World. It doesn’t help that she’s exposed to 24/7 media propaganda that she has a right to go anywhere she wants and you’re a tyrant because you won’t let her have any fun.

      If there’s any good to come from mass Third World immigration, it’s that girls and women will be forced to stay home and make babies because the streets are too dangerous for them.

      • viking says:

        I do take it as a given that my daughter is at risk as you point out in your contradictory comment it is not possible to keep them home., the proposal to adopt the nigger morality strikes me as missing the point since we are daydreaming of impossible things it costs no more to dream of eradicating the you think they will be less dangerous when kidnap is legal.

      • Oliver Cromwell says:

        White fertility in South Africa is below replacement.

    • Minion says:

      “I wonder if youre not playing to the little bitter neck beards that never got any. ”


      • viking says:

        Hit a sore spot ?

        • Minion says:



          And anyway, beta shaming and virgin shaming are the preserve of feminists and other roastie dominated circles(Belying their supposed commitment to fairness and equality). It has no place in the alt and reactionary right.

          One of the problems that gender equality has produced is that it has created large gaps in intra-male equality, separating alphas (desirable by women- they fuck for free or even get paid for it), betas (who pay- either in money or commitment- for sex, and sexless omegas. When women were secluded (except prostitutes who fucked anyone for a small price), men saw no need to judge one another over their sexual desirability to women.

          • viking says:

            LOL just fucking with you miniman bros before hos, I actually think they really are stupid when they pass over a really nice guy in favor of some cad,Its usually the betas fault though all that fawning has made them think they are actually all that and have a chance of capturing the cad.Alphas are never gping to consider a slut as girlfriend material its not just our wider choices and lessened need for a girlfriend we really know women read them like a book they cant really fool us often. If youre still fairly young and rreally having no luck i suggest you move to the country the northwest the women are not shallow well the good ones better join a church.

    • Minion says:

      “ordering a society where shes at risk if i am not nearby is a hard sell to even me.”
      whether she is slutting it up consensually or getting raped, it doesnt matter, since she is fucking guys not her husband. And she will slut around if you are not nearby to guard her chastity.

      At least the Arabs are now teaching Eurocucks the wisdom behind Islamic gender roles. #rapistswelcome

      “And do you think giving every beta a wife might be what created pajama boy?”
      Pajama boys are created due to liberal laws and mores discouraging disciplining of children. In traditional Muslim societies (where every beta gets a wife and causual sex is verbotten), children emotionally matured very quickly, since parents made sure to discipline them.

      And dont think that alphas can’t be manchildren either. Tons of effeminate guys with game still pull tons of puss. Just read whatever Roissy has to say about gay and bisexual men having natural game.

      • viking says:

        betas beget betas the pua you describe are not alphas they run from alphas they are attempting to mimic alphas behavior thus these sites.The social pressures you allude to are th beta created social pressures that exacerbate the beta genes.Im not certain we should do away with the recent development of sharing with alphas it has some advantages,but it does lead to massive faggotry.One way would be to keep it for a generation while we crispr all the kids with alpha sperm parts so we are pure alpha from then on, another is we wipe out all competitive races so alpha is not so important.

        • jim says:

          PUAs attempt to reverse engineer what turns women on.

          Turns out that what turns women on is antisocial cad behavior.

          Conclusion: Restrain women’s sexual choices.

          Don’t attempt to restrain men from giving women what they want. Restrain women from getting what they want.

          • Eli says:

            Don’t restrain wiithin the limit of other law (like against stealing, banditry, blasphemy etc)?

          • Eli says:

            In the process of impressing/obtaining a woman, man can engage in those activities. I’m trying to understand how broad the “don’t attempt to restrain” call is.

            • jim says:

              Men will do whatever gets them pussy. If prosocial men get all the pussy, men will be prosocial.

          • Eli says:

            This statement is factually/descriptively true.

            My question was about normative truth: how things ought to be. Since your statement had normative aspect to it, and that you are pro pro-social arrangement of society as driver of its expansion, I am assuming it could be modified without loss of original intent:

            “Within limits of other criminal and civil law, don’t attempt to restrain men from giving women what they want. Restrain women from getting what they want.”

        • Minion says:

          >betas beget betas
          Betas, in a patriarchal society, are pretty strong and masculine, so its not a problem. Betas tend to conform to social norms, and if those norms call for men to be masculine, they will conform to masculinity.

          Plus, being a beta provider is not a bad deal if the law demands that women submit to their husbands and women cannot initiate divorce. Its only in feminist society in which betas are fucked over.

          And the fact remains that the men women choose to fuck are hardly masculine by traditional standards. Or else hipsters, most musicians, and bisexuals would not be drowning in pussy. Conversly, we have strong and masculine men who are sexless (eg gymcels). Alpha-fucking is hardly eugenic.

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          “Alphas” were selected out for the same reason low IQ was selected out. Their traits are not good for large organised societies. Current trends are bringing them back which isn’t good for anyone, it’s the problem not the solution. Betas emulating alpha traits to get women is socially useful and a bandage on the wound. The fundamental problem though is that women are wired to find destructive traits attractive because selection pressures haven’t been operating long enough to make a drone operator sexier than a guy who can hit someone over the head real hard with a fire extinguisher. The drone operator is better for the woman individually and is more useful to the tribe but women are wired for a society in which fire extinguisher guy is more useful. It’s not their fault, it’s primal, but it’s all our problem.

          • Eli says:


          • peppermint says:

            anally irritated leftoid detected

            prescription: get some ointment from CVS and watch more Donald Trump videos

            dae getting away with violence in your personal life is the getting away with violence that matters for protecting your personal children?

          • Eli says:

            “Beta male” does not mean “non-violent” in humans, in the same way that it does not mean the same in wolves or other hierarchical species.

          • peppermint says:

            p. sure alpha means the socially dominant reproductive strategy, and beta means the next most socially dominant reproductive strategy

            which are either marriage and faggotry, or faggotry and marriage

        • Oliver Cromwell says:

          btw, mens’ primal selection is also dysgenic. Men will take hot bimbos over plain university professors or doctors every time. I wouldn’t be surprised if the main driver of destruction of traditional courtship was high status mens’ jealous of their servants and drivers getting to marry hot bimbos while they are forced to marry someone of equivalent status for social reasons. Current free-for-all lets them fuck bimbos for a few years or decades before choosing a better woman to settle down with.

          This is less harmful to men individual because longer fertility window but it’s still harmful to society.

          • jim says:

            I like smart women. I don’t like women who think they are higher socioeconomic status than me (the notorious lawyercunt, or the journalist with elevated perceptions of her social status despite being paid with the smell of an oil rag)

            Women should not be competing with men in that status game, and if they do, it shows bad character. Lawyercunts usually have sex lives that are more depraved than truck stop strippers.

          • Minion says:

            Actually, female intelligence isnt as valuable to a patriarchal society. We dont need women to be scientists and doctors, we need them to be pretty and make babies.

            And in a sane society, men would not be fucking around with bimbos. They would be married to them and making children with them.

          • Oliver Cromwell says:

            We need children to be intelligent.

          • Kgaard says:

            Intelligence and beauty correlate positively, so this choice between the professor and bimbo is actually somewhat false. I can’t remember the details, but it’s something like this: Women basically store their children’s IQ points on their hips, so a lower waist/hip ratio means both a hotter daughter AND a smarter one.

          • peppermint says:

            and since intelligence and beauty are components of SMV, within a given SMV range, it’s a tradeoff you’ll need to consider

          • Kgaard says:

            Well that’s sort of true but perhaps not entirely: over a certain IQ, say 130, women’s SMV ceases to correlate positively with IQ. She becomes more difficult for men to deal with and tends to get more reclusive. Thus there is definitely a better value proposition at the high-end of the female IQ range if you yourself are 130+. I don’t even bother with sub-125s anymore for precisely this reason.

            • jim says:

              I don’t think that is true. Highly educated women, women who play the male status game, are bad women, the lawyercunt being the classic and extreme example. Smart women 130+, are great. On the other hand, unwise to go with a woman smarter than oneself, just as it would be unwise to go with a woman stronger than oneself.

          • Kgaard says:

            Yeah I’ve seen both sides of this, so valid point. All I can say is I can’t really deal with sub-120s anyway and I am more than happy to be in front of a 150. So that’s the ground I work. Back in the late 90s and early 00s I got raked over the coals by a 120 in her late 20s into her 30s. She was, as you say, playing the male status game and at the time I didn’t have any. So that did not go well. Things went better with other women. Said 120 is now a cat lady in NYC. I know several like her.

            Part of the issue here is that they, like me, just didn’t have a full picture of the situation back then. No historical perspective. We were all being used as cannon fodder by the feminist-industrial complex, and were so immersed in it that we couldn’t see it. So I have sympathy now for the 120 and her ilk — even though there is no question a streak of evil ran through her in those years.

          • peppermint says:

            In my experience, highly intelligent women do believe the insane things they are required to believe, just like highly intelligent men, however, women don’t believe things in the same way men do. Instead, the most beautiful, intelligent women put less effort into acting like men want them to act.

            And since people are nice to them, they are very pleasant. Even if they say, I am a nasty bitch feminazi lesbian, or whatever they believe they are required to say.

            If not the prettiest, they are not butthurt about it, since butthurt is not in the nature of women. They accept it and do what they can, while occasionally loudly claiming that they are butthurt.

            As ((Gloria Steinem)) noted, it is the not particularly intelligent or ugly women who vote for Sanders because the cute boys they see as gettable are talking about voting for Sanders.

            Of course, to discover this about the beautiful, intelligent women, one must have some reason to interact with them. Otherwise, they will politely refuse to interact, which is often taken badly by men, or, men act like they take it badly. But here again the exceptionally beautiful and intelligent women have an advantage – they can afford to be polite, since they will not lose status by contact with the average man, and don’t need to be worried about the man getting angry, because the man won’t lose status by being rejected.

    • Bo says:

      There will be no long term ordering of a society.
      If the collapse arrives then the size of damn near everyone’s society will be reduced to their family and allies within effective rifle range.

      In such circumstances it’s plainly obvious that your daughter is not going to be going out clubbing.

      It will take generations for the dust to settle, and only the most wary/authoritarian people will survive.

      Charles Darwin will have his day, and pajama boy’s nature and nurture will become a matter for the social historians.

Leave a Reply