The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: Sluts

Scott, good progressive that he is, is horrified by the fact that reactionaries use the word “sluts” and feels that reactionaries are being illogical and inconsistent to endorse different standards for different genders. Which argument, like all his arguments, presupposes that men and women are exactly alike and everyone knows this and believes it.   So it is completely unnecessary for him to bother producing any argument for the proposition that men and women are alike.

Scott cannot believe that reactionaries say what they say and mean what they mean, and assures us that reactionaries do not really think that different standards apply to men than to women, and different standards should apply.  That would just be too awful even for reactionaries to think!

He piously explains that now that we have contraception and all that, there is no longer any reason for the old fashioned view of sluts.

He seems to have failed to notice that we have approximately fifty percent fatherlessness, (illegitimacy plus early divorce) and fatherlessness is strongly correlated with very bad outcomes for children – and civilizations.

Without posterity, soldiers will not fight, businessmen will not invest, and leaders will steal instead of lead.  The big problem with sluttiness is not disease.  The big problem is that without security of paternity, men will not invest in the the future, and thus, civilizations without security of paternity disappear from history.

Which is why society as a whole should penalize sluts. Sluts cause collective externalities far more serious than tobacco smokers.  Because of the grave and great externalities produced by sluts, they should be taxed and penalized, like tobacco smokers, only at considerably higher rates, rather than subsidized, and subjected to official shaming and exclusion similar to that applied to tobacco smokers, only more severe.

Marry a slut, you will likely get divorced: alimony, charges of child abuse, lose your children.

Which is why men as individuals should discriminate against sluts.  Sluts are dangerous and hurtful to the men in their lives, which is why you should bang them but stay out of their lives.

You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl.  Because a girl can have sex with a much more desirable man than she can marry or have a relationship with, if she has slept with thirty men before you, she has slept with thirty men who were handsomer than you, richer than you, have bigger tools than you, more self confident and socially skilled than you, but since those guys did not return her calls the morning after, and she realizes she is now running out of eggs, since she is having a lot fewer abortions than she used to, she has decided to reluctantly settle for you.

And then, of course, there are those infamous open relationships, or polyamorous relationships, where you get to sleep on the couch, and clean up the love stains on the main bed. Polyamory resembles a Sultan’s harem. One sultan, lots of eunuchs. If a girl tells you she wants an open relationship, you are not the sultan.

If a woman decides on the option for casual sex, she will have casual sex with a man who is a lot more desirable than any man she has a relationship with, or is likely to be able to have a relationship with.  So you should not be that guy that has a relationship with that girl.  Sluts are good only for pump and dump, because any man that they can have a relationship with, they will despise.

For men, there is an equivalent to a girl being easy.  If a man who wants to marry young, reveals that he wants to marry young, no woman will want him.  Women despise men who are eager to have a relationship, even good women despise men who are eager to have a relationship, just as men despise women who are eager to have sex.  If you are a man who wants to marry a good woman, you need to marry young.  If you want to marry young, cultivate your inner dark triad, and let her believe she miraculously tamed the wild one.  Taming the lovem and leavem cad is what women want, as marrying a virgin is what men want.  So you are not going to marry a virgin, if the virgin girl thinks you are a virgin also.  The double standard works both ways.  Men like virgins, women don’t like virgins.  That includes supposedly Christian women.  Perhaps especially Christian women.

The male equivalent of a slut is a man who is looking for a relationship with a woman.  Women instantly despise him, as men instantly despise a woman who is looking for a quick bang.  So, if you are looking to marry a virgin (which you should), don’t let it be known.  Instead let it be known that you are looking to pop a virgin to add to your notch count.

Sluts are bad for civilization, and bad for individual men, so men do not like them, and should not like them.

Rakes, however, men who sleep with lots of women, men who have sex rather than relationships with women … women do like them.  Everyone admires the man who has sex with lots of women, because that is hard, while everyone despises the woman that has sex with lots of men, because that is easy.


32 Responses to “The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: Sluts”

  1. […] James Donald: slutty sluts […]

  2. […] Jim Donald, “The Anti-Anti Reactionary FAQ” (Series, Part 1, 2, 3, 4, Sluts, War and Democide, […]

  3. Michael Kors is such a pretty!

  4. […] – Feminizam kao forma puritanizma. Moderno krš?anstvo kao poligon za širenje ljevi?arske socijalne patologije. Na istoj liniji s The Thinkig Housewife, Jim nam govori koja je cijena antisocijalnog ponašanja: […]

  5. […] Anti-anti-reactionary FAQ: Sluts. […]

  6. Zach says:


    “Without posterity, soldiers will not fight, businessmen will not invest, and leaders will steal instead of lead. The big problem with sluttiness is not disease. The big problem is that without security of paternity, men will not invest in the the future, and thus, civilizations without security of paternity disappear from history.”

    I’d argue that the word “posterity” means so many things and can take on so many manifestations in one context or another. Thus, insights gained can be somewhat vague without more detail.

    But the blog – in totality – has sufficient amount of detail, so…

  7. Zach says:

    Scott advertises not reading a comment section. My cynicism might also endorse this, but I quite value the comment section here and elsewhere.

    Sluts are like whip cream or ice cream. Indulge responsibly.

  8. Rex Carpenter says:

    Don’t know many grown women, do you, boy?

  9. […] You can take the girl out of the bar, but you cannot take the bar out of the girl. Because a girl ca… […]

  10. Rollory says:

    “different standards for different genders”

    Words have gender. People have sex.

    The purpose of this obfuscation and replacement of meaning is that sex is too clearly tied to a binary difference. 20 or so years ago there was an attempt (I particularly recall an article in the Atlantic that tried to claim that there are in fact five equally valid human sexes, basing their argument off of chromosomal abnormalities and abnormalities in gential phenotype expression. Even as a kid, it struck me as obvious nonsense) to redefine sex to fit the political objectives, but it seems to been too impossible a stretch. Gender, being less clearly tied to actual biology, apparently is easier. They can redefine it such that male-male homosexuality, female-female homosexuality, various types of tranny insanity, and other aberrations of nature can each be called a distinct and separate gender, and thus claim equality and validity and all the other crap.

  11. […] The anti-anti reactionary FAQ: Sluts « Jim’s Blog […]

  12. Thales says:


  13. dnf says:

    Off topic: Hey Jim, can you give a list of sites you make comments? Your arguments it’s always a good read.

    • jim says:

      By the time I realize I am making a lot of comments at a site, I have usually stopped and am making a lot of comments at some other site.

      Currently commenting on where a bunch of Christians are having discussion which seems to strangely presuppose that Christian Churches still exist, and that these churches care about doctrinal differences.

      Not, however, making contact. They are discussing ecumenism between organizations that died between 1957 and 1964.

      The conversation is not going anywhere. It is reminiscent of the dead parrot skit:

      Owner: We’re closin’ for lunch.

      Mr. Praline: Never mind that, my lad. I wish to complain about this parrot what I purchased not half an hour ago from this very boutique.

      Owner: Oh yes, the, uh, the Norwegian Blue…What’s,uh…What’s wrong with it?

      Mr. Praline: I’ll tell you what’s wrong with it, my lad. ‘E’s dead, that’s what’s wrong with it!

      Owner: No, no, ‘e’s uh,…he’s resting.

      Mr. Praline: Look, matey, I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now.

      Owner: No no he’s not dead, he’s, he’s restin’! Remarkable bird, the Norwegian Blue, idn’it, ay? Beautiful plumage!

      Mr. Praline: The plumage don’t enter into it. It’s stone dead.

      Owner: Nononono, no, no! ‘E’s resting!

      Mr. Praline: All right then, if he’s restin’, I’ll wake him up! (shouting at the cage) ‘Ello, Mister Polly Parrot! I’ve got a lovely fresh cuttle fish for you if you show…

      (owner hits the cage)

      Owner: There, he moved!

      Mr. Praline: No, he didn’t, that was you hitting the cage!

      Owner: I never!!

      Mr. Praline: Yes, you did!

      Owner: I never, never did anything…

      Mr. Praline: (yelling and hitting the cage repeatedly) ‘ELLO POLLY!!!!! Testing! Testing! Testing! Testing! This is your nine o’clock alarm call!

      (Takes parrot out of the cage and thumps its head on the counter. Throws it up in the air and watches it plummet to the floor.)

      Mr. Praline: Now that’s what I call a dead parrot.

      Owner: No, no…..No, ‘e’s stunned!

      Mr. Praline: STUNNED?!?

      Owner: Yeah! You stunned him, just as he was wakin’ up! Norwegian Blues stun easily, major.

      Mr. Praline: Um…now look…now look, mate, I’ve definitely ‘ad enough of this. That parrot is definitely deceased, and when I purchased it not ‘alf an hour ago, you assured me that its total lack of movement was due to it bein’ tired and shagged out following a prolonged squawk.

      Owner: Well, he’s…he’s, ah…probably pining for the fjords.

      Mr. Praline: PININ’ for the FJORDS?!?!?!? What kind of talk is that?, look, why did he fall flat on his back the moment I got ‘im home?

      Owner: The Norwegian Blue prefers keepin’ on it’s back! Remarkable bird, id’nit, squire? Lovely plumage!

      Mr. Praline: Look, I took the liberty of examining that parrot when I got it home, and I discovered the only reason that it had been sitting on its perch in the first place was that it had been NAILED there.


      Owner: Well, o’course it was nailed there! If I hadn’t nailed that bird down, it would have nuzzled up to those bars, bent ’em apart with its beak, and VOOM! Feeweeweewee!

      Mr. Praline: “VOOM”?!? Mate, this bird wouldn’t “voom” if you put four million volts through it! ‘E’s bleedin’ demised!

      Owner: No no! ‘E’s pining!

      Mr. Praline: ‘E’s not pinin’! ‘E’s passed on! This parrot is no more! He has ceased to be! ‘E’s expired and gone to meet ‘is maker! ‘E’s a stiff! Bereft of life, ‘e rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed ‘im to the perch ‘e’d be pushing up the daisies! ‘Is metabolic processes are now ‘istory! ‘E’s off the twig! ‘E’s kicked the bucket, ‘e’s shuffled off ‘is mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! THIS IS AN EX-PARROT!!

    • Zach says:

      Agreed. I’d be curious as well on a weekly basis.

      • Zach says:

        Jim you have a good filter. Brought a few brahs here, then you commented on some confusion of their dialogue. Perhaps suspecting they are retards, and you have something better to do?

        In the end, you were nonsensical, but I know why you were. They didn’t. ha!

  14. rightsaidfred says:

    Jim: the purveyor of utter and total truth.

    But I don’t think society at large wants the truth. They’d rather believe a lie and go extinct.

    • Alice Teller says:

      As more young women are exposed to the harsh reality as explained here perhaps things will change. Girls have been indoctrinated since childhood in unreality. Reality is closing in.

      • rightsaidfred says:


        But by the time they awake, they will have ceded their future to others.

        • David says:

          Not so sure about that. As they see that 30+ women and single moms are failing in large numbers to attract any decent man, the smarter ones will see that times are changed and adjust to the current reality.

          Their older “sisters” will lie to them, in an attempt to break more men free for themselves and out of pure bitchiness, but I don’t see a lot of women trusting each other lately either.

          • fsdaf says:

            I think women may catch on. I posted a reactionary relationship model on facebook, and a few women in my social circle mentioned to me that they agreed with it/found it convincing, even if they would not like it openly. Then again that was a church social circle, most women would not be as receptacle.

  15. Handle says:

    I like the key-lock joke.

    Men are keys and women are locks.
    A key that can open any lock? That’s an awesome key!
    A lock that opens for any key? What a worthless lock!

  16. thinkingabout it says:

    NNT is a great thinker, check out his facebook page. Some truly intellectually stimulating discussion there. And likely very reactionary in his beliefs. He supported Ron Paul, I recall. Reading through his books you often find yourself nodding along.
    This is a great article by Jim. I am in this very situation. One thing to be added however is that not all of us can be rakes or cads, some (in fact most men) are destined to be the losers in the sexual race. Many will land up with a used up skank who has been ripped apart by a dozen massive cocks.
    The sexual free market may be bad for women but it is a disaster for the vast majority of men – since by definition the majority of men are not alphas.
    It is quite sad and painful to realize. Just yesterday had a girl stolen from me in front of my eyes by a much more alpha guy, even though I’m pretty red pill and have my eyes open.

    • jim says:

      On the lek mating system, only a small proportion of males reproduce. Rough on males. No solution for all males, other than males agreeing with each other on a more even distribution of females without regard for what the females want, and imposing that solution on females.

      Imposing that solution on women amounts to the eighteenth century, early nineteenth century viewpoint that women are the uncontrollably lustful sex, which position came under political attack from the left in 1820 or so.

      Of course, in practice, all males cannot agree with each other. It starts with elite patriarchs agreeing with each other for the equitable distribution of elite daughters between elite sons, to preserve elite solidarity through familial connections. The resulting norm of female sexual chastity then filters down to from the top, though the lower class girls are assumed to be sluts and fair game – “slut” originally meaning a working class girl.

  17. Red says:

    Off topic: Have you read Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder?

    Some fascinating stuff in there including dumping the big scientific theory model for time tested heuristics (I.E. Tradition). He’s quite full of himself but entertaining enough.

    The point that struck me the most was section on data. I’ve known for a while that knowing too much about a subject makes it more difficult to make clear and correct decisions. Another book called Gut Feelings: The Intelligence of the Unconscious by Gerd Gigerenzer explained that most of the tasks our brain perform are simple heuristics which tend to operate better on limited information and worse with lots of information. What I didn’t realize is that this holds true in very complex realms like stock trading.

    The NYTs thought poorly of it so it might be worth reading.

    • jim says:

      Have not read Taleb’s book. Probably should.

      Fan of lots of information myself.

    • Zach says:

      I thought I was the only one who thought he talked about himself too much. I noticed this within three pages in one of his books.

Leave a Reply