Why female status limits fertility

Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

A prisoner’s dilemma problem, the war of the sexes, ensues.

If both freely pursue their interests, we get a defect/defect equilibrium, where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women, and a these women sleep with only one man at a time, but sleep with one man after another, trading partners in an unending struggle to get a better male, or get a better position on his booty call list. This bad female behavior is exacerbated by the male tendency to give the newest woman the highest position on his boot call list. Women get the sex they want until they approach the end of their fertile years, but children don’t get fathers. Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

To enforce a cooperate cooperate equilibrium, mating choice has to restricted, denying men access to women, and women access to men. In order that men have the incentive and the power to restrict female sexual choice women have to be owned by men. Men and women have to be stuck with each other. Men need to own women, except that they cannot sell, rent out, abandon, or give away a well behaved woman that they have had sex with.

Iterated prisoner’s dilemma has a good solution if the number of iterations is large and has no definite end, but this is not the case with mating behavior, because a woman’s fertile years are short. The progressive scenario where woman sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then live happily ever after is prisoner’s dilemma with a large and indefinite number of iterations resulting in cooperate/cooperate, but the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect. If you defect on women harder and faster than they defect on you, women will defect on you less, not more. It is a successful and effective male adaptation to female emancipation. It works. He also criticizes mate guarding, because ineffective mate guarding is counterproductive, and effective mate guarding is illegal. Hard to do effective mate guarding without substantial social support – which certain religious communities have, but most of us do not. That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.


88 Responses to “Why female status limits fertility”

  1. […] from monogamy, and make them more satisfied with their lot, it is very helpful to keep their status extremely low, equivalent to that of pets. If women are low-status, and men are high-status, then women’s […]

  2. […] craftsmen than I have put their hands to the question of marriage: Jim discusses marriage and status, EvoX gives the teleofunctional perspective, Michael Perilloux offers practical advice, and […]

  3. TTAAC says:

    “Biologists find that organisms in unstable environments grow up faster and start reproducing earlier than those in stable ones. Theoretically, in a stable environment you can take more time growing into your reproductive activities, focusing on long-term quality rather than on getting an early start. Conversely, in an unstable situation, it might ‘pay’ (in Darwinian terms) to begin reproducing earlier.”

    Sorry, Jim, but it really is that simple. Every demographer knows that fertility shoots up after mass murder or genocide. Young people in the developed world take far longer to grow up than their peers in the Third World or their ancestors of earlier centuries. Saudi Arabia is the only nation on Earth that prohibits women from driving, yet its fertility rate is barely above replacement level, because it is simply too rich for even the most extreme restrictions on female mobility to make any statistically significant difference. Moreover, fertility is to a large degree self-regulating, and if we faced a major war or civilizational crisis that required more people it would rebound accordingly. None of which implies that modernity is a mistake or that the Congo is somehow a more successful society than Japan and the West because it has a much higher fertility rate.

    Women’s rights are a measure of civilization–of the degree to which reason and the rule of law prevail over the barbarism of sheer force. The West is better than the Rest in part because it values the lives and the abilities of its women.

    • Cavalier says:

      >because it values the lives and the abilities of its women
      >because it values the abilities of its women
      >the abilities of its women

      “US fertility rate falls to lowest on record”

      >because it values the lives and the abilities of its women
      Does it?

    • jim says:

      Fertility is low in Saudi Arabia because men stand up when a woman enters a room. Fertility is high in most Orthodox Jewish communities because women are required to get out of the way of men. Fertility is high in Mormon communities because women are discouraged from getting jobs and encouraged to be dependent on men.

      Watch what happens in an American office. The female or the black will walk down the middle of the corridor and the cishet male will get out of her way, will step to one side of the corridor. The female subordinate will “helpfully” interrupt and talk over her boss, interrupt him and talk over him in a “helpful”, “friendly”, and “supportive” manner, but she will still interrupt him and talk over him.

      In school, boys are automatically marked down for being boys, and girls are automatically marked up for being girls. Same in Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabian girls getting degrees outnumber Saudi Arabian boys getting degrees about two to one.

      Because girls will only willingly get pregnant with men who are their masters and superiors, because sex for women is only fun if it is an act of submission, respect, and obedience, only fun if she is commanded to have sex and obeys, girls are not getting pregnant. Not here, and not in Saudi Arabia.

  4. […] starts off the week explaining, in his inimitable way, Why Female Status Limits Fertility. If you are the one reader of Social Matter who still believes in feminism, this one will break you […]

  5. Pseudo-chrysostom says:

    Equivocating marriage with chastity and celibacy is demographic suicide.

    You need better words to describe what you really mean, elsewise every time you use them you are going to have spin out paragraphs of explanatory verbiage elucidating your private definition of what you really mean anyways, rather just the words.

    >Bishops are celibate

    And what a shame that is; that a significant subset of a populations elite, subsets of its most intelligent, pious, and thoughtful men, are told that comitting demographic suicide is a great and holy and high status thing.

    If anything, i think having a wife and X+ kids should be a *requirement* for holding positions of nobility. Five seems like a good number.

    The medieval scholastics put out a lot of great material; alloying, interpreting, and uplifting a desert person cult into what was called *Christendom*. Until the nominalist theologians started tearing it all back down again anyways.

    From whence this? As in all things the directions history takes aquire innertia from several lesser divine powers, in greater or smaller portion, but one factor i believe is underexamined is the effects of the aformentioned clerical policy.

    At that time, the catholic church was the place to be for the bloom of europes cognitive elite. And for many, it ended up being its graveyard as well, until the places they once occupied were refilled by upjumped milquetoast midwits.

    A man who, when he internalizes a belief that something is good, is willing to even endure hardships *for the sake* of what he believes to be good, is a valuable asset to a civilization. That is a man who has the virtue of lawfulness.

    But what if what he is told is good ultimately results in self-abnegation? Then the future will be increasingly full of those who are sociopathically divorced from such entreaties.

    If good men are told that power is bad, that holding power is bad, that seeking power is the sign of a bad man, then naturally, they will leave away sources of power… leaving them to be picked up by bad hombres anyways. A neat self-fulfilment.

    Does it seem familliar?

    No throne goes unoccupied; if you would not take it, demons shall in your stead.

    • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

      Intended reply for turtle ofc, but inputs on the blog sometimes shit themselves when using certain browsers.

  6. Sam J. says:

    In the early US marriage contracts they provided for the husband keeping the children and no support if the wife left. We should provide an alternate marriage system for those that want something different from no-fault divorce. Charge more for it. Call it the diamond wedding plan. Don’t let the present family courts have jurisdiction. Make sure normal courts with normal rules for evidence handle divorces.

    While the feminist would bitch they couldn’t do so successfully as Women need not get married under the diamond plan they could get a normal no-fault divorce wedding.

    • deltahedge says:

      The problem is not the contract you sign. The problem is whether it will be legally respected in the future.

      What happened with the introduction of “no-fault” divorces was that marriage contract you had signed overnight was changed without anyone ever asking you or even telling you. Who guarantees you that whatever “diamond plus marriage” you sign today will be respected in a few years by the courts?

      The only thing that works with women is social shaming. Marriage goes down? The default social setting should be to blame the woman. Gives them much better incentive to actually work on things. And it is precisely why you need religion, the reason muslims are conquering the world and the reason the West is dying.

  7. B says:

    >Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

    I think it was Moldbug who pointed out that “PUA rhymes with ‘gay’.”

    Even in Subsaharan Africa, this model does not seem to be very widespread.

    Personally, I want to raise as many healthy (morally, mentally and physically) children as possible.

    Having sex with as many women as possible and giving them no support would feel great and be a lot of fun in exactly the same way as doing a lot of coke. For the same exact reasons, it really has no appeal to me.

    This has nothing to do with the sensitivity of my cocaine neuroreceptors.

    • peppermint says:

      Cuckold and femdom fetishism is about men who want to have a relationship so much they are willing to settle for stuff no good woman would ever want.

      So is the chink on his knees begging his gf to take him back.

      Cuckold and femdom fetishism demonstrate that men do want relationships, and, in fact, since men have no way of forcing women to stay with them, while women can threaten men for alimony and child support, this need, if weaker, is harder to fulfil.

      It remains the case that men will always want another one night stand and women will always think before they spread, regardless of how often they go on slutwalks.

      • jim says:

        Roosh is way more successful with women than I am, but I am in the same situation that he is in that getting a relationship is harder for me than getting sex. I want a relationship. But I also want to fuck every fertile age woman I meet.

        • Turtle says:

          I’ll pray to 2 saints who helps with finding spouses. It does seem like a miracle to truly marry, so wondrous help is needed. And happy Father’s Day, Jim.

    • Anonymous says:

      >I think it was Moldbug who pointed out that “PUA rhymes with ‘gay’.”


      Yeah, so “gay.”

      >the same way as doing a lot of coke

      Puritans always compare things they don’t like (MEAT, ALCOHOL, SEX) to hard drugs. So original.

      And yes, B is a puritan. Usually puritans are Anglos, but Jews can also be puritans, as do others. Puritanism may be most common among Anglos, but it is not confined to Anglos. See: Russian Skoptsy. The Japs are probably the only ethnicity immunized against puritanism. But they have their own problems.

      • B says:

        Now that the moon is no longer full, you’ve gone from full on ranting crazy to just stupid.

        Skoptsy, as the name says, castrated themselves.

        Puritans explicitly proclaimed themselves to be the new Hebrews, spoke Hebrew (many of them did), proclaimed Massachusetts to be the New Jerusalem, and had ten children per family.

        We have ten children per family.

        I don’t know about the Puritans, but we don’t dislike sex. It’s a great thing. Ditto meat (we’re not Jains) and alcohol (we’re not Muslims.) We merely put things in their place.

      • Mycroft Jones says:

        You are an idiot. The Puritans loved meat, alcohol, and sex. A Puritan woman could divorce her husband if he was impotent, or had a tiny dick. This is documented history. They took “be fruitful and multiply” very seriously. It is the Anglicans who were uptight and hypocritical about sex.

        • Anonymous says:

          Don’t tell me – you believe that Puritans being puritanical is a “common misconception”, and decided to “set the record straight” by telling me that there were worse offenders. Lol.

          Who criminalized prostitution? Who supported abolition of slavery? Who invented the concept of “marital rape”? Who went hysterical over “wife battery”? Who raised the AOC to 16? Who came up with First-Wave Feminism? Who were the radical American egalitarians during the 19th century?

          The answer to all of these questions is “members of-high-standing belonging to several reformed (Calvinist) Protestant denominations.” And the Puritans have definitely contributed their fair share to the sanctimonious mess aka the holiness spiral, notwithstanding the fact that others have been even more radical.

          They have contributed to the holiness spiral so much that the blight of hyper-moralist, puritanical, holier-than-God “Americanism” wouldn’t even be conceivable, in all probability, without them. That they were not exactly the most extreme branch (sprouting out of a super-extreme tree) is beside the point. They were *successful*. Perhaps they were successful exactly because they were not so insane as to be utterly incompetent.

          The celibate Shakers have literally one (1) member today. Since the Puritans have been infinitely saner than the Shakers, they have succeeded in turning their Utopian dreams into the law of the land. That doesn’t mean that Puritans being puritan is somehow “false.” Pragmatism often wins the day. But the end-goals are indeed puritanical.

          What you’re saying, basically, is that Puritans were not ascetics. But the argument being made ITT is that the Puritans facilitated moral hysteria (of which asceticism is but one form), and successfully — *successfully* — ushered in social movements characterized by hyper-moralism. Is it not so? Am I wrong about the facts? So who cares if they were not the worst offenders in an abstract, theological sense. It’s what they gave birth to, what they created, that counts.

          So when you say: “Puritans loved meat, alcohol, and sex,” you are mistaking relative difference (vis-a-vis the crazier sects) with absolute difference. In relative terms, the Puritans were less strict about these things than some of the kookier elements of which the American fabric is composed. In absolute terms, no, they did not “love” those things:

          While veganism hasn’t really caught on as a policy, anti-sex and anti-alcohol governmental encroachment would have made an American bachelor living in 1908 facepalm so hard you could feel the resultant echoes traversing the space-time continuum all the way to 2017 had he heard a patently false statement such as yours.

          And now for some historical perspective:


          “A charivari, also variously called a skimmington ride and riding the stang, is a historical folk custom expressing public disapproval of personal behavior. Domestic violence was a common motive for a charivari. A man who beat his wife in southern England early in the nineteenth century could awaken at night to a noisy crowd, dancing in a frenzy around a bonfire outside his door.

          Sometimes the crowd would carry an effigy of the targeted man to a substitute punishment, e.g. burning. Sometimes the man who physically abused his wife would be abused by the community:

          The practices of charivari varied across time and place. But no evidence exists of a charivari that targeted a wife who had been beaten by her husband. If the husband beat the wife, the husband was the subject of the charivari.

          Within the home, men and women abused each other. Public punishment for domestic violence, in contrast, seems to have fallen mainly on men…”

          This blog by Douglas Galby has some material that you could find useful if you actually want to trace the origins of low-p puritanism in England. But if all you wanna do is pat yourself on the back for having incorrectly stated that the relationship between Puritanism and puritanism “is actually a common misconception” as 110-IQ Redditors will tell you, there’s no point for you in reading this stuff, because you’re a retard.

  8. Reactionary Oriental Libertarian says:

    Jim, you should do a post on the recent destruction of Uber by some slut shit testing. There is no better demonstration of your theories on why women decrease productivity at the work place. I have to say that after learning about your theories about women their truth is literally demonstrated every day http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/uber-lyft-car-sharing-sharing-economy-taxi-limo-sexual-harassment-kalanick-1.4158325

  9. Peter George Stewart says:

    I don’t think it’s a good idea to translate evolutionarily-inculcated drives as “wants,” not in the sense of consciously-formulated wants anyway.

    Rather they come in the form of, “where the fuck did THAT come from?” One finds oneself thinking one will do x, then one does y, that type of thing.

    What people consciously want is what they select, in the course of their personal “Bildung,” (self-creation through experience) out of what society offers them in symbolic form. Evolutionary drives may go with such wants, or they may go against them.

    Traditional societies usually channel evolutionary drives in ways conducive to group survival; societies based on rationalism, which favours rules that ostensibly exist to benefit the individual, tend to be caught by surprise by evolutionary drives. Neither societal form has the whole picture, really. Traditionalism is sometimes too restrictive on the individual, rationalism too “previous”, too ignorant of the delicacy of the structures set up by traditionalism, and therefore dangerous to group cohesion.

    The trouble is, traditionalism has already been largely destroyed – i.e. modes of life that took centuries to coalesce, the results of often delicate balances between interests, gone in a puff of smoke, destroyed by an over-eager rationalism.

  10. person says:

    Jim, human relationships are not reducible to sex. There are intellectual and emotional bonds which are important and factor into our relationship choices. I do find the reductionist approach of your writing on this topic to be quite stifling. We may be influenced by our biological imperatives but need not be fully controlled by them.

    • jim says:

      This reasoning leads to gay marriage, where people pair up to wing each other while cruising for casual sex. Unfortunately, with modern type marriage, the wife gets casual sex and the husband does not.

    • peppermint says:

      Degenerate homosexual. Why don’t you find a man for a Platonic friendship.

      The first thing to care about is genetic quality. For men, that means looking at beauty, for women, that means looking at competence.

      The second thing, for a woman, is to look at ability to support children. That means willingness and capability to fight, and willingness and capability to get money to support children.

      The third thing to look at is personalities that work together, because this can and will change over time to facilitate raising children, and ability to cover or tolerate the other’s blind spots, like messiness or picky eater or whatever.

      The children will have to deal with the genetics longer than you will, so you better get it right.

    • Anonymous says:

      >We may be influenced by our biological imperatives but need not be fully controlled by them

      Said the puritan, locking himself in the CB-6000 for another 3 months.

  11. hunson abedeer says:

    “I have noticed that Jewish women are more sexual aggressive than White women.”

    Well, having had lots of sexual experience with both Jewish women and White women, I would say, it’s not so much that Jewish women are sexually “aggressive,” it’s more that they’re more comfortable taking the initiative. In a civilized way. That’s a difference worth noticing. The Jewish women who made overt (not aggressive, just overt) advances on me later repaid the whole thing by being very submissive. It’s a species of sexual algebra.

    OTOH once you get over the “initiative” hurdle with White women, you find yourself in a whole zany world of paradise. YMMV.

    White men are carefully trained not to express any sexual desire at all,

  12. Anonymous says:

    If there is one thing at all worthy among the Arabs, it’s that they recognize that, far from being self-managing atoms, people are directly influenced by the conduct of fellow man. Let’s take a relevant (to this post) example: two military personnel, a man and a woman, having voluntary sex with each other, which is forbidden.

    Under the modern, WEIRD, some would say “christcuck” morality, the male should receive a harsher punishment than the female, because his duty is, as every non-retard understands, more important than the duty of the female “soldier”, so by risking its fulfillment by engaging in sexual activity when he shouldn’t, the male soldier has committed a worse crime than the female “soldier”.

    Non-western morality, particularly the one that Arabs came up with (back when they were pure Semites, and not Semitic-Negroid cross-breeds), states the exact opposite. For people are not atoms circling in an empty vacuum; if one has engaged in sex, it is because one was allowed, nay, invited to engage in sex — one was seduced — and as such, the person who has committed the more serious offence is the one who seduced the person whose duty is more vital:

    The male and female “militarymen” couldn’t have sex with each other if one of the parties made itself unavailable; and so it is the female who has committed the more serious offence, and deserves the harsher punishment, because by allowing the coitus to occur, she has distracted-from-duty someone whose duty is more important than hers.

    And if you retort by saying that this isn’t about duty per se, but about obedience, and that male obedience in the military is more important than female obedience, then the Arab-inspired thinker will be all the more vindicated; because by bringing the man down into disobedience, the woman has committed a worse crime than the crime which the male has committed by causing the female to disobey the rule, *exactly because* his obedience is more important than hers. Thus, since the female caused more severe disobedience than the male has caused, by way of allowing sex to occur, she has committed the worse crime.

    Think about my example here and you will understand the inner psychology behind the WHITE SHARIA meme. I do believe that the Arabs, who are usually less than worthless, have it right when it comes to their philosophy of culpability. Your own inclinations are not important; there’s no “original sin” haunting you wherever you may go. You are, plain and simple, responsible for the manner in which you influence others. To go back to my example, the female influence has been more detrimental than the male influence, again, exactly because male obedience is more important (so diminishing from it is more harmful than diminishing from female obedience).

    The solipsistic philosophy which contends that “it doesn’t matter how much someone else influences you, you must always be ultimately blamed” — a philosophy grounded in the false notion that man exists solely within himself — is the reason why there’s atomization in the west, why gemeinschaft is gone. If everyone is a self-managing atom, let everyone “struggle with sin” independently, and no one should be allowed to point out: hey, someone’s putting somethin’ in our water-supply! If we’re all just atoms, then why is it wrong to “put something” in the water-supply? You drink, your fault, right?

    No, not right.

    Atomization is feminism’s best friend, because they’re both grounded in the same false philosophy. A blow can be struck against both of them if the west adopts the one thing — the one diamond amidst a sea of dung — that the Arabs have gotten right. To restore gemeinschaft, need to eliminate the philosophy that killed it in the first place. “But it’s against our instincts!” Yes, and these instincts are leading the west towards rapid demise. Bad instincts! Try something new.

    Thotery is the result of inability to control women. Why is there inability to control women? Because if you believe that the problem is never the seducer, and always the seduced, then you have no argument when feminists advocate for girls to come to school wearing nothing but bra and panties, or maybe just panties, as Eric Striker of the DS has recently written about. Boys should have self-control, right? Oh, you can see the precise contours of her inner labia? So what – concentrate on your math homework, douche. This is what feminists are saying, and that’s what puritans are saying, because the puritans are the puppeteer and feminists are the puppet, and no ((())) in the world can change this dynamic.

    If the problem is the seducer, rather than the seduced, than chastity should be imposed on the sex that goes around seducing left and right — chastity should be imposed on women — and not on men. Thus, there ought to be modesty, and it has nothing to do with your “sinfulness”, which is irrelevant, and everything to do with making women finally responsible for the way they influence society. Women need to be under control, and a grand philosophical revolution is long overdue.

    • peppermint says:

      Coeducation is utterly retarded. Women want to enter male spaces to find the alpha to fuck, or, if it isn’t clear, to get the men to fight to there is a clear alpha to fuck.

      Put her in a burka and she’ll still disrupt the male space.

      Modesty isn’t what is needed. What is needed is for males to be able to have male-only spaces, and women to get no advantage by showing everything over just showing what’s beautiful.

      Historically, women who are sexually aggressive would be rejected because there’s obviously something wrong, and I missed a lot of chances to have sex because I rebuffed sexual aggression from some pretty hot women who were used to being told that’s what’s right to do.

      I have noticed that Jewish women are more sexual aggressive than White women. White men are carefully trained not to express any sexual desire at all, and thus often end up with jewesses instead of the nigger sows the jewsmedia has tried to promote.

      Fortunately for the Aryan race, getting drunk and high can cause White men to proposition White women.

      • The problem with male only spaces is who the fuck wants them? When there are 95% males at some super Linux nerd college curse they bitch and moan because they think it would be easier to find a GF if there are more women around. And I don’t mean the SJW, “we want gender justice” type of bitching, in mean the classical “maybe I wasn’t a virgin at 24 if my college courses weren’t so sausagefests” type of bitching. Alpha males want women around because they know they can score, beta males want women around because they hope to. Who wants it?

        There are still nearly male only spaces. Come to any sim racing community like http://www.racedepartment.com/forums/

        And? It makes no difference really. Most of those guys would be overjoyed if some girls showed up because they want a GF who shares their hobby.

        There are also the classical type of shitty and hard blue collar jobs being male spaces like felling trees. And? Does it make anything better?

        • Anonymous says:

          The issue isn’t male spaces. All spaces are male spaces, because when you look around, each and every space surrounding you, each and every space ever created, was created by men. The problem is lack of regulation due to egalitarianism.

          When women say “I have a right to X”, the only answer is to raise the question: who created X? Since X is always the creation of men, men and only men should regulate its allocation. Call it sexualsocialismus, but it’s the only logical thing here.

          Also, everyone should be married. If everyone is married and patriarchy is firmly established, men wouldn’t want to flood their spaces with cunts. Get everyone married, and men lose incentive to have women everywhere. Women are shitty at work and in school, not productive. (Productive women like the painter Josephine Wall don’t spend time around strange men they’re not married to) Get ’em back to the kitchen. Marriage = indispensable.

          • Dividualist says:

            When anyone says they have a right to anything they deserve a kick in the butt, but that is not the issue. The issue is that men themselves want to invite women because they think they can get laid easier. I have never met women aggressively saying they have a right to participate in the local nerdy club, partially because they are not interested and partially because I try to keep a distance from college-“educated” people.

            The marriage part is probably correct, in fact, married men are more likely to form men only social groups precisely to get away from the feminized household.

            • Anonymous says:

              Right, we are in agreement. Men who get laid regularly don’t want distracting and useless women around when working. It is the sex-lacking men who invite the women to work, who constantly shill for muh equality. So we need to get all of society married, under patriarchy where “the wife does not have authority over her own body but yields it to her husband;” then feminism-careerism will be expunged.

            • peppermint says:

              » I have never met women aggressively saying they have a right to participate in the local nerdy club, partially because they are not interested

              what, they’re interested in the men there of course

        • Anonymous says:

          Ask any married man if he relishes the fact that his “career”-having wife is “working” with strange men all day. Unless a cuck, answer’s “no.”

          Time for patriarchy.

          • Dividualist says:

            Seriously. Career women are minority, most women have the same kind of sucky jobs most men have because they need to pitch in to pay the bills. My wife works because my pay pays the bills and hers we can save. The whole “career” thing is entitled elitist bullshit. I don’t see any cheating happening when sweaty, smelly in a kitchen in an ugly uniform. I don’t see any cheating happening in general. Cuckery is not having an opinion that cheating in this case is of low probability, cuckery is knowing you are cheated on and not caring. We are fairly patriarchical, she clearly sees me as the head of the family who makes the strategic decisions like furniture purchases. But if you think patriarchy equals every man being so rich that they don’t need the wife’s pay, well, that does not seem likely at all, that is an economic problem not a cultural one.

            Seriously it is really weird that think that working for career stuff is why women work, don’t you see it is just college educated feminists talking to college educated women? Every non college educated woman works to help the man pay the bills and I think it is increasingly for the college educated ones as well as being an accountant is not really that a career either.

            • Anonymous says:

              If patriarchy and eugenics are desired, you want women to be home, raising kids. Since women in general are parasitic usurpers (in modern society), in the sense that they get paid for doing stuff that is either useless, or that isn’t useless but is better done by men, it’s best that they won’t have “careers.”

              Female participation in the workforce has reduced male salaries. If tomorrow all females are fired from their jobs, employers will have no choice but to pay their male employees more – enough to pay the bills. Not immediately, but gradually the market will adjust to the new reality, and after a period of some turmoil and instability, we’ll be back to a state of affairs where one breadwinner is enough. So the problem isn’t “economic” – the problem lies exactly in the “culture.”

              Look, my position isn’t that no woman has ever been talented. But the 4th word in this comment is “eugenics”, and that’s not a coincidence. For it is precisely the talented women who ought to live under the most stringent patriarchy, because the more children they bear, the higher is the quality of the population. Put another way:

              If a talented woman is serving her husband sexually, takes care of the household, and has given her husband an ample number of offspring (at least 7 offspring, at the very minimum; but should aim as high as 20 offspring. Yes, that may require teenage marriage. I support that), and yet still has the ability to contribute to society with her talent, then by all means, she can practice her talent. Actually talented women are very few and far between, but some do exist.

              But it must be borne in mind that it is exactly the exceptional, excellent women who should reproduce the most. Eugenics is eugenics. And patriarchy is patriarchy. No exceptions. Men build civilization, women serve men. That’s the deal here. Believe me: the best deal!

            • Anony-maus says:

              Its an interesting thought because at one point men didn’t work outside their farms either. The massive destruction of the domestic economy has had uncomfortable precedents.

              Realistically, I think that we have to go with part-time work for women and enough income for men such that she won’t /have/ to work. And then switch to full time caregiving once children are born or at least incline toward the domestic economy and work from home.

  13. hunson abedeer says:

    The death of Western civilization, as illustrated by a Disney sitcom.

    I’m a (sorta unlikely) fan of a teen sitcom on the Disney channel that was called “Kickin’ It,” and it was a sort of Bad News Bears-style thing about a bunch of losers and misfits studying karate in a dojo, and doing very badly, until a sort of child prodigy shows up who is brilliant and inspires them.

    Disney shows tend to end after about three seasons, because the teenage cast ages out. So the finale of Kickin’ It showed all the misfits going their separate ways. But the devastating thing was, the brilliant karate prodigy, who was also handsome, charming and funny, and his love interest, who was very pretty and smart, parted ways to pursue separate careers. It didn’t occur to them that they were made for each other, and their duty was to join forces, marry, and create a super-brood of hyper-karate white kids.

    That inability to see what’s right in front of your face, and pursue pointless goals instead, will be the end of everything good.

  14. Jim,

    Interestingly, if you look at the typical traits of children, boys, and convert them into adult traits, you get an alpha male. Little boys enjoy to run around, climb, wrestle, alpha males are athletes. Little boys compete for social status, alpha males too or just simply have it. Little boys dare each other, alpha males have courage. Little boys are okay with male company, and do not need the company of girls, they do not yet need sex from girls and that will change, but they do not need anything else from them, no love, no acceptance, no validation, no friendship either and that is similar. They enjoy breaking rules, they fight when challenged, they glorify violence etc.

    Thus it seems the alpha male would be just a normal male child turned adult.

    While the beta male is at the same time childish – whiny, insecure, living in fantasy, attached to a girlfriend like to a mother etc. – and somehow lost his healthy childhood traits.

    I don’t know what to make of it but it is relevant.

    • Samuel Skinner says:

      The strongest boys keep those traits, weaker ones realize they can’t compete and attempt to boost their reproductive fitness with other traits.

    • peppermint says:

      Keep in mind that an alpha male is the socially dominant reproductive strategy, which, for boomercucks, is cucking, but isn’t for generation zyklon, because there is no longer any benefit to cucking.

      Those genxer and millennial beta males were told that they could live like boomers if they cucked like boomers, and they’re just bad people if they try to be alpha. Whites are inherently civilizable which works against us right now because all our institutions are telling us to destroy ourselves.

      It’s not the strongest who keep the alpha traits. It’s the most nonconforming, which hopefully isn’t going to lead to sexual selection away from civilizability since a few generations of adverse selection don’t really matter that much.

      We do need to return to eugenics, and soon, but on a longer time scale than our government can keep oppressing us, which is the lesson of Eastern Europe, and the reason ((our)) government is trying so hard to replace us.

      • peppermint says:

        I am far from the strongest and I dearly want to be a commie faggot with obnoxious jokes, but in this world I need to help rebuild naziism first.

  15. Hi Jim

    I decided this topic deserves a bit of a fisking.

    >Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

    This is true of alpha men. Most men are not alpha. There even men who value relationships over sex but even the average man values about both equally. Only about 10-20% of men have this alpha attitude.

    Consider this. The men who think like this basically don’t need women for companionships, just sex, and they are either okay with being lonely or get their companionships from male friends.

    Consider what that means. This must be a rare thing. Out of 10 men who married maybe 1 or 2 two did it for sexual reasons, the rest did it because they no idea what to do with their lives, little social life and having a partner to travel with, go to restaurants with etc. fills out time. Notice especially how above 45 most me tend to do everythign with their wives and keep hardly any male company. Go to opera with her, theater, restaurants.

    Very few men are alpha enough to be okay with a male tribe life using women just for sex.

    >Women want to have sex with the highest status men available


    >(as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status)

    No, my wife considers writers the highest status, when she saw the articles I wrote under other names she was instantly in love. Very often women leave it to men to sort it out: basically whichever man other men respect and give status to, is okay for them.

    As far as I can tell, my father managed to be high status for my mother largely through being well to do, aloof, a bit looking down on other people, and elegant.

    >where a small minority of men have casual no strings attached sex with the large majority of women

    Yes, my father did that at 20. He was alpha. He left complicated notes by the family landline phone to his mom. “If Ann calls I am at the grandma, if Susan calls I am off at sports training” while he was fucking Kate. At 30 he went completely beta and valued marriage, family, the companionship of my mother far over sex. I don’t think they even had sex after I was born. So men easily lose this alpha desire to be sex-only.

    In short, all this “women for sex, male friends for spending time” is absolutely logical in the evolutionary sense but only the best of the best heroic men are that strong.

    > Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

    Because our illegitimacy / single mother stats are so low? There are lots of fatherless children especially in the ghetto. No, the state is actually taking the place of the father and outcompeting fathers. It is simple. Low IQ women 1) fuck without paying attention to condoms, because they are drunk and stupid 2) think they can domesticate a violent alpha by a child, in reality the baby’s head did not even cleared the vagina before the guy is three states away and never looking back 3) low IQ alpha males esp. ghetto tend to think wearing condoms is unmasculine, to the extent of even lying about it. I dutifully carried condoms with me from 14 and somehow it feels a halfway beta trait.

    >Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”, starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect.

    Because he does not understand the problem. It is a defection only if you are an alpha male who just wants sex from women and considers commitment merely a payment for it. But for the beta male sex is secondary and he really wants that commitment. He is not just paying for sex for it but wants to be committed to a woman for the sake of the relationship. He gets validation out of it, he feels worthless and feels being worthy to be a womans husband or boyfriend is the affirmation of his worth. This is a deeply troublesome cultural problem, when a man bases the value of his self on acceptance by women. I actually have seen even the wiser and kinder women notice it and telling their orbiters that they should not base their whole self worth on having a GF or not.

    Where this comes from is a long story and I am not 100% sure. I would say it comes from the lack of clear difference between children or adults. Boys are expected to get a girlfriend around 16. They are still children in everything, their life is about their study being approved by female teachers and their keeping order in their room approved by the mother. So they feel they need the boyfriend-approval stamp from a girl to be allowed to feel adult. This continues into college and beta men become better at the whole thing after a few years of working where they feel adults on their own.

    Or maybe not. It is especially programming and software dev where people can afford to stay children forever. The whole nerd culture is childish.

    Anyway. This is not defection. Betas with oneitis really get what they want, and that is boyfriend-approval, not mostly sex. Their issue is that their woman tends to leave them in disgust for this.

    • spandrell says:

      So you’re telling me your alpha father went without sex since you were born?

      You gotta be kidding. Most likely he had a mistress in every block of Budapest.

      All men went to be alpha. Some can pull it off. Some can’t so they go beta. But that’s circumstantial. A beta man who becomes famous or rich, getting sudden alpha status, is much more likely to build a harem than to stay a happy beta boy going shopping with his fat aging wife.

      • Anonymous says:

        >So you’re telling me your alpha father went without sex since you were born?

        Sex-drive varies radically from person to person, among males and females alike. Some need sex twice a day, others need it twice a decade. It’s mostly about brain structure, rather than the “alpha/beta” dichotomy. Testosterone both serum and prenatal also plays a part here, but people on the alt-right overestimate the importance of serum testosterone in influencing sex-drive. I say “brain structure” accounts for 90% of the variance in the population.

        Of course, no doubt there are correlations between specific brain structures and specific sets of behaviors. But we don’t really know the underlying genetic — and maybe “epigenetic”, if you insist — cause of these things, just as we haven’t established yet what causes homosexuality. We know that some people can go years without sex, perhaps their entire lives, whereas others “go nuts” (pun intended) after skipping their daily shag. Why there is such a radical difference between people, and between groups of people, is yet undetermined.

        One thing is clear, and that is that relatively asexual people and relatively hypersexual people — unless spent time contemplating these issues — tend to assume that the rest of humanity feels as they do. The under-sexual are convinced that horniness is just something that people wildly exaggerate for no good reason, and that it can be completely brushed aside at will. The hyper-sexual often believe that everyone else is as horny as they are, which sometimes leads to grave misunderstandings.

        You need a highly-evolved “theory of mind” capacity to realize that other people can be essentially unlike yourself. Most people — the below 120 IQ population — do not actually realize it. Most people are under the impression that everyone else is just faking it (whatever “it” happens to be in their own case), and that “underneath” everyone else is just like themselves. That some people are just not into sex, while others crave sex 24/7 — and that most people are somewhere in between these two extremes — is lost even on many a bright mind.

        And yes, there are liars. But the fact that there are liars serves only to obfuscate this reality, not to negate it. Sexuality is possibly the most delicate human feature, in terms of the myriads of possible biological (genetic, hormonal, neurological, physiological, etc.) variables acting upon it, so you should expect that even the mildest of disruptions could radically alter its manifestation. This isn’t any novel realization of mine, by the way.

        We can autistically “spot patterns” all day long and write lengthy posts about our findings, but to me it’s plain as day that there’s great variability not only between different groups of people (such as the two sexes, or the multitude of races, sub-races, and castes all around us), but also within the same group of people. Outliers abound. We all know this is true because we are familiar with IQ statistics, but it goes much further than IQ; there’s tremendous variability in each and every aspect of human-hood.

        • jim says:

          Sounds like low testosterone. And low testosterone is a response to defeat, low status, fear, and humiliation – like having to step aside in the corridor for women and blacks – like the supposed boss finds his female subordinates helpfully speak over him and finish his sentences for him while he is speaking.

          That will kill your sex drive.

          • Anonymous says:

            I would agree with this if I didn’t know several high-t (athletic, physically imposing, weight-lifting, non-wuss, etc.) men with low sex-drives, and some average-t men with very high sex-drives. YMMV.

          • This is correct, but I cannot find anything in my fathers bio that would suggest defeat or humiliation.

        • spandrell says:

          Bullshit. Outliers don’t abound. That’s why they’re outliers.

      • peppermint says:

        The last stage of puritanism is denying that men are ever happy with marriage. No, everyone can only be happy through maximal worship.

      • I would like to argue, but I have/had three other old male relatives who had many mistresses, one boasted it after his wife died, one was told by his wife after he died and the third just got really drunk and told me. But if my father was anything like that, he was exceptionally good at keeping it under a lid, not even the slightest hint.

    • Turtle says:

      > > Anyway. This is not defection. Betas with oneitis really get what they want, and that is boyfriend-approval, not mostly sex.

      Betas tend to be traumatized, not expressing normal anger or other common emotions. They’re painful to understand or relate to if you haven’t been one. If you have been one, typically you are proud of your weakness, but also hate yourself. I stopped doing that, but I’m not normal yet. Going from omega (loser SMV) to delta (normal) requires patience, and miracles too. I realized I am far ‘more straight’ than I knew about this weekend and today, and my sense of taste also returned. I don’t know how the (my) body can be so numb to its passions, senses, feelings, thoughts, etc. It’s schizoid, I think. So, betas are not just another type of man with their own ‘unique preferences.’ Don’t make excuses for my unnatural eunuch state. It does involve the gonads, too, and in some men they actually didn’t fully drop during adolescence. That’s weird, but clarifies that this problem has physiological symptoms.

      A simple test is what betas act like on drugs (or on testosterone therapy). It’s not clear if any of them remain beta when high, rather than attempting a weak alpha game.

      Occasional success or hot streaks is part of AFC (pick-up term for betas) syndrome, because alpha is natural, and hormones cycle. I’ve noticed the moon affects my expression of manhood, which contradicts the male-sun female-moon thing. Of course such sexist pseudoscience is wrong- are the tides female if the moon affects them? Are sunburns androgenizing? Anyway, I’m sure beta’s depth (whether it’s all of a man’s sociosexuality) can be tested. And my betahood lasted decades, but it’s still a horrible, shallow thing.

      A big surprise for betas is the existence of ‘nice shit tests.’ This is things like friendzoners saying “‘hey I miss you, why are you ignoring me” if a guy is with a girl who is attracted to him instead of the fake friend. This happens to me, and it’s weird when married women want me to be their friend, yet also say I need to ‘beta up’ with material success to win a wife. Of course women are inconsistent- they’re not God. But the friendzone is enforced out of false fear- women pretend they must control men, or men will control them. This is dog-eat-dog dominionism, with no love, and it appears to be intentional (how can people be ‘accidentally’ cruel?

      My understanding of God’s will is that He wants all of us to be chaste, and some of us to marry. Marriage properly done is as chaste as celibacy. I don’t think anyone in my church has any idea why virginity is good or pleases God. They are sexualists (lust is healthy and loving, it’s good when nuns are sluts, etc.) like almost everyone here; live marriages (with ongoing eros and affection) are few.

      But, we did once have an awfully prideful sermon from a young guy announcing his sexual innocence, while smirking the whole time (he thinks his smiling at married women is holy). That’s called prelost in Russian – ‘an unholy wonder.’ He’s married now, arranged of course, to a young, mostly gorgeous woman, but they have no kids. WTF? The wedding was awkward, and I realized I don’t want a wedding if I marry. I might change my mind, but ‘bridezilla’ is as bad as beta, especially when older ‘leaders’ contribute to the bridezilla behavior and festivities (which actually insult the wife as a selfish brute).

      Betas don’t get what they want according to Rollo. He specifically says that betas always want sex, even if they keep this desire at the back of their mind. He refuses the possibility of gay or asexual guys, as if everyone is straight fundamentally, whether they admit it or not. He’s is a complementarian, he says, which means he believes men are in great part created to be and essentially exist for husbandry, while women are natural wives. This does not jive with the doctrine of the fall from the Garden of Eden, or the existence of sin; he is a humanist/ idealist about life and treats God’s role as secondary. I don’t think he takes St. Paul’s admonition against fornication seriously, basically because, his sense of m’dick disagrees, and Rollo is a m’dick apostle of the m’dick church.

      He also had a frustrated beta phase, before becoming a rock star in Hollywood. But he only has one daughter, which is weird.
      He wrote two books so far, not just the one Jim mentions.

      > > Their issue is that their woman tends to leave them in disgust for this.

      It’s not only disgust at the commitment addiction. They are sure the guy wants to fuck them, but is so sick he doesn’t even know it, or is lying, or both. They’re scared he’ll stalk them or something, or ask her out later, or make her look bad socially. Sometimes she just feels guilty for using him, not realizing her smiles are like orgasms for him.

      We could seek the data of what it’s like for men who friendzone some girls while fucking the hottest ones. These alphas may be few, or not. Either way, I think they’re not very different in their behavior than girls who friendzone men.

      • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

        >Marriage properly done is as chaste as celibacy.

        Lol what the fuck.

        • Anonymous says:

          “Years went by, our courtship was grand
          One day I asked your father for your hand
          I’d never treat you like an object, only like a lady
          I’d never consider having sex, except to have a baby”

          (Anal Cunt)

        • Turtle says:

          You seem to think marriage requires bad sex, which compromises chastity, or celibacy is better than being married with sex. I disagree on both counts.
          Marriage is good, and marital sex is too. Chastity is not asexuality or abstinence, it is defeating lust with love. God is chaste, yet has a son. Bishops are celibate, yet ecclesiastically ‘marry’ the Theotokos, God’s own Mother, the Ever-Virgin Mary. That’s why they can’t marry other women- they already have a wife. But they never have sex with Mary. Maybe this applies to all monks, I’m not sure.

          Does my clarification make sense to you?

  16. Turtle says:

    >> Men want to have sex with as many women as possible, and give them no support.

    Is this only high-test men? I don’t know why you ignore men who fantasize over monogamy, serial or not, like me. And perhaps there are men who get jump zoned,’ which means ONSs only, with no dating, but want a more committed gf. Isn’t this possible?

    >> Women want to have sex with the highest status men available (as women perceive status, which is similar to the way a small evil child raised by cannibal head hunters perceives status), and be supported by men.

    Why if I do support women, are they only interested in me ‘as a friend’ when they’re desperate? Are they so entitled as to reject benefits coming from sexually repulsive beings, namely me? Are they getting hotter ‘friends’ otherwise?

    >> …women sleep with one man after another until they find “the one” and then … the actual outcome is that they sleep with one man after another until they start to get desperate.

    They’re always desperate, even before getting on the carousel. It’s desperate to be promiscuous-desperate to flee, for example, their fear of death by getting orgasms. Men do this too. It’s technically sex addiction, not innocent fun. And ironically, it’s unhealthy to despair over one’s health, sexual or otherwise. I don’t think sluts can be hopeful, unless they are repenting before God, by His grace.

    >> Rollo Tomassi, in his excellent book “The Rational Male”,

    Did Jim get this book from my reference to it? If so, cool. Rollo is some sort of Christian, I think, presumably without a church, but is very quiet about it.

    >> starts out by criticizing “oneitis” – criticizing male disinclination to defect.
    No, it’s an application of the male inclination to valorize BEING beta, not beta actions. It’s the ethos/ mythicizing, not the bad strategy. Oneitis’s definition can be extended to include beta behavior, but Rollo does sociopsychology, not game theory. He’s not good at math. Rollo is saying betas claim “she’s the one’ to excuse any pandering to a hoped-fopr source of affection / pussy, any misbehavior on her part, any relationship problems, to ignore any competing pussy asking him for attention… really, it’s an accusation of bizarre monomania.

    It’s an anti-abundance mentality. Rollo’s version of Christianity includes, I think, gratitude for one’s SMV and its enjoyable benefits.

    >> That effective mate guarding is difficult and illegal is extremely distressing to males.

    I’ve mostly lost my distress about women. Maybe it’s not personal anymore, so I’m detached. But I think something has changed in young men in general- we seem to have stopped caring. There might even be an uptick in divorces initiated by men under 40. I still feel bad if I seem to notice sin in women, but that’s because I’m scared of sin.

    • jim says:

      I want very much to have a wife and companion, who will always be with be, who will love me and only me, and since my wife died I have been energetically attempting to replace her – which has resulted in sex with a fair number of women and several embarassing disasters. On the other hand, I also want to have sex with every fertile age woman I meet. I think this is nearly universal. Recollect the dialog in “When Harry met Sally” where Harry dismisses the attempt to friend zone him by explaining why men and women cannot be friends.

      • Turtle says:

        Replacing her seems to be impossible- everyone is unique. If you meant marrying a second wife, that’s succession, not replacement. And maybe you’re hindering your efforts to prove she is irreplaceable. If she would want you to remarry, then she wants a successor wife, not to be replaced in your life. Maybe this was just your word choice, but it sounds like you’re ambivalent about remarriage. You could also try joining a good church first, to have the right community, and then introducing a future wife to them.

        Also, a step-mother for your sons involves more than just sex. Maybe looking for women who could and would lovingly adopt your sons (I know they’re adult men, but parenthood isn’t an age thing) is more realistic than only asking ‘is she hot and obedient?’

        If you try to replace her with a woman who is your sons’ age, there might be awkwardness, as in them finding her hot. What then?

        • peppermint says:

          Women are interchangeable. There is no one better half for a man. Hotness it the primary characteristic that matters in a woman just like ability to provide for and fight for the family is the primary characteristic that matters in a man. Ironically you feminists support women in only dating top men while shaming men for going to hot women. In reality women need to be shamed for trying for men out of their league who will only pump and dump them and not trying to find the man who will treat them as a soulmate instead.

          I should have married the woman who was most interested in me in high school. That was never on the table, however, and I had to be bored and fuck bitches in college.

          • StringsofCoins says:

            Wait until you’re thirty five with mad game and resources and find a cute tiny little twenty something who will do anything and everything to keep you. And then let her.

            • Turtle says:

              >> cute tiny little twenty something

              Nope, large hips in her late teens. Just kidding, I have no idea what I’ll do.

          • Turtle says:

            If women were so interchangeable, Jim would have married a replacement wife by now. Perhaps pump and dump style promiscuity makes everyone involved interchangeable. Marriage does not. I know you hate souls, but I don’t. Jim does not only value hotness in women. Women will be dumped if they dump men first, according to Jim. He keeps repeating that men are the dumpees. Also, if there is a such “the man who will treat them as a soulmate” for women, why aren’t there such women for men? Are men not interchangeable? How is a woman’s boyfriend/ONS partner #5 different than #3 or #9?

            I wrote, first,
            “more than just sex” (so, sex is included, not rejected)
            and “[not] only asking ‘is she hot and obedient?'” because those two factors are primary.

            We don’t disagree so much, but you’re disagreeable as a bad habit. Of course Jim already values hotness, and I do too. But that’s not all a wife does, especially when a man seeking one already has children.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        All white men want a wife and companion because gaming women is time intensive and investing into children is (was) fertility positive over generations. Having said that all men want to fuck every single fertile women they see. You deny this because you’re cucked, mentally fucked, by feminism. Accept your male nature, accept your own current state of pathetic weakness, kill your ego, and grow from there.

        Just because you cannot fuck every single fertile women you see doesn’t mean you need to protect your own inner weakness by pretending, oh so hard, that you don’t want to. Besides women love a man who isn’t afraid of being himself. Not a weak betafaggot who pretends he’s a woman so as not to upset his own ego.

        (This reply meant for Turtle but when I comment on your blog the comment window for text often will completely cover the submit comment button. Rendering me unable to comment. For some reason I can reply to you, but not to Turtle.)

        • Turtle says:

          Gaming women is time intensive only in terms of high intensity effort. It takes only some hours according to Jim, maybe 3 dates over 2 weeks. In theory, that’s not much to me, unless the woman is unpleasant.

          I don’t want to fuck every woman I see, because if I did, I would want to fuck trees, clouds, and men too. Universal lust/desire is not good to have. I don’t understand the theory that men want a harem. That fantasy faded when I stopped hating myself, mostly in pre-pubescent childhood, rather than entering my mind when I ‘finally admitted I want tons of pussy.’ I’ve known I wanted pussy forever, I think.

          I don’t consider non-Christian women (or anyone else) meaningfully fertile (they don’t even have new eggs, so it’s literally true). Spiritually, they are prodigal before God, so I must evangelize to them, as if they are Doubting Thomas before he became an apostle. I am called to love and desire them, but not need them.

          When I am more lustful, I do not only lust for women, I lust after food as in gluttony, money as in greed, and everything else in this world. It’s a general state of temptedness.

          I know women like my honesty, but part of that is confessing my weakness. I am comfortable crying in public whenever I feel like it, unlike any ‘alphas’ I know of, anywhere, except the likes of St. Peter.

          As for pretending to be a woman, my parents wanted to have a daughter, but I try to forgive this unfair expectation. It’s mostly sin against God, my Holy Father, not against me, a poor sinner and bad son.

          I don’t like it when women want me, yes. Because, I don’t believe their interest in me is loving, and I assume they will, like most girls so far, laugh at my Christianity so I get angry and want to hurt them, which is hypocritical. Isn’t that petty of me? I think I’m saying I doubt my own faith, and don’t like it when I’m tempted to apostate.

          The devil uses false promises of love (such as romance or propositions to fuck) to tempt Christians away from the One True God Who is Love. I believe that I can’t rely on women for pleasure or emotional anything, so it’s easier for me to be celibate (not just sexually, I mean being independent, not needy).

          I agree overall that I should grow up. That’s true, but more about spiritual therapy and gaining much muscle mass than Game.

  17. Alrenous says:

    > > If both freely pursue their interests

    > …they cooperate. They don’t cooperate because they’re stupid and/or shortsighted.

    Prisoner’s dilemma. It is rational to defect. Woman have been being told that defection is is great for woman all the time for years. And it is true. Now men are learning the same truth.

    A smart and rational woman (just go with it) realizes she likes being supported more than she likes casual sex.

    Every whore knows that the more men she fucks, the more money she gets, at least in the short run. She fucks a beta male, she gets support. She hints that she might fuck a beta male, she gets support. She fucks several beta males, and hints to a hell of a lot more beta males that she might fuck them, she gets support. See, for example, this story The woman in this story gets a shitload of beta bucks and an alpha fuck. Works for her. Rational behavior by the alpha male, rational behavior by the female.

    The only cure is external coercion.

    If marriage contracts were not illegal to sign and illegal to enforce, some women would sign them. Other women would realize they envy these women, and demand for these contracts would increase. It doesn’t matter how much it would increase, because population decline isn’t actually a problem.

    An enforceable contract that actually gets enforced is an escape from prisoner’s dilemma.

    And in theory we could have legal equality between men and women that you can contract out of to form a household and a family. That would be the libertarian solution. But we have never observed this solution in actual practice anywhere ever. If you do not enforce female subordination, you do not enforce marriage contracts. If you get shit tested out of enforcing female subordination, you get shit tested out of enforcing the marriage contract.

    The libertarian solution is incompatible with female psychology. They just don’t want to have sex with their equals, let alone bear them children. Contracting with a male equal to become irrevocably subordinate is just not something a woman would do, while the same woman would be very comfortable being abducted into such a relationship by wife raiding barbarians who burned her village and massacred her male kinfolk, because she would not perceive the barbarian men as equals.

    For an enforceable marriage contract to actually work, it has to enforce one household and the husband as head of that household, which women don’t much like except that they perceive the male as already of higher status. Maybe the libertarian solution would work despite that, but no one has the will to try it.

    • BigCheese says:

      >Even though marriage is outlawed, the Mormons are still reproducing. Figure out how to have Mormon marriage without believing in magic golden plates.

      I’ve got bad news for you:


      > Since producing fatherless children places a large burden on women, most women do not have children until used up on the cock carousel and approaching the end of their fertile years.

      Women tend to have babies when their friends have babies. IE they follow the herd. The current herd mentality tells them to wait till their 30s so they obey. This was after a long progressive media campaign telling people that having kids was bad.

      >No Pill in Roman times. Why did upper class Roman women not have kids?

      Romans had the pill.


      • Alrenous says:

        Oh right I forgot about the silphium possibility. The parallels with the American empire are ridiculous. I can’t quite tell if we’re in the Empire period already or not, though. The Roman emperors also preserved the republican forms, as forms only. (Perfect jobs for women, for example.) On one hand the republican forms have indeed been eviscerated, but on the other there’s still a multitude of diktators.

        I’ve got bad news for you:

        A: fake news. But it might be real even though it’s in a newspaper and they’re 100% lying about it. B: if you knew how Mormons were reproducing you might be able to figure out how to fix whatever went wrong. C: ‘bad news’ implies I care.

        • BigCheese says:

          >A: fake news. But it might be real even though it’s in a newspaper and they’re 100% lying about it. B: if you knew how Mormons were reproducing you might be able to figure out how to fix whatever went wrong. C: ‘bad news’ implies I care.

          Having lots of kids used to be a Mormon status symbol and being a submissive wife was the way to have lots of kids and get that status. Since then the Mormon church has become Pozed and embraced the same creeping progressiveness that doomed other Christian sects. The church is starting to die.

          >Oh right I forgot about the silphium possibility. The parallels with the American empire are ridiculous. I can’t quite tell if we’re in the Empire period already or not, though.

          History doesn’t exactly repeat, though we’re do seem to be headed towards general western civil war here shortly.

      • Stephen W says:

        The graph shows a decline in the number of converts but the line for children looks fairly flat.

      • StringsofCoins says:

        SLTrib is fake news.

    • Cavalier says:

      >so a modern sex market is one of the things eugenics looks like

      Welcome to the Dark Side. Do you prefer sugar, oatmeal, or chocolate chip?

  18. Mister Grumpus says:

    Give us the Jimly angle on MGTOW sometime.

    • Dave says:

      For every woman who chooses the cat-lady life path, one man must choose between homosexuality, polyamory (several loser dudes sharing one very ugly woman), mail-order marriage, MGTOW, and suicide. Which flavor of shit would you like in your sandwich?

      • Or self improvement and still getting one.

        • Dave says:

          Dividualist, that’s like saying we don’t have enough parking spaces, so arrive early to be sure of getting one. So everyone arrives an hour earlier, and the lot fills up an hour earlier (inb4 carpooling = polyamory).

          Samuel, I included “mail-order marriage” and did it with a Slavic woman; we’re now trying for a fifth child.

          • Pseudo-chrysostom says:

            >Dividualist, that’s like saying we don’t have enough parking spaces, so arrive early to be sure of getting one. So everyone arrives an hour earlier, and the lot fills up an hour earlier

            Sounds a lot like the clash of civilizations in general. God bless the victor!

      • Samuel Skinner says:

        Or stealing another countries women. Be like the Samaritans- take a Ukrainian bride!

        • Mycroft Jones says:

          The Jewish run bridal agencies have cut the Samaritan’s off from the stream of Ukrainian brides; gotta reserve those just for Jewish men. Can’t let the Samaritans build up their gene pool too much, you know.

      • Mister Grumpus says:

        I love you guys.

Leave a Reply