GROIN

If you had to get a cancer, which type would you prefer? Here are your choices:

Behind door #1, a fast-growing cancer that quickly presents symptoms when it’s a type 1, so it can be cleanly removed.

Behind door #2, a slow-growing cancer that does not present symptoms until it is a full-blown type 4, leaving you no surgery options except digging a six-foot hole.

Although in real life there’s some middle group between the two, most things fall into these two categories. The fast and obvious versus the slow and clandestine.

One is direct and the other is not. The direct exists on a single level: it acts toward its goal and looks it. The indirect has two levels; first, its appearance and second, its actual goal.

Femicide, or the killing of women, occurs indirectly. Like most real “traps” in life, it has a pleasing outward appearance. If you’re thinking of dogs lapping up antifreeze, which tastes sweet, and then dying horrible deaths here, you’re probably correct.

Our Western civilization has enacted femicide by removing the powerful role that women had, and instead assigning them another role as interchangeable cog. For a relatively small amount of money, they gave up the security of having family as the center of their universe, and are now fodder for The System.

Woman: But you would want your wife to stay at home and do nothing with her life?

Me: How long does it take to cook three healthy meals and keep the home clean? Not more than four hours. If she is awake for 16 hours a day, and spends four hours of quality time with me, that means she has eight hours to do whatever she wants, at least until the kids start rolling in. She can pursue her hobbies and passions, go to the gym, read books, and enjoy her leisure time. As long as it doesn’t come at the expense of maintaining the home, and she does her best to please me, she is free to do what she wants.

Woman: But I want to accomplish something. I don’t want to be just a housewife.

Me: Pushing papers in an office is accomplishing something? Let’s be real, no woman is going to win a Nobel Prize with her work as a human resource associate, middle manager, or government bureaucrat. If you owned your own business or ran a charity that fed starving kids, I’d agree that you were accomplishing something, but spending all your days in meetings, dealing with dumb office politics, and being a standard-issue wage slave sounds a lot less fulfilling than being able to pursue your interests while satisfying a man who takes good care of you.

Woman: But if I don’t have a job and my husband has an affair, I’ll be helpless. I want to have a backup plan in case he neglects me.

Me: So you’re going to marry someone with the expectation of failure? If you already have divorce in the back of your head before you walk down the aisle then I guarantee it won’t work. It’s having the need for options and a way out that ensures the marriage will fail. It’s only when both parties are unconditionally committed to the marriage that it has a chance of success. – Roosh V.

He makes an excellent point. Very few jobs are “accomplishing something.” In fact, most of them are just earning a wage. Even most professions are following in the steps of others. And now that we’ve doubled the workforce by sending women out to work as well as men, the salaries are lower, even if the dollar amounts are higher.

Under a traditional society, men worked and women were in charge of basically everything else. In exchange for this seemingly lopsided bargain, women got greater free time and at least in the South, the ability to engineer just about anything through a backdoor system of influence. Women talked to other women who talked their husbands into doing things. It gave men a forward role, and women a way of building a civilization around that.

As for bulimia, anorexia nervosa, or any other eating disorder associated with women, the Left invariably manages to link these to our inherently sexist society, with women – the poor dears – driven to diet, puke, and starve themselves in a desperate attempt to fit the apparent preferences of misogynist males for women who look like they’ve just emerged from a concentration camp. Strange, then, that these illnesses only came into fashion following women’s lib in the 1960s.

Modern western society’s emphasis on pushing women away from the family into the wider society, where image becomes an issue, and the endless pornographization of our culture (“bitches gotta look good nekkid”), both leftist initiatives, seem to be at the heart of these phenomena. – Alternative Right

Further, women were not cast out into the world like meat for sale. They were able to stay home with their families until it was time to get married, or in uncommon but frequent cases, to launch on a career path instead. When they got married, as most people still seem to want to do, they were taken care of and the same social rules that MRAs bemoan kept the husband honest regarding his wife.

There were bad husbands, but that is a function of the people involved. If you are unable to pick a good husband, exchanging the first bad husband for the second, third, fourth etc. won’t do you any favors. You would have been better off with the first one unless he was a true-blue sociopath, which is a situation not to be handled by divorce, but by criminal law… but I digress.

Women had it better when they had a sacred role. Now, they’re pieces of meat. Meat to fondle and fornicate with, like a prostitute but they don’t get paid (except in dubious “pleasure”). Meat to throw into the wheels of the machine as some desk-bound functionary. Meat to watch hundreds of hours of television that saps its self-esteem, compelling it to buy more products.

This is why a growing number of young professional women who seem to “have it all” are burning out at work before they reach 30.

These early career flameouts are reflected through the corporate ladder. Today, 53% of corporate entry-level jobs are held by women, a percentage that drops to 37% for mid-management roles and 26% for vice presidents and senior managers, according to McKinsey research. Men are twice as likely as women to advance at each career transition stage.

…One reason that women are burning out early in their careers is that they have simply reached their breaking point after spending their childhoods developing well-rounded resumes. “These women worked like crazy in school, and in college, and then they get into the workforce and they are exhausted,” says Melanie Shreffler of the youth marketing blog Ypulse. – Forbes

One brutal truth: worker or mother, pick one. You can’t do both. As a Generation Xer, I got to witness firsthand the experiments in being both workers and mothers, and the results were uniform failure across the board. Social class, job type, etc. didn’t matter. Jobs always require you to be there more than you think you will, always wear you down, and always force you to confront the ugliest in humanity. Exhausted mothers return home with 25% of their energy left, and throw TV dinners at the kids, or embark on an ill-advised campaign to show the world they’re the best mothers ever, which sets up unrealistic expectations and results in quiet resentment of the children, and vice-versa.

The tipping point for Christianity in the US likely occurred when supplication became the church’s most profitable enterprise (as opposed to a backwoods hustler’s game), or at least when aspiring young preachers realized what success it could bring them. From there on out, a more female-oriented faith was inevitable.

If preachers had merely stopped there, it would be bad enough, but in their eagerness to please female congregants they’ve taken things a step farther, and many have progressed to the kind of outright man-bashing and shaming one would normally expect from a lesbian apostate such as Mary Daly.

They’ve gone from forgiving women’s sins, faith healing and praying for money to playing the part of a drill sergeant for husbands, who, as we all know, will never be quite good enough for wives, guaranteeing plenty of work for the energetic preacher. – The Spearhead

What’s happening here, in parallel?

Business panders to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up enslaving them.

(Some) Churches pander to women by offering them a pleasant illusion, and it ends up creating a religion in which no one participates.

Beware the indirect. Very little in life is what it says it is. Many rocks have snakes underneath them. Not all sweet-tasting things are free of poison. Fool’s gold exists. How many other ways must it be said?

The result of feminism is femicide: the destruction of female lives. Not quickly, like murder, but slowly over the course of decades. We turn them into pieces of meat and cogs in the machine, then tell them that “empowerment” means casual sex followed by years alone in their lifeless apartments, sipping Chardonnay and surfing Amazon.com, wondering about the could-have-beens: could have been a mother, could have been really loved, could have been something more than a desk-bound functionary with a high wine bill and low self-esteem.

What we think of feminism, female empowerment and pro-grrl ideals are in fact a subtle trap that lures women from a place of importance, and instead turns them into chattel. The ideal alternative is a traditional society, but trillions of dollars of movies, government propaganda, books, magazines and TV shows tell you otherwise.

I guess you’ll have to actually use your brain to figure this one out.

There are two types of freedom: freedom from something, and freedom to do something.

If you believe that your fate is conditioned by a vicious and self-serving government, you may want freedom from it. But if you have instead a constructive goal, you want the freedom to do that goal.

The first case is easier because it involves a clear enemy. The second is harder, because it does not state the reason why you would not be able to accomplish what you want. It is a matter of social approval as a whole, and not some part of society that is denying you what you seek.

MRAs talk quite a bit about false rape accusations. They do not like to talk about the relationship between casual sex and rape allegations. When men and women hook up at random, regret happens frequently. From regret come the accusations of false rape, which are unprovable as they are provable.

Statistics show that as many as 78 percent of women will engage in a hook-up at some point during their college tenure, 14 percent of whom will rely on a friend to tell them what happened the next day, 49 percent of whom will never see the partner again, and 16 percent of whom felt pressured into the sexual encounter. In a given year, roughly 97,000 cases of college campus sexual assault or date rape related to binge drinking are reported. Another 100,000 college students annually report being too drunk to know if they consented to having sex. – The Washington Post, No sex on campus?

With all that regret, bad behavior is inevitably going to follow.

Let’s look at an alternative. Traditional culture provided a ritualized courting period, after which a man married his future wife, and they generally lived together in innocence and mutual support. Many marriages were arranged, which is a polite way of saying that if your young people are confused, you go to the wisest village elders and pick some candidates for a match. Unsurprisingly, arranged marriages often last where “romantic” for-love/sex modern marriages do not. There was no illusion about sex being love, or marriage being a hedonistic pleasure. Marriage was like a battle-bond, by which a man and woman forged a family. In traditional culture, the only rapes that happened were assaults by strangers or men the women would normally not be speaking to. In our culture, the only difference between consent and rape is the degree of persuasion employed.

Our modern false rape epidemic is created by casual sex, itself a creation of feminism, itself a creation of liberalism.

When it comes down to “he-said/she-said,” there is no intelligent way to proceed, but the problem is that you’re damned either way. If you take her side, you may well be sending an innocent man to ruin. If you take his side, you may be excusing a heinous crime of personal violation. We can’t gamble with either of those outcomes.

Tradition had a better plan. Why do MRAs fear it?

MRAs are afraid of Tradition because feminists are afraid of Tradition. Tradition is patriarchy and honor. With honor comes the possibility of shame and dishonor. If no one cares and there are no consequences, dishonor — allowing yourself to be seen as weak, fearful and inept — is the easiest thing in the world. Honor requires an honor group, a group of men who will hold other men accountable, and MRAs are just as dedicated to breaking up male honor cultures as feminists are. – Jack Donovan, “Like Slipping Into a Warm Bath”

MRAs have (so far) based their game plan on creating a mirror-image of feminism and hoping to defeat it by being “more equal” than those who demand equality. The problem is that equality is never a goal in itself; you reach equality by penalizing those above the median, since you can’t force the incompetent below that median to suddenly, magically become more competent. Equality exists through penalties on the more equal.

In practical terms, this means feminism will always win out over MRA because feminism supports a group that is seen as inherently biological weaker. They will always be pitied, and men not. Men asking for pity alienates strong men and attracts weaker men. It’s a vicious cycle of failure that explains why MRM has gotten zero political traction.

Reversing feminism by imitating it offers an unlikely solution. What makes more sense is to figure out the origin of feminism, and reverse that. In the case of our modern society, that origin is a withdrawal from shared values and a leap into the world of subjective, individualistic and social forces. That is the source of the disease.

If we’re truly tired of that, we’ll seek to incorporate tradition in our plans as a solution and not a symptomatic treatment. At that point, we will be clear in our minds that we want a cure, not just a more comfortable disease.

A fascinating discussion has broken out in the world of men’s blogs, based on the question “What is masculinity?”

I read Jack Donovan‘s many projects because unlike most writers, who specialize and then add a worldview to match, Jack has a complete view of the world and can apply it to any specific area. This is why anything he writes offers a point, and then context, which gives you more to think about.

Here’s his most recent stab at a definition of masculinity:

Masculinity is that which is least feminine; femininity is that which is least masculine.

I like this because it puts everything in the world on a spectrum which runs from one to the other. My own tendencies are to try to find a discrete definition, but what’s good about the type of definition you can see above is that it covers everything.

You know what else covers everything regarding gender? Language. Many languages use gender on their nouns. This means that maybe a chair is masculine, but a fork is feminine; it takes a long time to understand how the genders “work” in that language, but generally at that point, you know a lot about the culture.

I have an addition to Jack’s term for consideration by the MRA blogosphere, “man-o-sphere” (sounds like an angry ben-wa ball) and the gender blog world in general:

Masculinity and femininity are complementary opposites. That which is not masculine is feminine, and vice versa, such that a completed whole emerges only through the two parts.

When you think about it this way, the masculine and feminine roles are different approaches that balance each other and by doing so, enhance each other’s understanding of the other. Additional complementary opposites: hot/cold, dark/light, smart/dumb, fast/slow, wet/dry.

Complementary opposites are a product of a relative universe. To know what is hot, you must know what is cold, because without the other to define it in contrast, neither term means anything. If you lived in a climate where the temperature was 80 F year-round, you probably would not think of hot and cold as terms to describe a day.

It is the same way with gender. What is feminine defines the limits of masculinity, and vice versa. This enables each gender, by being distinctive, to strengthen the other. Much as we need night to have day, we need masculinity and femininity forever playfully wrestling in order to have a whole vision.

One of our society’s favorite excuses is that you cannot get to the truth of a matter because there are too many “shades of gray.”

This is their way of saying that they don’t want you to reach an answer because they’d prefer you simply shrug and move on and leave things as they are. Either that, or they want to convince you to avoid taking action, because decisive action is what the modern self-doubting moral hamster fears.

However, there’s a problem with shades of gray. It replaces a clear pattern with an ambiguity that is usually taken advantage of by idiots.

All of which is a poignant, personal way of alerting you to the fact that Cosmo has come up with a new name for this kind of nonviolent collegiate date-rape sort of happening: gray rape.

And some feminists are angry, and they’ve launched a letter-writing campaign about it, though if you’re reading Cosmo for purposes other than to revel in its unique special brand of inanity you have bigger issues with your sexual identity than what to call that time you fucked that guy you didn’t really want to fuck. I’m not sure what to think about any of this, because while Laura Session Stepp (the writer of the Cosmo story) is a tool, reading the individual stories of “gray rape” victims that so closely mirrored my own — they got too drunk! they said no, but then they passed out! when they realized they were having sex, they stopped! — I felt absolutely nothing. It was one drunken regrettable night. One of so, so many more to come. And I have found that when a guy demeans you in a drunken state, it is more likely to stick with you and haunt you if you give anything resembling a shit about his opinion. – Jezebel

The way feminism’s advocates describe their lives always reveals the actual results of feminism.

On the surface, they describe a paradise that resembles those commercials for Nuva Ring: strong, independent women doing whatever they want to do and having successful careers.

Under the surface, we see bored women who are slaves to their jobs, with a string of failed relationships and so many regrets and emotional baggage that they’re incapable of bonding to anything more complex than an iPod.

However, she brings up a good point: why do we choose to have shades of gray, when we could just make a decision and impose black/white boundaries, and be done with the misery?

People like shades of gray because it hides their incompetence. If there’s no clear standard, anything goes. If anything goes, no one is wrong. If no one is wrong, I personally am not wrong, and no one can tell me what to do. I’m free!

The high cost of this kind of “freedom” — which isn’t liberty so much as it is narcissism — is that people have to stumble through the learning that enabled us to create a civilization, but each person has to do it alone and only gets good at it when they’re 50 and it’s too late to matter.

Both MRAs and feminists are barking up the wrong tree. They demand equality, strong rights protection, etc. but these things do not produce happy lives. Instead, they produce broken ones.

And both groups seem to live in different worlds. To a feminist, most rapes go unreported. To an MRA, most reports of rape are false. Which is true?

I will advance a radical proposition: it’s not the rape, it’s the shades of gray. In the gray area, women toss out their sexual favors carelessly, and men run panting after them like dogs. The only way to prove your “freedom” (and thus, success) is to be having sex. The competition is high.

The result of this is many regrets. People regret having sex after sex, or during sex. They get pressured into sex they don’t want.

Worst of all, there is no convincing evidence. It’s all he-said/she-said. Two people leave a party, drink heavily, and go back to his place or her place. After that, there are no witnesses, and so a gray rape, an outright rape, or a false accusation look the same the day afterwards.

• Signs of aggressive sex. Some people enjoy rough or “athletic” sex and the signs here are indistinguishable, unless he punches her in the head repeatedly or she has handcuff marks on her wrists. Still, we don’t know for certain those were not part of the sexual stimulation.
• No condom. People like to think they always make the right choice, but it’s hard to not notice that condoms murder sensation. Even with thin condoms, it’s more like having sex with an innertube than a person. As a result, the condom often gets chucked aside in the heat of the moment. If this were not true, sales of birth control pills, rings, etc. would fall through the floor.
• Her condition. She drinks to oblivion, maybe takes some drugs, and then the next day is certain she was raped. Maybe she was; but how the heck are we to tell? Come to think of it, how is she going to know, given her mental state? Or him?

When we endorse casual sex, we put men and women at a disadvantage. They give away for free what should be a powerful bargaining chip, and as a result, they end up alone after a string of failures.

In addition, they fail to enjoy the process. Man versus woman is now an adversarial relationship, not a playful one. It’s people using each other for their own ends. Maybe the reason we are so quick to accuse bankers of causing all our ills is that secretly we recognize our own hypocrisy.

The biggest tragedy however is that rape is now a perpetual gray area. The courts are becoming reluctant to touch gray rape or acquaintance rape because the cases are expensive and far too often end in a situation where the truth is so unclear that to rule either way is injustice for someone. Lawsuits result.

If men want a future where they can both have a woman and enjoy her without all of the dysfunction, this future lies in doing away with “gray areas,” including the indistinguishable acts of casual sex and gray rape.

The underlying tension in the men’s rights movement has reached a boil, with PUAs on one side and more comprehensive advocates on the other.

PUAs want you to believe that the symbol is more important than the reality. This way, even if you’re Corner Office Joe with a meaningless job, meaningless apartment, and lack of connection to anything you truly believe in, you’re a Man if you’re out there picking up the sluts and taking them home.

Comprehensive advocates point to the more fundamental problems men face: as the perceived stronger sex, we are discriminated against to the point where our futures have been sabotaged; we are deprived of family through divorce and biased divorce courts; and finally, we are under media assault that seeks to crush our self-esteem.

For the purpose of comparison, I’m going to lump the feminist-MRAs in with the PUAs because both of them are waging a defensive strategy. Feminist-MRAs (FMRAs) are men who want to adopt the feminist method for men, which means making men see themselves as victims and forcing them to adopt a defensive strategy.

Why are PUAs and FMRAs similar? Both have adopted this victimhood outlook and defensive strategy. PUAs have given up on making changes for men in society; they figure that since there’s no hope of real change, they might as well get laid and feel like Real Men instead. FMRAs have given up on making change in society, and instead want to make mens’ rights another victim’s group like feminists, rape survivors, etc.

Many of us are cynical about PUAs because they are not a recent phenomenon. They started appearing in the early 1970s, after the hippies brought us “sexual liberation” for political purposes (equality). PUAs have always been men who mysteriously have not succeeded under other circumstances, and who tend to have shattered family lives, but have convinced themselves they are Real Men because they get laid a lot.

In the past, real men did not need symbols to convince themselves of their value. For them, the equation was simpler: they were real men because they acted like real men and did the things real men accomplished, like acts of bravery, keeping families, and being honorable, powerful leaders.

When you give up on that possibility, you can prove yourself as a man either by extreme displays of symbolic manliness (weightlifting, martial arts) or by trying to demonstrate your ego through sex. However, you’re still going about it backwards; instead of being a real man, you’re trying to look like one.

Paul Elam gets to the heart of it:

It’s a tad ironic, isn’t it, that in a culture where women are slinging ass like free hydro at a Pink Floyd concert, that we have men out here actually selling the idea that getting laid is an “art”?

Don’t get me wrong. I don’t have anything against the high profile PUA’s and Gamers. I also have a healthy respect for people who can sell designer lint removers when a patch of masking tape and some common sense will work just as well. But it has to be said, must be said, that both of these kinds of sales people are targeting a similar demographic; ignorant, gullible customers.

Since his article is long, I’ll use G.L. Piggy’s far more efficient synopsis:

Elam’s argument is that Gamers wrongly assess their own value through women’s reactions to them.

Right there is all you need to know.

PUAs define themselves by how women see them.

In the same way, FMRAs define themselves by how feminists act.

Does anyone else see the problem here?

The study of masculinity and what it is to be a man could take thousands of pages. The basic idea however is that men are defined by how they lead and keep the team together. Of the two complementary gender principles, the masculine is that which projects and asserts. It is aggression against potential problems and a supportive but rigid foundation to civilization itself.

This masculine principle is entirely destroyed by making it a slave to what sluts in bars think, or what feminists think. It would be hard to find a less competent audience.

(Women have another role which is that they are the masters of adaptation and the weavers of details. They take the rough draft of masculine projection and apply it, weaving in all the stuff that falls between the cracks and making sense of all the contradictions. Without women, men are lost, but only to the degree that women are also lost without men.)

PUAs and FMRAs are the dropouts of the men’s rights movement. They have stopped agitating for men’s roles and started instead demanding compensation. What’s the difference? Roles are activities reserved for you which you try to fulfill to the best of your ability. Compensation are the toys, trinkets and short-lived pleasures you seek if you cannot have a role.

While our friends are busy tossing around sex as proof of their masculinity, in the time-honored tradition of those who stay home from battles and hide in the bushes to avoid facing their ex-wives, real issues confront men:

According to The New York Times, Dieter Krombach was married to Bamberski’s ex-wife, and hence stepfather to 14-year-old Kalinka. French police say the German doctor raped and then killed his stepdaughter at his home in Germany. But Krombach has resisted French officials’ requests that he come into their country for questioning for the past 29 years. The German government, claiming there isn’t sufficient evidence to suggest he played a role in the girl’s death, has likewise refused to extradite him.

You do not need some kind of lengthy argument or “proof” (almost no one using this term understands it) to see the obvious here: real issues confront men; PUA and FMRA run away from those issues. In addition, what defines us as men is that we are not the whining passive victims that PUAs and FMRAs, by defining themselves through how women react to them, apparently are.

You never get far by allowing your opponent to dictate your responses. If you make your actions depend on what the other guy does, he (or she) has the upper hand. Pathetically, this is what PUAs/FMRAs want to do to men’s rights as a movement: make it a bitch to feminism and the cult of anti-masculinity.

Men’s Rights remains a new field because it only exists since feminism has triumphed in the media, the courts and the social sphere. However, if you’re going to fight, fight to win, instead of looking for some way you can avoid that burden and hang out in bars with mentally defective women instead.

A word from experience: do not emulate your enemies. They are better at their tactics than you are, and they are your enemies because you are from the opposite side of the values spectrum. Otherwise, you’d be allies.

At GROIN we have for some time lamented the tendency of MRAs to merely imitate feminists, initiating the process of becoming a leftist movement and thus, following the same path that led us to the place which MRAs find so objectionable.

In fact, they will get very angry and say nasty things about you if you criticize them, much like leftists. Their view is not a realistic one; it’s an emotional view. If someone has something they don’t, they want to make themselves into victims and use that victimhood to demand “equal” or greater treatment.

It’s a tempting narrative because it is the dominant narrative of our time. Since the French Revolution in 1789, the name of the game has been to construe yourself as a victim, and gather other victims together to overthrow your leaders and take what they have.

This has of course had mixed results, because it’s not a plan so much as a tantrum, trend and social fashion combined. In fact, it is the direct ancestor of feminism, which is (you got it) a movement based on victimhood and joining victims together into an ad hoc army of the righteous.

The problem with the current movement is that it is attempting to play by the rules of its adversaries. MRAs seem to have said, “Gee, look how successful the feminist movement was! If we do the same thing, but with men’s rights, we should get the same result!”

This approach has given us a men’s rights movement thoroughly steeped in the vocabulary and tactics of radical left-wing activism. As it’s currently constituted, it is doomed to have close to zero impact on the world outside of itself. The tactical and strategic environment that MRAs must fight in is completely different from the world in which the feminist movement lives. – In Mala Fide

MRAs are moving in a circle. they are upset at feminism, which is a result of liberalism, so the MRAs are demanding liberalism be extended to men. The result of that will be the state immediately before feminism, and so feminism will be re-created.

If you want to escape the vicious cycle, break out of the loop. Stop talking about equality and start talking about adaptive complementary roles. Stop defending the sexual revolution and start talking about a more elegant male-female interaction.

This is the only way to escape the same pattern coming up over and over again. I don’t think most MRAs honestly want to break free, however. They just want to join a long list of victim’s movements and get “their share.” And as for the future? They’re not thinking about that.

When I was a kid, I was baffled by the big colorful advertisements that told us about wonderful free things. Come on in and get a toaster, free — kids eat free — or even a free toy at the bottom of the box. Free TV shows, free contests, free prizes.

Through some prodding by a parent and a little independent thinking, it soon dawned on me that none of these things were free. They were inducements, and I had to make a purchase or spend a whole bunch of time doing dumb stuff to get them. And even then, there was no guarantee.

Since then, I’ve thought a lot about “free.” Nothing occurs without a primary cause except perhaps the universe itself; every thing that you might give away free had to be created. As a result, there must be some kind of trade.

Often however you have to wait decades to see what the price is:

Today I am 39, with too many ex-boyfriends to count and, I am told, two grim-seeming options to face down: either stay single or settle for a “good enough” mate. At this point, certainly, falling in love and getting married may be less a matter of choice than a stroke of wild great luck. A decade ago, luck didn’t even cross my mind. I’d been in love before, and I’d be in love again. This wasn’t hubris so much as naïveté; I’d had serious, long-term boyfriends since my freshman year of high school, and simply couldn’t envision my life any differently.

Well, there was a lot I didn’t know 10 years ago. The decision to end a stable relationship for abstract rather than concrete reasons (“something was missing”), I see now, is in keeping with a post-Boomer ideology that values emotional fulfillment above all else. And the elevation of independence over coupling (“I wasn’t ready to settle down”) is a second-wave feminist idea I’d acquired from my mother, who had embraced it, in part, I suspect, to correct for her own choices. – The Atlantic

Liberation is slavery if by being “free” you are being cut off from something you need, in exchange for something you do not. Sexual liberation benefited commerce, and the women and men who thought they got something “free” in fact simply switched obligations.

Instead of owing their time to family and a community, as “free” women they became products. Commerce thrived because suddenly the labor pool was twice as big, and lonely women spend long hours at the office. Because they are perpetually single, they also need grooming products and personal items for many more years than before.

In fact, everyone profits. The doctors get to capitalize on a new spate of sexual diseases. Psychologists get fat on the payments from lonely women. Twice as many apartments are rented, twice as many cars sold, twice as many tickets paid, more clothes and other items bought! It’s a free-for-all… for the sellers and employers.

For individuals, not so much. Instead of moving into comfortable families and having a sacred role, women view the family as slavery and so end up working office jobs their whole lives, never having a stable family, and if they do reproduce, creating alienated, distrustful and scornful children.

By abandoning our biological roles, which arose out of millions of years of evolution and are thus the products of more thought than all the people alive today can complete in a lifetime, we have “freed” ourselves from what we want, which is what is a sensible way to live.

Instead, we settle for the convenient and are worse off for it:

New research out of the U.K. says women who met their partners while on the pill are less sexually satisfied.

For the study – published in the Oct. 12 issue of Proceedings of the Royal Society B – researchers surveyed 2,500 heterosexual women with one child. The researchers asked the women about their relationship with their child’s biological father. About 1,000 of the women were taking the pill, while 1500 used no form of hormonal contraception.

The study found that women who took the pill were less sexually satisfied, found their partners less attractive, and were more likely to be the one to initiate an eventual separation. – CBS

Hormonally compromised women are “free” from biology, but they forget biology exists because it is logical, and that institutions like marriage have evolved over thousands of years to find the best possible way of dealing with the need to reproduce.

When we muck around with this, we produce people who are cut loose from purpose. That is the ultimate “free”dom; to have no purpose, and thus no “right” or “wrong.” Since there is no goal, you cannot fail to achieve the goal, and even more, you can get to a result and then claim that it was always the goal.

Freedom, or destruction of your purpose, resembles what a parasite does when it makes you ill or takes over your brain. It re-wires your purpose to its purpose, and then you do its bidding. You are now its slave, especially if it introduces slavery by calling it free, freedom or liberation.

People are easy to manipulate. First, you put an image into their heads and make it enticing. Start with: the struggles you engage in now and the losses you now take are not necessary. There is a way where you can have what you want without having to risk/work for it. Then tie your product to that.

In the case of sexual liberation, this required portraying marriage as miserable, men as awful, and child-rearing as a giant bother. Instead, be paranoid about death and in a panic, spend all of your life on yourself alone. But then the body and mind become a prison when you realize that without connection to something larger, such a life is meaningless.

Maybe marriage, fidelity, love, chastity and family-centric living had a purpose after all!

[It] seems like heterosexual monogamy really does form a much better basis for a functioning and equal society than soft polygamy or nullogamy, the system that ironically managed to stomp down the black America far worse than even the Klan ever could. This even for women, who the latter systems allow sexual access to alpha males, at least for a short time. However, these systems are simply not self-supporting, but require the generous welfare state that serves as a non-judgmental beta provider boyfriend for most women. And as everyone should know from the news, these days all welfare states are quickly running out of other people’s money. – The Fourth Checkraise

The end result of sexual liberation is that we turn marriage from being a safe harbor and comfort into an adversarial relationship. You know your spouse screwed around before you; you did the same. Why extend fidelity? It’s just a prison. That is, until it happens to you.

Yet if the French aren’t cheating more than others, they do seem more tolerant. 53 percent of those questioned by Gleeden said it was possible to cheat on your partner while still loving them, the highest rate for all countries.

{snip}

“With his wife he has projects of bringing up children, buying a house, creating a life. With an attraction to another young woman it’s not the same thing.” – The Local

So, researchers… is that why all those marriages are ending in divorce? Is that way people are still manic for love, and not finding it? By the way, commerce is doing just fine. And even in the progressive-enlightened-Utopia of sexual liberation, all is not well:

Still, in France’s macho society there remains a big difference between what men and women can get away with.

“French culture is hard on women who cheat,” says Vaillant. “The husband of a woman who cheats is ridiculed, even today.”

There’s a common sense underlying marriage and fidelity which we cannot quite dispense with. Instead we straddle the fence, and our balls hurt.

I will now undertake a subject few MRAs dare mention: the value of chastity, or of (a) loving only one woman and (b) not having sex like an indiscriminate bonobo.

Most MRAs are in victimhood mode. Their worldview is that since the West has decided to turn against winners, and champion loserness through equality and thus take revenge on those who rise above the herd, it’s time for men (traditionally perceived as being at the top of the hierarchy) to take revenge.

This revenge does not come in the form of fixing the problem. Instead, it’s compensation. You don’t get what you want; so instead, get a lot of whatever is left over. This means that instead of having what men crave, which is a sacred role for men and the appreciation of good women, you get lots of sex with female losers.

I’ll take a different path: experience numbs. The more you have a certain experience, the more you are dulled to it. This is the real reason most people loathe office work; it’s not so much boring in itself, but the repetition and lack of change and lacking of possible changed outcome is soul-crushing.

It’s the same way when you go to a party. You may remember the first ten names, but after that, you’re awash in so many similar memories that it all runs together. Soon you are numb to new names.

This is also one of the great challenges of life. You can’t find that “one best day ever” and repeat it over and over. The experiences of that day were not what made it great; it was your receptiveness to them, and the role they played in your life.

In other words, if you went out on your 21st birthday and went fishing with friends, got in a fistfight, drank until dawn and then fired bottle rockets at the sinking moon as dawn approached, it was the time more than the actions that made that day special. You can’t step into the same river twice.

So if you go out again and do the exact same stuff — fish with friends for twice as many hours, fight five times as many dudes, drink ten times as much and buy bigger bottle rockets — you can’t relive that moment. You are just going through the motions.

Sex is the same way. You can view it as an experience, in which the context defines its meaning, or you can treat it as a commodity, where more (and more convenient) is better.

If you want the best sex in history, you don’t find it by looking for sex. Instead, you look for the right experience: when you are open to love, finding someone who shares your vision, and coming together through a process of emotional negotiation and struggle to discover what you both find sacred and worth dying for.

That sounds more like love than casual sex, doesn’t it?

In a survey of 1,700 married couples, researchers found that couples in which one or both partners placed a high priority on getting or spending money were much less likely to have satisfying and stable marriages.

“Our study found that materialism was associated with spouses having lower levels of responsiveness and less emotional maturity. Materialism was also linked to less effective communication, higher levels of negative conflict, lower relationship satisfaction, and less marriage stability,” said Jason Carroll, a BYU professor of family life in Provo, Utah, and lead author of the study. – ABC

If you treat sex like a commodity, you’re treating it like money, where the amount matters but the experience is dead. Money is not the experience. It may be essential for it, and enable that experience, but you cannot create the experience with money. The same is true with the quantity of sex.

Those who think in this materialistic way miss out on what makes life valuable to us. We have a certain band of time in which we exist, and we want to make this time powerful by giving it context and thus meaning. Without something to work toward, it is empty repetition of experience.

Women crave security.

Ideally, they want to “marry up” — up in terms of strength, finances, clout, and intellectual capability. And this is reflected in a not uncommon female reaction. When a woman falls for a man whom she can look “up” to, she may say to him something such as “You make me feel safe” (I get this from female readers all the time — sometimes one article is all it takes). And from a Darwinian standpoint, this makes sense. For, if a woman’s children are to survive, she must secure a safe environment for them.

The cocoon of safety in which she traditionally was most comfortable — and it is her primary focus — is the family. And it is by necessity a little nanny state; it is, quite appropriately, a very socialist, top-down, command-control institution. Its closest thing to the “people,” the children, are controlled and afforded relatively few freedoms; the family is not democratic. And it is a communal place, where everything is shared and the “people” are cared for by the “government” (the parents). To a great extent, its operating principle is “From each according to his means; to each according to his needs.” – American Thinker

This is another form of confusing experience for quantity: what makes a woman feel safe is knowing she is with a man who is heading in the right direction. Not surprisingly, the converse makes men feel their lives are being lived well. This is a path to happiness: context, meaning and choice.

Every choice means a sacrifice. To choose one item out of ten is to cut out the other nine; to choose one path through life is to obliterate the others. You can choose either quality, or quantity, but not both. The two are paths that lead away from each other.

MRAs like to believe that quality is dead to them, and there is no hope, so they might as well pour themselves another drink, play more video games, and bang a few more confused and abused women in order to feel like they’re on top. It’s victimhood and dominance in one.

Of course, this becomes unsatisfying. After a while, you can’t tell the difference between women and the act has grown repetitive and stale, but your socially-programmed male pride will not let you admit that. So instead you become more hollow and more like a victim of society, not a male leadership figure.

Chastity is controversial now. Our witless herd culture views it as the opposite of fun. After all, to be chaste you have to give up on quantity, in order to choose quality. What if the trend-culture got it exactly wrong, and the path to quality is the path to joy, and quantity leads only to tedium?

When I first differentiated between nihilism and fatalism (what Nietzsche calls “nihilism”), people really objected and accused me of being illiterate and un-educated and all the usual stuff.

Over time it has become clear however that I was more correct than I realized. Nihilism would reject all values; fatalism rejects all but the self as a defensive mechanism against a world it considers bad. Inevitably this view also invades the self.

The past few weeks have shown me how crazed and suicidal people of the modern persuasion are. While they are mostly liberal, it occurs on a more basic level than that: they are defensive narcissists who engage in altruistic behavior to manipulate others and protect themselves. Signs of the collapse.

In fact, these modern people are equal parts self-pity and white-knight, because they are forever seeking reasons to feel good about themselves. They know it’s all artificial, and all for show, but they want to be “uplifting” to give themselves a few moments of joy before doom. They are essentially suicidal.

You can see this very clearly in how these women react:

Women in a Brooklyn neighborhood on edge over a spate of sex attacks are being told by police that wearing skirts and dresses might not be a good idea.

The surprising message from the NYPD is not being taken well.

“I think that women should be able to wear whatever they want,” said Theresa Troupson, a Park Slope resident. “I don’t think that they should be held responsible in any way for the actions of criminals.” – NBC New York

These people literally have reversed mentation.

A normal thought process looks at the world and tries to find rules of how it works, and to use those rules to adapt and achieve a positive result. Behavior conforms to the situation.

This modern mentality is the exact reverse. The situation is forced to conform to the desires of human behavior, which are increasingly based on what individual humans want to consider important, namely that we’re all equal which means each of us is OK because everything is OK. No standards means all are accepted.

You can imagine these women arguing with snakes, telling them not to bite, or complaining that the blast of freezing air from the north is oppressive.

They are living in this illusion that there will be something simple they can do to defend themselves against this predator, and that making the symbolic statement of being able to do whatever they want whenever they want wherever they want is more important than coming out alive.

A more sensible animal, feral and not self-conscious, would simply disguise itself with the required camouflage. It might even gently hint that such airy principles are the provenance of dying civilizations and their spoiled, egodramatic, neurotic and narcissistic people.

If you want to destroy a civilization, subvert its sense of value with fashion. That way, instead of wanting good things, the citizens want “exciting” things, and you can work around logic. There is no longer a right answer or even a way to assess one answer as better than another.

These false values are doubly destructive. First, they destroy any value that is comprehensible or logical; second, by becoming the new values system, they are defended by well-meaning idiots who thus subvert their own authority, driving people away from the concept of values at all.

Soon you have full-on anarchy, which translates to “the lowest common denominator wins, every time” because the frenzy of an anarchic society does not have time to stop and wonder about the best answer — or even a good one. It cares about what is socially fashionable in the moment, to the individual, and damn the consequences.

All of that sounds good — it is after all the most freedom you can ever really have — until you consider the long-term consequences and cost. The consequences are social chaos and a paranoid distrust of other people, even when or I should say especially when acting carefree and sociable, and the cost is having given up on a values system that will reward you for being good at anything.

In other words, anarchy rewards those who feel they need anarchy, which are generally the people who aren’t making it in a structured system, and are afraid of competence tests and responsibility. Anarchy is for those who want civilization without the responsibility of civilization.

There’s another problem to false values: they are a human construct. Some would call this a “social construct,” but that term has been murdered by leftists who apply it to biological realities like gender, intelligence, heritage, etc. so we no longer use it.

Since false values are a human construct, inevitably they fail.

Our recent recession for example is just a small failure, a taste of bigger future fails to come, that reflects our economic system discovering suddenly that the consumerist empire is based on idiots buying plastic crap from Wal-Mart.

Your fellow idiots would love to blame someone called “banksters,” which is a predictably stupid view: blame others for your problems. Bankers only get away with what they do because of a huge mass of credulous fools who are so intent on their pleasures and toy-buying that they don’t really care what happens in government, and by extension in the economy.

They approve corrupt leaders and moronic ideas by the bushel, and then blame “the bankers” when the economy collapses because ten million idiots mortgaged homes they couldn’t afford and then ran away when the bills rose.

Now look at what your fellow citizens are doing to further ruin your life:

Women are jumping into the sack faster and with fewer expectations about long-term commitments than ever, effectively discounting the “price” of sex to a record low, according to social psychologists.

More than 25% of young women report giving it up within the first week of dating. While researchers don’t have a baseline to compare it to, interviews they have conducted lead them to believe this is higher than before, which increases the pressure on other women and changes the expectations of men. – NY Post

“Man, don’t be a buzzkill. What’s wrong with that? More sex for everyone! It’s like … sexual socialism! Free love. We all get laid. Rock on!”

Yeah, about that — you have to think like an economist. If they’ve devalued sex, that means they’ve also devalued you. That means that they’re going to have sex with idiots and then at some point, want you to marry them and put up with their neurotic slutlike selves while they bork out spawn.

The problem is, again, that they’ve devalued you. Expect to be divorced. But before that, expect that your spouse will never honestly give half a crap about your needs, will never respect you, and will sneak around behind your back doing all sorts of unseemly things. It’s like being a bonobo.

In addition, your sex life is now going to be terrible. With women giving it away cheaper than before, skill is no longer a premium. As a result, you’re going to see the girls you’d like to be with going home with douchebags 90% of the time, except that odd night when you get sloppy seconds.

Free love. Sexual socialism. More like: a total absence of sexual value. And that means a total lack of value to you, to relationships, to marriage, etc. which means you’re a fool if you even participate in one-night stands. It’s all toxic. That leaves you with escort services and a lonely long life ahead.

The sad fact is that plans based on illusions fall apart and leave wreckage in their wake. Take this sob-story for example:

Veronica’s husband, Jonathan, had a busy studio where he recorded and produced up-and-coming rap, hip-hop and R&B artists. But when the economy tanked, his clients ran out of money and he had to pawn his equipment to pay the bills.

The family downsized to an apartment in Long Beach, then a friend’s spare room in Corona. When the friend was evicted last year, Jonathan, 35, Veronica, 34, and their four children ages 3 to 8 were homeless.

The Longs squeezed into a room at the Union Rescue Mission, which has turned over two floors of its main shelter to families washing up on skid row. Soon after, Veronica found out she was pregnant. (She thought she couldn’t have more children because of a medical condition.) – LA Times

The L.A. T wants you to weep for these people.

I suggest you laugh at them. First, for getting into this hilarious debacle, and second, for allowing a national newspaper to expose their ridiculous predicament for everyone to see. It’s like fail squared.

A studio for up-and-com, rap and R&B artists? Give me a break. That’s weenie music. No man worth his time would listen to such obvious childrens’ music. But even more, it’s obsolete. At this point, we have too much of it. It’s easy to produce. The audience isn’t critical. And most importantly, it doesn’t give anything to the economy or culture — except false value.

Real value is a business that generates more wealth. If you have a prosperous farm, manufacturing concern or even something intangible like a software firm, you are contributing.

People who are pandering to the dead-end consumer audience, like entertainment products and hair care, are not actually contributing. They are moving money around in a way that is guaranteed not to produce more of it. Instead, it does the exact opposite, and fritters it away into the ghetto activities of a dying nation.

The connection between this and sexual socialism is that they use the same principle: you either concentrate your power and do something meaningful with it, or disperse it through pointless activity. The latter is a false value and is destined for total failure like all other illusions.