We have only existed as a civilization for twelve-thousand years. To operate as a society, we need a level of cooperation between all participants and thus we have rules and conventions. We cannot just do as we please. Restraint is required. We are descendants of animals. The male has a tendency to be violent and lazy. Males are inherently lazy, which is a trait inherited from our ancestors who would conserve energy in preparation for the next hunt. Lazy actually means unwilling to work or use energy. This might work in the jungle, but it is not so useful to society. We have to incentivize males to counter their laziness. Violence is variously described as involving physical force with a likelihood of damage. This would be used for purposes which may include food and propagation. Our male is programmed to propagate and also has the potential to be a violent beast. If we try to control the violence with punishment, the male has to commit the violence before he is subjected to punishment. Thus, to make society safe for females, it is necessary to train males to treat women with respect. Our female ancestors learned to do the training at the male’s most impressionable age — when he was very very young. Our female ancestors were operating with a higher level of common sense than is currently prevalent and trained the little boys to be respectful to girls, subservient to their mothers, and willing workers for their future female partners. Jail is too late. Thus, the violent and lustful male was tamed to be a useful device for women. The male was trained to get his self-validation from women. The natural laziness of the male was overcome by clever tactics. Laziness has a lot of similarity to efficiency as both require the minimum use of effort. The task was to make it less effort for the woman. So procreation for males was tied to work. If males worked hard and supported women, they got to procreate. They were dressed in practical clothes that looked similar to all the other men, practical footwear, had short nails, and cropped hair. All aspects of masculinity were defined in terms of what was useful to females. A ‘good man’ is a man that looks after his woman. Young males are taught to ignore pain, fear, and deprivation so that they can protect and work for women. This was an incredibly successful scheme, so much so that women could wear long nails, high shoes, and precious items bought using male effort. “My man bought me a diamond ring. He is such a good man! Now he is building a big house just the way I want it. He works so hard. I love him to bits.” Males went to work whilst women went to cafés where they would boast about ‘their man’ and how he worked and grovelled to his ‘woman’. They compared slaves. They dressed to impress other women, not males. He was expected to be ‘loyal’ to his one woman. Males were the useful pack horses. The trick was to relate work to procreation which got the males out working. If he worked well, he would get occasional access to the honeypot. Women had created a cartel where men were subservient to females for access to procreation. Women controlled their urges and used sex to manipulate. The pack sports played by males were war training and war replacement for the purpose of defending society for the benefit of females and children.
The dog is also a wild violent animal. It is trained to be human’s best friend. The horse is a powerful animal with a deadly kick. Over millennia, it has been trained to be human’s mode of transport. It is very useful to have a puppy in the family so that the small girls can learn the training techniques.
If males get the upper hand, they put immense effort into impregnating as many females as possible. If they are restrained, they will bond to the best girl that will have them and stick with her, as he has no other options. Biologically, males are not lazy when it comes to bedroom activities. If they are hungry, procreation takes precedence. If they stagger off the sports field, they still have energy for the bedroom. They may avoid the dishes, but they have plenty of energy for bed antics. When males get the upper hand, they impregnate as many women as possible. Rich males will divorce for a younger female. The ‘Hollywood Marriage’ implied a short-lived marriage. Rich males will have mistresses. The so-called ‘sexual revolution’ has been a bonanza for males. Although males are naturally promiscuous, Jesus demanded that males marry for life. In the times before Jesus, given a chance, males would divorce to bring a younger female into their life. The divorced wife would be destitute physically, emotionally, and financially. There were many destitute women in those times. Jesus demanded monogamy for life. This tipped the power balance in favour of women by giving them a strong position in the family where they could train the young males to revere women and work for the benefit of women and their offspring in a selfless manner. The tactics were astounding and the then established traditions still exist in the definitions of manliness and masculinity. All definitions of manliness refer to items that are favourable to women. A ‘real man’ looks after his woman. A ‘romantic’ man grovels to his woman. A man gets on his knee and begs a woman to marry. The male is not held in physical chains but in mental chains. Women created a cartel where males could not get sex unless they married. Prostitution would cover any shortfall and again involved males giving their earnings to females. Thus males were held in a captive environment and worked their lives to provide sustenance to a female and her offspring. Jesus enforced the stable environment for the woman which enabled women to train young males to operate in a manner to suit females. When Jesus said that marriage was for life, his disciples questioned whether any male would marry under such tough conditions. They concluded that the benefits outweighed the disadvantages.
Thus, to operate as a society, it is necessary to harness the male’s violence and lust for the benefit of society. It is also necessary to protect women by training the males at a very impressionable age that violence towards women is not acceptable. Strangely, violence is used to enforce this on young males. The training of very young males in aspects of respect towards women is the major task of the mothers.
This is reinforced by the father. The father demonstrates the acceptance of the discipline of the young males by the older females. Thus it is males that were imprisoned by gender stereotypes.
Women need to be looked after. Women have an incentive to get help in raising children. They are the ones that give birth and suckle children. They have all the necessary skillsets to rear children. Male parental care was indispensable to female reproduction. Under monogamy for life, the woman is completely removed from any requirement to provide. This was not the repression of females, it was repression of males. Males were happy with the arrangement and wilfully married to obtain the benefits of procreation in a stable society. They had no choice — grovel to a woman or get turfed out of the gene pool.
In 1934, J. D. Unwin wrote in ‘Sex and culture’:
“The whole of human history does not contain a single instance of a group becoming civilized unless it has been absolutely monogamous, nor is there any example of a group retaining its culture after it has adopted less rigorous customs.”
If we wish to survive as a race, we need to comply with the requirements of monogamy. Monogamy was the advice of Jesus and others. What Unwin found was societies flourished during eras where they valued sexual fidelity. When sexual mores became relaxed, the society would decline. The society would later rise when they returned to rigid sexual standards. I sometimes quip: “If you want to destroy a nation, make them promiscuous.”
In regions where society breaks down, the males suddenly become particularly problematic. Women need to be protected and their protection needs to be assisted by males. This is males assisting in the protection of women. Males supported this system rigorously. There were times when any male that compromised a girl’s virginity would have found himself dead by the next morning.
To encourage the male to care for ‘his’ woman, he needed to have total confidence that the offspring were his offspring, so strict rules were put in place to ensure that he could be confident that the children were his. Although it is popular to assume that it was males that demanded that women be chaste, it was also important to women. If women, as a group, could not demonstrate that the child was his, the women were not going to hold men. So the rigorous rules were enforced and supported by women. Mothers did not want their daughters sleeping around, and they still don’t.
At the time of the birth of a child, a woman needs to be looked after. The help could be provided by a variety of sources: the state, the community, the girl’s family or the father. Of the processes developed during our time as hunter-gatherers and then civilization, the male looked after the female with assistance.
The encouragement of monogamy also decreased the habit of spreading nasty little diseases. Monogamy was a simple solution to disease.
To encourage the male to marry, it is necessary to demonstrate that he was the father. Thus the rules were written the way they were. With the invention of ‘til death us do part’ marriage, a stable environment was created to educate children into the ways of civilized life with its cooperative life. Tradition, religious procedures, and rules all keep society civilized. Children not brought up in a stable family are a problem for society. In the USA, seventy percent of the prison population was brought up in a single parent family. [1] Elizabeth Marquardt described the USA policy as, “lock up a lot more of those fatherless boys and throw away the key.” It is thus preferable for children to grow up with their natural biological parents. Nobody gives a child unconditional support and guidance like the biological parents. Without family, they finish up in a government institution of one type or another. What we are currently witnessing is a move towards the state favouring a state means of control. The state is heavily influenced by corporations in a manner that makes the voter into a mob of useful idiots.
The system of control over males can be called “The Secret”. It is a secret known only by women. Mothers would teach their daughters the methods of control of males, partly in words and partly by example. They could see the father appear as strong but defer to his wife. A surprising number of girls have not been taught “The Secret” and are entirely unaware of this system. They believe the propaganda from Satan’s Pulpit and have lost the ability to control males. I meet a remarkable number of girls that they have been in an abusive relationship where psychological control was exercised over them. The male manipulates the girl into thinking everything is her fault. He isolates the girl from the rest of the world. He claims that her friends are a bad influence and demands that she delete her social media. She starts to depend on him. She thinks that she should not leave him because he is the only thing in her life. She is clueless about how to exercise psychological control over a male. Let us consider the control characteristics reversed. The woman controls the male. The male can handle it because he was trained to do so. He says “You are the light of my life.” He writes letters saying that she is the only thing in his life. He sees his friends rarely. He becomes isolated from his family and friends. He is in ‘deep shit’ because his friends took him to a strip club. He starts to think that he has faults that she will tolerate. He starts to believe that he cannot live without her. These are almost the same characteristics where we described the female in a psychologically abusive relationship. The male is often very happy to be in a relationship where the woman has psychological control whilst he believes he has physical control. In the words of Elton John:
“I hope you don’t mind that I put down in words how wonderful life is while you’re in the world.” [Elton John - Your Song]
Let us consider this article titled: “10 Signs you are in an emotionally abusive relationship.” The article assumes that it is a female being emotionally abused by a male. The ten signs are listed as:
Yet these are tactics that are primarily used by women to keep their man in check.
Feminism has turned the tables. Males are suggesting to each other psychological control tactics previously the domain of females. Males now discuss tactics such as the ‘fake breakup’.
“So what you want to do with this trick is to make her feel doubtful and insecure about herself. (Trust me: every woman feels doubtful and insecure no matter who she is.) Once you’ve done that, you will then exploit her insecurity in order to exert dominance over her. A piece of cake!”
This completely goes against the Christian honour and honesty taught by mothers. Yet neither are the girls taught to combat this. The skills for emotionally controlling women are becoming known to men. I shall rewrite this as advice to girls:
“So what you want to do with this trick is to make him feel doubtful and insecure about himself. (Every man feels doubtful and insecure.) Once you’ve done that, you will then exploit his insecurity in order to exert dominance over him.”
Now that becomes acceptable advice.
As men sleep with more women because women are saying: “Yes” in great numbers, men learn how to handle women emotionally. It is terribly easy to play one woman off against another. Males also talk to me on how to exercise influence over a female to get her to drop her knickers and follow the male demands for sexual service. One article starts with “Girls happen to be experts at playing with the male mind.” which is true and acceptable, but the article discusses how to retaliate and later contains the sentence “...by learning how to manipulate her for your own benefit...” The prevailing logic is that girls do not expect males to play mind games and they are caught out when males play mind games on them. Whether males are reading this online or not, they are learning the skills. Younger girls lack the skills to counter this. Naïve is the word that springs to mind but it is not through inability, it is that they have not been taught the appropriate procedures to handle males. In one article explaining how he beds an endless string of unusually ‘hot’ girls, an enterprising young male was proud to have written:
“Never take them seriously...”
“be overly sarcastic...”
“be less available, don’t always be ‘reliable and nice’ put her on a rollercoaster of emotions.”
“Don’t be the moron who texts ‘good morning beautiful’ every morning. Tease her, make (light-hearted) fun of her opposed to compliments. Hurts their ego and they crave the validation from you.”
“... she will instantly feel the lack of validation from you — she will want you.”
“Irresistible things to say to make her invest.”
“Backhanded push. “You’re too nice” — they hate that as they like to think guys have to work for them.”
“You’re such high value that you can’t be bothered to impress her.”
He only got the chance to learn this because girls have been persuaded to say: “Yes.” The complicit media has fed girls with the line: “It’s your body.” with the inference that you can do what you want with it. In alternative words, it is: “My body, my choice.” It is equivalent to saying to a young girl that “It is your body, you can screw who you want.” Any girl that does not comply is told: “You’re sexually repressed.” It is sold under the mantle of being ‘liberated’ which destroys woman’s leverage over male behaviour by giving sex away for no return. But who is being liberated? The male is now liberated from the responsibilities of fatherhood. Any enterprising young male can have any amount of sex with no strings attached. In reality, it was males that were liberated. Males never related sex with having babies. He is following nature to have plentiful sex without outcomes. The outcome has been altered by birth control. Some call it “Contraceptive Mentality”. Males know that every woman is ‘available’. All he has to do is obtain ‘consent’. Males are learning how to obtain ‘consent’ by various means. Some involve using a female’s own biology against her. For example, a light finger massage will change a ‘no’ into a ‘yes’ in seven minutes. The girl will explain it as: “I lost control in the heat of the moment.” Girls must learn that an experienced male can change ‘no’ to ‘yes’ by tactile means over which she has little defence. Biology takes over. This is particularly true when lying down. When working in close quarters with no words spoken, the reptile brain takes over from the neocortex. For males, the definition of masculinity has changed from caring for one female to bedding hundreds of girls and then calling them sluts for allowing indulgence. Males were trained to fear rejection and scorn by females, however, this is now reversed and males can play the stronger hand. A male can show a girl that she has sexual competition by mentioning other girls. It will lean the table in the direction of the male as he encourages her to satisfy his every whim in the bedroom as she is reminded of her competition. She is encouraged to impress him with her skills. Girls now give oral sex on the first date. She has to hang on hoping that he will ask her for marriage whilst he happily plays one girl off against the other.
Women, by making themselves available to males outside of the marriage contract, have weakened the institution of marriage and weakened the position of women. Women have destroyed the woman’s cartel on sex. Male boasting on their new position as overlords of sex has found its way into music. Much rap music has lyrics referring to women as “bitches,” “hoes,” or “whores”. Women are now paying the price for sexual liberation. The consolation prize is “singledom”. Many of these women reach their thirties to become miserable and rely on medication for disorders. Yet, the shouts to be heard from women include: “Where have all the good men gone?”, which might be followed with a lecture that men should: “man up”. What is depressing is that many are likely to enter their forties childless. These girls are encouraged to chase pleasure whilst in their prime but prime catches up very quickly. Their promiscuous ways and bad decisions make the thirty-five-year-old girl appear as skanks to the self-respecting males they suddenly wish would marry them. The popular girl in her twenties becomes shocked when she reaches her thirties to find that strangers are not interested in her anymore. She becomes classed as a skank for her promiscuous twenties. Even those with the best characteristics are left on the shelf as the nubile next generation snag the males. Her thinking leads her to think that it is everyone’s fault except hers. Only women have to power of “Yes” and “No”. From the point of view of the male looking for a wife, ‘sexually liberated’ is a euphemism for ‘slut’, ‘hoe’, or ‘easy’. In the traditional relationship, the girl’s value is high in her low twenties whilst his is low. In later years, her’s is low and his is high. The deal was that she gave her best years whilst he gave his best years. The male was expected to be faithful to the female over the advancing years, when his value was up and hers down. The encouragement of promiscuity is using faulty reasoning. Girls need to learn that sex is a valuable commodity and beauty their most important asset but that both decline dramatically as their twenties progress. A thirty-five-year-old male may have numerous girls chasing him with some of them ten years younger than him. A thirty-five-year-old girl has no-one looking at her. Her bargaining power has declined precipitously. This graph shows that promiscuity is not good for business.
Feminism continues to talk about female empowerment with the suggestion that women are to be freed from male oppression supposedly under a patriarchal system. However, females have not become more free. Women have become enslaved to the government, corporations, and to pleasure. Instead of the choice of working, they have to work or rely on government handouts of tax mainly collected from males. It is still males that pay the larger portion of the tax pie. Perhaps, some wag might argue that for equality, women should be paying half of the tax in the nation and should receive no more than half of the welfare payouts.
I have noticed that only the better-looking women are able to tie males down in marriage. We have moved from a time where every male married a girl and every girl found a husband. The feminists have liberated men’s sexuality. Men can have sex with as many women as they want without being shamed. Years ago he would have been shamed for the same practice. If he got a girl pregnant, he would have been exhorted to: “make an honest girl of her” which required him to marry her. It was effectively a way of pushing men into marriage. He would then accept the ‘responsibility’ for ‘getting her up the duff’. Persons would have kept quiet that the baby arrived six months after the wedding. In some places, it was called a: “shot-gun wedding”.
The same media that fed the girls the line that: “It is your body.” also pushed the line that: “You can do anything.” As a male, I certainly was not told that: “I could do anything.” I was led to believe that I had to work hard and whatever came my way was my ‘lot’ and ‘I should like it or lump it’. There was certainly no hint that I could become a prime-minister, pilot, or an astronaut and it certainly would not be my place to whine if I was not given these positions. There was no concept of entitlement. I was trained to accept situations and that I was lucky if I got anything. My lot was to be a cog in the machine. I had some influence over which cog I would be, but that took hard work and a bucketful of luck. But we are now training girls that to be a wife or mother is beneath them and that they should be equal or superior to males in the working world. The reality is that males only worked because they were told they had to. So women were encouraged to do that which males did not want to do in the first place. Women have a contract with nature to create offspring and a contract with civilization to bring children up in a caring family unit. Telling girls that their self-worth comes from surpassing males in a competitive career orientated society is setting girls up for both failure in society and also failure in nature. These girls are engaged in a relentless pursuit of self-fulfillment at a personal cost that they won’t notice until it is too late. Too late to find a husband and create a family. There were half as many babies born to Canadian teenagers in 2012 than in 1991.
The same media push the line to girls that: “Males have been oppressing females.” which is rather disingenuous in that through most of history, males have revered girls and worked their lives to support them. The illogic creates more illogic as women are told to be like men. If men had been at fault, logic would dictate that men should lift their behaviour to that of women. The definition of patriarchy was illogically modified by feminists from ‘man as the head of the family’ to ‘man dominating society’. This leads to more illogic in that the situation is only corrected when males hold less than half the roles in society. Logic is defied by the female fifty percent of voters that constantly vote for male politicians. It is further defied when females acting freely avoid applying for defence force jobs. How can one raise the participation in the army to fifty percent when women simply do not wish to serve in the army. Even if they entirely remove all entrance requirements that were designed to get rid of substandard males, they cannot bring the female participation above a few measly percent. Only conscription would trick women into the defence forces. The whole system is now operating on illogic and propaganda. Women simply never wanted to be in the army in the first place. Feminism fights for fifty percent of workplace positions. Thus, feminism is not working for the benefit of women. It is pushing women into jobs that they did not want. It is the same idealistic stupidity as communism.
Maverick: “A lot of these women start to hit the post 30-year-old wall and finally begin to realize the lies they have been sold for years. Years of partying, eating junk food, and drunken sex with strangers has finally taken its toll and mother nature is one cruel bitch who does not care about them ‘finding themselves’. Most of them realize they are not happy around this time but refuse to acknowledge their own errors. Instead, they seek out professional help in the form of therapists and doctors, and those pussies won’t tell them the truth either. Instead they just prescribe them some form of anti-depressant cocktail drug for them to be on for the rest of their lives. To make themselves ‘feel better’, women will then go out and buy useless crap in a never-ending cycle of consumerism and debt. Until women acknowledge their own faults they won’t break the cycle.” [Return of Kings]
Maverick: “True, there’s the drugs (prescribed or illegal & booze) & consumerism route.. but some at thirty actually double-down on the very mindset and behavior that caused the damage in the first place. It’s really shocking to see so many 40yo+ women so severely lost and destroyed with no family or kids, a stable career, place to live, car, and a pet(s).... and really no impressive accomplishments to account for in life.” [Return of Kings]
Women want to marry men but marriage is turned into a nightmare for males. Women want half of the prestigious jobs but want to avoid the ‘dog eat dog’ selection process that was designed to throw incompetent men of inadequate skills onto the scrapheap. We live in an era of illogic.
When a girl does get to realize that the sexual revolution has been rigged against her, it is generally too late to have a family. She has been taken way past her best biological years. Her natural capacity has weakened. She has been defying reality. Self-delusions about careers as CEO’s does not help girls. When they reach their forties and remain unable to locate a husband and remain clueless why males ignore them, they are well on their way to a barren life. They lost the best years of their lives chasing fake dreams created by others.
I see nothing wrong with revering women for doing what they do better than men. In the family environment, the grandmother is revered more than the grandfather.
To set women against men in competitive careerism is to invite depression and frustration in women and damage their natural feminine ability to be successful mothers as is their natural role in nature’s world. Man’s glory in the career world was simply a trick to get the man to work hard for the benefit of females. The concept of success in a career was never more than a ploy to take advantage of man’s competitive nature. There can never be equality between man and woman because man will never ever be able to achieve what a woman can create. Man will always be relegated to the work-slave of society. Females and males are entirely different manifestations of the same thing — the human being. Women will always be the superior because only women can produce the ultimate being — another human — and males can only produce machines. Motherhood is the ultimate role in society. Fatherhood is a supporting role made to look like a leading role to keep some balance. Males are allowed to lead in the family provided their ‘leadership’ involves caring for women and children and placing their personal interests in the background. “He is a good man. He looks after his wife and children.” Perhaps he even does strange things like buying flowers that die within two days to demonstrate his subservience to female illogic. The whole concept of equality is flawed because of female-male differences. One blogger worded it the other way around: “gender equality is absolutely impossible due to sexual dimorphism in human beings favouring men.” He is correct, but that does not put the male ahead of the female. Whichever way the balance lies, female and male are different. We should complement not compete. We should harmonize not hate.
Just as the Neanderthals disappeared as the other humans escaped from Africa, differences cannot be accommodated by creating equality, but by creating co-dependence. This is the way the Jesus demanded. The demands of Jesus enabled women to dominate males from a position of weakness. By creating a cartel, where males had no procreation rights unless they submitted to female influence, women created a situation where women had long nails and men had sort nails. Men had to work and women went to cafés serviced by males. Males were required to relinquish seats to women. Open doors, lay their coats down in puddles and die on sinking ships. They were bastardised to make them tough to die as heroes in wars.
The system favoured young females because when women reach the age of forty they are close to invisible, although they may still have roles as grandmothers. A girl is less visible at twenty-eight than she is at eighteen. She is even less visible at thirty-eight. The only respect she will get at forty-eight is as a mother. At sixty-eight, she can only exist as a grandmother. It seems in today’s social media age, young women find it even more important to be attractive to men. Do girls wear makeup and push-up bras to impress women or males? Who created the problems for these younger women? It wasn’t the younger women. Feminism is now perceived as something that is unfeminine and anti-male. It is portrayed as being enforced by women that are aggressive, ugly, and single and it mostly affects young attractive females. However, feminism holds immense power over the decision-making process. My mother once said she went to protest against the government going to war in Iraq. She said there were one million participants. The country went to war anyway clearly ignoring the people. It made me realize that the politicians do what the media displays and they simply take the flack and accept getting voted out of power at the next election. They get voted back in in a further eight years in a power-sharing arrangement between the two main parties. The two parties play the game because the media promotes only those two parties and damages any other party. There is always a range of opinions voiced in a nation so it is easy to find someone who will sing a song one way or another. So, whoever controls the media decides that some feminist issue is to be put in place, they find someone to spruik that concept on Satan’s Pulpit. They find someone to make a weak objection and the new rule goes over the line. The person of least interest is the voter. The voter is a useful idiot who will vote for one of two parties both of whom are beholden to the individuals that control the corporations that control the parties and the propaganda apparatus.
Even if a measure damages females, it will be argued that it is feminist and it will be put in place. What is fascinating is that they can sell the illogical. Men and women are from the same species but we are fundamentally different in biological terms which affected our roles in our biological past. Everything from our logic and thinking through to our strength and resilience is different. I sometimes ask males: “Would you vote for someone that you disliked if you thought they would do the right thing?” I get the answer: “Yes.” Girls tend to vote for someone they ‘like’. Which might make a cynical person wonder whether we got better government when women got the vote. In 1912, at the height of the Women’s Social and Political Union’s window-breaking campaign, the Manchester Guardian printed:
“The madness of the militants... the small body of misguided women who profess to represent the noble and serious cause of political enfranchisement of women, but in fact do their utmost to degrade and hinder it.”
Such militancy suggests that the women will skew all decisions to favour women, whilst men will skew things to favour women. Male government did not require female conscription. Male government did not require women to work. The male operated church demanded that men stay with women ‘until death do us part’. Male governance favoured women. Man as head of the house did not require his wife to work in a factory. She was not micromanaged by a husband. They worked as a team. She would say: “What would you like? Dear.” to which he replied: “But what would you like? Dear.” in a harmonious relationship where each looked after the other without competition. Gender roles were used to ensure that women got an easier life and that women were almost entirely removed from the stress of provisioning. This arrangement was heavily encouraged by mothers who, one might notice, were female. Women had the upper hand in mate choice and would choose the male most likely to provision them. The poor tough guy lost out to the educated professional with the better income.
Viscount Helmsley, speaking in the House of Commons in 1912, said:
“The way in which certain types of women, easily recognised, have acted in the last year or two, especially in the last few weeks, lends a great deal of colour to the argument that the mental equilibrium of the female sex is not as stable as the mental equilibrium of the male sex... It seems to me that this House should remember that if the vote is given to women those who will take the greatest part in politics will not be the quiet, retiring, constitutional women... but those very militant women who have brought so much disgrace and discredit upon their sex. It would introduce a disastrous element into our public life...”
Suffragette violence played into the hands of all those who argued that women were unfit to have the vote.
Before feminism took charge of the West, women didn’t want the same rights as males and they certainly did not relish the unpleasant responsibilities that males had in society. Many women were fighting the suffragettes.
The voting age was eventually brought down to eighteen on the basis that if an eighteen-year-old could be shot in a war for his country, he should have the right to vote. It is a strange argument because political parties tend to ignore the voter’s wishes when war arrives and I would add that it would be better not to send them to be shot. The eighteen-year-olds come up to me to ask who they should vote for as they are generally clueless. They make comments such as “My dad says vote for ....” which sets them in the pattern for voting for either of two major parties both of whom are supportive of the debt banking system and who go to war with any nation advertised by the media as a bad country.
The joy of a relationship derives from the excitement of the difference. Treating men and women as equal in a competitive arrangement is destined to be a failure in some way. Men and women were not built to compete against each other but to complement each other. The whole nature of creating a male-female relationship is the working out of how the combination of two individuals is going to work. In the courting process, the individuals are working out their roles within the relationship and how they will cooperate with each other. To set man against woman in a competitive environment such as the dog-eat-dog employment market is setting female against male in a manner that makes it difficult to create relationships.
The assumption that males have disadvantaged women can only be proven if women were historically worse off than males. This is difficult to accept when:
Women ensured that males did the heavy lifting in society and looked after the interests of women. If the men were looking after women’s interests, then women could avoid work altogether and leave the males to the stress of running the society and the nation provided they did so for the benefit of women and children and put male issues last. When men got it wrong and advocated war, the women were out in force to correct the matter.
One old lady explained that women were quite happy for their men to go to men’s only clubs because no other women were present to poach their man. Men’s only events were acceptable to women as it guaranteed that they did not meet women. They were happy for males to earn more so that the woman could be supported. If a man worked for himself he paid more tax. If he worked to support a woman, he paid less tax. Tying one male to one woman kept the males at bay. Why would a well-off male stay with a bitter old woman that had banned all sexual and physical contact, when there were other younger women keen to have his males gene and financial support? Jesus was not benefiting males with his monogamy — he was benefiting females.
The illogic spreads to abortion. When a male and a female gamete meet, they form a new human in the female’s body. It is a new body from two partners within the female body. The male has no say in what is done with the new body. The new body is instantly a new member of the family. It is a new member of the community. It is a new citizen of the nation with full citizenship and voting rights. It is the grandchild of four grandparents. Yet, the prevailing logic is that it is the woman’s body and she can do as she wishes. In other words, she claims the right to terminate the joint product of male and female. The claim is that is is just a bunch of cells. Well, we all are a bunch of cells and if they function, they are called “life”. One cannot do a half abortion and remove half the cells. So abortion is clearly the ending of life. We may still allow abortion, but to do so, we are allowing the termination of life by the woman’s decision alone. You may wish to terminate life, but you cannot pretend that you are ‘only discarding a bunch of cells’. The bunch of cells happen to be on her territory and that is used as a valid argument to kill the cells. If I am thinking correctly, I cannot kill the postman, nor the neighbour’s cat that strays into my backyard territory. The bunch of cells could be transferred to another womb and continue unheeded to its full human form with half the characteristics of the father. The feminists illogic is typified by this statement:
“There is no such thing as a feminism that tolerates opposition to abortion,”
This statement was made by the abortion activist, Erin Matson, to rounding applause at a Detroit convention. She continued with:
“It is simply impossible to be a feminist and oppose a woman’s right to her own body.”
Not that I had the intention of taking sides on the subject, but I fail to see how the decision to terminate a life is left to only the one partner out of many interests involved in the co-ownership of the new human. I also find it remarkable that these girls are not told the major psychological and health effect the termination can have on the mother.
The woman’s brain changes for a baby that is now dead. So there is a double grief. The brain is telling you to care for a baby that no longer exists. This is not a comfortable place to be.
Here are two sentences from the American Pregnancy Association:
“Emotional and psychological effects following abortion are more common than physical side effects and can range from mild regret to more serious complications such as depression. ... Potential side effects include: regret, anger, guilt, shame, sense of loneliness or isolation, loss of self-confidence, insomnia or nightmares, relationship issues, suicidal thoughts, and feelings, eating disorders, depression, and anxiety”
Those scientists now claim that abortion has negative effects on women:
Monty Python took the conundrum even further with this ditty called: “Every Sperm is Sacred” from The Meaning of Life.
Every sperm is sacred
Every sperm is great
If a sperm is wasted,
God gets quite irate
This ditty is fascinating because it stretches the boundary of what is considered ‘polite’ conversation. Everything about sex and genitalia was made to sound ‘dirty’ and ‘naughty’. The effect is that it is not talked about. Sex becomes a taboo subject in polite conversations. Since the time of St. Augustine, the Church decided sex was shameful and even sinful. St. Augustine went as far as saying that if you even think about sex (with even your wife), you should ask God for forgiveness. One can find young groups of teenage boys singing this ‘Sacred Sperm’ song with gusto to celebrate their repressed masculinity. The whole point of sex is to give sperm to create babies in the woman. God or nature designed men to desire sex which leads to marriage. But marriage is a social construct. It arrived with civilization. In the eyes of the Church, to downgrade sex or marriage is to open the door to temptation and sin.
I also find it quite remarkable that girls are sold the concept that they can pursue a career and find a marriage partner latter. Finding marriage partners early is difficult but finding them later is next to impossible. Finding any male prepared to marry at any age is a problem at present and is significantly more difficult at thirty than it is at twenty for a kaleidoscope of reasons.
I find another flaw in feminist logic to be troubling. Equality is one of those troubling concepts. Males are not equal to males and females are not equal to females. Alexis de Tocqueville (About 1850. L’égalité est une expression d’envie.) described equality in this way:
“Equality is a slogan based on envy.”
Not every male gets to be an astronaut or a CEO. Not every male wishes to take on the stress of being a CEO nor risk being a death statistic on a space mission. Males exist in numerous different heights, strengths, and different levels of handsomeness. Some males get to bed numerous women and some males never get to bed any women. So some men are ‘lucky’ with the ladies and some are ‘unlucky’. Women make the decisions here, so women do not even treat men in a fair and equal manner. Females differ from females in many ways. There is a big range of body shapes and sizes. Not all women get chosen for beauty pageants and even fewer win. Perhaps beauty contests should be seen as a problem that accentuates the visual beauty component of the female supposedly from the male perspective, besides the anti-equality component. The beauty contest and the James Bond stereotypes of females put a high proportion of girls at a serious disadvantage similar to the problem before Jesus were women were discarded under the then ‘any fault’ divorce rules that allowed males to discard wives on the reason that they were not as pretty as when he married her.
Females and males will never be equal in sexual arrangements. In the courting arrangements, males tend to seek sexual conquest at the earliest opportunity whilst females tend to seek a longer relationship and traditionally demand a significant investment by the male. In a relationship, there is an unequal balance. Males seek sex more consistently and continue to do so as the years go by but convention gave women the ‘unequal’ privilege to say “No”. In disagreement and conflict situations, males are more prone to use physical force whilst women are more prone to play mind games on the male. The woman will hit at his emotional week points. “I quite like your bold patch!” But watch out any man that says: “I still appreciate your sagging breasts!”
Sexual liberation has morphed into sexual degradation as no young male will pass through his teens without seeing hundreds of videos of semen landing on the faces of females. This is a representation by Mgtow:
A quick search on the internet for ‘college initiation rituals’ reveals a shocking change from when I went to college. Before you start screaming about “Men”, many of these female sexual initiation scenes are organized by women in front of female audiences and videoed by females. Although, they were probably marketed and distributed by males. A web-search for ‘who controls porn’ will give you interesting reading. In the ‘Jewish Quarterly’ is an article almost boasting about the Jewish involvement in porn.
“...there’s no getting away from the fact that secular Jews have played (and still continue to play) a disproportionate role throughout the adult film industry in America. Jewish involvement in pornography has a long history in the United States, as Jews have helped to transform a fringe subculture into what has become a primary constituent of Americana. These are the ‘true blue Jews’.” This disgusting treatment of girls is apparently legal. It is considered that the girl ‘consented’ because she agreed to be in the film:
Notice that it says: “a primary constituent of Americana.” which is then exported around the world. During discussions in Muslim countries and India, it is clear that It continues:
“Jewish activity in the porn industry divides into two (sometimes overlapping) groups: pornographers and performers. ... Many erotica dealers in the book trade between 1890 and 1940 were immigrant Jews of German origin.”
This was an industry that the Nazi party were trying to shut down. This image is touted as an ‘anti-Semitic poster’:
The implication was that the German government was against porn production because the government was anti-Semitic.
Kamlesh Vaswani, a lawyer in India says this:
“Nothing can more efficiently destroy a person, fizzle their mind, evaporate their future, eliminate their potential or destroy society like pornography. It is so terrible that many do not even recognize it until it is too late, and most refuse to admit it.”
Younger Indian males tell me that they watch porn. One stated that they preferred ‘Western’ (white) porn because “Indian porn was boring”.
In his book Libido Dominandi, E. Michael Jones details how the Illuminati used ‘sexual liberation’ for political control since the French Revolution. Jones characterizes the rise of porn as a battle between Catholics and ‘Jewish pornographers’ which the Illuminati Jews have won.
Women were revered when I was young — excessively so. On the subject of college behaviour, one image of a male holding up a bra and panties has the title: “Male students sent Snapchat screenshots of themselves holding the underwear of girls they had slept with.”. This follows with the description: “Men in the college had sent Snapchat screenshots of themselves holding the underwear or bra of girls after they had allegedly slept with them.” It can only happen when women say: “Yes.” The solution is to say: “No.” However, women are still saying: “Yes.” There was a reason why our traditional cultures were strict — humans get out of hand when given too much freedom. My upbringing caused me to think of women as being special. Very special. They were to be given the greatest of respect at all times because they did not have the sin of being male and they created new life. Women were to be treated as god-like creatures. The definition of ‘objectify’ is ‘to degrade to the status of a mere object’. This is a common shout of the feminists. But this was not happening before feminism. Liberation has moved to degradation. A twenty-second search on the internet for ‘college sex’ is more than an eye-opener.
Equality gained women the ‘privilege’ to have sex with whomever they wished, whenever they wished, but at the cost of emotional commitment. They already had that ‘privilege’ but they had an age-old cartel where they did not allow a man to sleep with them until he made an emotional commitment. Equality destroyed the cartel and it destroyed the emotional commitment. They lost the ability to manipulate male behaviour. In my lifetime, sex went from being the peak act of a committed loving relationship to the peak act of a one-night stand. The missing component is emotional involvement. Women can no longer leverage the pulling power of the pussy to create a family unit. Sex has become a simple precondition for males to have any interest in a female. In hook-up culture, the sex is offered on the first night in the hope that he may call back the next day. The male almost knows that he will have sex that night with utterly no commitment. If she refuses sex, there must be something wrong because she is ‘sexually liberated’ to have sex with whomever she pleases. Thus, if she has shown friendship, her refusal means that she is sexually frustrated. The concept was sold as ‘freedom’. It is the freedom to be a sex toy for males. It is no freedom at all for women. She is more likely to be locked into a loveless twenties and a barren future. The women’s sexual revolution is the oppression of women. What was sold as liberation has turned into degradation. Women give bragging rites to males. One would assume that freedom was the freedom to chose how to spend one’s life, but the one choice she no longer has is the choice of a family. Even the feminist pioneer Rosie Boycott said:
“What was insidious about the underground was that it pretended to be alternative. But it wasn’t providing an alternative for women. It was providing an alternative for men in that there were no problems about screwing around.”
Nicola Lane, a young woman of the seventies said:
“It was paradise for men - all these willing girls. But the problem with the willing girls was that a lot of the time they were willing not because they particularly fancied the people concerned but because they felt they ought to. There was a lot of misery.”
Sex, in times previous to the seventies, was a private topic that one did not discuss. As the topic became public, women were expected to perform to the level of experienced ‘girls of the night’ completely without reward. The female cartel had been successfully broken. Even women’s magazines promoted the act. The propagandized permissiveness was effectively the permission for males to expect sex without commitment. I remember the sixties. Most of the music still complied with censorship rules, although there were obvious double meanings. Rod Stuart sang: “Spread your wings [legs] and let me come inside.” However, it was cleverly leaked that our heroic singers were bedding numerous groupie girls. I clearly recall thinking that I was not a complete male if I had not bedded numerous females. Part of my ‘manliness’ now involved bedding a significant number of girls. That is not so easy as an improvised eighteen-year-old.
The sexual revolution caused girls to lose their innocence and the strongest leverage that they ever had. Equality brought girls down to the level of men from their exalted position of guaranteed respect. They were even told to compete for jobs in a man’s world. Jobs that they would have previously shunned. Previously, man would say: “No wife of mine is going to work.” which meant that he would work down the coal mine so that she did not have to work. That was cleverly destroyed as he was told to apologize for being condescending. She now has to work down the coal mine at depressed wage rates as land prices conveniently doubled to soak up increases in income.
Even in sport, we have a strange spectacle. Girls need to be trained as shot-put contestants to maintain teams for the Olympics. The concept of equality is heralded as “women can do what men do”. It was not worded as: “men can do what women do and stay at home or visit cafés”. It was men that were perceived to be at fault in society because they had ‘toxic masculinity’ and had supposedly ‘invented’ patriarchy to oppress females. It appears that it is feminism that is toxic and women supported patriarchy because it allowed them to be freed from the burdens of provision and the stress of organizing society. Women are now suffering the way men were suffering. The statements are disingenuous as mothers say to their boys: “You are not scared of the boogie man. Are you?” Women preferred the café lifestyle rather than the rigors of public life. Sport now sprouts female football teams and the concept is paraded as a ‘win’ for women presumably against men but it is only women winning against women, not women winning against men. It is false equality. Men and women were built differently for a reason and, under patriarchy (civilization), any man that mistreated a woman was severely punished.
The crowd is thick with men ‘learning’ that it is not wise to harm women.
The concept that males need to be trained and punished not to mistreat women suggests that abuse of women may have occurred in pre-history. If we fail to train little boys in a family environment to respect girls, we create a dangerous situation for women.
Witness the horrors of the wars in Africa where women stand little chance against the ravaging storm of male attackers. The victorious side takes the advantage, kills the males, and rapes the women. Under failed society, males treat women to rape. The women of Germany post WW2 might ‘latch’ onto a male invader for support and protection. They were to be violated in one way or another and they might as well do so to their advantage. In a failed society, males get treated differently to females. Males get killed whilst women get raped. Civilization stops this by allowing females to train males to follow the preferred behaviour patterns of females. Thus, under stable society, women set the social mores and males become subjugated. Under collapsed civilisation, males dominate and women get raped — repeatedly. If women wanted society to be run for their protection and benefit, they would:
This is exactly what was happening under ‘patriarchy’. Patriarchy was men working for women. Feminism destroyed all of this. Women painted their nails and went to cafés. Men worked and worked and worked. Males were praised for their work and women praised for their nail polish. Women would sit in cafés and boast about their man workers whilst admiring each other’s nail polish. Feminism destroyed femininity. In this era of illogic, feminism destroyed the ability of a woman to excel as a woman. She now had to excel against men. Feminism turned female characteristics into weaknesses. In blatant illogic, women could be ‘whatever they want’ provided it wasn’t feminine. Being feminine was pandering to patriarchy so they pandered to patriarchy by dressing like males that supposedly were the problem. Women do whatever they wanted with their lives provided the choice was in the following list: ‘Work, work, work, or work.’ Young girls are told they can dress as they wish with the hint that they should not dress like girls had done previously. They were effectively told to dress like boys. The message was dangerous. Illogic began to dominate. The regret is a sea of women that regret not focusing on marriage and unfortunately choosing career over family. The irrational reasoning gave the implication that femininity was an unpleasant product of patriarchy and should be discarded. Unfortunately, femininity is what created the system called patriarchy where males serviced and ran the nation for the benefit of women. Women trained and controlled their little stupid men to go out and run the show for them. Patriarchy imposes a burdensome expectation on men. By hook or by crook, males must be able to provide. They are a total failure if they fail to bring home money to feed the family. There is no feeling sorry for them — the provide or fail in the school of hard knocks. Patriarchy created unrealistic expectations on males. When a male could not live up to these expectations, suicide was often the exit. Patriarchy creates a cult of masculinity, which causes it to manifest emotional problems. The assumption that patriarchy was only bad for women to the benefit of males is horribly wrong. Men suffered — women gained. Patriarchy created unrealistic expectations of males. Feminism has removed many of the expectations on males to the extent that they would rather play video games and masturbate to freely supplied three-minute clips of sexually liberated females subservient to males. You may notice that I used liberated and subservient in the same sentence. These freely-available three-minute clips are teaching males the ‘modern way’ to sex. As one pleasant young male said to me: “Andy. You haven’t possessed a woman until you have fucked her up the ass!” He used the word ‘possessed’. I despair. Where has the gentlemanly conduct gone in my lifetime? In my youthful days, any male that ‘accidentally’ stuck it in the wrong hole would have been considered to be a total idiot. I was accidentally walking behind three girls having a full-on conversation around midnight, when I had finished work. One said to the others: “I don’t let him have it up the ass.” The limits that girls are setting are way too low. It is only because women tolerate it, that it happens. Girls need to re-create the cartel and bring men’s behaviour into line. Men are naturally opportunistic. Don’t give them the opportunity.
Feminism is teaching females that they can be freed from the patriarchy by adopting things were previously the role of males. This holds the logic that male or masculine is better than female. To chose feminine attributes is supposedly oppression of females. If males and patriarchy were inherently wrong’ should it not be males that should have their behaviour changed? Is this not what was happening when mothers brought up their little boys? Mothers should teach their little boys to respect women, not take advantage of them and give to women what they want and need. Strangely, they were. Mothers were teaching little boys to care for and provide for females so that women did not need to work. Teaching small girls that they should not be girly is telling them that being a girl is wrong. Girls were girly so that men would love and care for them. They were girly in a way that made it impossible for boys to comprehend. Girls could chop and change their attitude and mind and totally bamboozle a male. Girls did not need to become engineers and build bridges because men would happily do it for them. Girls have been fabulously successful at replacing men’s employment roles in society. What they have not been successful in is happiness. To be efficient, work tends to be a high-pressure environment where expectations can exceed a person’s ability. University of Illinois researchers found that when women’s pay-checks increased, more symptoms of depression appeared. In males, it was the opposite. Male psychological well-being was highest when they were the primary wage-earners. Two researchers, Karen Kramer and Sunjin Pak, when they examined data on men and women between the ages of forty-two and sixty, found that couples who resisted traditional gender roles, or who aimed for so-called equal-marriage values, were less happy than those who stuck to the traditional marriage roles. They said:
“We observed a statistically significant and substantial difference in depressive symptoms between men and women in our study, ...The results supported the overarching hypothesis: well-being was lower for mothers and fathers who violated gendered expectations about the division of paid labor, and higher for parents who conformed to these expectations.”
They also said that men’s mental health declined when they stayed home to care for the children. Suzanne Venker writes:
“Human nature doesn’t change just because society does. Just as women are emotionally invested in the home in a unique and primal way, men have a visceral need to provide and protect. That’s how most men and women gain their sense of self-worth.”
Suzanne Venker adds:
“They may both be capable of being breadwinners and full-time parents, but that doesn’t mean they want to perform these tasks with equal fervor. Typically speaking, a man’s identity is inextricably linked to his paycheck. A woman’s is linked to her children.”
Although the stated objective of feminism is to promote equality, hidden objectives are voiced by these spokespersons:
Robin Morgan: “We can’t destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage.”
Mary Jo Bane: “in order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them.”
Vivian Gornick: “...being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family-maker is a choice that shouldn’t be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that.”
Helen Sullinger: “We must work to destroy [marriage]... The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men... All of history must be rewritten in terms of oppression of women.”
These apostles of feminism appear to hate and despise the family as a unit of society.
Phyllis Schlafly, in ‘The Flipside of Feminism’, writes
“Feminists realize all too well that they can never achieve a level playing field in the marketplace as long as their male competitors have the advantage of homemaker wives... Women on the left know that in order to get ahead more easily, they must deprive men of their advantage in having stay-at-home wives. The desire to eliminate the full-time homemaker has been feminists’ goal all along. The need for a second income was never the goal.”
In 1928, D.H. Lawrence hinted at the problem in ‘A Propos of Lady Chatterley’s Lover’:
“It is marriage, perhaps, which has given man the best of his freedom, given him his little kingdom of his own within the big kingdom of the State, given him his foothold of independence on which to stand and resist an unjust State... Do we then want to break marriage? If we do break it, it means we all fall to a far greater extent under the direct sway of the State.”
Feminism is alienating the people with what is clearly irrational logic and false claims that that feminism benefits women. If women are set to compete against males on a level playing field, they will fail. If women complement males, they have the potential to dominate as the male desire for females dominates male activity and thought. Irrespective of what the feminists and their media and educational propogandists say, women dominated males through their vastly superior communication and emotional skills coupled with male’s constant clamour for female attention in a system where mother’s stable position in a family enabled the training of young males to be respectful workers subservient to females. In the relationship, women control their sexual instincts and use this as a way of manipulating the male. Sex is demonized so that it becomes a taboo topic of logical conversation so that it can be controlled by females. An older woman might say: “All you ever think of is the ‘s’ word” He does not get sex when he wants it — he gets sex when she allows it. Only the woman has the power of ‘no’.
What can be deduced is that feminism is a repackaged version of Marxism where ‘patriarchy’ is blamed instead of ‘capitalism’. Communism destroyed the marriage in Russia and made people dependent on the state and feminism destroyed the marriage in the West and made people dependent on the state.
Porn was pushed to the people under the mantle of ‘freedom of speech’. It was primarily the exposure of the female form that, by convention, had previously been concealed from male view. We clearly developed in a temperate climate. Had we developed in Norway, we would be hairy like a bear. When we escaped from Africa, we learned to use the skins off other animals to keep warm. We stole their skins. Then some clown said that if we were not wearing clothes, we were indecent. The shape of the female form is clearly tied into the male DNA. The male brain acts differently when it sees a female. I timed it once in response to a conversation in Adelaide when purchasing a bus. The agent said his wife tells him off when he looks at other women. I said that it was natural. If I see a male in the street, I look for half a second unless he looks like a threat, in which case I look for a whole second. If I see a woman, as determined by various ‘bumps’, I look for about five seconds. A series of procedures occurs in what I believe to be my reptile brain that determines: “Would I or wouldn’t I?” I have checked with other males and report that their brain asks the question: “Would I or wouldn’t I.” It appears to be subconscious and occurs naturally. It is part of biology. As women start to crank up the rhetoric: “toxic masculinity” invented by toxic feminism, the biggest problem for women is when males cease to be interested in them. Women are trying to damage that which is important to them — male attentiveness. Nudity may have been our natural form in Africa, but civilized tradition kept males at bay until he committed for the sake of society. Porn came along with Hugh Hefner’s fight for ‘freedom of speech’ and the female body became an item for male amusement. In typical male competitiveness, the female form could be graduated according to wholesomeness. Males can watch women in any number of classes of subservience to male desire. In previous times, a male only got to see his wife naked, now, comparisons could be made. Hefner pushed what he called a ‘wholesome’ version of female sexuality in his magazine (big shapely breasts, a pretty face, and no pubic hair). These women had a short shelf life with an expiry date a little below thirty. His stand led the path to the wholesale exploitation of the female form. Boys have their concept of femininity altered at an impressionable age. I still have an image of Raquel Welch seared into my memory from my teen years as it was a common pinup poster at the time.
A picture like this shapes a male with appropriate characteristics of a woman. At sixty-six, and not having seen the image for possibly over forty years, I found and recognized the image on the internet in seconds. How much of my judgment of a woman’s looks were shaped by my viewing of this picture? I don’t know the answer.
The availability of porn is anything but equality. Girls now shave their pubes in preparedness for male attention. So what is a young girl thinking as she shaves her pubes: “I must shave my pubes in case I get laid by a boy.” Thus, she is constantly aware of her preparedness for male involvement. Males quickly learned that all women are permanently sexually available because that is what ‘sexual liberation’ means and that all that was required was ‘consent’. There are now numerous websites with articles such as: “How to get any girl to have sex with you in ten steps” and “How to trick a girl into thinking of you sexually after getting close to her”. Girls regularly prepare themselves for consent by grooming their pubes. “I shave my pubes so that I am permanently available to males under the propagandized rules of sexual liberation.” Although they are shouting from the rooftops to destroy patriarchy, it was patriarchy that was protective of women. The effect of destroying patriarchy’s censorship of sex has been to create a climate of male entitlement to sex with women. Freedom has created a painful lose-lose situation for women where they must offer instant sex to a male to attract him with the full knowledge that he will still vanish by morning. A climate has developed where sex is expected of a girl because she is ‘free’ to give it. This hints that they are denying their freedom when they withhold sex. A girl might freely say “yes” with the hope of a relationship but the sexual encounter is prone to end in tears. The de-stigmatization of sex has destroyed the leverage females had over males. Women have gone from being potential mothers to being sex objects. Equality did not raise females to the level of males, it brought them down to the level of males. The power balance between females and males did not improve, it reversed. Previously, women sent men out to work, collected the wage packet, and kept the man around as a father figure. Now they cannot even get the male to the altar. The best they manage is a one-night-stand.
In a 2008 UK study on casual sexual encounters published in the science journal, ‘Human Nature’, Professor Campbell reported:
“Overall women’s feelings were more negative than men’s [towards casual sexual encounters]. Eighty per cent of men had overall positive feelings about the experience compared to fifty-four per cent of women. Men were more likely than women to secretly want their friends to hear about it and to feel successful because the partner was desirable to others. Men also reported greater sexual satisfaction and contentment following the event, as well as a greater sense of well-being and confidence about themselves.
The predominant negative feeling reported by women was regret at having been ‘used.’ Women were also more likely to feel that they had let themselves down and were worried about the potential damage to their reputation if other people found out. Women found the experience less sexually satisfying and, contrary to popular belief, they did not seem to view taking part in casual sex as a prelude to long-term relationships.
What the women seemed to object to was not the briefness of the encounter but the fact that the man did not seem to appreciate her. The women thought this lack of gratitude implied that she did this with anybody,”
Sexual freedom might sound grand, but the young woman may get excited that at last she has a man interested in her to see him walk away, never to be seen again. She may even find that he is sleeping with one of her friends. Oops! Women have the power of “No” One of her friends was also sleeping with him. There is a prevailing spirit of sexual liberation and it is not easy for a young female to escape the practice. A girl that refuses to say “yes” is considered a prude. If she refuses initial advances it is considered that she is just ‘taking her time’. Thus it is understood that she will soon drop her knickers. To the male, the question is how long?
Females engaging in casual sex surrender control in the relationship as they give the goods that are highly valued by males at a bargain give-away price. In times gone by, males had to promise all his future earnings in a marriage to get into her knickers. A prostitute was a bargain at less than a day’s wage. Currently, the prostitutes are going out of business in some areas as they cannot compete against the local girls giving it away for free.
A woman who wants a family will retain control of her assets until the male gives what she desires. If one considers the economics of sex, the girl gives away access to procreation. The male has the required gametes. However, these are easier to come by for a younger girl but not for an older girl. But it is not that simple. Having sex is easy for a girl and so sex is cheap. However, getting gametes is not so easy when the male wears a condom. Finding a husband has become incredibly difficult for most girls. So sex is cheap for the boy but marriage is expensive for the girl. So any girl can get a root, but only good looking well-behaved girls can tease a man to marry her. It is the straightforward economics of sex. Even an ugly old bloke can find a pretty girl to marry him if he has significant assets.
Males and females enjoy sex, but men are more enthusiastic and they do not relate it to having babies. Women relate sex to more features including relationship, security, self-worth, and children. Women have been given the yes-no on sex so one might assume that she has the stronger bargaining position. How does she decide to allow a man into a relationship? The price he has to pay depends on the woman’s nous. She may give it away for a couple of drinks and a smile. She may require a month of dates, attention, and courting. She may require the male to offer a lifetime of subservience and his life’s income. Women have previously had the controlling influence in the relationship. But like any exchange market, there is a prevailing price. The value depends on what price other girls apply to sex and procreation. The market value depends on how the man values the woman compared to the ‘going rate’. If sex is easy to obtain, the price is low. The male may want sex as in ‘one-night-stand’ and search for ‘an easy lay’ at a nightclub or party or he may want procreation and search for the most suitable girl. Cheap contraception lowered the cost of sex by making it more available but did not alter procreation in the same way. Before the availability of easy contraception, there was always a risk of pregnancy, so a negotiation on commitment was necessary. “If you get me pregnant, you marry me!” This may have been a common arrangement. The pregnancy led the man to marriage. No sex was tolerated by the girl without an expectation of commitment. Better still was to instill a tradition of no sex without marriage. If pregnancy occurred, the male could be redeemed for ‘his’ sin by ‘making the girl honest’ which meant ‘marry her’. Girls were taught to rebuff their boyfriend’s wandering hands until such time as a marriage date was arranged. Girls presented an image of innocence and retained their virginity. The concept of naughtiness was maintained on the subject of sex and the girl would maintain an air of innocence. The air of innocence of females meant that the male was to blame for leading her astray. But the whole design of the woman’s body is to lead men astray. I often say: “God made women beautiful to lead men astray.” I sometimes add jokingly: “Unfortunately, he made men ugly.” To add intensity, I sometimes ask: “Did God make women beautiful or did God make man’s mind believe that women are beautiful?” I sometimes illustrate the conundrum by saying that the female’s cat does not think: “I have a beautiful owner.” It just thinks: “I have an owner — that feeds me.” So it is the male mind that sees a girl as beautiful.
It was to a woman’s advantage to remain a virgin until marriage to ensure a child’s legitimacy. But even the ‘shotgun’ wedding was acceptable. Previously, sex was a thrilling private encounter between a couple.
Adrian Thatcher, professor of applied theology at the University of Exeter, tells us that things were not quite as they seem:
“Christendom is in a state of collective amnesia about how it used to deal with marriage,”
Until the Reformation, marriage began at the time of betrothal, when couples would live and sleep together. It was called “the spousals” and the process was legally binding. The public wedding ceremony happened at a later date. Into the mid-1700s it was common and acceptable for brides to be pregnant at the wedding. It is likely that pre-marital sex has always been with us. Couples married quickly if he had got her ‘up the duff’ and the community turned a blind eye to early births. Children conceived outside of legal marriages are recorded as having been born ‘legitimately’. The Hardwicke Marriage Act of 1753 changed the situation by stipulating that Christians in England and Wales were to be married in their parish church. At this time, the spousals and the nuptials were brought together into a single ceremony. By the 1800s, there was a premium on brides being virgins. Professor Adrian Thatcher says that.
“This act swept away the idea that betrothal was the entry into marriage.”
Throughout the 1800s, stigma began to be attached to illegitimacy. In ‘A Social History of England’, historian Asa Briggs believes that this brought about the Victorian ideal that women should be “chaste before marriage and ‘modest’ after”. Asa Briggs says that the number of first pregnancies conceived outside marriage fell from forty percent to twenty percent in the Victorian era. The proportion of first births to fifteen to twenty-nine-year-old women that occur outside of marriage has more than doubled in the United States since the 1970s, rising from eighteen percent in 1970 to 1974 to forty-one percent in 1990-1994. More recent figures are forty-eight percent. Adrian Thatcher sees ‘parallels’ with the pre-Reformation practice. Unfortunately, women who become pregnant before marriage are less likely to marry today. It might be a good concept to reintroduce:
They clearly liked each other enough to jump into the sack, so they can work out how to survive life together. As soon as something becomes a legal matter, it becomes logical. Neocortex logical arguments take precedence over emotion and a union of two people based on the emotion called love becomes impossible. The law does not deal with emotions.
Before contraception, pregnancy was always a possibility. The introduction of contraception was revolutionary. Humans have sex for pleasure at a far greater rate than humans have sex for reproduction. But we also have sex for connection rather than pleasure or procreation. So connection, procreation, and pleasure are all tied into the topic. ‘Need’ might also be in the mix as the desire for sex may be a bit like the feelings for hunger and thirst. As I walk past the bread bin, my mouth waters. If I see an interesting girl, my mind goes into overdrive. If the girl sits on the boy’s lap, he is totally in overdrive. If she climbs into bed and removes her knickers, he is overdrive-overdrive. He is close to being unable to stop himself and the girl possibly likewise. To the boy or the girl, if you don’t want to achieve a pregnancy, don’t get naked together, your bodies are liable to override your common sense.
Because we predominantly use sex for pleasure we don’t relate sex to babies. Producing offspring is not linked with thinking erotically. The thought of producing babies can be quite off-putting. But is pleasure the real reason we enjoy sex? Orgasms can be obtained manually by what we call masturbation. Why bother with a human? We need a human because of our social nature and the need for connectedness with others. The male who has a one-night-stand connected with a girl as he thinks about the connectedness of the evening. He has a permanent connection to the girl even if he runs and never sees her again. Someone joked: “You can’t un-fuck a girl.” The girl likes the connectedness but would like it to continue. She gets upset when he disappears as she was looking for a meaningful bond. She gets upset when he falls asleep after the event. We need social interaction and the sex act is one of them. When women in marriage start to ban sex, this is a seriously negative way to treat the male. You might as well give him the ultimate punishment. You are forcing him into a position where he has to decide whether he is going to get his connectedness elsewhere, even if he has no intention of separating from his family and this disinterested wife. Sex is an interactive ritual and we need interactive rituals even if they do not involve the mutual passing of fluids. Every day, I have interactive rituals with other people that involve nods, smiles, and finger waves. All these interactive rituals have sets of unwritten rules and they may be different for each individual. I may have to talk with some for a few seconds, it may involve a hug, a specific facial expression may be required for others. It may be different for each person you know. You develop special codes with some. The whole area of human contact is riddled with these little interactive rituals. The sex act is an interactive ritual involving the sympathetic cooperation between two individuals. Just flirting with someone can make the heart flutter. I know and girls still tug my heartstrings in a form of amusement. Being honest with these emotions can be tricky. If someone affects my emotions, I have learned to try to express that emotion. I might honestly say:
Irrespective, marriage rates are at an all-time low and dating sites are on an all-time profit binge. Romantic relationships are harder to find. Romantic means the male is grovelling to the female. The male no longer needs to grovel as he has the rare component. He has the ability to avoid marriage and he has good reason to do so. Males perceive marriage to be a bad deal at present and thus they are exceedingly reluctant to pop the question. Even the scenario of children out of wedlock is dramatically unappealing to males. He knows from experience and acquired knowledge that loving wives turn feral very quickly. He believes that the cute little angel will turn into an agent of the devil if any tiny little thing upsets her in the future. He knows there is a whole bunch of laws designed to make his life miserable. He knows there is an army of lawyers that make a ton of money by feeding the fire of matrimonial discord. He knows the legal system is stacked against him. To the young male, the negatives outweigh the positives. Sex is easy and marriage is dangerous. What the woman is offering is simply not worth the risk. Why become devoted to someone who has a high risk of becoming feral?
Women have something that men want — sex. Men will sacrifice for sex. Previously, males would sacrifice a whole life of nine to five work to pair up with the right girl. But contraception, sexual liberation, porn, prostitution, and feminism changed all that. Sex became cheap for males because so many girls gave it away for free. Marriage went from expensive for the males to unwanted at any cost by the males. For women, it went from being a very precious commodity available only to the most asset-laden male, to being something that is now difficult to sell even for the attractive young females. Enterprising males can get regular sex with a little nous. Mandy on Monday. Wendy on Wednesday. Freda on Friday and that still leaves Saturday night for partying and chasing girls. He did not invent the system. The propaganda told girls to give sex away for free and they fell for the propaganda. In the sixties, ‘free love’ was the slogan. But this was a distortion of the truth as there was no love just ‘free sex’ for males and girls could watch their dreams of a happy family evaporate. The combination of contraception, sexual liberation, porn, prostitution, and feminism modified the sex market dramatically. In the old days, couples might ‘accidentally’ in the heat of passion have sex, but it would have been agreed or a society tradition that marriage would occur if a pregnancy eventuated. My mother, who became a teenager towards the end of the war, writes:
“Before the war, hastily arranged marriages only seemed to happen if the girl fell pregnant and it was usually the father, backed up by the mother, who would wade in and insist that the fellow ‘made an honest woman’ of the girl. In 1939 when the war started and through the 1940s there were indeed very many hasty matches because life was so precarious with the young fellows going off to fight, fly Spitfires or work at sea in submarines or in cargo ships bringing food supplies in etc ....to say nothing of all the bombing. The young men never knew if they would survive and come home and it was a terribly worrying time for the women with their sons, brothers, boyfriends or fathers away... ‘Free love’ was not so prevalent in those days (but it did happen from time to time! There were quite a few hasty marriages when babies came along too.) So getting married was a very positive and hopeful thing to do and they would have ‘someone to come home to’ after all the horror of war.”
It seems that premarital sex did occur in the passion of the moment but the male knew that the consequence was marriage. In the modern world, with the development of online dating, the schism between casual sex and marriage is highly apparent. Men want one-night-stands and women want commitment. This causes confusion and whilst women want commitment, they still give sex away for free. Interestingly, women can be picky in the free-sex market and choose better-looking males that only want one-night-stands because the males outnumber the women. In the marriage market, the women outnumber the males. Men can be picky when choosing a marriage partner and can insist on a virtuous past and whatever other characteristics he decrees appropriate. The feminists claimed that men were oppressing women but women were getting married in great numbers. In truth, women had created a cartel and males could only have sex if they got married or promised to marry if they got her pregnant. Casual pregnancy enabled them to get the male over the line. This is the ‘secret’ which is the topic of the book. Women controlled the market. The leverage of pregnancy leading to marriage has disappeared with contraception and feminism. The cartel has evaporated. Destroyed by the those that funded and promoted feminism. Never forget that it was males that funded feminism and they did not do so for the benefit of females. Females now had to compete for men in a marriage where male desire does not age to any extent whilst women’s desirability evaporates rapidly after twenty-one. Women went from controllers to beggars and vast numbers get passed in at the auction. The situation could be rectified if women worked together to control the market. At the simplest level, they need to stop dropping their knickers and they need to choose marriage material rather than bad-boys and game-players. They need to make it clear that they are looking for marriage. When they get intimate, there is a clear message that “if you get me pregnant, we are married.”
Nobody is calling the male a “cad” for using her and dumping her. In old films of olden times, you will see males stating their intentions towards women. In the Muslim world, it is haram for a man to speak to a non-Mahram woman with the intention of making her fall into sin. In a more complete form: It is haraam for man to look at the body or hair of the Non-Mahram women, regardless of whether it is with the intention of pleasure or not, and whether there is a fear of falling into a sinful act or not. It is also haraam to look at the faces and the arms, up to the wrists, of such women with the intention of pleasure, or if there is fear of falling into a sinful act, and the recommended precaution is that one should not look at their faces or arms even without such an intention. Similarly, it is haraam for a woman to look at the body of Non-Mahram man, except places which are customarily not covered, like, his face, hands, head, neck, and feet. She can look at these parts of a man without the intention of deriving any pleasure, or if there is no fear of being entrapped in any sinful act. Mahram is tied into this definition:
“And do not marry at all those women whom your father had married, ... This is an indecent and abominable thing and an evil practice. Forbidden to you are your mothers, daughters, sisters, paternal aunts, maternal aunts, brothers daughters, sisters daughters, your foster mothers who have given suckle to you, your foster sisters who have taken suckle with you, the mothers of your wives, the daughters of your wives whom you have brought up, the daughters of your wives with whom you have conjugal relations, and it is not sinful for you to marry their daughters (after having divorced them). Also forbidden to you are the wives of your sons who are from your loins, and ...” [Allah says in the Holy Quran Chapter 4 Surah Nisaa verses 22-23]
Notice that they call it ‘sinful’. Making sex, or in this case, looking at a woman, sinful, it is possible to control male lust. In this way, if a male wants intimate relationships with a woman, he has to marry her. This may appear to be control of women, but in reality, it was to control male lust. Given the opportunity, males will root anything that moves. The sexual liberation of females provided that opportunity. Sexual liberation dictated that all females were available to all males. All that was required was consent. It threw gracious behaviour out of the window. Academic lectures now lecture on ‘consent’. Consent draws the line between assault and sex. The young are concerned about ‘ruining the mood’ whilst the academics are being legalistic. Thus the prevailing doctrine is that sex is a free commodity provided there is ‘consent’. Nothing about a ‘loving act’ or intentions of forming a family, or marrying her if you get her pregnant. Procreation is out of the discussion. The young can have sex provided there is female ‘consent’. Legal eagles need the word: “Yes”. Biologically, if a woman goes through all the mating procedures, smiling, eye contact, necking, cuddling, lying together, intertwined legs, mutual touching of genitalia, she is as close as possible to a reptilian “Yes”. If she takes her knickers off and climbs into a bed with a male she has clearly indicated that sex is on the menu. Many males are feared of contact with a female for fear of a false rape claim. Oops. To the legal eagles operating in the land of logic, the magic of the spoken word “Yes” must be uttered. This is not to the benefit of girls because males cease to trust females. Let us be clear to girls that if they get into bed with a male, they can forget about claiming rape. This is not to protect males but to keep males interested in chasing girls. Males are currently feared of creating relationships for fear of false rape claims. If she climbed into bed with him naked and made all the usual moves and he ‘popped it in’, is he guilty of rape if she was giving all the biological ‘yes’ messages but did not give the legal vocal ‘yes’. Boys need to be afraid. Be very afraid. I am talking about a real and common injustice that faces males. Males are regularly in grave danger of a false rape accusation and a life behind bars. It is one word against the other with no witnesses. The male is effectively treated as guilty until proven innocent, and he has no way of proving innocence as he did not bring a witness. Neither does she have a witness. She just makes a claim. He is accused of rape, yet he had no intention of raping. He read her signals and they were all green. The courts deal with the logic of the spoken word. The absence of the spoken word ‘yes’ puts him behind bars. Under religion, she should not have been in bed naked. The world is going mad. If we operate society in a sensible manner, she should not be in bed with a male unless she is married. It is not rape-culture. Nobody supports rape. Boys do not wish to rape girls. There is no rape-culture. Here is a caricature of a feminist robot:
The accused made one error. He forgot that the legal eagles require a legally acceptable spoken ‘yes’ which is something that did not exist when god invented sex. Before language, the word ‘Yes’ did not exist. Here is an example.
“Kevin Ibbs was convicted in 1987 of failing to stop having sex with a woman thirty seconds after she withdrew consent. After a trial which received much publicity, Mr Ibbs went to jail for six months. A few years ago, the woman involved and Mr Ibbs’ former wife both confessed to setting him up.”
Kevin Ibbs said:
“It’s cost me over a million and a quarter and I’m going for a lot more than that. Yes, I am going to sue. It’s my lawful right. My life - fourteen years - they can’t give that back to me. I haven’t seen my daughter for fourteen years. I’ve been ruined as a tradesman and I don’t know how my health is.”
Here is another one:
“A man who pleaded guilty to rape after continuing to have sex with his girlfriend for a — ‘matter of seconds’ — after she asked him to stop has been released.”
Should women have the right to withdraw consent in the middle of intercourse? Again it might sound like a weapon in the hands of a woman, but it turns sex into a scary business for men. He might wonder whether he can trust a woman. It thus becomes a problem for women in that males do not trust women and cannot find partners and husbands.
It is similar in marriage. Marriage is a joining of two persons for the benefit of the children so produced. To have children, it is necessary to have sex. Thus marriage is a license to have sex. Consent is granted in the marriage arrangements. She married him with the intention of having sex with him to have babies. Consent is assumed in the marriage agreement. Historically, sexual intercourse within marriage was regarded as a right of spouses. If he abuses her, or she abuses him, that is another matter. These laws may appear to benefit women, but they do not. It makes the concept of marriage very un-appealing to young males.
According to Sergey Gavrilets, there is an interesting origin to the start of pair-bonding between females and males. Lower rank males realized that if they provisioned a female, they could bypass the male-to-male conflict over mating rights. This enabled an increased investment in offspring by the pair. The procedure rather relied on the females choice and acceptance. The male would offer gifts and the female would test his reliability. It involved a society-wide change from promiscuity to pair-bonding which later was institutionalized by religion into marriage. It did put males in a dilemma. There is little point in provisioning a female if he is provisioning another male’s offspring. Male: “I’ll provision you provided you don’t screw-around.” Thus the demand for the faithfulness of the female. Young females were trained not to screw-around so they could convince a provisioner of her worthiness. Pair-bonding led to the division of labour. Once pair-bonding was established, family hierarchies could develop which still give important roles to grandmothers and grandfathers. Promiscuity never allowed this, never will, and currently does not. Pair-bonding also gives a family role to the male as offspring can reliably know their father. The current trend towards promiscuity and divorce destroys this intergenerational support and the influence of fatherhood. The transition from promiscuity to pair-bonding may have been an evolutionary conundrum which we may well have problems overcoming in the current era. The former Soviet bloc countries have still not recovered from the effects of the Bolshevik forced elimination of sexual tradition and we may suffer the same problem. In other words, we may not be able to go back to a situation where a women’s cartel on sexual activity can be reinstated. Currently, females are saying “Yes.” at the wrong time and are subsequently saying “No.” at the wrong time. Males are taking advantage out of wedlock and women are taking advantage in marriage. In very rough and ready statement: girls are saying “Yes.” and being nice as pie before marriage and acting like a porn star in bed whilst in marriage they slowly tighten the noose until no sex is tolerated, then they become argumentative and difficult. Man can tolerate this to an extent, but it is a big put-off to any younger male contemplating marriage. So, although the married woman thinks she can get away with this, her dragon-side does not help her younger sisterhood. We are talking murder of a young girl’s chances of a family. Many of these women will die single and alone. Only their cat will mourn their passing.
All ambitions for a young girl with her dreams of a family evaporate the first time a man she cares for walks out after hearing too many stories of hateful divorces. Endless Feminist propaganda, no assurances that she does not need a male, can overcome the humiliation of him disappearing, after taking the best years of her life. She has been discarded. Her companionship is not wanted. Women have learned that their guaranteed ‘equality’ is the opportunity to make love to a man and have him walk away next day. It is the right to become invisible if she refuses a male’s interest. It gives the girl the opportunity to catch a sexually transmitted disease that may leave her infertile. It is the opportunity of an abortion if she gets pregnant. It may even give her the chance to become a single mother.
It may be difficult to reverse this. There could be an attempt to instill:
Considering the ‘economics of sex’ the solution is to get women to band together to raise the price of sex. Reintroduce the women’s cartel on sex where sex equals marriage. Please reintroduce the statement: “If you get me pregnant — you marry me. Deal?” Sex before marriage should only be with a person you would be prepared to marry. There was probably significant premarital sex in the past but it was understood that pregnancy equals marriage. You are in it together from the moment of the conception. Scott Stanley and Galena Rhoades did research that found that the nature of their sex lives before marriage has an influence on their future happiness. They reported that about ninety percent of couples have sex before marriage but those who do so only with their future spouse have a better marriage stability than those who sleep around. The graph shows the same characteristic:
Thus, if you attempt to have more sex then your odds of a successful marriage decrease. You win in the sex market but not in the marriage market. Casual sex gives sex away dirt-cheap whilst reducing your bargaining power in the marriage market. You may be highly desirable on the one-night-stand-sex market but be undesirable on the marriage market. It is the good-girl bad-girl argument.
In the words of a friend Melvyn:
“Women’s Lib was designed to enslave women into the workplace, not to set them free from male oppression as stated, when it was realised that fifty-percent of the population was not paying tax or producing goods and services. It worked perfectly.
What would you rather do? Play hide and seek with the kids — then send them to bed on some trumped up charge so you can watch the ‘Price is Right’ with a glass of wine and chat to your friend on the phone about the fella down the road you’ve been seeing while your husband is at work — or work in a Coalmine?”
In her book ‘Marry Him: The Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough’, Lori Gottlieb, a forty-something single mother (by sperm donation) thoughtfully talks about longing for marriage and family. She exhorts to marry young, rather than waiting for Mr. Perfect. I agree with her:
“Of course, we’d be loath to admit it in this day and age, but ask any soul-baring forty-year-old single heterosexual woman what she most longs for in life, and she probably won’t tell you it’s a better career or a smaller waistline or a bigger apartment. Most likely, she’ll say that what she really wants is a husband (and, by extension, a child) . . . in reality, we aren’t fish who can do without a bicycle, we’re women who want a traditional family.”
I often say to girls: “The easiest thing you have to do in life is pass exams and get a job. They’ve tilted the table in your direction. The hardest thing for you in life will be finding a man prepared to marry you.”