There is No Sexual Double-Standard

From the SpearheadFiles
September 2, 2010

A female reader was apparently looking through the Spearhead archives, and came across my book review for The Garbage Generation. She e-mailed me the following: "I have read part of the book and a lot of the book I agreed with. I just want this question answered by another man. Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango."

If you agreed with a lot of the book, you really shouldn’t be even asking this question, because one of the basic premises of Dr. Amneus’ seminal work, is based on defining what comprised the original marriage contract between men and women. What men bring to the table and what women bring to the table in what we now refer to as the institution of Marriage 1.0, were two different assets to be exchanged for the mutual benefit of the children created by their union.

Men’s primary marital asset was their resources and ability to labor to acquire more resources, to support the family. Men with lesser means or abilities to provide were (and usually still are) viewed as less desirable marriage material, regardless of his sexual history.

Women’s primary martial asset was their guarantee to their husbands that children born of their union where his. Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity, regardless of her ability to be a provider.

It’s not that there is a double standard, it’s just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women – and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender sex. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0.

There cannot be this so-called sexual double-standard, because a man’s contribution to the nuclear family unit was his capacity to be a provider, not his sexual purity. A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry her…but her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding.

Women complaining about this mythical double-standard, would be the equivalent to men complaining that more marriages should have the women be the providers while the men stay home, keep house and raise the kids.

Granted, such arrangements do occur nowadays…but for the most part, men & women both tend to look down on the men as somewhat less than masculine for doing so — hence the phrase “kitchen bitches” — just as women nowadays are free to be as promiscuous as the alpha males they wish to emulate…it’s just that most people will still regard them as sluts, no matter how bitterly they complain about this so-called “double-standard.” This “double-standard” really only exists in the brainwashed minds of feminists and manginas alike.

Women who are caught up in obsessing over this so-called sexual “double-standard” are simply falling for the lies and propaganda promoted by the feminist kultural kommisars of our Brave New World Order, and reinforcing the memes that have contributed to the travesty we now know of as marriage 2.0.

No, the real double-standard that actually exists today, is the entire family court/divorce industry that enforces a system for which women have the right to withdraw their reproductive capacity and their nurturing and care giving – but men are not allowed to withdraw their provider role. In fact, they are explicitly prevented from doing that by the power of the Government and threatened with fines, imprisonment, loss of passports, professional practice and driving licenses, a permanent criminal record, and other sanctions our feminist-run Government has put into place to legalize this very real double-standard.

In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.

My inquiring e-mailer thought she was making some kind of irrefutable point with her quip, “No matter what, it takes two to tango.” She misses the real double-standard here: it takes two to get married, but only one — which is usually instigated by the woman – to get divorced.




Notable Commentary from the Original Post

gwallan September 2, 2010 at 03:18

"A woman could find a willing virgin who has no provider capacity to marry herbut her own hypergamous instincts would cause her to view him as less than adequate in terms of marriage material, his sexual purity notwithstanding."

Interestingly virginity or “can’t get laid” are almost always among womens’ opening ad hominem salvos against any man they disagree with.


Travis September 2, 2010 at 03:49

Besides, my view on the so called “sexual double standard” is that it’s largely of women’s making. They’re the one’s who line up to sleep with the male versions of “sluts and whores”. They’re the one’s who have made those guys the envy of other men. All they would have to do to eliminate the “double standard” is to start rejecting those guys. To start looking at men the same way that men look at women. By seeing the most desireable mate as the one who is most likely to remain faithful. But that’s not in their nature. They want and desire the Alpha Male. And as long as they do, men are going to desire to BE the Alpha Male. So instead, they want us to change OUR nature, and start celebrating female promiscuity. To view women who have screwed half the guys in town as the most desireable mates. It’s just another female play to eschew any and all responsibility and moral behavior. And to try and get men to revere them for it….


Reality 2010 September 2, 2010 at 03:52

Well there’s also the ten thousand pound gorilla in the room.. that it takes tremendous effort and or a tremendous talent or a god-given gift to be a ‘stud’ while it takes absolutely zero effort to be a slut. All it takes for a woman to be a slut is to just lie on her back. Wow. What an achievement.

Tell her that it may take two to tango, but it only takes one to say ‘yes.’

Unless the female is a repellent beast chances are (sadly) that virtually any guy is going to want to have sex with virtually any female.

There’s also the fact that a woman’s vagina/body is her one and only asset – (as if you would actually want a woman based on her petty, lazy, confrontational and flaky personality or parasitical worthlessness in the workplace) so to mindlessly give away the one and only thing you have of any value has a much broader pathetic implication than that of gender & sex regardless of whatever it is.

Women themselves admire and are attracted to the man who is able to attract thousands of women who are willing to sleep with him- that is at the very core of female sexuality. Tell her if she wants an answer to also look in the mirror.


Ubermind September 2, 2010 at 04:26

The greatest double standard in human perception that started it all is the notion that women do not want sex all that much, but man want alot and have to work and pay for it.

True is women want sex just as much as men if not more. With a desirable partner of course. Desirable partner is the key here.

Also in marriage 1.0 both worked. Man’s duty was to work outside of home, but woman’s duty was to work inside home. Do not forget that!

Women were chosen not only by their beuty, but also by their “diligence to work” (your feminzied american language does not even have a clear opposite word for lazy, that says something)

Women pedastializaton started when rich man started to choose wifes solely for their beuty, because servants (now automation) did all the job.

If a women works she does not view sex as a manipulation tool, she views it as a reward for good work just like most men do.

Understanding that both parties need to work for mutual pleasure each in their own ways should eliminate all double standarts.

Elusive Wapiti September 2, 2010 at 05:02

Leveraging the Book of Zed here, there’s a reason why the so-called slut-stud double standard exists–it is easy for a woman, more or less, to become sexually experienced. She needs only to lay back and spread her legs and she will invariably find some would-be lothario willing to fill the void in her loins. The reverse is much harder, and the self-control necessary to produce a 26-yo virgin speaks to her value, her loyalty as a potential mate.

The calculus for men is different, or at least used to be. A man is valued for what he does, his skill, the energy he uses to produce. Thus a 26 yo virginal man, according to the conventional slut-stud calculus, has less value because it takes very little effort and skill to sit back and do nothing than one with experience with women. He is seen in conventional circles as a better potential partner because he has overcome obstacles, and knows what he is doing to lead her.

I suspect the benefit from being a stud has dwindled of late, because there are more sluts around, desperate to trade access to their holiest of holies for attention and validation. It’s not as hard to ‘score’, therefore being a ‘stud’ isn’t what it once was.

The value, however, from self-control in a woman has shot up in the last decades like a rocket.

Additional commentary after the jump 




misterb September 2, 2010 at 05:12

There’s no such thing as sexual double standards. The only double standard that exists is feminist controlled Government. In where men are expected to work their fingers to the bone, while women are given allowances in pilfering a man’s hard earn money.

Whether you live in Canada or in the US. Heterosexual males are considered lower than dirt. While the female species are regarded as virtuous. The modern women have no concept of morality, no decency and no shred of dignity.

The saying goes, a woman will spread her legs open for anything, even for greasy rat.


Kathy September 2, 2010 at 06:15

"They're the one's who line up to sleep with the male versions of sluts and whores. They're the one's who have made those guys the envy of other men. All they would have to do to eliminate the "double standard"  is to start rejecting those guys. To start looking at men the same way that men look at women."

Indeed, Travis.. Women used to be the “gatekeepers” of sex.

Now… The floodgates are open! :(


cracker September 2, 2010 at 06:19

A male co-worker of mine explained the slut/stud thing like this: No matter how many girls a guy sleeps with, he can “wash her off” pretty easily. But he referred to a woman’s vag as “the Bat Cave” – “you have no idea what’s in there” :)

There are definitely different standards for men and women, but logically (and historically) speaking, it makes sense. Why would a man want a slut for a wife? It makes it that much more likely he’ll eventually end up having to support a kid that might not even be his.


Travis September 2, 2010 at 06:46

“Women used to be the gatekeepers of sex.
Now, The floodgates are open!”

You’re totally right. It’s insane. The last two girls I went out with wanted to sleep with me on the first date. I’d like to think that it’s just because I’m so damn irresistable. Unfortunately, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case. That’s just what girls do nowdays…

Anyway,on both dates we went out to a bar, had a few drinks, and went out to the car. One went straight for my pants right there in the parking lot, and the other waited until we were half way home. I politely but firmly turned them both down. Don’t get me wrong. I’m a guy. And I like sex. But I don’t want anything to do with a girl who has such low self esteem that she’s willing to give it up to a guy that she’s only known for a couple of hours. Not to mention the fact that it’s a pretty good way to catch something.

The first girl, and this is the honest to God truth, started crying, hit me in the arm and shouted at me “How do you think that makes me FEEL?”

The second girl, to her credit, took it better. But when she called me the next day started making all sorts of snarky comments like “So what are you, like a Priest or something?”

All because I simply told them that I kind of like to get to know a girl a bit before I jump in the sack with her.
And these are the girls that I’m supposed to find a nice wife to settle down and raise kids with? (Don’t worry guys. I’m thirty years old, never been married, and don’t ever plan to be. I’m just saying….)


Uncle Elmer September 2, 2010 at 07:14

Definitely a double standard now against men. But you young chaps need to understand that women have a very different life trajectory than men. Hard to see it when you are 20. They peak and decline quite rapidly while a man has a slow and long curve. Marriage 1.0 protected women from this phenomena.

The reason men get such bile for discussing it is that women want to keep the young lads in the dark so they pony up for a life of payments on a battered old car.

Time for a movie review. My sons and I eagerly awaited the latest Stallone outrage and finally found some time to go together. The usual fare : 2D latin american general + rogue CIA agent taking over small island nation to raise cocaine. I expected something different this time for all the hype. At least Stallone casted one black mercenary, notably missing from Rambo 4, but all he did was operate an exotic large-cal machine gun. No ghetto talk (“C’mon out heah Dina! I got somethin fo yo ass!” from Carnosuar, arguably one of the best movies of this generation) .

The general and castle demolition are identical to “Quantum of Solace” though we are spared the annoying Jewish evil-genius orchestrating everything, as in Steven Segal’s “Runaway Train”. Eric Roberts plays the role of the irritating bad guy. But where was Christopher Walken?

Anyway same old action movie crap, right up to blowing up the paper mache’ castle. As a man you’ll enjoy it anyway.

But some people in Hollywood just aren’t getting the message. Case in point : Jason Stadham comes back after rescuing hostages from dirty pirates and brings a jewel to his girl. Finds out she is getting rogured by a live-in boyfriend while he is off wupping ass. He storms off on his moto-bike. Later in the movie he looks her up again to apologize! Then, sees that the new boyfriend has slapped her around. The punk! He puts her on the back of the bike and finds the guy playing basketball, then of course kicks 10 guys’ asses before giving the boyfriend a stern warning. Then he takes off again on another dirty, thankless mission. WTF???

And Stallone also risks all for some island chicita. Course Stallone doesn’t poke her or anything like that. Just a nice hug after all the fireprowess and artfully choreographed fight scenes against stacks of cocaine bricks.

Despite these shortcomings my sons and I give it a thumbs up.


Herbal Essence September 2, 2010 at 07:38

@ Travis

“The last two girls I went out with wanted to sleep with me on the first date. I'd like to think that it's just because I'm so damn irresistable. Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure that's not the case. That's just what girls do nowdays."

I am not above sleeping with a girl on the first date. But I will never do it if she has drugs or alcohol in her system. In fact, I won’t do any more than hold hands with a girl if she’s been boozing and I’ve known her for less than a month or so. Chicks who spread their legs for random dudes while drunk are IMO much more likely to be regretful and retroactively remove consent in front of the police.


Jim Jones September 2, 2010 at 07:48

There are two things wrong with this article:

1. There is no need to explain to a woman anything that you cannot tell her. Most of your pain-painstakingly crafted justification for the sexual “double standard” has flown past this woman’s head as well as most of the others. Somebody else said it best, women are high-functioning children, it is not prudent to provide them with endless explanations and justifications because their primary decision driver is emotion.

2. There is no need to be wordy when a single phrase can be just as effective at exposing this “double standard” as the illogical and whiny tantrum of feminists and manginas:

A key that can open any lock is known as a master key.  It has enormous value. A lock that can be opened by any key is a weak lock. It has virtually no value at all.


anonymous September 2, 2010 at 08:01

It doesn’t matter now because the pay gap has been reversed. Women will continue to slut around while waiting on Mr Provider til the end of their lives. Yet Mr Provider won’t be coming as his job was long ago taken over by a woman.


Uncle Elmer September 2, 2010 at 08:02

Every time I been in a situation where a gal dropped trou within minutes/hours of first greeting I couldn’t get a woodie. If she doesn’t put up some token resistance it takes all the fun out of it.

Not to mention scaring the crap out of you. One girl, 20 min after I met her, was squeezing my limp member and asking “What’s the matter, don’t you like me?” and all I could think was I am going to end up in a tub of ice minus a kidney.

Dealing with professional ladies is different, as that is a business transaction. With freebies the compensation, either expressed or implied, is not well understood. This leads to confusion in the man’s primitive lizard brain and he is often unable to perform.


Solomon II September 2, 2010 at 08:12

Great article. I just stole it. Bwaa haaa.


Anonymous age 68 September 2, 2010 at 08:23

In the United States, pre-nups are not worth the paper they are written on. Please don’t suggest pre-nups. Lawyers love to write them, because they get paid twice. Modest amounts to write them, and big amounts when the gullible sucker discovers the judge is going to tear it up, and he decides to fight a losing battle.

Every state that I know of has specific provisions in the law for a judge to reject a pre-nup if the judge thinks the result is unjust. Period. And, judges always think taking Cupcake from the slums, then putting her back there is unjust.

The only difference is, on cases I have read, if a judge tears up a pre-nup, she only gets 1/3 of everything instead of 1/2.


Keyster September 2, 2010 at 08:43

I did some of that one night stand stuff and never liked it much. When patronizing the pros I’ll down a half a blue pill as insurance I won’t waste my money on low quality wood, plus the condom thing. It’s helps that they know exactly what to say and do as well.

If a woman is grabbing your crotch on the first date chances are she’s already surmised you’re not marriage material and just wants dick. It’s a form of disrespect. If you were a prospectful husband she’d be demure and modest and seemingly innocent. If she thinks it could get serious and she’s ready to settle, she’ll hold out like a virgin. Young men need to understand the price of hypergamy.


misterb September 2, 2010 at 08:43

Sometimes I think that sleeping with women can be dangerous. Aside from catching a host of venereal diseases from women. A man could be robbed and have his throat slit by some woman. or be intentionally overdose with something then rob him. or do some poor schmoe harm

The saying goes, women will look for a mark, whether it be a quicky or stealing his wallet. But my thoughts would be the latter.


misterb September 2, 2010 at 08:58

As I think back, one night stand to a young man, well a young boy. Is a trivial matter. And now, one night stands are considered trivial by both men and women, of which both should know.

Personally I don’t give stock to one night stands. A mere moment of pleasure is meaningless.

Besides a woman can gather much information about a man, in how he keeps his apartment.

if you refuse a woman’s advances, she would think you’re either gay, or a freak. But if you tease women subtly, stringing her along, don’t expect too much.

I noted that a few women would stoop themselves to low level. She will even barter her nethers for a place to stay and hot meals. if a young man takes the bait, all I can say, just be mindful. And keep observations in what kind of person she is.


Snark September 2, 2010 at 09:06

@ Travis,

Anyway,on both dates we went out to a bar, had a few drinks, and went out to the car. One went straight for my pants right there in the parking lot, and the other waited until we were half way home. I politely but firmly turned them both down. Don't get me wrong. I'm a guy. And I like sex. But I don't want anything to do with a girl who has such low self esteem that she�s willing to give it up to a guy that she�s only known for a couple of hours. Not to mention the fact that it's a pretty good way to catch something.
The first girl, and this is the honest to God truth, started crying, hit me in the arm and shouted at me "How do you think that makes me FEEL?"

Now, imagine, if you tried to sleep with a girl on the first date (in fact being classless enough to put your hand up her skirt in the parking lot), and she refused.

Now, imagine, if you, a man, punched her in the arm and shouted at her for not wanting to have sex. Where do you think you’d end up?

There’s a real double standard.


Malestrom September 2, 2010 at 09:16

Yes, this is just just so ridiculous it is untrue. It’s like they’re saying women are saying it is hypocritical (and so by extension unnacceptable and wrong) for a person (man) to desire in a mate any attribute that they themselves do not possess. Strangely, whenever I ask one if this is what she means, she doesnt seem so keen to put her name to it, because is of course aware of how farcical such a notion is.

Women routinely employ similar double standards against men. Double standards that to them just seem so natural that they probably never think about them, like that the man must be strong and brave. Women have no problem demanding this despite themselves being weak and cowardly. To them it just seems to patently obvious that strong, bold men are superior to others, it’s just like gravity, why would you question it? Why would you even think about it long enough to start questioning it? He’s the man, men are supposed to be like that…it’s just obvious…right?

Women are, as I’m sure you all know, remarkably hostile to the idea that anyone is allowed to dictate to them what they should or should not want in a man. If you tried to tell a woman she’s shouldnt be attracted to big, strong, traditionally masculine men, because she is small and weak she would probably shriek obscenties at you. Yet they expect to be able to dictate to us what we should want because they find fulfilling some of those desires to be burdensome and opressive. Not being able to ride the dong carousel is just such a bore don’t you know?


NWOslave September 2, 2010 at 09:35

No double standard?
Let’s start with sexual relation’s (specifically pertaining to false rape).
1) women don't need any corroboration of their claims.
2) eliminated the requirement of force.
3) legally forbade naming rape accusers.
4) lengthened and even eliminated statutes of limitations for rape.
5) In the UK, it's worse. They compensate alleged rape victims, even the ones not subjected to any physical force, no matter how slight their injuries
6) exempted rape accusers from taking polygraph tests as a condition to proceeding with the rape investigation. In contrast, using polygraphs on men accused of rape is routine.

Harrytoo September 2, 2010 at 10:32

There’s the truth of the matter in relation to marriage. Women no longer bring anything other than their bodies to the table. Add that to the cost to a man ‘if’ (50% chance and rising) the marriage fails. All men now have for protection is ‘game’. Why would a rational mind accept those odds with nothing to gain. I know we men are ‘blessed’ with the need to take risk, but we’re not (as a gender) complete morons. The morons would have to be those expecting the other gender to accept or ignore this reality. Because you smile sweetly occasionally? Come on, please.


Bob September 2, 2010 at 10:59

One thing few people point out is that there is nowehere near the “celebration” of man-whores that women seem to imagine. With the exception of a man’s close friends and the PUA sites run by people he will never meet, no one is encouraging men to be rakes. If a man has a close relationship with his family or church, it’s quite the opposite.

You will never find someone who does not believe the world would be a better place if the guys sleeping with 50+ women a year would cut it out. Most people would be much happier if everyone were less promiscuous than they are today.

90% of the “encouragement” cads receive is from hypergamous she-sluts.


misterb September 2, 2010 at 11:42

I hate to say this, I don’t give a damn about British feminists. They’re all the same. Why should I care about the she-men of UK. They claimed to be manly enough, and yet whine like there’s no tomorrow.

As for the majority Brits who are under the boots of those snooty nazis. Only this, endure and don’t give those smug bastards the satisfaction.

Anyways from my understanding the British women, Swedish and the American women are among the worst.

if a woman flexes her muscle, I am not going to touch her with a twelve foot pole.

When a woman grabs a man by his crotch. It show she has no class, no dignity and no self respect.
If a woman grabs my crotch in that fashion. I would guarantee you, I would either do the same to her, and pull her breeding port down hard as I can. while trying to tear it off.
Or just give backhand to the face and tell her to back off.
Either way the manginas and the white knights would come scampering to her rescue.


Harrytoo September 2, 2010 at 11:53

”In other words, the only real double-standard that is in effect today in our declining civilization, is the one in which Women have no obligation or social pressure to live up to their marital vows, while men are forced to, even when the marriage is over.”

The sad hard truth. It’s only the tip of the iceberg. Female double standards riddle our way of life.


Paradoxotaur September 2, 2010 at 12:58

The real double standard is the biological one- that a woman always knows that the child she bears is her child, while her husband could only hope (until the very recent advent of DNA testing) that that child was his.

Mommy’s baby! Daddy’s? Maybe.


trent13 September 2, 2010 at 13:05

The double standard is that women today expect men to be living marriage 1.0 while women are living marriage 2.0. Women today don’t even know what they don’t know. They think the feminists were correct in their interpretation of Marriage 1.0 under the patriarchy as being this oppressive thing, rather than it being the best order for society since it recognizes the differences between the sexes, each sexes flaws and beneficial aspects.

I would like to see a radical male politician to come out against divorce, against women’s lib, against abortion and contraception, for Marriage 1.0 and for families. I am sure the feminazi’s will apply a hell of a lot of pressure to put him under, but maybe if there was enough media coverage it would be a catalyst for change. It would also be very telling to see which male politicians who claim to be conservative would endorse or back such a person. I figure there has to be at least one closet MRA politician somewhere – if only they would risk their career for the sake of society!


Troll King September 2, 2010 at 13:39

My entire life I have heard females talk about how men are so sexual, that we are dogs, burtes, we think with our little heads, etc. Who the fuck are they to tell us anything about men? Well, its just projection. That’s why their first shaming retort is “are you a virgin” or “you don’t get laid much” or your gay, or blah blah blah. Travis, learn from this. Females can’t stand rejection becausee they all think they are perfect lil snowflakes and they are rarely rejected in life. Atleast not to the same extent as men.

Women are definately more sexual than men, that’s why they want men to have lots of sex partners and it’s also why they hate virgins and guys with a low number. They figure other members of the female herd have rejected him, so they reject him. This is the basis of the so called double standard. That and they are lazy. Females expect men to be better in bed than them, alot will just lay there and suck at sex and then blame the man for being bad in bed.

I like welmers analogy of women v. mens sexual nature. Females are like flowing streams and men are like guisers. Females are always thinking about sex, always on the look out for a bigger better deal. They like to be single and try on cocks like shoes, and when they find one they like they sink their hooks in…..until he becomes beta in her eyes or she finds a better one.

They are branch swingers by nature, incapable of letting go of one branch until their hands are firmly placed on another. Like freakin monkeys.

Remember, the female collective/herd creates the cultural ideal of masculinity. That’s why guys have to be stoic and sexual rockstars while making bank and everything else.

There are some other terms that guys should know about. The first is ‘chemistry’, this means she get’s wet and tingly when talking or flirting with you.

It’s strange that ive heard so many women put such emphasis on initial chemistry and the number of sex partners or how good the sex was the first time. Any one who has been in long term relationships know that you learn more from actually fucking one person alot, instead of alot of people once or twice. But then again, im assuming the female mind is capable of logical thinking instead of following its lizard and mammalian brains insistence on preselection.

Im not sure I believe it’s that hard for a man to get laid today, when I was in HS I knew guys that couldn’t get laid, one was a friend who was incredibly obese due to a adrenal disorder, and there were girls who offered them pitty sex. These days females give away sex like a candy shop having a going out of business sale.

The real problem is the female herd and how it creates an informational wall while stratifying men/boys into a social heirarchy. They line up for the alphas and tell the betas/gammas what they want you to hear so that youll be docile and sit there and listen to them bitch about their bad boy boytoys for hours on end. Surprisingly I learned alot of game from women. One girl in HS would pick imaginary hairs off of my hoodie, after we started dating she was amazed that I didn’t know that was a time honored flirting technique. Game/PUAs stress techniques like this, and in the late 90′s early 00s every girl in my school seemed to know about htis shit but most of even the alphas didn’t.

All this double standard shit is really females fault, men are reactionary by nature. We don’t have uterus’s and we don’t get to raise children. Hell if females lined up to fuck and validate and give attention/affection to chess geeks instead of ballers and thugs, then every man would be learning how to play chess. Shaq would be sitting there on the jumbotron going ‘checkmate’, and then chearleaders would come out for halftime. lulz


slwerner September 2, 2010 at 13:39

Ubermind –
“(your feminzied american language does not even have a clear opposite word for lazy, that says something)”

Well, actually, there is such a word – industrious.

Sadly, it’s just that it’s getting hard to find women to whom it can be applied.


Hollenhund September 2, 2010 at 14:27

Paradoxotaur,

to be fair, there is another biological double standard. Women can be impregnated, men cannot.


Renee September 2, 2010 at 14:53

As some of you know, I’m one of those who have complained about the “double standard”, but for me it has to do with me being a Christian and my beliefs.

For example, this part:

"Women with an openly promiscuous past are viewed as less desirable marriage material because of the greater chances of cuckoldry and infidelity…."

Now don’t get me wrong, I understand the economics of it all pretty much. The thing is, wouldn’t a guy with an openly promiscuous past also have greater chances of infidelity? I’ve asked this question on another board, and here’s a response from Hollenhund:

Renee,

If a promiscuous woman leaves doubts of faithfulness within men and have more of a likehood to cheat, then wouldn't promiscuous men also have more of a likehood to cheat as well?

Of course they are, but such men are usually only sexually unfaithful, so to speak. And women tolerate male infidelity more than men tolerate female infidelity (as long as it is done purely for short-term sexual release). Women will readily share one high-value man; they won't be happy about the fact that they have to share, but they will do it. Men will NEVER share one woman in a relationship. Women don't fear sexual infidelity that much for the very simple reason that they cannot get cuckolded.

I get what he’s saying, but promiscuous men “ONLY” being sexually unfaithful, I don’t know what to make of that….. If a man has a sexual past, he’ll be pretty much unfaithful???

What do ya’ll think?

————————————
So true Travis, so true.

"…..So instead, they want us to change OUR nature, and start celebrating female promiscuity. To view women who have screwed half the guys in town as the most desireable mates. It's just another female play to eschew any and all responsibility and moral behavior. And to try and get men to revere them for it."

I think that it’s also something else too. These women simply want female promiscuity to be seen as ok and not this big of a deal like male promiscuity. Like if it’s ok for men to do it, then it should be ok for women to do it too. Personally, I think promiscuity is wrong regardless of what sex you are….but that’s just me.

"It's not that there is a double standard, it's just that there is two different standards: one for men, one for women  and the standards for each are simply based on what they each brought to the table by virtue of the formerly accepted and widely understood division of labor, which was based on gender. This was the essential paradigm of the institution we now refer to as marriage 1.0."

Putting it that way, I think I see what you mean.


Snark September 2, 2010 at 15:37
@ trent13,

I would like to see a radical male politician to come out against divorce, against women's lib, against abortion and contraception, for Marriage 1.0 and for families. I am sure the feminazi's will apply a hell of a lot of pressure to put him under, but maybe if there was enough media coverage it would be a catalyst for change. It would also be very telling to see which male politicians who claim to be conservative would endorse or back such a person. I figure there has to be at least one closet MRA politician somewhere  if only they would risk their career for the sake of society!

I know, full well, that you are a sincere anti-feminist, and are sincerely pro-male.

However, I shall repeat here what I posted today at Fidelbogen’s blog. Let others disagree with me if they will; perhaps I overestimate how much my position converges with the MRM as a whole.

The following is what I posted earlier:

I have to wonder whether a return to patriarchy is really what men want. Probably not, since a lot of MRAs started out being attracted to feminism’s promises of equal opportunities and freedom from restricting gender roles.

Of course, we find out sooner rather than later that feminism offers nothing of the sort, and in fact nothing at all to men.

And since that time, a theory has been developing, which has only been articulated in parts, here and there.

It goes a little something like this:

Patriarchy equals traditional masculinity equals chivalry equals feminism equals misandry.

Do tell me, under which of the above, does the iron law of ‘ladies first’ NOT hold.

Do tell me, under which of the above, should I get a fair shot at a seat on the Titanic’s lifeboats.

Is a return to ‘patriarchy’ really in men’s interests? Hardly – at least not in the sense described by trent13. ‘Patriarchy’ as attacked by feminists – male autonomy and self-definition – yeah, I’ll go in for that. And the equality I’m in favour of means no special privileges, at all, ever, whether chivalrous or feminist, for women.

I’d wager that my position is close to most MRAs.


Troll King September 2, 2010 at 16:17

Renee, females don’t want to be as promiscuous as men, they want to be more so. What I see on my college campus is this, even with 60% female undergraduates, the women will share one high level guy and the women u;nder them will keep two or three lower status guys on a short leash. They expect the guys to be ok with her sleeping around, just fuck buddies but not with him sleeping around.

It’s all through out our culture too. Compare tiger woods to mama mia or basically any merryl streep movie.

As far as sex history goes, females expect men to have a high number. Ive met alot of guys who slept with alot more women than me and they all told me the same thing, that it messed them up. As for women, the sluts usually start out crazy and only get crazier.

There are actually alot of guys, even in college, that want long term relationships but the girls don’t. Then what seems to happen is year 4 or 5 or 6 or grad school comes and the girls that fucked everything on campus want to start getting married cause their friends are, while the guys that couldn’t get a girlfriend the first three years give up and become players or rarely go out to any social events.

One of the big differences is how men and women view sex. Mosts, but not all, guys can have sex with someone and not be emotionally tied to the individual. But I think when guys get emotionally tied to the girls, it’s a deeper bond. This is why some guys become stalkers and what not and just can’t let go. That and most men spend most of their lives in a emotional desert, not being given affection or validation by the opposite sex while women are drowning in it. Well, up till about 30. Guys rarely get positive feedback from anyone.

Will a man with alot of sex partners cheat? Maybe, but cheaters usually cheat because they were cheated on or because they are just cheaters. I think what happens more often is that the number of sex partners makes a man less likely to be emotionally tied to one woman, especially if she is manipulative.

Or maybe im extrapolating from my personal experience. I have been cheated on many times, and then I realized that im not married and you can’t cheat outside of marriage. SO I don’t let any woman tie me down into a relationship and I don’t tell women anything that I wouldn’t tell other people cause it will always be used against me or blabbered to her friends. Ive learned the hardway, but if I did find one of those magical, snowflake like women that supposedly exist. I would be faithful, I managed to do it in many different LTRs and im sure I could do it again.

I really think men are much more loyal by nature than women. Groups of girls will give their friends eating disorders, while groups of guys will beat the shit out of someone while defending their friend.

Most guys that I have known who were playas and cheaters grew up in single mother homes watching mom have a parade of boyfriends. These guys tend to think more emotionally and less rationally about their decisions. But those are the habitual cheaters of the male variety that I have known. They are typically a minority, but females obsess about them thinking that they will be the one to change them.

Most guys that I knew who were cheating were doing so on their wife and because she had just lost interest in sex and more importantly intimacy/affection, so they found it in a motel. What’s funny is that they would have broken up with her and taken their kids instead of cheating if they knew they wouldn’t get screwed in divorce court. Guys rationlize it this way, take the risk of not getting caught or get fucked over for certain.

I would say that a man with a sexual past is less likely to actually provide for you, while a woman is less likely to be faithful. I mean, I sure as hell won’t provide for a woman. Im not stupid enough to get married, but Ive been burned on teh provider side enough to not even buy girls drinks. When you have worked 40 hrs a week + at a shitty job doing manual labor so that you can take your girl somewhere nice and have fun on saturday night just to realize that this is the 8th crazy bitch in a row to vomit up four hours of your labor, then WHY? If the relationship, married or not, is bound to end then WHy should I continue losing? Why spend so much effort when I can get what I want with a fuck buddy that costs nothing and still gives a small amount of emotional connection, affection, and SEX???

So considering this, you would probably be better off getting a guy with less than 10 partners but atleast three more than you. That way he’s less likely to cheat and your hypergamy stays in check. The real problem with holding men to the same ‘purity’ as women is that the woman will eventually see him as less when standing next to a sexual alpha with the same status.

Just imagine your dream guy, both with the same job but the difference is that one is a virgin in bed and the other is experienced, which do you want?

Most guys I know want a smart, independent woman who will take some of the burden off, but those women are a fantasy. What happens most of the time is the guy does what she wants. He opens up emotionally, he does cleaning and kitchen bitch duty around the house and then I meet her at the bar and she is like a puddle in my hands and the guy she’s with is giving me the evil eye. I know cause ive been that guy plenty of times. Females always are looking for the bigger better deal. Then one day the girl says, “oops sorry honey, it just happened.” This is after hanging out with whatever new guy at work/class. Lulz, it’s so predictable.

I really think most guys want women that are equal to us, but they just don’t fuckin exist. They have no integrity, honor, honestly, but are backstabbing and social climbers, even the intelligent ones act like kids getting bored with a toy in favor of the new toy, always chasing something better. Most women aren’t much more than high functioning children. If you can see and understand most of this then you may really be a NAWALT.


Hollenhund September 2, 2010 at 16:19

Renee,

“I get what he's saying, but promiscuous men ONLY being sexually unfaithful, I don't know what to make of that... If a man has a sexual past, he'll be pretty much unfaithful???

What do ya'll think?”

It basically means that promiscuous men are unfaithful sexually, not emotionally – in other words, their cheating doesn’t normally result in abandoning their family and having less feelings for their wives. It’s due to their desire to get more casual sex and blow their load, nothing more – after all, men are more capable of having sex without developing any emotional attachment then women. Many women fail to understand this, which has lots of unfortunate consequences. They think their husband cheated because he doesn’t love them anymore, which is bollocks and a clear example of projection. There may be other simple reasons. I’ve heard of men who cheated or visited prostitutes because they didn’t want to sate some of their desires with his wife (ejaculating on her face, ass-to-mouth etc).

Snark,

I certainly don’t support bringing back the patriarchy. Bearing in mind that women are not naturally monogamous, being forced into the roles of the chivalrous sole beta provider of my nuclear family and the expendable conscripted cannon fodder of the ruling elite is not something I’d voluntarily sign up for. Two basic problems with Western patriarchy is that it’s vulnerable to cultural shocks (because women’s pent-up hypergamy will always seek release) and it eventually destabilizes itself due to its economic productivity, which results in material abundance, which in turn leads to cultural decline, pussification and political upheaval (wars etc.)


Malestrom September 2, 2010 at 17:04

Renee, iI don’t see how you could be confused about this.

It is almost definately true that promiscuous men are more likely to be unfaithful, but an unfaithful husband does not threaten his wife with genetic death.

So long as the man does not start sending his resources to support the children of the other woman, the wife doesnt actually lose anything. A man who discovers his wife has been unfaithful is faced with the possibility that he has invested his resources, his time, his effort, his emtions, his blood and sweat, his very being into a family which is not his biologically, that he has lived his life for the benefit of another. He has been a slave and not known it, working and producing purely to further the reproductive objectives of his cheating wife, and not himself. His entire existence is invalidated.

If the husband cheats, the wife loses nothing, everything she invested in the family still went to her biological offspring, and ensuring her own genetic future. It is far more important for a woman to get a quality man than a faithful man, it’s just that simple.


evilwhitemalempire September 2, 2010 at 22:30

What if the problem is this?

It is the combination of patriarchy based chivalry and feminism that has created this misandry bubble we see today.

Chivalry has two components:
1) A deference to women component.
2) Women are inferior to men component.

Feminism has two components:
1) Womens rights component.
2) Women are equal to or better than men component.

Wherever these two philosophies collide in the culture the 1′s reinforce one another while the 2′s cancel each other out.
So the situation is worse for men than if you had only one or the other.


Gunn September 2, 2010 at 22:38

Patriarchy equals traditional masculinity equals chivalry equals feminism equals misandry.

Do tell me, under which of the above, does the iron law of  "ladies first" NOT hold.

Do tell me, under which of the above, should I get a fair shot at a seat on the Titanic's lifeboats?

Is a return to "patriarchy" really in men's interests?

chivalry does not equal feminism

Feminism is a disguised power grab that sought to retain chivalric rights for women whilst obtaining much greater access to traditionally male power (but avoiding male obligations in the process).

Patriarchy is in mens’ collective interests (and in womens’ collective interests) as a society. Its arguable that without patriarchy, civilisation is not possible. In the past, I think that people saw themselves as part of a group first and foremost, and as individuals second. Men were socialised into the group through the patriarchal institution of marriage, and their ties to their genetic offspring cemented this relationship.

Many cultures and religions have concepts of honor and duty (whether the Abrahamic religions familiar in the west or the Eastern religions with their concept of dharma) that have in modern times been demolished by the glorification of the individual at the expense of the collective.

I interpret the idea of ‘return to patriarchy’ as a return to the concept of duty to the group for both men and women.

This may sound onerous to the modern western ear, but ultimately its the choice of a life spent purely for one’s own pleasure vs. a life spent in service of a greater good that one is commited to, and from which one can draw great satisfaction and pleasure even despite the additional obligations to which one is subject.


Philip September 3, 2010 at 03:11

Another double standard is a women wanting men to accept any baby that pops out of her twat, as his own. Iv heard that between 1 in 10 and 1 in 3 babys have the wrong man on the birth certificate and both fathers are unaware.

But women and a lot of men think nothing of paternity fraud, must do whats best for the baby dont you know
But just think, what would happen if every time a woman went to hospital to give birth she had a 1 in 10 chance of coming home with the wrong baby?

Or even a 1 in 100 chance? Ill tell you, there would be HELL to pay.

You would never here women SCREECH so loud


Harrytoo September 3, 2010 at 04:55

Philip September 3, 2010 at 03:11

Exactly. Easy for women to take the high ground on paternity when you consider the amount of money spent on making certain SHE leaves with the CORRECT CHILD.

Men accepting bringing up other men’s children are ignoring natures reason for giving them a penis. So their forefathers can live on.

Child not yours, you die.

Child is yours, you live on.

Every woman that gives birth KNOWS for certain, she lives on. I’ll leave the rest to logic. Man still possess it right?


Ubermind September 3, 2010 at 06:26

@ slwerner

Whell I guess industrious it is the closest fit. But it is so rare right?

Also – lazy is not a derrived word – means it is somehow natural.

Industrious is a derrived word – means it is somehow artificial.

In my nations folk culture we have songs about industrious women. It was the single MOST imporatant aspect when a women was CHOSEN to become a bride. Not beuty. How much hard work she did around the household.

Do you select your women based on how industrious she is? Or merely on how beutyful she is?


Solomon II September 3, 2010 at 07:16

You’ll never meet a feminist on a sinking ship, and you’ll never convince a woman that acting like a man while demanding the consideration of Victorian era virgin is counterintuitive.

Women want to marry men like my dad – strong, independent, a little mysterious and 100% Alpha, yet gentle and nurturing with his wife and children.

What they forget is that men like my father only marry women like my mother.


Danny September 3, 2010 at 08:52

"Why is there a double standard? No matter what it takes two to tango."

Because when it comes to sex women were/are expected to have no sexual experience in order to stay “pure” for their future husbands (in short virginity is a must) while men were/are expected to damn near be born with sexual experience in order to “show their wives” how its done (in short virginity is a curse).

 Hollenhund September 3, 2010 at 13:04

Anonymous,

what I was merely referring to is that men cannot possibly get pregnant i.e. the potential price of casual sex is lower for them. The flip side is that a woman cannot possibly get cuckolded.


slwerner September 3, 2010 at 13:19

Ubermind –

“Do you select your women based on how industrious she is? Or merely on how beutyful she is?”

I “selected” my wife 26 years ago, largely based on her beauty. She had some other good qualities, but, like most young men, her looks were what garnered my interest. I wasn’t anywhere near as aware of other possible issues as I am now, and my ignorance (particularly of what has come to be known as “Game”) nearly cost me quite dearly WRT to her after a few years of marriage; also due to her attractiveness (to some else).

Marrying a woman because she’s beautiful can have pitfalls, but, since we as men are hard-wired to appreciate beautiful women, it also holds the promise of rewards. The key is awareness of other factors – such as the sexual (promiscuity) issue being discussed herein. Slutiness MUST be a deal-breaker for young men in considering marriage – no matter how beautiful a woman may be. It’s tough enough when they aren’t sluts – no need to up the risks to near certainty that the woman ones marries will be unfaithful.

Women would be well advised to make the same consideration, BTW. Their failure to do so is NOT a evidence of some imagined double-standard imposed on them by some supposed “Patriarchy”, but simply what it appears to be – their failure to make wise choices.


trent13 September 3, 2010 at 13:28


@Snark:

Equality in my book is the opposite of Patriarchy in what it would do for society – patriarchy would facilitate harmony, “equality” would facilitate disharmony – mainly because there would be a constant power struggle between the sexes – it is impossible that there would be a peaceful establishment of “true equality” between the sexes. Patriarchy, because it recognizes the various aspects of both of the sexes and what is needed in order to establish peace (namely, hierarchy with males at the fore), is the best choice. I wonder though, how much of our differing reasoning is based off of our differing beliefs regarding what constitutes the fundamental building block of society: family v. the individual. I only thought of this recently after reading this article, which states the following:

Throughout the 18th century, however, paternal authority was deteriorating because of egalitarian new customs, and the National Convention ended by destroying it almost completely. (2)

2. The author is referring here to legislation that robbed the family of its independence by replacing the authority of the father with that of the State. For example, Delassus laments the parent's loss to educate his children:

"Today the family depends so much on the State that the father does not even have the liberty to educate his children as his conscience and the traditions of his family indicate to him. The State has taken them from him, with the legally proclaimed objective of transforming these children into men without God, and consequently, men without morals" (Ibid., chap. 7).

From the time that men who were imbued with the spirit of Rousseau, that is, men who wanted to see the individual, not the family, as the basic element of society, assumed the legislative power, they strove to enact laws to abolish a father's authority over his children older than age 21 and weaken it over those younger.  The imperious voice of reason, proclaimed a famous revolutionary legislator, must be heard. Paternal power no longer exists. A man should not have direct power over another, even if it be his own child.

So far as I have seen the MRM has three main theories of men: men who advocate “true” equality, masculinists, and patriarchists. I would not hazard to say that any one of these three takes the majority of MRM votes.


Harrytoo September 3, 2010 at 15:08

”So far as I have seen the MRM has three main theories of men: men who advocate "true" equality, masculinists, and patriarchists. I would not hazard to say that any one of these three takes the majority of MRM votes.”

Personally I couldn’t care less how feminism is beaten as long as it’s non violently. I am male though and have what I believe is a logical brain.

I’ll ask this, given what we have now and little short of a full scale revolution bringing about ”masculinist or patriarchist” idealism, which is as likely as my shitting bricks of gold. Which is the most likely to be achieved?

What’s that saying I’ve heard that young men use? ”Keep it real’?


trent13 September 3, 2010 at 18:18

@ Harrytoo

“Keep it real,” my favorite phrase. I don’t expect change over night, but considering the growing number of families that are living the patriarchy (simply by generational growth of current patriarchal families and the many numbers of children each family is having who in turn are raising patriarchal families), I hope the tide will eventually turn before we reach a violent point.

Naturally masculinism is more of a plausible scenario because it’s based on the same egoism and “me, me, me” mentality that feminism is based off of – it’s just that all of the “good stuff” is directed towards men and away from women. And the “me” mentality is something which has been culturally engendered in both males and females – the world centers not around one’s duty but around one’s desires. But its plausibility doesn’t mean I’m willing to say that’s what anti-feminism should work towards. I don’t see masculinism as a solution, it’s just the flip side of feminism, in which case we’d have different societal order problems but just as many.

Yes, it would get rid of feminism, or at the least it would force the most notoriously con-notated version of “barefoot in the kitchen” on women (and in the mean time proverbial woman would remain in a chronic state of disgruntlement willing to jump at any and every chance to reverse the order of power back to feminism), but being just as un-natural as feminism since it necessarily denies the roles of men and women and whence those roles are derived, it wouldn’t solve the problem of disorder in society, it would simply exchange one disorder for another. I suppose one could claim the good thing is that men wouldn’t be on the shitty end of the stick, and were I a male who was more concerned about my own individual happiness and less about the good of society as a whole, I might think masculinism was a great idea.


evilwhitemalempire September 4, 2010 at 00:50

This may sound onerous to the modern western ear, but ultimately its the choice of a life spent purely for one's own pleasure vs. a life spent in service of a greater good that one is commited to, and from which one can draw great satisfaction and pleasure even despite the additional obligations to which one is subject.


It’s called working for mr. DNA and it sucks.
Not only that but it plays right into the hands of women.
Do you honestly believe that women waited over a thousand years to decide they wanted more for themselves? (i.e. they spent all that time only half-heartedly sucking our blood)
‘Patriarchy’ is and always has been matriarchy by proxy.
Only in more recent times the ‘patriarchy’ has become a threat to women. Why? Because it stopped working for them. Feminism was the answer.
http://theantifeminist.com/a-very-brief-history-of-feminism/



trent13 September 3, 2010 at 18:18

All I see here is the old catholic and no doubt other religious orders tactic of spread of idealism through ‘out populating’ other ideals. Did you look at the world population lately? If anything that is likely to bring on another world war it’s lack of resources.
Having said that, were I a religious type, it might surprise you to know that I’d seriously consider finding the Amish and asking them to accept me into their community. Were I religious. Religion is choice, not something that should be forced on people.


Anonymous September 4, 2010 at 06:25

Harrytoo

There's the truth of the matter in relation to marriage. Women no longer bring anything other than their bodies to the table. Add that to the cost to a man "if" (50% chance and rising) the marriage fails. All men now have for protection is "game". Why would a rational mind accept those odds with nothing to gain. I know we men are "blessed" with the need to take risk, but we're not (as a gender) complete morons. The morons would have to be those expecting the other gender to accept or ignore this reality. Because you smile sweetly occasionally? Come on, please.

You have that straight. The only use for a women now is sex. And they don’t even do that worth a shit any more. Ask any married man. It is really amazing to see women actually tell you what I just said openly. Just about any women will define her indepence and how strong she is by how little she does for anyone else. The less the better. Any appreciatin for anything other people do for her will be defined as an entitlement or as oppresion if such appreciation is given. Thats why women don’t care about family law (even the NAWALT crowd) . That is why we have abortion, the putative registries, affermative action for everything,title 9 ,VAWA , and any thing else to remove any kind of responsibility or any legal and socila accountability from women. Thats why you see them licking their holes over this mansession about how they have all of the jobs. They will never mention any entitlement that got them there but will sure talk shit about girl power.


Harrytoo September 4, 2010 at 10:00

"The less the better.”
………………

It’s all part of the competition they have with each other at men’s expense. It’s not just how much they can show they get from a man but how little they have to do to receive it.

It’s the same on a social level too. ”We want more but we’re fucked if we’re going to step up to the plate to get it.”

Get governments to force employers to give it to them, or even reward
employers for doing so.


mgtow September 4, 2010 at 19:06

Double standards?

Nope. Just that gender equality is a myth, and man > woman > child > animal.

Besides, men have an innate biological imperative to conquer pussy and spread his seeds. This was the norm until the monogamy/’God’s original plan in the Garden of Eden’ nonsense came to be in more recent times.

Women do not.

Lastly, although imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, why don’t you women emulate men in other…more beneficial aspects? For example, reason, accountability, logic, honor etc?

Oh that’s right, I forgot. Women are nothing more than overgrown children. They are incapable of doing so, even if they tried.

@Harrytoo, Anonymous,

It is men’s nature to take risk. However, except for some reckless ones, most men take calculated risk. Like investment, if the cost of marriage is estimated to outweigh supposed benefits, don’t be surprised that men don’t buy that ring anymore.

There’s no need to sign a contract or share a roof with a woman to get laid. Without a vagina, women are absolutely worthless to men. You can get better(and far more economical) companionship from a pet dog.


Harrytoo September 5, 2010 at 00:11

Plus a dog will show you real loyalty. A dogs not stupid enough to bite the hand that feeds it.

Don’t forget there are more ways to make a statement mgtow. Find out who your local MP, senator or congressman is. rite a letter send and e-mail. Ask what they’re doing for men (you). Tell them you’ll be looking for men’s issues in the next election and you vote will be going to the party that puts men’s needs on the manifesto. Plenty of men’s issues raised on these pages and other sites. List them all. The most important thing is to actually vote when the time comes.

Don’t forget a woman doesn’t have to live with you yo earn off of you, protect your sperm like the gold dust it is.


Philip September 5, 2010 at 06:36

@Harrytoo.
Dogs require loyalty and friendship in return or they go insane, just like men will.
That’s why women prefer cats, just feed them right and they will come back with minimum effort and concern


Harrytoo September 5, 2010 at 07:03

True enough, most cats I’ve known only show up when they want feeding/want something. Must be a kindred spirit thing with females.


Anonymous September 5, 2010 at 16:35

Evilwhiteempire

"Patriarchy" is and always has been matriarchy by proxy.

Absolutely, it always has been about them. Their job is to be insatiable, to never stop raising the bar. Working for Mr. DNA. Her greatest strength is her facade of weakness and vulnerability. She is designed to elicit labor from males.

She has a child like face and skull structure. A high pitched soft voice. she is made to manipulate and deceive


remorhaz September 21, 2010 at 22:10

Back to the original point – what this female liberation of promiscuity has accomplished is dramatically increased the scarcity (and thus the price) of virginity. If you are a man who values this as most do then you are out of luck unless you are truly at the head of the pack. All of civilization groans under the misery of this as you have to work just as hard to tend and care for a used up woman who has given her best to someone else while you pay the price. And we all wonder why men are so angry. There really isn’t any joy in the world anymore. I am personally convinced the devil himself is the author of this as its effects are so devastatingly effective, completely embarrassing to admit so it stays hidden like rot inside a log, and easily countered with untrue but widely spoken propaganda. You believe it in your heart but are told you are wrong so you suppress it. Its perfectly evil.


Ronnie May 18, 2011 at 10:23

If a woman married for money I’d call her a gold-digging biotch even though men are traditionally the providers so I’ll not gonna then call her a slut for fucking around because women are traditionally supposed to be virgins.

I’m all for equality that means:
If some fucking bitch hits me you better believe she’ll get it right back
If some fucking bitch accuses me of rape she should go to jail for as long as I did or would have (though most rape accusations aren’t prosecuted so its not as biased in favor women as others say it is)
If I’m on a sinking ship I don’t expect someone to be rescued before me cause they have a pussy
I HATE Affirmative Action and all that bullshit
I’m not a misogynist or a misandrist. I’m a misanthrope and think most people are pieces of shit.
I don’t really care if a woman wants to fuck around as I’ll fuck any reasonably hot chick

Bottom line is that I’m not into whining and crying like a bitch about how tough it is to be a man. Lifes shit for most people and if you really are a man you just get on with it.