rooshvforum.network is a fully functional forum: you can search, register, post new threads etc...
Old accounts are inaccessible: register a new one, or recover it when possible. x


What's the deal with slut shaming?
#26

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-13-2013 06:47 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I'm probably wrong. But..

I will respectfully disagree on a few points:

Quote: (10-13-2013 10:09 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

A) Allowing and encouraging sluthood results in extreme Alpha/Beta divide as far as sexual resources (women) go.

How would you know this? What is this theory based on?

There is already a huge divide between alpha and beta.

I think more sluts would make it easier for betas to get laid.

More betas getting laid would REDUCE the alpha/beta divide.

But.. It's hard to say exactly what would happen. We are both just speculating. Right?

Quote: (10-13-2013 10:09 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

B) When sex (and reliable progeny) is impossibly hard or dangerous to come by for most men, then most men will turn to extremes: being herbivores, porn, masturbation, suicide on one end, or violent (rape) and murderous (killing the Alpha) behaviour on the other.

I respectfully disagree again.

I think if more betas are getting laid -- Murder, rape, suicide, shootings, porn -- will GO DOWN.

Quote: (10-13-2013 10:09 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

[b]C) Genetics don't feed the bulldog.

I think more sluts = more betas having sex = improved creativity/productivity for betas

It's nearly 3am over here, so if this post makes no sense, forgive me.

Perhaps the word slut is misleading you, but beta males are absolutely not getting greater sexual access since the sexual revolution than they had before. What's happening isn't so much that women are having more sex, as there's a general shift from investment based mating (rewarding a man who can provide for their needs/help raise a family) to competition based mating (selecting for 'alpha' characteristics).

It's been said here before, but our civilisation was based upon the subjugation of alphas and women, for the benefit of betas and children. The fact that beta males had a shot at sexual access if they only worked and produced has been the driving force behind the engine that created everything you see around you. To top it all off, children got to be raised by two parents, which I'm sure you can see the benefit of. As the government gradually usurps the role of beta males however, paying for all women's choices, the incentive to be productive is being chipped away at.

No one's saying that we're going to be living in caves tomorrow, or that we've gone overnight from lifelong pair bonding for everyone to elephant seal-style mating, where the top 10% of males have 90% of the sex, and most die virgins. The fact does remain, however, that there are far more guys out there who will never get laid than there were 70 years ago.

Quote: (10-13-2013 06:47 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I think more sluts would make it easier for betas to get laid.
As someone who has success with women, I think you probably forget what the average beta male's 'game' consists of. If they were to take on characteristics which made it easy to get laid, they would cease to be beta. Of course, most guys still get laid, but it's not "easy" for them by any means.

For the record, I'm in the same camp as you; if not for quite the same reasons. Slut shaming seems pointless to me, because whilst it might work on an individual level, women as a collective are going to continue to get sluttier as long as it's paid for by the state. I also feel that our society is diseased beyond hope, so the quicker it collapses the better. We might as well enjoy the decline! We might as well enjoy the sluts, while they last.

Quote: (02-26-2015 01:57 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  
They were given immense wealth, great authority, and strong clans at their backs.

AND THEY USE IT TO SHIT ON WHORES!
Reply
#27

What's the deal with slut shaming?

I have to agree with OP on this. There is a high probability that the majority of RVF bangs are from "sluts." There's nothing wrong with that.

I'm not convinced any of the players on here would swap 2013 sluts for 1962 virgins given the expectation of marriage, house, kids, etc...

In the end it's like buying a car without first taking it for a test drive. If it's a lemon lot then finish your business and leave.

the peer review system
put both
Socrates and Jesus
to death
-GBFM
Reply
#28

What's the deal with slut shaming?

We all have mothers. If your a player and still want children one say then sluts just aren't computable for that task. Few men will stand up and lay claim to their moms being whores.

No man wants his child's mother a slut, no boy wants his mother a slut.

It goes against all the grains. As pointed out in this thread you need a balance to carry civilization forward. Women in a classical sense can't be "sluts" naturally. It's then just playing a game, no women can be one without heavy abuse of alcohol, drugs, or the aids of modern medicine. Nature has always messed with women whom were slutty by purging them out of the gene pool. Sluts have higher rates of birth complications and issues to their reproductive organs. Nature would make a already dangerous pregnancy more dangerous for sluts ensuring that her and possibly the baby both died.

Monogamy was a balance men could resign too. Outside the village and pack a man could accept a deal for one fertile virgin young women during his most productive years with her and his children being around in his decking years also. The haram is/was and always will be superior but the monogamy thing for mating wasn't perfect but a workable system for carrying society forward.
Reply
#29

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-13-2013 03:51 PM)OGNorCal707 Wrote:  

For it to be more spiritual act I think there needs to be a deep emotional connection involved, you have to be in "love" with the person. Collectively RVF guys are more concerned with getting notches, fast/easy sex, and variety, not developing a deeply emotional connection, like you might with a long term relationship.

I disagree with this - a lot actually. This a kind of a polarised paradigm, which posits that men are superficial apes looking for only fast fleshy booty and women are emotional creatures only seeking lengthy emotional connections for pair bonding. I really do not think it is that simple or purely BIOLOGICAL.

You can look under the hood here, and see there is a shitload involved in sex, that is deeply metaphysical aspect to it, biology is just the base from which all this arrives.

I have observed the best men at this are some of the most deeply spiritual people out there, and like Giovanny says, treat this as a spiritual practise.

And you know, that is what a lot of women want, this kind of earnestness, it is a kind of respect - perhaps. She is then, not actually a slut in her own mind, she is engaging in an interaction that satisfies something deep within her being, call it romance, call it what you will.

And you can have the deepest spiritual experiences with a complete stranger, bar skank or not - that you may never had in your LTR. It really depends on the openess and innate spirituality of the woman you are dealing with, and yourself!

So much really depends on your frame and framework here and consequent actions. I don't think it is necessarily about developing an emotional connection, but there is a vital and dynamic immediate metaphysique that can benefit both partners on a spiritual level if that is the intention.

I don't get slut shaming, as it just makes things harder for men. Maybe men want to make things harder for men? But then you get these schizophrenic women who want to sleep with you, but can't be honest with you or themselves and I honestly think that is often just fucked in the head.

I think a lot of it is just christian programming as well, but Russian women are nominally Christian and generally don't seem to have this same kind of shame or schizophrenic hamster in action.
Reply
#30

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-14-2013 02:29 AM)kosko Wrote:  

Women in a classical sense can't be "sluts" naturally. It's then just playing a game, no women can be one without heavy abuse of alcohol, drugs, or the aids of modern medicine.

Never heard ideas like this before. I think some women love sex and love men and are just really generous with their "favours"

A lot of the time I think Slut shaming is actually the projected shame of male sexuality that is so based in the flesh ala Christian programming.

Whereas, there are "sluts" who I think are really in quite an instinctive "spiritual" mode, just like there are men who are operating with a more "spiritual" intention.

Player shaming/slut shaming, it is just different sides of the same coin - christian guilt and deep issues with sexuality that are prevalent most places.
Reply
#31

What's the deal with slut shaming?

I will address a few of these points in order. Sorry for mangling posting, having quotes upon quotes overwhelmed me [Image: biggrin.gif]

Quote:Gio Wrote:

Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote: A) Allowing and encouraging sluthood results in extreme Alpha/Beta divide as far as sexual resources (women) go.

How would you know this? What is this theory based on?

There are several studies about human sexual behaviour that have been done with great detail and with really large samples. This has allowed us to confirm what almost everyone knows from observational evidence:

http://www.rooshvforum.network/thread-10656-...#pid165761

- Most women are not "slutty". 90% have 0 to 3 partners a year. A very small proportion has more than that, evenly divided mostly between 4, 5 and so on, very rarely up to 13.
- Only about 75% of men, on the other hand, have 0-3 partners a year. What happened with that 15% difference? These are the men filling out the top. Unlike women, their partner counts grow much more steeply - unlike for women, there is a very sizable chunk of players with partner counts of 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and so on. And whereas each of the most promiscuous 1% of women have racked up 14 partners a year on average, each of the most promiscuous 3% of men have racked up 20 partners a year - that's 5 times more!
- The most "slutty" men are far more slutty than the most "slutty" women, and there are far more of them (although they're still just a very small part of the general population).
- The only way this disparity can exist is if players are getting most of their bangs not from sluts, but from "good girls" - those girls that have only 1 or 2 partners a year.
- In other words, even when a "good girl" goes out to lose her virginity or get a LTR with a guy, 75% of the times she does it with a guy who has banged 10 women before her that year - a player, Alpha, or whatever you want to call it. She doesn't go to the sexless Beta pining after her and writing her love messages on Facebook. And girls with high partner counts are far worse in this regard. A crazed bar slut will sleep with a player instead of a Beta 99% of the time.

Quote:Gio Wrote:

There is already a huge divide between alpha and beta.

I think more sluts would make it easier for betas to get laid.
More betas getting laid would REDUCE the alpha/beta divide.

But.. It's hard to say exactly what would happen. We are both just speculating. Right?

Sadly, we are not. This seems to be empirically proven. The same study that I explained above was also done 10 years earlier. Average numbers were slightly lower 10 years ago, and the divide was not nearly as great as it is now. It is clear that the growth in available sex has (along with other things) resulted in an ever bigger share going to Alphas. The more promiscuous the society, the greater the divide. This is seen everywhere in the world except in some Scandinavian countries.

There is no, there never has been, and there never will be, some sort of utopian tricke-down society where women sleep with a different man every month and make sure that no man is left behind and sexless.

The myth of a happy slut freely letting all men get sexual satisfaction from her is just that - a myth. "Good girls" are already very selective for Alpha, and sluts are even more so. The more partners a girl racks up, the more Alpha she requires.

Because this explains in detail why more sex doesn't equal less sexually frustrated men, the points B, C and D don't need to be elaborated on. I wish that were true though! I think everyone would be happier, just like you said!

Quote:Gio Wrote:

Quote:Eel Wrote:

E) In lieu of above, most men have an understanding that it's generally better for them to have one stable wife
Isn't this a trend that is rapidly changing?

Nowadays, men are not so eager to find one stable wife.

They want to play the field for as long as possible. They want sexual options and variety.

Look at the number of thirsty Betas willing to wife up even the most wretches land whales, sluts, serial divorcees, feminists and other women who will bleed them dry for the chance to access their vagina once a year.

I don't see those "most men".

What men want and what men settle for is very different.

The scene has become so brutal that we have large numbers of men dropping out now instead of marrying (note: dropping out, being celibate with porn, not being players), but most of these men would come back in a heartbeat if old marriage was brought back and women started liking and rewarding the provider Beta again. Men instinctively understand that this is a reasonably good deal.

Quote:Giovonny Wrote:

Quote:Quote:

Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote: Conclusion: absence of slut shaming is devastating to civilization.

What civilizations have been devastated due to a lack of slut shaming?

This is just how you see it in your imagination right?

Or is this based on some other research?

This part is just speculation because, obviously, we are never going to be able to fully analyze 100% of reasons why some old societies disappeared or were consumed by others. There are always so many other factors at work. But slut shaming is one of those factors.

Proponents of this theory have recently pointed out a very interesting liberalization of marriage (allowing no-fault divorce, promoting liberal attitudes and other stuff) in the Roman Empire just before its decline and during it. I can't find it anywhere on the forum, though - maybe someone can help out.

Still, it should be telling that there is no society like the one you speak of, not now, not ever, not anywhere. If absence of slut shaming wasn't a strongly detrimental factor like I claimed, one would surely find it in 50% of cases, or at least somewhere in history of the entire planet. But instead, all that we have are the 40 000 Mosuo people in one isolated mountain valley in China. That's not a very convincing case.

Quote:Giovonny Wrote:

I think "Slut Encouraging" already happens on a mass scale. Young girls are already brainwashed with images of sex 24/7 in the western world. They often define themselves based on sexual value and sex appeal.

At this point, I say -- "Let the sluts be sluts!"

I think our current "civilization" is already Orwellian and many times insane. I don't feel a strong need to preserve it. I think it might do mankind some good to become less "civilized" and return to a more primal way of living.

High-five on that. I completely agree with all your points there. I think we call that approach "I'll be poolside" after Roissy. Enjoy stuff, bang girls, and let things go because either it's not worth it or it's not fixable anyway. That is what I'm doing too.

Still, the thought that most of the West is probably going to collapse and be replaced by the Muslim world simply because the Muslims didn't encourage sluts - depresses me sometimes. It's not that I have anything against Muslims (other than a minority of extremists), it's just that it's such a stupid reason.

"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Reply
#32

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-13-2013 06:07 PM)Rootless Wrote:  

Quote: (10-13-2013 04:08 PM)mental Wrote:  

Look at America - the land of sluts. Do you need another reason for slut shaming?
Here's one more: commiting to a slut is like paying for a used 15-year old slow Prius with the same amount of money you could've used to buy a new Audi A3 with the best equipment and engine.

I don't see a single reason to commit to any girl, slut or not.

It's like paying for a single ride in a cab the amount of money you can buy a nice car of your favorite model with bucket load of gas.

The size the bucket is a direct result of how good of a player are you.

Agree, but I see it like this:
Beta commiting = cab ride - the driver controls when and how much you are driven, and they will always try to hustle you when they see an advantage, and you can't bail out because you'll be left without a ride.
Alphas/players "commiting" without becoming beta over time (ie. adding a new girl to rotation) = a new ride - you are the driver, you control when and how much you drive, and you can easily get a new ride if it gets boring or starts having problems.

Check out my thread Essential android tools for modern players and alphas to find out how to make your android phone your wingman, or click here and scroll down if you only need to root it.


Want sound that puts iPods and iPhones to shame? I got you covered!
Reply
#33

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Edit: damn phone double posting...

Check out my thread Essential android tools for modern players and alphas to find out how to make your android phone your wingman, or click here and scroll down if you only need to root it.


Want sound that puts iPods and iPhones to shame? I got you covered!
Reply
#34

What's the deal with slut shaming?

I am learning a lot on this thread. I am forced to rethink my perspective. Thanks for engaging me..

Quote: (10-13-2013 08:41 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

Perhaps the word slut is misleading you, but beta males are absolutely not getting greater sexual access since the sexual revolution than they had before.

I thought the "sexual revolution" made it easier for betas???

What about the 60s, the 70s, "free love", the "hippies", etc.

Didn't all that stuff make it easier for the average guy to get laid???

We allowed girls to be sluts. We made them sexually free!

Didn't this help betas?

Maybe not. Maybe, it just helped alphas.

If thats the case, even more reason to become alpha.

Thanks for the explanation.

Quote: (10-13-2013 08:41 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

We might as well enjoy the decline! We might as well enjoy the sluts, while they last.

We agree here.

Quote: (10-14-2013 04:14 AM)tiggaling Wrote:  

A lot of the time I think Slut shaming is actually the projected shame of male sexuality that is so based in the flesh ala Christian programming.

I agree. I think the word slut is a "Blue Pill" creation. It was designed to make people feel bad about having sex.

It's just religious programing, in my opinion.

Quote: (10-14-2013 05:36 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

- Most women are not "slutty"

Thank for pointing this out. This is the #1 reason that I encourage girls to be sluts.

Most girls are not sluts, we need more sluts and we need girls to become easier.

Getting laid is too difficult for the average man.

Quote: (10-14-2013 05:36 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

- In other words, even when a "good girl" goes out to lose her virginity or get a LTR with a guy, 75% of the times she does it with a guy who has banged 10 women before her that year - a player, Alpha, or whatever you want to call it.

I'm not sure where you got that stat but I must disagree with it.

I think "good girls" often go after good guys. I don't think alpha bad boys are getting all the good girls.

I agree that alphas are getting the sluts but I don't think they have a monopoly on the good girls.

Quote: (10-14-2013 05:36 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

The more promiscuous the society, the greater the divide. This is seen everywhere in the world except in some Scandinavian countries.

Okay, now I am getting your point. Sluts will go to alphas. My trickle down theory does not work.

Except in Scandinavia.

So, sometimes it works and sometimes it doesn't. We really don't know..

I think its impossible to predict what would happen if all women became 33% sluttier.

I always think about the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Also, I don't trust those university studies much. There are too many uncontrolled variables..

What country was the study done in, what religion, what culture, what demographic, when was it done, etc.

The same study will have different results if done in India vs San Francisco vs Iraq.

I don't trust those studies. I take the results with a large "grain of salt".

I trust my own experience more then those studies. Just saying.

Honestly, I am starting to agree with you. If girls got sluttier, it would mostly benefit alphas. I can see that.

Quote: (10-14-2013 05:36 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Still, the thought that most of the West is probably going to collapse and be replaced by the Muslim world simply because the Muslims didn't encourage sluts - depresses me sometimes.

Wait!

You think the West is going to collapse and be replaced by Muslims???

Why do you think this???

And, this will happen because Muslims did not encourage sluts???

Thats a fascinating perspective.

When do you see this happening??? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years???

Good debating with you. You have changed my perspective.
Reply
#35

What's the deal with slut shaming?

This thread is interesting and engaging, having fun reading it.

Quote: (10-14-2013 09:08 AM)mental Wrote:  

Agree, but I see it like this:
Beta commiting = cab ride - the driver controls when and how much you are driven, and they will always try to hustle you when they see an advantage, and you can't bail out because you'll be left without a ride.
Alphas/players "commiting" without becoming beta over time (ie. adding a new girl to rotation) = a new ride - you are the driver, you control when and how much you drive, and you can easily get a new ride if it gets boring or starts having problems.

Oh, "committing" while adding other girls to the roster, now that's something that we can agree on.

[Image: agree.gif]

Personally, I think that this way, being with a several girls simultaneously, each till she plays out, while adding new girls to the roster and focusing on improving yourself rather then focusing on getting girls is better then SNLs.

Enjoy the prey more then the hunt.

Now let's get back on topic.
Reply
#36

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote:Giovonny Wrote:

Wait!

You think the West is going to collapse and be replaced by Muslims???

Why do you think this???

And, this will happen because Muslims did not encourage sluts???

Thats a fascinating perspective.

When do you see this happening??? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years???

Good debating with you. You have changed my perspective.

Well I'm from Europe so I mentioned Muslims as such things are often forecasted here for sometime around 2040, starting with France. In the UK, it will probably be a much wider variety of immigrants. I have no idea what population would replace the usual USA people - perhaps it would become majority Latino, or Australia could become majority Asian? No idea, really.

Not that it would be a bad thing necessarily, but as I said it's the "demographic suicide" aspect of our civilization that bothers me, not its replacement per se. It just seems to be happening as a joke.

There have been many critics of this demographic change theory, saying that Muslim birth rates are slowing down too so it won't happen, but scholars said the same about Kosovo (former part of Serbia close to Albania) half a century ago. Well, half a century has gone and Kosovo is now majority Muslim (Albanian, actually) - in fact, the Serbs would have eventually (within 50 years) become a minority in their own country had the region not seceded first!

We'll just have to wait and see.

"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Reply
#37

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-14-2013 02:38 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Muslims as such things are often forecasted here for sometime around 2040, starting with France.

Muslims are projected to take over France in 2040?

I didn't know that.

I was just reading about the French Revolution.

Europe is such a crazy location. Things change so quickly.

Quote: (10-14-2013 02:38 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

I have no idea what population would replace the usual USA people - perhaps it would become majority Latino

We don't really have a "usual" people.

For thousands of years, this area was inhabited by the natives. They were a mix of indigenous people mixed with Asians who had walked all the way from Asia over the Russian land bridge and down through Canada. These were the native indians.

This was "Indian" land.

Then the Europeans came and they brought the Africans with them.

All these people started mixing.

Then lots of Chinese came.

Of course, the whole time, Mexicans were coming and going because Mexico is our neighbor. This is the Latino part of the world. Almost every country in the Western Hemisphere is "Latino". Its inevitable that they would be the majority.

We have always been very mixed, as a country. I think this will continue.

To be honest, I really don't see Muslims taking over America any time soon.

They would probably have to defeat us in an all out war. We might launch nukes before that happens.

Will be interesting to see what happens..

Quote: (10-14-2013 02:38 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

the "demographic suicide" aspect of our civilization that bothers me

What is "demographic suicide"???

I don't remember seeing this in your earlier posts..
Reply
#38

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote:Quote:

What is "demographic suicide"???

I don't remember seeing this in your earlier posts..

It's just a name for one of the consequences of this alpha / beta divide - in the end, less women have children, less of those children are born in marriage, and more and more men end up dropping out of the market.

I've found some sources for this France business:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/perso...state.html

Quote:Quote:

France is facing the problem that dare not speak its name. Though French law prohibits the census from any reference to ethnic background or religion, many demographers estimate that as much as 20-30 per cent of the population under 25 is now Muslim. The streets, the traditional haunt of younger people, now belong to Muslim youths. In France, the phrase "les jeunes" is a politically correct way of referring to young Muslims.

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield...rity-city/

Quote:Quote:

Between a quarter and a third of Marseille’s residents are Muslim and demographics suggest that the city may be on its way to becoming the first majority Muslim city in Europe. Marseille’s coat of arms may still bear the azure cross, but not for long. There are already 60 mosques in the city, but many of them are underground. When it is completed, the Grand Mosque will act as a claim of ownership to the city.

From what I see, the total fertility rate for immigrant (and that is mostly Muslim, from French colonies in Africa) women is about 2.5, and for native French women, it is about 1.7. As 2 is the minimum needed for replacement, you can imagine what is probably going to happen.

Again, I don't have anything against Muslims or their culture. The moderate ones seem quite agreeable and I have plenty of Turkish friends.

Great thoughts about USA.

"Imagine" by HCE | Hitler reacts to Battle of Montreal | An alternative use for squid that has never crossed your mind before
Reply
#39

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-14-2013 03:31 PM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Quote:Quote:

What is "demographic suicide"???

I don't remember seeing this in your earlier posts..

It's just a name for one of the consequences of this alpha / beta divide - in the end, less women have children, less of those children are born in marriage, and more and more men end up dropping out of the market.

Okay.

You/I changed my mind.

I will no longer encourage "sluttiness".

Doing so will only make things worse for the average man. I want to help the "average man". He is my brother/cousin/friend/teammate/coworker/etc.

I have to think about this but you have convinced me.

I will save the demographic talk for another thread.

Cheers
Reply
#40

What's the deal with slut shaming?

Quote: (10-14-2013 01:05 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

I am learning a lot on this thread. I am forced to rethink my perspective. Thanks for engaging me..

Quote: (10-13-2013 08:41 PM)Ocelot Wrote:  

Perhaps the word slut is misleading you, but beta males are absolutely not getting greater sexual access since the sexual revolution than they had before.

I thought the "sexual revolution" made it easier for betas???

What about the 60s, the 70s, "free love", the "hippies", etc.

Didn't all that stuff make it easier for the average guy to get laid???

We allowed girls to be sluts. We made them sexually free!

Didn't this help betas?

Maybe not. Maybe, it just helped alphas.

If thats the case, even more reason to become alpha.

Thanks for the explanation.

I was probably oversimplifying. It's definitely easier for the average man to acquire sex - I mean, I doubt the average man in the 1800s would have had three lifetime partners. However, there are a greater number of men who will never get laid. It has also become harder to create stable families (and not just for betas), just like it has become harder for women to settle.

The bottom line is that there has never been a better time to be an alpha male, but the risks of being a beta male are greater than they used to be.

Quote: (10-14-2013 01:05 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

Quote: (10-14-2013 05:36 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  

Still, the thought that most of the West is probably going to collapse and be replaced by the Muslim world simply because the Muslims didn't encourage sluts - depresses me sometimes.

Wait!

You think the West is going to collapse and be replaced by Muslims???

Why do you think this???

And, this will happen because Muslims did not encourage sluts???

Thats a fascinating perspective.

When do you see this happening??? 5 years, 10 years, 20 years???

I don't want to derail this thread, but I've been thinking about this a lot too. The way I see it, ideas/ideologies evolve and spread in the same way a parasite does: the more effectively the idea spreads, the better chance it has of surviving, but it's also crucially important that the host survives. If ideologies end up in direct competition, then in the long term, all other things being equal, the better adapted one will usually triumph.

Religions like Islam and Christianity, in their own ways, confer survivability on their followers through the rules they lay down. They encourage the creation of, and protection of, strong family units and a stable society. These features, coupled with the mechanisms both religions have to ensure their spread and the retention of their followers (denying the holy spirit being an unforgivable sin in Christianity, apostasy being a capital offence under Sharia law etc.) are primarily why they have out-competed every other belief system that has ever existed. They are, if you will, symbiotic, rather than merely parasitic, ideologies.

In contrast, feminism is a purely parasitic ideology. It confers a lack of survivability on its followers, in that they engage in less healthy behaviour than the average person, and have less children (or none at all). Feminists also continually attack the foundations of the society whose wealth is the sole reason they are able to exist in the first place. Some bitter, childless and ugly women then go on to teach gender studies, perhaps attempting to mould a few girls into the strong empowered womyn they dreamt of being; to live through vicariously, maybe; in reality, they spread their dysfunction to a new generation, like an ant infected by Cordyceps.

Why would such an aggressive parasite persist to the extent that it does? The reasons are complex, and largely rooted in female psychology; hell, it'd require a brand new thread to detail the spread of feminism over the last half a century. What matters is that it has infected the host cultures in the Anglosphere.

Feminism is hardly the only factor responsible for the ridiculously low birthrate amongst members of the host cultures in the USA or Europe, nor is it solely responsible for the decline of western civilisation, but it's definitely a heavy contributor. More importantly, unlike Christianity, Islam's rules are far less flexible or open to interpretation. I won't claim to be an expert on Islam, but I do know that to Muslims, the Koran is the direct word of god, unadulterated. Also unlike Christianity, Islam is not just a set of beliefs, it prescribes a complete way of life and societal structure. Feminism quite simply can't take hold in Muslim societies as quickly, or to the same extent that it can in Secular Christian ones. In the UK for instance, the Muslim demographic is growing nine times faster than any others: roughly 4-5% of the population is Muslim, but around 10% of children are. It seems to me that Islam is destined to out-compete the host cultures in most of the Anglosphere over the next 40-50 years.

Just my tired, half-drunk thoughts [Image: rolleyes.gif], it's been interesting reading what other people have to say on these topics!

Quote: (02-26-2015 01:57 PM)delicioustacos Wrote:  
They were given immense wealth, great authority, and strong clans at their backs.

AND THEY USE IT TO SHIT ON WHORES!
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)