[Wadsworth]

(04-23-2014 02:47 AM)Sombro Wrote:  

The writer ignores an obvious truism:

Male virgins are ridiculed; female virgins are valued.
Male sluts are respected; female sluts are ridiculed.

It's all the flip side of the same coin.

In fact even this is merely one side to a larger coin.

The sexual identities of women and men have never been the same, so assuming they are to evaluate anything is stupid.

Strength, provision, and protection have been woven into the male sexual identity, and this is something that even transcends humanity. This is readily identifiable throughout nature.

Selection has been woven into the female sexual identity, and males value more highly sexual access which they've earned to a selective female than to a non-selective one.

Thus, when feminists talk about slut shaming as a double standard, it's they that are promoting a double standard. They're using only half of nature's metric to evaluate something as a double standard. Yes, men can be sluts without inviting judgement to the same extent as women who are sluts. But what men can't do is fail to protect and provide without inviting judgement to the same extent as women who fail to do so.

Male "slut shaming," then, would be any implication that a male's identity is inadequate to protect or provide, and by that metric male "slut shaming" is probably more widespread in society than female slut shaming is.

[Drazen]

Playboy has been controlled by women for quite some time. While he has a lot of women around him, much of the day to day decisions have been run by women.

[Brodiaga]

4/10 WB if drunk

[kerouac]

Playboy's run by Hefner's daughter from one of his early marriages.

Just like the 007 franchise is now run by a daughter of one of the original producers. Hence Daniel Craig, who is the more emotional of all Bonds.

Women are ruining the things men like, as always. Guys, do men a favor. Don't hand the reins of your masculine enterprises to Les Femmes.

[kbell]

She made up the studies since she does not have links to them.

WB but would wear an Outbreak outfit to prevent infection with ebola the STD version.

[RXB]

I'm surprised that most of the manosphere guys were surprised by this. I already mentioned my shock on Twitter, but you guys need to realize that most mainstream entities are not "Red Pill." Playboy has been pro-gay and pro-feminist since day one. I don't think Hefner is like Manboobz or whatever, but he's always advocated women's sexual freedom.

This is just like that whole Tucker Max thing. Yes, these guys might get laid, but they'll pander to women and blather about "strong females" and so forth.

A great example is Neil Strauss. The guy had a whole business built around sleeping with women, but he was also a male feminist.

The RoK article wasn't bad and I'm not trying to belittle it, but dudes need to realize that the sphere is on it's own. It shouldn't shock anyone that Playboy attacked the article.

[Faust]

Which do you think more people will read, the RoK article or the playboy one?

I'm honestly not sure. Playboy claims a subscription of 1.5 million, but that's almost surely inflated to begin with, and of that hypothetical 1.5 million, how many are actually going to read a boring article like this instead of looking at some boobs?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-23-2014 11:39 PM)RXB Wrote:  

I'm surprised that most of the manosphere guys were surprised by this. I already mentioned my shock on Twitter, but you guys need to realize that most mainstream entities are not "Red Pill." Playboy has been pro-gay and pro-feminist since day one. I don't think Hefner is like Manboobz or whatever, but he's always advocated women's sexual freedom.

This is just like that whole Tucker Max thing. Yes, these guys might get laid, but they'll pander to women and blather about "strong females" and so forth.

A great example is Neil Strauss. The guy had a whole business built around sleeping with women, but he was also a male feminist.

The RoK article wasn't bad and I'm not trying to belittle it, but dudes need to realize that the sphere is on it's own. It shouldn't shock anyone that Playboy attacked the article.

You're correct. Most mainstream publications and Web sites are not Red Pill at all. I've written for them for over a decade and the only time they get Red Pill is when a writer slips something past the editors or when they feature someone in the role of court jester like Tucker Max.

But we have the most important thing going for us. Biology is Red Pill. Can't escape that.

When the average man's penis remains soft as uncooked noodles for fat chicks and people wonder why that is despite his media training, that's the Red Pill talking.

When a man instinctively winces when a woman admits to having 30 past lovers, that's his inner Red Pill whispering in his ear.

When a man is talking to a woman on a dating site and feels the urge to run when she says she has kids, that's his primal Red Pill taking hold.

Our job -- if we choose to accept it -- is to keep getting the message out there, although we're going to be hit with a lot of emotional debris. Because we are the first group of Red Pill men who refuse to play the part of the court jester or class clown.

And what will happen is that little by little, the men who dissed us as "ignorant" or "backwards" will look us up. That will happen when they get dinged by the single mom, screwed over by the cougar, fucked over by the school system* or family courts, or simply cannot get it up for the fat, tattooed chick, despite society's wishes for them to do so.

It's important that we keep our voices out there so these men can find us. Not to sound like an MRA but statistically speaking, a lot of these men take to ending their lives when they think their is no alternative or hope. We are the alternative or hope.

So look at it this way. To paraphrase from "It's a Wonderful Life," every time you make a Red Pill comment under a Blue Pill article, a Beta gets his manosphere wings.

* One of the more interesting subsets of Red Pill people I'm discovering are mothers with boys in the school system or with grown sons who have been divorced raped. If they've previously been feminist, these women get a rude awakening as to what day-to-day reality is like for men and boys.

[TonySandos]

(04-23-2014 04:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

With good reason. If you are going to take a fight like that on an away field you need to bring infallible reasoning and sources.

This is my gripe with a lot of the manosphere. It accept a lot of thesises on shaky ground and psuedo-science. It's not going to do you any favors when you want to bring the word out.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-24-2014 12:26 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:39 PM)RXB Wrote:  

I'm surprised that most of the manosphere guys were surprised by this. I already mentioned my shock on Twitter, but you guys need to realize that most mainstream entities are not "Red Pill." Playboy has been pro-gay and pro-feminist since day one. I don't think Hefner is like Manboobz or whatever, but he's always advocated women's sexual freedom.

This is just like that whole Tucker Max thing. Yes, these guys might get laid, but they'll pander to women and blather about "strong females" and so forth.

A great example is Neil Strauss. The guy had a whole business built around sleeping with women, but he was also a male feminist.

The RoK article wasn't bad and I'm not trying to belittle it, but dudes need to realize that the sphere is on it's own. It shouldn't shock anyone that Playboy attacked the article.

You're correct. Most mainstream publications and Web sites are not Red Pill at all. I've written for them for over a decade and the only time they get Red Pill is when a writer slips something past the editors or when they feature someone in the role of court jester like Tucker Max.

But we have the most important thing going for us. Biology is Red Pill. Can't escape that.

When the average man's penis remains soft as uncooked noodles for fat chicks and people wonder why that is despite his media training, that's the Red Pill talking.

When a man instinctively winces when a woman admits to having 30 past lovers, that's his inner Red Pill whispering in his ear.

When a man is talking to a woman on a dating site and feels the urge to run when she says she has kids, that's his primal Red Pill taking hold.

Our job -- if we choose to accept it -- is to keep getting the message out there, although we're going to be hit with a lot of emotional debris. Because we are the first group of Red Pill men who refuse to play the part of the court jester or class clown.

And what will happen is that little by little, the men who dissed us as "ignorant" or "backwards" will look us up. That will happen when they get dinged by the single mom, screwed over by the cougar, fucked over by the school system* or family courts, or simply cannot get it up for the fat, tattooed chick, despite society's wishes for them to do so.

It's important that we keep our voices out there so these men can find us. Not to sound like an MRA but statistically speaking, a lot of these men take to ending their lives when they think their is no alternative or hope. We are the alternative or hope.

So look at it this way. To paraphrase from "It's a Wonderful Life," every time you make a Red Pill comment under a Blue Pill article, a Beta gets his manosphere wings.

* One of the more interesting subsets of Red Pill people I'm discovering are mothers with boys in the school system or with grown sons who have been divorced raped. If they've previously been feminist, these women get a rude awakening as to what day-to-day reality is like for men and boys.

Another point I would like to add to Red Pill is the inherent natures of our psychologies - men feel better when they are Alpha and women prefer to submit to a strong Alpha male - it is the whole matter of relationship frame, that is currently spit on. Whole civilizations are indoctrinated to the contrary.

We may have biology and common sense on our side, but most of the manosphere thinks that feminism is just an organic creation that has somehow made its way to reality.

When countless foundation-financed NGOs and the UN and practically all States, media and academia are pushing the agenda of feminism (strong women), promotion of homosexuality etc. then it should be obvious that there is some kind of global agenda by very powerful groups behind it. Even the Islamic world is now rife with feminist, sexual liberation propaganda (see the TV series about the strong wives of this Khalif with plenty of girl-power and even sex).

(BTW - the weakness of the Islamic countries is not caused by rampant patriarchy but by subjugating everything to a religion while restricting science, free enterprise, education and also the freedom of women - the latter part seems like extreme Omega-Mateguarding.)

While some bloggers have recognized that the Apex-Alphas of our society are served well by feminism (doubling of workforce, lowering of wages, destruction of families (thus raised by schools and media), more sluts for easy bangs, effemination of males) there are plenty of dudes who think the manosphere will come out into the full attention of the media and change the world.

No - it won't - the reason for the fast decrease in marriage rates for example in the US in the recent 6 years is mainly weak economics than Red Pill.

There is also another reason why the Apex-Alphas of our society don't want men to become Red Pill - a country consistent of a large population of Alpha males is incredibly hard to control. Propaganda is first aimed at women and their Beta orbiters for a reason. Strong inedependent males are the only group they are afraid of - why are veterans either put into the militarized Police force or classified as potential domestic terrorists? Thus we men need to be effeminized by single mothers, media, academia, drugged at school, put through stupid school systems where you get marks for "good female behavior", belittled and laughed at in commercials and TV-series, put through laughingly easy effeminized college courses and in the end have to compete in a feminized work-force that primarily caters to women.

My tip: Save yourself, tell others, learn Game, make money as independently as possible, fuck as many sluts as you can, maybe have a traditional LTR if possible.

It matters not if Playboy or the James Bond franchise is led by women or men - the global agenda stays the same.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-23-2014 04:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:07 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  

They piled up on me in that thread:

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/of-course-th...1563982299

With good reason. If you are going to take a fight like that on an away field you need to bring infallible reasoning and sources.

This is my gripe with a lot of the manosphere. It accept a lot of thesises on shaky ground and psuedo-science. It's not going to do you any favors when you want to bring the word out.

His argument was that women with high partner counts make for bad long-terms prospects. I didn't think it was bad reasoning. With these people, if you argue that men built most of civilization or that they're stronger than women, they'll dismiss you as "sexist." So right off the bat, you're not dealing with rational people -- or with people who can look out their window and honestly assess the world.

But if anyone does need to back up their ideas with links, the Heartiste blog has been doing this for a long time and odds are a Google search will find you what you need to back up your points.

I Googled "sluts divorce roissy" with no quotes and got this post, which comes with charts and links: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/...bad-wives/

But it could come with God himself saying he meant for man and woman to be different and they'd dismiss him as sexist.

[TonySandos]

(04-24-2014 01:42 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 12:26 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 11:39 PM)RXB Wrote:  

I'm surprised that most of the manosphere guys were surprised by this. I already mentioned my shock on Twitter, but you guys need to realize that most mainstream entities are not "Red Pill." Playboy has been pro-gay and pro-feminist since day one. I don't think Hefner is like Manboobz or whatever, but he's always advocated women's sexual freedom.

This is just like that whole Tucker Max thing. Yes, these guys might get laid, but they'll pander to women and blather about "strong females" and so forth.

A great example is Neil Strauss. The guy had a whole business built around sleeping with women, but he was also a male feminist.

The RoK article wasn't bad and I'm not trying to belittle it, but dudes need to realize that the sphere is on it's own. It shouldn't shock anyone that Playboy attacked the article.

You're correct. Most mainstream publications and Web sites are not Red Pill at all. I've written for them for over a decade and the only time they get Red Pill is when a writer slips something past the editors or when they feature someone in the role of court jester like Tucker Max.

But we have the most important thing going for us. Biology is Red Pill. Can't escape that.

When the average man's penis remains soft as uncooked noodles for fat chicks and people wonder why that is despite his media training, that's the Red Pill talking.

When a man instinctively winces when a woman admits to having 30 past lovers, that's his inner Red Pill whispering in his ear.

When a man is talking to a woman on a dating site and feels the urge to run when she says she has kids, that's his primal Red Pill taking hold.

Our job -- if we choose to accept it -- is to keep getting the message out there, although we're going to be hit with a lot of emotional debris. Because we are the first group of Red Pill men who refuse to play the part of the court jester or class clown.

And what will happen is that little by little, the men who dissed us as "ignorant" or "backwards" will look us up. That will happen when they get dinged by the single mom, screwed over by the cougar, fucked over by the school system* or family courts, or simply cannot get it up for the fat, tattooed chick, despite society's wishes for them to do so.

It's important that we keep our voices out there so these men can find us. Not to sound like an MRA but statistically speaking, a lot of these men take to ending their lives when they think their is no alternative or hope. We are the alternative or hope.

So look at it this way. To paraphrase from "It's a Wonderful Life," every time you make a Red Pill comment under a Blue Pill article, a Beta gets his manosphere wings.

* One of the more interesting subsets of Red Pill people I'm discovering are mothers with boys in the school system or with grown sons who have been divorced raped. If they've previously been feminist, these women get a rude awakening as to what day-to-day reality is like for men and boys.

Another point I would like to add to Red Pill is the inherent natures of our psychologies - men feel better when they are Alpha and women prefer to submit to a strong Alpha male - it is the whole matter of relationship frame, that is currently spit on. Whole civilizations are indoctrinated to the contrary.

We may have biology and common sense on our side, but most of the manosphere thinks that feminism is just an organic creation that has somehow made its way to reality.

When countless foundation-financed NGOs and the UN and practically all States, media and academia are pushing the agenda of feminism (strong women), promotion of homosexuality etc. then it should be obvious that there is some kind of global agenda by very powerful groups behind it. Even the Islamic world is now rife with feminist, sexual liberation propaganda (see the TV series about the strong wives of this Khalif with plenty of girl-power and even sex).

(BTW - the weakness of the Islamic countries is not caused by rampant patriarchy but by subjugating everything to a religion while restricting science, free enterprise, education and also the freedom of women - the latter part seems like extreme Omega-Mateguarding.)

While some bloggers have recognized that the Apex-Alphas of our society are served well by feminism (doubling of workforce, lowering of wages, destruction of families (thus raised by schools and media), more sluts for easy bangs, effemination of males) there are plenty of dudes who think the manosphere will come out into the full attention of the media and change the world.

No - it won't - the reason for the fast decrease in marriage rates for example in the US in the recent 6 years is mainly weak economics than Red Pill.

There is also another reason why the Apex-Alphas of our society don't want men to become Red Pill - a country consistent of a large population of Alpha males is incredibly hard to control. Propaganda is first aimed at women and their Beta orbiters for a reason. Strong inedependent males are the only group they are afraid of - why are veterans either put into the militarized Police force or classified as potential domestic terrorists? Thus we men need to be effeminized by single mothers, media, academia, drugged at school, put through stupid school systems where you get marks for "good female behavior", belittled and laughed at in commercials and TV-series, put through laughingly easy effeminized college courses and in the end have to compete in a feminized work-force that primarily caters to women.

My tip: Save yourself, tell others, learn Game, make money as independently as possible, fuck as many sluts as you can, maybe have a traditional LTR if possible.

It matters not if Playboy or the James Bond franchise is led by women or men - the global agenda stays the same.

I agreed with a lot of what you said, but thinking of the top tier men advancing a complex war of subversion seems way off bat.

An apex predator in the wild doesn't have to fend for its territory. nothing is capable of taking the apex predators position, that's what makes it an apex predator/alpha in the first place!

In human society, behaviors may play out differently, but it's far more probable that the cause is gain rather than protection or defense.




Side note: if anyone wants to jump down my throat and call me a troll for conceptualizing alpha as something other than how man women a man can attain- Zelcorpion made economics a descriptive factor of what is alpha in the comment I'm replying to. I'm not alone in my view

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(04-24-2014 01:44 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:51 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-23-2014 04:07 PM)DetlefMourning Wrote:  

They piled up on me in that thread:

http://playboysfw.kinja.com/of-course-th...1563982299

With good reason. If you are going to take a fight like that on an away field you need to bring infallible reasoning and sources.

This is my gripe with a lot of the manosphere. It accept a lot of thesises on shaky ground and psuedo-science. It's not going to do you any favors when you want to bring the word out.

His argument was that women with high partner counts make for bad long-terms prospects. I didn't think it was bad reasoning. With these people, if you argue that men built most of civilization or that they're stronger than women, they'll dismiss you as "sexist." So right off the bat, you're not dealing with rational people -- or with people who can look out their window and honestly assess the world.

But if anyone does need to back up their ideas with links, the Heartiste blog has been doing this for a long time and odds are a Google search will find you what you need to back up your points.

I Googled "sluts divorce roissy" with no quotes and got this post, which comes with charts and links: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/...bad-wives/

But it could come with God himself saying he meant for man and woman to be different and they'd dismiss him as sexist.

Plus the double standard is simply a fact of nature - a woman can easily have 1000 notches a year - in fact one young Italian 19-year-old did and wrote a book about it.

Now we all know that it is absolutely impossible even for the best Player in the world to rack up that kind of Notch-count with cuties. Even guys like Klaus Kinski or Warren Beatty barely made it to 5000+ in their entire lifetimes.

Here you have a girl who had 1000 notches in one year! She could easily go for 15.000 notches before the wall. That's a double standard.

[DeepGreen]

Hmm, at first I thought the name was from some pornstar, then I remembered I met this chick at a house party once.

Her writing this article doesn't surprise me. I remember some drunk guy at the party telling her that the nose piercing lowered her reproductive value and that it would be hard for her to find a husband. She then made this hilarious "I hate you cause secretly your right face."

I then proceeded to shoot beer out my nose while laughing.

Good times.

[Hotwheels]

(04-24-2014 09:38 AM)DeepGreen Wrote:  

Her writing this article doesn't surprise me. I remember some drunk guy at the party telling her that the nose piercing lowered her reproductive value and that it would be hard for her to find a husband. She then made this hilarious "I hate you cause secretly your right face."

That's hot.

[Vicious]

(04-24-2014 01:44 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

His argument was that women with high partner counts make for bad long-terms prospects. I didn't think it was bad reasoning. With these people, if you argue that men built most of civilization or that they're stronger than women, they'll dismiss you as "sexist." So right off the bat, you're not dealing with rational people -- or with people who can look out their window and honestly assess the world.

If you think someone to not be rational. Don't argue with them. Jizzabelles are best trolled. Save the reasoning for the borderliners.

Quote:

But if anyone does need to back up their ideas with links, the Heartiste blog has been doing this for a long time and odds are a Google search will find you what you need to back up your points.

I Googled "sluts divorce roissy" with no quotes and got this post, which comes with charts and links: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/...bad-wives/

This blog post turns up now and then. I have pointed out the problem with it several times on the board. An example is that they didn't work the data beyond more than 2 partners for women so you have Amish/islamic women skewing the stats. The #1 reason hits far closer to home though. See the reason I dislike Heartiste is their selective quoting/references (that and the thinly veiled white supremacist slant). They left out this little nugget from the source they in turn quote: "The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce."

Oops?

So this cut both ways. There's no moral high ground for men on this particular issue. Which is why I have a problem with the #2 RoK community belief (though RoK serves a purpose with its shotgun method of spreading the word). I prefer to pick my battles and being dogmatic on this bullet point is a losing one.

Even if this was true this is not where western society is today. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not saying that slut-shaming isn't right but that it's not producing any effect. Compare this to fat-shaming which is slowly turning around for the better. The reason for this is the overwhelming support for living healthy livestyles and growing focus on how fat acceptance is harmful and toxic.

[Hotwheels]

That's another reason I have never been married.

I'd likely never stay faithful and get bored with the same woman, basically guaranteeing a divorce.

The more random sex, the less likely to stick together for either gender.

I've actually had low notch count married female friends tell me they don't want to know what's it's like with other guys. Because they know they are happy where they are and don't want anything to screw that up.

Meanwhile, high notch count girls are more likely to look for the next new thing. The thrill of it. Like a shiny new penny.

I'm generally looking for that shiny penny even though a part of me wants something more. Kinda sucks in a way.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

(04-24-2014 02:52 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

There's no moral high ground for men on this particular issue.

No one here has ever talked about this issue from moral high ground. We talk from practical high ground, the one which aims to help men and women make better, informed choices. And here is what it says:

It's a bad idea for men to marry sluts. It is also a bad idea for women to marry players.

I sure see plenty of griping about women going for drug addicts or criminals in the manosphere, so obviously we as slut-shaming men are also strongly encouraging women to choose wisely as well. There is no double standard going on in this regard; no one is calling out women for prudishly not wanting to marry Charlie Sheen. In fact, it is the opposite!

I repeat, this is not an issue of morals.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(04-24-2014 02:52 PM)Vicious Wrote:  

(04-24-2014 01:44 AM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

His argument was that women with high partner counts make for bad long-terms prospects. I didn't think it was bad reasoning. With these people, if you argue that men built most of civilization or that they're stronger than women, they'll dismiss you as "sexist." So right off the bat, you're not dealing with rational people -- or with people who can look out their window and honestly assess the world.

If you think someone to not be rational. Don't argue with them. Jizzabelles are best trolled. Save the reasoning for the borderliners.

Quote:

But if anyone does need to back up their ideas with links, the Heartiste blog has been doing this for a long time and odds are a Google search will find you what you need to back up your points.

I Googled "sluts divorce roissy" with no quotes and got this post, which comes with charts and links: https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/09/...bad-wives/

This blog post turns up now and then. I have pointed out the problem with it several times on the board. An example is that they didn't work the data beyond more than 2 partners for women so you have Amish/islamic women skewing the stats. The #1 reason hits far closer to home though. See the reason I dislike Heartiste is their selective quoting/references (that and the thinly veiled white supremacist slant). They left out this little nugget from the source they in turn quote: "The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce."

Oops?

So this cut both ways. There's no moral high ground for men on this particular issue. Which is why I have a problem with the #2 RoK community belief (though RoK serves a purpose with its shotgun method of spreading the word). I prefer to pick my battles and being dogmatic on this bullet point is a losing one.

Even if this was true this is not where western society is today. You can't put that toothpaste back in the tube. I'm not saying that slut-shaming isn't right but that it's not producing any effect. Compare this to fat-shaming which is slowly turning around for the better. The reason for this is the overwhelming support for living healthy livestyles and growing focus on how fat acceptance is harmful and toxic.

"They left out this little nugget from the source they in turn quote: [i]"The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce."" [/i]

Yeah, he shouldn't have left it out.

[The Lizard of Oz]

For what it's worth, here is the full text of the post that Vicious was referring to:

Quote:

The Social Pathologist said...

Hi nml,

I've got to rush out to work but briefly, The 2002 NSFG does have data on men, and yes, the more promiscuous the man, the higher the risk of divorce.

Though, it appears that the each partner a man has increases his risk of divorce to a lesser degree than that of a woman. The double standard appears to be real.

I'll reply some more much later in the day.

So, assuming this is an accurate description of the data (I have no idea if it is and no inclination to look it up), there is in fact a difference in that the effect is much greater for women than for men. So Roissy's conclusion was basically fine after all.

(I put very little stock in such "studies" either way as they are beset by endless problems. I think common sense and the collective experience of mankind are better guides here. But if you take the study at face value, it does show what Roissy says it shows).

[Vicious]

Quote:

So Roissy's conclusion was basically fine after all.

No.

1) How can you say that without quantifying the data?

2) To go from women as the sole culprit to women's # of partners having a "greater effect" than men's is a helluva step.

I like the Social Pathologist blog. He's very good at providing references and provides a lot of of interesting viewpoints on manosphere topics. His recent writing on "wet dick fallacy" is particularly relevant to this discussion. But people quoting him tend to ignore that he's always coming from a position where monogamous christian marriage is the main solution.

[Handsome Creepy Eel]

While that's true, Vicious, why should the fact that men with lots of partners also make bad marriage material (if significantly less than is the case for women) prevent us from quoting this about women? Does it make it wrong? Of course it doesn't. It's true no matter how you put it, regardless of whether you add the (also true) "men are affected by this too" disclaimer at the end. Not having a disclaimer perhaps makes it less fair, but it doesn't make it any less true.

Again, there are plenty of women, feminists and white knights protesting the undeniable fact that sluts make bad wives, but there are no men, players and MGTOWs protesting the undeniable fact that Alphas make bad husbands too. No one on this forum is recommending women to marry Silvio Berlusconi; if anything, we're mostly chiding women for ignoring hardworking Beta men in favor of being in powerful men's harems.

There is no "fallacy" going on.