[TheWastelander]

More men might get married in America if women weren't so fat and bitchy.

The percentage of marriageable women has gone down and the laws favoring women are still in effect. Until bitches lose weight, change their attitudes and the laws are changed, the rates are going to continue to creep lower.

A reversal probably won't happen. Instead you'll see these miserable women turning to sperm banks in the future to get pregnant.

I was thinking about Fight Club the other night and instead of solely targeting the credit card industry, I thought it'd be amusing if they remade that movie set thirty years in the future and Project Mayhem went after sperm banks too.

[kosko]

(12-22-2014 02:14 PM)Days of Broken Arrows Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 10:31 AM)scorpion Wrote:  

http://www.amazon.com/Libido-Dominandi-L...587314657/

This is a great book that talks about how pornography and sexual liberation in general is used as a form of political control. Pornography is not about freedom. It's about turning men into slaves to their sexual desire by constantly shoving sex in their faces. Pornography is the equivalent for men of fat women being able to gorge on cheeseburgers and chocolate cake on demand. The damage is done to individuals first, and the damage then spreads secondarily through society as a whole. The guy who says he is entirely unaffected by his pornography use, even if he is sincere (although he is probably mistaken), is missing the point. There are also regular hardcore drug users who don't seem to get addicted. However, no one would argue that regular consumption of hardcore drugs is a healthy lifestyle, for either individuals or society as a whole. Pornography is a mental drug that taps into man's most powerful and primal urge, artificially sating it first, and then increasing it, and thus robbing man of his natural sexual drive. It's introducing a hypersexual stimulus into the male brain that clouds and confuses not only his perception of normal sexuality, but of reality as a whole and his place in it as man.

If you don't want to read the book, at least check out this interview with the author. Even just the first 5 minutes are enlightening.

It's about turning men into slaves to their sexual desire by constantly shoving sex in their faces.

I don't doubt this is true, but as I said a few posts back (go here) modern Western society is about that too. Heels, bras, long hair, lipstick, advertisements and more are in our faces 24/7.

As I said, it's easier to not turn on porn than it is to avoid these things in society every day, esp. when you're a young guy, always ready to go.

If there was any period of my life I felt "assaulted" by sex in my face it was springtime on a college campus, when the girls would wear almost nothing. I was so distracted (euphemism) I could barely concentrate.

And on top of that, I was getting sex regularly from my girlfriend, plus the extra-curricular occasional hook-up. I could not imagine how difficult it would have been to have been surrounded by hottie nublies if I had been celibate.

Meanwhile, a zillion naked women are screwing on XHamster and RedTube right this moment and I feel a lot less assaulted. In fact, I'm here, not there. If this was in college I'd be sitting in the Quad girl-watching, not posting in a forum.

Porn is not a problem per se. It's a symptom of a deeper problem in Western society, where women get to say "I can show all I want but you can't react." The "reaction" of a lot of men is to turn to porn since most women are not attainable. Things were more balanced 50 years ago when women had some sense of modesty.

Heels and Bras are female tactics to rig mating advantages in their favor. Make-up is used to mimic the rose and blushing a women gets when she is her most fertile and ovulating. You are right that these are meant to trick men also and I agree to a point, but their is a stark contrast between a woman in real time, presenting a sexualized version of herself vs the hyper quick and un-normal speed that digital internet porn comes at you. Plus these are nothing new. Woman have been using tactics to fool men for hundreds of years.

Make-up for instance is a prime example of female and feminist hyprocracy because you never hear them cry and rally to end the wearing of make-up. Makeup is a 90% woman thing, and modern make-up was created solely by men in petrol-chemical labs, it is a by-product of their boggyman the "patriarchy" but you never hear them shame it or say woman should stop wearing it.. why? Because woman know they need that advantage against each other and won't give it up. They know full well the effect they have on luring men by sexualizing themselves but to say it is the same as porn isn't realistic. The two can't be farther from each other and I will give examples as somebody who frequently has been in hyper sexualized environments in real life.

It isn't the same. In a 3 min span in a nightclub I can see a bunch of hotties dressed up with their tits hanging out and all of that. In 3min in porn you can cycle through 50 scenes of a woman getting her throat banged out. The time in real life for me to process the women around me is more tempered. I can see many women I like, maybe find the woman I find them most attractive. It is a time balance ordeal in which your mind can correspond to your penis and other parts of the body to take to action. In porn you experience these images so rapidly, so fast, that the brain does not know how to handle it. This has never been the case up to the advancements of digital porn and fast internet speeds. Back in the day you had to download some big ass file, download it parts, or watch little 3mb clips that were max 3mins long. In the early days of internet porn it was not fast and On-Demand where you can cycle quickly through scenes exposing yourself to vast array of images in such a shot period of time.

Even in the most hyper sexualized environment of a swingers club it isn't the same. The one I frequent will have naked women all over the place. You will routinely come into contact with couples having sex out in the open. It is the most perverse and highly sexual environment one can come into contact with in real life, and real time. Even with all of that the brain gets used to the surroundings and you still have to assess thing on a case by case basis which tempers the mind. I can be in a hot tub with 8 naked women, but maybe only two I find extremely attractive, maybe other look good also but its only two that really get me going. I come into contact with them again and they are still just naked and in-front of me, the mood only changes when things are escalated sexual with the woman in that environment.

Because in real life there still has to be some bridge or linkage to a female and sexual pleasure to a man. Even if he pays he still has to put forward resources (money) that was derived from some effort to attain that sexual release. When you release to porn your mind knows its fake. The nut from a porn wank is inherently not the same as a nut with a female. The mind knows when its being fooled and if you keep in trying to trick it it eventually adapts to the trickery and falls victim to it. Even in the most extremes of a man paying money for sex he eventually hits a wall. He will run out of resources and his addiction has to stop. He can't steal sex from a escort. He can resort to other means to get money such as a drug user but a space in time exists where he has to temper that urge. None of that tempered ability or latency exists with digital porn. You can consume and consume continually and in short periods attain enough over consumption than nothing in reality could ever provide.

But even being in that hyper sex environment I described a woman in a sexy dress and heels with an ice body still gives me a boner. At times more so then a naked girl right in-front of me. Part of it is the etiquette of the club, but the other is simply just primal arousal and the mystery of wanting that woman who is dressed up and putting herself out there.

[Maciano]

Quote:

Cool, good for you. You got lucky. Me, I started looking at some weird shit. I just tweeted:

"Theres a lot of bizarre porn out there, but if it exists that means sadly some guy out there is pleasuring himself to it."

We know there are porn niches like trannys, gangbangs, tentacle shit etc. These aren't fetishes that we would consider normal but yet these niches exist. If they exist that means that millions of men are watching these types of videos.

How did they get there? By starting out with 'normal' porn.

Sure, the 'gateway' drug argument doesn't apply to everyone, but it does to many people, especially for something like porn that has powerful effects on the brain.

First of all, there have always been kinks. Always. That was what Alfred Kinsey discovered when he finally did some serious research into male and female sexuality. Before the 60s any non-heterosexual sex without being married was qualified as abnormal and socially disapproved.

Second, you assume your porn habits led to harder stimuli, and therefore assume this is a general pattern, but it's probably bogus. More likely, you were just curious for new stimuli. You can prove all sorts of things with a few data points. Sports legends have their lucky shorts. It's all in their head.

It's simply nonsense that men forego marriage because of porn. It's just the 1000th lazy silver bullet to explain the decline of marriage. There has been plenty of research into marriage decline and I can tell you that many other factors such as bad job prospects, successful career tracks, cohabitation, prolonged adolescence, divorce traumas experienced as children, etc. are way, way more important to an individual deciding to get married or not, than porn.

At 20 I always thought I'd have children at 30. But at 30 I learned life was pretty good without marriage. I didn't gain a lot by marrying, I imagine a lot of guys feel like that. Why spend your money & time on a family when you can spend it all on yourself? Travel, movies, free time, dating, reading, your own apartment -- just doing whatever you want. You can also easily quit your job, there's zero responsibilities without a family. I can easily see why a lot of men and women choose not to or do so -- or do so much later in life.

[Pontifex Maximus]

(12-22-2014 02:59 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

A reversal probably won't happen. Instead you'll see these miserable women turning to sperm banks in the future to get pregnant.

I was thinking about Fight Club the other night and instead of solely targeting the credit card industry, I thought it'd be amusing if they remade that movie set thirty years in the future and Project Mayhem went after sperm banks too.

Soon it might be trendy to donate sperm to inseminate a 75 year-old cunt. Similar to the "organ donor" label on driver licenses. White knights will flock to jerk into a Dixie cup, but the women won't want it. Society will shame alphas into donating swimmers for "biological equality". Imagine the government subsidizing DiCaprio or Sean Connery sperm for Lindy West.

[Socrates]

(12-22-2014 08:15 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:55 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

It would mean getting up at seven and cooking him eggs and bacon and toast and coffee and dawdling about in my nightgown and curlers after he'd left for work to wash up the dirty plates and make the bed, and then when he came home after a lively, fascinating day he'd expect a big dinner, and I'd spend the even washing up, even more dirty plates till I fell into bed, utterly exhausted.

Wow...they say that unintended irony is the hallmark of the uninformed. The above quote has to be a testament to how naive women were regarding the realities of working life.

The idea that 40 years of commuting in traffic, meeting unreasonable deadlines, dealing with office politics and bad bosses, and being chained to all of that because you have people at home depending on your ability to suck it up... essentially being a pack-horse/work-mule for four decades made for "lively and fascinating" days is kind of hilarious in terms of its naiveté.

A couple of years ago, there was a survey that revealed who the unhappiest people in America were: Unmarried women, over the age of 40, in a professional position.

Sounds like women are discovering what men have always known about how "lively and fascinating" work is.

They think work is a breeze because for the most part men don't come home and bitch about every single inane thing that happened to them that day. Every day. A woman can't imagine having a shit day and not unloading every single minute detail and expecting tons of sympathy. So if the man isn't doing that, then obviously his work is fascinating and stimulating and wonderful. There's no other explanation! If it sucked he'd be whining 24/7, right?

[Days of Broken Arrows]

(12-22-2014 03:59 PM)Socrates Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 08:15 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:55 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

It would mean getting up at seven and cooking him eggs and bacon and toast and coffee and dawdling about in my nightgown and curlers after he'd left for work to wash up the dirty plates and make the bed, and then when he came home after a lively, fascinating day he'd expect a big dinner, and I'd spend the even washing up, even more dirty plates till I fell into bed, utterly exhausted.

Wow...they say that unintended irony is the hallmark of the uninformed. The above quote has to be a testament to how naive women were regarding the realities of working life.

The idea that 40 years of commuting in traffic, meeting unreasonable deadlines, dealing with office politics and bad bosses, and being chained to all of that because you have people at home depending on your ability to suck it up... essentially being a pack-horse/work-mule for four decades made for "lively and fascinating" days is kind of hilarious in terms of its naiveté.

A couple of years ago, there was a survey that revealed who the unhappiest people in America were: Unmarried women, over the age of 40, in a professional position.

Sounds like women are discovering what men have always known about how "lively and fascinating" work is.

They think work is a breeze because for the most part men don't come home and bitch about every single inane thing that happened to them that day. Every day. A woman can't imagine having a shit day and not unloading every single minute detail and expecting tons of sympathy. So if the man isn't doing that, then obviously his work is fascinating and stimulating and wonderful. There's no other explanation! If it sucked he'd be whining 24/7, right?

It would mean getting up at seven and cooking him eggs and bacon and toast and coffee and dawdling about in my nightgown and curlers after he'd left for work to wash up the dirty plates and make the bed, and then when he came home after a lively, fascinating day he'd expect a big dinner, and I'd spend the even washing up, even more dirty plates till I fell into bed, utterly exhausted.

^^^^^^^
Whenever you see the overuse of the word "and" in place of commas, know that you're dealing with pretentious, emotionally-driven female writing. This a device used pretty much only by women to make things seem "bigger" than they are. I used to have to fight female editors not to turn my copy into crap like that.

Putting that aside, I did some research and it seems Sylvia was not only a drama queen, but a lying one at that. Tl/dr: her posturing aside, she just have owned a dishwasher for all we know.

1). Plath was married to Ted Hughes in 1956.

2). The dishwasher was invented in 1924 and became commonplace in rich families in the 1950s.

3). According to Wikipedia, Plath studied at Smith College and Newnham College at the University of Cambridge, before receiving acclaim as a poet and writer. She wasn't going hungry, in other words.

4). She and Ted could have easily owned a dishwasher. So what is she even talking about?

5). Ironically, Plath killed herself by sticking her head in a gas stove -- the very type of invention that came about so women like her didn't have to labor round-the-clock, "utterly exhausted."

Statements like the above earned me mean looks and failing grades from English teachers, so I'm happy to post 'em here.

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Ironically, Plath killed herself by sticking her head in a gas stove -- the very type of invention that came about so women like her didn't have to labor round-the-clock, "utterly exhausted."

Haha that statement is genius...

[Seth_Rose]

(12-22-2014 03:42 PM)Maciano Wrote:  

First of all, there have always been kinks. Always. That was what Alfred Kinsey discovered when he finally did some serious research into male and female sexuality. Before the 60s any non-heterosexual sex without being married was qualified as abnormal and socially disapproved.

Of course, but I don't think it's healthy when guys condition their brains to the point where they can only become aroused to certain kinks.

Quote:

Second, you assume your porn habits led to harder stimuli, and therefore assume this is a general pattern, but it's probably bogus. More likely, you were just curious for new stimuli. You can prove all sorts of things with a few data points. Sports legends have their lucky shorts. It's all in their head.

Yes, I was curious for new stimuli. The reason we begin to crave new stimuli is because the amount of dopamine our brains release decreases over time when continuously exposed to the same stimuli. The relationship between porn and dopamine is well documented:

http://yourbrainonporn.com/garys-researc...-addiction

I do see what you're getting at because there are a lot of guys who can watch the same type of porn for years, but I wouldn't say it was just me looking for something new "just because" as those studies demonstrate.

[Suits]

(12-22-2014 03:42 PM)Maciano Wrote:  

At 20 I always thought I'd have children at 30. But at 30 I learned life was pretty good without marriage. I didn't gain a lot by marrying, I imagine a lot of guys feel like that. Why spend your money & time on a family when you can spend it all on yourself? Travel, movies, free time, dating, reading, your own apartment -- just doing whatever you want. You can also easily quit your job, there's zero responsibilities without a family. I can easily see why a lot of men and women choose not to or do so -- or do so much later in life.

That's pretty much my story spot on. At twenty, I was eager to find "the one" and get married. By 27, I had discovered, thanks to no attractive women taking me serious between 20-24, that life can actually be pretty damn good without a woman.

In fact, I had realized that happiness was easily achievable with the right attitude and the right choices and that the most likely way to ruin the happy life I had already achieved, was to give a woman power over my life.

So I haven't done that and I feel great.

[Vitriol]

(12-22-2014 10:06 PM)Suits Wrote:  

In fact, I had realized that happiness was easily achievable with the right attitude and the right choices and that the most likely way to ruin the happy life I had already achieved, was to give a woman power over my life.

So I haven't done that and I feel great.

I think seeing my male friends who tried to get serious with a girl at a young age from their teens to mid 20s was a big eye opener for me. They usually had to totally restructure their lives to give the girl what she wanted, but she made absolutely no concessions in return. It seemed like a miserable way to live... to do all that just to hit the same pussy which gets a little less interesting each time.

I feel like I dodged a bullet by never trying to do that when I was young.

Edit: skip to about 1:10 on the Bill Burr video I can never get these to work right to start at a certain time. "Let's go to brunch and spend $52 on eggs!"

[2Wycked]

(12-22-2014 06:55 AM)Zelcorpion Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:55 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

This isn't the whole picture of why men are turning to pornography over real-life interaction with women; economics explains the other part. The workplace doesn't provide a "fascinating day" for men, but a day filled with mindless drudgery and meaningless commitments and accomplishments. There is no "liveliness" in the day-to-day grind for the average male worker, just a parade of mind-numbing tasks justified by sickening corporate homages to "taking care of their employees" and "making the world a better place." The charade of the modern workplace is further buttressed by the fact that people don't get promoted for their competence, but for their ability to project their image of conformance with corporate policy and their ability to please the tastes of their managers.

As far as work is concerned - it was usually a place that did favor all those characteristics you mentioned. Meritocracy it is only to a degree. Also when talking with older men who have experienced the corporate world 40 years ago or longer I came to the conclusion, that the greater reason why work has become a more severe drudgery is the fact that unemployment is much higher. Whenever I talked with guys who experienced full employment and companies fighting for any decent employee, then those workers usually were treated with a greater care and respect. That however started to deteriorate in the 1970s - also partly due to the fact of internal job market pressure created by women.

Edit - just watched that Twilight Episode during workout.

Don't agree with your take on the show. The 1950s-60s were the best decades that any country had enjoyed in a multitude of factors.

The guy in the episode is a high level marketing executive who just lost a 3 mio. $ account just because he entrusted that account to a young kid from college, who immediately betrayed him by going to the competition with the account. He correctly stated that his boss would have likely fired him for this if he did not have any sway over some of his clients already.
He lives a solid upper-middle-class lifestyle and makes the usual error of confiding in his wife and telling her all his fears. She is cold - yes, and pushes him on, but he has no frame in the relationship. Also there is no danger of her divorcing him. Apart from that she is intelligent, ambitious, slim and attractive - she cut her hair and is a bitch, but there are far worse wives.
So he fantasizes about a town set in the 1880s (!). I remind you that except for some few small farm and business owners, life until the 1930s was no picnic. Even in the US most people worked grueling jobs in mines, factories, factory towns, fields etc. Often their kids started work while being 8-12 - in such child-friendly places like factories and mines.

So his fantasizing is just nuts. And what does that even mean: "Where a man can live life to the fullest." ? Fuck that guy - he had a melt-down because his boss said something about push push? Then he stormed out of the office because he had 3 calls on the line?
He should have gotten himself a mistress, poured himself 2 drinks when starting work and just gone on with life. Even in the 1960s the majority of people had worse lives than him and he was just a schmuck for feeling the pressure. His boss is not even so bad. I've had bosses who were complete psychopaths screaming at everyone - and I wish they would have said something semi-decent like the Twilight-boss - no they were spewing crap and madness and everyone had to listen to that shit.

From my ROK article on the Twilight Zone episode in question:

The Narcissism Of Liberal Feminists

Consider a feminist-friendly review of the episode that frames perfectly why this man committed suicide and why feminists play a direct hand into it.



The author is Todd VanDerWerff. Clearly, a soft man divorced of masculinity, as he approvingly cites feminism & shows his anti-male bias in his review.

I want to talk about Todd’s approach to the main character of Gart and Gart’s wife. Todd seems to have trouble seeing Gart’s wife as a villain. He expressly states he has trouble with this and also doesn’t see her as oppressing him. He likes her “Huckleberry Finn” comment as it has a “stab of truth” to it. He sees her as somebody that is trying to get Gart to grow up and come into the modern world.

If that wasn’t sick enough, Todd dances around Gart’s suicide and why he does it. He talks about ambiguity and how we don’t know what was going through Gart’s mind when he jumped off the train. That much is true. The most compelling issue, to me as a human with compassion, is just why did he do it?

This is one of my sticking points with liberalism. They talk a big game of deconstruction, dismantling untoward power structures but they have little to say about how to reform the world. All the talk about striving for equality, decency & human rights is nothing but worthless pablum to paper over the supreme lack of positive solutions for the world.

Take the Sexual Revolution, liberals kicked off the reigns with no thought as the underlying psychology of America, the potential ramifications for sexuality & human relationships, much less the economic ramifications or the ramifications for children. We did it in the name of removing oppression & helping the kids. No, you did for yourselves and then used claims for compassion & equality to cover up your reckless & blatant selfishness.

We see this here in Todd’s piece. An episode like “A Stop At Willoughby” can be disconcerting to a liberal because of temporal issues. One idea I have yet to wrap my mind around is liberal obsession with temporal politics – i.e. the unending accusations of “being in the wrong time period,” “the time has passed for that idea,” or “that is not how the modern world works.” It sidesteps any real rebuttals while also playing up an appeal to authority – society doesn’t think that now, so it is inappropriate.

The problem with this analysis is that is completely ignores real male feelings about the world around them. Men are routinely exhorted to express their feelings so they can become humans, instead of the stoic, masculine zombies they pretend to be. However, when they do like Gart in this episode, they are told they need to grow up and become a real man. Todd approves of this analysis, as he probably sees Gart as some racist misogynist who pines away for a time when he was so privileged he didn’t have to think about the world around him.

I bang on about narcissism, but this a clear case of liberal narcissism. We are presented with a man who clearly is depressed with his life. His wife is a horrible person, but do liberals & feminists care? What matters is the maintaining the zeitgeist of subjecting white males to horrendous levels of criticism. Gart was a man distraught over the increasingly hectic & narcissistic workplace. His wife was a controlling bitch. What was his recourse? Real compassion for fellow humans cannot be constrained by the artifices of victim politics – either you empathize with somebody or you do not. The fact that people like Todd can feel so much sympathy for women in the past, but completely ignore male suffering strongly suggests somebody who doesn’t feel compassion at all, but understand the needs to show it off in order to get social approval.

A Stop At Disenchantment: The Social Retreating Of Men



One the reasons that men like Gart commit suicide is because of ignorant people like Todd VanDerWerff. Why is it so hard to sympathize with a man in psychological trouble? You would think the ideology that bangs on about mental health issues would be sensitive to needs of the clearly depressed? Wrong.

Part of the reason is the complete ignorance of psychology among liberals. I don’t give two squirts of piss whether white, heterosexual males have it so good in society. I don’t limit my feelings for others within some narcissistic, proscribed bounds. Healthy people do not do that. Either you feel for somebody or you don’t. You do it on the basis of their individual reality and how you relate to that. Gart’s seeing Willoughby as liberating & serene has to rub some liberals wrong. It suggests the world that has been constructed by liberals is deficient & hurts people. Todd criticized the past as being oppressive, but that criticism does nothing to alleviate Gart’s concerns. While the issue of whether Willoughby was just a mental mirage constructed by Gart or representative of America is an interesting one, it completely avoids the main issue:

Why are men like Gart so disaffected?

At the end of day, that is the troubling question that lingers in your mind after watching the episode. He clearly is a man with codependent qualities, as he spends much of his time fantasizing about a reality that does not belong to him. However, it is clear he is surrounded by unhealthy people: his narcissistic wife; his bellicose, domineering boss. He doesn’t seem to have a social support network.

Escaping into the fields of fantasy is the option he chooses. It isn’t a healthy one, but one that allows him to cope with a life that is completely depressing. The golden future of true love & career fulfillment that are supposed to be awaiting a man have never come to fruition. The reality is that most people never get there. It is intriguing that Gart works in advertising, as his industry has done much to fool men like Gart that the modern American way resulted in happiness & fulfillment.

While that is part of his disaffection, another key element is his wife. When Todd talked about not wanting to treat Gart’s wife as a villain, he provides a key insight into why men are retreating from society at large. Sensing their needs & desires are not treated as important and relevant, they get retreat into their own mind: sometimes via fantasies, sometimes via video games, etc.

It is the complete & utter inability of society at large to understand the ways women hurt men in relationships. Part of the reticence is the lingering idea that women are more moral & compassionate than men, so they are not likely to hurt men in relationships – so male needs go unnoticed and unattended as media caters to women.



Female domination of media also plays into this. Women are not going to tune into a TV show, magazine or blog if said outlet is about exposing female abuse of men. Sure, maybe – if it is framed in a narcissistic way – i.e. ’I'm better than that bitch,’ etc. It cannot purely be about showing compassion towards a man by way of how a woman treats him. There has to be something plus – i.e. he is a closeted gay man who is verbally abused by his wife when she finds out, etc. Also, consider how women use media to taunt men and let men know women don’t need them anymore. How compassionate.

Men like Gart realize that society is not long for them unless they are confident, successful & attractive to women. If they are not, they had better be quiet about it otherwise they will be shamed back in silence so as to perpetuate female delusions about themselves & society. Omega losers like Todd VanDerWerff have a stake in this oppression, as they think they will finally get that elusive female sexual approval once “patriarchal” gender norms are dismantled. What fools like Todd don’t understand – and men like Gart do – is that all you have as a beta male or less is to completely submit to a female’s frame or get cruelly tossed aside. Either you kowtow to female narcissism & play the non-human in their life or get busy fucking off. Gart could not come to terms with it, so he commits suicide.

While the modern workforce plays a great role in this, yet what really hurt Gart was his wife. Gart was understandably upset with his work environment, but it was his wife’s coldness that did him in.

Our society teaches women to prioritize independence and not needing men. Men get the message that they are not relevant to a woman’s life. When they do consummate a union, there is always the lingering idea that she doesn’t need him – that his presence is voluntary on her part. What women are fleeing here is a real, substantive emotional connections with men. It isn’t men that are afraid of commitment – it is women. Remember, women were the originators of the idea the marriage is a trap.

What this results in for men who are trapped in a world that pretends they are the ones that fear and run from emotional commitment, while existing in a world in which they pursue commitment as a base impulse and women instinctively flee it. When they get commitment from women, their needs are treated as necessarily met. They are treated as assholes who need to not just grow up but to also step up their relational game, as men don’t meet their ladies’ needs.

Men should realize that society and relationships are just one, collective fantasy of women. This point will always be considered sexist & misogynistic precisely because it punctures female’s collective delusions about how they treat men. The increasing number of men like Gart in America does nothing to help women feel good about themselves, so they paint those men as hateful, troubled or ignore them outright. Just like that man who self-immolated on the steps of family court, he had to be relegated to the footnotes of American history lest women get their fantasies upset.

The sad ending to Gart’s life represented his only true act of personal autonomy – killing himself. Who cares about white privilege, etc. if you do not have autonomy over your life? Gart’s life bothers feminists because it strongly suggests men do not have power over their life and liberal society and women (sometimes) are the cause of it.

People do not die from suicide, they die from sadness.

[Simeon_Strangelight]

(12-23-2014 02:47 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

...
The sad ending to Gart’s life represented his only true act of personal autonomy – killing himself. Who cares about white privilege, etc. if you do not have autonomy over your life? Gart’s life bothers feminists because it strongly suggests men do not have power over their life and liberal society and women (sometimes) are the cause of it.

People do not die from suicide, they die from sadness.

One of the reasons why the old system of a non-working wife was better was, because it gave the man a chance to take a break from the hassle and stress of work and be pampered at home by his wife. Then after having spent some time with his caring and loving wife he is energized again to return to the stress of the modern world.

I have listened to talks by spiritual men who have said that very thing in the 1960s. They warned about that very fact and that it was detrimental as he saw the family structure changing even in the 1960s vs. the 40s and 50s.

I agree that plenty of men need that caring support of their women or they break down as that Willoughby fellow. Psychopaths and some strong Alpha men don't require that much, but I guess that the majority of men does. And even the Alpha men better have that caring touch or they turn more into Dark Triad traits over time.

In Red Pill we know that confiding in a woman is mostly useless, the guy would have been better served to call up his best friend and get it out of his system. But since most are taught to serve the feminine imperative and be disposable he did just that until he couldn't any longer.

[cocotte]

45% of Japanese males are already "herbivore men" being in a country that has the highest porn produced from it, in their mentality; "Who needs women when we have virtual toys, waifus, and sex dolls ready for us?"
Japan is currently building a sex android that will be available sometime this decade, of course you know what that means.
At the same time we must realize Japan's culture went through a heavy emasculation and the men lost all their backbone and become affeminate wimps, much like what American men are becoming today.

American/other Anglosphere men are more caught by the leash of the media promoting this filth and most of them unconscious of the other damning influences against them.

(12-22-2014 02:59 PM)TheWastelander Wrote:  

More men might get married in America if women weren't so fat and bitchy.

The percentage of marriageable women has gone down and the laws favoring women are still in effect. Until bitches lose weight, change their attitudes and the laws are changed, the rates are going to continue to creep lower.

A reversal probably won't happen. Instead you'll see these miserable women turning to sperm banks in the future to get pregnant.

I was thinking about Fight Club the other night and instead of solely targeting the credit card industry, I thought it'd be amusing if they remade that movie set thirty years in the future and Project Mayhem went after sperm banks too.

Plenty slim-women in Americaland, most noticeably those of average weight or of course the ladies who diet themselves in to a painfully skinny look. In Americaland there are no middles, always extremes. In the media they push ultra-thin women but the majority of the population is obese; "real women" are obese and "ugly women" are super thin or vice verse. Nothing is moderate in that country anymore, it's always 0 percent or 100 percent. True or false?

But aye, while you're right for the most part; plenty of men in Americaland are affeminate, fat, losers, and suckers too. The most common growing population in Americaland is the redditer, or 4chaner, who plays video games all day, socially awkward, has no accomplishments in life, but stays complaining about women while secretly trying to find ways to capture their attention from their other opposite, the "alpha male" douche. Again, there are no moderates in Americaland. Always extremes. It must be the consumer society I guess.

[aphelion]

Marriage is causing the marriage decline.

[Kingsley Davis]

(12-23-2014 07:43 PM)aphelion Wrote:  

Marriage is causing the marriage decline.

Grand Theft Auto is causing automobile purchase to decline.

[The Lizard of Oz]

(12-20-2014 04:11 PM)Blunt Wrote:  

(03-09-2014 01:14 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  

Add porn to the forbidden list. Beta males must be denied any and all sexual recourse. It is not enough that they are permanently banished from the feast; it is not enough that they may not collect any crumbs from the table; they must not even be allowed to see the King and Queen glut themselves. They must get nothing; nothing at all. Only a landwhale to hold and to cherish, if she so consents.

Think of how evil it is -- the determination to deny beta males (alphas and naturals are always exempted) even the visual outlet that pornography provides. This is not merely twisting the knife; it is twisting it and loving the twist. And it is exactly what feminists want to do, and would do instantly if they could have their way.

I disagree. Feminists may attempt to alter the direction of porn to take some of the pleasure out of it for betas, ie strictly BBW and cougar porn, but if they are the ones conducting this train, and I don't think they are, banning porn would be counterproductive.

How many men married to land whales are porn-free? I'm speculating but I imagine the number is low. Porn stabilizes marriages involving low-SMV women.

It would be very diabolical of them to ban porn for betas but it would lead to an unstable situation. Betas were satisfied in the old social pact, and are satiated with the new replacement of porn, but take away that and there will be a backlash. They are not completely without agency and I doubt the people bankrolling feminists would risk their movement on a ban out of pure spite.

Well, the true feelings of feminists about porn (as about so many things) can be summarized by the maxim "porn for me but not for thee". Of course they think of it as "empowering" when they are the ones frantically getting off to some supremely cliched James Deen or kink.com/BDSM creation. But that is ultimately outweighed in their minds by the unmitigated horror and creepiness of the idea of some overweight, unprepossessing, but still heroically horny 51 year old white dude in Pennsylvania blowing serious loads to the spectacle of a cute mixed race 20 year old slut dressed like a cheerleader, who is supposed to be a "barely legal" 18. The fact that this man, who in the eyes of the feminists deserves nothing but an early grave in a trash bin, can feast his eyes and his balls on such forbidden sights is an unbearable insult to the feminists, and it must end at almost any cost.

The thing that is important to understand about feminists and females in general is that while they make pious noises about "equality", they are in fact fanatical enforcers of inequality and of hierarchies. Women, indeed, are the ultimate elitists and are ruthlessly cruel and unapologetic about it. As I wrote in the post quoted earlier in the thread, they perceive it is a terrible insult when any man is, in any way, is getting something that they see as being above his pay grade. As far as they are concerned, that 51 year old dude is a loser and is completely worthless in every way -- literally, they would not object to him being taken out with the morning trash. How dare he even look at -- indeed, even think about -- the kind of luscious and nubile young pussy that is not only out of his league, but out of his universe, as it were?

Whereas porn -- and this fact is so obvious, so much staring us in the face, that no one even thinks of it -- is the great equalizer. The ubiquity of porn in today's world means that there are men who may be poor, ugly, and otherwise ill-made or unlucky, who will be able to see luscious young pussy naked and being fucked in all its infinitely inviting holes -- men who at any other time in the history of mankind would never have been able to see such a thing in the course of their entire wretched lives.

Does anyone realize what a great and beautiful thing it is that some coolie in Bangladesh, while he may his whole life remain a coolie, can see sights of wondrous sexual bounty and fulfillment? It is one of the miracles of the modern world, part of the greater miracle of the Internet in general. Millions -- tens and hundreds of millions -- of men who would never otherwise have seen the wondrous sight of perfectly desirable female flesh being used for what it's worth, will now at least go to their graves knowing that they have seen such a thing, that it is real, that it can be, that they know what it looks like. Think of how amazing that is!

People are so utterly spoiled that they fetishize an abstract past, not even understanding the most basic fact about it -- that the lives of the great majority of men in the past were almost unimaginably (to us) drab, monotonous, and devoid of interest, variety and pleasure. We get used to the bounty all too quickly, like the greedy children we are; and so we forget what it is we have at our fingertips.

Christmas is a time to think of those less fortunate, but instead of just repeating this cliche, here is a way to give it some meaning. Reflect on the men alive today, and on those who have lived through the ages, who would never, for any reason, have been able to see the great miracle of young and luscious naked female flesh revealed before their forever dazzled eyes. Think of what the existence and easy access to pornography means for those less fortunate who still, touchingly, are hopeful enough to want to see, if nothing more. And be grateful for the gifts that the hard work, genius, and ingenuity of men over generations have bestowed on us all.

[Suits]

^^^^^Wow, just wow.

[Days of Broken Arrows]

^^^^^

Great stuff. When it comes to porn, feminists usually break down into two categories: pro-sex and anti-porn.

The pro-sex contingent tends to be involved in the porn business or sex industry and are usually nice-looking women. They get off, in some ways, on the attention. But they also have a financial motive.

They're basically saying "We love fewer laws and more freedom for men -- because it guarantees us a big payday." So this is how you get that peculiar breed of "porn star feminist." If it seems a contradiction, well, think of it less as a logical concept and more as a marketing idea to assure both men and women are paying attention -- accent on the PAY.

The anti-porn brigade are usually (but not always) women who don't attract many men at all, such as the late Andrea Dworkin, whose pic will not be posted because I'm not a sadist. Such women despise men getting off on hot women because they're jealous of the attention.

They also have a financial motive -- they need to sell their books, get their blogs read, fill their courses with other angry women, or further their careers testifying in front of government bodies.

But whatever the case, the question as to whether feminists will or won't support porn comes down to how it benefits that specific feminist, not how it benefits (or hurts) men. Any lies or truth they tell in the name of their particular side in this cause all fall under this.

[DarkTriad]

(12-22-2014 08:15 AM)Renzy Wrote:  

(12-22-2014 04:55 AM)2Wycked Wrote:  

It would mean getting up at seven and cooking him eggs and bacon and toast and coffee and dawdling about in my nightgown and curlers after he'd left for work to wash up the dirty plates and make the bed, and then when he came home after a lively, fascinating day he'd expect a big dinner, and I'd spend the even washing up, even more dirty plates till I fell into bed, utterly exhausted.

Wow...they say that unintended irony is the hallmark of the uninformed. The above quote has to be a testament to how naive women were regarding the realities of working life.

The idea that 40 years of commuting in traffic, meeting unreasonable deadlines, dealing with office politics and bad bosses, and being chained to all of that because you have people at home depending on your ability to suck it up... essentially being a pack-horse/work-mule for four decades made for "lively and fascinating" days is kind of hilarious in terms of its naiveté.

A couple of years ago, there was a survey that revealed who the unhappiest people in America were: Unmarried women, over the age of 40, in a professional position.

Sounds like women are discovering what men have always known about how "lively and fascinating" work is.

That quote got to me too. Also WTF is she "utterly exhausted" for? She made breakfast and dinner and then "dawdled" in her nightgown. In the real world, Sylvia Plath couldn't handle a straight job as a professor, and quit so she could write poetry (at least partially supported by her husband). The feminazis argue she was more creative after they separated...I would assume anyone would be more productive if they got supported without having to reciprocate in any way.

[Samseau]

I agree with Scorpion that porn is harmful for men. But I would argue porn is really just a remedy to a much more unhealthy state of affairs between men and women today. Like Days of Broken Arrows pointed out, the sexualization of America started a long time ago. The video Scorpion's posted talked about this, the sexualization of America began in earnest with the endorsement of contraceptives by mainstream culture (including the Catholic church).

So ultimately porn is just a symptom of a much worse problem.