Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Feminist Idiocy’ Category

Here’s some news you can rue: 40% of all US births are to single moms, a 700% increase since 1960, (although the rate does appear to have peaked in the last few years….we’ll see if it holds (it won’t if the US de-Whitening continues apace)).

The Social Capital Project, spearheaded by Senator Mike Lee (R-UT), decided to investigate why single motherhood has become more common in the last two generations. Since 1960, America’s single motherhood rate has risen from 5 percent to 40 percent in absolute terms—a 700 percent increase in under 60 years.

Too short of a time period for this trend to be the result of genetic disposition alone. Genes may be involved (in that there could be genes which make a woman more or less monogamously inclined), but given the rapid increase in single mommery it’s reasonable to conclude that deep and broad social changes have exerted the greater influence, either by directly altering behavior through a suite of incentives and disincentives, or by providing reinforcing stimuli to genetic triggers that switch on or off depending on environmental inputs.

The report offers explanations for the rise in single mommery that reiterate most of what I’ve written on the topic: namely, female economic independence, State welfare as Daddy substitute, the Pill, and male economic stagnation are the big incentives fueling the increase, largely through the mechanism of reducing the number of fertile-age married women.

To review, the past 60 years have seen more unmarried women and more of them engaged in sexual activity, leading more of them to become pregnant, even as fewer married women today get pregnant or give birth. Shotgun marriage has declined, and over the past 40 years declining rates of unintended pregnancy among unmarried women and rising acceptability of unwed childbearing have led to fewer abortions. Rising unwed pregnancies, declining shotgun marriage, and falling abortion produced more unwed births. All of those trends increased the share of births to unmarried women.

How important were each of these changes in raising the share of births that occur to unmarried women? We can roughly simulate counterfactual scenarios in which some factors changed as they actually did while others are kept at their early 1960s levels. In Figure 14, the top line shows the estimated increase in the share of births that were to unwed mothers from the early 1960s to the late 2000s, an increase from 8 percent to 43 percent. Many people might be inclined to see this rise and attribute it to an increase in pregnancy among single women. But the next line down indicates that this factor is a minor one. It shows that the share of births to unwed mothers would still have risen to 36 percent if the nonmarital pregnancy rate had stayed as low as it was in the early 1960s while everything else changed—the share of women who were married, marital pregnancy rates, marital abortion rates, nonmarital abortion rates, and shotgun marriage rates.

Emphasis mine. The factors driving the massive increase in single mommery are primarily exogenous, ie independent of the single woman pregnancy rate.

In fact, the fall in the marital pregnancy rate appears to be a more important factor; if that rate had remained at its high early-1960s level while everything else changed (including the nonmarital pregnancy rate), the share of births to unwed mothers would have risen only to 32 percent.

Fewer marriages, more later-in-life enfeebled-egg marriages together decrease the marital pregnancy rate. (The marital abortion rate is very low.)

The decline in shotgun marriage has been a bigger factor than changes in either nonmarital or marital pregnancy rates taken individually (and about as important as changes in both taken together).

Shotgun marriage — basically, a woman’s family persuading the father to “man up” and marry the woman he knocked up before she gives unwed birth to the shame of her family — is a lot less common today because severed social bonds which used to make the threat of public shame palpable, and cultural changes in how single momhood is viewed (from less to more positively), have reduced the urgency to provide a conception with the imprimatur of marriage.

The biggest single factor in raising the share of births that were to unwed mothers seems to be the decline in marriage, which has expanded the pool of potential unwed mothers. Had the share of women ages 15-44 who were married stayed at its early-1960s level while everything else changed, just 24 percent of births would have been to single mothers in the late 2000s. The decline in marriage primarily reflects an increase in never-married women rather than divorced or widowed women (not shown).

This is basically the “I don’t need no man, I’m an empowered careerist shrike” phenomenon, which, as you will read, created a premarital sexual market feedback loop encouraging men to demand sex from women without offering marriage in exchange.

The report authors conclude that the cause of the rise in single mommery is NOT primarily a consequence of negative economic trends. Instead, they blame affluence for weakened family stability.

Affluence brought a proliferation of novel ways to enjoy leisure time and fed a growing pay-off to enrolling in higher education. Marrying early, having children early, staying in unfulfilling marriages, and having large families became more costly relative to the available alternative ways to achieve fulfillment, whether through pursuit of a humanities Ph.D. or sexual gratification.41 The result was an increase in the pool of single people and a decline in marital birth rates.

At the same time that women began to demand more educational and economic opportunities, rising affluence facilitated the expansion of the two-earner family. The introduction of more and more labor-saving home appliances and types of processed food reduced the amount of time necessary for housework. As family incomes rose, more and more couples could afford paid child care, meals outside the home, and other services that replaced the considerable work housewives had traditionally undertaken.

Rising affluence also was responsible for the development of reliable contraception. The pill, in particular, allowed women to control their own fertility and facilitated family planning around career considerations. This new ability greatly increased the appeal to women of professional pursuits.

Executive Mommery: Affluence and technology decoupled sex from marriage.

Affluence and technological development facilitated the decoupling of sex and marriage, which increased nonmarital sexual activity and elevated unwed pregnancy rates. Penicillin brought an end to the syphilis crisis that regulated sexual activity through much of the first half of the twentieth century. The pill provided a way to dramatically reduce the chance of an unintended pregnancy. And abortion became safer, fueling rising demand for legal abortion services that culminated in the Roe decision.

As nonmarital sex became safer and its consequences less severe, more single men and women became sexually active. This trend became self-reinforcing. Normative regulation of sexual activity among single men and women loosened. In 1969, 68 percent of American adults agreed that pre-marital sexual relations were wrong. Just four years later in 1973, that number had dropped to 47 percent, a decline of nearly one-third, and as of 2016, only 33 percent agreed that sex between an unmarried man and woman is wrong. What is more, pressure increased on ambivalent single women to engage in sex in order to win and maintain the affection of romantic partners and potential husbands.

When women no longer needed marriage (because women were economically and reproductively self-sufficient), men no longer needed to barter marriage for sex. Now where have you read that before? Oh yeah…..HERE.

As we have seen, despite advances in birth control (or, paradoxically, because of those advances), more sexual activity led to higher rates of unwed pregnancy. While wider use of more effective birth control might have been expected to reduce pregnancy rates, it may be that the greater availability of contraception itself increased sexual activity.

Steve Sailer has made this same point about abortion; paradoxically, the increasing availability of cheap, effective abortion incentivized increased sexual activity, because it’s human nature to do risky stuff if we believe operators are standing by to protect us from the consequences of our risk-taking.

Regardless of the reasons behind this increase, not all sexually active couples used effective methods of birth control or used them consistently. Many couples, in the pre-pill past, would have been poor contraceptors but were not sexually active. But as nonmarital sex became more common, their reproductive fates became more tied to their ability to prevent sexual intercourse from leading to pregnancy. In this regard, relatively disadvantaged women suffered disproportionate consequences from the more general changes in societal norms around nonmarital sex.

Noblesse malice. Or: culture norms matter.

The availability of the pill and legal abortion also affected shotgun marriage, which further contributed to the rise in unwed childbearing. Previously, single women could expect a promise of marriage from their boyfriends in the event of pregnancy. Men, after all, generally would have to make a promise of marriage in any other relationship. But over the course of the 1960s and 1970s, given the diminished risk of unintended pregnancy, more and more single women were open to sex without a marriage promise. That weakened the bargaining power of single women who preferred not to engage in sex without the promise of marriage in the event of pregnancy.

Sluts are a chaste woman’s worst enemy. The feminist movement against “slut shaming” is the revolt of less attractive women who can’t compete with prettier women able to convince men to hold out for marriage without the women giving away the bore store.

Further, the availability of effective contraception and abortion may have led many men (and their friends and family) to reason that since women have a degree of control over whether they get pregnant or choose to carry a pregnancy to term, a man who impregnates a single woman is not obliged to marry her.

Feedback loops, I see them. AKA it takes two to tango. AKA men and women don’t exist in a sex-differentiated vacuum.

Finally, affluence also made it more affordable to be a single mother relative to the era before World War II. Socioeconomically advantaged women could better afford to raise children on one income, sometimes with child support from their former partner. Disadvantaged women could draw on an expanded federal safety net that reflected the rising wealth of American taxpayers. That safety net afforded a fairly meager lifestyle on its own, but in combination with their own earnings and assistance from family, friends, and partners, women could increasingly make it work (especially if they had only known an impoverished living standard themselves growing up).

However, the particular way that American safety nets were designed often disincentivized women from marrying or staying married, since benefits were generally even less generous to two-parent families. That led to increases in unwed childbearing too.

There is a contingent of tradcon-ish righties who balk at the idea that the State and the social norming of working women create disincentives for women to marry; but here we are, data in hand showing exactly that.

The report authors conclude that male economic fortunes aren’t the main cause of the decreasing marriage rate (and subsequent rise in the single mommery rate). However, I note that the authors make the critical analysis error of ignoring the reality and impact of female hypergamy. This is a very common flaw in these studies, but it’s a critical flaw because women don’t judge the status of men in absolute terms; women judge the marriageability (the bux) and romantic worth (the fux) of men relative to other men AND relative TO WOMEN. Read on to see what I mean.

The idea that affluence is behind the rising share of births to unwed mothers may sound strange to those who hold a more negative view of the American economy. The prevailing wisdom is that unwed childbearing has been driven by the deteriorating position of male workers. Poor, working- and middle-class men, it is claimed, have seen lower pay over time, reflecting globalization, deindustrialization, and automation. The weak labor market has driven an increasing number of men out of the labor force entirely. Thus, some reason that the reduction in the share of potential male partners who women consider “marriageable,” combined with a persisting value placed on motherhood, explains why women have increasingly chosen to have children without getting married.

There are a number of problems with this position, however. For starters, most of the trends discussed above that have contributed to a rising unwed birth share began or began to accelerate in the 1960s. Nonmarital birth rates were rising in the 1940s and 1950s, and perhaps earlier. The increase in the unwed birth share itself started in the 1950s and accelerated beginning in the 1960s. In other words, these trends generally extend back at least to the “Golden Age” of twentieth-century America—when productivity and wage growth were much stronger than after the 1960s, and when household incomes were rising faster in the bottom half of the income distribution than above it.

Second, rather than seeing declines in pay, men have generally seen flat or modestly rising compensation since the 1960s. That certainly has been a disappointment compared with the strong wage growth of the 1950s and 1960s, but it remains the case that men are mostly doing at least as well as their 1960s counterparts, and so it is unclear why they should seem less marriageable than in the past.

I’ll clear it up for the authors: Hypergamy. As women have seen their career prospects and personal incomes rise, economically stagnating men have been hardest hit by women’s innate desire for higher status mates. A working class man is a catch for a jobless single woman, but he brings nothing to a working woman who already has her basic needs met. And as women rise occupationally and financially, their attraction for higher status men than themselves rises along with their own economic status. This leads to working women choosing men based on non-provider mate value cues, or choosing to drop out of the marriage hunt altogether.

Oh, and obesity. Can’t forget female obesity, which is a big (heh) driver of the low marriage rate. Men don’t want to marry fat chicks. There are more fat chicks since 1960. Ergo, there are fewer marriages.

(Fat men are less of an obstacle to marriage because women don’t put as much emphasis on men’s physiques as men put on women’s physiques.)

Third, to the extent that men’s labor market outcomes have worsened, this could reflect the increase in unwed childbearing rather than the former causing the latter. Research finds that married men have better labor market outcomes than single men, even accounting for the fact that they may be more marriageable.

Genetic confounds.

If partners, families, and society writ large have come to accept single parenthood, it is likely that their expectations of nonresident fathers have diminished as well, which could have reduced the effort those men put into optimizing their economic status.

I’ve mentioned this before: working women disincentivize male resource provision (there are those sexual market feedback loops again), and the corollary to that is economically vulnerable women incentivize male resource provision.

This may be particularly true in disadvantaged communities where single parenthood is common. Alternatively, the legal or moral obligation to pay child support may lead some absent fathers to avoid the formal labor market and rely on family, friends, informal work, and the underground economy.

When the State gets involved in the family formation racket, bad outcomes usually ensue.

Even the “marriageable man” hypothesis ultimately presumes a baseline level of affluence that, historically speaking, is a recent phenomenon. The argument that because men are less marriageable, women are delaying or foregoing marriage but still choosing to have children presumes that many women are able to afford single motherhood. If not for increased female earnings potential relative to the past or a more generous government safety net, it would matter little if men became less marriageable. Women would be unable to afford single motherhood, and rather than seeing rising unwed childbearing we would simply see reduced childbearing.

Ensuring the economic self-sufficiency of women has created the single mom crisis.

Social phenomena are complicated and have multiple causes, but our read of the evidence—and we are by no means alone—is that negative economic trends explain little of the overall rise in unwed childbearing. Instead, we think it is more likely that, as with other worsening aspects of our associational life, rising family instability primarily reflects societal affluence, which reduced marriage and marital childbearing, increased divorce and nonmarital sexual activity and pregnancy, and reduced shotgun marriage.

Mass scaled society is creating a gynarchy (defined by me as a society organized around the primacy of women and their needs, and characterized by social chaos). The Gynarchy is a synonym for Africa. That’s where we’re heading….the blight side of history.

This does not mean we should lament rising affluence. There is no reason we must choose between having healthier families and communities or having stronger economic growth. Indeed, it is possible to imagine a future in which rising affluence will allow more women and men alike to work less and less and spend more time with children, families, friends, neighbors, and fellow congregants.

On this subject, I’m a pessimist. Good times create…and all that. First, there’s the loss of purpose that accompanies the Automated Life. This hits men especially hard, because men, unlike women, don’t primarily get their sense of purpose from raising children and chatting up the neighbors hoping for gossipy dirt. Men get their purpose from work, from achievement, and (yes) from sexual conquest.

Second, there’s the matriarchal nature of “workless” societies in which men are rendered superfluous as resource providers for women and children. This is guaranteed to encourage cock carouseling, alpha fux beta bux, delayed marriage and spinsterhood, and low fertility rate. The end result of affluence will be more time with oneself, rather than with children, family, or friends.

But to date, we have tended to spend additional wealth to pursue individual and personal priorities. That has eroded our associational life—including the stability of our families, especially among disadvantaged families who have enjoyed the fruits of rising affluence less than others have. Continuing to make the same choices with our ever-higher purchasing power threatens to diminish the quality of life for rich and poor alike.

A reader asks, “if the single mom babies are White, maybe it’s not so bad”. I reply: In the short term, sure, not so bad. Single mom White babies >>>>> married mom nonWhite babies. But over the long haul, in a timeline that gene-culture co-evolution can have an impact on behavior by cementing into the code of life a new suite of traits, it’s bad.

And it’s an irrefutable fact that the bastard spawn of single moms do worse in life on just about every measurable outcome than do the kids of married moms. Whether the cause is genetic or social, doesn’t much matter. As long as you can set your watch to the predictability of a single mom sprogson huffing paint under an overpass or sprogdaughter mudsharking by age 14, it’s in the interest of society to keep a lid on the single mommery rate.

The risk of allowing our affluence to normalize a high rate of single mommery is evident: If in the fullness of time our 40% single mom rate metastasizes, there will be YUGE downstream consequences and emanating penumbras from what would amount to the wholesale destruction of the Eurasian family structure that has existed for millennia. Each generation laboring under a grossly high single mom rate will slowly inch the character of our women away from K-selected Euro monogamy and toward r-selected African polygyny/polyandry. What starts as a social selection pressure eventually ends as a genetic selection effect.

PS As usual for current sociological research, from what I can tell none of the data and analysis was controlled for race. Maybe I should expect this glaring oversight from a cucked Utahn like Mike Lee, but the days when everybody ignores the racial elephant in the room are over.

***

I just noticed the stock photo that the National Economics Editorial used as a banner for their single mom story is this:

You CAN find all-White couples and families in the media, as long as the story is about something dysfunctional, like single momhood or volcuckery. White privilege, everyone!

Read Full Post »

FEMINISM KILLS WOMEN’S LOOKS DEAD

Proof: ScarJo at the recent Termagant March:

33 years old and she’s already hit the Wall. Shame.

Beautiful women who take up the cause of pussyhat feminism to join the ranks of Nasty Womanhood, Inc. quickly lose their looks and resemble the jewish dykes that front almost every femcunt organization. It’s as if a woman’s corrupted soul manifests in her prematurely aging face.

Extrapolating from the individual pussyhatter to the gynarchy at large, @TheExcruciationator writes,

“Women are the body that reflects the soul of her society” sounds like a pretty nice aphorism, come to think of it.

A beautiful society has beautiful feminine women who age gracefully and love their men. A corrupt, poisonous, ugly society has ugly masculine women who age gracelessly and prematurely and loathe their men.

Corollary: A beautiful society has strong masculine men who age handsomely and love their women. A corrupt, poisonous, ugly society has weak feminine men who age into lesbians and fear their women.

Look at American women: fat, obnoxious, self-mutilating, screeching harpies.

Look at American men: fat or skinnyfat, supplicating, uxorious, whiny nancysoys.

Our society’s soul is sick and our unloveable repugnant pussyhatter women are proof of it.

Read Full Post »

If you want a vision of the post-West wasteland, imagine a middle-aged white single mom with impeccable feminist beliefs shielding her brown rapefugee lover from the charge of raping her preteen white daughter, forever…..or until the last White is breathing.

A #Metoo feminist and a mother allegedly engaged in a relationship with an Afghan refugee has refused to report his sexual assault on her preteen daughter on the grounds that it would lead to his expulsion from Sweden.

I’m a cynical man concerning the primal nature of female sexuality, but even my wokeness on the Woman Question is strained to the breaking point by this story. To understand why, read on….

The middle-aged woman, who works at a migrant home, reportedly started a relationship with one of the “refugee children” and allowed him to move into her place. The cohabitation ended with her fosterling sexually attacking her 12-year-old daughter. However, the woman refused to report the assault and allowed the culprit to stay, the news outlet Fria Tider reported.

When Scandicucks suicide. The “my wife’s son” meme has a female version now: “my daughter’s rapist”.

During the trial, the girl said that her 45-year-old mother had worked at a home for “unaccompanied minors” in Sölvesborg, Blekinge County. When one of the refugees officially came of age and could no longer take advantage of the accommodation center, the mother started a relationship with him and let him move into her home.

Pathological altruism, or pathological tingle-storm?

Soon, the Afghan began to stalk the woman’s 12-year-old daughter, trying to kiss and hug her.

Hoellebecq on one of his most fevered satirical jaunts could not imagine a xenophilic Swedish cougar character for his novels if they didn’t already exist.

One Saturday night in late September 2017, the Afghan reportedly pushed his fingers into the girl’s underwear, while allegedly under the influence of alcohol. The girl responded by pulling away and running into her bedroom. Later, she told her mom about the incident. However, the woman let her Afghan boyfriend stay despite his dangerous ways.

tbh surprised the 12yo daughter hasn’t yet been arrested by swedish authorities for hate speech and intent to commit cultural privilege.

“He stayed with us, and it felt outlandish to me,” the girl said during the trial,

When children have more sense and wisdom than adults, you know a society is close to collapse. This story is the stuff that will weaponize Generation Zyklon.

There arises a hero who rescues the girl from this swarthy rapefugee migrant horror show….

The next day, the 12-year-old refused to go home from school to her mother without contacting her estranged father, who upon hearing the story, reported the incident to the police.

…the estranged beta White father. You know, the hero who for decades has been taking the brunt of slander and defamation from every establishment media outlet, elite institution, feminist cunt man-hater, and virtue signaling SJW. That hero.

According to the girl’s older sister’s testimony, the mother had told her to keep quiet about what had happened.

This is female sexuality unleashed. THIS…is what it looks like unshackled from male oversight and cultural regulation: a desperately lonely, post-Wall bitch queen single mom divorceé throwing her own daughter under the rapist bus so that she could keep getting pounded out by a dirty migrant who secretly loathes her and everything she represents as he grunts his way through her disgusting flab while dreaming of sticking it to her preteen daughter to help him get through the act of love with her old mom. A love which doesn’t exist except in the mom’s head.

After a while, however, the Afghan chose to leave anyway.

And another EatPrayRape romance comes to a totally predictable end.

Despite being sentenced for sexual abuse, he is allowed to stay in Sweden, as the prosecution did not demand expulsion. Instead, he was slapped with 100 hours of community service, as he claimed to have been 18 at the time of the crime.

Is Sweden just a giant corner stool?

The mother, who is said to be an active member of the #Metoo movement against sexual harassment, continued her involvement in her Afghan boyfriend’s destiny.

[the mom] wrote in a Facebook group against the deportation of Afghans, and that she had a “wonderful kid” who no longer had a permanent residence, asking if fellow feminists would want to take him in.

Afghan fux, beta bux.

The daughter was victimized three times: first, by her mother and/or the Swedecuck State taking her away from her loving, responsible father. Second, by her mother’s rapefugee pretend lover. Third, by her mother protecting her daughter’s rapist from prosecution.

Mamma mia
Sweden’s going fast
my my, how can she survive this?
Mamma mia
Stockholm’s turned to trash
my my, rape gangs stalk our sisters

MISOGYNISTS DID NOTHING WRONG

Read Full Post »

It would have been even funnier if the pilot had released a load of kitty litter on the crowd.

(Via gabber @bombbelt)

Read Full Post »

There used to be a “sex positive” feminist who would comment here and offer up such breathtakingly backward Feminist Cunt Wave boilerplate on men and women that I started to appreciate her cuntributions for their usefulness as reminders of the self-medicating delusions that modren society inculcates in the sexual market losers of our age. Whatever she wrote, I would tell readers, take the opposite to be the truth.

She never posted a pic of herself from what I recall, but her comments were written in the unmistakable “aging, fading slut” style, filled with the caustic, slut pride snark which our current crop of pussyhatters think is funny, that belied a life nursing spiteful man-hate. Imagine a Nordic feminist-Jewish feminist recombination, with a touch of commercialist Anglo feminist, seasoned to a sarcastic spiciness by the rapid approach of the Wall, and twisted into a false braggadocio of her receding sexual ensnareline and her ability to manipulate men to do her bidding, and you have a good idea of this woman’s character. I could practically see her stringy blond hair with streaks of gray, and her manjaw strengthened from years of cock gobbling and chewing out pretty subordinates.

In sum, she was a “Swipe Left Broad”, from both sides of the swiping ledger. If Tinder was around then, (not sure if it was), she’d’ve bragged about swiping left on tons of thirsty guys while she herself was the recipient of numerous left swipes.

AnyHO, one time the topic was broached about what to say to a date (or potential mate) inquiring about your sexual history. I had written that men shouldn’t run away from a storied sexual past, because girls are attracted to men who are successful with girls (preselection is a powerful predictive evopsych theory). I also wrote that men should avoid openly bragging about their notches — it would strike any normal girl as try-hard desperation — but instead to couch their personal history of successful womanizing in ambiguous or teasing language. For example,

GIRL: You seem like a player. How many women have you been with?

TRUMP’S PUSSYGRABBING ID: Counting Alaska?

After my advice, embroiled as it was in a deep understanding and easy acceptance of innate male-female psychosexual differences, landed in the combox, Swipe Left Broad chimed in, acrid spittle nearly flying off the screen, to inform the assembled that her go-to line when a man inquires about her sexual history was:

“I lost count.”

Of course, I was compelled to spear her with the Shiv of Sexual Realism for her steaming feminist dropping, lest innocent girlies ambling into the free fire zone think her hag-words would be helpful to them. Swipe Left Broad didn’t take kindly to my informing her that a skeleton key which opens a lot of locks is more valuable than a slutty lock that can be opened by many rusty keys. ARGLE BARGLE, she replied, paraphrasing. Collecting herself, “Men love an experienced woman!”

No, men don’t “love” an experienced woman. Men may want to fuck an experienced woman, figuring (rightly) that she’d be an easy lay who will put out with a quickness, but men don’t cherish sluts like they do chaste girls with eyes and gines for their cocks only.

The thought occurred to me in the recounting of this tête-á-termagant that the three words “I lost count” crystallize with pithy efficiency the essential, core difference between the sexes. What works spectacularly to increase a man’s perceived SMV — a smirky allusion to his sexual experience — works equally spectacularly to decrease a woman’s perceived SMV. And in the crucible of this rhetorical clarification we see the power of the female ego when confronted with undeniable sexual market truths about her romantic worth to feed at the trough of self-delusion. Giant, gulping swallows of delusion. Deep-throated delusions. Every delusional drop swallowed, and a pearl of delusion whisked from her chin as an apéritif.

The crucial detail — the one that often trips up those accustomed to years of quaffing ego-assuaging platitudes — is the one embodied in the deepest, truest desires of men and women. These desires aren’t the same, and at the critical mate assessment junctures can be said to be contradictory and competing:

Men desire sex, women desire commitment.

Commitment is a euphemism for resources and protection, and love is the feeling women lean on as assurance they have secured a man’s commitment.

Women desire sex and men desire commitment, too, but these are secondary to the primary impulses which guide each sex, and guide them at especially important times, when life-changing choices are carefully deliberated or acted upon impulsively.

Women want an experienced man, and they project this want of theirs onto men who, for their part, want women willing to go all the way right away regardless of experience or, if the woman under carnal consideration is of exceptional beauty and modesty, want her to have a relatively unsullied sexual history and to at least have the sense to avoid bragging about the numbers of past lovers to whom she lays claim. To a man, a woman’s discretion is the better part of her allure.

It’s a self-defeating assumption women make, which they find out the morning after as their latest “conquest” is scurrying out the door, never to call them again.

This is why a slut bragging about her cock count is repulsive to any man with options, and why a pussyhound alluding to his gash and churn past is intriguing to any woman with a working tingle spigot.

Read Full Post »

After you read this incredibly Millennial news story, you’ll understand why I titled this post “The Voluntarily Sexless Marriage” instead of “The Voluntarily Celibate Marriage”. Our platonically married couple isn’t celibate at all; they’re just celibate for each other.

The sexless marriage is a timeless rue with an explainable kernel of pedestrian truth to it, but at least it can be said for men trapped in age-independent sexless marriages that their woeful predicament wasn’t contractually inked before the vows were exchanged. Not so for Tiffany Trump’s newlywed friends:

When New York socialites Quentin Esme Brown and Peter Cary Peterson got hitched in Las Vegas over the weekend in front of a small group of friends — including Tiffany Trump, who acted as the flower girl — they knew that people would make some assumptions. Either they were madly in love or drunk, right? In reality, the best friends said they were neither. They’re planning to make theirs a sexless, open marriage, they explained, and this actually sounds like a pretty wise idea to relationship experts.

100% of chaimstream media approved “relationship experts” are charlatans.

“Sexless marriage”. An irretrievably broken, anhedonic society at war with the reality of innate sex differences takes the one redeeming feature of marriage and tosses it away.

A sexless marriage is pointless, but a sexless, OPEN marriage is just plain malicious, because those super progressive, feminist friendly polyamorous arrangements never benefit both parties equally; it’s usually the slutty woman getting her rocks off down the hall as her moans of ecstasy drive her incel “partner” crazy with murder-suicide ideation.

“He has always been my soulmate in every sense of the word

Women and men have competing definitions of “soulmate”. Men tend to emphasize the “mate” part of the term.

and we felt mutually that Vegas was the place to finalize our commitment to partnership,” Brown explained on Instagram. “Peter and I are not romantically involved — in fact we are still dating others and will continue to seek love in all forms — we are just each other’s hearts and wish to begin our journey towards evolution, because the more we face reality, the more we can see that there is no right or wrong.”

Poopytalk. They’re doing the opposite of facing reality; they’re hiding from it under cover of Clown World’s Cloak of Inchoateness. If Tiffany Trump’s friends are indicative of Tiffany’s own views, it’s no wonder Papa Trump practically disowned her.

Susan Pease Gadoua, a licensed therapist

Licensed to bilk.

and co-author of The New “I Do,” has yet to meet anyone else with this kind of marriage, but she says it fits in with the way she sees many people deciding to change the rules to suit their relationship needs.

Dope. People aren’t changing the rules to suit their piques; they’re lowering their expectations and adapting to the encroaching jungle.

“We don’t need to get married for any of the reasons we used to,”

Including but not limited to reasons such as reproduction and generational continuity.

Gadoua tells Yahoo Lifestyle. “Once you’ve got everything else in place, it is like the cherry on top.”

But Brown and Peterson don’t seem to have married for children. So why get married at all?

The question with no answer that won’t sound like a try-hard rationalization.

“We did this because we wanted to finalize our commitment to each other as life partners and best friends,” Peterson wrote on Instagram.

What happened to mutually presumed and unspoken loyalty between friends? If you have to rely on the imprimatur of State authorization to declare your shared friendship, you don’t have anything remotely resembling a friendship. Instead, you have a pose. Two attention whores jockeying for social status within their group of unloveable weirdos.

Brown also put a statement on Instagram, saying, “I am confident my husband and I will break some walls down,” she wrote.

If your official terms of endearment preclude fucking, he’s not your husband.

Husband:

before 1000; Middle English husband(e), Old English hūsbonda master of the house

You haven’t consecrated a house for him to master. You’re two neutered farm animals who happen to be dozing in the same bed of hay and dried manure.

“A lot of these sorts of marriages are in response to society getting increasingly isolated, and people want to create a kinship model. You either have to be married or you have to be blood relatives; otherwise, you can walk away from each other.”

Like I wrote, adaptation to the r-selected jungle.

This kind of union may in fact last longer than a marriage based solely on intense romantic attraction, Gadoua surmises.

Well, sure. Because it isn’t a marriage. It’s a zero-investment masquerade. It’s easy to let a “sexless, open marriage” linger for eternity because the cost of upkeep and dissolution is negligible. No romantic reward, no romantic risk.

The other advantage is that the friends can seek out those romances outside of this relationship. In this way, their setup resembles the kind of polyamorous arrangement that some couples have found to be a better alternative to divorce.

“Some couples” = a few physically and psychologically repulsive losers who can’t hack it in the human sphere where standards still exist.

“Where the complications are going to come in is when people outside their relationship look at it like, ‘I don’t want to get involved in that,’” Gadoua says. “It’s going to make it a little bit more complicated for them to find partners who understand.”

GIRL: hey I’m free for that drink Thursday, but I should tell you I’m married to a great guy, but we never have sex. It’s in our vows.

THE DEVIL’S HARD BARGAIN: fantastic! you sound totally normal. I’m scratching you in now as my third stringer.

Rodman also cautions that this won’t work if one partner isn’t being entirely honest about what he or she wants in this relationship.

“If one person was secretly hoping that this would turn into something romantic or sexual, then that would be quite the disappointment,” she says.

The Voluntarily Sexless Marriage is the next evolution in beta male bait. Watch for hordes of thirsty betas to jump in with both feet hoping a piece of worthless paper has the power to unplug the tingle spigot.

But if we’re to take Brown and Peterson at their word, they’re pretty happy with their decision so far.

“We have one life,” Brown wrote. “Free yourself!”

Combined IQ: 1

Time for a Phys Quiz. The glowing, and strangely tense, lovebirds:

Hm mm mm. So progressive! Tiffany Trump’s friend married her gay bestie. Cameras and Yahoo blog typists are standing by….

PS I was planning to award Peter Peterson both the coveted Beta of the Month and White Male Pussy of the Month titles, but as you can see from the picture above, those titles aren’t applicable.

Read Full Post »

Behold the face of Fair America. Old, tatted up like a common street whore, eyes ablaze with the psychosis of having spent too many years on the cock carousel and in the working world of men with nothing to show for it, and a Very Fake Smile belying a deep well of spinster soulpain.

The reader who emailed this photo explains,

“educated” american female.  She’s a medical doctor, tired, old, used up tatted, and single. Look at the “you go grrl” comments

We have beautiful women. They’re just using them up and burning themselves out on a career

The social media revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the female sex. The dopaminergic addiction to internet “likes”, and the irresistible compulsion of undersexed beta males to stroke the online egos of bangable girls to pathological tumescence until they’re so deluded to the nature of male sexuality and the inevitability of the Wall that they can no longer perceive a future of sexual invisibility that is the fate of all women, has accelerated the trend toward later marriages and the growing demographic of childless spinsters full of regret for all those eggs lost in time, like tears in rain.

A generation of Forgotten Furies is the tragic detritus of Facecock and Spoogle and Twatter.

Nasty Womanhood, Inc — a wastrel horde of aging pussyhatters and manjawed lawyercunts — now roam the land like lepers, rattling a dusty vagina for a pence of penis and begging for romantic handouts from men who long ago looked past them to their younger and less careerist competition.

The Fempire Shrikes Back, but this episode doesn’t end with Darth Vajeen’s victory over her UGH JEDI WHITE MAN secret crush. Instead, it ends with her sulking back to read 50 Shades of The Force and diddle her dying bean in a grrlaxy far far away.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

%d bloggers like this: