Back To Basics: What Is Marriage For?

Eyes, balls, brains - all here. Hang on tight, it's time to go all the way back to basics and follow the question-chain through all all the way to the final conclusion.

Leftists, feminists, marxists, and women - walk away now. This will not make you feeeeeel good.

What is marriage for?

Possible answer: Because we love each other. No. We can love someone without marrying them. Without getting involved with them. Without anything formal being involved at all.

Possible answer: Because we're exclusive. No. We can be exclusive with someone without marrying them. That's just a "lets fuck exclusively" arrangement.

Accepted answer: To protect the family. Yes. Now let's expand that chain of thought.

What is a family?

Possible answer: A couple. No. A couple can be a couple (ie fuck exclusively) without being a family. Marriage is not required to be a couple.

Accepted answer: A Man, Woman, and Child(ren). Yes. Without children it is not a family. It is simply a pair of people hanging around together and fucking exclusively. Lets expand these two thoughts.

Why was marriage developed?

To formalize the expectations of all members of the family. Formal expectations of the Man, of the Woman, and of the Child(ren). What is considered to be the duties of all members of the family. What is required to keep that family together and strong. Most importantly, what is required to provide the best growing environment for children (the next generation).

Again: Why was marriage developed?

Because without formal expectations what was happening was not working very well. Without some form of enforcement, there was nothing to hold the family unit together (beyond nebulous feeeeelings). Feelings are notoriously changeable - for both Men and Women.

Yet again: Why was marriage developed?

It was developed to harness the power of Men and to yoke it to the development of civilization for the overall benefit of Men, Women, and Child(ren). When you give somebody skin in the game, then they will work hard at it. To give someone skin in the game, then there must be in their opinion something worthwhile in return.

The something worthwhile can include:

1. Goods of use (clothing, food, housing, etc)
2. Social respect
3. Ease in older age (accumulated goods)

When there's nothing worthwhile in return, when there's no real skin in the game - "meh, what the hell" becomes the attitude.

"If civilization had been left in female hands we would still be living in grass huts." - Camille Paglia

With civilization and it's accumulated knowledge and development we have a longer lifespan and helluva lot better living conditions for all. Without it we live in effective squalor, with higher chances of disease or starvation or childbirth killing us off.

To summarize:

• Marriage was designed to protect the family unit (Men, Women, Child(ren) all), to enforce certain rules upon the family unit, to effectively make that family unit a part of a growth towards better conditions for all Men, Women, and Children in a larger group.

• Call that larger group "civilization" (and to a lesser extent, "society").

• Without enforcing formal rules upon the family unit, the family unit will most likely break up.

• The breaking up of the family unit generally ends up with a less-pleasant situation for the bringing up of children.

• Civilization requires the best possible bringing up of children, the next generation, to overall improve the living conditions for all within that civilization.

Note: When an individual or group attacks, debases, or destroys the family unit, then civilization is similarly being attacked, debased, and destroyed.

Note: Throughout history there have been examples where civilizations have destroyed the family unit (Sparta, Rome). These civilizations have declined and been destroyed.

Note: LGBTQ-whatever is not a family unit. They cannot naturally have children (sans adoption). It has also been documented that child-abuse is higher in the homosexual community - not good for the children, the next generation, and therefore civilization as a whole.

Note: For 15,000+ years humanity has had civilizations of various forms. For over a million years there were no real known civilizations. It wasn't until something became worthwhile in the mind of the people involved that civilization developed.

Note: The deconstruction of the basic rule-of-thumb template of civilization that has held true for the past 15,000+ years, by the arbitrary ideas of leftist/feminist/marxist theorists of less than 150 years who think that they know better than a time-tested method, is hubris/pride to an incredible degree.

Which is overall why Marriage 2.0 (and civilization) is breaking down. There's basically nothing worthwhile in it for the one who works the hardest and produces the most to support the family unit: the Man.

Now lets go to the next logical set of conclusions, as regards MGTOW and older men in general and social expectations:

• Men are expected to be in a relationship or married (a social expectation)

• Without any intent to have children, there is no need for marriage

• Without marriage, without family, relationships are simply casual or exclusive fucking arrangements

Which is basically society these days. Especially with no-strings-attached sex, pick-up, one-night-stands, etc. Without any stable family unit (all the above) then it's no wonder that civilization is declining in the West.

Which is why we are getting LGBTQ marriages, women marrying themselves, weird shit like that. (What's next? Marrying your cat? Your dog? Your horse? How about your dildo or vibrator?)

The rules of Marriage, the rules designed to strengthen and enforce the duties of the family unit, have been kicked out of shape and fucked with to the point of being unrecognizable and unworkable and not worth dealing with from the Man's point of view.

Which is also why laws have been passed regarding "Common Law Marriage" or "de facto relationships". Just the same as Marriage, automatically slapped on a couple after a few years of being together, forcing people into an arrangement which has no real worth from the point of view of the Man.

Forced child-support for one-night-stands and single mommies who no-way want the Man in their lives, yet are quite happy to stick their hand into his wallet on an ongoing basis to support her parasitic lifestyle.

Garbage rammed down everyone's throat about how Marriage is special - women having lavish weddings - all that crap. All for the woman's validation. Nothing of worth for the Man.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price. Tonight I will have a sip of Grand Marnier while I reflect, in front of my winter fire, sitting on my chair, in my warm house, about the decline that is so obvious - and muse about why so many people are living in denial as it happens around them.

A Commentor Attacks - Man Up! Edition

This happened over on Keoni's blog. Interesting. I shall quote the attacker's comment here (the first part in italics is what I said, the commentor is replying to a small part of my overall comment):

tz said...

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme.

What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).

They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?

What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.

You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?

I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)

Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).

Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.

If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock

Hmmm, some pseudo-intellectualism coming out here. Without much actual sense, at least in my opinion. So I will have to deconstruct and rebut it somewhat. After all, I've taken it as my duty to at least try and point out some of the poison in modern society. There's a bunch in here, which I'm not sure that the commentor realizes.

What a whiny, selfish bastard (I can call one who rejects fatherhood this without it being an insult, just an observation).

Whiny? Actually, I will admit to that. That was somewhat of the tone of how the comment I wrote came through. Tch tch bad me.

While the commentor can claim that it is not an insult and merely an observation - it is an insult. Deliberately so. The intent of using such language is to shame else such language would not be used. Stating that it's not an insult is disingenuous. Also hypocritical.

As an example, I often decry women using what might be referred to as "strong language". In fact I have been known to refer to certain segments of women as "cum buckets" and their single-mommy offspring as "womb turds". For me to say something along the lines of "this is not an insult, just an observation" would be both disingenuous and hypocrisy in the extreme - because I intend it as an insult and am using this shaming language to both expose and push said behavior out of common occurrence.

They would not be forced to support you. This is what Christendom did before Social Security. My grandparents lived with us or my aunts/uncles, and I took care of my parents. "Honor thy Father and Mother". Whether they are saints or sinners. Are you planning on being horrible to your children? Who else will support you? Taxpayers? Or will you drink the hemlock?

Who said I was a Christian? (Roman Catholic, Lapsed - and ineffably thankful, given the stuff which went on between the priest and his "flock" of young boys. I've always been glad that I'm basically ugly. Thank you LORD!)

Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to move to other cities in search of work? Has this commentor blinded himself to the current tendency for children to barely scrape by and live with their parents? (There's a reason for the trope of boys playing video games in the basement. Where's the work for them? Held on to for dear life by the Baby Boomers and Gen-X - bastards like me.)

My grandmother lived by herself when my grandmother moved out. My mother moved out. My brother, half-sister, step-siblings, and I all moved out. There was nothing along the lines of communal living. That said, when my stepfather dies, I fully expect my mother to move in with me. At least I have a large-ish place in town, rather than semi-rural as they are now.

He asks if I will be horrible to my children, and if I expect taxpayers to support me. Or if I'll commit suicide. Again, this part of the comment is ladled with shaming language (in the form of sub-rosa contempt). Tch tch, he completely ignored the rest of the paragraph I put up (which he deliberately didn't quote - cherry-picking!). The full paragraph I shall quote here:

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme. As it is, I expect now to work until I die - unless I decide to retire to a country where my money is worth vastly greater than it is in my home country. I would be effectively isolating myself to live halfway decently into my old age. [My emphasis. - BPS]

As can be seen I said, quite plainly, that I expect to work until I die. I take full responsibility for my own "retirement" in whatever form I happen to desire. When the ultimate decline of senescence comes, hopefully I will have the mental fortitude (ie not be senile) to not linger in a hospital with "heroic measures" being paid for by the taxpayer.

What you mean is it would be cruel to you to have to depend on someone who would do it as an honor instead of creating a generation that isn't materialistic or narcissistic. But first you must repent of these yourself.

Again, the commentor seems lacking in reading comprehension (prior). Though to be fair, he hasn't looked at my financial analysis of the costs of women - especially the cost of each child (estimated $100k per child these days). Let's reiterate with a little figurative math here (these are not my numbers):

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage of $70k per year
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $20k per year
* remaining $10k per year

We'll say that I'm 50yo, will retire at 65yo (the "usual" age). My mortgage will be paid off at that point. That leaves me: $10k * 15 years = $150k cash/retirement. Some 30+yo slut/single-mommy type will reduce that amount even further, as well as costing $100k per child. It would be extremely difficult to give any children a good start education-wise in life (plus fuck that noise of MA's and BA's in Liberal Arts degrees, etc).

Now, if I somehow had a successful marriage when younger and the house was paid off and the children out the door, with the mythical "happy wife", then this is what the situation might look like:

* income after tax of $100k per year
* mortgage - none
* food, insurance, car, travel, etc of $45k per year
* remaining $55k per year

When I retire in this situation: $55k * 15 = $825k cash/retirement. Remember, the children are already gone! Paid for, education done, out the door, all that good stuff. There is a *vast* difference and that $850k can be placed into various things which give interest - $40k a year at a roughly 7% rate (after taxes, etc). Without touching the principal. No social security required. While leaving the children two things when my wife and I finally kicked the bucket:

1/ a house and land (fully paid-off)

2/ $850k cash

This is what a prudent generation would do: accumulation of wealth over time. This is the middle-class dream. This is what the Baby Boomers pissed away from their parent's generation. This is what Marriage 2.0 and the accompanying divorce/frivorce industry specifically targets and destroys.

You will suffer to gain muscle, endurance, thinness, wealth, but not children?

There is a difference in degree, as described above. Read. Comprehend. Understand. Gaining the positives of muscle/endurance/thinness/wealth are accumulative at little cost, women and children are a drain at great cost. One that at this stage in life sucks the entire future to a dry husk of nothingness. I would then, indeed, be forced to either:

a/ suck off the taxpayer's teat
b/ drain my children's future dry
c/ some combination of both

Let's continue.

I'm acting and I may be worse off than you. The first part is finding an area of the country (or world) that is old fashioned, and where there is likely "a herd of unicorns" even if the number is small. I am moving to this target rich environment a week from today. (It doesn't have a football or baseball team, Opera, or big-box malls)

You have found this? Despite possibly being worse off than me? Excellent! More power to you. I sincerely hope one thing: that they're not the fucked-up churchian girls out there. May it work out well for you.

Red Pill? Zion and "the real world" aren't beautiful, easy, or pleasant. Cypher preferred the Matrix. You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents. Where men were fathers and women were mothers, and the many children would keep the traditional ways yet find new opportunities (an old Italian saying on sons was one for the business, one for the priesthood, one for the police or army...).

Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily. The Kingdom of Heaven can only give you profound an eternal joy at the cost of a bit of difficulty and suffering and losses will be returned 100 fold - with persecutions - Luke. It isn't a bacchanal or a debauch.

Exactly, we know they're not pleasant. Accusatory/shaming language again: "You want just enough of the red pill to get by but don't really want the civilization it represents." Obviously he has not read my blog to any deep degree. I will excuse him on this one, for he hasn't gotten the full facts.

I will not, however, excuse him on: "Christendom is a way of life. It's author said to take up your cross daily." The author of the Bible (which by the way is a conglomeration by committee) did not state: "You will man up and marry those sluts." Nor did it say anything about deliberately allowing someone else to be a parasite upon you (at least, so far as I know). Many things in the Bible are very red-pill.

I've also had little good to say about the general idea of chasing and entertaining and catering to brain-damaged and broken women just so you can get an opportunity to dump a fuck in them. Especially given that most of the available ones are high n-count sluts (no I don't want to be her #50 man, just as she doesn't want to know that she's been my #50 woman). Plus it's damn expensive, for basically zero real worth in return.

If the point isn't to restore western civilization to some small corner, the red-pill may as well be hemlock

This I will applaud the man for. He has his head screwed on right in that instance. However he also misses the overall point: the red-pill is to make sure that you don't get your dick stuck in the mincer. It's a "take off the blinders, don't ignore the signs, take it all with a ton of skepticism" message for all men. It's also a "here's how to deal with this shit" template for younger men to follow if they should decide to marry.

At this point I am sighing inside. While the commentor has a (very) few good points, overall he comes across as someone with yet another leftist/feminist "man up" message. Sacrifice yourself unthinkingly. Throw yourself under the bus willingly. Man up and save that civilization.

Wait, that sounds familiar. Where did I hear that message before?

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™, only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Looks Like Trash

This is brought to mind by seeing a couple of girls in the past day. There was one thing in common between the girls that got my attention immediately:

Torn pants.

One was young-ish (around 20) and wearing torn jeans. You know what I mean - the type which looks like they've been worn so long that they've split horizontally in a couple of places. These days it's actually deliberate cutting-and-fraying, either straight from the manufacturer or done personally.

The other was middle-aged (I'd estimate 28-30) and wearing slashed leggings (or whatever the fuck they call those things these days - yoga pants?). When I say slashed, you know what I mean: they've been deliberately cut across in various places across the leg to expose the skin.

Fashion, how cute.

Reality is, women's standards have fallen so low that what they would have no-way worn 30 years ago - would have thrown out or used for something else - is suddenly an "in" thing to be seen wearing in public. (This must also be a symptom of the sheeplike mind of these types of twats - that there is suddenly an "in" thing at all. Fashion, brainwashing, herdism, bleh.)

Now it's time to look at men - specifically a few of the PUAs around here. Many of them go around looking sloppy, shirt hanging out, etc. The idea is that it makes them look relaxed (stupid as fuck if it's a dress-shirt, however that's my opinion only). Stuff that would never have been tolerated in my day: they'd have been told to tuck it in by all and sundry. Even people who didn't know them.

I look at guys with their pants sagging down around their knees. (Prison-code for "I'm looking for some rear-end action".) Guys who wander around in shorts and jandals in winter. (Yes Peter Jackson, I'm talking about you too. At least you upped your image once Lord of the Rings came out.)

Kids wandering around barefoot in wintertime in the rain while the parents are fat as fuck and bundled up. (Training starts early. Some of them kids don't get fed that well either.) Whole families wandering into a supermarket dressed in slippers and onesies. (Sleep-wear.)

Strangely enough, while it's okay for women to wander into a restaurant or bar wearing a singlet and jandals - it's not okay for a guy to do the same. Howzat for some double-standards. The woman can look fairly slovenly in public without a murmur, the man (still) cannot.

Looks like trash.

Sounds like trash.

Acts like trash.

Fuck me, must be trash! (Of both sexes.)

(This partially inspired by a smoko talk about flax - how it can't be put into the compost heap because it doesn't decompose - how it used to be used in linen - how clothing used to be hard-wearing. Plus noticing these two female slobs. Followed by thinking about guys the same. Funny the mind-chains that evolve.)

Slipping Camouflage

So, over the long weekend (ANZAC day, special here in New Zealand and in Australia) a guy I know asked me if I had plans or was available to go do something. (Long story that I'm not going to go into. Suffice to say it involved driving for about 6-8 hours, depending on the weather.)

Now, I had no intent for such a long trip. A guy needs to have some time to recharge, you know. Plus I wasn't spending my hard-earned cash on petrol for somebody else's benefit. I asked him: "Why don't you and X do it?" (X being his girlfriend.)

"X would kill me."

Now I thought that this was weird. This guy and his girlfriend enjoy doing the same things - the guy wanted it done really really badly - I figured his girlfriend would be happy to go along with him. If only just this once. Yet even so: "X would kill me."

After thinking about it for a while, I realized: his girlfriend is a well-disguised chameleon/predator. However, her camouflage has obviously slipped a few times in the past. Thus his comment, that she'll kill him if he does something like what he was wanting me to do. Even if he takes her along.

Me being single and all, I can do what I damned-well please. He cannot. Plus - which fuckin' annoys the shit out of me - he presumed that he could ask and I would chirpily say "sure!" and happily perform. Fuck that.

A little more reflection on him and his girlfriend and I realize: she must use emotional manipulation, mind-games, and that kind of thing on him quite a bit. Screaming shit-fits and the cold shoulder might ensue. You name it. Else there would not have been the fear to go and do something that he pretty overwhelmingly wanted to do.

Now, I've met his girl. While generically pretty, there's not much there. Obviously less than I thought, if she's that selfish that she'd fuck him around if she doesn't get what she wants. Which, from what I see today, included a fairly lavish brunch in a fairly upmarket restaurant. Must have cost $30-40 each, from what I saw. The girlfriend was across the table, looking generically cute, smiling at the cameraman: "It's all about meeeee!"

Guess who paid for it.

Guess who would *not* have been repaid for petrol and time or given a lavish brunch in a fairly upmarket restaurant.

At any rate, this leaves him catering to her all the time without being able to do what he wants at the drop of a hat.

Poor bastard. I wonder if he'll ever wake up.

Extra message: Protect your personal time. Lots of people will try to make use of it - if you let them.

Autumn and Winter are Coming

Keoni Galt has a message for the millennials. He has a point. I commented on it:

This. We Gen-X'ers are done for, toast, our day is over. Certainly I could still have children - have had offers from women who want to date me - which dates I now decline. I don't want to have a child going through the "Hi Dad!" thing with me when they're twenty and I look like a grandfather. Of course, those making the offers are last-gasp party-girls in their 30's, infected with the Marriage 2.0 disease. I'm supposed to filter through these for 5+ years, to find a worthwhile one to have children with. Not going to happen. Too old, too old. 

Consider me selfish if you wish. Yet: I am almost 50 and my life has basically been hollowed out by one woman who took most of everything. Sure, I can and am rebuilding - yet at my age things should be mellowing. My life has basically been reset to the struggles of early-30's mid-summer, instead of where it should be. Children should be long-done, now the building up of a store of wealth and future happiness. 

Start a family now? That would be another 20+ years of difficulty in my declining years, very likely ending with nothing once they're gone and out the door. They would be forced to support me. That would be cruelty in the extreme. As it is, I expect now to work until I die - unless I decide to retire to a country where my money is worth vastly greater than it is in my home country. I would be effectively isolating myself to live halfway decently into my old age. 

My spring is long past, my summertime nearly over. Autumn and winter are coming. Despite my self-improvement, despite my strength training, my years and body are waning. Recapture my youth? By having sex with younger women? Why? I can have sex with women young enough that they can be my own daughters. Even girls young enough to almost be granddaughters have made moves on me. Why should I do that? It would be an ersatz recapture, a synthetic euphoria, an artificial high - one that ultimately means nothing. All the while, the available women of Gen-X expect everything of their Man, just like the younger generations. 

@Anonymous - one of my commentors stated that the hardest part of his divorce was trying to bring up his children with a modicum of discipline. A Herculean task, the way Marriage 2.0 and divorce/frivorce is set up. 

@Brian - I must agree. My feeling is that the next generation being born is going to be mostly to single mommies. There's nothing to prevent it. They are going to be so screwed up, it will be painful to see. 

@Beefy Levinson - I wish you good luck. Eventually we will muddle through this. Hell, people survived the fall of Rome and suchlike. We'll survive this. Perhaps our example will help future generations and civilizations from falling into the same old trap that we and the Spartans and Romans did. 

Good luck, all.

Yes, good luck all.

I have now identified, to my own satisfaction, what has bothered me with Rollo Thomassi's Sexual Market Value chart.

It's too accurate.

Do you really want to be that older man with a younger, beautiful wife?

Really?

When all you get out of it is the social status of "older man with younger, beautiful wife"?

When she gets access to all your resources? Resources that you built up, through your travails and hardships, which she never shared. That she gets now to use and have the enjoyment of. That she never sweated to earn. While she can stray from you at will.

Again: The chart is too accurate.

Plus: It's not accurate enough.

Not for these days, in the dying west.

As older men, we still have that mentality to build and grow. Improve yourself! Accumulate! Plus an "I'm not gonna lay down and die" attitude, along with the ability (and skills) to keep going. We climb out of the hole that some woman has dragged us down into and get back into life and building. Incidentally keeping us in the workforce longer and denying the younger generations worthwhile entry.

Women only have looks, which peter out quickly. Men have accumulated capital, social and monetary and physical stuff. For the overwhelmingly common predatory woman, with unfortunately broke younger men around her, that accumulated capital is very enticing. Add some charisma/game to the mix and you have an older man with a younger, beautiful wife.

Need I say "parasite" ever again?

Need I say "brainwashing" towards older guys, that they can and should be getting with younger women? Parasites of the manosphere hauling the $$$ out of painfully hurt men? Attempting to shame certain segments of us with cobbled-together makeshift bullshit feminist tactics, so that they can get more $$$ out of us?

Society as a whole still telling us that we can expat, get with some appreciative foreign slut in another country, settle down, and have children? Still fulfilling the female imperative? Still supporting some woman through her life?

A simpler time should be ahead of me. One with quiet happiness. One filled with contentment and warmth and ease with the woman of my youth.

Instead, I still struggle as if 30 years old. I must continue to protect my self - my earnings - my accumulated sweat - from the grasping hands of others. There is no room for me to "ease out" for the next generation of 30 yo's to take my place, with a little guidance and help. I'm told that I should "man up" and marry those sluts. I'm told that I should fuck around with younger women.

The Baby Boomers may have pissed away their lives and the wealth of the prior generation. Gen-X (and Gen-Y) have had ours stolen away from us. We built it, despite having to start completely from scratch, only to have it stolen and pissed away by our generation of women. Now we must rebuild again, infinitely warier than before. Warier of the next two generations of women.

This is how Mayor Len Brown can have a young 30yo mistress at age 57 (he's 58-59 now).

Further, Mz Bevan Chuang was also revealed the year prior to be looking for willing sperm donors to get her pregnant. That would be while she was in the middle of being Len Brown's fucktoy for 2 years. Her explanation for searching for a willing sperm-donor:

"There is a lot of pressure for older, single women to get a partner," she said. 

"A lot of the men, the dodgy ones, that approach me, wanted me as the mistress type thing. Obviously they like me, but can't be with me because they have a wife or a girlfriend or something."

The two-faced hypocrisy of decrying dodgy men wanting her only as a mistress - during a period in which she was actually a mistress. She and her type of woman are overwhelmingly common and an accident waiting to happen.

This is women.

We must protect ourselves. Our lives have already been ruined once. Not again. For us, there is no Social Security or Medicare or Medicaid. There is no safety-net for us Men. There is only a handful of ashes and dust. In our inadvertent wake, we spread further ashes and dust to the next generations.

If it were me setting the rules, I would roll things back and set them like these:

1/ There is no way out of marriage. NONE.
2/ He can do whatever he wants with her. She has no say. Period. Fuck your social crap.
3/ If she decides to leave, then he automatically keeps everything. Including children (if his).
4/ She must come with a hefty dowry to entice the Man into marriage at all. It's a terrifying sacrifice.
5/ She will NEVER get the pussy-pass for fucking around. That's instant trash, end of story.

Harsh? Yes. Many, many women and children would die in terrible situations. It would bring home a very solid and painful lesson to all for generations to come. It would be a (partial) solution to the Mutilated Beggar problem that has caused what currently faces Western society (thank you Keoni for reminding me of that, from The Garbage Generation).

The Lesson Will Be: Choose Wisely Who You Marry.

Doxing is a Female Tactic

According to Wikipedia:

Doxing (from dox, abbreviation of documents), or doxxing, is the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting personally identifiable information about an individual. The methos employe to acquire this information include searching publicly available databases and social media websites (like Facebook), hacking, and social engineering. It is closely related to cyber-vigilantism and hacktivism. 

Doxing may be carried out for various reasons, including to aid law enforcement, business analysis, extortion, coercion, harassment, public shaming and vigilante justice. [Emphasis mine. - BPS]

So there you have it, doxing is merely another shit-fucker tactic in the social arsenal of teh wimminz. It is "socially acceptable" for them to use it against each other and men, yet definitely not for men to use it against teh wimminz. By extension, as proxies of their femicunt masters, it is semi-okay for Manginas and Social Justice Warriors and White Knights to use in the service of their masters - against other men only.

What got me thinking about this was the weird semi-shit-storm of doxing that went on in the Manosphere for a short time. When the Manosphere starts using female tactics against itself, you can smell the stinky-shit somewhere. We also saw the femicunt-style shaming focused on MGTOW that went on for a bit - though we finally figured that it was all about parasites getting shitty at the thought of missing out on $$$.

So, should we (as in, the Manosphere) be using doxing tactics against the mainstream social mongrels? I'm basically undecided on the question. "All's fair in love and war." - which I'm tempted to call a female meme. Plus it's a nasty thing which can bounce back and slap us in the face. Especially when a woman can do no wrong, and so gets instant favoritism from the biased courts and society when she wants to kick up a fuss.

Though it is kind of amusing when a woman gets all shitty knickers-in-a-knot about it happening to her - in retaliation for her doing it to someone. Tit for tat hurts don't it.

Relationships Are For Women

From over Reddit (/r/MGTOW) a questioner asks:

Are MGTOW's Completely Against The Idea Of Being In A Relationship With Women?

I don't want kids or to get married but I'm still attracted to women and I haven't had a lot of experience with them honestly. I'd still like to be with women and maybe even spend my life with a woman. Am I still mgtow or what would you call me? 

Edit: Why am I getting downvoted? It's an honest question. I'm curious.

This is an honest question and worth thinking about. Several of the commentor's come up with what I think are excellent answers:

Subcommandante_Khan:-

MGTOW is about not being other people's slave. Specifically not using women (in the context of male sexuality) as an excuse to be her slave.

It's about taking your power back.

Darth-Sin:-

MGTOWs are not against the idea of being in a relationship with a woman, we just think that it is a pointless, useless and worthless endeavor.

What can a woman in a romantic relationship offer you ?

Companionship and camaraderie ? Those are what friends and domesticated pets of both sexes are for.

Sex ? You have legal prostitution, fleshlight, pornography, virtual pornography in the future as well as friends with benefits. All these alternative methods do not involve you getting divorce raped in family courts.

Children ? Many MGTOWs do not want children. Those who do want can pursue legal surrogacy or adoption or in the future, artificial wombs.

Identity ? You are a MGTOW, an independent man. You form your own identity on your own terms, not one based on the approval and validation of women.

Peace & Freedom ? You don't get that in a romantic relationship with a human female. Ever.
The bottom line is from a rational and logical stance, there is no reason to be romantically involved with a woman. The costs are astronomical and the benefits are negligible if not nonexistent.

Morranaii:-

True. unless you're a weak lazy ass who can't cook, clean and take care of himself and looking for a 'sugar mummy' instead for his money lol then there's no point - ergo- there IS NO POINT.

Relationships are for WOMEN. not for men. [My emphasis. - BPS]

we are gatekeepers of commitment. don't give it to them.

Falazure1:- 

To answer the post title, I don't think that people here are against it, but for a multitude of reasons, namely the legal climate and because of Feminism the interaction is just too damn one-sided against men and far too dangerous financially to be justifiable. Without any change to that in sight the rational choice to walk away has been made by most people on here.

All of the comments are worthwhile, I've simply quoted a few of them. To me, the most striking comment is that by Morranaii: "Relationships are for WOMEN. not for men."

Let's face it, women are all about relationships. Juicy gossip is their stock-in-trade, the coin of their realm. Backstabbing and sniping is de rigueur. Cliques, groups, those "in" and "out". All the social capital that makes them a woman.

As men, we don't give a shit about all that crap. Are you reliable? How do you fix this? Got any ideas on that? Just shut up and shovel the fuckin' gravel. Men's social capital and esteem amongst men is all about what we do, not what gossip and backstabbing that we have managed in the last few days. It's all about getting shit done, preferably in the best way possible.

Unfortunately, society has taken the female's social capital and said "that's all that matters". Which is well and fine for women, complete crap for men. Then society has also said that without a relationship (with a woman) a man is nothing. Again, well and fine for women (sponges and leeches), complete crap for men (being drained by women).

Like marriage, it's all a one-sided thing. Any relationship with a woman is a one-sided thing. If she wants more, she'll push-push-push for it. If she's not that interested, she'll go dark on you. If you're looking for the mythical happy medium, good luck.

Which seems to explain the maxim of: "he who cares least controls the relationship". Also the situations where women stick around with guys who really don't give a flying fuck: her sunk costs (emotional and mental investment) prevent her from terminating it. Even if ending a relationship would make a helluva lot more sense than keeping it going, limping along uselessly.

Relationships with women. Do we men really need them? Not really. Our need for them grows smaller by the day as we improve ourselves and get our own lives together. Our need to be a slave is reduced as we reject the brainwashing of female-centric society.

Everything Wrong With Society In A Song

For women - lack of control/entitlement/immaturity:

For men - White Knight/self-sacrifice/whining:

There is a distinct lack of discipline and responsibility and willpower in the modern world. Also the reliance upon and teaching of commonsense went way out the window a long time ago.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Anger Drives Us

I mean real anger, real frustration, real emotions.

Not just us MGTOW, Men in general.

Years ago when married, I came home from an exceptionally frustrating day and vented my fury for five minutes upon a punching bag that I'd had for years. It wasn't even hung up at the time, simply laying dusty and unused in a corner of the basement. (I'd been "conditioned" out of any form of physical exercise for a few years by then.)

Rope over a beam, tie that fucker up in the basement, *wham* *wham* *wham* for five minutes kicking and punching and kneeing until puffed and exhausted. (Like I said, no physical exercise. No endurance at all.)

Wife (at the time) was both scared shitless and apparently turned on by this exhibition of rage. She told me that she was scared by it, and later was extremely pliable and wet in bed.

Fast-forward, we have women these days telling us men that we "shouldn't be angry". Like we have no right to express our emotions - while at the same time telling us to express our emotions. Talk about bullshit fucked in the head. Of course, we are expected to only express bland "emotions" and horseshit in keeping with the fucking crap PC line espoused by what laughingly is called society these days.

If we truly expressed our anger: we might kick and punch and knee them to death.

Of course, truly expressing your anger turns the cunts on. It's all down to the doublethink and hypocrisy in their heads. Genuine violence makes them wet, especially if you're using it on another man to "win" her. This is most likely the dynamic behind them getting with thugs. Its for sure the dynamic behind the "lets you and him fight" bullshit game they pull.

Myself, I can't be arsed hanging around thugs and the like. Constant hur-dur poke-poke-poke. Boring as fuck. Da gurlz who get turned on by that shit are also boring as fuck. I've not met one of these girls who turns me on more than sexually - emotionally they leave me cold.

At any rate. Anger drives us.

Guys in the manosphere get a lot of grief about being "angry, misogynistic pricks". Yeah, what is with that? Society, trying to needle us into compliance again. "Fuck you for having a good reason for being angry - you will conform you slave-man. Shame, shame, shame on you!"

Fuck 'em all. Society can cram itself up its own ass and fuckin' deal with it. Hell, it's in the process of doing that anyway. Imploding at great speed as it sucks itself down into a black hole of hedonistic pleasure and self-loathing, down to the singularity of zero. Zero restraints. Zero limits. Zero pleasure. Zero everything.

Our overt anger passes, as we adjust to our deeper understanding of "society's unwritten and in-explicit rules" - covered up with lies all our lives. We start seeing the reality. We get used to looking through the Crap Colored Glasses™.

The anger is still always there though, covertly, simmering under the surface. Occasionally it will boil up and a femicunt will get a tongue-lashing that doesn't involve the cunnilingus or ass-licking that she expects from men. The despising of the female entitlement mindset runs deep and slow in men who have been thoroughly fucked over by the femicunt social system and it's toadies. Occasionally it breaks out.

Like today for me, someone put up some words about man-pants and girl-pants. Effectively it was a "shut up and shovel the fuckin' gravel - else you're a whiny little girl" message. Predictably, the Femicunts and PC-Police and White Knight motherfuckers started jumping all over it: "sexist", "not funny", "pathetic", rah-rah-rah. My response to the lot of them: "I see that the Ministry of Truth is off to a fine start, and the PC-Police have a lot on their hands. You can tell the pendantic twats by what concerns them."

A tiny little stab those little femicunts and SJWs with their fucked-up and twisted mindsets. Just came outta nowhere. Or rather, came bubbling up from the still and slow depths, expressed in withering contempt.

It will happen again.

The anger will always be there. Not overt. It drives us, deep in our gut. It moves us to improve ourselves. It forces us to do our own thing. That's how we know we are Men.

Those without that anger...are not men. Call them manginas if you want. Lesser, conditioned deeply, sucked down the kool-aid laced with the cyanide that killed the Man within. Withered on the vine, stillborn.

The real Men, we bank the fires of rage. Let it burn slowly, far down under the surface, in the depths.

Maybe one day there will be an opportunity to let it out and rage in an all-consuming wildfire. Otherwise it simply waits, the angry beast kindled long ago, held within in readiness for a time of need.

Relationship Suffocation

One of the things that I've noticed with "relationships" since my divorce: a lot of women have this weird-ass desire to be in your fucking back pocket all the time. To the point where you feel like you're suffocating to death.

We all know that it's hard enough to get into a relationship with a woman these days. Most of them are so fucked in the head that they put you through a million hoops for shits and giggles. Then they look at one bad boy, go over to "talk" with him, and ten minutes later are giving him a blowjob in the back-seat of his car. It means nothing to her, just a good time. Weirdly enough, when they get with you they suddenly become all clingy and insecure.

It's a creepy dynamic overall: "I'll fuck him and it's just fun, you I'm more serious about." So they see you as long-term more'n a simple fuck. Because they see you as more long-term, they get all insecure about you doing anything without them. It's kind of hilarious.

Someone that she sees as being a piece of shit goes to do what he wants and she'll not make a peep.

Someone that she sees as being head-and-shoulders above that (or a $$$ provider) goes to do what he wants and she's suddenly creeping all over him and bitching and whining and insecure.

Even more amusing is when you flip the script and a man does something like that. He creeps on her and she scrams. She creeps on him and he's expected to take it and like it. It's not okay for him to be insecure, it's totally okay for her to be insecure.

The fucked-up-ness and doublethink of women is amazing.

Why We Should Legalize Rape

So, over on Amerika is an interesting post on why we should legalize rape:

Legalize Rape, Revisited

To break it down into a nutshell, he states that rape is no longer the life-destroying crime that it used to be (complete ruination of a woman) - it's more along the lines of beating someone up. These days, no woman is expected to go to her wedding a virgin - even though when that happens it's an excellent start to a marriage.

The thing is that our society now accepts casual sex. No woman will ever tell you how many men she's had. You are considered a loser if the thought of it bothers you. You are considered a loser if you catch her out fucking some other guy - and you dump her. You are considered a loser when you won't take her back nohow, no way.

All of this, no matter what, you are a loser - because casual sex is acceptable.

However: due to "remorse" the woman who gave it away freely can next day - or any time up to decades or even the end of her life later - retroactively state that it was not consensual sex. He raped her. Perhaps even claim against his estate (keep an eye out for that).

This has been experienced by several famous people recently - including Bill Cosby:

Yeah, like those girls don't want any of the billion dollars the man is worth. I hope that he spends that billion dollars fighting against them and smearing their reputation worldwide. Fucking gold-digging cunty little whores.

So.

Even though it was consensual last night, now that she's got seller's remorse - it was rape.

Even though it was consensual at the time, because you're now worth a bunch - it was rape.

Cha-ching! $$$$$$$$

THIS is why we should legalize rape. Society is basically forcing it on us. If a girl wants casual sex, then next day says "it was rape" while he says "it was casual sex" - it becomes a he-said she-said. Retroactively changing the mind about something that actually isn't completely life-destroying means that the man becomes disproportionately punished (by default) for doing something which was not wrong at the time.

When the average modern ho girl has had 20+ men in her - taken them happily and freely - also done innumerable hand-jobs, blow-jobs, tit-jobs, anal, jizzed on the face/back/ass/belly, etc. Can we seriously consider that sexual penetration is a life-destroying crime? Given that she's already given it away for nothing over and over and over - or at least is in the process of doing it over and over and over.

It means nothing any more. Even to her.

So yeah, too bad for those girls who are actually, violently, forcibly raped. Your shitty sisters - giving it away for free - being fickle cunts who change their mind retroactively - even years or decades later - have screwed you over.

Yes, I'm pointing at those slutty little cunts.

They're basically forcing society to say: "All right, next overnight offender. What'd this one do? He raped her? A $100 fine. Next!"

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

No Freedom in Spain

Seems that late last year, the Spanish government fucktards made a law that put up some extreme fines for protesters who gather outside government buildings. Hospitals, universities, parliament buildings in Madrid - places like that. Apparently its up to €600k fines for organizers, €600 fines for disrespecting police officers, and €30,000 fined for photographing or videoing the cops.

So what'd some protesters do? They used holograms instead:

Spain's Hologram Protest

Freedom of expression. NoSomosDelito: "We are not crime."

Ironically, they actually are: any protest threatens the government. The government is the social gravy-train set up by the herd of women as their safety-net.

So now, merely assembling to protest a law is a crime. Protesting a law has become hatethink against the provider of the herd.

Expect to see more of this kind of shit over the next decade.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

The Freedom Trap

The idea of going expat is an interesting one on the surface. If you're a man who wants a wife and family you can repudiate your home (Western) country and find yourself a bride overseas. The benefits seem to be manyfold:

* she'll be slimmer than Western women
* she won't be as slutty as Western women
* she'll have a way better attitude than Western women
* she'll be more traditional than Western women

So let's scratch through the surface of this, dig into the darkness and muck that lies underneath:

* slimmer, yes - they know that looks matter to men
* not as slutty, maybe - how are you going to be absolutely certain of this though?
* better attitude, yes - a trap is better baited with honey
* more traditional, yes - while she's in her own country

They know that looks matter to men. Foreign women don't delude themselves - much. There is certainly some delusion there though. I remember seeing a documentary about Western men looking at Ukrainian brides. One of the potential brides was in her thirties and had a daughter, from memory she was divorced. She was delusional in that she thought a Western man would "save" her and her child. Even so, there were still pathetic men in the documentary who seemed interested in this trash (hopefully only for a fuck).

Perhaps not as slutty. Perhaps. In the above-mentioned documentary, one of the meeting places where these people got to know each other was a bar. Music, lights, noise. Very conducive to conversation (indeed!) and the girls were up dancing on the floor (sluts on parade!). You cannot know if a woman was or was not slutty - you have not been on the scene long enough to see the disconnect between what she says and does. Though dancing up there, sluts on parade, is a helluva weight on the sluttiness side of the spectrum.

A trap is better baited with honey. No fooling. The femicunts have convinced the Western herd that they can openly be complete shit and it's all right - that it's a good thing to be. Thus, sluttiness celebrated along with the other you-go-girrrl'ism that we have shoved in our faces constantly. You lure better with honey than with vinegar, sweetness and light rather than hatred and contempt.

Traditional while she's in her own country. Yes indeed. There have been many cases of men bringing brides to the West and - once they get their citizenship - bingo, frivorce, she then goes to do what she wants. With cash and prizes. Note that men aren't the only ones who've had this happen to them, it's also happened to women who've fallen for a toy-boy who is all lovey-dovey until he gets his green-card. There are Russian brides who get in and then import their Russian boyfriend.

So it's better to stay overseas? In her country? Not really. Feminism and it's entitled cuntism mindset is spreading to other countries, like the warped and twisted virus mindset that it is.

Thailand. The Philippines. So-called traditional countries. My mate's mother-in-law in Thailand was divorced. I ran across a divorced woman in the Philippines who was out looking for a Western man who would treat her decently, because the local men treated her like what she was: a piece of shit.

I remember one of the writers over on Return of Kings, stating that getting to know the locals was a better way to go. Go to the bars where the locals frequent, not the shitty tourist-trap bars. Get to know the men. Once things loosen up, you will see them pull awesome tail.

No shit Sherlock. You've stepped out of the tourist traps and stepped into the places where the local good-time-girls and good-time-boys have their fun. These girls aren't sweethearts, they're the local more-pleasant version of Western sluts.

High-quality women indeed.

Looking at that, going expat does not sound like a real solution to your desire for a wife and family. It's just another lure - one of freedom - freedom to trap you in another country, isolated, where you don't understand the society, where you don't understand the norms. Freedom that can ultimately still trap you in the situation of providing for a woman parasite.

Yes, you can somehow muddle your way through it. However, the bed of roses has it's thorns in it, doesn't it? Unless you are somehow exceptionally lucky and manage to get yourself together with a true NAWALT. Good luck meeting that, in a country where you're even more isolated than the Western country that you grew up in.

Shit - iron pyrites aka fools gold - is everywhere. Real gold is rarer.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Life Is Too Short

Back when on the Personal Time and Space is Golden For Men post, I realize that I didn't make one thing explicitly clear. These days your wife expects you to cater to her all the time. It's the same for children - they pick up that mentality from mommy. This is the "it's all about meeee!" mindset in action.

I suspect that this is also the mindset being expressed when mommy has to:

* take Jimmy to Rugby practice
* take Sue to her Ballet lessons
* take everybody to the school play
* and God help you if you miss any of this you selfish and unfeeling bastard!

In my time, kids were expected to get their asses outside and entertain themselves. None of this "I'm bored, entertain me!" crap was tolerated from us. We got told to get outside and run the piss outta ourselves, climb a fuckin' tree, play in the puddles, grab the boxes of toys, all that sorta shit. We weren't catered to. We had to entertain ourselves.

Women these days seem to have the urge to be catered to, and through some warped nuturing instinct seem to want to project/push similar onto their children. (Though I think that a good chunk of that is using the children as a scorecard too.)

It comes across in the whole modern female-to-male interaction. The Man is expected to entertain her. The Man is expected to provide for her. The Man is expected to take her out to interesting places. The Man is expected to get her interesting presents. The Man is expected to <insert whatever here>.

The Man is expected to be the slave. (The code-word for "provider" translates to "slave".)

It's your choice if you want to cater to somebody every. Fucking. Moment. Of. The. Day.

Awake, asleep, it doesn't matter.

In my view: life is too short to cater to somebody else all the time.

Women Are Lies

Everything about women is a lie.

Fake hair, fake eyelashes, fake nails, fake skin, fake faces, fake breasts, fake asses, fake personalities, fake histories. Fake, fake, fake.

Including fake clothing that they wear and accessories that they carry - knockoffs and ripoffs wouldn't exist if there wasn't a huge demand for them. The appearance is all that matters, not the real thing itself. Fake it until you make it, only she will never make it.

All changing on a dime. All superficial. All completely full of shit.

Women lie.

She lies to herself. She lies to her friends. She lies to the world. She sure as fuck isn't going to tell you the truth. She will never tell you how many men she's slept with, how many times she's taken it up the ass, how many one-night stands, how many times she's given blow-jobs, hand-jobs, tit-jobs, threesomes, gangbangs, how many guys have cum on or pissed on or shat on her.

There is no desire in her for the truth, unlike men. She only wants to feel good. Truth isn't always pleasant, and all she wants is pleasantness and comfort. To see the truth, you must be objective - she is only interested in the subjective. It's all about her. She will lie simply so that she feels good: about herself, about her life. Truth for her has to be comfortable and pretty.

If she's fat "it's okay to be fat". If she's ugly "it's what's inside that matters". If you are critical of her character "you're being abusive".

She can't even see the truth of herself, because she lies to herself.

She can sit there and say: "I've slept with 20, 30, 50 men." Yet she doesn't think of herself as a slut or whore. Those words only apply to others. She's not interested in introspection or self-reflection. Those things would hinder the internal lie of what a Princess, what an Angel she thinks that she really is. One who can do no wrong. One who is perfect.

Essentially all women are the same. Liars and lies. Scratch through the skin, the ugliness of the lies goes to the bone.

Because society is dominated by women, run by women, for women. Any claim that it's a man's world is one of the biggest and easily-refuted lies that we see. Society is dominated by woman and it's designed to affirm her ego and lies. You go girl. You're a strong, independent woman. You don't need no man. You're a brave, heroic, battling single mommy. You can sleep with as many men as you want and you're good. Pats on her back that build up her ego and emotions.

Where would she be, without those lies puffing her up.

She dolls herself up to attract men. She then gives you shit for wanting to have sex with her - as if she has some other worth, even in her own mind. Else she wouldn't doll herself up. Yet her end-goal is never spoken of: to entrap you into being her slave-man, in one way or another (marriage or child-support). Her goal is natural and right in her mind, yours makes you a filthy sexist pig.

A shaming tactic used by women everywhere in the world.

Are we all liars? Yes, to a certain extent. Not to the extent of women though. Actresses. Chameleons. Predators. Slave-owners.

We live in a world of lies, because we live in a world run by women.

When we allow a liar to dominate us, we diminish our selves.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Mixed Thoughts In The Herdmind

This is some additional thoughts to the post on Bromance, No Homo, and Slash. I should have made that much clearer, especially my reason for adding the LGBT are Dodo's part to the end of it.

I simply couldn't get it to fit quite properly.

So here it is, a bit more that hopefully makes things clearer in context.
=======================
It is very telling the mixed thoughts going on in the herdmind:

1/ Full glorification and support for LGBT etc.

2/ Utter intolerance of normal male friendship and generally branding it as homosexual

So they at the same time both glorify and denigrate homosexuality. A prime example of Female Doublethink and Self-Deceit. and Female Best Intentions and Lies Women Tell Themselves.

Someone out there knows how the herdmind thinks (or rather, doesn't reflect!) and appears to be using and abusing it with great enthusiasm. You almost have to admire the sheer amount of insane doublethink that is being shown by society (which is basically driven by women). Plus the chutzpah and hubris exhibited by whoever it is feeding this mindset of warped doublethink.

We sure as shit have realized that women do not engage much in the way of retrospection. They seem utterly unconscious of the craziness and delusions and lies which goes on inside their heads. Really, if they were conscious of it, then they'd probably kill themselves.

Because it'd be impossible to consciously believe that you're a fuckin' Princess who belongs on a fuckin' Pedestal, with a Golden Uterus that makes you the Perfect Immaculate Person and the Ultimate Goddess From Whom No Wrong Can Come - while at the same time completely realize and understand what kind of piece of shit you truly are deep inside.

The true depth of mutual illusions and self-delusions in the female herd/creature is breathtaking.

Doing Things On Your Terms

This is simply a few extra thoughts on the MGTOW hate that was doing the rounds a while back. I haven't seen any recently - not that I've been looking for it either. At any rate.

Basically the hate was coming out with messages along the lines of: If you're not chasing hawt chicks you're a loooooooser! MGTOW don't chase chicks because they're looooooosers! Etcetera.

Which (I finally figured) translates to: Pay me $$$ for my info-shit on how to get hawt chicks! If you don't, you're a loooooooser!

Basic femicunt shaming-language. Not even being that subtle about it either. The only reason that it took a while to catch on was because we weren't really expecting that from our fellow-men - which just goes to show. Keep a leery eye on every-fuckin'-thing.

So yes, these people have an agenda. Whether it's potential loss of $$$ or (from the churchian blogs) emotional skin in the game.

Emotional skin in the game. Prime examples: Christian girls are nice girls! They're traditional! Etcetera.

Pity that they've been inundated with a wave of toxic-waste born-again ho's who loudly and proudly proclaim: "I've changed, I'm not like that any more, God/Jesus has saved me."

Yeah, right. Just another born-again fuckin' virgin with a surreptitious hymenoplasty.

You're wading through miles of shit to try and find one speck of gold. I already did a post detailing that you probably will have to go through 2,000 girls to find one that's actually worthwhile:

* you might find 10 girls a week that you consider acceptable

* but 1 in 20 actually want to fuck you

* and 1 in 100 are actually worthwhile

* so that's 2,000 girls to filter through

* which takes about 200 weeks or 3-4 years

* to find ONE girl who is actually worthwhile

That's a lot of toxic shit to wade through. Then people give you stick and call you a loser for saying: "Fuck it, too much effort, I'm'a go do something I find more worthwhile to do with my life."

Buncha stupid bastards with an agenda, their own emotional skin in the game, and dipshits who are incapable of understanding that you're:

1/ an adult

2/ have done the thinking

3/ have made a rational choice

4/ and are fucking sticking to it, so take your bullshit elsewhere

They also don't realize that their pathetic shaming tactics don't work. I will repeat it here: "If feminazi's, with years of practice and all of society's pressure, can't make us toe the fuckin' party line - what makes you think your shaming language will do the motherfuckin' trick?"

Right there is a prime example of male stupid-think, eviscerated and hung out to dry.

"Oh you're losers! You've given up! Poor likkel pussy 'men', got no guts!"

Yeah. Keep your shaming language - along with your agenda - to yourself, you fuckin' maggot. I'm not here to keep some femicunt in the manner to which she wishes to become accustomed, and I'm not here to line your motherfuckin' pocket either.

Going your own way (or going ghost) isn't giving up, it's fighting passively and (most especially!) surviving to fight another day. It's doing things on your terms, instead of the terms of someone else with an agenda. Especially when that agenda is to cater to or support a female parasite, one way (marriage or child-support) or another (catering to her narcissism through Game and encouraging the cock-carousel).

So you can go ahead and be a "real man" - throw yourself into the meat-grinder - sacrifice yourself for a greedy and uncaring woman - work yourself hopelessly to death for an unforgiving society. Every revolution needs it's martyrs. Give them your all, I'm sure that you'll feel a great satisfaction from the accolades which are certain to follow.

Posthumously of course.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Serving Divorce Papers

So, this turd was recently dropped by The New York Daily Turd:

Judge says Brooklyn woman can use Facebook to serve divorce papers

A Brooklyn woman scored a judge’s approval to legally change her relationship status to “single” via Facebook. 

In a landmark ruling, Manhattan Supreme Court Justice Matthew Cooper is allowing a nurse named Ellanora Baidoo to serve her elusive husband with divorce papers via a Facebook message. 

Baidoo, 26, “is granted permission serve defendant with the divorce summons using a private message through Facebook,” with her lawyer messaging Victor Sena Blood-Dzraku through her account, Cooper wrote. 

“This transmittal shall be repeated by plaintiff’s attorney to defendant once a week for three consecutive weeks or until acknowledged” by her hard-to-find hubby.
“I think it’s new law, and it’s necessary,” said Baidoo’s lawyer, Andrew Spinnell.

A sign of the sad degeneration of our times, when a fuckin' social media platform can be used for the transmission of fuckin' LEGAL DOCUMENTS.

Sheeeit!

Oh. Wait. I didn't think it through properly.

FEMALE PRIVILEDGE! SHEEEIT!

Just goes to show, doesn't it. I hope that the guy had the nouse to disable his Facebook - even if he's not using it no more. (Yes, even if they're both from Ghana, and he's jacking her around. Not relevant. What's relevant is that this is a bloody dangerous precedent to set. What comes next: "I divorce you. I divorce you. I divorce you." via the phone, or text, or just writing it up on a random wall?)

Fuck these entitled whores and their enablers. Don't make it any easier for 'em than you can.

Bromance, No Homo, and Slash

Commentor Anonymous over on Uncle Bob's came out with this comment (regarding the German Pilot who crashed a plane with all hands aboard):

Well, the guy was a pilot after all. I thought that women regarded pilots as being sexy, adventurous and attractive? I thought pilot was one of the "sexy occupations" for men, like doctor, cowboy, fireman, 50-Shades-of-Grey billionaire, etc., that women dreamed of. So to go off thinking that this man had problems attracting women and was an "omega" guy without any other information is bizarre (the guy looks ok in that picture with the golden gate bridge (no homo)). Was the guy recently divorced or broken up with a girlfriend?

My emphasis the "no homo".

What immediately struck me was that a completely anonymous commentor still felt the need to add "no homo" when (presumably he) stated that the pilot looked okay in his picture.

Thinking back on things, I've heard guys say that they have a "bromance" with another guy. As in "me and him have a bromance thing going on". Were these guys homosexual? No. They used the word to describe a deep male friendship. (A word that I've only heard in the last half-decade - though that might simply be NZ being isolated from the rest of the world.)

Then I had a think about "Slash" fiction. This is basically fan-fiction (usually by women) where the male friendship of a pair of well-known characters in regular fiction is characterized as strongly homoerotic. Sometimes the fan-fiction has it changed (twisted?) to a flat-out homosexual relationship. (Notable example: Kirk and Spock from the Star Trek series.)

Interesting.

So this appears to be more evidence of the poison going on in society: the pathologization of male-male friendships. Society seems to be surreptitiously getting across the idea that all male-male friendships are essentially homosexual in nature. The triple concepts of bromance, no homo, and slash are all some evidence towards it. There are probably more that I don't know of or recognize.

It would seem that no heterosexual guy wants the slightest hint of homosexuality in his male-male friendships. In his gut he likely feels that this (homosexuality) is wrong on a deep level - if he felt otherwise then he'd possibly have homosexual leanings himself.

Note that I'm saying "it would seem" and "likely feels" because I have no data: only my own gut feelings. YMMV. Try to use your own perspective on this, rather than reflexively using the herd-socially-approved-groupthink of equalism, equality, tolerance, etc that has been drummed into you via the modern leftist/socialist school system that we've been forced to endure.

At any rate, this seems to be another method of controlling males: if you demonize male-male friendships, these bonds never form, the male is left isolated and alone with no male support group. All the better prey for the female to control in all ways. Especially when you see the loss of a mans friends once he becomes married - until his "friends" become the socially-approved emasculated husbands of the wifes friends.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.
=================
Note: Back in the post on LGBT are Dodo's, I stated that they are biological dead-ends and attention-whores. If they're quietly telling you their sexual preferences (and you're not family) then they're probably interested in hooking up with you and think you might be interested. When they go out into full-on "shout it to the world" then they're just attention-whoring for the social-pass that these minorities have.

Maximum Emotional Pain

In my post on dumping a woman, I stated:

Notice that it's all right if she makes him feel like a piece of shit. It's totally not all right if he makes her feel like a piece of shit. It's all about her and how she feeeeels - besides, men have no feelings to be hurt, they're just a fuckin' animal/slave made for women's benefit.

Which is funny when you look at it, because women go for the fuckin' jugular of causing maximum emotional pain when they want to. With a complete disregard for any consequences. After all, it's all about her and how she feeeeels.

Never mind the nasty, warped, pathetic emotions of him. He's just a man. He's not relevant.

So obviously, they do recognize that men have emotions. They'll sure as shit go for them, sink in the teeth, claw out his guts, etc. Hell, every time you hear about a nasty frivorce or the nastiness that goes on with child custody cases. Weaponizing the children, using them to get back at their ex-hubby, all that good stuff.

I think it's more a case of they recognize that men do have emotions - and manipulate them ruthlessly. It's another cognitive disconnect. Wimminz emotions have relevance, mens emotions are utterly irrelevant. Except as a handle or weapon to be used against him.

Try imagining from the inside the kind of cold-hearted ruthlessness that women display. We know it happens, we hear about it all the time. Try to understand the kind of nastiness that must be hidden inside a woman - every woman you see that is frivorced - as she's out there acting all sweetness and light, trying to lure her next man. Even if it's just for a quick fuck. When she's done that in her past.

Predatory indeed.

Only the utterly delusional can love that or use it for more than getting their rocks off.

One final thought - you will not be able to beat a woman at the emotional pain game. She's a past master at it, you're just a rank beginner. It's like this:

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

We Need to Talk

Translation: You are in deep fucking shit.

This is the most balls-shriveling thing you will ever hear a woman say. It is the prelude to an emotional attack upon you. Which is why your balls shrivel up reflexively: you've been through hundreds, perhaps thousands, of these in your lifetime.

They never get better.

Response: No. You need to shut up or fuck off.

Flip it.

Stick it to her.

Shut her down.

Walk away.

You don't have time for this crap. Or the energy or interest.

Just Dump Her

There is a "social expectation" going around that when a man breaks up with a woman, he should have the balls to do it face-to-face.

What a crock of fuckin' shit.

Now flip the situation. Take a look at what happens when a woman breaks up with a man. Does she go and stand in front of him, say to him: "I'm breaking up with you. I'm sorry. It's just not going to work out." Yadda fuckin' yadda.

Hell no.

Often as not it is the "silent treatment" - she ignores him. He's supposed to "just get it". If he's slow-witted and persists, then he's blocked and labeled as a creeper to all and sundry.

A woman almost never makes it formal, it tends to be a stealth-rejection. Yet a Man is supposed to go up to her and make it formal. Huge screaming fits, tantrums, arguing, crying jags, all that shit ensue.

Step back. Look at this. Why is a man expected to subject himself to this emotional abuse, while women are not?

Because women cannot bear to feel like the "bad guy" so they simply drift away - this allows her to retain her inner illusory state of being all sweetness and light.

Conversely, a woman cannot stand being dumped. It makes her feel like shit. So to help relieve those feelings of pain - she demands the opportunity to vent her feelings of worthlessness upon the man who dumps her ass. He has made her feel like a piece of shit (women never handle rejection well) and so he will pay as she tries to tear him down emotionally.

Notice that it's all right if she makes him feel like a piece of shit. It's totally not all right if he makes her feel like a piece of shit. It's all about her and how she feeeeels - besides, men have no feelings to be hurt, they're just a fuckin' animal/slave made for women's benefit.

"I cannot believe that you would do this to me!"

Believe it cunt.

So it's come to the crunch. You've decided that you're breaking it off. She's not worth being around, for whatever reason(s).

Remember this: You don't owe her shit. That includes any form of explanation whatsoever.

You don't have time for her crap.

You don't have time for her, period. Which is why you're breaking it off with the cunt.

Don't waste your time and energy by catering to her one-way social expectations that're designed to help her deal with her feelings of worthlessness. Make it short and simple. A quick phone call to say whatever you want along the lines of "it's not working, I'm breaking up with you". Even a simple fuckin' text will do. It's more'n she would do for you.

Or even just go silent, or block her, if that's what you want. You don't owe her even basic courtesy, if you want to look at it that way. She wouldn't give you any. Plus, if she was worth anything, then you wouldn't be breaking up with her. Just dump her.

Brought to you by Crap Colored Glasses™ - only $1k the pair and cheap at 10x the price.

Divorce is Failure

From the woman's side:

You got divorced = you failed

You got divorced twice = you failed big-time

You got divorced 3+ times = you are an utter failure

From the man's side:

You got divorced = hope you learned something

You got divorced twice = didn't you get the memo first time?

You got divorced 3+ times = some people just don't fuckin' learn do they

Now look at the two sides from their own perspectives.

From the woman's side: any successfully-married woman is going to look down on any divorced woman. Similarly, divorced women look down on women who have been divorced more times than they have been. Social stigma is high. The more divorces you been through, the lower the social status in teh wimminz pecking-order.

From the man's side: it's more supportive and humorous. At least, until the 3+ divorce fuckups. Then it probably becomes a mix of disgust and pity, as in "get a fuckin' grip man".

So there's a big difference in same-sex attitudes towards divorce. For men, shit happens - until you're too damn stupid after about 3 shots. For women, instant pity and shame.

Because despite what the femicunts rabbit on about: for a woman, divorce is true failure at the one thing that really matters for women.