In my post This Isn’t Revenge, I explained that what we are witnessing now is merely the latest phase in a long running war between the sexes. Novaseeker suggested that it might be more accurate to characterize this struggle as a competition:
it’s an endless competition to see who can outdo the other in terms of getting their genetic/sexual imperative vindicated.
While I agree that there is certainly competition here, I think that it is mostly an argument over semantics, as both war and competition are forms of struggle. And what we are seeing is certainly a struggle. Moreover, it is not just a struggle between men and women but also among men and among women. Men compete with one another for the best women, and women compete with one another for the best men. Novaseeker’s comment, which I linked earlier, really goes into depth on this and I suggest that everyone read it for a thorough explanation of this. In a way this struggle is the “war of all against all” that Hobbes warned about centuries ago.
A number of points were raised about the central argument of my post, and I want to use this thread to address two which are related to one another: the notion of a truce and what might constitute “victory.”
Commenter The Shadow Knight left the following comment, which is working examining :
Yes, this is a war, but look at the effort expended to make sure that neither side will be interested in a truce. How many women are miserably working a terrible job when they want to be a mother? How many men are numbing the pain with drink, women, or games because they are not going to take the risk of ending up an ex husband? The enemy has to scream and threaten to get both sides to reluctantly oppose one another. Conflict is inevitable, but so is equilibrium.
TSK is correct that the present state of the conflict is the result of a concentrated effort to exacerbate the situation. However, removing that ‘incitement’ does not meat that both sides will be interested in a truce. If the incitement was removed, the conflict would still exist. That is the central premise of the first post. It might be more of a subtle conflict, with most of the “fighting” less visible, but the conflict will persist. Another thing to consider is that the incitement is a natural outgrowth of the conflict itself. Rather than being the cause, it is an effect. Our own preferences might drive some individuals to “stir up the pot” in order to benefit their own part of this struggle.
And besides, what kind of truce would be agreed upon? We had something of a truce before, and that didn’t last. When I mentioned a social order in which both sexes would “lose,” Stingray asked the following:
Given that men give up polygamy and women give up serial monogamy, I would think (traditional) marriage would fall into this category. What am I missing?
Stingray didn’t miss anything. Traditional marriage (not the modern day “traditional marriage” variety either) was a compromise, a truce of sorts. The thing is, neither side wants a compromise. Men and women want a system which supports their preferred sexual strategy. Equilibrium, at least, a static form of it, is not something that can last. In fact, it was TSK who pointed out that the destruction of Traditional Marrage “was a joint effort, because they both thought that they could get an advantage.” Both men and women will always want to push the boundaries.
Something more likely than a truce is a withdrawal or retreat of sorts. What I mean is that members of one “side” decide to stop fighting and just remove themselves from the conflict as much as they can. The MGTOW movement is an example of this in action. Rather than compete, they merely try and survive. Of course, they cannot fully escape, thanks to taxes and such. But in so far as they can, they try to not get involved in the conflict. This is something I think will become more prominent in the future, at least among men. It is also possible we might see women start to do this as well- they are likely to be affected by a drop in male desirability just as men have been affected by a drop in female desirability.
Any sort of truce, which would have to be founded on a compromise, couldn’t last unless it was enforced somehow. And that brings me to this comment by Cane Caldo:
These “base strategies” that are “hard-wired” have been revealed from the beginning as fundamentally untrue. They only feel true because the hard-wiring has been shot through with 1.21 gigawatts of sin. The receptors are fried, man.
Cane is correct that what I referred to as “base” or “natural” impulses of men and women are something Christians should understand to be the product of the Fall. I put “lose” in quotes in my first post because I wanted to indicate that what we think is a loss might not necessarily be so. After all, what we want is not necessarily what is good for us. Usually it isn’t. Sin blinds us, and directs our hearts (and other organs) in the wrong direction more often than not.
Once we understand this, we can finally see how victory is possible. You see, “victory” in the “war between the sexes” can come about only when we realize that this war is one which was stirred up by the Evil One. It is a war whose origins date back to the Fall, when the serpent pit man and woman against one another, and against God, for the first time (this was the first instance of someone playing “lets you and him fight”). This war can be won by recognizing that it is a war we shouldn’t be fighting in the first place. “The only winning move is not to play.” Instead of men and women fighting one another, they we, need to cooperate and fight against sin, which is the real enemy deserving of our attention.
This, I think, is where the real break between the secular and Christian “Red Pill” community is to be found. The secular PR community aims to equip men with the tools they need so they can get the best possible deal for themselves. In other words, to arm them with the best weapons possible to wage war against women, so they can score as many big victories as possible (however each individual man chooses to define victory). However, that strategy cannot bring the war to the end. It only seeks to give men the best odds possible and make them the temporary “winners.” The Christian RP community should recognize that this is not a winning strategy. Men who pursue this course are still puppets being controlled by the ruler of this world. Their “victories” are illusory. Keeping in line with the “red pill”, they are still in the Matrix, as they are still slaves to their sin- they only think that they have escaped.
When I spoke of the natural in my first post, it was because I wanted to emphasize the necessity of the supernatural to overcome our base or worldly nature. By ourselves we cannot hope to overcome our sinfulness. It is only through God’s Grace that we can achieve this. God has also provided us with the template of how a lasting “truce” between the sexes can be arranged, through the sacrament of marriage. There is no need to invent something new to get out us of the trench we find ourselves in. We have the tools, in fact we were given them a long time ago. We only need to remember that we have them, and to use them again as they were meant to be used. This will require that we set aside the notion that we know better than God. It will require humility, and patience, and lots of prayer. However, there is no other way. And it is certainly better than the alternative- an endless war that cannot be won.
One commenter asked in the previous post:
Am I supposed to take comfort in the fact that it is not revenge [driving this situation], but rather WAR?
If it is the war between the sexes, no, there is no comfort to be found. But the war against sin? That is another matter. It is a war in which ultimate victory has already been assured. We just need to win the individual holding actions in which we find ourselves. I cannot think of any better way to conclude this post than with this advice from St. Paul:
10 Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. 11 Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. 12 For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. 14 Stand therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the equipment of the gospel of peace; 16 above all taking the shield of faith, with which you can quench all the flaming darts of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
(Ephesians 6:10-17)
Donal Graeme 
I invite anyone to send me an No email (found on my blog) with a list of so-called “benefits” of feminism, and I’ll debunk every last one of them.
Just a few that I can think of right off the top of my head:
1. His-fault (a.k.a. “no fault”) divorce
2a. Chilamony following his-fault divorce
2b. Default maternal custody of children in cases of his-fault divorce (i.e.,
in approximately 96 percent of cases)
3. Abortion on demand
4. Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action preference in workplace hiring
5. Title IX/Higher Education quotas for women not based on scholastic
performance, but sex
6. HWE/Sexual Harrassment laws that overtly pertain only to women
Are these “benefits” in the sense that they create a healthy, stable, functional society for all? Of course not. They are, however, benefits in the sense that women, and generally only women can leverage them pretty much on demand, at any time the whim strikes them or whenever the circumstances of their lives make resorting to them expedient, any previous moral qualms or misgivings going completely out the window.
Also, unless I’ve been in a coma for the last 40 years as these things have become the norm within our collapsing civilization, I’m unaware of any noticeable movement by “Christians” of either sex, but especially women of the Barbara Rainey (to cite a random example) ilk, to even verbally condemn, much less attempt to roll back these civilzational abominations. Indeed, the presence in so many “churches” today of women who have availed themselves of all of the above stands as pretty stark testament to the fact that there’s not a whole lot of interest (to put it kindly) in doing the right thing.
I wouldn’t think it would be necessary to tell you guys what you should already know (aka, feminism is bad all around),
None of us here are saying that feminism is not bad all around, but of course you know that. What I specifically said is that even women who claim to LOATHE feminism have gained spillover benefits (those that I cited about being just a few obvious examples) from it –that is, things that benefit women exclusively at the expense of men and children, things that women can freely avail themselves of without male interference or deterrence– that have become so entrenched in the social fabric and that provide ALL women with potential “outs” from the consequences of their own behavior that none of them want to see these things abolished.
If non-feminist women, especially “Christian” women were really outraged and offended by these ungodly things, they would have made their voices heard as a body decades ago. No doubt there were a few lonely and isolated cries in the wilderness, but it seems clear that the majority were either too apathetic or, more likely, immediately recognized these things as a means to capitalize on their inner rebelliousness, however subconsciously. Granted, Christian men were just as negligent in not standing up for righteousness as were women, but except for a tiny handful of one-percenters, none of these spillover benefits directly benefited men.
Again, I’ll retract every word of my assertion if I can be pointed to evidence that there has been a serious effort on the part of a large number of Christian women over the last half century to fight the advance of feminism. I have a feeling that I might as well etch my words in granite.
Many Christian women actually opposed the 19th amendment and more recently, the Equal Rights Amendment, so you are way off base Feeriker.
Also you fail to recognize how so many men have “benefited” from feminism, by now having access to sex without responsibility, as well as enjoying the benefits of abortion without consequence. On the surface it’s not a bad deal for men at all, which is evident in the number of men who support such cultural changes. In the olden days you were required to really step up to the plate, marry women and support them and any children that came along. Today men no longer have to grow up and be men. That’s a heady and seductive cultural message that cannot be laid exclusively at the feet of women, because many men see themselves as reaping the rewards, too.
Try as the apologists may, this situation will never be resolved by a truce. This is rebellion, and rebellions must be crushed.
It began in the Garden. Eve was given perfection, walking with God therein, and yet……….it wasn’t enough for her. She wanted MORE!
There was an order to our original sin. Adam could not fail in his role, until Eve failed in hers. Her daughters never really stopped rebelling throughout the ages, but for the last 125 or so years, the Rebellion has become increasingly exaggerated, while at the same time, Man’s willingness to put down the Rebellion, has repeatedly failed.
Again and again, uur fathers, grandfathers, great-grandfathers, etc.gave into demands that would know no end, in an attempt to appease and buy themselves a little temporary peace, at our expense. The sold us out. They are to blame for our circumstances. The only way to right the ship, is to stop giving-in to Rebellion, but CRUSH IT!
And the only way to do that at present, as was noted above, is to refuse marriage and children to nearly all women (exceptions for those living under Amish-like circumstances), AND attack the structures that sustain this Rebellion, secular and religious.
That I’m afraid that this is the only way. There is no room for a truce. The Rebellion must be met and it must be defeated, unconditionally.
@ insanitybytes22
Yes, they do. Today’s women follow the lead of alpha males. And alpha males, as well as high status males in the liberal elite all promote what we’re seeing right now because it is in their self-interest to facilitate their own accumulation of harems.
Normal young men cannot lead women because they aren’t the ones women follow. So what are normal young men to do in this situation where they’re powerless against the alpha and high status males and their legions of female followers? The secular RP answer is “if you can’t beat ’em, join ’em”. As far as I can tell, the Christian RP has no workable answer.
“As far as I can tell, the Christian RP has no workable answer.”
Sir Nemesis, they have the love of Christ. That has the power to change the whole world. You can win hearts and minds so much better by softening hearts than by speaking of revenge and crushing rebellions.
@ insanitybytes22
True. That has worked so well for Christian men in modern America, as is readily observable!
Your best work to date. Bravo.
[DG: Thank you.]
If the sole form of action at our disposal were by “softening hearts” rather than enforcing authority given to us, it would not have been given to us. Authority, when given, is given because there is a need for it and is a corresponding legitimate use for it. Authority means saying “NO,” and the corresponding ability to enforce “No.”
You would have us persuade our way to a stable civilization and Godly family life. Does persuasion only work with criminals or foreign threats? Why then, should legitimate authority not be exercised?
Question.
God also gave authority to men over their children, in addition to their wives. If the world were so structured, to where children had the law, the church, all social institutions and even extended family on their side of rebellion from their parents, where their following you relied solely on God softening their hearts to follow your lead, but who could rebel and have support from ALL quarters against you…….would any of you apologists even consider having children? Only to have them have effective authority over you (man or woman) if they should so will it?
“If the world were so structured, to where children had the law, the church, all social institutions and even extended family on their side of rebellion from their parents, where their following you relied solely on God softening their hearts to follow your lead, but who could rebel and have support from ALL quarters against you…….would any of you apologists even consider having children?”
The already do! That is the world we now live in. So what you do is raise your kids the best you can and pray you manage to win their hearts and minds.
What kind of men believe that authority somehow means revenge, war, squashing rebellions? That is how you deal with an enemy, not your own children, not women! In fact, to even perceive women as the enemy elevates us to a status we’re hardly worthy of. Some of you are creating bogeymen in your own minds that don’t even exist. Women are not scary.
Christians who live in the world can’t help but be influenced by the times, though ideally we should influence them more than they do us. Most of the churches have sacrificed their principles for the sake of worldly street cred. The world still hates them and they’ve only succeeded in demoralizing their flocks or confirming them in their vices. These days, many well meaning Christian parents urge their daughters to follow the feminist life plan.
“The already do! That is the world we now live in.”
Our state is degraded surely, but no, children cannot fully rebel against their parents, quite yet. Though we may be headed that direction, there is no comparison between wife defying her husband’s direction, and a child doing so.
“What kind of men believe that authority somehow means revenge, war, squashing rebellions? That is how you deal with an enemy, not your own children, not women!”
That’s a straw man. What does the exercise lawful authority have to do with “enemies?” You have authority over your children, are they an enemy? The pastor has authority over his flock, is the congregation his enemy? The government has authority over us, are the we the constituents its enemy? Your employer has authority over you, is he your enemy?
Authority has nothing to do with revenge or war, you’re seeing in my words what you want to see, not what I’ve written.
But where there is authority there may be, in this sinful world, rebellion against that rightful authority. In which case, the authority has the right and even the obligation, (since God gives authority with the intent it be exercised) to enforce that authority. That means at very least, saying “No” despite bad feelings to the contrary. Otherwise, it’s not authority at all.
And that’s really what you want to believe. That the headship of man, is just a ceremonial position. A sort of, advise and consent figurehead. But that’s not what scripture requires or our history has demonstrated as necessary. Nor is that the way any working relation between 2 or more persons whose fates are tied-up, may possibly function. Search society for a parallel arrangement where authority (right to say “no”) does not rest with one, singular figure. The buck must stop somewhere, and where it stops, therein resides rightful/lawful authority. Without which, either chaos or the eventual surrender to some authority will be the result. To pretend in this sort of figurehead authority in the place of the husband, is to say quite clearly, that it is the wife, who shall exercise authority.
There can be no other result. Authority in either husband or wife, or chaos resulting in separation.
Women aren’t scary, but with all the forces of the world, aided by a cowardly “church,” presently arrayed against male authority, wholly in submission to Eve’s untethered desires, only an insensible man would dare proceed into what is still speciously called “marriage,” without a great deal of pause and reservation.
Insanity may byte, but so does delusion.
Marriage is not war. As such, there can be no truce, nor victory over the other, nor crushing, etc. The analogy is totally wrong. A man and wife might be at war with each other while married, but that does not make marriage itself a strategy of war.
Women are not rebelling against men. This wife is rebelling against that husband.
Rollo’s throwing grenades, and believes that marriage is a strategy of war; albeit a poor one.
Insanitybytes is, essentially, a troll. I think her comments could be fairly summed up as, “Men shouldn’t change, women should change. Wait: Women can’t change because there’s nothing wrong with women; the bad men will have to change and deal with it.” Useless.
Deep Strength’s comments were pretty good.
One more thing: IB’s and FBNF’s strikingly different treatments of Rollo in comparison to TSK, to be a perfect example of why I banned women from my blog. The women disagreed with both Rollo and TSK, but they showed a sort of deference to Rollo while immediately denigrating TSK. The only reason why is because Rollo is one of the cool kids, and TSK is not. The merit of the arguments never enters into the women’s decision-making processes.
As far as the possibility of compromise goes, I put forth this script a number of times on Dalrock’s blog:
Girl keeps her legs shut until she goes to college. There she meets a reliable, morally sound beta guy a few years her senior and with a market place value that is roughly equal to hers. They get married after a few months of courtship and move into a rented apartment. Both of them remain sexually monogamous and continue their studies, and afterwards they find jobs in the same town. They keep their shared expenses low and save money. They delay parenthood until they are financially set. That is, when the husband is roughly 30-32 and the wife is 27-28. Voilá! Everybody gets what they want out of the relationship.
What I described, of course, is a fantasy because most women will reject it as an arrangement that unfairly benefits icky beta chumps.
And, to quote Novaseeker from Dalrock’s site:
Women are not interested in any reconciliation at all other than on their terms of a continued more or less complete capitulation to women, on the basis of “accepted” feminism. That is — feminism, sans the sexual stuff about abortion and casual sex. That is — feminism without “sex pozzie” feminism. That is the ground upon which Christian women want reconciliation, and it is no ground for reconciliation at all, but rather a ground for consolidation of the “gains”, in terms of relative power, for women vis-a-vis men, as a result of “accepted” mainstream feminism.
Women don’t want reconciliation other than on feminism’s own terms (apart from a few outliers who are interested/willing to live as cultural separatists). As a CLASS, there is no interest in Christian women in any kind of “sex reconciliation” on any other basis than the “advances” feminism has made for the female position, while discarding the sex-pozzie stuff.
Cane, FBNF was not attacking me. She likes to talk about that subject, and I gave her an opportunity. That is her favorite topic, because it turns the conversation to her, and because she does not understand it. FBNF will go on at length at every opportunity, so she was opportunistic, not offensive.
IB, on the other hand, is calculating. She is playing the bitch for a purpose. She gets off on being told to know her place. Rollo, himself, posted about this, called Topping from the Bottom. In short, she acts like a brat so that she gets punished, because she enjoys the punishment.
She is deferring to Rollo because he gave her what she wants, and she is being a bitch to me because I am not. She craves this sort of domination, and her husband will not or cannot provide it. I recognize her game, and I play it better, which is why she is behaving the way she is. Instead of punishment, she is getting indifference, and she does not like that.
The Shadowed Knight
@ cane
One more thing: IB’s and FBNF’s strikingly different treatments of Rollo in comparison to TSK, to be a perfect example of why I banned women from my blog. The women disagreed with both Rollo and TSK, but they showed a sort of deference to Rollo while immediately denigrating TSK. The only reason why is because Rollo is one of the cool kids, and TSK is not. The merit of the arguments never enters into the women’s decision-making processes.
I can’t speak for IB, but as for myself: like TSK said, I wasn’t attacking him. I was bouncing off of his comment for the sake of the subject. I don’t have anything against him personally. As for Rollo, I don’t consider him to be more of “one of the cool kids” than TSK, and seconded one of IB’s comments to him (a comment that was definitely not deferring to him). Only reason I didn’t bother writing one out to him myself is because she covered what I was thinking in regards to the first link he posted, and I didn’t even bother reading any of the other links he posted on his little rampage. What looks like deference to you is actually me not taking his rant seriously enough to bother fooling with it beyond that.
@ TSK
FBNF was not attacking me. She likes to talk about that subject, and I gave her an opportunity. That is her favorite topic, because it turns the conversation to her, and because she does not understand it. FBNF will go on at length at every opportunity, so she was opportunistic, not offensive.
That’s not my “favorite subject” but you’re right that it is one that I don’t understand, and will continue to bring it up at every opportunity until someone can make sense of it. Everything that anyone has ever said about it (that I’ve seen anyways) merely skirts around it but doesn’t touch on what the problem is. And if I wanted to make it about “me” I would have. I kept it generalized for a reason.
“IB, on the other hand, is calculating. She is playing the bitch for a purpose.”
Oh, for crying out loud. This is the kind of pathetic crap I am talking about. When grown men cannot even speak to me outside the context of their own rhetoric there is a problem and it sure doesn’t lie with me. I am not a whore or troll or any of the other demeaning terms so many of you use, but I am obviously a fool for trying to speak to any of you. Thanks for the encouragement and support it is much appreciated.
Insanity:
“nor have I ever despised your so called passive beta men.”
And yet, countless women like you, day after day, year after year, in churches and houses of worship all across the nation, contribute in a major way to creating these men. Then once created, the women who created them shun and shame them, and then further encourage their daughters to shun and shame them, consigning them to lives of failure, grinding misery, and involuntary celibacy.
“…their daughters to shun and shame them, consigning them to lives of failure, grinding misery, and involuntary celibacy..”
Yep, that is what I have come to conclude about red pills. You are simply wounded men, resentful about what you perceive to be women imposing “involuntary celibacy” on you. That is the bottom line, you feel entitled to sex, as if women owe you and if we do not pay up it becomes a personal affront to your pride, a great insult to your egos. Women, whom you do not even perceive as fully human. I’m sorry Deti, but so many of you are just parodies of manhood, so arrogant and self absorbed as to have few redeeming qualities. I completely surrender. Good luck with your war.
Insanity:
“You are simply wounded men, resentful about what you perceive to be women imposing “involuntary celibacy” on you. That is the bottom line, you feel entitled to sex,”
You’re not reading carefully enough. It’s not about women owing men sex. It’s about your insisting on having a hand in forming men up such that they become unable to get women for themselves. The problem will continue as long as women such as yourselves interfere with the process and demand to control it; and men allow it.
Did I have a comment deleted, or did I not post one today?
[DG: I have not deleted any comments in this thread.]
@DG
I did not think you would, but I thought sure I had posted a comment. My bad!
IB, That is the bottom line, you feel entitled to sex, as if women owe you and if we do not pay up it becomes a personal affront to your pride, a great insult to your egos…so arrogant and self absorbed as to have few redeeming qualities. I completely surrender. Good luck with your war.
Combox data is seriously educational. It’s a window into the “hive mind”, which is the future, how things will likely “play out” over the next few decades as Western culture implodes. Ideas have conseqences. Granted, nobody can predict the future fully, but a rough outline of options can be sketched. I feel like I’m serving with Alaric in the Roman army decades before he makes his move.
Western men have docile personalities, selectively bred for justice over 1,000 years by Catholicsm. Like union members who pay their dues (and thus deserve a share in the spoils of which a reasonable chance at family and sex is primary). This is what IB’s quote above is so offended at. She’s right in this regard. She’s an individualist, as most women are. Sadly, she cannot see the large cooperative control of males that holds the whole civilization thing together. Look at a decayed inner city to see what men look like as individuals.
Western culture has been a wonderful deal for all parties involved (except male and female alphas, granted), but especially for women. Look at the wealth, health, and peace obtained over the last 2000 years. Incredible, all the way up to nuclear bombs and indoor plumbing. Examine Africa or Asia for comparison. The West, through Christendom, has ushered this culture into modern times. A lack of justice will usher it out far more quickly. Look at the apathy we see already to divorce and family decay. We will not recover from the last 50 years of male decay.
The future will be more bleak for all. Men foolish enough to think “the deal” is still active will find out (as IB points out above) that that’s so 1950’s. Men who feel they “did their part” to build civilization will get zero pay for their service and discover they have been suckered. They should have looked out for #1. They will be even mocked (see above). Choosing between the community that despises them and their own self-interests? Easy. I know lots of men who have gone barbarian (MGTOW) already, and many, many more simply late to the party. But women? Forget it. They will only convert when they hear, “Frau. Komm” for the first time and wonder where all the nice betas went.
“Traditional marriage (not the modern day ‘traditional marriage’ variety either) was a compromise, a truce of sorts.”
What you give here is analogous to the social contract theory of the state. But marriage (which is to say, traditional marriage) is not something that evolved accidentally, as a convention, as a result of social pressures operating on top of human sexual nature. It’s PART of human sexual nature. It was established between the first man and the first woman. Later it was abused. If it then becomes renewed in some way, we must see that this is order from chaos. Natural, not accidental. (cf. Leo XIII’s Arcanum)
You also suggest that traditional marriage is supernatural, though without actually *saying* that. This would be a Calvinist picture: perversions are of nature, anything unperverted must be supernatural. But in truth, marriage is natural, and its perversions are defects in the order of nature. Supernatural grace is necessary for traditional marriage only in the same way that it is necessary for all good acts of human nature. (Setting aside the establishment of the sacrament.)
Another consequence of this is that the perversions of polygamy and serial monogamy are logically *subsequent* to traditional marriage, not logically *prior*.
There’s definitely more to be said about the relation between the true natures and the characteristically male or female perversions. I’d love to see it explored. But Calvinism’s certainly not the answer. If the language of “truce” and “compromise” has any place, it’s got to be understood as a *built‑in* truce, *more built‑in* than polygamy and serial monogamy.
Women do owe men sex. If you want men to do more than roam about, raping and burning as the notion strikes them, then you have to incentivize them. Without good reason, most men will be content to provide the minimum requirements for life, then enjoy their leisure and whims. If you want anything more than the bare necessities for survival, then pay up.
The Shadowed Knight
TSK:
Wives owe husbands sex. Otherwise, women as a class don’t owe sex to men as a class.
And men as a class don’t owe women as class anything. A man owes no woman anything. He does not owe her protection or provisioning.
He is not required to come to the aid of a woman needing any kind of help, whether that be from a drunk husband, a wayward boyfriend or a handsy date.
He isn’t required to help her move anything, lift anything, reach anything or complete anything merely because she is a woman and he is a nearby man.
I hate to pile on……………nah, I love to pile on! Another article to add to Rollo’s list. Ready for that truce?
What Your Relationship Goals Look Like In Your Early 20s Vs. Late 20s: Your early 20s are for forks; your late 20s are for spoons.
http://elitedaily.com/dating/relationship-early-late-20s/1007892/
I swear, this stuff is just getting more and more apparent by the day!
Pingback: Red Pill Philosophy Bit: It all can be boiled down to “does it benefit the MAN’s particular sexual imperative or the WOMAN’s?” | Short Guy Seduction
“Today’s women follow the lead of alpha males. And alpha males, as well as high status males in the liberal elite all promote what we’re seeing right now because it is in their self-interest to facilitate their own accumulation of harems.:
No, they don’t. They follow the lead of the men they’re involved with, which is why married women vote Republican instead of Democrat. All this Alpha/Beta Greek soup nonsense just confuses things.
Pingback: Correcting performance failure in relationships | Reflections on Christianity and the manosphere