The concept of sex addiction is gaining steam, and feminists are cheering it on. The reasons for this are fairly clear: it is another means by which they can pathologize masculinity. I wrote about the sex addiction treatment scam and why it is a problem recently, but I didn’t expect feminists to come right out and cheer it on so quickly. Perhaps I overrate their powers of subtlety.
In a piece in Slate, Hannah Rosin, former editor of the radical feminist doublex blog, comes right out and calls sex addiction a “feminist victory.” Perhaps she is encouraged by the fact that, according to sex addiction guru Martin Kafka, 95% of the people diagnosed with the “disorder” are male.
These kinds of moves may seem silly and irrelevant to most men, but I guarantee that eventually they will become a problem in family law. It is already standard practice to order men to attend “anger management” for such sins as getting upset over a wife’s affair, and raising one’s voice and insulting a shrewish, abusive wife during an argument can result in being ordered to attend a DV class, whether or not any actual crime was committed.
Now, we can also look forward to men being ordered to attend expensive sex addiction treatment for being upset that their wives refuse to sleep with them. Yes, that’s where it’s going, and that’s why it is a “feminist victory.”
Feminism is largely about sexual power. Declaring natural male desire a disease will add yet another legal weapon to feminists’ arsenal, and they will most certainly use it.
Subscribe to The Spearhead Newsletter for a free copy of the Book of Zed
{ 33 comments… read them below or add one }
Very observant Welmer. Sure wish Tiger had of been on this site before he rolled over.
BTW does anyone here still think we need to just come to an agreement with women.
They’ve done lots of tricks with male sexuality over the years – take the oft reported “Males think of sex every X seconds.” It is very misleading, and lends to the idea that men cannot go for even a few seconds without having a sexual thought which flashes through our brains, like crazed sex fiends always on the edge of rape. This is complete nonsense. What really happens with males is that we are either thinking about sex, or we are not. And far more often than not we aren’t thinking about sex at all – not even a little bit.
So, anyway, suppose that 4 times a day, a man spends 15 solid minutes thinking about sex, or sexual situations etc. etc. That makes one hour a day. And, btw, this is not really that unreasonable, when you think of how much we are bombarded by sex in society. But, the rest of the day, sex is not on the man’s mind whatsoever. Of course, one hour out of a 24hr day, is 1/24th, and then they say “a man thinks of sex once out of every 24 seconds,” or if they want to make it worse, they say men are awake for 16hrs a day, and one hour therefore makes 1/16th, and they say then “a man thinks of sex once out of every 16 seconds.”
It is totally misleading, and lends to the idea that men are sex maniacs that are constantly being jerked around my sex thoughts – which is nonsense. Men are either thinking about sex, or they are not. This just plays on differences between the sexes. (The male brain is linear). It is just as fair to say then, that women spend one hour per day before work “making themselves sexy” and go to the ladies room for 10 minutes 3 times a day to “maintain their sexiness” and then spend another 30 minutes after work/before going out on a date, “remaking themselves sexy,” totalling up to 2hrs per day that a woman concentrates on being sexy, and therefore they spend 2/24ths = 1/12th of the day trying to be sexy, therefore a woman tries to be sexy once every twelve seconds, or 2 out 16 waking hours = 1/8th, and therefore, a woman tries to be sexy once every 8 seconds. Why them women are totally led around by their clitorises! The harlots! If you want to make it even worse, factor in time shopping for clothes and cosmetics that enhance her sex appeal… factor in how often she dreams about a man she is interested in, or how often she thinks of walking sexy, or thinking about her cleavage attracting someone, and so on and so on, well, you can easily say that women are always thinking about being sexy. Led around by their clitorises, I tells ya!
These kinds of studies are also why the Psychology profession is so dangerous. They are so full shit, but they can make anything they wish to be “a disease,” and therefore issue also sorts of “treatments” which diminish freedom. This is how many freedoms were destroyed in the USSR. For example, believing in God was declared to be a mental illness, and the men in white coats “took you away.” (To a gulag). Btw, I read a while back that there were psychologists affiliated with the APA that were starting to say that Christianity was a form of mental illness. These guys can be very dangerous.
I’m not a big fan of Chomsky, but even a stopped clock is right twice a day, and he nailed one out of the park with this one:
“One waits in vain for psychologists to state the limits of their knowledge.” — Noam Chomsky
I am reminded of a gem of wisdom from one of Roissy’s post some time back.
Accused of being a sex addict? Be unapologetic. Agree and Amplify.
Agree that you are a sex addict and exaggerate your sexual conquests to the brink of absurdity.
Of course, good luck to you if you’re married.
This is just a redux of the sex negative feminism of the 70s. Rosin is on that side of contemporary feminism — they, unlike many young self-proclaimed liberated, feminist women (see, e.g., Jezebel) decry the cad culture and want to make being a cad a sickness, of not downright illegal. This flows against the tide of the culture described in the recent Weekly Standard article, in which many women are willing participants. Essentially, it’s a fight between two groups of women: women like Rosin and Nordegren, on the one hand, and the women Woods bedded in his various escapades, on the other. This has been a division in the women’s community since 1970’s feminism, and this article is just the latest salvo in it.
Feminists are simply of three minds about sex: some are lesbian and hate heterosexual sex on priniciple; some are neo-Victorian and want women to be liberated and empowered yet have sex in a bottle so that their sexual power is even more amplified (leading to even greater empowerment and control over men); and some are unabashed “sex addicts” themselves who want sex how and when they want it without criticism or commentary. This division over sex within feminism is not new, and articles like this one are just the manifestation in this generation of feminist journalism of older divisions about sex.
The whole sex addiction thing is very dubious.
Before anyone can take it seriously, it must be marriage-neutral. How can we classify as sex addiction behaviour in a married man that would not be so classified if carried out by a single man. If Tiger Woods is a sex addict, so is George Clooney (and virtually every other single sportsman or Hollywood star, possibly virtually every man if he got the chances these guys did). Also, how many female celebrities have been outed as sex addicts? They ain’t all pure as the driven snow by any means.
Secondly, an addiction is in the nature of a compulsion, free choice is taken away e.g. alcoholics crave best Scotch malt but will settle for paint-stripper. Not sure this really is the case with the so-called sex addicts but if there is any doubt there is an infallible test – lock Tiger Woods in a room with women who qualify as “1″ on the 9 point scale and keep him there for a few days & see what happens. Very little, I’d say.
Thirdly, as always with these new-fangled ideas – who benefits? Psychiatrists, for a start. The intellectual successors of the same guys who in the 1950s were advocating “cures” for homosexuality. As one window closes, another opens up and all that.
Fourthly, the whole “I can’t help it” is part of the whole cultural abdication of responsibility. Be a cad and be proud of it, or reform. But don’t whine about how you’re a victim of your sex drive.
Fifthly, the first self-professed celebrity sex addict, as far as I remember, was Michael Douglas. Nuff said.
I think it’s a telling reflection of the last 40 years of the culture that homosexual behavior has been normalized while at the same time perfectly normal (if caddish) heterosexual behavior has been turned into a psychopathology. All a part of the same war against all that is straight, white and male.
Yes, I admit, I am addicted to sex. I am also addicted to breathing, eating and drinking fluids. All these things are necessary for sustenance of life for a normal man. So no wonder our basics of life are now being criminalised by statutes. And when I was married I was just about as pissed off with the lack of sex as I would be with lack of oxygen.
And, gents, just in case you think I am a ‘bit harsh’ telling women to ‘fuck off’ if they are not willing to be part of the solution, consider being deemed psychologically unbalanced for nothing more than wanting sex. This is exactly the sort of thing the russians did. Any ‘dissent’ required the immediate services of the phsychiatrist/psychologist. Is it any wonder guys like me are in the ‘fuck off’ mode of operation with women?
“BTW does anyone here still think we need to just come to an agreement with women.”
Of course not. Women have no honour and no integrity. They will not be held to their word and therefore any ‘agreement’ is pointless. We must simply take all the property off them by peaceful means which means running businesses in competition with them. If they don’t like that then we will take their property off them by force. Their choice.
“It is already standard practice to order men”
For those of you who do not know. When a judge/magistrate issues an ‘order’ in a common law country they are issuing the order under Uniform Commercial Code which is in compliance with the old British Bills of Exchange legislation. Hhhmmmm…what does that mean?
When you go to McDonalds and you get to the front of the Q what do you do? You ORDER your burger. What do you the kid goes and gets your buger. What happens next? You are given a ‘virtual bill’ when they ring up the amount of the order and then you PAY YOUR BILL and they give you a receipt.
So when a judge/magistrate is so generous to give you an ORDER you are legally and lawfully entitled to GIVE HIM A BILL for the order and you are under no obligation to deliver on the order until your BILL is paid. So, if a judge ORDERS a payment of USD2,000 a month for alimony/child support? I suggest you give him a BILL for, say, USD2M and tell him thanks for the order and that you look forward to delivering on the order when he pays his BILL for his order. He is now the debtor and you are the creditor of that transaction. The word ORDER is used ambiguously. You think ‘order’ is ‘command’. What it really means is ‘offer to purchase services’. The judge offers you the opportunity to purchase his services of adjudication and if you accept the ‘order’ you have to pay the alimony/child support. This is what I did to the judge in Ireland for my ‘court order’ for interim maintenance. Two years? No interim maintenance. No warrant. Cool!
Although from the women’s section of the Times this is a surprisingly unbiased and objective look at the whole sex addiction issue.
http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/relationships/article6099083.ece
It’s possible that there may be an outlier category of persons for whom sex is a compulsive behaviour rather than a matter of personal choice; however in most if not all of these persons the sexual compulsion can be explained as a mood type disorder. The question of whether or not some forms of anti-social sexual behaviour (e.g. paedophilia, necrophilia) are compulsive or voluntary is very fraught – not being inclined this way and fortunately having had little or no experience of persons so inclined, I wouldn’t be able to say.
Sex and food aren’t really that different in this regard. Are fat people food-addicted or do they just like food (some would say they’re just greedy, but I’ll try not to be pejorative here)? Except in cases of glandular disturbance, reactions to medications & various other medical conditions, I think we all know the answer.
PS Was Thomas Jefferson a sex addict? Julius Caesar? Louis XIV? Mozart? What’s with this new trend to define the measure of a man by his sexual fidelity? Put another way, why are we choosing our leaders (not just in politics, but in sport, for crying out loud) on the basis of whether or not they are good husband (or wife) material? As far as I’m concerned, so long as they stay away from non-consenting partners, children and small furry animals, and at least try to keep the inevitable totty nepotism to a minimum, just let them get on with running the country. Everything else is just prurience & curtains twitching at squinting windows.
There is a campaign to bring down the misandrist Carol Shea-Porter.
http://www.carol-shea-porter.com/
I say we bring visibility to this, and make an example of her. Once the first one falls, others will take pause.
There is a campaign to bring down the misandrist Carol Shea-Porter.
If we can make an example of her, then not only will others take pause, but we have a template on how to get rid of future misandrists.
The fact that I’m getting “Social Networking for Women” ads on this page amuses me to no end: http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CPzw9pmumMSGlQEQrAIY7wEyCNv4gjhJhYib
Yeah, some of the ads that come up are hilarious. When Jack Donovan posted about the women for green products all sorts of women’s ads came up. Interestingly, they seem to have been pretty effective. The ads are mainly targeted to search visitors, so there’s often a lot of incongruity where the spirit of the content and opinion is concerned.
That settles it; I’m writing an article on tampons just to see what happens.
LMAO at all of this. 18 years ago a guy named Patrick Carnes wrote a book called Out of the Shadowns. It was lauded as a groundbreaking work on a “new addiction” Sex Addicts Anonymous meeting multiplied like sex addicted rabbits and sex addiction was on it’s way to being the new crack cocaine.
Therapists everywhere were giddy.
I went to one of their meetings (no, just a counselor exploring referral resources) and was glad I didn’t eat before I went in. One man went on for 15 minutes about his struggles in grocery stores because he couldn’t walk through the produce section without imagining all the fruits and vegetables he could force up his ass. Another man broke down crying because he could not masturbate to orgasm without whipping his cock with a leather belt in the process.
I decided there were better places to refer people and left feeling like the crack heads and drunks I treated had higher class problems. And I got the distinct feeling that aside from the vocal nut cases that most of the men were sitting near the door in hopes that a sex addicted female would come in and sit next to them.
Ahem.
Now to see feminists act as though this is a sudden find and are latching on to it is only indicative of them running out of reasons to persecute us. They aren’t reaching ahead, they are just reaching into the past at something most clinicians (Carnes notwithstanding) gave up on for the same reason they give up on anything that combines therapy with men. There isn’t jack in it for money. Guys don’t do therapy because all of them know at some level it is rigged against them. SAA’s membership dwindled to almost nothing the moment the guys there figured out women weren’t going to show in any numbers.
Paul Elam: “most of the men were sitting near the door in hopes that a sex addicted female would come in and sit next to them”
Only on Californication…wasn’t there a female sex addict who met the David Duchovny character at Sex Addicts Anonymous?
If you draw a parallel with other addiction recovery programmes which as far as I’m aware (could be wrong) involve full abstention from the source of the addiction, shouldn’t a sex addiction recovery program, fully carried through to its logical conclusion, mandate total withdrawal from sex (including marital sex)? Or possibly castration.
I’m sure that is what the femnasties have in mind.
As a pro-feminist MRA, the thing which confuses me about many men’s rights website content, is that on one hand, a lot of MRA writers and commentators (from Marc Rudov down, including Chapin and others here) like to heavily criticize or encourage personal and political rejection of promiscuous women, whilst at the same time, as above, deflect any criticism of promiscuous men. If we as a species are to evolve into a more peaceful and empathic one, then rather than the sexes segregating, ever, it will involve free association of the sexes – which involves promiscuity by men AND women. MRAs like to go on about broken family units and the inevitable demise of civilization as we know it or the end of empire as we know it, and align it to the demise of previous great empires which ended in female debauchery then eventual ruin – but there is a key difference now, which too many seem prepared to overlook – women can control their fertility, with contraception and abortion – so please, learn to celebrate the fact you don’t know where she’s been. Make her do an STD test and paternity test if you’re feeling paranoid – and try to draw an accurate distinction between ’sluts’ and ‘whores’.
Trad fascist women shame promiscuous women for giving away sex for free, by calling them ‘whores’ when of course, a whore never gives it away for free.
If trad fascist women did not try to shame promiscuous women, then more women would give it away for free, and those trad fascist women would have to reduce their prices accordingly.
The last thing we need is MRAs doing the shaming job too. Using female-shaming tactics to artificially prop up wannabe housewhores’ going rates anywhere above zero, is for zeros.
At the moment, the only internet person I’ve read who seems to get the argument that clean, safe female promiscuity is a good thing to be celebrated, and who is in fact way ahead, because she’s been blogging about it for years, is…
Jessica Valenti at feministing.
Point your spearhead in the right direction!
I’ve always been torn between desiring slutty girls on a shallow level and “good girls” on a deeper level. The problem is that I cannot respect slutty girls and these girls tend to confuse sex with interest. Our society, in the end, thrives based on families, and women who are slutty when they are younger make poor wives in my opinion. To me, they cannot be trusted, they have confused sluttery with liberation and thus are not very intelligent, they are concerned more with themselves than with any mere man. They are the same women who are likely to file for divorce because 1) they are convinced they can have any man they want, 2) they are all about “me, me, me”, 3) they don’t have traditional family values.
This is true regardless of contraception.
Now I am fairly liberal but I am also traditional. I can see loose women being beneficial to guys who want to just get laid but I can’t see them being beneficial for society. I’d rather see girls who are sluts in the sack like they want to be, but only for one man.
Besides, even if it were a-okay for women to be sluts, they wouldn’t just sleep with anyone. They’d still seek out the alpha males. It would be easier on average for men to “get some” but not all men would. And “getting some” isn’t the most important thing.
I would defend Tiger Woods because who wouldn’t cheat on an unsatisfying woman like Elin Nordegren? I also find it ridiculous to call normal male sexual behavior sexual addiction and it’s just another item in feminist repertoire along with the arbitrary age of consent that shames men for looking at the women we naturally desire.
Normal female sexual behavior is serial monogamy, not another man every night, so the two cases are different.
I think men should all have a bottom bitch who they really care about and then just bring in other clean women on occasion to keep things interesting. Hehe.
In the end, sluts cannot be trusted. Until men have better contraceptive options to ensure that we can save our sperm for quality women, women have no reason not to be sluts. When men decide who gets the privilege of having our babies, women will hopefully find a way to present greater value than just a fucktoy and sluts will have a hard time doing that long term. Sluts are less appealing to us long-term and as long as we want families that won’t change.
@tom of covent garden
“As a pro-feminist MRA…”
That makes as much sense as a ‘chaste prostitute’ or ‘peaceful war’.
Sorry tocg. Until you take your mind out of the gender equality and/or female supremacy gutter, your pearls of feminist wisdom are unnecessary and unwelcome.
“If we as a species are to evolve into a more peaceful and empathic one…”
…then we must turn the other cheek, pucker up the the Almighty vagina. Hell yeah!
Women are like toilets. All of us men prefer a clean or cleaner one. But some men wouldn’t mind a slightly dirtier one, especially when there is an urge to use that toilet. If it’s too revoltingly dirty, most men would find another cleaner one.
Similar analogy with used cars. Of course a brand new car is best, but used cars are much more affordable. And they function the same, takes you from point A to point B. But good luck to the guy who unwittingly bought a car that logged a high odometer reading, and is probably a lemon waiting to happen.
Okay MGTOW. Firstly, pro-feminist men’s rights activism makes sense when you consider that most lay people who broadly identify as feminist do so out of an egalitarian sense of fairness, and so can be quickly brought round to realizing the legitimacy of the men’s rights movement. Anti-feminist women (and men) on the other hand, do not even pretend to hold to such principles, and will simply tell MRAs to stop snivelling, pay for everything, and go fight the next war (where you might need that spear-head).
Your analogy of women to dirty toilets misses the point, as I did stress the importance of clean sex, with the use of std tests and so on. So using your analogy, we men do prefer a clean toilet – and even though that clean toilet may have been used by thousands of different people, as long as it is clean, we are happy.
Your analogy of women to used cars doesn’t make sense to me either, as, any man experienced enough will tell you, women who are virgins, do not run very well – they don’t move very well, they don’t orgasm very well, and they don’t initiate or reciprocate special treats very well. Their nuerological pathways for enjoying sex have not yet fully developed, and they will need to be driven round the block a good few times by a good few drivers before they can be taken into overdrive.
Do ‘men going their own way’ drive at all?
Another bit of mine, you don’t seem to get, ‘If we as a species are to evolve into a more peaceful and empathic one’…
I was referring to our need to freely associate, men and women being as promiscuous as they like. A study across 25 primate species showed those who freely associated had evolved more brain capacity for empathy and higher thought, versus those primate species which sex segregated, who had evolved more brain capacity for aggression (New Scientist, 2007).
Some might argue we are not monkeys. Some of us, maybe. Wasn’t there something in the media not long ago about a monkey using a spear?
testing
Interesting that you bring that up. I was just reading about gender role differentiation in the paleolithic. It seems that gender roles were an innovation that accompanied the cultural and technological explosion that occurred during the upper paleolithic, whereas in the earlier middle paleolithic men and women freely associated and pretty much did everything together.
In our case, it may be that sex segregation is an evolved trait that is of fairly recent origin.
Sorry but I don’t buy the "hey let’s all free associate and fuck like monkeys, people! Woohah! Orgasms for free!!" mentality. It provides absolutely no baseline for a stable society, for male investment in themselves and the broader society, and for the promotion of stable family life. Rampant promiscuity leads to the inability to pair bond, which makes marriages and other long-term bonds less stable, which reduces paternal investment, which harms children, which, at the end of the day, screws up society as a whole rather royally.
The black community in the United States and the chav underclass community in the UK are two well-known examples of this. There will be more as the disease spreads through the wider society.
The fact that women can regulate their fertility has nothing to do with the social decline associated with female sexual emancipation. That decline relates to men, and male reluctance to pair bond and invest in children when there is no incentive to do so. Referring to paternity tests is inapposite — it’s not simply the non-paternity risk but also the decreased incentives to pair bond to begin with in a situation where women congregate around a relatively small percentage of sexually attractive men whilst leaving most of the rest mateless — which is what happens in a "free for all" "free association" model. Women are hypergamous in attraction, regardless of the degree of freedom in the sexual marketplace. And under a free associational model, most of the top half or more of the women congregate around the most desirable men — a situation which disincents both these men to pair bond (why bother, when they are swimming in sexually available attractive women?) while at the same time destroying pair bonding opportunities for the men around whom the women are not congregating. This method of organizing (or disorganizing) sexuality simply does not promote family life at all because it does not promote pair bonding.
Again, the black community in the United States is a shining example of what happens when you remove pair bonding incentives.
I get the impression that tom couldn’t care less about the wider society and simply wants men to endorse "free love" as an ideal. The issue with that, from the practical perspective (leaving aside the obvious feminism of it, since tom admits he’s a feminist) is that a "free love" system disenfranchises most men sexually. It results in the top men getting a huge amount of sexual access, and the rest of the men getting the leftovers. And most men aren’t terribly happy with that, unless they’re in the top category where they are swimming in attractive women. Clearly Tom isn’t viewing this from the perspective of the average guy, but either from the perspective of a woman or the perspective of one of the top 20% of guys who benefits from a free love system.
Interesting, substantive point, Welmer. I do not doubt, and in fact suspect, that sex segregation does indeed lead to great technological innovation
under the ‘right’ conditions (think Hitler’s Germany or even modern Japan (low female econ activity). These societies tend to be a bit extreme, accentuating the winners and losers, and a bit on the fascistic side, along with all the other sex segregators, who produce nothing (think Arab world).
Also, the benefits of free association might be less brain capacity for aggression (in the males and in the females), and correspondingly less use of aggression, which might lead to better quality of life issues more difficult to measure than technological empire building, money-making et al.
When you say that in our case, sex segregation might be an evolved trait, I think of the pigeons on London’s streets, seeing the way the females studiously avoid all contact with males, except when the males are regurgetating food into the females’ mouths. It strikes me as base behaviour for females to sex segregate – and it is the females who do the segregating by the way (think of all those ads for female only roommates).
Novaseeker thinks the ‘free for all’ of free association is more hypergamous, with all the women free to congregate around the top 20% of men. This doesn’t make sense to me, on many levels, for I understand that a much greater percentage of non-Western men die virgins than Western, more free men (unless the non-westerner has been to a whore).
In Saudi Arabia, if the man cannot come up with $18,000, then he cannot get married, and therefor cannot have sex, unless he is prepared to do a one day contract to go with a whore. Financial hypergamy is very extreme and absolute in most parts of the world. In Pakistan, the saying goes ‘No wife, no life.’ Even in (somewhat) more progressive Japan, I read recently, 15% of 40 year old men are virgins. I have read that in the West, only 1% of men die virgins, versus closer to 0% of women.
Also Novaseeker, in the free love model, we use in the West, one man can only have one wife, rather than a rich guy buying up all the whores in the neighbourhood. Go to Saudi Arabia or any other Arab country, and see the life the average male leads – Shear misery, to the point of being homosexual in the winter when the female tourists aren’t around to give him even the slightest hope of getting lucky. When that heterosexual Arab man is bent over taking it up the arse from another man this Winter, do you think he’s celebrating how easy it is for him to gain access to females? Or how technologically advanced his society is, or how evolved?
Of course, the West prior to circa 1960 was just like Saudi Arabia, right? So the obvious thing to do is compare what we have now to what Saudi Arabia is like. Elementary, dear Watson, eh?
The point also is not "hey, not that many guys end up as virgins". The point is whether we have a stable basis for a society and family life where we have a free for all system. You haven’t addressed that point. Yes, when there is a flood all boats are lifted by the rising waters, yes? But this doesn’t mean that (1) sexual access is anything close to being equal or (2) the kinds of relationships being formed are conducive to long-term stability and family life. It’s true that there aren’t many male virgins, but there are a lot of men who are getting very sporadic access to sexuality, while a few men are swimming in sexual access. At the same time, the "peers" of average guys are sexing up the social totem pole as a means to try to snag commitments from higher status men, leaving these average guys relatively high and dry. Virgins? Probably not. But in stable LTRs that are conducive to building stable families? Also probably not, simply because too many of their peers in attractiveness are sexing up the social totem pole.
Robert Wright — a feminist, leftie and no MRA — pointed out in his classic book "The Human Animal" what happens in a the free-for-all system of today. Let’s say you have 1000 men and 1000 women all ranked based on overall attractiveness to the opposite sex (composite of looks, social station, class, wealth, persona, etc.). If you have a strict monogamy system, people will more or less "end up with" someone around their own level most of the time with a few exceptions — precisely because higher value mates are limited by the enforcement of monogamy. Sure, there are violators of the system — there always will be in any system — but the violators are punished, often severely. It’s a system that is more socially restrictive, but which results in many more families and much higher family stability. If you take the same group of 2,000 ranked people and instead change the rules to a free-for-all what you see is that women float up the social totem pole because it is more attractive for woman 700 to try to gain access to man 200 than it is to resign herself to her peer man 700. Not in a de jure polygamy way like Saudi Arabia, but in what Wright rightly describes as a "de facto polygyny" way — the women float up the totem pole. This has a negative effect on *all* men other than the ones at the top. Guy 700 is stuck with a lower peer value mate, perhaps woman 900 or woman 1200 depending on the level of polygyny and hypergamy permitted. And for every woman who floats up the totem pole, one guy goes mateless, by definition. The result is a sexually and socially fluid situation which tends to work against social and familial stability. Again Wright, who is a feminist himself, sees it as a huge problem because he, like most feminists, is focused on what is happening at the apex, where he sees the top men exploiting easy sexual access to women. But even Wright also notes that many men basically get screwed by the system either by getting no mate or getting a lesser mate than they would have had under a monogamy system because their peer value mate has opted to compete for the attentions of a higher man than "settling" for her peer-value man as a mate.
The free market system is not favorable to men, that’s for certain, unless you are a top male, in terms of stable relationships and mates. It’s arguable as to whether it is favorable for women — Wright doesn’t think it is because as a feminist he sees the de facto polygyny system as exploitative of women. But that perspective leaves aside the fact that it’s the women themselves who decide to float up the totem pole — no-one is forcing them to ditch their peer-value males for higher value males — it’s just their hypergamous instinct that does so. In the end, it isn’t beneficial to society as a whole because it tends to undermine stable family formation and retention — something I think Wright is correct about, regardless of his other views.
Nevertheless, Novaseeker, with our free association free sex model, at least our Beta males get a crack at the hotter women, and a chance to show sexual prowess. If an ugly guy has found a way to make a hot woman have multiple orgasms (and there are ways), then he drastically increases his chances of being kept on the team. The average-looking Arab or Pakistani man will never get a shot at the title. Proper feminists do try and discourage hypergamous female habits somewhat, but if people slag off women for being sluts, they make the hypergamous tendancy worse, by encouraging the woman to choose carefully and conservatively, rather than give the lower males a shot. Hypergamy usually refers to wealth, but also it can be thought of as applying to status, humour skills, social skills, sexual skills – all things that men can easily improve. You appear to be linking hypergamy to a kind of animalistic Darwinian pecking order, when these days, there are many non-fascistic ways of exhibiting more useful forms of dominance, for all men to have a crack at. We know dominance is good for men’s health, and we know women like dominant men – maybe the solution for MRAs is to become dominant in… the MRM… AND wider society, thus reaping the dominance dividend, including the sex, all without capitulating to women in any sense, whilst staying true to ones principles, and doing good.
Woods had sinned against the Church of Feminism by annoying a female and had to go before the Inquisition(The clinic) where he had to do his penance for the sin of lechery and making a female mad and suffer public humiliation and no sex for 2 weeks as part of his penance. Getting his teeth knocked out with a 9 Iron while he was partly asleep and being forced to crash into a tree and almost killing himself was deemed just punishment for making a female mad. You must remember that Woods was guilty of a serious crime unlike trivial things like a female who burns her husband in bed or shoots him to death while he sleeps or cuts his cock off.
Sex Addiction. What a joke. They have managed to criminalize natural sex urges. But only for men. What about all the female teachers that have been in the news the past few years, who have raped their young male students? Couldn’t that also be classified as sex addiction?
Feminist: “Are you a sex addict?”
Man: “Yes, but fortunately I have a support group. We have been…supporting each other with limited success.”
fucking ridiculous!
I have never been diagnosed as having a "sex addiction" despite having had many psychiatric evaluations in my time..
The reason sex addiction is NOT a fucking addiction, is because there is no "withdrawal effect"..
I used to have sex a ridiculous amount. I once worked out that when I was 27-34, I spent more time with my piston in the cylinder than I spent sleeping.. Or, since I hardly ever slept, than the normal person would spend sleeping..
That of course involved a serious large quantity of victims..
But that was not because I am some sort of deranged sex maniac, it was simply because, as a male, it my duty to inseminate as many good haddocks as possible, or I will be striked down by god and suffer horrendous implications for my sin..
And the fact that women constantly force me to have sex with them by sending sexual attractants into my brain and causing me to react as they desire..
Excessive sex causes hallucinations and other things, but most folk dont actually get that worked up and just get that peculiar feeling they call "love"..
But, when you really hammer the flange, you can do wondrous things with your dopamine neurons!
Yet, even after shagging my brains out for days on end with no break, I can take a day off, or travel away from the sperm thieves and feel pretty good, and not even think about axewound..
The biggest problem with sex, is that women use it all the time to try and manipulate men..
And they are encouraged to do that by the femistate..
I remember seeing a man who described himself as a "sex addict" on the tv many years ago..
What a fucking joke!! He was just a sad silly shit who was just thinking that OTHER THINGS that dont fucking matter, where as important as fucking!
If anyone here is an "edger", they may find it interesting that the world masturbation record is a pretty pathetic sub ten hours effort..
http://www.japanator.com/japanese-man-t … 9887.phtml
I can do that before breakfast several times a week without even making a special effort!
And its no problem to do 24 hours striaght tugging and not ever lose wood, if you have spend a lifetime dedcicated to the one handed arts..
The phrase "relaxing in the gentlemans way" of course demonstrates that, when a gent is relaxed, he will naturally masturbate constantly.. unless destracted by drink, drugs, cunts, or social protocol that precludes such..
When the pussy is out of your face though and no porn is available..
One mysteriously finds other things to do..
Like video gaming..
Agreement? The time for agreements are over. There are the real women, not the misandrist feminists out there and it is those whom we should continue to be chivalrous and gentlemanly towards but as for the rest, I have to say f*ck ‘em. Make them realise why society was the way it was for centuries by showing them how society would have been without the male compassion over women and the need to protect. When seeing a woman in trouble, being attacked, walk on by. You don’t know why she’s being attacked and very possibly deserves whatever comes her way. You Leave the state, the very vehicle of feminism to pick up the pieces. Eventually the males within the state will realise they’re being used and manipulated and they’ll get wise and leave it to crumble like a house of cards. When leaving a building don’t look behind, just let the door close and should women complain just say "that’s equality baby, open doors yourself."
I have a rather startling story to tell you which changed my mind and that was being on the underground in London one day. I was sitting on the tube and a middle aged woman came in to which I got up and offered my seat. She was most grateful, looked tired and had baggage. She immediately said "It’s nice to see there are some gentleman left in the world" to which I replied, there still are, just few and far between. I then found out she was a solicitor and representing a male in a company who was being sued for sexual harassment and sexism, because he dared open a door for a woman to go through. I couldn’t believe it, neither could she. That was about 5 or so years ago now.
Has anyone ever noticed that the logical thing to do regards sex with women is..
Not to have sex with women!!
You must log in to post a comment.