I kind of expected the analogy of gun rights and slut rights to annoy some guys, but I thought it was an idea worth bringing up. It was actually one of those thoughts that comes when I’m writing about something else, so it wasn’t all that well-formed (which is probably why this post is necessary), but I still think it’s valuable. I’ll tell you why:
Leftists are well-practiced at framing the issue of gun control in humanitarian terms. For most of us with a libertarian streak (and I count myself among them), it’s a bit beside the point. Sure, shooting people is a nasty thing — most of us gun owners know that well. Legal gun owners are one of the most responsible demographics in the US, and firearm ownership is a tradition that stretches back to the earliest British settlements in North America. It’s in our blood, so to speak, and we don’t take the right to bear arms lightly.
However, it’s undeniable that gun crime is a big problem in the US. Nothing like it was in 1990, but it’s still appalling to many decent folks on the other side of the Atlantic. For the record, I don’t think restrictionist laws are the answer. All you have to do is take a look at Mexico and South Africa to see that this isn’t a viable solution. But even so, there are some parallels with sexual liberation, because it is about rights and responsibilities. This “make love, not war” idea promulgated in the 1960s that posited that sexuality is an unmitigated blessing was one of the biggest lies ever foisted on the American people. Sexuality has its own dangerous power. Guns may be capable of taking life, and sex of creating it, but as the ancient Hindus understood creation and destruction are intimately connected — even inseparable.
When sexuality is unleashed the consequences can be very weighty. Feminists would have us believe that there is no downside to women exercising unlimited sexual freedom, but tens of millions of abortions and broken families tell another story. Teen pregnancies, welfare mothers, men in prison for child support arrears — this is all the result of the liberation of female sexuality. Yet in the meanwhile these same people supporting unlimited promiscuity will say that if only we restricted the right of people to bear arms it would solve our crime problems. Well, wouldn’t abortion, divorce and teen pregnancy be drastically curtailed if we restricted the right of women to be sluts?
Essentially, I’d like to call the left-feminists out on their own hypocrisy. If they have such a simple solution to a national problem such as gun crime, why not use the same logic to eliminate another set of social ills by curtailing women’s sexual freedom?
Of course, this isn’t going to happen. Men have never exercised nearly as much control over female sexuality as they’d have us believe. Slut shaming has always been strongest when exercised by other women. Recent suicides by young women accused of being sluts were prompted by vicious judgment from girls — not boys. Campaigns to eliminate strip clubs – or even bikini barista joints – are almost always undertaken by angry wives.
Sometimes, when you’re arguing with people on the holier-than-thou side of the political spectrum, it’s helpful to remind them of their own inconsistencies, and in doing so we have to go beyond our own parameters from time to time. It doesn’t bother me all that much to do so, but I think I owe an explanation to readers to assure them that I am still very much on the reservation.
{ 55 comments… read them below or add one }
“If they have such a simple solution to a national problem such as gun crime, why not use the same logic to eliminate another set of social ills by curtailing women’s sexual freedom?”
You’ll never get them to that point because they’ll just deny your premise outright. They’ll just say those social ills aren’t their fault but are the fault of men, patriarchy, etc. Keep in mind these are folks who say that a women dressed like a tart can be held to ZERO account if she’s raped.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
29 
2
Let us never forget that the country with the HIGHEST number of guns in it per head of population also has the LOWEST crime rate.
That would be switzerland.
You piss off one of those bankers or watchmakers? He might look calm. But he has a gun and he knows how to use it. There is nowhere I feel as safe as when I go to Switzerland. You know nothing is going to happen to you there.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
37 
2
One purpose of disarming a population, and of talking about doing it, is to leave people frightened, insecure, and paranoid.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
28 
0
I thought your analogous connection was pretty clear in the first post. Produced some interesting and pereptive insights.
There was certainly a knee-jerk reaction from a few commenters. I think it could have stemmed from the widespread attacks on gunowners and the refusal of non U.S. citizens to understand the 2nd ammendment in your constitution. Gun owners are used to genuflecting constant criticism and diminishion of the issue.
Australian’s gun ownership is on a par with Britain and Europe, but my father’s people were from the country and took me shooting in my youth. Important rite of passage for me. Many country people have gun licences, especially the ones who don’t want to see their livestock decimated by predators. Australia has a lot of destructive introduced species that destroy native habitats e.g.: rabbits and wild boar. I remember how important it was to my grandfather that I understood that gun ownership is an essential part of the lives of people on the land (even environmentally responsible).
Mention this to any urbanite in Australia and the reaction is universally negative. Lots of muted insinuations that they were gun-toting hillbillies – which they certainly were not. I understand that watching the U.S. MSM’s endlessly attacking gun ownership would make anyone defensive. It is another opportunity to attack and patronise. As you said earlier, disagreeing with most libtards is taken as proof of your stupidity and moral ineptitude.
I don’t think anyone here would ever accuse you of wandering off the reservation you built with your own two gun-totin’ hands!
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Yes, our cities in the US have lots of gun deaths. That’s because that is where gun control laws eminate from. The liberals disarm the citizenry and low and behold, the criminals continue to criminally hold onto guns. As a matter of fact, guns become more useful in committing crimes because you won’t face an armed victim.
I think that’s where the analogy breaks down. Citizens should be armed to the teeth, as well as respect the firearms they have. Oklahoma doesn’t face a home invasion problem because too many citizens have guns. No gun control should exist.
On the other hand I might still be missing the point of the post for the logical inconsistances of gun control vs. all-you-can-slut life style. Of course evil said it best, logic won’t work against feminists.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
18 
3
“Poverty is the mother of crime”–Marcus Aurelius
If you want to reduce crime you’re going to have to pay people living wages and with the economy being gutted and hysterics of both the left and right in the country there is no middle ground. There will always be those who are intentionally criminal, like those at the top during the bailout. While small time crime is an issue, it seems to me white collar crime is the real issue… trillions of dollars in damage to peoples lives and the economy and no bankers go to jail. But if you’re doing smalltime crime you get caught you get to go to jail.
There are most certainly people who are driven to crime by circumstance and those who genuinely need help. Unfortunately given the genuine non thinking of both the left and right in american society I don’t see it happening.
Like or Dislike:
5 
5
Mr. Price, I got it right off-the-bat the first time………thanks for the excellent analogy.
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
What the whole thing boils down to is CONTROL…..
Social (Governmental big-daddy) Control or Personal Liberty!
Real freedom is frightening to many many people, women included, and the idea of “others” having liberties such as unfettered gun ownership, keeping the money they earn, owning whatever vehicle they desire, and living in THEIR neighborhoods is frightening to most less-hearty folks who want big-daddy govt. to “protect” them from both themselves and their neighbors.
CONTROL over others and others’ actions via governmental law appeals to the lesser among us because they fear….US!
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
20 
1
Thanks for the clarification – didn’t quite get your drift in the original article.
The analogy wouldn’t work for feminists. The article linked to (about the girl committing suicide) dismisses ANY responsibility of the girl for bringing about her condition. All such comments suggesting she had any responsibility for bringing about the situation are deleted, per the site’s owner.
Like or Dislike:
11 
0
Price–
WTF are the words “logic” and “feminists” doing in the same paragraph?
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
Reading about the downside or negative consequences of unlimited sexual freedom, on a societal level, is always educational since there is so much ongoing propaganda that promotes it. Human sexuality itself is a beautiful gift from God or nature. Yet, that sexuality needs some restraints by society and individuals.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
“If they have such a simple solution to a national problem such as gun crime, why not use the same logic to eliminate another set of social ills by curtailing women’s sexual freedom?”
For the feminist, abortion and divorce are not issues of sex, but of politics (women’s rights). They do not see abortion and divorce as problems, but as trophies. Sex is something else entirely and I am still not sure how feminist catagorize sex, other than as a criminal offense.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
OT:
‘Cops: Boy lured to home, beaten, shot, burned’
—- A better headline would express that an ex-girlfriend lures 15 year old boy to home where he gets tortured and murdered.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42701096/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
I didn’t think your analogy was a terrible one, i understand what you were trying to get across. The feminist stance on the issue though is I believe much simpler than you’re implying. The fact of the matter is, feminists view all the social pathologies associated with unlimited promiscuity as a price worth paying to have unlimited promiscuity, they’ll attempt to reduce them (or those which affect women anyway) by any means that does not involve curtailing women’s right to be flagrantly promiscuous, ie dealing with the root cause. As we all know, these efforts consist almost entirely of having the state steal resources from men and devote them to ameliorating the negative consequences of slutdom for the female.
By contrast, feminists see no utility in free gun ownership, true freedom is not something about which the majority of women care a great deal, they care far more about their own comfort and material welbeing and are basically happy to be dependent so long as they’re taken care of. As such, they do not see the costs as being worth the benefits, because they can’t see any benefit. Besides which, ultimately, is not a gun simply a device that the weak use to prevent the strong from simply doing and taking what they please? Or to put it as it occurs to the female mind; a device that curtails the full expression of the alpha/beta dynamic, obviously something women will feel a strong visceral dislike for.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
The real reason lefties hate gun ownership (not just in US) among the male population is not because of crime, but so they can carry out their feminist agenda and draconian laws unimpeded by a disarmed male population. It really is us v. them.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
29
@MWPeak
Nicely said, bravo. Trophies, each fetus a notch in their belts.
Just read Margert Sanger, the female imperialists army are just following the playbook.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
Disgracefully, sex is overrated in our culture, promoted by materialism and cosumerism. Sex must be shared in a respectful and at least, semi-stable couple, otherwise humans are closer to animals.
Abortion is, by far, one of the biggest problems not solved by our tecnocratic-supposedly adavances societies.
Hot debate. What do you think?
11 
11
Except, of course, for how the majority of tragic, senseless firearm deaths in this country are. . .
. . .MALE SUICIDES.
50.13%, to be more precise, according to the CDC’s online data from 1981-2007.
Ayep, that’s right; for every man, woman, and child in the usa killed by someone else with a gun, more than one man or boy killed themselves.
We don’t have a gun crime problem. We have a male suicide problem.
Well-loved. Like or Dislike:
17 
0
This is why I am not political.
The same people who say that life is sacred and are against abortion, often support the death penalty.
People who rant and rave about freedom of speech – are often the same ones who label other people’s speech as “hate speech” and want them thrown in jail for it (we seem to be getting targeted by this crowd…).
Burning the American Flag – a great American symbol is illegal – yet people burn other great American symbols on a daily basis – like hot dogs and apple pies.
Innocent Grandma’s who simply forgot they had an apple pie in the oven?
Or communist agitators defying America by burning Apple Pies?
You decide!
Hot debate. What do you think?
13 
7
”The same people who say that life is sacred and are against abortion, often support the death penalty.”
There is absolutely no equivalence between these two things, a self evident fact that should not need explaining. Nobody who cannot see that there is no contradiction whatsoever in holding those two beliefs simultaneously is either retarded or disingenuous.
On an unrelated note, previous comment lost in moderation.
Like or Dislike:
7 
5
NMH wrote:
“Well hand guns are made for killin’
They ain’t no good for nothin’ else
Stick that in your ear, Price-man.”
NMH, what are you trying to prove? During the Clinton-era, Bill and Hillary (anti-gunners) hired two PhDs from the University of Chicago to prove that American society would be better off without firearms. The statisticians who had been initially anti-gun later concluded that at least 1.5 to 2.0+ Million times yearly firearms are used to stop a violent crime from occurring or to stop one from continuing. Today, those statisticians are firearm owners and have been quoted numerous times supporting ownership.
The majority of firearm deaths are from suicides and shootings between gang bangers or thugs.
While murder is morally wrong there is nothing immoral about shooting and if necessary killing in self-defense of oneself or another person.
Like or Dislike:
16 
2
Acksiom April 21, 2011 at 09:50
We don’t have a gun crime problem. We have a male suicide problem.
Acksiom. Absolutely…and MANY more men should be shouting from the rooftop about this. Only trouble is? People find this a ‘distasteful topic’?
So what? I just had a commenter on a video say I was ‘too confrontational’. He seems to have missed that I have BEGGED men to help me for three years and they STILL have their head up their collective arses on the point of male suicide and the number of boys left fatherless.
You can read his comment and my reply here:
http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=8nqoe_Wx8FE
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
@Acksiom
Valuable info – thanks for posting.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
For the record, and I know I will pilloried for saying this, but here in Canada we have a high level of gun ownership; on a per capita basis I believe it equals the USA. But here is the catch: you must register your firearms. Some firearms – machine guns with armor-piercing bullets – are suspect. You shouldn’t be surprised if the government wants to run a background check on you if you are stockpiling grenades and land-mines. I think that’s fair.
On the whole Welmer’s argument has some merit. Rotating polyandry and sexual hypergamy leaves a trail of fatherless children and broken homes. Restricting women’s sexuality will not work, though. Let’s not forget, I don’t think we are at odds with women, here. The levers of power are still held by men. The wealthiest 1% of men have no problem with the status quo.
Like or Dislike:
4 
11
Richard PMan said: The same people who say that life is sacred and are against abortion, often support the death penalty.
Apples and oranges. Abortion is killing innocent babies, but there is actually a good argument in favor of a death penalty for intentional murder: that it would deter murder and ultimately saves lives.
Having said that, it is also obvious (at least to me) that the death penalty in th US is applied so randomly and haphazardly that it has absolutely no deterence-value.
After having been pro-death penalty most of my life, I have now come to the conclusion that human beings lack the capacity for perfect justice, and I am now opposed to it (except for feminists).
Like or Dislike:
13 
1
OT….A little bit of social engineering anyone?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1379062/Looks-like-horns-spreading–Now-Lady-Gaga-horned-shoulders.html
Like or Dislike:
5 
3
Yeah – “life is sacred – no abortions”, “pro-death penalty”.
I agree with the points made.
However, if they support the death penalty, they should not going around saying that “all human life is sacred”.
Like or Dislike:
4 
7
OT…note…no mention of the biological father in sight…and who would be doing the bullying? Boys? I don’t think so. I raised 2 girls. It came as a surprise to me that other girls would ‘bully’ them so much and also that they played ‘victim’ so much. The answer was easy….stand up for yourself. Don’t be a whimp.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1379031/Deadly-pact-Mother-finds-dead-girls-Haylee-Fentress-Paige-Moravetz-14-committed-suicide-slumber-party.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
OT…..but here are some more reasons not to get married! LOL!!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1379056/As-research-shows-women-hate-reflections-Femail-readers-confess-all.html
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
”However, if they support the death penalty, they should not going around saying that “all human life is sacred”.”
This strikes me as a monumentally idiotic position to take. How is anyone to say anything if this level of precision is demanded? Would you say that lying is wrong? Yes? Yet you’d consider it permissable to say ”no Mr SS Officer, there are no jews hiding in my basement”? And you would also consider it faintly ridiculous if I were to tell you you weren’t allowed to say that lying is wrong based upon you condoning it in that situation?
You see, when an anti-abortion person says that life is sacred, we are assuming (perhaps mistakenly) that we are not talking to a brainless simpleton. This person apparently managed to dress themselves this morning and be standing in front of us, or possesses at least the minimum level of intelligence required to operate a computer with an internet connection, so listing all possible caveats and exceptions seems no more neccessary now than with anything else.
Like or Dislike:
6 
4
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike:
2 
20
Welmer, it doesn’t work because — it doesn’t work. In the United States, most of the country got by for generations with little to no “gun control”. I’m not aware of any place in space-time that has gotten by for more than a few years with totally unleashed sexuality.
Entire cities in the US hold hundreds of thousands of firearms. A gun in a closet doesn’t do any harm. Women encouraging other women to dump the boring beta for a badboy alpha does cause harm.
That’s because guns are inanimate objects, unlike women. So the analogy fails because you are comparing a thing with a cultural change. See the difference?
Like or Dislike:
10 
1
NMH
“Well hand guns are made for killin’
They ain’t no good for nothin’ else
Huh. I have several hand guns that I’ve fired thousands of rounds through, and yet have never killed any living thing with them. Are they defective? Should I trade them in for hand guns that kill someone or something every time I fire?
Are you ignorant, or merely stupid?
Like or Dislike:
12 
2
William wrote in response to EWME: “It goes without saying that a woman can’t be blamed for rape. To suggest otherwise is grotesque.”
EvilWhiteMaleEmpire initially wrote: “Keep in mind these are folks who say that a women dressed like a tart can be held to ZERO account if she’s raped”.
William,
Some situations are not simply either/or and right/wrong. Life might be simpler if it worked that way. There is such a thing as common sense and recognizing that the sexes are somewhat different and that there is a higher and lower nature to people.
A girl or woman might share a small part of the blame or being account able to some unknown degree for taunting or teasing certain males by her stupid behavior that provoked a rape attack upon her. People can only be played with by other people before they can get a response or reaction that they may not like.
In theory, every female should be able to walk around freely on the grounds of a housing project at 2AM wearing only a thong and not be attacked yet come-on, people need to use some judgement. Some people still have a strong primitive animal nature.
Would you naively go up to a street gang and tell them what a bunch of losers they are simply because of your First Amendment rights? Hey, in theory they should not assault you.
BTW, William (or whatever you are) for you to call this site pathetic based on one comment, by another person that got your panties all bunched up, is telling how pathetic you are.
Like or Dislike:
11 
2
I just read this and the other article on this topic and I think it is a really cool analogy but fails for one reason.
We are trying to view something that is natural and biologically determined through a political lens. Women and their sexuality is based on herd dynamics. They are collectivists by nature. This is due to evolution and women having a uterus and bearing children.
The more easily one girl gives away sex the cheaper every womans value, unless she is a virgin or of low sex count, becomes. This is why women police each other and “slut shame” each other much more than men do.
The gun rights analogy is interesting but still shows the individualist v. communitarianist breakdown by gender/sex. Women have a irrational fear towards guns and take a community approach towards their regulation, which isn’t surprising to be found in urban areas with a greater density of women to men (I have read that in NYC there are 5 women for every 1 man, no wonder they can’t find a “good” man, he has too many options)
Now, on the gun rights aspect, women are hypergamous and will naturally, as a group and as individuals (their periods sync up, they compete with each other over alphas, etc), be attracted and defend (the reputation, not with force usually but sometimes), gravitate towards what they percieve as tha alpha male. This alpha male will have a harem of women and women are largely happy with that because it is better to have part of a winner than all of a loser.
What is more alpha in concept than the government? The alpha is supposed to protect the woman/women from betas, so they search and yearn for protection from the alpha government. This, and probably other reasons like controlling men and lack of understanding about mechanics of firearms and maybe a irrational desire to protect children and hatred of phallocentric things, is why women are so against individualism and gun ownership.
Most gun owners are men and guns have a history of representing freedom from control, some countries have guns on their flags for this very reason.
But gun control is a political issue and is man-made. Sluttiness is biological. It allows women to engage their base hypergamous nature and sort out the duds from the studs. Look at how women view dating, they view sex with multiple men in a similiar way as shoe shopping. It is all about trying on the right dick and deciding which is better and more highly valued.
This shows the herd nature of women. They are more likely to ask their female friends which pair of shoes look better on them and they will do the same with men. Women will also steal other womens men, think about shopping and go and google some videos of women wrestling over a dress on black friday.
Female-female competition works through different mechanisms than male-male competition. Women don’t arm wrestle to get a guys attention, or flex their biceps. Some feminists and feminist oriented women think they will gain status and hence gain male attention through work but most men don’t care about that, outside of a few power couples who cheat on each other.
Women compete against each other through beauty and demure attitudes and access to sex. They started from a position of high value but each time a woman gives it away it lowers every womans value. Dave Chappelle once said that if pussy was a stock it would be worthless.
Another thing to keep in mind is that women hate their best friends. This is why they make such shitty friends. If you are a male they will treat you like a GF without the sex and they will bitch on and on about their boyfriends and daddy issues and basically will treat you like a emotional tampon.
If you are a female….well, I have lost count of the number of female who have told me about their fenemy from 6th or 8th grade who gave her a eating disorder. I have gotten in a few fist fights with male friends, mainly we were pissed off at other shit and kinda snapped and just needed to release that energy, but we were always friends again within hours and usually couldn’t even name what it was that set us off. Women give each other eating disorders!
This is why I think this analogy is cool but breaks down. With gun rights women are using biologicaly imperatives to control man made political processes. With sluttiness, they may be using some political tools but not much, they are attacking each other to try to make themselves look better in the eyes of their alpha while at the same time trying to hide their female sexual tricks and mechanisms so the alpha doesn’t know how to manipulate them….this is why they hate, HATE, PUA/Game so much and feminists are attacking it all the time, Amanda Marcotte just did a video bloggin thing for the NY times on the subject and called it predatory which is funny because most PUA stuff is a response to female predatory nature, it’s only difference is passive-aggressive (female) v. aggressive (male) tactics(They use honey or makeup and we use stingers)……
IDK, maybe it doesn’t break down as much as I was originally thinking. I do think that feminists actively create the lower class. I don’t think it is a accident, it may not be the intended result but I wouldn’t rule it out either. Queen bees and the lower status girls are vicious. I wouldn’t be surprised if some queen bee feminists are creating or utilizing the system to push the lower status gals down and hence make themselves more appealing…..think about it guys, would you rather date a single mother who is a 10 or a single business woman who is a 7?????
I have always been amazed at the hate and contempt women have for second or third wives, especially if the guy already has kids. From my observations the women treat that guy like he is using or gaming the system and I think from their view that is what they see.
The real question is whether or not feminists are concious of the results of their system. If they are then the analogy fits almost perfectly but if they aren’t, then they are simply wandering around following their gina tingles.
I really wouldn’t be surprised if they are aware of the results, they are collectivist in nature and if you don’t believe me then look at how the left women hate the right women (liberal feminists v. Palin for ex.).
Anyways, it is a cool analogy. I hadn’t really thought to compare those two issues because they seem so distant in many ways and I don’t actually own a gun. Not that I am against guns or anything, I just don’t have the money for them….I wish I could get a Saiga 12 gauge, those things look bad ass.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
After re-reading this article and the other, I agree. I think one of the major problems, that allow both of these issues to be raised by women and respected by beta men, is female moral authority. We, in the anglosphere, see women as more moral than men.
It is this culturally condoned and conditioned female superiority on all matters related to morality and ethics that allows women to drive these issues and then shame any man who disagrees. This becomes especially apparent with matters related to sexual rights and politics or slut rights.
With false or even true rape allegations a womans word is gold and a mans word and name is dirt.
Female moral authority is the root of so many MRM problems, whether custody disputes or how male sexuality is demonized or false rape claims etc.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
Look on the bright side: We’re the first to try regulating and arranging reproduction by letting the women do whatever they want while trying to impose all restrictions solely on those men who are unfortunate enough to get caught in the game of Gotchya! they’ve reduced it all too.
IOW it’s a sociological experiment which hasn’t been tried, or if it was it died out and left no trace. At least we can bury a time capsule or something. All previous societies have regulated reproduction through the female, understanding that if you keep the gals locked down the guys aren’t having any fun either, even if theoretically they can be doing whatever they want.
Feminists hated the dreaded double standard from the start because they didn’t understand it’s basis, and the crucial it-takes-two-to-tango aspect, so they wanted it tossed out, which was done, but they didn’t think it through enough to even consider that it all doesn’t work in reverse. Or, rather, it works horribly, like trying to look through the wrong end of a telescope. You’d think they’d at least understand why men would rebel, since after all that was what they had done when they thought it was all on them.
The idea that it’s all been a tried-and-failed experiment is catching on slowly. But like so many other things in the US it’ll take things reaching crisis proportions before anyone at the official radar screen takes notice, and by then it will likely be too late anyway; that just the way it is with things which change glacially. They’ll keep trying to patch it up with more bubble gum and scotch tape for as long as they can since they’re committed to going down this road all the way to the cliff, Thelma & Louise style.
Remember to wave if you see `em driving by in the other direction.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
William
“It goes without saying that a woman can’t be blamed for rape. To suggest otherwise is grotesque.”
The pathetic nature is in is your mangina-ness, troll.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
So are you for individual freedom or not?
On both the gun thing and female sexuality, I’m in favor of maximizing individual freedoms.
Sure, gun freedoms come with some downsides, but that’s just part of life.
Same for female sexuality.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
The pushing of gun control as a panacea to violent crime is false. What the United States needs in control of it’s non-white masses. If one boils down the gun crime statistics of the United States and compares them on a racial basis, the fact comes out that the gun crime statistics of the white population of the United States are very similar to the gun crime statistics of nations that are mostly white and have very strong gun control laws. Lets face it, North Dakota and Wyoming simply do not have the murder rates of DC and Detroit. The disparity is too glaring to ignore and the logical mind must come to the conclusion that race is a major issue to consider here.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Off-topic, but…
Hey Welmer, and what about a Falling Down review? =D
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve given some thought to this since I first read this topic yesterday. I always get nervous when people start talking about making laws to ban things (coming from a penal colony where any new inconvenience automatically becomes a candidate for banning by meddling bureaucrats, we might understand my aversion). Here’s my verdict.
The system has broken down, and again, my favourite hobby-horse is at the centre of it. Meaning, of course, Affirmative Action (AA).
The old transaction was that men provide and women, in the fulfilment of their responsibilities as primary nurturer, are provided-for. Of course with AA, this transaction has been neutered, and in the resulting “equality”, a woman’s sexual history is no longer a part of the equation. It no longer has a value because it is no longer as crucial to survival as it once was.
These days, a slut can still (theoretically) get a job, she can receive support from the gubmint, she can delay birth through the contraceptive pill (whilst being able to abort arrivals that are inconvenient), and she will always find a chump to provide for her if finding work is not quite her cup of tea.
But AA is perhaps the most insidious part of all of this, because it neuters any say that men might have. It annihilates men’s value, and being valueless, there is nothing that men have that can bear on a woman’s choices or behaviour. So quite apart from the obvious problem of state-sponsored sexism against men, AA also means that women are free to slut it without consequence because they have no-one to impress.
Eliminate AA to reengage free market principles, and men will have value again. Now that’s not going to stop chumps from making dumb choices. So men are still also a part of the problem. But I think that eliminating AA is quite a significant part of the solution.
No knee-jerk lawmaking required.
There is also another problem too, one that is related to the Idiotsphere’s ignorance of how minds work. Our contraceptive technologies represent a serious “interference” with the mind-body dynamics, such that the purpose of sex with respect to generating life has been replaced by the purpose of sex as a leisure activity. Hindus and Buddhists would understand what I’m getting at. Let’s put that topic on hold for another time.
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
@Welmer
I respect your writing and like to think I’d find you a personable individual – but you really need to check yourself when using ‘their language’.
We don’t have a ‘gun crime’ problem – we have a crime problem. Much of it can be laid directly at the feet of Prohibition II (when your libertarian ‘streak’ takes hold you will know of what I speak – in your defense, at your age I still had a strong bit of the authoritarian streak in me as well).
Similarly, we wouldn’t have a feminism problem without the intervention of government. Once you truly understand the nature of ‘government’ you will know that out of necessity (and more often sheer stupidity) it creates the demons boobus-amerikanus plaintively wails for protection from.
Like or Dislike:
9 
0
Slightly on topic.
One thing I have wondered about quite a bit is the sexual strategies used by men and women.
We know that women ride the alpha cock carousel and then search for a beta provider. This seems ingrained in women, it is probably the result of evolution and cuckolding. Women gain better genetics by cuckolding and as long as they can keep it a secret they still have a provider for the offspring and this allows the children to mature better and live longer.
Now there seems to be a male equivalent of this. I have heard one or two guys, usually older and from the baby boomer generation, talk about girls you date and girls you marry.
You date the sluts and marry the virgins or wife material. Feminists hate this idea, even though they push for baboon like colonies where all males service the females and take care of non-genetically related offspring and many are against paternity fraud testing or laws and so on.
I think one good thing for us to do is bring back this meme of girls you date and girls you marry. It is obviously better to inform men of the risks and harms of marriage and to avoid marriage all together but many men won’t listen and even more this will push women to make the choice of holding out or reaping the consequences.
I do wonder, and maybe some one can fill me in, which came first. I am guessing that men going for wife material is men mimicking the actions of women but I guess we could both have evolved this way????
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
”I think one good thing for us to do is bring back this meme of girls you date and girls you marry. It is obviously better to inform men of the risks and harms of marriage and to avoid marriage all together but many men won’t listen and even more this will push women to make the choice of holding out or reaping the consequences.
I do wonder, and maybe some one can fill me in, which came first. I am guessing that men going for wife material is men mimicking the actions of women but I guess we could both have evolved this way????”
Unneccessary, since it is not memetics you are talking about but genetics, which answers your final question; obviously preferring the sexually inexperienced woman as a long term mate is ingrained in men, the preference is simply too universal to support any explanation but a genetic one.
You cannot ”bring this back” since it never dissapeared, it’s simply part of male nature, when considering a long term or permanent pair bond the virgin is always preferrable to the slut. Men generally do not openly state this anymore, they simply do it, as they have always done. This is why feminists will never stop whining about ”slut shaming”, even though at a cursory glance, any non-moron can easily see that no such thing exists in any meaningful way in feminist societies. No, what they are really complaining about is that men continue to practise the implicit slut shaming of valuing sluts less as long term partners and wives. Since this will forever be the case feminists will forever be complaining about this issue, no matter how much official sanction is made against those who allegedly ”slut shame” or how unfashionable such preferences are made in polite society.
You’ll never get around the biological facts, there is no cost to a man for banging a slut, he is not investing anything and you never know, any resulting child might turn out ok and go on to spread his genes further. The mother might manage to sucker some other guy into supporting it, or she might be just about able to scrape by until the child can fend for itself. On the other hand, marrying a woman is staking your entire genetic future on her, you’ll just never convince the male hindbrain that a banged out slattern is a good bet for this purpose. Back in the day you had only her word and good faith to go on, it makes sense to have some proof of this, past behaviour being the best predictor of future behaviour, it only makes sense to filter out the skanks. The price for making a wrong choice, genetic oblivion, death for all intents and purposes, is sufficiently steep that the safeguards against making one seared into the male psyche are powerful, far too powerful to be overridden or shortcircuited by any amount of feminist shaming or whining. No matter how much official support they have in this endeavour or how long or hard they try, their efforts here are wasted and futile, to their eternal chagrin I believe, and to my delight.
Like or Dislike:
7 
2
We need to jettison this EP-based assumption, because from my own observations, it’s just not true. Some of the genetically inferior fucktards that I’ve seen women finish up with have me convinced that, while at one level they might yearn for idealized men, their spook coefficient (their tendency to head for the hills when they find what they’re looking for) conspires against them to revert to knuckle-draggers that they don’t find threatening (in the psychological sense).
For the most part, women wouldn’t know a prize if they fell over one… or if they did, they don’t have the maturity to deal with it. Women do not understand men, and that’s why they revert to group-think thought processes, like “social proof” and “thug-respect” (the idea that a thug comes across as higher than her on the pecking order, and so he must be hot).
Like or Dislike:
8 
1
William said: It goes without saying that a woman can’t be blamed for rape. To suggest otherwise is grotesque.
Uh William . . . I hate to burst your bubble there buddy but sometimes in the real world, even women can be partly or wholly responsible for their fate. I’m just saying that it’s theoretically possible.
Like or Dislike:
10 
2
Spook coefficient.
Great neologism.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
@Troll King, I was raised up on that ideology. All the Men in my household always told me this. I was ahead of the curve by the time I hit the dating scene.
You can’t turn a hoe into a housewife.
If she smokes she pokes.
And the everlasting, “You use sluts as sexual objects and throw them away after you’re done with them, then you go marry that nice girl down the street and have kids with her, if you do it any other way I’m gonna put my foot upside your head, boy.”
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
I think the guns/sluts comparison is a real insight that exposes sham arguments.
In the same way, it’s interesting that minor or questionable health risks can justify bans on salty food, trans fats, smoking, etc, while promiscuity and homosexuality are protected from any similar actions. And by making that point, I don’t mean I would want to make homosexuality illegal — I’m just drawing attention to the fact that the thinking is inconsistent.
(Oh, and smoking is bad for you, duh. “Secondary” smoking is of minor or questionable risk).
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Hello, men slut shame women too especially if women try to pick them up, play with their brains, cheat with other men and get pregnant, check out other men, objectify men, etc. It happens that they become abusive.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’ve found some of your other posts reasonable, but I have to call this one out. Are you saying that male sexuality should NOT be curtailed, while female sexuality should be? Aside from the double standard there, which offends me, the idea is patently absurd…unless you men all plan to do all that sexual expressing with only OTHER men. It’s impossible to have it both ways. If women aren’t freely having sex, then how the hell can heterosexual men be freely having sex?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
DCM April 21, 2011 at 03:21
One purpose of disarming a population, and of talking about doing it, is to leave people frightened, insecure, and paranoid.
Or maybe it is just about taking their guns away
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Me(lissa) May 6, 2011 at 12:11
I’ve found some of your other posts reasonable, but I have to call this one out. Are you saying that male sexuality should NOT be curtailed, while female sexuality should be? Aside from the double standard there, which offends me, the idea is patently absurd…unless you men all plan to do all that sexual expressing with only OTHER men. It’s impossible to have it both ways. If women aren’t freely having sex, then how the hell can heterosexual men be freely having sex?
Male sexuality and rape are not the same thing. If you are actually a woman posting that, you of all people should know that men do not “have sex freely” we pay for every moment with a woman, or haven’t you been paying attention? When a real man want to just have sex, he can go pay a hooker, no strings attached. At least hookers are honest and secure in their sexuality. Conversely, if that same real man wants a steady girlfirend or a wife, he needs to get a second job. A whore by any other name is still a whore, but listing “male sexuality” with rape is just incredibly ignorant. You are a hypocrite. The vast majority of men self-contain their sexual desires and seek a legitimate way to find a consensual partner so don’t comment like rape of women is occurring on every street corner all day every day because of some media hype. Stop reading feminist man-hate literature and learn to think for yourself.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0