A Gabber prompts the title of this post with the following thought experiment,
It is also more important to control women’s sexuality than men’s sexuality.
Hypothetical;
A tribe of 100 men and 100 women.
You control the sexuality of 99 men and 1 woman? You get 99 single mothers.
You control the sexuality of 1 man and and 99 women? You get 1 single mother.
A perfectly illustrative hypothetical. About the only edit I would make is to account for female hypergamy: in the second scenario, the one unconstrained woman would choose the apex alpha (if her appearance was sufficiently arousing to allow her the choice) and ignore the remaining 98 men granted freedom of sexuality. You’d still get a single mom, though, because that apex alpha would be set upon by the 98 blue-balled betas who would kill him (if they didn’t also kill her infant in the way usurping lions are wont to do).
This is why White Knights are so fucking stupid to attempt their pedestal polishing within the context of a society that has removed all constraints on female sexuality (while retaining shame-based restrictions on male sexuality). These goobers practiced in the brute art of thot enabling are unwittingly abetting and exacerbating social dysfunction and atomized sexual market transactionalism.
It’s not a coincidence that the single mommery rate rose to heights previously unimagined in America at the same time the abolishment of social controls on women released free ranging vagina on the land.
It’s unturtling gashes all the way down.
So, you’re cosmologist, too!
LikeLike
Hypothetical;
A tribe of 100 men and 100 women, with da GBFM in charge.
You control the sexuality of 99 men and 1 woman? You get 99 single mothers.
You control the sexuality of 1 man and and 99 women? You get 99 single mothers, as da GBFMZ lostsa cockas knows no boundz and cannot be stoppedz!! ;zzlzlzoz.
LikeLike
lzozoozlzlz
LikeLike
A tribe of 100 books and 100 cocks. . .
LikeLike
https://heartiste.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/1.jpg?w=500&h=375
lzozozloz
LikeLike
[…] Female Sexuality Requires More Social Controls Than Does Male Sexuality […]
LikeLike
Spot on.
I would add something also. Shotgun marriages if the female can plausibly give evidence that she was a virgin before the male “seduced her”. I put that in quotes bc not all seductions are on the part of the males.
Note, pregnancy is not the determining factor, her chasity or lack thereof is.
One of the steps to the current disaster was when a bunch of men in power foolishly decided to protect women from the consequences of their reproductive decisions.
If a non-virgin female gets pregnant outside of marriage she gets no prizes, no special government support, and the father owes her and the child nothing unless he specifically signs a document accepting responsibility. That used to be calling giving the child his name. It worked, time to bring it back.
We need to accept that some problems cannot be magically solved. Some people need to be allowed to make their own decisions.
On the other hand, if the girl was a virgin, or can plausibly convince a court of such, then the father gets the following consequences. If its the first time he has done this, or the third, he gets a physical ass kicking.
After that, jail time, death or exile. Exile sounds best. You dont want to harden your men in prison, and you dont want to destroy your potential Francis Drakes. Send them outside the country and use their energy to trouble your enemies, or have them make a name for themselves.
Second, the female gets the right to compel him to marriage, and in the event of the dissolution of that marriage she can compel him for child support and alimony.
Third, the male must give a full years salary to the father of the girl. Say around 20,000-30,000$.
This is to preserve the honor of the father of the girl. And as I think everyone on this board now realizes, it is fathers that make everything work. Emasculate fathers, and you destroy the entire society.
The amount should never exceed that, bc it is a fine rather than damages. We dont want idiot juries awarding 40 gazillion dollars to the fathers of thots, which will lead to obvious problems.
All this may seem harsh, but aside from being biblical, its purpose was to create order based on the understanding of human sexuality. Consequences must exist for both men and women.
To put all the consequences on women would lead to the nightmare that is Islam. To put it all on men would lead to the nightmare currently engulfing the West. Further, we dont want to terrorize men and women to the point where they become homosexuals or incels or insols.
The consequences laid out above are fair and tolerable, while providing for the more extreme of human nature.
[CH: the Chateau has always been about bringing balance back to the force. ofc for too long in the west, the imbalance tilted heavily in favor of blameworthy men and blameless women, so much of the energy here is devoted to exposing the dark nature of women.]
LikeLike
This is basically authoritarian communism. Selfish human-nature leads to unequal outcomes. We need strong correction to make sure everyone gets a fair share.
No patriarchal welfare-state for me, thanks. I like the competition of the free dating-market.
[CH: the individual and society are often in tension. you choose chaos. you will get it, good and hard.]
LikeLike
and that’s why God gave to Dads the pimp-hand, and Smith&Wesson the wisdom to produce a firearm cornucopia suited to educate the likes of you, when in a “free” setting.
Sure, some lessons may lead to the death of a pupil; a price, I am willing to pay.
LikeLike
The price of an education, as grandpa used to say. 😉
LikeLike
Just thought this was an interesting story. About 8-10 years ago when I was about 23 I was introduced to a couple through a friend. The dude was alpha (high paying and status job, shredded physique) and about 10-15 years older than myself and dating a girl around my age at the time. An absolute natural knockout. She was very feminine and natural and one of those girls who look flawless without any makeup. 115-120 pounds. Her only (flaw?) was a sleeve tattoo on one arm, but she pulled it off. Over the years I would check her profile every now and then and saw small changes. A leg tat. An even larger leg tat. Short hair. Even shorter hair. Crossfit. More Crossfit to the tune of 150 pounds (she doesn’t look super fitness model shredded and her body is nice, but it is not my type and no longer has that “feminine” vibe). I saw they moved and hung out with the friend who is better friends with them a few days ago. Turns out they got divorced within the last couple of months. One of the reasons for the divorce was she decided she no longer wanted to have kids. I guess the point to this story is that no matter what people change and it only takes a few years for your ideal boner inducing woman to not even do it for you anymore.
LikeLike
How can anyone get m@rried without first agreeing on the question of CH!LDRENZZZEZZEZES?
If the dude was that stoopid, then he deserved his fate.
LikeLike
well, it does say she no longer wanted to have kids. that suggests she started out wanting them and changed her mind.
the truth of it is, she probably still wants them, just not with him
LikeLike
He should have put a bun in her oven back when she was in her early 20s. He waited too long.
LikeLike
Dalrock wrote about this very subject years ago with this excellent post which is definitely worth rereading:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/18/we-are-trapped-on-slut-island-and-traditional-conservatives-are-our-gilligan/
LikeLike
“It’s not a coincidence that the single mommery rate rose to heights previously unimagined in America at the same time the abolishment of social controls on women released free ranging vagina on the land.”
or Loving v Virginia
LikeLike
the number of women in pharmaceutical and medical device sales these days… good God.
Now imagine these beta male surgeons, cardiologists, etc. who have spent their whole life in training. Too easy to chump.
-Not going to lie, it’s also important to save your fellow male from this idiocy too. I personally cock-blocked my fresh off a break-up cardiologist buddy after a Zoll LifeVest dinner when he was going after this single mom, early 30s rep because he’s desperately looking for a “respectable girlfriend” but has been banging fat chicks.
Side note: pharma/device dinners are the best as
-a: even if you’re name is logged, they lie and cap your dinner at $30
-b: they just log the dinner under someone else’s name. (lab techs are the greatest)
-c: great place to get ass
Main point, the woman rep has sales territory spanning probably 50 miles in every direction. Lotsa cocksa is all I have to say. She had just broken up a neurosurgeon (not baby daddy) she was living with too. Feel bad for that chump. Hey, cardiologists make a lot too! And the kids are from some local bum that couldn’t graduate high school and drives forklifts for the warehouse at $12/hr.
-Simply put, I third wheeled with them to the bar. I then did my usual “women should not vote” shit. She was too empowered to listen and left after her first drink. He was particularly angry at me for not “giving me [him] a chance to know her.” That validated my course of action. He was not going for the hit and quit. He was going for the future step dad. Gotta stop the bros from doing this shit to themselves too.
LikeLike
That was a deeply, deeply disturbing poast.
Although it means all the moar opportunities for us cads.
LikeLike
it’s even more disturbing when these women take promotions, which then take them to different sales regions…rinse and repeat (literally and figuratively)
LikeLike
And we give girls contraceptive pills like candy to do what?
It doesn’t control birth…it makes women go out of control.
LikeLike
This is pretty naive. In the second scenario you’ll have at least 50 single mothers unless monogamy is a pre-requisite. Otherwise you have negative population growth.
LikeLike
Bingo, people act line beta means “total bitch”: that’s a gamma.
Enforced monogamy gives everyone skin in the game. The African “Big Man” is what you get otherwise that’s why they’re chaotic. One man wins the lot, and the motivation to kill him becomes unbearable outside a small tribe.
LikeLike
The African “big man” situation is way more stable than the enforced monogamy. Really, you people talk about Africa as if you knew shit. The most stable parts of it are in the traditional polygamous areas; the most chaotic, with the most disease, whoredom, adultery, etc are in the areas where monogamy is being enforced and encouraged. The monogamous areas have the most beta male incel African men too; I really didn’t realize how bad this western nonsense affects them until I saw with my own eyes.
Monogamy is the thin edge of the wedge that triggers hypergamy’s downward spiral. Jesus and the apostles NEVER spoke against polygamy; the apostle Paul spoke quite favorably of it, but the western translators obfuscated those bits of the New Testament.
LikeLike
Jesus and the apostles NEVER spoke against polygamy;
You might want to revisit Matthew 19, for one, before you preach lies.
And for that matter, saying that someone never spoke against something in NO WAY means they condone it. There were many crimes Christ and the apostles didn’t mention specifically.
In short, nice try, but you’re either naively misled or purposefully spreading disinformation because it tickles your particular biases.
the apostle Paul spoke quite favorably of it, but the western translators obfuscated those bits of the New Testament.
Again, read 1 Corinthians 7 and be dissuaded of your misconceptions.
As far as that “western translators obfuscated those bits”, you’re again mistaken, and otherwise going to have to prove those claims…, and NOT with some half-assed bloggers claims that have nothing to do with accredited Biblical scholarship..
LikeLike
And yet for some reason you are not living in Africa…
LikeLike