Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean Wrote:Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:Men having casual sex with women doesn't just "encourage" women to be disgusting whores, it's an exact requirement for the behavior to occur. There is no way for a woman to be a disgusting whore without there also existing a supply of men willing to sleep with her and then move on without commitment.
There are women who are whores in the proper sense without having had sexual relations. Many femcels...
This minority of women possess narcissistic delusions of self-worth (they are all waiting for Chad who has plenty of other options) that are dependent on the narcissism of the larger group of promiscuous women. If "femcels" (I despise this term) weren't highly conscious of the fact that they
could easily sleep with hundreds of men if they lifted a finger, they would behave more appropriately.
Quote:Mason Hall-McCullough Wrote:Fucking random whores is not patriarchy, it's sexual anarchy.
I don't see why all men need to be bound, lest they fall into temptation. The act itself matters not.
Say a man comes home to a Quality Tradwife, after a hard day's work making decisions on Foreign Policy at State and posting on Amarna Forum 2.0, and then later in the evening, after a good meal, when restless and in need of stimulation, heads to a choice location in town for a little fun. He doesn't lie to himself about what he does and nor does he leave his wife, taking it as all part of his manly nature.
I hope one in Love would not do so but cannot condemn one who goes without that Idea/Yoke.
You are Chaste and a Virgin, or regretfully not, given your Opinions, yes? May I ask, if you are content to remain in that state until the end of your days, awaiting True Love, settling for no compromises that may induce Lustful Thoughts?
It's the right way, of course; though, not the easy or homely path that flippant language makes it appear.
An adulterer should be condemned, he's damaging his marriage. There aren't that many acts that are more destructive to one's family than adultery. I won't absolutely condemn all sex that is not between married couples, I think young love is okay and it's not realistic to expect every person's body count to be either exactly one or zero. However, we should be suppressing sexual promiscuity, and certainly not encouraging it.
I wouldn't be content to die a virgin, but I'd rather die a virgin than create a Tinder profile. I don't think chastity is a hard path to follow for rational minds; sexual immorality will only satiate your personal lust for a brief moment, but with shared moral strength we can build legacies and civilizations. From what I've gathered from friends, chasing trashy women is an unfulfilling waste of time and energy anyway.
august Wrote:"Marriage" is no longer strictly a property contract, it is no longer strictly an irreversible sacrament, and it is no longer even something that exists strictly for the proliferation of progeny or the creation of family units in organised society (see faggot ""marriage""). None of the original incentives that had to be included for men to accept it exist anymore (i.e., man's ownership of his property in antiquity, or coverture later on) ... I've no idea why anyone takes offense to this since it is just a fact. You say that what I've described seems nihilistic, but explain how you aren't already living in a world consumed by nihilism. You understand that so-called "marital rape" exists today and is routinely and unremorsefully used by women as the basis to ruin many a "married" man's life? This would be entirely inconceivable to any man outside this tiny blip in time that we currently live in... the idea that you, a man, can "rape" your own wife. What?
I've already given too many of my thoughts on this, in a number of different threads on this site, to retype. Read them if you want, or don't. You disagree with the "annihilate everything that exists" metaphor, so please skip the rhetoricals and just say what your ideal solution would be whereby you presumably are able save something that, for all intents and purposes, exists almost entirely in name and vestigial sentiment only. Basically, since you've already said that this is the only sensible answer to the Female Question, tell me how you plan to Make Women Property Again in a way that is incompatible with anything that I've said or anything that BAP has said (given that he is the subject of this discussion, and because I believe understands the issue better than most and I largely agree with him).
We live in a world that has been
partially consumed by nihilism. I can imagine lots of ways the world could get worse. LGBT activists are demanding further concessions. The modern vestigial sentiment of marriage has significant albeit lesser value, and its existence is better than many alternatives. We both agree that sexual liberation has harmed society in a variety of terrible ways, so why would we want more of it?
My ideal solution to this problem begins with the ascendance of a secular counterculture that values marriage and family, and shames those who engage in casual sex. It will need to eventually overcome significant legal and economic barriers that stand in the way of bringing back marriage in the true sense (divorce laws, economic effects of immigration, etc.), but Tradcaths are pushing in the right direction on this particular issue for all their faults.
Conversely, promoting or engaging in degenerate hedonistic sex is making the problem worse. You claim that the situation is so bad that nothing can possibly be salvaged, but I disagree. If about half of the US population are married, and about half of marriages end in divorce, it's still worth protecting and trying to improve on the 25% share of lasting marriages which I imagine are mostly happy and fruitful.
BillyONare Wrote:“Why do you put a fence around your chickens? It’s the weasels’ fault for being willing to eat the chicken. Take responsibility as a carnivore and put a fence around the weasels instead!”
The communist is always a feminist too.
To correct your analogy: The weasels are the ones who built the fence because they are cultivating chicken. Some of the weasels broke down the fence and are eating the chicken. The weasels are the only ones capable of rebuilding the fence. The best place for the fence to be is probably around the chickens, but the weasels have to be the ones to construct it. The weasels should also create rules that punish those weasels who break the fence to prevent this from happening again.
I'm not a feminist, feminists demand women are given more power with less responsibility, which is delusional cultural suicide for a lot of obvious reasons. Women ought to have less power and about the same responsibility for childcare and homemaking that they were traditionally given. If you reflexively name-call anyone who vaguely resembles a group you disagree with, you're preventing your ideas from being challenged and improving.