04 Jun Having Regular Sex Is Important To Society
-By Caleb Jones
As regular readers know, I don’t give a shit about society in any way whatsoever and haven’t for about 15 years now. Western Civilization in particular has completely lost its mind several decades ago and is now actively trying to destroy itself with an insane, cackling glee.
This is fine with me, since I choose not to spend my precious and limited time on this Earth worrying about demented, suicidal societies. I have better things to do. More importantly, under the Alpha Male 2.0 lifestyle I will live a great life regardless of what any one civilization or nation does or does not do, including collapse. So have fun destroying yourselves, I’ll be over here being happy.
Regardless, today I’ll put on the nice guy hat (sort of) and make a gentle (not really) appeal to those of you reading who do give a shit about society, which I suspect is most of you reading these words.
Since those of you who care about this stuff generally fall into two irrational and tribal camps, the left and the right, I’ll have to appeal to both of you in the same article. Hm. Hard to do, but I’ve been communicating with (and arguing with) both left-wingers and right-wingers for a very long time, and I’ve become pretty good at it. Let’s see how well I do today…
As I’ve spoken about many times before, we live in a society overloaded with sexual imagery, but not a lot of people actually having sex. Married couples have far less sex today than in the 1940s. Millennials are having far less sex than any other prior generation. Night game, daygame, and online dating have all become more difficult as women simultaneously become more masculine, bitchy, and picky. This, plus weaker economies and enticing distractions like porn and sexy video games are inducing many men to opt out of the sexual marketplace altogether.
And so on. I listed all the stats about how much fewer people are having sex than before right here, but the point is people aren’t getting laid. You just think people are getting laid because of all the false Societal Programming in Hollywood, porn, dating apps like Tinder, sexy pictures of Instagram models everywhere, and so on.
This sexual imagery overload, which I agree is sort of stupid, has led to a new movement of people (some traditional right-wing conservatives and delusional unicorn seekers), men (MGTOWs, incels, and others) and women (exasperated over-age-33 women who can’t find perfect husbands who don’t exist) who have come to the conclusion that sex just isn’t that important. Moreover, if you really like sex or have a lot of it, there’s something wrong with you.
First, I urge you to take a minute and read this article where I lay out all the negative health issues you will encounter if you don’t have regular sex. Whether you like it or not, you have a biological system called a “body” that was designed to have regular sex. If you withhold sex from your body, your body will suffer, and health problems will result. Your body doesn’t care about your political views about men or those “bitches” on Tinder who won’t swipe right on you; it needs sex. Period. I’m sorry, but it does.
That’s one level; let me take it to the next. Here are some recent mass murderers:
- Elliot Roger, who stabbed and shot a bunch of people.
- Nikolas Cruz, the Parkland Shooter, who shot 17 people.
- Alek Minassian, the Toronto Incel Killer, who murdered 10 people by running them over with a van.
Like all mass murderers, these are/were guys with deep psychological problems and issues with prescription drugs. In addition, these are guys whose clearly stated reasons for murdering people was because they couldn’t get laid.
Those are just three names, I could fill the next few pages with more mass murderers who any detective or psychologist could easily point to not getting laid as one of the reasons for them snapping and murdering a bunch of innocent people.
If Elliot Roger or any of these other guys was having as much regular sex with cute/hot girls as I do, do you really think they still would have taken the time and trouble to go out on a psychotic murder spree and then kill themselves?
Maybe, maybe not, but I lean in the direction of probably not. I have known some very fucked-up men with mental and/or prescription drug issues who never killed anyone… but these men were having regular sex. I realize that anecdotal evidence doesn’t mean much, but from what I know of how men work, I have a very hard time believing that if those murderers were actually having sex on a regular basis they would actually murder people regardless of the other problems they had.
I could even point to the Middle East, an entire region full of young, high testosterone men who aren’t having any sex. Look at how that turned out. Does that honestly look like a workable society to you?
Regular sex is not only important to a prosperous, happy, high-functioning society, it is critical to a society. People in any functioning society need to be having regular sex, all the time, well into their sixties. I don’t care how angry you are at the opposite sex. I don’t care what your religious beliefs are. I don’t care what your personal history is. I don’t care how jealous or angry you are at other people who get more sex than you do, or even people who, god forbid, make money selling advice on how to get sex. (gasp!) I don’t care what your politics are. I don’t care how you feel.
If you care about society, then your society needs people in it who are having regular sex. If you’re not having sex, and/or if you’re going around telling everyone that sex isn’t that important, then you’re actively damaging your society. I’ll give you a pass if you’re well over age 60, especially if you’re a woman over 60, but other than that, yeah man, you are fucking up your society if you perpetuate this bullshit about how sex isn’t important.
It is important. Lives are destroyed by not having sex. People are murdered because people don’t get sex. Hospitals, doctors’ offices, psychiatric clinics, prisons, and welfare rolls are filled with people who aren’t or didn’t get enough sex. Not having enough sex is a very serious problem for your society.
If you care about society as much as you say you do, then I would start helping people to have more sex instead of defending people who don’t.
If you cared. Which I don’t. But if you say you do, then put your money where your mouth is instead of making your society worse.
Food for thought.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Leave your comment below, but be sure to follow the Five Simple Rules.
Gang
Posted at 05:12 am, 4th June 2018And prostitution should be legal. Look at Singapore, Netherland or Germany, they are quite functional societies, all have legal prostitution.
CSR
Posted at 06:03 am, 4th June 2018This is critical for men, who have way more libido and variety need than women.
A society where even a standard beta male could have reasonably regular sex without having to be in a LTR would probably be the most advanced in the world.
John
Posted at 06:15 am, 4th June 2018I agree 100%. It is one of the cornerstones of good male health, mentally and physically. It is a powerful motivator for the other important areas of your life. To have good sex you need to stay in shape so you can attract other healthy, sexy people. In turn staying in shape leads to better health and lower costs on mental and physical health care. Staying in shape requires a good diet which just makes you look and feel good. Clothes fit better, mood improves and etc. All this due to the male hunger for good sex regular sex whenever we want.
I have to admit Blackdragon that most people would consider you shallow but at the end of the day your very real unavoidable truths about human nature has changed my life for the better. I appreciate your insights. Thank you
David
Posted at 06:31 am, 4th June 2018…You hit the nail on the head with this one BD, because I’ll admit I’ve caught myself in the past getting angry/frustrated with my lack of responses( in fact 0 responses) from online dating. It can definetly drive you crazy when you’re trying your best but get no results in return.
So it’s gonna sound funny but: what’s your take on when a guy is trying his best to improve his aspects regarding his
sex life, but still can’t find/get any sex and it’s starting to really anger him (because obviously it’s not like us guys can just force ourselves onto women) ?
John
Posted at 06:53 am, 4th June 2018@David – most likely you need to improve your looks/photo quality to be successful in online dating. What is your appearance?
Alternatively if it doesn’t work then maybe meeting women in social circle could be better for you since you can display other qualities besides looks.
El Barto
Posted at 07:00 am, 4th June 2018Articles like these are the reason why I started following this blog (and made me buy Unchained Man online)
More and more studies show that loneliness can be as bad for your health as junkfood, alcohol or what have you not. Lack of sex is a big, big part of this. The first article adressing this on BD’s blog, ‘Why Sex Is More Important Than You think’ really was an eyeopener for me. It made me realize what one of the biggest differences was between the old me from 4-5 years back and the new, current me: an active, healthy sex life.
I used to have insomnia, staring nights on end at the ceiling, going to work dogtired, bleary eyed. Having anxiety attacks. Those all ended when I started turning my life around. More and more dates with goodlooking fun women, instead of the boring plain ones I used to date. This also meant more and regular sex. Now I sleep like a baby every night, I feel happy most of the time . My energy is much better then a couple of years back.
I recognize the same thing with coworkers or friends who are complaining about insomnia, or experiencing a burnout. Every time I ask if they’re seeing a girl or even having sex the answer is always: no.
Sex is a very important part of being human, you can survive without it for a short period of time. But a long period of celibacy (voluntary or not) will break most of us.
Anon
Posted at 07:01 am, 4th June 2018To how many openers?
What’s your take on a guy who’s started a business but is struggling to become profitable?
VictorRevan
Posted at 07:30 am, 4th June 2018One of Robert Greene’s Laws of Power is “Disdain that which you can’t have”. The problem is that these guys are disdaining getting-laid in order to save their own ego, versus saving some (if any) social status. Not only are they lying to other people, they’re lying to themselves.
If these guys were honest to themselves, they could at least see their own shitty inner game, and fix that so they can get laid.
They’re like narcissists: they love themselves so much that they refuse see their own problems, which makes it damn near impossible for them to fix those problems.
Ash
Posted at 07:44 am, 4th June 2018Elliot Rodger was a 22 year old kid. He didn’t just kill because of a lack of sex. He killed because he was an entitled, rich little brat who thought he should be having all this sex at his age. Regardless of his bratiness and possible mental illness, he was actually a decent looking guy, and if he was patient and learned how to talk to women properly, it wouldn’t have been too much longer before some sucker went to bed with him.
Yes, sex is important, but let’s not blame killing on the power of the pussy. No wonder why women think the world revolves around them and their vaginas. Maybe it does.
john
Posted at 08:38 am, 4th June 2018Been there myself. 100’s of openers. Load as many dating sites as possible. POF, Match, Tinder, Bumble, and etc. Send out a ton of messages to everyone you are attracted to. Be confident, outcome independent, and aggressive with anyone who shows you interest from those you find attractive. Women love aggression if it’s done right. From the time I wake up til I go to bed im sarging until I’m getting laid on the regular. I send messages on Facebook, Instagram and etc. I invite rejection. If I haven’t been rejected that day multiple times I ain’t trying hard enough. I just don’t give a fuck because I know right around the corner someone just as attractive will be begging to suck my dick. This is like sales. Cold calling non-stop all the while getting rejected most of the time.
Don’t waste time on unicorns and yapping. Quickly build momentum and get the date as quickly as possible. Then make it count. You should get laid within 2-3 dates nearly every time. If you aren’t figure out why. Might be you or the types you’re choosing. I can tell almost immediately if a girl will fuck me, how soon, the amount of effort and money it will require. I either accept that or move on to the next one’s.
In the beginning it was rough. Very very rough. Finally after many bad dates (10-15 in a row) it clicked. Work on weaknesses and take BD’s advice as a baseline and build your own style from it. You’ll be fine. relentless sales.
anon1
Posted at 08:58 am, 4th June 2018To echo Ash’s comment, Elliot Rodger could have gotten laid if he wanted to but he thought women should approach him instead of the other way around. Combine that with a troubling childhood and untreated autism, and you have a person who would have gone off the rails eventually. His dad even offered to buy him a high-class Vegas girl, but he refused.
These incels want more than just sex, what they really want is the validation that comes from having a hot girl like you. If they wanted sex, they could have easily gotten it with a working girl despite it being illegal in most of the US. Even if prostitution was legal, I think that these killings would persist.
Max
Posted at 09:37 am, 4th June 2018Yes. Have more sex.
Try selling this to women as good to society.
Give up your edge, honey, to make this world a better place.
It will really work.
CTV
Posted at 09:40 am, 4th June 2018Not only are the women bitchier, but this #MeToo bullshit is getting way out of hand!
Anything and Everything is now considered Sexual Harassment. I heard just the other day some kid got expelled and got probation with an ankle bracelet and all over grabbing a girls butt at school?!
Don’t get me wrong nobody is allowed to just grope anyone, but that seemed like extreme punishment for a butt grab?
So now I guarantee you Day/Night game will continuously decline. All the while women will complain that men don’t approach them in public lol.
Tom
Posted at 09:51 am, 4th June 2018if i’m not getting regular sex (non at least 2 fwbs on rotation), i easily get irritated even though my balls are full of semen to make bigger production aka having more money = getting laid
but some says, if u constantly lose your sperms, you have less production mental energy to do things, is that correct?
Tom
Posted at 09:54 am, 4th June 2018@CTV go to eastern europe or asian countries, daygame is still fine here, night game i think is slowing down since 10 years ago cause there been many people in night club in two decades
Caleb Jones
Posted at 10:23 am, 4th June 2018Correct. But that will literally never happen country-wide in the US.
You’re very welcome.
Identify what you’re doing wrong and stop doing it. (If you are trying hard to get laid over an extended period of time and aren’t getting any results, you’re definitely doing something wrong.)
And Anon is correct; likely your photos aren’t very good.
Correct. That wasn’t the only reason. But it was a strong contributing factor.
Correct; I’ve used Elliot Roger as an example to the guys who scream “Getting laid is all about SMV and nothing else!!!” This was a super good-looking rich guy (sky-high SMV) who couldn’t even kiss a girl. Clearly technique and frame is a factor (since he had zero of both).
I haven’t done the research on that so I can’t answer that question. My understanding is that there is no or conflicting hard science on this.
CTV
Posted at 10:41 am, 4th June 2018It’s funny we mention “SMV is what gets you laid” bullshit.
I feel bad for the guys who do get laid of their SMV type stuff like getting table at clubs for like $2500.00-$4000.00, dropping $250.00 a night every weekend at the club ETC.
The funny thing is these guys DO get laid like this and it works for them and they’re sometimes Alpha to some extent, but they literally are stuck in this mentality and it ruins their life.
Even more wack is how much time they waste doing what Alan Roger Currie calls Fun Clubbing for women. On the outside they’re seeing partying, posting pix with, and doing coke and shit, ETC with these chicks.. BUT they’re often rarley if ever fucking them.. Or if they’re fucking them it’s after dropping $500.00 on drinks, coke, etc.
Basically these “SMV” who think their Alpha are all the while beta as fuck just Fun Clubbing LOL. At least they’re pacified with some sex so they’re not out shooting people though.
Now obviously if you’re really just friends by all means HAVE FUN, but DO NOT FUN CLUB with chicks you wanna fuck. Obvious exception for girls who are High School, College, and Child Hood friends. I think y’all get what I’m saying.
bluegreen
Posted at 10:41 am, 4th June 2018Two quick asides:
I just watched a Jordan Peterson video where he seemingly describes “PUAs” as possible psychopaths (to be fair his take is a bit more complicated). I didn’t expect him to hold that view, but he seemed to me to be logically implying that everyone should be in a serious relationship at an early age and having a lot sex, be celibate until the possible serious relationship or be a psychopath who doesn’t care about women’s feelings (I’m exaggerating). This isn’t to say that the left or right is perfect, just one cherry-picked example.
The lecture does end up where he does talk about “radical honesty,” which is a cool concept. I just thought the first part was a slightly different take on “game” than I usually hear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRhJ52YwM7w
Hypothetical question: What would people consider the proto-AM2.0 strategy if someone (or the AM2.0 philosophy) was time-teleported back to, say, the Roman Republic or Empire (where there was an obvious slow collapse that some people like to correlate to the West/USA)?
Thanks and best wishes!
joelsuf
Posted at 10:49 am, 4th June 2018I get this from my buddies all the time, but then THEY are the ones who complain about their lack of energy. This is why like BD, I don’t really care about what happens around me. If collectivism is our religion, hypocrisy is our mother tongue. So I’m g00d.
Did you mean swipe right?
It currently does. Which doesn’t really bother me, its just something I need to adapt to. Big deal. Look, back in the day the world revolved around men and their cock n’ balls. This caused women to go apeshit and kill people. If you look far enough in history, you’ll see that there were just as many female mass murderers as male ones (and possibly more, since chicks know how to hide things better).
Most women’s movements (before the current wave that was founded in the 90s or so) actually believed this. Only problem is that they want sex on their terms.
That’s still in the 2% area, but yeah in the coming years (by the 2030s definitely) it will be a problem. It already is a problem for male public figures now, who are stupid enough to make their love lives public and who decide not to follow the rules that they need to follow. It’s really just an angle for chicks to pursue sex on their terms and their terms only. Which is something that men have done to chicks for a long time as well. Back in the day if a chick had the courage to even ask a guy out she would be considered an “evil temptress” who would get in trouble with the law for propositioning. So no one’s really innocent in this.
Its par for the course now. Been that way for a long time, since at least the 90s. A similar thing happened to me, only I just creeped out a chick really badly. She went to the authorities and I nearly got expelled and a felony for stalking. But all of it was dropped and all I got was a temporary restraining order. But that was one chick I was getting at out of thousands I was getting at in my lifetime.
Like I said, women’s movements are in the business of trying to manipulate things to where chicks have the ONLY say in how sex is acquired. They’ll get what they want, but it’ll backfire, but in really horrific ways. These little shootings are gonna be the least of our problems going into the 2020s and 2030s. But like BD, I don’t really care about that, I’ll just adapt and adjust to it.
CTV
Posted at 10:56 am, 4th June 2018I’d say with#MeToo it is rising out of the 2% area. Things are quickly being blown out of proportion more and more.
I’m a hardcore Thrill of the Hunt guy so it’s kinda fuckin with my moral..
joelsuf
Posted at 11:07 am, 4th June 2018I’m part of that crew. If you are a guy, SMV is everything and everything is SMV. Improve your SMV and everything else will get better. However, my definition of SMV is much different: anyone who doesn’t consider technique and frame as part of SMV does not know what SMV is. I have always included those in SMV. To me SMV is the following, in order of importance:
-Social standing
-Ability to be dominant at the right times (what they call “frame”)
-Social skills
-Appearance
-Wealth
That to me is what determines SMV, at least in person. Now online, yeah you could flip that around I suppose. I mean you can’t show frame and social standing in your online dating profiles.
But for most men, if they just improved their SMV (in all aspects) they’ll start getting better at everything.
CTV
Posted at 11:16 am, 4th June 2018See when I’m thinking SMV I’m thinking Money and Pedigree info (College Degrees, Car, Wealth, Income, Family Name, ETC) which YES can help you get laid, but gets you labeled as a “Good Catch” “Provider”, but to “Settle Down With”..
Which YES SMV can and will help you get laid, but relying on it too much can signal to women you’re going to spend more on them or attract the dreaded Provider Hunter cunts.
joelsuf
Posted at 11:19 am, 4th June 2018I’d say its in between 2% and 5% but nothing like what the Roosh (and even some Tomassi) nuthuggers believe. They think its over half or 85% or some crazy number like that. Now yeah, in about 15-20 years it’ll probably be at the 25% area, where 1 in 4 or 1 in 5 chicks you get at will probably attempt to get you in trouble with the law for sexual misconduct. But by then we’re gonna have sex bots and stuff anyways lol.
That and chicks are now “allowed” to get at guys the same way that guys get at them. So if you just pump your SMV enough, you’ll have chicks hit on you and you won’t even have to worry about anything. If you do night game and don’t have at least a few chicks try to get at you, you’re doing something very wrong.
As for chicks who agree to fool around then regret it and try to get the guy with a rape charge (something that the Roosh nuthuggers and other incels think happens like 75% of the time)? That’s been a thing for a LONG time, well over 50-100 years. How to prevent that? Provide good company as well as good sex.
Chicks are cracking down on alpha 1s (or people who are trying to become alpha 1s), not alpha 2s. And because we’re so obsessed with the personal freedom of everyone not just ourselves, they’ll never decide to crack down on Alpha 2s 😉
Caleb Jones
Posted at 11:25 am, 4th June 2018Actually it’s not. He flat-out thinks that going to a bar to look for sex is “psychopathic.”
As usual, the guy is a right-wing traditional conservative about 60 years out of date from real-world realities. It’s sad.
A2.0 would not be possible in such an era. As I describe in my book, the A2.0 lifestyle requires high tech and some level of globalization. If you lived in Ancient Rome you’d have to be an Alpha 1.0 or beta.
Yeah; fixed.
Then you’re not part of that crew. That crew thinks PUA / pickup / dating techniques are all “bullshit” and that getting laid is only about SMV.
Tom
Posted at 11:27 am, 4th June 2018@CTV
i’d choose frame over money/fame if had to choose 1.
if you have dominant frame, you can last money. But if you only had money, u are waiting to fuck yourself up.
money/fame only sets u a better logistics, but some might say it will increase 90% of your successful lay if u compare to a street dominant loner who strictly pulls chicks to the backyard to have sex.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 12:21 pm, 4th June 2018When I was an incel in college (and suicidal because of it), if you would have told me to go to a prostitute (even if it were legal), I would have probably punched you in the face.
To most of these incels, prostitution is an insult. Just like my former self (and my current sexually active self as well), what they want is for a girl to be sincerely horny for them. The actual sex is secondary. They don’t want to pay a woman to act out a fantasy. They see that as for losers. They want the real thing – sincere horniness from the woman, and therefore, free sex.
Going to a prostitute would probably solidify for them their own identity as the lowest of the low. It will shatter whatever self esteem they have left. I know it would have for me back then. I would have felt pathetic going to a hooker.
Interestingly (and I’ve never admitted this before), I did pay two hookers twice, but not for sex. I paid them for their time so we can talk, since, unlike real therapists, they would keep things real with me and two sided, instead filtering the conversation through politically correct, one-sided, and cold clinical garbage. That improved my mood slightly, but I would NEVER have sex with them. Too degrading.
I was also extremely angry at the women who rejected me, but not so much because they rejected me, but rather, because of the way in which they did it – super snobby, disrespectful, and with a huge “you’re beneath me” vibe. It was radically different from my high school experience with super sex positive women. It was a cultural shock.
But I never thought of physically hurting or killing these women because I always believed that that’s what they wanted. The more women are physically hurt or killed, the more self righteous they will be, the more powerful they will be, and the more they will demonize and discredit men.
So I took great, almost sadistic, pleasure at refusing to hurt them, thus taking away their power to discredit me and become even more culturally powerful. With the bull dykes, I actually got the impression that me refusing to hit them actually drove them crazy.
As a lawyer, that’s what I told my clients who confessed to me that they wanted to hit their wives. I told them that that’s precisely what she wants so she can discredit you and take the kids. I said that if you really want to drive her insane, refuse to touch her or physically hurt her, thus taking away her power. Make that your sadistic pleasure.
J.A
Posted at 01:49 pm, 4th June 2018You didn’t just have those guys, but you also had the infamous George Sodini.
I don’t think it will get that bad.
Zan
Posted at 03:35 pm, 4th June 2018The two biggest sins (ironically, through religion) taught in society is that, “money is not important and sex is not important.”
I totally believe if you get these two things handled (sex and money), everything else will fall in place and you’re be a happy, healthy individual.
David
Posted at 04:59 pm, 4th June 2018@john Thanks for the long reply, though I’ve already been doing all that and still nothing. I’ve even hired an image consultant to pick out the best clothes/pictures and have tried about 6 different combinations of profiles/pics…still nothing. I get the sense(online dating) that all these women are holding out for a mythical Brad Pitt/Channing Tatum guy online, the hilarious things is when the women aren’t even attractive and think they deserve a top model guy
Anonymous
Posted at 06:14 pm, 4th June 2018I’ve heard it all before. Not from you. What you are doing is, you are reiterating someone else’s false belief that you, for some reason, accepted when you could’ve just ignored instead.
Very similar to this garbage.
For how long this anti-scientific bullshit is going to be reiterated again and again?
I’ll tell you how losing your sperm makes you less productive. It doesn’t. There’s no magic “life force” that you lose when you ejaculate.
Hell, when I am horny, I need to ejaculate just to think straight and be able to actually do something productive, rather than daydream about boobs and pussies.
On one occasion, even though I was having regular sex, I was so horny at work I had to go to the toilet and, as quietly as possible, relieve myself of this sperm burden, because I needed to get the work done and I needed my mind to be focused on that.
ML
Posted at 11:08 pm, 4th June 2018Ran across your blog recently. Digging the content.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 11:51 pm, 4th June 2018Wow! Jordan Peterson is becoming quite the problem! He’s now threatening sex-positivism and advocating for blue pill puritanical traditionalism.
It’s time to take this man off his pedestal. No one should be worshipped just because he knows there are only two genders. That’s just an elementary requirement for sanity.
Sex-positive red pillers and libertarians would do well to start mobilizing against this man. He’s becoming a prudish nuisance.
lao
Posted at 11:57 pm, 4th June 2018Society can’t accept that regular sex is important because it starts to raise uncomfortable questions about monogamy itself, something Left and Right have important, though different, stakes in.
Of course, you’ll find small hints of acceptance of this reality of the need for regular sex from the Left in problem pages, where you find the rare woman suffering in a sexless relationship, and the advice is generally along the lines of “sex is essential”, “refusal of sex is abuse”, “you should look outside the relationship to get your needs met, “leave the bastard” etc.
I just don’t think it is worth the stress or energy to seek to change the societal view on this one or any other point really. It’s like the insanity over telling kids that Santa exists. You would be considered bordering on criminal for letting a young kid know the truth.
So save yourself the stress, and do as the Robert Downey Junior quote advises, “listen, smile, agree, then go and do what the fuck you were going to do anyway”
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 12:12 am, 5th June 2018That’s not a kid. You’re being elitist.
Yes he did.
And he was correct. He should have been having all that sex at his age. Especially at his age. It was very unhealthy for him not to have had it.
But what he didn’t understand was that him not having it was 100 percent his fault, not the fault of the women.
No such thing.
Why would she have been a “sucker?”
Not to you.
Why not?
A super low sex drive person like yourself will never understand anything about this. The only thing Elliot Rodger did wrong is blame women instead of himself, and therefore, kill them instead of improving himself. He was a self entitled brat whose ego served as a mask for his approach anxiety, so he turned to murder/suicide instead of reaching maturity.
But being denied sex and sexual validation is definitely what caused the killings. And that’s why the seduction community is so important. We prevent losers like this from snapping by turning them into adults who actually take responsibility for themselves instead of committing heinous crimes.
CTV
Posted at 07:59 am, 5th June 2018Holy Shit Jordan B. Peterson “JBP” really is controversial if he’s pissing off the Left and now he’s even coming in here and making us cringe.
Fucked up thing is I love the guy! His Trad Con Bullshit aside of course.
hilsey
Posted at 08:19 am, 5th June 2018Yes, it’s an important work you men do. This knowledge saves men’s lives. I was totally clueless about the importance of sex *to men* until I began reading the manosphere. I knew sex was important but only in a general way; In college, I played around with becoming a sex educator or therapist to improve things. Clearly, if “more sex” isn’t in your “save Amurica” plans, you will make things worse.
joelsuf
Posted at 02:21 pm, 5th June 2018JOTB and I agree on something? Looks like Hell just froze over haha.
Petersen is EXACTLY like the Social Vengeance Warriors he claims he attacks so much. He’s a different brand of one, and he knows it.
His followers probably know it too. And that’s what frightens me; they are actively willing to use a left wing strategy against left wingers. And they are thinking its gonna actually WORK. Proof? Simply disagree with any of his nuthuggers and they’ll act JUST like his haters.
Talk about a tragic waste of energy. Look, At least I get lulz when I trigger people (both Trad-Cons and Lefties) on the internet. They get butthurt, I laugh, I say something that gets them more butthurt, I laugh some more, rinse and repeat. Good times. “Lulz acquisition” should be a consistent school class all the way from Kindergarten up until the 18th year of Med School, right along with “practical joke lab” and “butthurt rehab.” Butthurt rehab would be lifelong.
Encyclopedia Dramatica’s description of Peterson is hilarious. And stunningly accurate. I’m considering editing it since its not a complete page.
joelsuf
Posted at 02:48 pm, 5th June 2018Yeah, that’s the absolute worst case scenario. Here’s what I realistically think will happen:
1) Chicks will be less and less attractive to men. The average weight of a chick nowadays is 165 lbs or something. Because of the “body positive movement,” overweight chicks won’t have an incentive to lose weight, and most betas and alpha 1s won’t even care. This will make it pretty difficult to get with a chick who is actually attractive. We’ll be going back to the victorian era where big chicks were seen as attractive and skinny ones not attractive.
2) Although chicks will be “allowed” and even “encouraged” to get at guys the same way guys get at chicks, they will also be encouraged to make him jump through all kinds of hoops to get sex. We’re already seeing this but its gonna get CRAZY in 5-10 years, especially since assholes like Beyonce sing about how to use men for their money and stuff and how that’s a mark of an “independent woman.” Basically, we will enter a matriarchy; chicks will be able to objectify tf out of men but if men try to do the same they will be punished.
3) Cold approaching will likely be punished just as much as homeless people begging for change. And men will be targeted a bit more than chicks. Approaching chicks in a friendly and nonthreatening manner will still be alright, but if you get at them belligerently (even if you were joking/didn’t mean it), there will be major punishments for it. Expect it to be a legit misdemeanor where you can get fined and/or taken downtown and issued a summons.
4) It will be WAY more acceptable to be homosexual and we’ll see a HUGE influx of LGBTs. It will pretty much reveal that being gay is a choice and that pretty much everyone is bisexual anyways and they just get influenced to be sexual with certain people.
But the whole “ZOMG all men are gonna be seen as rapists we’re all gonna die!!!!1111!” dystopia that most manosphere readers use as an excuse to not be productive is very far fetched.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:42 pm, 5th June 2018He should have never been placed on a pedestal in the first place.
That’s what I’ve been telling both the left and the right for about 25 years now.
They don’t listen.
And the decline continues.
Mark One
Posted at 05:43 pm, 5th June 2018Adopting a perspective of individual focus, I’m fine with much of your comments and views. Unfortunately, adopting a perspective of purely individual focus fails to define a repeatable process that results in a sustainable, stable society over the long term. For example, the self-serving view you appear to espouse runs counter to available data on producing emotionally healthy progeny over multiple generations. E.g., children of divorce tend toward more self-destructive behavior regarding drug use and suicide.
My question is two-fold: how do you think your attitude towards sexuality aligns with a multi-generationally repeatable system of behavior, and in the event of a conflict, would you prioritize your own sexual liberation and conquest or the emotional well-being of our collective progeny?
Caleb Jones
Posted at 06:01 pm, 5th June 2018Read this.
I don’t understand the question. What specifically about my attitude towards sexuality harms children?
1. I don’t desire sexual conquest and think sex for sex’s sake is immature and stupid. I think you’re confusing me with pick-up artists or other manosphere bloggers.
2. I consider my sexual freedom as more important than raising your kids, if that’s what you’re asking. Your kids are your problem, my kids (I have two) are mine, and you have no right to tell me how to engage in my sex life (provided I’m only having sex with consenting adults, which is what I do) unless you admit you’re a totalitarian, in which case we’ll have to agree to disagree.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 07:44 pm, 5th June 2018Correct. That’s why we must end divorce. And the number one cause of divorce is marriage.
If my girlfriend’s childhood was any indication, children raised in poly, or non-monogamous, households are mentally healthier, as they grow up in environments with way less stress, less fights, less money problems (no co-ownership), more relaxation, and way, way more love.
The typical monogamous family is plagued with cheating, lying, hiding, fighting (sometimes physically), financial worries, constant stress, anxiety, sexual frustration, monotony, boredom, misery, claustrophobia, and a feeling akin to serving life in prison. That can’t be healthy for the kids.
The parents take out all of that on the children, or, at the very least, children are exposed to that vibe. Then comes the inevitable divorce and custody battle because the husband was caught having sex with my girlfriend behind his wife’s back, thus leading to the family being shattered, which, in turn, psychologically traumatizes the children even more.
I look forward to a world where traditional monogamy will be looked at as child abuse, or at least potentially abusive. By contrast, children raised in open/poly relationships soak in that relaxed and comfortable environment and seem to become happy people.
My personal experience with the poly community (through my girlfriend) gives strong evidence of the above.
The former. There is no such thing as “collective progeny.” You cannot sacrifice the non-fictional individual on the alter of the poetic social construct that is “the collective.”
Love your children and I’ll love mine. But don’t ask me to love yours.
BigTime
Posted at 12:22 am, 6th June 2018Yes, we are really fucked up as a society. After 50 years of feminism, most women still have to pretend they don’t want sex (put on a bitch face, ASD, etc). We still teach boys thru the media that you get a girl by befriending her and then hoping she’ll jump you one day. If we didn’t spend so much time lying, maybe everybody would be happier and better adjusted.
Porn and all the freaks everywhere is what pops out of this cognitive dissonance. Various forms of body mutilation are now considered *art*. Gender changing is straight up mental illness and now the medical community endorses it as kindness.
We really are still puritans with a few outliers like our host, who both the right and left would like to burn at the stake. Come to think of it, me too is stake burning.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 12:34 am, 6th June 2018You’ve just described all tradcons! They are hated by the left AND they make us cringe.
You’ve just described Ben Shapiro, Jesus freaks, the Alt Right, and all those who believe in “traditional gender roles.”
They are enemies of the left (because the left is matriarchal and thinks all sex is rape and all men are pigs). But they are our enemies as well (because we’re sex-positive and egalitarian, whereas they want patriarchal puritanism).
The left and the traditional right are opposite sides of the same coin, and they have both always pissed us off here!
I’ve never really understood what makes him that lovable. I like that he’s against political correctness and wants to abolish post-modernism (which is where social justice gets its garbage from), but his credentials as an individualist are overstated, as his tradcon impulses show.
Further, his kryptonite is being asked if he’s a Christian. Instead of answering yes or no, he’ll avoid the question like the plague, spiritualize the literal meanings of the words within the question and simply ask over and over again how you define a common word, and then still refuse to answer even after you’ve defined it.
Devon Tracy (Atheism is Unstoppable) on youtube, REALLY made fun of him for this:
Q: Is Jordan Peterson a Christian?
A: That depends what you mean by “Jordan Peterson.” Are you referring to the literal, flesh and blood man, or the symbolic archetype that he has become over the last year? Because, at first glance, that may seem like the same man, but they are actually two very different people at every level of contextual analysis.
Yeah……..he’s mostly overrated. And a sex-hating prude.
CTV
Posted at 09:08 am, 6th June 2018Dude if you think Ben Shapiro and JBP piss you off (Two Trad Cons I like)..
Then you will be super angry when you hear Matt Walsh, he is beyond a Trad Con, he’s almost like Sharia Law status with his shit, it’s not even Christian it’s just radical crazy
Dingus
Posted at 11:38 am, 6th June 2018This sounds totally unrealistic to me. Not because it’s fundamentally undesirable or bad, but I have to question the ability of the average person to engage in that kind of relationship. To reiterate the case of the article BD linked earlier (https://alphamale20.com/2017/10/02/what-if-everyone-did-that/), it strikes me as unlikely to ever be a broadly applicable strategy, even if does become socially acceptable.
Most people are not capable and not interested of letting go of envy, jealousy, and their own laziness. Those feelings are an integral part of human nature and will always be present in people since it takes conscious effort to not dwell in your own misery.
You love to hate on socialists, but you seem to engage in the same logical fallacy in that you want people in the broad sense to be something other than they are.
joelsuf
Posted at 01:14 pm, 6th June 2018Boom nailed it. That’s how bad collectivism has poisoned our thought processes. The very same people who dislike stuff like socialism want their own kind of state where that puts them at an advantage.
The amount of people who actually follow a “live and let live” philosophy such as myself and BD are very rare.
Take, for example, the hatred towards women’s movements and post modernist stuff. All I’ve ever gotten from either one (from taking actual college classes in them) is that women’s movements preaches that women can and should do the same stuff as men and all I got from post modernist stuff is that if someone decides to act a different gender role than the one society gave them, it doesn’t make them less than human.
The social vengeance warriors? Those are people who use that kind of stuff as source material to create a narrative that conveniences them. Nothing in the source material preaches what they do. None of it, from what I’ve read.
Because I do not desire to tell anyone what is best for them, I seek understanding, not external solutions. But nowadays, seeking external solutions is the moral high ground. If you don’t seek external solutions, society will cast you out. Just watch.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:21 pm, 6th June 2018You’re probably right, which is why we should, more realistically, focus on three goals:
1. Make polyamory socially acceptable (as you said). That is, get the sheep to the “shoulder shrugging” stage. This is done by countering the social justice movement (which hates men and believes that all sex is rape unless it is first prefaced with autistic verbal procedures previously employed only by the severely brain damaged) and the tradcons (which align with the Alt Right on this issue, see #2).
2. Maximize our own discretion and privacy whenever, wherever, and however we can. This is done by promoting an individualistic “low trust” society with a gender neutral economy. We cannot allow the Alt Right’s vision of a “high trust society” where “neighbors observe neighbors” and “women fuck only one man for food or starve” to ever become a reality. Without a gender neutral economy and an atomized individualistic society, sexual liberation, discretion, privacy, individual creativity, and freedom of personality become impossible.
3. Do what we can to mitigate the negative affects of monogamy for the sake of both children and a high functioning society. That is, teach monogamous people more discrete and effective cheating practices so that they don’t get caught by their primary partner and the family isn’t shattered. Children do need a stable home with minimal stress. Cheating solves many problems and relieves lots of pent up tension, but the masses need to be taught how to do it right.
Some of us were born differently, but you’re mostly right. My solution to that is #3 above.
Actually, traditional monogamy is sexual socialism. It is sexual redistribution. You have to stand in line in order to get just one, low quality, partner and are told that you’re only allowed one, because everyone else deserves one too, so don’t be greedy! Traditional monogamy mirrors the economy of the former Soviet Union, except in the sexual sense.
Sexual capitalism is precisely extreme polyamory. A few men at the top (the sex creators) get all the women, while the rest of the men get nothing. The rest are told to not hate the sex creators and instead that they too can, one day, become sex creators if they hit the gym, work on their game, and generally pull themselves up by their own bootstraps (which is what the seduction community is for).
I agree that absolute sexual capitalism (polyamory) is unsustainable on a large scale, which is why we must compromise by giving the masses the illusion of monogamy so that they continue maintaining our society, inventing new things, and avoid breaking shit, while we practice discretion and secretly fuck their women while they’re busy curing cancer.
Sounds like a workable compromise to me!
hey hey
Posted at 02:30 pm, 6th June 2018You see this is where you are wrong in your definitions. And I’ll give you an example to understand why:
A high SMV guy is considered someone who has wealth, is pretty boy with athletic body and is an owner of a company that everyone loves. Clearly he must have technique and frame with women right? Wrong.
This is why technique/frame(I consider social skills part of frame) is an entirely separate thing from SMV.
Such guys in most cases will have all kinds of chaos in their life with women exactly because of frame/technique. Sure they can have strong frame/technique pre lay but during relationship they will lose this. Because most men get oneitis eventually, despite their SMV.
To have strong frame you must understand the big picture. And when you have strong frame(and know game) you can pull hot women easily and keep them for years without problems and without even having wealth or social standing.
Of course all men should aspire your definition of SMV but its like you are saying if you are an average in looks or have little money(or even fake you have little money with your frame!) or have little social standing you can’t fuck hot women easily and keep them for years without problems/drama. You can. With minimal frame/technique though you can’t 100%.
Dingus
Posted at 03:34 pm, 6th June 2018I do believe you’re right. People treat their strong opinions as a moral virtue and the only thing worse than disagreeing with their opinions is not caring about them at all. Or even not caring enough, which is why the far left loves to cannibalize their own.
As reasonable as this sounds, I actually serious reservations regarding this. The reason being that after social acceptance, I’m afraid that legislative acceptance will follow. And if divorce between 2 people is ugly…
I think your rule 2 borders on an a total truism and offers more freedom and protection than 1. Although I would invert what you consider low trust and high trust. I think not digging into peoples personal lives is a more “high trust” society than one that intervenes.
Cheating strikes me as a flawed solution at best, for reasons of drama and the prevalence of divorce, but then I have few better solutions to offer.
This is an interesting analogy, I’ll have to think about that.
This diverges a little bit from my, admittedly limited, experience in the poly community. I’ve found that while a few top men get the majority of the low effort sex, the women keep their own harems of betas to whom they parcel out tidbits of affection while making up complicated rules and ceremonies for them to follow. The betas seem sufficiently content since they at least get to participate in the game.
This could be a byproduct of living in a very liberal area, but I’ve found no such encouragement to man up for the betas in the poly community, if anything the opposite. Every interaction is riddled with rules and proprieties that make me think of dystopian Victorian courting dance. Except engaging in the ritual only leads to worsening your chances! I guess in red pill terms you’d call it a shit test.
That’s why I enjoy JBP! I certainly don’t agree with his trad-con leanings, but I think they do make society at large more stable. I think there’s also something to be said for the idea that going through that stage of sexual thinking (alpha 1.0 or confident beta) is unfortunate but necessary. And while most people will never even want to live a alpha 2.0 lifestyle, I’m not sure it’s possible to go from sexual immaturity directly to alpha 2.0.
Caleb Jones
Posted at 04:37 pm, 6th June 2018Unfortunately I have seen a little of this as well. That’s why I don’t use the word “polyamory” and instead focus on “nonmonogamy,” of which polyamory is but one type. Another type of nonmonogamy is open relationships; OLTR. Yet another type is swinging. And so forth.
ALL forms of nonmonogamy are better than monogamy, period. But that doesn’t mean we can all have our individual preferences within the sub-types.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 05:19 pm, 6th June 2018Actually, that will work tremendously in favor of libertarians like me who want to abolish (read: privatize) marriage.
After gay marriage passed, a conservative movement sprang up (which even Ben Shapiro endorsed) to get the government (and therefore, the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment) completely out of marriage. As a (both economic and cultural) libertarian myself, I agree with this movement. The government has no business in anyone’s bed (which is what marriage is). So if we can completely abolish government marriage by making it too chaotic, I’m all for it.
Imagine the chaos of polygamous marriage! A bisexual wants to marry her boyfriend AND her girlfriend, but the “evil biphobic patriarchy” is trying to stop her and “cut out half of herself” because only heterosexuals and homosexuals are allowed to get married. So the State grants bisexuals the right to marry one of each (one man and one woman). But those two don’t just want to marry her. They also want to marry each other. So now it becomes a combo marriage whereby the man is married to two women and the two women are married to him and each other.
But what if the man who is now married to two women is bi as well and wants to marry another man? And what if that man….
After that shit spirals, there will be no more rationale for prohibiting poly marriage, which (considering both the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment AND the IRS) is going to become soooooo chaotic that the tradcon movement to privatize marriage is going to get so much steam that it will succeed!
Because of poly marriage, marriage will finally be privatized, and then organically abolished since, without government backing, it will become meaningless, except for the most fanatically religious, thus restoring the “sanctity of marriage.” So the tradcons will be happy and libertarians like myself – who are against marriage and want to get the government out of sex – will be happy as well.
The unhappy people will include the evangelical Christians and Muslims who will no longer have a common cultural language with the people whom they’re trying to convert.
Christian: No sex before marriage or you’re going to hell.
Average guy: Marriage? What’s that?
I will be laughing my ass off. It shall be beautiful.
My only two questions are:
1. How will government marriage be abolished? I’m thinking that after the chaos of poly marriage embarrasses everyone, some asexual will sue the government, saying that marriage violates the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment because the government discriminates against asexuals by withholding a tax break from those who choose to be celibate.
2. How will families be organized by the sheep? Perhaps a private family structure (limited liability family) could be formed. That’s already what red pillers who are shunning marriage (like myself) are already doing. And the concept of “family” can be defined by different families as they wish. Maybe we can abolish the concept of blood ties (for legal purposes) and just define a family as “two or more people who agreed to be called family.” At least they could then see their loved ones in hospital intensive care units.
Overall, I believe less marriage (read: less government) is a good thing, even if the sheep choose to stay monogamous. The only unhappy people who aren’t religious will be the bitter women over 33 and the gold diggers who will have nothing legal to trap men with. And family court will have to eventually become more equal to both sides!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 06:58 pm, 6th June 2018Well there is such a thing as “too unacceptable.” Even in an individualistic society, if something has too much stigma, it’s hard to practice. That’s why 1 comes before 2. We have to make polyamory and open relationships at least socially neutral in order to avoid cultural crackdowns. A balance needs to be found between CIA level discretion and total social acceptability.
The Alt Right defines a “high trust society” as a society that is communitarian and anti-individualistic. Your neighbors instantly befriend you when you move in. You talk to, and interact with, your neighbors daily. You get deep into each other’s lives and the 95 year old grandma comes to your house every week to bring you a cake she baked and thought you would enjoy. Of course, she’s also a spy to make sure your lifestyle is kosher and “community approved.”
The Alt Right wants all of society to be like that by encouraging this type of brotherly “fellow feeling.” This way, bureaucracy, paperwork, background checks, and annoying security passwords can be a thing of the past because everyone trusts one another since everyone knows each other. You could easily get a job this way without credentials via informal community connections, like being one big family.
Of course, the problem with this 1950s mindset is that, under such a communitarian scheme, two things would have to be sacrificed – privacy and individuality. Those two would be replaced by “community” and “conformity.” Libertarianism would then be a thing of the past, as would any type of community unapproved sexual freedom or liberation.
High sex drive people would suffer immeasurably! And, of course, for us introverts, creative types, and non-conformist weirdos, it would be a pure dystopian hell! It would be impossible to make friends on ideological grounds from a position of strength, or form our own location independent ideological communities based on personal commonalities (the way only an individualistic society full of privacy makes possible).
Instead, we’d be forced into friendship by force of geography, regardless of personal incompatibilities, thus decreasing the authenticity of human consciousness and the human personality (replaced by masks of conformity and underground rebellion), making it impossible to truly know each other, or even our own selves! It would also be hard to drop friends without changing your address. Being your true self would be such a hassle.
That’s why I hate the Alt Right!
Of course it’s a flawed solution. But if polyamory is unrealistic for the majority, and monogamy just leads to absolute misery, cheating is the best solution we’ve got to the problem of the unwashed masses! It will allow them to live the lie in public, while getting at least some tension relief in private.
That’s why they need to be taught to do it right and not get caught. Discretion is an art that needs to be taught in schools.
That’s why marriage must be abolished. Formal contracts strangle the breathing room that a relationship needs to flourish. The less voluntary something is, the more miserable the people are.
Exactly. Cheating is the worst solution, except for all the others. Non-monogamy is superior, but will work only for those like us who have very specific personalities.
My girlfriend has a harem of 6 men and 1 woman. But all 6 of us are alphas.
I was actually referring to how poly would work when extrapolated to society as a whole, which is why I used the term “extreme poly” as the best example of sexual capitalism.
Yeah, there is some of that that I’ve seen in my girlfriend’s poly circle, but mostly with girls whose sex drives are lower than hers. My girl could never fuck a beta. But lower sex drive women care less about the sex itself, so they can be more tolerant of betas, albeit only if the betas jump through all of the woman’s hoops. Yes, I’ve seen that. But at least that’s better than monogamy or extreme poly for these otherwise celibate men. It may actually be a good compromise for them.
Yes, I was referring to poly being extrapolated to society as a whole. But within current poly pockets in society, it is true that betas are useful to low to medium sex drive women as betas (orbiters doing them favors, etc…). High sex drive women will just keep them as platonic orbiters at most.
Yup. But if poly were to become all of mainstream society, most betas would get frustrated and then they’d be told to man up, not necessarily by any female dominated poly circle, but by the mainstream.
Well, if Peterson wants to pacify the sheep with monogamy preaching, fine. I’d still be more comfortable with one of us doing it though – someone who knows what’s up and doesn’t really believe in any of that crap, but just wants to control the masses.
At the very least Peterson himself needs to be controlled before he turns too many members of the new generation into puritans. We want at least a certain percentage of people to be sex-positive just so our lifestyle can be possible, after all.
I’ll partially agree with that. Monogamy (Level 1) is usually followed by cheating (Level 2) before moving on to non-monogamy (Level 3). Again though, Peterson needs to at least be watched and controlled so that his tradcon bullshit doesn’t get too out of hand.
joelsuf
Posted at 07:22 pm, 6th June 2018The right does this as well. Anything that is groupthink at the core also does it. Its in their nature. Which is why narratives change from day to night.
Decades ago, the white man was god, and everything bowed to him and existed for him.
Currently everyone’s just fighting with everyone while progressive minded people keep “sniping” parts of our culture: Hollywood, TV, sports…this is one thing that stormfronters are actually pretty spot on about. The only thing they are spot on about lol.
The “deathblow” (at least for alt-righters) will be when our economy resembles that of the USSR, the US has its first woman president (who will also be the youngest, it’ll likely be a 37 or 38 year old professor or something lol, she’ll be the very first president in the Millennial generation as well), and the white man will treated like native americans at the turn of the 19th century. This will be probably be in the 2030s or 2040s. I’ll be in Southeast Asia by then so I’ll be good lol
And then one day people will dislike it and fight against it, likely causing a bloody revolution/Civil war. And the narrative will change. Look at it this way; Its been CENTURIES since the US has had a bloody revolution, while there is a revolution once every like 5 years or so in Europe lol.
History repeats itself no matter how much we learn from it. That is because time is linear AND cyclical, but that’s a much different topic haha.
The reason why Alpha 2 is so appealing to me is because the philosophy of it is outcome independence, and nothing is more outcome independent than looking and all this and going “sounds good, imma keep doing me anyway. Live and let live.”
doclove
Posted at 04:17 am, 7th June 2018@ Jack Outside the Box
I wonder what Jack Outside the Box in his delusional mind thinks he is creating in the Sexual Market Place except for the LESBIAN BED DEATH SOCIETY!!! Ha Ha Ha!!! LOL!!! LMAO!!! People are on average having less sex now than in the 1970s and even the 1940s as Blackdragon explained in a previous article he wrote. The truth is Jack Outside the Box is a Left Wing Corporatist/ Marxist Looter, not a Creator. I’m fine with him or anyone else being a Left Wing Corporatist/ Marxist Looter because as society is currently structured, that is all any one can be, but could you at least be honest with yourself, Jack Outside the Box, then maybe you will one day say that to everyone else, conditions permitting for your safety of course.
The more full on Capitalism is lets one change any currency for any product or service. Capitalism also lets one barter anything for any product or service. This disgusts Jack as he prefers people to exchange sex for sex sake because he doesn’t want anyone to stop his looting and destruction. Strangely, he would allow prostitution, but it disgusts him because he imbibes in the feminine imperative of fulfilling his emotions rather than the masculine imperative of fulfilling instinct and reason first.
I will have more later.
Dingus
Posted at 09:06 am, 7th June 2018While this mirrors my own personal philosophy and I certainly would like to see this happen, I think you underestimate the governments appetite for paperwork. They’ll be glad to wallow through a morass of marriage confusion between nongendered dragonkin and nonbinary genderqueers, because we’ll all be paying them to do it!
Your suggestions of abolishment of marriage as a legal entity in favor of private contracts is both reasonable and rational, the general trend of government is to grow legislation rather than abolish it. It’s much more likely that the definition of marriage is going to expanded rather than contracted or removed.
Good setup, nice!
Ah, you’re right! It is the low sex drive women that tend to do that!
Sad, but true.
I think you take him far too seriously as a threat. The time to turn this culture around was 40 or 50 years ago. He’s just a man screaming into the wind. Although it’s possible he’ll leave a legacy into the far long term. If I start seeing Petersonian congregations spring up, I’ll probably try to get in at an early level, become a bishop of the new messiah!
I’m also surprised at the vehemence of your dislike of him. I think, sexuality aside, he speak very intelligently. Furthermore, A LOT of what he says mirrors the contents of BDs blog very closely:
Have a self-defined mission.
Meaningful and difficult action will make you happier than transient pleasures.
Speak truthfully.
Work on yourself rather than pursuing external solutions.
BDs recent post: https://alphamale20.com/2018/05/28/youre-not-who-you-think-you-are/ Could’ve come out of JBP’s mouth.
Dingus
Posted at 09:19 am, 7th June 2018I put online dating on the back burner for a bit, to check out the poly community. It was my hope that the poly community would offer easy access to women that are nonmonogamous by default. And it’s true in a sense, but the community is riddled with “consent” issues to the point that I’ve seen people regularly “negotiate” interactions with literal physical contracts. As well as seeing people outed as “consent violators” and banished from the community for inappropriate touching. Inappropriate touching being ANY physical contact not explicitly discussed beforehand. Ugh, insanity.
So I’m back to sarging online as per your system, still the most time efficient way to go in my experience. Looking forward to checking out the new young women book!
John
Posted at 09:29 am, 7th June 2018Figure out what’s wrong and fix it. Be obsessive about it or be a failure. First, with me, it was the area i’m in is too small so I expanded. I wasn’t getting any responses so I started driving up to and hour just to get to a populated area. Once you make them cum repeatedly they’ll beg to drive to you so don’t worry about 45 mins to an hour. Last 3 have lived an hour away and I rarely went to see them. Of course you have to get to that point. I was also bad on first dates. I was off putting, boring, and treated it like an interview. So I developed a first date plan (that works for me), from start to finish, all focused on making the woman want to fuck me within 30 mins. A lot I picked up on here, some that I developed, and some I picked up from buddies. Find guys in real life who are good and watch. I actually had a buddy that kills it tell me what to say, and not to say, over text as I was sexting a girl. Best thing I ever did. really changed how I communicated. Then I asked female friends “hey what if I did this on a date would it turn you on?” It’s tough to do because it’s humbling to admit to a friend you don’t know what you’re doing with women in a certain area but man did it really help me.
Point is continue to self evaluate, you’re doing something wrong. Guys are getting laid. I know them in real life and on here. I go from one to the next and I’m a 49 year old bald guy.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 07:07 pm, 7th June 2018Uhhhhh………………I literally have no clue how to respond to this, since I don’t even know what the fuck this means. You ok, Doc?
Right, but correcting this does not necessitate living in the 1607 Massachusetts Bay Colony.
What? Dude, I think you’ve completely lost it! I’m a libertarian, which means I’m very left wing on social issues (not to be confused with social justice authoritarianism or political correctness) and right wing on economic ones.
How the fuck am I a corporatist? Corporatism means socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In other words, fascism, which is what we have today. I’m certainly not a fascist and I condemn any corporation which takes even one penny of tax money, or receives special protections and allowances from government that a small business couldn’t. Do you even know what you’re talking about?
Marxist? Ok, now you have officially lost your mind! Please articulate one Marxist belief which I have!
Looter? What exactly am I looting? I don’t believe in welfare, or any other type of stealing. I believe that you must either be productive for society or die. How does that make me a looter or a Marxist?
You need to take a nap, man!
Since I don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about, your question is moot. Marx and I agree on nothing. And I’ve never “looted” anything in my life.
You need to start speaking English dude, because you’re making zero sense right now!
Agreed. What’s your point?
Am I not allowed to have preferences? Just because I favor the legalization of heroin doesn’t mean I endorse shooting up! I do prefer people getting laid based on their sexual merit, yes. People who cheat the system of sexual meritocracy with money are losers. But I’m not a tyrant and I’m in favor of any and all consensual transactions in a free society (legally speaking). But this doesn’t mean I won’t have opinions!
What looting? What destruction? What are you rambling about? You sound like Alex Jones now!
Start making sense!
No, it disgusts me because I believe in something that Marx didn’t even have in his vocabulary – merit! If you have no sexual merit, then giving her money = cheating the system. The purest and best sex is based on mutual sexual attraction and lust (merit based sex). Anything less than that is distasteful to me. But freedom is freedom and people can do what they want.
So…..how am I a Marxist again? And what exactly am I looting or destroying? I’ve never stolen anything that doesn’t belong to me.
doclove
Posted at 04:20 am, 8th June 2018@ Jack Outside the Box
Do you really think you would be getting as far and having as much sex with as many women as you do if there was no “government check dad” handing out money to single momma drama women? Do you really think that you would be doing as well with women and having as much sex with women with as many women as you do if women did not get the hiring preferences and retaining preferences enforced by our culture and government for employment and contractor preferences? Do you really think you would do as well with women having as much sex with women with as many women if prostitution were legal or better yet decriminalized? I do not,
You have a right to your opinion. I have a right to say your opinion is wrong as much as you have a right to say the same to me, I am libertarian leaning also, I think that you would legalize things or remove laws is great. I do not regard changing money for sex as cheating since there was no fraud nor coercion, It seems you are a libertarian that has more in common with Fox News Journalist John Stossell and I with retired New Jersey Supreme Court Judge John Napaolitano.
I will be back. I love smacking your delusional ideas down, I will have more later.
doclove
Posted at 03:03 pm, 9th June 2018@ Jack Outside the Box
The written beatings of you shall continue, To finish off the 1st paragraph of the last post I made, I will ask another question. Do you really think you would be having as much sex with as many women and getting as far with them as you do without the divorce laws and enforcement favoring women over men in the USA? Do you really think you will be able to go as far and have as much sex as you do with the kinds of women you want with as many women as you do without paying for it, prostitution(Sugar Daddy/ Sugar Baby Game, SD/SB is prostitution no matter what the law says in my book just as much as paying by the hour), once you get older somewhere between the ages of 40 and 60 with 50 being the midpoint? Do you really think you would be getting as far with women and having as much sex with as many women as you do without the deeply misandrist culture, laws and enforcement of thereof? I do not. You see that the Sexual Market Place through Misandrist feminism is designed to only benefit a few men like you so that makes you a Leftist Corporatist whether you like to admit that or not. You are playing the GAME well, but at least admit who you are.
Did you notice that a few articles ago, that Blackdragon admitted that he is playing the SD/ SB GAME 70 percent now and will go 100% soon and he is nearing age 50 like I am now? I did. I even commented that it may be smarter to do SD/SB here in the USA because of our more Misandrist Prostitution Prohibition laws while paying by the hour in New Zealand because Prostitution is completely decriminalized or nearly so to where he is moving.
Do you really think a woman’s romantic love is worth as much or more than a man’s? I do not. The reason is that men are more willing to lay down their lives for women than women are for men typically and generally speaking and on average than women are for men.
What if men realized these things enough and more which I have stated in this and the other posts I have made in this article. It would revolutionize the Sexual Market Place and you may not do as well in the SMP. I do not think that will happen soon, but one never completely knows the future. I should have more later.
Antekirtt
Posted at 05:38 pm, 9th June 2018@doclove: Jack thinks it’s fair that his SMV will eventually dwindle with age, he’s a social darwinist (I hope this ideology and the bad rep it’s giving to actual evolutionary theory dies an imminent death) and applies it to himself. Time to focus less on sex and more on spiritual stuff is about the way he put it I think – when speaking of turning 50-60-plus. He’s also completely against human rejuvenation and other enhancements, so that option is out for him. Hell, I think he’s even against viagra.
damon
Posted at 05:41 pm, 9th June 2018i really think 2 big issues regarding men not getting laid is that 1. they dont go out enough or do enought to perfect their online dating profile to get dates and 2. they are either really picky or their standards are so high that no women short of 199 8-2000angelina jolie or1990 91 pamela anderson could fulfill them.
A lot of guys dot work on their profiles see what type of pics get better responses, dont try to improve their style, fitness, wealth game or anything nor do they even try escorts cause they think they are above them. so with no improvement and high standards they dont get laid at all
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 11:14 pm, 9th June 2018When the government grows in ways which are unsustainable, a collapse is inevitable. If government marriage grows in ways which are unsustainable (and poly marriage will do that), I believe that even the IRS will say “fuck this” eventually!
Like I said, there is a growing conservative movement in America to privatize marriage. Ben Shapiro even talked about it and endorsed it. The movement just needs a practical push.
But it can’t expand indefinitely. And poly marriage will precisely require it to expand indefinitely. When something is required to expand indefinitely, but can’t, it will collapse in on itself. It has no choice. That is my hope.
It may take awhile, but abolishing the medieval barbarism that is marriage is worth the patience.
Her sexual status changes a lot though. Her lesbian friend with benefits and my primary status are really the only two constants in her sex life. Today, she has five other men on her regular rotation, but they’re not constant. She will rotate new guys in and out. And that doesn’t even count the occasional group sex we have with her friends, plus the swingers parties she goes to by herself.
By contrast, my sex life is more stable. I currently have one primary, one secondary, and one tertiary (not counting the occasional threesome and group sex my primary and I have with her friends).
Remember the children’s story about the turtle and the rabbit running a race?
I don’t like slut shamers or sexual puritans. The man is a fucking tradcon!
I never said he wasn’t intelligent. His intelligence actually makes him more dangerous.
What I really hate is tradcons using their own anti-political correctness and anti-SJWism as a Trojan horse to infect people with conservatism and sexual purity garbage. The seduction community has been infiltrated by these bastards too.
Heartiste and Roosh, for example, started out as seemingly sex positive and preaching game and liberation from involuntary celibacy (preachings which I could have used in my college days). Then, when you’re addicted, they do a bait and switch – teaching you that women who like sex are evil and that you should find a virgin to marry, look down on the “sluts” you wanted to fuck (now that they helped you master that skill), and work to transform society into the 17th century Jamestown Colony!
It makes me sick, because they were only using sex-positivism and seduction as a Trojan horse to push their puritanical agenda. Peterson is doing the same thing with his anti-SJW rhetoric. It’s just bait. The SJWs did the same thing when they co-opted classical liberalism (with all of its sex-positive and Free Speech trappings) and converted it to the anti-speech and “all sex is rape” philosophy that the left wing now preaches to the masses!
I just hate Trojan horses!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 11:39 pm, 9th June 2018What????
Dude, you’re in the wrong poly community, my friend! LOL! Are you sure you haven’t stumbled unto the BDSM community? Because they’re the ones who are autistic about “consent” and approach the subject like a bunch of brain damaged retards! But that’s because they have to, due to their insane so called “sex practices.” They’re the ones who invented the autistic definition of consent in the 1970s.
I try to stay away from those communities. My poly community has nothing like this. Sure, sometimes they’ll talk about what they want to do and make sure everyone’s okay beforehand, but there are no written contracts or people getting banned for “touching not explicitly discussed beforehand.”
That’s not the poly community I know. If it were, I’d get the fuck out of there too! Sounds more like BDSM crap!
You know what’s really scary? I believe Sweden even made that garbage law, by criminalizing so called “non-consensual acts during consensual sex.” LOL! What a severely autistic mess!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:37 am, 10th June 2018Uhh, I haven’t really had a lot of sex with women on welfare. I’m sure there have been a few, but single mothers and welfare queens aren’t exactly high on my sexual priority list. My top goal right now is to fuck a midget, which I haven’t accomplished yet. But single moms on welfare…..not a big thing in my world.
My last monogamous girlfriend (back when I still believed in that shit) was a pediatrician. A fuck buddy whom I cheated on her with was an IRS agent. And my current girlfriend is a millionaire (something which I am not). So I don’t really see socialism as benefiting my sex life in a substantial way.
Your question implies that if women would not receive affirmative action (which I agree that they shouldn’t), they wouldn’t be qualified for jobs, or at least wouldn’t do as well in their own chosen professional fields as men. I reject this implication. Sure, some of them would wash out (just like many men do today), but on balance, a lack of affirmative action would just force women to work harder, as all people do when their safety nets go bye-bye.
And yes, some of them would, instead of working, choose to be housewives and rely on beta males by turning into full time gold diggers, but I precisely reject women who have those tendencies anyway. I’ve said before that I have pretty much cut off approximately 80 percent of women from my life, exactly because I don’t appreciate their gold digger and parasite natures.
That just leaves the women with the highest sex drives and those types are always financially independent anyway, because you have to be if you have the sex drive of a man. The only exception is high sex drive women who marry chumps and then cheat on them with me. I fuck them as well.
But yeah, the majority of women are too “providerish” for me, so I just ignore them and focus on the sexually enlightened ones, which are a minority in any case. But those are definitely the ones who would survive the job market without affirmative action. So yeah, I don’t see how that would substantially impact my sex life.
If prostitution were decriminalized and destigmatized, I might have a greater problem. That’s why I’m against people like Jordan Peterson, Roosh, Heartiste, and so forth who precisely preach in favor of a culture that would return us to male provisioning and female housewifery, which is the ultimate in prostitution.
I’m not so much afraid of legalizing hookers, but the thought of destigmatizing them and creating a pro-hooker culture instead of a sex-positive (sex in exchange for sex) culture does scare me. Because, in such a culture, it would be way harder for girls like my girlfriend to come into psychological existence.
Now you understand why I’m against you, Doc. As well as conservative assholes like Roosh, Heartiste, and Jordan Peterson.
So it’s wrong to be sex-positive? What do you want from me? You want me to engineer my own sexual destruction by promoting a pro-prostitution culture which would force me to pay? Or get women out of the workplace and into the home where, if I were a virgin and would want to lose my virginity, I’d have to provide for a woman for the rest of my life?
Is that what you want from me Doc? What insanity would possess me to advocate for such a culture in which I would lose everything?
I meant cheating, as in a person who has no sexual merit (read: sexual attractiveness) getting to have sex despite his lack of ability to stoke the woman’s lust. In other words, bribery, which is meant to bypass honest merit, which, in the sexual marketplace, is lust.
I love the guy!
I like him too, but I haven’t followed him or listened to him as much as Stossell.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 02:17 am, 10th June 2018Since single mothers are a very small portion of my sex life (and even then, only as fuck buddies, unless their children are fully grown), yes. If divorce laws favored men, I imagine it would be harder for me to get wives to cheat on their husbands with me (which, I admit, would suck), but that’s pretty much it. I doubt I’d have more problems sleeping with high sex drive women, poly women, or women cheating on their regular boyfriends.
In my 40s and perhaps early 50s, yes. I’m actually currently still reading through BD’s book on how to seduce much younger women, especially the ones he talks about who have a fetish for older men. But in my 60s? No. Then again, I’ll probably be impotent in my 60s anyway. And if I do become impotent, I don’t plan on going against nature in any way, so I won’t be having any more sex in any case. I’m fine with that. I only want to have sex for as long as nature allows me and gives me those urges.
Yes! Actually, I’d be having even more sex if the man-hating and rape obsessed SJWs would just go away. Man-hating, just like woman-hating, is very bad for sex-positivism.
Sex-positive feminism has benefited me. Misandrist feminism is man-hating and sex-negative – seeking to narrow the definition of consensual sex and broaden the definition of rape to absurd proportions. That does not benefit me at all. In fact, sex-negative feminists are my enemies.
So what’s my alternative then? Should I become a tradcon and start slut shaming women? Should I encourage women to be virgins till marriage? Should I tell women who have sex for sex to stop that and start forcing men (including me) to pay for it? Should I encourage women to stay home and not work, so that sexual activity for a man will, once again, go hand in hand with being forced to provide women with their daily bread?
Again, what insanity would possess me to want to do that? All societies benefit the few. What alternative is there? You can’t please everybody, or even most people. Benefiting the betas wouldn’t benefit me. Our positions would simply be reversed. Is that better? At least I’m willing to give the betas the illusion of monogamy. If they ruled the world, I wouldn’t even get any illusions for myself, just the death penalty for sex before marriage, or something. Why do you want that?
Yes. Which is very sad. I’ll cut off my own dick before I pay for sex.
Even if it’s worth less, I still prefer a woman’s love, or at least her lust, over a cold business transaction which motivates her to artificially simulate the false appearance of lust. And because I want to maximize the probability that her lust is genuine, I want no safety nets whatsoever motivating her to be with me. Or if she has safety nets (like being on welfare), I want that to have nothing directly to do with me. That’s how I keep a woman’s sexual lust honest.
Well, why do you think I’m so against you? If the monogamous beta workers drop their tools and no longer have women as their inspiration (because of all the things you said), society would probably collapse. They would demand free sex (which the women would refuse because the men are unattractive betas), and upon rejection, the men would abandon civilization, or kill all the men like me, thus forcing women to be with them instead.
So why do you want to destroy sexual liberation, Doc? Why do you want the workers to rise up and destroy my sex life and the sex positive lifestyle? Why do you want to abolish blogs like this one? I say you have more in common with Marx than I do!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 12:33 pm, 10th June 2018Bullshit! Not in America. Unlike Europe, Canada, Australia, and the rest of the West, we still have a First Amendment protecting Free Speech, including the fictional “hate speech,” which the U.S. Supreme Court recently described as “an expression of poetry with no legal meaning or function.”
That’s just their mask. Women already can and actually do the same stuff as men. But if you hate men, equality feels like patriarchy. Just like if you hate white people, equality feels like white supremacy!
LOL! Oh man…..you obviously know nothing about post-modernism! Really? That’s all you got? Whoever said that trans-gender people are “less than human?” What a meaningless and politically correct non-sequitur!!!
First of all, society doesn’t give you a gender. Your biology does. Let’s get that straight from the get-go.
Second of all, post-modernism teaches that there is no such thing as objective truth, which means that literally everything is one big power play of “oppressor vs. oppressed.” They believe that “power” is the only medium of exchange, communication, and interaction with human beings in existence (since they think truth is a fictional idea invented by the white man to justify slavery).
They also believe that all power is oppressive and must be smashed, which is why they think all sex is rape, because at least one person in the sexual interaction must have at least one more penny in the bank than the other one, and therefore, more power, thus making the sex automatic rape.
They believe that only the more powerful have free will and if you are physically prettier, have more friends, are more influential in any way, or richer, you are immediately an oppressor and a rapist if you fuck someone with less friends, less influence, etc…, because the “oppressed” can’t be expected to beat their oppressor.
Post-modernism is a philosophy of narcissism. This is why they hate Free Speech and think “speech is violence.” Our Founding Fathers believed that speech and violence are mutually exclusive concepts. Where there is one, the other can’t exist. But post-modern SJWs merge the physical with the emotional, thus perceiving emotional offense as an aggression meriting a physically defensive response, like a third world dictator chopping your head off because you offended him.
Free Speech was also considered by the Founding Fathers to be the only way to determine what is true and what isn’t. Without a free marketplace of ideas, we can never evaluate truth objectively. But since the post-modernists think there is no such thing as truth, Free Speech becomes oppressive because everything that comes out of your mouth than just becomes a cynical and deceptive power play that you use to further your privilege and your oppression of others.
Speech then becomes inherently an oppressive aspect of the power game, so the only defense against it is to forcefully shut you up!
Post-modernist SJWs are also secular creationists, think everything is a social construct, reject all reality, except “oppressor vs. oppressed,” and have declared war against science (thinking that science was just invented by the white man to further slavery).
If post-modernists ruled, we’d be living in a third world jungle with zero technology, zero human rights, and frequent death penalties for “hurting people’s feelings” because they believe that the western (read: white) idea that “the punishment must fit the crime” is an oppressive belief which allows slave masters to get away with their crimes by creating a “hierarchy of abuse.”
Basically, post-modernism is North Korea, or Pol Pot’s Cambodia on steroids!
Are you serious? I strongly suggest you read the source material again. SJWs are the perfect representations of post-modernist garbage put into practice!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 12:43 pm, 10th June 2018Back to the original topic:
Bill Maher said it even better than BD:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lad26hfccS4
joelsuf
Posted at 06:11 pm, 10th June 2018I’m being honest, it was never presented to me the way you put it at all. If it was, I would put down every last detail about it and put it on blast and you know that. To me post modernism different than any other form of collectivism: Tell others what is best for them and wish vengeance on those who don’t agree with them. I did get that message, but that shit’s everywhere nowadays.
Like I keep saying, everyone around me can inconvenience whoever they want while trying to save the world. I’ll just laugh at it when I can, deal with it when I must, and keep doing me. That’s what Alpha 2s do.
doclove
Posted at 04:20 am, 12th June 2018@ Jack Outside the Box
I thought you were gone, but you responded late, and I will do the same. You throw out nonsense that only a woman would or a very penis whooped and brain-washed man would. Tell your woman that she did a great job socially programming you.
Blackdragon is going the SD/SB route because he is getting old, and he is closer to 50 than 40. Menno matter what their age still want to have sex with young hot 20 something year olds and this explains his behavior. Men on average do not lose the desire for sex like women do when they become 60 years old. You would know that if you were a real man and spoke to men older than you during what Sean Connery would call “man talk” in his James Bond movies.
Your way only works for very highly functioning people who are more often than not Gentile White or perhaps more likely Ashenazi Jews. For the poor and non-Whites especially the the Ashkenazi Jews, it does not work so well on average of course. This has nothing to do with individuals, but just speaking about probability statistics. Polymory has wrecked the poor Black community in the USa as a great example.
I prefer a woman lust for me. However, I prefer she volunteer to ejaculate my penis for whatever reason over not ejaculating me whether she has lust for me or not. You think like a woman saying I want her to lust or love me first. Real men like me know they have no such luxury like women do in that regard. You write out so much drivel insinuating things that are simply not true. You can leave your girlfriend’s basement and enjoy life. I might be back to pummel you some more.
Dingus
Posted at 10:04 pm, 14th June 2018I agree collapse IS inevitable, the specific question here then is will the legal institution of marriage collapse before the overall economic and cultural collapse of western civilization. My contention is no, it will not. The US will have far bigger problems to worry about way before any kind rational thinking infects the institution of marriage.
So does libertarianism and economic freedom. Neither of those things are gonna happen either, unfortunately.
You’re right in principle, but like I said earlier. I think marriage will be one of the last rats on the sinking ship.
Fair enough, and I agree, his message may well reverberate through time.
I don’t disagree, I find his views on sexuality constricting to personal freedom. However, I think his message by and large is positive. I would much rather live in a society with cultural restrictions on sexual freedom (that I can avoid by being a free thinking individual) that prioritizes overall individual and economic freedom than the converse. Not to minimize sex, because sex is important, but even in the culturally restricted 50’s men that wanted to philander had no problem doing so. To some degree it was expected for successful and attractive men.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth, but it seems to me like you’re ignoring larger principles and hyperfocusing on the very specific aspect of sexual freedom. To bring back your earlier point:
Granted, Peterson is not the perfect solution, but he’s a far better and effective voice for personal freedom than just about anyone that comes to mind that actually gets some attention. Peterson is a terrible role model, except for all the other role models.
Dingus
Posted at 10:12 pm, 14th June 2018My understanding was that there was a great deal of overlap. If that’s not the case…well, that would be exciting news! I was using fetlife to go to events and meet people and etc. Any advice on seeking out a poly community sans the insanity? Swinger parties?
It hurts my brain to even read that. It’s like weaponized stupidity.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 09:53 pm, 19th June 2018Um, ok. I’ve had these beliefs before I even met her, but ok. What exactly about my opinions is pussy whipped? Being in an open/poly arrangement is pussy whipped? Having more sex with more partners than most men ever will have birthdays is pussy whipped? Ok.
Well, I can’t stop him, and to each, his own. But, like I said, I’d rather cut off my own dick than pay for sex. I will never do such a thing, ever!
If I become impotent at age 60 (a distinct possibility), I will make my peace with not having sex. If I’m still able to get hard….well, who knows what girlfriend or MLTR I’ll have in my life then, or what age they will be. I just know one thing: I’ll never pay for it. That’s it!
And I already conceded this point to you. So let’s give monogamy to the masses and polyamory only to high functioning people, even as we discreetly fuck the monogamous partners of the masses!
Correct, yes! My girlfriend is an Ashkenazi Jew, and the overwhelming majority of people into the poly lifestyle are either Jewish or simply white. There are exceptions, but they are tiny. Blacks tend to be alpha 1.0 and territorial. Same thing for Hispanics.
Hispanic women though are super horny and cheat at the drop of a hat, while believing that open relationships are “disrespectful to your partner.” They believe discreet cheating is best. I agree that that is superior for their culture. And Asians tend to be mega conservative, not wanting to shame their ancestors or some shit!
Fine. Then like I said, promote monogamy to the masses while discreetly fucking their partners. It works for the Hispanics!
Ok. To each, his own. I’m not turned on by a woman’s actions if they are just mechanical and her heart isn’t in it, but whatever!
For sex? I couldn’t care less whether or not she loves me. In fact, her needing to be in love with me before we first have sex is some creepy prude shit! But yes, she must genuinely lust for me. Her orgasm is the source of mine. That’s just how I am. The sex must be good for both, or it’s good for neither. I must believe I have sexual merit in her eyes (sexual attractiveness) in order to feel good about the sex.
Oh but I do have such luxury. In fact, I exercise that preference and luxury every time I have sex.
Like what? What have I said that isn’t true.
LOL! We don’t live together. I have other fuck buddies. And I’m happy. I DO enjoy life. And I enjoy it precisely because I only have sex in exchange for sex! No other sex is tolerable.
If society can only function with monogamy, fine. Let’s promote monogamy to society, while we enjoy polyamory and fuck the monogamous partners of others. Simple solution! What part of that do you disagree with exactly?
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:17 pm, 20th June 2018“Overall individual freedom” must include sexual freedom. And economic freedom leads to prosperity, which leads to an increased desire for sexual freedom. I cannot support the man.
Oh hell no! I would NOT tolerate going back to the 1950s on sexual topics. Never! Can you picture it? No more sex on the first date from online dating or anything else? Massive ASD to overcome? Girls telling you that you need to “put a ring on it” first? Oh fuck no! I’d kill myself!
In the 1950s, pre-marital sex was a crime and having a threesome would land you in a mental hospital! Not acceptable!
Sexual freedom is extremely important to me. And this is a blog about sex. I will fight anyone (including Jordan Peterson) who wants to drag us back to the 1950s where only “trash” weren’t virgins before marriage. Fuck that entire frame of mind!
And Peterson, just like Shapiro, brags that he lost his virginity to his wife and believes everyone should follow his example! The sexual tyranny of the 1950s must never be allowed to return!
He’s only in favor of personal freedom in the economic sense and the Free Speech sense. On cultural/social/sexual issues, he’s a tyrant!
I do agree with his anti-SJW positions though and I’m glad he’s on our side as far as cultural Marxism and post-modernism are concerned.
Milo Yiannapolous is light years superior!
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:29 pm, 20th June 2018The BDSM community tends to be more non-monogamous than the general public, but we (the poly community) have nothing to do with them. The two communities are completely separate. The “overlap” is in their increased agreement with us on non-monogamous principles.
LOL! There’s your problem!
I always tell guys to seek out the pagan community, or a Wiccan social circle. I was lucky because I found my girl (herself a Wiccan) on okcupid and she introduced me to her poly circle.
Poly communities that are not BDSM usually don’t have all the autistic insanity surrounding consent. The BDSM people have to, because their sex practices are rather exotic, so they have to be 100 percent sure beforehand that everyone agrees. They’ve been like this since the 1970s.
But the “vanilla” poly community treats consent like every normal person does. There is no autism (at least I haven’t experienced any in my girl’s circle).
But yeah, I believe poly groups do advertise online in one form or another. If I were you, I’d look for local pagan meet ups in your area. Also, some swingers websites shouldn’t be too hard to find, but I think for those, you have to either be a single woman or half of a couple.
Yup. But Sweden isn’t worried about that anymore, since that country is now the rape capital of Europe (meaning, real rape), due to the massive influx of Muslim savages. Oh well.
Jack Outside the Box
Posted at 01:46 pm, 20th June 2018Dingus – Check this out:
https://swinglifestyleblog.wordpress.com/
Marty McFly
Posted at 08:39 am, 27th August 2018Legalize prostitution and be done with it.