There is a lot of bad female behavior. It gets worse as they get older, but it starts very young indeed, typically around four years below fertile age, with a great deal of variance, much more variance than occurs in males.
People complain that when I notice sexual misbehavior in very young girls, that this is “bad optics”.
I say that there is severe and widespread female misconduct getting right in our faces, that we need to stop them, and that we need start stopping them very young.
People then claim I advocate raping little girls, and that this is “bad optics”.
I say that female consent is always unclear and ambiguous, and is usually foolish and given to very bad men with very bad consequences, and that therefore such decisions need to be made by the parent or guardian.
People then claim that I say that I should be allowed to have sex with other men’s children and they should not be allowed to stop me, even though that is exactly the opposite of what I am saying.
These claims make no logical or factual sense. But equally obviously, they make emotional sense if you are badly cucked.
Suppose someone genuinely fails to see women behaving badly. Then, if he disagrees with me, the natural response is
“No you are wrong, women are not behaving badly, they don’t need to be controlled”
But instead I hear
“horrible men need to be controlled and you are a horrible man, you rape other men’s daughters and seduce other men’s wives”
Which makes emotional sense if those making the accusation see what I see, but are frightened, weak, and impotent. It only makes emotional sense if one sees bad behavior, and, unable to address the bad behavior directly (because that would be domestic violence, hostile work environment, sexual harassment, mansplaining, and rape) displaces one’s rage. If one does not see what I see, if one does not see a great deal of very bad behavior, it makes neither logical nor emotional sense to accuse me of these absurd views. For someone to make these angry hostile denunciations is displacement of anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if female misbehavior is causing him anger and pain, thus only makes emotional sense if he sees what I see.
Blaming men for female misconduct is fear, weakness and white knighting. People say that speaking the truth about women is “bad optics”, but weakness is the worst optics. We are the strong horse.
I am indeed saying that women, starting at a horrifyingly young age, like sex, like rape, and rather like brutal rape. To conclude from this that I am arguing in favor of brutal rape, one has to attribute to me the white knight position that women should get what they want. But that is an implausible position to attribute to someone who is arguing that women want very bad things, wicked, foolish, and self destructive things, and who frequently says in the plainest possible words that women should not be allowed to get what they want. Chastity and monogamy are a plot by men against women and needs to be imposed on women with a stick. Monogamy and chastity were first invented when one band of ape men wiped out the ape men of another band, killed their mothers, killed their children, and divided up the women among themselves.
When I talk about nine year old girls finding an older male to fuck them, I say “but she does not want to fuck someone like you – she is going to fuck a heavily tattooed forty year old motorcycle gang leader and drug dealer.” When a heavily tattooed drug dealer is my example of youthful female hypergamy in action it is unreasonable to attribute to me the argument “This is what little girls want, and therefore giving it to them should be fine.” What I say is that this is indeed what little girls want, and therefore they need to be whacked with a stick and in some cases shotgun married. We need to deal with this problem with domestic discipline and the threat of early shotgun marriage, not by doubling down on prohibitions against men, prohibitions that are only effective against respectable men, and thus wind up reinforcing the little girl’s feeling that bad men are higher status.
Attributing to me outrageous and absurd positions only makes emotional sense as emotional displacement, and emotional displacement only makes sense if a problem is hurting one badly, and one is powerless and afraid to do anything about it.
Blaming men for the behavior of women is weakness and fear, and smells to everyone like weakness and fear. When people see the strong horse and the weak horse, naturally they will prefer the strong horse.
There is an enormous epidemic of extremely bad female behavior right in front of your face. That this epidemic starts at a very early age is just a small part of what people are refusing to see, and this small part is no different from the rest of it. Mostly what we see is bad female behavior in college and in the workplace, and it is in the workplace that most of the economic damage from female sexual misconduct happens.
Consider what happens at work. The boss is talking and a woman interrupts him and talks over him, in a supposedly helpful, respectful, friendly, and supportive manner. When a woman interrupts a man she always sounds friendly, helpful, and supportive at first, because women always play one man against another man, are always soliciting white knights.
The boss is trying to say X, but she is not letting him say X, and is insisting that he is actually saying Y. Y is usually something stupid, disruptive, and damaging to the business and the cohesion of the team, and even if it is something perfectly reasonable, it is not what the boss was attempting to say.
This is a shit test. If he raises his voice and insists on X and ignores this Y disruption, he is being mean to this supposedly sweet innocent girl who has supposedly done nothing wrong, was sweetly, politely, and supportively interrupting him and speaking over him.
Quite likely the boss fails the shit test, by allowing the woman who interrupted him and talked over him to win, the conversation proceeds to be about Y, and the boss never gets a chance to talk about X. In which case the boss becomes invisible to her, and if subsequently he forces himself on her attention, which being her boss he probably needs to do from time to time, she gets a creepy feeling as though something slimy and disgusting was trying to insert its semen into her, as though he physically forced himself on her, and she fought him off, and he slunk away ashamed. And, chances are, she will remember it as happening something like that, because that is what it is going to feel like. Women just don’t like having betas around, just as they don’t like having rats and slugs around. The distinction between a contemptible beta forcing himself on her attention, and a contemptible beta forcing himself on her body will not remain clear in her mind. Likely she will complain about him metaphorically forcing himself to her colleagues at the time, and years after the events, will genuinely remember him as literally forcing himself on her physically.
Now suppose instead the boss bulls his way through, and insists on talking about X, ignoring her gentle steering towards Y? Well, chances are that at first the interruptions become considerably less helpful, less respectful, less friendly and less supportive, more openly hostile and disruptive. But maybe, indeed very likely, her stiffening resistance will suddenly collapse, and she will accept the boss talking about X. In which case he has passed the shit test, and when he wins and when she capitulates to his verbal domination you will see her emit some subtle or not so subtle body language that signals that if he were to try some physical domination on her for size, maybe that might well go down similarly. Which was, of course the whole point of the exercise, the whole point of disrupting the bosses talk and attempting to silence him. The dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender. To reproduce successfully, men and women have to form stable families, which means that men have to conquer, and women have to surrender. She is provoking him to aggress against her, so that he can conquer her. She never actually cared one way or the other whether the boss talked about X or Y.
Now you might suppose you can stay out of trouble by always capitulating, by losing to every shit test, by white knighting. Accepting defeat, accepting the higher status of your adversary, works in a conflict with a fellow male. It fails catastrophically in a conflict with a woman. Male conflicts are resolved by establishing hierarchy. Female conflicts are resolved by eliminating the losers. If you submit to male dominance, he would like to keep you around. If you submit to female dominance, she will casually destroy you. Men reproduce most successfully by ruling, females reproduce most successfully by being ruled, thus are maladapted to rule. White knighting fails.
To be more precise, white knighting fails as a strategy for men with women. It works as a cover for defecting on your fellow males. If one tells a woman one is supporting and protecting her, she will despise one. If one tells a man one is supporting and protecting his wife and his daughters, it will likely persuade him to refrain from killing one.
White knighting works as a sneaky fucker strategy for high status males. If a male is acting in a role that makes him higher status than you, as for example a preacher, he is in a good position to fuck your women. If, in that high status role, he preaches that women are higher status than himself, that is going to impair his chances. But if, in that role, he preaches that your women are pure and chaste (and therefore your women would never have sex with him)) and also preaches that women are higher status than you, that is going to improve his chances. “Domestic violence” laws are a white knight strategy targeting men who are low status in the male hierarchy but high status in female perception, because violent. People in authority are pissed that women like are criminals and men with no income, and so push “domestic violence””in an effort to undermine the authority of those men over their women, with the unfortunate effect of undermining the authority of all men over all women. The correct way to reduce the propensity of women to hang out with stone broke criminals and ignore the guy with the corner office in the skyscraper is to support male authority over females, but only for males in good standing, as the Mormon Church does. Of course, that has the effect that people in authority don’t get to fuck the women of men in good standing, which is why this strategy is so frequently unpopular with men in authority.
Which is how we got into this mess. King George the fourth slept with the wives of aristocrats. His own wife slept around. He tried to divorce her, revealing himself as powerless and cuckolded. The power of Kings went away, and anglosphere fertility has been falling ever since, with a temporary recovery between first wave and second wave feminism. The elite go after each other’s women, lose social cohesion, and social disorder ensues.
Recollect my story about the first men inventing chastity and monogamy: The leader of the first men assigns one woman to each of his followers who is any use, and a dozen to himself. Noticing that some of that dozen are apt to be frisky, he issues a commandment that marriage is eternal. If a woman has sex with a man, she may only have sex with that one man all his days. Further, if a woman does have sex with another man, it is absolutely fine for her husband to kill her and/or that man, and the rest of the tribe should support him in that endeavor.
Time passes, and the leader of the first men is getting a bit frail. A new leader is rising, and this new leader has as yet only one woman. As his power and status rises, he notices other men’s women giving him the eye. The new leader announces that women are chaste and virtuous, and it is important to protect them. That works for him in the short run, but it is going to be bad for all the other men in the tribe.
I call them the first men, because they were smart enough to have laws and commandments, and likely smart enough to attribute those commandments to God, but looked like upright apes. It seems likely that they looked like upright apes, because women find male apes sexually attractive, while men do not find female apes sexually attractive, which indicates that in our evolutionary history, men have been exercising sexual choice, but women in the lines that we are descended from did not get to exercise sexual choice since the days we looked like apes. Which indicates that populations that allow female sexual choice die out, and explains the female propensity to make very bad sexual choices.
It is unlikely that males would have been able to coordinate well enough to prevent female sexual choice till smart enough to have laws and commandments (which is smarter than some present day peoples) so this implies a population with human intelligence and human social order but apelike appearance.
You cannot suppress female sexual choice except you have laws and commandments that prevent men from defecting on other men, from which I conclude that we are descended from a very long line of populations that had the law:
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
in effect, that though entire peoples kept falling away from such laws, peoples that fall away from those laws disappear from history.
That females are severely maladapted to an environment of female sexual choice, while men can accurately assess female fertility at thirty paces in seven seconds tells me that we are descended from peoples that were pretty relaxed about male choice, while forcefully suppressing female choice, people who only restricted males from impinging on the other male’s property rights in female sexuality, and were otherwise fine with it being open season for male predation. So if we look back in history to the family law of a people that did survive, this is what we should see. Open go for male predation, except that other men’s wives and fiancees are very much off limits, death penalty for women who sleep with one man, then cheerfully sleep with another man while the first man still lives.
And this is in fact what we do see. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of an unbetrothed virgin was … shotgun marriage. The biblical penalty for rape or seduction of a betrothed woman, was death. Which implies that if someone raped an unbetrothed woman, kept her around, fed her, looked after her, and she nonetheless sneaked off when he was not looking, the penalty was death, both for her and for whichever man she sneaked off to.
So who killed the offenders? The state, the temple, or the man whose property rights in women’s sexual and reproductive capabilities were violated?
At the time of Jesus, it was the temple, and Jesus famously abrogated this. But the rabbis of the time were engaged in a holiness spiral, which holiness spiral Jesus often vehemently denounced, which holiness spiral led them into suicidal war with the Romans, literally suicidal as they wound up murdering each other and killing themselves, as holiness spirals so frequently end, so we cannot take temple practice at the time of Jesus as indicative of the will of Gnon, or the practice of earlier times. Jesus said no, and they perished. Both of these are good indicators that you are not following the will of Gnon.
What we can take as indicative of the family law of earlier times of those peoples who survived is the wisdom books of earlier times, in particular the Book of Proverbs. Wisdom books were issued by governments to advise their subjects about the private and quasi private incentives for good behavior that were in effect – hence “the wisdom of Solomon”. And according to the section of the Book of Proverbs that claims to have been issued by the court of King Solomon, the incentive for not sleeping with someone else’s women was not that the government would kill you, nor that the temple would kill you, but that the rightful owner of that woman’s sexual and reproductive capability might kill you, and would have every right to do so, legally and openly. So, the Wisdom of Solomon (and of subsequent Kings that repeatedly re-issued that book) is that honor killing is fine. Which is a good indicator of the will of Gnon, since that is a people that survived and of the will of God, since that is the way that Old Testament law on adultery was implemented.
The book of Proverbs has different sections, as it was re-issued by King after King, government after government. But none of the sections threaten state or temple penalties for sexual misconduct, nor do any of the sections drop the Solomonic privately administered death penalty for sexual misconduct, indicating laws on sexual conduct that gave the maximum sexual possible liberty to men, short of allowing one man to tread on another man’s toes, and the minimum possible sexual liberty to women. Since, to form families, men need to conquer, and women to be conquered, such laws are optimal for family formation and reproduction. Such also prevent conflict within the elite (King George the Fourth) and between the elite and the people, by preventing men from competing for women’s favors, by preventing women from giving such favors, thus are optimal for social cohesion. Hence peoples with such laws are apt to invade, and not themselves be invaded. Which is handy if you have high elite fertility as a result of such laws.
So, in Old Testament times, if a man abducted a woman who was not married or betrothed, he was allowed to keep her, and if she was virgin before the abduction, required to keep her, and if she ran away to some other man, he was allowed to kill her and that other man. This is consistent with observed present day behavior of men and women, which indicates descent from populations with severe restraint on female sexual choice, and weak restraint on male sexual choice – indicates that we are descended from peoples who had laws like that, and that peoples more tolerant of female sexual choice failed to reproduce or were conquered and genocided. Our biological character indicates that among the populations from which we are descended male sexual choice was only restricted to the extent necessary to prevent one man’s choice from impinging on another man’s choice, while female sexual choice was almost nonexistent, indicating that Old Testament law, as interpreted and applied by the wisdom of Solomon in the Book of Proverbs, is the will of Gnon, the will of Nature and of Nature’s God.
The Book of Proverbs goes on about sexual misconduct at considerable length. And it describes the reality that I see, not the reality that people keep gaslighting me with. In the Book of Proverbs, sexual misconduct is primarily the result of lustful women manipulating naive men in order to obtain socially disruptive sex. There are no grooming gangs in the Book of Proverbs. Women sexually manipulate men in order to obtain sex in socially disruptive and damaging ways. Men do not sexuality manipulate women. Though the dance is pursuit and predation, conquest and surrender, as if lustful men were imposing themselves on sexless angels, that is the dance not the reality. The reality is that women and girls are lustfully manipulating men and their social environment to obtain social outcomes that in some ways superficially resemble lustful men imposing themselves on sexless angels. That is what the Book of Proverbs depicts, and that is what I see in front of my nose. And yet I live in a world where everyone with astonishing confidence and enormous certainty reports a very different world, a world of men sexually harassing and raping women, a world where male sexual predators lure innocent sexless female children. When I report the world that I see and experience, which is the world depicted in the Book of Proverbs, which is the world that the famous Wisdom of Solomon depicts, some people get very angry.
I have been writing this post over a couple of days. Last night I threw a big expensive party, at which party I played the role of the big high status male, and the highest status male guest, a colleague of my girlfriend’s father, very courteously played along. This morning one of the party girls, who is fertile age but only very recently fertile age, and unfortunately very closely connected to my current girlfriend and that high status male, was still around. This morning, after this post was mostly written and the remaining guests mostly sober, I left for the beach for a swim with my girlfriend. And by coincidence, party girl just happened to decide to put on a bikini that she only recently came to need, and to take a swim shortly after I and my girlfriend left, joining us at the beach. And whenever I remained stationary and facing in a particular direction for any length of time, this young party girl, dressed in a bikini, would find some reason to hang around in that line of vision. You may recall that in my posts on testosterone and weight loss, I have frequently remarked that I have difficulty out-staring a pizza and a pitcher of Mountain Dew.
For men to cooperate effectively, as for example in genociding their less cooperative neighbors and taking their land, they have to keep their hands off each other’s women, and enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women. And since women are notoriously apt to find clever ways to give sneaky fuckers a chance, particularly sneaky fuckers in authority, in order to enforce keeping each other’s hands off each other’s women, they have to enforce each other’s authority over each other’s women. That is why when a group of males moves in on a group of women to attempt a pickup, they first have to agree in advance which of them is going to score which girl so that the girls cannot play them off against each other.
Conversely, the first thing a sneaky fucker in authority or in a position of status is going to do is undermine other men’s authority over their women, even though this strategy is apt to backfire on himself, as it backfired on King George the Fourth.
Romance is an escape hatch out of the tenth commandment. Supposedly it is OK to fuck other men’s women if that is what they want. Tingles supposedly make sex holy, and a woman should supposedly always get whatever man gives her tingles. So a woman can have sex with every man who gives her tingles, which is apt to be a disturbingly large number of men, and stop having sex with any man who stops giving her tingles, who is apt to be the father of her children.
Well I have bad news: Your women, including your daughters starting at a startlingly early age, always want to fuck some strange man because there is always some man higher status than you, so this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to burn you. Therefore any group of men that allows this escape hatch out of the tenth commandment is always going to perish in the long run. And any time someone claiming high status tells you that your women are not going to be tempted to fuck some high status male, provided you are sufficiently holy, or sufficiently progressive, or sufficiently manly, sufficiently patriarchal, or sufficiently antisexist, or sufficiently loving, is more interested in sneak fucking your wife than in the survival of the group to which he belongs.
These are the real optics: Nobody likes the weak horse, white knighting women and girls as sexless angels looks weak, and sneaky fuckers need killing even if, like William Duke of Acquitaine, they are far from weak.
