Women’s Liberation Is Women’s Prostitution

What follows is an illuminating anecdote involving a professor, a young female student, and myself.

The professor was an excitable and amiable middle-aged man, fairly chubby by North American standards. His swarthy complexion, gleaming bald head and bushy mustache betrayed his foreign ancestry — an Egyptian Coptic Christian from Cairo, long since emigrated to the New World, and long since employed at his hallowed American university, though he had never quite managed to master that standard, saccharine accent of the American Midwest. His Arab speech was deep and gravelly, yet still uniquely colorful. He could not utter a sentence so much as perform it, effortlessly gesturing and gesticulating, hopping and hawing with each sentiment he expressed. Simple questions were whispered, furtive inquiries, well-wishes were joyous spasms. Ordinary greetings, from this Middle-Eastern Santa Claus, looked to lifeless American onlookers like two long-lost brothers reuniting after a lifetime apart — except the one portly, bespectacled, mustachioed brother was obviously far happier than the other one, who invariably seemed confused or surprised. Professor Al-Santa ibn Claus’ verve was nonetheless infectious, and I would be shocked to learn he was anything but beloved by his students. Born and raised on the ancient Nile, this smiling pedagogue was a living reminder of a bygone era when the sad stereotype of the bitter Marxist academic still didn’t exist.

The young lady conversing with him — if memory serves correctly — was an undergraduate student at the university. She was an international student, a Turkish girl from Istanbul, Turkey’s largest and liveliest metropolis, geographically (and culturally) bridging two continents. Her social lineage, much like that of most Turkish immigrants to the United States (and deeply unlike that of the infamous Turkish immigrants to Germany — but I digress!), was borne from the European half of Istanbul. Turkey, though now making sensational headlines as a rising power sliding into Islamic fundamentalism, still has a significant, wealthy, secular upper-class; liberal cosmopolitans who wish Turkey could join the European Union, and who explain to non-Turks the repugnant provincialism of the reigning President Recep T. Erdoğan the same way pious American liberals used to explain the repugnant provincialism of the reigning President George W. Bush. These Turkish Europhiles and Occidentalists, concentrated in Istanbul, spawned this idealistic young woman who joyfully gushed about her future plans to work in non-profits aiding Palestinian refugees and Kurdish orphans. Like all true liberal, upper-class E.U.-peans — or, in her case, aspiring ones — her tender bleeding heart couldn’t countenance the horrors the Zionist apartheid state imposed on her downtrodden brothers and sisters in Palestine. Her English — likely carefully nurtured by her urbane parents, who likely put her in one of Istanbul’s many French, British or American international schools — was impeccable, with only the slightest veneer of Anatolian staccato modulating the same American accent the animated Egyptian could only shovel out in bursts of Cairene vim. This scioness of Turkey’s aspiring class of secular Eurocrats was the kind of girl who would soon spend nights hunched over her laptop screen in champagne-revolutionary fervor, impulsively tweeting #OccupyGeziPark.

(No such literary introduction will be given of yours truly, I am afraid. In this anecdote, I am but the anonymous catalyst for a revealing conversation.)

Rather poorly read on the contemporary Middle East, but curious to no small degree, I asked the professor about the level of social conservatism in Egypt. Do Muslims pray often? Is there a large black market for alcohol? Is there religious tension because of the Copts? In my pre-reactionary, progressive-by-default naiveté, I even asked “Are women in Egypt oppressed?” The professor answered my questions eagerly, with all the expected gesticulations and mini-dramatic-performances. The Turkish girl and I listened, rapt, as one is when witnessing such a masterful union of entertaining affectation and unornamented truth. Finally, he informed us of the state of women’s liberation in Egypt:

(I strive to convey his affable, slightly-broken English.)

“In Egypt, there is no girls living alone; single girls alone, this — it is not allowed socially! It is unapproved in Egyptian society. Egyptian girls must always live with the family if they are not married. The married girls live with the husbands, yes, but the single girls always live with the families.”

The female Istanbulite’s eyebrows leaped up in anticipation of news of an incoming women’s rights violation. “Trigger warnings” weren’t a thing back then, so far as I can remember, but even if they were, this bombastic professor would not have come with one. Asks the Turkess: “Women can’t live alone? Why? What if they’re students?”

The professor continued gracefully with his energetic explanation: “Aha, yes, sometimes if the girls are students they live in the dormitory. But this is rare, very rare. Not common, I think. Girls who are studying at the university also live with the family mostly. In Egypt it is not acceptable in society for the girl to live alone. If girls will live alone in an apartment, this will be shocking, it will be disgraceful. Even sometimes the janitor in the building, or the electrician, or the neighbor, he will knock on the door or he will find the girl, and he will say ‘Hey, you! What are you doing? Where is your husband? Where is your father? Why are you living alone here? Are you having men come in your apartment? Do you meet men there? Do they pay you to come there? What are you doing there alone?'”

The Turkish girl’s eyebrows at this point were practically detached from her head, so wide were her eyes with shock: “That’s… that’s horrible! Women have a right to live by themselves if they want to! Women have a right…” More high-pitched, futile cosmopolitan protests followed, but the conversation had essentially ended there, with an unperturbed professor shrugging his shoulders and rushing off to a meeting (with a dramatized wave, a hint of a bow and a gracious “Ma’a As-Salaama!” [“Good-bye!” in Arabic] — as always) and an amused me, softly smiling outwardly, and inwardly chuckling the kind of mischievous chuckle one can only enjoy after witnessing a truly monumental yet unintentional trolling. The disquieted young lady turned to me slack-jawed for reassurances for her offended liberal sensibilities, but I too had places to be, and quickly emulated the professor’s neutral exit. “Well, I guess that’s just how it is over there! See ya later!”

– – –

I love interacting with people from cultures that an effeminate Harvard sociologist would consider “hopelessly backwards.” These cultures, though often deeply alien in many ways to our own Western/European tradition and civilization, nevertheless share large similarities with the old Western world one reads about in history books. Though I doubt this fine site’s astute readers will need the point of the anecdote explicitly repeated, I will repeat it for the sake of the stray left-wingers who sometimes stumble into our territory: in Egypt, a girl living alone is immediately and automatically assumed to be a prostitute. And, hilariously, by the standards of Islamic Egyptian society, single girls living alone in the West are invariably precisely that: whores. And, distressingly, single girls living alone in the West are invariably whores by the standards of the Western society of 1950, of 1850, of 1750, 1650… and every century of Western society all the way down to 50 BC, and earlier. Women have four lifetime sexual partners on average, says The Telegraph. I will venture a guess that this figure is far below the actual amount — nobody wants to admit to being a slut or a whore, after all, even anonymously to a researcher. Despite abysmal modern sexual mores, even four is about three more than millennia of human civilization would have considered appropriate for a properly-reared young maiden. I can hear the protests already: “Not all women are like that! Some women who live alone aren’t whores!” Averages, baby, averages — I’m not here to talk about outliers, who always exist. The strong, independent, feminist woman high off women’s liberation sleeps around like a man, and this makes her a whore by any standard of civilization.

Whore of Babylon: Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you.

Whore of Babylon: Babylon the Great, the Mother of Prostitutes and Abominations of the Earth. Coming soon to a neighborhood near you. Just kidding; she’s been around since 1969, corrupting your daughters and fighting manspreading, mansplaining, manterrupting… no, no joke, Google any of one the three.

Average age at marriage for Western women only ever increases, and the divorce rate likewise only slowly climbs upwards and upwards. More fornication, more adultery, more divorce, more bastard children, more fatherless children, more broken families, more pornography — not to mention more public (and even state-backed) sexual perversion of all kinds of vile multicolored stripes. The only related metric that is decreasing is total fertility rate. To maintain a stable population, a nation’s fertility rate would have to hover around 2.1 children per women — enough children to replace the parents, and an extra 0.1 children to make up for all the people who die prematurely from accidents, war, disease, excessive masturbation, and what-have-you. A nation with a fertility rate below the magic number of 2.1 will steadily shrink in population until it disappears from the Earth. How is the West doing with fertility rates then? United States: 1.97. United Kingdom: 1.88. France: 1.98. Russia: 1.53. Spain: 1.50. Italy: 1.48. Germany: 1.42. Tiny Iceland is managing 2.08, but Portugal a dismal 1.32. Poor Bosnia is at 1.28, one of the lowest in the world. Austria, Croatia, Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Poland, Ukraine, Cyprus and Slovakia are all below 1.50. These countries are quite literally slowly disappearing from the map. For a sobering comparison, the smoldering crater known as Afghanistan is at 5.00, war-torn Iraq is at 4.06, and the dysfunctional Congo is at 5.98. Even North Korea is managing a 2.00 fertility rate — the same country where amassing a nuclear arsenal and luxurious liquor cabinet for the Supreme Leader is more important than preventing mass starvation and widespread famine. A North Korean family could probably survive for a year on one of their Supreme Leader’s many chins, and they’re still reproducing more than Americans ostensibly living in the vast land of plentiful bounty and limitless opportunity.

kimjungunUniform

Seriously, just look at this guy.

This 21st century Bacchanalia is flashy and fun, bursting with a vibrant hedonism of clubs, bars, festivals, conventions, easy sex, easy drugs, easy booze, easy desserts, easy work, constant novelty and stimulation from the Internet, the television and from Hollywood, but it will end us all. If everyone is avoiding family life and child-rearing so that they can spend more time doing what our grandparents (and great-grandparents, and great-great-grandparents, and great-great-great-grandp…) would have called “mortally sinning,” we’ll all be gone without a legacy before the end of the century. When one speaks of “mortal sin,” one must remember that the very English word “mortal” is derived from the ancient Latin word for death, mors. Our forefathers are looking down on us as we commit the most pathetic and protracted suicide in history. Rather grim, innit?

If you are a standard, milquetoast, liberal-by-default Westerner, this might all sound like racist, sexist and homophobic vomit. I would remind you then that, in our culture, we have multiple mainstream, high-tech systems for helping complete strangers prostitute each other. Take Seeking Arrangement, a popular service that helps young females, typically college students (the girls who, in any other era, would have been nobly raising society’s next generation), whore themselves out to unscrupulous and wealthy men for expensive gifts and money. Like Monty Python’s rude French sentry, I vomit in the general direction of this service. Prostitution is still largely illegal in the West, de jure. It seems we make some exceptions, however, when the pimps and prostitutes can satisfactorily rationalize their whoring to us — just enough to soothe our dwindling consciences and atrophied probity.

Alternatively, consider the extremely popular mobile phone application Tinder, “rumored to have upwards of 10 million daily users” making 15 million “matches” a day. What purpose does Tinder serve? Perhaps the “Tinderfessions” Twitter feed, with a mind-boggling 188,000 followers, can shed some light. Looks like Tinder is useful for supporting adultery (“Met my boyfriend on Tinder. Pro: so hot, great in bed. Con: has a wife…and 3 kids. – Emma”), taking the hassle out of fornication (“Swiped right on a girl that was ahead of me in line at Publix. Heard her phone go off when we matched. We banged 2 hours later – Chase”), helping modern-day troubadours build harems (“Been hooking up with a match for a month now. On my way to front stage seats cuz the lead singer of this band is in love with my pussy – Kas”), and most nobly of all, helping all-American sweethearts become home-wrecking, blackmailing whores: “Blackmailing a match I fucked who tried to hide the fact he was married. Can’t wait for my new Macbook Air to arrive. #ThanksTinder – Kim.” Thank you, Tinder, thank you indeed! “Mother of 3 slept over and fucked all night while their dad babysat them at home. She was Constantly cumming, and came in her pussy twice -F” Good Lord. When did the West run so low on self-restraint, virtue, shame, guilt, conscience, charity and kindness that 56 people felt a need to “favorite” the kind of morally reprehensible behavior that destroys the lives of three children? 15 million matches a day: when you hear someone say Cthulhu is digesting our civilization, this is what they mean.

Paraphrasing the admirable James A. Donald, the West of the 18th century considered women so lacking in continence that they would crawl through nine miles of broken glass to fornicate with their demon lover if not restrained by their husbands, fathers, brothers and pastors. In Egypt, a sexist, homophobic, hopelessly backwards Islamic society, girls living alone, beyond the reach of their family, are assumed to be whores. The Egyptians, I think, are not as backwards as we chauvinistically presume, since it seems their intuition about the behavior of unrestrained females has been more than comprehensively vindicated by the state of Western society today, where all girls can live alone (and do much more besides) — and where all girls are whores. Feminism failed. Modernity failed. We got women’s liberation and ubiquitous technology of unimaginable power and complexity, and the result was not a new Golden Age for civilization, but a new Golden Age for depravity.

“Modern,” “enlightened,” “liberal,” protestations aside, the situation in the West of 2015 is clear. Females can live alone, vote, run for office, commit infanticide, get away with murder, work men’s jobs, receive preferential treatment in universities and corporations, deny fathers their children, ruin innocent men with false accusations of rape & assault, and almost anything else they want to do — with the full support of the educational system, the media and the exponentially-expanding police-surveillance state. The dream of women’s liberation has been achieved, and then some. And then some. And then some more. And even some more after that! Females can live alone, unlike in Egypt. Females can live alone, and they do exactly what our 18th century forefathers, and 21st century Egyptian fellows a continent away intuited that they would do — they whore themselves. “Women’s liberation.” Women’s liberation is women’s prostitution. We should have known better.

If I miraculously became the Supreme God-Dictator of the West tonight, and upon finishing my gourmet breakfast of bacon, eggs and the finest Caspian caviar the next morning, I issued an edict that no woman may live alone, what would happen to the West’s marriage and divorce rates? The fertility rate? The bastardy rate? The amount of fornication, adultery, pornography and sexual perversion? The number of broken families? The number of kids shuffling between Mommy’s house and Daddy’s house on alternating weekends? (Or, more likely, just watching Mommy shuffle boyfriends while Daddy contemplates the taste of gun metal with a restraining order trembling in his hand.) What would happen to the rates of suicide, teen pregnancy, alcoholism, mass shootings, herbivore men, sexually transmitted diseases, eating disorders, self-radicalization, depression, gambling, drug abuse, obesity, cat-lady spinsters, gang violence, self-harm, ethno-religious tension (and violence), juvenile delinquency, social alienation and hollow shambling wrecks of human beings one missed medication away from walking off the edge of a thirty-story building?

Cole_Thomas_The_Course_of_Empire_Destruction_1836

A metaphor for Western society: not really working out as planned.

Quite simply, if we put every woman back in the home, back next to the hearth, and gave her one son and one daughter to educate, civilize, inform, teach, nourish, protect, cultivate, cuddle, cherish and love, what would happen to our society? What if we gave her a fit, cultured, intelligent and loving husband who could teach his son baseball and read Cinderella to his daughter? A husband who didn’t spend his boyhood drugged out on ADD medications, his teenage years drugged out on cannabis, and his young adulthood drunk out of his mind? A husband who was taught to appreciate Beethoven, recognize Van Gogh’s Starry Night, recite a little poetry in French, and recognize a Biblical quote in Ancient Greek? A husband who was taught to shoot a gun, punch a drunkard, row a canoe, and hike up a mountain without complaining? Who kept a library where the television might’ve been, and who knew who his father was, his grandfather, and their fathers and grandfathers before them? Who worshiped the same God as his most distant ancestors, and lived on the very same land they conquered long ago? Who maintained and honored the inheritance bequeathed to him by his forefathers, both material and spiritual, and left it in better condition than he received it, and passed it on to his own sons and daughters? Might we see a resurgence of the stable, loving family? Might we actually see — trigger warning — a better society?

Dramatized wave. Hint of a bow. Knowing wink. “Ma’a As-Salaama!

Mark Yuray is verified on Gab. Follow him there and on Twitter.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All

38 Comments

  1. I often think how these views would have been commonplace in the West just fifty years ago.

    While reading, I kept imagining the response this would receive in the NYT, WaPo, Atlantic Online, etc., let alone Jezebel. The scandal. The horror.

    I just read over at iSteve about a film concerning campus date-rape premiering someplace. A major documentary it seems. Rather than admit we made a wrong turn fifty years ago, women, and apparently a lot of males (won’t say men), are attempting to symbolically castrate middle class white men. It reminds me of Maenads in Dionysian frenzy. Something in European myth.

    1. Commonplace just fifty years ago indeed. They are still commonplace in the vast majority of the world’s nations. The modern West is the anomaly, not anyone else. Keep in mind not even all Europeans have been lobotomized by progressivism — Russia bans “gay propaganda,” Hungary’s President opposes non-European immigration, and the most popular musician in Croatia is a war veteran who plays religious-nationalist power metal.

  2. Supposedly the Vagina Monologues is now passé since it offends the transgendered as too gender specific. The fake victim culture seems to supply an unending stream of groups scandalized by a widening number of oppressor groups. Maybe we are going back to the era of self flagellants, but are unable to transcend the quotidian because the culture cannot accept divine order.

  3. Women’s rights are a by-product of industrializion. In many ways, what we’re seeing is enviable

    Women used to have a very important role in the home. Their days were every bit as busy as mens. They had to do everything from food preparation and storage (pre-refrigerators this was a huge task), clothing repair, children’s education, household maintenence, ect.

    The availability of cheap goods/food ect replaced their main functions. Just as modern Goverments are replacing mens essential role as the providor, technological efficiency replaced women’s role as homemaker several generations ago.

    The timeline for women’s liberation fits this historical circumstance both in the West and the developing world. Access to cheap goods= bored housewives = women’s movements.

    And why shouldn’t it, humans naturally seek validation. A motivated person who sits on her ass all day is a miserable person. It’s perfectly understandable for women to seek out validation through productive work.

    Women aren’t going to just go back home and be happy, and i couldn’t expect them to.

    The “slut culture” that exists today is a predictable consequence of this phenomenon. The answer to this isn’t obvious and i can’t offer anything more than speculation. However, most women, even the career minded whores of Babylon, DO want a husband and kids. I’ve spent years “dating” these girls (sometimes as many as 6 at a time) and with very few exceptions, they all want a man to marry. Their conversations are almost always gossip, but it’s ALWAYS about men and marriage is ALWAYS goal #1. Theyre openly jealous about women who succeed and hateful towards guys who let them down.

    1. I suspect you never dated Susan Sontag.

    2. The problem is that women want husbands and children, but they are told by society that they must also pursue careers and “lean in” etc. I don’t understand how people can think everyone working more / having to work more is “liberating”.

    3. Modern governments are worse providers than men. So we’re not seeing some natural improvement thanks to industrialization, we’re seeing a sub-par centralized system violently replace much better decentralized organic systems. The result is a 1.5 fertility rate and a disappearing people.

      >The timeline for women’s liberation fits this historical circumstance both in the West and the developing world. Access to cheap goods= bored housewives = women’s movements.

      Let me point out the glaringly obvious fact that having less housework does not logically lead to leftist political agitation in any way. Industrialization did not cause leftism — it might’ve made it easier, but it didn’t cause it. Why don’t bored women read all day and become highly learned housewives? Why don’t they take up a sport or hobby? Why don’t they have more and more children until they have enough housework to match pre-1950 levels again? Why is their chosen method of relieving boredom, supposedly, leftism?

      >And why shouldn’t it, humans naturally seek validation. A motivated person who sits on her ass all day is a miserable person. It’s perfectly understandable for women to seek out validation through productive work.

      Sits on her ass all day? Like the empowered modern woman does in a cubicle today? Productive work? Pushing paper and mouthing platitudes? Do you hear yourself man? You’ve swallowed Whig dogma on this issue whole.

      >The “slut culture” that exists today is a predictable consequence of this phenomenon. The answer to this isn’t obvious and i can’t offer anything more than speculation. However, most women, even the career minded whores of Babylon, DO want a husband and kids. I’ve spent years “dating” these girls (sometimes as many as 6 at a time) and with very few exceptions, they all want a man to marry. Their conversations are almost always gossip, but it’s ALWAYS about men and marriage is ALWAYS goal #1. Theyre openly jealous about women who succeed and hateful towards guys who let them down.

      Yes, the bored housewife was freed from the meaningless drudgery of keeping the home by technology, upon which point the only thing she could imagine doing with herself was burning bras and demanding the same rights as men. She then got a highly fulfilling and meaningful career sitting in a grey cubicle in a concrete cube somewhere far away from her family, where she sits at a desk and sends e-mails for 9 hours a day. Despite this Utopian lifestyle, the Patriarchy(tm) still keeps women down by pressuring them to have a husband and kids, a horrible tragedy that would mean the empowered woman would be unable to tap computer keys under a fluorescent lightbulb for 1/2 of her waking hours until she grew old and died.

      Modern Western women are whores. There is no way around it. Even whores want a husband and family, but they are still whores and will not get them — at least, not the way they fantasize about it. Westerners who grew up in the culture of the ’69ers and never really met women reared in the merely living alone< is assumed to be a whore. Let alone all the stuff Western women do!

      1. Barely Intrepid January 27, 2015 at 9:37 am

        Thanks for the thorough reply. My response was meant to bring historical context of this issue, not in any way an endorsement of modern women’s lifestyle.

        I work in an industry that is, to borrow a term from Gavin McInnis, an ovarian elephant graveyard. I see every day the phenomenon you described, hoards of ageing, childless, single, “successful” women, almost all bitter and miserable. They were promised fulfillment through these lifestyles, probably saw themselves as one of the Sex and the City crew. These promises proved hollow and these women have paid the price.

        Keep in mind, the context of women’s liberation being a result of industrialization cannot be so easily dismissed. No, of course not ALL bored housewives became radical barren feminists, but it absolutely allowed those predisposed to those ideas the opportunity for politicization. The small minority of women were able to organize, find political allies, and mobilize. Womens sufferage was largely passed because women were string supporters of prohibition, factory owners didnt want drunk workers and urban wives didnt want drunk husbands (and southerners hated drunk irishmen). The match proved fruitful and women were given agency. The vanguard for “womens rights” has always been the radical left, and the political divide is a very powerful heuristic for behavior. Even today, self described conservatives have a birthrate of 2.6 while self described liberals’ is 0.9. White womens voting paterns are most coorospondent to marital status, much more so than age or even geography.

        The slut culture IS a major problem, but the solution has to be more than “keep the whores indoors”, that simply cannot work.

        Women are very smart and capable and nothing short of economic collapse and bloody revolution could remove their political agency.

        A much more prudent approach would have to start with men. Women naturally are sociallt reactive. Our tribal past has hardwired women to follow the herd and seek status by exemplifying social characteristics valued by the tribe (note: 90% of men do this as well). Women, being physically weaker, were completely dependent of inclusion in the tribe for survival. My point being, modern women are told, through media, that these are the values of our tribe. Look at the whores on TV, LOOK HOW HAPPY AND SUCCESSFUL THEY ARE. And those without other role models do as they’re told. This is especially true for those without the physical traits that would otherwise make them more sought after. Ugly bitches are drawn to leftism mostly for acceptance and validation.

        The coorelation affect self perpetuates this cycle. Ugly/fat bitches have nothing better to do than watch tv and movies. Producers cator to the tastes of ugly/fat liberals because capitalism.

        Think of thr cycle.

        1950s: Attractive conservative minded women get married, ugly/fat bitches go to college.

        1960s: attractive conservatives get married, ugly fat bitches persue careers

        1970s: attractive conservatives get married, ugly fat bitches now hold positions in acedemia/gov/business/media

        1980s: attractivr consrrvatives get married. Ugly fat bitches have are pushing their ugly fat agendas

        1990s: attractive conservatives are told from birth to be more like ugly fat bitches, most still get married. Ugly fats push harder

        2000s: attractive conservatives who followed ugly fats advice are miserable and begin to speak out. Ugly fats push even harder.

        2010s: internet errodes the ugly fats agenda. Social media shows the stark difference between lives of attractive conservatives and ugly fats. Reaction is beginning. (Ex: popularity of Mormon housewives blogs vs. Leha Dunham)

        The culture is shifting, and the ugly fats are losing their monopoly of the narrative.

        Do your part and get married and have lots of white babies. Hating on women wont change anything.

        1. “Womens sufferage was largely passed because women were string supporters of prohibition, factory owners didnt want drunk workers and urban wives didnt want drunk husbands (and southerners hated drunk irishmen).”

          Drunk Southern Irishmen, drunk husbands, urban wives and factory owners were the root cause of women getting the vote? Thanks for clearing it all up.

    4. Thank you for linking the insideous factor of industrialization to “feminism,” which did not occur in a vacuum. To be female and point this out is to be labeled a Jezzy. Plenty menfolk are fed up (as we all should be), with feminism, but the obvious remedy, a return to agrarian-based society, which politely extends a soil-encrusted middle finger to corporate, bank-backed, war-mongering, politicking, family-wrecking “industry-for-industry’s sake” is too much of an inconvenience for most.

  4. Modern Western culture produces an even worse fertility rate than the general statistic shows, since it already includes imported people who will either stick with their traditions and replace the natives or assimilate and be destroyed along with the host

  5. Be careful. You could be charged with rape for writing this. One out of three women will be blog raped in her lifetime.

  6. I thoroughly enjoyed the tag section.

  7. “four is about three more than millennia of human civilization would have considered appropriate for a properly-reared young maiden” … “Average age at marriage for Western women only ever increases”

    You need to do some research into medieval demographics, I think. Between plague, war, and childbirth, there were a lot of people looking for second and third spouses. And the average marriage age hit 30 in the 1300s.

    1. Moderns don’t have excuses for multiple partners nearly as good as plague, war, and death by childbirth.

    2. With all the church holidays, the average work week was four days long. “Taxes” from all sources (income, regulation, inflation, licensing, etc.) were less, and most health issues involved forgetting to practice hygiene. Perhaps those who benefit from industrialization would have us think it was worse than it actually was, in part by tricking us into thinking we have it better today than we do.

  8. “I love interacting with people from cultures that an effeminate Harvard sociologist would consider “hopelessly backwards.”

    Does that include saccharine-accented Midwesterners?

    1. American Midwesterners are not nearly backwards enough for me to truly enjoy. I heard they don’t even stone sodomites anymore — what kind of unbackwardness it this!?

  9. Well done sir. I take it you would support my propostion that first-wave feminism was just as batshit crazy as post-modern third-wave feminism, and the only reason that we don’t think so is that the boundaries of crazy have been pushed way out like everything else here in Babylon. Much food for thought here and things that I might not have tied together you have wrapped up quite nicely.

    1. I would support that proposition wholeheartedly. Women are not the same as men. Feminism is the premise that women are the same as men (wrong) and furthermore, that the State has to enforce equality between men and women (evil).

  10. What a great essay, well done.

  11. butthurt feminist January 27, 2015 at 12:03 am

    Protips: Consider rewriting some parts so you don’t sound like a MRA parody. Also use the word women rather than female more, it makes you sound less creepy.

    1. Ummmmmmm, excuse me shitlord, they’re called womyn. Fucking misogynist.

      1. Careful, Mark. You don’t want to be accused of cisgender privilege .. whatever the hell that means. I actually heard this term today, I’m not kidding. The world has gone beyond the outermost regions of insanity.

        It is interesting, this prophesy of the whore of Babylon. Fits very well into the assumption that we are approaching something cataclysmic. I did not know that information on North Korea having a higher birthrate though. Fascinating.

  12. Me, I have no problem with hate. Hate can be used as energy. I won’t let it consume my life of course.

    I don’t think the author here hates women. Probably the opposite. I think he hates what liberalism has done to women.

    Not that long ago sluttish behavior was shamed by the culture at large. There was a clear distinction between good and bad girls. And boys too of course. Good breeding meant a certain way of acting in public based on centuries of European custom. Good breeding implied inherited predisposition to observe socially valuable behavior. Up until quite recently European custom would have been part pagan, part Christian. We have neither one today because the taboos revolve around fake victim whining and human rights.

  13. You know that housewives were only bored because they sent their children to the state behemoth for education. Homeschool your children and cook more of your food from scratch and you won’t be bored staying at home.

    There’s also plenty of time to garden, read, and get your kids together with other homeschooled students. But to be honest, I never had time to garden. Though I did manage to get through War and Peace and all the other long works by various Russians. Long winters result in long books, and breastfeeding results in lots of time to read them!

    1. I found homeschooling freed up my wife to ride shotgun in road wars. Awesome to have her along!

    2. By the way, what did you think of Tolstoy’s theory of history with respect to “The Great Man” versus “The People”?

    3. >You know that housewives were only bored because they sent their children to the state behemoth for education. Homeschool your children and cook more of your food from scratch and you won’t be bored staying at home.

      Another important thing to remember, thanks.

  14. This makes me want to convert to Islam. And I am opposed to Islam, because it’s not my tradition, not my arbitrary flag. But if it was my tradition, I would be glad that it is.

    1. Google “Soumission by Houellebecq.” Read some reviews, you’d be interested.

  15. As a modern, Tinder-using guy, I am having some trouble relating to parts of this article. When you talk about four partners as “high,” that feels strange, because where I live, it seems low. Just the other day, my friend was boasting to me about how his girlfriend has only had four partners. Yes, it’s near a coastal city.

    This article really seems to be about promiscuity, not about prostitution (aside from the sugar babies). Calling female promiscuity “prostitution” or “whorishness” when no money is given stretches the meaning of those words. “Prostitution” paints female promiscuity as transactional. In reality, it is thrill-seeking. It’s important to distinguish the status-seeking and economic goals of sugar babies from the hedonistic goals of party girls. Conflating these behaviors only muddies the waters.

    To use the technical terms from evolutionary psychology, we could say that women’s liberation has given women greater choice in mating strategies. Some humans are wired mostly for long-term mating strategies. Some humans are wired for short-term mating strategies. Most are wired for both depending on the situation. When people have choice in mating strategies in modernity, they are able to manifest short-term mating strategies to a degree that they didn’t in more restrained times.

    Is it is a good thing or a bad thing that women are manifesting greater short-term mating strategies? Well, you’ve shown a bunch of examples where it’s bad. But I think your picture focuses on the worst outcomes, rather than on the median outcomes for middle-class women. Among middle-class women, the problem I’m seeing isn’t women living by themselves, or even having 4 partners: it’s feminism.

    Feminism is pushing women into cubicles. Feminism encourages affirmative action. Feminism creates a state that allows divorce theft and shielding women from consequences of their actions. Feminism leads women to believe that they have more time on their biological clocks than they do.

    Although women have tendencies to short-term mating strategies, human history shows a long line of long-term mating strategies. As another commentator noted, most women want to have children. Women are descended from a long line of women with pro-natal attitudes.

    In a less stupid social environment, it’s quite possible to imagine women’s hardwired pro-natal attitudes reasserting themselves. It’s possible to imagine modern women following short-term mating strategies when young (pickup artists refer to this as “the carousel”), and switching over to long-term mating strategies as they get older. As long as women don’t stay on the carousel so long, then why couldn’t this system work? I’ve never seen a convincing explanation of this.

    Without feminist meddling, I think we could get Western women back to at least replacement level fertility, without needing to roll back the clock quite so far and restrict women’s living situations.

    (Of course, I’m only talking about women from populations with average and above IQ and low time preference here. I subscribe to Steve Sailer’s theory that sexual norms which work for one population can be disastrous for another population.)

    Obviously, you have reasons for believing that this approach can’t work, and that a more traditional approach is necessary. Since I’m not coming from a traditionalist background, I can’t quite see where you’re coming from.

    I would also like to point out the other consequence of modern female choice: greater competition among males, particularly competition in socially unproductive ways.

    1. @Herald

      Can you explain why a man should pay for something (marry for sex) that another man got for free (no marriage, but access to sex)?

      BTW, 4 partners for a girl is a fuck-ton of promiscuity.

  16. May I know the title of name of the painting that is with this article?
    TIA.

  17. “May I know the title of name of the painting that is with this article? ”

    Sorry, it should be ‘title or name’.

  18. The^Perfect^Flash February 8, 2015 at 7:15 pm

    Nice article. I noticed the link to how women average 4 sexual partners over their lifetime, and yet the other half of the story ( unmentioned in your article ) is that men average 9 sexual partners in their lifetimes – more than double. Why are we not concerned about this fact? Please explain why men are exempt from the consequences women face for being whores, if men are twice as bad in this area.

Comments are closed.