There is no equality

(h/t Hipster Racist)

The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.“*

Aristotle

Simply put there is no such thing as equality. The worst tragedies of our age stem from the insidious notion that all people are equal. We can be equal before the law but not anything more. One particularly damaging result of this idea is that men and women must be equal. Feminism is supposedly (although I certainly do not believe it) about achieving equality between the sexes. Such a goal is untenable because to make such an attempt is the equivalent of trying to make apples equal to oranges. How can it be done? The answer is basically: it cannot.

Men and women have complementary natures and, thus, different roles to play. This is not about oppression; it is about acknowledging the laws of nature. Consider the story of Adam and Eve. God first made Adam (man). But God saw that Adam needed a partner, he was not fulfilled by his lonesome. Therefore God created Eve (woman) from the body of Adam. Woman was created from man, for man. Her body was created to receive his. Eve was the comforter of Adam, in body and soul. In her Adam finally found wholeness, and in making him whole Eve was fulfilled.

This is not about whether Adam was equal to Eve. It was about completion of the human person which could only be found in the unity of the sexes. Homosexuality is wrong and polygamy is wrong because they both reject this union. Man cannot be whole with another man and he cannot be whole with more than one woman. Those in rebellion against this eternal truth are denying the complementary natures of the sexes. One must believe that sex is interchangeable, that we are all essentially the same. But it is not true; common sense should dismiss that as lunacy.

A common mischaracterization of scripture would have us believe that men and women, in marriage, are called to “mutual submission”. This is simply not true. Only one person can be the leader in a marriage just as only one can be the captain of a ship. A woman is called to submit to her husband and a husband is to love and give himself up for his wife. This is not something radical, it is fairly simple. It amounts to deference of leadership and most decision making to the husband where he makes choices while honestly considering his wife’s interests.

The idea that men are to submit to their wives was created so as to prevent the Bible from appearing sexist. To require only women submit is to reject equality. However, this overlooks the fact that a man is then tasked with the difficulty of decision making and self-sacrifice for his wife. All feminism has done in terms of liberating women is removing them from submission to their husbands and instead making them submit to indifferent bosses/employers. Add to that the burden of difficult decision making which had once been removed from their shoulders has now been placed back on.

In the end, men want a refuge from the harshness of this world and women want to be that refuge. Why deny what we really want? The feminine is attracted to, and attracts, the masculine because the one wants what it does not have. This is how life works, how humans are made. Our physical bodies are even demonstrative of this complementary nature, of who is to give and who is to receive, who is to submit and who is to dominate. I have to wonder how this is not obvious.

*This first appears in 1974 in an explanation of Aristotle’s politics in Time magazine, before being condensed to an epigram as “Aristotle’s Axiom” in Peter’s People (1979) by Laurence J. Peter

In my previous dispatch, I attempted to connect the dots between the sexual revolution, rampant feminist-based societal misandry (that is, man-hatred), and the PUA “Game” culture.  In such circumstances, I argued, the only self-respecting choice is to opt for celibacy, or at the very least, for defiant chastity. The nature of the human male is now commonly understood to be naught but low, base, and oversexed; men are regarded as piggish and bestial when it comes to carnal matters, and while this perception admittedly often corresponds with reality, I wonder how much of it is due to the fact that we have been trained to be just such pigs, that we have been willfully debased by the overseers who rule the gynocentric dystopia we currently inhabit.

In short, if the male libido is so easily exploited that men will do anything for sex, it follows that men are easily controlled. Is it therefore so hard to conceive of the notion that male sexualization and debasement could be an instrument of domination by our so-called betters?

Our identity, after all, is tied up in what we’re told about ourselves. People become extraordinarily compliant when confronted with the sternly-worded dictates of authority figures and distressingly susceptible to all manner of trendy mantras and shibboleths. Tell a man enough times that he wants, needs, and can’tdowithout sex, and he’ll be hard-put to disagree. Keep banging home the message: “You can’t help yourself; it’s just the essence of who you are, part and parcel of being a testosterone-afflicted beast wallowing in filth,” and eventually he’ll nod his assent and behave accordingly, even if he objected to the message at some point in the past.

Thus, notions of restraint and self-control are dismissed, and practitioners and purveyors of traditional sexual morality are attacked as prudes or hypocrites, or prudish hypocrites, or hypocritical prudes. The Catholic church, which affirms celibacy as a high and exalted vocation necessary for leadership (“It is better not to marry”), is routinely ridiculed by these smug, smarmy hyper-enlightened experts, for whom promiscuity is perfectly “natural” (and that which is “natural,”, through some slippery rhetorical slight of hand, is dubiously rendered as “good”). But the real reason why the Church is reviled is because of the very real danger it represents to the control of the current ruling elite, encapsulated in the fact that it won’t bend to accommodate the dictates of the Zeitgeist on sexual matters. [Continue reading…]

– Andy Nowicki, ‘Kiss Cams, Conformity, and Masculine Defiance‘, Alternative Right

De puellis intactis et matrimonio

You should be her first, last, and only.

Alright it is time for a controversial post. I expect most women to be offended by this, but who cares. The question men should be asking their future wives today is this: “are you a virgin?” It is an important question and let no feminist, man or woman, tell you otherwise. A man has a right to a virgin bride, if that is what he wants. If you do not care less whether she is a virgin or not, that is fine, it is your life, not mine.

Why does it matter though? For that, I shall quote Julian O’Dea,

“As a girl once said to me, no-one misses a slice from a cut loaf. Even if she has only had one man before you, he may have ruined her for you. And once she has had one, how many others has she had? The fact is, you just don’t know.

I have read credible reports in the Manosphere of men who found their wives had been sexually penetrated by 11, 15, 21 … previous men.

Not a very happy thought to while away the dark early hours of some morning, is it?

The greatest, the very greatest, achievement of Western feminism has been to convince the average man that he is not entitled to a virgin bride.”

Loose women who get offended by men putting high value on virginity do so mostly because they know; deep down, that they gave away something very important.  They would like to think a female’s virginity means as much as a man’s virginity, but it does not. There is a reason women who were not virgins upon their wedding night could be punished in days of old. Virginity was prized because women bond strongly through sex; ideally the only man she should ever bond with, in that way, is her husband.

This has never stopped many women from having sex with more than one man nor has it ever stopped men from marrying non-virgins. And it is perfectly fine for a man to marry a woman who lost her virginity to him before marriage; that should change nothing. She still only ever bonded with him. A couple wherein the woman only ever slept with her husband are by-far the least likely to divorce. To quote The Social Pathologist,

“The above analysis was calculated for 5 year and 10 year divorce risk respectively:

5 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.60. In other words, there was a 60% less risk of divorce.
10 year divorce risk for virgins. -0.402, less than 40% risk of divorce.”

So virgin brides are least likely to divorce you and will bond strongly with you but there is another reason for choosing a virgin bride. Consider how a man, if he has not been shamed into thinking otherwise or simply does not care, views a woman who has had sex with other men. For that I shall quote Dannyfrom504,

“marrying or committing to a slut is like finding a piece of chewed bubble gum on a park bench and deciding that it’d be a good idea to put it in your mouth.”

How many men would want to chew on used bubble gum? Would you pick it off a park bench and toss it in your mouth? I highly doubt it. But that is what you do when marrying a woman who has slept around. Everyone knows (or at least should) that at the top of the marriage pyramid sit the attractive virgin women.

Today it is believed these virgin women no longer exist, which is false. By age 19 about 30% of women are still virgins in America. If you consider that about 70% of women are at least somewhat attractive you have 1 in 5 attractive women turning 19 who are still virgins. Perhaps you should consider not looking for wives in bars, college dorms, or even churches, where the slut factor is through the roof.

This is why women should marry young and not wait until their late 20s or even 30s. Delayed marriage simply means a woman will have more time to spend sleeping around with other guys. Those women who spent their prime years of 17 – 24 sleeping around suddenly wake up at 25 finding they are less attractive then begin considering marriage. What do they have left to bargain with? A degree? Tales of travel? Who gives a damn about that? You may find some nice supplicating guy who pretends to find your stories riveting but after a couple years with him it will likely end with divorce and you living alone with your cats.

Do not misinterpret what I am saying as hating on promiscuous women. I hold no animosity towards them. But they are consumable items in a man’s mind. “How can a man sleep with a woman but not care about her?” Simple, she is a slut. We feel no sense of emotional attachment to her. Even a “hot chick” who is or is not a slut invokes this same response in a man’s brain, as opposed to a cute or beautiful girl. The cute girl invokes the desire of not just sex but protection. Free Northerner wrote an excellent piece on this subject, I shall quote an excerpt here,

“My triggered sexual response to the hot picture is primarily consumptive. There is no emotional elicited by the picture, just primal lust. I desire to fuck her; to use her like a piece of meat for my pleasure. The desired sex would be rough, bestial, and uncaring. When finished with her she would be kicked out. The desire is one of violation.

That is what hot elicits, the desire to consume sexual pleasure without regard for sexual object being consumed.

My triggered sexual response to the cute picture is different; there is an emotional component to the attraction. The desire is not just for sex, but for companionship as well. The desire is not just make love to her, but hold her close and caress her. The desired sex would be gentle and loving, finishing with drifting asleep, arms around her. The desire is one of protectiveness.

This is what cute elicits, the desire hold, to protect, and to love.”

The point here is this: virgin and cute girls are viewed entirely different from slutty and hot girls. You use a slutty/hot girl because she holds no higher value than to satiate your base desires. On the other hand, the cute/virgin girl wins a man’s protection, affection, and invokes a form of desire which is not simply for consumption but for mutual pleasure and unity. The average man notices this distinction but does not fully understand it. Think of it this way, ladies, you see two bunny rabbits. One has to be killed. Which would you feel less bad about being killed, the hideously ugly one or the fluffy cute one? We both know the answer.

I can speak only for myself on this but I would never marry a non-virgin girl. It is non-negotiable. Does that narrow down the number of women greatly? Yes. But I will not settle for some girl who has already had another man inside of her. Not going to happen.  “How do you know she is not lying?” Unfortunately, people lie. Women lie, especially. That does not mean you cannot trust her in general, only that she is human and a woman so lying is not to be unexpected. Julian O’Dea and CL suggested physically checking yourself, to ensure she is not lying, since,

“Well, people wouldn’t tell you it’s a good idea to buy a car without looking under the hood first, especially off a lot where you can’t tell which are used and which are new.”

Previous Post: Rosarium

Next Post: Obsequium est non infirmitate