How Society’s Harridans And Succubis Are Crushing Masculinity

John C. Wright—the full-time science fiction author and part-time theologian—once noted that heresies often come in pairs.  His focus was on church heresies of the first millennium, but it is no less true today.  For every foolish idea, there almost always arises an equal and opposite form of foolishness, and despite their apparent opposition they ultimately wind up working together to oppose the truth.

Such is the case with “sex positive” and “sex negative” feminism.

The latter is the more obvious opponent of traditional masculinity; it demonizes the healthy male libido, and its ranks include censorious women such as the anti-porn advocate Gail Dines, and the anti-fun advocate Anita Sarkeesian.  They promote a worldview where sex between a man and a woman is seen as inherently negative, all men are viewed as potential rapists, and consent is defined as how a woman feels after the fact, rather than what she did or said prior to the liaison.

Sex positive, on the other hand, is the friendly face of feminism; the smiling fox which seduces the moderate. It teaches young girls that pleasure can be empowering, that experimentation is liberating, and that beauty is something to reveled in. At first blush it seems highly advantageous, even compatible, with the goals of a man who pursues self-improvement, and who seeks out beautiful, feminine women… but make no mistake: both of these feminist schools are ultimately opposed to healthy masculinity, and by coming at a man from both sides, they batter and cajole him into becoming a pathetic, shambling wreck of a human being.

One comes as an enemy, the other comes as a friend, but both sides offer a poisoned chalice.

Porn And Feminism

anti porn

Porn hurts children – because all men are potential rapists.

The most common battleground where the Succubi and the Harridans meet is the world of pornography, as well as its complementary issue, the pornified culture.  The pro-sex Succubi point out that porn is consensual, profitable, and that any restriction on porn is tantamount to censorship; the anti-sex Harridans forewarn that pornographic imagery degrades the individual, and turns sex into a commodity.

They are both right, but for all the wrong reasons.

The Harridans are correct that the commodification of sex cheapens the coital act; that consumerism creates a “race to the bottom,” where cheap and addictive pablum out-competes quality.  We see this in the Standard American Diet: scientists perform chemical analyses on healthy and wholesome fruit, they determine which 3 of the 30,000 chemicals present are necessary to stimulate the taste buds, and then they refine it, simulate it, and inject it into snack cakes made out of gluten and corn syrup: cherry-flavored cancer, sold in grocery stores nation wide.

Porn is no different.  Out of love’s rich tapestry—courtship, romance, trust, vulnerability, compassion, comfort, and joy—they isolate the sex, distill it, enhance it, and package it in brightly-colored plastic for mass consumption by the proletariat.  The human is degraded into a product; a surface patina; a replaceable part—and the result is extremely addictive.

The Succubi’s response is to embrace radical freedom and the first amendment.  Today they ban porn—what will they ban tomorrow?  Prurient it might be, but what form of art isn’t?  Shall we demonize sexuality?  Put a fig leaf on Michelangelo’s David?  Shame and guilt young adults for the very urges that create the next generation?  The human form is beautiful; the expression of love is beautiful; the Harridans are nothing more than a bunch of neurotics who want society to protect them from their own debased nature!

Both sides accuse the other of promoting social decay.  The Succubi promote hedonism; the Harridans, vicious legalism.  The ensuing debate goes in circles.  One side might gain a temporary advantage, but it will never reach a conclusion; when the Succubi prevail, it proves the Harridan’s point; and when the Harridans take over, the sexual repression results in a new crop of Succubi.

Neither side can ever win, but through their conflicts they establish a battlefield which serves both sides.  A battlefield based upon certain axioms and assumptions about human nature, which both sides hold in common… and which are fundamentally false.


His soul is lost to ideologies and false narratives.

A House Built On Sand

The Harridans critique social decay; but instead of accepting their conclusions at face value, let us examine how they critique it, and through that, the underlying why: we will discover that their motives are debased and foul.

Their objection to the pornified culture is not that it destroys the living institution of holy matrimony; rather, their complaint is that it objectifies women.  They claim that porn is a result of the “male gaze”; a supernatural ability granted to men, whereby we exploit and degrade women merely by the act of admiring them for their physical beauty.  We are the ones who isolate and distill them; we are the ones who crush their souls and turn them into harlots; we, therefore, are nothing but a gang of spiritual rapists.

The porn starlet is being exploited by her customers, who use her for sexual gratification, and then discard like used tissue.  Her humanity is denied, her worth is measured by a sexual metric, and the shekels she receives define her moral worth… just as they define the worth of the stay-at-home-wife.

A sixteen year-old girl puts on a bikini; maybe she does it for the fanboys on, or maybe she does it to find a boyfriend.  No matter what the motivation, she has turned sex into a transaction wherein she sells herself to men.  To the Harridan, this proves that she has no agency; she’s just a commodity being sold on the market.

Thus they claim that all women are innately subjugated by the existence of masculinity.  That male virility creates female objectification; that because men like beautiful women, women are forced to become decorative objects, and thus the only way to free womankind is to crush expansive masculinity.

Castration and lesbianism; only by this two-pronged approach can women finally be liberated.

The Succubi, meanwhile, love sex; they appreciate men (both aesthetically and functionally) and they enjoy the power of female flirtation.  Thus are they opposed to the Harridans—but like the Harridans, they demand women’s sexual autonomy.

The ranks of the Harridans are made up of sexual losers; women who are old, ugly, or so mentally damaged that they can’t help but hate any sort of male authority over them.  The ranks of the Succubi are filled with women who were gifted with good looks, a charming disposition, and material security.  They take pleasure in the sexual act—as any healthy woman should—but they demand that the act occur on their own terms.  They declare their agency over themselves, over their sexuality, and ultimately—over the very men they sleep with.

They enjoy sexual congress, and they enjoy the attention they are able to command.  For the Succubus, sex is not only a source of pleasure; it’s also a source of power.

They value the masculine principle – but only so long as it is subservient to them.

Unlimited Sexual Freedom

Feminism is entirely focused on sex, specifically the female sex (it’s right there in the title, after all) and thus all of its arguments eventually reduce to the sexual act itself, the most basic and intimate relationship which differentiates man from woman.  All other matters which feminists concern themselves with—income, employment, education, cultural representation, ad nauseum—are simply second order effects.

They focus on sex, but exclusively from their own side; they view it as transactional and combative, a zero-sum game where one side’s profit is the other side’s loss.  To the feminist, sex is not seen as collaborative or generative.  They fail to realize that, through the mutual sacrifice of primordial instincts to a higher cause, both male and female create a whole which is greater than the sum of its parts—and thus they attempt to claim as much of the transactional capital as they can get away with.

Their ultimate goal is unlimited sexual freedom, without any sort of responsibility.

The traditional form of marriage, which is present in all cultures with only minor variations, assumes male headship and male responsibility.  The husband is the executive officer who is nonetheless responsible for the family unit.  Feminists, taking a cue from the Marxists who inspired them, ignore the responsibility that comes along with leadership, in the same way that a communists ignores the enormous risk taken on by the capitalist.  They demand access to the sexual means of production, while eschewing the duty of using their sexual power responsibly.

The Harridans try and achieve this power by crushing masculinity.  They lecture boys on the oppressive nature of their sex, they censure imagery that is pleasing to men, and they twist the legal system so that man is presumed guilty whenever a woman accuses him.  As noted earlier, they employ these methods because they cannot compete against the Succubi in an open market; they wish to bring all women down to their level.

But the Succubi are no less totalitarian in their demands for unlimited freedom.  They want abortion on demand, they want to eliminate “slut shaming,” they want their depravity to be celebrated and affirmed.  Traditionalism demands that men act with honor towards women – that they do not make false promises, that they take responsibility for their offspring, and that they keep their woman in safety and security.  Women’s complementary role is that of fidelity; they are to remain faithful to their husband, chaste outside of marriage, and respectful of his headship.  These are the duties which the Succubi eschew.

They desire the dominance of the Mistress; a caricature of male headship.  Men are to be thankful for whatever sexual scraps these women throw at them.  The Succubus thinks of herself as a goddesses, entitled to male devotion and supplication.  Men should buy her drinks at the bar, and be gratified with whatever she gives them in return. They are not entitled to her attention, let alone any sort of sexual commitment, not even to basic civility.  She, on the other hand, is entitled to their tithe, she has a right to it, with no sorts of responsibility attached; her rights and entitlements are greater than any feudal lord, because her femininity places her above the mortal plane.

Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou?
Isaiah 45:9

In the world of the Succubus, men should act with virility when ordered to do so – and so even this virility becomes a form of obedience.  They are forever to remain boys, obedient to mommy dearest, who will praise them for sending her donations as she tells them about her new bull, who himself is but another slave to her whims.


Whenever you watch porn, you are chaining yourself to a slut.

The Crux Of Heresy

A heresy isn’t a heresy merely because it disagrees with the establishment’s view; at the center of it is an oversimplification, a distillation of life down to a single element, a lusterless metric by which all things are judged.  John C. Wright describes it thusly:

There is a pattern to heretical ideas. A heretical idea is always the brainchild of one man, so it is always one simple idea, something that can be repeated on a bumper sticker. Heresy is impatient with quibble, qualification, and precision. It is always a flat idea, something that seems more like a diagram and less like a family portrait. And it is always an unbalanced idea, like a wild cook finding that a little ketchup makes burgers and fries taste better concluding that a lot of ketchup will make everything from eggs to ice cream taste better. This is because the truth is a balancing act, and a heresy is a stumble and a fall.

When considering the Harridans and the Succubi, we have two bumper stickers: Porn Hurts Women! and Sex is Empowering!  Both trace their roots to a single idea: women’s agency.

The Harridans claim that women have no agency, so long as men are allowed to exist; ergo they shame men for their virile instincts, and claim that women can never be held accountable.  Whenever sex goes bad, it is inevitably the man’s fault.  The Succubi embrace absolute agency; they claim that anything a woman does must be celebrated and encouraged, because she chose it out of her own free will.  Both sides view women’s freedom as the highest moral calling; the former want freedom from men, while the latter want freedom over men.

The modern conception of rights and freedoms traces its roots back to the rights and entitlements granted to the nobility by the King, who himself was anointed by the Church.  A noble would be granted the right and entitlement to a certain tract of land and the peasants who lived thereon, but his claim remained dependent upon him fulfilling his duties and obligations to the King, who was himself charged with providing just rule for all of his citizens in Christ’s name.  Over the centuries we have expanded these rights to larger and larger groups, we are presently trying to grant them to all who walk upon the Earth, but somewhere along the way we forgot that rights are dependent upon responsibilities.

The freedom which the feminists celebrate is a good thing; a free market will create more wealth than a controlled economy, free speech allows bad ideas to be challenged so that good ideas win out, and freedom of conscience allows allows each citizen seek out God and develop spiritually, rather than remaining stymied by fiat superstition. But freedom should not be an end in itself; if freedom is not balanced with responsibility, justice, erudition, and loyalty to kin and country, it becomes the enemy of civilization.  It becomes a vehicle for moral depravity in the name of self-actualization.

This is the sort of freedom that the Succubi and the Harridans demand.  Original sin is put entirely onto the masculine, rather than being shared equally by both sexes.  The Harridan defines the man as either a castrato or a beast; the Succubi, as a cuckold or a stud.  Do not mistake the latter’s pat on the head, or sexual congress, for masculinity; the roles offered by the feminist psychodrama are roles fit for boys, not men.

The Feminists would make themselves goddesses; beings who are able to create and define reality through words and emotions.  In this, they are nothing new; man has always sought to become his own god.

Feminism must be resisted, but not by resorting to an inversion, some sort of “male feminism” where we blame women for all our problems, and claim that all male instincts are beyond reproach.  To do so would be to trap ourselves into the exact same dynamic which the Feminists are propagating; mutual animosity and exploitation between the sexes.  Rather, it is our calling to rise above such petty vanities; to find our place in the hierarchy of existence, somewhere above animals, but not in the role of gods who declare this true or that beautiful by our own divine fiat.  Men are granted the right of dominion over the Earth as its stewards, and a steward is responsible for taking care of that which is entrusted to him.

We must not worship women; but neither should we despise them.  We are called to husband them; to love and cherish them, to guide and protect them, as we reject self-serving conceits and empty hedonism.  To find women worthy of our love, we must become men worthy of their respect, and by doing so we will come to fulfill our rightful place in God’s creation.

Marriage is more than just a comfortable compromise; it is a Sacrament, and a divine calling.

Lamia painted by John William Waterhouse (Born 1849 - Died 1917; English artist) in 1905

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: The Marriage Paradigm

181 thoughts on “How Society’s Harridans And Succubis Are Crushing Masculinity”

  1. Thank you for NOT having used the word “gender”. Really appreciated.

      1. If we pretend to win this war, we need to create (recuperate, in fact) our own language.

  2. Excellent article. It always kills me when SJW women refer to any man over the age of 40, who is openly attracted to (or dating) a pretty young woman in her early 20’s, as being creepy, or disgusting, or downright perverted. And yet, when any woman over the age of 40 bangs a hot 20-year-old pool boy and cucks her husband by doing it, she’s an empowered female who is merely expressing her natural right to do, say and fuck anything she wants. “You go girl,” etc. The hypocrisy is staggering…

    1. Yes this. The harridan and succubis are two sides of the same coin, often exisiting within the same woman at the same time, depending on what she feels will get the best social outcome for her at that moment. Because “feminism”.

      1. Yes. She wants to have her cake and eat yours too — and be praised for her courage when she walks her fat cake filled body around half naked.
        It really deals a harsh blow to men everywhere. But like they say, you just have to get back on the whores

      1. Touché…I’d add insanity as well.
        What’s theirs is theirs, and what’s yours is theirs, too.

      2. Yerp!
        “How dare his SMV men want to sleep with young attractive women when I have a liver spot coated pussy with blown out walls waiting to be wined and dined?”

    2. Women don’t bang men. They get banged. Passive action.
      I repeat what I said earlier, we must NOT use their language if we want to win this war.

      1. I agree with the sentiment and to never fall for the trap of using language of the opposition but I do have to say, I’ve been with some women who have had their way with me.

      2. I agree with aggressive action. But if a woman’s on top, who’s banging whom.
        Semantics. Gotta get those damned semantics out of the way and get our minds right.
        One of these days…

        1. Wherever the woman is, she still gets penetrated. I would call it passive.

        2. I love when when say that sucking dick makes them feel in control and powerful. I’m all up here like smiling and thinking “right on sister, fight that patriarchy no matter how much gagging on my dick it takes”

        3. Women don’t even want to be in charge, in their hearts. They simply want the illusion of control.

        4. All takes to put that out of mind is to put your hand on the back of their head, and leave them choked up for a few seconds.

        5. Oh man, that’s vanilla at this point. Some of the shit I’ve been seeing lately. My friend, it’s getting to the point where I miss just a plain ole bout of some in and out.

        6. Correct. In fact, most of them at this point want to be choked and beat.
          Funny, Jonathan Swift saw this coming in gullivers travels. In a chapter called the flight from laputa there is a city that floats above the earth, tethered by a chain. All the men are supremely rational and devoid of passion. The women sneak down the chain and go to the piers because they want the sailors to beat them.
          Things I’m seeing lately are shocking even me.

        7. I’m out of the game. I managed to steal a unicorn from abroad, so I don’t know what the youngsters are up to these days.
          Girls asking you to Saudi Prince them?

        8. So you’re at the R Kelly stage. Well, as long as they meet consent laws, enjoy.

        9. Power is all a matter of perspective. It only exists in the mind. If you even have to ask “Am I being active or passive?” you can assume that there is no real answer.

        10. I think the woman is passive because the man always has to Initiate or nothing happens. Ever been in a situation where a girl is sending clear signals but you can delay at your leisure and drive her nuts? Its because she doesnt have the balls to risk rejection.
          My way of punishing cowardice 😛

    3. My gf is 20 yrs younger than me (I’m 46) and when women get weird on me about it I always reply….”You’re cool with gays and lesbians and interracial but for some reason you’re against the age thing; even though you’ll sit thru movie after movie that has the male actors in their 40’s and the females in their 20’s. Be consistent.” You would think, given all the movies that have huge age gaps in their romances, that young 20 yr olds would be way more game to date older men.

        1. I don’t know if it’s game or my lack of respect for women. lol
          I just am not afraid of approach or rejection and run thru shit tests like a smirky bastard. When I’m rejected I literally think, because I’m above women, “your loss bitch” or “what an idiot.” Plus I’ve always taken care of myself, have good athletic genetics, and everyone is surprised to find out my age.

        2. Lack of respect for women is the key. I do well until I get the bang, but then the nice guy I still have inside comes out and everything goes to hell.

        3. Bang chicks who deserve to be treated like shit. My gf now is a nice girl and makes it hard for me to be mean. But she still has those female qualities (mainly entitlement and lack of appreciation) that bring the devil out of me. Plus…she’s getting out of shape. And I let her move in with me 🙁 I even have a nice side to me. LAME! One of the pitfalls of dating young girls is you have both the white knight in you but also a paternal side will kick in as well. It’s like a double whammy on the emotions. I’m looking to buy a house and when I do I’M MOVING INTO IT and she is going HOME! She just doesn’t know it yet. 😀

        4. Girls getting out of shape…. big deal, man. There is no rational solution. The closest approach to success is to make her feel jealous, flirt with other young girls in front of her and so on, but it is very tricky.

        5. You don’t have to do any of that. You simply have to behave in a way that communicates (non-verbally) that you can leave at any time.
          Most men fail at this BIG time out of pure desperation. The feeling of scarcity makes men pussies these days. Absolutely terrified of not having a woman by their side.
          It’s all by design. The first thing a group of women said to me when I told them I didn’t want to get married was, “hahaha you’re going to end up lonely.”
          I’m actually afraid of becoming the hen-pecked, shell of a man that I see so many other guys turn into. Women and this culture makes men little more than slaves who should be grateful of whatever scraps get thrown at them.

        6. I’ve noticed that with each relationship, I care less and less. There has been a corresponding reduction in drama and bs.

        7. You cannot always leave at any time. Sometimes there are monetary ties such as marriage contracts or debt… Scarcity is artificially created by women, since they hold market power in the dating market, due to disequilibrium in sexual urges. Since the advent of Tinder, I do not have any feeling of scarcity, the access cost has been practically eliminated.

        8. HAHA! Same here. “Falling in love” or getting soft, whatever you want to call it. Its funny how that pussy is on tap when you’re only half invested in her but when you’re all in she starts pulling away and its not long before you’re jumping through hoops to get laid. One remedy I’ve found is that I always try to fuck at least 2 other girls when I found one. Of course the hard lesson is I gotta take care of my main chick, but in my free time I need to be pursuing other women.

        9. Getting soft. This is what I did last week with a girl I banged the week before. She does not reply to my messages anymore. Modern women ENJOY being played like whores.

      1. My wife is older than my dad’s wife. It’s amusing to watch mom going off about it.

        1. So how do you overcome the shit test when the 19 y/o hottie says that you’re closer in age to her father than to her?

        2. just say “so call me daddy, be daddy’s little sweety and let’s have fun together” or something like that

        3. Reframe it. Make it about her being too young for you. I’ve done this a few times.
          ‘At age 18, 19 or under 25, a girl being hot isn’t an achievement. Call me when you’re 40 & still bangable’. Say it with a playful nonchalant smirk.

        4. They usually ask me how old I am and my comeback is “old enough to be your daddies best friend but I’m guessing he’s not going to like me.” When you go that young you better be in shape and the online thing works the best. Those girls can’t communicate audibly. But they love texting/messaging. And it’s a lot of work because many flake. You got to find ways to get them to understand “we need to keep this on the DL.” Because the real young ones are sensitive to peer pressure and don’t want their friends knowing. Ever. This is also why if you approach them in person they need to be by themselves and not at work. Like a mall.
          Typically you’re going to have to go 22 and above. The ones under 21 still want “love” for sex (you need to find the ones with no daddy) and the ones over 22 have been on the cock carousel in college (more experimental) and aren’t looking to settle down till around 26. Those are better odds.
          The ones at 26 and over. Good luck. They are looking for a husband and although I’m not too old for them now….I will be in 20 yrs. They know this too.

        5. Excerpts from that book online read like shit. Reassembled material from other sources, and badly dated. Looks like scam.

        6. He was the original and was copied by just about everyone else, sometimes word for word. It’s dated because it was published 10 years before the rise of the internet and the online PUA-training market. His observations on the psychology of young women are spot on despite the emergence of smarty-phones and social media.

        7. There is lots of solid pre-internet-era material. Eric Weber in 1970s. Ross Jeffries in 1980s. Steele isn’t even a real name, its pen name to make him sound more masculine. His book reviews look totally fake.

        8. Bitch slap her:
          Her: You’re old enough to be my father.
          You: Yep, old enough but not dumb enough.
          Once had a short chick say that to me…. Me: yes, but for you to be my daughter I would of had to have fucked a circus midget.

        9. indeed, it worked for me too, many times. In fact , some girls are very receptive to this kind of role games.

        10. <<e:u. ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::::!!bx891a:….,..

        11. I have had girls ask me, “how old are you?” I always say “too old for you darlin’.” And I wink at them when I say it. It kinds flips the script on them. Instead of the “creepy old guy” trying to hit on a young’un, I put back on them. They will usually laugh and say,”No, really?” I tell them my age (44) and they always say, “Really? That’s not old.” Or “Wow, you look younger than that.” It works pretty good. YMMV, but it does seem to subconsciously short circuit the age aversion they might have.

        12. Yeah….i gotta admit. I get a little creeped out when I’m doggy pounding some chick and she says, “Fuck me, daddy.” It really makes me wonder about her family dynamics.

      2. Yup. One heartfelt tip of the hat that I’ll give to Hollywood, is that they’re setting successful older men up for long lines of young, hot pussy. I’ll drink to that one, and deftly sidestep all the brainless cunts who already hit the wall. Sticks and stones may break my bones…but I’ll still fuck every hot young woman who makes it available to me on a platter, like they are doing in increasing numbers, largely due to the influence of the MSM. Sweet.

      3. The 20 year olds are absolutely game, it’s he old battle axes that have a problem with it. That problem is jealousy and regret.

        1. Response: Oh, I didn’t realize it’s illegal. Could you cite me the statute? Oh, well, you mean it’s prohibited in the Bible then? Could you cite me the chapter and verse? Oh, so the truth is it’s really just your opinion then, and you want to impose it on me…

        2. Or laughter. Maniac laughter is solid too. Basically that’s it though, completely oblivious to their own hypocrisy.

      4. Younger women are bombarded with messages that older men interested in them are somehow defective because they are immature, pedophiles or looking for someone to control. They are told that a “normal” 40 year old man would be interested in 40 year old women, not 20 year old girls. So this sits in the back of their mind. Plus women are more social and crave social acceptance more. So if they perceive their relationship will be socially unacceptable, they will likely avoid it.
        If everything was left to itself, you would see more 40 year old man 20 year old girl couples. Its by design that you don’t.

        1. Women have no problem with age difference when the male is recognized alpha, like hollywood actor or rock star. Feminists don’t question it. Mick Jagger, 72 is expecting his 8th love child, with 29 y/o ballet dancer. It just makes him more alpha. Also women have no problem if the female is older, that just makes her more feminist. It really is all just a beta male shit test.

        2. Before the 20th century the acceptable age gap between men and women was much larger. Why? It takes time for men to build up resources. This was considered an acceptable thing for men to do before taking a wife. The idea of a couple being the same age or close to it started with the government schools and the system age separated grades I think.
          The traditional american school system mixed kids of all ages. Government schools sorted kids by age. People got used to be sorted and it became strange to associate with anyone significantly older or younger. Of course this has made society weaker and was either by design or a useful side benefit.
          Another problem is too many men. Before modern discoveries of the basic drugs a lot of boys died in childhood. The age restrictions which many women have today weren’t realistic back then. Thus a man with desirable traits was wanted. Today’s indulgences were not something a woman back then could consider in most cases.

        3. It’s by design. Since the rise of feminism female hypergamy has more or less become the law of the land. As you said it takes time for men to build up resources. Now men are naturally attracted to younger women. This interferes with the beta bucks portion of the female mating strategy which is to find a provider mate during the latter part of her fertility years. That is significantly difficult if the men her age are going for women 10-20 years younger. So in order to eliminate the competition of younger women, lots of social norms are implemented, sorting people in government schools by age being one of them, to keep younger women out of the reach of older men who have resources.
          But I think that’s only a means to an end with depopulation being the ultimate goal. An older man with resources and a younger women in the prime of her fertility are the couple most likely to produce lots of children. Hence, they don’t want to see a 35 year old man with an 18 year old girl in the prime of her fertility. They want him to be with a 35 year old woman who can at best give him 3 kids before her fertility runs out. Meanwhile they want the girl to have sterile sexual relations with ” boys her own age” that are unlikely to produce families and they give her birth control and abortion on demand.

        4. While that may have become part of it since the 1970s the timing doesn’t work for original design. The age sorting really got moving in the very early 20th century but the population control aspects didn’t take hold until the early 1970s. By the time the modern government schools were widespread it was the 1930s eugenics era. Eugenics would have wanted established productive men to be the ones producing offspring. It was to remove the unfit as defined by defects, criminality, and above all laziness. Eugenics aimed at getting rid of the drags on society among other things.
          If it were a socially established for women to marry older men the odds of the shiftless and lazy reproducing would be much lower. At 17 or 20 or even 25 it may not be readily apparent that man is going nowhere. By the time he’s 30 he’s either gotten somewhere or he hasn’t.
          Government schools and age sorting came out of the Prussian system of creating fungible human resources for corporations, government, and military. I doubt the impact on reproduction was understood and recognized back then. I don’t recall ever coming across it in period texts or being cited from one. However by the 1970s it would have been as clear as day and then as you theorize quite possibly put to use under the new aim of population control and reduction.
          Most certainly though the social stigma of age difference was likely promoted in the competition of women for men. Well not so much the men themselves but their resources.
          So I don’t think it was by design, more of an accidental design, something discovered as two agendas overlapped with the addition of feminism’s historical base of acquiring the resources of men.

        5. That could be correct, sort of how peniccilin was sort of accidently discovered. Also men had the incentive to better themselves if it meant that they’d get to reproduce with a younger woman. Today, when you have a 17 year old corner marijuana dealer who gets first dibs on the most fertile of young women and can have 4 kids before he’s 21, it kind of kills the incentive for men to work hard and be productive. Why not just sell weed on the corner?

        6. The guy who owns the house and flat I live in, also something of a friend of mine, has a wife that must be some 30 years younger than him. They seem to get along quite well. She does not like me (mutual) but she seems very happy with him.

        7. How do you get younger women to ignore their aversions and fear of being shamed by the sisterhood? I can see how older, wealthy guys in Hollywood can break past that forcefield, but what can regular guys in their late 30s with 9 to 5 jobs do?

        8. Late 30s isn’t that old especially if you’re talking about a mid to late 20s woman. Keep in shape, be well groomed and approach.

        9. I knew of a man who was 33 and his wife was 22 when they married. This was in the 50s of course but it depends what you want. If just a sex partner you should be able to find a 22 year old. Marriage would be more difficult since many women that age have been brainwashed against the concept of early marriage especially to an older man. I mean it’s so uncommon now that if you see a 33 year old man married to a 22 year old young woman it stands out. So the younger woman will think she should be “finding herself” as she has been told her whole life. In her mind marriage is another 5-15 years away.

        10. Gotcha. Where are the best places to approach? I’ve had some success on college campuses; every now and then I’ll catch a chick reading outside in the quad. Since people of all ages are walking around on campus, they don’t really pay too much attention to how old a guy looks. Malls are a bit trickier, but maybe that’s just because a lot of 18-19 year olds frequent there, and they’re a bit pickier than the 20-28 year olds.

        11. I am more than 27 years older than my Asian wife. Her family and her neighbors had no approbation to the relationship based on the age difference, but rather that I was an American. That age difference was accepted in the provincial village in which she lived. I was raked over the coals by every female member of her family. Finally I asked what none of them had, what about the age difference? The aunt looked at me in total shock and said, in complete sincerity, “What age difference?”

        12. She followed that response by adding, “You look like you are in your 40s, and she is in her twenties; perfect!”

        13. Take a look at this gem, more importantly the comment section. All the ladies are livid over this 49 year old “pedophile” dating a 19 year old. Feel free to troll.

      5. Indeed. I’ve gotten the age gap thing from a few of these drones as a 30 something guy who’s been with 19 & 20 year olds. And the issue is consistency.

      6. They are testing you to see if you can hold frame.
        No one would ask that of Bruce Willis, or for example a mafia Don. They ask you because unconsciously they are testing to see if you are actually a powerful man, in which case, the little slaves will scurry away. Or if you are an ordinary one, that is, a slave who has ideas above his station, in which case they will punish you until you are cowed enough to retake your place among the rest of the slaves (themselves).
        As such, the proper response is less important than you’re Zero Fucks Given stance. Because you are a Man, not a slave. And a Man does not give a shit about the gibbering of a slave.

    4. I thought about that too and I think the ultimate answer is population control with female hypergamy being exploited as a means to an end. Think about it.
      No other sexual relationship Is as villified as the older man/younger woman relationship. What do you think would draw the most outrage from the public. Say a famous 30 year old athlete announced he was getting married to
      A. A 42 year old businesswoman who was the CEO of her own company and could stand to lose 25 lbs
      B. His very effeminate boyfriend
      C. Sarah. The pre op tranny he was supporting during its transition
      D. His 17 year old attractive, feminine girlfriend who recently graduated high school.
      The first 3 would be celebrated to no end and no one had better say a negative word against it.
      The last one, which is the only normal one, would be scorned and ridiculed to no end. Why?
      Because the last one is likely to produce a lot of children assuming the girl has normal fertility. You may or may not be able to get a kid out of the 42 year old and the middle two produce none at all.
      So what they want is that 17 year old to have a series of sterile, sexual relations with other teenage boys that are unlikely to end in marriage or produce families. They also want to encourage alternative relationships that produce no children.
      As for the man, they want to limit his choices to same age or older women so that big families can’t be produced. A healthy 17 year old girl can have a good 20 years of fertility ahead of her in which she can produce lots of children. Well if they get her to put off marriage and motherhood until say 35, she at best has 2, maybe 3 kids. And If it becomes socially unacceptable for 35 year old men to be with say 19 year olds, then he’s stuck with 35 year old women.
      My great grandma married when she was 16 in the early 1930s my great granddad was 22 at the time. She had my grandmother her oldest when she was 20 and her last child my grandma’s youngest brother when she was 42. She had a total of 9 children. Now if she got married like today’s modern woman at 36 instead of 16, it wouldn’t have been possible for her to produce 9 kids.

      1. Hah, good point, D is THE ONLY NORMAL ONE, but the only one that would get shamed, while the others are celebrated. Another reason I need to leave this culture. Younger women love older men in many traditional cultures.

        1. Sort of how like that NFL player who was a 7th round draft pick was given so much press for kissing his boyfriend. And it seemed like an attempt to make it normal. They showed a stereotypical seemingly masculine man , sort of an “everyman” who was gay as to say “See he’s just like you, one of the boys”. On the other hand, I remember Mark Sanchez, who was 24 at the time and QB for the Jets had met this girl in a club and she turned out to be 17. He was dragged through the mud for it. I even remember him being called a pedophile. We live in a bizarro world where the normal is abnormal and the abnormal is normal.

        2. Also note how the older man/younger women coupling is only mocked and ridiculed when the woman is of prime reproductive age. I used 30/17 in the above example, which is an age gap of 13 years. Now would anyone care about the age gap if the man was 60 and the woman 47? Of course not.

        1. That just popped up as an epiphany the other day. In this society which is supposed to be so progressive and tolerant, it is particularly intolerant to older man younger woman couples in particular when the woman is of prime reproductive age. That’s why no one cares if a 60 year old man is with a 47 year old woman or if a 65 year old man is with a 49 year old woman. But a 30 year old man and a 17 year old girl or a 35 year old man and 19 year old girl is considered almost a crime against nature. Those men would be portrayed as perverts and every other negative thing you can think of.

        2. It’s a good observation and one that I admittedly haven’t really pondered before.
          In today’s messed up society, I believe that the next time, a woman says something about this, my reply will be ‘what do you have against love? Love is all that matters’.
          If it works for the Homo’s, should work here.

        3. Right. If homos were born the way they are, US straight men were born to like younger women.

      2. Oh, you MIGHT be able to get a kid out of the frumpy 42 year-old CEO, but the kid will likely be Down’s Syndrome or Asperger’s/autistic. I, personally, think the first option is a stupid one and the second two downright perverse.

    5. These days, hormones put in food makes many single digit age groups sexually active. I don’t think it is pedophelia, but I also think those “kids” should get married.They wouldn’t need a job right then: they can keep living in their own parents homes and meet up whenever. And so,by the time they are in their early 20’s, they will have had a decade+ of marriage relationship. That bond will allow them to be satisfied when they get fat and old and ugly. Marriage young helps them get that bond strong while they are young and good looking still.

        1. Too red pill? They’re sexually active. What would be the best way to use it? Ofc this would require a very different society in order to make this feasible, including changes in the education system, finance, and many other systems.

    6. I’ve pointed out this hypocrisy with a 22 year old who leans feminist recently. To their credit a few will admit to the hypocrisy. Be unrelenting with pointing out these gaps & the possibility of a few seeing the light will emerge. At worst, I get to piss off these shrivelled up prunes by applying logic & the classic unapologetic asshole smirk.

      1. It’s an irrefutable point. They blink and their little minds begin to spin. I try to look at it like this – these women are dangerous. To themselves and everyone else around them. So I view it as a blessing whenever I hear women talk in this manner. Actually, it’s better than having a sign on their foreheads that reads, “Danger – programmed destroyer of free speech – use caution when approaching.” Saves time, I just walk in the opposite direction…but yeah it’s aggravating as fuck.

    7. You beat me to it.
      It strikes me how France is slowly but surely embracing The Narrative. I watched the 80’s film “l’année des méduses” recently where this 16 year old girl was flirting with older men and nobody used to bat an eye-lid but modern French series would easily shame even a 6-10 year gap. Only if the man is older obviously.

    8. I’m 27. I think that by now, I got called a pedophile at least 3 times for writing something dirty to girls between 16 and 17.

    9. Those are more often than not the sex-negative strains of the 3WF virus that Davis spoke of. They’re not only jealous of him for the drive that men have, they’re also jealous of the ladies who are no doubt more attractive and in better shape than she is that are attracted to him.

    1. Very similar to the message of fr Roger Devlin’s Sexual Utopia, but he didn’t have the advantage of the latest mutations of feminism (sex poz, etc) to critique in 2006

  3. Great article. Female existence is solely about finding the best sexual mate. All else is female ego emulating male strength. They are here to carry our seed. The women who have access to high-value males want complete sexual freedom and the women who cannot want restrictions and for the sexual Market to be regulated and controlled.

    1. Women are wombs. And wombs are empty unless a man puts a seed in it or gives birth due to a man fecundation. That’s why women are lost in life: they are empty.

      1. It’s the same with pets. Before, there were no pets: domesticated animals served a purpose. The cat was used to keep rodents out of the stored grain and dogs were used as sentinels or shepherds. Now, when animals are used as surrogate children, they are fucked up with emotional problems, anxiety. They no longer have a purpose.

        1. The pet issue is so entirely pathetic that makes me depressed. We have a HUGE trouble in the West with so many millions of childless women… voting during their last 40 years of life.

        2. I have a half dozen women like this in my FB feed- they waited too long to have a kid, now they have a dog they dress up as the kid they never had…rather sad.

        3. I deny their requests. My wife does the social media thing to stay in touch (we’re scattered), but I told her upfront why. I don’t care where they went on holiday or what their pets look like. She agreed.

        4. These are women Ive known a long time. I havent added anyone in years. Its just kinda sad to watch these things progress.

    2. My response would be that modern women are choosing mates very poorly. This is partly why children are increasingly sickly or defective (Autistic, Aspergers, etc).
      The whole alpha fucks beta bucks thing is fine but very few men are actually raising another man’s child. Something lower than 5% are unknowingly cucked. No, most women let the fat slob beta husband impregnate her, thus propagating his inferior genes.
      I would so much as say that women will deliberately breed with the least genetically fit males since they are seen as the most beta and the least likely to leave. A woman will regard a tall, muscular man as likely to stray, a player, unreliable, etc.
      People are getting shorter, uglier, and sicker. Just look at photographs of people today and 50 and 100 years ago.

      1. The issues with children are due to three basic things:
        1) Kids don’t play in dirt. Clean room mentality screws up the immune system.
        2) Too many vaccines too fast. Screws up the immune system. (note this isn’t anti-vaccine, it’s a rational recognition that a developing immune system should not be overloaded with a bunch of vaccines that have limited if any benefit while carrying risk. In other words, risk/reward. Small pox vaccine? Good risk and reward. Chicken pox? may be can skip that one.)
        3) widened diagnosis. kids are getting labeled and pigeon holed. I fear what sort of diagnosis I would get if I was a kid today. It would likely be some life ruining thing. And that’s because once the label is placed on a kid their whole life is changed around it. The state treats people as fungible and people are not fungible. Social awkwardness might be expense for gifts elsewhere. But once labeled, forget about those. Back in the day a lot of those kids would become successful in some way as adults. Today the labels ruin their lives.

      2. Very true and there could be several reasons for this. The gap between alpha and beta in the West is making life very difficult for women. I was watching a documentary on life in the Spanish mountains and I couldn’t help but notice that the men were both masculine and kind. They are manly, burly men who hunt, fish, chop trees, wrestle, build and defend their homes and lead their households in addition to knowing how to cook, be good fathers/husbands, write poetry and songs, help in the community and teach the younger generations.
        In the West, men are either “alpha” bad boys and wannabe thugs that have the dominance women crave yet lack the emotional and social development to become complete men or “betas” that are good, caring men but have been overcivilized and had their dominance taken from them. Women are forced to choose between the two, whereas in the past men possessed both qualities. They were true alphas.
        If a woman does not want to become a single mother she has no choice but to mate with a safe male and I think its the cause of most female depression. They are settling and, like you said, the kids are suffering also. Lower class women are still having babies with pseudo alphas and being stuck raising them alone while middle to upper class women seem to have learned their lesson.

      3. As a short man I notice the opposite trend. A lot of teenage girls are even taller than me nowadays. This is in Europe.

  4. The turd burger in the pic holding the sign that essentially says “cuck me” has a quote from bell hooks. Is that the soft spoken black girl who, when push comes to shove, can really yell loudly in the police academy movies?

  5. Sharia is looking better every day (sarcasm). In a burkah, no one can tell your tongue has been cut out.
    But I’m not sure if the Return of Kings will result in the Return of Queens. The Queen Mother, the Virgin Queen, the royal wife. The non-Disney Princess.
    A related problem is women are far more likely to become damaged goods if they play around. Men can be affected, but women can more easily become sterile or infected (including things which are treatable but incurable).
    As much as it is a problem for men to have a lot of Harridans and Succubi around, it is worse that Women are being trained and encouraged to be Harridans and Succubi. It can be subtle. Careers? Men are holding her back! Get pretty and watch how the men will do things for you…
    Somehow we need to communicate to them that their SMV and MMV are often disjoint – Men seeking a family will obviously prefer a 10, but not if she is well used and a fixer upper even if the body looks sound.

  6. I love Davis M.J. Aurini. In a manly bro way.
    Not in a gay way….like this. Gentleman…I present my “Gay of the day” video.

  7. “Feminists, taking a cue from the Marxists who inspired them, ignore the responsibility that comes along with leadership, in the same way that a communists ignores the enormous risk taken on by the capitalist. They demand access to the sexual means of production, while eschewing the duty of using their sexual power responsibly”
    If you think that women should be credited with making babies but you think that men should have to pay for them… might be a feminist.

  8. Excellent essay Mr. Aurini…..EXCELLENT! This is the caliber of writing and exposition I love to see here at ROK. Your essay challenges we men to examine both sides of the coin….very thoughtful…..very thought-provoking.
    The quality of the intellectual inquiry and exposition as well as the beautiful writing is worthy of publication in more of the higher-brow publications such as The Atlantic, National Review, The New Republic or Reason. Your essay’s message is a challenge to men and women of all ideological stripes to reexamine the relationship between the sexes.
    This beautiful support for traditional masculinity needs to be brought to as many eyes as possible and debated thoughtfully.
    Please consider submitting this essay to more publications. This is a subject and dialogue worthy of wider dissemination.
    Again, thank you for the wonderful essay Mr. Aurini. I hope to see more of your essays and commentary here in ROK and I will be following your blog Stares at the World. Please keep posting such excellent, high-quality content here.

  9. In all fairness, the harridans got the anti porn thing partly from Evangelicals like Jack Chick and his comics. Also, these two groups did that unholy alliance that at one point forbade grown people from drinking legally. Never forget.
    Behold. Lisa by Jack Chick, where he implied that if you watch porn, he’s super duper sure you will rape your daughters. Of course you received the Lord in your heart and problem solved. You don’t even have to call the cops.

  10. Well written article, it is written in the bible that rejecting God they will be given over to a depraved mind(a mind that cannot reason) but it is good to read an article on how that is being displayed on the world.
    My wife has run into this headlong and now the nonbinary term she has chosen makes more sense, for on one day she tends towards the succubi and on the next the harridan.

  11. This is one of the best articles I have read on here. As someone who has studied a lot of theology both on my own and through a university it is very good. The history of theology can be explained by the history of heresies, and one extreme is immediately followed by the other in most cases.
    It is also a good explanation of the relation between men and women. It is easy to go to an extreme and treat women like crap, but that is just as bad as the sjw who worships them.

    1. I’ve noticed that many of the angry new-atheist types you see on the internet these days are former protestant fundementalists, they’ve gone from one extreme to the other.

    1. And homosexuality, because I’m pretty sure that thing in the pink is also a man.

    2. Reminds me of Carlos Mencia’s depiction of what “feminist porn” must be like.
      …but worse.

    3. This gay male shit is allowed on ROK, but my comment gets banned as spam? Site in decline.

    1. As far as London goes, that’s the exact same feminist double think. Johns are criminals but hookers aren’t. Harridan/Succubis.

  12. Sometimes I think the Muslims have the right idea: tell the whores to cover up. They ain’t dressing up for you. So why be teased and have your mind distracted? They’re dressing for that 1% er who isn’t you so perhaps having the Muslims tell them it is haram (and calling them whores, which we are thinking but can’t summon the courage to say) is the right idea. I go back and forth on this issue. Since White men are not up to putting their women in line, perhaps we should throw open the gates and bring in the Muslim men who will do it.
    Every time I see some woman dressed like a slut to go out to the club, it’s simply a stark reminder of a world that I am not a part of.
    Like that Marilyn Manson song (S)aint:
    “I don’t care if your world is ending today
    Because I wasn’t invited to it anyway”

    1. Muslim men are typically our enemy – they’re our competition for the future (and they’re winning). However, that’s not to say they’re without merit.
      Their society is by far more masculine than the West, and they know how to keep their women.
      I’m considering looking for a bride in Egypt. Female circumcision – which is prevalent in Egypt – is quite horrendous, but I can’t help but realize what supreme brides Egyptian girls make…

  13. There’s no such thing as a husband, only a man. It’s the girl who becomes a woman and wife.

      1. I prefer the term “man and wife” instead of “husband and wife”.
        The word “woman” literally means “wife of man”. Yet a married man is still a man – unlike the girl who becomes a woman, a man remains who he is.
        This is amplified with polygynous men. If a man has multiple wives or concubines then does it make him 5 husbands at once? No. He’s just a man.

        1. The word wife apparently means what we now use woman for. It’s odd that the words switched like that…

        1. This has nothing to do with the bible and all to do with the way English has changed and corrupted over the years. The word Wife comes from the old and middle English word for woman, wyf. Because in Traditional European society almost everyone gets married, wyf evolved into wife, or the female spouse. So the term would basically be the equivalent of Man and Woman, not man and wife.
          P.S. The bible was written in Koine Hellenic (aka Greek) and Classical Hebrew, not English.

    1. Yet it is men who take marriage most seriously. Over 80% of divorces are initiated by women. How many women kill themselves after a divorce? Never heard of any such event. We all know lots of men do, I knew two men myself that did it.
      Husband is an identity to men, marriage is just a business for women to get all the stuff they want.
      “Women” may be the wives but it is the men that are devoted to marriage.

  14. У меня есть большая проблема. Женой друг мой не любит меня сейчас я не могу говорить с его. Думаю я буду никогда говорить с его. :'( но очень спасибо аруни. Ты большой дебил но мне нравится тебя х) but thanks for more total bollox Aruuuni. You always make me laugh. Nice steak dinner and this nonsense make me very happy.

  15. Male gaze, lmao. I got kicked out of a college film class for laughing out loud as the butch professor kept using that term over and over again.
    Great article.

  16. Feminism influence hetero porn. Haven’t you noticed all the pegging and male-humiliation clips that now are on pornhubs?

    1. But does that stuff actually get views is the important question? I mean, 90% of YouTube content is garbage, and so only the 10% gets even slightly good views. I assume your websites recommend based off what you have viewed and liked in the past, which means you must be a fan of pegging 😉

      1. no I have searched it for fun. I don’t watch any porn that has a man in it, just lesbian or one woman only. Actually me and a friend watch a pegging video and laughed.

  17. Our maker bids us increase
    Whom but our destroyer would bid us abstain?
    John Milton

  18. Consider that the end result of sex-positive feminism is the destruction of marriage. Because how can you feel committed to a woman who’se taken 100 cocks and had multiple one night stands. What makes you so special as her husband, when she would otherwise spread her legs for a guy she had only known for an hour? How can you respect her? The answer is, it doesn’t work out, and the ~55% divorce rate we have now is probably going to increase.
    Age shaming comes into play because when more than half of marriages end in divorce, that leaves a lot of post wall single moms, and without age-shaming men into avoiding 20 year olds, these divorcees would never get a second chance. They have to be wifed up again, because the welfare state can’t support them all indefinitely. Hence, the shaming of men who respond to their biology and ogle teenagers. It’s all to tell us that girls our age are actually preferable, which is of course bullshit.

    1. One hundred cocks? You are only going to get that number by doing casual relationships or one night stands…
      Luckily though, the average number of sexual partners has actually gone down (from 12 for baby boomers to 7 for millennials). The 55% divorce rate is basically a lie. The first marriage divorce rate peaked in the 1980’s at around 40%, at has fallen down to around 25%.

      1. An optimistic aren’t you. The divorce rate has been going down because marriage itself is going down the drain, even amongst whites in U.S. millennials have largely rejected the institution due to many factores.
        Moreover unhappy marriages between beta schlubs and ex-whores where both partners are trapped because they can’t get anything better is hardly a charming proposition.

        1. That doesn’t make any sense. The divorce rate is measured as a rate of divorced marriages as a percentage of marriages. How many marriages are happening has no effect on this.

        2. My point: The marriages that happen today are of those resigned to their low market value so to speak (“betas” or ex-whores no intelligent or successful man will marry) or those committed to the institution, the latter tend to marry younger, especially for the women interested in family, the core purpose of that institution. Since the average age for marriage is soaring to the heavens, one can guess what type of marriage is prevalent. The rest don’t bother with the ceremony.

        3. Don’t forget the cost of divorce and child support. The beta judges love wealth redistribution.

      2. There is a post on RVF now about how millennial men are having less sex, but millennial women are having more, than previous generations.

        1. I’m not sure what RVF is in initialism, but that article is utter bullshit. The average man and average woman will ALWAYS have the same number of sexual partners. That is basic math. All studies point to both male and females having less sexual partners, and if anything all it is proving is that males (used to) lie and say they have more sexual partners, and females (used to) lie and say they have less than they actually did.

        2. Roosh v forum, and that’s rarely been the case throughout history. That assumption would only be true if sex was limited to monogamous marriage.

        3. Ummm no, that isn’t how I was basing my assumption, this is based off studies where people were asked how many sexual partners they have had. Did you ever learn how do get an average in School? You cannot do that. You just can’t get different averages in two equal data sets. Go mess around on a spreadsheet with some data sets. If you can find two data sets that don’t do this, then fuck me, i’ll have to go recommend the International Mathematics Union to give you a field medal.

        4. I read the post. It’s bullshit. It cites several articles that says “millennials” (note, not millennial males), but he didn’t put a SINGLE citation that women are having more sex. You also still have failed to explain how it would be mathematical possible too have 2 different averages for males and females. The only thing I can guess is that you don’t understand the difference between “average” and “typical”. Average is adding up all the numbers in a data set and then dividing them by the size of the data set. So for example, you have a data set of 1, 3, 5, 7, 9. Add them up and you you get 25. Divide that by 5 (the size of the data set) and you get an average of 5. What you are probably thinking of is the typical number of sexual partners, which statistically speaking, has absolutely no relevance. Sure, maybe the number of sexual partners has gone up for the typical female, but you are still going to have the few women who are prostitutes and would have a HUGE number of Sexual Partners. Those women will still float the average up to the male average.

        5. Look, I don’t know if the study is true or the stat is accurate, but to say it’s mathematically impossible is silly. Imagine 5 guys and 5 girls in a room. One guy bangs all the girls. 100% of the girls have had sex and 20% of the guys. Result: Girls having more sex than guys. That’s all they’re saying. And it makes sense to me that that is happening, given things like tinder.
          The girls are getting laid, and the guys are not.

        6. How the average works: 1 guy with 5 sexual partners, 4 guys with 0. 5/5 comes out to: an average of 1 sexual partner. For the girls: 5 guys each with one sexual partner, 5/5, oh hey, it’s also an average of 1 sexual partner. You just proved my point.

        7. HUH?
          On the average, every American weighs the same. Which tells you nothing about how thin or fat the people actually are. The “average” number of sex partners will always equal 1 which is totally meaningless.
          The point is, more women are having sex, fewer men are having sex. Why you would average them all together and say the answer is 1 has me scratching my head.

        8. “Which tells you nothing about how thin or fat the people actually are.” Yes it does. For comparison, the average US female in 2010 weighs 75.5 kg, that was the average weight of a US male in the 1960’s. We can clearly deduce important data from that.
          “The “average” number of sex partners will always equal 1 which is totally meaningless.” No, because take this situation. Had each of the five guys had sex with all five women, you would get an average of 5 sexual partners for both women and men. Had 4 of those women each had sex with 5 of those guys with the last woman abstaining, you would come out with an average of 4 sexual partners. That would happen with BOTH groups. Now in a small data set this may seem weird, but we are talking about a country of millions of people. Keep in mind by the way, we aren’t seeing large portions of the population abstaining, we are simply seeing them have less sexual partners, including in women.

        9. Regardless of the convoluted math above, the article is saying that millennial women are having more sex; millennial men are having less. Which shows the promiscuity of modern females and predicts a generation of seriously beta cucked males in the future.

        10. “the article is saying that millennial women are having more sex; millennial men are having less.” No they aren’t. Not one of the articles says anything about that. All they say is that millennials are having less sex, regardless of sex. This is reflected in actual studies.

  19. “Marriage is more than just a comfortable compromise; it is a Sacrament, and a divine calling.” – Several Bible verses exhorts women to marry young e.g. Timothy. The issue with marriage of today is that it is a dud cheque. Men are laden with risk of anytime divorce, women who have lost their sexual appeal (old women who rode the carousel), women who arent wives and dont want to keep the home and are 100% career focused, Satan trying to break their marriage (if its a Christian marriage according to Judeo Christian beliefs), limited sex, etc. All these risks for very little benefit (only having kids is the only benefit that cant be done by another woman who one is not married to).
    So why get married?

    1. How convenient that these harridans point at the advice of women to marry and ignore Paul’s advice that it would be better if men are able to live the single life.

  20. I can’t help myself. I absolutely hate your style of writing. There is a kind of childlike cartoonish simplicity to it and at the same time it seems to, I don’t know, aspire to present itself as pompous and noble.
    “they batter and cajole him into becoming a pathetic, shambling wreck of a human being.”
    “We are the ones who isolate and distill them; we are the ones who crush their souls and turn them into harlots; we, therefore, are nothing but a gang of spiritual rapists.”
    Notice something?
    “The Succubus thinks of herself as a goddesses, entitled to male devotion and supplication.”
    I don’t think you can generalize that, but yeah, these people exist. Reminds me of a female commenter here on ROK who seriously commented something like “You are poor for not appreciating the fabulous beings that women are.”
    Right. That’s not a weeny tiny bit narcissistic, no-oh.

  21. Return of Kings is growing and transcending itself ! I am pleasantly surprised. Sure, I enjoy an article that lambasts the fat bully bitch lesbian frog-looking hobgoblin. But mere opposition is just the opposite equal opposing force.
    A sort of transcendent synthesis is necessary which carries you to a higher level of awareness. A sort of positive Hegelianism where the synthesis really does carry you forward rather than just lead to the pre-determined NWO scheme.

  22. Why shouldn’t we despise women? All but the small portion absolutely necessary for provision of sexual services (perhaps one percent of them) are parasites. They never think of anything new. They can’t do anything a man or a machine can’t do. All they do is take our money and fritter it away on their own vanity. The sooner we are rid of them the better, harridan and succubus both.

  23. Never embrace homosexuality that is a feminist cause and should be shunned at
    all cost it does no good for male or females.

  24. The only way marriage as an institution can be saved is to fix the broken unfair laws as well as the modern women whom have become too entitled, narcissistic and irresponsible to ever be suitable marriage material.

Comments are closed.