Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Why has the men's movement failed to Darwinize?

A category error (or category mistake) is a semantic or ontological error by which a property is ascribed to a thing or group which could not possibly have that property. Imputing culpability for sexual abuse or rape of boys to women is such a mistake. The lie that women can rape or sexually abuse males is I think the most preposterous and egregiously offensive category error imaginable. I have addressed this topic numerous times, but it cannot be emphasized enough that the notion of a female sexual abuser is a complete and utter falsehood. Since sex is a female resource, any male is only lucky to get sex from women regardless of whether he is underage, forced or whatever.

The lie that boys can be raped by women was invented by feminists during the latter part of the twentieth century. At no time previously in no culture during the entire history of civilization did the notion exist that boys can be harmed by pussy the same way girls can be raped by men. As these were mostly patriarchal times according to the feminists themselves, surely it would have occurred to society that boys can be sexually preyed on by women if indeed this is a problem, and we wouldn't need to wait thousands of years for feminists to identify the "problem" and pass gender-neutral sex laws in order to punish female sexual "predators." Only a gullible fool can buy this official narrative and think feminists had the best interests of boys in mind when they decided there is no difference between the sexuality of boys and girls and therefore boys are just as vulnerable to sexual abuse by women as girls are to men. In fact, this lie is merely instrumental to the greater charade of social constructionism and war against male sexuality. I do not think the top feminist ideologues are such drooling retards that they actually believe boys are "abused" by pussy rather than lucky. They merely sputter this tripe of political correctness in order to further the feminist agenda because otherwise more men would catch on to the relentless persecution of male sexuality that is going on.

Crudely speaking, access to women's bodies is the core of men's liberation and should be pursued as vigorously and violently as the feminists have attacked men to the point where I quite literally can't have sex without being a criminal anywhere in the world at the moment. At least this is my vision of what the men's movement should be, and needless to say, any notion of female rapists is diametrically opposed to the aim of the men's movement. I am therefore infuriated by supposed MRAs playing the part of useful idiots for the feminists in promoting the lie that women can be sexual abusers, and this is now happening alarmingly often. Just witness Paul Elam at A Voice for Men:
What about all the men in those classes who have already been sexually abused and victimized by female teachers in the elementary schools, middle schools and high schools they attended prior to attending Hamilton? The fact is that there is an all but silent epidemic of female teachers in America that are sexually abusing, raping, young male students.  And they are getting away with it, either at the hands of a judicial system that seldom delivers more than a slap on the wrist to the perpetrators, or the media that is as likely to play the “hot for teacher” angle as it is to covering it like the crime it is. This, and much worse is fostered by an indifferent and misandric culture that ultimately either finds blame with the male victim, or sees him as just another guy who got lucky, or both.
This is the speech of a blithering idiot. It is time for some patricide in the men's movement. If esteemed "MRAs" hold views like this, I need to distance myself from the movement and pick another label. Anyone who fails to comprehend that these boys are lucky -- so lucky that I am consumed by jealousy and would have killed for that kind of experience myself -- is not someone I want to be associated with even though I agree with just about everything else they stand for and even the overall point of the article just quoted. The Spearhead similarly reads like a cesspool of feminist dross and I have mostly given up commenting there because they never get it.

The view expressed by Paul Elam above is so absurdly detached from human experience that he downright fails the Turing test and must be a zombie. Not a philosophical zombie -- that would be too nice -- but a traditional one who blatantly lacks any trace of humanity. I don't think Paul is conscious, because it really doesn't seem like he has any inkling at all of what it is like to grow up as a heterosexual boy even though he purports to be a man. Youth is not a fun time for boys, because your sexuality is worthless and women are infinitely desirable and unattainable at the same time. Sexual frustration is all I can recall from my youth, overshadowing everything else until I paid to lose my virginity at 21. Anyone suggesting that too much sex is a problem for boys is not just a moron but so offensive I want to stave his face in with a rock. The commonest insult women use is "you can't get laid." This is hurtful because it is generally true. How do you surpass that? By saying you can't get laid even at 32, but there is an epidemic of young schoolboys getting laid and we have to use your tax money to prosecute and incarcerate these women to "protect" these male "victims." This is the ne plus ultra of feminism, folks. Intimacy between the sexes is now so ferociously criminalized thanks to feminism that a woman in Nevada got life in prison merely for letting a boy touch her breasts (so much for the lie that women "are getting away with it," Paul). The feminist utopia has arrived. And "MRAs" are cheering them on, pretending the deleterious effects of involuntary celibacy don't exist and the greatest thing is to imprison women for bogus sex crimes as much as we do with men. I renounce this movement as long as you all are just an extension of feminism. We need to make it perfectly clear that women are never culpable in any way for having sex with underage boys or "raping" males, and make it a priority to fight the laws feminists have passed criminalizing women for being nice to boys. Until then, we don't belong to the same movement.

68 comments:

FS said...

Disagree. Women can rape boys. While I think that a 13 year old boy banging a hot older woman is very lucky, there's no reason that a Rosie O'Donnell type woman couldn't pin down a 5 year old against his will, and rape him.

You also forget women, in theory, could drug men and have sex with them while passed out.

I'm 26, and I will not sleep with the vast majority of women, and it is by choice. Do I love poon? Absolutely. But I only love particular vagina, and don't want just any sex from any woman.

A woman, in theory, could drug me and rape me while passed out, and if she was not sexually appealing, I would not be pleased about it.

I too am sick of the feminist attack on men's sexuality. I am sick to death of normal and healthy men who are thrown in to cages for years at a time for having sex with developed teenage girls. I am sick to death of men being labelled as perverts and pedophiles for exhibiting normal sexual behavior, but this post of yours is off.

You may take any vagina you can get, but some of us won't.

Eivind Berge said...

@ FS

I too am sick of the feminist attack on men's sexuality.

The feminist attack on men's sexuality is largely legitimized to the hoi polloi by appearing as a gender-neutral war on sexual "predators" of either sex rather than the war on men that it is.

So even if you don't agree with me that women can never rape or sexually abuse males, you have to ask yourself if you really fear female predators so much that it is worth sustaining the monstrous abuse industry we have today.

FS said...

BTW Eivind, you have some good things to say, but they are unfortunately tainted by your language.

Feminists didn't get where they are by calling a spade a spade, so why should you do it?

FS said...

I'm fully aware of what the feminists are doing. The feminists are trying to make men taking paternity leave as mandatory. The feminists are trying to act as if they are doing us a favour, but the reality is, is that they are trying to tie down men with wimmin's problems to handicap men, and advance wimmin.

I'm not afraid of female predators, and nor should anyone else be unless in some kind of very rare circumstance, and yes I agree that feminists will condemn the rare female "criminal" if it will persecute millions of men in the process.

Anonymous said...

Paul Elam must really be detached from reality, or too old and asexual. More probably he's just jealous that women can also have sex with much younger partners, the privilege that mostly men have had. He's making wrong assumptions. But what could be even worse for his men's movement is that he is inverting feminism without taking into account the biological context. Rape is clearly a woman's issue, but it is not an obvious men's issue. There is a strong assymetry there. Yea, keep scaring women (including hot ones) away from very young men, the women will just end up dreaming about them but the boys will be even more sexually starved!

There is no “epidemic”, only some isolated cases in the media. Most women are not sexually interested in boys. It is safe to say that only a small part of women are ephebophiles and this is ok (as long as they don't go under 16 or whatever is the age of consent). In many of these cases, it probably happens very subtly and it's possible that the boy is in fact the initiator. Of course, we can argue that due to his young age (let's say if he's 14 or 15), he doesn't know what he is doing (actually many times he clearly knows very well what he's doing), but it is not like the woman is “the predator”. There is some virility even in a boy. This is not rape or molestation. Of course, it is safer not to touch boys under 16.

How many cases do we know of when the women have actually attacked a man and raped him? Very few. Whereas rape of women and girls is common.

Women, even ugly ones, don't really need to rape men. There will always be a man available, even good looking, for no strings attached sex. Just because you are a picky hunk doesn't mean there aren't other nice looking men around who will agree to “help out”. No woman (unless she is wacked or really angry and vicious) is going to go through the effort of drugging you, breaking the law or doing smth morally questionable, etc., if she can get it easily, with no effort, somewhere else.

And how can you rape a man who is drugged? Does he even get an erection? Women who are raped are not sexually aroused and willing so their vaginas are sometimes ripped open, but for a man to have intercourse with a woman he must have a stiffy. You can only rape a man in the ass, but women are unlikely to do that, it's mostly guys who do it to each other.

This Nevada deal is just something unbelievable. Sure, it's not ok to touch children, but was she really the one who took the boys hands and placed them on her breasts? This is scary, it doesn't make Nevada an attractive place to be. Ok, 13 is of course too young, but there are some cases when they arrested women for making out with a 16 or 17 year old. What is the purpose of such stringent laws? To keep the boys away from women? Fine, we women can stay away as we will not “die” from not having sex with them, it's just that it's enjoyable for both parties.

And, again... who enforces these laws? The claims are probably coming from the parents or churches, not from feminists.

Anonymous said...

Oh, so you don't want to look after your own child? Then you have two choices: go back to being a "real man" and work hard to enable the woman to stay at home with the child; or not have children (just remember that most women or your steady girlfriends, if you have such, will eventually want to have a child).

Anonymous said...

Pin down a 5 year old? How many cases like that have you heard of? Women have maternal instincts, even towards 13-15 years olds, much less little children. There was recently a case when two men raped a 2 year old girl. Now how is that for a comparison.

FS said...

Did Jennifer Petkov have a materal instinct? How about Susan Smith?

Your anecdotes don't really prove anything.

Jebus, you feminists are retarded.

FS said...

Raising babies is not a man's job, in fact, unless the man has accepted to help support the child before or after birth, the child isn't even his responsibility.

Any woman who uses my sperm to get pregnant, and threatens to steal from me using the government, will be accidentally on purpose pushed down some stairs.

Anonymous said...

FS, narcissistic degenerates like you should be denied sex altogether.

Men should sign some fucking legal document before having sex, so in case of getting pregnant they will pay for the child.

Why do you think your sperm is so valuable? There is plenty of sperm around. It's not a problem finding good genetic material.

You are clearly not father/husband/LTR material so trying to get pregnant by you would be really dumb.

FS said...

Men who just want to get laid should have the same rights as a sperm donor. It should NOT be presumed we should support the child. Women and their STEALING from men with child support and vaginamony are the female equivalent of rapists.

BTW, I don't really care if I'm denied sex. It's not that important to me. Stupid broads think that their vaginas are irresisible, and to me they're not. Poon is nice, but not something I'm desperate for.

I laugh when women deny me sex as punishment. Like I give a shit. LOL. As far as I'm concerned, I am worth more sexually than the vast majority of women. It's their loss by not fucking me as far as I'm concerned. No one is doing me a favour by fucking me.

FS said...

And yes, it would be dumb for a woman to get pregnant by me, and I am definitely not husband or boyfriend material. I totally agree.

Marriage and relationships are for guys who will tolerate having a woman around just to get laid. If they could get laid without the relationship or marriage, and stop the woman from fucking other guys, I think they would choose that option instead.

Anonymous said...

Haha, you are such a narcissistic princess, FS. It's really cute. It's great you don't place all value in sex, neither does any cultivated person, man or woman.

Banging the balty said...

Why can't borderline Balty do us all the favour of identifying herself as "Balty" always? In this thread, her borderline, bitter stamp is on all the so-called "anonymous" contributions..

Eurosabra said...

This is the exact opposite of the experience of normal men, a normal man who postpones or fails to acquire indices of adulthood like a driver's licence, a car, an apartment solely his own, his own business address for his employment, will be treated as an adolescent and denied sex by women. These adolescents, OTOH, have only their sexuality, and yet they among the elite who can interact sexually with women in a neo-feminist trade of sex-for-sex in equality. So indeed the perception of this activity as "abuse" is unintelligible to the vast majority of men who have experienced sexual deprivation.

Geribi said...

It's hugely revealing that while Eivind seems to be incapable of empathising with rape victims to even the tiniest extent, he has no problem getting inside the head of a horny teenage boy.

I've long suspected from the content of his earlier pieces that his emotional development pretty much stopped at about fourteen, and this latest post surely proves it beyond any doubt.

Anonymous said...

So let me get this straight: this blog's theme is essentially:

Men are great, women are pieces of compliant meat, I should have the right to do anything I want to them without any legal comeback... waaaah! I can't get laid! WHY can't I get laid? It must be society's fault. And those damn feminists.

Holy Christ, I've encountered a few whiny, self-pitying individuals in my time, but you turn everything right up to eleven and beyond. And if you're even a tenth as creepy in real life as you come across online, I'm surprised women even so much as glance in your direction. What on earth is in it for them, given how little you think of them?

FS said...

Actually, I think Eivind thinks too much of women. He needs to realize that women are insignificant to his own happiness.

Women are cum dumpsters, and one should never let a sperm depository stir up such emotions.

Besides, the best way to hurt women is to ignore them, as all women become sexually worthless over time anyway, starting around the age of 25 when their looks start to fade.

Eivind, you should close this blog because it makes women think they are worth something to be depressed and angry over.

All of these stupid cunts who come on here and rant about rape will all be old bags soon enough, and they are probably not attractive as it is now anyway.

(Hot chicks don't complain about rape, it's fatties and fuglies who do that, you know, the ones who couldn't get raped even if they wanted)

FS said...

BTW, why should Eivind give a shit about raaaaayyyypppeeee victims?

Women don't give a shit about men when men are raped of their homes, possessions, and money by women and their mangina attack dogs.

One of my sisters claimed that some guy tried to rape her. I didn't believe her anyway, but even if she was telling the truth, I wouldn't give a shit. This is a woman who in front of me threatened to report her ex boyfriend to the police for child support if he didn't give her more money, despite her recieving money from him anyway.

She's a disgusting rapist of men in my book. Boo fucking hoo if she does get raped.

Eivind Berge said...

It's hugely revealing that while Eivind seems to be incapable of empathising with rape victims to even the tiniest extent, he has no problem getting inside the head of a horny teenage boy.

Your attempted shaming language about empathy is highly disingenuous, Geribi. Feminists have no sympathy whatsoever for male problems like false rape accusations, paternity fraud or involuntary celibacy. Feminists and men like you certainly don't have any more empathy than I do. The difference is you take women's side in everything. And so does the law. Rape is officially such an important women's issue that they think nothing of imprisoning innocent men and making the legal definition indistinguishable from consensual sex except what goes on inside the woman's head. If I consider sex so important that I don't have much sympathy for women who have to be harmed in the process, then that certainly makes me no worse than the feminists. We are merely on different sides of a war, in which women now very much have the upper hand, warranting equally violent male retribution. What men are trying to accomplish in life is precisely what women are trying to avoid. There is no common ground, except for alpha men, whose interests converge with women's desires.

Eivind Berge said...

@ FS

Eivind, you should close this blog because it makes women think they are worth something to be depressed and angry over.

Of course women are worth being depressed and angry over. The only arbiter of value in the universe is the pussy. It's a good tactic to pretend women aren't all that important when trying to pick them up, but it is a lie. Having a vagina means unlimited power. Having a penis is merely a liability. That's just nature. The problem is women now have unfair legal protections in addition to their natural power, and this is why we need a men's rights movement, to destroy all feminist legal reform.

FS said...

Eivind, women are only worth as much as men value them. I value most women about as much as a giant pile of shit. They are of no use to me, and they are hideous.

Most women could not have sex with me, I would not let them. They would have to rape me.

I stayed a virgin until 23 because of my refusal to sleep with ugly women. When I did have sex, it was with a woman of high attractiveness. I am of high attractiveness, so I will not sleep with women not as attractive as I.

I'm not trying to pick up women by being like this, this is how I feel. I'd rather jack it to attractive women, than fuck ugly women.

Eivind Berge said...

So let me get this straight: this blog's theme is essentially:

Men are great, women are pieces of compliant meat, I should have the right to do anything I want to them without any legal comeback... waaaah! I can't get laid! WHY can't I get laid? It must be society's fault. And those damn feminists.


Almost fail. You get a D for reading comprehension. I never said men are great. Aside from building civilization and inventing just about everything useful, men are worthless. Only women have intrinsic value. And women are certainly not compliant, except to alphas. The legal comeback I have been attacking is the egregiously misandristic feminist sex law reform of the past several decades, not the notion that rape properly defined should be a crime, except now sexual coercion is actually justified by coerced equality for women which deprives men of sex. Women will rather marry themselves than compromise their hypergamous instincts, so increased male celibacy is indeed feminist society's fault.

I'm surprised women even so much as glance in your direction. What on earth is in it for them, given how little you think of them?

I have to concede nothing is in it for them and they don't glance in my direction, but not because I think little of them. Nothing is in it for the women because I am not alpha. Indeed the few women who have glanced in my direction are the ones I thought least of and treated the worst, so the last thing that would improve my game is to think more highly of women.

Anonymous said...

"What men are trying to accomplish in life is precisely what women are trying to avoid."

Would you care to elaborate on this?

Eivind Berge said...

Sure, I can elaborate. Life consists of men trying to fuck women indiscriminately (and impregnate them if possible) and women trying to avoid it except with alphas. I deeply want to penetrate every woman I see but rejection is total at the moment and I no longer foresee any improvement. Women moreover use state-sponsored monopoly violence to ward of any unwanted sexual attention from men and even to ensure that I am imprisoned if I have sex with willing prostitutes (who of course can legally sell without even paying taxes). I live in an extremely hostile environment which engenders profound hatred in me in turn and ensures a violent outcome. This is the honest, brutal Norwegian truth beneath the facade of "equality" blathered about in public discourse. The modern feminist state is a breeding ground for monsters. I have more festering hatred and pent-up aggression inside me than anyone who has had sex in the past year can comprehend.

This is all very basic, of course. Men and women have wildly different optimal strategies in life and a men's movement will necessarily be all about destroying the accomplishments of the feminists. A man's and woman's interests do overlap whenever a woman has a baby, but as I am shut out from reproduction, I can only conclude that women are my enemies. This also means I have nothing invested in this society and rather want to see it burn.

Anonymous said...

Eivind, you imply that all men are entitled to sex (even though in the nature, this is not the case, beta male animals are excluded en masse). Sex is the woman’s resource and material wealth or status is the male resource, as you have often stressed. From this logic, it follows that every woman, for the sake of her survival and the survival of the offspring, is entitled to a provider. Do you agree that if the man is entitled to sex, the woman is entitled to a provider in financial/material terms?

FS said...

Men are only entitled to sex when they have paid for it, otherwise they are never entitled to it.

Eivind Berge said...

Do you agree that if the man is entitled to sex, the woman is entitled to a provider in financial/material terms?

Sure, and she already has that provider: the welfare state. Men who earn money are already forced to provide; the only thing missing is the right to sex. As a libertarian I don't deep down believe in entitlement for either sex, but in an equalist, socialist society such as this one, certainly men are entitled to sex as much as women are entitled to their equality.

Anonymous said...

Well, no. Women work and pay taxes, they maintain the welfare state with their work. Their taxes pay not only for their own, but for the men's children (and so do men's taxes). Thus they are their own provider. It is not like they just sit at home and receive a cheque.

And it's not like you have been a significant contributor to the welfare state as a professional student.. so you wouldn't even qualify for free sex according to your own theory.

But that wasn't the point. Look at women around you. Most of them work and provide for themselves and pay taxes. And none of them have a "right" to a husband, much less a provider. A woman in Norway cannot just say - hei, I want to be a housewife and not work. Where is my providing husband? Doesn't happen.

Eivind Berge said...

Men pay more taxes than women because they earn more (feminists complain about this all the time) and welfare is a net transfer of wealth from men to women. Women also collect more pension because they live longer.

I am very proud of being a nonpayer so far because I really don't want to contribute to this regime, but I probably won't be able to evade taxes forever.

Anyway, the problem isn't just a lack of free sex. Male sexuality is criminalized, and we have to fight that. Now I am a criminal even if I pay for it. State-sponsored violence against me is a very real problem and I expect a deadly confrontation sooner or later. A true men's rights movement would acknowledge the importance of sexual freedom. We would be assassinating cops and raping women on a grand scale until feminist sex law is repealed. Instead we have clowns like Paul Elam who are focused on enforcing sex laws against women too to make matters worse. It is really sad. I used to respect Paul Elam, but now clearly he has gone off his rocker.

Anonymous said...

It's true that men pay more taxes, they earn much more. Men run Norway. But you're forgetting one very important thing - children. Women contribute immensely to raising the next generation (yet the only payment they get are the child benefits for a while). Raising children is a job. The men who receive those high salaries wouldn't even be around if it wasn't for the women and they wouldn't be able to procreate.

The men who own and run the big companies use the high quality infrastructure which is maintained by the state, so this is the most important expenditure for their taxes, not the "entitlements" for children.

But again - most Scandinavian women work and pay taxes, they deserve to get that money back when they are in need for a short period.

Besides in Scandinavia the men do not pay for women when they go out - exactly because (the richest) men have already paid (for every other man who dates). In the less equalist America many women won't go out with you if you don't pay for the date.

So if you had a sense of fairness, you would not feel entitled to "free sex" since you haven't paid.

Male sexuality shouldn't be demonized. Sex with a man should be a gesture of love. But in real life, many Norwegian men buy prostitutes abroad and nothing happens. Besides many Norwegian men sleep around (normal men, not just alphas), the sexual mores are very lax over in Norway. Sure, there are many singles, but most people co habit and have sex all the time.

Elam must be intimidated by competition from younger men. :) It is idiotic to try to keep 16yo boys from women.

Women are just scared of you, that's all.. it sucks because you are generally a good person and deserve to have a good sex life.

Nisma said...

We would be assassinating cops and raping women on a grand scale until feminist sex law is repealed.

How exactly would that process work? I detect a faint whiff of South Park Underpants Gnomes logic here, namely:

1. Steal underpants
2. ???
3. PROFIT

Or, in your version:

1. Kill cops, rape women.
2. ???
3. Government capitulates, repeals all laws.

So what happens in stage 2?

Eivind Berge said...

So what happens in stage 2?

Obviously a lot of activists get killed or imprisoned. I am resigned to that fate. When you are dealing with a celibate man, you are dealing with pure hatred. Already a walking dead, a celibate man has nothing to lose and a future time orientation no longer than what is needed to inflict the damage. Revenge has inherent value even if we can't effect social change. This feminist society has defined me as the enemy just because I am male, criminalizing my most important basic need to the core, and so the malice I feel for its enforcers cannot be adequately expressed in words.

Some sex laws will be easier to change than others. While rape law probably will be extremely difficult, women are only weakly invested in the criminalization of Norwegian johns worldwide. This one feminists just barely squeezed through three years ago and it probably won't take all that many dead cops or raped women to negate its benefit to women. The purpose of this law is to further inflate the price women command for their sexuality, so clearly if we start raping rather than pungle up what they demand before putting out, it will no longer be viable.

Eivind Berge said...

Women contribute immensely to raising the next generation

Sure, but I am not represented in the next generation, so it has no value to me. I am not interested in supporting other men's spawn when I am forced by women to be an evolutionary dead end myself.

the sexual mores are very lax over in Norway

While this is somewhat true, the law is now extremely harsh and oppressive thanks to relentless feminist legal reform to the detriment of men. Unfortunately legislation is able to influence social mores, which is indeed a primary, malicious aim of feminist sex law. Lax sexual mores are gradually being replaced with a feminist reign of terror.

Americans appear to be especially prone to internalizing absurd jurisprudence. Age of consent offers a case study in how the unwashed hordes blindly follow authority without thinking for themselves, and none have taken this farther than Americans. Evidently it is possible to set the age of consent at 18, define underage sex as "child rape," and get people to actually believe it. And then most bizarrely of all, apply the same law to women and find enough gullible fools to serve on juries and produce convictions.

People really don't think most of the time. I am probably no better with many things, but when it comes to sex I am certainly not so primitive.

Besides in Scandinavia the men do not pay for women when they go out

Not in my experience, so I think this is just something Scandinavian men have told you to make you pay. :)

the real Balty said...

"Unfortunately legislation is able to influence social mores, which is indeed a primary, malicious aim of feminist sex law. Lax sexual mores are gradually being replaced with a feminist reign of terror."

So you believe that the sexual/social mores can be changed in Northern Europe.. let's say, via these "feminist" measures? Besides what you have already said about women having less sex partners.. are there any signs that the Norwegian society is becoming more "chaste"? Or that men have to invest more in women in order to get sex? The impression is that Norwegians (like most Europeans) fuck around a lot without commitment or marriage. On the other hand the birth rate in Norway has risen and is currently among the highest in Europe. Do you feel that the society is becoming more "morally / sexually pure"? E.g., women having less sex partners and giving out less free sex, so that men have to invest or commit to these women..

And, Eivind.. it really shouldn't be like this for you. Your angst is somewhat understandable, but it seems really unnecessary that such a smart guy like you has to suffer senselessly. Your writing is impeccable and you could do really well if you put your intelligence to good use. You could make good money. Look at all the wonderful books you have chosen in your wishlist! You could share these interests with a special woman.

Er...no, in Scandinavia men generally tend not to pay for the woman.. some do, occasionally, but not always and not typically. American and Russian/Eastern European men are much more generous. But Scandinavian men don't have to pay on dates - they have already paid.

Anonymous said...

>But you're forgetting one very important thing - children. Women contribute immensely to raising the next generation

Women perpetuate themselves in the act of reproduction. They aren't doing anyone a favour by having offspring and transmitting their set of genes through space and time.
Women aren't doing society a favour.
They're not doing men, or any particular man a favour.
They're doing themselves a favour.
Though its nice to have the act of self perpetuation perceived as if it is done in good faith for the male of the species.

Because its a handy perception with which more stuff can be extracted from an already over generous creature by implying he has a dept to pay. *wink* *wink*

Children are a means by which the female might inspire the male to give HER stuff.

>yet the only payment they get are the child benefits for a while

So women should be payed by men, everyman infact, for having progeny and serving her base imperative in life? hah hah, oh man

Since she chooses which male to reproduce with, she she should choose to look after her own offspring. There's no dept owed by anyone.

>Raising children is a job

Is the female lion doing a "job" by feeding and looking after her offspring.
What about the female gazelle in nursing hers?
Is she doing a job? Who pays THEM? Why should a human female get payed by the male collective for looking after HER offspring, and HER interests?

Womankind would have herself perceived as a goddess deserving tribute from the male of species merely for having tits and an inbuilt incubator.
Methinks this is what you're implying.
You are mistaken.

>The men who receive those high salaries wouldn't even be around if it wasn't for the women and they wouldn't be able to procreate.

Neither would women be around typing their intellectual goobers on the internet if it weren't for men enabling them.

>The men who own and run the big companies use the high quality infrastructure which is maintained by the state

Maintained by men. Not by the state. Ever see who occupies the positions at the maintenance department? Its not the state. Its ordinary men.

Hypergamy rules supreme. Eyes on the top male. The ubiquitous State.
Not the peons thats enable it.

>But again - most Scandinavian women work and pay taxes, they deserve to get that money back when they are in need for a short period.

Never has a woman really worked in her life.
Women entering the workplace is just as you put it, a show put up by women by which the female can extract stuff from the male by implying that she is due something by filling position in administration and customer service got by Equity employment policies.

Women are at the core, parasites.

Anonymous said...

I have one really big wish - I wish that every single woman in the world who works outside the home, would not show up for work one day.

And then.. every single woman working at home (cleaning, raising kids and looking after elders) stop working for a while.

Then we would see who is the parasite...

Anonymous said...

>Then we would see who is the parasite...

What on earth is that supposed to mean. It wouldn't be men. derp

>every single woman working at home

Women don't work at home, they laze about in one.

an exmaple.

Where the sub Saharan female might walk five miles in the searing heat to collect water from some piss-shit malaria ridden muck hole in the ground. And then walk five miles back to her shabby mud brick shack to provision her family and her 6 children with water. However filthy.
The western female, who greatly outnumbers her, acquires water for her few little ones and herself with the flick of a wrist from a faucet in her home put there by a man(plumber) and supplied with water by a system designed and maintained by thousands of men. From catchment, to treatment to the thousands of kilometres of pipeline that supply clean fresh water on a whim to anyone.

In that example you can see that one female works.
The other one does not.
One is doing the only thing women can do, collect water to drink from a muck hole in the ground.
The other female has everything provisioned for her by the male of the species.
One female doesn't have an welfare system to give her monies straight from the male collectives pocket merely for the sake that she reproduces herself.
The other one does, and wants even more monies!
etc. etc. etc.

Women don't work. They haven't worked a single day in their whole entire life.
Their absence from the workplace and the home is totally irrelevant for the welfare and interests of men. Those interest secured and provided for by men as it is.

The females absence from the workplace and the home would in fact be wholly detrimental to herself. And nobody else.

Anonymous said...

Another dreamer about bringing our women down to the third world level... You wish. But it will never happen.

What a great example to live by indeed - Sub Saharan Africa.

Women do most of the work in the world, it has been established many times.

You sound incredibly mad judging from your post. But it will not change the fact that we will remain independent of you. Men like you are totally irrelevant to our lives.

Materbor said...

You sound incredibly mad judging from your post.

And that's "mad" in both senses of the term.

Honestly, there's no point responding to trolls like this. If he actually believes this drivel, he needs urgent psychiatric help of a kind that he's not going to get on an online forum, and if he's doing it just to get a rise out of you... well, mission accomplished.

FS said...

If women did most of the work in the World, companies would hire them over men.

Men don't need women's labour to survive, but women need men's labour. Good luck maintaining the World without us. Go right ahead and stop working. We don't need you to work. If women want to contribute, fine, but if they don't we don't need it.

My advice would be to stop now, because eventually men will get sick of your shit and lash back out.

BTW, don't underestimate what will happen in the future. Men can only take so much shit from women, and their state thug enforcers of feminism.

I predict more man on female violence in the future, and you will have brought it on yourselves.

FS said...

BTW, why is it that "women's independence" needs the government (men) to enforce it?

Women need men to beat down other men, because if they didn't, they would not survive in a direct fight for survival against men.

In other words, the men in power beat down the masses of betas just so women can compete, and even then, women still run to the government for more beatings down of men when you can't even compete after that.

Feminism is a joke. It needs men just to enforce it, and then you claim independence. Sigh.

Again, I'm not against women contributing, and hell, I WISH women were independent, because they wouldn't steal money from men, but they're not, and never will be.

Parin said...

If women did most of the work in the World, companies would hire them over men.

They often do, especially when they can get away with paying less for the same amount of work.

In any case, I don't believe the original commenter was referring exclusively to paid and contracted labour carried out in the workplace - and it is absolutely undeniable that women do the vast majority of work in the home. (And it most definitely is work - my wife couldn't wait to finish maternity leave and get back to her proper job).

Men don't need women's labour to survive

They most certainly do, if they're to get as far as becoming men in the first place. Again, women do the vast majority of the actual work when it comes to child-rearing.

I predict more man on female violence in the future, and you will have brought it on yourselves.

What an absolute charmer you are. I can readily see why you think that you can cope just fine without female company, because judging from the vicious misogyny you've posted in this thread alone (far worse than anything that Eivind has posted, for all his belief that rape is essentially OK), I'm guessing you don't get much anyway.

On the other hand, those of us with saner views, families and jobs in mixed workplaces might find it slightly more of a challenge. Not to mention a wholly unnecessary one.

FS said...

Women are paid less, because they do less, this is a fact.

I'm not saying women do zero, but men do not NEED their labour. Men can do their own house work, and with the exception of breast feeding, men can raise babies without women too.

I very much doubt women would survive without men building their homes, men's technology, and keeping predators away in general.

Yup, man on female violence will increase in the future. Men can only be beaten down by women's government attack dogs for so long before fighting back.

Does your wife keep your balls in her purse?

Parin said...

Does your wife keep your balls in her purse?

No, not at all. We just have this strange idea that treating each other as equals, sharing the domestic workload, pooling our incomes and generally respecting each other is the kind of thing that massively improves the quality of both our lives.

I mean, obviously we're hopelessly deluded and we'd be far better off being utterly selfish, screaming abuse at each other when challenged, and making sweeping generalisations based on our sex and passing these same prejudices onto our kids - but that's because we haven't had the benefit of your wisdom until now.

FS said...

She probably cracks the whip over you.

the real Balty said...

Parin, thanks for your comments. It is men like you that we will appreciate, not these other types who can only threaten violence. Unlike you, they are worth nothing.

Anonymous said...

treating each other as equals

You're not equals. Also treating each other too equal is the cause of most dull and sexless relationships. Women and men are worth more and less in different areas, but they are certainly not equal.

sharing the domestic workload

Another recipe for a sexless dull marriage. Domestic workload is the woman's main responsibility, just like bringing home the bacon is the man's main responsibility. Sure it's possible to do by men too, but it's not optimal.

generally respecting each other

Bingo Parin, I knew there was something missing in my game arsenal - basic human emotions. Now I'm set for a world of women and riches. Trying to show us a trace of humanity here, or what was the point?

not these other types who can only threaten violence

I'll give you this much - if you're a man and your only contribution to society is to threaten violence at anyone you don't like, you don't deserve much in my book, even if everyone deserves a chance to show their worth, within reason. But what about the Norwegian men making up the very comfortable and well run welfare state you live in that are cuckolded and cheated as thanks to their efforts as selfless providers, and then turn violent because of it? Seems like a very understandable reaction to me.

the real Balty said...

„Domestic workload is the woman's main responsibility, just like bringing home the bacon is the man's main responsibility.”
Do not perpetuate this principle if you cannot ensure a provider husband for every woman. You must be blind if you don’t see that most women today bring home the bacon themselves. Even if they do not run the companies (those highly paid jobs are always secured for the men), they still do all the rest of the work (accounting, sales, lower management, administrative assistence, cleaning, etc) to make the companies function. You cannot expect the woman to do everything – bring home the bacon and do the domestic tasks, but this is exactly like it is now. And btw most men don’t want the woman to stay at home. Scandinavian men in particular.
Do not assume that an equal relationship will make the sex dull. Women are different. There are many women in equal relationships and they still desire their husbands. Do not assume that a woman’s sex drive is linked to the man’s earning power or dominance. For me, a man’s sexiness is determined by his physique, his looks and mannerisms. Not his status or the relationship model. If the man is cute, loving and physically desirable, I would still gladly fuck him, even if he was staying at home with the baby and I’d be making the money.
Yes, most Norwegian men are great, indeed. But they are not the only ones who run the welfare state. Women do too. Norwegian men deserve to be treated well, no doubt about that. And, yes, it is sad that some women cheat. But men cheat too.. and men have reserved the right to leave their wife when she is older, happens all the time (women have seen this for decades and it makes us very reluctant to commit). That’s just the morality of the liberal society. There are no guarantees in relationships these days for either man or woman.

FS said...

No one threatened violence, I made a prediction that more man on female violence will come. Why? Again, because men are having chivalry beaten out of them on a daily basis by society.

You can only kick a dog so many times...

FS said...

BTW, women love threatening men with other men's violence. It's happened to me loads of times.

Anonymous said...

"BTW, women love threatening men with other men's violence. It's happened to me loads of times."

Women can only threaten men with violence from other men.

Any man uninhibited can tear any woman limb from limb with his hands.

FS said...

http://thesmokinggun.com/buster/west-virginia/woman-utters-line-never-previously-recorded-police-report

Anonymous said...

Women finally behaving like men have for ages...

Parin said...

You're not equals.

No, you're right - she's the one with the heavyweight medical qualifications and the far greater earning potential. But she seems happy enough to subsidise my own far less lucrative writing, and I'm equally happy to take on a greater proportion of the childcare to facilitate this. As a very happy bonus, I also get to see far more of my kids.

Also treating each other too equal is the cause of most dull and sexless relationships.

This is possibly true if you do it consciously, and especially if you over-intellectualise about it (which is Eivind's single biggest problem). But if it comes naturally, it's just fine.

I wouldn't have lasted ten seconds if I treated my wife the way rather too many people round here think is acceptable - and, conversely, she wouldn't have lasted ten seconds if she tried to treat me as a doormat. We both have very strong and forceful personalities, and neither of us is slow to make our feelings known - which in itself is a recipe for a healthy relationship, because we don't keep things bottled up. (This is also why your conviction that we must have a "sexless dull marriage" couldn't be further from the truth).

Another recipe for a sexless dull marriage. Domestic workload is the woman's main responsibility, just like bringing home the bacon is the man's main responsibility.

Only if you think in the crudest of stereotypes. There is absolutely no reason why domestic chores shouldn't be shared equally (indeed, it seems a pretty self-evident way of ensuring domestic harmony), just as there's no reason why the female partner shouldn't be the main breadwinner if her skills happen to be more lucrative.

Obviously, both need to be comfortable with the arrangement - but that's all that matters, because it's frankly none of anyone else's business how people choose to run their marriage. The secret of mine is that we've always treated each other with mutual respect, we've always made each other laugh (a lot) and we can still barely keep our hands off each other after nearly a decade together, though we try to show a little decorum when the kids are around.

Eivind Berge said...

@ Parin

if you over-intellectualise about it (which is Eivind's single biggest problem)

Actually, no, that is not my problem. I didn't intellectualize excessively at the time when I made most of my mistakes with women. It just turns out everything mostly fits the theory I've immersed myself in since. If I had applied PUA principles all along, I would have fared much better. Now it is too late.

Only if you think in the crudest of stereotypes. There is absolutely no reason why domestic chores shouldn't be shared equally (indeed, it seems a pretty self-evident way of ensuring domestic harmony), just as there's no reason why the female partner shouldn't be the main breadwinner if her skills happen to be more lucrative.

You completely deny female hypergamy, which unfortunately is real. Most women are simply not attracted to men with less lucrative skills, and no amount of "sharing" and "respect" will entice them into that kind of arrangement. Look around you! That is not how it works for most people. You are an exception to a pretty strong rule, and your marriage is much more likely to fail than one where the man is the main breadwinner and the woman does most of the domestic chores.

Anonymous said...

His marriage is not likely to fail because there is harmony. They have already succeed because 10 years is good mileage these days. There are many such arrangements that have lasted for the couple's whole life. The point is a healthy, livable dynamic, not who makes the money.

Anonymous said...

The point is a healthy, livable dynamic, not who makes the money.

Actually, the point is in heterosexual relationships, on average, even if plenty of exceptions to the rule exist, things such as the man being the breadwinner, larger, stronger, faster, smarter, more aggressive physically and mentally etc. usually points towards a longer, stronger relationship. That doesn't mean you need every single piece of it or even that some people need much of these kinds of dynamics (more equal, best friends++ type persons), but it's the GENERAL RULE. Feel like I'm talking to kids here, but it had to be said, it seems...

Parin said...

Now it is too late.

I don't see why. I was older than you when I met my wife, and was earning an absolute pittance. But we clicked on every other level, so it simply didn't matter.

You completely deny female hypergamy, which unfortunately is real. Most women are simply not attracted to men with less lucrative skills, and no amount of "sharing" and "respect" will entice them into that kind of arrangement.

Even if you genuinely believe that this is true of "most" women (and it's absolutely not true in my experience), that still means that there are others who don't feel like that. Once again, you're blaming society for your own manifest inadequacies.

Look around you! That is not how it works for most people. You are an exception to a pretty strong rule, and your marriage is much more likely to fail than one where the man is the main breadwinner and the woman does most of the domestic chores.

Sorry, but my experience tells me the exact opposite. Looking at all of my married friends, and the marriages within my (large) family, it's clear to me that the most successful are those that are genuine partnerships based on mutual respect - whereas ones based on the model that you propose, whereby the man lays down the law and the woman is expected to be a docile doormat, have generally ended in tears. You can't run a marriage along 1950s lines in the 21st century.

His marriage is not likely to fail because there is harmony. They have already succeed because 10 years is good mileage these days. There are many such arrangements that have lasted for the couple's whole life. The point is a healthy, livable dynamic, not who makes the money.

Absolutely - and a crucial part of this "healthy, livable dynamic" is that we're completely happy to swap roles whenever convenient. She did the majority of the childcare five years ago, I do the majority of it now. If I happen to strike it lucky with my writing and become the majority earner again, we'll discuss and rethink the situation.

Which is exactly how a marriage should work - so I'm baffled as to why Eivind thinks it's more likely to fail. Actually, I'm not that baffled, because I'm arguing with someone who's barely had a relationship at all, let alone a ten-year marriage, so it's hardly an expert opinion.

Anonymous said...

MRAs just seem to want to enact vengeance by fighting fire with fire.

Since feminists have criminalized older men having sex with young girls/women, MRAs seek redress in the only way they see possible: Making women doing the same with young boys/men also something that lands women behind bars.

There are also other issues here: Underage boys/men being fucked over by feminist wealth transfer via child support by these same women who have sex with these young boys/men.

In your case, it seems there may be some sour grapes present that keep you from wanting to turn the tables around on the feminists using their own laws here.

But I won't deny that involuntary celibacy sounds like walking death. It certainly does.

Eivind Berge said...

It ought to be possible to redress the criminalization of victimless sex without turning these laws against women first. Many MRAs don't see this, and I vehemently disagree with them. Using sex laws against women only obfuscates the fact that these laws are indeed laws against men, which is what MRAs should be focusing on. Putting the rare woman who is nice to boys behind bars is just another way to harm males by making the world an even colder place to grow up in. That way you punish good women and help feminists perpetuate the persecution of men.

Right now I am seething with rage, hate and jealousy because here in Norway a woman is now convicted as a sex offender for being nice to a retarded man. The feminist press is pretending this is abuse in order to hurt men; to make sure no man ever gets so lucky again and that all men involved with retarded women are convicted, while pretending this is equality since now a woman has been hoist by the same law. Any MRA agreeing is a useful idiot, to say the least. Women cannot exploit or abuse men sexually, because sex is a transfer of value from females to males. We urgently need to acknowledge this basic biological fact. Any denial only serves feminism, an ideology based on the lie that the sexes are equal.

There are also other issues here: Underage boys/men being fucked over by feminist wealth transfer via child support by these same women who have sex with these young boys/men.

Yes, but this must be addressed by reforming excessive child support laws, not by pretending boys who get lucky are sexually abused. How can anybody be so dense as to call it rape when the real problem is state-sanctioned robbery?

Anonymous said...

Why do you mention Darwininsm when you want to restrict intersexual selection?

Eivind Berge said...

I mentioned Darwinism here because it is simply a biological fact that sex is a female resource and thus boys getting sex from women are objectively lucky even if the law says they are abused or raped. It would be unenlightened or dishonest to deny that they are lucky and pretend they are victims.

However, Darwinism is not an ideology. Science tells us how the world is, not how it ought to be. Sexual selection is a fact, and it is a fact that women prefer to mate with alphas, but I don't have to accept their right to be so choosy, especially in a society where women coerce equality from men in other areas.

namae nanka said...

I can't agree with you here.
The word rape is ill-suited, but to say that the boy is getting lucky, might make sense in the biological context but not in the social settings in which we live.

Then you have cases such as these:

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2010/02/27/woman-rapes-boy-almost-200-times/

http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2006/05/10/30/

and then there is this long list:

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=39783

Many cases here can be viewed as harmless and many got off rather leniently as well, but there are some cases that resemble the two above.

Like the alimony laws that should change when enough women are caught in its net, women being sentenced to harsh punishments for these offences would be the only way to get people to reconsider.

Not that I don't want the dismantling of feminist power structures along with these illogical laws, but barring some miracle, only this seems to have a realistic chance of improvement.

And I wonder if women realize that they might be leading themselves to a fate of the women of tang dynasty.

Eivind Berge said...

Every single one of the boys mentioned in those links are lucky, not just in a biological fundamentalist sense but in the current social reality as well. The Toy Soldiers are morons. I have experienced the ennui of a sexless youth that they would consider ideal, and I would kill for a taste of what they had. Here I am with my life in shambles and destined to end up like George Sodini due to the ravages of celibacy, and they have the gall to try to pass themselves off as victims for getting too much sex... Words fail me for the fuming hatred I feel towards anyone taking the lie seriously that boys getting lucky are victims.

This is a divisive issue in the men's movement, and it should be. Toy Soldiers et al. are just feminists of the most extreme and revolting variety who manage to dupe some men. They represent the very pinnacle of feminism. And they are already succeeding with their hateful agenda. Women who are nice to boys are not treated leniently anymore. Especially in America, the hate generated against this type of victimless sex is now on a par with what men who have sex with underage girls get. But of course, this is not equality. There is nothing more unequal than the equal treatment of unequals. No one deserves to go to prison for consensual sex, but a woman being locked up for ten years is about a million times harsher than the same sentence for a man, because the crime is not equal. A girl actually loses some of her mate value for each partner even if she enjoys it. A boy is conversely boosting his value in every sense by getting laid by older women.

Even if it were true that we could fight victimless misandristic sex laws by applying them to women as well, it is simply too offensive to contemplate. You're saying we should be like, "Yeah, we understand these boys are lucky, but we are going to pretend they are victims anyway just so maybe the abuse industry will abate." This is not only egregiously offensive to me personally as a celibate man -- I also don't understand how you can muster the intellectual dishonesty to stand there and say with a straight face that women deserve to be locked up for "raping" boys. It is simply anathema in every way.

It also wouldn't work. So what if some women are hurt by insane sex laws? It won't compel them to turn around. Same with alimony, for the same reason: hypergamy. There simply aren't enough women interested in sleeping with underage boys, or marrying poor men, to make a difference.

The state is perfectly capable of incarcerating women without changing policies. Just look at the war on drugs. There is no sign of an end to that insanity even though women are also getting arrested and convicted. Your scheme is as harebrained as it would be to think you can promote drug policy reform by campaigning for the equal sentencing of women for drug crimes. The drug war shows that the state is quite happy to imprison women for victimless crimes. You only make things worse by advocating more of a bad thing.

namae nanka said...

"Every single one of the boys mentioned in those links are lucky, not just in a biological fundamentalist sense but in the current social reality as well. "

bother to read the cases before spouting off.

"There simply aren't enough women interested in sleeping with underage boys, or marrying poor men, to make a difference."

a woman's voice is heard louder than a million men's complaints.
They don't have to do that, even if they started outearning men in relationships, they'd still cry.

"A girl actually loses some of her mate value for each partner even if she enjoys it. "

A 39 year old woman with two kids on the pill isn't losing anything, and she will get her due in the divorce court. So please, read.

"Your scheme is as harebrained "

it ain't my "scheme" but unless the economic structure that props up the feminist laws itself collapses, I simply don't envision them letting go, or are you dreaming of a return of patriarchy?

Anonymous said...

First of all, I'd like to express my sincerest apologies that I couldn't find this post earlier and I do appreciate your site very much.

Hoever, in this post,you make a few good points but I can't agree with some of what you say.

I'd like to start off that Paul Elam aka theHappyMisogynist(youtube)/Lennister(or something like that from some other sites, perhaps Mens News daily?)/avoiceformen is more or less a LGBT sympathiser and that makes him a Feminist. Period. He very rarely mentions anything of the root of the problem of feminism, which is the cause by women who are known as Lesbian Separatist Feminists.

They are the ones who started the quiet social condemnation of all things masculine (whether heterosexual or otherwise) and celebrated heterosexual men/women being socially separated as well as sexually separated.

Feminists have been assisting the LBGT causes (most of it openly) while quietly promoting the negative male stereotypes in the social sphere, simultaneously accomplishing their original stated goal of destroying the very fabric of society; the family (the institution of marriage).

Anyone who helps proponents of these stated goals is either Feminist, part of the LGBT crowd, a commie or all of the above.

I do understand that the behavior of Western women is deplorable but that only should advocate men going overseas to look for suitable women. Paul (or whatever his real name is) advocates not having much to deal with women at all, which also is not really feasible.

His website has soft-core homo-erotic articles about gay men's views on heterosexual men with their children and the entire site is filled with men that appear to more emotional than my great grandmother. However, most men can not relate with these type of homo-erotic writing or the hyper-emotional male figures there but he seems to not understand this.

To speak for men as a class of people, in any shape or form, does in fact mean speaking for men in all of their differences but a site that has open sexual or homo-erotic articles is not a 'welcomed' place for most men (or boys) to align themselves with.

I think most rational thinking adults would agree.

Lastly, by allowing this to happen, as well as denigrating heterosexual relationships as well (in such a broad context) is only helping the Lesbian Separitist Feminists goal. I do admit that he does much good in certain capacities so I will not directly attack his site. But I will point out and attack what I feel is not just.

Mother Nature is Biased said...

The last comment was mine by the way.

As for the propaganda sexuality, if you think Feminists, Environmentalists and the LGBT activists group are not working together globally to accomplish a severe reduction of the human 'carbon footprint', ie. the reduction of the human population, then ask yourself "why would Lesbian Separatist Feminists want to separate heterosexuals with propaganda?"

Lesbians know they can't make heterosexual women (the vast majority of women) desire them, so what is in it for them to support such a notion?

The same reason why wealthy gay activists do the same thing. Someone is helping them to accomplish this goal of 'divide and conquer'.

Or you can just dismiss it as 'unintended consequences' if you want. I can't dismiss it as such because I'm sure most heterosexual feminists still want children but as any statistical evidence can show you, since the 70's the population has dwindled as well as the rate of marriage.

I'm sure there are those that would say '[insert sex] should not be restricted to the opposite sex's desires, feelings, etc. but thats not how heterosexual, mammals behave. Much less a society. To champion the happiness of the vast majority of heterosexual men and boys as well as their fair treatment under the law begins with the works of men such as Paul Elam (or whatever his real name is) but ends with their biological imperative to find a decent wife and raise a loving family, which I agree is not in 'Western countries' but rather in the pockets in the societies of the world, wherever that may be.