I struck a nerve!
The article I posted this morning on the nature of women has many men upset. Naturally, these men aren’t the rational minded individuals who can think critically and parse out simple thought experiments. No, they are quite offended that I referred to their mommies as natural whores.
One of them even went as far as to ask if my mom is a whore too, to which I replied, yes and no. She is, according to the fact that all women have a natural propensity and inclination towards promiscuity and having illegitimate offspring. All women have this propensity and when given the opportunity—when judgements and shaming are not imposed—when not under the auspices of the Masculine and patriarchal sexual constitution—will regress into sexual primitivism that is typified of lower animals. Again, the term whore is used loosely colloquially to describe women who do not abide by the patriarchal sexual constitution. Those who do, are not whores according to the contract, but certainly have the whoring nature within them, nonetheless, which is subdued by the contract and the rewards and punishments it comes with were it to be adhered to or broken. So, too, my mom is not, because she has abode within the confines of the patriarchal sexual code, is still married to and cohabitating with my father and has had no illegitimate children. However, the inclinations and drive to regress to her natural sexual primitivism is always there and will never go away. Regardless of race, ethnicity or geography, given the opportunity, women will always regress to sexual primitivism.
I am, unlike these men, not afraid to address these matters of inquiry. I, unlike them, am not attached to women and my mommy the way they are, so my ability to be objective on these sensitive topics is far superior. The impetus behind asking if my mom is a whore, too, is to shame and is extremely heterosexual high school, where most of these young men came from single mother households—whores—and were always sensitive about their mommies. The boys who didn’t, were forced and compelled to feign injury when the “yo momma” insults and jokes were made, because this sensitivity was so pervasive in the school environment that it became cultural and still is, today. These whoresons carry with them the shame and insecurities of their mothers and this bars then from objectivity.
My confidence and reassurances could have only come from actually observing my mother’s behavior and assessing her virtues, or lack thereof. I also had a father, which legitimized her virtues as a woman. Were these men objective, they would realize that the first sign of them being whoresons, is the absence of a father. Of course, I shouldn’t have to say it, but people are extremely fucking stupid out there, so I will; this does not include the death of the father.
Most people find themselves defending the indefensible when it comes to women and when they can’t, I become the asshole. For instance, another man responded to my article saying, “the article reads like a boy who refuses to grow up”, implying that he does not agree with my assessment of women. He further went on to say that he was married for 15 years with 2 sons and that he disagrees with the fact that )ews “reeled in female behavior”; that it was another group. Naturally, this man is a WigNat—a blithering idiot. He has problems with my assessment of women, yet finds me saying, “)ews did it”, (which they did) contentious, and goes on to prove that my assessment of women is accurate. He has an issue with the reality that female promiscuity was subdued by )ews. For him, someone else did it, yet, he cannot see that he is making my point, nevertheless.
He, like most of these men, believe like women do, that men should accept a woman that is not a virgin as a viable option for procreation. Hence, he refers to the article in the manner he did—”the article reads like a boy who refuses to grow up”. The charge is essentially, were a man not to accept a non-virgin as viable, he is being childish and immature, because he is supposed to accept female nature—accept female promiscuity—which again, makes my point. The fact that men have to be conditioned to accept the high probability of not finding a virgin makes my point about female nature—promiscuity underscores their natural inclinations. This charge, however, is not only derived from a beta male cuckolded idiot, but is a weird reversal of “sour grapes”; that you are just mad, because you can’t find a virgin to marry and procreate with and you should accept a non-virgin to be the mother of your children, regardless. This is why you call women “whores”, because you’re just mad. It is purely Feminine shaming tactics at play.
These are the values of simps and manginas. Violent, pussy-begging lapdogs who will lower their standards to suit their lowered expectations of the quality of women they have access to, thereby perpetuating the Matriarchy. It is a situation of supply predicating demand, instead of the other way around, where a man’s demands are tailored to the existing supply of women. In other words, these are mangina simps who refuse to put women back in their places and supplant the Matriarchy. They’re just happy with bedding any slag they can get. They possess no self respect and adhere to a Feminine description of manhood and masculinity and will even charge you with being afraid of female sexuality, like a whore would. They are equally responsible for the decadence.
While I am in total advocacy of managing one’s expectations, suggesting that a man take a plunge into the deep end with a slim chance of survival, because you were stupid to do the same, then go on to shame him for refusing to be stupid as you are, isn’t exactly the definition of “cool”. Indeed, misery loves company and is the core of these TradCon mangina types’ outlook on life. They have created a culture out of their misery and blind stupidity, which they have reasoned themselves into believing is okay, and subsequently have normalized it. Any man who was to disagree with their pathetic life choices and existence is an enemy. Any man who would refuse to take a red eye from JFK to LAX with a 5% chance of survival, is a pussy, or a fag.
These men do not often consider the shame and psychological burden their sons have to carry, were they to know or come to find out their mother was not a virgin, or a whore. When and if they do consider this, they will try their hardest to conceal it. I asked one of these men, if he did marry a virgin, like he claims he did, which I’m sure is a lie, can he imagine what his life would be like had he not.
He blocked me.