Take Some Pride in That Penis, But Don’t be Hung by it.

“Yes I have a dick and I’m proud of it, but it doesn’t define me.”

A while back B.R. Merrick wrote a very controversial article on here on male pride over having a penis. In many ways it’s very positive in terms of the Men’s Rights movement, but in many ways it is also highly destructive and shackling and highlights the deeply insidious prison (so insidiously laid out that it doesn’t even look like men are in a prison).

For B.R. Merrick was only half right. On one hand, certainly, we are taught to be ashamed of our penises and to view them as a source of perpetual debauchery. However it is this last point which actually points to the depraved double standard which exists regarding masculine sexuality.

For as much as men are taught to be ashamed of their penis, they are also taught that having a penis makes them perpetual whore (in that a penis automatically means consent), in the same way that women used to be taught that the moment they wore a certain outfit, that they were perpetual whore; by that duality, the penis has been seen not just as a symbol of debauchery, but of perpetual nymphomania over the course of history.

Now certainly, there is an argument for the necessities of traditional views towards sexuality from a survivalist perspective.

Before the advent of modern medicine, arguably a good 80% of all children died before reaching adulthood- with a good portion of those taking their mothers with them during birth. The rampant mortality rates dictated in an almost eugenic manner, that only the best stock of men and women should breed. With women, that was taken care of with biology- the weak would most likely die in childbirth anyway and for those that didn’t their children would never reach adulthood.

With men however, it needed to take a turn for the more insidious- essentially taking the primal mating conflicts which take place when the females of any species are in heat and extrapolating them into the very underlying fabric of all aspects of the construction of fundamental society.

The reality of that society was that literally, “might makes right”, and that manhood was measured equally in terms of a man’s physical prowess and virility. Over time, this also extended to intellectualism and fiscal prowess in an ever increasing scale, but it was all based on the same principle- where men were expected to adhere to the most masculine character traits and expressions, with any deviation from this resulting in ridicule, ostracism and a complete, utter and permanent destruction of their reputations to the point where men are effectively regarded as not really men anymore, either jokes or homosexuals, who are the lowest of the low when it comes to manhood.

If this sounds incredibly barbaric to you, then that is because it was. However at the same time, it was necessary and is the reason we survived as a race to the advent of modern medicine and it is because of that that we should be thankful that it took place back then.

However with the advent of our modern civilisation, our salvation has almost become our doom. So ingrained was the evolved form of the mating conflict between males that as society changed, people were almost oblivious to it.

This leads me to something which would almost shock the average person on the streets- men can actually say no to sex. I know, gasp, shock, horror. Yes, by all means feel good about your sexuality; however your sexuality transcends far beyond your hormones and far beyond your anatomy. Men are allowed to not want sex, in the same way that feminism has correctly pointed out that women are allowed to not want sex (arguably one of the few things which 2nd and 3rd wave feminism has gotten right). If a man is too upset or hurt to have sex, then that’s all he is, incredibly hurt and upset. It does not make him any less of a man, gay or any less virile in any way shape or form.

Yet this very issue is the reason why we have such a battered man and violated man crisis in society.

The reality is that we simply do not know what the stats on male rape victims (especially heterosexual rape victims) are. Likewise, the same is true of IPV stats.

Feminists claim that male-on-female violence and abuse eclipses female-on-male abuse, based almost entirely on reporting figures and the multitude of studies which focus almost exclusively on female-on-male violence based on said reporting figures. However they also in the process fail to take into account the disparities between survey based studies and crime reports. When this disparity is properly examined, what is discovered is alarming to say the least.

A recent study of police in Western Australia found that when called out to a female-on-male domestic violence situation; that the victim was 3 times more likely to be arrested than their perpetrator.

A few years back, a Muslim cleric in Sydney, Australia, was publicly lambasted for declaring that women who dress a certain way invite men to rape them by women’s groups and the general public and correctly so. However, these same women’s groups also hypocritically diminish and dismiss correctly fingered accusations at law enforcement and the courts for possessing this very same type of sick stereotype towards men.

Even experts like Dr Elizabeth Celi, have recently gone on record, stating that the situation for battered men is as bad now as it was for battered women before the past few decades. Even a brief examination of both social values and the legal system shows just how accurate this is.

Judging by my own experiences when contacting the NSW Police regarding a childhood sexual assault that I had finally worked up the tentative courage to report to police and the reaction I received from them which destroyed the tiny shred of it I had worked hard to build up; I would be inclined to believe her.

Certainly, a good portion of this is due to feminist politics and stereotypes, however these stereotypes merely borrow from and build on the traditional stereotypes of men being sexually dominant, strong and indomitable, especially in relation to women and and in turn that any male who does not meet this benchmark, regardless of the reason, is “not a man”.

Until we address this long obsolete fundamental social construct turned insidious trap; all male pride will do is steer us back into the insidious prison of traditionalism, while allowing the vile and hypocritical gender stereotypes concerning abuse to continue to not only prosper, but flourish.

So where does that leave us. If I was a feminist, I would no doubt conclude that B.R. Merrick’s blog leads us back into the dark days of traditionalism and that we should retain our shame of masculinity because of how it harms society- the usual baseless scape-goating of fatherhood.

However that vile brand of emasculation is equally as harmful as the insidious prison of traditionalism- where we are reduced by shame into social androgyny at the same time as being trapped by traditionalism. The solution is quite simple- a rejection of all notions of conditioned shame regarding being male, including those set out by traditionalism- to literally be proud of every aspect of being a man.

The reality is that there are times when men will be strong just as there are times when they will be weak. There are times when they will demonstrate great logic, just as there are times when they will demonstrate great sensitivity. There are times when they will be sexually active and virile, just as there are times when they will be chaste. Sadly and finally, there are times when they will be free and happy, and there are times when they will be victims.

In each and every one of these cases though, they are still men. For any of these, provided they are not harming an individual there should be no shame felt by men. Regardless of the actions of men, they are still men when displaying them, and with one notable and obvious exception, men should enjoy feeling any and all of the above.

That exception is being a victim. Here, the true shame is society’s, for ridiculing, dismissing and further abusing male victims psychologically through dismissiveness, emasculation and invalidation, rather than giving them the compassion and empathy which women can in the vast majority of cases, expect from society. While being a victim should never be something to be embraced, it should equally be something which is rejected as a source of emasculation.

If Shylock’s famous speech from “The Merchant of Venice” were spoken today with the current gender crisis, it might arguably have been transplanted into another situation to read:

I am a Man. Hath not a man eyes? Hath not a man hands, organs, dimensions, senses, affections, passions? Fed with the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject to the same means, warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a woman is? If you prick us, do we not bleed? If you tickle us, do we not laugh? If you poison us, do we not die?

In short, in the same way that the feminist notion of empowerment (going right back to 1st wave feminism) taught women that they should not feel less of a woman for possessing or displaying some trait, men in society need to realize that they are always “being a man” simply by living and having lived.

I am not trying to dismiss what B.R. Merrick has said here. In fact this arguably compliments everything he has said. However, considering the insidious pitfalls and traps which men face along their journey and struggle for true gender equality it is critical that this be read alongside what he had said to not only properly contextualize it but to also avoid falling into an insidiously laid out pitfall in the form of traditional views on masculinity; to recognize just where the true destination for male pride has to lie, so that men can strive for complete and true equality at a fundamental level.

  • witman


    Marriage does tame men. Marriage is a good thing and the only reason IMHO that we have such an advanced civilization today. Without the urge to compete for resources, accumulate wealth and have a family, men (in general) lose their motivation. It is only through Father Custody and the Male Kinship model that society can flourish. I’m done extolling the virtues of 50/50 custody. Children should be the property of the father and if the women want to leave let them, but they don’t get to take the children or the wealth.

    Let women be barnyard animals if they want to be. There are women you screw and women you marry. Feminism and the Female Kinship model are making more women to screw and fewer to marry. Marriage can be the best or the worst experience in a man’s life. Marriage is a lottery and there is no guarantee that a loving husband and father will not be forced to finance the destruction of his family. A man who does not try to create a family for fear of losing it has already lost the family by not creating it. He is a coward that is paralyzed by fear.

    Marriage tames men and for that I am grateful. It channels sexual energy into a cause that is beneficial to society. If women are chaste (marriageable) and men are good providers, society sees its most rational and wealthy days. When the sexual mores are removed it becomes ghettoized with a lot of unwed mothers and a lot of delinquent children. For every illegitimate child born to a single mother that society legitimizes with welfare, there is an unmotivated man out looking for trouble.

    Marriage can only tame men if it also tames the women. Chastity and complete sexual loyalty on the part of the woman are necessary for a man to want to make a family and support it. When the chastity and sexual loyalty were forsaken, marriage was lost to most.

  • witman

    Try to find a Female Kinship model that is advanced and has motivated men. There are none and there will never be any. Look at the ghettos, Indian reserves and any of the tribes that we call “Living Fossils” that all live under the Female Kinship model. You will see high drug abuse, high crime, low education, low income and very unmotivated men.

    You all are welcome to your own opinions about MRA but mine is that we need to hold onto the Patriarchy. It is only through Male Kinship and Father Custody that society can or will flourish. This Zeta male Bullshit will only make us extinct. Women need to voluntarily give up their sexual freedom and Men need to voluntarily provide for her and his offspring so long as she holds true to the marriage contract.

    Denis, since you practice contract law, you’ll see the irony in the modern age version of the marriage contract that can be broken by the Woman yet is enforced enthusiastically by the courts on the man. He has to pay for her long after he is no longer the husband because the courts allow her to use the children as mutilated beggars to garner sympathy and gain finances that she no longer has a right to.

  • witman

    The Aborigine of Australia didn’t even build shelters. Female Kinship will take us all back to the stone age.

  • Denis

    @Witman, by the tone of Andrea Mrozek, she is promoting the female kinship model with the man as indentured servant. She is supporting the status quo, but critisizing the decline of marriage.

    While vilifying men who don’t marry, she also avoids the topic of women’s responsibilities. If such a report were made on the status of women it would be widely critisized by the media.

    Mrozek is suggesting that marriage is the cure all for all of the problems facing men and boys, which is simply not true. It’s a complete obfuscation of these issues. There are many children of parents who have never married, but they still need their fathers in their lives.

    Not only is marriage a bad risk for men, there simply aren’t many women worthy of marrying. I certainly see the irony of marriage contracts, it’s a bad deal and I can’t recommend it for any man.

  • Denis

    `It is only through Male Kinship and Father Custody that society can or will flourish. This Zeta male Bullshit will only make us extinct.`

    While I agree with you, I don`t think Male Kinship is a political reality until there are serious consequences and lessons learned (societal collapse).

    Until then…
    `The roof, the roof, the roof is on fire.
    We don`t need no water, let the mother fucker burn.`

  • witman

    Today there are more women in college than men.
    They don’t do much breeding, since they have been emancipated from
    the feminine mystique and family living and the housewife role. The
    breeding is done disproportionately by high school dropouts who turn to
    their maternal functions as the principal source of meaning in their
    lives—like the young married women who four decades ago accepted the
    feminine mystique. The difference is that four decades ago the mothers
    were married and educated, sometimes affluent—the envy of other
    women all over the world, whereas today the mothers are unmarried,
    uneducated, impoverished and increasingly recognized as the source of
    social pathology.
    For every one of the “girls having babies” who has been drawn away
    from marriage by the triumph of feminism there is an unattached,
    probably underachieving and possibly disruptive male wondering what
    society wants him to do, and there are probably some underachieving,
    possibly messed-up kids. Mom and the kids are economic liabilities to
    society, dependent to a greater or lesser degree on society’s Backup
    System. The feminist campaign against motherhood has succeeded only
    with educated women who ought to be mothers.

  • Mickey T

    @ bowspearer

    You left out that the New England elitists are behind the whole thing because they want to reduce the black population. Ever notice the majority of abortions are black babies?

    There is almost always “theories” connected to any major event etc.. And thats what an overwhelming number are, just theories. One can take too many seriously. Just choose the one you like to accept. Sort of a theory du jur.

    I’ve worked with my state Right To Life, and some local pro life adoption organizations etc. for many years. We go from lobbying in Washington to looking at the girls straight in the eye for counseling. I’ve gone over all of this and MUCH more in these discussions to the point of ad nausem.

    Of course ther are groups which are pro abortion and fund and help their “cause” in many ways. But it was radical feminism which rammed, through legislation to legalize abortion. The same way they rammed through, and are ramming through pro female, anti male legislation. At this very moment the fems are working with the dems to impliment FOCA (google it). Do some research on the history from a credible source.

    If you think the American radical feminists are puppets, you might want consider leaving this group, or staying for a looooooong time. It is dangerous to underestimate your enemy.

    At the end of the day, it is the woman/women who ORDER the execution of the baby.

    “it’s not that simple”?

    You are an articulate and knowledgable man, with a great deal of ambition and spirit. But maybe it’s not as complicated as some would make it seem.

    Right now, I think it would be better to focus our energy on practical ways to free men of this female tyranny, as I believe that I did in the MGTRW discussion. Not that we don’t have to work hard on other isues, but when men regain their freedom and rights, you might be surprised at how many things will “correct themselves”.

  • witman

    The most dangerous place in America is in the womb.

  • bowspearer

    @witman “This Zeta male Bullshit will only make us extinct. ”

    Right so you think that:

    a) a man who was raped by a woman, just “got lucky” and “must be gay” if they have a problem with it

    b) a man raped by another man “must be gay”.

    c) a battered man is a joke for “being beaten up by a woman” (either psychologically or physically).

    Before you claim that you never said that, consider this-

    a) you clearly reject the notion of Zeta maledom and

    b) clearly reject Omega maledom (which I agree with)

    c) as a) and b) are clearly true from your writings that places you in the category of either an Alpha pr Beta male (arguable different rungs of the same thing anyway).

    d) as a result of c), you clearly hold that believe system which includes in it traditional beliefs about of “being a man” which believe in the above depraved sexism regarding abused men.

    Therefore either

    a) you do hold those aforementioned depraved beliefs about men in which case on the issue of abused men, you’re as much the enemy as a radical feminist


    b) you don’t beleive that, meaning that you clearly haven’t given much reflection to what zeta male beliefs and alpha male beliefs are.

    The question is, which of the 2 is it?

    @Mickey You seem to be confusing what I’m saying with a variant on the Neuremberg Defence. I am well aware of just how dangerous the puppet is, however unlike your incorrect assessment of underestimating the enemy, I am merely recognising it in its complete scope.

    To that end, what I am actually saying is that this almost needs to be fought on 2 fronts. On one hand, MRAs need to take on the feminist movement directly- that takes care of the puppets.

    On the other hand though, it’s the very elites of this world, the “puppet masters” if you will who also need to be taken on to stop the problem at its root at the same time. This is what organisations such as the LaRouche movement are doing.

    However just because one the war is being fought on one smaller front does not mean that things cannot be viewed in a larger context at the same time ;).

  • Paige

    “I have to say that to me the male obsession with his penis is what’s caused so many problems down the centuries. When men cease to think with their penises and start really using their minds, perhaps things will be different.”


    If you had a son, would you want to instill that little abusive gem in him? You’d somehow garner satisfaction from making the men in your life question the healthy physiology of their endocrine and reproductive systems? Do you realize how inherantly disturbed your statement is?

    Just like you and I are psychically, physically and emotionally connected to our respective “parts” — as are men with theirs! Metaphoric castration is a lazy thinker’s retort.

  • witman


    Likely #2. I do hold true to traditional family values and father lead households, but I am in the fight along side the rest of MRA for equal rights. Men should not be abused, but we do need to be tough and stick to our roles and values. I’ll put my life on the line for my woman any day.

  • Denis

    @witman, There is no reason why men should maintain the sole burden of the stability of society. It is traditional roles and values that support inequality and neglect of men.

    Men are more important than their utility to women and families. It is important to recognize the inherent danger for the future of society when men decide that the traditionalist rhetoric works in tandem with feminist ignorance. When Atlas shrugs, the world collapses and Islam picks up the pieces.

    I would never put my life on the line for a woman, I would expect her to stand by my side and face the same consequences. Equal rights means equal responsibility.

  • Mickey T


    I’m from the school of thought that focues on the “one war” as you say, which is the FIRST and most CRUCIAL war, that can’t even get into committee (you can the reception I’m getting), before “contemplating” a greater war which will certainly, it seems, meet even more resistance. I believe, in a practical sense at this time, to devote valuable time, energy and resources to wars beyond the “first war” would hinder an already “sluggish” cause. In other words, you are getting ahead of yourself, which doesn’t help the cause.

  • witman


    Men should not hold the sole burden. Women need to also hold the burden of responsibility they impose on males. I fully believe that automatic father custody is the key to stopping these feminists in their tracks. Without the paycheck to subsidize their new “Sexually Free” lifestyle, women would be less likely to divorce and society would stabilize.

    I’ll protect the family and my wife can make the sandwiches.

  • Denis

    Andrea Mrozek and most traditionalist conservatives impose the entire burden on men. If traditionalist women will not call women to task for their own responsibilty in destruction of families, then they are no friends of men.

    Automatic father custody is politically impossible until the system crumbles and women are begging men for help instead of shaming them to follow the man code.

  • bowspearer

    @witman “Men should not be abused, but we do need to be tough and stick to our roles and values.”

    See here’s where you contradict yourself. You say that men should not be abused on one hand, yet on the other hand you say we should stick to our roles and values which, in a traditional sense, means that if a man is battered by his partner, then it’s his fault for not being tough enough in the case of domestic violence. Likewise with sexual abuse- “real men” are sexually dominant, not dominated.

    You cannot believe that men being abused or a culture condemning abused men is wrong on one hand and believe wholesale in traditional social values- they are two polar opposite positions.

    That doesn’t mean that there aren’t ASPECTS of traditionalist culture which shouldn’t be adhered to. However at the same time, that is the same culture which blames men for being abused as if it’s their fault because they weren’t “big and tough enough” to stop it from happening.

    You’ve claimed that you believe in traditionalism because you love your life and want to support her and that certainly admirable. However by defending traditionalism as a whole, you’re essentially supporting attitudes which even say that a young boy who is molested by a female paedophile “got some action” and should be happy- even though you’ve said point blank that you hate the idea of men and boys being abused.

    You say that Zeta male”bullshit” will be the death of us, yet if it wasn’t for the Zeta male, reflections on the negative aspects of traditionalism and criticisms of feminism simply would not take place.

    @Mickey T. Ordinarily I’d agree, however we’re on the verge of another Dark Age because the financial system the Elites who pull the strings use to control everything, is in the process of systematically disintegrating. Sadly we don’t have the luxury of fighting one front at a time.

  • witman

    Yes, the dark ages following the Stone age that the feminists would have us living in.

  • B. R. Merrick

    Interesting links, Denis. I was struck by this sentence:

    “As a result of greater female confidence in our sexuality, Gilder suggests that women must teach men. Women must ‘manipulate male sexual desire in order to teach men the long term cycles of female sexuality and biology on which civilization is based.'”

    Oh, God. Prepare to be manipulated, boys.

  • Denis

    @B.R., she is a feminist conservative christian and I laugh when “some” MRAs suggest that she is a supportive of men’s rights.

    I really think that for some MRA’s, religion and republicians are a higher priority. (you know who you are)

  • witman


    You assume that all men are able to assume the Zeta role and integrate into society (or whatever). This loss of family is more dangerous when it manifests itself into a pathology of society. There are a lot of men out there who really need to be controlled by marriage. Some (like myself) desire to be a good husband and father to a good wife and children. I might be able to be a Zeta, but I like being more traditional. We can still fight together for equality.

    For every single mother subsidized by the state, there is a single man wandering around wondering what his role in life is. This is trouble in the making. Look at the ghettos and look at the wild west. Both are/were caused by severe gender imbalance.

  • bowspearer

    witman, you’ve made a dangerous assumption- that zetas can’t have wifes, girlfriends or families.

    Let me ask you something- do you blindly accept and support all of traditionalism including chauvanistic attitudes towards abused men and boys at the hands of abusive women?

    If not, what aspects of traditionalism do you reject, what aspects do you support, and why?

  • B. R. Merrick

    Look at the ghettos and look at the wild west. Both are/were caused by severe gender imbalance.

    witman, you probably have the wrong idea about the “wild west.” That’s largely a myth generated to downgrade the history of a great many towns in the west that simply didn’t need government intervention. That’s the information I’m getting. And ghettos are filled with government housing and government solutions. I don’t think your first example actually existed, and your second example is far more of a glaring example of systems of coercion being implemented (chiefly government intervention), and far less to do with the black man’s libido being uncontrolled.

    If you leave people alone, allowing for missteps here and there in individuals’ lives, I am quite certain that male sexuality will regulate itself. Unfortunately for traditionalists, this self-regulation doesn’t always look or act the same. I suggest getting used to other people being willfully different from traditional expectations.

  • witman

    @B.R. Merrick,

    I’ll grant you that I may have the wrong idea of the wild west. I’ll have to do more research on that. I do not believe I have the wrong idea about the ghettos. Feminism cannot exist without government coercion. Forcing tax payers to subsidize single mothers has caused a pathology of female kinship in the ghettos.

    You are right that limited government intervention will cause male sexuality to self regulate. The cause and effect are a little off. If a woman cannot throw a man out of his own house and use His children as mutilated beggars to garner the largest paycheck possible from him or other taxpayers, the family will stabilize. She will be forced to be a good person because if she leaves, her standard of living drops 73% and she will have to leave her children behind.


    I do not blindly accept chauvinistic attitudes toward abused men and boys. Perhaps I am a Zeta and just have not come to accept that. I do believe that there are traditional roles that stabilize the family unit and through the transitive property, society. I do not believe cuckolded men should put their life on the line for a slut of a wife and children that may not be his.

    I do believe that it is my personal responsibility to bestow as much wealth and knowledge as possible on my progeny and this is what motivated me to climb from a welfare kid in a female kinship system to the upper middle class where I can afford to put my two kids through university (they are both in first year). I take great pride in the fact that I have two well socialized children and that my daughter is not a Fembot.

    If more men had guaranteed custody of their children, they would be more motivated. I am the anomaly who took my child when her mother left and raised her. A lot of men in my situation did not make it out of that female kinship system. They are transient studs working minimum wage jobs to “support” children that are eight times more likely to be delinquent than mine.

  • witman

    @B.R. Merrick

    Please read ‘Sex and Culture’ by J.D. Unwin and I also recommend ‘The Case for Father Custody’ by Daniel Amneus, Ph.D. I also welcome any suggestions for readings you may have.

    I went back through your post and I see you wrote:
    “I don’t think your first example actually existed, and your second example is far more of a glaring example of systems of coercion being implemented (chiefly government intervention), and far less to do with the black man’s libido being uncontrolled.”

    Mind you that I am not speaking of the Black Man’s libido but rather the Black Woman’s libido that is uncontrolled. Her assurance that she has the welfare system to back her up when she tells her transient stud to get out of because she wants a new transient stud. The woman who will not be controlled by a man and choses to live a life that is 73% poorer for her and her children.

    The men and not only Black men are marginalized and demoralized. They have no father figure to look up to and no hope of having a stable family of procreation. This does not just happen to Black Men and women, it is just more apparent in places that have become ghettoized due to Matriarchy. Trailer parks are much the same and so is the social class I grew up in (I am a white male).

    Upper class feminists love the sexual freedom of the black women of the ghetto and fail to see the drastic difference in the standard of living that comes from the Patriarchy.

  • B. R. Merrick

    I understand what you’re saying, witman, but female sexuality, like male sexuality, when left alone, can also be self-regulating. I don’t think women or men need to be “controlled.”

    And much of what you point out, which I think is mostly spot-on, would not be possible without a government intervening. Governments are not possible unless large groups of people can be sold on this particular system of coercion. What happened to the ghettos is a direct result of government intervention, pushed largely by an increasingly feminized government, as you pointed out. So we’re in agreement there.

  • witman

    Amen! Finally we have eye contact. I do reject one thing you said as I do not believe that a woman’s sexuality is self regulating.

  • witman

    The feminist revolution and the Mother Daughter Revolution and
    the anthropological evidence offered by Briffault show that women left to
    themselves do not manifest “the intelligent and controlled female
    sexuality that makes civilized human communities possible.”
    Patriarchally socialized women want the benefits of patriarchy enough to
    make patriarchal civilization possible. Men must be able to confer these
    benefits on them and to deny benefits to them when they withdraw their
    loyalty from the patriarchal system.

  • B. R. Merrick

    Interesting stuff, witman. But when I talk about self-regulation, I am thinking of how society is now, or rather the voluntary aspects of society. I see it as a self-regulating entity, where each individual makes his contribution in his own way. It seems to me that taboos and the like grow out of generally agreed-upon consensus, and that forces such as this help to regulate human sexuality in general. In other words, the sexuality of heterosexual women will be naturally “controlled” by the whims of heterosexual men, and vice versa, if heterosexuals want to get any. Our present difficulty is that we are abandoning age-old taboos, which is causing quite a lot of disagreement and consternation.

    It seems to me that what we have now is a planned society in its death throes. The last disastrous thing this planned society embraced was feminism, giving women too much power over men. A woman’s power over a man has always been her ability to arouse him and set the boundaries for courtship. That’s what I think of when I think of self-regulating sexual behavior. But you bring up some interesting points, and I hope you will expand upon them. I’ve never heard of the idea of a woman’s sexuality needing to be “controlled.”

  • Denis

    Witman wrote:
    “There are a lot of men out there who really need to be controlled by marriage”

    Wow, if I didn’t know any better I would accuse you of being a misandrist and a feminist. Men don’t need women, women do not “improve” men. On the contrary, women distract men from the important things in life with their frivolities. You’re quite right about marriage, it is all about controlling men and turning them into slaves and useful idiots.

    Witman wrote:
    “For every single mother subsidized by the state, there is a single man wandering around wondering what his role in life is.”

    -His role in life is to take care of himself. The state is extremely stupid to subsidize deadbeat moms, that’s why there are so many of them.
    Your conclusions about gender balance are baseless, correlation does prove mean causation.

  • witman


    I think you mean that correlation does NOT prove mean causation. If that’s what you meant, then I should take up smoking again.

    I am quite sincere about the whole marriage thing. Society requires the next generation in order to succeed. If there is no next generation we all go extinct. Married men take care of their offspring and socialize them to be good parents. Those good parents spawn the next generation. Each generation accumulates wealth and knowledge to pass onto the next bringing civilization and rational society. This does not happen in Matriarchal societies.

    Men do not need women, men need families. Families channel the male energy into positive things. You do not appear to be thinking outside yourself Denis. You may be perfectly well off just taking care of yourself, but ALL societies that follow that pathology are stone-age at best. It sounds to me that you want the same care free society that the feminists want without all the misandry. What I want is a nuclear family based society without all the misandry. At least we can agree on the need to get rid of the misandry.

    I’ll leave it to you and people with your view to go into the ghetto and try to fix that. Try to tell the gang bangers and pregnant teens that they just need to take care of themselves. They will take care of themselves by alleviating you of all your burdensome jewelry and possibly your life. They are two generations of female kinship ahead of the rest of American society and so our canary in the coal mine.

    Another boiling kettle is China with millions of men who have little hope of ever having a family. Let’s just see what that gender imbalance brings us. correlation does not prove mean causation, but only a fool would ignore the same outcome time and again. I’d be curious to see if being in a poor, high crime area causes Matriarchy because it typically has caused stronger family ties in countries that did not encourage women to marry the state.