ZORCH!

Nothing says "Alpha Male" like begging for polyamorous-friendly dates over the Internet:

So, this is experimental. I’d like to go on a date in May. And for the first time, I’m going to try a bat signal: putting a call out on my blog. I don’t know anyone else who has tried doing that, so I have no precedent to work from as to etiquette or even arguments for or against doing it. So I’m just going to do it and see what happens and document and assess. If you know anyone who might have an interest in dating me, let them know. If you might have an interest, read on.

I’ll start by making sure anyone considering this is up to speed. I am polyamorous. I currently have many girlfriends. All I consider my friends. Some are just occasional lovers. Some I am more involved with. They are also polyamorous, or near enough (not all of them identify that way, but all of them enjoy open relationships). And I will always have relationships with them, as long as they’ll have me in their life.

Many different things can be meant by the following terms, but just for the present purpose, if by a primary relationship is meant someone you live with or just about as good as live with, a secondary as someone you date regularly, and a tertiary as someone you date occasionally, all my relationships are tertiary, but only because of geography. I live just below Sacramento, California, where the rents are cheap, which means, where no one wants to live. And I’m unlikely to move anytime soon. So relationships with me, at best, are likely to be tertiary—long distance chatting with occasional being together throughout the year. Even so, I always take such friendships seriously.

That certainly answers the zen master's ancient question about what the sound of 150 million vaginas simultaneously dehydrating sounds like. And here we all thought it was hypothetical.

Calling David Pakman

I look forward to seeing Mr. Pakman inviting Mr. Zakaria or Mr. Hussin to discuss the issue of Islam and "marital rape":

Malaysian Islamic scholar Perak Mufti Tan Sri Harussani Zakaria has issued a somewhat surprising ruling that Muslim women have "no right" to refuse sexual relations with their husband, asserting that forced sexual intercourse in such cases doesn't constitute marital rape.

Speaking to the Malay Mail Online on Sunday in an interview published the following day, Harussani said "even the Prophet (Mohammed, founder of Islam - ed.) says even when they’re riding on the back of the camel, when the husband asks her, she must give."

"So there’s no such thing as rape in marriage. This is made by European people, why should we follow?," he said.

The Muslim authority cited a hadith, teachings ascribed to Mohammed, reading: "if a husband calls his wife to his bed (to have sexual relations - ed.) and she refuses and causes him to sleep in anger, the angels will curse her till morning" (Bukhari 4.54.460).

He also quoted the ruling of Muslim scholar Ibn Majah back in 1854, who wrote that if a husband asks his wife "to surrender herself (to him for sexual relations - ed.) she should not refuse him even if she is on a camel’s saddle."

The Malaysian paper also spoke to Muslim preacher Wan Ji Wan Hussin, who said that the term marital rape "is not accurate in the practice of Islam because rape in Islam is defined as forced sexual intercourse outside of marriage," meaning a husband forcing his wife to have sex is not considered rape by the religion.

"That means if the husband does not seek consent, it cannot be considered rape, but that action is considered not polite in Islam,” he explained, commenting that such non-consensual relations are not sinful but rather are "frowned upon."

It's all-too-typical that nominal cultural relativists such as Pakman would try to stir up outrage over a position that is held by most of the world, and the vast majority of the non-white world. Remember, my post to which he was referring was one that drew attention to an Indian court upholding the Indian Penal Code's statute which states that not even forcible "rape" is criminal so long as both parties are married to each other.

Legality is neither morality nor civility. The Left constantly attempts to conflate the three whenever it suits them, then turns around and claims "you can't legislate morality" when it comes to adultery or fornication.

The readily observable fact is that we can as easily ban adultery or fornication as "marital rape", and that both adultery and fornication cause considerable more harm than "marital rape". The fact that the Left is opposed to the first two and favors the latter is what indicates something I have pointed out all along: the purpose in criminalizing "marital rape" is to destroy the concept of marriage.

After all, what is the point of entering into a legal relationship that literally gives a man nothing at all? If marriage is not intrinsically a legal grant of sexual consent, then what is it? An agreement by which a man agrees to be held legally liable for a woman's finances in exchange for nothing?

Move over, Vivian

 

Day by Day gets in on the action. It's fascinating to see how #GamerGate is inspiring creators in various industries to take a stand against SJW thought control.

The propaganda starts young

This is why it's going to be harder and harder for young men to break out of the blue pill perspective:

A primary grade lesbian teacher from an Ontario public school revealed in a workshop at a homosexual activist conference for teachers earlier this month how she uses her classroom to convince children as young as four to accept homosexual relationships.

“And I started in Kindergarten. What a great place to start. It was where I was teaching. So, I was the most comfortable there,” Pam Strong said at the conference, attended by LifeSiteNews....

Strong related that as she was reading “King and King” in the junior kindergarten class as a springboard to discuss her sexuality with the kids, she got to the part where the two princes become ‘married’ when one of the boys suddenly shouted out: “They can’t do that! They can’t get married. They’re two boys.”

Recounted Strong: “And I said, ‘Oh, yeah, yeah, they can. It’s right here on page 12.”

To which the boy replied, according to Strong: “Oh, yeah, I know Mrs. Strong, but that’s just a story. That’s not real life.”

“And I said: ‘It happens in real life too. I am married to a woman. I am gay. And I am in love with my wife.”

Strong said the young children “just all kind of went silent.” She then told them: “That may seem different to you, how many of you have heard of that before?”

“Not one hand went up,” she related. “And so I said: ‘That may seem different to you, but we’re not that different. Would you like to know about what I do with my family?”

“Yeah, tell us,” she recounted the children enthusiastically saying.

This is just pure evil. So, when you're seeing young men struggle to break free from the lies, be patient with them. They've been steeped in it for literally all their lives, and reality is going to come as a serious shock to them. For some, it will be a relief. But for many, it will be frightening and strange.

Of course, the chances that the story went the way the propaganda-bot told it is approximately zero. The lesson as always, is this: SJWs ALWAYS lie.

Child support is modern debt slavery

And the South Carolina prison system is essentially debtor's prison:

A recent MSNBC investigation highlighted that in South Carolina, noncustodial parents can be held in contempt of civil court if their child support payments are just five days late, which means a judge can send them to jail.

Libba Patterson, a law professor at the University of South Carolina and a former director of the South Carolina Department of Social Services, has been a vocal supporter of an ongoing effort to reform the way South Carolina punishes those who owe child support payments -- an effort that has gone all the way to the United States Supreme Court.

In 2009, Patterson conducted a survey of 33 county jails in South Carolina, which found that one out of every eight inmates -- or 13.2 percent of the inmate population -- was behind bars for contempt of civil court after falling behind on child support payments. In Charleston County, where Walter owed his back payments on child support, Patterson’s survey found that over 15 percent of inmates had been imprisoned for not paying child support. In a handful of the other counties studied, the figure was as high as 20 percent.

This is further evidence that feminism, in all its forms, lunatic, liberal, and conservative, is intrinsically anti-societal and anti-civilizational. It's not a simple matter of left and right, because the conservative form of feminism is more insidious, and may actually be more damaging, in some cases, than the overt outrages of lunatic and liberal feminism.

When you read Dalrock talking about Churchians, and The Only Man in the Room leaders, and Man Up and Marry Those Single Mothers, you're seeing conservative feminism. The liberal feminist fallacy is to claim that women deserve more rights than men because men are oppressive. The conservative feminist fallacy is to claim that women deserve more rights than men because women are purer of spirit and it is a man's noble right and duty to preemptively sacrifice himself for the pure sex.

Alpha Mail: divorce and disclosure

TA asks about the right time to tell a woman about his marital history:

 I am a 28yo man who believe in the red pill teachings and have been learning from many bloggers, including Heartiste, Rollo, and you, for a number of years. I have come across your post "No disclosure means divorce" the other day. You mention that, "young men should start expressing a firm No Disclosure Means Divorce policy, as this… permits men to make informed decision with regards to whom they will or will not marry." I have a similar scenario, but in reverse, and I want to seek for your advice.

I made the biggest mistake of getting married when I was 25yo only to find out that my "wife" cheated on me shortly after our marriage. Needless to say, I separated from her immediately and am in the process of filing a divorce. Fast forward to now, I am ready to go into a more serious relationship. I am wondering if I ever find a woman that is worthy of my time investment and with whom I see a future, when I should disclose my past history of marriage and divorce to her. And how would you suggest me disclosing without jeopardizing the relationship?

I think the right time is on the first date. I don't think it is necessary to go into details concerning precisely why the marriage failed; a light-hearted statement like "she failed to understand the concept that marriage entails the end of one's casual dating life" will suffice.

Women aren't like men. They don't view divorce as the turnoff that men do. Quite to the contrary, they see it as evidence that a man is "the marrying kind", so long as he isn't wounded and bitter about it. The longer TA fails to disclose his divorce, the more likely it is that the woman will be troubled by it when she finally learns about it. The less concerned about it he appears, the less interested and bothered by it she will be.

If asked about it, TA should simply shrug, give a wry smile, and say: "Oh, she was young and silly. It was hardly the end of the world. Anyway, that was a long time ago, so what about you? Any secret marriages into a polygamous Mormon household or an Arab harem?"

The one thing to absolutely avoid is the temptation to cry on the new woman's shoulder and tell her what a wounded bird he is and how he'll never be able to trust again. Women are attracted to rocks, not wounded birds.

Benevolent sexism

Is the very WORST kind of sexism. Which is to say, unsexy sexism:

If you don’t know about “benevolent sexism” then you have probably been guilty of it on a regular basis without even knowing it. Since gamers are apparently among the most sexist of all sexists, it would not be surprising if every single man who plays video games has committed these insidious acts which supposedly “justify women’s subordinate status to men”. What are some of these horrible acts that when committed condemn men to contemptible sexist status? From the recent Northeastern University study “Nonverbal and Verbal Expressions of Men’s Sexism in Mixed-Gender Interactions“:

    During the trivia game, men with more benevolent sexism were perceived to be more patient overall when waiting for the woman to answer the trivia questions.

Being patient with a woman is a sign of sexism. Got it.

    …opening a car door for a woman may reflect simple politeness that would be extended to anyone; however, it could also reflect benevolent sexist attitudes if the man does it because of his assumption that men are more competent than women and that women should be pampered or protected by men, and his action may, in his subjective opinion, be positive and not at all sexist in the traditional sense

Opening doors for women is sexist. Never again.

    …men’s benevolent sexism predicted more smiling

Yes, apparently smiling at a woman is also sexist.

    …benevolent sexism is attractive ideologically for women because they may find it difficult to resist the allure of sexism in such a form. After all, benevolent sexist men hold women in high regards and are willing to sacrifice themselves to protect and save women

A man who is willing to give his life for a woman is sexist? So, men being willing to sacrifice their very lives to protect women is actually bad for women.

Benevolent sexism may be attractive ideologically, but it is not attractive sexually. Those with the Game-educated eyes to see will understand that this is simply yet another screed imploring men to BE MORE ALPHA.