The “Double Standard” is True

We strongly affirm the red-pill truth that while for a man to be promiscuous is a sign of his value, for a woman to act loose with her sexuality devalues her.

This truth is often paraphrased as: “A key which can open every lock is a valuable key.  A lock which can be opened by every key is a worthless lock.”

The fundamental insight to understanding this “double standard” is this:

A heterosexual community can be analyzed as a marketplace in which men seek to acquire sex from women by offering other resources in exchange. Societies will therefore define gender roles as if women are sellers and men buyers of sex. Societies will endow female sexuality, but not male sexuality, with value (as in virginity, fidelity, chastity).

(Baumeister and Vohs, 2004)

Modern women who want to act like men and open their legs to whoever gives them the tingles are only doing themselves, and womankind in general, a disservice.  Men are only too happy to take advantage of a woman putting a low price on herself.  Here’s an illustration of the woman’s devaluation of her own sexuality (from Dalrock, the original blog post referred by Dalrock has since disappeared):

In 1965 you could get a husband without sleeping with someone
In 1975 you could get a fiance without sleeping with someone
In 1985 you could get a boyfriend without sleeping with someone
In 1995 you could get a date without sleeping with someone
In 2010 you’re lucky to get a phone number if you don’t have sex first.

Women’s promiscuity undermines the whole society because due to the sluts, the price of sex on average goes down.  And when the price of sex is tingles above all else, all kinds of superficial clowns get to score above men with depth.

Sexual recklessness also severely diminishes the possibility of emotional bonding in the woman (necessary if she is ever to be a loyal wife and a good mother), while it doesn’t in the man.  We will write about this in another post.

We conclude with a link to a story (from Alvanista), in two parts, to illustrate what happens to a slut when she finally does catch a good man: part 1, part 2.


“You can’t handle a strong independent woman!”

We hear this a lot.  From spoilt sluts to alcoholic party girls to rude bitches, all claiming that they are special snowflakes deserving not just love and understanding, but admiration for their, ahem, “free spirits”.

We call bullshit on this.  Such women are put on the pedestal by beta males who think that by praising or tolerating their bad behavior, the girls will finally let them have sex with them.  And when a real man comes along who tells it like it is, the girls say: “You can’t handle me.”

Well, it is like this.  Once upon a time a man went to a car dealer to get the best car for his money.  One which would be a pleasure to drive for many many years, one which would be a beauty and a prized possession, and one which he would want to care for, and one he would proudly pass on to his yet-to-be-born son.

The dealer showed him a car which made loud noises, had quite a few scratches and dents, and which gave a bumpy ride and consumed lots of gas.  But it was still expensive because it was a red convertible, an eye-catcher even if at a distance.  The man was justifiably hesitant to buy such a car just for its (distant) looks, but the dealer kept insisting that it was a good deal.  When the man finally declined the deal saying that he wanted a reliable car, the dealer rudely said: “Ha, it’s ’cause you can’t handle this car.”

You get the idea.  When a man criticizes an unfeminine woman, it is him rejecting her because she is not worth it.  He sure as hell doesn’t want her to be a part of his life, for what she brings to the table.  Her masculine traits, her bitchiness and sarcasm, her drinking and sluttery, doesn’t inspire love and commitment in him.  Delusional feminists notwithstanding, he is not “intimidated” by her.  If I don’t like a movie or a book or piece of music or a badly cooked meal, I am not “intimidated” by it.  I am rejecting it.

From Solomon’s comment on Dalrock:

I know girls love the MM quote “If you can’t handle me at my worst, then you don’t deserve me at my best” and I don’t know what MM’s “worst” was, but…

The girls that say that quote today haven’t taken into account this perspective:

“Your worst sucks, is unacceptable, and you are hereby rejected and disqualified for being an unwise, undisciplined, errant fool. Your ‘best’ is unimpressive and disappointing as well.”

Most girls cannot compute the fact that they are intolerable and lack even the basic elements of character or wisdom- probably because their trip on the carousel seems to contradict or deny the natural consequence- rejection. Too dumb to know that the carousel is rejection too.

Women- your pussy-pass is played out. If you banked on that in life, you have earned your suffering well. Your sass and ill behavior is unbecoming, and will earn you the same desolation.

From Rational Male:

One of the indicators of a fem-centric society is the empowerment of uniquely female failings and the fluid re-engineering of net negatives into net positives. The message here is that a woman’s best outweighs her worst. For guys, a woman’s best – the best we’d like to enjoy – generally has to do with how hot she is and the exclusive sexual access and desire she has for us. However there is an ubiquitous price to be paid in order to enjoy a woman’s best, and sometimes her worst isn’t worth her best.

Indian Feminists are Ugly

Just like their western counterparts.

Here’s Betty Freidan, to start the show.


We leave you to give the Miss Ugly Universe award to one of the contestants below.  Who would win, we wonder?

1. Sunitha Krishnan


2. Indira Jaising


3. Urvashi Butalia


4. Vandana Shiva


5. Lalitha Kumaramanglam

Newly appointed National Commission for Women (NCW) chief Lalitha Kumaramangalam assumes office in New Delhi, on Sept. 29, 2014. (Photo: IANS)

6. Girija Vyas


7. Brinda Karat


8. Deepa Mehta


9. Maneka GandhiMANEKA_1544835f

10. Gayatri Spivak


11. Geeta Luthra


12. Vina Mazumdar


13. Manasi Pradhan

But taking a break from all this outer ugliness, here’s something to ponder from Dalrock:

The real reason feminists are ugly has nothing to do with their physical appearance.  Feminists are ugly because they are miserly with love.

Serving others in the mind of a feminist is an indignity, so cooking, cleaning, or any other act of service and love is the object of revulsion.  Women now actually compete to show off their miserliness in caring for others, each trying to outdo the rest in proving they are the greatest scrooge with love.  It has gone so far that large numbers of women are quite proud of the fact that they have never learned to cook or otherwise care for others.

The ugliness of the feminist mind-frame towards cooking, cleaning, and caring for others is so profound that it is difficult to process.  These women are so obsessed with not showing (Christian) love that they make it a priority not to serve their own families.  Cooking, cleaning, and caring for their own husbands and children is a concept which is repulsive to them.

Rape is about Sex

Feminists and liberals are fond of endlessly blabbering that “Rape is about power, and it is not about sex.”


I believe that the rape-is-not-about-sex doctrine will go down in history as an example of extraordinary popular delusions and the madness of crowds. It is preposterous on the face of it, does not deserve its sanctity, is contradicted by a mass of evidence, and is getting in the way of the only morally relevant goal surrounding rape, the effort to stamp it out.”

(Steven Pinker, The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature)

Steven Pinker continues:

Think about it. First obvious fact: Men often want to have sex with women who don’t want to have sex with them. They use every tactic that one human being uses to affect the behavior of another: wooing, seducing, flattering, deceiving, sulking, and paying. Second obvious fact: Some men use violence to get what they want, indifferent to the suffering they cause. Men have been known to kidnap children for ransom (sometimes sending their parents an ear or finger to show they mean business), blind the victim of a mugging so the victim can’t identify them in court, shoot out the kneecaps of an associate as punishment for ratting to the police or invading their territory, and kill a stranger for his brand-name athletic footwear. It would be an extraordinary fact, contradicting everything else we know about people, if some men didn’t use violence to get sex.

Let’s also apply common sense to the doctrine that men rape to further the interests of their gender. A rapist always risks injury at the hands of the woman defending herself. In a traditional society, he risks torture, mutilation, and death at the hands of her relatives. In a modern society, he risks a long prison term. Are rapists really assuming these risks as an altruistic sacrifice to benefit the billions of strangers that make up the male gender? The idea becomes even less credible when we remember that rapists tend to be losers and nobodies, while presumably the main beneficiaries of the patriarchy are the rich and powerful. Men do sacrifice themselves for the greater good in wartime, of course, but they are either conscripted against their will or promised public adulation when their exploits are made public. But rapists usually commit their acts in private and try to keep them secret. And in most times and places, a man who rapes a woman in his community is treated as scum. The idea that all men are engaged in brutal warfare against all women clashes with the elementary fact that men have mothers, daughters, sisters, and wives, whom they care for more than they care for most other men. To put the same point in biological terms, every person’s genes are carried in the bodies of other people, half of whom are of the opposite sex. Yes, we must deplore the sometimes casual treatment of women’s autonomy in popular culture. But can anyone believe that our culture literally “teaches men to rape” or “glorifies the rapist”? Even the callous treatment of rape victims in the judicial system of yesteryear has a simpler explanation than that all men benefit by rape. Until recently jurors in rape cases were given a warning from the seventeenth-century jurist Lord Matthew Hale that they should evaluate a woman’s testimony with caution, because a rape charge is “easily made and difficult to defend against, even if the accused is innocent.” The principle is consistent with the presumption of innocence built into our judicial system and with its preference to let ten guilty people go free rather than jail one innocent.

Even so, let’s suppose that the men who applied this policy to rape did tilt it toward their own collective interests. Let’s suppose that they leaned on the scales of justice to minimize their own chances of ever being falsely accused of rape (or accused under ambiguous circumstances) and that they placed insufficient value on the injustice endured by women who would not see their assailants put behind bars. That would indeed be unjust, but it is still not the same thing as encouraging rape as a conscious tactic to keep women down. If that were men’s tactic, why would they have made rape a crime in the first place?

From Difficult Run

The original source of the idea that sexual assault is about violence and power instead of sex or lust doesn’t come from a scientist or an academic study.  It comes from a feminist writer named Susan Brownmiller who invented the theory pretty much from scratch for her 1975 book Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape.

In a sane world, Brownmiller’s theory would have been very short lived. This is because an actual scientist stepped in with a direct rebuttal just four years later, in 1979. The book was called The Evolution of Human Sexuality and it was written by the anthropologist Donald Symons. It is no coincidence that Symons wrote from a scientific rather than a political perspective, and his book was widely heralded by some of the greatest social scientists of the 20th century, including Richard Posner, Paul R. Ehrlich, and Steven Pinker.3Symons’ thesis was very simple and aligned with common sense: he saw rape as being primarily about the satisfaction of sexual lust.4 In particular, he used evidence to document that:

“Victims, as a class, were most likely to be young physically attractive women (as opposed to older, more successful career women). On the other hand, convicted rapists were disproportionately young disadvantaged men whose low social status made them undesirable as dating partners, or husbands.” (Summary from Psychology Today)

The nature of sex and sexual violence in society has changed significantly since the 1970s, but continuing research cements Symons’ central claim that rape is a way for men to get access to sex that they can’t get in other ways.

To All of Sonam’s Friends who want to meet Us

Presumably, Sonam Mittal’s friends want to meet us.  Some want to shut down this blog.

Another wants “someone” to break the author’s leg.


Feminists are generally in the front-lines to threaten violence and censorship against viewpoints they don’t agree with.

Joseph-Ducreux (1)

And while her white knights are trying to get into her pants, to those of her (female) friends who want to meet us, all we can say is: Tits or GTFO.

The Abortive Slut “Victim”

From a slut’s tale of her multiple abortions, wherein she recounts her two abortions and complains that:

Women have been shamed endlessly for making choices about their bodies and deciding not to go ahead with a situation they have little control over. (emphasis ours)

Earlier in the essay, the rails against her boyfriend because he was probably more empathetic than her toward the foetus:

I hated that my boyfriend referred to the foetus as our child, I hated that he wanted to name it and make a donation in her name. In his head, he had assumed it was a girl. It seems as if it would be easier for him to bear the loss of a female child. As expected, our relationship didn’t last long after that.

The hamster!  She doesn’t understand that a father feels closer to his daughter.  She doesn’t understand that his assumption that it was a girl and his feelings about it did not mean that he was doing it to make it easier on him.  The hamster!

Also, we assume her boyfriend was raw-dogging her since she carefully omits to mention what contraceptive measures they were using.

So she has an abortion.  A few years go by, and it happens again to our dear slut:

Four years later, the mistake happened again.

And she chooses to keep this important fact of her life (the prior sluttery, the raw-dogging and the abortion) a secret from her second boyfriend:

After a skipped cycle and a blood test which confirmed a pregnancy, my boyfriend and I decided that we couldn’t go through with it. He didn’t know about my previous abortion. Even though I knew he would understand and would not have drawn any conclusions, I didn’t feel the need to mention it to him.

At 23 years old, I was not brave to go through with the pregnancy.

But she is brave enough to have premarital sex.  She is brave enough to not want to use condoms.  She is brave enough to break up with the father of her unborn child because of a hamster logic.  But she is not brave enough to tell her boyfriends about her past sluttery.  No Sir, she doesn’t see “the need”.

If you are a man, would you, even in your dreams, marry a slut who has had many cocks inside of her, who has had many abortions and has damaged her childbearing potential, and who will keep her past hidden from you for fear of judgment, and who has chosen you because you are the beta provider who she wants to marry because now “it is time”?

We cannot say it louder: DO NOT MARRY THESE SLUTS.

As for the “situation they have little control over”, we would advise these women to protect their virginity for their future husbands.  They do have control over the situation: by not opening their legs before marriage.  But that is too much to ask in these times from these “liberated” womyn.  But in that case, they have chosen a path, and they cannot then complain that they had no control.

So we will advise men instead.

Unless you are a cuckold and a fool, do not marry a woman who has had premarital sex, either with you or with another man.  She might be fine for a pump-and-dump, but she is not fit to be your wife.

If their sexuality is available to a man who has not committed to them, the only conclusion is that marriage is not an essential prerequisite for them for sex.  In that case, they will very likely cheat on their clueless husbands before or even after getting married.