The Sexual Double Standard

In our last post, we equated female promiscuity with female unhappiness.  And in one of our earlier posts, we said 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

Continuing with our last post, we would like to elaborate on why promiscuity damages women more than it damages men, and why sexual morality is far more important for women than for men.

There are five reasons for this.

  1. The Argument from Ease: Women are the gatekeepers and the “sellers” (in economic terms) of sex.  A reasonably attractive woman can with a flick of her finger or a glance invite any man to have sex with her.  And he will, in the overwhelming majority of cases, accept her offer.  That is, it requires no special effort for a woman to indulge in promiscuity.  This means that the ease and opportunity is far more for women than for men.  Hence, if promiscuity is considered a destabilizing force for society, the restrictions must be stronger for women than for men.
  2. The Argument from Contract: A man needs to feel certain that his family, for which he is breaking his back at work and for which he is ready to lay down his life, is his own and that he is not being cuckolded by another man.  A man needs to be assured of his paternity of his children.  Even if the woman is using birth control during her affairs (by the way, no form of birth control is foolproof), or is willing to put her children through paternity tests, it introduces a dangerous element into the relationship which is absent if the male indulges in promiscuity.

    But we can go further than mere paternity: Even today, the role of the male as the primary breadwinner and that of the female as nurturer stand in almost all societies.  That means, a man needs far more reassurance that his wife is offering her sexuality only to him in return for his efforts, and is not giving it away for free to other strange men.  Would a wife accept it if her husband wills his property to another woman that he met before or after his wedding?  Of course not.  Similarly, a self-respecting man will not and should not accept the fact of his wife’s premarital and extra-marital sexual dalliances.

    He married her, and more than at any time during the courtship, became responsible for her lifelong protection and maintenance.  It is a fraud on him if his wife offers herself for free to another man without any such commitment from him.

  3. The Argument from Emotional Involvement: Women, pathological sluts excepted, cannot have sex without a feeling of trust and without at least some emotional connection with the man.  A man, on the other hand, can have a purely physical sexual interaction and still feel satisfied.  That is why men are willing to pay for a brief encounter and then go home.  That is one reason why female prostitution is everywhere, and male prostitution is minuscule by comparison.  Females want more than just “sex”.  A male prostitute cannot simply have sex with his female client and go away.  That will leave most women feeling empty and used.  She can get sex anyway quite easily, as we wrote earlier in point 1.

    If women ignore this fact of their biological persona and become promiscuous like a man, they will quickly and surely chip away at their sexual bonding instincts and become damaged goods for any man.  If they have had many partners, their ability to love and be loyal will become so diluted as to be non-existent.  Though too much promiscuity harms men as well.  But due to the lack of emotional entanglement, its effect on their ability to love a single woman is much less.

  4. The Argument from Availability: Women are the gatekeepers of sex.  If you strengthen the gatekeeper (moral strictures) and the fortifications (social oversight), robbers will think many times before even attempting a break-in.  If, like at present, women are promiscuous, have no overseeing guardian, and are willing to sleep with married men, then men, having innately stronger sexual urges, will sooner or later take advantage of the availability of such willing women to have affairs.  But if female promiscuity is shamed in a society, men will find it difficult to find a woman with whom to have an affair, and will have limited options.  If women are loyal to their future or current husbands, the only choice available to men who wish to be promiscuous is to go to a prostitute.  That doesn’t diminish the institution of family, despite what you might be told.  In traditional societies, it was acceptable for a man to visit a prostitute if his wife was indisposed or pregnant, or for an occasional celebration.

    Female chastity and fidelity therefore are guarded far more carefully than that of men.  It is even simpler to understand if you acknowledge that sex is a female resource, and needs to be guarded or protected by/on the female.  A male has nothing to guard.  He is the user/buyer of sex.

  5. The Argument from Expenditure: A female needs pre-coital and post-coital effort.  She needs to be wooed before, and she needs to cuddled after.  She needs gifts and romantic gestures and sweet nothings.  Her tantrums need to be tended to.  Her jealousies and hormonal states need careful handling.  A promiscuous female, not wanting to produce a child, is an energy sink and provides no corresponding economic value to society.  She leads to an explosion of wasteful effort, rampant consumerism and expenditure at bars and hotels and clubs by men who are courting her.  A man available for courtship requires no such effort from a woman.  Hence, a female being promiscuous costs the society far more in wasted resources than a man.

There are many more arguments that can be made which validate the ancient wisdom that female promiscuity needs to be more firmly controlled and shamed than male promiscuity.

Women being more interested in careers and promiscuity are a biological aberration and lead to the downfall of a society.  Such women do not want to be mothers, but due to their serial monogamy or sluttiness, become little more than social parasites and  drain men and social institutions of their resources.

One might say that a promiscuous man needs to be shamed just like a promiscuous woman.  But the danger to society posed by the former is mild, while the danger posed by the latter is enormous.


Female Promiscuity = Female Unhappiness

Any society or culture which allows full license to female promiscuity and hypergamy does a disservice to its women, and makes them very, very unhappy.  But once this licentiousness is in place, it is almost impossible to re-introduce sexual restrictions.  For reasons that we will make clear, though women are supremely unhappy in today’s sexual market conditions, any hint that we should go back to traditional restrictions is vociferously and vehemently protested by exactly those women who are the most unhappy and dissatisfied with their relationships.

Now-a-days, the society allows a woman ten to twenty years of premarital sexual “exploration”.  Given the dynamics of casual sex, it is open season for alphas.  They are in hedonistic heaven, taking their pick from a wide array of women.  Betas, however, more than ever, languish in involuntary celibacy or settle for infrequent sex with ugly or drunk women.

Most women in their ten-twenty year period of “fun years” will doubtless come across an alpha or two.  The alpha will game them, provide them multiple orgasms, and having added her to their score of notches, move on.

These “alpha widows” now are damaged goods for any normal man.  They will always compare their current man with the alpha who pumped and dumped them, and find their current man wanting.  They will treat their current man with disdain and will continue to keep their eyes wandering for another alpha like the one they were briefly exposed to.

An alpha widow will not only be a bitch to her man and make him miserable and angry, but she will herself find life to be a pale shadow of what “it could have been”, and be depressed and unhappy.

It is clear that licentiousness has led to her discontentment.  But if you suggest to her that perhaps traditional values (chastity before marriage, divorce only in extreme hardship, lack of easy abortion) should be brought back, she will go ballistic and regard you as her arch enemy.  Why?  Because you are dooming her to alpha widowhood.  She wants to be free to fuck, seduce and possibly entrap an alpha again.  She failed the last time, but how dare you restrain her from trying again?

Alphas will continue to pump and dump, and a delusional woman will continue to hope for an alpha who loves her and only her.  A beta is no good to her, and an alpha will always be beyond her reach.

Mass media is only too happy to feed her delusion.  All the romantic Mills-and-Boon trash, the chick-flicks, the magazines and talk-shows, continue to send her the message that she should trust her heart, and that true love (i.e., love of an alpha) will eventually come her way.

Women want to be free to be hypergamous: they want to be free to pursue their alpha.  But there are only a few alphas in the real world.  These women have tasted alpha cum, and are doomed to be unhappy.

A society which offers sexual freedom and choice to its women destroys their happiness.

Why βs Fail

Why do betas fail with women  To understand this, let’s start with the basics of the sexual marketplace.

Male sexual desire is stronger than in the female.  But so is the male survival skill, his martial and physical acumen, and his ability to provide.  Hence, (A) the male wants to buy the female sex, and to sell his commitment and protection.

By a fundamental law of economics, (B) the more valuable something is in the sexual marketplace, the less available it is.

Couple these two statements (A) and (B), and voila, the mystery is unraveled.  For a woman, to offer her sexuality cheaply marks her as sexually low-value.  Whether she is being a slut because she is low-value, or whether she is seen as low-value because of her sluttiness doesn’t matter.  In the sexual marketplace, both go hand in hand.  And low-value in this case means: no man would want to commit to such a woman.

Similarly, for a man, to offer his commitment and protection cheaply marks him as sexually low-value.  Traditionally, commitment and protection were offered by the woman’s kin or, after her marriage, by her husband.  In the modern world, there are plenty of women who are no longer protected by their kin, are financially self-sufficient, and are single.  For these women, commitment and protection translate into emotional and financial gratification/pleasure by their boyfriend or by her orbiters.

If a man is offering emotional and financial gratification to these women on the cheap (i.e. without any sexual favors from her in return), he is marking himself as low-value.  As before, it doesn’t matter whether he is putting her on a pedestal because he is low-value, or whether he is seen as low-value because of his groveling.  The fact is that he is offering the only thing he has to offer, his emotions and his time, for cheap.  His low-value then translates into: no woman wants to have sex with him.

In short: a slut (a low-value woman) and a beta (a low-value man) are offering their side of the bargain for free.  Hence, they are unattractive.  Men will use sluts for sex and discard them.  Women will use betas as emotional maxipads and discard them.

If you follow so far, then what is the lesson for you as a man?  Do not give your time, attention, Facebook likes, greeting cards, gifts, flowers, to a woman unless she is providing you what you want (i.e. her sexual affection).  And even then, don’t be too available or too eager.

She must win your attention by her femininity.  If you offer your attention to her for free, then she will look for someone who is better than that: who values himself more.

Even if you are in a relationship, you must make it clear by your behavior that you will only be with her and provide her with your company if she is a pleasure to be with: if she offers you something that you want.

A man who debases himself for a woman, is soon debased by his woman as well.

Six Indian Laws which are ill-conceived

Indian laws are so numerous and so confusing that anybody can be prosecuted as a criminal if the state so chooses.  But of all the badly-designed and nanny-state laws, these six seem to us the most misused, the most destructive of individual happiness and freedom, and the most violative of basic rights of a citizen in a civilized country:

  1. IPC 498A: “Cruelty to wife”!  Cruelty to anyone is already a crime under law.  Why do we need this law?  This law is the most misused law in the history of this country to jail countless men, their families and then to extort money from them to “settle” the case.
  2. The Dowry Prohibition Act: Exchange of money or favors between spouses or their families at the time of wedding or afterward has been made illegal by the Indian state.  Remember, coercion and intimidation are already crimes under law.  Why do we need this law?  If a woman’s family is not willing to pay the dowry, let her not get married.  If she is criminally harassed after the marriage, she can go to the police or her relatives for help.  There are sound sociological reasons for the custom of dowry and to make this exchange a criminal offense is state interference into the personal affairs of people.
  3. SC/ST Atrocities Act: Cruelty and atrocity is already a crime.  Why do we need this law?  This law is used to silence people if they want to criticize anyone with a particular caste.
  4. The Law on Hurting of Religious Sentiments: This law is used to punish anybody who manages to say or express something which is offensive to anyone for religious reasons.  These kinds of laws only exist in medieval, fundamentalist countries which outlaw blasphemy etc.
  5. Sedition Law: This law is misused to prosecute and jail anybody who dares to criticize the government or tries to convince people that their rulers are not gods.
  6. The Contempt of Courts Act: This law makes it illegal for people to publicly disagree with a court’s judgment and to ascribe motives to the judiciary.

Many of these laws were used by the British to punish a servile Indian population, but the free government of India hasn’t left any stone unturned to go further than the British to create laws which punish the citizens for what makes someone else unhappy.

India will not be a free and civilized country till such laws which are based on somebody getting offended or hurt are done away with.

Minal Hijratwala: Ugly and Pagli

Pagli (Hindi): a foolish woman.

Minal Hijratwala is the man-hating feminazi behind this diatribe written probably in the throes of another bipolar episode  while she was busy gorging on another tub of ice-cream.

We admire her ability to bring together all kinds of anecdotes, incidents and fake surveys to portray Indian women as perennial saintly victims and Indian men as rapist demons.

To begin with, we confirm our general finding that feminists, especially those who are in India or write about India, are fugly beyond imagination.

Here is Mizz Hijratwala, in all her resplendent beauty:


What a princess!

Here’s another, in case you had any doubt about her delusions of beauty:


The phrase “lipstick on a pig” comes to mind.  We wonder why.

And these are probably some of her best photographs.

Feminists are ugly not because of a curious coincidence, but because their hatred of traditional masculinity and femininity is both the cause and the effect of their warped bodies and their toxic personalities.  They hate the masculine, and even more so, they hate the feminine.  For them, to be feminine, slim, deferential, polite and wanting to give happiness to their man is to capitulate to patriarchy.  They are ugly because they are stingy with love.  They consider a giving act of love as political surrender in the gender battleground.

And their ugliness (both inner and outer) leads to the self-fulfilling prophecy of men, and women, treating them badly and them becoming even more rabid in their feminist polemic.

It is one thing to be physically unattractive, it is another to make it worse by becoming as fat as a pig, and then to have ugly, hateful world-views.

In her essay, she utterly fails to realize that in a thuggish society like India, men are as much the victims as women.  That while women are subject to sexual violence, men too are subjected to sexual repression and starvation, and both are tragic recipients of political and economic violence.

That the prevalence of lechery and catcalling is as much a symptom of rampant thuggishness as it is of the sexual repression in Indian society.  And she obviously has no clue that this repression predominantly affects men since their sexual desire is more insistent and they are unable to find an outlet for it as migrants and lowly-paid workers in the big cities.  She doesn’t mention the role of corrupt mass-media in fanning the sexual desires of an already starved and frustrated populace.  She refers to easily-debunked surveys in order to paint Indian men as rapists, while refusing to even mention the epidemic proportion of the misuse of rape and dowry laws by unscrupulous women and their families.

She regards the traditional strictures on sexuality as evil, without realizing the havoc created by modern notions of sexuality.  She regards the social approbation of homosexuality as evil, without understanding the cultural poverty and illiteracy of a nation which has been ruthlessly exploited by the ruling classes for more than six centuries now.  She foolishly advises Indian women to be independent, without understanding the danger she is putting them in by letting them loose in a jungle of lawlessness.

And she mocks the Bollywood lip-service to feminism.  But that is like mocking a singer because he cannot sing a foolish and hateful song in tempo.  It is not the quality of his singing that should be the object of one’s critique, but the content of the song itself.

Minal Hijratwala is all sound and fury and no understanding.  Any feminist or commentator in India which regards “men” or “society” as the problem, and women as the victims, instead of pointing at the brutal ruling classes is doing a dangerous disservice to the evolution of this poor and brutalized country.