Quote: "The guys that wish for a change to the laws or some sort of return to the “old ways” are basically only arguing for slightly improved prison conditions. What still amazes me is the fact that so many men fool themselves into believing the nonsense about being a protector and provider for a woman is something natural or hard wired into men. And then proceed to get royally shafted as a thank you for being a wage slave pack horse cannon fodder white knight doormat. ( Sexploytation and the slaves happiness ) gives a perfect example of this."
This is something I struggle with quite a bit – the concept of it all. I think that naturally these kinds of things occur, and if the human race goes on, which it will, it will revert back to that “old way” in the same as gravity is a natural law.
Should the economy & subsequent civilization of the West crumble and we lose our wealthy ways of living, would things not revert back to the “old fashioned ways” of living? If there were no state paid blue suited thugs with guns, would not the male again take the role of protector? If we lost our technology, would not men and women revert back to the old roles of the men plowing the fields with the oxen while the woman is inside the log cabin, churning butter, baking, and tending to the children? Isn’t that the natural, and most effecient division of labor?
And if the welfare state were to disappear, and women had the choice of being loyal to a man, in exchange for his providership, or of being a sexually unchaste whore who sleeps under a bridge with her thug spawn… well, would women continue to screw bad-boys that left them after sex? All living organisms are survival oriented, and normally this is what also leads the sex-drive. It has been skewed of late because of State involvement cushioning women’s bad choices. The way women are screwing around now would fast lead to their extinction, and ours too, of course, and so in many regards we have to acknowledge that “game” is only a viable option because the state prevents women who choose to ride the cock-carousel from dying, or from living a very bleak existence at best.
Humans still exhibit pair-bonding – we are not monkeys. And wether we would like it or not, men and women are always going to be having sex. The question comes with how they go about getting it.
In no way do I see “game” as perfectly natural, because it allows for women to take on an anti-survival strategy of mating. Can anyone point out an organism that chooses extinction as its mating strategy?
Also, I see this from time to time – the MRM wanting to “end gender roles.” Isn’t that the same disease that started all of this crap in the first place? Isn’t that what feminists have been shoving down everyone’s throats from the beginning? What makes anyone think that males “ending their gender role” will work any better for men than it did for the feminists? I mean, if someone has a plan for how it can work better, it would certainly be worth while looking at, but I suspect that any plan that would actually work, would still resemble an awful lot of the gender roles that existed in the past.
Isn’t even the study of game, a lot of support for traditional gender roles?
Btw, this is once in a while why I try to point out that the terms “Alpha” and “Beta” are not being properly used, and thus closes off the mind to proper human reproduction, the kind without state interference. It needs to be “Alpha, Beta, Omega & Zeta,” in order to fully acknowledge the survival focus of sexuality.
Alpha: The top male. He does not get laid like a fiend, although he could get many women. He gets the best chick and she beats off all the other chicks with a stick. The Alpha is the “10″, once the chick has the ten, who does she hypergamously “trade up” for? He gets social proofing not by screwing dozens of chicks, but rather from dating the best chick. All women know who the best chick is, and should the Alpha become available, all the other girls will rush to be his new girl because that means she will then rise to the social position of “best chick.”
Beta: Most males. They are not weak-willed losers, but they are merely the men who are not number one. When younger, Beta males usually get more sex than alphas, as they sort themselves out within the socio-sexual hierarchy, and date and break up serially before they settle down with a female of suitable socio-sexual status.
Omega: The criminal and scum class. Evil men, drug dealers, bad-boys, gangsters, scoundrels, sexual deviants, cads, have multiple sex partners, can’t form stable relationships…
Zeta: The weak-willed male. He rarely gets laid and when he does he gets viciously exploited by females.
Female sexual behaviour used to make sense throughout most of human history – otherwise we would not be here. Women exhibited clustering around men with good genes and survival qualities such as resources and the social respect and co-operation of the society around them (Alphas). Sure, while single, the Alpha males got laid like the dickens… until he paired off (usually very young) with an Alpha female, and the Beta Males paired off with their properly matched Beta females. Everyone else just kinda whored it up.
But, humans exhibit pair-bonding, and they mate and have children – all except for the small amounts of deviants. Most of the resources are created, and also go to the most valuable members of society – the Alphas & the more valuable Betas. Cuckolding by the Omegas used to be punished by death.
Today, women are still clustering, but they are clustering around the Omegas – with very low survival quality for the woman and her thug spawn. Women are also resisting pair-bonding, which again, is an evolutionary dead end for her and her offspring.
If the government simply were not involved in any part of family life – the cause of women being able to choose non-survival strategies for mating, what makes anyone think that we would wind up with anything different than what we’ve had since the begining of our history? How could we “end male gender roles” unless we advocated for complete control by the state?