Some commentators on my recent articles have voiced two views that deserve to be publicly shredded. While they may have said it in a less upfront manner, their messages can be distilled to:
1] Women have the right to choose who they sleep with, without ANY consequences.
2] You have no right to demand that white, or other, women see you as equal.
So let us go after the first message/concept..
Let us begin by ignoring the fact that women had little or no choice about their sexual partners through almost all of human history.
Even after ignoring this glaring precondition, what were are looking at is called ‘entitlement without reciprocity’.
Entitlements serve a very useful purpose in society, libertarian and conservative viewpoints notwithstanding. However entitlements that work, involve reciprocity from the beneficiary. Therefore publicly paid health care, food stamps, welfare, employment insurance, social security etc work because they guarantee a humane existence to people in exchange for not rocking the boat or revolting against the status quo.
However current entitlements for women do not involve worthwhile reciprocity. In previous eras, societies in which most women had more than two kids, did not ride the cock carousel in their 20s and played the role of good housewives/mothers, could afford to provide them with certain entitlements.However such entitlements tend to fail once the reciprocity is gone. Women can now lie, trick, steal, falsely accuse and act in a childish manner without consequence.
Today, women can extract maximum rewards from a potential sexual partner without giving away anything. This state of affairs is made possible by, predominantly white and, spineless men. It is they who support, and facilitate, such behavior, regardless of their ideological affiliations. In all previous eras of human history, a woman who accepted something from a guy, owed him something in return.
Both girl 1 and 2 in my ‘sadistic behavior: 1′ post were unattached and average looking. Both knew that I was not looking for a GF, but was open to possibilities.
But they chose to reject a guy they were went out with.
Now here is the deal.. If a woman is not physically repulsed by a guy and he is attracted to her, what is the harm in getting intimate with him? As previously mentioned, both girls were average looking (or less) and unattached. Yes, I can see the ‘hypergamy’ argument.. but such behavior is facilitated by stupid and spineless men.
Their real choice was between a vibrator and a human being, and they chose the former over the later.
Realistically, the worst outcome in both cases would have somewhat awkward sex and some post-sex cuddling. But they chose a vibrator over average sex + physical contact with a human being.
It that was their choice, why should I treat them any better.
The 3rd gal was a self-confessed slut who was very open about her high partner count. Why would a guy take her out for a few drinks, after knowing her sexual history, for any reason other than sex. Come on.. be logical. By her admission, she had not done it with Asians or Indians. Any guesses for the real reasons behind her selectivity?
The belief that men like me will take such behavior, without incident or malice, is not founded in reality. In any case, she did get five white cocks inside her that night, or so I heard. :twisted:
More in a future post..