And let’s kick off with Tim Newman:
If women didn’t think their value in the dating marketplace was devalued by the number of partners they’d had, there would be no reason for them to lie about it. Sure, men lie too, but mainly to inflate the numbers. Then when they settle down and their partner asks them, they deflate the number to avoid looking like a complete fanny-rat.
I’m the first to admit that men are hypocrites, sexually – we want a bonking pool of those who ‘do’ on the side but at the same time, we demand that ‘our’ woman be pristine pure -Proverbs 31::
 Who can find a virtuous woman? For her price is far above rubies.
 The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil.
 She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life.
Immediately I’m going to qualify this by flatly rejecting the notion, from days of yore, that Woman is Man’s chattel – GBS:
The one point on which all women are in furious secret rebellion against the existing law is the saddling of the right to a child with the obligation to become the servant of a man.
I’m afraid I must break from any of faith who consider that the Muslim model of womanhood is the ideal and as for the heebeejeebee they are forced to wear – no way, Jose’. No FGM, no oppression, no intimidation, no violence towards her, despite how she lashes out at him.
To underscore this, one of the most appalling photos of modern times:
Women in Iran when the Muslims took over and turned it into a theocratic police state. I’m stunned by the events following that photo, as it represents everything I am against. There are women reading this who know full well my attitude towards them one on one – if anything, a lady can tie me up in knots so that I know what whether I’m coming or going.
A man, as defined in Kipling’s If, will respect and honour her, even love her.
However, to extend the non-chattel notion to Irina Dunn’s 1970 lunacy:
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.
… is far more than lunacy – it is stabbing at the heart of society for it would set men and women at each other’s throats or worse – have them back to back, facing away, it can do no other.
And in this, the man must also really look at himself – pussy, violent short fuse, Kipling’s If? And for him to say just look at the demi-men, the Michelle Obamas today, the delusion that they can survive perfectly well with no man and the man without them – that is lunacy of the lowest order.
But the Pill, Planned Parenthood abortion, Narrative reinforcement, the selling off of baby parts industry, IVF – the whole damned thing – how many bleeding examples do you need? The Muslims are wreaking havoc everywhere from Germany to Sweden, picking off girls at random and where are the men?
The women don’t want the men to stand up for them according to the feminazis. Fine, so stuff you, say many men, look after yourselves, ask your beloved State to do it. Thus the Lara Logans occur, those two girls in Morocco the other day getting their heads hacked off, crying for their mothers.
The evil muvvers above who put it into female brains that they are wonderwomen striding through the world, Gal Gadoting – those muvvers need execution henceforth because they have wrecked womanhood – do you want the stats on female depression and non-fulfilment and no, I do NOT mean the lack of a man, I mean the emptiness inside.
But even worse is the older woman who now wants to abrogate her responsibility as he ages and so picks a fight, divorces and rakes in the cash, leaving her with a cushy nest egg and no problems for her old age.
That is sick because though it works for some women in the short-term of maybe two decades – in the end, it destroys society when men:
1. Want no further part of that and:
2. Start to act in a toxic way towards these demi-men with the harsh crow voices, zero femininity, maxed-out entitlement and maxed-out victimhood – men start to act with disdain and avoidance like the plague.
It will crash, it must crash, it’s only logical that a house divided cannot stand.
This is not called out all that much these days, for fear of being labelled a Mary Whitehouse – only the ‘churchy’ [and Tim above] tend to go on about it and many of those early 2000s anti-feminists were ‘churchy’ women who argued for the traditional concept of marriage, minus the man’s chattel business and I’m with those ladies all the way – no partner was mistreated by me, none had to cook me meals whilst I read the newspaper in my armchair.
However, by the same token, I’m not going to stick around once she starts asserting her right to sleep around as a lifestyle choice. I’ve been in both positions – the cuckolded incumbent in the marriage/partnership … but I’ve also had the offers as ‘the other man’.
Little blue cap
That’s what she was wearing when she came to my place as a client in Russia, she had a partner and yet here was she ready to break that trust. I actually asked her why and she said; ‘Because he does it, so what’s good enough for him …’
Back to promiscuity in general
The question of promiscuity is still central to womanhood – it is the portal through which the breakdown in society is achieved by those aiming for that. The agenda might be PCism, the vehicles the SJWs and globalists [see part one] but in the final analysis, it is Woman’s ability to keep her legs closed and say No, except to her committed partner, upon which society depends.
And this is not to please Man, as in those bible verses, but is in fact to protect her, herself, from herself. The reason this is linked to part one of these posts is that it is a critical, a crucial factor in the stability of the society for women to accept a co-dependent relationship with the male, not because they are obliged to, as in C19th England where women in society had little choice – see also My Fair Lady, see Tess of the d’Urbevilles, see Jane Austen – but because, providing he himself is a good provider who cherishes and respects, listens and heeds, maybe an alien concept today -then he is worthy of her commitment and if she keeps her legs closed to any but him, then they can make things work as the generation before the Boomers were once able to do.
But that in itself depends on so many things, e.g. a society no longer geared to the single mother and abortion. The evil muvvers above us are all at it, trying to wreck society – this was a headline some days back:
Facebook blocks ad for pro-life movie telling the true story about Roe v Wade
Why is FB so afraid of a film like that?
The case of the pregnant 22 year old
This was sent to me in connection with other topics but essentially, there is a girl who, as far as I can gather, has been a near-model example of a dutiful daughter until now and if she’s been having it away from a young age, at least she’s been careful.
Suddenly, she’s let herself fall pregnant and unlike with the whole single mother as a lifestyle on benefits scam, she does have a regular partner, plus a job, as does he, plus he has a house – so they do look to have a future ahead there.
But why just let herself fall pregnant now when she hasn’t for two years? And the answer is simple – she and the Millennial society she is part of no longer value the concept of child born in wedlock. Having found herself parturient, yes – she now wants the full thing of the wedding, the family and so on.
But why now? Why not marry, then have the child, giving that child every chance?
And her answer might be, ‘What does it matter?’
And such a reply, perhaps shared by many readers of this post, is sad in my book, because it denies sanctity to the child, let alone to both of them, when there was absolutely no need to do so. And as a result, I see troubles ahead.
Before this goes any further, I need to state, up front, that I can’t make the points in part three without revealing some things from my own past, things which don’t always reflect well – you’ve read one of them above – but I see no choice.
You see – as I start to tell you what was told to me in many cases, the obvious questions arise – how exactly do I know these things and its corollary – why would they have told me these things so openly in the first place, it’s not the sort of thing people just come out with to a stranger.
And that raises other questions, which means I personally am on a hiding to nothing here … but still I feel it needs to be done.
Insofar as you can accept that what I will say will be so, without virtue signalling, without false modesty, without hiding parts of it – just telling it as it occurred, then it may be worth a read and a reflection on what has gone on from the 60s onwards and how we are in dire trouble just now.
Part three coming up.