Wreckoning

As a service to my female readers, I would like to reveal what makes a man commit. It is in fact an extremely simple matter, although carefully unmentioned in women’s magazines: children. A normal man feels morally committed to a woman who is bearing him children he can feel certain are his. The survival of our civilization may depend upon women’s speedily reacquainting themselves with this ancient and timeless reality. 

(published in The Last Ditch, March 17, 2008)

Three obstacles to male recognition of female infidelity: 

1. a kind of high-minded attitude that “my wife simply isn’t ‘that kind’ of woman,” which usually amounts to wishful thinking;

2. an invalid inference from the wife’s lack of interest in sexual relations with them to a lack of sexual interests generally; and 

3. a failure to discuss and compare notes on marital problems with other men, as women routinely do with one another. 

Review of:

1. Michelle Langley, Women’s Infidelity: Living In Limbo

Nature dictates that males display and females choose. Monogamy artificially strengthens the male’s position by insisting that 

1. each female must choose a different male; and

2. each female must stick to her choice.

Abolishing marriage only strengthens the naturally stronger: it strengthens the female at the expense of the male and the attractive at the expense of the unattractive. 

The Christian endorsement of celibacy was a liberalization of sexual morality; it recognized there could be legitimate motives for remaining unmarried. One social function of the celibate religious orders was to give that minority of men and women unsuited for or disinclined to marriage a socially acceptable way of avoiding it.

The only thing still propping up the present feminist bureaucratic regime is the continued willingness of many of the hated “heterosexual white males” to live according to the old rules: not only to work, save, pay taxes and obey the law, but also to sire and raise children. Once we stop doing these things, the whole system of patronage and parasitism collapses. 

Consider the sexual harassment movement.

As it spreads, the number of men who have not been accused steadily diminishes. Eventually a point is reached where initially sympathetic men understand that they themselves are no longer safe, that their innocence does not protect them or their jobs. Anecdotal evidence suggests that this point is being reached in many workplaces. Men are developing a self-defensive code of avoiding all unnecessary words or contact with women.

...

Meanwhile, men have begun to realize that any sexual intimacy with a woman can lead to date rayp charges based upon things that go on in her mind afterwards, and over which he has no control. Women do frequently attempt to evade responsibility for their sexual conduct by ascribing it to the men involved. Without any social or legal enforcement of marriage, this leaves chastity as a man’s only means of self-defense. 

A male sex strike was probably beyond the imagination even of Aristophanes. But it may be a mistake to underestimate men. We, and not women, have been the builders, sustainers and defenders of civilization.

Kick a friendly dog often enough and eventually you have a mean dog on your hands. ... Western woman has become the new “white man’s burden,” and the signs are that he is beginning to throw it off.

There are two ways for women not to be monogamous: by having more than one mate and . . . by having less than one. Let us now consider the spinsters as well as the sluts.

No one will sign up for a campaign against women or children, but many men can easily be made to condemn other men. The result is that young men today are in an impossible situation. If they seek a mate they are predators; if they find one they are date raypists; if they want to avoid the whole ordeal they are immature and irresponsible for not committing. We have gone from a situation where it seemed everything was permitted to one where nothing is permitted.

What happens when female sexual desire is liberated is not an increase in the total amount of sex available to men, but a redistribution of the existing supply. Society becomes polygamous. A situation emerges in which most men are desperate for wives, but most women are just as desperately throwing themselves at a very few exceptionally attractive men. These men, who have always found it easy to get a mate, now get multiple mates. 

A characteristic feature of decadent societies is the recrudescence of primitive, pre-civilized cultural forms. That is what is happening to us. Sexual liberation really means the Darwinian mating pattern of the baboon pack reappears among humans. 

Once monogamy is abolished, no restriction is placed on a woman’s choices. Hence, all women choose the same few men. If Casanova had 132 lovers it is because 132 different women chose him. Such men acquire harems, not because they are predators, but because they happen to be attractive. The problem is not so much male immorality as simple arithmetic; it is obviously impossible for every woman to have exclusive possession of the most attractive man. If women want to mate simply as their natural drives impel them, they must, rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.

 In college I observed decent, clean-living men left alone while notorious adulterers had no difficulty going from one girlfriend to the next. 

Commentators on contemporary mores rarely show awareness of this irrationality in female mate selection. I recall seeing an article some years ago in which a planned new college was touted as a boon to young women seeking “Christian husbands,” on the naive assumption that they must be doing so. There was no talk of helping young men find faithful wives, of course.