We have been collecting some of the marriage and family writings from Jim’s Blog here.

One of the interesting points here is that a woman wants a man that possesses her completely (and thus punishes transgressions to monogamy), because those are the only conditions under which a man will invest his time, money and attention on the woman and her children. Otherwise, men and women both will trend toward the “betray/betray” default in the prisoner’s dilemma. You can’t invest into a situation — any situation, whether a woman or the ownership of an automobile — if you can’t have some security that you will enjoy some kind of later benefit for your investment. This is basic theory of Property Rights. The “betray/betray” default is one in which there are no children; or, that women are left alone to raise their children.

***

Women want what they do not want, and do not want what they do want.

So it is fortunate that they do not act in a rational or goal directed manner to get what they think they want.

Everyone longs for and seeks the ancestral environment of survival and successful reproduction, the environment of evolutionary adaptation.

It is the intention of nature and the will of nature’s God that resources shall be transferred from men to women, for women have the hardest and most important job in the world, and resources transferred from parents to children, for it is all about survival and reproduction.

And no one will plant trees or build on land he does not own, so for the necessary transfer of resources to take place, women must be the property of men, and children must be the property of their mothers and fathers, the boys till they are old enough to become independent, the girls till they are old enough to become the property of their husbands.

For a strongly K selected species, male ownership of women has to be part of the system.

Without this arrangement, if women go unowned, fertility will drop below replacement.

Youtube channels like “based camp” and “psycore” produces a lot of interesting and entertaining stuff about restoring fertility that dances around close to forbidden truths, but, being namefags, can never tell the plain truth. Women want to be property, the property of a strong, and dangerous, man. Women and dogs are only happy if they have an owner.

For women, successful reproduction was accomplished when they were owned by a man, and used as his instrument of reproduction. In the ancestral environment, before agriculture, the stable isotope ratios in the bones indicate that humans lived primarily on meat, including the meat of other predators. We were the apex predator — we not only ate deer, sheep, goats, and cattle, we also ate significant amounts of wolf and lion. And when I say “humans” were the apex predator, I mean of course, men. Men were the apex predator, and they fed women and children that securely belonged to them. And women and children that did not securely belong to some man starved or were eaten by the lions.

Then we switched to agriculture. And when we were switching to agriculture, the sex disparity in reproduction went right up — with far fewer Y chromosome lineages being part of the reproduction pool than mitochondrial lineages. Which indicates that women lived off land that belonged to some man or to the men of a patrilineal clan — that to have land to garden, they needed to marry a male heir, who likely obtained it or kept it by the sword.

And female behavior and emotional responsiveness is adaptive for that environment. It is maladadaptive for emancipation. And even if female behavior was adaptive for emancipation, the necessary transfer of resources is inconsistent with emancipation, irrespective of female nature. The shepherd takes care of his own sheep, but hunts the wild deer. If women appear to be crazy, it hardly matters, for in an environment of emancipation, sanity just is not going to work for women. You necessarily get defect/defect equilibrium, the game of players and bitches, in which game everyone loses. And in the ancestral environment of successful reproduction female sanity hardly matters either, for if she does the crazy thing, she will just get smacked and told to do the sensible thing. Women have not been under selective pressure to make sensible decisions about sex, family, and reproduction for at least four million years.

If women responded rationally to the incentives of female emancipation, we would probably be in even worse shape than we are, because it is female irrationality that makes it possible to personally unemancipate women by will and force of character, even without support from tribe, church, and state. The incentive of emancipation is for men to defect on women, and women to defect on men. Love, faith, and fidelity is irrational. So if you are rational, your lineage will vanish. The game of prisoner’s dilemma with a limited number of iterations has no rational solution, and yet we have no alternative but to solve it.

If women are emancipated, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is difficult, dangerous, and deeply irrational. If, however, men have secure property rights in female sexual, reproductive, and domestic services, then the behavior demanded by nature and commanded by God is rational self interested behavior, enforced by family, religion, and the state.

The Damsel in Distress trope

The female audience objects, strongly, to the Damsel in distress trope. Always has, always will.

But when they the talk about why the don’t like it they lie, and their lies are gross and infuriating in their obviously untruth, and gross and infuriating in that women entirely believe their own lies.
Movie makers listening to those lies produce female characters that no one wants to watch, women even less than men. Hence the strange phenomenon that the “””modern audience””” never shows up.

I have personal experience of rescuing women in real life, and in real life women do not want to be rescued.

And it is not hard to understand why. In the ancestral environment, being abducted by the powerful and somewhat cruel bad guy is to hit the reproductive jackpot, to be transferred from a weak hand to a strong hand. To be rescued is to be stolen, thus to be transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand.

In female porn (“romance literature”) the main female character is never rescued. Sometimes alpha male A defeats alpha male B, usually by killing B, and as a result, alpha male A acquires the main female character. But the female audience does not want Alpha male A to acquire the main female character before he finally and decisively defeats alpha male B, as this looks like the main female character being stolen, thus being transferred from the strong hand to the weak hand. And in female porn, wish fulfillment never rests on the female coming into the possession of a classic hero, coming into the possession of someone with the classic heroic virtues of prudence, justice, fortitude, and temperance. It is always all about coming into the possession of a strong owner.

The reason that women do not like the Damsel in Distress trope is that men fantasize about winning righteously and virtuously, while women fantasize about the winners getting hold of them. Women are the weaker vessel. But they cannot say this, or even think this, so they say outrageously false nonsense. And when movie makers and game designers listen to this nonsense, no audience shows up. Instead of listening to what women say about the Damsel in Distress trope, the movie makers should have tried reading female porn to see what happens when the supervillain seizes the main female character and puts her on a leash in his lair. The part of a woman that operates her mouth does not seem to be in communication with the part that spreads her legs.

This item, from the Institute for Family Studies, reminds us why girls these days are so horrible.

***

In the opening scene of Disney’s Shrek (2001), the ogre uses an illustrated fairy tale page as toilet paper, flagrantly signaling the film’s intent to subvert traditional fairy tales. Among the many fairy tale patterns that are overthrown is the symbolism of the prince. Instead of a traditional prince who marries the princess at the end, the hero is an ogre, and the “prince” is a ridiculous control freak.

Fairy tales are not superfluous stories that can be subverted without consequence. They serve as “tuning forks for civilization,” according to icon carver and symbolism educator Jonathan Pageau in a conversation with Jordan Peterson. “If we forget them or try to twist them,” Pageau said, “we are also twisting in some ways the fabric of Western civilization.” Peterson replied by emphasizing their significance, stating that fairy tales “are the things you can’t forget: you literally can’t forget them because they embed themselves in your memory, but also you forget them at your peril.”

In many of these unforgettable tales, Pageau has written, the prince “represents love, marriage, and family.” The female enters a season of chaos and difficulty around the time of puberty as she begins transforming from a girl into a woman. Eventually, she emerges from this temporary lostness by her connection to a prince who gives her a new purpose and a reason for the challenges she has encountered: marriage and family. At the conclusion, the female matures when she leaves girlhood and enters her new place in the prince’s kingdom.

Fairy tales are not superfluous stories that can be subverted without consequence.
Given the symbolic significance of the prince in traditional fairy tales, it is noteworthy that many modern fairy tale movies have either cut out or twisted the character of the prince. In Disney’s Tangled (2010), there is no prince. Rapunzel falls in love with an outlaw who helps her on a journey to discover her true identity as the “lost princess.” They do get married in the end, but it is the outlaw who enters the kingdom of the princess. In the original Grimm’s tale, Rapunzel is not a princess, but the daughter of commoners, who marries a prince.

In Moana (2016), inspired by Polynesian mythology, Disney eliminates any love interest or princely heroism. Moana’s parents are raising her to become the chief of their tribe, and while the other villagers are content with their island life, Moana longs for more and continually returns to the ocean, wishing to explore beyond her home. Moana’s father repeatedly holds her back from her calling. The Demigod Maui, who voyages with Moana, is portrayed as self-important and insecure, deserting the quest in a moment of challenge. Moana’s grandmother and mother are the only ones who see her vision and encourage her to save their island. The women alone are the heroes. There is no prince to be found.

In the 2025 live action Snow White, the princess is brought up by her parents to rule the kingdom. When she and the bandit Jonathan fall in love, one hopes they might at least marry and lead the kingdom together. Alas, the film’s final scene disappoints. As the white-clad crowd celebrates the restoration of the kingdom in a dance resembling a wedding reception, the camera pans to Snow White’s face, cutting Jonathan’s head out of the frame completely. There is no wedding. The people wear white to praise Snow White, the savior of the kingdom. The movie makers quite literally decapitate this pseudo prince in their attempt to give Snow White all the glory.

In older fairy tales (such as The Original Folk and Fairy Tales of the Brother’s Grimm), the prince is often the resolution to the troubles of the girl’s adolescence. When movie makers cut out the prince, they run the risk of distorting the path from girlhood into womanhood, confusing women and harming men. Without the prince, the focus turns from female maturation to female empowerment, which asserts that women are already the best but are unjustly held back by society, removing the need for any significant character growth.

Cutting out the prince communicates that men are, at best, useful assistants and, at worst, impediments to women’s potential.

Modern female protagonists are heroines from the beginning. That was never the point of the old fairy tales, many of which are coming-of-age stories of moving past bad fortune, naivete, and character flaws, and eventually arriving safely at adulthood. When female empowerment replaces female maturation, young women are encouraged to focus mainly on themselves rather than give of themselves. Cutting out the prince communicates that men are, at best, useful assistants and, at worst, impediments to women’s potential.

Whether or not it is intentional, this message disparages two fundamental things that allow both men and women to mature and find fulfillment: marriage and family. No wonder young women today are less interested in marriage and increasingly feeling tension between work and family. Young people are delaying marriage, and fertility rates are plummeting across educational lines. A huge number of young men see themselves as failures. Men are demoralized and don’t know their place, in part, because popular media has cut them out.

As Lisa Britton recently wrote in this space, “Girlboss messaging saturates our culture, telling every girl since K-5 that independence is everything, men are optional, and marriage and motherhood can be postponed indefinitely.” Faced with this, young people need stories that properly tune them to reality.

We must carefully choose the stories we pass on. Instead of telling stories that idolize women and emasculate men, we need to give these old fairy tales proper attention and respect. Let’s stop telling little girls to become heroines who don’t need a prince, and instead give them the freedom to become mature women who embrace their prince and cherish family.

Morgan Morin is a wife and mother living in Richmond, Virginia. She holds a B.A. in Political and Social Thought from the University of Virginia.

r/ForeverAloneWomen at reddit.

Some of these women are, regrettably, fugly. But, that is mostly a matter of obesity, and it is mostly their fault, so boohoo. Go find some equally ugly guy.

But, many are actually quite attractive.

@danyellenoble

Asking for a friend #fyp #facts #foryou #singlelife

♬ original sound – hinchfilms

Some of it might just be trolling of course.

@thatone.uglygirlie

THERES SOMETHING IN THIS SONG

♬ touch tank – quinnie

I suspect that one reason for this is simply that marriage is delayed too much. A woman’s peak childbearing years are 16-32. Naturally, a woman has an urge to have children during those years. In other words, you aren’t going to fix this and also have a median age of marriage at 29 for women. A lot of “hypergamy” is driven by what amounts to genetic selection, or “looks.” What’s the point of genetic selection? Pleasure in the moment? In part, but also, of course, genetic selection. Women have these babies because they want to have the babies of the men they have genetically selected for.

Marriage and monogamy are common to all successful civilizations. It is basically identical in China and in Spain, for thousands of years. When marriage and monogamy weaken, we have a return of an earlier, animalistic simple genetic selection model. This is incompatible with civilization, because, if it was compatible, we would have seen some evidence of it, in the last 5000 years, and we do not.

And then there’s this self-declared “femcel,” who could probably be a model for Miu Miu.

@heartlesschud

Frick my femcel life #fypシ #viral #targetaudience

♬ original sound – 𝒮ℴ𝓅𝒽𝒾𝒶

@heartlesschud

Frick my femcel life ^_^#fypシ #viral #targetaudience

♬ runaway runaway – karina

Not joking.

@miumiu

Miu Miu L’Eté 2026. Running as long, lazy summer days become one. Sateen Besson and Lisa Mantler filmed by Anna Jonska Styling: Lotta Volkova #MiuMiu #MiuMiuEte

♬ original sound – Miu Miu

We guys have long assumed that this so-called “talking stage” is basically the fucking stage, before having the “what are we?” talk and then, hopefully, officially declaring yourself in a “relationship.” Most women never get out, and are basically in “situationships,” and thus the constant complaining about “talking stages.”

But, it appears that a number of women really do mean that they talk and talk, mostly to people they connect with on dating apps, not even in person but only via messaging, and never get to the point of actually meeting someone in person. They never get asked on a date.

This is bizarre. Because, who does this? The 90% of Men that basically get nothing on dating apps would be, I should think, eager to have some kind of actual date. Probably there are a few that don’t quite know how to do that. But, who is that lame, really. The 10% of Men that get all the attention presumably are interested in something besides just talking. Probably, there are a few that are so busy banging other girls that they are just postponing things until there is space in their schedule. But, how long can that take?

In other words, this “dating app PenPal” stuff, which now seems to be common everywhere, doesn’t look real to me at all.

I suspect that these girls are talking to AI. Because, a dating app company might do that. Or, even if the dating app company itself is innocent, maybe there is some other entity that wants women to waste their time and youth with imaginary penpals, rather than finding a real man.

For men, I suspect that a lot of comments on “red pill content” on YT are basically AI bots.

Read “The Emancipation of Domesticity,” by GK Chesterton.

We will take a break from our usual around here to talk about cars.

Grok tells me that about 1.0%-1.2% of all cars in the United States are ever driven beyond 200,000 miles. In other words, 99% of cars are scrapped before reaching that mileage.

This is because, by that point, too many things are going wrong, and it doesn’t make economic sense to keep fixing them. You just buy a new one. I have driven two cars to 200,000 miles, and in both cases, it would have been better if they had been scrapped before then.

With this experience, I concluded that the cost of driving an old car and the cost of driving a new car aren’t that much different. Driving costs money, whether an old or a new car. Let’s say you buy a used car with 120,000 miles on it for $8000 dollars. You drive it for three years, 15,000 miles a year, 45,000 miles total, and after three years it is a $2000 car (or less) with 165,000 miles on it. The depreciation for those three years was $2000 per year. Plus, you put $2000 a year into repairs, on top of regular maintenance of things that wear out, like tires or brake pads. The cost is $4000 per year.

Now buy a brand new car, which, with taxes and everything else, comes to $36,000. You drive it for eight years, 15,000 miles a year, or 120,000 miles. Then, you trade it in for $6000. Your total cost, including all taxes and fees, is $30,000 over eight years, or $3,750 per year. Not much breaks during that time, except for the regular maintenance, so your average repairs are $500 per year (less in the early years and more in the later). The total cost is $4,250 per year. Plus, you probably have a little better gas mileage, since older cars tend to burn a little more gas. There are other expenses, including interest costs and insurance, which are higher for newer cars. But you can see that the cost is about the same, a little higher for newer cars, as it should be.

People say that “I don’t want monthly payments so I’m going to drive this car forever.” This never happens. Of the 99% of cars that didn’t make it to 200,000 miles, how many were owned by someone who “is going to drive this car forever?” Probably half.

Plus, there are a lot of advantages to a newer car, among them less hassle with constant things going wrong, better appearances, and greater self-esteem. This is usually worth it, compared to a little savings from a used car.

I conclude that, if you want to keep your driving expenses low, there are two things to do:

Drive a Cheap New Car. Get the Hyundai Elantra, not the Chevy Suburban.

Don’t Drive Much. Used cars make the most sense when you don’t drive them much. Mostly, this means second or third vehicles. If you buy a pickup truck for occasional jobs with 140,000 miles on it for $5000, and you use it 2000 miles a year, then you can own it for ten years and it has 160,000 miles on it. This might make sense. Or, if you only have one car, don’t drive much. Most driving costs are a straight line function of miles driven — depreciation, fuel, maintenance and repairs. For a typical car, driving has a marginal cost of about $0.50 a mile; and a fixed cost of about $0.15 a mile; for a total cost of about $0.65 per mile on average; or $9,750 per year for 15,000 miles per year. This sounds about right to me. A 100 mile trip is costing you about $50, although this is hard to perceive.

Here is a common used car, a five year old Toyota Tundra pickup, with about 75,000 miles on it.

Here is a new version of the same truck:

It is significantly cheaper over five years, according to Edmunds.

Here is a new Toyota Corolla hatch:

Here is a six-year old (90,000 miles) Corolla hatch:

The cheap new car (Corolla Hatch) is the cheapest and best, if you can live with a cheap new car. If you need a pickup, get a cheap new pickup.

The girls are not OK

As our state religion goes lefter and lefter, indoctrination in the schools has become ever more extreme, intense and deranged.

The boys are rebelling against maniacal hatred, demonization, and systematic heavy handed discrimination against males, but the girls are sucking it up.

And in consequence, going every more evil and insane, ever more sad, crazy, and depressed. And every less likely to have sex, let alone love and romance, and most of all, ever less likely to ever have children.

The red pill is an effort to teach men to understand women. But today’s women understand themselves even less.

At puberty, girls experience a sudden and extraordinary shock. They become sexually desirable and desired. This is genuinely terrifying, and they have no idea how to handle it, how to respond, and tend to respond in ways that become every crazier and self destructive.

One day, a girl wakes up and she is a sex object. This is terrifying. Men want her and they are bigger than her and stronger than her.

Of course women want to be desired, and they especially want to be desired by scary dangerous men. They want to be scared. But they don’t understand that they want this. They think that they very much want to not be scared. And they are very vigorously taught that it is bad, wicked and oppressive, that men are scaring them. It is not easy for a woman to understand that she desires to be frighteningly desired, and it is a great deal harder for her to understand this when she is being taught that this is horrible patriarchal oppression. That she does not want it, and in fact hates, what she wants. And there is considerable truth in the story that she is being brainwashed with — she truly does not want it, she truly does hate it. But also she does truly want it and she loves what she hates.

Used to be there were social rules, customs to handle this, and women were firmly steered towards paths for dealing with it. Now, however, all that cultural knowledge has been systematically destroyed, and those customs effectively criminalised.

So girls are now lost, in a storm of powerful forces within them and outside them.

Girls should not be in coed education when they suddenly and shockingly start to get hot. They are not mentally equipped to handle it — not at any age, but even less at that age.

Just as the cafeteria diet, the 24/7 availability of tasty snacks, makes them morbidly obese, the ready availability of the dreaded and desired male gaze makes them whores, resulting in hoeflation.

Within the official Sex-Positivity doctrine, the constraints that steered girls towards appropriate relationships with men are seen as old-fashioned and oppressive. So she is likely to become a social media whore — posting sexy pictures for attention — but somehow all that attention is unlikely to lead to a relationship, other than number twenty on mister one in thirty’s booty call list, which renders all that attention rather less satisfactory than it seemed at first.

The relentless and coercive Sex-Positivity of the education system for girls is not actually sex positive at all, for it amounts to a forceful demand that girls act like sodomites, which, the sexual nature of women being very different, is not only anti love and anti reproduction, is also, for women, anti sex. Gay Sex-Positivity results in schoolgirls having sex with lots of different men, but nonetheless having very little sex.

Love is war, love is a battlefield. All is fair in love and war.

Now it is all war, and there is no love. Sex-Positivity winds up as a social media performance, conducted purely digitally. 

Men suffer hoeflation, women find that performing sexiness merely degrades them. Gender dysphoria is one of many self destructive female responses to the male gaze. Women hate themselves, because not only do they compare every man to Mister One in Thirty, they compare themselves to Miss One in a Hundred.

Mister One in Thirty, they discover, sees them as just a hole to relieve himself in. If they were like Miss One in a Hundred, they think, they would get way more of that much hated, and much wanted, male gaze, and Mister one in Thirty would love them.

Sexual norms today skirt around one obvious, horrifying fact: women like being sex objects. And they especially skirt around the most horrifying fact of them all — that women don’t actually like being sex objects for men that do not frighten them. They like being sex objects of scary dangerous frightening men. Today’s young women don’t know this, and dare not admit to it. And this is driving them insane.

Women are deranged, and the youngest women are the most severely deranged because no one is honest with them and they cannot be honest with themselves. If anyone speaks the truth to them, he is apt to be severely punished.

Women are not allowed to know that they desire to be desired and loved. Supposedly they should only desire a high powered career. And it is intolerably low status, horrible, and disgusting, for a woman to act in ways that are likely to result in her being not only desired, but also loved. That if they want to fall in love and want to be a mother, they are traitors to their sex, that they are collaborating in the oppression of women by that horrible male gaze. That it is not OK to be what girls inherently are. Reflect on the outrage and hostility directed against the homemaker Youtube genre.

They don’t know how act in ways likely to result in love and motherhood, so they act in weird and self destructive ways.

No deal available for men and women to have a life together

Marriage 1.0 is now illegal, and there is no alternative with which to form a family that is legal and socially acceptable in polite company.

Love is war, love is a battlefield, all is fair in love and war.

Marriage 2.0 does not work. A ship must have one captain, and a household one captain, and if you have two captains you have two ships, which wind up passing in the night.

Young men view young women as icky and broken, and young women view young men as — well they just don’t see them at all, because almost all young males are lower status than almost any young woman, and women inherently find low status males invisible, and if they notice them at all, it is like noticing rats and cockroaches. They look around for the bug spray, they think that these icky people should be gassed. This is not just the long standing problem that the patriarchy has been fighting forever, that miss average wants to fuck mister one in thirty, this is the new and worse problem that when miss average is pushing thirty years old and thirty pounds overweight, only mister one in thirty is barely acceptable (and she thinks that all the rest should be eradicated. Observe the smugness of the Karen. She sees whatever man is in front of her, including her boss or a cop with a gun, as insignificant, irritating, unimportant, and disgusting vermin. OK, Taylor Swift married mister one in thirty at thirtysix, but most women are do not look like Taylor Swift, and still less do they look like Taylor Swift when they hit thirtysix.)

For men, it is much simpler. Most men don’t get pussy, and if they do the juice is not worth the squeeze. Does he want miss average thirty year old and thirty pounds overweight?

But wait. Some men, some social groups, and some nations are still successfully reproducing. Not many, but definitely some.

How do they do it? Well?

Surprise:

Faith

They do it by the power and authority of God.

If you look at population groups that do it, the key factor is that the girls during puberty are attending a school that teaches old type religion, in which God commands marriage 1.0, and lead the girl to expect that the strange feelings she is now getting, the itch she would rather like scratched, should addressed in that situation. Early puberty, around age eleven to thirteen or so, seems to be the critical formative period. Earlier and later religious education seems to have little effect, and religious education of the boys seems to have little effect.

I conjecture that at puberty girls form an idea of their sexual future, and if in school being taught a religion that specifies different roles for men and women, envisage themselves getting nailed as young wife and mother under the authority of a husband, rather than career girl getting all the sexual activity that television shows depict, but which in real life happens considerably less than advertised, and without the romance part — the career girl who is getting regularly nailed is getting nailed as number seven on mister one in thirty’s booty call list, and rather less frequently as number fourteen on mister one in sixty’s booty call list. And, due to abortion and contraception, motherhood does not ensue, or ensues only when her fertile window is on its last egg.

If you look at nations that do it, the state religion is not progressivism, nor a nominally deistic religion converged to “the arc of history”, it is an old type deistic religion. A religion whose priests do not condescend to the people of their holy books as their moral inferiors.

If you look at individual males that do it, the key factor is that under their roofs they are King and High Priest, they have rightful authority over their wives and children granted them by God.

The prescription for marriage 1.0 is right there in the bible, our manual and textbook for ancient social technologies proven by experience to work:

1 Corinthians 7

3. Let the husband render unto the wife due benevolence: and likewise also the wife unto the husband.
4. The wife hath not power of her own body, but the husband: and likewise also the husband hath not power of his own body, but the wife.
5. Defraud ye not one the other, except it be with consent for a time, that ye may give yourselves to fasting and prayer; and come together again, that Satan tempt you not for your incontinency.

Ephesians 5:22

22. Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
23. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
24. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
25. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;
26. That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
27. That he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish.
28. So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
29. For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church:
30. For we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones.
31. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh.
32. This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33. Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

First Corinthians 11

8. For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man.
9. Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.

First Timothy 2

11. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
13. For Adam was first formed, then Eve.
14. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.
15. Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

First Peter 3

1. Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives;
2. While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
3. Whose adorning let it not be that outward adorning of plaiting the hair, and of wearing of gold, or of putting on of apparel;
4. But let it be the hidden man of the heart, in that which is not corruptible, even the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is in the sight of God of great price.
5. For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands:
6. Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.
7. Likewise, ye husbands, dwell with them according to knowledge, giving honour unto the wife, as unto the weaker vessel, and as being heirs together of the grace of life; that your prayers be not hindered.
8. Finally, be ye all of one mind, having compassion one of another, love as brethren, be pitiful, be courteous:
9. Not rendering evil for evil, or railing for railing: but contrariwise blessing; knowing that ye are thereunto called, that ye should inherit a blessing.

Since people these days are unfamiliar with the Bible, I need to clarify the reference to Sara. “Even as Sara obeyed Abraham”. Abraham commanded Sarah to do a very wicked thing. Peter tells us that wives should emulate Sara. It is not a wife’s job to “give her husband a wake up call” or to “fix her husband”. It is her job to obey.

The beginning of the catastrophe that now afflicts us was the Victorian elevation of the wife to the moral authority of the household. Any idiot can see that women are the weaker vessel, and are profoundly and inherently ill suited to be moral authorities.

If you look at female erotic fantasies, they are mostly rape fantasies, or rape fantasies rather thinly disguised as not-quite-rape fantasies.

There is a large genre of disturbingly violent and monstrous romance fantasies, “Dark Romance”, and it is precisely shitlib women, feminists, and karens who are most keen on these.

An example of taking this to disturbing lengths is “Cry, or Better Yet, Beg”: Slave girl. Cold sadistic owner, Stockholm syndrome. 

Which is starting to get a little bit on the weird wide — not the slavery, nor the cruelty, but the “cold” — the lack of anything resembling reproductive sex. I am totally in favor of choking and spanking, but this comic’s decorous G rated no-flesh-on-flesh-contact cruelty is weird and perverted. The brains of the Karens are falling of the rails. But it is still a whole lot closer to what is natural, human, normal for humans, and bears a closer resemblance to the ancestral environment of successful reproduction than marriage 2.0. Marriage 2.0 is definitely weird.

I conjecture that the disgusting, weird, and creepy no-flesh-on-flesh-contact cruelty may be a reaction to the thirstiness of the men the karens encountered when they were young and hot — so they read desire for physical contact as weakness, fear, and neediness. So the non contact cruelty of the main male character looks like preselection to them, and if the main male character and the main female character were to actually do it, this would look low status and needy to them. I conjecture that the unnaturally high status of women in our society has fried their brains, much as the twenty four seven availability of tasty snacks has destroyed their bodies.

law

Marriage 1.0, decribed above in quotes from the bible, is everywhere illegal and subject to strong disapproval. Which can be successfully ignored by someone with outlaw attitude and the plausible semblance of faith in the lord, but it is a serious problem and grave danger.

The problem is that without support from law and society, you are in a prisoner’s dilemma problem. The natural outcome is defect/defect, which is few people are reproducing, and those that are reproducing get started late, towards the end of a woman’s fertile window.

Reproduction requires cooperation. Cooperation requires enforcement, and the only deal that works is illegal.

All women resent and resist male authority, all women are like that, but all women, like all dogs, are frightened, uncomfortable, distressed, neurotic, and anxious without a master. If a dog or a woman feels they are the alpha male of the household, they are going to go crazy and destructive. All women are like that.

Most women today describe their mental health as poor or terrible, and most young women are in therapy. Surveys show, however, that conservative married women of faith are generally happy and seldom report mental problems, while young single liberal women, and most young women are liberal, and most liberal young women are single, report the poorest mental health, and the most sadness, anger, and bitterness.

All women want a man in their life who will impose guard rails that will protect them from themselves, and most women will insist on those guard rails being ultimately backed by force. They will give you a shit test that can only be passed by smacking them. It will not happen often, because they really do not like being smacked, or being coerced in such a direct and forceful fashion, but it will happen at least once, and usually a few times. After you have passed that one one or two times, you will usually not be retested, for the test is apt to be unpleasant for both of you. They don’t like to be smacked, but they very much like that they could be smacked. Sometimes the test gets to be a bedtime regular, but that does not seem to be the majority of women. It is nonetheless a whole lot of women. And after the umpteenth time, becomes far less fun than you might imagine. Gets old mighty fast.

All women want a husband’s authority, all women are like that. And they all want their husband’s authority to be supported by other men. And they usually do not get that in our society, because illegal and because of fake social consensus against it.

Suppose Ann wants to do X, and her husband says “No X”. All the women in her life are going to say “You go girl, you do X”. But if Carol says to Ann “Your husband spoke to my husband, and my husband said no X”, this has vastly greater impact than any number of women saying X. All women are like that.

Women resent and resist male authority. All women are like that. But women very much want to be securely embedded in a social environment of coercive male authority and if not so embedded, will do their best to become embedded. The typical shitlib feminist Karen is reading romances that go something like this. The main female character is a socially isolated shitlib living in the modern world, then gets soul transmigrated, magically transported, or something even more improbable, into a world where she no longer is socially isolated, but is embedded in strong social patriarchal constraints. Then she gets sold into a rich man’s harem, or something like that, and on the way to meet her husband her coach is attacked by a monster, who destroys the coach, kills everyone except her, or something like that, then abducts her to his lair, where it turns out he is a were monster or were beast and his other form is a handsome prince, or something like that, and then it turns out that he is the top alpha male in his home base, and is surrounded by other alpha males who more or less accept his alpha male authority.

In another variant of the were creature trope, instead of the were form of the main male character being a powerful dangerous creature who can turn at will into a handsome prince, the were form of the main female character is a small helpless creature who cannot turn at will into her human form, and in her were form is apt to be killed on sight if she does not freeze or starve first, unless she becomes a pet or domestic animal, and is thus freed from her inconvenient human rights which get in the way of the sexual relationship that the readers would obviously prefer. (She winds up having human form in her owners bedroom around bedtime.)

The soul transmigration/magical transportation trope tells us what these shitlib feminist women actually want, male authority embedded in broader social authority of males, which the laws that they lobbied for have taken from them, taken from all women, taken from all women and all men — the ancestral environment of successful reproduction. Everyone always longs for the ancestral environment, which why we create a simulation of the savanna biome everywhere we go.