We must move beyond just complaining about the present situation, and start developing alternatives. One such proposal is “My Money, My Choice,” presented by comedian Dave Chapelle.

Basically, this means that financial child support is optional. If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, the biological father may or may not give her money, depending entirely on his own choice. I don’t know if this is a good idea, but we can imagine some of the immediate effects. Women would become a lot more careful. There might be more abortions. The present 40% rate of children born to unmarried mothers (25% among Whites) would plummet. Marriages where children are born less than eight months afterward might become more common, as they were in the past.

The point is, this little change would definitely be effective. We don’t have to suffer indefinitely with our present state of affairs. We can change it.

The way to change things is not to whine to women about what we would like them to do. We can ask women to support our plan, because if it is good for society as a whole, it would be good for women too, and also their sons. (Women tend to become capable of understanding “men’s issues” after they have sons.) If you can get 80% of men to support it, and 30% of women, it is a done deal.

A similar change might be to make childcare after divorce entirely the responsibility of the parent with custody. If a woman takes the children, she pays for them. If a man takes the children, he pays for them. A man or a woman is equally capable of working for a living, and also, equally capable of dropping off the children at daycare or school before going to work.

Men have been joining together over “men’s issues,” mostly at blogs like Dalrock, or various YouTube personalities. But, they have not yet joined together politically. You must do this, even if it amounts to playacting. I have suggested making a small donation (perhaps $25) to the National Coalition for Men, or supporting people who are more focused on actually changing the legal structure today, rather than just adapting to it — people such as Paul Elam. Send them at least a little money.

But, divorce, domestic violence and other such laws are mostly State laws, and they are best pursued at the State level. Send a letter to your representatives in State Congress, expressing your views on the issue.

We will need more people to establish political groups at the State level. This is not very hard. It is something that a person could do on the weekends. It amounts to doing some research in the topic, and then bringing your case to the representatives of State Congress. Talk to some lawyers active in family law, or related topics such as sexual harassment. Create some proposals — if you don’t like the present situation, what should it be replaced with? What should the new laws look like? After you build some expertise, and can be legitimately taken seriously, ask for a personal meeting with State Congressmen. We don’t really need our 115th YouTube personality. We need one person addressing the situation in the State of Pennsylvania, and providing some leadership and organization to make changes.

In time, you can ask other men to send you some money, to continue this work. Yes, just ask for money. Organize a few gatherings of some sort, such as the usual rallies or speeches, or perhaps some new format. You might be able to rent a community center for $100.

Cut off their nose.

***

The earliest mention I can find of Native American women having their noses cut off for adultery is in a memoir by Alexander Maximilian, a Prussian prince, naturalist and ethnographer in the 1830s. He said this about the men of the Blackfeet tribe: “They generally punish infidelity in their wives very seriously, cutting off their noses in such cases; and we saw, about Fort McKenzie, a great many of these poor creatures horribly disfigured. When ten or twelve tents were together, we were sure to see six or seven women mutilated in this manner. The husband also cuts off the hair by way of punishment.”

Repudiated by her mate, the mutilated woman was no longer marriageable and ended her days laboring for other households-perhaps counting herself lucky she hadn’t been killed, as sometimes occurred. 

It’s as if there is a common element here.

Day and night woman must be kept in dependence by the males (of) their (families), and, if they attach themselves to sensual enjoyments, they must be kept under one’s control. – Manusmriti

Her father protects her in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and her sons protect her in old age; a woman is never fit for independence. – Manusmriti

When creating them Manu allotted to women a love of their bed, of their seat and of ornament, impure desires, wrath, dishonesty, malice, and bad conduct. – Manusmriti

***

Lots and lots of laws.

Up to five years in prison. This was under British colonial rule.

***

Adultery was a criminal offence under Chapter XX of the Indian Penal Code until it was quashed by the Supreme Court of India on 27 September 2018 as unconstitutional.^[1]Under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code, which was the section dealing with adultery, a man who had consensual sexual intercourse with the wife of another man without that husband’s consent could have been punished for this offence with up to five years imprisonment, a fine or both. When first enacted in 1860, the wife could also be punished as abetting the offence.

The Supreme Court called the law unconstitutional because it “treats a husband as the sole master.” However it is still a sufficient ground for divorce as ruled by the Supreme Court.

After being passed by the Legislative Council, the Governor-General assented to the Indian Penal Code on 6th October, 1860.

Section 497 read as follows:

Adultery.—
Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall [not]^[4] be punishable as an abettor.— Section 497 of IPC^[5]

Drowning.

***

In the old days, if a person or couple was caught for committing an adultery, the adulter and adulteress would be put into a pig’s cage, and drowned in the river. Although the law in China never sanctified this style of execution, it was a widespread practice especially among the lower socio-economic group. 

Since this was an extrajudicial execution, not authorized by law, there was no proper process of deliberation. Generally, when a person was accused of committing adultery, the accused would be brought to the village’s community center. At the center, the Head of the Village and its elders would hear testimonies of the accused and witnesses and deliberate a verdict. The accused would be forced to identify his or her partner, who would also be brought to the center to face the elders and receive punishment. 

The adulter and adulteress will be bound with rope to limit their mobility, and then placed into strong bamboo-woven cages. These cylindrical cages were called pig’s cages because they were used to transport pigs. The villagers would carry the couple to the river and cast them into the river. After a considerable lapse of time, the villagers would retrieve the bodies and bury them. In some occasions, if a husband caught his wife in bed with another man, it would have been innocuous for the husband to carry out the execution on his own. 

In China the punishment for adultery seems to have been more secular than religious. Therefore the severity of the punishment for adultery changed with the view of its people. In more liberal era, adultery was treated with disdain and not worthy of any attention. While in other era, it was abhorred and was seen as a severe crime. 

These pig-cage drowning executions were prevalent only in secluded villages around the 19th century to the early 20th century. It was a modified version of a form of official torture used to punish and execute criminals, similar to dunking in the West. The pig-cage drowning punishment was only applicable to married women and women engaged to be married and their adulters. Improper sexual conducts that involved unmarried women and widows, even if their partners were married men, were flouted upon, but would not be considered a punishable offence.

Post Chinese Revolution, the Chinese government reformed the polygamous sexual double standard of the pre-socialist China and treated adultery of both gender equally. In modern China, adultery is no longer a crime but may constitute a ground for divorce.

Sharia Law (Islamic law) is, actually, rather moderate compared to the Old Testament. The difference is, Muslims still do it today. Here is sharialaw.com on adultery:

Note also the penalty for false accusations!

***

Unfortunately, there are many who think that stoning to death is a punishment laid out in the Qur’ȃn and thereby promoted by Muslims for acts such as adultery. The fact is that the Qur’ân never sanctions stoning to death as a punishment for anyone for any crime. Verse 24:2 stipulates the maximum punishment for proven adultery, and verse 24:4 stipulates the punishment for false accusation; neither verse mentions “stoning to death”:

الزَّانِيَةُ وَالزَّانِي فَاجْلِدُوا كُلَّ وَاحِدٍ مِّنْهُمَا مِائَةَ جَلْدَةٍ 

“Strike the fornicatress and adulteress and the fornicator and adulterer on the body of each one of them a hundred times.” (24:2)

وَالَّذِينَ يَرْمُونَ الْمُحْصَنَاتِ ثُمَّ لَمْ يَأْتُوا بِأَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ فَاجْلِدُوهُمْ ثَمَانِينَ جَلْدَةً وَلَا تَقْبَلُوا لَهُمْ شَهَادَةً أَبَدًا

“Strike eighty times on the bodies of those who calumniate chaste women and who do not support (their accusation) with four witnesses, and never accept their testimony (because) it is they who are the disobedient (and break the law).” (24:4) 

For carrying out this punishment, four eyewitnesses (أَرْبَعَةِ شُهَدَاءَ) are required, not testimony based on hearsay. If four eyewitnesses who were present and witnessed the adultery are not produced, the accusation is dropped and the accuser is considered a defamer who him or herself is to be punished. The purpose of this injunction is threefold: first, to abolish the Jewish and pagan custom of stoning adulterers to death and to provide an alternative to it; second, to express Allah’s extreme dislike for such an act; and third, to protect women from false accusations. By putting the very stringent condition of producing four eyewitnesses, the Qur’ȃn made such a punishment extremely difficult to carry out and essentially limited punishment to the rare instance where such an act was done in public. In addition, the aforementioned “striking”, if ever applied, is intended to be symbolic and not meant to inflict any physical harm. It is not logical for so called scholars to require capital punishment for adultery, if even for a crime as heinous as murder, the paying of blood money by the perpetrator is considered acceptable. 

Even though there is no mention of stoning in the Qur’ȃn—though there is a clear injunction on adultery (24:2–4)—many Muslim clerics,  when discussing the legitimacy of the practice of stoning in Sharî’a, cite instances in the Ahadith, the acts and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). Even the most authentic of the books of Ahadîthcontradict one another on this topic. One reason for these differences is a confusion about nomenclature: The Arabic word used for “stoning” is rajam, رجَم, and for “stoning to death” is rajam hatt al-mawt, رجم حتٌئ الموت. There is no doubt that some narrations in the books of Muslim traditions (the Ahadith) mention rajam. The crucial point is the exact meaning of rajam, especially the meaning the Holy Qur’ân gives to this word. Such classical Arabic dictionaries as those of Qȃmûs, Lisȃn al-‘Arab, Tȃj al-‘Arûs, Lane, and Imȃm Rȃghib assign the following meanings to rajam: “to stone, to cast stones, to curse, to revile, to expel, to put a stone (on a tomb), to speak conjecturally, to guess, to surmise.” Rujûm, رجوم, means “shooting stars, to be thrown off, to be damned, to throw someone out with a curse.” Marjûm,   مرجوم, is “the one who is thrown out or cursed.” Yarjumû or yarjumûna, يرجمون , means “they pelted with stones, they condemned.” Arjumanna,  ارجمن, means “I shall certainly cut off all relations.” Narjumanna, نرجمنٌ, means “we shall surely excommunicate.” Marjûmîn, مرجُمين , means “those who are thrown out, despised.” Rajîm, رجيم, means “one thrown off (by a curse), rejected.” All these meanings can be found in Qur’ȃnic verses (cf. 11:91, 18:20, 19:46, 26:116, 36:18, 44:20). The root with its foregoing forms occurs in the Holy Qur’ân fourteen times, and not once is it used in the sense of stoning to death for any punishment. We read:

 فَإِذَا قَرَأْتَ الْقُرْآنَ فَاسْتَعِذْ بِاللَّهِ مِنَ الشَّيْطَانِ الرَّجِيمِ

“And when you recite the Qur’ân, seek refuge with Allâh from satan, the rejected” (16:98). 

We do not seek refuge from satan , al-Shaytȃn, the “devil”), who is  “stoned to death”, but rather is outcast, rejected, and thrown out. The following words of the Qur’ân further clarify the meaning: قَالَ فَاخْرُجْ مِنْهَا فَإِنَّكَ رَجِيمٌ, “(God) said, ‘Then get out of this (state); you are surely driven away [or cursed] (from My mercy)’” (38:77). In the Ahadith (traditions), the Holy Prophet (pbuh) must have used the word rajam in this sense and not in the sense of “stoning to death,” رجم حتٌئ الموت, for otherwise he would have been acting against the Qur’ânic limit of punishment for adultery mentioned in 24:2. Without challenging the Arabic wording of the Ahadith, we need to carefully examine the meaning given to them in modern Arabic and their rendering into other languages.   

While the concept of stoning to death is not a Qur’ânic concept and should not have a place in Islam, it is endorsed in the Bible, which might explain how this practice crept into contemporary Islam. In the Bible, you read: “If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel. If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbor’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you” (Deut. 22:22–24). Stoning is a method of execution mentioned frequently in the Torah. The crimes punishable by stoning were the following:

• Breakingthe Sabbath (Num. 15:32–36)
• Homosexual practices (Lev. 20:13)
• Enticing others to polytheism (Deut. 13:7–11)
• Cursing God (Lev. 24:10–16)
• Engaging inidolatry (Deut. 17:2–7) or seducing others to do so (Deut. 13:7–11)
• “Rebellion” against parents, after repeated warnings (Deut. 21:18–21)
• Getting married as though a virgin, when not a virgin (Deut. 22:13–21)
• Rape (Deut. 22:25–27)

Prior to early Christianity, doubts were growing in Jewish society about the effectiveness of capital punishment in general (and stoning in particular) as a useful deterrent. Subsequently, its use was increasingly dissuaded by Jewish legislators. In the following centuries, the leading Jewish scholars imposed so many restrictions on the implementation of capital punishment as to make it de facto illegal. The restrictions were to prevent execution of the innocent and included many conditions for a testimony to be admissible that were difficult to fulfill.

Unfortunately, these older Jewish and biblical traditions, sometimes called “Israîliyȃts” crept into the fearful minds of some members of the Muslim “clergy” and have led to false conclusions and interpretations of several aspects of Islamic law, including injunctions regarding adultery. At the time of the Holy Prophet (pbuh), stoning to death was practiced by the pagan Arabs. The few instances of stoning to death that can be found in the books of Ahadith should be scrutinized for their timing in relation to the foregoing verses, whether the punishment was carried out by the Jewish community or for the context of the usage of the word rajam.

In the old days, an adulterous woman (or man) might get stoned after sex. I don’t mean smoking pot; it means being executed in public, in a fashion where the whole community can participate.

I don’t think this is such a good idea today. But, it is worth remembering that some societies went to this extent to keep marriages and families from disintegrating. I wonder what happened that made them decide this was necessary?

Leviticus 20:10 – And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.

Deuteronomy 22:22 – If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

Leviticus 20:13 – If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

It is worth noting that Jesus himself thought this was a bit much.

And the scribes and Pharisees brought unto him a woman taken in adultery; and when they had set her in the midst,

They say unto him, Master, this woman was taken in adultery, in the very act.

Now Moses in the law commanded us, that such should be stoned: but what sayest thou?

This they said, tempting him, that they might have to accuse him. But Jesus stooped down, and with his finger wrote on the ground, as though he heard them not.

So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.

And again he stooped down, and wrote on the ground.

And they which heard it, being convicted by their own conscience, went out one by one, beginning at the eldest, even unto the last: and Jesus was left alone, and the woman standing in the midst.

When Jesus had lifted up himself, and saw none but the woman, he said unto her, Woman, where are those thine accusers? hath no man condemned thee?

She said, No man, Lord. And Jesus said unto her, Neither do I condemn thee: go, and sin no more.

This is a funny episode, because the woman says that she has no accusers. She might be innocent. She was brought by the “scribes and Pharisees,” who are basically the agents of Satan. It sounds like they were playing a little trick on Jesus.

Even as late as the mid-19th century, sodomy was punishable by death in Britain. Here is British law on adultery:

Today, an adulterous woman can simply kick an honest man out of his house, take his children, and force him to pay her a monthly check for the next 15 years while she bangs a series of fuckboys, all the while receiving praise from all corners (even the pulpit!) about how “brave” and “empowered” she is, and how it was all really her husband’s fault.

Nice item by Helen Roy, at American Mind: “Thirty, Flirty and (Not) Thriving.”

We are now reaping the bitter rewards of a total failure of older American women to convey the inescapable reality of female biology to their daughters and granddaughters. Instead of roadmaps corresponding to reality, millennials were silently handed birth control and college applications; screens took care of the rest. …

As television filled the vacuum where the wisdom of older women once provided a practical, long-view sexual education, it filled the heads of the children it raised with delusions of grandeur. Because of programs like Thirteen Going on Thirty, as well as Sex and the City, Secret Life of the American Teenager, and Teen Mom, a new culture of shame emerged around youth and fertility. You’d have to be crazy, dysfunctional, low-IQ, or low-status to sacrifice the glamour of independent urban decadence, represented by the first two, for the catastrophic humility represented by the latter.

The way women raised on a steady diet of anti-natalist programming treat other women who marry and have children during their most fertile years (between the ages of 16 to 25) is how I imagine women once used to treat homewreckers: with a great deal of shame and judgment commingled with performative pity. The given reason is that she, the child bearer, has squandered her elusive economic potential. We regard young women with babies the same way we regard young men with face tattoos. What a dramatic lapse in judgment. What a waste. She becomes an outcast, an alien to the girls she once knew as friends. For women especially, shame is a powerful deterrent.

Unusually strong language here. I think some women are starting to realize that men have foreclosed on Girl’s Game: “Have fun” during your 20s (“Thirty, flirty and thriving”), snap your fingers and summon a Beta Simp around Age 30 to marry you, divorce him in a few years, get the house, kids, a monthly check from your former husband/present indentured servant, and keep riding the Cock Carousel after your divorce — aka, the Child Support Model of Marriage.

Men have fiiiiiiiinally figured this one out, and are saying: “Please stuff it up your ass.” These are Men with something to lose. A lot of other Men are lost to porn and video games, and never achieve a level of prosperity that can support a family. These men have nothing to lose, but nothing to offer.