You wouldn’t think there would be any need to write a Guide to Sex. All the animals do it, without having to read about it beforehand. But, it seems that a lot of men today don’t know how to do it, or at least, how to do it well enough.

I went to a private boarding school for high school (actually, one year of high school). During that time, there was a speaker on the topic of sex. The audience was the 250 or so male and female students, age 14-18, plus about 60 faculty and spouses.

The speaker asked a question: Who is capable of more orgasms, men or women?

I raised my hand. Everybody knows that women have more fun. Even me, who had never actually done it, at that time.

There was one other woman who raised her hand, the wife of a faculty member. Then she looked around, and seeing that nobody else had their hand up (including her husband, sitting next to her), except for me (who was sitting directly behind so she couldn’t see me), she sort of put it down again. I kept my hand up. Why, I don’t know.

And so, whether from hearsay (most students) or experience (faculty), people seemed to think that men have more fun during sex.

Today, we hear about the orgasm deficit. Rather than having much more fun than men, women seem to be having much less. I have heard promiscuous women say that about 10% of men are good at sex. I think she means — not bad. In other words: not that 10% of men are in the top 10%, but that only 10% of men meet some kind of minimum standard of non-disappointment.

The speaker’s opinion was that women had more fun, since they were capable of multiple orgasms. The world record for the most orgasms in an hour is: 134. Plus, women’s orgasms can be longer and more intense.

That is a big number, but in my (later) experience, it was common for a woman to have ten or more orgasms during a “session,” and there are sometimes multiple “sessions.” This didn’t happen all the time, or most of the time, but it did happen. I think it could happen with nearly all women, given enough time together.

This is a lot of fun, for men and for women.

There is no special technique to this, or at least nothing that I am going to go into now, but there are a few basic guidelines. There are certain roles to play: the man’s role is to make the woman have a good time, and the woman’s role is to have a good time. The man is somewhat active; the woman somewhat passive. The man takes the lead, and the woman follows. If you look at the basic roles of formal dancing, it is much the same. The man always “leads” in dancing, but doesn’t the woman have most of the fun?

The man gets her off; she can’t really get off without his help.

The woman’s role is to have a good time. This is something of an internal process. It is external for the man. He does to another. For a woman, it is more of an internal experience. (This is exactly analogous to the process of conception itself.) If a woman doesn’t know what else to do — if she has no experience in these matters — she can just lie quietly on the bed and let the man have his way with her. I don’t mean that she continues to lie quietly, but rather, that she responds to his stimulus.

The process of learning, internally, how to have a good time can take a while for a woman. Probably, weeks or months.

The woman is attentive to her internal state. The man should be attentive to … the woman’s internal state. This is apparent usually from her breath, voice, movements, etc. You can think of playing her like a musical instrument. Be creative and artistic. Don’t just pound on the keys with your fists. If it’s not working, try something else.

A woman should make at least a little noise, so the man can be aware of her internal state. Women do this naturally, but some women suppress this, presumably because they don’t want other people to hear. Screaming is OK. Although the man is paying attention to the woman’s state, nevertheless he must Be The Big Boss, and take charge.

I think that most women can become “very responsive.” It usually takes some time to get there. She has to practice a little bit. There are some women who feel nothing at all. But, I think that is on purpose: they don’t want to feel anything. If they change their mind about that, they could eventually remedy the problem. For men, I think it helps if you simply are aware that this is what you are doing. It is a sort of attitude. For one thing, you don’t just stop after one. You aren’t going to get to two if you stop at one. Just keep going, perhaps with a rise and fall of intensity. Also, don’t assume that a woman’s orgasm is as long as a man’s — perhaps, ten seconds. Just keep going. Eventually, she will sort of run out of energy, and things will come to a natural conclusion. Maybe it will be 20-30 seconds. But, she might be ready again in a couple minutes.

Sometimes women will actually say: “Don’t stop!” For some reason, when men hear this, they stop. Other times, if it gets really intense, a woman may say: “Stop!” Obviously, don’t stop. Just push her over the cliff. She will thank you later, when she regains the power of speech.

Usually, men find this whole process very satisfying. But, perhaps you are disappointed that men don’t have the same kind of fun that women do. The Tantric people say that men can do this. Men can train themselves to separate ejaculation from the orgasmic response, and have orgasms like women. But, this is certainly rare.

There was a popular book in the 1980s, the One Hour Orgasm. Actually, they mean a series of rising and falling orgasms, over a period that, with practice, can reach up to an hour. It is not a bad place to start. Yes, I tried it. It worked.

I was reading in the comments of a YouTube video (most of the best material is there) about a man who tried imitating the manner of the Sexy Alpha guys in his office, without actually doing anything. He was married with children, and never bothered to interact with any women beyond “hello.” He just decided to swagger and talk like a sexy, manly dude, instead of a meek office drone. Think about imitating Sean Connery, George Clooney or Harrison Ford if it helps. There were no motorcycles or tattoos involved.

Apparently this was quite successful. Women in his office, twenty years younger, would fall in love with him. At one point, a young woman actually took her boyfriend into the office, and pointed him out: “That guy over there.” Apparently, she wanted her boyfriend to act that way; or perhaps, he wanted to see who she was talking about all the time.

This is good for those men who are actually happy with home and family. You can be sexy too. It seems to be mostly just a change in attitude. So why not?

If this short, old guy can do it … you can do it.

58-year-old married guy with children, in a suit:

A day in the life of an upper-middle-class young mother and her baby, in Tokyo.

Most young Japanese moms don’t wear kimono when out about town. But, I wish they did. (This woman spent five years as a Geisha apprentice, and is definitely a Level 5 Housewife when it comes to traditional clothing.)

If you want to see the Oppression part, it is at the end (15:00), where, in return for all this luxury and freedom, her husband Demands a dinner consisting of rice porridge and a beer, while sitting on the sofa. Toxic Patriarchy Alert! Hide your eyes while she Submits to this horror.

In the scheme I am drawing out here, which is the scheme that was used for centuries before 1900 or so, women get married young, and they have children. It tended to happen, in the era before contraception. But, shouldn’t a woman have children during her period of peak fertility? Nature lines up a woman’s peak fertility and peak attractiveness for a reason, and we know what the reason is: making babies.

I am mentioning this because we are going to have to get our heads around young mothers of nineteen or twenty years old. Among other advantages of this scheme, it propels the young woman directly into big grown-up tasks and adult responsibilities. No decade of party sluttery here. It also tends to cement a marriage, since a woman with children is going to want to have a husband, and also, a twenty-year-old woman with young children is not likely to go searching for an extra guy on the side while her husband is away at work.

The advantage here comes in the out-years. By age 45, a woman likely has all her children out of the house, and has a good twenty years to build a career if she wants to, with no conflict with children.

The Feminist Life Script, where women spend their twenties partying around, or going from one transient LTR to another, while they are waiting until they turn 28 and can finally get married, has unfortunately become so dominant today that I think women who actually are married young end up searching for a way to “get back on track”.

I had a friend who was from a wealthy family on the Upper West Side of New York. Her parents probably saw the likely outcome if she (a 10/10 girl with money) was released into the social environment of Sodom On The Hudson without restraints. In any case, she was married around age 20. But, alas for her parents, it didn’t work. She was divorced soon afterwards. Fortunately, there were no children involved. When I knew her, at age 30 (and still a 10/10 girl), she was looking for a husband. When I asked about her divorce, she explained: “I was just too young.”

This is a problem with young marriages today: it deviates so much from the Feminist Life Script that women are soon looking for a way to get back to in-group norms, which means getting divorced.

Unfortunately, I couldn’t really recommend that any man marry her, since she was practically the definition of Trouble On Heels. A man with money would probably be better off marrying a hispanic hotel maid. Literally a hispanic hotel maid.

This is Steve Cohen, one of the most successful Wall Street money managers of his generation, with an estimated net worth of $14 billion. That is his wife Alexandra, to whom he has been married for 28 years. Of Puerto Rican descent, she grew up in the projects (government social housing) of Harlem. When he met her, she was a single mom with three children. They had four more children together. Apparently, they met through a dating service. Of twenty women, she was the only one that responded.

I’m not sure I like the single-mother part, but: good choice, Steve.

Is he not better off with his choice of a wife (let’s guess) than 80%+ of professional-class men who marry? Is he worse off because she didn’t graduate from Princeton? Is she?

My point here is: To make this work, young women will have to get married young, and stay married. Probably, they should have children quickly. Get all the childbearing done by age 25, age 30 at the latest. This will require substantial deviation from the Feminist Life Script, or, in other words, the actions of the Herd. If women are aware of this beforehand, it shouldn’t be too hard to do.

In the past, social dancing was a major means by which young people would meet each other. Boys and girls together would often go to dance school to practice.

I was in Las Vegas and went to a dance club recently, just to look around. I happened to have a free ticket, which cost $23 otherwise. I didn’t really like dance clubs much when I was younger, but I can appreciate them. In the 1990s, dance music was disposable bubblegum but at least you could dance to it, and people did dance to it, enthusiastically. The music at this club sounded like raw sewage being poured over a pile of rusted scrap metal, accompanied by mortar fire. Nobody was actually dancing. Yes, at a Vegas dance club with a $23 door, nobody was dancing. They were standing around, on the dance floor, like corporate cocktail hour, but not talking, of course, because that was impossible.

So I left the club and went to see the free live band, which was pretty good. People were dancing — people of all ages. There were two people (who didn’t know each other), who looked in their early sixties. When the live band began playing some late-1970s disco tunes, both of them started into these elaborate, sinuous movements — the ghosts of 1970s disco.

I think these days we have nothing left to lose, so we might as well being to learn how to dance properly again.

Other times, it doesn’t go so well.

In Traditional Courtship, there are no boyfriends. That is a new invention of “dating.” It seems that there are a number of women with a “no sex before marriage” approach that nevertheless have boyfriends. This is not Traditional Courtship, it is “dating” arrested at the 13-year-old level. A woman has suitors; perhaps, preferred suitors; a fiance and a husband. In the time before a proposal, a couple may spend a lot of time together, but they are still not a “pair” yet. They are discussing that. In any case, the process is not drawn out. A man either makes a proposal or he leaves. There is no reason to spend more than about three months at it. In the past, people sometimes did have extended engagements, typically because the man was not ready to support a family yet, but it was expected that he would be soon. (Perhaps he is in law school.)

from Dalrock:

Having a “boyfriend” is not Courtship. Rather, it is when the Courtship process is put on hold, indefinitely. Women got married young because they didn’t waste any time with “boyfriends.”

Go to 4:55.

Courtship wasn’t for fun. It may be fun, but it wasn’t for fun. It was for finding a spouse. If a man was doing it for fun, simply to spend a pleasant afternoon with a pretty girl with no interest in marrying (her or anyone else), then he was wasting her time, and was to be shooed away.

Now, to state the obvious since it seems most people will do it the wrong way, Traditional Courtship is not the Feminist Life Script (school, job, get married around 30), without kissing or boyfriends. You didn’t need a boyfriend because you had a husband — typically around age 20.

Lori Alexander of The Transformed Wife is a good example of the “submissive” wife. Go there for lots of detail. But, I want to summarize basic principles.

The word “submit” or “submissive,” in the Bible when referring to wives, is derived from a Greek word, that is in turn derived from a Latin Roman term that refers to the relationship of a soldier to his commanding officer. Today, this is similar to the relationship of an employee to his superior. To “submit” is to arrange oneself into a relationship of subordination necessary to work together as a team. The team exists to achieve certain goals (winning the battle, winning the game, competing in business) and cannot be in conflict with itself. Thus, even though there are inevitably differences of opinion regarding the direction of the team/organization, the participants work together to achieve the goal.

Unfortunately, in English the term “submit” or “submissive” also refers to the relationship between, for example, the conqueror and the conquered, or a tyrannical government over its citizens, or a master to a slave. This leads to some distaste for the concept.

It is usually easiest for us today to imagine the employee/superior (“boss”) relationship, rather than a soldier/commanding officer relationship.

In a marriage, the man must be in the superior role, because a woman will soon become disgusted with a man that puts himself in the inferior position (who “submits” to his wife’s will). Women are happiest when the man takes the lead, and men are happy with this too. It doesn’t work the other way around.

Matriarchy does not exist.

In other words, a woman “enters a man’s Frame.” The man sets the order, and the woman works within it.

This superior/subordinate relationship can have many gradations. We can imagine some women who might be content with a man that seems “much higher than her,” for example like a general compared to the common soldier. This woman might prefer that the man take care of all the big stuff, so that she can basically have a comfortable lifestyle without worrying about all the details (mostly money-related), or participating much in the decision-making process. The man creates a sanctuary with a large buffer between her and the outside world, where she can focus on her narrow sphere of responsibilities and actions, mostly concerned with childcare, education, housekeeping, aesthetic interests (beauty, clothing) and socializing with her woman friends. Many women are very happy with this.

You could have a different sort of relationship, which is more like that of a CEO with his top vice-presidents, or a general with his top corporals. Here, the CEO might have an extended council about major issues, and delegate large responsibilities to his vice-presidents. This looks more like a “partnership,” but the CEO always has the deciding vote. In the end, the CEO makes the decisions, and the vice-presidents must work within that Frame without conflict. They must be an effective team.

You can’t be a “strong, independent woman” within a marriage. You can be strong (that is, highly capable), but not independent. When you join a football team, you have to play football. You have to play a certain position, and you have to cooperate with the team leader (quarterback, coach). When the play is a running play, specifically Play DD-37, you do not just go and do your own thing “independently.” Nor do you stamp your foot and insist on getting your way. If you don’t want to be on the team, then go somewhere else and be “strong and independent” independently. I suggest artificial insemination.

A husband can certainly take into account a woman’s desires and wishes. Her contentment is one of his responsibilities. If a wife says: “I want to take some tennis lessons because I think it would be fun and a good way to stay in shape,” then a husband can agree with that proposition, and make it part of His Frame. He might get a tanned, hardbody wife out of the deal. On the other hand, he may decide that she has been slacking off too much already, and has been falling short of his vision of how he wants childcare duties to be addressed, and thus refuse the request. Either way, the husband decides.

From this, we can see that it is necessary for a wife to “submit” — to join the man’s Team. Otherwise, all you have is internal conflict, or the disgust of the woman to the man who refuses to play the role of the leader.

Traditional Courtship is not just “Dating” without sex. For one thing, the Feminist Life Script (get a college degree, get married around 28-30) doesn’t make much sense when you take the premarital sex out of it. That’s why people never did it that way, except for a few leftover spinsters.

Apparently, there is a “Stay At Home Daughters Movement,” which revives one of the elements of Traditional Courtship — young women live at their father’s house until marriage. Often, in better families, they would continue their education at home. These days, you aren’t going to get much of an education at a university anyway, including Princeton and Harvard, so if you are going to learn anything at all it is likely to be on your own time.

Time Magazine on the Stay At Home Daughters Movement

Wikipedia on the Stay At Home Daughters Movement

I will have more to say later about how a Stay At Home Daughter might educate herself. But, the basics are:

Read the Harvard Classics. All of them.

Read the top 20 or so pre-1910 novels

Among other things, these daughters will learn about Traditional Courtship, which is important since they have no living examples.

Now, to restate the obvious, the goal of a stay-at-home daughter is not to stay at home. The goal of a stay-at-home daughter is to get the heck out of your father’s house, by marrying a man.

This message is for: men.

Waaaah waaah waaaaah. The Manosphere these days is worse than a roomful of bitches. We know, basically, what the problems are, as explored in great detail by the MGTOW people:

1. Laws and legal standing of men.
2. Women’s behavior, influenced by the laws.

Remember Dalrock’s definition of Feminism:

Dalrock’s Law of Feminism: Feminism is the assertion that men are evil and naturally want to harm women, followed by pleas to men to solve all of women’s problems.

And what do MGTOW people do today?

MGTOWism is the assertion that women are evil and naturally want to harm men, followed by pleas to women to solve all of men’s problems.

Mostly, this takes the form of pleas that women should change the laws, or at least, help change the laws. Along with that, we can add the treatment of men in organizations (corporations, universities) which are institutional policy, the “laws” of the institution, if not exactly legal statue.

This is not an unreasonable reaction. First, men are simply accustomed to feminism, having been stewed in it all their lives, so they fall into these patterns naturally. Second, it is clear that feminist groups (women) have had a lot of influence on institutions and also actual legal statute, in part because they constitute at least 50% of the vote, and when you add the Manginas, White Knights and Male Feminists you tend to get a majority.

But, that is not what we do around here. Remember our principles:

1. Get up off your knees.
2. Get your Patriarchy on.
3. Tell the bitches what to do.

I think it is worthwhile to recognize that the common Feminist approach actually acknowledges, or assumes, Patriarchy. It is the typical behavior of a wife to a patriarchal husband. They complain and then ask the husband to make it better for them. Because, the Patriarch has the control and command. Wives moan to their husbands to make it better for them, but husbands do not moan to their wives to make it better for them. Nope. The man is on his own. He has to fix it himself. These are the responsibilities of leadership.

If a man actually does whine to his wife, and begs her to make it better for him, and (seething with disgust) she actually does so, I can guarantee that the man will not be happy with the outcome. Remember, Matriarchy Does Not Exist.

Today, “Patriarchy” is distributed, in the form of democratic Republicanism. (We can lament, perhaps, the fact that women are allowed to vote.) Thus, men have to act collectively to get things done.

We today have a Very Big Problem with failing to Get Up Off Our Ass and act collectively. This means big, big, big groups of people. On the Conservative side, the National Rifle Association is a good example of a highly effective, well-funded, broadly-supported institution that aims to achieve certain policy goals. Men’s Rights issues (issues regarding the legal standing of men, such as in family court, or regarding domestic violence or “sexual harassment”) need a similar, Big Fat Pushy organization, or several. The NRA had about 5.5 million members giving $170 million in funding in 2018, mostly from small contributors giving less than $100 each.

Leading Men’s Rights organizations should be similar: with ten-million-plus members, and funding in excess of $200 million per year (which is only $20 per person for ten million people).

We have a major problem today of men who want to sit on their ass and complain, but don’t want to do anything even so minor as giving $25 to some existing Men’s Rights organization that is actually working in their interest to fix those problems. More broadly, this is known as “self-government.” If people are incapable of self-government, then someone will step up and govern for them. You won’t like that one bit, I guarantee.

Fabius Maximus has had many excellent comments on this topic.

January 8, 2020: Films Show Our Problems And Why We Can’t Solve Them

So, today, we begin the process of building up the NRA of MRA. We can complain that the present Men’s Rights Advocate groups are sickly and ineffective, or are perhaps missing some important points or going in the wrong direction. But, a big pile of money would help solve that. And, if they did not put this money to use effectively, then some other person could step up and make the argument about how they will get things done much better. But, that other person is not going to step up if even the existing organizations can barely pay the electric bill.

So, our assignment today is:

1. Give $25 to the politically-active Men’s Rights organization of your choice.
2. Give $25 to the YouTuber, blogger, or other intellectual leader who best represents your interests.
3. Write a letter to your State Assemblyman and State Senator (as appropriate) describing your grievances and what changes you would like to see to State laws.

It doesn’t really matter if you may think these people are somewhat mediocre, or not quite something that you are excited about. The important thing is that You Got Up Off Your Ass. You have set the example for other men to get up off their asses too. You have put some money in motion. Later, as you learn more about various organizations and what they do, maybe you will find a better recipient for your money. But, send some money now, and leave that research for the next time.

Now, to make this clear, I mean Really Sending Some Money, not just thinking about the idea of sending some money, and Doing It Now. You can also send more later, but send some now, even if you are not quite sure what you are doing. This is mostly for your benefit, to practice becoming politically influential by teaming up into large, effective, well-funded groups. Getting Up Off Your Ass is not the whole process of getting to your destination, but it is always the first step.

Today, I will recommend only one group active in public policy: the National Coalition for Men (ncfm.org). Go there and give them money.

Among bloggers/intellectuals involved in these matters, I suggest:

Paul Elam (avoiceformen.com, paulelam.com)

Warren Farrell (warrenfarrell.com)

Coach Greg Adams (youtube)

Sandman (youtube)

No doubt you can name some that are more to your liking. Just pick one and give them money.

The last assignment is to write to your State Representative and Senator (both). Most family law is State law, not Federal law, so it is determined at the State level. Your State Congressmen are very easy to access and are glad to hear from you. The Massachusetts State House of Representatives has 160 members, among a population of 6.9 million, or 43,000 people per State Congressman on average. Plus, he is always nearby, in-State. The average Federal Congressman has over 700,000 constituents, and also, he spends half his time in Washington DC.

Find out your local State Representative, and write him a letter. It can be a short letter, simply stating your stance. (“I am against no-fault divorce.”) You can write something longer, with reasoning and statistics. Remember, you might know a lot more about it than him, so explain what you know. It is easy to put graphs and pictures into a letter these days. Or, you could refer to a book that you feel represents your position.

I write letters to my State Representative and Senator from time to time. They have always written a personalized letter back to me, referring to the topic in question, their stance, and how they voted on the issue.

Doing a daily exercise program is a great way to get in shape. But sometimes ambitions rise higher than this. In the past, a young woman was expected not only to be slim and beautiful, but to have poise, grace and elegance. Among the upper classes, this was often achieved through the study of ballet. Let’s take a look:

This is a very high standard of student dance, and is probably best considered early training as a professional dancer rather than part of a regular upper-middle-class education. Nevertheless, we are now moving well beyond doing squats and pushups, to a very elevated milieu of physical performance.

Young men would be engaged in sports. Like sports, dance can be competitive, and requires the refinement of high-level skills over a period of years. It exercises teamwork and social skills. However, unlike sports, it is not inherently combatitive.

Amateur ballet performances are interesting, because they are often full of beautiful women in the audience — typically, mothers who also danced when they were younger. As an example of what I mean by “poise, grace and elegance,” here is an interview with Svetlana Zakharova, one of the finest dancers of her time. Compare her aspect with that of her interviewer.

She was forty years old in this video — and with an eight-year-old daughter, she too is a Ballet Mom. Here is Zakharova clotheshorsing it for Vogue Italy in 2014 — age 35:

Here she is on the job: