The Destruction of Modern Women

An easy analogy to understand why lust is worse for women than men is the same way we understand that anger (wrath) is worse for men than women.

If a woman gets angry, stamps her feet, starts slapping people or breaking objects, usually a man restrains her, or she gets into a cat fight with another girl, or someone just throws cold water in her face. It's no big deal and quickly forgotten.

Conversely, when a man becomes so angry he loses self-control, there is a strong chance someone might get killed, so the cops are called, and overwhelming force is employed in order to stop a potential threat.

Wrath is equally sinful for both sexes, and yet we can clearly see how it can be 10x more damaging and result in far greater sins down the road for men than women.

Likewise, when a man lusts, and wastes his time chasing women, sleeping with sloots, or purchasing whores, the worst thing that can happen to him is an STD that is easily dealt with or managed. More often than not, he needs his buddies to throw some cold water in his face and snap him out of his state of sin, take him to Church, and set him straight. It's not a big deal.

But when a woman lusts, and sleeps around, or engages in whoring because she lusts for money, then that woman can destroy her entire life with an incurable STD, a pregnancy that might lead her to obtain an abortion, or become dependent on some deadbeat man for child support. She also runs the risks of destroying herself emotionally, and make it much harder to bond to a worthwhile man for marriage.

Lust is equally sinful for both sexes, and yet we can clearly see how it can be 10x more damaging and result in far greater sins down the road for women than men.

The above has been common knowledge for all of human history, yet because of the "equality" movement people have forgotten common sense.
 
Last edited:
Samseau said:
Lust is equally sinful for both sexes, and yet we can clearly see how it can be 10x more damaging and result in far greater sins down the road for women than men.
Click to expand...
Good post. But you're contradicting yourself in this sentence, so just say it how it is. It's more sinful, since it has greater ramifications. Is it still a sin? Yes. That just means it's also a sin, but not equally sinful. I'm not particularly worried about it either way, but we should be precise - and what the others said before, along with me, stands.
 
Blade Runner said:
Good post. But you're contradicting yourself in this sentence, so just say it how it is. It's more sinful, since it has greater ramifications. Is it still a sin? Yes. That just means it's also a sin, but not equally sinful. I'm not particularly worried about it either way, but we should be precise - and what the others said before, along with me, stands.
Click to expand...
I know this is a controversial stance but sin is sin. The best way to understand human sexuality is to realize unless you’re like micropenis (which most normal humans aren’t) or are a land whale (this takes effort to get there) the most powerful sexual organ is the brain. Sexual immorality is basically giving yourself sexual diabetes. Vasopressin dopamine and serotonin govern feelings of love and how good sex is. One woman I was involved with, we talked about this and we concluded it’s actually your frontal lobes that make the sex good or bad. But this is where it gets depressing.

We all know women who get desensitized, and they can’t long for their husbands. Which leads to divorce and social issues. Ladies, put down the eggplant. Don’t give yourself sexual diabetes.

Men, we got issues too. I know guys who wanted to “hang up the player jersey” and get married and have kids but they just become… well bitchy dudes when they’re forced to become monogamous. and they can’t do it. Once again divorce and social issues. Put the sugar down brah. Hell, the founder of this … charming institution… is a poster child of this issue. Luckily he had mother church and the theotokos to help him.

Sex is kind of like food. Indulge. It’s a gift from god, but welp, obesity and diabetes is a thing. Understand what you’re diving into.
 
KulturedKaveman said:
I know this is a controversial stance but sin is sin. The best way to understand human sexuality is to realize unless you’re like micropenis (which most normal humans aren’t) or are a land whale (this takes effort to get there) the most powerful sexual organ is the brain. Sexual immorality is basically giving yourself sexual diabetes. Vasopressin dopamine and serotonin govern feelings of love and how good sex is. One woman I was involved with, we talked about this and we concluded it’s actually your frontal lobes that make the sex good or bad. But this is where it gets depressing.

We all know women who get desensitized, and they can’t long for their husbands. Which leads to divorce and social issues. Ladies, put down the eggplant. Don’t give yourself sexual diabetes.

Men, we got issues too. I know guys who wanted to “hang up the player jersey” and get married and have kids but they just become… well bitchy dudes when they’re forced to become monogamous. and they can’t do it. Once again divorce and social issues. Put the sugar down brah. Hell, the founder of this … charming institution… is a poster child of this issue. Luckily he had mother church and the theotokos to help him.

Sex is kind of like food. Indulge. It’s a gift from god, but welp, obesity and diabetes is a thing. Understand what you’re diving into.
Click to expand...
I like the post but it does leave out some important details. Your frontal lobe and visual center inform your hopefully not so micro penis, though. For women it's far more dependent on the feelings they get from their partner and what they will therefore allow or submit to, since they are passive. What's more, there is a strange thing one will encounter with women and sex: they could exceedingly enjoy or be ecstatic in certain encounters but not necessarily have the drive to want to participate in it again, soon thereafter, or all that frequently. That is not something men understand at all with T, which just cycles to another period of sex seeking, whether you pursue it or not - it'll always be there though.

I think the modern day has just made this worse. Women can get it at any time, but get jaded when/if they don't understand that guys aren't necessarily going to stick around, especially if you can't be honest about your SMV. Men can't, and even worse, most men don't. For some reason women can't or won't let themselves understand that it's a big priority for men, just like resources/comfort are for them. They aren't very imaginative or quite frankly care to think about things in general unless it immediately affects them, otherwise they'd realize that withholding sex from a man is akin to him not paying for anything anymore, or if you rather, telling the woman to go sleep in a room without AC or heat. Yeah, you're still around each other, but it ain't much fun.
 
Our human hardware and software, so to speak, were not designed with the modern world in mind. This is particularly true in regard to sexuality. In the pre-modern era, it was simply impossible for women to engage in serial promiscuity. Without birth control, abortion on demand and antibiotics, it was simply far too risky a proposition. Then add on the fact that without modern technology in the home and workplace, the vast majority of women were not remotely economically competitive with men, and were forced to rely on a man for provision. So you had the combination of fornication being incredibly risky for women AND women having a strong economic incentive to get married. Those are very powerful forces working to constrain the equally powerful and destructive female hypergamic sex drive. So when you lose those social forces, it's not surprising that female sexuality gets completely out of control.

It's important to understand that historically women were never sexually selected for being chaste/virginal, in the way that men were selected for being strong, smart, successful, etc... Rather, those conditions were forced on them. Women were only ever selected for being fertile and having a lot of children, a trait that is enhanced by a high sex drive and a healthy attraction to high value men. That is the fundamental programming women are operating under. Chastity is not a female virtue, it is a condition imposed on them by societal and/or technological dictate.
 
scorpion said:
Our human hardware and software, so to speak, were not designed with the modern world in mind. This is particularly true in regard to sexuality. In the pre-modern era, it was simply impossible for women to engage in serial promiscuity. Without birth control, abortion on demand and antibiotics, it was simply far too risky a proposition. Then add on the fact that without modern technology in the home and workplace, the vast majority of women were not remotely economically competitive with men, and were forced to rely on a man for provision. So you had the combination of fornication being incredibly risky for women AND women having a strong economic incentive to get married. Those are very powerful forces working to constrain the equally powerful and destructive female hypergamic sex drive. So when you lose those social forces, it's not surprising that female sexuality gets completely out of control.

It's important to understand that historically women were never sexually selected for being chaste/virginal, in the way that men were selected for being strong, smart, successful, etc... Rather, those conditions were forced on them. Women were only ever selected for being fertile and having a lot of children, a trait that is enhanced by a high sex drive and a healthy attraction to high value men. That is the fundamental programming women are operating under. Chastity is not a female virtue, it is a condition imposed on them by societal and/or technological dictate.
Click to expand...
Both well stated and accurate.
 
Female chastity is a necessary precondition for a lasting and functional society, history shows that without in society will eventually collapse and what we are seeing now is a slow collapse unfolding. This is doubly so in the modern era with modern contraception and abortion. Previously even promiscuous women often produced children if only by accident but now promiscuous women are often childless and furthermore men have the attitude of "Why buy the cow if you are getting the milk for free?". Even though countries like Australia, Germany, U.S.A. etc have low birthrates and only prop up the population by immigration birthrates could still drop a lot lower. South Korea is the prime example with a record breaking birth rate of 0.7. If that continues they are on a fast path to extinction.
 
Australia Sucks said:
To a large extent male fornication is the fault of women firstly because women are the gatekeepers to sex and if they stopped giving up their vaginas then men wouldn't be able to fornicate as easily and secondly if women got married whilst young and virgin
Click to expand...
That is true of course, but the whole idea of "women having agency" ie the fictional idea that women are able to decide independently on their own what to do with their vaginas and who to marry because of the feels Chad gives them, and how long to play around at university and wasting their fertile years at jobs, was all because men gave women the space to be the authority. This is completely anti-biblical (and therefore Satanic, as in inversion of Logos), and of course completely restricted in almost every religion and indeed every society throughout history.

So one can point the finger at men for thinking that a woman can freely lead, teach, date, live alone, vote, etc.

1 Timothy 2:12​

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.​


As @scorpion said above, chastity was a system imposed on women (and other women were its strongest enforcers). But remove such a system and say that the voice of a child or a woman or whatever is equal to the voice of your father (and indeed your Father), and you end up with what we have today.

It is extremely difficult to unravel, because you need to get back to the point of basically Taliban society and it's difficult to envision the steps that take you there (other than Taliban just taking over but they are really mostly peaceful and not into that).

Saying it's just women's fault is expecting women to obey by a moral code and conduct themselves honorably, and the only thing that has ever made them do so is religion (and even then some of them prefer to rebel and be witches).
 
Rax Moscow said:
That is true of course, but the whole idea of "women having agency" ie the fictional idea that women are able to decide independently on their own what to do with their vaginas and who to marry because of the feels Chad gives them, and how long to play around at university and wasting their fertile years at jobs, was all because men gave women the space to be the authority. This is completely anti-biblical (and therefore Satanic, as in inversion of Logos), and of course completely restricted in almost every religion and indeed every society throughout history.

So one can point the finger at men for thinking that a woman can freely lead, teach, date, live alone, vote, etc.

1 Timothy 2:12​

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.​


As @scorpion said above, chastity was a system imposed on women (and other women were its strongest enforcers). But remove such a system and say that the voice of a child or a woman or whatever is equal to the voice of your father (and indeed your Father), and you end up with what we have today.

It is extremely difficult to unravel, because you need to get back to the point of basically Taliban society and it's difficult to envision the steps that take you there (other than Taliban just taking over but they are really mostly peaceful and not into that).

Saying it's just women's fault is expecting women to obey by a moral code and conduct themselves honorably, and the only thing that has ever made them do so is religion (and even then some of them prefer to rebel and be witches).
Click to expand...
Nah, I disagree women have agency and can follow a moral code. Just us men keep indulging them because we want to f… kiss them. Imagine if like “ewww you’re so gross” was the common cry of men. “Ewww diseases” instead people with that attitude are a one in a million minority and they’ll laugh in your face. The origin of white knightdom is not wanting to blow your 1/10000000000 chance she’ll sleep with you. If us men just knew what we wanted and rejected these gals trust me, they’d change. But it has to be men as a whole, not just a minority. “You’re a witch huh, that’s kind of cringe.” That’s how i deal with them. It works better than saying, well “you’re destroying society.”

To empathize imagine a world where every woman was begging for a chance to be with you and no six pack or height was required. You just had to show up. You’d indulge yourself too. There are cultures like that and this entire site’s predecessor was founded by a guy who made a career on advising men to gain access to those cultures.
 
Rax Moscow said:
So one can point the finger at men for thinking that a woman can freely lead, teach, date, live alone, vote, etc.
Click to expand...
One can agree with this (I always have) but also realize that it doesn't do me any good and I don't promote it, nor was I responsible for it. I still have to live with the fact now that you barely get any recognition of actual reality or humility by 35, sometimes in clown world even 40, which means nothing is very serious, since you see priority largely was "Nah, I'll try out the casino for a decade, have fun, lose my money, and just hope some sucker comes to the table with chips at the end - and for another 30+ years."
KulturedKaveman said:
But it has to be men as a whole, not just a minority
Click to expand...
You just proved they don't have agency.
KulturedKaveman said:
You just had to show up. You’d indulge yourself too.
Click to expand...
This misses a big sex difference. Even if it's still a minority, a large portion of men will achieve, work out, be in shape, etc. Maybe not forever, but they will. That portion is way bigger than the small number of women who will do things to be pretty for longer than age 16-23, meaning that they just show up, indeed.
 
Rax Moscow said:
That is true of course, but the whole idea of "women having agency" ie the fictional idea that women are able to decide independently on their own what to do with their vaginas and who to marry because of the feels Chad gives them, and how long to play around at university and wasting their fertile years at jobs, was all because men gave women the space to be the authority. This is completely anti-biblical (and therefore Satanic, as in inversion of Logos), and of course completely restricted in almost every religion and indeed every society throughout history.

So one can point the finger at men for thinking that a woman can freely lead, teach, date, live alone, vote, etc.

1 Timothy 2:12​

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.​


As @scorpion said above, chastity was a system imposed on women (and other women were its strongest enforcers). But remove such a system and say that the voice of a child or a woman or whatever is equal to the voice of your father (and indeed your Father), and you end up with what we have today.

It is extremely difficult to unravel, because you need to get back to the point of basically Taliban society and it's difficult to envision the steps that take you there (other than Taliban just taking over but they are really mostly peaceful and not into that).

Saying it's just women's fault is expecting women to obey by a moral code and conduct themselves honorably, and the only thing that has ever made them do so is religion (and even then some of them prefer to rebel and be witches).
Click to expand...
True I agree with everything you say but I cannot see the situation improving until after we have a complete societal collapse.
 
KulturedKaveman said:
To empathize imagine a world where every woman was begging for a chance to be with you and no six pack or height was required. You just had to show up. You’d indulge yourself too. There are cultures like that and this entire site’s predecessor was founded by a guy who made a career on advising men to gain access to those cultures.
Click to expand...
Those places haven't existed anywhere in the world since the mass adoption of smart phones and social media (i.e. such places ceased to exist around 10 years ago).
 
Rax Moscow said:
That is true of course, but the whole idea of "women having agency" ie the fictional idea that women are able to decide independently on their own what to do with their vaginas and who to marry because of the feels Chad gives them, and how long to play around at university and wasting their fertile years at jobs, was all because men gave women the space to be the authority. This is completely anti-biblical (and therefore Satanic, as in inversion of Logos), and of course completely restricted in almost every religion and indeed every society throughout history.

So one can point the finger at men for thinking that a woman can freely lead, teach, date, live alone, vote, etc.

1 Timothy 2:12​

I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man, but to be in silence.​


As @scorpion said above, chastity was a system imposed on women (and other women were its strongest enforcers). But remove such a system and say that the voice of a child or a woman or whatever is equal to the voice of your father (and indeed your Father), and you end up with what we have today.

It is extremely difficult to unravel, because you need to get back to the point of basically Taliban society and it's difficult to envision the steps that take you there (other than Taliban just taking over but they are really mostly peaceful and not into that).

Saying it's just women's fault is expecting women to obey by a moral code and conduct themselves honorably, and the only thing that has ever made them do so is religion (and even then some of them prefer to rebel and be witches).
Click to expand...
KulturedKaveman said:
Nah, I disagree women have agency and can follow a moral code. Just us men keep indulging them because we want to f… kiss them. Imagine if like “ewww you’re so gross” was the common cry of men. “Ewww diseases” instead people with that attitude are a one in a million minority and they’ll laugh in your face. The origin of white knightdom is not wanting to blow your 1/10000000000 chance she’ll sleep with you. If us men just knew what we wanted and rejected these gals trust me, they’d change. But it has to be men as a whole, not just a minority. “You’re a witch huh, that’s kind of cringe.” That’s how i deal with them. It works better than saying, well “you’re destroying society.”

To empathize imagine a world where every woman was begging for a chance to be with you and no six pack or height was required. You just had to show up. You’d indulge yourself too. There are cultures like that and this entire site’s predecessor was founded by a guy who made a career on advising men to gain access to those cultures.
Click to expand...
Blade Runner said:
You just proved they don't have agency.
Click to expand...
Women have agency. This is a Christian forum and we are taught we are given free will. If women don’t have agency it’s unjust for any woman to go to hell. But women are not like small children and can go to hell with bad decisions.
 
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Women have agency. This is a Christian forum and we are taught we are given free will. If women don’t have agency it’s unjust for any woman to go to hell. But women are not like small children and can go to hell with bad decisions.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It’s cos everyone enables them because shame has been discarded in our society and every red blooded guy wants to fu… kiss them. We’re the enablers.

I’m actually probably more tolerant than most on here in some regards. Like I’m not demanding a virgin wife. I’d like someone like me. Child free, a couple of boyfriends in the past but nothing worked out. I don’t want extremes. Like I said we’re the enablers. The hoe bags I flat out reject and it gets lonely. I want to give in some days, I won’t lie.

Basically the west has became an inverse of what places like Thailand and the Philippines used to be. Women over there enabled dudes bad behavior. I mean as I said earlier, look at this institutions founder. I wonder what would happen if those Thais and Filipinas called the the sex tourists “gross” and had to get it together if they wanted some. Western men could collectively pull this on western women. This is where the gym, church and religion, and self control come in. But we got none of these in the west.

As a final thought, do any of you think there’s a chance western women would rather be alone than held accountable? I’ve heard that argument before. I don’t think so to be honest. Surprise - women are people too. It’s how this social cohesion thing works.
 
Last edited:
Shaquilleoatmeal said:
Women have agency. This is a Christian forum and we are taught we are given free will. If women don’t have agency it’s unjust for any woman to go to hell. But women are not like small children and can go to hell with bad decisions.
Click to expand...
I think your argument is flawed. I don't think its that black white.

There are degrees of agency, responsibility and accountability. That is why for example age of sexual consent, legal drinking age, minimum legal marriage age, legal minimum driving age, etc are sometimes at different ages. For example you can have states in the U.S.A. where legal age of sexual consent is 16, legal voting age is 18 and legal drinking age is 21 because the legal system considers people to have various levels of agency and responsibility, etc at different ages and so some things are deemed acceptable at one age but not at another. Just like how children past a certain age can go to juvenile detention which is essentially jail if they commit a serious enough crime even though they are not old enough to vote. Does that mean that a 14 year old kid that gets sent to "juvie" should not be sent there because they have no agency? So they are old enough to go to prison but not old enough to vote?

I think women have some level of agency which is on average something in-between that of an adult male and a child. This is logically consistent with the opinion of most men on the forum (including myself) in that we believe that women should not be allowed to vote because they don't have the same level of agency as men. Because women do not have the same level of agency and sense of responsibility as men. Of course feminists and woke leftists have inconsistent and self serving ideology which is basically summed up by women have agency when it benefits them and they don't have agency when it doesn't benefit them.
 
Australia Sucks said:
For example you can have states in the U.S.A. where legal age of sexual consent is 16, legal voting age is 18 and legal drinking age is 21 because the legal system considers people to have various levels of agency and responsibility
Click to expand...
There are other factors behind these laws.

Sexual consent age in USA is higher (it’s not just 16, it’s often 17-18 and it’s socially unacceptable to get with 16-17 past age 20) because of feminism and religion.

Voting age is 18 because of stupid fucking Jerry Springer.

Drinking age is 21 because MADD and the USA has a car culture so drunk driving plays a role.

In fact most countries don’t allow driver’s licenses until 18 but USA allows it at 16 because of the car culture.
 
Last edited:
Australia Sucks said:
There are degrees of agency, responsibility and accountability.
Click to expand...
This is correct, and he explained it well. Shaquille is technically correct as well, but we can go one step further to prove our point: children also have agency. We're using quick, shorthand speech to prove the point that at a minimum (like Australia said), it's nowhere near the agency of men and/or the expectation shouldn't be anywhere near that. Also, this is a temporal and cultural thing (culture changes throughout time, obviously) in which I'll make a bold statement like "they have no agency" because in this particular culture it seems impossible for them to resist doing X, seeking Y, or put another way, we can predict their behavior 99.9% of the time. For all intents and purposes to say that you have to be a literal saint to "have agency" in this day and age, it's an exception proves the rule phenomenon.

Of course, there's one more wrinkle that proves it even further. Even the average to bad looking women act poorly quite frequently. That's not a tragedy for anyone, because no on really wants the fatties with purple hair anyway. My point is that agency would truly apply to an above average woman, because she's the only one that is going to get tested by the culture to make a decision that might prove us wrong = she has options. This does happen, meaning some do follow a better path, marry early, don't try to have fun for a long time then go beta bux, etc, but it's exceedingly rare. The bad looking women acting poorly proves the basis is indeed in hormones, social status and propaganda, etc. that seems unbelievably hard for them to shake.

It's hard also for a lot of men to shake but like I've said before, there are objectively a ton of really good men out there (20%), but their counterpart or an SMV equivalent woman is barely 3%. That's just how it is when you don't have young women or women that will play traditional roles, or support you on the journey so it makes it worth it for both of you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top