Lottery of Babylon posted:

No woman in love ever wanted to hear her lover say “Honey, you can hang out at my place as long as you feel like it”

What she wants to hear is “I will keep you forever, and never ever let you go.”

Men want to have sex with women. Women want to submit to a man’s urgent and powerful sexual demands. Sex for women is just not very interesting unless it is an act of submission and obedience.

Moment to moment consent to marriage and moment to moment consent to sex just is not what women want, as every man who has seduced a woman knows. (Some of my progressive commenters claim to married etc, but I really find this hard to believe. Maybe they are married in the sense that they get to sleep on the couch in the garage and are graciously allowed change the sheets on the main bed after their wife fucks her lover, who visits at infrequent intervals, beats her up, beats her kids up, fucks her, drinks all the booze in the fridge, and takes the housekeeping money.)

What women want corresponds to what, in the ancestral environment, was a safe place to raise children, and that was a household where she was firmly and securely in the hand of a strong master. Or, as the Old Testament tells us: “thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.”

Equality requires fences between equals. To raise children together, must be one household, one flesh, and one household can have only one captain. If two captains, no safe place for children. If your household has two captains, your wife will abandon that household.

The vast majority of white converts to traditional Islam are hot fertile age single women. Very few converts from Islam to Christianity, almost none, are fertile age women. Traditional Islam gives women what fertile age women really want. Progressivism gives them what they foolishly ask for and gives it to them good and hard.

Because of hypergamy, a woman will always test you, always rebel. But she does not rebel because she wants to win, instead she wants to be overpowered, she wants to be dominated, she wants to lose. Because of hypergamy, there is no rest for men, no love that is secure and unconditional. We always have to perform, we are always on stage, even though the role we usually have to perform is one of relaxed and confident mastery. We read of emperors with ten thousand concubines, who could have any concubine tortured or executed for any reason or no reason at all, and yet still they had woman troubles. But women don’t want to know this and are not going to give you any sympathy for it. The show must go on! Women have to paint their faces, and men have to be brave and manly, so stop whining.

Women need discipline, supervision, authority, and punishment, and when they do not get it they become distressed, tense, disturbed, and act out disruptive and destructive misbehavior to force those around them to take charge. They start fantasying about men who will take charge of them, fantasying about men who are not the men who are letting them run wild.

Because a woman will always test you, and this testing will always irritate and upset you and likely piss you off, it will often happen that she feels, rightly or wrongly, that her testing has damaged the relationship, whereupon she will likely beg for physical punishment, corporal punishment, to expiate her wrongdoing. Or, if actually ditched, cut herself since you are no longer around to do it for her.

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

Well firstly, Mohammed, not well known as a blue haired feminist, said that if at all possible you should avoid physically punishing your women. Petruchio, Shakespeare’s parody of a manly man, pick up artist, and natural, found other ways to punish Kate. So in general, most of the time, you should not physically punish women. If other measures can work. But this kind of assumes you are in charge and she is tolerably well behaved, assumes that other measures can work.

Obviously, if it is not broke, don’t fix it. You don’t hit a woman who is always sexually available to you, generally obeys your orders, and runs the household in general accordance with your will, even if she sometimes tries your patience with minor poo poo tests like backseat driving. I never hit my wife. On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy. That I potentially might have hit my wife if she had been badly behaved might well have had something to do with her good behavior. Or maybe she was just naturally a good woman. Unfortunately good women are rare as rubies. I have needed to hit other women quite often.

Obviously you should never punch a woman in the face. Female faces are quite fragile, you can easily kill them with a punch in the face. A light slap in the face is, however fine. That is a light slap. For heavier slaps, obviously you should smack them on the backside, which can take a very heavy slap with no risk of injury.

The best place for a moderate blow with a stick is probably the palm of the hand. For heavier whacks with a stick, backside, upper back and thighs. Hitting them in the lower back can kill them, women are very fragile and need to be punished with care and love.

A light slap in the face, followed by cold stare works great, though it is more in the stare than the slap. Recently I had a dispute with my girlfriend resulting from her denying me sex. I struck her with a stick on the palm of hand twice, after the style of the punishment of Amy in “Little Women”. Worked great, and inspired this post.

Obviously any behavior that is good reason for hitting your woman with a stick is good reason for dumping her. And in our society that is legally loaded against men, the sensible thing to do, the safe thing to do, the easy thing to do, the sane and obvious thing to do, is to dump her rather than beat her.

But in fact every woman prefers a man who would beat her for misbehavior to a man who would dump her for misbehavior, and every woman prefers both the man who would beat her and the man who would dump her, to the nice guy who politely endures her misbehavior. The laws are set up to empower woman, but revealed preference is that they wind up sleeping with men who disempower them, which revealed preference makes total sense in that the telos of sex is not so much reproduction directly as the creation of an environment suitable for raising children, which requires women to be disempowered. If loving does not disempower her, she does not really like it.

An environment of no fault divorce results in a hell of a lot of stupid divorces in which everyone gets hurt, everyone loses. And at best, or rather the least bad, one partner benefits a little, and the children and the other partner suffer enormously. Which least bad outcome is readily observed to be mighty uncommon, compared to the usual outcome where everyone loses. But if husbands are socially and legally discouraged from beating their wives, you really have to have no fault divorce. What woman want, what everyone wants, is an environment suitable for raising children. Which no fault divorce fails to provide. And if divorce only for fault, then it needs to be socially and legally acceptable for husbands to beat their wives with a stick in moderate and proportionate punishment for misbehavior.

Regalingualius posted:

I miss the old TvTropes threads, especially for stuff like that time Jay-O (an online reviewer) posted on here about how she tried to get them to delete their article about her because she found it really creepy, and they became really pissy about it.

cash crab posted:

When November rolls around, I suggest a nanowrimo thread. Not the constructive one we usually have in DIY but one where we can catalogue weird/funny/awful blurbs and profiles.

Kajeesus posted:

Jesus gently caress, do you just have a stash of abhorrent poo poo you can draw from whenever posts get too lovely?

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Which brings me to the subject of this post. When should you hit your woman with a stick?

WrenP-Complete posted:

nah nah nah nah, na nah, na nuh.
can't cuck this.

I love the word filter.

WrenP-Complete posted:

nah nah nah nah, na nah, na nuh.
can't cuck this.

I love the word filter.

Leroy Dennui posted:

Leroy Dennui posted:

Mouse Dresser posted:

There's such a disgusting, fundamental misunderstanding of vaccines, and science in general, by the anti-vaxx crowd.

I DON'T CARE ABOUT FACTS! I'VE MADE UP MY MIND!

Lottery of Babylon posted:

On the other hand, I am pretty scary guy.

WrenP-Complete posted:

nah nah nah nah, na nah, na nuh.
can't cuck this.

I love the word filter.

Lottery of Babylon posted:

Some terrifying poo poo

Practical Demon posted:

Hates all LGBTQ people, finds guns sexually attractive. I wonder if there's some sort of Venn diagram for this one.

Refind Chaos posted:

Seriously, their math is also awful. The tax rate in the first example is 18.6% not 23%. At the flubbed rate of 23% on $1.23 the min wage worker would only make $0.94 a day which isn't enough to buy a gallon of milk, so on top of not understanding tax brackets they don't understand math either. Also, as everyone already pointed out labor is only about 5% - 10% of the cost of goods or services, not 100%.

So if we normalize that to properly reflect (using the median of 7.5% being the cost of labor): The price of milk went from $1.00 to $2.25 leaving the person, even at the increased flat tax rate increase, with $10.85 a day after buying their gallon of milk instead of -$0.06 a day.

cash crab posted:

cash crab posted:

Ularg posted:

Vaginal Bacteria: Good vs Evil.

Practical Demon posted:

I think a lot of the poorer people against raising wages are people making a bit above minimum wage, or who are at minimum but have support so they're doing okay enough that they don't care. They don't see an increase as a godsend to a lot of poor people, but as something that would mean paying more for goods and services for them. This results in "gently caress all of you, just get a better job" in their minds.