Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Monday nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE AFA Seminar! See locations and dates here.
View Active Topics View Your Posts Latest 100 Topics FAQ Topics Mobile Friendly Theme
Discuss Anti-Feminism, Men's Rights and Misandry.
5 posts • Page 1 of 1
Imagine a world where the government served as a wife to men in the way it serves as a husband to women under feminism. So if a man wanted sex he could call the government and they would send round beautiful 18 year olds to pleasure him, if he wanted housework done the government would send round a maid to cook and clean, if he wanted children the government would arrange a surrogate and a nanny etc. and women were being taxed to pay for all this. How would that effect relation between the sexes?
Obviously it would mean that men would be extremely unlikely to want to get married. They are already getting all of the benefits of marriage with none of the costs. Tying yourself to one female, forgoing all the gibs and taking on the tax liability of paying for gibs for other men would be stupid.
As well as being spinsters, most women would be incel, since they would be unable to compete with the beautiful prostitutes working for the government. Also, when women did get casual sex it would greatly effect the type of women who were in demand. Reasonably pretty young white women that most men currently want to have sex with would be seen as boring given that better looking versions of them were easily available. The type of women who would get casual sex would be basically catering to fetishes - big women, dominatrixes, exotic races etc. (This happens now to and extend with Internet porn). Basically sexual market value would be turned on its head both between genders and within the female gender.
That pretty much explains the situation we have now in reverse. It is very obvious and inevitable.
Like in this video, heeheehee.
Seriously, though, sex by itself was never a fair exchange for what men had to offer women. Traditional relationships, acknowledging that the exchange was uneven, afforded the husband authority over his wife. Take that away and a woman must now pull her own weight in order for marriage to be worth it for the man. Yet how many wives earn as much as their husbands?
When you think about it, a female being able to call 911 and have armed muscular thugs speeding to look after her safety for nothing in return is the exact equivalent as a man being able to call a number and have beautiful 18 year old prostitutes speeding to sexually service him for nothing in return. It is a massively superior version of what they would normally have to earn by being a good spouse. Future civilised societies will look back on these times as the strangest in history.
Those muscular armed thugs will look after the safety of a man, too.
Except that sex isn't strictly a need. You can totally survive without it.
I often see ppl (including red-pilled guys) make this mistake, talking as if men have always sought women primarily for sex itself.
What men have traditionally sought women for above all else is children.
Children used to be such an asset that you would want your wife cranking out as many of them as she possibly could for as long as she possibly could. Children didn't need education to be useful like they do today. You could put them to work at an early age, pass on your profession to them, and whichever of them survived into adulthood would take care of you in your old age.
All of that has changed. Now children are an expensive luxury a man understandably may want to pass up on completely. Women are the ones who want children more than men do.
So the primary thing women were valued for is no longer much of a factor for most men. About all women have left is their sexual appeal and BOY do they play that up.
We have to stop framing sex as this super-valuable commodity worth paying huge bucks and taking stupid risks for. Put on a cool head and you can see that sex is overrated and most women don't have much to offer besides it.
And actually, women enjoy sex too! Arguably they get more and longer enjoyment out of it than men do. How the hell is sex for protection/provision a fair exchange for a thing both genders enjoy? That would be like going to the market to buy a 5-pound sack of potatoes and being told that a 5-pound sack of potatoes will cost $5 plus a 5-pound sack of potatoes. Like wtf?
A man and woman giving sexual affection to each other should make them even...if that. Because in sex, like practically everything else, it's the man who does most of the work!
In so many way, women need us much more than we need them. All we have to do to make them tractable is to take sex off this goddamn pedestal that you thirsty simps keep putting it on.