Bottoms Up


Once again I excerpt from the book, Life at the Bottom,

All of these enthusiasts believed that if sexual relations could be liberated from artificial social inhibitions and legal restrictions, something beautiful would emerge: a life in which no desire need be frustrated, a life in which human pettiness would melt away like snow in spring.

The programme of the sexual revolutionaries has more or less been carried out, especially in the lower reaches of society, but the results have been vastly different from those so foolishly anticipated.  The revolution foundered on the rock of unacknowledged reality:that women are more vulnerable to abuse than men by virtue of their biology alone, and that the desire for the exclusive sexual possession has remained just as strong as ever.  This desire is incompatible, of course, with the equally powerful desire — eternal in the human breast, but hitherto controlled by social and legal inhibitions — for complete sexual freedom.  Because of these biological and psychological realities, the harvest of the sexual revolution has not been a brave new world of human happiness but rate an enormous increase in violence between the sexes, for readily understandable reasons.

Of course, even before any explanation, the reality of this increase meets angry denial from those with a vested idealogical interest in concealing the results of changes that they helped bring about and heartily welcome.

In the past five years I have treated at least 2000 men who have been violent to their wives, girlfriends, lovers and concubines. It seems to me that violence on such a vast scale could not easily have ben overlooked in the past — including by me.  And there is a very good reason why such violence should have increased under the new sexual dispensation.  If people demand sexual liberty for themselves, but sexual fidelity from others, the result is an inflammation of jealousy, for it is natural to suppose that one is being done by as one is doing to others  — and jealousy is the most frequent precipitant of violence between the sexes.

So it would seem that the “mixed” model that society has chosen does not work so well.  The choice is mixed in the sense that one gets to pursue sexual license if one so desires, and is effectively allowed to enforce the lack of on their partner if they are able.  And naturally there is tension between the two ends, and the means of resolving this tension is often local enforcement.  Which does not work out well for anybody (especially children).  However, as made clear in the book, women do get ample tingles in such an environment (a future post).

So the mixed model does not work, and only survives total chaos because it is subsidized from the outside.  What about a “total sexual license model” (just say no to jealousy)?  Probably many people might think that this would be awesomely fun, but jealousy is inevitable.  And it will come on strongly.  Especially in an environment where other inhibitions are relaxed.  So this appears to not be do-able.  After all, did any of the 1960’s hippies free love communes ever last more than a week?  Or a day?

What does that leave?  Well it would appear that the only stable model (and it  can be truly stable– no outside subsidies) is committed relationships.

What is next?

Advertisements
Posted in FarmBoy, Feminism, Hypergamy, Lies
54 comments on “Bottoms Up
  1. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    I would seem that feminists want the state to replace the position of husband as protector and provider. There is a problem. How will it all be paid for? In the prior model, husbands were not only self supporting, they would carry the family as well.
    There is another drawback as well.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Yoda says:

    Why people wish society a disaster be?

    Like

  3. Yoda says:

    Bears have such confusion not.

    Like

  4. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Yoda,
    It’s our “see food” diet. We’re hungry all the time. So there is no time for confusion.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. JDG says:

    Women initiate violence around 51% of the time. So if this fellow is treating the violent men, who is treating the violent women?

    Liked by 4 people

  6. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    JDG,
    Seeing you here reminded me how long it has been since I had a Grilled Ham and Cheese sandwich. Too long!

    As for women and violence, I thought that the Duluth model does not recognize it. Also, Teh DV industry employs a lot of feminists. Thy won’t recognize it either.

    Dill pickle too!

    Liked by 2 people

  7. JDG says:

    I would seem that feminists want the state to replace the position of husband as protector and provider

    I think they want women to replace men, and men to become women. I think they believe they need the states help they will accomplish their goals, but they don’t realize that what they want is impossible. If you want to see what the the end of the feminist dream looks like, look at any primitive tribe where the fathers have little to do with their own children.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. JDG says:

    I shouldn’t post when I’m tired. Typo above should be:

    “I think they believe they need the states help to accomplish their goals…”

    Like

  9. JDG says:

    Plus there are no sammiches in a matriarchy.

    Like

  10. JDG says:

    fuzziewuzziebear I need a sammich too.

    Liked by 1 person

  11. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    JDG,
    No sandwiches in a matriarchy? That’s not civilized!

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Yoda says:

    No sandwiches in a matriarchy? That’s not civilized!

    Matriarchies have built civilizations not.
    Lack of sammiches is but one reason why.

    Liked by 2 people

  13. missattempts says:

    I’m curious about why there isn’t more intra family sex. Is it because of taboos?
    Who teaches these taboos? Church? Church is not that strong today. Other family
    members? Wouldn’t it seem only natural to surcome to the constant temptation of
    living under the same roof, IF the family members were attractive? Could sibling
    incest be at least 40%? Does it happen more then we know? And is it truly wrong
    if it’s volentary? Can it really be volentary.
    I heard about the Beane family that lived in a cave in Ireland. They were an incestious
    band of criminals. They would get their “food” by knocking travellers off their horses
    and canabalizing them. The King ordered that the army attack their cave, and they
    were wiped out.

    Like

  14. Liz says:

    This topic title is very suggestive.

    Like

  15. Liz says:

    “I would seem that feminists want the state to replace the position of husband as protector and provider. There is a problem. How will it all be paid for?”

    How indeed.
    I predict zombie hordes in our future.
    (not actual zombies, but when it gets down to it is there a real difference between a Ferguson-style mob and a zombie horde? Well, except for the looting. Zombies don’t do much looting)

    Liked by 3 people

  16. Yoda says:

    This topic title is very suggestive

    Mamy of these problems placed in turbo boost by alcohol they. are.

    Like

  17. Yoda says:

    Society discourage situations that lead to jealousy it should.
    But rather it encourages through rules and subsidies it does.

    Liked by 1 person

  18. Yoda says:

    SJW types foisted this onto the lower class they did.
    Difficult to see the Social Justice in the results it would be.

    Liked by 1 person

  19. Yoda says:

    Plus there are no sammiches in a matriarchy.

    Lord Sammich First Lord of the Admiralty he was.
    In a Matriarchy, attain such a position he would have not.
    So no Sammiches there would be.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Yoda says:

    Thread needs some Ms. Drake it does,

    Liked by 3 people

  21. Who really benifits from any of this? It makes no sense.

    Like

  22. Yoda says:

    All benefit from picture of Ms. Drake we do.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Liz says:

    “Who really benifits from any of this? It makes no sense.”

    Cui bono is always a good question. Answer: In the long term, no one.

    People act to increase reward over cost, but this does not mean they act rationally in the scientific sense. Humans can be lazy and self-centered, and they’ll override cost/benefit considerations to conform to counterproductive values. There’s a reason for the wide discrepancies between (for example) an economist’s view of how humans behave and the accounts of anthropologists and/or historians.

    Like

  24. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Bloom at 1:45pm,
    There used to be a legal principle that would mitigate the sentence in situations like this. I was called “In Flagrante Delicto”. The premise being that what he saw was so shocking that it wouldd overrie reason.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Miss Drake sould have some competition.

    Please, don’t anyone be tempted to post the photo onf the one that shall not be named.

    Liked by 2 people

  26. Liz says:

    I think in Brazil a husband can still use the legitima defesa da honra (defense of honor) justification. There are quite a few historical exculpatory defenses for crimes of passion of that variety.

    Liked by 1 person

  27. Liz says:

    Political thought for the day:
    Trump could use a froggie helmet.

    Liked by 2 people

  28. Liz says:

    I saw Trainwreck last night (don’t you wish you had an ‘unlike’ button?).
    Amy caught many dicks and demonstrated to the ladies that a person with absolutely no redeeming qualities can land a cute nice dependable doctor who doesn’t mind constant bitching, disrespect, or sloppy fivehundreths!

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Farm Boy says:

    This sounds like the start of a movie review post.
    How about it?

    Liked by 2 people

  30. Liz says:

    Lol! I’ll think about it Farm boy. Not sure I have the strength. 😛

    Like

  31. Liz says:

    FWIW, that above, pretty much IS the whole review, succinctly stated. Insert some slapstick and slut and cock jokes…add a touch of “I’m just misunderstood and loveable, really…”

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Sumo says:

    Amy caught many dicks and demonstrated to the ladies that a person with absolutely no redeeming qualities can land a cute nice dependable doctor who doesn’t mind constant bitching, disrespect, or sloppy fivehundreths!

    Brings a whole new meaning to the term “suspension of disbelief”.

    Liked by 1 person

  33. Farm Boy says:

    Was the movie funny in any way, shape or form?

    Liked by 1 person

  34. Liz says:

    There was one part where she was at the movies drinking from a wine box with a straw. That was kind of funny.

    Liked by 1 person

  35. Liz says:

    And there was a walk of shame where she found herself (at the beginning of the movie) in Staten Island and had to take the ferry back home in the morning wearing a short gold skirt and stilettos. That was kind of funny. That’s about it.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Liz,
    Please, please, please. No one could do tongue in cheek as well as you.

    You’re right about Donald Trump and the froggie helmet. We could start a whole new trend here. Let’s get them in the stores in time for Christmas!

    Liked by 1 person

  37. Yoda says:

    I’ll think about it Farm boy. Not sure I have the strength.

    Take one for the team you should.

    Liked by 2 people

  38. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Please, please, please! I can’t think of anyone who could do it as well. I am already laughing contemplating your review.
    “Sure, any self respecting guy is going to fall head over heels with a big, loud mouthed, Sexually incontinent shrew.”
    That’s the best that I can do and you have already done better without trying.

    Like

  39. Liz says:

    Lol! I’ll think on it, Fuzzie. 🙂
    Going out for the night. See you all later.

    Like

  40. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Liz,
    Ok. Also think about promoting commercial sales of froggie helmets on a large scale. It could be as big as pet rocks!

    Like

  41. Yoda says:

    The programme of the sexual revolutionaries has more or less been carried out, especially in the lower reaches of society, but the results have been vastly different from those so foolishly anticipated.

    Wonder how many advocates knew what the result would be I so.
    Wonder how many useful idiots along for the ride there were.

    Like

  42. Yoda says:

    If people demand sexual liberty for themselves, but sexual fidelity from others, the result is an inflammation of jealousy

    But love each other the SJW types do say.
    Ignore human nature they do.

    Like

  43. Yoda says:

    Of course, even before any explanation, the reality of this increase meets angry denial from those with a vested idealogical interest in concealing the results of changes that they helped bring about and heartily welcome.

    The obvious they cannot see.
    Wonder about their intelligence one does.

    Like

  44. Yoda says:

    Well it would appear that the only stable model is committed relationships.

    Perhaps a relationship between these types of relationships and civilization there is…

    Like

  45. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Yoda,
    Perhaps men should pick a certain Saturdat night to stay in and watch movies with lots of horses. Better than going to a nightclug with a five to one male to female ratio.

    Like

  46. SFC Ton says:

    The night club might have a 5 to 1 male to female ratio but there is ever only one Ton in club so it doesn’t much matter if it’s a 100 to 1

    Lots of folks benefit from this just not the folks you think. Feminism purpose is to destroy, which it does very well.

    I would not vote to complete convict the boy in Blooms post. Really dueling should make a come back but that would remove power from the wealthy/ State. So it will never happen

    Like

  47. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Spawny Get,
    That was the best video I have seen him do to date. Essentially, it takes Marriage 2.0 one step furtherk granting rights to women to cheat. Even though Roissy parsed the post in one of his, exposing as a fraud, it does indicate a new condition women want to place on men. We’ve reached the point of no return.

    SFC Ton,
    I don’t think duelling will come back. We’re not that civiized anymore. There were times that it went too far When President Lamar appointed a new CO for the Army of the Republic of Texas, the new guy had to fight a duel with the man he replaced.

    Like

  48. Farm Boy says:

    There is a new post

    By Liz this is

    Like

  49. fuzziewuzziebear says:

    Farm Boy,
    It would be gratifying to hear that Paul Nungesser gets an award that sets him up for life and that his attorneys are well compensated. It’s going to take a lot to make universities see the error in their current path.

    Like

  50. SFC Ton says:

    Dueling won’t make a come because “we” are civilized and civilization turns men into pussies

    Like

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: