The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Is Polygamy the Coming Thing?
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From Pew Research Center:

Polygamy is rare around the world and mostly confined to a few regions

BY STEPHANIE KRAMER

DECEMBER 7, 2020

… In February, Utah passed a bill to reduce the penalties for adults who voluntarily live in polygamous relationships, making the practice an infraction, a low-level offense that is not punishable with jail time. …

A Pew Research Center report about living arrangements in 130 countries and territories published in 2019 analyzed the number of people residing in polygamous households, as well as other types of households. Here are some key findings from that report, and from a separate study of customs and laws around the world.

Only about 2% of the global population lives in polygamous households, and in the vast majority of countries, that share is under 0.5%. …

Polygamy is most often found in sub-Saharan Africa, where 11% of the population lives in arrangements that include more than one spouse. Polygamy is widespread in a cluster of countries in West and Central Africa, including Burkina Faso, (36%), Mali (34%) and Nigeria (28%). In these countries, polygamy is legal, at least to some extent. Muslims in Africa are more likely than Christians to live in this type of arrangement (25% vs. 3%), but in some countries, the practice also is widespread among adherents of folk religions and people who do not identify with a religion. For example, in Burkina Faso, 45% of people who practice folk religions, 40% of Muslims and 24% of Christians live in polygamous households. Chad is the only country in this analysis where Christians (21%) are more likely than Muslims (10%) to live in this type of arrangement.

Many of the countries that permit polygamy have Muslim majorities, and the practice is rare in many of them. Fewer than 1% of Muslim men live with more than one spouse in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Iran and Egypt – all countries where the practice is legal at least for Muslims.

In Muslim countries, whether polygamy is merely a luxury for the very rich or common depends upon whether women are expected to bring home the halal equivalent of bacon, as they are in sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmwork is done by women with hoes. In economies where women are expected to feed their children, it’s not uncommon for some old devil to collect numerous wives (although not all of their children are necessarily his, but it’s her duty to feed them, so he doesn’t get to exercised about this question). In contrast, in countries with heavier soil where men do the plowing, few men can afford to maintain more than one wife and her children.

… Polyandry, which refers to wives having more than one husband, is even rarer than polygamy and mostly documented among small and relatively isolated communities around the world. …

One-in-five U.S. adults believe that polygamy is morally acceptable, a recent Gallup poll found. This share has almost tripled (from 7%) since the question was first asked in 2003, but is still among the least accepted behaviors Gallup asks about. Self-described liberals are much more likely than conservatives to see polygamy as morally acceptable (34% vs. 9%).

I don’t know if polygamy will be the Next Big Thing like transgendermania has been in recent years, but I could see it coming in the U.S. with white liberals getting themselves worked up over the sacred civil rights of African immigrants to bring over all their wives (Breaking up families makes the Statue of Liberty cry). As Americans, polygamy is who we are. Think how shameful it was that one, of several reasons, why Harvard and the immigration service kicked Barack Obama Sr. out of the country was because they suspected him of being a polygamist.

Eventually, Silicon Valley weirdos and hip Mormons will get into demanding that polygamous African immigrant marriages will be legally recognized in America.

 
Hide 228 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Too many Rosies for this to pass.

    • LOL: Lot, Abe
  2. No. You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies. (Chortle all you want but it should give you pause that they can succeed where the socons universally fail.)

    • Replies: @Mike P.
    @Jesse

    Where have they succeeded?

    , @anon
    @Jesse

    No. You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @dfordoom

    , @Thea
    @Jesse

    You can certainly view pound metoo as a neo-puritanical reaction against the sexual revolution. It could not have happened without widespread no-strings attached sex.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @Moral Stone
    @Jesse

    This question will pivot in part on whether women prefer polygamy in an absence of practical or social pressure to adopt other arrangements. It’s not as clear as one might think what their actual preference might be. Steve mentions that inertia has carried institutions along for the last several decades, to a point where most people in charge can’t explain why we did things one way (eg standardized testing) and so can’t defend against deleterious change. Monogamy would certainly fit in that mold. There are very good, pragmatic reasons a society and culture should enforce monogamy (one example, to keep more men invested in society’s success, which is important for stability and has been decreasing of late), but I’m not sure anyone making decisions in this country could name such a reason if pressed. Our best defense against changing this particular institution in this country may be that some of the most notable practitioners are ultra-white unhip Mormons, which will probably inoculate this issue against Progressive involvement.

  3. Anonymous[162] • Disclaimer says:

    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: “Cuck”, “Chad”, “alpha””beta””kitchen bitch”. “beta provider”, “Stacies”, the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    • Agree: SunBakedSuburb
    • LOL: Mike Tre
    • Troll: IHTG, YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Tark Marg
    @Anonymous

    But nothing you said shows that the impulse to reproduce is erroneous. Your comment simply comprises an attempt to put pejorative words like “insecurities” in the same paragraph as reproduction drive and hope it sticks. Anyone could do the same with anything else.

    It’s a good thing to be obsessed with IMO. Without it you end up a serial loser like the USA in almost all wars since 1945.

    , @Anon
    @Anonymous

    Maybe focus on something you actually like instead of dedicating your life to hate. You have no business reading conservative blogs or caring about what conservatives like or don't like. I hope you enjoy where you're going because this is the life you chose.

    , @TTSSYF
    @Anonymous


    Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: “Cuck”, “Chad”, “alpha””beta””kitchen bitch”. “beta provider”, “Stacies”, the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.
     
    You can't be serious. And besides -- that's not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not. I have little doubt that it is, given all of the other perversions that the Left has mainstreamed over the past 20+ years.

    Consider the possibility that it maybe you're the one that's obsessed...obsessed with linking conservative males with negative traits and getting off on hating them.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Anonymous

    Another piece of evidence why Unz shouldn't allow anonymous commenting. I wish Steve would just spam these as a matter of course.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/08/it-feels-like-a-lost-year-the-women-who-fear-2020-has-stolen-their-chance-of-motherhood


    She goes over the arithmetic that has tortured her all year long. She will be 34 next month, single, no closer to finding a partner to have kids with. Even if she did meet someone next year, say, would they be ready to start conceiving within a year? Probably not. That could mean she will be 36 before she even starts trying – if she meets someone next year. And there’s the rub – because the Covid-19 restrictions have made dating nearly impossible. “My friends are either pregnant or looking after small children,” Claudia says, “and I struggle to even get men to talk to me online. It feels hopeless.”

    Claudia is one of the many women across the UK who fear that the coronavirus has put paid to their plans to have children, possibly for good. As Covid swept the country in March, IVF clinics hastily closed; most would not reopen until May. And women who had planned to travel abroad for fertility treatment were unable to leave the UK, due to the travel restrictions. Once-solid relationships collapsed under the stress of a global pandemic, leaving women in their late 30s who want children searching for new partners.
     
    Tick... tick... tick.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    , @WJ
    @Anonymous

    You wouldn't be noting words like "cuck" if they weren't hitting a nerve.

    Cuck is an appropriate word for US foreign policy since it seems to relish in doing the "bidding" of a foreign power with no benefit to US interests.

    , @jamie b.
    @Anonymous


    ...obsession with cuckoldry...
     
    I don't get it. Are you saying that S.S. is for or against polygamy?
    , @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc.
     
    LOL. Brings to mind the old quote: "You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you."

    If you're trolling "well done". If not, you might look up the concept of "natural selection".
    Basically your comment boils down to "conservative men are sane".


    There are three primary things normal healthy societies care about:
    -- war: protection from invasion/conquest
    -- food: more broadly material provision and all the goodies of life
    -- sex: reproduction of the people (both physically and culturally)

    Any civilized society absolutely requires "controlling of the sexuality of women".

    "Civilization" is men of a society being able to distribute women/sex fairly enough (functional monogamy) that men can stop fighting and mate guarding, cooperate for mutual defense, put their cycles to increased productive endeavor--which with reliable paternity, men are more motivated/required to apply to raising their children.

    ~~

    One of the funny--if they weren't winning and killing the West!--is that the minoritarian left not only doesn't care about but is actively contemptuous of precisely what is required for civilization.

    The don't care about borders and glory in being invaded by foreigners.

    They increasingly don't care about material production. Outsource it all. They think you can just print money forever, given women and minorities soft nonsense jobs or welfare and the goodies men produce will just magically show up.

    They certainly don't care about reproduction of high quality people. They praise low fertility careerism, female sluttiness, miscegenation of the majority's women, perversion. faggotry and now flat out mental illness!!!

    Minoritarian leftism seems like darn near a recipe for how to wreck civilization. Make you wonder what the goal of it is?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    , @Samantha Carter
    @Anonymous

    Polyamory is already a big thing in shitlib circles. I first met someone who was doing it back in 2010 but now it seems like it's more common than monogamy among the liberal crowds.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  4. Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    • Replies: @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    , @Achmed E. Newman
    @NJ Transit Commuter


    Zoophilia?
     
    What's it to ya'? We're here, we're loud and we're proud! From 53 years ago, here are two of the first of us to come out of the closet cage:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6xKLBne1CoI
    , @Bill Jones
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    The next big thing for the Woke Wack-jobs"normalization" crusade is Pedophilia, it's rampant among them.

    Replies: @Corn

    , @Morton's toes
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first.

    Then your barnyard sows. Then the alien invasion and treaty with the Klingons or whatever they will call them. Hopefully I will be living either in the middle of Death Valley or in the middle of the Canadian tundra by then.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    , @Wyatt
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Furries rise up!


    Also:


    in sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmwork is done by women with hoes
     
    HOS WITH HOES!
    , @Mr. XYZ
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Child sex dolls/robots for pedophiles?

  5. Seems hard to see what would stop polygamy at this point. Many wealthy white men are serial monogamists with children by many wives. Look at Trump for example. On what moral basis would he condemn polygamy?

    And polyamory is of course the flavor du jour in the tech and hipster communities.

    So if you’re taking bets on what’s next after WW-T, this seems like a good bet.

    • Agree: vhrm, JohnPlywood
    • Troll: IHTG
    • Replies: @advancedatheist
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Many wealthy white men are serial monogamists with children by many wives. Look at Trump for example.
     
    Carl Sagan fathered children with each of his three wives, from his 20's through his 50's.

    Of course men can do this because women age sexually a lot faster than men, even if women tend to live longer on average.

    https://www.britishfertilitysociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Graphic-3.png
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Polyamory was articulated somewhere during the 80's, among some "progressives". It was popular with a certain type of middle class post-hippies, but then it plummeted because of- age.

    It's not just because it is a high-maintenance life-style, but it naturally loses its appeal- to its practitioners- as bodies age & people start to feel disgust with all manifestations of physical decrepitude.

  6. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    • Replies: @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Peter Akuleyev, @Corn, @JMcG

    , @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I've gotten over the years makes me think the "relationships" between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let's leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male "bad boy" archetype. I'll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won't get less slippery.

    If you're into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Replies: @anonymous, @ScarletNumber, @Escher, @Paul Mendez

    , @bomag
    @Peter Akuleyev


    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”.
     
    I can't imagine the Woke letting this get in the way of a good time; they will just define their way out of any objections.

    Do crime victims of favorite Woke crimes consent? Do fetuses consent to abortion? Etc.
    , @Anonymous
    @Peter Akuleyev

    There was quite a big push in the 1970s to 'decriminalize' outright, blatant paedophilia - that is the blatant sexual abuse of children by adults. At least in the UK, there was.
    Doubtless, this was done by a whole load of dumb trendy lefties trying to look clever and gain kudos because a 'hero' of theirs, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, later an MEP, waxed lyrical about it.

    A notable champion of the 'right' of fully grown adult men to sodomize children was Harriett Harman, a one time British Labour Party leader.

    , @Frank McGar
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it possible for kids under the age of 18 to get prescriptions for puberty blockers? Regardless of how much therapy and "gender affirming screening" they get, I wouldn't think they are old enough to consent. And yet, even with some "reasonable" liberals objecting to this on the grounds that it's fucking insane, you're a nazi if you oppose this issue.

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcyDb3w5PLQ

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Neil Templeton

  7. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    Zoophilia?

    What’s it to ya’? We’re here, we’re loud and we’re proud! From 53 years ago, here are two of the first of us to come out of the closet cage:

    • Agree: Jim Christian
  8. Probably not. But if polygamy is accepted, I suggest it might happen not as a direct foreign cultural import from immigrants, but as a woke bureaucratic attempt at formalizing promiscuity among native African-Americans.

    • Replies: @Hannah Katz
    @IHTG

    My observation is that those who practice polygamy are much more likely to use our social safety net as a hammock. We really don't benefit from this practice, as a society.

  9. Breaking up families makes the Statue of Liberty cry.

    Haha. Great line, Steve.

    • Agree: donut
  10. OT but on recurring themes here – Note the diversity points that Joe Biden gathers, out of padding his nominee roster with a claimed ‘Latino’ who is actually entirely Jewish, whilst media obscures that fact… presenting Joe Biden’s pick for the job once held by rabbi’s son Michael Chertoff, Alejandro Mayorkas:

    • Agree: Lot
    • Thanks: Just another serf
    • Replies: @Jack D
    @brabantian


    whilst media obscures that fact
     
    Thank you for uncovering this deep dark secret which has been hidden from us by the Zionist controlled media.

    https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/alejandro-mayorkas-the-cuban-jewish-attorney-who-may-head-bidens-dhs-648838

    Sephardic Jews are more Latino than most Latinos. Sephardic Jews (even in exile in the Arab world) spoke a Spanish derived language called Ladino.

    The Spanish in Cuba were particularly successful in wiping out the native Indian population so almost everyone in Cuba is imported from somewhere, either Europe or Africa (even some Chinese that they brought over as plantation labor). Even Castro's father was an immigrant from Spain.

    , @Abolish_public_education
    @brabantian

    A left-wing, Cuban-American Sefard is probably quite an outlier.

    CAS’ are more like Bay of Pigs invaders. (Some actually were killed participants.)

  11. Polygamy will never be accepted outside the rich and never through legal marriage. What the masses will get, and largely already have among the younger generations, is polyANDRY.

  12. Anonymous[136] • Disclaimer says:

    In economies where women are expected to feed their children, it’s not uncommon for some old devil to collect numerous wives (although not all of their children are necessarily his, but it’s her duty to feed them, so he doesn’t get to exercised about this question). In contrast, in countries with heavier soil where men do the plowing, few men can afford to maintain more than one wife and her children.

    Feminism combined with the economic surplus of industrialization means that we increasingly have a sub-Saharan African style economy in the US. Women are encouraged, expected, and promoted to jobs and pay equal to those of men and sufficient to support themselves and their children.

    Muslim countries are generally much less polygynous than the US and more similar in that respect to the pre-feminist, pre-sexual revolution Christian West. Muslim countries formally allow polygamy with hard limits, but lifelong monogamy is the norm. The US doesn’t allow formal polygamy, but informal, unlimited polygyny is the norm via serial marriage and divorce, serial relationships, fornication, etc.

    The “sexism” of Muslim countries that maintains a generally monogamous culture is part of a broader, general culture shared by non-African peoples in which male paternal investment was necessary, normal, and appreciated.

    • Agree: Bardon Kaldian
    • Replies: @SimpleSong
    @Anonymous

    Agree, we already have defacto polygamy, that was an effect of the sexual revolution. It is just that it's serial polygamy--powerful men often have a string of marriages and divorces--not parallel polygamy. (ignoring the black community for a moment which is sort of its own deal) You can also do parallel polygamy all you want outside of existing legal structures. Cults, the polyamorous, etc., are already doing this. Legal recognition of parallel polygamy, however, would be a new thing with interesting consequences.

    , @John Johnson
    @Anonymous

    Feminism combined with the economic surplus of industrialization means that we increasingly have a sub-Saharan African style economy in the US. Women are encouraged, expected, and promoted to jobs and pay equal to those of men and sufficient to support themselves and their children.

    No it's the worst of both worlds.

    Both parents are expected to work while the surplus goes to the state and the ultra wealthy.

    Have you ever been around White feminists? 95% of them are just plain full of s--t and do not want to be single moms. Their dream man makes 6 figures so they can work part time at a non-profit and call it equality. Highly paid professional women actually tend to be more centered and flexible.

    I used to work around feminists and not a single one would have been fine with paying for dinner or dating a dishwasher. Most had student debt from their White guilt degree and were looking for some lucky fellow to listen to their BS and pay their bills. Needless to say most had problems dating. The one that was able to attract men actually went back to college for a worthless masters and more debt.

    The “sexism” of Muslim countries that maintains a generally monogamous culture is part of a broader, general culture shared by non-African peoples in which male paternal investment was necessary, normal, and appreciated.

    I guess that is one aspect of it. Another aspect is that they were allowed to take female sex slaves from war and kill men and boys. WW2 pretty much ended a lot of their conquests.

  13. Polygamy?! That’s so 2016.

    Incest. THAT’S truly progressive!

    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    @Blubb


    Polygamy?! That’s so 2016.

    Incest. THAT’S truly progressive!
     
    No, Onanism is truly progressive.

    Replies: @Alden

  14. From Slate 2013

    Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom

    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

    It is not only about immigration but women’s right of access to wealthy males.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @AKAHorace


    It is not only about immigration but women’s right of access to wealthy males
     
    I think George Bernard Shaw stated, “Most women would rather have half a millionaire than all of a janitor”.
    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @AKAHorace

    Socio-culturally & psychologically, women are more accepting to polygamy. I know that most people think that polygamy is a male fantasy fulfilled, but, in more liberal & wealthier modern societies women seem to be more prone to that type of arrangement than men.

    Replies: @AKAHorace

  15. in sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmwork is done by women with hoes.

    I’ll just leave that there.

  16. I bet Emmett Till would have had many wives.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    @James Speaks


    I bet Emmett Till would have had many wives.
     
    I bet Emmett Till would have had many white wives.

    FIFY.
  17. Perfectly fine in the Abrahamic religions.

  18. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @Tark Marg


    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.
     
    Don't leave out the age-of-consent laws.
    , @Peter Akuleyev
    @Tark Marg

    No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    I am not "proposing" anything. I am just describing the way Woke people seem to think. I am not particularly interested in the issue of animal consent one way or the other. If you are, have fun.

    Replies: @Tark Marg

    , @Corn
    @Tark Marg

    Is it just me or is it kind of sad that liberals chief objection to zoophilia is “consent” and not a plain old “Jesus Christ, ewwwww, who would f—- a dog?!!”

    , @JMcG
    @Tark Marg

    I thought those acts were prohibited because they are repellent to normal people, if I’m allowed to say that any longer.

  19. Well at least the hoes in sub-saharan Africa do some amount of manual labor.

  20. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    The next big thing for the Woke Wack-jobs”normalization” crusade is Pedophilia, it’s rampant among them.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Bill Jones

    Us conservatives are always saying that the Wokies are dragging us to pedophilia, but I’m not sure. I actually think leftist attitudes against pedophilia are hardening, at least as far as hetero pedo stuff goes.

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on. I think Wokies will draw the line at pedo stuff. Not because they’re virtuous, but because this upcoming generation of cat ladies and box wine spinsters don’t want to open up the dating pool to teenage girls.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @anon, @Alden

  21. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I’ve gotten over the years makes me think the “relationships” between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let’s leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male “bad boy” archetype. I’ll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won’t get less slippery.

    If you’re into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him claiming to have "accidentally" ended up with some peanut butter somewhere. It stuck with me (pun intended).

    Replies: @Dissident

    , @ScarletNumber
    @Days of Broken Arrows


    If you’re into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.
     
    Choosy moms choose Jif.
    , @Escher
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    Please put barf warning before such posts.

    , @Paul Mendez
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    I’ve had two girlfriends who made spontaneous comments upon seeing a well-endowed dog that kinda icked me out.

  22. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    But nothing you said shows that the impulse to reproduce is erroneous. Your comment simply comprises an attempt to put pejorative words like “insecurities” in the same paragraph as reproduction drive and hope it sticks. Anyone could do the same with anything else.

    It’s a good thing to be obsessed with IMO. Without it you end up a serial loser like the USA in almost all wars since 1945.

    • Agree: bomag
  23. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    Maybe focus on something you actually like instead of dedicating your life to hate. You have no business reading conservative blogs or caring about what conservatives like or don’t like. I hope you enjoy where you’re going because this is the life you chose.

  24. Isn’t that already part of the COG planning?

    [Doctor Fauci explains the brave new world here … a ten to one ratio women to men]

  25. Who? Whom?

    This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. The non-Polys will pay for the Polys.

    The Muslims will use this to accelerate their rule but others will quickly come up against natural limits as communities run out of women to feed the Big Men.

    Of course it may be that men (and women) can import their numerous spouses from abroad sort of like mail order brides/grooms which will be encouraged by TPTB as a way of accelerating the Brazilification of the West.

    In this era of rampant self-interest Dr Strangelove’s mating strategy (once the mineshaft advantage has been ensured) may win out.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Bill B.

    "This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. "

    The deal is that one wife gets welfare as part of the "official" married couple. AFAIK wives 2/3/4 get welfare as "single mothers", which is probably MORE generous. However, until Labour get back in, they're restricted to benefits for 2 kids each.

    We do seem to be going back to prehistoric times when according to Wilder et al 2004*, 80% of women who ever lived had children but only 40% of the men did. I know a few guys who've split from Wife/kids 1 to establish Wife/kids 2. One guy has just split with Wife/kids 3! The late climber Doug Scott had 5 children by two successive wives.


    * https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cHEQSEPz4eipGHFy9/differential-reproduction-for-men-and-women

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040819224859data_trunc_sys.shtml

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120714015731/http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wilder_2004_MBE.pdf

    , @FPD72
    @Bill B.


    This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. The non-Polys will pay for the Polys.
     
    That’s how it works in the US with the breakaway Mormon sects that practice polygamy. All wives after the first collect various forms of welfare with the stated purpose of “bleeding the beast,” i.e., bankrupting the government.

    Of course, the federal government can’t default, per the 14th Amendment, so it deals with its debt the old fashioned way: by the Fed further debasing the currency. Nixon’s ending the gold standard and our going to a purely fiat currency really were the beginning of the end, the logical consequence of which is Modern Monetary Theory.
  26. What consenting adults do in private should be none of anyone else’s business.

    As usual, the gov’t creates the problem and then comes up with their solution by writing some bullshit law. I often wondered why people need a license to get married. I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.

    Licensing is when the government takes a right from you, and sells it back.
    Joe Jarvis

    If gov’t were out of the marriage business, there would be no divorce lawyers. It’s not like gov’t sanction produces anything of value since divorce is so rampant. The gov’t just gets a new control point where none existed before.

    Instead of inserting their nose into how some people want to live via the law, why not get out of the marriage business entirely by eliminating all laws that mention marital status?

    • Disagree: notsaying
    • Replies: @Jake
    @RoatanBill

    If only there were pure anarchy and total freedom, then we would have none of these problems. If I want to marry 4 teen trannies, a Down-Low Numinous Negro former NFL player, and a female goat, that's nobody's business but my own.

    , @black sea
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept.
     
    Gaining access to employer-sponsored health insurance during the AIDS crisis. Otherwise, it would have been a boutique issue with little support.
    , @AnotherDad
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.
     
    The homosexual "marriage" drive had little to do with "tax breaks" or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian--a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @John Johnson, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Almost Missouri

    , @dfordoom
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept.
     
    The intention was to destroy marriage as a meaningful institution. To destroy the family as a meaningful institution.

    As has been pointed out by other UR commenters it's been happening since the 60s - the trend towards making marriage something that is solely about personal happiness and sexual pleasure rather than being about commitment, duty and raising children.
  27. I suppose immigration would be the only reason to endorse polygamy. If you want to live a polygamous lifestyle here, you just live with each other and don’t get married. Marriage rates are at all time lows in the US. Single mothers are eligible for lots of free stuff.

    I don’t know how accurate it was, but in the Sister Wives reality show, the man was legally married to one woman and had spiritual marriages with the others. The orthodox Jews use the religious marriage scam to preserve access to welfare and other benefits.

    There are lots of ways to manipulate the system through polygamy, such as getting health and life insurance, access to Social Security and death benefits, IRA rollovers, inheritance, and various tax benefits. But these seem less immediate than single mother welfare money.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @william munny

    I suppose immigration would be the only reason to endorse polygamy. If you want to live a polygamous lifestyle here, you just live with each other and don’t get married. Marriage rates are at all time lows in the US. Single mothers are eligible for lots of free stuff.

    Blacks already practice polygamy in that regard.

    The single moms who cite the father as "unknown" certainly know who he is. They just want the state to pay and not bother trying to squeeze a dime out of Tyrone.

    There was a sociologist that spent time around Black women on welfare and was surprised by how deliberate their actions were. They didn't "fall into" being single moms and in fact consciously selected their mating partner with the intent of getting pregnant. A lot of them didn't think the men available to them were worth marrying. One even said that being single is better than marrying an idiot. So the conservative theory that they would all be married if not for the men is a bit short sighted.

    Both liberal and conservative politicians hoped that Blacks would "cut the solution" with Hispanics but that hasn't really happened. Central Americans like Guatemalans don't want anything to do with Blacks and in fact think Whites are morons for putting up with them.

    Replies: @Shango

  28. I’ve been saying that polygamy will be normalized for about 25 years. Religiously, the Left eventually would see that it needs to back polygamy.

    This is a religious war.

  29. Why didn’t the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn’t it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    • Thanks: AKAHorace
    • Replies: @TheOtherRomanian
    @RichardTaylor

    Quite simple my good man, a simple maxim from computer science will suffice:

    Garbage In - Garbage Out

    Aloha Snackbar!

    , @foolisholdman
    @RichardTaylor

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Assuming that this is true, and it is easily observable that men, particularly rich men, tend to marry pretty women in preference to clever women, it would explain why highly successful men tend to have rather "disappointing" sons.

    As it is also true that well educated women tend to have fewer children than poorly educated women, it would also explain the observed drop in the IQ of the developed nations since WW2.

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson, @AKAHorace

    , @Alden
    @RichardTaylor

    Excellent point, original thought I have no idea what the answer might be.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

    , @S. Anonyia
    @RichardTaylor

    Inbreeding.

    , @John Johnson
    @RichardTaylor

    Why didn’t the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn’t it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    You are imagining a meritocratic and capitalistic society.

    Their oil rich capitalist societies that we helped them build are relatively recent.

    Watch Lawrence of Arabia for a better take on what their countries used to look like.

    Being able to ride a horse well and slaughter your enemies was valued more than intelligence.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @RichardTaylor

    Most of those wives were the first cousins of their husbands.

    So they take what should be eugenic advantage and dunk it in a dysgenic disadvantage. The latter is evidently stronger, by a lot.

    OTOH, in times and places in which e.g. Islam was on the upswing and men were outmarrying multiple wives/concubines for reasons of e.g. conquest and cementing alliances with other tribes, polygamy probably did/does have a eugenic effect. But, judging by results, such times are not most times.

  30. Anon[376] • Disclaimer says:

    Polygamists don’t get legally married. They can’t. It’s illegal. So the only way to prosecute in an ethical manner is to go after anybody who has sex outside of a legally sanctioned marriage. Maybe that would be a good idea, but it’s a hard sell in 21st century America.

    The news media tried to spin Utah’s decision to downgrade the punishment for polygamy as endorsing polygamy. In reality, Utah pretty much just gave up on prosecuting polygamy. The hope was that those isolated sects would become less secretive so things like abuse or the rare underage marriage would be more exposed to the light of day.

  31. On consideration, the answer is no. As muslims in Europe have shown, it’s better to keep it informal and receive free stuff as a collection of single mothers.

    • Replies: @photondancer
    @Pericles

    I hear this happens in Australia too. Also, since muslims believe in a much younger age for marriage than westerners, especially for girls, I hear there's a fair few under 16 year olds being visited in hospital by their 'uncle' to view the newborn child.

    Replies: @Alden

  32. @Bill B.
    Who? Whom?

    This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. The non-Polys will pay for the Polys.

    The Muslims will use this to accelerate their rule but others will quickly come up against natural limits as communities run out of women to feed the Big Men.

    Of course it may be that men (and women) can import their numerous spouses from abroad sort of like mail order brides/grooms which will be encouraged by TPTB as a way of accelerating the Brazilification of the West.

    In this era of rampant self-interest Dr Strangelove's mating strategy (once the mineshaft advantage has been ensured) may win out.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @FPD72

    “This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. “

    The deal is that one wife gets welfare as part of the “official” married couple. AFAIK wives 2/3/4 get welfare as “single mothers”, which is probably MORE generous. However, until Labour get back in, they’re restricted to benefits for 2 kids each.

    We do seem to be going back to prehistoric times when according to Wilder et al 2004*, 80% of women who ever lived had children but only 40% of the men did. I know a few guys who’ve split from Wife/kids 1 to establish Wife/kids 2. One guy has just split with Wife/kids 3! The late climber Doug Scott had 5 children by two successive wives.

    * https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/cHEQSEPz4eipGHFy9/differential-reproduction-for-men-and-women

    http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/20040819224859data_trunc_sys.shtml

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120714015731/http://hammerlab.biosci.arizona.edu/publications/Wilder_2004_MBE.pdf

  33. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: “Cuck”, “Chad”, “alpha””beta””kitchen bitch”. “beta provider”, “Stacies”, the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    You can’t be serious. And besides — that’s not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not. I have little doubt that it is, given all of the other perversions that the Left has mainstreamed over the past 20+ years.

    Consider the possibility that it maybe you’re the one that’s obsessed…obsessed with linking conservative males with negative traits and getting off on hating them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    @TTSSYF

    "You can’t be serious. And besides — that’s not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not."

    It is the focus of his blog post, because only a conservative male would even bring this topic up. I cannot see a liberal commentariat in his blog showing concern about average men being left behind in a system where the most successful men can get all the women. The liberal would probably bring up the oppression of women in these Islamic societies, or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy(think Richard Dawkins in his cruzade against religion). But polygamy is an issue that only conservative males are concerned with, because they are absolutely driven to breed and have kids, and they absolutely fear the idea that they might fail to do so if there isn't a strict societal "one woman per man" rule because sexier men might take all the women leaving them none, or that they might be successful in breeding, but they might be cucked by a more powerful man and raise his spawn instead of his own. This extreme type of male anxiety and concern with breeding, with male sexual market value("Alpha Male", Beta Male", "Chad", "Beta cuck", "kitchen bitch", "Beta provider", "Big Man", etc) and with cuckoldry is absolutely a concern strongly linked to conservative males. Liberal men don't talk like that. They just don't. This type of masculine anxiety about not being out-bred by other men, either by them taking all the available women and leaving them none, or by being cuckolded, is one of the most stereotypically associated with conservative males.

    Replies: @TTSSYF

  34. @IHTG
    Probably not. But if polygamy is accepted, I suggest it might happen not as a direct foreign cultural import from immigrants, but as a woke bureaucratic attempt at formalizing promiscuity among native African-Americans.

    Replies: @Hannah Katz

    My observation is that those who practice polygamy are much more likely to use our social safety net as a hammock. We really don’t benefit from this practice, as a society.

    • Agree: notsaying, bomag
  35. The Lawrence and Obergefell cases created precedent making plural marriage a slam-dunk at some point in the future. It’s just that the elites are not pushing for it at the moment.

    The gay rights movement was basically a bludgeon to beat conservative America with. If the Left sees some kind of opportunity to rub what’s left of traditional, Christian America’s nose in plural marriage they’ll do it, but right now their big thing is teaching your five-year-old about transgenderism.

  36. China detains Muslims who practice polygamy. Which means the future citizens of Far East China should confine themselves to one wife.

    • Replies: @John Up North
    @Change that Matters

    Did you mean to write Far Western China?

  37. @RoatanBill
    What consenting adults do in private should be none of anyone else's business.

    As usual, the gov't creates the problem and then comes up with their solution by writing some bullshit law. I often wondered why people need a license to get married. I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov't in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other 'rights' that the law gives to married people.

    Licensing is when the government takes a right from you, and sells it back.
    Joe Jarvis


    If gov't were out of the marriage business, there would be no divorce lawyers. It's not like gov't sanction produces anything of value since divorce is so rampant. The gov't just gets a new control point where none existed before.

    Instead of inserting their nose into how some people want to live via the law, why not get out of the marriage business entirely by eliminating all laws that mention marital status?

    Replies: @Jake, @black sea, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    If only there were pure anarchy and total freedom, then we would have none of these problems. If I want to marry 4 teen trannies, a Down-Low Numinous Negro former NFL player, and a female goat, that’s nobody’s business but my own.

  38. Polygamy increases the number of angry young men who can’t get married or even laid in repressive Muslim societies. It’s another driver of both terrorism and of Arab and Africa migration to Europe.

    A similar comparison can be made of polygamic societies to modern dating in the West through apps like tinder:

    “In terms of attractiveness, the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men.”
    https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

    [MORE]

    Human Nature and Tinder

    Rob Henderson

    “In the United States, 35 percent of Tinder users are college students ages 18 to 24…’I’ve heard a joke on campus that goes something like this: ‘First base is hooking up, second base is talking, third base is going on a date and fourth base is dating.’” (source).

    “There are analytics from OKCupid and so on. OKCupid used to put out very politically incorrect blog posts looking at their metrics. And they don’t do that anymore because of what they revealed.” (source).

    I am just old enough to remember what the dating scene was like before the rise of Tinder and other dating/hook-up apps. It has changed a lot. 2012 was another world in many ways.

    The situation has changed for everyone on the dating market. Even those who don’t use these apps.

    This is because even for the people who don’t use the apps, they still live in an environment where others use them.

    Over time, those who don’t use apps must adapt to the preferences and behavior of those who use them. Not the other way around.

    One example of how the scene has changed. I have a friend from college. A good-looking guy. He showed me how many women he has matched with: More than 21,000. Twenty-one thousand.

    Tinder actually identified him as a valuable user early on, and gave him free perks and upgrades. They lifted his radius restrictions. This allowed him to match with even more women.

    I have another friend. Doesn’t have the best pictures on his profile, but not a bad looking guy. Over roughly the same period of time as my other friend, he has matched with seven women.

    Some findings on dating apps:

    -30 percent of U.S. adults have used a dating app or website, up from 11% in 2013. source

    -7 out of 10 college students have used Tinder. source

    -18 to 25 percent of Tinder users are in a committed relationship. source

    -Women aged 23 to 27 are twice as likely to swipe right (“liked”) on a man with a master’s degree compared with a bachelor’s degree. source

    -Men swipe right (“liked”) on about 62 percent of the women’s profiles they see; women swipe right (“liked”) on about 5 percent of the men’s profiles they see. source

    -Half of men who use dating apps while in a committed relationship reported having sex with another person they met on a dating app. All women who used dating apps while in a committed relationship reported having sex with another person they met on a dating app. source

    -30 percent of men who use Tinder are married source and excerpt

    -In terms of attractiveness, the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. source

    One way dating apps might be changing the dating scene. People used to have to go out to meet people. And it was costly to lose a relationship partner, in part because of the process involved in meeting someone new.

    Today, people know that a new partner is a few swipes away. Partners might be more replaceable.

    If things start deteriorating with their current partner, some can pull out a goldmine in their pocket.

    There may be some sexual stratification going on as well. My two friends are examples of the above finding that being slightly more attractive as a man leads to far more matches.

    Social scientists have focused a lot on economic, class, and cognitive divisions. Some people have lots of money and some don’t have as much. This can cause problems.

    Some people are very intelligent and others not as much. This can cause problems.

    Robin Hanson broached the subject of sexual inequality. Dude was crucified for it.

    I am curious about something. Money hasn’t been around for that long. But it’s often treated as the key incentive driving human behavior.

    Sex has been around much longer. We have been motivated by it since before we were human. It has been around since long before humans existed. It will exist long after humans have gone extinct.

    At least among young males, it is basically the key driver for everything they do. They have to actively suppress this desire to get anything else done. Or sublimate that energy into other tasks with the hope that completing them will somehow help their romantic prospects.

    Still, it doesn’t seem to be taken as seriously as the other incentives. We understand people are often motivated by money, fame, status, etc. But why do people want those things?

    Recommended books:

    Why Women Have Sex by Cindy Meston

    The Evolution of Desire by David Buss

    https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?u=412bdf6ca38cdf29c3374de56&id=9896be221f

    • Replies: @Whiskey
    @Lockean Proviso

    What the establishment truly fears is the right saying to White men that they will get them laid by hot women by repression of women’s choice and no welfare and removal of black male competition.

    Offer that and you have a shock force to rule the planet.

  39. Recommended trolling responses to any liberal:

    “We don’t prohibit gays from marrying, we shouldn’t prohibit polygamists.”

    And: “They used to say that [immoral/unnatural/harmful] about gays.”

    • Agree: TTSSYF, Redneck farmer
  40. Firstly, when can victory on the “trans” front against the evil forces of heteronormativity be declared? I am under the vague impression that this will be done when gender dysphoria is medically (and also socially) normalized. Imagine a world where any sexually confused man (or more likely a teenage girl) can go to a doctor, say they are feeling confused about their gender and get relatively prompt access to powerful hormonal treatments and with a view to getting surgery down the road, just like you would if you were suffering from a physical illness.

    The two future narrative options, as you’ve mentioned before, will either be polygamy or non-offending paedophiles, although I think its more likely to be the latter. Like polygamy, it’s also quasi-acceptable in some Islamic countries (ie. child marriage.) Look forward to articles in online webzines about removing the stigma around people who suffer from paedophilic “urges” (that they don’t act on them) and more MSM news articles highlighting violence against sex offenders in prison.
    I think Salon even made an opening shot on this topic a few years ago when they allowed a self-pitying editorial from a non-offending paedophile. Anyone can feel free to disagree, I honesty hope that my analysis is wrong and the the MSM doesn’t take the narrative in this squalid direction.

  41. Where have you been, Steve?

    Polygamy is old hat, but the liberal media have been pushing “polyamory” hard for years.

  42. Legal pedo, not codified poly-g — we already have de facto poly-g for those that want it — is the next cultural conquest for woke depravity. Legal pedo goes hand in hand with the push to lower the voting age. All goods ways to destroy our civilization.

  43. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    Another piece of evidence why Unz shouldn’t allow anonymous commenting. I wish Steve would just spam these as a matter of course.

  44. The Quakers and the Amish can’t be drafted. The Amish don’t have to pay social security taxes because their religion requires them to take care of their old people.

    In America, polygamy may allowed for some people on the grounds that some cultures are required to follow sharia law.

    In India, Polygamy is legal for Muslims. They are allowed four wives per sharia law. I don’t know how common it is, but I have heard of Bollywood producers legally marrying multiple wives (Bollywood is run by Muslims).

    Among non-Muslims, I have heard of the committing bigamy though it is illegal for them. They do it without legally marrying the second person.

    • Replies: @notsaying
    @As

    I have never heard of the Amish not paying Social Security. I don't agree with that. Practically speaking I can't see how the Amish can do without Medicare. Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year. The only way that would work is if they used Medicaid instead. That might work for elderly without income but not for all the disabled or for people who still own their farms after age 65.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Jack D

  45. @Peter Akuleyev
    Seems hard to see what would stop polygamy at this point. Many wealthy white men are serial monogamists with children by many wives. Look at Trump for example. On what moral basis would he condemn polygamy?

    And polyamory is of course the flavor du jour in the tech and hipster communities.

    So if you’re taking bets on what’s next after WW-T, this seems like a good bet.

    Replies: @advancedatheist, @Bardon Kaldian

    Many wealthy white men are serial monogamists with children by many wives. Look at Trump for example.

    Carl Sagan fathered children with each of his three wives, from his 20’s through his 50’s.

    Of course men can do this because women age sexually a lot faster than men, even if women tend to live longer on average.

  46. @Jesse
    No. You don't understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies. (Chortle all you want but it should give you pause that they can succeed where the socons universally fail.)

    Replies: @Mike P., @anon, @Thea, @Moral Stone

    Where have they succeeded?

  47. @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Peter Akuleyev, @Corn, @JMcG

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Don’t leave out the age-of-consent laws.

  48. Someday, we will have a Mitt Romney with two or three first ladies (first, second, and third ladies?). Then justice will finally have been done.

  49. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/08/it-feels-like-a-lost-year-the-women-who-fear-2020-has-stolen-their-chance-of-motherhood

    She goes over the arithmetic that has tortured her all year long. She will be 34 next month, single, no closer to finding a partner to have kids with. Even if she did meet someone next year, say, would they be ready to start conceiving within a year? Probably not. That could mean she will be 36 before she even starts trying – if she meets someone next year. And there’s the rub – because the Covid-19 restrictions have made dating nearly impossible. “My friends are either pregnant or looking after small children,” Claudia says, “and I struggle to even get men to talk to me online. It feels hopeless.”

    Claudia is one of the many women across the UK who fear that the coronavirus has put paid to their plans to have children, possibly for good. As Covid swept the country in March, IVF clinics hastily closed; most would not reopen until May. And women who had planned to travel abroad for fertility treatment were unable to leave the UK, due to the travel restrictions. Once-solid relationships collapsed under the stress of a global pandemic, leaving women in their late 30s who want children searching for new partners.

    Tick… tick… tick.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @YetAnotherAnon

    She should just date a man 8-10 years older. Problem solved. At least in “non elite” areas men fall all over themselves to date slightly younger women.

    Women actually have the best deal in conservative, more rural areas.

    Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @photondancer

    , @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    *Both* conservative men and women are obsessed with breeding. My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man's spawn.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @William Badwhite

    , @MBlanc46
    @YetAnotherAnon

    She had 18–34 to get that done. She brought it on herself.

  50. One angle I haven’t seen mentioned is the whole ‘polyamory’ thing–lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It’s popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral–I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I’m convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea’s been kicking around for a while. We’ve seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman ‘finding her freedom’ and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds–which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids–there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as ‘the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!’. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore…)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like—why would you complain if people you don’t like don’t want to date you?– because they’re hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what’s left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    • Agree: S. Anonyia
    • Replies: @ScarletNumber
    @SFG


    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids
     
    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother's boyfriend.

    Replies: @ChrisZ, @Anon7, @YetAnotherAnon, @SunBakedSuburb

    , @John Johnson
    @SFG

    It all comes down to genetics.

    Liberals that have influence (professors, journalists, politicians) don't actually believe in equality and would be against any type of relationship that might be eugenic to Whites. The inequality of racial genetics keep them up at night and the last thing they want is to improve White procreation.

    So while in theory they might tolerate alternative relationships it is only to undermine the mainstream.

    Thus even if Muslims pushed for polygamy the left would resist due to the possibility of it being utilized by Whites. They would most likely switch to professing concern about Muslim women even though the real concern would be with Bad Whites(tm) having more children.

    I could see the left supporting polyandry in theory but then they would have the problem of arguing why polygyny shouldn't be allowed.

    But I'm not sure how many White women would even support polygamy. They have all been told by Hollywood that they all have an ideal man somewhere and sharing isn't a concept to them. I also don't see many "first wives" supporting the arrangement. I could see it working in areas where women often lack access to quality single men but there would be a lot of pushback from various groups.

    I've always wondered how many women would take quality over monogamy. Probably not something you can poll as it might be one of those questions that women can't answer honestly to themselves unless they are in that position.

    , @Days of Broken Arrows
    @SFG

    "One angle I haven’t seen mentioned is the whole ‘polyamory’ thing–lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages..."


    Wait, so "hipsters" is now a synonym for "fat lards?"

    , @Altai
    @SFG

    Obligatory KiwiFarms link to their thread on the 'Poly' community. There is some serious trading of quality for quantity going on.

    https://kiwifarms.net/threads/r-polyamory.35875/

    , @Bardon Kaldian
    @SFG

    Briefly:

    * polygamy is basically polygyny, not polyandry

    * in modern societies, non-parasitic types of humans who want to live in such arrangements, are generally not too emotional females who may have a religious background (fundamentalist Mormons), but are mostly of a practical kind: they are breeders, many of them have a bunch of kids & find it practical to organize lives with other women (children, finances, social life, ...). Not highly eroticized group- breeders, as I said. Men are uxorious & rather boring, all immersed in that highly non-individualized life.

    * polyandry is an arrangement including men who are, generally, erotic losers & cannot find a woman for themselves. I knew 2 such arrangements & both women & men were of low mental, moral & emotional capacity. They were- at least to me- extremely dull.

    * polyamory is ... for various types of people, but it tends to be alluring with youth (for some people) & then it collapses with time. I cannot say I see any clearly defined type of men or women who are into it. Those who engage in it ideologically tend, I think, to remain childless; also, they pay too much attention to feelings, endlessly talking about what to do & what to avoid. Basically- it is almost a religion, like Vegans. Other type are couples in later stages of their marriages who are feeling a fear of aging & sense that they missed "it" in their lives. So, their materialist world-view is to extract as much pleasure as they can before decrepitude & death arrive.

    , @S. Anonyia
    @SFG

    Came to post this. I am 30, and have noticed the same trends among some of my former college friends who moved to larger metros. Silicon Valley nerds aren’t going to support polygamy to virtue signal on behalf of African migrants; they are going to do it to get attention (and possibly legal protections) for the bizarre plural relationships they are already engaging in.

    , @Alden
    @SFG

    I remember that family of 4 men and one pregnant woman. It was all over the news as a wonderful new lifestyle. Strangely, this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.

    Polygamy is an ancient family formation. It functions no worse than monogamy single parenthood or orphanages. Polygamy is just too,
    too normal to be the next thing. I honestly think it will be the legalization of pedophilia. Bestiality is gross, but not horrible, damaging to children and disgusting enough for liberals to impose on the rest of us. Plus, liberals are sissy city boys afraid of animals other than cats and dogs weighing less than 30 pounds.

    So it’s pedophilia

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    , @Abelard Lindsey
    @SFG

    Watch some lion videos on youtube and you get the idea.

  51. anonymous[281] • Disclaimer says:
    @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I've gotten over the years makes me think the "relationships" between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let's leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male "bad boy" archetype. I'll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won't get less slippery.

    If you're into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Replies: @anonymous, @ScarletNumber, @Escher, @Paul Mendez

    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him claiming to have “accidentally” ended up with some peanut butter somewhere. It stuck with me (pun intended).

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @anonymous


    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him[...]
     
    Haven't you omitted an extremely salient fact about Dan Savage? A characteristic that is the overwhelmingly primary one upon which his persona and career are based. And one that makes it rather odd, to say the very least, for him to be presuming to offer any sexual advice of a heterosexual variety*...

    The notoriously brazen and vicious, bigoted sodomite has been unpersoned? This is news to me. What was his offense?

    *As if being an avowed homosexualist were not enough here, Savage had initially denied the legitimacy of bisexuality, and only later reversed and apologized for having taken that position.

    Reproduced below is a comment of mine (primarily concerning Dan Savage but also quite relevant to the larger questions addressed in this thread) from the September 2019 iSteve thread, What's Next? Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left
    Dissident says:
    September 6, 2019 at 7:06 pm GMT • 1.3 years ago • 400 Words ↑
    @Corn

    I remember a few years back, back when gay marriage was a matter of debate rather than the law of the land, that sex columnist Dan Savage (who’s gay) wrote an op-ed basically saying that gays should be allowed to marry but this whole monogamy thing had to go.
     
    Concerning Dan Savage, I wonder how many iSteve readers are aware that the advice on sexual matters that he offers in his syndicated column is not limited to homosexuals.



    Also,
    https://americansfortruth.com/issues/dan-savage/

    Dan Savage’s “Progressive” Hate: When it comes to dishing out “progressive” hate, few activists on the Left can match the antics of Dan Savage, homosexual-bisexual-transgender activist, sex columnist, author and pornographer. Here is a graphic from Savage’s hate-site, Santorum [.] com–which he created to demonize and literally destroy the name of Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Dan and his left-leaning fans came up with this mean-spirited, grotesque “definition” after Savage was offended by something Santorum had said. It is telling that Savage decided the best way to punish Santorum was to associate his name with a disgusting by-product of homosexual sodomy. Despite his hateful stunts and anti-Christian rhetoric–including “flu terrorism” against GOP presidential contender Gary Bauer and an “Impeach the Mother-[F–k-r] Already (ITMFA)” campaign against President Trump, most media, and apparently Democrat politicians like Sean Casten in Illinois, treat Savage like a cultural hero. See video showing Savage’s anti-Christian bigotry below, and the Breitbart story on Casten HERE.
     
    Also, FROT movement founder Bill Weintraub* has criticized Savage quite a bit. An example:

    http://man2manalliance.org/crw/frot/limitnewer.html#savage (*Linked site contains graphic content)

    So, I suggested to Savage, it might make more sense to remove penetration from the pinnacle of gay male sexual experience and give men other options instead -- and, at the very least, specifically warn them against being anally receptive early in a relationship.

    He didn't reply to my letter, and he has not to two more over the last two years.

    The reason he has not is not mysterious.

    Dan Savage, like Steve Goldstone, is an analist.

    He consistently supports the dominant culture of anal sex, and censors opposing points of view.

    Savage is also respected and influential, and is sometimes quoted in the nongay press, most recently in Seattle, where he lives, and where he's become an advocate for "responsible promiscuity."

    But not, so far as I can tell, for fidelity.

    He simply urges men to use condoms during promiscuous anal sex.
     

    Replies: @anonymous

  52. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I've gotten over the years makes me think the "relationships" between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let's leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male "bad boy" archetype. I'll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won't get less slippery.

    If you're into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Replies: @anonymous, @ScarletNumber, @Escher, @Paul Mendez

    If you’re into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Choosy moms choose Jif.

  53. @RoatanBill
    What consenting adults do in private should be none of anyone else's business.

    As usual, the gov't creates the problem and then comes up with their solution by writing some bullshit law. I often wondered why people need a license to get married. I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov't in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other 'rights' that the law gives to married people.

    Licensing is when the government takes a right from you, and sells it back.
    Joe Jarvis


    If gov't were out of the marriage business, there would be no divorce lawyers. It's not like gov't sanction produces anything of value since divorce is so rampant. The gov't just gets a new control point where none existed before.

    Instead of inserting their nose into how some people want to live via the law, why not get out of the marriage business entirely by eliminating all laws that mention marital status?

    Replies: @Jake, @black sea, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept.

    Gaining access to employer-sponsored health insurance during the AIDS crisis. Otherwise, it would have been a boutique issue with little support.

    • Agree: flyingtiger
  54. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    You wouldn’t be noting words like “cuck” if they weren’t hitting a nerve.

    Cuck is an appropriate word for US foreign policy since it seems to relish in doing the “bidding” of a foreign power with no benefit to US interests.

  55. Well, for starters, Biden has already said he’ll revoke the “Muslim ban” on Day One. Shortly after we will get effective open borders. The polygamous hordes from Africa and the Middle East will swarm into America by the millions over the next few years. The Woke will have full cultural control and will go on a rampage of fanaticism. Big Tech will shut down all dissent as part of the soon-to-be-passed hate speech laws.

    Polygamy will first be de facto legal: like is happening around the country with other crimes, it may be a “crime” but it won’t be prosecuted. This will be stated policy in many places, so we will get polygamy hot spots. Netflix, HBO, etc. will start pumping out shows about happy polygamous families that are being persecuted by evil white Monos (they will come up with some kind of slur name).

    Since vote fraud is now fully allowed, there will never be another Republican President, so no one will push back on this. A few years from now, the Surgeon General and others will begin a campaign to normalize polygamy (and pedophilia, especially). By 20xx, America is a polygamous nation where pedophilia is legal and normalized.

    The End. But thankfully some here wouldn’t vote from Trump, because he’s such a loudmouth!

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    @peterike

    "The polygamous hordes from Africa and the Middle East will swarm into America by the millions over the next few years. "

    Were we a sane country, we would simply turn back these racial aliens. But we are unfortunately saddled with (((Emma Lazarus'))) Zeroth Amendment.

    , @Chrisnonymous
    @peterike


    they will come up with some kind of slur name).
     
    Not sure if "polyphobic" will work, but "lovephobic" or the Orwellian "familyphobic" don"t sound good. "Polyphobic" just sounds like you have multiple phobias. It's a good all-around smear for stale pale males. I embrace it. I am polyphobic.
  56. @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Peter Akuleyev, @Corn, @JMcG

    No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    I am not “proposing” anything. I am just describing the way Woke people seem to think. I am not particularly interested in the issue of animal consent one way or the other. If you are, have fun.

    • Replies: @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    I see, I seem to misunderstood your position. Sorry if I came across as a bit blunt.

  57. Polygamy? No way. Who in their right mind wants two American wives?

    The next big thing is pedophilia. First it starts with the normalization of pedophilia which is the stage we’re in right now.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Yawrate


    The next big thing is pedophilia. First it starts with the normalization of pedophilia which is the stage we’re in right now.
     
    I don't think so. WWT succeeded because most people didn't care much about trannies one way or the other. It was easy to make the argument that who cares if a man wears a frock and says he's a woman - nobody gets hurt.

    Lots of people will care a great deal about pedophilia. Even members of the Coalition of the Fringes. It would be a vicious protracted struggle, rather than the easy victory that WWT was. And it would be a struggle that would expose huge cracks within the Coalition of the Fringes.

    Also remember that Americans don't really approve of sex. They approve of homosexuals because they convince themselves it's all about love, not sex. They manage to just not think about the sexual aspects. They approve of trannies because it's not about sex, it's about identity. That's also the case with homosexuality - it's seen as an identity issue (which is good) rather than being about sex (which is wrong).

    You're not going to be able to convince people that pedophilia is not about sex. Americans' deep-seated Puritanism will kick in on that issue. It would be a bloodbath. I don't think it will happen.
  58. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids

    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother’s boyfriend.

    • Replies: @ChrisZ
    @ScarletNumber

    I didn't think it was possible to improve on SFG's pithy formulation, but you seem to have done so, Scarlet. Well said, both of you.

    , @Anon7
    @ScarletNumber

    This (minus the racial component) is why single motherhood is the worst possible way to raise children, looking at basic social outcomes.

    These studies have been done in the US and Europe. You take millions of public records and sift through them until you find a few tens of thousands that let you rule out other variables as being important. Basic social outcomes is, well, basic: did the child graduate from high school (positive) or not (negative)? Did the child ever wind up in prison (negative) or college/technical school (positive). And so on.

    It turns out (not surprisingly, but its good to have data), that children raised in a monogamous, married male and female biological parents household have the best social outcomes. By far. Regardless of wealth, social status, education, race etc.

    Single mother is the worst strategy, I think at least partly because of the situation you mention. Mother brings boyfriend home, beds him, falls asleep. Boyfriend gets out of bed, encounters fifteen year old daughter and thinks that was closer to what he wanted in the bar where he met mother.

    Polygamy, polyandry, blah blah blah - can you build a civilization that lasts for more than a couple of generations with it? Or even long enough to pay off a thirty year mortgage.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @ScarletNumber

    " the natural predator of the black child is their mother’s boyfriend"

    The natural predator of ALL kids is mum's boyfriend.

    Admittedly black communities have even higher rates of single parenthood than white ones - which is saying something.

    , @SunBakedSuburb
    @ScarletNumber

    "the natural predator of the black child"

    Is the black mother. The near hysterical elevation of black women -- the most hateful, racist, destructive subgroup in Jesusland -- to positions of power in the private and public sectors is darkly humorous. Clearly the work of the Christian devil.

  59. @Bill B.
    Who? Whom?

    This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. The non-Polys will pay for the Polys.

    The Muslims will use this to accelerate their rule but others will quickly come up against natural limits as communities run out of women to feed the Big Men.

    Of course it may be that men (and women) can import their numerous spouses from abroad sort of like mail order brides/grooms which will be encouraged by TPTB as a way of accelerating the Brazilification of the West.

    In this era of rampant self-interest Dr Strangelove's mating strategy (once the mineshaft advantage has been ensured) may win out.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @FPD72

    This will take off when the second and third and fourth wives also get welfare, as I believe they already quietly do to an extent in the UK. The non-Polys will pay for the Polys.

    That’s how it works in the US with the breakaway Mormon sects that practice polygamy. All wives after the first collect various forms of welfare with the stated purpose of “bleeding the beast,” i.e., bankrupting the government.

    Of course, the federal government can’t default, per the 14th Amendment, so it deals with its debt the old fashioned way: by the Fed further debasing the currency. Nixon’s ending the gold standard and our going to a purely fiat currency really were the beginning of the end, the logical consequence of which is Modern Monetary Theory.

  60. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”.

    I can’t imagine the Woke letting this get in the way of a good time; they will just define their way out of any objections.

    Do crime victims of favorite Woke crimes consent? Do fetuses consent to abortion? Etc.

    • Agree: Almost Missouri
  61. @ScarletNumber
    @SFG


    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids
     
    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother's boyfriend.

    Replies: @ChrisZ, @Anon7, @YetAnotherAnon, @SunBakedSuburb

    I didn’t think it was possible to improve on SFG’s pithy formulation, but you seem to have done so, Scarlet. Well said, both of you.

  62. @ScarletNumber
    @SFG


    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids
     
    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother's boyfriend.

    Replies: @ChrisZ, @Anon7, @YetAnotherAnon, @SunBakedSuburb

    This (minus the racial component) is why single motherhood is the worst possible way to raise children, looking at basic social outcomes.

    These studies have been done in the US and Europe. You take millions of public records and sift through them until you find a few tens of thousands that let you rule out other variables as being important. Basic social outcomes is, well, basic: did the child graduate from high school (positive) or not (negative)? Did the child ever wind up in prison (negative) or college/technical school (positive). And so on.

    It turns out (not surprisingly, but its good to have data), that children raised in a monogamous, married male and female biological parents household have the best social outcomes. By far. Regardless of wealth, social status, education, race etc.

    Single mother is the worst strategy, I think at least partly because of the situation you mention. Mother brings boyfriend home, beds him, falls asleep. Boyfriend gets out of bed, encounters fifteen year old daughter and thinks that was closer to what he wanted in the bar where he met mother.

    Polygamy, polyandry, blah blah blah – can you build a civilization that lasts for more than a couple of generations with it? Or even long enough to pay off a thirty year mortgage.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  63. @brabantian
    OT but on recurring themes here - Note the diversity points that Joe Biden gathers, out of padding his nominee roster with a claimed 'Latino' who is actually entirely Jewish, whilst media obscures that fact... presenting Joe Biden's pick for the job once held by rabbi's son Michael Chertoff, Alejandro Mayorkas:
    https://i.ibb.co/qBsZzVk/Alejandro-Mayorkas-Jewish-Latino.jpg

    Replies: @Jack D, @Abolish_public_education

    whilst media obscures that fact

    Thank you for uncovering this deep dark secret which has been hidden from us by the Zionist controlled media.

    https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/alejandro-mayorkas-the-cuban-jewish-attorney-who-may-head-bidens-dhs-648838

    Sephardic Jews are more Latino than most Latinos. Sephardic Jews (even in exile in the Arab world) spoke a Spanish derived language called Ladino.

    The Spanish in Cuba were particularly successful in wiping out the native Indian population so almost everyone in Cuba is imported from somewhere, either Europe or Africa (even some Chinese that they brought over as plantation labor). Even Castro’s father was an immigrant from Spain.

  64. Now that we have affirmative action on steroids, all the plum jobs will go to women, and given female hypergamy, lots of men will have no option of finding a mate. So the few remaining high-status men will mate up with multiple high-status women in polygamous relationships.

    In other words, more “progress” that isn’t, courtesy of the Left.

  65. @AKAHorace
    From Slate 2013

    Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom
     
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

    It is not only about immigration but women's right of access to wealthy males.

    Replies: @Corn, @Bardon Kaldian

    It is not only about immigration but women’s right of access to wealthy males

    I think George Bernard Shaw stated, “Most women would rather have half a millionaire than all of a janitor”.

  66. @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Peter Akuleyev, @Corn, @JMcG

    Is it just me or is it kind of sad that liberals chief objection to zoophilia is “consent” and not a plain old “Jesus Christ, ewwwww, who would f—- a dog?!!”

    • Agree: JMcG, Peter Akuleyev
  67. In the Gulf, including Saudi Arabia, it is perceived as the first wife’s failure if the husband takes a second wife. Although this is permitted, it is not viewed favorably by regular folks. Of course, different practices for the highest-ranking royals, and for extreme conservatives.

  68. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    It all comes down to genetics.

    Liberals that have influence (professors, journalists, politicians) don’t actually believe in equality and would be against any type of relationship that might be eugenic to Whites. The inequality of racial genetics keep them up at night and the last thing they want is to improve White procreation.

    So while in theory they might tolerate alternative relationships it is only to undermine the mainstream.

    Thus even if Muslims pushed for polygamy the left would resist due to the possibility of it being utilized by Whites. They would most likely switch to professing concern about Muslim women even though the real concern would be with Bad Whites(tm) having more children.

    I could see the left supporting polyandry in theory but then they would have the problem of arguing why polygyny shouldn’t be allowed.

    But I’m not sure how many White women would even support polygamy. They have all been told by Hollywood that they all have an ideal man somewhere and sharing isn’t a concept to them. I also don’t see many “first wives” supporting the arrangement. I could see it working in areas where women often lack access to quality single men but there would be a lot of pushback from various groups.

    I’ve always wondered how many women would take quality over monogamy. Probably not something you can poll as it might be one of those questions that women can’t answer honestly to themselves unless they are in that position.

    • Thanks: GoRedWings!
  69. @Bill Jones
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    The next big thing for the Woke Wack-jobs"normalization" crusade is Pedophilia, it's rampant among them.

    Replies: @Corn

    Us conservatives are always saying that the Wokies are dragging us to pedophilia, but I’m not sure. I actually think leftist attitudes against pedophilia are hardening, at least as far as hetero pedo stuff goes.

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on. I think Wokies will draw the line at pedo stuff. Not because they’re virtuous, but because this upcoming generation of cat ladies and box wine spinsters don’t want to open up the dating pool to teenage girls.

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    @Corn

    So far as true pedophilia (i.e., adults raping young children), lots of wokies don't really have any objection and many are in the forefront of attempting to normalize this vile practice. That antifa (rosenberg or rosenfeld or whatever its name was) who got goodified by Kyle Rittenhouse was a chomo in fact.
    That said, a 35 year old man dating a 22 year old woman has ZERO to do with pedophilia and the wokies know it. It's just that (as you correctly point out in your comment about cat ladies and box wine spinsters) the female wokies just can't stand to see us leverage our naturally higher SMV (relative to women as we age) to pull younger tail.

    , @anon
    @Corn

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on.

    That's just intra-sexual competition from aging feminists who didn't get the memo:
    "Men age like wine, women age like milk".
    Nothing to do with pedos, who prefer people 13 or younger. See the diff?

    , @Alden
    @Corn

    So you spend a lot of time reading cat lady Twitter? Hmmmm.

    Replies: @Corn

  70. Every progressive new thing is about undermining the family. So does polygamy do that?

  71. @william munny
    I suppose immigration would be the only reason to endorse polygamy. If you want to live a polygamous lifestyle here, you just live with each other and don't get married. Marriage rates are at all time lows in the US. Single mothers are eligible for lots of free stuff.

    I don't know how accurate it was, but in the Sister Wives reality show, the man was legally married to one woman and had spiritual marriages with the others. The orthodox Jews use the religious marriage scam to preserve access to welfare and other benefits.

    There are lots of ways to manipulate the system through polygamy, such as getting health and life insurance, access to Social Security and death benefits, IRA rollovers, inheritance, and various tax benefits. But these seem less immediate than single mother welfare money.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I suppose immigration would be the only reason to endorse polygamy. If you want to live a polygamous lifestyle here, you just live with each other and don’t get married. Marriage rates are at all time lows in the US. Single mothers are eligible for lots of free stuff.

    Blacks already practice polygamy in that regard.

    The single moms who cite the father as “unknown” certainly know who he is. They just want the state to pay and not bother trying to squeeze a dime out of Tyrone.

    There was a sociologist that spent time around Black women on welfare and was surprised by how deliberate their actions were. They didn’t “fall into” being single moms and in fact consciously selected their mating partner with the intent of getting pregnant. A lot of them didn’t think the men available to them were worth marrying. One even said that being single is better than marrying an idiot. So the conservative theory that they would all be married if not for the men is a bit short sighted.

    Both liberal and conservative politicians hoped that Blacks would “cut the solution” with Hispanics but that hasn’t really happened. Central Americans like Guatemalans don’t want anything to do with Blacks and in fact think Whites are morons for putting up with them.

    • Replies: @Shango
    @John Johnson

    "cut the solution" What does that mean?

    Replies: @John Johnson

  72. @RoatanBill
    What consenting adults do in private should be none of anyone else's business.

    As usual, the gov't creates the problem and then comes up with their solution by writing some bullshit law. I often wondered why people need a license to get married. I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov't in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other 'rights' that the law gives to married people.

    Licensing is when the government takes a right from you, and sells it back.
    Joe Jarvis


    If gov't were out of the marriage business, there would be no divorce lawyers. It's not like gov't sanction produces anything of value since divorce is so rampant. The gov't just gets a new control point where none existed before.

    Instead of inserting their nose into how some people want to live via the law, why not get out of the marriage business entirely by eliminating all laws that mention marital status?

    Replies: @Jake, @black sea, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.

    The homosexual “marriage” drive had little to do with “tax breaks” or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian–a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    • Disagree: Muggles
    • Replies: @RoatanBill
    @AnotherDad

    A very reasonable hypothesis. I'd never looked at it that way.

    The whole LGBTlmnop thing annoys me because of their in your face antics. Their parades of freaks showing off their proclivities is just disgusting. That they are written into law as a favored group should never have happened, but then the entire civil rights thing has gone way overboard and needs to disappear.

    If some kind of backlash should happen because of the plandemic consequences for normal people, all the "special' groups are going to get a reaction they won't like because the rest of us are sick of them rubbing our noses in their filth.

    , @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian–a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    The Libertarian ideology completely allows minoritarian rule and even encourages it through open borders. They call for open borders to the third world and if said third worlders create a toxic subculture or take over the culture then OH WELL that's just Freedumb handed down from goddess Rand. Amusingly the third worlders could collectivize against the natives but according to Rand the natives need to stick to individualism because acting collectively in your country's best interest is wrong.

    Libertarians can't even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.

    The whole thing is based in race denial which leads to this type of irrational thinking.

    Replies: @Muggles, @notsaying

    , @The Last Real Calvinist
    @AnotherDad

    Very good point, AnotherDad.

    There is no reason to assume that culture war initiatives are going to have primarily rational (read economic) motivations. Plenty of people push evil simply because they think doing so will make them feel good.

    , @Almost Missouri
    @AnotherDad

    I agree that this was the emotion gravamen of the homosexual marriage movement (albeit publicly unspoken—though privately reveled in), but there were plenty of people making the case for homosexual marriage as a material/economic advantage:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120822043914/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-a-welfare-program-not-a-right/

    P.S. Homosexual "marriage" is cultural appropriation of heteronormative patriarchy.

    P.P.S. The "studies" purporting to show the benefits of homo marriage and parenting were fake. But you probably knew that.

  73. @Jesse
    No. You don't understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies. (Chortle all you want but it should give you pause that they can succeed where the socons universally fail.)

    Replies: @Mike P., @anon, @Thea, @Moral Stone

    No. You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @anon

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can't reach up and type something into Google.

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    Replies: @anon

    , @dfordoom
    @anon


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s. A vicious and bloody struggle between the pro-sex and anti-sex feminists. There has always been a very strong anti-sex strand in American feminism, going back to the 19th century. American feminism is to a large extent an offshoot of American Puritanism.

    Don't forget Andrea "all sex is rape" Dworkin.

    Replies: @Ray P, @anon

  74. @ScarletNumber
    @SFG


    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids
     
    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother's boyfriend.

    Replies: @ChrisZ, @Anon7, @YetAnotherAnon, @SunBakedSuburb

    ” the natural predator of the black child is their mother’s boyfriend”

    The natural predator of ALL kids is mum’s boyfriend.

    Admittedly black communities have even higher rates of single parenthood than white ones – which is saying something.

    • Agree: Dissident
  75. @Jesse
    No. You don't understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies. (Chortle all you want but it should give you pause that they can succeed where the socons universally fail.)

    Replies: @Mike P., @anon, @Thea, @Moral Stone

    You can certainly view pound metoo as a neo-puritanical reaction against the sexual revolution. It could not have happened without widespread no-strings attached sex.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Thea


    You can certainly view pound metoo as a neo-puritanical reaction against the sexual revolution. It could not have happened without widespread no-strings attached sex.
     
    Yes. metoo was an opportunity for the Puritan anti-sex feminists to regain the initiative in the ongoing feminist civil wars (anti-sex vs pro-sex feminists, pro-tranny feminists vs TERFs).
  76. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    “One angle I haven’t seen mentioned is the whole ‘polyamory’ thing–lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages…”

    Wait, so “hipsters” is now a synonym for “fat lards?”

  77. @AnotherDad
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.
     
    The homosexual "marriage" drive had little to do with "tax breaks" or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian--a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @John Johnson, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Almost Missouri

    A very reasonable hypothesis. I’d never looked at it that way.

    The whole LGBTlmnop thing annoys me because of their in your face antics. Their parades of freaks showing off their proclivities is just disgusting. That they are written into law as a favored group should never have happened, but then the entire civil rights thing has gone way overboard and needs to disappear.

    If some kind of backlash should happen because of the plandemic consequences for normal people, all the “special’ groups are going to get a reaction they won’t like because the rest of us are sick of them rubbing our noses in their filth.

  78. @Anonymous

    In economies where women are expected to feed their children, it’s not uncommon for some old devil to collect numerous wives (although not all of their children are necessarily his, but it’s her duty to feed them, so he doesn’t get to exercised about this question). In contrast, in countries with heavier soil where men do the plowing, few men can afford to maintain more than one wife and her children.
     
    Feminism combined with the economic surplus of industrialization means that we increasingly have a sub-Saharan African style economy in the US. Women are encouraged, expected, and promoted to jobs and pay equal to those of men and sufficient to support themselves and their children.

    Muslim countries are generally much less polygynous than the US and more similar in that respect to the pre-feminist, pre-sexual revolution Christian West. Muslim countries formally allow polygamy with hard limits, but lifelong monogamy is the norm. The US doesn't allow formal polygamy, but informal, unlimited polygyny is the norm via serial marriage and divorce, serial relationships, fornication, etc.

    The "sexism" of Muslim countries that maintains a generally monogamous culture is part of a broader, general culture shared by non-African peoples in which male paternal investment was necessary, normal, and appreciated.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @John Johnson

    Agree, we already have defacto polygamy, that was an effect of the sexual revolution. It is just that it’s serial polygamy–powerful men often have a string of marriages and divorces–not parallel polygamy. (ignoring the black community for a moment which is sort of its own deal) You can also do parallel polygamy all you want outside of existing legal structures. Cults, the polyamorous, etc., are already doing this. Legal recognition of parallel polygamy, however, would be a new thing with interesting consequences.

  79. @brabantian
    OT but on recurring themes here - Note the diversity points that Joe Biden gathers, out of padding his nominee roster with a claimed 'Latino' who is actually entirely Jewish, whilst media obscures that fact... presenting Joe Biden's pick for the job once held by rabbi's son Michael Chertoff, Alejandro Mayorkas:
    https://i.ibb.co/qBsZzVk/Alejandro-Mayorkas-Jewish-Latino.jpg

    Replies: @Jack D, @Abolish_public_education

    A left-wing, Cuban-American Sefard is probably quite an outlier.

    CAS’ are more like Bay of Pigs invaders. (Some actually were killed participants.)

  80. anon[144] • Disclaimer says:

    In the US, women already have polyandry if they want it, but in serial form. A woman on her third husband, because hubs #1 and #2 didn’t quite make her haaaapy enough, is engaging in polyandry. Leaving aside various fringes of the LDS and Muslim worlds, men engaging in polygamy are doing so outside the law. Whether it’s the always-broke guy who has multiple babymommas or the quite wealthy guy with female companions wherever he goes, no legal sanction exists or is wanted. “Soft harem” is one term for this.

    Actual legal polymarriage, if it ever happens, will come after social acceptance is already in place among the elites. That is how abortion worked out, really; once it was accepted by the rich then the machinery of government was worked to provide it as a legal option.

    Given the really low TFR of even wealthy Americans, I don’t see it likely that the typical law partner Dad of Daughters Only would want his precious stronk, independent girl(s) to be the second or third “wife” of some other man.

    So, nah, not buying it. Those people who want poly”marriage” will just stay out of obvious view and do their thing within their religious framework, interacting with government only when necessary. Government employees will tend to look the other way, to ‘not see’ what’s in front of them.

  81. Anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:

    Steve:

    The one *certain* rule of thumb in such matters is that if the beneficiaries of the proposed measure are *anyone but* white heterosexual men, the measure – no matter how egregious, strange, exotic, shocking, ludicrous, or even repulsive – it might seem at the present moment, the measure will *for sure* be eventually legislated for, firstly in the USA, and then by the mimics of Europe, and not only that, all critics and dissenters who even dare to raise a squeak of protest will be ruthlessly and mercilessly prosecuted by the state.

    Such is the overwhelming power of The Economist/lefty/trendy faction over western politicians.

  82. @Jesse
    No. You don't understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies. (Chortle all you want but it should give you pause that they can succeed where the socons universally fail.)

    Replies: @Mike P., @anon, @Thea, @Moral Stone

    This question will pivot in part on whether women prefer polygamy in an absence of practical or social pressure to adopt other arrangements. It’s not as clear as one might think what their actual preference might be. Steve mentions that inertia has carried institutions along for the last several decades, to a point where most people in charge can’t explain why we did things one way (eg standardized testing) and so can’t defend against deleterious change. Monogamy would certainly fit in that mold. There are very good, pragmatic reasons a society and culture should enforce monogamy (one example, to keep more men invested in society’s success, which is important for stability and has been decreasing of late), but I’m not sure anyone making decisions in this country could name such a reason if pressed. Our best defense against changing this particular institution in this country may be that some of the most notable practitioners are ultra-white unhip Mormons, which will probably inoculate this issue against Progressive involvement.

  83. Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates. But marriage means growing old and adjusting to changes in your partner that are both physical and emotional…excuse me a minute…”Will you shut up, I’m on the computer at iSteve. Shovel the drive yourself.” Where was I? Stay safe.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Buffalo Joe

    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates.

    But if that were allowed it would quickly bring its doom.

    Rejected wives would align with single men to end it.

    It could only be legalized by tricking liberals into thinking they are supporting some minority belief so they can feel smug. Then you would have to impose limits to minimize the socially caustic aspect of it. Something like one extra wife is allowed if you can show financial solvency.

    But as I said before liberals at the higher levels know that equality is a lie and would be against any form of polygamy that might lead to alpha type White males having more children. You would have to try and pass it at the ballot or get it to the courts. Racially aware liberals at the legislative level would align with Christian conservatives and vote against it.

    Liberals do not want talented Whites to breed at all as they muck up their vision of a raceless society. I've had liberals even admit to me that their plans would never lead to full equality as Asians and especially China would dominate intellectual spheres and they are fine with that. That is how much they resent their own kind. They would sell us out to China just to turn America into Brazil.

    , @Jack D
    @Buffalo Joe


    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates
     
    Polygamy is always for high status males. We already have polygamy, it's just serial polygamy. Ask Trump. You pension off the older mate and trade her in for a hot new model (in the case of Melania, literally). Repeat as necessary. This is better than having your driveway crowded with a bunch of broken down jalopies.

    People think of polygamy as being this sexy thing but in fact a lot of it was a sort of welfare scheme in the absence of a welfare state. If your brother died, you had to take his wife as your wife, especially if she had no children to support her, so she wouldn't starve. Under Jewish law, this was mandatory. If either party doesn't want to go thru with the marriage, you have to go thru a public ceremony where the widow removes a special shoe of from the foot her brother-in-law and throws it and spits on the floor and announces that he refuses to marry her. Originally this had negative implications - shoe throwing is a symbol of infamy in the Middle East (see Bush), not to mention spitting as a universal symbol of disgust but nowadays actual levirate marriage is discouraged to the point of being effectively forbidden so all (Orthodox Jewish) qualifying brother in laws have to go thru this ceremony which was originally meant to be humiliating (and therefore nowadays it is ritual rather than actually humiliating).

    The Hindus solved this problem by throwing the wife onto the husband's funeral pyre.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

  84. In Muslim countries, whether polygamy is merely a luxury for the very rich or common depends upon whether women are expected to bring home the halal equivalent of bacon, as they are in sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmwork is done by women with hoes.

    Why the redundancy?

  85. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first.

    Then your barnyard sows. Then the alien invasion and treaty with the Klingons or whatever they will call them. Hopefully I will be living either in the middle of Death Valley or in the middle of the Canadian tundra by then.

    • Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    @Morton's toes

    "They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first."

    Only if the 13 year olds are boys. So far as the vagina-endowed, we're going to keep hearing about how actually consenting women even in their 20s and beyond did not legally consent. Because patriarchy. Or something.

    Replies: @Alden

  86. Anonymous[395] • Disclaimer says:
    @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    There was quite a big push in the 1970s to ‘decriminalize’ outright, blatant paedophilia – that is the blatant sexual abuse of children by adults. At least in the UK, there was.
    Doubtless, this was done by a whole load of dumb trendy lefties trying to look clever and gain kudos because a ‘hero’ of theirs, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, later an MEP, waxed lyrical about it.

    A notable champion of the ‘right’ of fully grown adult men to sodomize children was Harriett Harman, a one time British Labour Party leader.

  87. anon[287] • Disclaimer says:

    Polygamy is already practiced in Silicon Valley — the new ((( Hollywood ))). The book Brotopia says in SV it’s called polyamarous, and includes couples sometimes living together and swapping partners.

    Jews, Muslims and blacks have no morals and should not be allowed to live in white societies.

    After what Mike Lee (R-UT) did, pushing S. 386 Indian green card giveaway bill past the senate with in the middle of the night with unanimous consent (so no one is around to oppose), we can now confirm that UT gave us the two worst senators, Mitt Romney being the other. Mormons are also now the biggest recruiters of latinos and Asians into their church, the Mormon church now has $200B in assets and is quite possibly the richest church, it’s just a business to them. Mormons need to move to Africa to be with their polygamous kin. Give us back UT which is quite possibly the most beautiful state.

  88. @AnotherDad
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.
     
    The homosexual "marriage" drive had little to do with "tax breaks" or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian--a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @John Johnson, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Almost Missouri

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian–a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    The Libertarian ideology completely allows minoritarian rule and even encourages it through open borders. They call for open borders to the third world and if said third worlders create a toxic subculture or take over the culture then OH WELL that’s just Freedumb handed down from goddess Rand. Amusingly the third worlders could collectivize against the natives but according to Rand the natives need to stick to individualism because acting collectively in your country’s best interest is wrong.

    Libertarians can’t even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.

    The whole thing is based in race denial which leads to this type of irrational thinking.

    • Replies: @Muggles
    @John Johnson


    Libertarians can’t even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.
     
    This is just one example of your many misrepresentations about "what libertarians believe."

    And no, Rand wasn't their Goddess and denounced libertarians frequently.

    There are always a few extreme cases of pseudo libertarians claiming various things, but that is true for any identifiable ideology or belief system.

    I could make up silly stuff and claim that this is what you "believe" and then attack that for being stupid. But no, I won't. Your stupid stuff is already on offer here.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    , @notsaying
    @John Johnson

    I would say libertarians deny a lot of things. They want to be purists and absolutists. Despite Ayn Rand I always think of libertarians as a collection of men. Women in a First World country who have to run households and take care of kids are not naturally attracted to a philosophy that is black and white, is against government help and would permit all kinds of anti-social activity in the name of freedom.

    Unlimited immigration, among other things, would qualify as an anti-social activity.

    Replies: @John Johnson

  89. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I've gotten over the years makes me think the "relationships" between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let's leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male "bad boy" archetype. I'll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won't get less slippery.

    If you're into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Replies: @anonymous, @ScarletNumber, @Escher, @Paul Mendez

    Please put barf warning before such posts.

  90. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it possible for kids under the age of 18 to get prescriptions for puberty blockers? Regardless of how much therapy and “gender affirming screening” they get, I wouldn’t think they are old enough to consent. And yet, even with some “reasonable” liberals objecting to this on the grounds that it’s fucking insane, you’re a nazi if you oppose this issue.

  91. FWIW, ménages à trois are overrated.

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Correct. I can barely satisfy one woman. I have no history of actually satisfying one woman.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    , @znon
    @Buzz Mohawk

    The purpose of two women for one man was to keep them both busy so you can get some sleep, fer chrissakes.

  92. Almost every country already practices polygamy/polyamory. Only it is consecutive polygamy/polyamory rather than concurrent.

  93. @Buffalo Joe
    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates. But marriage means growing old and adjusting to changes in your partner that are both physical and emotional...excuse me a minute..."Will you shut up, I'm on the computer at iSteve. Shovel the drive yourself." Where was I? Stay safe.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Jack D

    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates.

    But if that were allowed it would quickly bring its doom.

    Rejected wives would align with single men to end it.

    It could only be legalized by tricking liberals into thinking they are supporting some minority belief so they can feel smug. Then you would have to impose limits to minimize the socially caustic aspect of it. Something like one extra wife is allowed if you can show financial solvency.

    But as I said before liberals at the higher levels know that equality is a lie and would be against any form of polygamy that might lead to alpha type White males having more children. You would have to try and pass it at the ballot or get it to the courts. Racially aware liberals at the legislative level would align with Christian conservatives and vote against it.

    Liberals do not want talented Whites to breed at all as they muck up their vision of a raceless society. I’ve had liberals even admit to me that their plans would never lead to full equality as Asians and especially China would dominate intellectual spheres and they are fine with that. That is how much they resent their own kind. They would sell us out to China just to turn America into Brazil.

  94. @Buzz Mohawk
    FWIW, ménages à trois are overrated.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @znon

    Correct. I can barely satisfy one woman. I have no history of actually satisfying one woman.

    • Replies: @Buzz Mohawk
    @SunBakedSuburb

    We were made to engage one-to-one, man-to-woman. Everything else is a stunt, an elaboration on that. My father had tried threesomes before I did, and he reported the same thing. This sample of two men and several tries is enough to prove the point to me. All other variations, BTW, "gay" or whatever, are also just morphings or imitations of the 1+1 male+female union. There is no substitute.

    Replies: @Jack D

  95. My term…”Homosexual marriage is nerf ball”

  96. @ScarletNumber
    @SFG


    Mom’s new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids
     
    Yes, the natural predator of the black child is their mother's boyfriend.

    Replies: @ChrisZ, @Anon7, @YetAnotherAnon, @SunBakedSuburb

    “the natural predator of the black child”

    Is the black mother. The near hysterical elevation of black women — the most hateful, racist, destructive subgroup in Jesusland — to positions of power in the private and public sectors is darkly humorous. Clearly the work of the Christian devil.

  97. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    …obsession with cuckoldry…

    I don’t get it. Are you saying that S.S. is for or against polygamy?

  98. @James Speaks
    I bet Emmett Till would have had many wives.

    Replies: @Jim Don Bob

    I bet Emmett Till would have had many wives.

    I bet Emmett Till would have had many white wives.

    FIFY.

    • Thanks: James Speaks
  99. @Peter Akuleyev
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    Zoophilia conflicts with the other Woke ideology of “consent”. Animals can’t give consent so Zoophilia is considered particularly heinous.

    That is one aspect of Wokeness that seems morally better than 1970’s sexual liberation style leftism. Pedophilia and bestiality are not tolerated, whereas a lot of “free thinkers” in the ‘70s were preaching “do whatever feels good.” Woke is actually fairly prudish about actual sex.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Days of Broken Arrows, @bomag, @Anonymous, @Frank McGar, @Bardon Kaldian

    Hm….

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The dog should have held out for a serious dowry. To marry such a meeskeit, and get her bad juju besides...

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    , @Neil Templeton
    @Bardon Kaldian

    In the dog's mind: "Once I access the Dominion machines, I will rule this bitch!"

  100. @Anonymous

    In economies where women are expected to feed their children, it’s not uncommon for some old devil to collect numerous wives (although not all of their children are necessarily his, but it’s her duty to feed them, so he doesn’t get to exercised about this question). In contrast, in countries with heavier soil where men do the plowing, few men can afford to maintain more than one wife and her children.
     
    Feminism combined with the economic surplus of industrialization means that we increasingly have a sub-Saharan African style economy in the US. Women are encouraged, expected, and promoted to jobs and pay equal to those of men and sufficient to support themselves and their children.

    Muslim countries are generally much less polygynous than the US and more similar in that respect to the pre-feminist, pre-sexual revolution Christian West. Muslim countries formally allow polygamy with hard limits, but lifelong monogamy is the norm. The US doesn't allow formal polygamy, but informal, unlimited polygyny is the norm via serial marriage and divorce, serial relationships, fornication, etc.

    The "sexism" of Muslim countries that maintains a generally monogamous culture is part of a broader, general culture shared by non-African peoples in which male paternal investment was necessary, normal, and appreciated.

    Replies: @SimpleSong, @John Johnson

    Feminism combined with the economic surplus of industrialization means that we increasingly have a sub-Saharan African style economy in the US. Women are encouraged, expected, and promoted to jobs and pay equal to those of men and sufficient to support themselves and their children.

    No it’s the worst of both worlds.

    Both parents are expected to work while the surplus goes to the state and the ultra wealthy.

    Have you ever been around White feminists? 95% of them are just plain full of s–t and do not want to be single moms. Their dream man makes 6 figures so they can work part time at a non-profit and call it equality. Highly paid professional women actually tend to be more centered and flexible.

    I used to work around feminists and not a single one would have been fine with paying for dinner or dating a dishwasher. Most had student debt from their White guilt degree and were looking for some lucky fellow to listen to their BS and pay their bills. Needless to say most had problems dating. The one that was able to attract men actually went back to college for a worthless masters and more debt.

    The “sexism” of Muslim countries that maintains a generally monogamous culture is part of a broader, general culture shared by non-African peoples in which male paternal investment was necessary, normal, and appreciated.

    I guess that is one aspect of it. Another aspect is that they were allowed to take female sex slaves from war and kill men and boys. WW2 pretty much ended a lot of their conquests.

  101. @Peter Akuleyev
    Seems hard to see what would stop polygamy at this point. Many wealthy white men are serial monogamists with children by many wives. Look at Trump for example. On what moral basis would he condemn polygamy?

    And polyamory is of course the flavor du jour in the tech and hipster communities.

    So if you’re taking bets on what’s next after WW-T, this seems like a good bet.

    Replies: @advancedatheist, @Bardon Kaldian

    Polyamory was articulated somewhere during the 80’s, among some “progressives”. It was popular with a certain type of middle class post-hippies, but then it plummeted because of- age.

    It’s not just because it is a high-maintenance life-style, but it naturally loses its appeal- to its practitioners- as bodies age & people start to feel disgust with all manifestations of physical decrepitude.

  102. polygamous African immigrant marriages will be legally recognized in America.

    This is already going on de facto. It’s very common in the Bronx and other places where there are a lot of Nigerian immigrants for a man to buy a 2 or 3 story house and he sets up a family with each wife on a different floor. Since there are no civil marriages (only religious Islamic marriages) they can all draw welfare benefits. The law and the welfare authorities looks the other way. When was the last time that there was a bigamy prosecution in NY? In any state?

    https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/12/us/bigamy-decriminalized-utah-trnd/index.html

  103. >I could see it coming in the U.S. with white liberals getting themselves worked up over the sacred civil rights of African immigrants to bring over all their wives

    I’d take that bet… mostly because: polygamy in the U.S. is associated with Mormans + white liberal elites hate Mormans + SCOTUS is controlled by white liberal elites.

    That said, legally prohibiting polygamy has been Constitutionally questionable for some time under the “mystery of human life” clause of our “substantive” due process rights. And, the reasoning of Obergefell would imply that governments have to treat polygamous marriages equally. “Love wins” and all that.

  104. @AKAHorace
    From Slate 2013

    Finally, prohibiting polygamy on “feminist” grounds—that these marriages are inherently degrading to the women involved—is misguided. The case for polygamy is, in fact, a feminist one and shows women the respect we deserve. Here’s the thing: As women, we really can make our own choices. We just might choose things people don’t like. If a woman wants to marry a man, that’s great. If she wants to marry another woman, that’s great too. If she wants to marry a hipster, well—I suppose that’s the price of freedom
     
    http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/04/legalize_polygamy_marriage_equality_for_all.html

    It is not only about immigration but women's right of access to wealthy males.

    Replies: @Corn, @Bardon Kaldian

    Socio-culturally & psychologically, women are more accepting to polygamy. I know that most people think that polygamy is a male fantasy fulfilled, but, in more liberal & wealthier modern societies women seem to be more prone to that type of arrangement than men.

    • Replies: @AKAHorace
    @Bardon Kaldian

    This is completely logical. Just think of the arithmetic.

  105. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    Obligatory KiwiFarms link to their thread on the ‘Poly’ community. There is some serious trading of quality for quantity going on.

    https://kiwifarms.net/threads/r-polyamory.35875/

  106. @Days of Broken Arrows
    @Peter Akuleyev

    A male animal being in aroused state could be used to connote consent.

    I say this because some of the info I've gotten over the years makes me think the "relationships" between some women and their male dogs have a sexual component. Women talk among themselves and sometimes one of those women will spill to a man. Let's leave it at that.

    Heartiste has written about how pit bulls are the animal replacement for the male "bad boy" archetype. I'll give all this about 5-10 years to go mainstream. The slippery slope won't get less slippery.

    If you're into the stock market, investing in companies that make peanut butter might be a good idea.

    Replies: @anonymous, @ScarletNumber, @Escher, @Paul Mendez

    I’ve had two girlfriends who made spontaneous comments upon seeing a well-endowed dog that kinda icked me out.

  107. This isn’t the first time Steve has wondered how polygamy might arise in America. He did so on St. Valentine’s Day 2015, here: https://www.unz.com/isteve/how-will-the-polygamy-camel-get-its-nose-in-the-tent/

    At the time I left the following comment, which still holds up, with some qualifications added below:

    This may be a rarified example, but I recall that the comic book writer Alan Moore—generally regarded as the greatest such writer of the 1980s and 90s—was during his heyday involved in a polyamorous relationship involving a legal wife and a live-in mutual “lover.” It was apparently public knowledge at the time, at least among his colleagues, although not to us innocent kids who were only interested in heroes and monsters. I was shocked when I learned, relatively recently, that the clever and imaginative stories of my youth had been the fruit of a perverse personal life.

    I note his case because it shows how polyamory has been effectively (albeit quietly) tolerated for decades now, in the most anodyne settings. At the time, Moore was writing stories in the Superman and Green Lantern magazines (nothing remotely perverse about them in those early days, BTW, although later his obsessions would turn up in his own characters); but no one was clamoring for him to resign for immorality. It seems to me that this kind of set-up—a married couple plus one—is the way polygamy will gain legal status. Legal status would merely be “recognizing a reality that already exists and is tolerated”—so the argument would go.

    I hesitate to say that, in retrospect, 2015 may have been a more “innocent” time. But what is surely true is that it was a time when the coalition of the perverse felt serenely confident that it had won the demographic war, and could expect inevitable if gradual victories for anything it fancied.

    The election of Trump was the sign that they were not as dominant as they imagined: that they might still experience pushback—in the form of electoral loss AND moral repudiation—from those they had recently felt they could label “deplorable” with impunity. Over the subsequent years, the perverts grew rabid under that realization, cultivating a taste for cruel punishment of their opponents, to replace the mere smug condescension that had previously satisfied them.

    So that’s the difference I see between wondering about the advent of polygamy in 2015 versus 2020. If it is “normalized” in American society, it will not arise as a “sensitive accommodation” to different cultures, but rather as a cudgel to beat (yet again) the residue of Christian morality. It will be promoted as a superior *moral* advancement, and those who demur will be convicted as immoral. (You can actually see a precursor to that attitude in some of the trolling comments on this thread.)

    The implicit credo of a sexual revolution is that all sexual possibilities must be enacted. The perverts understand, as they did not five years ago, that to win they must use force, whether in elections or on the streets. Having assimilated that conclusion, they have no reason *not* to promote polygamy. And I’m not sure I see very much that would stand in their way.

  108. @Buffalo Joe
    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates. But marriage means growing old and adjusting to changes in your partner that are both physical and emotional...excuse me a minute..."Will you shut up, I'm on the computer at iSteve. Shovel the drive yourself." Where was I? Stay safe.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Jack D

    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates

    Polygamy is always for high status males. We already have polygamy, it’s just serial polygamy. Ask Trump. You pension off the older mate and trade her in for a hot new model (in the case of Melania, literally). Repeat as necessary. This is better than having your driveway crowded with a bunch of broken down jalopies.

    People think of polygamy as being this sexy thing but in fact a lot of it was a sort of welfare scheme in the absence of a welfare state. If your brother died, you had to take his wife as your wife, especially if she had no children to support her, so she wouldn’t starve. Under Jewish law, this was mandatory. If either party doesn’t want to go thru with the marriage, you have to go thru a public ceremony where the widow removes a special shoe of from the foot her brother-in-law and throws it and spits on the floor and announces that he refuses to marry her. Originally this had negative implications – shoe throwing is a symbol of infamy in the Middle East (see Bush), not to mention spitting as a universal symbol of disgust but nowadays actual levirate marriage is discouraged to the point of being effectively forbidden so all (Orthodox Jewish) qualifying brother in laws have to go thru this ceremony which was originally meant to be humiliating (and therefore nowadays it is ritual rather than actually humiliating).

    The Hindus solved this problem by throwing the wife onto the husband’s funeral pyre.

    • Replies: @Stan d Mute
    @Jack D


    The Hindus solved this problem by throwing the wife onto the husband’s funeral pyre.
     
    Those clever aryans, can’t figure out how how to build or use a toilet, love corpses in their potable water supplies, but when it comes to managing the ladies they’re simply brilliant! Thank YHWH for inspiring our tech masters to import them by the millions.
  109. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    Furries rise up!

    Also:

    in sub-Saharan Africa, where most farmwork is done by women with hoes

    HOS WITH HOES!

  110. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    Briefly:

    * polygamy is basically polygyny, not polyandry

    * in modern societies, non-parasitic types of humans who want to live in such arrangements, are generally not too emotional females who may have a religious background (fundamentalist Mormons), but are mostly of a practical kind: they are breeders, many of them have a bunch of kids & find it practical to organize lives with other women (children, finances, social life, …). Not highly eroticized group- breeders, as I said. Men are uxorious & rather boring, all immersed in that highly non-individualized life.

    * polyandry is an arrangement including men who are, generally, erotic losers & cannot find a woman for themselves. I knew 2 such arrangements & both women & men were of low mental, moral & emotional capacity. They were- at least to me- extremely dull.

    * polyamory is … for various types of people, but it tends to be alluring with youth (for some people) & then it collapses with time. I cannot say I see any clearly defined type of men or women who are into it. Those who engage in it ideologically tend, I think, to remain childless; also, they pay too much attention to feelings, endlessly talking about what to do & what to avoid. Basically- it is almost a religion, like Vegans. Other type are couples in later stages of their marriages who are feeling a fear of aging & sense that they missed “it” in their lives. So, their materialist world-view is to extract as much pleasure as they can before decrepitude & death arrive.

  111. @Jack D
    @Buffalo Joe


    Polygamy is great if the brides can be swapped out for younger more nubile mates
     
    Polygamy is always for high status males. We already have polygamy, it's just serial polygamy. Ask Trump. You pension off the older mate and trade her in for a hot new model (in the case of Melania, literally). Repeat as necessary. This is better than having your driveway crowded with a bunch of broken down jalopies.

    People think of polygamy as being this sexy thing but in fact a lot of it was a sort of welfare scheme in the absence of a welfare state. If your brother died, you had to take his wife as your wife, especially if she had no children to support her, so she wouldn't starve. Under Jewish law, this was mandatory. If either party doesn't want to go thru with the marriage, you have to go thru a public ceremony where the widow removes a special shoe of from the foot her brother-in-law and throws it and spits on the floor and announces that he refuses to marry her. Originally this had negative implications - shoe throwing is a symbol of infamy in the Middle East (see Bush), not to mention spitting as a universal symbol of disgust but nowadays actual levirate marriage is discouraged to the point of being effectively forbidden so all (Orthodox Jewish) qualifying brother in laws have to go thru this ceremony which was originally meant to be humiliating (and therefore nowadays it is ritual rather than actually humiliating).

    The Hindus solved this problem by throwing the wife onto the husband's funeral pyre.

    Replies: @Stan d Mute

    The Hindus solved this problem by throwing the wife onto the husband’s funeral pyre.

    Those clever aryans, can’t figure out how how to build or use a toilet, love corpses in their potable water supplies, but when it comes to managing the ladies they’re simply brilliant! Thank YHWH for inspiring our tech masters to import them by the millions.

  112. When Scott Alexander would mention his “poly” group I wasn’t sure if it was -gamy or -andry. I basically pictured Friends with more banging-combo permutations and various kids running around.

  113. @NJ Transit Commuter
    Not polygamy. To attract Woke attention it has to be something that is more repellent to most Americans. People don’t object viscerally to polygamy.

    Zoophilia?

    Replies: @Peter Akuleyev, @Achmed E. Newman, @Bill Jones, @Morton's toes, @Wyatt, @Mr. XYZ

    Child sex dolls/robots for pedophiles?

  114. Laws against polygamy don’t mean much without laws against fornication; they certainly didn’t stop Desmond Hatchett fathering 30 kids with 11 women. Chads can have all the girls they want; they just can’t call them “wives”.

  115. @SunBakedSuburb
    @Buzz Mohawk

    Correct. I can barely satisfy one woman. I have no history of actually satisfying one woman.

    Replies: @Buzz Mohawk

    We were made to engage one-to-one, man-to-woman. Everything else is a stunt, an elaboration on that. My father had tried threesomes before I did, and he reported the same thing. This sample of two men and several tries is enough to prove the point to me. All other variations, BTW, “gay” or whatever, are also just morphings or imitations of the 1+1 male+female union. There is no substitute.

    • Replies: @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things. In most polygamous societies, each wife has her own bedroom or even her own household and the husband takes turns and "lies with" his wives one at a time.

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts, but the physical (if not emotional) issues can be overcome with a little imagination and contortions, not that I would know personally.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Buzz Mohawk

  116. Yet another rubbish Steve Sailer article. Women do all the farming in Africa. Displaying his ignorance as usual

  117. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcyDb3w5PLQ

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Neil Templeton

    The dog should have held out for a serious dowry. To marry such a meeskeit, and get her bad juju besides…

    • Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    He certainly doesn't look very happy with the arrangements.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

  118. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc.

    LOL. Brings to mind the old quote: “You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you.”

    If you’re trolling “well done”. If not, you might look up the concept of “natural selection”.
    Basically your comment boils down to “conservative men are sane”.

    There are three primary things normal healthy societies care about:
    — war: protection from invasion/conquest
    — food: more broadly material provision and all the goodies of life
    — sex: reproduction of the people (both physically and culturally)

    Any civilized society absolutely requires “controlling of the sexuality of women”.

    “Civilization” is men of a society being able to distribute women/sex fairly enough (functional monogamy) that men can stop fighting and mate guarding, cooperate for mutual defense, put their cycles to increased productive endeavor–which with reliable paternity, men are more motivated/required to apply to raising their children.

    ~~

    One of the funny–if they weren’t winning and killing the West!–is that the minoritarian left not only doesn’t care about but is actively contemptuous of precisely what is required for civilization.

    The don’t care about borders and glory in being invaded by foreigners.

    They increasingly don’t care about material production. Outsource it all. They think you can just print money forever, given women and minorities soft nonsense jobs or welfare and the goodies men produce will just magically show up.

    They certainly don’t care about reproduction of high quality people. They praise low fertility careerism, female sluttiness, miscegenation of the majority’s women, perversion. faggotry and now flat out mental illness!!!

    Minoritarian leftism seems like darn near a recipe for how to wreck civilization. Make you wonder what the goal of it is?

    • Replies: @SunBakedSuburb
    @AnotherDad

    "Any civilized society absolutely requires 'controlling of the sexuality of women.'"

    -- AnotherDud

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

  119. @Buzz Mohawk
    @SunBakedSuburb

    We were made to engage one-to-one, man-to-woman. Everything else is a stunt, an elaboration on that. My father had tried threesomes before I did, and he reported the same thing. This sample of two men and several tries is enough to prove the point to me. All other variations, BTW, "gay" or whatever, are also just morphings or imitations of the 1+1 male+female union. There is no substitute.

    Replies: @Jack D

    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things. In most polygamous societies, each wife has her own bedroom or even her own household and the husband takes turns and “lies with” his wives one at a time.

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts, but the physical (if not emotional) issues can be overcome with a little imagination and contortions, not that I would know personally.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Jack D

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts

    Ok but wouldn't that just be an argument to flip the genders?

    , @Buzz Mohawk
    @Jack D


    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things.
     
    Yes, yes, Jack. I know that. (My responses to you are often like this.) I was just bragging from real experience, as I am wont to do. You should know that by now.

    However, if I were a polygamist, I would at least try a threesome (or more) but I think I would discover the same thing I already did during my glorious bachelorhood. One-on-one lovemaking is the best.

  120. @As
    The Quakers and the Amish can’t be drafted. The Amish don’t have to pay social security taxes because their religion requires them to take care of their old people.

    In America, polygamy may allowed for some people on the grounds that some cultures are required to follow sharia law.

    In India, Polygamy is legal for Muslims. They are allowed four wives per sharia law. I don’t know how common it is, but I have heard of Bollywood producers legally marrying multiple wives (Bollywood is run by Muslims).

    Among non-Muslims, I have heard of the committing bigamy though it is illegal for them. They do it without legally marrying the second person.

    Replies: @notsaying

    I have never heard of the Amish not paying Social Security. I don’t agree with that. Practically speaking I can’t see how the Amish can do without Medicare. Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year. The only way that would work is if they used Medicaid instead. That might work for elderly without income but not for all the disabled or for people who still own their farms after age 65.

    • Replies: @JMcG
    @notsaying

    From what I understand through speaking with some local Amish, their communities self-insure. I don’t know what level of benefit or anything. I’m pretty sure the info is on the internet, I remember reading an article on the subject.

    , @Jack D
    @notsaying


    Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year.
     
    The Amish are not going to dump grandma or their disabled children in a nursing home or state facility. They take care of their own. Nor do they favor aggressive and extensive medical treatments. If they have to get expensive medical care, they pass the hat among the community and if the bill is too big, they will write to other Amish communities until they have raised enough funds.
  121. I don’t know what I hate more: polygamy or the idea of women and girls in Africa taking care of kids and women and children farming with hoes while the men sit back and talk among themselves all day about their future wives. I hate child labor too, those kids should be in school.

    • Replies: @Neil Templeton
    @notsaying

    What the hell you need school for, if all you're going to do is shoot the shit in the shade?

  122. @Tark Marg
    @Peter Akuleyev

    “Animals can’t consent”

    So should animals be prohibited from having sex with each other? No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    Also, anyone who’s had a dog knows they have no problems making their preferences known.

    The simple reason why zoophilia or incest or homosexuality etc etc were prohibited traditionally is because these acts are evolutionarily pointless or harmful. If you legalize one there’s no reason to not legalize the others.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @Peter Akuleyev, @Corn, @JMcG

    I thought those acts were prohibited because they are repellent to normal people, if I’m allowed to say that any longer.

  123. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things. In most polygamous societies, each wife has her own bedroom or even her own household and the husband takes turns and "lies with" his wives one at a time.

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts, but the physical (if not emotional) issues can be overcome with a little imagination and contortions, not that I would know personally.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Buzz Mohawk

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts

    Ok but wouldn’t that just be an argument to flip the genders?

  124. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/08/it-feels-like-a-lost-year-the-women-who-fear-2020-has-stolen-their-chance-of-motherhood


    She goes over the arithmetic that has tortured her all year long. She will be 34 next month, single, no closer to finding a partner to have kids with. Even if she did meet someone next year, say, would they be ready to start conceiving within a year? Probably not. That could mean she will be 36 before she even starts trying – if she meets someone next year. And there’s the rub – because the Covid-19 restrictions have made dating nearly impossible. “My friends are either pregnant or looking after small children,” Claudia says, “and I struggle to even get men to talk to me online. It feels hopeless.”

    Claudia is one of the many women across the UK who fear that the coronavirus has put paid to their plans to have children, possibly for good. As Covid swept the country in March, IVF clinics hastily closed; most would not reopen until May. And women who had planned to travel abroad for fertility treatment were unable to leave the UK, due to the travel restrictions. Once-solid relationships collapsed under the stress of a global pandemic, leaving women in their late 30s who want children searching for new partners.
     
    Tick... tick... tick.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    She should just date a man 8-10 years older. Problem solved. At least in “non elite” areas men fall all over themselves to date slightly younger women.

    Women actually have the best deal in conservative, more rural areas.

    Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @S. Anonyia

    "Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies."

    Agreed. Fertility sinks. Young women come to live the life, go to the parties and the new clubs, eat out at the new places. Oh, and the career!

    But there aren't enough Mr Darcy's to go round. As Joan Didion said about NY more than 50 years ago, ‘it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair’.


    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.
     
    , @photondancer
    @S. Anonyia

    She's 34. A man 8-10 years older is in his mid-40s; he's more likely to be chasing 20 year olds than thinking "gosh, why don't I date a woman in her 30s who's desperate to have a baby before her fertility tanks completely".

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

  125. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    Came to post this. I am 30, and have noticed the same trends among some of my former college friends who moved to larger metros. Silicon Valley nerds aren’t going to support polygamy to virtue signal on behalf of African migrants; they are going to do it to get attention (and possibly legal protections) for the bizarre plural relationships they are already engaging in.

  126. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    Quite simple my good man, a simple maxim from computer science will suffice:

    Garbage In – Garbage Out

    Aloha Snackbar!

  127. @Corn
    @Bill Jones

    Us conservatives are always saying that the Wokies are dragging us to pedophilia, but I’m not sure. I actually think leftist attitudes against pedophilia are hardening, at least as far as hetero pedo stuff goes.

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on. I think Wokies will draw the line at pedo stuff. Not because they’re virtuous, but because this upcoming generation of cat ladies and box wine spinsters don’t want to open up the dating pool to teenage girls.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @anon, @Alden

    So far as true pedophilia (i.e., adults raping young children), lots of wokies don’t really have any objection and many are in the forefront of attempting to normalize this vile practice. That antifa (rosenberg or rosenfeld or whatever its name was) who got goodified by Kyle Rittenhouse was a chomo in fact.
    That said, a 35 year old man dating a 22 year old woman has ZERO to do with pedophilia and the wokies know it. It’s just that (as you correctly point out in your comment about cat ladies and box wine spinsters) the female wokies just can’t stand to see us leverage our naturally higher SMV (relative to women as we age) to pull younger tail.

  128. anon[351] • Disclaimer says:
    @Corn
    @Bill Jones

    Us conservatives are always saying that the Wokies are dragging us to pedophilia, but I’m not sure. I actually think leftist attitudes against pedophilia are hardening, at least as far as hetero pedo stuff goes.

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on. I think Wokies will draw the line at pedo stuff. Not because they’re virtuous, but because this upcoming generation of cat ladies and box wine spinsters don’t want to open up the dating pool to teenage girls.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @anon, @Alden

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on.

    That’s just intra-sexual competition from aging feminists who didn’t get the memo:
    “Men age like wine, women age like milk”.
    Nothing to do with pedos, who prefer people 13 or younger. See the diff?

  129. @Morton's toes
    @NJ Transit Commuter

    They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first.

    Then your barnyard sows. Then the alien invasion and treaty with the Klingons or whatever they will call them. Hopefully I will be living either in the middle of Death Valley or in the middle of the Canadian tundra by then.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    “They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first.”

    Only if the 13 year olds are boys. So far as the vagina-endowed, we’re going to keep hearing about how actually consenting women even in their 20s and beyond did not legally consent. Because patriarchy. Or something.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @fredyetagain aka superhonky

    The correct terminology for women is gender assigned female at birth. Liberals never use one word when they can use 5.

    Senator Tulsi Gabbard just submitted a bill to protect women’s sports. I’m sure the M-F trans will fight it to the death.

  130. only coming if the left wants it. not sure they do.

    things only come if the left wants them to come. so to figure out if something is on the horizon, all that matters is what the left leadership is doing, thinking about, talking about, or putting money into.

    man man marriage was about destroying America. not about increasing freedom. all social movements are about destroying America. when you understand that, you have a better frame of reference for what already happened and why, and what might be happening next.

    so, what’s the Destroy America! angle to allowing rich men to have 2 wives?

  131. @anon
    @Jesse

    No. You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @dfordoom

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can’t reach up and type something into Google.

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    • Replies: @anon
    @obwandiyag

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    Does an utter and complete idiot know about question marks?

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can’t reach up and type something into Google.

    Do you love unsupported assertions?

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    Pushing back against the sexual revo how?

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    That article doesn't support what Jesse claimed. Reading is indeed fundamental; as usual you haven't a clue what you are ranting about. But at least you are doing a better job with spellcheck, so there's something for you to be proud of.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

  132. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Assuming that this is true, and it is easily observable that men, particularly rich men, tend to marry pretty women in preference to clever women, it would explain why highly successful men tend to have rather “disappointing” sons.

    As it is also true that well educated women tend to have fewer children than poorly educated women, it would also explain the observed drop in the IQ of the developed nations since WW2.

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    • Replies: @anon
    @foolisholdman

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome.

    Citation needed.

    , @John Johnson
    @foolisholdman

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    That would first require acknowledging that intelligence is highly heritable which our liberal cult is extremely against.

    , @AKAHorace
    @foolisholdman

    Calling Rosie for comments.

  133. @peterike
    Well, for starters, Biden has already said he'll revoke the "Muslim ban" on Day One. Shortly after we will get effective open borders. The polygamous hordes from Africa and the Middle East will swarm into America by the millions over the next few years. The Woke will have full cultural control and will go on a rampage of fanaticism. Big Tech will shut down all dissent as part of the soon-to-be-passed hate speech laws.

    Polygamy will first be de facto legal: like is happening around the country with other crimes, it may be a "crime" but it won't be prosecuted. This will be stated policy in many places, so we will get polygamy hot spots. Netflix, HBO, etc. will start pumping out shows about happy polygamous families that are being persecuted by evil white Monos (they will come up with some kind of slur name).

    Since vote fraud is now fully allowed, there will never be another Republican President, so no one will push back on this. A few years from now, the Surgeon General and others will begin a campaign to normalize polygamy (and pedophilia, especially). By 20xx, America is a polygamous nation where pedophilia is legal and normalized.

    The End. But thankfully some here wouldn't vote from Trump, because he's such a loudmouth!

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @Chrisnonymous

    “The polygamous hordes from Africa and the Middle East will swarm into America by the millions over the next few years. ”

    Were we a sane country, we would simply turn back these racial aliens. But we are unfortunately saddled with (((Emma Lazarus’))) Zeroth Amendment.

  134. There isn’t a need to pass laws making any of this stuff legal. Prosecutors just have to decline to enforce statutes they dislike and it accomplishes the same thing. That’s why Soros has been pouring so much money into local races like the LA County DA’s office.

  135. Look at South Africa where they already have it. It’s the only country which allows both same-sex marriage and polygamy.

  136. @Bardon Kaldian
    @Peter Akuleyev

    Hm....

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcyDb3w5PLQ

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy, @Neil Templeton

    In the dog’s mind: “Once I access the Dominion machines, I will rule this bitch!”

  137. @notsaying
    @As

    I have never heard of the Amish not paying Social Security. I don't agree with that. Practically speaking I can't see how the Amish can do without Medicare. Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year. The only way that would work is if they used Medicaid instead. That might work for elderly without income but not for all the disabled or for people who still own their farms after age 65.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Jack D

    From what I understand through speaking with some local Amish, their communities self-insure. I don’t know what level of benefit or anything. I’m pretty sure the info is on the internet, I remember reading an article on the subject.

  138. @notsaying
    I don't know what I hate more: polygamy or the idea of women and girls in Africa taking care of kids and women and children farming with hoes while the men sit back and talk among themselves all day about their future wives. I hate child labor too, those kids should be in school.

    Replies: @Neil Templeton

    What the hell you need school for, if all you’re going to do is shoot the shit in the shade?

  139. @Lockean Proviso
    Polygamy increases the number of angry young men who can't get married or even laid in repressive Muslim societies. It's another driver of both terrorism and of Arab and Africa migration to Europe.

    A similar comparison can be made of polygamic societies to modern dating in the West through apps like tinder:

    "In terms of attractiveness, the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men."
    https://medium.com/@worstonlinedater/tinder-experiments-ii-guys-unless-you-are-really-hot-you-are-probably-better-off-not-wasting-your-2ddf370a6e9a

    Human Nature and Tinder

    Rob Henderson

    "In the United States, 35 percent of Tinder users are college students ages 18 to 24...’I’ve heard a joke on campus that goes something like this: ‘First base is hooking up, second base is talking, third base is going on a date and fourth base is dating.’" (source).


    “There are analytics from OKCupid and so on. OKCupid used to put out very politically incorrect blog posts looking at their metrics. And they don’t do that anymore because of what they revealed.” (source).


    I am just old enough to remember what the dating scene was like before the rise of Tinder and other dating/hook-up apps. It has changed a lot. 2012 was another world in many ways.

    The situation has changed for everyone on the dating market. Even those who don’t use these apps.

    This is because even for the people who don’t use the apps, they still live in an environment where others use them.

    Over time, those who don’t use apps must adapt to the preferences and behavior of those who use them. Not the other way around.

    One example of how the scene has changed. I have a friend from college. A good-looking guy. He showed me how many women he has matched with: More than 21,000. Twenty-one thousand.

    Tinder actually identified him as a valuable user early on, and gave him free perks and upgrades. They lifted his radius restrictions. This allowed him to match with even more women.

    I have another friend. Doesn’t have the best pictures on his profile, but not a bad looking guy. Over roughly the same period of time as my other friend, he has matched with seven women.

    Some findings on dating apps:

    -30 percent of U.S. adults have used a dating app or website, up from 11% in 2013. source

    -7 out of 10 college students have used Tinder. source

    -18 to 25 percent of Tinder users are in a committed relationship. source

    -Women aged 23 to 27 are twice as likely to swipe right ("liked") on a man with a master's degree compared with a bachelor's degree. source

    -Men swipe right (“liked”) on about 62 percent of the women’s profiles they see; women swipe right (“liked”) on about 5 percent of the men’s profiles they see. source

    -Half of men who use dating apps while in a committed relationship reported having sex with another person they met on a dating app. All women who used dating apps while in a committed relationship reported having sex with another person they met on a dating app. source

    -30 percent of men who use Tinder are married source and excerpt

    -In terms of attractiveness, the bottom 80% of men are competing for the bottom 22% of women and the top 78% of women are competing for the top 20% of men. source

    One way dating apps might be changing the dating scene. People used to have to go out to meet people. And it was costly to lose a relationship partner, in part because of the process involved in meeting someone new.

    Today, people know that a new partner is a few swipes away. Partners might be more replaceable.

    If things start deteriorating with their current partner, some can pull out a goldmine in their pocket.

    There may be some sexual stratification going on as well. My two friends are examples of the above finding that being slightly more attractive as a man leads to far more matches.

    Social scientists have focused a lot on economic, class, and cognitive divisions. Some people have lots of money and some don’t have as much. This can cause problems.

    Some people are very intelligent and others not as much. This can cause problems.

    Robin Hanson broached the subject of sexual inequality. Dude was crucified for it.

    I am curious about something. Money hasn’t been around for that long. But it's often treated as the key incentive driving human behavior.

    Sex has been around much longer. We have been motivated by it since before we were human. It has been around since long before humans existed. It will exist long after humans have gone extinct.

    At least among young males, it is basically the key driver for everything they do. They have to actively suppress this desire to get anything else done. Or sublimate that energy into other tasks with the hope that completing them will somehow help their romantic prospects.

    Still, it doesn't seem to be taken as seriously as the other incentives. We understand people are often motivated by money, fame, status, etc. But why do people want those things?


    Recommended books:

    Why Women Have Sex by Cindy Meston

    The Evolution of Desire by David Buss

    https://us4.campaign-archive.com/?u=412bdf6ca38cdf29c3374de56&id=9896be221f

    Replies: @Whiskey

    What the establishment truly fears is the right saying to White men that they will get them laid by hot women by repression of women’s choice and no welfare and removal of black male competition.

    Offer that and you have a shock force to rule the planet.

  140. Polygamy is a lesser battle compared to gay marriage, and I just don’t think the Left cares enough to expand the definition of marriage any further. Gay marriage is already total victory there, that war is over. More likely is a propaganda campaign to discourage marriage and family formation altogether. Rather than families, better to be free-floating atomized units without permanent attachments, endlessly joining and separating again.

  141. anon[259] • Disclaimer says:
    @obwandiyag
    @anon

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can't reach up and type something into Google.

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    Replies: @anon

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    Does an utter and complete idiot know about question marks?

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can’t reach up and type something into Google.

    Do you love unsupported assertions?

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    Pushing back against the sexual revo how?

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    That article doesn’t support what Jesse claimed. Reading is indeed fundamental; as usual you haven’t a clue what you are ranting about. But at least you are doing a better job with spellcheck, so there’s something for you to be proud of.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @anon

    Struggling and struggling to come up with some kind of refutation and failing miserably, you also prove yourself to be a puncutation Natsi .)&*&^^%$%

    And by the way. I am more qualified than you to analyze style and diction and usage. And puncachooation

    For your information, when a sentence ain't no question, it don't get no question marks.

    You wouldn't know that, though, because you are still wiving back in your idiot simple-moinded 4rd-grade grammarye rules

    Can't wait to see you start with your pea-brained double-negative canards. Child. Don't you dare correct me.

    Replies: @anon

  142. @foolisholdman
    @RichardTaylor

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Assuming that this is true, and it is easily observable that men, particularly rich men, tend to marry pretty women in preference to clever women, it would explain why highly successful men tend to have rather "disappointing" sons.

    As it is also true that well educated women tend to have fewer children than poorly educated women, it would also explain the observed drop in the IQ of the developed nations since WW2.

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson, @AKAHorace

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome.

    Citation needed.

  143. @peterike
    Well, for starters, Biden has already said he'll revoke the "Muslim ban" on Day One. Shortly after we will get effective open borders. The polygamous hordes from Africa and the Middle East will swarm into America by the millions over the next few years. The Woke will have full cultural control and will go on a rampage of fanaticism. Big Tech will shut down all dissent as part of the soon-to-be-passed hate speech laws.

    Polygamy will first be de facto legal: like is happening around the country with other crimes, it may be a "crime" but it won't be prosecuted. This will be stated policy in many places, so we will get polygamy hot spots. Netflix, HBO, etc. will start pumping out shows about happy polygamous families that are being persecuted by evil white Monos (they will come up with some kind of slur name).

    Since vote fraud is now fully allowed, there will never be another Republican President, so no one will push back on this. A few years from now, the Surgeon General and others will begin a campaign to normalize polygamy (and pedophilia, especially). By 20xx, America is a polygamous nation where pedophilia is legal and normalized.

    The End. But thankfully some here wouldn't vote from Trump, because he's such a loudmouth!

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @Chrisnonymous

    they will come up with some kind of slur name).

    Not sure if “polyphobic” will work, but “lovephobic” or the Orwellian “familyphobic” don”t sound good. “Polyphobic” just sounds like you have multiple phobias. It’s a good all-around smear for stale pale males. I embrace it. I am polyphobic.

  144. @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian–a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    The Libertarian ideology completely allows minoritarian rule and even encourages it through open borders. They call for open borders to the third world and if said third worlders create a toxic subculture or take over the culture then OH WELL that's just Freedumb handed down from goddess Rand. Amusingly the third worlders could collectivize against the natives but according to Rand the natives need to stick to individualism because acting collectively in your country's best interest is wrong.

    Libertarians can't even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.

    The whole thing is based in race denial which leads to this type of irrational thinking.

    Replies: @Muggles, @notsaying

    Libertarians can’t even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.

    This is just one example of your many misrepresentations about “what libertarians believe.”

    And no, Rand wasn’t their Goddess and denounced libertarians frequently.

    There are always a few extreme cases of pseudo libertarians claiming various things, but that is true for any identifiable ideology or belief system.

    I could make up silly stuff and claim that this is what you “believe” and then attack that for being stupid. But no, I won’t. Your stupid stuff is already on offer here.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Muggles

    This is just one example of your many misrepresentations about “what libertarians believe.”

    Libertarians support open borders to Muslim countries. It's in their platform under section 3.4:
    https://www.lp.org/platform/

    They have opposed Trump's restrictions on Muslim countries.

    Here is an article from Cato describing Trump's restrictions as cruel. Note that Cato is the #1 Libertarian publication.
    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ongoing-gratuitous-cruelty-trumps-travel-ban

    I can dig up more articles from leading Libertarians that were against Trump and in fact supported Clinton.

    Maybe you disagree with the Libertarian party and the NY Libertarian press. Well they probably don't consider you to be a true Libertarian if you are for selective immigration.

    Rand was for open borders and so is the Libertarian party. That's not debatable so don't get mad at me for pointing this out.

    I could make up silly stuff and claim that this is what you “believe” and then attack that for being stupid.

    You are the one that subscribes to a silly cult where their idiotic positions based on race denial are fully documented.

    I don't subscribe to an ideology that wants to legalize crack and allow Black felons to buy fully auto AK-47s. That's the Libertarian party. Take it up with them, not me for reporting their positions.

    I will continue to call out this race denying and open borders cult and there isn't anything you can do about it. If you don't like it then call yourself something else.

  145. Re; Polygamy

    Just think of the new frontiers for old humor.

    “Take my wife! Please!”

    “No, not that one. The oldest one!”

  146. @S. Anonyia
    @YetAnotherAnon

    She should just date a man 8-10 years older. Problem solved. At least in “non elite” areas men fall all over themselves to date slightly younger women.

    Women actually have the best deal in conservative, more rural areas.

    Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @photondancer

    “Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies.”

    Agreed. Fertility sinks. Young women come to live the life, go to the parties and the new clubs, eat out at the new places. Oh, and the career!

    But there aren’t enough Mr Darcy’s to go round. As Joan Didion said about NY more than 50 years ago, ‘it is distinctly possible to stay too long at the Fair’.

    It was February 2009 and, at 44-and-a-half, she had left a bad long-term relationship and moved into a grotty London flat. “I was standing by the window, watching the rain make dusty tracks down the glass, when the traffic in the street below seemed to go silent, as if I’d put it on ‘mute’. In that moment, I became acutely aware of myself, almost as if I were an observer of the scene from outside my body. And then it came to me: it’s over. I’m never going to have a baby.

  147. @John Johnson
    @william munny

    I suppose immigration would be the only reason to endorse polygamy. If you want to live a polygamous lifestyle here, you just live with each other and don’t get married. Marriage rates are at all time lows in the US. Single mothers are eligible for lots of free stuff.

    Blacks already practice polygamy in that regard.

    The single moms who cite the father as "unknown" certainly know who he is. They just want the state to pay and not bother trying to squeeze a dime out of Tyrone.

    There was a sociologist that spent time around Black women on welfare and was surprised by how deliberate their actions were. They didn't "fall into" being single moms and in fact consciously selected their mating partner with the intent of getting pregnant. A lot of them didn't think the men available to them were worth marrying. One even said that being single is better than marrying an idiot. So the conservative theory that they would all be married if not for the men is a bit short sighted.

    Both liberal and conservative politicians hoped that Blacks would "cut the solution" with Hispanics but that hasn't really happened. Central Americans like Guatemalans don't want anything to do with Blacks and in fact think Whites are morons for putting up with them.

    Replies: @Shango

    “cut the solution” What does that mean?

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Shango

    “cut the solution” What does that mean?

    Interbreed

  148. @Peter Akuleyev
    @Tark Marg

    No other entity is only selectively subject to consent restrictions as you propose for animals.

    I am not "proposing" anything. I am just describing the way Woke people seem to think. I am not particularly interested in the issue of animal consent one way or the other. If you are, have fun.

    Replies: @Tark Marg

    I see, I seem to misunderstood your position. Sorry if I came across as a bit blunt.

  149. @anon
    @obwandiyag

    Are you a complete and utter idiot.

    Does an utter and complete idiot know about question marks?

    I love these idiotic idiots on here whose fingers are apparently so babylike they can’t reach up and type something into Google.

    Do you love unsupported assertions?

    Germaine Greer. J.K. Rowling. Shitload of other feminists. Idiot.

    Pushing back against the sexual revo how?

    https://www.dailysignal.com/2020/02/21/on-the-left-a-new-clash-between-feminists-and-transgender-activists/

    That article doesn't support what Jesse claimed. Reading is indeed fundamental; as usual you haven't a clue what you are ranting about. But at least you are doing a better job with spellcheck, so there's something for you to be proud of.

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    Struggling and struggling to come up with some kind of refutation and failing miserably, you also prove yourself to be a puncutation Natsi .)&*&^^%$%

    And by the way. I am more qualified than you to analyze style and diction and usage. And puncachooation

    For your information, when a sentence ain’t no question, it don’t get no question marks.

    You wouldn’t know that, though, because you are still wiving back in your idiot simple-moinded 4rd-grade grammarye rules

    Can’t wait to see you start with your pea-brained double-negative canards. Child. Don’t you dare correct me.

    • Replies: @anon
    @obwandiyag

    Don’t you dare correct me.

    Already done. You're ignorant and wrong, as usual.

    Still waiting for Jesse to peek back in. Doubt it will happen.

    Next!

    Replies: @obwandiyag

  150. @foolisholdman
    @RichardTaylor

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Assuming that this is true, and it is easily observable that men, particularly rich men, tend to marry pretty women in preference to clever women, it would explain why highly successful men tend to have rather "disappointing" sons.

    As it is also true that well educated women tend to have fewer children than poorly educated women, it would also explain the observed drop in the IQ of the developed nations since WW2.

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson, @AKAHorace

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    That would first require acknowledging that intelligence is highly heritable which our liberal cult is extremely against.

  151. @Muggles
    @John Johnson


    Libertarians can’t even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.
     
    This is just one example of your many misrepresentations about "what libertarians believe."

    And no, Rand wasn't their Goddess and denounced libertarians frequently.

    There are always a few extreme cases of pseudo libertarians claiming various things, but that is true for any identifiable ideology or belief system.

    I could make up silly stuff and claim that this is what you "believe" and then attack that for being stupid. But no, I won't. Your stupid stuff is already on offer here.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    This is just one example of your many misrepresentations about “what libertarians believe.”

    Libertarians support open borders to Muslim countries. It’s in their platform under section 3.4:
    https://www.lp.org/platform/

    They have opposed Trump’s restrictions on Muslim countries.

    Here is an article from Cato describing Trump’s restrictions as cruel. Note that Cato is the #1 Libertarian publication.
    https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/ongoing-gratuitous-cruelty-trumps-travel-ban

    I can dig up more articles from leading Libertarians that were against Trump and in fact supported Clinton.

    Maybe you disagree with the Libertarian party and the NY Libertarian press. Well they probably don’t consider you to be a true Libertarian if you are for selective immigration.

    Rand was for open borders and so is the Libertarian party. That’s not debatable so don’t get mad at me for pointing this out.

    I could make up silly stuff and claim that this is what you “believe” and then attack that for being stupid.

    You are the one that subscribes to a silly cult where their idiotic positions based on race denial are fully documented.

    I don’t subscribe to an ideology that wants to legalize crack and allow Black felons to buy fully auto AK-47s. That’s the Libertarian party. Take it up with them, not me for reporting their positions.

    I will continue to call out this race denying and open borders cult and there isn’t anything you can do about it. If you don’t like it then call yourself something else.

  152. @Change that Matters
    China detains Muslims who practice polygamy. Which means the future citizens of Far East China should confine themselves to one wife.

    Replies: @John Up North

    Did you mean to write Far Western China?

  153. @notsaying
    @As

    I have never heard of the Amish not paying Social Security. I don't agree with that. Practically speaking I can't see how the Amish can do without Medicare. Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year. The only way that would work is if they used Medicaid instead. That might work for elderly without income but not for all the disabled or for people who still own their farms after age 65.

    Replies: @JMcG, @Jack D

    Disabled and old people can rack up hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical costs per year, year after year.

    The Amish are not going to dump grandma or their disabled children in a nursing home or state facility. They take care of their own. Nor do they favor aggressive and extensive medical treatments. If they have to get expensive medical care, they pass the hat among the community and if the bill is too big, they will write to other Amish communities until they have raised enough funds.

  154. @John Johnson
    @AnotherDad

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian–a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    The Libertarian ideology completely allows minoritarian rule and even encourages it through open borders. They call for open borders to the third world and if said third worlders create a toxic subculture or take over the culture then OH WELL that's just Freedumb handed down from goddess Rand. Amusingly the third worlders could collectivize against the natives but according to Rand the natives need to stick to individualism because acting collectively in your country's best interest is wrong.

    Libertarians can't even admit that bringing in Muslims over Russians would be an unnecessary risk.

    The whole thing is based in race denial which leads to this type of irrational thinking.

    Replies: @Muggles, @notsaying

    I would say libertarians deny a lot of things. They want to be purists and absolutists. Despite Ayn Rand I always think of libertarians as a collection of men. Women in a First World country who have to run households and take care of kids are not naturally attracted to a philosophy that is black and white, is against government help and would permit all kinds of anti-social activity in the name of freedom.

    Unlimited immigration, among other things, would qualify as an anti-social activity.

    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @notsaying

    I would say libertarians deny a lot of things. They want to be purists and absolutists.

    Yes they are purists like a cult.

    They have to deny all kinds of things because they have a shared belief with liberals in their denial of race as a component of economic development.

    So they have to explain away all the same global and national racial patterns than any 10 year old can see.

    Women in a First World country who have to run households and take care of kids are not naturally attracted to a philosophy that is black and white, is against government help and would permit all kinds of anti-social activity in the name of freedom.

    Women are also probably less likely to support selling PCP at mini marts.

    Unlimited immigration, among other things, would qualify as an anti-social activity.

    It is also anti-state. You would destroy the state if you let every African move here. Said Africans wouldn't give a flying F about Libertarian beliefs.

    Notice that the Libertarians here won't deny that Rand gave an open borders exemption to Israel or that she hated Christianity. They just hope you don't learn about that. Very similar to liberalism in that they require information suppression which doesn't work well on places like Unz.

  155. @AnotherDad
    @Anonymous


    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc.
     
    LOL. Brings to mind the old quote: "You may not be interested in War, but War is interested in you."

    If you're trolling "well done". If not, you might look up the concept of "natural selection".
    Basically your comment boils down to "conservative men are sane".


    There are three primary things normal healthy societies care about:
    -- war: protection from invasion/conquest
    -- food: more broadly material provision and all the goodies of life
    -- sex: reproduction of the people (both physically and culturally)

    Any civilized society absolutely requires "controlling of the sexuality of women".

    "Civilization" is men of a society being able to distribute women/sex fairly enough (functional monogamy) that men can stop fighting and mate guarding, cooperate for mutual defense, put their cycles to increased productive endeavor--which with reliable paternity, men are more motivated/required to apply to raising their children.

    ~~

    One of the funny--if they weren't winning and killing the West!--is that the minoritarian left not only doesn't care about but is actively contemptuous of precisely what is required for civilization.

    The don't care about borders and glory in being invaded by foreigners.

    They increasingly don't care about material production. Outsource it all. They think you can just print money forever, given women and minorities soft nonsense jobs or welfare and the goodies men produce will just magically show up.

    They certainly don't care about reproduction of high quality people. They praise low fertility careerism, female sluttiness, miscegenation of the majority's women, perversion. faggotry and now flat out mental illness!!!

    Minoritarian leftism seems like darn near a recipe for how to wreck civilization. Make you wonder what the goal of it is?

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb

    “Any civilized society absolutely requires ‘controlling of the sexuality of women.’”

    — AnotherDud

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @SunBakedSuburb

    Actually requires controlling the sexuality of most men, too. A lot of the degenerate sexual trends currently spreading through mainstream American society originate among the unrestrained high IQ but low empathy Silicon Valley nerds. Pronouns, gender bending, irreligious plural relationships, hardcore sadomasochism, furries, etc all took off there first.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/brotopia-silicon-valley-secretive-orgiastic-inner-sanctum/amp

  156. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    Excellent point, original thought I have no idea what the answer might be.

    • Replies: @RichardTaylor
    @Alden

    Thanks, but I got the basic question of why aren't Middle Easterners higher in IQ, since they have polygamy, from Bob Whitaker.

  157. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    I remember that family of 4 men and one pregnant woman. It was all over the news as a wonderful new lifestyle. Strangely, this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.

    Polygamy is an ancient family formation. It functions no worse than monogamy single parenthood or orphanages. Polygamy is just too,
    too normal to be the next thing. I honestly think it will be the legalization of pedophilia. Bestiality is gross, but not horrible, damaging to children and disgusting enough for liberals to impose on the rest of us. Plus, liberals are sissy city boys afraid of animals other than cats and dogs weighing less than 30 pounds.

    So it’s pedophilia

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Alden


    this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.
     
    Not killed, as far as I can tell, merely suffered "broken ribs, injuries to her lungs and liver and multiple brain bleeds" in "a minimum of three attacks". So polyamory is still good. /sarc

    Surprisingly the "step-parent" did go to jail for this, so their state still prosecutes some crimes. Well, the perp is a white male, so prosecution is standard I guess.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/15/why-child-abuse-is-more-likely-in-polyamorous-homes-like-the-woman-with-four-boyfriends/

    Replies: @Alden

  158. @foolisholdman
    @RichardTaylor

    I read recently some research that said that some of the most important genes related to intelligence are located on the X chromosome. Assuming that this is true, and it is easily observable that men, particularly rich men, tend to marry pretty women in preference to clever women, it would explain why highly successful men tend to have rather "disappointing" sons.

    As it is also true that well educated women tend to have fewer children than poorly educated women, it would also explain the observed drop in the IQ of the developed nations since WW2.

    Clearly, (assuming it is true) what society needs to do, is find some way of making it really attractive for intelligent women to have children.

    Replies: @anon, @John Johnson, @AKAHorace

    Calling Rosie for comments.

  159. @obwandiyag
    @anon

    Struggling and struggling to come up with some kind of refutation and failing miserably, you also prove yourself to be a puncutation Natsi .)&*&^^%$%

    And by the way. I am more qualified than you to analyze style and diction and usage. And puncachooation

    For your information, when a sentence ain't no question, it don't get no question marks.

    You wouldn't know that, though, because you are still wiving back in your idiot simple-moinded 4rd-grade grammarye rules

    Can't wait to see you start with your pea-brained double-negative canards. Child. Don't you dare correct me.

    Replies: @anon

    Don’t you dare correct me.

    Already done. You’re ignorant and wrong, as usual.

    Still waiting for Jesse to peek back in. Doubt it will happen.

    Next!

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    @anon

    Cretin

    Are you a complete idiot is not a question.

    Believe me. I know what I am talking about. I am eminently qualified to judge this issue. You are obviously not a linguist nor a lexicographer. You don't really understand the English language. You think your grade-school acquaintance with grammar qualifies you. It does not. Most of what they taught you in grade school is wrong.

    Here this might help. Speak this sentence out loud using the emphasis implied:

    Are you a complete idiot.

  160. @Bardon Kaldian
    @AKAHorace

    Socio-culturally & psychologically, women are more accepting to polygamy. I know that most people think that polygamy is a male fantasy fulfilled, but, in more liberal & wealthier modern societies women seem to be more prone to that type of arrangement than men.

    Replies: @AKAHorace

    This is completely logical. Just think of the arithmetic.

  161. @AnotherDad
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.
     
    The homosexual "marriage" drive had little to do with "tax breaks" or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian--a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @John Johnson, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Almost Missouri

    Very good point, AnotherDad.

    There is no reason to assume that culture war initiatives are going to have primarily rational (read economic) motivations. Plenty of people push evil simply because they think doing so will make them feel good.

  162. @Corn
    @Bill Jones

    Us conservatives are always saying that the Wokies are dragging us to pedophilia, but I’m not sure. I actually think leftist attitudes against pedophilia are hardening, at least as far as hetero pedo stuff goes.

    On Twitter I’ve seen alot of women complaining that 30 year old guys hooking up with 18 year olds is predatory, “a 35 year old guy has no business dating a 22 year old” and so on. I think Wokies will draw the line at pedo stuff. Not because they’re virtuous, but because this upcoming generation of cat ladies and box wine spinsters don’t want to open up the dating pool to teenage girls.

    Replies: @fredyetagain aka superhonky, @anon, @Alden

    So you spend a lot of time reading cat lady Twitter? Hmmmm.

    • Replies: @Corn
    @Alden

    LOL. I read a variety of Twitter feeds, to see how the other side thinks.

    It’s not good for my blood pressure though

    Replies: @Alden

  163. @notsaying
    @John Johnson

    I would say libertarians deny a lot of things. They want to be purists and absolutists. Despite Ayn Rand I always think of libertarians as a collection of men. Women in a First World country who have to run households and take care of kids are not naturally attracted to a philosophy that is black and white, is against government help and would permit all kinds of anti-social activity in the name of freedom.

    Unlimited immigration, among other things, would qualify as an anti-social activity.

    Replies: @John Johnson

    I would say libertarians deny a lot of things. They want to be purists and absolutists.

    Yes they are purists like a cult.

    They have to deny all kinds of things because they have a shared belief with liberals in their denial of race as a component of economic development.

    So they have to explain away all the same global and national racial patterns than any 10 year old can see.

    Women in a First World country who have to run households and take care of kids are not naturally attracted to a philosophy that is black and white, is against government help and would permit all kinds of anti-social activity in the name of freedom.

    Women are also probably less likely to support selling PCP at mini marts.

    Unlimited immigration, among other things, would qualify as an anti-social activity.

    It is also anti-state. You would destroy the state if you let every African move here. Said Africans wouldn’t give a flying F about Libertarian beliefs.

    Notice that the Libertarians here won’t deny that Rand gave an open borders exemption to Israel or that she hated Christianity. They just hope you don’t learn about that. Very similar to liberalism in that they require information suppression which doesn’t work well on places like Unz.

  164. Anonymous[162] • Disclaimer says:
    @TTSSYF
    @Anonymous


    Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: “Cuck”, “Chad”, “alpha””beta””kitchen bitch”. “beta provider”, “Stacies”, the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.
     
    You can't be serious. And besides -- that's not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not. I have little doubt that it is, given all of the other perversions that the Left has mainstreamed over the past 20+ years.

    Consider the possibility that it maybe you're the one that's obsessed...obsessed with linking conservative males with negative traits and getting off on hating them.

    Replies: @Anonymous

    “You can’t be serious. And besides — that’s not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not.”

    It is the focus of his blog post, because only a conservative male would even bring this topic up. I cannot see a liberal commentariat in his blog showing concern about average men being left behind in a system where the most successful men can get all the women. The liberal would probably bring up the oppression of women in these Islamic societies, or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy(think Richard Dawkins in his cruzade against religion). But polygamy is an issue that only conservative males are concerned with, because they are absolutely driven to breed and have kids, and they absolutely fear the idea that they might fail to do so if there isn’t a strict societal “one woman per man” rule because sexier men might take all the women leaving them none, or that they might be successful in breeding, but they might be cucked by a more powerful man and raise his spawn instead of his own. This extreme type of male anxiety and concern with breeding, with male sexual market value(“Alpha Male”, Beta Male”, “Chad”, “Beta cuck”, “kitchen bitch”, “Beta provider”, “Big Man”, etc) and with cuckoldry is absolutely a concern strongly linked to conservative males. Liberal men don’t talk like that. They just don’t. This type of masculine anxiety about not being out-bred by other men, either by them taking all the available women and leaving them none, or by being cuckolded, is one of the most stereotypically associated with conservative males.

    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    @Anonymous

    If the liberal commentariat don't bring the topic up, it's because they don't have any problem with it or are simply virtue signaling by being "non-judgmental." Liberals have steadily eroded all of America's traditional norms in the name of "progressivism." Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex? And I've never heard any liberal bring up the oppression of women in Islamic societies or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy -- not even liberal women. Pelosi, Hillary, Warren, Steinem -- when have they ever said anything about Islam telling women they must throw a blanket over their head anytime they go out in public or that it's acceptable for their husband to have as many as four wives as long as he "treats them all fairly"?

    I doubt any male, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of being cuckolded...or, for that matter, being an incel. For you to leap to the conclusion that it's an obsession "most stereotypically associated with conservative males" shows that you simply don't understand conservatism or the conservative mind and have a deep-seated hatred of it. I don't necessarily fault you for that. I think there is a strong genetic component to being a liberal or conservative.

    Replies: @Alden, @Dissident

  165. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/08/it-feels-like-a-lost-year-the-women-who-fear-2020-has-stolen-their-chance-of-motherhood


    She goes over the arithmetic that has tortured her all year long. She will be 34 next month, single, no closer to finding a partner to have kids with. Even if she did meet someone next year, say, would they be ready to start conceiving within a year? Probably not. That could mean she will be 36 before she even starts trying – if she meets someone next year. And there’s the rub – because the Covid-19 restrictions have made dating nearly impossible. “My friends are either pregnant or looking after small children,” Claudia says, “and I struggle to even get men to talk to me online. It feels hopeless.”

    Claudia is one of the many women across the UK who fear that the coronavirus has put paid to their plans to have children, possibly for good. As Covid swept the country in March, IVF clinics hastily closed; most would not reopen until May. And women who had planned to travel abroad for fertility treatment were unable to leave the UK, due to the travel restrictions. Once-solid relationships collapsed under the stress of a global pandemic, leaving women in their late 30s who want children searching for new partners.
     
    Tick... tick... tick.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    *Both* conservative men and women are obsessed with breeding. My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man’s spawn.

    • Troll: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @John Johnson
    @Anonymous

    My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man’s spawn.

    Entirely wrong.

    Conservative opposition would come from a Christian perspective.

    Liberals are already against Whites having large families and as such would be against polygamy.

    If immigrants have large families then liberals say nothing.

    But you can find plenty of articles online from liberals that bash large Mormon families for having too many kids when they could adopt third worlders.

    A certain TV show highlighted one such family and liberals made all kinds of nasty comments about them. How dare they have so many children! Only third worlders can do that.

    Liberals would support polyandry in Whites if they could exclude polygyny. This would favor fertility for liberal women.

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    Ah, a quick switch from "conservative males" to "*both* conservative men and women".

    That 'debate style' is familiar. I thought Corvinus had been quiet lately!

    (The article is from the Guardian, Pussyhat Central for UK women. The chances of her being conservative are very low, because liberal women don't know any conservative women. Conservative women are still having kids.)

    , @William Badwhite
    @Anonymous


    ...men and women are obsessed with breeding....a concern exclusive ...because they fear ...and they fear being cuckolded
     
    Its fascinating how liberals believe they can read other people's minds and can pinpoint people's deepest motivations. Liberalism truly is a mental illness.
  166. @Gary in Gramercy
    @Bardon Kaldian

    The dog should have held out for a serious dowry. To marry such a meeskeit, and get her bad juju besides...

    Replies: @The Last Real Calvinist

    He certainly doesn’t look very happy with the arrangements.

    • Replies: @Gary in Gramercy
    @The Last Real Calvinist

    Can you imagine what a field day Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, would have with this? Triumph [in a voice akin to the late Don Rickles, if from some indeterminate Eastern European nation]: "India? What a rip-off! I was told, 'Come marry this bitch, and there will be lots of nice treats for you!' Well, I'm not exactly a one-bitch dog -- I sniff 'em, I shtup 'em, and I leave 'em -- but I like my treats, so I pretended to go along with the deal. What do these filthy Hindus bring out but their actual daughter! It was too late to back out, I had already eaten all of their kibble vindaloo, so I made the best of it. And let me tell you, this girl is no Lassie. I banged all the early Lassies, so I know what I'm talking about. Collies look just like the bitch next door, but they're insane that way, if you know what I mean. Nothing but tail and tongue, I'm telling you. Anyway, this Hindu girl is so ugly, the funeral pyre rejected her! So the family paints a red stripe on my face, to prepare for the ceremony, and I think this is strange, but I remember, these people worship cows and sh*t in the street, so hey, at least we have one thing in common. Now comes the ceremony, and they bring the blushing bride out, in all her finery, and I have to admit, she's not too bad for a complete and total dog. I'm looking forward to the, you know, wedding night, and then the father of the bride announces that once the ceremony is complete, the curse on the bride will be transferred to...ME! The bride will then be free of the curse, and will be able to find the lousy software coder of her dreams. And me? I get chained up to be...get this...The Family Pet! I was never so insulted in my life! And the wedding night? Forget about it. I don't even get a leg to hump. So if anyone asks me about India, I tell them it's a great country...FOR ME TO POOP ON!"

  167. The ultimate “beta bucks” is Uncle Sam. Women are less and less married to actual men and more and more to the state. There is no need to marry when you can graze for free on state property.

  168. In the case of other sexual deviancies (polygamy, paedophilia, incest, S&M, etc) you have to ask yourself whether there are any powerful factions within the Coalition of the Fringes that would have anything significant to gain. Then you have to ask yourself if there are any powerful factions within the Coalition of the Fringes that would have reason to strongly oppose such things. The LGBT mob might be favourably disposed towards these things as a way of striking another blow against the family but the heterosexual feminists would be very strongly opposed.

    I think it’s more likely that we’ll see an intensification of WWT.

    The next big Culture War struggle will be WWD. World War Drugs. A campaign to totally legalise all drugs nation-wide. And then of course globally.

  169. Look a bit closer–“Only about 2% of the global population lives in polygamous households.” Perhaps this is an undercount. Everyone knows you must have separate households for your wives.

    See 1:07:56

  170. @RoatanBill
    What consenting adults do in private should be none of anyone else's business.

    As usual, the gov't creates the problem and then comes up with their solution by writing some bullshit law. I often wondered why people need a license to get married. I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov't in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other 'rights' that the law gives to married people.

    Licensing is when the government takes a right from you, and sells it back.
    Joe Jarvis


    If gov't were out of the marriage business, there would be no divorce lawyers. It's not like gov't sanction produces anything of value since divorce is so rampant. The gov't just gets a new control point where none existed before.

    Instead of inserting their nose into how some people want to live via the law, why not get out of the marriage business entirely by eliminating all laws that mention marital status?

    Replies: @Jake, @black sea, @AnotherDad, @dfordoom

    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept.

    The intention was to destroy marriage as a meaningful institution. To destroy the family as a meaningful institution.

    As has been pointed out by other UR commenters it’s been happening since the 60s – the trend towards making marriage something that is solely about personal happiness and sexual pleasure rather than being about commitment, duty and raising children.

    • Agree: LondonBob
  171. @YetAnotherAnon
    @Anonymous

    The whole “Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever.” which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7.

    https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2020/dec/08/it-feels-like-a-lost-year-the-women-who-fear-2020-has-stolen-their-chance-of-motherhood


    She goes over the arithmetic that has tortured her all year long. She will be 34 next month, single, no closer to finding a partner to have kids with. Even if she did meet someone next year, say, would they be ready to start conceiving within a year? Probably not. That could mean she will be 36 before she even starts trying – if she meets someone next year. And there’s the rub – because the Covid-19 restrictions have made dating nearly impossible. “My friends are either pregnant or looking after small children,” Claudia says, “and I struggle to even get men to talk to me online. It feels hopeless.”

    Claudia is one of the many women across the UK who fear that the coronavirus has put paid to their plans to have children, possibly for good. As Covid swept the country in March, IVF clinics hastily closed; most would not reopen until May. And women who had planned to travel abroad for fertility treatment were unable to leave the UK, due to the travel restrictions. Once-solid relationships collapsed under the stress of a global pandemic, leaving women in their late 30s who want children searching for new partners.
     
    Tick... tick... tick.

    Replies: @S. Anonyia, @Anonymous, @MBlanc46

    She had 18–34 to get that done. She brought it on herself.

  172. @Yawrate
    Polygamy? No way. Who in their right mind wants two American wives?

    The next big thing is pedophilia. First it starts with the normalization of pedophilia which is the stage we're in right now.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    The next big thing is pedophilia. First it starts with the normalization of pedophilia which is the stage we’re in right now.

    I don’t think so. WWT succeeded because most people didn’t care much about trannies one way or the other. It was easy to make the argument that who cares if a man wears a frock and says he’s a woman – nobody gets hurt.

    Lots of people will care a great deal about pedophilia. Even members of the Coalition of the Fringes. It would be a vicious protracted struggle, rather than the easy victory that WWT was. And it would be a struggle that would expose huge cracks within the Coalition of the Fringes.

    Also remember that Americans don’t really approve of sex. They approve of homosexuals because they convince themselves it’s all about love, not sex. They manage to just not think about the sexual aspects. They approve of trannies because it’s not about sex, it’s about identity. That’s also the case with homosexuality – it’s seen as an identity issue (which is good) rather than being about sex (which is wrong).

    You’re not going to be able to convince people that pedophilia is not about sex. Americans’ deep-seated Puritanism will kick in on that issue. It would be a bloodbath. I don’t think it will happen.

  173. @The Last Real Calvinist
    @Gary in Gramercy

    He certainly doesn't look very happy with the arrangements.

    Replies: @Gary in Gramercy

    Can you imagine what a field day Triumph, the Insult Comic Dog, would have with this? Triumph [in a voice akin to the late Don Rickles, if from some indeterminate Eastern European nation]: “India? What a rip-off! I was told, ‘Come marry this bitch, and there will be lots of nice treats for you!’ Well, I’m not exactly a one-bitch dog — I sniff ’em, I shtup ’em, and I leave ’em — but I like my treats, so I pretended to go along with the deal. What do these filthy Hindus bring out but their actual daughter! It was too late to back out, I had already eaten all of their kibble vindaloo, so I made the best of it. And let me tell you, this girl is no Lassie. I banged all the early Lassies, so I know what I’m talking about. Collies look just like the bitch next door, but they’re insane that way, if you know what I mean. Nothing but tail and tongue, I’m telling you. Anyway, this Hindu girl is so ugly, the funeral pyre rejected her! So the family paints a red stripe on my face, to prepare for the ceremony, and I think this is strange, but I remember, these people worship cows and sh*t in the street, so hey, at least we have one thing in common. Now comes the ceremony, and they bring the blushing bride out, in all her finery, and I have to admit, she’s not too bad for a complete and total dog. I’m looking forward to the, you know, wedding night, and then the father of the bride announces that once the ceremony is complete, the curse on the bride will be transferred to…ME! The bride will then be free of the curse, and will be able to find the lousy software coder of her dreams. And me? I get chained up to be…get this…The Family Pet! I was never so insulted in my life! And the wedding night? Forget about it. I don’t even get a leg to hump. So if anyone asks me about India, I tell them it’s a great country…FOR ME TO POOP ON!”

    • LOL: Johann Ricke
  174. @Alden
    @RichardTaylor

    Excellent point, original thought I have no idea what the answer might be.

    Replies: @RichardTaylor

    Thanks, but I got the basic question of why aren’t Middle Easterners higher in IQ, since they have polygamy, from Bob Whitaker.

  175. @SunBakedSuburb
    @AnotherDad

    "Any civilized society absolutely requires 'controlling of the sexuality of women.'"

    -- AnotherDud

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    Actually requires controlling the sexuality of most men, too. A lot of the degenerate sexual trends currently spreading through mainstream American society originate among the unrestrained high IQ but low empathy Silicon Valley nerds. Pronouns, gender bending, irreligious plural relationships, hardcore sadomasochism, furries, etc all took off there first.

    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/01/brotopia-silicon-valley-secretive-orgiastic-inner-sanctum/amp

    • Agree: Dissident
    • Disagree: Alden
  176. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    Inbreeding.

  177. @anon
    @Jesse

    No. You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    Replies: @obwandiyag, @dfordoom

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s. A vicious and bloody struggle between the pro-sex and anti-sex feminists. There has always been a very strong anti-sex strand in American feminism, going back to the 19th century. American feminism is to a large extent an offshoot of American Puritanism.

    Don’t forget Andrea “all sex is rape” Dworkin.

    • Replies: @Ray P
    @dfordoom

    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    , @anon
    @dfordoom

    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s.

    Dude, what's your calendar say? It's 2020. The 90's were, like, over 20 years ago. You sure to tend to live in the past a lot.

    Don’t forget Andrea “all sex is rape” Dworkin.

    Dead for about 15 years, so not really writing much or giving many speeches anymore. It was in the news, did you miss that, too?

    Gee, it's almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn't happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.

    I repeat my challenge to Jesse:


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    I guess I should add "In the Current Year", or "In the Current Generation", or maybe "In the Current Century", although given the present tense that's obviously implied. Well, obviously implied to anyone under 60...

    Not that it matters, Jesse is just a driveby who trolls with one or two comments from time to time.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @dfordoom

  178. @Anonymous
    Ah, the eternal male conservative obsession with cuckoldry, being able to breed and pass on their conservative genes on, controlling the sexuality of women and their mate choices, etc. The whole "Must. Breed. Most.Important. Thing. Ever." which seems to be like an invincible program running in their brains 24/7. I wonder if conservative males realize that what they do with these posts is expose their own sexual insecurities to the World? This might be why cuckoldry porn is the only type of porn that is more watched in red states than blue states. Conservative males *really* think and care about polygamy, cuckoldry and their sexual market status a lot. And I mean a lot. Every time I hear a man using the following words and expressions: "Cuck", "Chad", "alpha""beta""kitchen bitch". "beta provider", "Stacies", the guy turns out to be a conservative Republican. Every time.

    Replies: @Tark Marg, @Anon, @TTSSYF, @ScarletNumber, @YetAnotherAnon, @WJ, @jamie b., @AnotherDad, @Samantha Carter

    Polyamory is already a big thing in shitlib circles. I first met someone who was doing it back in 2010 but now it seems like it’s more common than monogamy among the liberal crowds.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @Samantha Carter

    Is it polamory as in "thruples", where the three (or more) actually go out together, share a bed etc - or is it that the girl has >1 friend who she sometimes sleeps with? Cos that's been around for decades. It's OK (from a young man only wanting one thing perspective) as long as you don't fall in love and get jealous.


    "If she loves him that's OK, yeah
    I want to step back and keep control
    "
     
    This is worth a listen for the great sax/bass/guitar. Johnny Almond, Steven Thompson (what happened to him - love that bass), Jon Mark. Great interplay.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3zyfr6Y6C4

  179. @Thea
    @Jesse

    You can certainly view pound metoo as a neo-puritanical reaction against the sexual revolution. It could not have happened without widespread no-strings attached sex.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    You can certainly view pound metoo as a neo-puritanical reaction against the sexual revolution. It could not have happened without widespread no-strings attached sex.

    Yes. metoo was an opportunity for the Puritan anti-sex feminists to regain the initiative in the ongoing feminist civil wars (anti-sex vs pro-sex feminists, pro-tranny feminists vs TERFs).

  180. @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    *Both* conservative men and women are obsessed with breeding. My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man's spawn.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @William Badwhite

    My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man’s spawn.

    Entirely wrong.

    Conservative opposition would come from a Christian perspective.

    Liberals are already against Whites having large families and as such would be against polygamy.

    If immigrants have large families then liberals say nothing.

    But you can find plenty of articles online from liberals that bash large Mormon families for having too many kids when they could adopt third worlders.

    A certain TV show highlighted one such family and liberals made all kinds of nasty comments about them. How dare they have so many children! Only third worlders can do that.

    Liberals would support polyandry in Whites if they could exclude polygyny. This would favor fertility for liberal women.

  181. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    Why didn’t the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn’t it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    You are imagining a meritocratic and capitalistic society.

    Their oil rich capitalist societies that we helped them build are relatively recent.

    Watch Lawrence of Arabia for a better take on what their countries used to look like.

    Being able to ride a horse well and slaughter your enemies was valued more than intelligence.

  182. @Pericles
    On consideration, the answer is no. As muslims in Europe have shown, it's better to keep it informal and receive free stuff as a collection of single mothers.

    Replies: @photondancer

    I hear this happens in Australia too. Also, since muslims believe in a much younger age for marriage than westerners, especially for girls, I hear there’s a fair few under 16 year olds being visited in hospital by their ‘uncle’ to view the newborn child.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @photondancer

    The uncles probably are their uncles, blood, not by marriage uncles. Yuck.

    Replies: @photondancer

  183. @RichardTaylor
    Why didn't the Middle East produce the highest IQs on the planet? For centuries, high ranking men could have lots of wives. And their sons would usually have multiple women. And since being able to get to the top is somewhat correlated with intelligence, shouldn't it have created the highest IQ region on earth?

    As a kicker, low ranking men would often have no children. What happened?

    Replies: @TheOtherRomanian, @foolisholdman, @Alden, @S. Anonyia, @John Johnson, @Almost Missouri

    Most of those wives were the first cousins of their husbands.

    So they take what should be eugenic advantage and dunk it in a dysgenic disadvantage. The latter is evidently stronger, by a lot.

    OTOH, in times and places in which e.g. Islam was on the upswing and men were outmarrying multiple wives/concubines for reasons of e.g. conquest and cementing alliances with other tribes, polygamy probably did/does have a eugenic effect. But, judging by results, such times are not most times.

  184. @anonymous
    @Days of Broken Arrows

    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him claiming to have "accidentally" ended up with some peanut butter somewhere. It stuck with me (pun intended).

    Replies: @Dissident

    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him[…]

    Haven’t you omitted an extremely salient fact about Dan Savage? A characteristic that is the overwhelmingly primary one upon which his persona and career are based. And one that makes it rather odd, to say the very least, for him to be presuming to offer any sexual advice of a heterosexual variety*…

    The notoriously brazen and vicious, bigoted sodomite has been unpersoned? This is news to me. What was his offense?

    *As if being an avowed homosexualist were not enough here, Savage had initially denied the legitimacy of bisexuality, and only later reversed and apologized for having taken that position.

    Reproduced below is a comment of mine (primarily concerning Dan Savage but also quite relevant to the larger questions addressed in this thread) from the September 2019 iSteve thread, What’s Next? Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left

    [MORE]

    Dissident says:
    September 6, 2019 at 7:06 pm GMT • 1.3 years ago • 400 Words ↑

    I remember a few years back, back when gay marriage was a matter of debate rather than the law of the land, that sex columnist Dan Savage (who’s gay) wrote an op-ed basically saying that gays should be allowed to marry but this whole monogamy thing had to go.

    Concerning Dan Savage, I wonder how many iSteve readers are aware that the advice on sexual matters that he offers in his syndicated column is not limited to homosexuals.

    [MORE]

    Also,
    https://americansfortruth.com/issues/dan-savage/

    Dan Savage’s “Progressive” Hate: When it comes to dishing out “progressive” hate, few activists on the Left can match the antics of Dan Savage, homosexual-bisexual-transgender activist, sex columnist, author and pornographer. Here is a graphic from Savage’s hate-site, Santorum [.] com–which he created to demonize and literally destroy the name of Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Dan and his left-leaning fans came up with this mean-spirited, grotesque “definition” after Savage was offended by something Santorum had said. It is telling that Savage decided the best way to punish Santorum was to associate his name with a disgusting by-product of homosexual sodomy. Despite his hateful stunts and anti-Christian rhetoric–including “flu terrorism” against GOP presidential contender Gary Bauer and an “Impeach the Mother-[F–k-r] Already (ITMFA)” campaign against President Trump, most media, and apparently Democrat politicians like Sean Casten in Illinois, treat Savage like a cultural hero. See video showing Savage’s anti-Christian bigotry below, and the Breitbart story on Casten HERE.

    Also, FROT movement founder Bill Weintraub* has criticized Savage quite a bit. An example:

    http://man2manalliance.org/crw/frot/limitnewer.html#savage (*Linked site contains graphic content)

    So, I suggested to Savage, it might make more sense to remove penetration from the pinnacle of gay male sexual experience and give men other options instead — and, at the very least, specifically warn them against being anally receptive early in a relationship.

    He didn’t reply to my letter, and he has not to two more over the last two years.

    The reason he has not is not mysterious.

    Dan Savage, like Steve Goldstone, is an analist.

    He consistently supports the dominant culture of anal sex, and censors opposing points of view.

    Savage is also respected and influential, and is sometimes quoted in the nongay press, most recently in Seattle, where he lives, and where he’s become an advocate for “responsible promiscuity.”

    But not, so far as I can tell, for fidelity.

    He simply urges men to use condoms during promiscuous anal sex.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    @Dissident


    What was his offense?
     
    He railed against obesity from a health, gluttony, and attractiveness standpoint. There was a long and public back-and-forth with a female reporter about it and you can guess who won the intersectional stack.

    Replies: @Dissident

  185. @Buzz Mohawk
    FWIW, ménages à trois are overrated.

    Replies: @SunBakedSuburb, @znon

    The purpose of two women for one man was to keep them both busy so you can get some sleep, fer chrissakes.

  186. @AnotherDad
    @RoatanBill


    I also wondered why the homosexual community wanted the gov’t in their lives by demanding gay marriage as a legal concept. The only answer I could come up with is the tax breaks and other ‘rights’ that the law gives to married people.
     
    The homosexual "marriage" drive had little to do with "tax breaks" or anything any individual could get out of the marriage. (That can all be done pretty easily legally.)

    The point of homosexual marriage was to force other people, force society to pretend that homosexual relationships were equivalent to normal marital relationships. Homosexual normalization.

    Homosexual marriage was not libertarian, but anti-libertarian and minoritarian--a minority popping up and making the majority bend its norms, values, traditions, culture to the minority.

    Replies: @RoatanBill, @John Johnson, @The Last Real Calvinist, @Almost Missouri

    I agree that this was the emotion gravamen of the homosexual marriage movement (albeit publicly unspoken—though privately reveled in), but there were plenty of people making the case for homosexual marriage as a material/economic advantage:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20120822043914/http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/same-sex-marriage-a-welfare-program-not-a-right/

    P.S. Homosexual “marriage” is cultural appropriation of heteronormative patriarchy.

    P.P.S. The “studies” purporting to show the benefits of homo marriage and parenting were fake. But you probably knew that.

  187. @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    *Both* conservative men and women are obsessed with breeding. My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man's spawn.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @William Badwhite

    Ah, a quick switch from “conservative males” to “*both* conservative men and women“.

    That ‘debate style’ is familiar. I thought Corvinus had been quiet lately!

    (The article is from the Guardian, Pussyhat Central for UK women. The chances of her being conservative are very low, because liberal women don’t know any conservative women. Conservative women are still having kids.)

  188. @Samantha Carter
    @Anonymous

    Polyamory is already a big thing in shitlib circles. I first met someone who was doing it back in 2010 but now it seems like it's more common than monogamy among the liberal crowds.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    Is it polamory as in “thruples”, where the three (or more) actually go out together, share a bed etc – or is it that the girl has >1 friend who she sometimes sleeps with? Cos that’s been around for decades. It’s OK (from a young man only wanting one thing perspective) as long as you don’t fall in love and get jealous.

    If she loves him that’s OK, yeah
    I want to step back and keep control

    This is worth a listen for the great sax/bass/guitar. Johnny Almond, Steven Thompson (what happened to him – love that bass), Jon Mark. Great interplay.

  189. @Alden
    @SFG

    I remember that family of 4 men and one pregnant woman. It was all over the news as a wonderful new lifestyle. Strangely, this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.

    Polygamy is an ancient family formation. It functions no worse than monogamy single parenthood or orphanages. Polygamy is just too,
    too normal to be the next thing. I honestly think it will be the legalization of pedophilia. Bestiality is gross, but not horrible, damaging to children and disgusting enough for liberals to impose on the rest of us. Plus, liberals are sissy city boys afraid of animals other than cats and dogs weighing less than 30 pounds.

    So it’s pedophilia

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.

    Not killed, as far as I can tell, merely suffered “broken ribs, injuries to her lungs and liver and multiple brain bleeds” in “a minimum of three attacks”. So polyamory is still good. /sarc

    Surprisingly the “step-parent” did go to jail for this, so their state still prosecutes some crimes. Well, the perp is a white male, so prosecution is standard I guess.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/15/why-child-abuse-is-more-likely-in-polyamorous-homes-like-the-woman-with-four-boyfriends/

    • Replies: @Alden
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks

    Imagine 5 parents telling you what to do and how to behave.

    One thing I always found inexplicable about 19th century Mormon polygamy is why were there enough women for polygamy? Right up to about 1920, and certainly during the 1840-60 Mormon settlement there was a real scarcity of women west of the Mississippi.

    Ancient Chinese theory why 4 wives is the best arrangement.
    1 Wife Raising children wife to husband household management helping in the family business it’s just too much for one woman
    2 Wives the wives will form a team against the husband
    3 Wives The wives will form ever changing teams of 2 against 1 with the husband dragged in to every squabble.
    4 Wives Wives will pair up, 2 against 2 and they’ll leave husband alone.

    In a one wife home, if she dies suddenly there’s a scrabble to find a new one to take care of the kids, work in the family trade, housework etc.

    Polygamy, there’s another wife right there in the house. Continuity, no dependency on a “ key employee”

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

  190. @Anonymous
    @TTSSYF

    "You can’t be serious. And besides — that’s not even the focus of this blog post. The question posed by Mr. Sailer is whether polygamy is coming to the U.S. or not."

    It is the focus of his blog post, because only a conservative male would even bring this topic up. I cannot see a liberal commentariat in his blog showing concern about average men being left behind in a system where the most successful men can get all the women. The liberal would probably bring up the oppression of women in these Islamic societies, or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy(think Richard Dawkins in his cruzade against religion). But polygamy is an issue that only conservative males are concerned with, because they are absolutely driven to breed and have kids, and they absolutely fear the idea that they might fail to do so if there isn't a strict societal "one woman per man" rule because sexier men might take all the women leaving them none, or that they might be successful in breeding, but they might be cucked by a more powerful man and raise his spawn instead of his own. This extreme type of male anxiety and concern with breeding, with male sexual market value("Alpha Male", Beta Male", "Chad", "Beta cuck", "kitchen bitch", "Beta provider", "Big Man", etc) and with cuckoldry is absolutely a concern strongly linked to conservative males. Liberal men don't talk like that. They just don't. This type of masculine anxiety about not being out-bred by other men, either by them taking all the available women and leaving them none, or by being cuckolded, is one of the most stereotypically associated with conservative males.

    Replies: @TTSSYF

    If the liberal commentariat don’t bring the topic up, it’s because they don’t have any problem with it or are simply virtue signaling by being “non-judgmental.” Liberals have steadily eroded all of America’s traditional norms in the name of “progressivism.” Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex? And I’ve never heard any liberal bring up the oppression of women in Islamic societies or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy — not even liberal women. Pelosi, Hillary, Warren, Steinem — when have they ever said anything about Islam telling women they must throw a blanket over their head anytime they go out in public or that it’s acceptable for their husband to have as many as four wives as long as he “treats them all fairly”?

    I doubt any male, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of being cuckolded…or, for that matter, being an incel. For you to leap to the conclusion that it’s an obsession “most stereotypically associated with conservative males” shows that you simply don’t understand conservatism or the conservative mind and have a deep-seated hatred of it. I don’t necessarily fault you for that. I think there is a strong genetic component to being a liberal or conservative.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @TTSSYF

    Sodomy was legalized in many states in the late 196os, 55 years ago. In the late 1950s, the University of Illinois law school developed a Uniform Criminal Code in which sodomy was legalized. That code was used by most states decades ago. By 1980 sodomy was legal in most states.

    20 years ago was 2000.

    , @Dissident
    @TTSSYF


    Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex?
     
    1.) Twenty years ago? That's 2000 and by then, buggery was already normalized to a high degree. Both legally, as Ms. Alden already pointed-out, as well as socially and culturally.

    A difference that is remarkable between not just twenty years ago but as little as ten or less is the dramatic reversal we have witnessed concerning same-sex "marriage". As recently as the 2008 Presidential campaign, no mainstream candidate could publicly support that travesty and remain viable. Today, no Democrat, at least (and the Republicans don't appear that far behind), can be viable without fully adopting whatever the latest demands of the "LGBTQ" lobby are.

    But just how shocked should anyone who had been paying attention really have been? By the time of the infamous Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015, had it not already been decades that the official state position, the one taught to children in public schools, was that homosexual relationships and lifestyles were no less wholesome than heterosexual ones? And, certainly, nothing less than that had been the unmistakable, unequivocal statement made by any number of highly popular films, television shows, books, articles, and other cultural products.

    2.) Wasn't the male qualifier superfluous? How normalized was even heterosexual anal penetration at any point in history prior to the present era?

    Replies: @TTSSYF

  191. @Blubb
    Polygamy?! That's so 2016.

    Incest. THAT'S truly progressive!

    Replies: @The Alarmist

    Polygamy?! That’s so 2016.

    Incest. THAT’S truly progressive!

    No, Onanism is truly progressive.

    • Replies: @Alden
    @The Alarmist

    Lord Bryon and his half sister had an incest relationship 200 years ago. They were considered very progressive at the time. Shelley, his wife and her sister had a 3 way arrangement that was considered very progressive by liberals at the time in 1810.

    Many of the socialist American and Zionist communes had what they called free love and communal child raising arrangements.

    Martin Luther write some rather lecherous pamphlets about all those lovely nubile young women locked up in catholic convents.

    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.

    I really wish the MEN OF UNZ would learn a few facts about human reproduction and social sexual history before embarrassing conservatism and Whites with these fuddy duddy posts

    The ignorant feminazis and the ignorant MEN OF UNZ deserve each other

    Replies: @Dissident

  192. @S. Anonyia
    @YetAnotherAnon

    She should just date a man 8-10 years older. Problem solved. At least in “non elite” areas men fall all over themselves to date slightly younger women.

    Women actually have the best deal in conservative, more rural areas.

    Men are overvalued in big cities because of the imbalanced sex ratios. Leaves a lot of sad single ladies.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @photondancer

    She’s 34. A man 8-10 years older is in his mid-40s; he’s more likely to be chasing 20 year olds than thinking “gosh, why don’t I date a woman in her 30s who’s desperate to have a baby before her fertility tanks completely”.

    • Replies: @S. Anonyia
    @photondancer

    Maybe in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago or where other hot shots live. I live in the Deep South and trust me 40 year old guys date women in their early to mid 30s and consider it a sweet deal. Have one cousin in a marriage like that and they have 2 children. The lady in the original article needs to move out of the big city ASAP.

    I live in a midsized city (I don't want to doxx myself so let's just say about 200,000-300,000 people with more in the metro). Only the very absolute top tier of early 40s men here (surgeons, millionaire construction executives, etc) could even have a chance of landing a woman in her early 20s. It's because most people (like my husband and I) pair off in their early 20s with someone the same age and stay together.

    Like I said flyover country is better for women. Just like the West was better for women in the pioneer days.

  193. @Shango
    @John Johnson

    "cut the solution" What does that mean?

    Replies: @John Johnson

    “cut the solution” What does that mean?

    Interbreed

  194. @dfordoom
    @anon


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s. A vicious and bloody struggle between the pro-sex and anti-sex feminists. There has always been a very strong anti-sex strand in American feminism, going back to the 19th century. American feminism is to a large extent an offshoot of American Puritanism.

    Don't forget Andrea "all sex is rape" Dworkin.

    Replies: @Ray P, @anon

    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Ray P


    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.
     
    The argument was that feminists had done nothing to oppose the Sexual Revolution. I pointed out that many feminists had fought bitterly against the Sexual Revolution.

    If you know anything about the history of American feminism you'll know that its roots were in Puritanism. American feminism was and is saturated in Puritan thinking. The anti-sex strain in American feminism has always been incredibly strong. Puritanism is a disease that has thoroughly infected American culture over the course of several centuries. Andrea Dworkin is proof that even Jews are affected by this cultural disease.

    Replies: @anon

  195. @Alden
    @Corn

    So you spend a lot of time reading cat lady Twitter? Hmmmm.

    Replies: @Corn

    LOL. I read a variety of Twitter feeds, to see how the other side thinks.

    It’s not good for my blood pressure though

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
    • Replies: @Alden
    @Corn

    I heard and read enough feminazi garbage since they inserted their commie duzzgusting ideas into everything starting about 50 years ago. No desire to know what the enemy is ranting about now days.

    You think they hate men??? Try being a very pretty woman with 4 beautiful kids, a real professional career instead of a grant grubbing buttinsky career, and a husband with a real man’s job instead of legal aid foundation revolutionary.

    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism. It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Their purposes were:

    1 increase the work force by about 40 percent by sending all the married women into the workplace thus lowering wages.

    2 fill the endless clerical low level management jobs created by changes in the economy

    3 alleviate the problems caused by affirmative action for aggressive badly behaved black morons in the workplace. The idea was that White women and immigrants would replace the moron blacks by becoming affirmative action beneficiaries. That worked well for the private sector. The black morons settled into government jobs.

    The latest evil liberal trend is back to 1970. Replace White women with blacks and Hispanics in government and Asians and Hindus in the private sector.

    You might find something on the internet about IBEW Betty Friedan Ford Foundation CIA Gloria Steinem Rockefeller Foundation women's rights equal employment. Or it all might have been scrubbed by now.

    Can’t recommend any books about the feminazis. There were a few but from social conservatives whining about the delicacy of women, home making raising children etc. But nothing about the real capitalist pig motivation, cheap labor and destroying the middle class by Ford Rockefeller and other great foundations.

  196. No thank you. Doing all the housework for one woman is enough for me.

  197. @Anonymous
    @YetAnotherAnon

    *Both* conservative men and women are obsessed with breeding. My point was that polygamy is a concern exclusive to conservwtive males, because they fear not being able to get a wife if women have a choice, and they fear being cuckolded and raising a more successful man's spawn.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @YetAnotherAnon, @William Badwhite

    …men and women are obsessed with breeding….a concern exclusive …because they fear …and they fear being cuckolded

    Its fascinating how liberals believe they can read other people’s minds and can pinpoint people’s deepest motivations. Liberalism truly is a mental illness.

    • Agree: TTSSYF
  198. @SFG
    One angle I haven't seen mentioned is the whole 'polyamory' thing--lots of hipsters have lately started getting into open marriages (where one or both partners are allowed to sleep around) or simply getting into plural relationships. It's popular among lefties, and since the number of men willing to sleep around vastly outnumbers the number of women, favors women.

    I vaguely remember this from the nineties among my own group of nerd friends from high school (who I lost touch with shortly afterward because I thought it was degenerate and immoral--I always had rightwing leanings I guess). I mostly remember it as a solution to the scarcity of female nerds, though things may have evolved somewhat. Apparently it hit the activist crowd some time in the 2000s, though of course you can find antecedents like free love in the 60s and wife-swapping in the 70s. (I'm convinced the Clintons effectively had an open marriage, BTW.) Plato even mentioned it, so evidently the idea's been kicking around for a while. We've seen it pushed in the NYT and the Atlantic, particularly in terms of the woman 'finding her freedom' and the like. They even published it in a libertarian lapse at the Federalist, where it got the expected cold reception.

    The unwoke liberal poly bloggerer/twitterer Putanumonit argued that polyamory obtained at the high end of the sexual market value scale (as extremely attractive people will attract people willing to share because they are so attractive) and the low end (as unattractive people will share because they have no options). People in the middle prefer monogamy and want to guard their partner. I think he had a point, though I also think the whole poly thing is bad because it will further weaken romantic bonds--which is all fun and games until children get involved. In particular, Mom's new boyfriend is one of the most dangerous people to have around the kids--there was a famous picture of four dorky guys and one chunky pregnant lady, and it was supposed to be a harbinger of new things as 'the guys are OK not knowing who the dad is!'. A few months later the least dorky-looking of the guys was found to have killed the kid. (Not so funny anymore...)

    (He also had a very funny post about how liberal women are annoyed about MGTOW and the like---why would you complain if people you don't like don't want to date you?-- because they're hitting the wall and running out of guys willing to tolerate them.)

    Anyway, I think this is more likely to be the next line of attack against what's left of traditional values rather than African or Islamic plural marriage (which can be criticized for sexism anyway as it only goes one way), and would like to hear what other people think.

    Replies: @ScarletNumber, @John Johnson, @Days of Broken Arrows, @Altai, @Bardon Kaldian, @S. Anonyia, @Alden, @Abelard Lindsey

    Watch some lion videos on youtube and you get the idea.

  199. @Jack D
    @Buzz Mohawk

    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things. In most polygamous societies, each wife has her own bedroom or even her own household and the husband takes turns and "lies with" his wives one at a time.

    Threesomes suffer from certain mechanical challenges stemming from the fact that God gave us two eyes, two ears, two hands but only one of certain other parts, but the physical (if not emotional) issues can be overcome with a little imagination and contortions, not that I would know personally.

    Replies: @John Johnson, @Buzz Mohawk

    A threesome and polygamy are two totally different things.

    Yes, yes, Jack. I know that. (My responses to you are often like this.) I was just bragging from real experience, as I am wont to do. You should know that by now.

    However, if I were a polygamist, I would at least try a threesome (or more) but I think I would discover the same thing I already did during my glorious bachelorhood. One-on-one lovemaking is the best.

  200. @Almost Missouri
    @Alden


    this is the first I’ve heard the baby was killed.
     
    Not killed, as far as I can tell, merely suffered "broken ribs, injuries to her lungs and liver and multiple brain bleeds" in "a minimum of three attacks". So polyamory is still good. /sarc

    Surprisingly the "step-parent" did go to jail for this, so their state still prosecutes some crimes. Well, the perp is a white male, so prosecution is standard I guess.

    https://thefederalist.com/2020/04/15/why-child-abuse-is-more-likely-in-polyamorous-homes-like-the-woman-with-four-boyfriends/

    Replies: @Alden

    Thanks

    Imagine 5 parents telling you what to do and how to behave.

    One thing I always found inexplicable about 19th century Mormon polygamy is why were there enough women for polygamy? Right up to about 1920, and certainly during the 1840-60 Mormon settlement there was a real scarcity of women west of the Mississippi.

    Ancient Chinese theory why 4 wives is the best arrangement.
    1 Wife Raising children wife to husband household management helping in the family business it’s just too much for one woman
    2 Wives the wives will form a team against the husband
    3 Wives The wives will form ever changing teams of 2 against 1 with the husband dragged in to every squabble.
    4 Wives Wives will pair up, 2 against 2 and they’ll leave husband alone.

    In a one wife home, if she dies suddenly there’s a scrabble to find a new one to take care of the kids, work in the family trade, housework etc.

    Polygamy, there’s another wife right there in the house. Continuity, no dependency on a “ key employee”

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    @Alden


    why were there enough women for polygamy?
     
    I don't have any statistics to hand, but prior to, say, the end of WWII, men died prematurely a lot due war, fighting, more hazardous male occupations and so on. There is a passage in Defoe's 18th century Moll Flanders where the protagonist laments how the mortality of young men leads to a surplus of women competing with each other to chase after the remaining men, so it seems it wasn't a strange sentiment in those days. Whether the deficit of men was sufficient to provide for all the world's polygyny is another question, spinster aunts being a thing in most places. In some cases, e.g., Islam and other Oriental despotisms, having polygyny cause a simultaneous supply of young men without mates was a feature not a bug, as those young men could become cannon fodder for military expansion, supply the eunuch and catamite markets, etc. The Ottomans semi-formalized this with the Janissary Corps.

    In the case of the Mormons, the demographics from among which they drew adherents would seem to be below average in premature violent deaths, so their polygamy would seem more likely to lead to a pool of unmarried males, and indeed—at least among the self-proclaimed "Fundamentalist" Mormons, this seems to be the case:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20081212010335/https://time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1664868,00.html
  201. @photondancer
    @Pericles

    I hear this happens in Australia too. Also, since muslims believe in a much younger age for marriage than westerners, especially for girls, I hear there's a fair few under 16 year olds being visited in hospital by their 'uncle' to view the newborn child.

    Replies: @Alden

    The uncles probably are their uncles, blood, not by marriage uncles. Yuck.

    • Replies: @photondancer
    @Alden

    Not according to my source (a muslim). She was ropable that the media wasn't covering the story, which shows how naive she was was about western media.

  202. anon[289] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @anon


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s. A vicious and bloody struggle between the pro-sex and anti-sex feminists. There has always been a very strong anti-sex strand in American feminism, going back to the 19th century. American feminism is to a large extent an offshoot of American Puritanism.

    Don't forget Andrea "all sex is rape" Dworkin.

    Replies: @Ray P, @anon

    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s.

    Dude, what’s your calendar say? It’s 2020. The 90’s were, like, over 20 years ago. You sure to tend to live in the past a lot.

    Don’t forget Andrea “all sex is rape” Dworkin.

    Dead for about 15 years, so not really writing much or giving many speeches anymore. It was in the news, did you miss that, too?

    Gee, it’s almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn’t happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.

    I repeat my challenge to Jesse:

    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.

    I guess I should add “In the Current Year”, or “In the Current Generation”, or maybe “In the Current Century”, although given the present tense that’s obviously implied. Well, obviously implied to anyone under 60…

    Not that it matters, Jesse is just a driveby who trolls with one or two comments from time to time.

    • Agree: Alden
    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @anon

    "Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists."

    I will take on this challenge, sire !

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.


    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.

    Studies have shown making the purchase of sex illegal can reduce demand, as men fear being criminalised.
     
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-could-make-buying-22664061

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/where-is-it-legal-to-buy-sex/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon

    , @dfordoom
    @anon


    Gee, it’s almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn’t happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.
     
    Trans vs. TERFs is just another battle in the same war. And the metoo thing was another battle in the same war. The metoo thing was an attempt by the Puritan feminists to regain the initiative. The metoo thing was very much a pushback by feminists against the Sexual Revolution.

    You also need to recognise that attitudes towards sex are a very significant factor in the trans thing. It seems very very likely that a major motivation among young trans people is a desire to obliterate their own sexuality and to turn themselves into pure sexless beings who don't have to worry about all that nasty dirty sex stuff. What better way is there to annihilate your own sexuality than destroying your own genitals? So the pro-sex/anti-sex divide in feminism is significant when it comes to feminist attitudes towards the trans issue.

    Replies: @photondancer

  203. @photondancer
    @S. Anonyia

    She's 34. A man 8-10 years older is in his mid-40s; he's more likely to be chasing 20 year olds than thinking "gosh, why don't I date a woman in her 30s who's desperate to have a baby before her fertility tanks completely".

    Replies: @S. Anonyia

    Maybe in NYC, LA, San Francisco, Chicago or where other hot shots live. I live in the Deep South and trust me 40 year old guys date women in their early to mid 30s and consider it a sweet deal. Have one cousin in a marriage like that and they have 2 children. The lady in the original article needs to move out of the big city ASAP.

    I live in a midsized city (I don’t want to doxx myself so let’s just say about 200,000-300,000 people with more in the metro). Only the very absolute top tier of early 40s men here (surgeons, millionaire construction executives, etc) could even have a chance of landing a woman in her early 20s. It’s because most people (like my husband and I) pair off in their early 20s with someone the same age and stay together.

    Like I said flyover country is better for women. Just like the West was better for women in the pioneer days.

  204. @anon
    @dfordoom

    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s.

    Dude, what's your calendar say? It's 2020. The 90's were, like, over 20 years ago. You sure to tend to live in the past a lot.

    Don’t forget Andrea “all sex is rape” Dworkin.

    Dead for about 15 years, so not really writing much or giving many speeches anymore. It was in the news, did you miss that, too?

    Gee, it's almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn't happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.

    I repeat my challenge to Jesse:


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    I guess I should add "In the Current Year", or "In the Current Generation", or maybe "In the Current Century", although given the present tense that's obviously implied. Well, obviously implied to anyone under 60...

    Not that it matters, Jesse is just a driveby who trolls with one or two comments from time to time.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @dfordoom

    “Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.”

    I will take on this challenge, sire !

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.

    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.

    Studies have shown making the purchase of sex illegal can reduce demand, as men fear being criminalised.

    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-could-make-buying-22664061

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/where-is-it-legal-to-buy-sex/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @YetAnotherAnon



    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.
     

     
    I guess this is where we were always going to end up. Heterosexual sex as a criminal offence. Of course it goes without saying that homosexual sex won't be criminalised.
    , @anon
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.

    Sweden did that years ago. It's part of feminist misandry. The idea is the usual Oppressor / Oppressed. Streetwalkers are helpless flowers of Oppressed womanhood, while cruising Johns are evil patriarchal Oppressors. It's all so very Junior Anti Sex League on the one hand, and Sisterhood Uber Alles on the other hand. Old lady 2nd wavers in their Hillary pantsuits can join up with the more Wokie 20-somethings, perhaps.

    But...

    Doesn't really matter, pretty soon the only johns caught by this scheme will be from outside the country. The Coof plague has accelerated the trend towards online such as camgirls and Onlyfans. That's peer-to-peer video from the privacy of a webcam. No actual touching occurs, so no prostitution, so no Oppressor / Oppressed.

    Plus there's no way these laws will apply to Sugar Babies, because "muh PRIVACY" and so forth. Not to mention the men are probably better prepared for legal defense - "I'm a mentor! She's my protege'! We meet and discuss Proust!" etc. and so forth.

    By the way, Onlyfans subscriptions took a huge jump back in March when lockdowns in the US and UK hit. No one except Boomers should be surprised.

    For those who have offspring in their 20's, this stuff matters. Because camgirls can bank coin from a bedroom, Onlyfans doesn't take much more complexity, and Sugar Babies are basically mistresses. Girls who do this are going to wind up with some reference experiences that might not go very well with monogamous marriage. Young men who for whatever reason decide to marry are going to have to do extensive web searches long before commitment, to see what images are out there.

    Be annoying to be a 30 year old man getting engaged who discovers some vid of his sweety on PornHub, for example. But stuff like that does happen.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

  205. @anon
    @obwandiyag

    Don’t you dare correct me.

    Already done. You're ignorant and wrong, as usual.

    Still waiting for Jesse to peek back in. Doubt it will happen.

    Next!

    Replies: @obwandiyag

    Cretin

    Are you a complete idiot is not a question.

    Believe me. I know what I am talking about. I am eminently qualified to judge this issue. You are obviously not a linguist nor a lexicographer. You don’t really understand the English language. You think your grade-school acquaintance with grammar qualifies you. It does not. Most of what they taught you in grade school is wrong.

    Here this might help. Speak this sentence out loud using the emphasis implied:

    Are you a complete idiot.

  206. @Dissident
    @anonymous


    Back in the aughts, when Dan Savage, the lately unpersoned sexual advice columnist, would occasionally not completely tow the PC line, he used to make fun of how many times women were writing to him[...]
     
    Haven't you omitted an extremely salient fact about Dan Savage? A characteristic that is the overwhelmingly primary one upon which his persona and career are based. And one that makes it rather odd, to say the very least, for him to be presuming to offer any sexual advice of a heterosexual variety*...

    The notoriously brazen and vicious, bigoted sodomite has been unpersoned? This is news to me. What was his offense?

    *As if being an avowed homosexualist were not enough here, Savage had initially denied the legitimacy of bisexuality, and only later reversed and apologized for having taken that position.

    Reproduced below is a comment of mine (primarily concerning Dan Savage but also quite relevant to the larger questions addressed in this thread) from the September 2019 iSteve thread, What's Next? Acceptance of Polygamy Growing on Left
    Dissident says:
    September 6, 2019 at 7:06 pm GMT • 1.3 years ago • 400 Words ↑
    @Corn

    I remember a few years back, back when gay marriage was a matter of debate rather than the law of the land, that sex columnist Dan Savage (who’s gay) wrote an op-ed basically saying that gays should be allowed to marry but this whole monogamy thing had to go.
     
    Concerning Dan Savage, I wonder how many iSteve readers are aware that the advice on sexual matters that he offers in his syndicated column is not limited to homosexuals.



    Also,
    https://americansfortruth.com/issues/dan-savage/

    Dan Savage’s “Progressive” Hate: When it comes to dishing out “progressive” hate, few activists on the Left can match the antics of Dan Savage, homosexual-bisexual-transgender activist, sex columnist, author and pornographer. Here is a graphic from Savage’s hate-site, Santorum [.] com–which he created to demonize and literally destroy the name of Rick Santorum, former Senator from Pennsylvania. Dan and his left-leaning fans came up with this mean-spirited, grotesque “definition” after Savage was offended by something Santorum had said. It is telling that Savage decided the best way to punish Santorum was to associate his name with a disgusting by-product of homosexual sodomy. Despite his hateful stunts and anti-Christian rhetoric–including “flu terrorism” against GOP presidential contender Gary Bauer and an “Impeach the Mother-[F–k-r] Already (ITMFA)” campaign against President Trump, most media, and apparently Democrat politicians like Sean Casten in Illinois, treat Savage like a cultural hero. See video showing Savage’s anti-Christian bigotry below, and the Breitbart story on Casten HERE.
     
    Also, FROT movement founder Bill Weintraub* has criticized Savage quite a bit. An example:

    http://man2manalliance.org/crw/frot/limitnewer.html#savage (*Linked site contains graphic content)

    So, I suggested to Savage, it might make more sense to remove penetration from the pinnacle of gay male sexual experience and give men other options instead -- and, at the very least, specifically warn them against being anally receptive early in a relationship.

    He didn't reply to my letter, and he has not to two more over the last two years.

    The reason he has not is not mysterious.

    Dan Savage, like Steve Goldstone, is an analist.

    He consistently supports the dominant culture of anal sex, and censors opposing points of view.

    Savage is also respected and influential, and is sometimes quoted in the nongay press, most recently in Seattle, where he lives, and where he's become an advocate for "responsible promiscuity."

    But not, so far as I can tell, for fidelity.

    He simply urges men to use condoms during promiscuous anal sex.
     

    Replies: @anonymous

    What was his offense?

    He railed against obesity from a health, gluttony, and attractiveness standpoint. There was a long and public back-and-forth with a female reporter about it and you can guess who won the intersectional stack.

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @anonymous

    Anonymous had claimed, in passing, that Dan Savage* had been unpersoned. In response to my inquiring what his offense (or "offense") had been, Mr. Anonymous wrote,


    He railed against obesity from a health, gluttony, and attractiveness standpoint. There was a long and public back-and-forth with a female reporter about it and you can guess who won the intersectional stack.
     
    A belated thanks for this reply. It's odd, though; I have seen no mention or evidence of this alleged unpersoning of Savage. And it would appear that he is still actively writing his column.

    *Mr. Savage is not only a notoriously vicious, particularly brazen buggery-monger, but one who is billed as a general "sex advice columnist" and indeed presumes to offer advice not just concerning homosexual matters but concerning strictly heterosexual ones as well. Can you imagine the inverse of such a spectacle?
  207. @Ray P
    @dfordoom

    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.

    Replies: @dfordoom

    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.

    The argument was that feminists had done nothing to oppose the Sexual Revolution. I pointed out that many feminists had fought bitterly against the Sexual Revolution.

    If you know anything about the history of American feminism you’ll know that its roots were in Puritanism. American feminism was and is saturated in Puritan thinking. The anti-sex strain in American feminism has always been incredibly strong. Puritanism is a disease that has thoroughly infected American culture over the course of several centuries. Andrea Dworkin is proof that even Jews are affected by this cultural disease.

    • Replies: @anon
    @dfordoom

    The argument was that feminists had done nothing to oppose the Sexual Revolution.

    No. Your memory is slipping. Here is what Jesse wrote.


    . You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.
     
    That's present tense. The question asked was in the present tense. "Is", not "used to" or "was".

    I pointed out that many feminists had fought bitterly against the Sexual Revolution.

    Past tense, in this case a generation ago in a previous century. "Was" and "Is" are not synonyms.

    You can yatta, yatta, yatta all you want about "Puritans" but that's just a smokescreen.

    2nd wave feminism and 3rd wave sex-positive feminism collided years ago, that fight is done. Over with. Finished. The sexual revo circa 1968 is done, and feminism is in full agreement with it. The examples are all around me, from San Francisco to Boston and yes, even here in flyover.

    So sorry you can't see them from your basement in Brisbane.

  208. @anon
    @dfordoom

    You obviously missed the Feminist Sex Wars of the 90s.

    Dude, what's your calendar say? It's 2020. The 90's were, like, over 20 years ago. You sure to tend to live in the past a lot.

    Don’t forget Andrea “all sex is rape” Dworkin.

    Dead for about 15 years, so not really writing much or giving many speeches anymore. It was in the news, did you miss that, too?

    Gee, it's almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn't happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.

    I repeat my challenge to Jesse:


    Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists.
     
    I guess I should add "In the Current Year", or "In the Current Generation", or maybe "In the Current Century", although given the present tense that's obviously implied. Well, obviously implied to anyone under 60...

    Not that it matters, Jesse is just a driveby who trolls with one or two comments from time to time.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon, @dfordoom

    Gee, it’s almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn’t happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.

    Trans vs. TERFs is just another battle in the same war. And the metoo thing was another battle in the same war. The metoo thing was an attempt by the Puritan feminists to regain the initiative. The metoo thing was very much a pushback by feminists against the Sexual Revolution.

    You also need to recognise that attitudes towards sex are a very significant factor in the trans thing. It seems very very likely that a major motivation among young trans people is a desire to obliterate their own sexuality and to turn themselves into pure sexless beings who don’t have to worry about all that nasty dirty sex stuff. What better way is there to annihilate your own sexuality than destroying your own genitals? So the pro-sex/anti-sex divide in feminism is significant when it comes to feminist attitudes towards the trans issue.

    • Replies: @photondancer
    @dfordoom

    Whilst I agree that certain strains of US feminism show a distinctly anti-sex attitude I disagree that the battle over trans identity is part of this. Trans people don't reject sex, though the ones that mutilate their genitals are often unable to orgasm. This is probably part of the reason why having the operation is becoming less common and they're pushing hard to replace it with a simple statement of identity.

  209. @YetAnotherAnon
    @anon

    "Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists."

    I will take on this challenge, sire !

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.


    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.

    Studies have shown making the purchase of sex illegal can reduce demand, as men fear being criminalised.
     
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-could-make-buying-22664061

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/where-is-it-legal-to-buy-sex/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon

    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.

    I guess this is where we were always going to end up. Heterosexual sex as a criminal offence. Of course it goes without saying that homosexual sex won’t be criminalised.

  210. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @dfordoom
    @Ray P


    Puritans, yeah. Andrea Dworkin was a Jewess.
     
    The argument was that feminists had done nothing to oppose the Sexual Revolution. I pointed out that many feminists had fought bitterly against the Sexual Revolution.

    If you know anything about the history of American feminism you'll know that its roots were in Puritanism. American feminism was and is saturated in Puritan thinking. The anti-sex strain in American feminism has always been incredibly strong. Puritanism is a disease that has thoroughly infected American culture over the course of several centuries. Andrea Dworkin is proof that even Jews are affected by this cultural disease.

    Replies: @anon

    The argument was that feminists had done nothing to oppose the Sexual Revolution.

    No. Your memory is slipping. Here is what Jesse wrote.

    . You don’t understand the extent of the backlash against the sexual revolution. Mostly coming from feminists and their allies.

    That’s present tense. The question asked was in the present tense. “Is”, not “used to” or “was”.

    I pointed out that many feminists had fought bitterly against the Sexual Revolution.

    Past tense, in this case a generation ago in a previous century. “Was” and “Is” are not synonyms.

    You can yatta, yatta, yatta all you want about “Puritans” but that’s just a smokescreen.

    2nd wave feminism and 3rd wave sex-positive feminism collided years ago, that fight is done. Over with. Finished. The sexual revo circa 1968 is done, and feminism is in full agreement with it. The examples are all around me, from San Francisco to Boston and yes, even here in flyover.

    So sorry you can’t see them from your basement in Brisbane.

  211. anon[207] • Disclaimer says:
    @YetAnotherAnon
    @anon

    "Please point to some examples of this backlash against the sexual revolution by feminists."

    I will take on this challenge, sire !

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.


    Campaigners are hoping the consultation is the first step in Scotland moving towards the criminalisation of sex, as seen in countries such as Sweden, Canada, Iceland and Ireland.

    Studies have shown making the purchase of sex illegal can reduce demand, as men fear being criminalised.
     
    https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/scottish-government-could-make-buying-22664061

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/12/where-is-it-legal-to-buy-sex/

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/opinion/buying-sex-should-not-be-legal.html

    Replies: @dfordoom, @anon

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.

    Sweden did that years ago. It’s part of feminist misandry. The idea is the usual Oppressor / Oppressed. Streetwalkers are helpless flowers of Oppressed womanhood, while cruising Johns are evil patriarchal Oppressors. It’s all so very Junior Anti Sex League on the one hand, and Sisterhood Uber Alles on the other hand. Old lady 2nd wavers in their Hillary pantsuits can join up with the more Wokie 20-somethings, perhaps.

    But…

    Doesn’t really matter, pretty soon the only johns caught by this scheme will be from outside the country. The Coof plague has accelerated the trend towards online such as camgirls and Onlyfans. That’s peer-to-peer video from the privacy of a webcam. No actual touching occurs, so no prostitution, so no Oppressor / Oppressed.

    Plus there’s no way these laws will apply to Sugar Babies, because “muh PRIVACY” and so forth. Not to mention the men are probably better prepared for legal defense – “I’m a mentor! She’s my protege’! We meet and discuss Proust!” etc. and so forth.

    By the way, Onlyfans subscriptions took a huge jump back in March when lockdowns in the US and UK hit. No one except Boomers should be surprised.

    For those who have offspring in their 20’s, this stuff matters. Because camgirls can bank coin from a bedroom, Onlyfans doesn’t take much more complexity, and Sugar Babies are basically mistresses. Girls who do this are going to wind up with some reference experiences that might not go very well with monogamous marriage. Young men who for whatever reason decide to marry are going to have to do extensive web searches long before commitment, to see what images are out there.

    Be annoying to be a 30 year old man getting engaged who discovers some vid of his sweety on PornHub, for example. But stuff like that does happen.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    @anon

    "Because camgirls can bank coin from a bedroom, Onlyfans doesn’t take much more complexity, and Sugar Babies are basically mistresses. Girls who do this are going to wind up with some reference experiences that might not go very well with monogamous marriage. "

    I know a bright, pretty, artistic girl who fell in with the dopesmoking crowd in mid teens, as a result of which she didn't go and clock up £50,000 of uni debt like her contemporaries. She's been camming for a couple of years now, first from home and now from the house she shares with her chap. I wonder what he makes of it all? "Kids are different today ..."

    "Young men who for whatever reason decide to marry are going to have to do extensive web searches long before commitment, to see what images are out there."

    This guy built a scraper to look at the economics. Turns out like everything else these days, megabucks at the top, damn-all everywhere else.

    https://www.xsrus.com/writing/explain/onlyfans/


    The revenue of content creators follows a classic power law distribution. The top accounts make something like $100,000 a month (these aren’t in my sample). The median account makes $180 a month.

    The top 1% of accounts make 33% of all the money. The top 10% of accounts make 73% of all the money. This isn’t the 80:20 rule; it’s the 80:14 rule.

    The standard way to measure inequality of an economy is with a Gini Index. An index of 0 implies a communist utopia, a value of 1 implies a single greedy capitalist owns all the wealth. The Gini index of OnlyFans is 0.83. The most unequal society in the world, South Africa, has a Gini index of 0.68. OnlyFans is less equal than an ex-apartheid state.

    OnlyFans is so unequal because chancers make accounts with zero fans, while big Instagram stars take their following with them. A large proportion of accounts have no fans at all, and the lion’s share of fans are shared by the top accounts.
     

  212. Another vector of support could be ex-party girls with low odds of scoring an man that meets their standards all to themselves. Splitting time wouldn’t be ideal but maybe preferable to cat lady status.

  213. @Alden
    @Almost Missouri

    Thanks

    Imagine 5 parents telling you what to do and how to behave.

    One thing I always found inexplicable about 19th century Mormon polygamy is why were there enough women for polygamy? Right up to about 1920, and certainly during the 1840-60 Mormon settlement there was a real scarcity of women west of the Mississippi.

    Ancient Chinese theory why 4 wives is the best arrangement.
    1 Wife Raising children wife to husband household management helping in the family business it’s just too much for one woman
    2 Wives the wives will form a team against the husband
    3 Wives The wives will form ever changing teams of 2 against 1 with the husband dragged in to every squabble.
    4 Wives Wives will pair up, 2 against 2 and they’ll leave husband alone.

    In a one wife home, if she dies suddenly there’s a scrabble to find a new one to take care of the kids, work in the family trade, housework etc.

    Polygamy, there’s another wife right there in the house. Continuity, no dependency on a “ key employee”

    Replies: @Almost Missouri

    why were there enough women for polygamy?

    I don’t have any statistics to hand, but prior to, say, the end of WWII, men died prematurely a lot due war, fighting, more hazardous male occupations and so on. There is a passage in Defoe’s 18th century Moll Flanders where the protagonist laments how the mortality of young men leads to a surplus of women competing with each other to chase after the remaining men, so it seems it wasn’t a strange sentiment in those days. Whether the deficit of men was sufficient to provide for all the world’s polygyny is another question, spinster aunts being a thing in most places. In some cases, e.g., Islam and other Oriental despotisms, having polygyny cause a simultaneous supply of young men without mates was a feature not a bug, as those young men could become cannon fodder for military expansion, supply the eunuch and catamite markets, etc. The Ottomans semi-formalized this with the Janissary Corps.

    In the case of the Mormons, the demographics from among which they drew adherents would seem to be below average in premature violent deaths, so their polygamy would seem more likely to lead to a pool of unmarried males, and indeed—at least among the self-proclaimed “Fundamentalist” Mormons, this seems to be the case:

    https://web.archive.org/web/20081212010335/https://time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1664868,00.html

  214. @Alden
    @photondancer

    The uncles probably are their uncles, blood, not by marriage uncles. Yuck.

    Replies: @photondancer

    Not according to my source (a muslim). She was ropable that the media wasn’t covering the story, which shows how naive she was was about western media.

  215. @dfordoom
    @anon


    Gee, it’s almost as though the conflict between 2nd wave and 3rd wave feminists played out back when Bill Clinton was President, and thus isn’t happening anymore, because other issues such as Trans vs. TERF have become more emotionally important within the feminist sphere.
     
    Trans vs. TERFs is just another battle in the same war. And the metoo thing was another battle in the same war. The metoo thing was an attempt by the Puritan feminists to regain the initiative. The metoo thing was very much a pushback by feminists against the Sexual Revolution.

    You also need to recognise that attitudes towards sex are a very significant factor in the trans thing. It seems very very likely that a major motivation among young trans people is a desire to obliterate their own sexuality and to turn themselves into pure sexless beings who don't have to worry about all that nasty dirty sex stuff. What better way is there to annihilate your own sexuality than destroying your own genitals? So the pro-sex/anti-sex divide in feminism is significant when it comes to feminist attitudes towards the trans issue.

    Replies: @photondancer

    Whilst I agree that certain strains of US feminism show a distinctly anti-sex attitude I disagree that the battle over trans identity is part of this. Trans people don’t reject sex, though the ones that mutilate their genitals are often unable to orgasm. This is probably part of the reason why having the operation is becoming less common and they’re pushing hard to replace it with a simple statement of identity.

  216. @Corn
    @Alden

    LOL. I read a variety of Twitter feeds, to see how the other side thinks.

    It’s not good for my blood pressure though

    Replies: @Alden

    I heard and read enough feminazi garbage since they inserted their commie duzzgusting ideas into everything starting about 50 years ago. No desire to know what the enemy is ranting about now days.

    You think they hate men??? Try being a very pretty woman with 4 beautiful kids, a real professional career instead of a grant grubbing buttinsky career, and a husband with a real man’s job instead of legal aid foundation revolutionary.

    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism. It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations. Their purposes were:

    1 increase the work force by about 40 percent by sending all the married women into the workplace thus lowering wages.

    2 fill the endless clerical low level management jobs created by changes in the economy

    3 alleviate the problems caused by affirmative action for aggressive badly behaved black morons in the workplace. The idea was that White women and immigrants would replace the moron blacks by becoming affirmative action beneficiaries. That worked well for the private sector. The black morons settled into government jobs.

    The latest evil liberal trend is back to 1970. Replace White women with blacks and Hispanics in government and Asians and Hindus in the private sector.

    You might find something on the internet about IBEW Betty Friedan Ford Foundation CIA Gloria Steinem Rockefeller Foundation women’s rights equal employment. Or it all might have been scrubbed by now.

    Can’t recommend any books about the feminazis. There were a few but from social conservatives whining about the delicacy of women, home making raising children etc. But nothing about the real capitalist pig motivation, cheap labor and destroying the middle class by Ford Rockefeller and other great foundations.

  217. @TTSSYF
    @Anonymous

    If the liberal commentariat don't bring the topic up, it's because they don't have any problem with it or are simply virtue signaling by being "non-judgmental." Liberals have steadily eroded all of America's traditional norms in the name of "progressivism." Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex? And I've never heard any liberal bring up the oppression of women in Islamic societies or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy -- not even liberal women. Pelosi, Hillary, Warren, Steinem -- when have they ever said anything about Islam telling women they must throw a blanket over their head anytime they go out in public or that it's acceptable for their husband to have as many as four wives as long as he "treats them all fairly"?

    I doubt any male, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of being cuckolded...or, for that matter, being an incel. For you to leap to the conclusion that it's an obsession "most stereotypically associated with conservative males" shows that you simply don't understand conservatism or the conservative mind and have a deep-seated hatred of it. I don't necessarily fault you for that. I think there is a strong genetic component to being a liberal or conservative.

    Replies: @Alden, @Dissident

    Sodomy was legalized in many states in the late 196os, 55 years ago. In the late 1950s, the University of Illinois law school developed a Uniform Criminal Code in which sodomy was legalized. That code was used by most states decades ago. By 1980 sodomy was legal in most states.

    20 years ago was 2000.

  218. @The Alarmist
    @Blubb


    Polygamy?! That’s so 2016.

    Incest. THAT’S truly progressive!
     
    No, Onanism is truly progressive.

    Replies: @Alden

    Lord Bryon and his half sister had an incest relationship 200 years ago. They were considered very progressive at the time. Shelley, his wife and her sister had a 3 way arrangement that was considered very progressive by liberals at the time in 1810.

    Many of the socialist American and Zionist communes had what they called free love and communal child raising arrangements.

    Martin Luther write some rather lecherous pamphlets about all those lovely nubile young women locked up in catholic convents.

    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.

    I really wish the MEN OF UNZ would learn a few facts about human reproduction and social sexual history before embarrassing conservatism and Whites with these fuddy duddy posts

    The ignorant feminazis and the ignorant MEN OF UNZ deserve each other

    • Replies: @Dissident
    @Alden


    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.
     
    Those are most germane points. (Though their connection to the comment you were replying-to, one which would appear to have been made with tongue firmly planted-in-cheek, is beyond me.) Hefner's role in the sexual revolution and the legalization of abortion is indeed instructive, yet would seem little-known.

    Two blog posts with much valuable information (including links to sources containing statements from both Hefner himself as well as critics of his):

    Hugh Hefner, who helped to legalize abortion, called women ‘objects’

    Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and Abortion: Is This Connection Surprising?

    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today's ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?

    Your point (from this comment) concerning capitalist support for feminism is quite germane as well. And, as you noted, little mentioned or even known. But, concerning your specific claim that,


    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.
     
    I don't know just how you are defining "feminazi" but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930's.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism


    Olympe de Gouges, a noted playwright, published Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (1791; “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the [Female] Citizen”), declaring women to be not only man’s equal but his partner. The following year Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the seminal English-language feminist work, was published in England.
     
    Also,

    It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
     
    Note: (((Ford))) and (((Rockefeller))).
    Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

  219. @fredyetagain aka superhonky
    @Morton's toes

    "They are going to legalize banging 13 year olds first."

    Only if the 13 year olds are boys. So far as the vagina-endowed, we're going to keep hearing about how actually consenting women even in their 20s and beyond did not legally consent. Because patriarchy. Or something.

    Replies: @Alden

    The correct terminology for women is gender assigned female at birth. Liberals never use one word when they can use 5.

    Senator Tulsi Gabbard just submitted a bill to protect women’s sports. I’m sure the M-F trans will fight it to the death.

  220. @TTSSYF
    @Anonymous

    If the liberal commentariat don't bring the topic up, it's because they don't have any problem with it or are simply virtue signaling by being "non-judgmental." Liberals have steadily eroded all of America's traditional norms in the name of "progressivism." Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex? And I've never heard any liberal bring up the oppression of women in Islamic societies or how their religious intolerance is incompatible with modern democracy -- not even liberal women. Pelosi, Hillary, Warren, Steinem -- when have they ever said anything about Islam telling women they must throw a blanket over their head anytime they go out in public or that it's acceptable for their husband to have as many as four wives as long as he "treats them all fairly"?

    I doubt any male, liberal or conservative, likes the idea of being cuckolded...or, for that matter, being an incel. For you to leap to the conclusion that it's an obsession "most stereotypically associated with conservative males" shows that you simply don't understand conservatism or the conservative mind and have a deep-seated hatred of it. I don't necessarily fault you for that. I think there is a strong genetic component to being a liberal or conservative.

    Replies: @Alden, @Dissident

    Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex?

    1.) Twenty years ago? That’s 2000 and by then, buggery was already normalized to a high degree. Both legally, as Ms. Alden already pointed-out, as well as socially and culturally.

    A difference that is remarkable between not just twenty years ago but as little as ten or less is the dramatic reversal we have witnessed concerning same-sex “marriage”. As recently as the 2008 Presidential campaign, no mainstream candidate could publicly support that travesty and remain viable. Today, no Democrat, at least (and the Republicans don’t appear that far behind), can be viable without fully adopting whatever the latest demands of the “LGBTQ” lobby are.

    But just how shocked should anyone who had been paying attention really have been? By the time of the infamous Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015, had it not already been decades that the official state position, the one taught to children in public schools, was that homosexual relationships and lifestyles were no less wholesome than heterosexual ones? And, certainly, nothing less than that had been the unmistakable, unequivocal statement made by any number of highly popular films, television shows, books, articles, and other cultural products.

    2.) Wasn’t the male qualifier superfluous? How normalized was even heterosexual anal penetration at any point in history prior to the present era?

    • Agree: dfordoom
    • Replies: @TTSSYF
    @Dissident

    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said "40 years ago".

    The point remains, that we have normalized -- nay, glorified -- male anal sex.

    I don't care what people do behind closed doors, whether they are a male and and a female, two males, two females, or multiple parties of every permutation you can come up with. What I despise is normalizing any of it. It is the foam on the wave of nature. It is not what nature intends.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Dissident

  221. @Alden
    @The Alarmist

    Lord Bryon and his half sister had an incest relationship 200 years ago. They were considered very progressive at the time. Shelley, his wife and her sister had a 3 way arrangement that was considered very progressive by liberals at the time in 1810.

    Many of the socialist American and Zionist communes had what they called free love and communal child raising arrangements.

    Martin Luther write some rather lecherous pamphlets about all those lovely nubile young women locked up in catholic convents.

    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.

    I really wish the MEN OF UNZ would learn a few facts about human reproduction and social sexual history before embarrassing conservatism and Whites with these fuddy duddy posts

    The ignorant feminazis and the ignorant MEN OF UNZ deserve each other

    Replies: @Dissident

    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.

    Those are most germane points. (Though their connection to the comment you were replying-to, one which would appear to have been made with tongue firmly planted-in-cheek, is beyond me.) Hefner’s role in the sexual revolution and the legalization of abortion is indeed instructive, yet would seem little-known.

    Two blog posts with much valuable information (including links to sources containing statements from both Hefner himself as well as critics of his):

    Hugh Hefner, who helped to legalize abortion, called women ‘objects’

    Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and Abortion: Is This Connection Surprising?

    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today’s ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?

    Your point (from this comment) concerning capitalist support for feminism is quite germane as well. And, as you noted, little mentioned or even known. But, concerning your specific claim that,

    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.

    I don’t know just how you are defining “feminazi” but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930’s.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism

    Olympe de Gouges, a noted playwright, published Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (1791; “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the [Female] Citizen”), declaring women to be not only man’s equal but his partner. The following year Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the seminal English-language feminist work, was published in England.

    Also,

    It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.

    Note: (((Ford))) and (((Rockefeller))).
    Every. Single. Time.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @Dissident



    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.
     
    I don’t know just how you are defining “feminazi” but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930’s.
     
    Yes. Feminism started in Europe before Karl Marx was even born.

    American feminism on the other hand really got going in the mid-19th century and its roots were very much in American Protestantism, especially the Puritan strain of American Protestantism. 19th century American feminism was very heavily into social control. It's 19th century American feminism from which the "feminazi" style of control-freak feminism is derived.
    , @dfordoom
    @Dissident


    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today’s ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?
     
    That's an interesting question. I'm inclined to think that many if not most of the people pushing for the relaxation of censorship honestly did not expect things to go so far. And I don't think most of them wanted things to go so far. Nobody could have predicted that censorship of sexual material would collapse so quickly and so completely.

    It was partly a result of the peculiarities of the American system. In most countries censorship was done by the government. The government could ease up on censorship but they always had the option of slamming on the brakes if things went too far. Once things started to get out of control in the 70s any US government at any level trying to apply the brakes was going to be prevented from doing so by the First Amendment. And once the internet arrived the First Amendment would ensure that there was no way of applying the brakes.

    So I don't think it was inevitable that softcore would lead to a tidal wave of hardcore. It was the double whammy of US governments being stymied by the First Amendment plus the internet coming along before anyone could find a way of getting around the problem.

    Publishers like Hefner certainly didn't want things to go so far - the avalanche of hardcore devastated their businesses. The people making softcore movies didn't didn't want things to go so far - they got wiped out by the tidal wave of hardcore. The people pushing the hardcore stuff generally were not the same people - they were new people coming into the industry (backed, according to rumour, by Mob money).
  222. @anon
    @YetAnotherAnon

    The obvious one is the campaign to keep selling sex legal for women, but make buying sex illegal for males.

    Sweden did that years ago. It's part of feminist misandry. The idea is the usual Oppressor / Oppressed. Streetwalkers are helpless flowers of Oppressed womanhood, while cruising Johns are evil patriarchal Oppressors. It's all so very Junior Anti Sex League on the one hand, and Sisterhood Uber Alles on the other hand. Old lady 2nd wavers in their Hillary pantsuits can join up with the more Wokie 20-somethings, perhaps.

    But...

    Doesn't really matter, pretty soon the only johns caught by this scheme will be from outside the country. The Coof plague has accelerated the trend towards online such as camgirls and Onlyfans. That's peer-to-peer video from the privacy of a webcam. No actual touching occurs, so no prostitution, so no Oppressor / Oppressed.

    Plus there's no way these laws will apply to Sugar Babies, because "muh PRIVACY" and so forth. Not to mention the men are probably better prepared for legal defense - "I'm a mentor! She's my protege'! We meet and discuss Proust!" etc. and so forth.

    By the way, Onlyfans subscriptions took a huge jump back in March when lockdowns in the US and UK hit. No one except Boomers should be surprised.

    For those who have offspring in their 20's, this stuff matters. Because camgirls can bank coin from a bedroom, Onlyfans doesn't take much more complexity, and Sugar Babies are basically mistresses. Girls who do this are going to wind up with some reference experiences that might not go very well with monogamous marriage. Young men who for whatever reason decide to marry are going to have to do extensive web searches long before commitment, to see what images are out there.

    Be annoying to be a 30 year old man getting engaged who discovers some vid of his sweety on PornHub, for example. But stuff like that does happen.

    Replies: @YetAnotherAnon

    “Because camgirls can bank coin from a bedroom, Onlyfans doesn’t take much more complexity, and Sugar Babies are basically mistresses. Girls who do this are going to wind up with some reference experiences that might not go very well with monogamous marriage. “

    I know a bright, pretty, artistic girl who fell in with the dopesmoking crowd in mid teens, as a result of which she didn’t go and clock up £50,000 of uni debt like her contemporaries. She’s been camming for a couple of years now, first from home and now from the house she shares with her chap. I wonder what he makes of it all? “Kids are different today …”

    “Young men who for whatever reason decide to marry are going to have to do extensive web searches long before commitment, to see what images are out there.”

    This guy built a scraper to look at the economics. Turns out like everything else these days, megabucks at the top, damn-all everywhere else.

    https://www.xsrus.com/writing/explain/onlyfans/

    The revenue of content creators follows a classic power law distribution. The top accounts make something like $100,000 a month (these aren’t in my sample). The median account makes $180 a month.

    The top 1% of accounts make 33% of all the money. The top 10% of accounts make 73% of all the money. This isn’t the 80:20 rule; it’s the 80:14 rule.

    The standard way to measure inequality of an economy is with a Gini Index. An index of 0 implies a communist utopia, a value of 1 implies a single greedy capitalist owns all the wealth. The Gini index of OnlyFans is 0.83. The most unequal society in the world, South Africa, has a Gini index of 0.68. OnlyFans is less equal than an ex-apartheid state.

    OnlyFans is so unequal because chancers make accounts with zero fans, while big Instagram stars take their following with them. A large proportion of accounts have no fans at all, and the lion’s share of fans are shared by the top accounts.

  223. @Dissident
    @Alden


    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.
     
    Those are most germane points. (Though their connection to the comment you were replying-to, one which would appear to have been made with tongue firmly planted-in-cheek, is beyond me.) Hefner's role in the sexual revolution and the legalization of abortion is indeed instructive, yet would seem little-known.

    Two blog posts with much valuable information (including links to sources containing statements from both Hefner himself as well as critics of his):

    Hugh Hefner, who helped to legalize abortion, called women ‘objects’

    Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and Abortion: Is This Connection Surprising?

    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today's ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?

    Your point (from this comment) concerning capitalist support for feminism is quite germane as well. And, as you noted, little mentioned or even known. But, concerning your specific claim that,


    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.
     
    I don't know just how you are defining "feminazi" but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930's.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism


    Olympe de Gouges, a noted playwright, published Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (1791; “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the [Female] Citizen”), declaring women to be not only man’s equal but his partner. The following year Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the seminal English-language feminist work, was published in England.
     
    Also,

    It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
     
    Note: (((Ford))) and (((Rockefeller))).
    Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.

    I don’t know just how you are defining “feminazi” but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930’s.

    Yes. Feminism started in Europe before Karl Marx was even born.

    American feminism on the other hand really got going in the mid-19th century and its roots were very much in American Protestantism, especially the Puritan strain of American Protestantism. 19th century American feminism was very heavily into social control. It’s 19th century American feminism from which the “feminazi” style of control-freak feminism is derived.

  224. @Dissident
    @Alden


    The sexual revolution did not start in 1960 when the birth control pill went on the market. There were legal abortions thousands of years before Hugh Hefner’s Playboy Foundation financed the Roe decision.
     
    Those are most germane points. (Though their connection to the comment you were replying-to, one which would appear to have been made with tongue firmly planted-in-cheek, is beyond me.) Hefner's role in the sexual revolution and the legalization of abortion is indeed instructive, yet would seem little-known.

    Two blog posts with much valuable information (including links to sources containing statements from both Hefner himself as well as critics of his):

    Hugh Hefner, who helped to legalize abortion, called women ‘objects’

    Hugh Hefner, Harvey Weinstein, and Abortion: Is This Connection Surprising?

    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today's ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?

    Your point (from this comment) concerning capitalist support for feminism is quite germane as well. And, as you noted, little mentioned or even known. But, concerning your specific claim that,


    The feminazi movement grew out of 1930’s communism.
     
    I don't know just how you are defining "feminazi" but the feminist movement, at least as that term is generally understood, has its origins well before the 1930's.

    https://www.britannica.com/topic/feminism


    Olympe de Gouges, a noted playwright, published Déclaration des droits de la femme et de la citoyenne (1791; “Declaration of the Rights of Woman and of the [Female] Citizen”), declaring women to be not only man’s equal but his partner. The following year Mary Wollstonecraft’s A Vindication of the Rights of Woman (1792), the seminal English-language feminist work, was published in England.
     
    Also,

    It was revived 55 years ago by the Ford and Rockefeller Foundations.
     
    Note: (((Ford))) and (((Rockefeller))).
    Every. Single. Time.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @dfordoom

    When contrasted with the abyss of abject depravity that technology has now blessed every child with nearly unlimited access to, Playboy and its likes (including Penthouse and Gallery) seem quaintly innocent. But could the greater breach in societal standards (i.e., today’s ubiquitous hardcore smut) have come about if it had not been preceded by the lesser (i.e., softcore)?

    That’s an interesting question. I’m inclined to think that many if not most of the people pushing for the relaxation of censorship honestly did not expect things to go so far. And I don’t think most of them wanted things to go so far. Nobody could have predicted that censorship of sexual material would collapse so quickly and so completely.

    It was partly a result of the peculiarities of the American system. In most countries censorship was done by the government. The government could ease up on censorship but they always had the option of slamming on the brakes if things went too far. Once things started to get out of control in the 70s any US government at any level trying to apply the brakes was going to be prevented from doing so by the First Amendment. And once the internet arrived the First Amendment would ensure that there was no way of applying the brakes.

    So I don’t think it was inevitable that softcore would lead to a tidal wave of hardcore. It was the double whammy of US governments being stymied by the First Amendment plus the internet coming along before anyone could find a way of getting around the problem.

    Publishers like Hefner certainly didn’t want things to go so far – the avalanche of hardcore devastated their businesses. The people making softcore movies didn’t didn’t want things to go so far – they got wiped out by the tidal wave of hardcore. The people pushing the hardcore stuff generally were not the same people – they were new people coming into the industry (backed, according to rumour, by Mob money).

  225. @Dissident
    @TTSSYF


    Who would have thought, even 20 years ago, that we would have normalized male anal sex?
     
    1.) Twenty years ago? That's 2000 and by then, buggery was already normalized to a high degree. Both legally, as Ms. Alden already pointed-out, as well as socially and culturally.

    A difference that is remarkable between not just twenty years ago but as little as ten or less is the dramatic reversal we have witnessed concerning same-sex "marriage". As recently as the 2008 Presidential campaign, no mainstream candidate could publicly support that travesty and remain viable. Today, no Democrat, at least (and the Republicans don't appear that far behind), can be viable without fully adopting whatever the latest demands of the "LGBTQ" lobby are.

    But just how shocked should anyone who had been paying attention really have been? By the time of the infamous Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court decision in 2015, had it not already been decades that the official state position, the one taught to children in public schools, was that homosexual relationships and lifestyles were no less wholesome than heterosexual ones? And, certainly, nothing less than that had been the unmistakable, unequivocal statement made by any number of highly popular films, television shows, books, articles, and other cultural products.

    2.) Wasn't the male qualifier superfluous? How normalized was even heterosexual anal penetration at any point in history prior to the present era?

    Replies: @TTSSYF

    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said “40 years ago”.

    The point remains, that we have normalized — nay, glorified — male anal sex.

    I don’t care what people do behind closed doors, whether they are a male and and a female, two males, two females, or multiple parties of every permutation you can come up with. What I despise is normalizing any of it. It is the foam on the wave of nature. It is not what nature intends.

    • Replies: @dfordoom
    @TTSSYF


    The point remains, that we have normalized — nay, glorified — male anal sex.
     
    And, unfortunately, heterosexual anal sex as well. And that should definitely not be normalised.
    , @Dissident
    @TTSSYF


    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said “40 years ago”.

     

    I know the feeling. Forgive me if I came across as pedantic or otherwise obnoxious.

    What I despise is normalizing any of it.
     
    The normalization, promotion and celebration of objectively unwholesome voluntary behaviors. The duplicitous conflation of these with involuntary feelings. The creation of a weaponized identity that reduces those who embrace it to mere slaves of their animal lusts, while sacralizing and conferring upon them protected, eternal victim status. And the insidious indoctrination, recruitment and conditioning of impressionable, conflicted often confused youth into such depravities.

    There, in a nutshell, is summarized the scourge of the Gay Liberation/"LGBTQ" movement. Elaboration and elucidation can be found in this post of mine from October, and also numerous others in my comment archive (accessible via the URL my posting handle is linked-to).
  226. @TTSSYF
    @Dissident

    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said "40 years ago".

    The point remains, that we have normalized -- nay, glorified -- male anal sex.

    I don't care what people do behind closed doors, whether they are a male and and a female, two males, two females, or multiple parties of every permutation you can come up with. What I despise is normalizing any of it. It is the foam on the wave of nature. It is not what nature intends.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Dissident

    The point remains, that we have normalized — nay, glorified — male anal sex.

    And, unfortunately, heterosexual anal sex as well. And that should definitely not be normalised.

    • Agree: Dissident
  227. @TTSSYF
    @Dissident

    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said "40 years ago".

    The point remains, that we have normalized -- nay, glorified -- male anal sex.

    I don't care what people do behind closed doors, whether they are a male and and a female, two males, two females, or multiple parties of every permutation you can come up with. What I despise is normalizing any of it. It is the foam on the wave of nature. It is not what nature intends.

    Replies: @dfordoom, @Dissident

    Excuse me. Time flies, especially the older you get. I should have said “40 years ago”.

    I know the feeling. Forgive me if I came across as pedantic or otherwise obnoxious.

    What I despise is normalizing any of it.

    The normalization, promotion and celebration of objectively unwholesome voluntary behaviors. The duplicitous conflation of these with involuntary feelings. The creation of a weaponized identity that reduces those who embrace it to mere slaves of their animal lusts, while sacralizing and conferring upon them protected, eternal victim status. And the insidious indoctrination, recruitment and conditioning of impressionable, conflicted often confused youth into such depravities.

    There, in a nutshell, is summarized the scourge of the Gay Liberation/”LGBTQ” movement. Elaboration and elucidation can be found in this post of mine from October, and also numerous others in my comment archive (accessible via the URL my posting handle is linked-to).

    • Agree: TTSSYF, dfordoom
  228. @anonymous
    @Dissident


    What was his offense?
     
    He railed against obesity from a health, gluttony, and attractiveness standpoint. There was a long and public back-and-forth with a female reporter about it and you can guess who won the intersectional stack.

    Replies: @Dissident

    Anonymous had claimed, in passing, that Dan Savage* had been unpersoned. In response to my inquiring what his offense (or “offense”) had been, Mr. Anonymous wrote,

    He railed against obesity from a health, gluttony, and attractiveness standpoint. There was a long and public back-and-forth with a female reporter about it and you can guess who won the intersectional stack.

    A belated thanks for this reply. It’s odd, though; I have seen no mention or evidence of this alleged unpersoning of Savage. And it would appear that he is still actively writing his column.

    *Mr. Savage is not only a notoriously vicious, particularly brazen buggery-monger, but one who is billed as a general “sex advice columnist” and indeed presumes to offer advice not just concerning homosexual matters but concerning strictly heterosexual ones as well. Can you imagine the inverse of such a spectacle?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS