Filthie's Mobile Fortress Of Solitude

Filthie's Mobile Fortress Of Solitude
Where Great Intelligence Goes To Be Insulted

Tuesday, 21 June 2016

The Sexual Contract: Please Render A Decision

The Battle Of The Sexes ended approximately 250,00 years ago. At the dawn of mankind, when the monkeys were coming down from the trees and walking on the plains on their hind feet life was tough and the only way to make a go of it was to pool resources and divide labour. Females exchanged sex for food and protection and nurtured the young. The males slept on the couch and farted hunted and defended their family and tribe. As the animal evolved the partnership morphed into classical marriage that we see today. Yes, there have been failed alternatives to marriage like polyandry, polygamy and gay marriage today - but classical marriage produced the most successful families and people. Essentially, classical marriage was a codified version of same the sexual contract between our hairy ancestors where the male provided and the female nurtured the young.

When I'm not pooping in the comments over at the Treehouse or The Smallhold I sometimes go slumming amongst the 'neo-reactionaries'. Fair warning: I do not understand them all that well but find them to be fascinating nonetheless. On Jim's Blog you will find genius, stupidity, altruism, racism - it all goes...provided it is relevant (or at least, somewhat so (or kinda sorta related in a roundabout way, HAR HAR HAR!)). He's a lot like our Uncle Bob that way - he loves to poke people and make them think and listen to their thoughts. Such men are a true gift from God these days - what with schlock journalists trolling their readers. They just make me want to tell them to FOAD - but these guys make me want to be part of the discussion.

All the underpinnings of our society are starting to crumble: today marriage is largely a sham by which the vengeful shrews rapes their gullible man. When men got wise to that, the women engaged, enmasse, in phoney rape accusations and lawfare. And of course - this buffoonery is the stuff of high comedy as feminists take in the shorts when things go to court. Or it is the stuff of tragedy when the law goes wrong (as it so often does) - and an otherwise good man is ruined as he gets financially and spiritually raped in court.

Neoreactionaries are intellectuals. They are capable of seriously deep thought and if there are such things as modern philosophers... these guys are it. As for me - I am a garden variety white kid, raised in the school of hard knocks. It is my position that in life, actions have consequences and if you mix up things that 'should be' with the way things are in reality - the results can be catastrophic. Therefore, in matters of love and marriage - I advocate the old values of long courtships, abstinence and self restraint. That is because (as I see it) - the courts still enforce that sexual contract. If a man screws it - he owns it! Concepts like 'free love' and the 'hook up culture' are degenerate liberal pipe dreams. These concepts are bad for men and utterly horrible for women. When foolish men bed foolish women and refuse to take ownership of themselves or the consequences - the courts can and do make them honour that old sexual contract and these hapless horn-dogs find themselves obligated and forced to support women they had no intention to. Our liberal infested courts, whether they realize it or not - are enforcing the sexual contract that is embedded in our genetic make up. Hence my admonishment to young men: if you screw it, you own it...and if she is bat chit crazy, you own that too! Take precautions, keep it in your pants and think with the big head! Get to know your lady before you hop in bed with her! (Essentially the same advice we ignored when we were young).

Jim had a fascinating rebuttal:

"Unless you are extremely lucky, this contract will be enforced at the judicial level too."
On the contrary, this contract is forbidden at the judicial level, as judges, police, and lawyers systematically enforce black African sexual behavior on white males. The point and purpose is to make all husbands guilty of marital rape and domestic partner abuse, to prevent men from owning women. That is what the members of Phi Beta Kappa are being taught in Sexual Assault Awareness Class: That if you fuck it you don’t own it, are forbidden to own it. Ryan Duffin refused to take possession, and he is not being punished, even though if anyone other than Jackie Coakley herself is to blame for the sufferings of Jackie Coakley, it is Ryan Duffin. It is all those other males who had nothing to do with this little soap opera who are being punished for the sufferings of Jackie Coakley.
Jackie Coakley, being a woman, naturaly demanded black African behavior, being a woman, naturally did not like it when she got it. Therefore, all the males that had nothing to do with this, who failed to engage in black African behavior, are to be punished.
<sarcasm>If women demand what they are naturally inclined to demand, and then do not like what they get, obviously white males must have bad attitudes, and their toxic masculinity needs to be cured.</sarcasm>
This is an example of magic causation. Just as people cause black and female work underperformance merely by thinking bad thoughts about blacks and women, men make women’s sexual choices go wrong merely by thinking bad thoughts about women’s capacity to make sexual choices.
<sarcasm>Since Ryan Duffin took Jackie Coakley at her word, and acted like a nigger, he obviously has the right attitude to women. Since her choices made her unhappy, there must be some other males somewhere with the wrong attitude to women, whose evil thoughts cause her choices to make her unhappy.</sarcasm>
Of course, what actually needs to be done is to remedy her choices with a public caning for sexual immorality. Obviously she not only needs corporal punishment, but it is clear from her sexual fantasies that she wants corporal punishment.

HAR HAR HAR!!! HAR HAR HAR HAR HAR!!! All hail the Mighty Jim!!! He is one of the few bloggers that I will admit is smarter than I am! HAR HAR HAR!

So the question is put before you, Your Honour, for a scholarly and wise decision. Who has the right of it? When our countries burn to the ground and it is time to rebuild - shall we write our women off as children, incapable of being responsible for themselves and subject to the same punishments as children when they misbehave as Jim advocates? Or do we hold our young men and women to higher standards as I advocate?

Your two cents, as always, is sincerely appreciated!

Have a good day!


  1. Replies
    1. I agree, Deborah.

      Good grief, those boys have no idea. I think about the pioneering women of Alberta (many of whom were still alive when I was a child) - and any of them were worth three men today.

  2. You are both right in a way. The courts enforce the old European standards but only so far as support. You own it but can't tell it what to do, make it accountable or even talk to it if it doesn't want you to. But you must pay for it forever.

    What this boils down to is an end to the need for European monogamy. If you look at it only Europeans and Japanese traditionally practiced real monogamy with the exception of some elites that got some side action with more than one Woman. Almost all other cultures practiced open communal relationships or polygamy with either a male of female bias. Children were typically raised by one sex communally until a certain age when they were sent to either be men or women.