Angry Harry : ‘The Year is 2052′

http://angryharry.com/esTheyearis2052.htm

It is Angry Harry's birthday.

He is 100 years old today!

Hurrah for Angry Harry!

"Oooo. Aaaggh. Oh, my goodness. My back hurts," he says.

"Well, you are 100!" says his wife proudly.

"Hhhaaahhhh. That's better," he continues, as his wife lovingly props the pillow under him so that he can sit up more comfortably in the bed while he sips his tea.

"Does it still hurt?" she asks kindly.

"Oh yes," Angry Harry replies. "My muscles are sore from all that lifting yesterday. And that twenty-mile run has made my buttocks ache."

"Twenty miles?" says his second wife. "That's nothing for you Angry Harry. You normally do forty!"

36 thoughts on “Angry Harry : ‘The Year is 2052′

  1. Eric

    There are a lot of good things to be said for polygamy. If I got a hot new young wife every few years (after the previous had pumped out five kids), I think that living to 100+ wouldn't be so bad.

    After all, it kept George Burns in shape until that age.

    The only thing Angry Harry seemed to have overlooked was that, unless the quality of women improves along with the quantity, most future harems are likely to be sexbots!

  2. Too many females, and you might become a tempting target. Strategies have to be developed to counter this.
    But yes, it is easier to become an alpha and have your own harem than to create a world where every omega can afford a young, beautiful prostitute.

  3. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The only thing Angry Harry seemed to have overlooked was that, unless the quality of women improves along with the quantity, most future harems are likely to be sexbots!

    Either sexbots or women will be genetically altered (or more likely alter themselves through the necessities of sexual competition) to be permanently in the 13 to 17 age range (and sweet with it).

    The other thing that Harry perhaps overlooks is that with such a female to male ratio, I don't think the vagina vote will be any weaker for sure.

    Society will probably be run by Artificial Intelligences by then anyway. Men will still have some role, but women will likely cease to exist as such, and the human world will be full of happy men, each with a harem of happy and content Brooke Shields clones (circa 14/15 y.o.) who never ever age.

  4. Alan Vaughn

    Society will probably be run by Artificial Intelligences by then anyway. Men will still have some role, but women will likely cease to exist as such, and the human world will be full of happy men, each with a harem of happy and content Brooke Shields clones (circa 14/15 y.o.) who never ever age.

    LOL..
    If you're right, I just hope they will develop and begin marketing a drug or maybe some hormones or something, that I can take and it will extend my life another 100 years, so I can enjoy my Brook Shields clones!

  5. Jack

    Was it Richard Dawkins or Manyard Smith who explained that the sex ratio was very difficult to manipulate as biological variable because it invarably trended back to roughly 50/50 in the course of darwinian Evolution? This is because the Evolutionary Stable Strategy (EES) will always consist in producing offspring of the least abundant gender. So in a World where women outnumber men, the EES for parents will be to produce sons, thereby restablishing parity. So we’re not yet out of the woods yet.

  6. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    Yes, but even so, sexbots can be custom built; and by the 2050s will likely have sophisticated downloadable artificial intelligence and artificial wombs. Women are going to have to do some serious attitude adjustments on themselves between now and then or even bioengineering won't help them much!

  7. Eric

    Columnist:
    "It's easier to become an alpha and create your own harem than to create a world where every omega can have a beautiful young prostitute."

    Part of the problem with modern society is that harems of beautiful women are spawning feral offspring with these 'omega' males already. There's really a deeper sociological problem involved: Does it REALLY benefit society if the less-fit males are reproducing?

    Most of the ancient societies took particular pains to protect the most desirable females---moreso to preserve them for the most desirable males than anything else. I've actually been told by a student of Islamic theology that Arabian women wear burkhas for the express purpose of discouraging non-Moslem men from pursuing them. (It is noteworthy that the women populating the Islamic concept of Paradise sound a lot more like Greek nymphs than burkha-wearing Arab women).

    It seems that any way you slice it, marriage really only has a chance of survival under a return to a patriarchal system where men have greater control over female sexuality.

  8. @Eric

    (Note: proper spelling is "burqa")Alfred Vierling said the same about the headscarf (hijab). As Moslem men do not refrain from pursuing non-Moslem men this is an example of kafa'a (who? whom?). They count along the father, or plarani khwah in Pashto.

  9. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Antifeminist:
    Yes, but even so, sexbots can be custom built; and by the 2050s will likely have sophisticated downloadable artificial intelligence and artificial wombs. Women are going to have to do some serious attitude adjustments on themselves between now and then or even bioengineering won’t help them much!

    The two will probably go hand in hand. For example as sex bots are introduced into the market, women will have to change their act in order to compete, and this will include taking advantage of the latest bio-technology. It will likely quickly turn into a runaway effect. Women will have to compete with both schoolgirl sex bots and other women who have had stem-cell and genetic therapy to look 17 again. And as we all know, the worst sexual trade union feminists will be the first in the queue when these rejuvenation treatments become available.

    Another possibility, or liklihood, is that the two will merge. For example, 'sex bots' will actually be largely organic. We can already grow brain cells from skin cells, and entire larynx's and beating heart muscles. Those seeking authenticity, will surely want to squeeze real flesh breasts, perhaps those grown from the actual dna samples of Brooke Shields or Anna Kournikova, than silicone.

    I'm not an expert in all of this, just read a lot of transhumanity books and blogs. I don't know whether sex bots will come before bio-engineered 'women'. I suspect they won't, simply because we are probably still decades away from having an artificial intelligence that can match the intricacies of a human mind (whatever optimists like Ray Kurzweil say), whereas women are already having stem cell breast enlargments, stem cell facial injections etc Men will always prefer banging something that knows that it's being banged, rather than a sophisticated Fleshlight programmed to say 'I love you long time'. LOL!

    Actually, it is possible if some sudden advance were made in A.I. then women could find themselves irrelevant almost overnight if such self-aware sex bots flooded the market all at once. Ironically, this might be more likely to happen if feminists succeed in controlling access to sexbots. Then in the course of a few months after the breakthough, intelligent perfect sexbots would be able to be printed out in homes on 3D printers, and whatever the penalties (even the death penalty - quite likely) millions of men can't resist downloading the things. In other words, the floodgates would be opened and women wouldn't have time to change or compete. A real Stepford Wives scenario.

  10. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    I think that the technological advances depend on a lot of variables. Consider that scientists, engineers, and physicists are highly likely to be INCEL since 'liberated' females tend to abandon themselves sexually to gang-bangers, criminal thugs, and illiterate goons instead. IOW, the incentive for speeding up this technology is the hands of the very people who have the greatest interest in making it work.

  11. Eric

    Columnist:
    Since Islamic society is essentially patriarchal, it doesn't really make much difference to the men where they choose their wives. Back in the early days of Islam, a lot of Arab chieftains paid high prices at slave-markets for desirable Christian girls, most of whom seemed to adapt to harem life fairly well.

    As far as restoring monogamy, or even polygamy, goes; marriage cannot survive as a stable social force under any kind of feminist/matriarchal system.

  12. @Eric

    https://circleansuz.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/tribalism-romanticism-and-anarchism/

    "All of these societies exploited the labor of slaves; in fact the bulk of the wealth from the height of the Viking Age came not from plunder but from the sale of slaves taken in raids."

    The Vikings were polygamous slave raiders as well. If history went a little bit different, black-haired, brown skinned beauties would fetch high prices at slave-markets in Dublin, Hedeby, and Kiev.

  13. The Highwayman

    @ Eric

    QUOTE: "Most of the ancient societies took particular pains to protect the most desirable females—moreso to preserve them for the most desirable males than anything else....It seems that any way you slice it, marriage really only has a chance of survival under a return to a patriarchal system where men have greater control over female sexuality."

    Hi Eric it seems (correct me if im wrong) that you in favour of greater 'patriarchal" regulation of female sexuality and of preserving the most desirable females for the most "desirable males". You do realize of course that you cant realy put restrictions on female sexuality without it causing blowbacks that would in turn place unfair restrictions on male sexuality?

    Take my example I am a dedicated punter/john/hobbyist/whoremonger i am no pua but I am not "family man" material at all I have also been a blue collar worker for most of my life (in other words i probably would not fit into any reasonable definition of a "most desirable male") the Massage Parlour Attendant that I have patroned exclusively for the last 6 years on a regular basis it a 10/10 in terms of beauty, is well educated, is one of the kindest people I have ever met and its NOT just a put on I know some of her friends and i have seen her in civilian life she is very family oriented and is very dedicated to caring for her younger siblings and parents when they are in need...oh and she is great with kids too but alas she happily chose the life of a sex care worker and decided to eschew "marriage and family". Now does this not seem like a woman who should be "reserved for the most desirable males" in this patriachal/paternalist system that you are talking about? Would she not be "controlled" and reserved for marriage and family as she would have no business remaining single and selling her sexual and nurturing skills to lower status males.

    How would this paternalistic system of control of female seuxality function? Would fathers be given a veto on their daughters sexual choices? How many dads would allow their daughters to work as prostitutes and what if you fancy a girl but you are not the right race or religion? Quite frankly many dads woud want thier daughters in a chastity belt as long as possible. Would a government agency be responsible for controlling female sexuality and reserving them for "the most desirable males"...NO THANK YOU the last thing we need is more government interference in peoples sexual choices.

    I dont disagree that many modern women behave irresponsibly i have made this pint several times but i have also pointed ou thtat this is caused by MISREGUALTION of the sexual market amongst other things it is NOT the result of "natural female behavior" in the absence of paternalism as paternalistic mras tend to advocate. I have already written 2 lengthly comments on that subject ...to my knowledge neither yourself not any other paternalistic MRA has ever responded to my arguments. I wont write yet another long dissertation on the subject (unless everyone insists) but here is a consise version of what i think will improve things for men AND improve female behavior: 1) more fairness in divorce laws 2) lowering of the age of consent 3) legalization of all forms of sex care work 4) removal of all imbra type legislation 5) welfare reform 6) removal of all cultural memes that encourage a lack of female accountability 7) legalization of all pornagraphy. If put into practice this plan will suffice to improve things there is no need for a return to paternalism. Furthermore not only is paternalism obsolete (due to technological change) but advocating it would be political suicide.

    I am not trying to have a go at you eric I am gald you comment here and I think you are a sharp thinking MRA but I do take strong exception to your advocacy of paternalism.

  14. The Highwayman

    For more on why paternalism simply isnt going to come back please check out these excellent videos by ThatCynicalCynicism a much better MRA than I will ever be:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-LW6i0ihkQ

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAZHg83UvaM

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Za84o109Auw

    Here is Stardusk on the topic:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_1LC0ItqO4&list=UUrEtDxWkIa6YTyTLDqKdqUw&index=2

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOeVH_HY4LE&list=UUrEtDxWkIa6YTyTLDqKdqUw&index=41

  15. The best way to ensure sex-positivity, both among feminists and MRAs is to point out that sex-negativity leads to the idea that abortion is murder. If abortion is considered murder, common genocide isn't that bad any longer. A world without abortion clinics would be a world full of concentration camps.

  16. theantifeminist

    Post author

    The best way to ensure sex-positivity, both among feminists and MRAs is to point out that sex-negativity leads to the idea that abortion is murder. If abortion is considered murder, common genocide isn’t that bad any longer. A world without abortion clinics would be a world full of concentration camps.

    @columnists Not sure what you mean here. I believe abortion is not nearly condemned as harshly under most Islamic societies (highly sexually repressive) than in Catholic ones.

  17. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @Highwayman

    Yes, please do write an extended treatise and I'll be happy to publish it here. I've been asking for guest articles for the last 5 years and not a single person or reader has volunteered (except EvilWhite, to some extent, and I'll publish his recent 'how to spot a femra' here today).

    I agee just about entirely with your sex positive and anti-paternalism attitudes. I have to say though, if you're concerned about the direction comments are taking here, one of only 2 or 3 blogs in the entire world trying to prevent the approaching near certain holocaust we're facing while tackling its real cause**, then you're just going to have to find the time to comment here a little more regularly.

    **(feminism and the self-interested motivations of ordinary women, rather than puritanism, cultural marxism, little green men on Mars, and all the other madonna/whore 'women have been corrupted' theories, or rather excuses and distractions)

  18. The Highwayman

    @ The Antifeminist

    I am not concerned about the way the comments are heading here in fact I think this site is blessed with great commentary. I do of course respectfully disagree with Eric's paternalism. I am awaiting a response from him and as such I hesitate to speak for him but my impression is that Eric supports a paternalistic regulation of the sexual market...this type of regulated sexual market may not have the pedohysteria, anti-prostitution, IMBRA type legislation, vaguely written sexual harassment laws and abuse industry associated with a feminist regulated sexual market but it is NOT the sexual free market that I support and it will still end up leaving many men and women very unhappy (see my comment above wrt to why that will be the case)

  19. The Highwayman

    As far as writing a treatise goes here is a slightly edited repost of an old comment of mine:

    I do have some serious disagreements with the idea that men would be better off if society returned to “Christian Monogamy” as it would lead to a more “equitable distribution” of women amongst the men (especially beta males) which would in turn lead to a more invigorated society as beta males would alledgedly be more motivated to contribute to society. I would like to point out that too many MRAs (i am talking about conservative mras in general here not anyone specifically) have this idea that the current problems that exist between men and women are the inevitable result of too much sexual freedom that we ust turn back the clock for things to get better. I have several objections to this view:

    1) Just how much sexual freedom do we have? Laws against prostitution, laws against sex with young girls, laws against bringing in foreign wives, ridiculous “rape” laws, ridiculous divorce laws and cultural factors such as pedohysteria and cultural prohibitions against polyamory…sure does not sound like a “sexually free” environment to me.

    2) The sexual marketplace does not exist in a vacuum. What i mean to say is that there are other factors that will influence the quality of male/female relations besides just the amount of sexual freedom that they have. In other words if men for example are unhappy (with the way things are going sex wise) in a particular jurisdiction where there is a sexual freemarket…it does not necessarily mean that the sexual freemarket is at fault. For example a large surplus of males will increase female bargaining power…and make things shittier for the males. Also if Society A (which is a sexually free society and which gives both males and females autonomy as to their chice of partners) begins admitting alot of immigrants from Society B (which allows males to pair off with females of other societies but not thier females) this will create a shitty environment for males of Society A (yes I am speaking about muslim, arab, turkish, pakistani immigration to europe here). Gender ideology can also wreak havoc on men’s welfare in the sexual marketplace…feminist lies about the division of labour (the women work 2 jobs men work 1 fallacy) and many other things as well as the stupid chivalrous ideology of many conservatives can sour women against men and negatively impact male/female relations. Our current definition of “sexism” is very problematic as in practice in means saying anything about women that is critical this makes it difficult to hold women accountable for poor choices that many of them make or for poor attitudes towards men that many of them have (and a sexual freemarket need not translate into an environment where women lack accountability).

    3) Did men (or at least lower status males) have it better in earlier times? Keep in mind that the internet allows marginalized groups to voice thier beefs…there might simply have been a more limited means of public discourse available to sexually frustrated males in earlier times. Even if things were better for men in the west during the 1950s and early 1960s well…this was right after fucking WORLD WAR 2!!!…a lot more men than women were killed in that war and this would have resulted in a gender ratio that was favourable to men in the sexual marketplace so naturally women might have developed more man-pleasing qualities and a more welcoming attitude towards lower status males.

    4) Many MRAs and MGTOWers complain that women today A) spend too much time chasing jerks and badboys and undervalue nice guys. It often then alledged that this situation is caused by giving women too much sexual freedom (because women are alledgedly hard wired to prefer bad boys because bad boys possess qualities that would have mafe them alpha males through most of our evolutionary period) and that the solution is to close the sexual freemarket. well I AGREE that too many contemporary women undervalue nice guys and spend too much time chasing jerks…but I also think that this preference amongst women is an ARTIFICIAL one created by current family law policies, social welfare policies and high ages of consent and pedohysteria. Current family law allows a woman to take away large amounts of a man’s wealth (whether it is he or she that ends the marriage or cohabitation)…well why would a woman value guys with qualities ensuring stability (ie nice guys) in this situation…if she wants to enjoy a lifestyle that a certain man provides she can for him to provide it if he leaves her or if she gets bored with him…stability is not necessary and neither is any effort to keep your partner happy once you get past a certain point. Both Warren Farrell and Steve Moxon have written about welfare policies that discourage single low income mothers from having a thier childs father around. With Big Sister looking after them is it any wonder that many very low income women may prefer to “ride the bad boy cock carousel”. High age of consent laws and pedohysteria are another problem: adolescent girls (and to a certain extent women aged 18 to 20 as well) have no incentive to value stability qualities in boys of thier own age because at this age boys with stability qualities have no fruits to show for their labour except for good grades whereas bad boys have charm and adventure galore. This leads to an environment where teenage bad boys monopolize most female attention…this translates into an advantage for bad boys for quite a while after high school/university as well because they have developed a lot of experience with women whereas many nice guys enter adulthood with sexual social skills that are years behind thier bad boy counterparts. But this situation is avoidable…LET OLDER NICE GUYS WHO DO HAVE FRUITS TO SHOW FOR THIER LABOUR DATE YOUNG GIRLS. This can allow older (and wealthier) nice guys to cock-block penniless bad boys. Look i am not denying that women are indeed attracted to certain bad boy qualities but they are ALSO attracted to stability qualities and then go on to make partner choices by balancing the two. That perhaps too many contemporary women undervalue stability qualities in no way translates into a sexual freemarket (if we even have one) being at fault. Poor welfare policies and unbalanced divorce laws 9which encurage women to undervalue stability qualities) have nothing to do with the sexual free market…they can exist in societies with either conservative or liberal sexual laws/values. In the case of age of consent laws and pedohysteria…well that is a case of REGULATIONS of the sexual marketplace causing problems (giving bad boys an unfair haed start)

  20. The Highwayman

    Now the above repost does not address Eric's position directly as it was addressed to conservative/paternalistic MRAs in a general sense and I acknowledge that the type of paternalism advocated by eric is different than the standard 1958 Brigade line since Eric advocates for the reduction in AOC laws and for legalization of prostitution but...he has repeatedly asserted (again correct me if im wrong eric) that there is an epidemic of female irresponsibility in the sexual/mating realm and that this must be solved through paternalistic control of female sexuality. In point #4 of teh above repost I wrote how divorce laws and welfare policies ENCOURAGE and SUBSIDIZE female irresponsibility as do the many cultural memes that create a culture where women lack accountability. AOC laws, pedohysteria, IMBRA laws, anti-prostitution laws then shelter the said spoiled women from any serious competition. Ergo in order to stop this undesirable female behavior you need to stop subsidzing and encouraging it and you need to remove the protectionist barriers that shelter undesirable women from competition....and none of this involves a paternalistic control of female sexuality it still gives men and women free choices it just means the end of subsidies for poor female choices.

  21. theantifeminist

    Post author

    @HighWayMan (and thanks for the comments and youtube links).

    in fact I think this site is blessed with great commentary.

    I agree, and as I've said before, Eric becoming a regular commentator is the best thing that has happened to this site recently.

    However, to be honest, I do find Eric's positions somewhat contradictory and am having difficulty fitting them into a realistic coherent whole. If he really is proposing a return to Christian monogamy (and some of his positions, for example his 100% opposition to PUA, and by implication casual sex, and belief that porn is harmful to men, do suggest that rather strongly), then, like you, I have extreme doubts that this can be reconciled with a society that still avoids limiting male sexual freedom and punishing men for straying from a conservative sexual morality.

    I haven't got time tonight to fully explore the points you raised Highwayman, but it will be interesting to discuss the assumption that paternalists make that beta males had it better under Christian monogamy. If this was the case, it's hard to see why the institution of marriage was so rigorously promoted, protected, and enforced for BOTH GENDERS throughout the history of Christianity (and most human societies we know of). After all, it's in a female's clear and obvious interest to have a single mate to protect her and her children when she is practically defenceless for so much of her child bearing life, and when she can only give birth to one man's child each year, and loses her sexual attractiveness year by year and with each pregnancy - and it's clear that marriage is an institutionalised way of ensuring this. We don't need manosphere thinking or to read the Misandry Bubble to realise this. It's obvious. It's not so obvious how marriage helps men, given that a man's sexual strategy, from an evolutionary perspective, is to impregnate as many females as possible. Of course, we have the manosphere answer - because otherwise females would be hypergamous and masses of betas would be without sex, unproductive, angry etc. But it's still not as obvious or undeniable as in the case of explaining what a woman gets out of marriage.

    Transcript
    Lionel Tiger: Lionel Tiger, my official job description is Darwin Professor of Anthropology at Rutgers University

    Question: Why are religions so concerned with sex?

    Lionel Tiger: I don’t know about you, but sex is always potentially extremely troubling. It can cause all sorts of ruckus in all sorts of lives on an endless basis, just look at the latest politician or golfer and the fact is that because of its power, which Darwin understood when he saw that sexual selection was the engine of natural selection, which is what creates species you have to have some sort of rules about it, otherwise it is simply too massive. For one thing men and women have different reproductive strategies as we call them in my trade because the costs of sex, unprotected sex for females are infinitely different than for males and so there always has to be in any community the basic mammalian contract, which is somebody has to take care of the mother child bond and so if you look at kinship systems basically what they do is try to insure that the mother and child are cared for by the community. This is after all, the story of Christmas basically. It’s the great mammalian fable or story and it works. It is perhaps the most popular holiday in the world because it gets right to the bedrock of what religion is about, which is you’ve got to take care of the mother and the child.

    http://bigthink.com/ideas/20158

    Not only were there important differences between the 50's and today, there are also important differences between today and almost the entire previous history of homo-sapians. For example, people live to be close to, or even beyond 100 today. This is likely to be radically extended to perhaps life expectancies of over 1,000 within our lifetimes. For most of human history, people were old by the time they reached 30 and dead by 40. Do you (Eric) really want a society that tries to force men and women to spend a century or more to each other, each the exclusive sexual property of the other?

    There are also a growing number of increasingly sophisticated ways in which men can obtain sexual satisfaction without relying on obtaining a partner - from free internet pornography to male sex toys and sex dolls, to prostitution that carries little risk of STDs (unlike centuries past).

    To me it seems that the paternalist 'men's rights' approach is so wrong on so many levels, and I will never have the slightest sympathy for it or waste my time promoting it on this site.

    Basically,

    1/ it's wrong - firstly, it's based upon an erroneous and idylic vision of the past and supposed (beta) male sexual contentment, that was probably never true and has no relevance to today and certainly not the society of tomorrow (think tactile holographic porn or sex bots to keep 'luckless' unmarried beta males happy circa 2030). Secondly, it's wrong because it's largely tied in with the view that feminism 'caused' the sexual revolution. As we know here, second and third wave feminism have been responses to the sexual revolution that took place as a result of the invention of the contraceptive pill and other factors outside the control of feminists (or humans). If you support a return to the 50's, you are a feminist.

    2/ it's playing with fire. I realise that Eric doesn't go as far as Jay Hammers, who thinks we can win a society in which 15 year old 'sluts' are stoned to death and yet men be allowed to look at pics of nude 15 year old girls, or even fuck 15 year old girls (presumably before they have been stoned to death), but if you look at history, highly conservative societies that have controlled female sexuality have actually tended to control male sexuality, most often with equally harsh or barbaric punishments for men. I would also list Eric's sympathy with a femi junk science study such as the website 'yourbrainonporn.com', as well as a couple of other readers sympathy with Islam, or even desire to 'ally' with Islamists, as playing with fire - certainly with regard to what we're trying to achieve here.

    3/ Once again, as we've been discussing recently, and as mentioned above in relation to the the Lionel Tiger transcript, it fails to take into account the role that female sexual needs play in fuelling religion and puritanism (and paternalism). As Steve Moxon points out (and sorry to link to that site) sisters are 'doing it for themselves' when it comes to puritan attempts to 'control female sexuality' - including Islam : http://www.avoiceformen.com/sexual-politics/evo-psych/sisters-doin-it-to-emselves/

    I used to have this Schopenhauer quote in my sidebar :

    With girls, Nature has had in view what is called in a dramatic sense a “striking effect,” for she endows them for a few years with a richness of beauty and a, fulness of charm at the expense of the rest of their lives; so that they may during these years ensnare the fantasy of a man to such a degree as to make him rush into taking the honourable care of them, in some kind of form, for a lifetime—a step which would not seem sufficiently justified if he only considered the matter. Accordingly, Nature has furnished woman, as she has the rest of her creatures, with the weapons and implements necessary for the protection of her existence and for just the length of time that they will be of service to her; so that Nature has proceeded here with her usual economy. Just as the female ant after coition loses her wings, which then become superfluous, nay, dangerous for breeding purposes, so for the most part does a woman lose her beauty after giving birth to one or two children; and probably for the same reasons.

    Schopenhauer was nearly tricked by nature himself, even after writing the above. He proposed to a beautiful 17 year old girl when he was an old man, but was fortunately rejected. Although I guess he would have died before seeing her turn into a hag.

  22. Eric

    Highwayman & Antifeminist:
    A lot of different points to respond to here...

    Highwayman, I think that firstly you confused 'paternalism' with 'patriarchy.' By the latter term, I mean a culture and society where men and women recognize a gender polarity---the sphere of men being the leaders of that society in government, education, religion, family, &c. The form of government such a society would take on is not necessarily a paternalist state---the US was a patriarchial system and a representative republic for decades.

    It also doesn't imply (or exclude) a return to Christian monogamy---the ancient Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all practiced monogamy although they were pagans; and eastern cultures practiced polygamy. I'm looking at it more for the perspectives of these pagan cultures---where sexuality was recognized but men still had a measure of propriatary rights in female sexuality.

  23. Eric

    Part Two (Antifeminist's points):

    1. If technology does evolve to a point where human longetivity and youth are extended to those great lengths, obviously laws would have to be modified to take those changes into account. But for now, like Angry Harry pointed out recently, our cultures are dying out because women are NOT reproducing. That, I think, is due to a lack of male control over female sexuality. I don't think that feminism caused the 'sexual revolution'---the sexual revolution was hijacked by feminism and turned against men.

    2. There have been historical controls over male sexuality in the past as well, but a society where males are socially dominant can reverse those restrictions more easily than a feminist-dominated one.

    3. There might be some truths to Tiger's commentary, however I don't think that religion was invented to protect mothers and children. Before civilization came into existance, men and women probably mated about like most other mammals. The Neolithic Period---when civilization first appeared and in a patriarchal form---was when communities were organized and MEN combined for protection of themselves, it was natural that they would be able to support wives and raise children, but they needed laws to defend their homes as well. Religion might have been part of that, but not the only reason.

    That was also at the time that worship of male gods supplanted the worship of earth-goddesses; and the stories of the sexuality of those male gods certainly didn't lend itself to much sexual dogmatism among the general public!

    One other question: I don't remember having supported the site 'yourbrainonporn'. I actually had to look it up. Did I make a favorable reference to it somewhere? Just looking at the site, I don't see much of anything I actually agree with.

  24. theantifeminist

    Post author

    One other question: I don’t remember having supported the site ‘yourbrainonporn’. I actually had to look it up. Did I make a favorable reference to it somewhere? Just looking at the site, I don’t see much of anything I actually agree with.

    @Eric, I do apologize and you are right - you didn't mention it. My confusion arose because you referred once to an article of Eivind in which he argues that pornography and virtual sex, and even the use of condoms, can be socially harmful to men (and Eivind does mention the YourBrainOnPorn site). You did claim that you had some sympathy with parts of Eivind's argument.

    And thanks for the clarification as to your viewpoint regarding paternalism and male/female sexuality - good points.

  25. I wouldn't lump virtual sex in with pornography so casually. It is worth noting here that if the theory promoted by YourBrainOnPorn is correct (and in my view it probably is), then if virtual sex becomes sufficiently realistic, the problems associated with porn addiction will go away. If advanced virtual sex becomes pretty much indistinguishable from sex with lots of hot women, then users should experience no more problems than men who are very promiscuous in the real world do today, and no one is suggesting that being very successful with women leads to impotence and social anxiety and so on which porn addicts suffer from. I would still prefer real women, but the issues that YourBrainOnPorn warn about associated with porn as we know it today will not be relevant when sexbots resemble women convincingly.

  26. jack

    I'm convinced that sexbots will be the next big battle-ground between the sexes.

    I was in a big sex-shop in Germany a couple of months ago, and they had a 3/4 sexbot on display. It was a real-size truncated body (cut above the knees and without a head). But to say the material it was made of was realistic is putting it mildly. It was so like fine female skin/flesh to the touch that I said "sorry" upon touching it. I'm sure the feeling of that soft and resilient material against a man's own naked skin must actually be more arousing than the real thing.

    If left unbanned sexbots will do to women what automobiles did to horses. The look on women's faces when that happens!

  27. Alan Vaughn

    If left unbanned sexbots will do to women what automobiles did to horses. The look on women’s faces when that happens!

    Nice analogy and most likely not an incorrect prediction at all either.
    Can you also imagine the comments we'll be reading on mHRM blogs? 'Creepy perverts and their artificial women, need to be rounded up and executed'...
    Of course the sex-bots will probably be more incriminating than and entire TERA-byte hard disk drive full of actual (real) child-porn and being caught with even a part of a 'bot' will probably attract a mandatory death penalty...

    If they are already as good as the one you saw in 2012, imagine what they will be selling even in 5 years from now?
    The threat posed to femihags by these 'droids' will make their ridiculous 'equality' and 'equal pay' arguments and all other misandric campaigns combined, over several decades, a relative non-event.
    They will REALLY have cause for concern if these things are on the market even if only a year or two before the gynocracy, supported by the mHRM (and its abuse industry), bans them outright with the threat of the death penalty.
    At last there will truly be such a thing as 'female disposability'.

    It's no wonder that mangina, Wanker or Wayne Kerr or some Professor 'Kerr', in Canada recently convened that special meeting with the gynocracy to try to hastily put together some legislative 'draft' to regulate sex-bot technology...

  28. The Highwayman

    @ Eric
    Paternalism entails behavior by an individual, an oranization or a state which limits the freedom of a group or individual for their own good. When you speak of "greater control of female sexuality" and "protect the most desirable females—moreso to preserve them for the most desirable males than anything else"...that sure sounds like paternalism to me. Regardless of any name that you want to give it what you are advocating for is clearly NOT a "hands off" sexual free market. This does not mean I cant work together with you on common goals (and I will repeat for good measure that a respect you as an MRA and commentator here) but it is clear to me that we march to very different drums and there is nothing wrong with us respectfully challenging each others ideas from time to time.

    I have numerours problems with the paternalism you support(or whatever you want to call it) as 1) you cannot place restrictions on female sexuality without this in turn placing restrictions on male sexual freedom (ie reserve a high quality female for marriage to a high quality male and it means that she cannot work as a sex care worker and service lower status males who would be happy to patron her services...and that is just one example) 2) there is the issue of reciprocity...if I as a male do not want women placing restrictions on my sexal freedom I see no reason why I should want to restrict theirs 3) "greater control of female sexuality" is NOT necessary to reduce irresponsible behavior by women you just have to stop subsidizing irresponsible female behavior via divorce law and welfare reform as well as dispensing with cultural memes that encourage a lack of female accountability (women have to learn that freedom involves freedom to fuck up) 4) I would still like to know how this paternalism would work? Again are we to have a state agency to to control female sexuality and determine which women get "reserved" for the "most desirable men" or are we to have a system of parental prerogative (backed by law) where sexual access toa female would be controlled by Daddy Dearest (we can all see where that would lead). 5) it simply not realistic politically at all. Fighting for a true sexual free market will be tough but it is still doable whereas i dont see how you are going to return to a patriarchy without either resorting to some sort of mad max scenario playing out (as Stardusk mentions in his video) or some sort of enslavement or suppression of women. Patriarchy has its place in earlier times in history but it is obsolete and it is NOT coming back (again please view the youtube links i provided they will explain it much better than me).

  29. Eric

    Antifeminist:
    Thanks! I was worried for a minute there that some sock-puppet was running around and making some dubious arguments under my name (such things have been known to happen...LOL)

  30. john

    Come to think of it. It would be a strange dynamic if a woman and her daughter would look around the same age range due to genetic engineering.

  31. theantifeminist

    Post author

    Come to think of it. It would be a strange dynamic if a woman and her daughter would look around the same age range due to genetic engineering

    Possibly, but people will quickly get used to it. We already live under the pretence and fantasy that middle-aged women are as good looking as their nubile adolescent daughters.

    And besides, if women are being bred and genetically engineered, they won't have mothers.

    I have discussed before the interesting question as to what the implications for the sex market will be if and when a majority of (or all) women look like 16 year old barbie dolls. How will women, or rather girls, then differentiate themselves in order to get a sexual advantage, if they all look near perfect?

    My guess is that it will have to be through behaviour. Not only will females have to be nicer, they will have to be more feminine in order to attract males. In particular, if all women look like young girls, the only edge they will get is by

    1/ not only looking like young girls, but by behaving like and actually being young girls.
    2/ by being less choosy and more slutty.

    I keep meaning to write my article 'The End of Women', but this is the future of women, if sexual economics have their way (as they always have), and unless feminists/society do something radical such as genetically alter the male preference for youth or such like. But if pure market forces and intra-sexual competition between females shapes the future (and perhaps with a helping hand from men, hehe), then women will become obselete, or rather gradually (or even suddenly) evolve into young adolescent girls.

    What will the be left for men to fight over in a world with complete abundance of resources - including sexual resources? A world in which each man can keep a harem of teenaged and permanently horny Brook Shields and Anna Kournikovas for himself - perfect and happy girls who will never age and who will never turn into bitter middle-aged hags claiming to be 'child abuse victims'.

  32. Zorro

    Human population is 66% male, 34% female, it's a bad situation for some males.

    Human population is 66% female, 34% male, it's a very, very, very bad situation for all males!

    Don't kid yourself. Overabundance of females is NOT paradise for males. It's certain slavery.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>