Anecdotes of how Western culture affects foreign born women
- Thread starter VincentVinturi
- Start date
- Status
VV, great post. It is exceptionally rare to see a sane and balanced discussion of these issues in the 'sphere (and of course their discussion elsewhere is even worse and based on outright lies) but your post is that rare example.
Indeed, a return to any kind of enforced "patriarchy" is neither possible nor desirable. All that is really needed is that women no longer be allowed to exist as a specially protected and uniquely privileged class whose every whim is served at the expense of the state, meaning, ultimately, at the expense of men who produce all of the state's wealth.
One of the ways this could happen in practice, as I've argued before, is through a serious war that will fundamentally reshape the sexual marketplace, reorienting society away from the feminine and towards the masculine pursuits as a result of both physical exigencies and the change of perspective that they entail. But it could also happen over time if men simply proved less willing to pedestalize women as a class and to underwrite their every whim and folly. I don't see either happening anytime very soon, but I don't believe the current trend of giving women ever greater -- and entirely unearned -- powers underwritten by willing men is something that can continue indefinitely, either.
Ultimately, the special pedestalization and cosseting of women that enables the worst of today's social excesses is something that happens entirely at the sufferance of men (since it is men's physical and intellectual resources that keep society going). Once enough men start voting differently with their wallets or feet, things will change because they have to.
Indeed, a return to any kind of enforced "patriarchy" is neither possible nor desirable. All that is really needed is that women no longer be allowed to exist as a specially protected and uniquely privileged class whose every whim is served at the expense of the state, meaning, ultimately, at the expense of men who produce all of the state's wealth.
One of the ways this could happen in practice, as I've argued before, is through a serious war that will fundamentally reshape the sexual marketplace, reorienting society away from the feminine and towards the masculine pursuits as a result of both physical exigencies and the change of perspective that they entail. But it could also happen over time if men simply proved less willing to pedestalize women as a class and to underwrite their every whim and folly. I don't see either happening anytime very soon, but I don't believe the current trend of giving women ever greater -- and entirely unearned -- powers underwritten by willing men is something that can continue indefinitely, either.
Ultimately, the special pedestalization and cosseting of women that enables the worst of today's social excesses is something that happens entirely at the sufferance of men (since it is men's physical and intellectual resources that keep society going). Once enough men start voting differently with their wallets or feet, things will change because they have to.
otd:VV, I think we share fundamentally different worldviews, but you make a lot of good points and I think there's a lot that we can agree on.
Like you, I enjoy easy sex with beautiful women. The idealistic scenario for all men is to have the ability to impregnate as many women as possible. It is hardcoded in our very biology. However, this is directly against the biological drive of women. This is where I think our disagreements will begin. A woman's idealistic scenario is to have the offspring and resources of the most powerful leader possible. But there are a limited amount of successful men and every woman won't be able to have access to his resources. There's also a limited amount of beautiful women, so not all men will be able to get them to bed. Naturally, our reproductive strategies will be at odds.
In the state of nature prior to large central governments, the opportunities for sexual freedom were much the way you describe. But women are physically weaker, and possess brains that are less inclined towards logical reasoning. In most societies that meant they relied on men to protect and provide for them. These conditions made a state of total sexual freedom impossible. Children are a massive investment in time and would impose a huge burden on a man's efforts to lay as many women as possible. Therefore, a man could simply leave after pregnancy, and women would be left to raise them themselves. In less temperate climes, women would already be totally reliant on others, and wouldn't even begin to be able to support an additional mouth. Having a child without the provisioning of a man often meant death for the child, and the end of her lineage.
In order for a man to devote his limited resources to a single woman, the woman granted exclusive sexual access and reproduction. A man wanted to ensure that all of his efforts were contributing to his own genetic lineage, not to another man's, so sexual exclusivity became a priority. This system was not created as a form of oppression, but rather a practical compromise that gave gave each party strong incentives to make certain sacrifices of their freedom to arrive at the best option for all involved. Children born to these unions enjoyed greater parental investment, women enjoyed the lifetime protection and economic stewardship of a man, and large intact families allowed for transmission of wealth across generations. This system of marriage allowed western civilization to flourish and become the most advanced society the world had ever seen.
That system was destroyed in the late 20th century. This would have been the perfect opportunity to enact a society of free love. Given the advances in technology of birth control and paternity testing, there wouldn't be major repercussions from widespread no strings attached sex. But it didn't occur that way, and that was by design. Women don't want total sexual freedom for men. If a man's only goal was to have sex instead of building a family, most likely he would work just enough to get by and sleep with women, as is often seen in temperate climes. There would be little incentive to work hard and build a legacy for his future family. Women would be actually forced to look after themselves, instead of enjoying the fruits of the labor of men.
We currently live in an era of extraordinary economic prosperity where some women can actually claim independence. Yet men continue to subsidize women through disparate tax regimes and government benefits, men still continue to pay 97% of child support cases, men still continue to pay the majority of alimony. Most women despise the idea of actual independence. They'll say they want it, but their actions say otherwise.
Even if we remove some of the consequences that prevented total sexual freedom, there are some realities of nature that I believe will never go away. Women will always go after the top 20% of men, and some men will always be forced to go without any women. Women will always by and large rely on men, either directly or by proxy through the government. Some men will be able to use their resources as leverage, as some women will use their beauty. Some men will be swimming in pussy, others will be in a drought. It will be a paradise for some and a hell for others. Times of economic prosperity will make things more unequal, and hard times more equitable. Nature abhors a steady state, and I am skeptical that a sexual utopia can exist for everyone, or even most people. I'm hesitant to claim that the institutions of historical cultures were oppressive, as often they were operating under remarkably different environmental pressures than we experience today. What they arrived at as the best system over the course of millenia may likely be what was most beneficial to their society.
Sexual Utopia in Power by F. Roger Devlin delves much more deeply into this topic. If anyone is interested, Roosh posted a link to it here: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-51959.html
Like you, I enjoy easy sex with beautiful women. The idealistic scenario for all men is to have the ability to impregnate as many women as possible. It is hardcoded in our very biology. However, this is directly against the biological drive of women. This is where I think our disagreements will begin. A woman's idealistic scenario is to have the offspring and resources of the most powerful leader possible. But there are a limited amount of successful men and every woman won't be able to have access to his resources. There's also a limited amount of beautiful women, so not all men will be able to get them to bed. Naturally, our reproductive strategies will be at odds.
In the state of nature prior to large central governments, the opportunities for sexual freedom were much the way you describe. But women are physically weaker, and possess brains that are less inclined towards logical reasoning. In most societies that meant they relied on men to protect and provide for them. These conditions made a state of total sexual freedom impossible. Children are a massive investment in time and would impose a huge burden on a man's efforts to lay as many women as possible. Therefore, a man could simply leave after pregnancy, and women would be left to raise them themselves. In less temperate climes, women would already be totally reliant on others, and wouldn't even begin to be able to support an additional mouth. Having a child without the provisioning of a man often meant death for the child, and the end of her lineage.
In order for a man to devote his limited resources to a single woman, the woman granted exclusive sexual access and reproduction. A man wanted to ensure that all of his efforts were contributing to his own genetic lineage, not to another man's, so sexual exclusivity became a priority. This system was not created as a form of oppression, but rather a practical compromise that gave gave each party strong incentives to make certain sacrifices of their freedom to arrive at the best option for all involved. Children born to these unions enjoyed greater parental investment, women enjoyed the lifetime protection and economic stewardship of a man, and large intact families allowed for transmission of wealth across generations. This system of marriage allowed western civilization to flourish and become the most advanced society the world had ever seen.
That system was destroyed in the late 20th century. This would have been the perfect opportunity to enact a society of free love. Given the advances in technology of birth control and paternity testing, there wouldn't be major repercussions from widespread no strings attached sex. But it didn't occur that way, and that was by design. Women don't want total sexual freedom for men. If a man's only goal was to have sex instead of building a family, most likely he would work just enough to get by and sleep with women, as is often seen in temperate climes. There would be little incentive to work hard and build a legacy for his future family. Women would be actually forced to look after themselves, instead of enjoying the fruits of the labor of men.
We currently live in an era of extraordinary economic prosperity where some women can actually claim independence. Yet men continue to subsidize women through disparate tax regimes and government benefits, men still continue to pay 97% of child support cases, men still continue to pay the majority of alimony. Most women despise the idea of actual independence. They'll say they want it, but their actions say otherwise.
Even if we remove some of the consequences that prevented total sexual freedom, there are some realities of nature that I believe will never go away. Women will always go after the top 20% of men, and some men will always be forced to go without any women. Women will always by and large rely on men, either directly or by proxy through the government. Some men will be able to use their resources as leverage, as some women will use their beauty. Some men will be swimming in pussy, others will be in a drought. It will be a paradise for some and a hell for others. Times of economic prosperity will make things more unequal, and hard times more equitable. Nature abhors a steady state, and I am skeptical that a sexual utopia can exist for everyone, or even most people. I'm hesitant to claim that the institutions of historical cultures were oppressive, as often they were operating under remarkably different environmental pressures than we experience today. What they arrived at as the best system over the course of millenia may likely be what was most beneficial to their society.
Sexual Utopia in Power by F. Roger Devlin delves much more deeply into this topic. If anyone is interested, Roosh posted a link to it here: https://www.rooshvforum.com/thread-51959.html
VincentVinturi said:
I partially disagree with this because I believe women who are ultra promiscuous have poor impulse control. Women who have poor impulse control also tend to have other issues and not the most stable personalities for long term child rearing. Even if they acknowledge their responsibilities in raising a family the poor impulse control part of their personality eventually surfaces. From what i've seen in asia long term this is just as true over here as in the west.
However, I agree with everything else you're saying. The reason why western women have become what they have become in the anglosphere is due to a system that actively enables bad behavior and systematically rewards it. Plus there is no sense of actual responsibility with a lot of women in the west because unlike men they can choose to do whatever they want and be free from consequences in the end.
In asia even the most hardened carousel rider tends to respect family to some degree. There's filial responsibility and you're right in saying that asia does not really coddle women like this. There will always be betas who shower attractive women with money and gifts but society in general does not create institutional support for YOLO type living with divorce rape and other laws that are all about transfering wealth from men to women. They also know that the carousel ride ends at some point unlike the west where women are gearing up for round 3 in their 40's with botox injections and labia reconstruction.
Constitution45 said:
A few months ago I had a ONS with a Pakistani girl who had a similar Muslim background. She was down for anything sexual and was easily the biggest slut I've ever fucked. Not surprisingly, her fucked up life story read a lot like stories in this thread and around RVF. Broken fucking record with these hoes.
She was born in Karachi, lived more than half her life there, is fluent in Urdo and is a "former Muslim" in her words, but you would never know this shit on the surface. She's got a couple tattoos, tongue and nipple piercings and can suck dick like her life depended on it.
Moved here to the USA around the age of 12, her father died shortly after (explains everything you need to know), and in her words she "became enlightened" here, meaning that she slowly lost her religion and cultural tie to Pakistan and probably her own family.
Eventually I found out she had a previous failed marriage with a rich FOB Gulf Arab at the age of 19 here in the USA. She apparently got pregnant immediately after the wedding and divorced raped that guy all within one year. Now she's got a toddler, a paid house and lifestyle and rides the carousel with no shame.
Pakistani got a taste of American-style carousel riding. Arab got a taste of American-style divorce rape. One thing is for sure, their lives would have turned out better back in their respective home countries.
Nothing surprises me here in the USA anymore. Next.
- Status