Women Better Off as Property?

[Fashus Maximus]

This is a follow up to the question of whether women are capable of agency. Based on the conversations so far, the opinions are mixed on the question of agency but I overwhelmingly see suggestions of helping women make better decisions.

Have we considered that perhaps, women are simply better off being property? And why has this topic not been raised before?

Think about it. A man will: 

- put barriers around his property

- protect his property

- invest in his property

- use his property

In other words, everything a woman instinctively & sexually wants from a man despite the outward shit tests. So why even bother helping them become better decision makers when they can simply benefit from a man's wisdom? And yes, I mean "use" as in use sexually; aside from consent, there is no such thing as equality in the bedroom.

Here (scroll down to play) is an interesting interview with Emily Youcis, the babe who unironically promotes White Sharia. 

[barn]

"If you love something set it free. If it comes back to you, it's yours. If it doesn't, it never was."   - Gibran Khalil Gibran -

[M.2]

Provocative topic indeed, but I love it. 

It always used to strike me as barbaric and backwards that in the bible it says a woman must subject herself to a man... But then I was introduced to Europe. Essentially everything that a woman has unchecked power over goes to shit. That includes herself. A woman can't even handle herself in the world, let alone anything else. 

Not saying that women should be property, but the evidence points in a certain direction. Cultures where women are treated as second class citizens are much more successful at the old Darwin game than other kinds.

[S1988]

No way would I want to be someone's property. That's why I'm a loner so that I can retain my freedom. I've spent most of my life being pushed around by people, particularly "loved ones," and I fought hard to escape. If I wanted to live like I'm owned by someone, then I'd return to Queen Mother and her minions my older siblings, which is something I don't want to do. If that offends so people, well that's too bad. It's funny how the biggest control freaks are the ones who wouldn't want to be treated in such a way themselves, yet have no qualms about dominating others. Why should I care about their feelings when they don't care about mine?

[Fashus Maximus]

3 hours ago, S1988 said:

No way would I want to be someone's property. That's why I'm a loner so that I can retain my freedom. I've spent most of my life being pushed around by people, particularly "loved ones," and I fought hard to escape. If I wanted to live like I'm owned by someone, then I'd return to Queen Mother and her minions my older siblings, which is something I don't want to do.

So there was no man in charge and look at what your mother did. Imagine my shock. Lemme guess, have you tried to talk to her about it and she reacted by lacking agency by making excuses?

You've been owned by a woman so no surprises as to the result. You've been free and you respectfully sound miserable when you describe yourself as a loner. Has it ever occurred to you to at least try being a (good) man's property to see what happens? (side effects may include happiness, satisfaction, babies, love, etc.)

[RichardY]

Depreciating assets, like a car. End up with potentially many used vehicles, further diminishing their value.

[S1988]

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

You've been free and you respectfully sound miserable when you describe yourself as a loner.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm miserable. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why many people (who are usually non-loners themselves) think that loner=misery. My problem isn't my loner lifestyle itself; it's when people stick their noses into my lifestyle in attempt to "fix" me. I've got a lot of flak from people for that since childhood. I was once made to stay after school during my freshman year in high school to discuss my quiet, less-than-social behavior, as if that was a major problem or something. Miserable? Hardly. As a loner, I can do what I want when I want since I have few obligations. The idea of living with someone or having several friends is actually more of a burden than a blessing to me. 

 

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Lemme guess, have you tried to talk to her about it and she reacted by lacking agency by making excuses?

That's a hallmark of many abusers in general, not just female ones. It's why most of them don't change because they rather blame the ones they hurt than hold themselves accountable for their actions. 

[Fashus Maximus]

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

I'm not sure where you got the idea that I'm miserable. As a matter of fact, I'm not sure why many people (who are usually non-loners themselves) think that loner=misery. [snip] As a loner, I can do what I want when I want since I have few obligations.

Everything good in life comes hand in hand with obligation, which is why I deduce that loner = little to no obligations = little to nothing to live for = misery.

I used to be a loner, too. I also enjoyed the lack of obligations. I.e., until I met a community of people who are exactly like me. We are united in goals, attitudes, behaviors, beliefs, aesthetics, etc., but I have some obligations to my community too. The obligations are definitely worth the payoff.

Don't you think you'd be willing to take on some obligations if you thought the payoff was worth it? 

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

My problem isn't my loner lifestyle itself; it's when people stick their noses into my lifestyle in attempt to "fix" me. I've got a lot of flak from people for that since childhood. I was once made to stay after school during my freshman year in high school to discuss my quiet, less-than-social behavior, as if that was a major problem or something.

I'm sorry to hear that. I hope you don't think I'm trying to fix you.

Has it occurred to you that you were made to discuss your behavior as people also made the loner / misery deduction above and were concerned?

Also, loner = reproductive disadvantage; do you not see how going against human nature is a problematic for yourself?

1 hour ago, S1988 said:

The idea of living with someone or having several friends is actually more of a burden than a blessing to me.

Is there no one in your life for which the relationship is not worth the burden? Have you considered that perhaps you simply haven't met people like yourself?

[S1988]

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Don't you think you'd be willing to take on some obligations if you thought the payoff was worth it? 

I guess it depends on the obligation.

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Has it occurred to you that you were made to discuss your behavior as people also made the loner / misery deduction above and were concerned?

Maybe. While they were people who tried to change me just to take advantage of me, I think others like my freshman math teacher meant well, but were misguided. There's nothing good or bad about having lots of companions or keeping to oneself; they're just different.

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Also, loner = reproductive disadvantage; do you not see how going against human nature is a problematic for yourself?

I have no desire to be a parent; I think I'm better off being my own parent. Sometimes, it's better for one to not be a parent than to have a child and not be able to raise them well. I'm not against having children in general, but I'm against having them for the wrong reasons such as wanting someone to love or having kids so that they can carry out one's unaccomplished dreams. Besides, my problems, finances, and lifestyle make it inappropriate for me to have kids.

1 hour ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Is there no one in your life for which the relationship is not worth the burden?

I do have one friend, but she lives in a different state, and we keep in touch by email. Occasionally, I do visit her. That's fine with me because I don't need hundreds of friends to be content. 

 

[smarterthanone]

Yeah. If you don't own your woman, you are a cuck. You say jump, she better say how high.

Women want this, not white knight betas.

[Tyler H]

What is your understanding of property and how it is derived?

[Fashus Maximus]

6 hours ago, Tyler H said:

What is your understanding of property and how it is derived?

Property is that which requires my consent to take, otherwise it is stealing.

The root of property is the self: it would be coercion for another person to take take and use another without consent. Thus, everyone starts out owning themselves, and thus, their actions and any effects thereof.

[Tyler H]

17 hours ago, Fashus Maximus said:

Property is that which requires my consent to take, otherwise it is stealing.

The root of property is the self: it would be coercion for another person to take take and use another without consent. Thus, everyone starts out owning themselves, and thus, their actions and any effects thereof.

So how could we make women property if they own themselves?

[Fashus Maximus]

10 hours ago, Tyler H said:

So how could we make women property if they own themselves?

We can't make them without violating the NAP. We can only convince them to transfer or sell their ownership of themselves.

[Dylan Lawrence Moore]

13 minutes ago, Fashus Maximus said:

We can't make them without violating the NAP. We can only convince them to transfer or sell their ownership of themselves.

This... doesn't sound very difficult.

[CygniAustralis]

This is really interesting to me, but I think it relies upon the institution of marriage in order to become a viable discussion. 

When you marry a man you technically become "property" to him. Your physical self becomes his and his alone. That's how marriage should be. Of course if you marry someone, you should be expected to stay monogamous, whether you are a man or a woman. But you would be surprised how many women I know that are married who are shocked that their husbands have expectations of them. Of course he does. You married him, your time and body are his to use, respectfully of course. 

I can tell you nightmarish stories of female coworkers who laugh about using the denial of sex as a tool for manipulation, and how they enjoy watching their husbands beg for sexual intimacy. Gross. Having sex isn't difficult and shouldn't be a chore; the man typically does more work than the woman does. If you respect and love your spouse you submit willingly to their sexual needs, even if you're tired or in a bad mood. I just can't imagine ever denying my husband sexual intimacy, when he provides so much for me: protection, safety, a roof over my head, love and affection. It's the least I can do for him. I see so many women using marriage as a means to get resources without ever having to give in return. That needs to stop. 

I think I'm happiest when my husband has the final say in my decision-making. I ask his opinion on just about everything I do. I always tell him where I'm going and why. I usually think of him first before I do or say anything, simply because he's the head of our household and his opinion and perspective matter more to me than my own scatterbrained ideas. I tend to be impulsively emotional, but my husband is unyielding and rational. He soothes me and puts me in my place, and I need that. All women need that. When I told my boss recently that I had needed my husband's permission to accept my job offer, she looked at me like I was crazy. But it's what he thinks is best for the two of us that matters to me, not my own "agency". Sure, I have my own thoughts and beliefs and impulses, and I'm intelligent enough, but in the confines of the marriage I willingly participated in, there's a hierarchy. The husband at the head, and the wife beneath him. I find no issue with that. 

So yes, I think women as "property" is in itself a good idea, if not a rational one. It just seems more viable in the context of a legal/spiritual pact or covenant, like marriage. 

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

8 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

This is really interesting to me, but I think it relies upon the institution of marriage in order to become a viable discussion. 

When you marry a man you technically become "property" to him. Your physical self becomes his and his alone. That's how marriage should be. Of course if you marry someone, you should be expected to stay monogamous, whether you are a man or a woman. But you would be surprised how many women I know that are married who are shocked that their husbands have expectations of them. Of course he does. You married him, your time and body are his to use, respectfully of course. 

I can tell you nightmarish stories of female coworkers who laugh about using the denial of sex as a tool for manipulation, and how they enjoy watching their husbands beg for sexual intimacy. Gross. Having sex isn't difficult and shouldn't be a chore; the man typically does more work than the woman does. If you respect and love your spouse you submit willingly to their sexual needs, even if you're tired or in a bad mood. I just can't imagine ever denying my husband sexual intimacy, when he provides so much for me: protection, safety, a roof over my head, love and affection. It's the least I can do for him. I see so many women using marriage as a means to get resources without ever having to give in return. That needs to stop. 

I think I'm happiest when my husband has the final say in my decision-making. I ask his opinion on just about everything I do. I always tell him where I'm going and why. I usually think of him first before I do or say anything, simply because he's the head of our household and his opinion and perspective matter more to me than my own scatterbrained ideas. I tend to be impulsively emotional, but my husband is unyielding and rational. He soothes me and puts me in my place, and I need that. All women need that. When I told my boss recently that I had needed my husband's permission to accept my job offer, she looked at me like I was crazy. But it's what he thinks is best for the two of us that matters to me, not my own "agency". Sure, I have my own thoughts and beliefs and impulses, and I'm intelligent enough, but in the confines of the marriage I willingly participated in, there's a hierarchy. The husband at the head, and the wife beneath him. I find no issue with that. 

So yes, I think women as "property" is in itself a good idea, if not a rational one. It just seems more viable in the context of a legal/spiritual pact or covenant, like marriage. 

Actually it's perfectly rational. It's much easier to submit than lead. I strongly prefer women who can lead when and where I cannot, but a woman who is honest about her desire to submit rather than lead is superior to one who wants to lead or thinks she can lead but cannot or will not

I'm curious: What exactly is the dynamic of your marriage? My mental image is a cross between a TV-depicted pre-Feminism America and 16th century Japan. I.e., you take care of the house and make sure your man's ready to take on the world and do his work while at the same time maintaining a relationship somewhat akin to a father and young daughter rather than a man and adult wife. 

I don't want to mischaracterize you; but when I imagine "putting me in my place" I imagine a less than equal relationship as far as level of maturity and wisdom goes. Is he much older than you? Or are you roughly the same age but you prefer to be "owned"? Also does this apply towards mental capacities and maturity? Like are you basically a child in an adult body or are you perfectly mature but simply enjoy deferring to him?

I know my questions don't sound sincere but I want to assure you I am genuinely curious. Very rarely does any woman openly state a preference for being told what to do.

8 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

 

 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

The biggest problem is that women will never grow up if they are allowed to be children forever, and that means the men they raise will suffer accordingly. Women used to be womanly just over a hundred years ago before Feminism sparked what oil there must have been from prior misdeeds and in so doing set ablaze Western Civilization.

White Sharia's biggest weakness is that it becomes no different from Islam in the long run. And I'd rather see the White races die from this Earth than become inbred amoral savages. Better to die as a lion than live on as a rabbit; better to be the only Christian in Communist China than one of many sheeple hailing the "great" communist agenda. Better to be the only man among boys than to succumb to hedonism and let ourselves be dominated by outsiders. So and so forth. The point is that White Sharia essentially destroys that which makes the White man White in the first place; his moral character, his sense of agency, his love of liberty and the responsibilities inherent, and his sense of justice and guilt. Without these things I don't give a damn about the future of Western Civilization because fundamentally it won't just be dead the Earth itself will be salted like Carthage by Rome. 

Now I do agree women ought not to be leaders of society--so few are capable and there is nothing worse than promoting incompetence and stunting competence (which I know is an exaggeration but in the long run it leads to the truly worst things)--however they must be allowed to grow up. In the current system most women are forever children and can continue to be children for their basic survival needs are guaranteed. This is true for men to a lesser degree as well but this topic is about women and I think Jordan Petersen and the Great Stefpai do plenty to explain the infantilization of men and the subsequent problems.

I think the best way forward is to abolish the welfare state and let bad women suffer and let good women prosper. In the long run the fence-sitting women will act good and the good women will dominate as they used to. Same for men. 

For now I recommend doing what ought to be obvious: focus on ourselves, i.e. wealth and character, and eventually find a good woman in a good town and settle down and raise the heroes of the next generation. One great woman can raise a dozen great men if she's capable enough. At least 2 is greater than most. And I firmly believe that by demonstration and moral uprightness we can win the culture wars and eventually throw out Leftism for all eternity. 

So what do you think @Fashus Maximus ? I may have misunderstood you so I'd appreciate your wisdom on the matter. However I do think in the long term embracing White Sharia in the West will be like defeating the National Socialists in Germany only to import their brain cousins in England and America. 

[Fashus Maximus]

@Siegfried von Walheim I think you've misunderstood White Sharia to begin with. Sharia has always been an Aryan word that means "code of conduct". Sharia did not come to mean Islamic Sharia until the 7th Century, when the Arabs took over the Iranians (and the word Sharia). So White Sharia means white code of conduct; surely you're not against that? You do realize that Europeans have had some form of White Sharia until certain intellectuals came into the spotlight 100 years ago? Heck, in many European countries, the father had to give his blessing in order for a man to propose to his daughter. Often, the father himself would introduce a suitable mate.

As for women being property, I think that the ability to behave as a fully functioning adult has been - and is still in the process of being - largely weeded out of the female gene pool. Anything that increases female independence from men, is detrimental to the birth rate. When independent women die off, who is left to breed? All the other women. Biologically, anything that significantly hinders your ability to breed (like female freedom or independence) is a disease. So, the natural conclusion is that the state of being a man's property is the only way a woman can be healthy.f

[smarterthanone]

Women are very valuable as women. I would love to have someone to give me children and keep my home and care for me. Someone I take care of 99% of the time but that 1% when I fail she can loyally cover for me. That is what I need. That is invaluable.

When a woman acts as a man, her value is exactly her net worth and women in general suck at building net worth. They are better at building debt and wasting money, even the ones who have good jobs have no drive to build net worth, they just spend that much more on vacations and shoes and expensive wine 9 times out of 10.

Woman as property? Immeasurable value. Woman as a person? Not worth jack (Literally).

[CygniAustralis]

On 2/5/2018 at 8:20 AM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Actually it's perfectly rational. It's much easier to submit than lead. I strongly prefer women who can lead when and where I cannot, but a woman who is honest about her desire to submit rather than lead is superior to one who wants to lead or thinks she can lead but cannot or will not

I'm curious: What exactly is the dynamic of your marriage? My mental image is a cross between a TV-depicted pre-Feminism America and 16th century Japan. I.e., you take care of the house and make sure your man's ready to take on the world and do his work while at the same time maintaining a relationship somewhat akin to a father and young daughter rather than a man and adult wife. 

I don't want to mischaracterize you; but when I imagine "putting me in my place" I imagine a less than equal relationship as far as level of maturity and wisdom goes. Is he much older than you? Or are you roughly the same age but you prefer to be "owned"? Also does this apply towards mental capacities and maturity? Like are you basically a child in an adult body or are you perfectly mature but simply enjoy deferring to him?

I know my questions don't sound sincere but I want to assure you I am genuinely curious. Very rarely does any woman openly state a preference for being told what to do.

 

Hi there! Thank you for actually responding to me. I appreciate that!

Our marriage dynamic is slightly different than your assumption, I believe. I am a housemaker; I keep the house in order and cook and clean for my husband, and he provides the financial support by working outside the home. But our relationship is very close; we work as a team, although our roles are different, obviously. Being his "property" does not reduce my value as a person or absolve me of self-responsibility; instead, I believes it gives me a certain dignity, and my husband is always respectful and kind to me in his authority. I'm at a loss as to how to better explain it; our relationship is very private, and the sphere we've created for ourselves and our growing family (I'm 8 weeks pregnant) is closed off to the influence of the secular world in many respects. I suppose the best way to describe it is the Christian hierarchy of the family: God at the top, man below god, woman below man, and children below woman. 

Of course, there's no abuse, and no unfair imbalance of power, at least in my opinion. I'm sufficiently intelligent and mature, no doubt. But my satisfaction in life comes from being submissive to my husband, and oftentimes that includes giving up on certain pursuits, like having a "successful" career. I utilize my intelligence in other ways and feel enriched by the life I've chosen. Meeting my husband's emotional and sexual needs are fulfilling to me, and he does the same for me. Deferring to him is almost spiritual for me; it's a satisfaction I can't easily explain. 

I'm actually a year and a month older than him (I'm 24, he's 23), but our age difference isn't an determining factor in how we interact with one another. 

[Siegfried von Walheim]

4 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

Hi there! Thank you for actually responding to me. I appreciate that!

Guess how often I hear of women claiming they like to be owned? Even just metaphorically and not literally, it's still a rare thing for a 3D woman to say.

4 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

Our marriage dynamic is slightly different than your assumption, I believe. I am a housemaker; I keep the house in order and cook and clean for my husband, and he provides the financial support by working outside the home. But our relationship is very close; we work as a team, although our roles are different, obviously. Being his "property" does not reduce my value as a person or absolve me of self-responsibility; instead, I believes it gives me a certain dignity, and my husband is always respectful and kind to me in his authority. I'm at a loss as to how to better explain it; our relationship is very private, and the sphere we've created for ourselves and our growing family (I'm 8 weeks pregnant) is closed off to the influence of the secular world in many respects. I suppose the best way to describe it is the Christian hierarchy of the family: God at the top, man below god, woman below man, and children below woman. 

So basically a functional voluntary system in which everyone benefits by everyone doing what they do best? Man takes care of the bills and ensures there's stuff, Woman turns the stuff into edibles and usefuls for both the Man and Kids, and the Kids get wisdom and stuff in exchange for being adorable and fun. Every now and then I assume Man and Woman give each other a break in the event of sickness or tragedy or whatnot. A Man needs a solid stick to stand straight and beat up barbarians with; a Woman needs a solid stick to stand up straight and use like a shepherd's staff to teach kids stuff.  

4 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

Of course, there's no abuse, and no unfair imbalance of power, at least in my opinion. I'm sufficiently intelligent and mature, no doubt. But my satisfaction in life comes from being submissive to my husband, and oftentimes that includes giving up on certain pursuits, like having a "successful" career. I utilize my intelligence in other ways and feel enriched by the life I've chosen. Meeting my husband's emotional and sexual needs are fulfilling to me, and he does the same for me. Deferring to him is almost spiritual for me; it's a satisfaction I can't easily explain. 

Is it safe to say you're proud to be your husband's wife? Like you feel a sense of womanly pride that your husband is your's? I figure a decent woman would take pride in getting the best man she can get. Therefore if you love your husband and respect him it makes sense to feel pride in being his wife because the fact you're his wife means you are considered equal to him enough that he'd marry you and not someone else.

Plus I imagine on the more day-to-day stuff it's probably easier to focus on what you're good at rather than try to be a Jane of all trades. Like it's easier to let him handle money, people, work, and leadership so you can handle maintenance, the children, cooking, and ensuring your husband feels good when he's at home. I didn't include sex because ideally you're both enjoying it so it's something you both get. Meaning I can't say you have that to offer him because he has to offer you; they cancel each other out. So I assume you, being wiser than most sadly (sad in that most women I think assume their sexuality is special and not a two-way street), realize in order for him to be satisfied you have to be a real housewife and not just a toilet or a nag. 

4 hours ago, CygniAustralis said:

I'm actually a year and a month older than him (I'm 24, he's 23), but our age difference isn't an determining factor in how we interact with one another. 

I'm almost 20, and honestly I'm feeling old because I want to move up to the middle class by 25 so I can finally start looking for a good woman and make lots of babies with her in a nice Midwestern town. 

How the heck did he find you? Do you/did you have a lot of friends that think like you? I hate to say "all/most women" this or that but I think based on my experience and the numerous anecdotes of others that many women are insanely delusional about their own self-worth and the worth of men. If you come from some real trad city where women are actually intelligent and understand how biology and society works, I'd like to immigrate there. 

[Mister Mister]

You're actually buying into a BS feminist myth.  Women were not considered property in the West, they were not second-class citizens, but as Karen Straughan puts it, "different citizens", with different rights and responsibilities.  You couldn't just sell your wife, or kill her, the way you could a slave.  Marriage existed for many hundreds of years as a kind of social contract, which bound both men and women to certain obligations.

I would also add, if you want a healthy society, you need healthy children.  If you want healthy children, women need to play their part.  So we need to make the case to women why they will be happier with a robust family life, than living with pets, serially dating a steady stream of losers/assholes, with a mid-level dead-end career, and marching in a pussy hat.  Which of course they will be.

Spicy take tho

[ofd]

Quote

Women were not considered property in the West

Of course they were. Why do you think that the groom's family paid a bride price to the woman's family in the West as well? Because she was considered property, that was exchanged for money. The idea of romantic love, marrying somebody without material interests is very recent and most likely a bad idea, given what it led to.

[CygniAustralis]

On 2/20/2018 at 9:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Guess how often I hear of women claiming they like to be owned? Even just metaphorically and not literally, it's still a rare thing for a 3D woman to say.

So basically a functional voluntary system in which everyone benefits by everyone doing what they do best? Man takes care of the bills and ensures there's stuff, Woman turns the stuff into edibles and usefuls for both the Man and Kids, and the Kids get wisdom and stuff in exchange for being adorable and fun. Every now and then I assume Man and Woman give each other a break in the event of sickness or tragedy or whatnot. A Man needs a solid stick to stand straight and beat up barbarians with; a Woman needs a solid stick to stand up straight and use like a shepherd's staff to teach kids stuff.  

Is it safe to say you're proud to be your husband's wife? Like you feel a sense of womanly pride that your husband is your's? I figure a decent woman would take pride in getting the best man she can get. Therefore if you love your husband and respect him it makes sense to feel pride in being his wife because the fact you're his wife means you are considered equal to him enough that he'd marry you and not someone else.

Plus I imagine on the more day-to-day stuff it's probably easier to focus on what you're good at rather than try to be a Jane of all trades. Like it's easier to let him handle money, people, work, and leadership so you can handle maintenance, the children, cooking, and ensuring your husband feels good when he's at home. I didn't include sex because ideally you're both enjoying it so it's something you both get. Meaning I can't say you have that to offer him because he has to offer you; they cancel each other out. So I assume you, being wiser than most sadly (sad in that most women I think assume their sexuality is special and not a two-way street), realize in order for him to be satisfied you have to be a real housewife and not just a toilet or a nag. 

I'm almost 20, and honestly I'm feeling old because I want to move up to the middle class by 25 so I can finally start looking for a good woman and make lots of babies with her in a nice Midwestern town. 

How the heck did he find you? Do you/did you have a lot of friends that think like you? I hate to say "all/most women" this or that but I think based on my experience and the numerous anecdotes of others that many women are insanely delusional about their own self-worth and the worth of men. If you come from some real trad city where women are actually intelligent and understand how biology and society works, I'd like to immigrate there. 

You'll never believe this: we met on a free online dating site in 2013. Try to swallow that, haha.

It is a voluntary system, that's true. We both entered into our marriage willfully, but with high expectations of each other. We set the groundwork before we were wed so that we had a strong foundation to fall back on after our marriage. We're nearing our two-year anniversary and things just keep getting better. 

I'm most definitely proud to be my husband's wife. He chose me, despite all my flaws, to be his life partner. It's my duty to live up to those expectations. Of course I falter, and may not be the best I can be, but both of us experience that from time-to-time and as spouses we build each other up instead of tear each other down. I understand that satisfaction in marriage comes from serving one another (although the roles are different for men and women, obviously) so I find satisfaction and purpose in pleasing him. He must feel the same way in a sense, otherwise he wouldn't support me and love me as his wife.

I come from probably one of the worst places: Phoenix. Very liberal. I grew up around some of the most arrogant people you can imagine. As soon as I turned 18 I turned tail and ran to South Dakota. Much more conservative. Maybe, in a sense, I'm an oddball. I don't know a lot of women who are like me. Most are serial daters, and a large portion of them are single mothers to multiple children from different fathers. They're not good role models, but they sure do motivate me to be better. 

I think, in a sense, women need to be subdued by good, intelligent men. Women are too wild, emotional and selfish to be out on their own. Marriage is a good way to "tame" us. 

[smarterthanone]

Women were and are property. Here are two kinds of men that as a general rule always make women property.

See MC's (Motorcycle Clubs) almost all of them by tradition do not allow women to join as members, women may participate/join as property of a member. You can see them wearing their patches that say "Property of Big Dog Dave" or whatever the guys name is. And traditionally they behave or their man is expected to make them behave to whatever devices are necessary. No woman is allowed to cause drama that messes with club business.

See gangsta men, pimping women out, they own the women as a means of production. When a woman works (at any job but especially an intimate job like sex work) and then hands that money over to the man, its her acknowledging herself as property. That is what pimping is about, not sex work specifically, its ownership, specifically relating to finances is the key point. The women crave ownership so badly they don't care the man is not really worth of being an owner.

These are the men who understand the value of women as property, and think for a second, these are the kind of men who will steal a beta cucks wife in two seconds flat. Its the "civilized" men who want to treat women as something other than property AND IT DOES NOT WORK.

[Elizbaeth]

This is actually a pretty interesting topic. I agree with what @Siegfried von Walheim said. The strength of Western culture is its ability to be moral and reach for some beautiful ideals. You can’t be moral and strive towards perfection and endorse something as wicked as owning another human. Oh, and I also met my husband online. I decided I wanted to get married, made a list of what I wanted, put a profile, decided to screen for certain qualities, and he messaged me within two days. Met him the next week and took down my profile. It was awesome. Next best thing to a trusted matchmaker.

On 2/21/2018 at 11:21 AM, ofd said:

The idea of romantic love, marrying somebody without material interests is very recent and most likely a bad idea, given what it led to.

I actually think introducing the idea of marriage existing for romantic love is a terrible idea. Marriage is a business, and I believe it should be run quite similarly to a business. I also think that, within this economic agreement, you have the opportunity to grow an incredibly deep, true love, better than desire, once you are absent of lustful passions or passing fatuations. Marriage as an economic model forces the individuals to keep turning towards one another and to forever improve themselves and their interests and souls. That is what keeps the spark alive rather than sexual novelty whatever. 

 

That being said, I agree with a lot of what @CygniAustralis has said. Marriage did kinda “tame” me. While my husband basically treats me like an equal and I’m 100% free to do exactly as I please, we just sort of fell into traditional gender roles. And with other men I dated I usually ran the show. I’m smarter than most people I know and I really think the majority of people - and men - are really too dumb to listen to. Not saying I dislike them in total or would be rude to them, but I sure as heck aren’t going to bend my will to someone who isn’t extremely smart and capable and plain amazing. I am pretty emotionally volitile and passionate and can get very worked up over things, and for some reason I just always felt much calmer and relaxed with him than with others, even with his temper, and felt it instantly when we met. As we get deeper and deeper in our relationship I keep thinking how good it is to have him by my side. I feel so much more grounded and balanced. That saying - that he’s my rock - is truer as time goes by, especially as we both work on ourselves and fix our dysfunctions. 

I pride myself on being smart and loving intellectual pursuits, but I always had to fight some serious inner emotional battles and that is much easier now. 

No guys, y’all know it would be wrong to devolve into White Sharia or ownership of woman. For one, that would stunt any true growth of a woman into a fully-capable human. I do, however, think gender roles need to come back, esp for people who don’t think too carefully about how gender effects quite literally everything. 

 

On 2/20/2018 at 9:43 PM, Siegfried von Walheim said:

Guess how often I hear of women claiming they like to be owned? Even just metaphorically and not literally, it's still a rare thing for a 3D woman to say

Hahahaha but haven’t you heard of the S*** Test? Guys act like a s*** test is a terrible thing. I guess it’s unpleasant and confusing for the guy - if he’s inadequate and a little baby - but the thing is, if I can verbally whip a man, if I can poke and prod him and he folds, or acts too compliant, or blows up the other way and way over reacts, then I can best him and there’s no up are benefit for me in a relationship with him. I would have to look out for him, and that’s too much of a burden when I have kids to look out, I need him to be able to be in charge in all ways. Doesn’t mean I want to have no will or agency or thoughts, but I have to rely on him, and the only way he could be reliable to me is if he can handle everything even better than I can. 

 

[smarterthanone]

13 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Hahahaha but haven’t you heard of the S*** Test? Guys act like a s*** test is a terrible thing. I guess it’s unpleasant and confusing for the guy - if he’s inadequate and a little baby - but the thing is, if I can verbally whip a man, if I can poke and prod him and he folds, or acts too compliant, or blows up the other way and way over reacts, then I can best him and there’s no up are benefit for me in a relationship with him. I would have to look out for him, and that’s too much of a burden when I have kids to look out, I need him to be able to be in charge in all ways. Doesn’t mean I want to have no will or agency or thoughts, but I have to rely on him, and the only way he could be reliable to me is if he can handle everything even better than I can. 

Well guys look at it like its rude, we don't naturally go around purposely putting women on the spot to defend themselves at every decision or opinion they make. That being said, its very easy to defend against, so I don't think its that big of a deal. It's very understandable guys don't know this, we teach men to listen to women instead of just ignore their nonsense and stand up for yourself. Do you ever think if you were to meet a man who failed shit tests to just explain how hes coming off like a weak baby and then see if he can correct his behavior? If he is failing, it just means nobody ever taught him this before most likely. The guys who pass? Someone told them about it before. Doesn't seem like that important of an indicator when its as simple as if they learned a quick little thing yet or not.

[Siegfried von Walheim]

15 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Hahahaha but haven’t you heard of the S*** Test? Guys act like a s*** test is a terrible thing. I guess it’s unpleasant and confusing for the guy - if he’s inadequate and a little baby - but the thing is, if I can verbally whip a man, if I can poke and prod him and he folds, or acts too compliant, or blows up the other way and way over reacts, then I can best him and there’s no up are benefit for me in a relationship with him. I would have to look out for him, and that’s too much of a burden when I have kids to look out, I need him to be able to be in charge in all ways. Doesn’t mean I want to have no will or agency or thoughts, but I have to rely on him, and the only way he could be reliable to me is if he can handle everything even better than I can. 

 

My original post was modded out of existence. To make it short: shit tests can backfire and maybe I just don't know what qualifies (isn't it like pretending to drown, proposing polyamory, and making the man wait sort of thing?) but pretty much everything I mentioned is an indicator that a woman is either an attention whore, manipulative, or sociopathic. 

I understand the purpose of it (would he save me? Is he a cuck? Does he have a spine?) but frankly I think it's better as a demonstration to other women because my inclination is to leave any relationship with a woman who would actually have me think she was going to die (drowning) or would be an enemy in my own home (giving me a hard time). The middle one might amuse me because it's easily revealable that it's a test just by the absurd nature of it. However the more real it is the more I'm inclined to assume by the behavior that it's a demonstration of a lack of empathy and a lack of care. 

If I am to be relied upon by a woman then I expect to rely upon the woman too. I'll pitch the tend and keep the perimeter free of bandits but she'd better patch my wounds, tend to my kitchen, and be supportive of my weaknesses otherwise I'd be better off marrying my hand. 

I know I can be a bit feminine (in my emotional sensitivity) and therefore I have to be careful not to misplace my emotions but I naturally can't be with a similarly sensitive and reactive woman. It's just a recipe for disaster. And if I can't implicitly trust the woman then I have no intention of letting her be intimate with me. 

However at the same time I realize it's probably not the best to judge what would be best for me when I'm still very young and have work to do before I'm marriageable. 

Edited February 23, 2018 by Siegfried von Walheim

[Elizbaeth]

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Well guys look at it like its rude, we don't naturally go around purposely putting women on the spot to defend themselves at every decision or opinion they make. That being said, its very easy to defend against, so I don't think its that big of a deal. It's very understandable guys don't know this, we teach men to listen to women instead of just ignore their nonsense and stand up for yourself.

I don’t believe a woman had to be rude or catty about it, nor does a man have to be cold and unfeeling if he ignores nonsense and stands up for himself. 

 

 

4 hours ago, smarterthanone said:

Doesn't seem like that important of an indicator when its as simple as if they learned a quick little thing yet or not.

Maybe... I dunno, though. If a guy were unable to handle himself well, I would probably think he’s a nice guy, and then never think about him again. If he doesn’t understand women - what we need, her e we think and are (all the good and bad) - then I don’t really want to get involved with him. It gives me the creeps and makes me feel nervous. If a man doesn’t get it, then maybe he can learn, but I’m not going to be his mommy and teach him. Know what I mean? I don’t doubt that he can still be a good man, but if he can’t get those basic social aspects then clearly he’s not ready to be the man in a relationship with a woman.  He has more to learn and hasn’t leveled up yet. 

[J.L.W]

On 23/02/2018 at 3:33 AM, Elizbaeth said:

Hahahaha but haven’t you heard of the S*** Test? Guys act like a s*** test is a terrible thing. I guess it’s unpleasant and confusing for the guy - if he’s inadequate and a little baby - but the thing is, if I can verbally whip a man, if I can poke and prod him and he folds, or acts too compliant, or blows up the other way and way over reacts, then I can best him and there’s no up are benefit for me in a relationship with him. I would have to look out for him, and that’s too much of a burden when I have kids to look out, I need him to be able to be in charge in all ways. Doesn’t mean I want to have no will or agency or thoughts, but I have to rely on him, and the only way he could be reliable to me is if he can handle everything even better than I can.

*Sigh* What is your function here seriously? Winding everyone up?

I see most 's*** testing' as simply the women whining for attention. Sometimes the guy is kind of into the woman but does not really know it, and the woman gets impatient and starts doing loads of things, well beyond what would be called a legitimate 's*** test' basically whining that he did not ask her out in precisely the way she wanted on precisely the date she wanted, and overlooking any legitimate reason this may be the case. I.e. cowed by workplace rules put in by feminists that she is probably casually one of.

I think this pick up artist terminology isn't really that useful in explaining them, because a pick up artist wants to get between her legs he does not care if his theories legitimately explain anything i.e. like truthful.

[Elizbaeth]

On 2/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, J.L.W said:

*Sigh* What is your function here seriously? Winding everyone up?

Nope. Not at all. I was amused, certainly, but also wanted to point out the usefulness of the s*** test. I’m not talking about a woman being mean or spiteful or hateful. I’m talking about testing the metal or the man. I used to overly sympathize with the Red Pill community and the MGTOW guys, and wondered why women were so awful and why women would (oftentimes unbeknownst to themselves, even) do things to test men’s reactions. I thought it was underhanded and another undesirable  female trait. Having my own kids red pilled me so much. I really talk about it too often on this forum, but it’s so true. After having kids, I see how crazy it was to feel guilty about my own female nature because it was there for a very good reason. Women need to know what kind of man they’re dealing with, and my kids have cost me quite a lot, and after I see how vulnerable it has made me, I am shocked that every woman doesn’t pick apart potential mates. I’m not sure that men really appreciate the vulnerability inherent to being female, and the usefulness of female characteristics and behaviors such as the s*** test. 

 

On 2/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, J.L.W said:

see most 's*** testing' as simply the women whining for attention.

Maybe. Women do crave attention. If she’s throwing a fit about attention, it’s probably a test. Men can pass this and still maintain a good intimate relationship. Most tests can be passed by a man just sticking to his convictions and personal integrity.

 

On 2/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, J.L.W said:

beyond what would be called a legitimate 's*** test' basically whining that he did not ask her out in precisely the way she wanted on precisely the date she wanted, and overlooking any legitimate reason this may be the case. I.e. cowed by workplace rules put in by feminists that she is probably casually one of

Women can still be reasoned with, just as men can still have emotions. If she’s unwilling to at least consider and hear out a man’s reasons, then she just sounds like a spoiled person. Not worth it. 

 

On 2/24/2018 at 5:08 PM, J.L.W said:

think this pick up artist terminology isn't really that useful in explaining them, because a pick up artist wants to get between her legs he does not care if his theories legitimately explain anything i.e. like truthful.

I tend to think pick up artists are scumbags, and they exploit theories to control and in order to take as much as they can from someone without risking anything of themselves in return. I think the are weak and crooked losers. But, I think the theories (s** tests, etc) that explain sexual dynamics are accurate. Some people use them poorly and some use them in a more enlightened manner. 

[smarterthanone]

On 2/23/2018 at 4:40 PM, Elizbaeth said:

Maybe... I dunno, though. If a guy were unable to handle himself well, I would probably think he’s a nice guy, and then never think about him again. If he doesn’t understand women - what we need, her e we think and are (all the good and bad) - then I don’t really want to get involved with him. It gives me the creeps and makes me feel nervous. If a man doesn’t get it, then maybe he can learn, but I’m not going to be his mommy and teach him. Know what I mean? I don’t doubt that he can still be a good man, but if he can’t get those basic social aspects then clearly he’s not ready to be the man in a relationship with a woman.  He has more to learn and hasn’t leveled up yet. 

I mean I didn't know this. Nobody ever taught me. In fact people would say almost the opposite. Then one day I went on the internet and boom read about it for like 5 minutes and tada. So to judge me pre reading a 5 minute article vs after reading a 5 minute article really shouldn't be the difference between wow and yuck. Logically it doesn't make sense. But women are not logical obviously.

Like the hottest coolest successful guy you ever meet fails the test, you could walk away OR you could just tell him to google PUA shit tests and then go to the bathroom and come back and he will probably be now perfect. lol.

[J.L.W]

6 hours ago, Elizbaeth said:

Nope. Not at all. I was amused, certainly, but also wanted to point out the usefulness of the s*** test. I’m not talking about a woman being mean or spiteful or hateful. I’m talking about testing the metal or the man. I used to overly sympathize with the Red Pill community and the MGTOW guys, and wondered why women were so awful and why women would (oftentimes unbeknownst to themselves, even) do things to test men’s reactions. I thought it was underhanded and another undesirable  female trait. Having my own kids red pilled me so much. I really talk about it too often on this forum, but it’s so true. After having kids, I see how crazy it was to feel guilty about my own female nature because it was there for a very good reason. Women need to know what kind of man they’re dealing with, and my kids have cost me quite a lot, and after I see how vulnerable it has made me, I am shocked that every woman doesn’t pick apart potential mates. I’m not sure that men really appreciate the vulnerability inherent to being female, and the usefulness of female characteristics and behaviors such as the s*** test.

Without specificity we can't really discuss this in any depth, can we? 

I have been s*** tested by a girl, failed, and that was fair enough. A blond bombshell with all sorts of sensitivities with an intensity of a kind of person I just don't fit. The thing is with this girl is she played fair. When she wanted me to talk to her, she walked up to me and stared in my eyes, and walked off, then I had to follow. There was fair warning, a few months, before the unpleasant behaviour started.

However, additional women have been just nasty and in this case, I think the so- called s*** test is just an excuse for their own failings as a person. Having a girl crying and saying we are soulmates and then deliberately going off and getting pregnant with a brute over a small problem, when she is north of 30, before dating (it didn't work out, surprisingly). Is just her internal crap. Many girls seem to desire a great deal of courting before even the first date. (But then I do live in England where a friend of mine describes the girls as being 'the king the queen, the whole royal family!')

Now the term 's*** test' basically does not analyse the behaviour and find a solution, even a political one. It is just brushed under the rug because the goal is the v organ.