r/itsthatbad

Sips tea

Even if this is staged or fake, I gotta teach some game to you men searching for “good” women. Sighs…

After marriage, but especially after marriage and having kids, the chances of a woman cheating go up – not down.

Some of you will default to “baby black pill” thinking and assume that cheating comes down to physical attraction. That’s not it – or at least not all of it. It’s about how much more forbidden cheating becomes for married (monogamous) women and especially married mothers. That “forbidden fruit” can make it more exciting for them to cheat and can drive their temptation to do so.

This woman (in the video) mentions growing bitter and resentful towards her husband for lack of that good sex. Even if the sex is good, wives can still hold some resentment towards their husbands for being the catalyst in transitioning them from a “fun” stage of their life into a more demanding stage of life, in which they’re basically trapped.

You guys want a low body count woman, so you can “pair-bond,” and she’ll be less likely to cheat, right?

Oh, I feel sorry for you guys.

Those of you who intend to find “good” women, who you don’t believe will cheat on you (and divorce you) – you men have to think.

This woman (speaking in the video) waited until marriage – 30 years for her to have the sex. And the sex is wack. Dude ain’t hittin’ it right. And that’s a problem for her. The probability of her cheating is high. If she makes it until they have a kid, putting up with the bad sex, I’d bet however many thousands of dollars that she will cheat some time after that. You can already hear that in her statements. She wishes she’d had “fun” in her 20s, instead of waiting for him, the man who she now resents.

She’s going to cheat.

This is gonna be controversial to some of you, but I think it’s only natural for her to cheat if the husband cannot smash. She’s a real woman. 

Every man reading this understands that, right? 

My guy is about to learn that, if he doesn’t know already. Of course, married men cheat too. They’ll sneak out to make transactions, for example.

Everyone’s human.

No, not exactly. This is Mr. Clown Man’s creative interpretation of the book, Sex and Culture, by anthropologist J.D. Unwin.

Unwin’s non-religious theory, formed from his study of several civilizations, is that the more a society practices “prenuptial chastity” (no sex before marriage), the more productive they are, the greater the achievements of their civilization.

• Less fornication = more productive civilization (culture, society)

But Unwin doesn’t argue that restraining sexual opportunities before marriage is a necessary conflict of men against women. According to him, it’s practically the opposite. 

One of Unwin’s observations is that men (in general) imposing rules on women’s sexuality is futile, because women naturally don’t want people telling them however many men they can or can’t bang and when. Since they naturally don’t want to be subjugated in that way, sooner or later, one generation or another, when they have the opportunity, they’ll start going against whatever rules were imposed on them. And the culture is in free-fall after that.

Ultimately, a culture that forces women into restrained sexuality is unsustainable. The same is true for a culture that promotes sexual liberation, according to Unwin. In a way, Unwin doubles down against imposing rules on women by noting that productivity and greater accomplishments go hand in hand with more rights and freedoms for women.

The challenge is, with those rights and freedoms for women, the whole society—enough women and men—must voluntarily practice sexual restraint in order to maintain their culture. Unwin didn’t observe any civilization that was able to do so successfully. He did observe civilizations that imposed virginity at marriage rules on women, but those rules could only be enforced for so long.

The other “Unwinian” condition for a thriving civilization is absolute monogamy, which means that married men and women are expected to be exclusive to each other. If you put all three together – voluntary sexual restraint, prenuptial chastity, and absolute monogamy, then you have an “Unwinian” superpower civilization, which has yet to be seen...

You often come across men on social media, who insist that women should want to pair-bond, which is done most easily with fewer or no previous sexual partners on their part. But you know what I find funny? It seems if that were something women were naturally inclined to do, then they would voluntary restrain their sexuality.

I dunno. Women gonna women.

_

From the Champagne Room

Is there a case for enforced monogamy?

She explains how your culture is broken

>Sexual freedom was never a part of modern feminism, never celebrated as such at Feminist Headquarters.
Because so many of us marched in both the Women’s Movement and the Sexual Revolution, and because they happened simultaneously, those events remain in memory as one glorious upheaval. [...]
I automatically assumed that those of us who marched and wrote in the late 1960s and early 1970s knew there would be no joy in the workplace without sexual freedom, by which I don’t mean fucking in the Ladies’ (Oops!, Women’s) Room. Simply put, I knew that we would never be equals staying in the traditional sexual straitjacket.
– Nancy Friday, My Secret Garden – Forty Years in the Garden

Ah, yes. The “male loneliness epidemic,” our favorite topic.

Ever since I heard this term, I’ve wondered who coined it, with what evidence, and why? I still haven’t found any solid evidence of a “male loneliness epidemic.” There’s plenty of evidence for a “male singleness epidemic,” if people insist on using that language. I collect as much of that evidence as I can find. There’s even evidence of a general “loneliness epidemic.” But I can’t find any stats or data on a distinct “male loneliness epidemic” – all three words.

The problem with the term is, it’s consistently used to tell men that if they’re “lonely,” then they have a problem and need to change (as you can see here). The women are perfect, delightful, thriving (even when they’re single). There must be something wrong with those “lonely” men and only those men. Everyone else is meeting some standard of being a good person that they’re failing to attain.

A self-inflicted epidemic.

It’s absolutely amazing, isn’t it?

Here’s a strange idea. Maybe, after so many interactions in the dating market, some men in general have decided there’s not much in relationships for them. They haven’t been impressed by all the wonderful women they’ve met.

Here’s an even stranger idea. The women are marvelous, of course, but maybe—for no fault of those “lonely” men themselves—the women simply aren’t interested in them?

One more thought. Since so many men now believe they need to looksmaxx to meet women, maybe those “lonely” men are unattractive – in which case, maybe that can’t be helped.

I don’t think this is so complicated. I think this woman (in the video) spelled it out clearly.

>“Ultimately, women are realizing we no longer need partnership to survive.”

Women have enough money to have fun. They’re all set. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with any man for being single.

_

From the Champagne Room

“We no longer depend on men financially. They need to not depend on us emotionally.” (video post)

The evidence does not show a “male” loneliness “epidemic”

The “male loneliness epidemic” explained (video post – more links there)

The “male loneliness epidemic” is only a social media trend

Guys, the idea of a “male loneliness epidemic” is designed to work against you (video post)

“The global dating crisis” (video post)

Men at the bottom get nothing. Absolutely nothing.

The “looksmaxxing” obsession

Do women like you yet? (short video post)

Relevant articles:

How American Dads Became the Parents Their Fathers Never Were

Do Young People Suck?

Women asked for equality; they were given equality. They asked for better men; they were given better men. They asked for better husbands; they were given better husbands. They asked for feminist men; they were given feminist men. They asked for risk-free sex; they were given risk-free sex. They asked for risk-free pregnancy; they were given near risk-free pregnancy. And yet, women have never hated men as much as they do now.

I have heard some objections elsewhere to the framing of relationships, particularly sexual relationships, as a reward for good male behavior. Namely, that framing it this way implies that men are owed sex simply for what should be bare minimum.

1. Here's a simple fact: this is exactly what we were promised. Better male behavior = more willingness of women to have sex. It's a common talking point starting with second-wave feminism that patriarchy is what is poisoning hetero sex and that feminism held the singular opportunity to make it better (often, these feminists would point to bad isolated examples from bonobo primatology, inapplicable to humans, to make their points). This is partially the justification for political lesbianism (and the more recent 4b reincarnation): refusing to engage with men until they get better. Even sex-negative feminists like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon were making these arguments. But men have gotten better, and yet, it's precisely the men that have gotten better that are being punished the most.
2. Here's another fact: society won't exist without sexual relationships. You want your feminist ideology to continue? Start having kids and teaching them feminist ideology. Some feminists seem to have caught wind of this. Expect to hear a lot about maternal and pro-family feminism in the upcoming years. Progressive feminists like Darby Saxbe and Zawn Villines, for example, have already started talking about it, and they seem to be getting fairly popular. Likewise, conservative feminists have also started using the term.
3. Here's yet another fact: women already frame the question of sexual relationships as a matter of reward. Everyone here is already familiar with that pesky natural selection argument. While the argument is self-defeating and improperly named, the argument does frame the question of sexual reproduction and specifically the question of fertility as a matter of women rewarding good men with sex and kids.

Even if none of this was true, it stands to reason that you should expect fertility to increase, have more relationships, and have more sex as women are subject to less abuse, have access to more risk-free sex, have access to more risk-free pregnancies, and have access to better men. Not as a reward to men, but simply because the main complaints that women have that we are told serve as barriers to full free engagement with the other sex are no longer applicable.

And yet, none of that is happening. So guys, it's not your fault. You did what was asked and demanded of you. You followed through with most of their suggestions. You did become better. You are better now than you'd have been a few decades ago as a young man. If you live in the so-called developed world, you are better (by feminist standards) than the undeveloped (so-called under-development) world. And yet, your women have never hated you more. Make of that what you will.

People often label all the men who get nothing as "angry," for example. No, having paid attention to a wide range of their social media posts, I can tell you they're more depressed than anything. Personally, I seriously don't care for men who are legitimately angry or frustrated about getting nothing, but I can definitely sympathize with the ones who are depressed about that.

I really don't know what to say about this. I'm stumped. I would try to write a post to encourage guys going through the experience described, but based on my previous attempts, that probably wouldn't go over well. I won't even link those posts below. They'll most likely miss, because I can't truly relate. I don't think I have any good words for men who are struggling with absolutely nothing – possibly for their entire adulthood. I can't teach or explain or reason them through to feeling better about their lives.

And realistically, as far as I can tell from searching through all kinds of research about the dating market, I can't even find solid evidence of anything getting better in the dating market, to give guys any positive outlook for their future.

Keep on truckin.

_

From the Champagne Room

“The global dating crisis” (video post)

No, the dating culture is completely busted. It's not coming back. This is not a “recession.” (video post)

He explains all the problems of the modern dating market (video post)

"Our black pilled future" (subtitle video post)

From the Champagne Room

The American caste structure

• Women usually marry men, who eventually earn incomes similar to their fathers' highest income (class). So, women aren't likely to "jump" into much higher income classes through marriage.

Is status the master key? (video post)

Yes, this is a real Apple Music description.

I mean, let’s look on the bright side. It’s an improvement on “misandry isn’t real”.

The easiest way to misinterpret this man's statements is to think he’s claiming that all men are ideal “romantics” and that women are bad. No. He’s expressing how deeply “romantic” men can be, to the point that they idealize their female counterparts to some degree. They believe their own love for a woman is the mirror reflection of that woman’s love for them, which gives them a sense of emotional security.

When a man experiences just how different a real woman is, compared to his romantic expectation, that can devastate a man. You could make the same statement with the genders reversed. Most of the differences are difficult (maybe impossible) to understand.

For one, in my opinion, a man’s love for a woman is more emotional than a woman’s love for a man. Men’s love for women is often irrational. It doesn’t need to serve any practical purpose, and oftentimes serves no practical purpose at all. I would say that a woman’s love for man typically serves much more practical and rational purposes. There’s nothing wrong with that, but there’s a difference. Experiencing and coming to terms with that difference has a more profound effect on men’s psychology when they’re inclined towards this “romantic” love.

This man speaks to the heart of that issue, but he underestimates just how much men can truly desire to love women. Learning about “red pill” on the internet isn’t even remotely enough to change a man’s desire to love a woman. Manosphere or not, men can pursue that desire to love. It’s only a man’s experiences with real women that may either teach him to love differently or even eliminate his ability to love real women in the deeply emotional way that he might have desired.

_

From the Champagne Room

I was once like you.