So Return of Kings, which seems to be working hard at becoming the most abhorrent publication known to man, has a post up by regular contributor “strongsloth” titled 5 Lines That Potential Wives Cannot Cross — that is , five rules that Mr. Sloth thinks men should enforce with any woman they want to make their wife.
These rules are, naturally, horrific. So horrific, in fact, that they essentially provide us with Five Reasons You Should Not Marry, or Date, or Rent Apartments to, or Probably Even Live in the Same City With Anyone Who’s a Fan of Return of Kings.
So let’s go through them one by one. Do not date or marry a ROK fan because:
1) He will insist on being the supreme dictator.
[A]ll decisions about things outside the house are in your sphere. If she wants some responsibility, it’s ok if she chooses how to cook the eggs.
2) He will isolate you from your family and friends. You know, like abusers do.
Just make it clear that her family and friends from before are not important to you. Their opinions do not matter. Don’t spend a lot of time with them. … They will turn on you the moment there are problems between you and your wife. When that happens, the less influence they have the better.
3) He will get you pregnant in order to make you more dependent on him.
Contraceptives and abortion are murder
Why? Immediate children, more children, short gaps between children. These all increase her dependence on you and the loyalty that comes with it. …
If she is marriageable don’t be afraid to make her pregnant before marriage. There is nothing like a baby on the way to increase your bargaining power. … You are helping her by overcoming her female propensity to waste her fertile years on a career, bad boys, and antidepressants.
4) He will insist that you devote all of your time and attention to raising the children that result from his no-contraception or abortion decree.
He will do this in part because he doesn’t want to bother with the hassles of childrearing, and in part because forcing you to be a stay-at-home mother will allow him to restrict your life and control you more effectively:
Being a mother is a full-time job and her first priority. Any work, sport, church, or whatever that she can’t handle just has to go.
He’ll even insist on controlling how long you breastfeed the children:
Breast feeding is good for children and increases her bond with your children, so make her do it for one year. Then make her stop. Otherwise it might delay the next child and make her search for alternatives to being a wife and mother.
5) And last but certainly not least: Because he will rape you.
Under no circumstance can you accept the idea that she gets to choose if or when to satisfy you or choose to sabotage your joint fertility. …
You control the time and frequency of sex, not her. … [A] woman who will deny you sex early on will only use it to gain greater power over you in the long run. …
The obvious exception to this is the first time you have sex. Typically she will control the timing of that for obvious reasons. From the second time onward, any poorly-reasoned denial is a red flag.
Yeah, I’m pretty sure that’s not the real red flag here.
As strongsloth sees it, enforcing these rules will make it impossible for your future wife to ever “stray.”
Just imagine the situation. Wedding. Pregnant. Child born. Full time mother. No career. Breast feeding. Stop breast-feeding. Constant sex. Pregnant again. Repeat. There is little opportunity for her to get away from the children and her commitment to you, let alone consider alternatives to marriage. By the time the youngest child is in school her SMV [Sexual Market Value] relative to yours will have dropped, and you are safer.
You see what I was saying about how hard ROK is trying to become the worst publication in the world?
I couldn’t bring myself to look at the comments.
Jay: some day I want to test just how high their level of gullibility is. Like spreading the rumour that women are conspiring to grow teeth in their vaginas. If we back it up with some evo psych nonsense they’re sure to believe it.
Wait, are you saying that Operation Dentata isn’t real? Because I’ve had my Paypal donations all set up for months.
No wonder these chumps have such problems finding partners.
Cassandrakitty: it’s in the works but we’ve had some construction problems with the secret underground lab. Be patient.
Oh I really must write that novel about a female serial killer who targets men like this.
Wait, everyone here isn’t actually a cat in real life? My worldview has just been shattered.
… Normally, this is where I’d go “Welp, as long as they’re open about what they want and find a woman who wants the same, it’s all good.”
But no. No no no nope nope nadda nope no. This is straight up abuse. They literally want their women barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen, and moreover wish to use psychological and potentially physical force to make it so.
It’s really telling that they feel they have to resort to fucking stockholm syndrome to get someone to empathize with them. Maybe, just maybe, all that crap about presenting yourself as an alpha manly man that draws chicks to you is complete and utter bullshit, and they realize it only works until they spend any amount of time with their target and the mask invariably slips.
And this is from the site of the dude that just recently had a bit of a breakdown over PUA stuff and was considering trying to shape up and find a longer term relationship. If this is what Roosh deems finding an LTR, then there goes any shred of sympathy I ever felt for him.
I saw this wildly mistitled “news story” on Raw Story some time ago.
The study was done on banana flies, I shit you not. Apparently the females had live sperm from two males simultaneously, and while any given offspring was sired by male A, the sperm of male B also influenced the egg’s development by some non-genetic mechanism. (I didn’t read the actual paper.)
I know this is a mocking site, but I am not mocking here – the only kind of woman that could marry a man like this would have to be an Andrea Yates personality. How they would get to marriage in the first place would be a supreme act of guile and deception, similar to the one Ronald Shanabarger perpetrated (I read about a lot of terrible things people do, but that one really shocked me). Either way, any children as a result of that period of slavery are going to be as damaged as their parents, if they do make it to adulthood.
Surely it would be easier to look at relationships as pleasureable (rather than one person in it living in a state of permanent terror), and your female partner as a person? Surely?
How are they going to earn enough to have a wife and kids? Or do they all live “happily ever after” in mom’s basement?
Thank you David for wading through this filth. I don’t know how you do it.
From the comments:
Vomit. Vomit everywhere!
Aside from my previous comment, I don’t even with this stuff.
Is the only reason they want a wife so they can have (male) children? Because it sounds like most of them would prefer a sex toy that cooked.
THE COMMENTS TURN RACIST IMMEDIATELY. And I’m not even surprised.
Did you know for instance:
Foiled again.
They put a lot of importance into ‘carrying on their genes’ but no, I don’t believe they want children as a whole. If they could just replicate themselves they would.
Hahaha! I figured it was a complete misreading of an actual study considering how often these guys come in here and leave links as proof that don’t say what they think it does. I’m assuming that nowhere in this banana fly paper did the authors say this could be extrapolated to humans. Plus, if that was about sperm from doing different males being in the uterus at the same time, that doesn’t even say anything about past partners. IRRC, human sperm (not sure about other species) stays alive for only about 3 days. So even if this could be extrapolated to humans, it wouldn’t matter if a woman had a past partner months or years ago.
Every time that I think that ROK can’t come up with anything worse or make its awfulness any more blatant and undeniable to even their most literal-minded defenders than it already has, the writers go and prove me wrong. There was that article from RayWolf that got posted here a while back (I think that it was in the comments) where I got the vibe that the “kings” wanted to use pregnancy and motherhood to control their girlfriends and wives, and this just spells it out. This goes well beyond “traditional” family stuff. I mean, if they just wanted a stay-at-home mom/working dad dynamic, then I’d say just make sure that they have a good enough job to make that work and that they marry a woman who also wants that life, but this is so far beyond that set-up. It’s just abusive. Stay-at-home moms are supposed to have lives too, and even the working dads who end up working the longest hours still have some interest in bonding with their children and spending time with them. My parents ended up following the stay-at-home-mom/working dad model after my brother was born, and my mom still had a life and still got help so that we’d have all of our needs met, and my dad still spent time with us when he was home because he loved us and wanted to because fathers love their kids too.
But I’ve seriously gotta ask because this isn’t the first time that I’ve seen this come up: if women are so goddamn stupid and incompetent, how are they magically so good at caring for and raising children from infancy to pre-K without any assistance, except financial, from anyone? How are they so good that literally no one else can do? And how, if strongsloth doesn’t want to let his future wife employ any childcare services, does he expect to have much time to have sex with her or ever do anything fun with her ever again? Does he expect her to neglect their kids whenever she needs to meet some sexual or social need of his?
Actually…given that he is refusing to do anything with his kids before they can walk, insists on cutting them of from breast milk when he’s ready (not when they’re ready), and won’t let their mother get any help if she can’t meet all their needs and wants by herself, that’s probably the case. Jesus! In addition to hoping that they never marry, I hope that any children that this asshole and anyone who follows his advice father get completely removed from their custody. Strongsloth and his readers will make awful, shitty, neglectful fathers, and it sounds like they’ll force the mothers to be neglectful too whenever it suits them.
They seem to have basically just borrowed it all from the Quiverfull movement, and then removed the flowery words. In Quiverfull, the children are more important, not simply as a way to keep women in place but as an army of Christians with the right values to fight back against the heathen population. Girls marry who they are told to by their fathers, (they’re sold in the traditional manner,) as early as possible, and virginity of girls before marriage is an obsession.
Of course, that’s not a unique idea to Quiverfull. What’s funny about all these let’s bring back the old traditions is the idea that women used to not work. But men didn’t buy women just for sex or having children. They bought them as laborers. Women worked fields and vineyards, tended livestock, worked in mines, smithies, warehouses, textile factories and trade shops, on caravans, kept business accounts, ran market stalls and stores, etc. They built houses and barns on the prairies and were the major labor force in the early parts of the industrial age. This thing with women chained in the kitchen — never actually used to happen. People didn’t even have kitchens until fairly recently. Even in early hunter-gatherer societies, both men and women both hunted and gathered and carried the children as they wandered. This world they want to build and some sub-cultures want to build — it’s never actually existed in human history.
You know what’s amazing? The guy who suggested indirectly threatening a potential partner with a murder-suicide spree if she ever tried to divorce him doesn’t consider that there might be nasty repercussions for him. The only downside he can see is that the woman might leave him. I bet he’s never entertained the possibility that the woman might decide that he was serious, and react accordingly.
Hush hush hush with your ‘realities of the lives of women’. In the comments to the OP someone just ended an asinine comment about epigenetics and womens’ DNA deterioration with:
‘Too lazy to check right now but that is certainly not impossible.’
These are the powerhouses of logic and reason we should be listening to!
When your theories are too stupid to win an Ignoble, you should rethink your life choices.
Hahahahah, about other mens sperm hanging about affecting your babies:
Clearly Mr-‘the reason women are women and not men is that they are too wet and cold. If only they had sufficient heat and dryness, they could “cook” themselves into men’-Aristotle is the very first person to look to when it comes to learning about female biology.
I was curious, so I actually looked up the original paper. What it says is that if the immature egg cells are exposed to the semen of one male and are then fertilized by the second male, it can affect the offspring. In this case, the trait they were looking at was body size. So, exposing the eggs to sperm from a larger male and then having the eggs fertilized by a smaller male, still produced larger offspring.
They do suggest that it could be extrapolated to other organisms. The important part though, is that the egg cells need to be exposed to the first male’s sperm. The human egg is only viable for about a day. Unless the woman is having sex with multiple guys on the same day, this won’t happen. Partners from months or years ago will not have this effect.
Guys like this alone make the idea of marriage sound riskier than it could ever be worth.
There may not be the research yet, but do bear in mind:
So…y’know, there’s that to consider…