The article: “The Feminist Push to Sanction Female Infidelity” (from Heartiste, a PUA)
Its inspiration: “The Upside of Infidelity: Can an Affair Save Your Marriage?” (Slate)
Now, the Slate article is interesting. The main thing you need to know is that some therapists think that for some marriages, if a person is found to have had a conflict avoidance affair (“generally found among couples whose arguments never escalate into screaming matches” according to Slate), it can serve as a wake up call for a couple to get their act together and discuss their issues, which may end up saving a marriage.
The article starts off with an hypothetical: a wife cheats on her husband while he was away in Afghanistan, and the two of them land in therapy. They talk about their issues, and slowly they stop blaming each other and start asking questions in order to resolve their underlying issues.
Then Heartiste read the article title, the first two paragraphs of the scenario, and then went off ranting on how feminists are trying to get men cuckolded.
Let’s get started.
Advanced apologies for the f-bombs. I should probably just add that to the about page or find a way to warn people ahead of time.
What feminists are attempting to do here is nothing short of legitimize the biologically innate female imperative to fuck alpha males during ovulation and extract resources from beta males during infertile periods of the monthly cycle.
No, seriously. What?
What evidence is there that there is such thing as an alpha male, a beta male, or a “biologically innate female imperative” to bang and leech according to her period?
Feminists and various “health professionals” would agitate to normalize the “alpha fux, beta bux” female mating strategy. As society becomes ever more feminized and emasculated, expect to see more of these rancid ideas percolate in mainstream discussion, as the pro-female directive and anti-male directive reach their demonic apotheoses.
You know what this thing is missing? Evidence.
Also, what is with the “alpha fux, beta bux”? Are you trying to emulate wannabe 12 year old gangsters who think that spelling words with an “x” at the end and maybe a gang sign or two is enough to make a person cool?
The divorce industrial and family court complexes are rigged against the interests of men, and getting more rigged by the day.
An army of leftoids fed on the swill of legalese will barely break a sweat holding the contradictory beliefs that women cheat for good reasons and men cheat because they’re oppressive patriarchs.
Eventually, with the help of dazzling sophistry, the law will be twisted to such a warped geometry that the people will come to accept injustice as fairness and lies as truth. And those who bitterly cling to old-fashioned notions of justice will be scorned as rubes and cast out of polite society, their reputations and livelihoods destroyed with the ease of smashing an insect.
Heartiste, you’re as bad of a writer as Stephanie Meyer.
No, wait. That’s an insult to Meyer. Sorry, Ms. Meyer.
The irony of this feminism-inspired dross is that a case can be made that male infidelity might very well enhance marital stability, over the long term.
And now we’re at the heart of this post: letting men bang as many women as they want, without any consequences whatsoever.
Men are naturally disposed to seek and enjoy mate variety, […]
[…] and men are better than women at maintaining multiple lovers without sacrificing love or duty for any one of them.
So many assertions. So little evidence.
A cheating husband who gets his sexual needs met will feel less resentment toward his frigid wife.
Because if a man cheats on his wife, it’s always 100% the wife’s fault because she doesn’t do sex on command.
And if a man cheats, a woman’s supposed to just smile and pretend that nothing is wrong in their relationship, ever.
A cheating wife, in contrast, will feel more resentment for her beta husband who will assume the role for her of the man “keeping her from happiness”.
Because the only two settings a woman has is hate and more hate.
This isn’t to suggest that excusing male infidelity is good for the institution of marriage and the sustenance of an advanced, high trust civilization. Only that, if we are to set down this road of rationalizing the benefits of infidelity, it makes a lot more sense to grant husbands the generous latitude to pursue extramarital pleasures than it does to grant wives that same freedom.
“I have a right to cheat on you, because you refused to sleep with me the other night. You are never to complain, because I’m a logical man and I have needs, damn it! If you didn’t want me to cheat, you’d never say no to sex!”
Feminism is the sick, wheezing spawn of its parent ideology, equalism, the belief in a magical flying spaghetti monster that imbues all humans with equal ability and equal worth, […]
Hey! Don’t you dare insult the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
And what the hell is equalism? Is that like a new religion where we worship equal signs and give offerings to our masters “1+1=2” and “2+2=4”?
[…] interchangeable flesh cogs […]
We’re in a machine now?
[…] that can as easily master astrophysics as lawn care […]
Because women are inherently too stupid to understand science.
[…] given the right dose of self-esteem boosting pablum.
Because there’s something wrong with you if you have any sense of self-worth.
Whatever the self-professed noble intentions of their advocates, these ideologies are as wicked and destructive as any genocidal revolutions that have come before them.
Because an article saying that maybe an affair could serve as a wake-up call to resolve issues in a marriage is equivalent to mother freaking genocide.
Feminism’s proponents will suffer endless ridicule should they choose to fight, or they will retreat from the public square to lick their wounds in the comfort of their silent seething thoughts.
I’m sensing some psychological projection going on here.
And, if the spoils of victory are rich indeed, some will self-deliver to release the pain.
Ew, dude. I don’t really need to know what you’re wanking off to.