Hypergamy vs. Madonna/Whore

While I am an anti-feminist, this does not imply that I agree with all things said by all anti-feminists, for I am a unique individual with a unique life and therefore a statistical outlier by most commonly-known metrics of today.

While I support the choice of a man to “go his own way” I find MGTOWs to be oddly conflicted, not the least of which is the presence of the “T” for “They” in MGTOW—as if MGTOW is a herd comprised of individuals swearing allegiance to that herd-mentality while denying the existence of authoritative hierarchy (a natural outgrowth of the older generation effectively betraying the younger, in so many ways, while not providing a particularly sustainable backlash).

Whereas Feminists use the sophistry of Not All Feminists Are Like That as a deflection from all rational charges of hypocrisy, apparently All MGTOWS Are Like That, or else they are kicked out of the club. I don’t blame them for this reaction given that “inclusiveness” gets old however intuitively, and dare I say maternally, wish to spare them from some of the pain I have encountered in the course of my own path.

Meanwhile, there really is no right answer or happy medium between “everyone should be a little girl forever and ever” and “you are either with us or against us.” Debates between the merits of kindergarten inclusiveness vs. militarism or other objective-oriented top-down cohesiveness need to concede that both dynamics are necessary and neither will ever be “equal” nor even “opposite”. However, when it comes to MGTOW, it isn’t clear to me whether a leader can possibly truly emerge (albeit there are plenty of pretenders) or whether it strives for a false “Communist” structure with members either being in “the party” or consigned toward slavery to it as a “good comrade”.

None for me, thanks.

Meanwhile, a statement by “Jim” tells me that I had best address this whole Patriarchy vs. Female Feral Behavior thing before notions of “one true way” male supremacy get out of hand:

Moment to moment female sexual choice needs to be forbidden, and Islam needs to be forbidden outside of Dar al Islam.

Have you guys learned nothing? Forbidding something makes it more desirable/sacred/etc. in the long run. There have got to be exceptions even if there’s no good reason to reveal such exceptions to children, our “glasnost” age notwithstanding. However, in a “democracy” all rhetoric has to be geared down to the lowest common denominator for maximum adherence thereto. Democracy has some serious drawbacks and requires revolution from time to time.

For the record (and I suppose I should have made this announcement before I caught the eyes of a bunch of Christian Bigots) I am not opposed to Islam. Nor Christianity. Nor Judaism! I’m not opposed to religions albeit, it is a given that every pyramid scheme eventually becomes corrupt.

As Rupert Sheldrake’s guru says:

All Paths Lead to God.

However, I’m not personally super-keen on monotheism myself, because I think that diversity of Gods is actually a good thing albeit probably not all at the same time. I believe that there ought to be seasonal Gods and rituals, with not all seasons being universal constructs. Location location location.

All utopias are destined to fail eventually and longevity is not its own reward. That said, of course, I can see the value in keeping most women on a short leash. Specifically most women are happiest with guaranteed outcomes; i.e., “security” and depending on men to provide it, at least until they grow the fuck up. Monogamy sounds like a reasonable trade-off for that security during a female’s reproductive prime. Exceptions to that rule however must apply to exceptional people such as my special snowflake self.

I would like to introduce the concept of the Gangbang vs. the “Mitzi Gaynor” dynamic, with the former being ideally (or at least historically—in my own lifetime) male dominated and the latter a dancing diva on a stage full of identically-dressed men who defer to Mitzi in every way (and might even be gay).


The female member of the first configuration is a slut and the latter is a whore. I realize that nowadays (and perhaps always) it is very difficult for the outside observer to tell the difference. Whores make a business of pretending to be sluts, and sluts who desire to live long often pretend to be whores. The relative weight of money vs. sex is the deciding factor.

If the point of an engineered utopia is to constantly increase population then:

Without implying any endorsement for the strategy, one must observe that a society that presents women with essentially three options — be a nun, be a prostitute, or marry a man and bear children — has stumbled upon a highly effective way to reduce the risk of demographic decline.

Source: http://newamerica.net/node/8092

However, at some point, more babies is not better, and, in my view, overpopulation relative to opportunities and resources combined with the technology to hold-up a calcified dystopia invariably leads to some sort of “feminist” population correction mechanism a.k.a. “The Apocalypse”. More on the subject here: Population Sustainability

Moreover, as the quality of available men degrades, such as now, thanks to the estrogenization and shaming of men, forcing women to be faithful to these chemical-eunuchs is not going to work. Men who play rough will always be—at least secretly—in demand. I ought to know. Moreover a “Dominant” man willing to pay for the privilege of whipping a “slut” is a case of two oxymorons coming together.

Understandably, a man-boobed social reject is likely to throw a hissy fit and commit violence against someone to include himself. He’s been fooled, badly, by propaganda among other constructs. It is a sad state of affairs, however, in my view, let such men serve as living examples of the hazards of being born of an emasculating mother and an abandoning father.

Perhaps I embody a cautionary tale myself. Time will tell.

There are more than one, two, or three female archetypes. There are more than one, two, or three male archetypes. However, in monotheism, only certain archetypes are considered valid.

The Holy Father, Son, Virgin, and “Holy Spirit” are the only acceptable Christian archetypes, with that last undoubtedly standing in for “mother”, but, after some past Apocalypse, someone combined the female archetypes and removed the sexuality of the “goddess” as a means of staving off the next Apocalypse. My theory, of course. Alternatively, Christianity might simply be Judaism-Lite for the masses, because “give the people what they want” and that will repress peasant rebellion indefinitely. This simplistic view might be better applied to a particular brand of Christianity rather than another, but, I digress.

Removing the goddess archetype might seem like a grand idea however, eventually, all good ideas engender backlash. Nowadays, all sorts of women want to be goddesses, princesses, queens, etc. Fail!

I’m still trying to figure out which archetype am I but clearly, if I were to be forced to marry and be faithful to an effeminate man, I’d probably turn gay or celibate or crash planes full of civilians.

I’d rather be beaten and humiliated regularly and forced to gag on cock as a dietary regimen. Oh, did that sound sarcastic? I meant to say, I’d prefer… However, due to my awareness (among other reasons) of the Madonna/Whore disassociation of female archetypes in the male mind, I chose not to reproduce. I couldn’t take the chance of reproducing my father’s dysfunction in a man of my choice. Whereas my mother was clearly sexually available, my father it would seem barely acknowledged her once she adopted the maternal role in his mind. He might have preferred to sex it up with whores, perhaps, but given that his moral sensibilities didn’t permit that, he chose to use his daughters that way instead, but without corrupting us by any sort of compensation whatsoever. An extreme example for sure but meant to illustrate that “hypergamy” is not limited to women. Rather, narcissists of all sorts tend to disassociate or split archetypes rather than to love, honor, cherish, and fuck the same person at the same time. This being the case, prohibiting women from disassociating archetypes but permitting men to do so is bound to backfire eventually.

However, this one-sided disassociation is probably a really good idea if one wants an unbeatable utopia thanks to endless growth. Additionally, one might wish to avoid making a woman like me into some sort of role model for other women because productivity is likely to lapse.

The Virgin Mary is the ultimate in hypergamy given that she couples with the top dog of all, while remaining utterly “unsoiled” by mortal man. On the other hand, Lilith, the bad woman, seriously needs a good gangbang. That could have forestalled a whole lot of shenanigans, and there we would be, happily living a tribal, nomadic, hunter/gatherer life, without the need for crop rotations, fences, Great Big Walls, etc.

Meanwhile, Bacchus, that rolly polly God of hedonism and war, has no business getting married. Rather, what that man needs is a bunch of coke whores. As for me, however, I don’t respond well sexually to mere money nor gluttony, therefore, Bacchus is not the man for me. Rather, in my view, there is freedom in slavery. This particular Oracle likes to be whipped. Lacking such I issue all sorts of disruptive prophecy. Someone get that Oracle a gag! There goes the neighborhood.

19 thoughts on “Hypergamy vs. Madonna/Whore

  1. Pingback: Hypergamy vs. Madonna/Whore | Manosphere.com

  2. You certainly write a thoughtful and interesting article here. I need time to go through it slowly, then possibly respond beyond the following observation: yes, MGTOW needs some scrutiny as to ‘herding’. I recently was invited to and happily joined an all male Facebook group which refers to “The Red Pill”. I don’t know if I’ve swallowed the pill; I’m not sure I fully understand it. In any case, my “type” is rather solitary. I do go my own way, but not in a group–but I do enjoy observing (and remembering) the youthful male energy in some of the members.. Also, I’m glad I am no longer led around by my penis, although I do treasure some memories in this realm. (I’m 78).

    • You are an individual and that is masculine in my view. However, I am an individual too and is that masculine? I think it might be a less than desirable feminine trait for good reason. Yet I am what I am. Still trying to figure it out.

  3. The problem with MGTOW is the same problem that afflicts every movement. A movement by nature is dependent on herd mentality. If you have a movement where everyone disagrees with each other than it’s not really a movement, is it? You need to have some kind core belief system that everyone adheres to in order to keep the movement glued together. This might be fine but often times the core belief system is false or highly debatable. What are the core tenets of MGTOW? Well it seems to be this belief that men should not get married because marriage is slavery for men. Now I would argue that it’s not slavery because slavery by definition requires force. If a man chooses to marry that is him acting out of his own free will regardless of the risk. It’s akin to choosing to join the military. There are good and bad reasons for joining the military. I would argue against it personally but I could see why someone would take the risk and want to join. Likewise, I could see why someone would want to get married. It’s not always going to turn out badly but sometimes it will.

    One MGTOW said to me once that marriage was slavery because men are brainwashed from an early age and so they aren’t really thinking freely. Problem with that is that everything could be construed as brainwashing. Who can we trust to separate “free thought” from “brainwashing.” And how are we suppose to know if we are the victims of brainwashing or not? I might think I’m thinking freely but isn’t that what every brainwashed person thinks?

    • Most men I know they are in a suicidal mission to get marry and have children. Or they are already married with children (and miserab) and lots of them are divorced with children paying child support plus alimony plus house and car to ex wifey.

      The ones who are not married yet they all know all the risks, but they keep on doing it.
      I think it is just the beta provider male program. Being a beta provider male it is not a choice but an biological program. It has nothing to do with social brainwashing.
      Most me are natural born beta providers. It is just like that. They cannot conceive a life out the pack “wifey, children”.
      Most men on Earth are vocational slaves.

    • You make some good points. I understand perfectly why a man wouldn’t marry. What may be a more difficult concept is why a woman would chose not to marry or to otherwise reject social dictates from the gynocentric norm.

      I would probably be less critical of MGTOW if they called themselves, Men United to Reform Marriage Laws or Men Opposed to Gynocentrism.

      It seems to me that love itself has a better chance without marriage and that there are already too many people. Therefore, I have great admiration for those who decide, “enough” and refuse to contribute more bodies to our dystopia.

      I find the female-dominated social milieu toxic and worthy of rebellion.

      As for “brainwashing,” I am right with you there. It is my own mission to attempt to separate the agendas of others, whether they be institutions or individuals, from my own.

      I wish you lots of luck in your own quest for truth. Sounds like you are asking the right questions.

      • Have you notice that in Europe and North America, the Madonna/Whore complex is already unexistent in the average male mind?
        Men -thanks to feminism (and I say here “thanks” without irony, I really mean it)- they do not see women under that dicotomy anymore.
        The gap is that most women still watching men und the dicotomy “fucker/provider”.
        So the Madonna/Whore complex (under the label “nice guy/bad boy”) nowadays is something (Freud would love this) basically a female issue.

    • The problem with MGTOW is men need pussy / love. There are alternatives, but they pale in comparison. I understand it though. I do.

      • It seems to me that from time to time, celibacy makes sense for many of us. Traditionally, religion, patriotism, other ideologies, or physical activity fill the void. Merely abstaining from something, whether that be sex, relationships, or both, however, doesn’t seem viable to me. A positive objective it would seem to me would not only be more effective but might actually cause social and political reform.

  4. I am Catholic Apotholic Sinner and very and very Sinner
    But I am not big fan of Virgin Mary, I have to say, I preffer Salomé as a biblical female character.

    I have, as well, a strong Madonna/Whore complex, but I would never ever fuck the Whore and marry the Madonna, I would always fuck the Whore and marry the Whore, too. I just adore whores.

    Bacchus god of war? It is not Mars?

    And you, Caprizchka, you are a Valkiria. You could be the Viking goddess of war and love too.
    There is nothing like a Northern valkiria shining under the Mediterranean sun…

    • Bacchus is yet another face of Mars and Eros.

      I think that it is important to understand that creation and destruction are essentially the same thing, and that consumption including to excess is a form of recycling. Part of gynocentrism in my view is the “brainwashing” that infant creation is a superior act to making war when in fact overabundance of people compared to resources invariably leads to destruction and atrocity.

      However, any utopia requires that doctrine be distilled down to the lowest common denominator, that is, any child can understand it. Telling a child that he or she is the equivalent force to a bomb is probably a guarantee of destruction of that utopia. However, the obsession with longevity is its own paradox.

      It has never been my desire to be placed on a pedestal. I prefer the entirely opposite position. When forced by a man to the pedestal my impulses are violent but I have learned to be more tolerant of such men with maturity. That doesn’t mean that I want to have sex with them. Beta-provisioning is not every woman’s desire, as I am most definitely a woman, and I exist.

      That said, you’re probably right about my Valkiria archetype, as I am preparing right now to guide my hero to Valhalla. Letting him go is the hardest thing that I will ever do but clearly it was meant to be.

  5. My two cents on MGTOW: The acronym describes a philosophy and a behavior, not a group of guys. And it varies. For me the key word is the O – Own. I believe mgtow is defined by each individual going his own way. The T, to me, doesn’t describe the herd, but rather the aggregate. I don’t think a leader is possible. It isn’t a cohesive group, but rather a description.

    I don’t fall in to the “shun all women” camp of MGTOW, though my writing can appear that way. I am married with kids, after all. But I do recommend all men interact (or not) with women according to their own principles, because they choose to, not because society, patriarchy, matriarchy, or any other cultural pressure wants them to. This, to me, is what mgtow is about. Going one’s OWN way does not necessarily equate to going AWAY, although it can if that is the choice made.

    • “But I do recommend all men interact (or not) with women according to their own principles, because they choose to, not because society, patriarchy, matriarchy, or any other cultural pressure wants them to. ” I agree with that philosophy but don’t feel that the acronym adequately expresses it and that words or framing matters. In the same way “Feminism” is obviously not about “equality” (which I don’t agree with either).

      As evidence of the inadequacy of “MGTOW” are the debates between “we must all be the same mind otherwise we can’t effect change” and “we each define our own path”.

      Supposedly Feminism offered women choices, but, that didn’t work out so well either.

  6. Caprizchka, you voice some antinatalist sensibilities in several of your posts (albeit of a more personal libertarian nature borne out of respect for, and an unwillingness to pass on harmful genes to, your unborn children, which is admirable. However I’d like to know what your thoughts are about antinatalism writ large as a moral philosophy (a la Schopenhauer, Ligotti, etc.) in light of the evidence that we are all ultimately slaves to our germplasm and the only real reason people choose to procreate might very well more be due to a deadly combination of narcissism, biological programming, and unquestioned ideology than out of any real concern for the potential child.

    Also your not-so-subtle BDSM references are making my dick hard. I might check out your Fetlife profile assuming you use the same screenname. You in California? Pls respond bby

    • I can’t comment on antinatalism per se because I’m uninformed but intrigued.

      “…the only real reason people choose to procreate might very well be more be due to a deadly combination of narcissism, biological programming, and unquestioned ideology than out of any real concern for the potential child.”

      I can’t say “only” but clearly narcissism is a huge part of the modern world and the reason for reproducing when slavery of some sort is the logical future of one’s progeny. Those with a clear economic and cultural path laid out for their children thanks to the parents’ own planning and sacrifice are different and they are the hope of humanity, assuming that there is some. I think of utilitarian reproduction, on the other hand, as devolution, that is, the unevolved sense of self, or an effect of attachment disorder or lack of nurture in a very insect-like fashion. The sense of self, including boundaries, is supposed to occur in the human at about aged two, but only with patient, attentive, and loving mammalian parenting, of which I suffer a deficit, but somehow escaped narcissism, thanks largely to concerned, protective, loving adult men who were not my relatives.

      BDSM is a spiritual concern of mine with my spirituality not being of an anti-sex nature but also not a free-for-all communist hermaphroditic sea slug orgy. I believe in love and that doesn’t come in a brand-stamped, outcome insuranced, community-approved box. I hold unpopular beliefs in today’s post-internet, post 50 Shades era, and am a tough fit, especially as I age. However, I love conversation and thereby am delighted to have left California for more inviting conversational pastures, in still-cigar-friendly Florida.

      Drop by anytime, stranger, but a sure thing I am most certainly not.

    • Most men crave for children much more than women. By far. In fact, children, for women, are just the way to enslave their hubbies. But they do not love children at all. Women just want the cock carousel. The female master plan is:

      1. Alpha fucks (young woman cock carousel).
      2. Beta bucks.
      3. Divorce.
      4. Alpha fucks again. (Milf cock carousel)
      5 Marrying again (more Beta bucks)
      6. Divorce again.
      7. Granny cock carousel.

      The last two step is just for very attractive women. But some do it.

      There is another reasons for men breeding like crazy:

      *Fear of freedom (Esther Vilar´s theory).
      *Anxiety for status (being a dad is “respectable”).
      *They think by being dads they are going to be more attractive to women (stupid mistake). Men have been braiwashed for decades by comercial adds and magazines with that scam, and they bought it: “The sexiest thing for a woman is a masculine man holding and caring a baby” and all that bullshit.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s