The feminist utopia

As Heartiste (and Rollo) is fond of saying,

The goal of feminism is to remove all constraints on female sexuality while maximally restricting male sexuality.

The feminist utopia is a world where women are all naked in public but it’s illegal to look at them, where this law is enforced selectively against the men who disgust or scorn them. In such a world an individual woman will voluntarily submit herself in sexual slavery to the highest-value man who will have her. She will then have the rest of the men who look at her arrested, and boast on social media about the highest value ones she destroyed to virtue signal how much higher value she must be. “Can you believe he thought he had a chance with me when I’m in George Clooney’s harem? The nerve! He brought his destruction on himself, if you think about it.” The #MeToo movement, which is an escalation of divorce rape from marriage to mere dalliances, is an early warning sign of this legal system being put into place.

A consequence of this is that you get a split of the male population into a slave demographic, which dares not raise its head, and an ever-shrinking pool of eligible bachelors. After all, no girl’s ego can withstand dating a man from the lowest level of the remaining dominance hierarchy, so each day a thin slice is cut from the bottom of the pyramid of non-slaves. This is another way of stating that the revealed preference of women is to share a higher value man rather than settling for non-serial monogamy with a lower value man. Eventually, only Donald Trump and a giant population of male slaves remain, and all the women are sanctified concubines to the king and waited upon by eunuchs who dare not even look at them. This is the feminist utopia. It’s a great deal if you’re part of the (N + 1)/2.

And now the cumshot: the fundamental female disgust for men who cut their own grass rather than compelling conquered castrati to do it for them is why slavery exists, and has always existed.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to The feminist utopia

  1. Z says:

    Scary. But it makes sense.
    I would even add that (alpha) male polygamy with several concubines is in some ways a more “natural” (biological – primate – primitive) system (but less conducive to civilization), and monogamy and Christian sexual morality were a way to improve society and the lost of most people, and therefore create a more stable civilization as we know it.
    Christian sexual morality restrains the pathological alpha (he will still have lovers etc, but in a context in which this is not well regarded instead of being promoted as it is now) and female hypergamy (stressing fidelity, modesty, etc).
    But in the end it is a complicated equation, because male and female sexuality are always at such odds. Sometimes they seem even different species.
    So you can have, as now, 80% of women desiring 20% of the men, but this creates 80% of unhappy men, and perhaps an equivalent unhappy number of women (after they are discarded by the alpha like a used condom).
    Perhaps only in Heaven male and female can become again one.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      This is basically the same as what I think, except for that very last bit (Jesus said there will be no man and wife, so I hesitate even to speculate). This is why I say a functional sexual society will be a Pareto distribution, a dysfunctional one will tend to the feminine extreme, and a Christian one will tend toward what I described as “meritocratic monogamy” (10s monogamous with other 10s, 9s with 9s, etc.).

  2. bicebicebcie says:

    Sounds like primitive female eugenics (dysgenics?). This works if you don’t care about civiization at all, and Chad wants his call of duty. No man truly wins in this scenario.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      Nope. And in the extreme case it becomes obvious why the slave class takes over.

      • bicebicebcie says:

        This time around the slave class might be the white one instead of the imported one, it is a bit iffy because technically they are both serfs in the eyes of the Beholders so to speak. Join forces with Ooga to topple the powers that be and get a melon-waifu concubine?
        There is just so much people these days a classical upheaval needs a ITZ undertone, like that volcano about to blow or otherwise itz just Idiocracy, a banana republic. That’s a bit shitty but it is still okay.

        Turn the water into Brawndo instead of wine.

        • Aeoli Pera says:

          I’m waiting on my laundry, so I’m gonna take a shot at translating this one.

          >technically they are both serfs in the eyes of the Beholders so to speak.

          All hominids look the same if you’re a melon.

          >Join forces with Ooga to topple the powers that be and get a melon-waifu concubine?

          The Alt-Right is a traditional, technocrat-led slave revolt except this time combining the Alchemist powers of Trump (whites) and Kanye (blacks).

          >There is just so much people these days a classical upheaval needs a ITZ undertone, like that volcano about to blow or otherwise itz just Idiocracy, a banana republic. That’s a bit shitty but it is still okay.

          It’s not possible to overturn the old order without upsetting the world’s heavily codependent economy, which means less food at a time of unprecedented population. This means a lot of people will die, which is something to come to terms with.

          >Turn the water into Brawndo instead of wine.

          The savior we need will have to throw a wrench into the gears, rather than fixing them like the guy in Idiocracy did.

          How’d I do?

  3. Fox says:

    “This is another way of stating that the revealed preference of women is to share a higher value man rather than settling for non-serial monogamy with a lower value man”

    Which women? The sluttier half of urban american women in the late 20th early 21th century (remember that heartiste and roosh started in DC).
    Also:
    – Your analysis does not include thal or melon women, both of which are not likely to prefer “sharing” a man (but for different reasons).
    – men used to be “rougher”, more manly – status is less important if you’re oozing testosterone

    “the fundamental female disgust for men who cut their own grass rather than compelling conquered castrati to do it for them is why slavery exists, and has always existed.”

    It’s the conquered ones who get the digust reponse (if they are being considered at all).
    The men who do their own work are independent, strong-willed, disagreeable – neither of which produces disgust.

    • Aeoli Pera says:

      What’s the difference between a slut and a high-class prostitute?

      Paternity.

        • Jordy LaFrog Peterson's Fully Automated Mecha-Dragonslayer says:

          Maybe he’s saying that high-class prostitutes know who fathers their children. Sluts don’t because they sleep with too many guys within the time window. High-class prostitutes are concubines in Chad’s harem.

          • Aeoli Pera says:

            Close. It’s the father of the whore that matters. The girl is going to sell her body one way or another, so the dad’s job is to make sure she gets decent futurity out of the trade.

            Put another way…a man’s value is in his devotion, and a woman’s value is in her body. A man’s security is in his competence, and a woman’s security is in her social network. So a man ought to sell his devotion to invest in himself, and a woman ought to sell her body to invest in a family who will take care of her over time.

            • Fox says:

              >a woman’s value is in her body

              But why? Only because the overwhelming majority of men have the urge to copulate several times a month. Without that, there’d be no demand for the “goods” you’re talking about.

              Do you think monks in medieval europe were masturbating/seeing prostitutes/sodomizing each other (or animals) thrice a month?
              If not, then they did not have this urge. So the solution to all the “sexual marketplace” problems (extensively described by heartiste and co.) is to free oneself from it – like they did. Everything else is a non-solution (literal or metaphorical masturbation).

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Value refers to that which tends to drive behavior. Clearly the monks valued different things than modern men, though they probably had stronger libidos on account of higher testosterone. When viewed in that light, it’s not so surprising that they produced such a quantum leap in human reasoning.

            • Fox says:

              You’re missing the point. One does NOT have a libido, but only the potential for one. libido is a bonfire fueled by testosterone. A man with a libido is like a candle, slowly burning away. A degenerate = a bright and fast-burning candle.

              The only question that matters then is: How to quench the fire?
              The monks did it, so we not only know that it is possible, but also where to start looking for answers.
              Stop sperging (masturbating) and start searching.

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Why the hell would I want to quench it?

            • Aeoli Pera says:

              Solipsism on my part, please forgive. I forgot that your unspoken premise is that monks were controlled by the Jews to suppress European pagans, whereas my view of them is fundamentally positive. So, I read what you were saying as “how can we reproduce what they did right?” vs. what you meant, which was “how were they mind controlled to have no libidos, and what does this imply?”

            • Fox says:

              >I forgot that your unspoken premise is that monks were controlled by the Jews to suppress European pagans, whereas my view of them is fundamentally positive.
              I was referring to melonheads, not jews.

              > So, I read what you were saying as “how can we reproduce what they did right?” vs. what you meant, which was “how were they mind controlled to have no libidos, and what does this imply?”
              The first interpretation is correct.

              Just reread my comment on what the libido is (and what it is not).

  4. Now we are talking. This is my sort of level of black pill.

  5. Pingback: Not a joke | Aeoli Pera

  6. Pingback: More Alpha blindness | Aeoli Pera

  7. Pingback: Polygamy, despotism, and degeneracy | Aeoli Pera

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