This story, too, will be filed under “whores,” since they’re the only people on earth with a prayer of properly socializing the despondent male feminist pushover desperately seeking advice from Internet-Sensei in this link and rescuing him from the lifelong henpecking of a vicious roost of shitbirds conspiring to keep him around as one of their court eunuchs.
The poor virgin bastard’s tale of woe is simple enough to summarize. He turned forty still a virgin and is desperate to get laid, but he can’t find one woman on the face of the earth who wants him sexually, even though he has always been scrupulously respectful of women as a male feminist ally and has always been ready, willing, and able to defend the honor of m’lady. (Actually, not able, come to think of it.) To his credit, he has some insight into his own condition, as he admits that he is exceptionally unmasculine.
Dude’s right to want to get some action already. With or without Steve Carrell, a midlife crisis, or sweet, sweet nookie, 40 is an important life milestone in any base-ten culture. He has only one reason to be using the internet right now: to find prostitutes.
Instead, he’s using it to solicit advice like this (sic passim):
Hi :), LGBTQ Non-Binary Woman Here, pronouns: She, Her. Read your post and initially I felt sad, but after some thought I have concluded that what you are the epitome of what a feminist man should be. don’t feel sad, you have done what very few men will ever do=stop rape and the propensity of rape, entirely. Sometimes a woman doesn’t want a man who can hurt them. you are the best friend to a woman, a brother in Feminism. Sometimes a woman wants a male to be like a brother to take care of her with no way of hurting her, this is the role some men should strive to be, especially feminist men. Sometimes woman want to take a dangerous man into bed and have his children, but not spend her entire life with him and would like the harmless man she can go home to, like a teddy bear. My husband and I have been feminists for 5 years and have never had sex, I have had sex with numerous men, and he accepted it, because I come to him for comfort and companionship. I have gotten pregnant with one of my lovers and my husband will be signing on the birth certificate, I believe some men are destined to fulfill that role and you should embrace it.
Rarely am I stunned by expressions of sexual cruelty; keeping an eye on the manosphere has inured me to evil arguments whose very existence would blow many people away. The excerpt above floored me. It’s extremely unusual to see anyone defend alpha fucks/beta bucks so frankly and shamelessly. Many immoral women string along thirsty suitors to their own crude personal advantage, but they’re usually embarrassed enough and scared enough of social opprobrium to euphemize the hell out of their strategy, so that it sounds hardly a bit like what it actually is. It’s too overtly sadistic to risk exposure in mixed company including the morally grounded, so the women engaging in it feign morality whenever they’re around people who they suspect might object.
Unless this heartless bitch’s husband is gay or asexual, what she’s been doing to him for their entire marriage is beyond the pale. She brags about convincing him to sign a birth certificate for a child they both know is not his, because they have not consummated their marriage, and reading between the lines suggests that she has deliberately blueballed him while knowing full well that he wants to be sexually active with her. She claims to admire this pushover cuckold husband of hers, but there’s an overwhelming appearance that she finds him too sexually repulsive to service as a reciprocation for his ongoing agreement to help her provide for and raise another man’s child (who was conceived during their marriage!), let alone to mercyfuck.
This is frankly selfish and antisocial. It’s shrewish as all hell. It’s abusive to insist that one spouse (in the manosphere, always the wife) be sexually available to the other at all times as a nonnegotiable condition of marriage, regardless of her personal wellness, so any healthy marriage will require sexual give-and-take between the spouses (and, in case you’re really lost, give-and-take about pretty much everything else, too), but completely shutting out a spouse for the duration of a marriage is inexcusable. It’s a gross, flagrant breach of good faith. It might make one wonder about why a woman would marry a man if she finds him so repulsive, but our cockblocking asswipe friend above has already answered this question, if tacitly so: hubby has accepted and fulfilled financial responsibility for a child who is not his.
Hey, slave bitch, babysit my kid while I go out to the bars and get ravished by thugs. This is what our friend the internet shrew has extorted from her eternally sexiled husband, and it’s what she encourages the sorry-ass forty-year-old loser to seek out for his own marriage. There are ethical ways to be polyamorous, but this is obviously not one of them. If her husband were gay, she’d probably be shouting it from the rooftops, along with her suggested pronouns. Château Heartiste is probably on to something when it explains live-in polyandrist ménage-à-trois as consisting of a mistress, a bull, and a house slave. Somebody needs to keep the home fires burning while the lady of the house solicits the seminal affections of “dangerous men.” Not that the house slave will be given any sloppy seconds when m’lady comes home for the night; that would contribute to rape culture in a way that casual sex with a dangerous man would not.
There’s an eerie, sickening parallel here to the Catholic priesthood. The priesthood has traditionally been used as a dumping ground for sociosexually maladroit straight men and for closet queens. The latter are irrelevant to our current purposes; gay priests will be with us always, and anyone trying to purge the Catholic priesthood of its homosexuals is a fool. The straight dorks are another matter entirely. Where the gay priests get a fairly good deal (somehow not finding suitable wives, whom they would be expected to fuck, and getting their society’s blessing to live among other men instead), the straight dorks get shafted. (If you take this too literally in the comments, it will be unfortunate but understandable.) A great many of them desperately want to be sexually intimate with women, no matter how vociferously they claim to have sublimated their own sexuality. Many of them also feel tragically deprived of the sorts of more prosaic social interactions they would have with wives or girlfriends.
What these men are told, of course, is that it is the will of God that they live forevermore without sexual companionship. These men are then given the duty of marrying nubile young women to other men while upholding a lifelong vow of celibacy. There are men in the priesthood who love the virtue of celibacy enough to truly make this work, and probably a fair number who are asexual, but there are others who cannot reconcile their own sexuality to their vow of celibacy and consequently lash out at their congregations. These priests often discuss sex with a voyeuristic salaciousness masquerading as false prudish morality. I quit a parish for a number of months a couple of years ago solely because one of its priests was giving me the willies with his preoccupation with sex, both during confession and during a homily. He appeared dangerously repressed, and I was thoroughly uncomfortable with his stewardship.
This priest’s obvious sexual repression obliterated what little objection I still had to priests seeing prostitutes as a matter of scandal. He was doing more damage to his congregation by being sexually disordered in public than he possibly could have done by discreetly having consensual sex with a hooker in private. Getting upset because a priest is exposed as a whoremonger (probably by some officious, sexually deranged piece of shit) is indescribably daft and frankly pretty selfish. One ought to have greater respect than that for a man who ministers to hundreds of parishioners wherever the diocese assigns him and maintains the seal of the confessional, along with the burden of listening to everyone else’s pain, darkness, and existential crises. Having one’s faith in God or trust in an enduring 2,000-year-old church destroyed by the discovery that some of its priests privately screw whores is pitiable. It’s doubly pathetic when the timid Timmies worked up about this don’t notice that many sex workers operate under a habit of discretion verging on the seal of the confessional in its solemn inviolability. These pearl-clutchers prefer that a priest remain sexually repressed and lash out in a spirit that he construes as holiness than quietly satiate his need for sexual intimacy and recenter himself. It can be scary.
There’s unfortunately quite a bit of this ugly baggage cluttering up Roman Catholicism. I don’t consider it a reason to stay away from the Church, but I consider it a compelling reason to stay vigilant, ready to either stand up to or break away from anyone who is obviously destructive on account of sexual preoccupations. Just because something pathological is happening under the auspices of a church doesn’t mean that it’s suddenly healthy and holy. Sanctification don’t work like that, cracka.
There’s another creepy historical parallel between the Catholic Church and male feminist incel agitprop, this one a bit more tangential since it concerns the Church’s erratic relationship with prostitutes and prostitution. Perhaps its most egregious manifestation was the Magdalene Laundries, Ireland’s premier human rights nightmare for uppity and rebellious women. The overarching rationale behind these monstrosities was that it was the Church’s duty to turn women away from prostitution and adultery; the problem was that it forced them into involuntary servitude doing backbreaking grunt labor in brutal conditions. The same damned thing has popped up more recently in Cambodia, in the form of textile factory slavery for women “rescued” from brothels by police colluding with industrialists and religious busybodies. This sort of evil is nurtured by weak central governments, and Whitehall and Langley are all about nurturing weak central governments; may the circle be unbroken.
Some men are “destined to fulfill that role” of groveling little bitch/“teddy bear.” Some men are called to the priesthood and its mandatory celibacy. Some women are called to the nunnery, and oddly a great many of them are homely and socially awkward. They don’t need any paid lovin’, either, though, because those of us who don’t submit should be ashamed of ourselves. It is either God’s will to have incel dorks sexually chastise and intimidate various wayward elements or the plan of an amorphous sort of karmic energy field to maintain certain men as incel dorks to sexlessly protect m’lady from rape so that she can be not-raped by the kind of men who are obviously inclined to sexually assault her and spared the horrors of rape by milquetoasts whose goal, if they’re honest enough to admit it, is a mutually enthusiastic spoon-fork-spoon sequence with some woman who will give them the time of day.
If it’s other people who are telling you about your calling to celibacy, always ask what’s in it for them. I’m far too vanilla for fin-dom; yinz have no idea. That’s why I write so much about whores. At least when they kill my vibe with weird talk like that, they call it by its proper name.