Stickman Readers' Submissions January 31st, 2011

Expecting More Younger Western Men in LOS

The last time there were so many submissions on the subject of women in the west, dating and marriage in the west, and men giving up on western females, it was initiated by Half Chinese Girl (HCG) calling all the sex tourists and sex-pats in the LOS a
bunch of losers (indeed she included the vast majority of white western males in her screed). These losers were only in the LOS because they were so lame they could not get laid in the west, where there were ample opportunities for free sex, if
you had game. I contributed to the responses to HCG and had Stick reply that surely the state of warfare between men and women in the USA could not be as bad as I had stated. A couple of USA submitters sided with Stick, stating that if you were
willing to put in a lot of effort, you could score plenty with US females. My reply to their assertions included, “Why would you want to?” I will admit to a slight use of hyperbole; but believe that it is that bad. The rest of the
west seems to be following the same path towards destruction.

This current spate of submissions seems to have started with Napster’s response to “a number of previous submissions which implied men who sleep with Asian prostitutes are somehow "losers" or have something wrong with
them.” This prompted a response from The Frenchman, where he told of his perspective on the inter-gender divide of today’s youths based on being the father of 2 children in their late teens or early 20's; one girl, one boy.
He predicted under the current dating and marriage conditions in the west we could expect the demographics of western male visitors to the LOS to skew towards the younger set. FarangDave took exception to a portion of The Frenchman’s entry
as racists. I concurred with that estimation, but did not throw out the baby with the bathwater. Much of what The Frenchman had said rang true to my ears.

I will establish my bono fides by stating that I am the father of six children between the ages of 16 and 29. The oldest will turn 30 within the next two months. At that time I will officially enter old age, as defined by my father; you are
old when your children become middle aged. These children are the result of three prior relationships with American women; so I have served in the trenches and I am, admittedly, a slow learner.

My children include four boys and two girls. The two oldest and the two youngest are boys. The oldest boy is in the midst of a divorce from the woman that he has been with since he was 16; children are involved. The second son has struggled
to find a woman that wants kids. Like his Dad, he comes from a large family and wants to have a large family. He has no problem finding women, and gets a lot more sex than I did at his age, but when he looks to settle down, they just are not interested.
He lived with one woman for a couple of years. He was pressing for marriage, but she did not want kids. I advised him to let her go, as when a woman in her late 20s says she does not ever want to have kids, you should believe her. Their life goals
just did not mesh. He has been single, but absolutely not celibate, ever since this woman. He is not happy.

Both of my daughters were very good students in High School. One started to have very marginal grades in college due to excessive partying. When her mother, THE Bitch (capital letters necessary), and I talked to her, her
response was, “I don’t have to do well. I can just marry some guy and he will support me.” This shocked both of us. This was also one of the only times in recorded history where THE Bitch and I were in total
agreement. By the way, THE Bitch is a completely strident feminist. Hearing her daughter say this must have hurt her a great deal. It was almost worth my daughter having such an opinion for that alone, but not quite. The other
daughter graduated Summa Cum Laude, but is depressed about her lack of romantic relationships. You can’t win.

My wife was recently talking to my 18 year old son, who is working two jobs to save money for college this fall, and told him he needs to have a girlfriend. He replied that a girlfriend was the last thing in the world he needed. He is a sharp
one. In the 11th grade, when his girlfriend of about 6 months insisted that he had to take her to the junior prom or they were over, his reply was “Buh-Bye.” He told me, “When a woman wants to get in your wallet it is time
to cut her loose.” God, I wish I had known that at that age.

This is just to show that I do know what is going on in the dating scene for people in the US who are in their late teens and twenties. My oldest sister is in her late 60’s. She was a real feminist back in the early 60’s; when
it really was about equality. Her opinion is that today’s young women are incredibly rude to men. And it is totally unnecessary and counter productive for the young women to be that way. How rude are we talking about? I will quote a guy
that is much younger than I and in the front lines now. “Why do women feel being asked out on a date is an insult? One that requires them to abuse, humiliate, and belittle a man; when a simple no would be sufficient.” When I referred
to this type of behavior in my prior submissions Stick said it can’t really be that bad.

So how did we come to this pass? I recently read an article that shed a lot of light on the how. The article is, “SEXUAL UTOPIA IN POWER”, by F. Roger Devlin, 2006. It is available for free in .PDF format on line. (Google is
your friend.) In the article his premise is that the sexual revolution of the 1960’s was like the French Revolution and the Russian revolution that preceded it. The intent was a general uprising against an oppressive society, seeking to
free the people. The following chaos was too much for the people to withstand; resulting in highly repressive regimes seizing the reins of power and leading to even more oppression. (After the revolution things will be different; not better, just
different.) I recommend reading the whole article as it is worth every word. However, I will quote some excerpts here to whet your appetites, and to support my arguments to follow. The author states:

“The sexual revolution in America was an attempt by women to realize their own utopia, not that of men. Female utopians came forward publicly with plans a few years after Kinsey and Playboy. Helen Gurley Brown’s Sex and the Single Girl appeared
in 1962, and she took over Cosmopolitan magazine 12 Vol. 6, No. 2 THE OCCIDENTAL QUARTERLY three years later. Notoriously hostile to motherhood, she explicitly encouraged women to use men (including married men) for pleasure.

It is sometimes said that men are polygamous and women monogamous. Such a belief is often implicit in the writings of male conservatives: Women only want good husbands, but heartless men use and abandon them. Some evidence does appear,
prima facie, to support such a view. One 1994 survey found that “while men projected they would ideally like six sex partners over the next year, and eight over the next two years, women responded that their ideal would be to have only
one partner over the next year. And over two years? The answer, for women, was still one.” Is this not evidence that women are naturally monogamous?

No it is not. Women know their own sexual urges are unruly, but traditionally have had enough sense to keep quiet about it. A husband’s belief that his wife is naturally monogamous makes for his own peace of mind. It is not to
a wife’s advantage, either, that her husband understand her too well: Knowledge is power. In short, we have here a kind of Platonic “noble lie”—a belief which is salutary, although false.

It would be more accurate to say that the female sexual instinct is hypergamous. Men may have a tendency to seek sexual variety, but women have simple tastes in the manner of Oscar Wilde: They are always satisfied with the best. By definition,
only one man can be the best. These different male and female “sexual orientations” are clearly seen among the lower primates, e.g., in a baboon pack <my emphasis added.>. Females compete to mate at the
top, males to get to the top.

The author notes that the identity of the “best” man in a woman’s mind is constantly changing, and that the women always with the “best” man ends up screwing just as many partners on average as do men.

Once monogamy is abolished, no restriction is placed on a woman’s choices. Hence, all women choose the same few men. If Casanova had 132 lovers it is because 132 different women chose him. Such men acquire harems, not because they are predators,
but because they happen to be attractive. The problem is not so much male immorality as simple arithmetic; it is obviously impossible for every woman to have exclusive possession of the most attractive man. If women want to mate simply as
their natural drives impel them, they must, rationally speaking, be willing to share their mate with others.

Note that HCG had no problem being the fifteenth notch on her male model’s bedpost. She tried to use him as an example of how easy it is to get laid in the US. I just wish I could become a 20 year old male model by wishing it so.

But, of course, women’s attitude about this situation is not especially rational. They expect their alpha man to “commit.” Woman’s complaining about men’s failure to commit, one suspects, means merely that they are unable
to get a highly attractive man to commit to them; rather as if an ordinary man were to propose to Helen of Troy and complain of her refusal by saying “women don’t want to get married.”

I would extend the simile to how women seem to behave today by adding, “If Helen of Troy did say yes, the ordinary man would then lose interest in her; since, regardless of her observable qualities, she must be a loser.” HCG, are you listening?

The decline of matrimony is often attributed to men now being able to “get what they want” from women without marrying them. But what if a woman is able to get everything she wants from a man without marriage? Might she not also be less
inclined to “commit” under such circumstances? In truth, a significant number of women seek primarily attention and material goods from men. They are happy to date men they have no romantic interest in merely as a form of entertainment
and a source of free meals and gifts. A man can waste a great deal of money and time on such a woman before he realizes he is being used. Family life involves sacrifice; a good mother devotes herself to her children.

Parasitic daters are takers, not givers; they are not fit for marriage or motherhood. Their character is usually fixed by the time a man meets them. Since he cannot change them, the only rational course is to learn to identify and avoid

This is the kernel of my argument against western women. They are users who can not be changed, and must be avoided. The sexual revolution in the US removed all the restraints on female sexual behavior. Men thought without the limitations of monogamy
they would get a lot more sex. This did not happen. The author states this is because the male revolutionaries did not understand the female sex drive. I believe this. Guys, I want all those who understand women to please raise your hands. The
rest of us now know who are the liars.

The result of this retreat to the sexual mores of the baboon troop is the situation where totally self absorbed women are willing to accept only the perfect man. Since most of us are imperfect, women practice maximum rejection; and are very
crude and rude while doing it. The average US woman feels the average US man is insulting her when he approaches her since she is clearly “out of his league.” This is patently a ridiculous, and illogical, assertion. But women are
not known as being logical. Devlin states, “It used to be commonly said that a woman who thinks she is too good for any man “may be right, but more often – is left.” This is happening more and more. Women in the west
are choosing to live lives without men, often snagging a sperm donor to father a child when the biological clock starts getting too loud, and then nailing him for child support, without the bother of having to put up with a man interfering with
her life. To me the intentional single mother should be arrested for child abuse, her child removed from her care as she is an unfit mother, and she should then be sterilized. Perhaps harsh, but what is being done to the next generation by these
witches is a crime. Meanwhile, good, marriageable, young men sit at home playing video games and looking forward to trips to Thailand; where they can get their ashes hauled for a week or two out of the year. This serves the long term happiness
of neither men nor women. This spells the death of the entire western race. Just look at the birth rates in Europe and US for native populations.

So how hostile to men is the US environment? In earlier submissions I detailed how the sexual harassment laws have been twisted to give any woman the power to anonymously destroy any man's career by claiming he did or said something
that offended her. No defense is possible, or even on offer. The feminists are now trying, and succeeding incrementally, to make the same strides in the criminal sphere. They want any woman to be able to imprison any man on her whim. There is
a branch of Feminist legal theory called Legal Dominance. Look it up if you want the details. It is on Wikipedia. Again, I will quote Devlin to segue into the issue of women using the legal system to crush men.

The feminists approve the notion of a right to do as one pleases without responsibilities toward others; they merely insist that only women have this right. Looking about them for some legal and moral basis for enforcing this novel claim, they hit upon
the age-old prohibition against rape. Feminists understand rape, however, not as a violation of a woman’s chastity or marital fidelity, but of her merely personal wishes. They are making use of the ancient law against rape to enforce
not respect for feminine modesty but obedience to female whims. Their ideal is not the man whose self-control permits a woman to exercise her own, but the man who is subservient to a woman’s good pleasure—the man who behaves,
not like a gentleman, but like a dildo.

At an age when women have traditionally actively sought mates, they now participate in “take back the night” marches, “rape awareness” campaigns and self-defense classes involving kicking male dummies in the
groin. These young women seem less afraid of anything men are actually doing than they are of male sexual desire itself. In the trenchant words of columnist Angela Fiori “the campus date rape campaigns of the early 1990s weren’t
motivated by a genuine concern for the well-being of women. They were part of an ongoing attempt to delegitimize heterosexuality to young, impressionable women by demonizing men as rapists.” Self-defense training, for example, really
serves to inculcate a defensive mentality toward men, making trust and intimacy impossible.

I will agree that with almost all American women trust and intimacy is impossible. They have it ingrained deep in their psyches that men are oppressors, rapists, child molesters, and the enemy. They do not have to profess a feminist belief for this to
have been drilled into their brains. The culture, from movies, to TV, to music has told them this is true. A relationship with them is a constant struggle; or you can knuckle under and surrender, after which the women will have no respect or use
for you. By the way, the courts believe that all men are rapists too; even of their own children. That is why it is a common tactic in a US divorce for the woman to accuse the soon to be ex-husband of sexually molesting their children.

So what if you practice “catch and release”? This is not my idea of a life well lived, but may be all that a young man can look forward to in the US today. How dangerous is it to even have sex with an American woman? I will
refer to an article from an academic legal journal: “THE TRUTH BEHIND LEGAL DOMINANCE FEMINISM’S “TWO PERCENT FALSE RAPE CLAIM” FIGURE”, by Edward Greer. It is available on line free of charge. The language for
most of the article is rather academically obtuse, so I would not recommend it to any but the really dedicated reader. It is heavily footnoted for those that want further reading on the subject. But it does have a few pertinent and simple points.

The purpose of the article is to counter massive moves in American society to increase the scope of what is defined as rape, and to increase the conviction rate of those accused to 98%. This is based on the widely held belief in legal circles
that women never (only 2% of the time) falsely accuse a man of rape; since the ordeal of making the accusation constitutes a second rape. I can not tell you the number of American women that have spontaneously told me that in cases where a woman
charges a man with rape there need be no evidence and, indeed, no trial. The entire rule of law, all of due process rights, the heritage of innocent until proven guilty, should be overturned. The man should just be thrown in jail for life, if
not just hauled out and summarily shot to death.

The article refutes this belief of low false rape charges rate by referencing many studies. These studies show the false accusation rate to be from 50 to 80%, depending on the population being studied. That is, the rate for studies on college
campuses is about 50%, while the rate for studies in some low income areas, where the accuser has less to lose, can be as high 80%. Women make rape accusations for little or no reason. One case was a woman accusing a college dorm janitor of rape
in order to get an extension on completing her term paper. Other cases have been proven to be false rape claims filed solely to get attention or to alleviate boredom. Also, the false rape charges have a strong racist trend, as black, brown, and
red men are much more likely to be falsely accused. <Note that Asian men in the US get even less false accusations than white men. Asian men’s sexuality is denigrated by most white women in the US.> Anyway, what is it the Feminists
are seeking?

Although LDF (Legal Dominance Feminism) does not expressly contend that rape generally ought to be transformed into a strict liability offense, it is hard to avoid observing that the LDF perspective is close. At the extreme, the felony would be redefined
such that its elements reduce to sexual intercourse plus retroactive nonconsent. <emphasis added is mine. OFB>

Consider, for example, a setting in which both parties have become voluntarily intoxicated. In the course of sexual activity, the man may reasonably believe that the woman wants to engage in intercourse in light of her words and deeds.
If afterwards the woman comes to think and contend that she did not consent to this sexual contact, most people would oppose finding the man’s behavior felonious. A number of LDF proponents, however, would categorize this as rape. Such
a position amounts to transforming rape into a strict liability offense. <Side note from OFB: in most jurisdictions in the US, if the woman has anything to drink the courts have ruled that she no longer had the capacity to consent, and, in the case above, you are guilty of rape.>

This proposed version of strict liability would approach retroactive absolute liability, whereby at her sole discretion, the woman could imprison any current or former sexual partner as far back as the controlling statute of limitations

So, you have what you reasonably deem to be consensual sex, with a seemingly willing woman above the age of consent, and then the next day, or week, or year, she decides you have “not respected her” to a satisfactory degree. She retroactively
removes her consent and charges you with rape. First you can expect to have your name and picture on the front page of the newspaper. You may be featured on the evening news. If you are employed, you will be fired. If you are in school, you will
be expelled. Your church will shun you, and you and your family will be scorned by all of society. Meanwhile, the legal system will have relaxed the rules of evidence needed to convict you of rape in order to achieve the “correct”
conviction rate of 98%. You will probably get 20 years in prison, and be listed as a sex offender on a public website for the rest of your life. If you eventually prove your innocence, or even if the charges are completely withdrawn, most people
will still assume you are guilty and just got away with it. And what is the downside for a woman proven to have made false rape charges, even where she freely admits it? Nothing! No matter how outrageous her offense, no district attorney will
charge her with anything because to do so might discourage some woman from making a valid rape charge later. Better 100 men have their lives ripped to shreds than one woman is discouraged from charging a man with rape. Does this sound like something
the average man wishes to face when contemplating getting a little on Saturday night?

Feminists have incrementally made this apply to married couples. Your wife can have you thrown in jail as a rapist on her whim. This is in addition to the mandatory arrest and jail time for
men on the mere accusation of domestic abuse by their partners. (I love the quote but have no attribution, “It amazes me, given the amount of verbal and emotional abuse that the typical married man suffers, that every year 97% of men chose
not to physically abuse their partners.”) A long term girlfriend can do the same if you don’t kiss her ass enough. Say you have been in a long term sexual relationship, and you displease the master of the house. She need only walk
down to the police station and say she is retroactively removing her consent from the sex you had last night, or last week. You will find yourself knocked to the ground, with a policeman’s knee in your back, while he cuffs you.

I will try to cut this short (too late) and make only one more reference. There is a web site called NiceGuy’s American Women (mostly) Suck Page,
This page was written from some time in 2002 to January 2005. It has been more recently maintained by a guy called Solaris. NiceGuy advocated totally rejecting all American women. He proposed that American men should look overseas for wives and
girlfriends. He wrote well in my opinion, but he was ten times harsher than am I. For instance, he refers to American women as Ameriskanks. The mere sight of some “Ameriskanks” on the beach in Guam caused him to clench his lips and
swallow the bile he had vomited. Another description I particularly liked was, “Nothing more than walking consumer-turds stuffed into dresses, offering zilch to humanity apart from menstrual slime and wretchedness.” He was able to
overcome the urge to sugar coat his feelings about American women.

He then followed his own advice; moved to Japan, met a nice girl, got married, and lived happily ever after. Here is the kicker. He was not the typical Thailand sex tourist; a middle aged (ok upper middle aged), burned out survivor of the
marriage, divorce, strip of assets and dignity, then repeat business in the US (like me). He was a never married, 25 year old, well educated (graduate degree) man who had traveled and studied abroad, spoke several languages, and held a good, high-paying
job. He sounds very marriageable to me. He found himself sitting home by himself when he was not serving as a free therapist to women whose boyfriends treated them like shit, or performing endless favors for the American princesses while they
told him they wanted to be “just friends”. He is the prototype for what the sex tourist of the future in Thailand will look like. We old guys won’t get two seconds of attention while these guys are around. By the way, he found
himself being asked out so much in Japan that he eventually had to limit the number of offers he accepted because he could not keep them straight in his head. And he was surprised to learn that Japanese women who asked him out paid for at least
their half of the costs, and sometimes paid the entire cost. He must have been at least somewhat good looking.

Last words (honest): Thank god I am out of the American dating game. I believe more and more young American men will remove themselves from the American dating scene as well, and will end up seeking relationships in Asia.

Thanks for your patience if you got this far,

Old, Fat, and Bald

P.S. Assorted quotes for your amusement as reward for your patience:

No thanks. I don't want an irrational creature known for huge and sudden personality changes to be holding a metaphorical "legal-system gun" against my temple 24/7 for decades.

"Not all men are fools — some are bachelors." – Unknown

"The promises of Woman, I write them on water." — Sophocles.

"The fundamental defect of the female character is the lack of a sense of justice." — Arthur Schopenhauer.

"Big children their whole life long." — Arthur Schopenhauer, on women.

Secretary: How do you write women so well?
Melvin Udall: I think of a man, and I take away reason and accountability.
–Melvin Udall was a character who was an author, played by Jack Nicholson in “As Good as it Gets”.

"Never trust anything that bleeds 4 days a month and still lives." — Unknown humorist.

"Men, upon closer inspection, aren't half as bad as women think they are. Women, upon closer inspection, are almost as bad as women think men are." — BusterB

"When a woman suffers in silence, the phone is probably out of order." — Unknown humorist.

"A nagging wife couldn't care less whether her words are wise or foolish, provided that the sound of her own voice can be heard." — Mathieu of Boulogne, Liber lamentationum Matheoluli, 1295

"Nine men out of ten would be quite happy, I believe, if there were no women in the world, once they had grown accustomed to the quiet." — H. L. Mencken, "In Defense of Women" (1922)

"A woman's power lies only in the degree of unhappiness with which she can punish her lover." — Marie Henri Beyle

"Now, man and woman are equal.
If that's true, then isn't it odd-
that diamonds are a girl's best friend,
but a man's best friend is his dog!" — Benny Hill

"Masochism, narcissism, and passivity are the three key characteristics of the female personality." — Helene Deutsch
"A hallmark of narcissism is a profound sense of entitlement." — David Buss.
"Put them
together and draw your own damn conclusions." – NiceGuy

I believe Tom Leykis once said that a man can not have a woman as a friend. Never, ever feel sorry for a female; never. It is a sign of weakness which women will use to destroy you.

"As a sex, we are vastly superior to men, but it is taboo to show it." — Kate Saunders, prominent English feminist, Sunday Times, (UK) 16 July 1995.

"…the most brazen female superficiality is now sold and encouraged as "female empowerment." — Angelia Fiori.

"The detritus left in the wake of 30 years of feminism is considerable, an international disaster. And, as with most other disasters, such as 9/11, it falls mainly to men to clear up the mess." — David Hughes

"By all means marry; if you get a good wife, you'll be happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a philosopher." – Socrates

"Women have no sympathy… and my experience of women is almost as large as Europe. And it is so intimate too. Women crave for being loved, not for loving. They scream at you for sympathy all day long, they are incapable of giving any
in return for they cannot remember your affairs long enough to do so." — Florence Nightingale.

"Why are the pretty ones always insane??" — Chief Clancy Wiggam, The Simpsons.


There's some really scary stuff here, from the way an American woman can retrospectively decline consent to the way that birth rates are dropping.

When I was back in New Zealand recently, I hate to admit that things were getting pretty bad between the sexes – and guys were generally treated pretty poorly by women who I could see very little attraction. From what I observed, it isn't as bad in NZ as it is in the US, but things do seem to be getting worse.