new

[From "British Judge Says Sex With Wife is a “Fundamental Human Right” and Everyone Loses Their Minds"]

The Jewish media puts sex everywhere to make people think about it constantly, but the Jews also make heterosexual sex much more difficult to achieve by introducing convoluted ideas about “consent” and about what marriage is supposed to be.

One man is taking a stand against that bullshit. This judge is bringing old ideas and common sense back into the discussion about the role of marriage in our society, and he’s doing all of that by… saying that a husband should be able to have sex with his wife.

RT wrote:

A British judge has invoked the ire of online commentators, activists and politicians after remarking that it was a man’s “fundamental human right” to have sex with his wife during an already controversial court case.
“I cannot think of any more obviously fundamental human right than the right of a man to have sex with his wife… I think he is entitled to have it properly argued,” senior High Court judge Justice Hayden was quoted as saying during a preliminary hearing on a case involving a married couple of 20 years.
The wife has learning difficulties and her condition is deteriorating, prompting social services to raise the alarm about the potential for sexual abuse in the relationship as they felt the woman was no longer able to make decisions about whether she consented to sexual relations. Social services ultimately brought the case to the Court of Protection in London.
The husband has pledged to no longer sleep with his wife but prosecuting lawyers are still pushing for a court order barring sexual relations to prevent the woman from being raped.

Let’s get something out of the way first: all women have learning difficulties. It’s just a matter of how severe those difficulties are.

That said, if she can say yes or no to a question such as “do you want some ice cream?” or “do you feel like watching a movie?” then she can absolutely consent to sex.

This whole “consent” thing is a retarded Jewish invention that overcomplicates basic male-female interaction. If a woman doesn’t want to have sex, she resists, if she wants to stop having sex while having sex, she makes it known. If she for some reason decides to pretend to be okay with having sex while not feeling like having sex, then that’s her problem. Literally something that happens in her mind that can’t be measured or proven.

The insanity of this story is augmented by the fact that even though the poor husband pledged to no longer sleep with his wife, prosecutors still push for a court order to officially make him unable to have sex with his wife.

Do you understand how insane that is?

If a man can’t have sex with his wife, why does he have a wife?

[...]

The idea about marriage that most people have in their subconscious was put there by tales of old, by their grandfathers, and by the Jewish social-engineering media machine.

If marriage doesn’t ask anything from women, and gives them half of your stuff or more whenever they please, it not only does nothing to stop relationships from breaking down but it actually provides incentives for relationships to break down.

These whores will destroy your life if you let them.

The moment they feel they’ve secured you, that you have no alternative front-hole, and that you’re socially and legally prohibited from looking for their replacement… that’s the moment they’ll decide to stop having sex with you. Sex will become less and less frequent. She’ll never be “in the mood,” she’ll always be tired or with headache. She’ll never treat you the same. She’ll look at you with disdain. She’ll resent you. She’ll feel trapped by you even though you’re the one that’s really trapped. She’ll feel you’re abusive even though she’s the one being abusive.

She’ll file for divorce and she’ll take as much from you as she possibly can, and then she’ll tell everyone you know about how terrible you are. She’ll go fuck some loser that can’t compare to you but that will have more than you because she’ll share the stuff she took from you with him, and they’ll laugh at you every time you go get your kids on the weekends.

Your kids won’t understand why daddy looks so poor now while mommy and her new boyfriend seem so well off. You’ll want to explain to them… but you won’t be able to. You wouldn’t even know where to start.

As time passes, you’ll see how your own kids prefer mommy’s boyfriend. They’ll tell you how funny he is, how many great things they do together, and how much time they spend together. Every time you send them back to her house… you’ll feel like a shadow. An empty human husk trapping the echoes of the man that you once were and mixing them with the cries of the man that you wanted to be.

All because you thought marriage meant something other than your doom.

How to balance the sexual marketplace, a hypothetical utopia (credits to /u/gstvtrp)

I was inspired by this comment from /u/gstvtrp to expand on the idea he had.

A law should be enacted to limit the number of different female sexual partners a man can have over the course of a year. In order to mostly negate our species’ inherent biological tendency towards female hypergamy, this cap will most likely have to be very low, probably just 1 per year.

The specifics of whether this is possible to monitor and regulate successfully are not important right now as this is just a hypothetical thought experiment exploring the potential effects on the sexual economy.

Effects:

1. Males no longer are willing to fuck below their league, even the top males go for their looksmatch, and those who cheat are removed from the dating pool (penis removed). This gives men who still have penises even more advantage in the dating market.

2. Women no longer cuckold their looksmatch significant other for a superior male. That superior male is no longer willing so the option does not exist. There is technically no limit to how many men a woman can fuck but she could most likely only get her looksmatch or lower, and it would be pointless to cheat on a man for another man who is not superior. In fact with this law enacted women would have to fuck lower on the attractiveness scale if they wanted casual sex instead of a relationship.

3. Men seek out monogamy. If they have sex with a woman who won’t have sex with them again then they can’t have sex for the whole year with anyone. Men will only want long term relationships, which will mostly prevent the creation of “female Chads” who fuck many men without committing.

4. NO MORE INCELS. Any man can now get sex at least once a year and most likely a LTR due to a more forgiving sexual marketplace.

Reasons this could gain support:

1. It helps the majority of men. Only Chads are hurt by this, and they are only hurt in that they are moved closer to equality with the rest of us.

2. It hurts the majority of women, but they will be too stupid to realize that. Women simply don’t have to mental capacity to think all this out, and will not consider the effects on the sexual marketplace. Many of them do not even understand the concept of a sexual marketplace and would laugh at the term. Since it doesn’t technically restrict them from having sex with many men and it restricts their boyfriends from cheating on them women will think it favors them. Ideas like forcing them to have sex with incels more obviously go against their interests and reduce their privilege, so they would oppose those.

Reasons this could not gain support:

1. Chads hold a disproportionate amount of power in the world relative to their small numbers, and they want as much degeneracy as possible.

2. As a wise incel once said; “Incel ideology never took root because the normies see themselves not as exploited beta providers, but as temporarily embarrassed Chads.”

Several retarded normie responses that I already know will be made:

1. “This is misogynistic!!!” Nope actually this law doesn’t govern women at all. It only punishes men for fucking multiple women. I’m sure some feminists will be able to complete the necessary mental gymnastics to turn this into patriarchal oppression of women like they did with sex bots, but that is only because of their privilege-warped minds and addiction to outrage.

2. “This violates our basic rights/this is oppressive!” You are not entitled to sex, and when moving closer to equality looks like oppression to you, that means you are PRIVILEGED.

3. “This will never happen/impossible to enforce” Who knows, not relevant. This is a thread about hypotheticals. However, many things we take for granted in our current society were once thought impossible.