This reads less like an argument and more like an extended confession of intellectual dishonesty. It opens with something almost everyone can acknowledge: Yes, repeated sexual rejection in a marriage can be deeply painful. Feeling unwanted by your spouse can damage intimacy, erode self-esteem, and create resentment. People absolutely can use affection, attention, and even sex in manipulative ways. Those realities deserve serious discussion. But then the author performs one of the most astonishing logical leaps imaginable: β€œI am emotionally hurt by your refusal” becomes β€œtherefore I acquire rights over your body.” No. That conclusion does not follow. The entire argument depends on the premise that experiencing emotional pain entitles you to another person’s physical participation. If that principle were true, bodily autonomy would cease to exist. A wife feeling emotionally neglected by a husband would gain rights over his labor. A parent devastated by an adult child’s distance would gain rights over that child’s time. A lonely friend would gain rights over another person’s companionship. A dying patient would gain rights over another person’s kidney. After all, emotional suffering is real, and the need is profound. Except we don’t believe any of that. Because wanting something …even desperately… does not create ownership of another human being. The author repeatedly compares sexual refusal to violence, claiming that rejecting sex is psychologically equivalent to assault. But notice the sleight of hand. A slap is an unwanted action imposed on someone else’s body. Refusing sex is refusing access to your own body. Those are not morally identical. They are opposites. One violates bodily autonomy. The other exercises it. Calling refusal β€œviolence” requires redefining the concept until it loses all meaning. By that standard, refusing to lend someone money becomes theft. Declining to donate blood becomes attempted murder. Turning down a date becomes emotional abuse. The principle collapses immediately. Then comes the contradiction that blows the entire thing apart. The author claims he wants intimacy. He wants to feel desired. He wants sex to mean something. He wants affirmation that he matters. But the system he advocates would destroy every one of those things. Because a person forbidden from saying β€œno” loses the ability to meaningfully say β€œyes.” If a wife is legally, culturally, or socially compelled to submit regardless of her feelings, what exactly is being celebrated? It isn’t desire. It isn’t affection. It isn’t love. It’s compliance. And compliance isn’t validation. The author appears desperate to be wanted while advocating for a system that makes being wanted impossible to distinguish from being coerced. That isn’t solving the problem. It’s eliminating the evidence that the problem exists. The contradictions continue. Women are simultaneously portrayed as: cunning masterminds manipulating society, helpless sheep controlled by TikTok, emotionally fragile children requiring discipline, all-powerful beneficiaries of social institutions, and mindless followers incapable of independent thought. Which is it? They cannot be both omnipotent puppet masters and helpless drones whose opinions are programmed by peer pressure. The argument shifts positions whenever convenient. Even the language of β€œconsent” is hijacked. He speaks of women β€œvoluntarily” participating immediately after proposing: propaganda campaigns, public shaming, institutional pressure, social ostracism, disciplinary rooms, coercive conditioning, and punishment for refusal. That’s not voluntary. It’s merely coercion with better branding.
Withholding sex IS explicitly considered a form of abuse in the domestic violence ideology canon as a control tactic of abusers. Of course this stuff is 99% applied in a biased and persecutory manner to benefit women at men's expense. But if you peruse the lore you can read this stuff at women's shelter websites, about evil men shaming women for being horny and holding out the D as a punishment lol. I mean they are right. Clearly it is abusive. It's hard to make it illegal but it probably should be. If slapping bitches is gonna be policed by the police then being too stingy with the poonanny after due payment should be considers a form of theft or fraud at least. People have been talking about men being inconsiderate not doing "acts of service" favors for them like doting mothers might. But men's intuitive way to express love and affection is through physical touch and sex. So getting shut down by your wife in that regard is the emotional equivalent of if she made him a nice dinner and he immediately said, "thanks for nothing, bitch!" then dumped it out in the trash right in front of her. How long are you gonna be excited about cooking for him and the relationship in general dealing with that? It's every bit as harmful to him psychologically as a slap in the face or boot in the testicles. That's what rejecting sex is, it's violence and assault. You have no right to do it. If the man agreed to marry your stupid ass despite how irritating and tedious you surely are, the absolute least morally required from you is total sexual enslavement on demand regardless of your feelings or preferences. The concept of bodily autonomy is itself highly problematic when you are talking about owned women, which is what marriage means. It's not ok or who we are. If you're not ready for a lifetime supply of total subjugation and sex at will you really have no business getting involved in married life, it's really crazy to think otherwise. The entitlement of that. I don't know who comes up with this poppycock but they should be tarred and feathered. Perhaps sentenced by royal magistrate to free use town square buggery after appropriate legal process and appeals have been rejected cnc lawcuck style (with full TOS consent involved). Marriage really should be and formerly was a more hardcore form of bdsm slave contract that makes the latter look like the half speed teacup rides at Fairy F_@_33_0,tland. It's a total power exchange ownership until death deal. Maybe not fit for prime time or goyim involvement. They are better off as pseudoswingers doing nebbish nationalism shekel grinding tepid transactionalism. She's not yours, it's just your turn kind of thing. As long as everyone is on the same page from the outset. Idgaf if you make your life a birthday gangbang 7 days a week. Maybe that's your American dream. But marriage IS an archaic ritual steeped in patriarchal domination and barbarism. At least it should be. That would be dope. Then something would be in it for men. It might be a little sexy to boot rather than gay as hell and simp coded. It's really society's job to tell women they are obligated to have sex. The scorned husband himself is the wrong person to do it. Won't work. Women operate on consensus framework peer pressure rules, which in practical terms will have to come from public authority figures or the tiktok algorithm. So the amount of pressure coming down on them to *voluntarily* get brutally face fucked while crying even if they are tired or have a headache has to be the same as all forms of media conspiring to make them take the Covid vax. It should be so ambient and all pervasive that women are spontaneously bitching at each other to do it and shunning whoever doesn't from the friend group. We need to hijack the Jewish propaganda machine to mentally buck break the women into slave training, grooming them from the outset to prepare for this life they will be subjected to. To steel their nerves and their stomachs for the challenging future ahead. Building codes should be refashioned to require disciplinary bondage rooms in every habitable unit, including rentals, for the punishment of women who shirk their duties. These should include water dunk tanks for breath control and electric shock devices inspected in good working order. There should be inverted hanging devices to spin the women until brain scrambling bloodrush dizziness cures their hysterical outbursts. Forced orgasm vibrating restraint devices must be included to resolve their frigidity with Pavlovian conditioning to whatever visual or sensory stimulus is required. Women can certainly be improved as proper concubinal slave material, it would just take a little elbow grease initiative. Don't give up on them. They are capable of so much more with proper prodding.
1
1
3
173
One of the saddest parts is that buried beneath all the rage is something profoundly human. β€œI don’t feel wanted.” β€œI don’t feel desired.” β€œI feel rejected.” β€œI don’t know what to do with the pain of not being chosen.” Those feelings deserve empathy. What they do not deserve is elevation into political philosophy. Because the moment another person’s body becomes the prescribed treatment for your wounded self-esteem, you’ve stopped talking about love and started talking about entitlement. The argument eventually abandons relationships altogether and wanders into fantasies of ownership, punishment, conspiracy, and ethnic scapegoating. At that point, we’re no longer discussing marital expectations. We’re watching ordinary disappointment mutate into grandiose grievance. The inability to tolerate another person’s autonomy becomes evidence that civilization itself is broken. It isn’t. The painful truth is much less dramatic. Marriage is difficult because spouses remain separate human beings. They get tired. They become ill. They experience stress. Their libidos fluctuate. They sometimes disappoint each other. They retain the capacity to refuse. That freedom is not a design flaw. It’s the very thing that makes love meaningful. Because if your partner cannot say β€œno,” their β€œyes” loses all significance. You can force obedience. You can manufacture compliance. You can cultivate fear. What you cannot produce through coercion is the one thing this entire manifesto seems to crave most: The knowledge that another person, fully free to reject you, chose you anyway. That’s what intimacy is. Not ownership. Not entitlement. Not discipline. Not slavery. Choice. And if your worldview requires the abolition of another person’s choice in order to feel loved, then the problem isn’t modern marriage. It’s that you’ve mistaken access for affection and control for connection.
1
1
27
β€œReal men protect women” is a strange slogan to use while advocating for laws that uniquely authorize the government to dictate how women’s bodies must be used. If your argument is sound, you shouldn’t need to gatekeep masculinity to sell it. Just answer the question: Why is pregnancy the only circumstance in which one human being acquires a legal claim to another person’s organs?
Real men protect women in AND out of the womb
3
184
Major medical organizations including… American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) American Medical Association (AMA) World Health Organization (WHO) American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) …and numerous other professional medical bodies recognize abortion as a legitimate component of reproductive healthcare. ACOG: β€œInduced abortion is an essential component of women’s health care.” acog.org/advocacy/facts-are-… ACOG: β€œLegal and accessible abortion care is a necessary component of comprehensive health care.” acog.org/clinical/clinical-g… AMA: β€œReproductive care is health care.” ama-assn.org/public-health/p… AMA: The AMA supports access to β€œthe full spectrum of reproductive health care options, including abortion.” ama-assn.org/health-care-adv… WHO: The WHO’s Abortion Care Guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for quality abortion care. who.int/publications/i/item/… WHO: β€œAbortion is a simple health care intervention…” who.int/news-room/fact-sheet… AAFP: The AAFP supports access to comprehensive reproductive health services, β€œincluding but not limited to abortion.” aafp.org/about/policies/all/…

1
454
Dear Christians, He used you to get what he wanted. Now he’s making fun of you. You can’t unsee blasphemy.
1
6
554
Did you hear? They held a private screening of β€˜Melania’ for survivors of the Boston Marathon bombing. They said watching it was the worst experience of their lives.

ALT Norm Macdonald GIF

1
543
πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆβƒ€ ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕙π•₯π•šπ•§π•šπ•₯π•ͺ π•šπ•Ÿ π”Ήπ•π•’π•”π•œ retweeted
Only one Catherine O'Hara, and now none. Heartbreaking.
464
3,473
45,587
908,515
πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆβƒ€ ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕙π•₯π•šπ•§π•šπ•₯π•ͺ π•šπ•Ÿ π”Ήπ•π•’π•”π•œ retweeted
…
4
61
3,777
38,597
πŸ³οΈβ€πŸŒˆβƒ€ ℕ𝕒π•₯𝕙π•₯π•šπ•§π•šπ•₯π•ͺ π•šπ•Ÿ π”Ήπ•π•’π•”π•œ retweeted
Christian Nationalism looks like seeing Jesus hanging on the cross and saying, "he should have just obeyed the law." Christian Nationalism looks like the Samaritan leaning over to the man beaten on the side of the road and saying, "before I pay for your treatment and shelter, tell me, are you here legally?" Christian Nationalism looks like Jesus saying to his disciples before feeding the 5,000, "go make sure everyone here has a job and isn't just looking for a handout." Christian Nationalism looks like using the Bible to seek first the power of the empire rather than the self sacrificial love of Jesus. Christian nationalism looks like worshiping power rather than loving God and our neighbors. Christian nationalism looks nothing like the real Jesus. - @Brcremer
534
1,744
6,332
170,005
If you don’t want to hear me whispering, β€œThank you Jesus,” don’t stand so close to me at the urinals.
1
177