Most welfare and public works projects are founded upon the basis of ‘it’s good for society’. And they’re usually at least somewhat right: roads, schools, public parks, endowments to the arts, sciences, and humanities, disaster preparedness (of which I consider NASA a crucial component, considering Earth’s last major extinction was caused by an asteroid)… Many of these kinds of things, if not abused, are good for society, and the cost to the individual is very minimal. On the other hand, there is most certainly high potential for abuse of welfare state and public works ‘good ideas’: most notably the prison system, but also historically, the Holocaust.

The problem is that many of these institutions benefit some more than others. And if one happens to be a certain class of person, this might all stack up on him to a point where he feels enslaved, collectively, as though he is paying into society, and being made to work for a society, but not getting much back out, or perhaps what he gets back out of society is hollow and meaningless. It’s entirely possible to be expected to give too much and work too hard. For instance, before you’ve even paid your expenses, they take taxes out of your check. Your employer and the tax man get theirs first, and you have to make a life of what’s left over, after funding a bunch of shit you may not even agree with, which Thomas Jefferson, our most brilliant founding father, described as deplorable, even as he was founding the public education system, with these caveats in mind!

Moreover, some kinds of people enjoy better safety nets than others, even though they have actually contributed LESS. Some people are more included than others. These privileged people of whom I speak are the wealthy, the beautiful, and the popular. And like all privileged people, they often misattribute to personal merit what is actually the product of… well, tacit exploitation of others on their part, really.

What does this mean in terms of sex and society? Well, look at the painting ‘Happy Birthday, Mr. President’, and apply the famous Kennedy quote to it. Think about how sexist that is, for Kennedy to tell a woman, especially one of lower status and background, to consider the group’s needs instead of her own. He was inherently privileged in all three of the above ways, and yet he was telling normal, ordinary people they owe their lives and servitude to his own general and particular visions of society. But a situational gender reversal should seem just as bad. When Hillary Clinton said this to a group of men, many of us felt just as bad about it as women must have felt when John F. Kennedy said it to them.

Thing is, Hillary Clinton is likely to want her men to perform different tasks for her than John F. Kennedy wanted those women to perform for him. Mainly what Hillary wants is for men to fight and die in war, or perform all the grunt work, which is actually far less pleasurable work than being a sex worker. And even though this is obvious, Hillary still misassigns victimhood, and sympathy privileges, to women, in what is truly terrible accounting!

Some men’s sex lives are so mishandled and misreported, and in many ways it is like Stalin and the Ukraine. See, the USSR came in with its Red Army, which raped and enslaved the countryside of Eastern Europe. They then confiscated all the grain, and said ‘We are going to centrally store and administrate all of this grain, so that it may be distributed fairly.’ But then they didn’t redistribute the grain fairly. In fact, the USSR deliberately starved several million people, while at the same time propagating a public misconception that everyone was well-fed.

The modern feminist movement does this to men as well, and stuff like #believewomen is at least partially the culprit. And this is a significant contributing factor to why women have more sex than men, on average. But of course, beauty and wealth standards make this sex with the same statistical minority of guys, leaving most of us out. So it’s like the whole town pays for it, has to watch, and many may deeply resent it.

While that cute couple enjoys a nice date, and while the underground meth orgies persist into the wee hours, society still tells the average person ‘No one owes you a sex life’. Two people in my Facebook feed have posted this or similar, in the week following the Canadian van attack. Both of them are uglier and poorer than me. One of them has a wife and child.

Besides pointing out that, if society doesn’t owe me the fulfillment of my needs, it certainly doesn’t owe women maternity leave and stuff like that, especially not out of MY pocket, I’ve figured out a 2-word counter to this favorite argument of beta cuck virtue-signallers:

SOCIAL DARWINISM

Assuming these are liberals who say this shit, none of them wants to be thought of as a social Darwinist. And yet, that’s exactly what they have expressed via their hypergamistic tendencies and laissez-faire social negligence: survival of the fittest when it comes to reproductive rights. So it puts them in a really awkward position of intellectual dishonesty, when you point that out to them, publicly.

To be clear: I’m not advocating for some kind of government system that forces women to have sex with men. In fact, even if such a system DID exist, I would have very little faith in it, to provide me with a mate that meets my personal standards, nor would I derive any joy from being the owner (or leasee) of a sex slave, especially one conscripted by the government. What I’m arguing is: women have already implemented a system that directly robs men of time and money to pay for things like alimony, child support, maternity leave, female healthcare burdens, romance, etc… With government guns in our backs. And the end result is: wear and tear on our muscles, minds, wallets, and free time. So at the very least, as long as this system stands, we can claim moral superiority to these privileged psychos, who have been not just socially enabled, but GOVERNMENTALLY enabled to be amoral and incompetent. So you end up with a dating pool full of ‘Cash Me Outside’ girls, and the kind of men who like those kinds of girls end up being the only ones who get to survive and reproduce. [There should be a picture of one of these couples here, but I don’t want to call anyone out specifically. I’m sure you know one.]

So they are in fact, preserving their right to control the gene pool. Which is essentially, Social Darwinism, and clearly shows their one-sided, paper-thin commitment to liberal ideals. In the case of maternity leave, the case you’re making is literally this: Society doesn’t owe men sex, but men owe society for the consequences of SOMEONE ELSE’S SEX LIFE. So basically, men are expected to solely bear the entire burden of social conscience. This is why I hate regressive liberals. They take away all the best aspects of liberalism (sex, drugs, and cultural authenticity), and what we’re left with is bland slavery to (often gynocentric) collectivism.

And because of ensconced sexual repression, this has gone on for years, and men are only just now beginning to talk about it, something they are alternately, arbitrarily encouraged and punished for doing, in a way that cheats the excluded middle from both ends, and encourages learned helplessness syndrome.

On one hand, you say men need to stop being so stoic, and start addressing their issues, especially those that require communal participation to solve… But men are often punished for doing so. This is because men’s thoughts, feelings, desires, and needs are often considered ‘threatening’. And yet many contemporary liberals don’t similarly consider activism from those who are supposedly more marginalized. Nor is it ever acknowledged when men are deliberately manipulated and provoked.

And a lot of people say, ‘Don’t you think it’s for the benefit of society that women have these safety nets and comforts?’

Sure. I also think it’s for the benefit of society that individual males are not so alienated from the benefits of society, and included in the costs, that they snap from anger, and go on rampages that kill random civilians, rampages I myself or anyone anywhere might very well end up victims of, randomly and meaninglessly. And this is only going to increase in occurrence, for it is a direct consequence of modern liberalism, and implementing these cold, detached systems which only enable the negligence of common people. ‘I don’t have to include that person, because I voted for a system that takes care of them, and I fund it with my taxes’. Well, the system, sucks, man!

Finally, the most frustrating practice is when the same people who say ‘We don’t owe you anything’, conversely make the argument ‘You owe us everything’… And for many, it amounts to a lifetime of slavery, the individual being collectively exploited, and for women that might involve being raped, but for men, it usually involves alienation. The more alienation a man endures, the less relatable he is to everyone else (especially anyone he might truly desire), the more difficult it is to find a fair match for him, and the more personal cost there is to his social capital.

And that’s everything in an information society: social capital. One cannot get rich or popular from good ideas alone. One must be well-positioned in the social hierarchy to profit from any good idea, even his own, otherwise it will almost certainly be plagiarized by middle-men who get between content creators and the means of production. For instance: what if you had gone to Harvard in the late 90’s/early 2000’s? You might have been in the room when they were hashing out the implementation of an online payment system, you might have had something to add to the discussion, and you might have eventually ended up with stock in PayPal.

But if you went to a less well-connected school, or were not privileged enough to go to school at all, you could have wholly engineered a similar online payment system by yourself, and still be nowhere near as successful as Elon Musk. Because you didn’t have the connections to make your idea a household name, and your competition did. So success isn’t just about hard work, or ingenuity, it’s also about social position. And sex is unacknowledged to be a huge part of that.

Point being: many people make the argument: ‘big deal if someone is sexless or friendless. No one needs sex or friends.’ And it’s partially true: you don’t actually physically need either to survive… but lack of either can most certainly lower your quality-of-life, and even hurt your career. In fact, since we know from scientific research that having sex regularly is a mental AND physical health boon, that it calms people with endorphins, and can be helpful to our concentration, then it can also be said that an alienated, sexually-frustrated person might be scatter-brained and unhealthy. And then a liberally regressive society punishes them for that, instead of giving them the help they need, or implying the help they need is actually a mental institution, an opinion I like to call ‘Man, Interrupted’.

Worse yet, our problems are often exploited by racketeers, and then we are stigmatized as exploitative addicts, who have deliberately propped up these racketeers, at the expense of women. Those in favor of legalizing prostitution say that it’s for the public good to placate guys like Elliot Roger, but they don’t acknowledge the social and psychological cost of being party to either side of these transactions, or being stigmatized as a john.

So it’s kind of like saying ‘Nobody starves in America, because there’s a McDonald’s on every corner’, ignoring the fact that McDonald’s is unhealthy and evil, and some can’t even afford McDonald’s! Finally, they never acknowledge that, just like marriage isn’t right for some people, prostitutes and strip clubs are not agreeable to some dispositions either, and that doesn’t necessarily make someone gay! It may be that promiscuity turns your stomach, you’ve had bad past experiences, or you are simply worried about what partaking in prostitutes might do to your reputation or personal psychology, thus preventing a healthy marriage. Being that there’s no such thing as a free lunch, insomuch as there is an opportunity cost to all choices, toxic relationships (and habits) often prevent healthy ones. And yet we are driven to toxic habits and relationships by the unavailability of healthy ones, for many people.

All this considered, people often say: ‘If you don’t want to endure the negative effects of unpopularity, stop making yourself unpopular’. But ostracism is not something the individual does to themself. This is a victim-blaming mentality, and very hypocritical. Ostracism is something the group does to the individual, collectively, deliberately, in an attempt to make them commit suicide, and it’s only considered a problem to be effectively addressed when it results in mass public shooting. Terrorism, and negotiating with terrorists, reigns supreme, in a society in which ‘fear is your only God’. Social problems and sexual deprivation often drive people to drug habits, and they are punished for that too, further splintering society. The causes of these toxic behaviors are rarely addressed meaningfully, and the symptoms are often punished severely.

What is this collectively driving people to? Well, reactionaryism, really… It’s yet another case of ‘apply conservative values to someone, and they become conservative, apply liberal values to someone, and they become liberal’. IME, though, if you apply totalitarianism to someone, they will eventually become an incendiary anarchist, to the detriment of both society and themselves.

So, finally, I think: Not only does society owe YOU a sex life, society OWES ITSELF to include you, so that you do not suffer, and so that society does not suffer the loss of YOU, or your lashing out at it. It’s really that simple. Nobody who thinks ‘society doesn’t owe you sex’ can properly call themselves liberal. They are sadistic, punitive, exploitative fascists, and socially Darwinist as well.

So, having registered this complaint, what is my proposed solution? Well, I’m not proposing mandatory socialization… I personally take a lot of solace in my right to be alone, my right not to be stuck with someone I don’t even really like, just so some bureaucrat, who considers human beings interchangeable parts, can put a check in a box. I do think runaway capitalism has caused economic problems, which exacerbate these issues… But mostly I think this is a social problem, which requires a social solution.

First of all, we have to stop raising our children in such a way that promotes adversarial gender relations. We need to teach men the absolute necessity of female consent, sure, but also acknowledge that a man’s consent is just as important. Prostitution, like any other insidious exploitative business, exploits insecurities to sell a product, and many men don’t appreciate being shamed or otherwise driven to compromises they ultimately regret, which can have very negative psychological consequences.

Second of all, we need to teach people how to reject eachother sexually, which is often a necessary and healthy thing for a person to do, given their current, specific individual situations, but without destroying that person psychologically, or deliberately alienating them from their communities in general. This is actually very easy to do, and it often involves simply avoiding suicide ideation lingo: ‘everyone, always, never, no one’, etc. In other words, don’t say ‘I don’t like you and nobody does’, instead say ‘I don’t like you personally, but I’m sure there is someone out there for you.’ Or simply, ‘You are beautiful, but you aren’t my type’. How about ‘We’re wrong for eachother, and a relationship would hurt both of us.’?

Third of all, we must question traditional gender roles, ESPECIALLY in regards to romance. Men, and especially men recovering from bad personal situations (which may very well not be their own faults), should not constantly be exploited in a series of Farmer’s Daughter scams, while others around them have fulfilling relationships, and expect the exploited class of chronically single men to not to be bitter or lash out. Women can do things for themselves, so stop doing everything for them. For your benefit AND theirs.

Finally, we need to work to dismantle trifling, exploitative social hierarchies. The fraternity mentality of pledging, being hazed, and paying dues… It’s ridiculous. A person is destined to be with their spouse. Stop being a bridge troll to whoever naturally should be someone’s rightful spouse! Stop keeping people separated from eachother, as a means of exploiting them, or ensuring they can’t band together to unseat the regular threat of ensconced tyranny.

That’s all I’m saying. I’m not a douchebag. I don’t have, and have never had ‘self-care orgies’, and I look down upon the class of people that does. Even though some of them are wealthy and powerful people, I liken their behavior to Patrick Bateman’s. I don’t even go to strip clubs, as they have always seemed to me to be exploitative businesses, towards both their employees and clientele.

I am simply someone who has done a lot of time in solitary confinement, been made to feel guilty for what little human contact I’ve had, as if I’m the problem. As if I’m the one putting damaged goods into the world, commitment-phobic, etc. Stop punishing the good people and rewarding the bad people. That’s how to create a more just society, and one which is not so prone to random acts of violence or social unpleasantness.