On September 16th 2016 Janet Bloomfield wrote an article called “There is no such thing as marital rape”.
Now in the article the argument she makes is that even though it is possible to assault your spouse on the basis that “I do” does not include agreeing to domestic violence, “martial duties” however is part of marriage, and therefore it is a logical impossibility to rape your spouse, on the basis that contract includes consent to sex.
Now she did raise a very good point, if it is a husband or wife’s right to have sex with their spouse, and their spouse is unwilling at that moment for one reason or another, how can said spouse force the other unwilling spouse without using physical force or some other type of domestic abuse that is not their right to use?
The only thing I could think of was when Chris Rock famously said:
“I mean, she can have the alimony, but I want some pussy payments”.
But I’ll get more into that later, first I’d like to explain why I’m writing this article.
When I first read her article I thought it was interesting, though I neither 100% agreed nor 100% disagreed, I just thought it was interesting. However, that wasn’t enough for me to want to write a response about it, no, this article is in direct response to the most common response it received, both from the people I shared it with, comments under her YouTube video about it, and other articles responding to it. The thing that stuck out the most was many people didn’t even read it, or didn’t read it past the first couple of sentences, or was simply so emotionally offended that they irrationally jumped straight to “HOW DARE YOU SUPPORT VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN”, not even trying to understand what her argument was.
The second thing that stood out was when I made my argument that if you can revoke consent to sex in marriage then you can also revoke consent to money, to those who did understand what her argument was though disagreed with it. At first, they argued against my argument using mental gymnastics like I have never seen in my life, and then eventually with an honest and logical yet callous reason, that essentially boiled down to;
“See that elephant near the dinner table? Yeah, his name’s Stampy. He lives here now, and he’s lived here for about 20 years. We like Stampy. Leave Stampy alone”.
Now to understand exactly what is going on here, we need to go into a bit of depth EXACTLY what marriage was in the past, what marriage currently is in the present, and what marriage can be in future.
What Marriage WAS in the Past
Pre-writing and law
So, what was marriage?
Well, it’s had pretty much the same structure since the dawn of man all the way up to as little as 20 years ago… that’s an awful long time, so what was it?
Well, if we’re going to go back as far as pair bonding, that predates our species existence, as does prostitution believe it or not. In fact, prostitution in our line doesn’t just go back as far as chimpanzees, it actually goes back as far as monkeys, probably further, because:
1. No one’s really specifically looked into it, and
2. We’ve even seen the same type of behaviour from the very distantly related Penguin.
Oh yeah, Pingu’s gone to the Red Light District once or twice, and what a classic episode that was.
Now from this very small group of animals that we’ve seen this in by accident, what do they all have in common? Other than being Social Species, they are all Pair Bonders. Whether polyandry, polygamy, monogamy, short-term, long-term, lifetime, it doesn’t matter, all of these species that we have seen this in have some form of a pair bonding mating strategy.
Why? What evolutionary purpose does prostitution serve for a social animal?
Well, it’s a dangerous world out there, so for your own sake and safety it makes far more sense to get someone to do all of that dangerous work getting food for you, while you stay in the nest and take care of yourself and your offspring.
And it’s worth noting that it’s only social animals where the male is larger, while in solitary animals it’s the female who’s bigger and stronger, such as spiders and tigers.
Now, if a male in the wild somehow got the females he mates with to provide for him, reproductively himself and his females would fail in the game of natural selection. Since females (especially female mammals) safety and wellbeing are pretty much synonymous with the unborns and borns safety and wellbeing, naturally evolution would select them to be in the nest within social species.
So, how could a female get a male to provide her with food? How about letting him either reproduce with her, or at least letting him believe that? In fact, this even goes into the evolutionary reasoning for the existence of Faking Orgasms. That same behaviour has been shown in other primates, and it has been shown that female orgasms increase the chance of pregnancy.
Another interesting thing, what happens when evolution has already selected all the males to provide, so now nearly all the males will be willing to do that, who then does she choose? The biggest, the strongest to do all that work?… Or, how about those who take the greatest interest in her children, and a desire to protect her and them?
Are we starting to see a little bit of overlap here?
Post writing and law
Ok, let’s jump forward to a time in history when we had writing and law. How about biblical times?
Believe it or not, in terms of what women tend to bring to the table in this day and age, it’s actually a lot more like how it was before we had writing and law. Once we did have writing and law however, that’s when these rules started to quite literally get put into stone.
1 Corinthians 7:3 to 7:5
“3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife. 5Do not deprive one another, except by mutual consent for a limited time, so you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again, so that Satan will not tempt you through your lack of self-control.”
The contract that we have had since forever right up until The Industrial Revolution was that once a man and woman are wed, both of their incomes is one, both of their consent to sex is one, and the reproductive result is his. And how that generally worked; she legally spreads her legs and provides him with children, and he legally empties his wallet and provides for her and said children which legally were his because he paid for them.
Note, bastard children born out of wedlock were 100% under the authority of the mother, with the biological father having no right to them what so ever.
That is what marriage was, consent to money, consent to sex, and consent to the reproductive result, which that last part only changed with feminism’s first act of female supremacy from the 1900s onwards; The Tender Years Doctrine.
Before that came along, in the very rare event of a breakup he got the children and the bill for them, and he got them because they were his, he paid for them. But a number of feminists thought this was unfair, it was making some women unhappy. So, they changed it so married women have veto authority over children in the “Tender Years”, first regarded as 4 and under, then eventually 10, then eventually indefinitely. However, he still got the bill, and that is where alimony originally came from.
Now anyone who dares say a single mother should pay for her own children, and have no right to child support, well that’s unfair, in fact, I’ve heard some even refer to that as oppression. Of course, when that’s how it was for men who had the kids and the bill, that’s called Patriarchal Privilege.
Also, the only reason we have default mother custody is because of the Patriarchal notion that children belong with their mothers, don’t ya know?
That was the first real legal change to the marriage contract. Where before, it was consent to money, consent to sex, and consent to the reproductive result, after that it was just consent to money and consent to sex, all the way up to about 20 years ago.
What Marriage is in the Present
Well, about 20 years ago, give or take depending what part of the west you’re from, legally “marital duties” ceased to be a thing. Legally, consent to sex was no longer part of the marriage contract, and it was just a contract of consent to money, ie, putting all their money/income together in the same pot and then dividing it in 2.
Oh, but it’s actually a lot better than that, because in the last couple of years we’ve had a few policy changes to what counts as Domestic Abuse in the UK.
Now legally under the law in the UK if you spend 50% of your wife’s money against her will that legally should be 50% yours, you are now committing Domestic Abuse. However, if on the other hand you tell your wife (or girlfriend you live with for that matter) the words “no, you may not spend 50% (or even more) of my pay check raking up credit cards depts for shit I never agreed to,” well you as a man are committing Domestic Abuse there too.
Funny how that works, isn’t it? What’s Mine is Mine, and what’s Yours is Ours.
Now, someone I debated with accused me of lying, that that isn’t in the law, I was just making things up. Well, let’s dig a little deeper into that, shall we? This type of Domestic Abuse comes under Financial Abuse. So, what does the CPS (The Crown Prosecution Service) and gov.uk define as “Financial Abuse”?
Well first, let’s just see how they define and deal with Domestic Violence and Abuse in general, shall we?
Hum… ok, so that’s what the CPS thinks of the Domestic Violence, ok, what does it think of Financial Abuse? It doesn’t even mention it, so I guess we’ll have to go to gov.uk.
Ok, so gov.uk does mention “Financial Abuse”, and it defers its definition for it under the “Definition of domestic violence and abuse: guide for local areas”.
But before we get to that, “the violence against women and girls action plan”.
This is what Gold looks like. It provides Gold, buckets of Duluth Model smelling Gold.
As far as the government and CPS is concerned Domestic Violence/Abuse and “Violence Against Women” are synonymous. If a woman is abusive she is only that way because she was abused herself because she is female, while if a man is abusive, who gives a fuck? He’s an abuser. One is too many!
Now I would love to go through this action plan and the gov.uk and the CPS’s part on violence against men, but that is an article in itself. Let it suffice to say, with the services it’s almost completely bullshit, and with how the “Justice” System deals with it, it IS completely bullshit.
So, we take a look at the “Definition of domestic violence and abuse: guide for local areas.”
Hum, it doesn’t provide a specific definition for “Financial Abuse” either, but rather it defers it’s NGOs (Non-Government Organisations) as outlined in “the violence against women and girls action plan” under Section 2 60a. that
“the GEO (Governmental Equalities Organisation) is engaging with NGOs, other government departments, the Devolved Administrations and overseas territories to gain their views. The GEO works to ensure that all departmental Ministers are alerted to those recommendations that are relevant to the work of their respective departments.”.
So, who are the NGOs (Non-Government Organisations) that they’re speaking of?
There’s lots of good other ones here, such as “Respect,” but let’s just go with the best and most relevant two.
First, Refuge. Now Refuge was the first women’s DV shelter in the world, founded by Erin Pizzey in 1971 called Chiswick Women’s Aid, before it was subjected to a hostile takeover by Duluth Model supporting feminists in I believe 1979, for her daring to release her findings and assert that domestic violence is not a gender issue.
After that she was given death threats, bomb threats, and when her dog was killed she fled the country and remained in exile for over 10 years.
So, now that we have the history of Refuge, what do they think of “Financial Abuse”?
It goes without saying they view it as a gender issue, but they don’t really provide a definition, nor do they give multiple specific examples, they just give ONE specific example, that fits very nicely with the Duluth Model.
Maybe their partner Women’s Aid will be more helpful.
Now it should be noted, when the police are called for even the most minor of domestic disputes, one of the first things they do is shove a Women’s Aid pamphlet into the woman’s face and almost aggressively pressure her into contacting them and filing charging on him for something, regardless of how many times she tells them it’s not like that and that’s not the issue. I’ve seen this with my own eyes and had the privilege of reading through it. So, if Women’s Aid aren’t the NGO CPS authority on this very subject, then what is? https://www.womensaid.org.uk/financial-abuse-report/
Ok, so again, it’s completely gendered. It’s not a specific definition, but multiple specific examples, and that’s good enough.
Now, so according to this, it is financial abuse for a husband with a wife who doesn’t work to not give her an equal right to his income, but rather give her an allowance. Fighting for his shit in a divorce and refusing child support also counts as financial abuse. At the same time, he legally doesn’t have a right to more than one day a week with his child.
It is also possible for a husband to financially abuse his wife if she makes more than him! How?
Let me guess, by spending her money without asking her first (because we’re married, sweetheart) to buy essentials to go around the house, like some New Chandeliers to go with our new Italian Leather Sofa. What, she said no, and is somehow stopping him from using the joint account? That’s ok, just buy them on the credit card.
Look, ok, I’ll grant you there are probably some psychopathic men out there who somehow don’t let their wife have access to essentials such as bread and water, but, come on, in this day and age the word “essentials” is as good as meaningless.
Not letting your wife have equal authority to your account is domestic abuse, while having equal access to her account is also domestic abuse.
What’s Mine is Mine, and what’s Yours is Ours.
Back to the Marriage contract today
So, the marriage contract today is a legal contract in which a man legally signs over his income to his wife, and upon divorce, she gets half of his shit and a right to alimony if she chose to have kids with him (and in some countries and states not even that is needed.)
“Where have all the good men gone?” is what we hear more and more these days; women complaining that it’s harder and harder to find a good man that’ll settle down and put a ring on it… YA THINK?!
Whether you like it or not, whether directly or indirectly marriage is the world’s oldest profession, predating our entire species. Marriage plays an important role in society, so much so that Beyoncé actually did a music video to advertise the importance of it, and to encourage a little bit more pressure on men to get those contracts signed.
On a side note, am I the only one who finds it really funny that in this day and age that Beyoncé is considered a feminist icon?
Well, this contract in this day and age is bullshit. It is no benefit to men whatsoever. Even if the money side of it wasn’t gendered, there’s still no point joining your money with someone else’s if you have more and they can just split it 50/50 whenever they want.
There is no point, other than showing “commitment.”
Ladies, consider that for one second, let’s say there was no alimony, but there was default father custody and such a thing as pussy payments, where it was a completely one-sided contract and gave you as good as no benefit whatsoever. What would you think of your boyfriend if he told you that if you don’t sign it then you don’t really 100% love him?
What Marriage can be in future
The way I see it there are only three options;
1. Turn back the clock,
2. Really turn back the clock or
3. Stay to Course.
Turn Back the clock
Turn it back about 20 years, and change child custody to default 50/50. Put marital duties back into it, that way women will find far more workhorses that’ll work for them again, and marriages just might start lasting more than 5 minutes again.
Really turn back the clock
Remove money from the contract, and make it completely like it was before we had writing and law, an unspoken moral contract. I said before how
“Believe it or not, in terms of what women tend to bring to the table in this day and age, it’s actually a lot more like how it was before we had writing and law.”
Well, look around, that unspoken moral contract is all women bring these days, with nothing fixed into law. Hence, fewer and fewer men are prepared to sign that contract and instead provide the exact same thing, an unspoken moral contract in the form of shaking up. Those men should look up “Common-law marriage” because without them knowing it that is what is replacing saying the words “I do” in getting married.
Stay to Course
Do what you women have always done, breed with the men who do what you want, and don’t breed with those that don’t. Course that means there’ll continue to be a mass shortage of “acceptable” men as time goes on, but after a few generations, there should be enough eunuch mangina to go around who will fall on their sword for women for ZERO benefit to themselves at all. Now there is a problem with that, other than breeding slaves being unethical.
Those aren’t really the men who ring your bell all that much, are they?
It’s a catch 22. This is the point where reality is shoved in your face that you cannot logically eat your cake and keep it. Everything comes at a price… everything. Slaves are not free, nor is creating them.
Since we’re not talking about the present but the future here, we’re not talking about adults here, we’re talking about children, and we’re talking about the unborn.
How you want your sons and daughters to coexist with the opposite sex, how you want your children’s sons and daughters to coexist with the opposite sex, that is all on you.
After spending a number of years arguing over these issues online, he soon came to the conclusion that if you want to defeat insanity, you must voice insanity.
-"Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows."