OFFICIAL Marriage Strike by Men

An official marriage strike by marriageable men would be the only way to draw the attention of the government to the parlous state of gender relations under a matriarchy.

Men going on a marriage strike would make sensible women with an ounce or more of self-respect go on a sex strike.

When that is not resolved happens racial or national extinction will be inevitable.

This should concentrate the minds of a matriarchal government who embody all the feminine vices of irrationality, hypocrisy, cowardice and denial of the truth.

Reintroducing fault in divorce, not automatically awarding custody of the children to their mother, opening the family courts to journalistic scrutiny are just a few measures that would tempt men into marriage again.

That and the discouragement of sluts, slags and slappers who will drop their knickers for any Tom, Dick and Harry should make marriage more tempting for men again.

It is true, you know: men do ask themselves "Why buy the cow when you can get your milk in pints at your local corner shop?"

It is time for the marriage contract to be renegotiated so that its terms are fair and attractive to men.

The Muslims have a better idea of this as can be seen at

The moment you turn marriage into a contract, no fault divorce would logically and necessarily be abolished. I explained this to a female divorce solicitor once, and she pretended not to get it.  


Adolfo said…
It’s too late to save marriage. It’s done! It’s over! C’est fini! ¡Adiós! Auf wiedersen! Marriage doesn’t make sense any longer since two gays or two lesbians can get married. It doesn’t make any sense since marriage is contracted to join two “lonely soul mates”. It doesn’t make any sense since marriage is used by Hollywood celebrities to boost their careers. It doesn’t make any sense since marriage is used by bitchy women to climb socially and strip men of their wealth. It doesn’t make any sense since marriage it used by wealthy families to merge the assets of two families, like a financial operation. It doesn’t make any sense since men don’t do the math any longer and naively believe that marriage is the way of having free and safe sex on demand. Who cares about that kind of sex, anyway? We should enact the extinction of marriage and delete such a word from the dictionary. After that, intelligent societies should introduce a new legal framework called “Heterosexual Monogamous/Polygamous Domestic Partnership for the Raising of Children”. Such a law would promote, protect and secure the best environment for the raising of children, while being as flexible as possible to meet the demands and expectations of the parties involved in the hazardous and boring task of having offspring. We don’t need and we don’t want to have disappointed parents who had spent time, money and emotional involvement to secure the continuation of the species. It would not be fair!
Rookh Kshatriya said…
Absolutely. We now live in a 'post-Marriage' era, for all practical intents and purposes. Marriage is just for a small minority of rich people and Muslim/Cathodox sub-culturalists. It is a meaningless, archaic fossil for the vast majority. Declaring it officially dead sounds a fine idea.
Tom said…
The legal system's big time intrusion into peoples personal lives has turned marriage into a near guaranteed financial train wreak for an average guy.

This is the actual reality on the ground:

You can see how household are composed by area across the country, areas that are inhabited by the wealthy, single moms are not the majority. Where single moms are the majority you have a guaranteed high crime area and poverty. This is very consistent.

Matriarchy generally equals poverty, Patriarchy equals wealth. We are now seeing this sort itself out with the financial crises. I see a slow wealth redistribution. As the family and value structure changes the financial consequences follow. These are generational things and take time to realize.

The government has created many perverse intensives that destroy families, encourage irresponsibility and encourage dependence on the state.
Xamuel said…
But there already *is* a de-facto sex strike by women against a majority of men. The "nice guys", who would "make any girl lucky (but not me)", these men suffer a ridiculous scarcity of sex. Women will complain about a lack of guys after having just turned down three "nice guys" in a row, as though those men weren't even human. Ironically, some of those spurned "nice guys" are exactly the ones who would willingly buy diamond rings-- but girls vote with their actions, giving all their sex to the jerks and alphas, who effectively have harems.

As for the alphas and jerks, good luck getting women to go on a sex strike against *them*. It's not going to happen.
Rookh Kshatriya said…
I would go further. I read recently that over half Harvard College students have one or zero partners over their four years as students. That is an Alpha environment, so it would seem that Anglo women are already on an unconditional sex strike, anyway. There is far less recreational, free sex across the anglosphere than the media pretends.
Ben said…
Social engineering works. The west is morally bankrupt regards of one's religious views or lack-there-of. It's horrible. Pretty much all sense of family and community is nearly dead.
Anonymous said…
Men < Roadkill

Given gender-feminism, and the global elitist agenda to purge what little remains of a man life, living with a woman is a bad idea; actually sleeping with a woman is potentially horrid, see false rape accusations, see unaccountability that women all too often display as the perpetual child.

Guys, forget the romance that ladies cry for, it ain't real, never was, this is a war planet, and men have been used as disposable tools in both industry, war and for wimmin's special privilege.

Dear Ms. Andry:

▲On average, women outlive men in developed countries by five or more years;
▲Men have higher death rates for all fifteen of the leading causes of death (except Alzheimer’s);
▲Men are approximately 50% of the workforce but account for 93% of job related deaths;
▲Males between 20 and 24 have a seven times greater rate of suicide than their female counterparts, and overall, men commit suicide at rates three to four times greater than women;
▲Innocent males are between 1.5 to 2 times more likely than females to be assaulted;
▲Government funding for breast cancer research outpaces funding for prostate cancer research by nearly two to one even though prostate cancer and breast cancer have roughly the same caseload;
▲Death among young men due to testicular cancer in the 15-34 age group outpaces the number of deaths from breast cancer among women in the same age group, but when was the last time you saw a "walk for testicular cancer"?;
▲Victims of war -- both combatants and, yes, non-combatants -- are more likely to be male;
▲Responsible young men are charged considerably more for auto insurance than irresponsible young women, simply because they were born male;
▲A woman who commits the same crime as a man will receive, on average, only a fraction of the sentence: overall, women receive sentences for serious crimes 48 months shorter than the sentences men receive;
▲For sex crimes, the disparity is even more alarming: a Kansas State professor recently found that, on average, male teachers faced up to 20 years in prison for sex abuse, while female teachers were handed probation, house arrest, or a maximum of three years of jail time;
▲During World War II, more than 400 women lost their lives while more than 416,300 men lost their lives. That is equivalent to the entire population of the city of Pittsburgh plus more than 100,000;
Anonymous said…
A sex strike is a scary idea. Prostitution is illegal in the U.S. (except for eleven counties of Nevada) and many states are getting much tougher against providers and customers.

Prostitution is legal (with some restrictions - one should read the law) in Canada.

I can imagine a coalition of feminists and social conservatives making laws against American men traveling over to other nations for legal prostitution, even with consenting adults.

America is becoming wierder by the week in its laws. The only developed nation in the world that has a fascist mindset in regards to sex. In most countries, prostitution is no big deal and they are not about to make it illegal. There are too many confirmed single adult men who seek to get their needs filled, whether by girlfriends who won't strike or by prostitutes.

A strike won't work anyway. Women have their needs too.
Claire Khaw said…
Well, it is always darkest before dawn!

Would the Libertarian Party be prepared to campaign for the legalisation of prostitution and brothels if the Democrats and Republicans are not?
Anonymous said…
Most women are already on a sex strike vs. average (most) men.
Anonymous said…
In 2011, for an individual of high worth or of high income, there is NO REASON TO GET MARRIED ! Marriage will lead to divorce 50% plus of the time. The higher earner/worth individual could be ruined or best case lose a portion of their estate. Family courts are setup to protect the "poorer" spouse, and brutally punish the breadwinner.

Specifically, the following will occur:
1) In equitable distribution states, 50%-80% of ALL the assets brought into and acquired during the marriage, could be given to the "poorer" spouse. Bye bye house(s), cars, cash, 401k, ect....

2) Alimony - This is money paid to the poorer spouse in order to "maintain the lifestyle" of the poorer spouse. These payments can be 30-50% of the breadwinner's gross earnings, and last A LIFETIME as seem in US states like MA. This is a form of modern day slavery, but many people do not know about such horrific laws. In addition, spouses of 2nd marriages in some cases, have to forfeit their earnings and assets to the ex spouse to maintain their lifestyle (in MA) !

3) Child Support - If you made the HUGE mistake of having 1 or more children with your ex-spouse, you will pay a 30-40% or more of your gross income. Most of this money is "free spending" money for the ex spouse, and little goes to the child.

4) Legal fees - Divorce lawyers are trained for conflict. The more a divorcing couple fights and goes to court, the more money spent on legal fees. HUGE amount of money can be lost to the deep pockets of lawyers.

Anonymous said…
someone should take marriage out of it's is a deformed...
dysfunctional institution...and SLAVERY FOR MEN...

especially for all american and western european men....what is the answer? it begins with leykis 101..
a course in male survival and prosperity...

men don’t marry…..the best…and i mean the most effective smart successful
advocate for men is tom leykis….the talk show supertstar….leykis 101….
this is a ticket to avoid the DUMB move of getting married in the usa..

search his name on the video web sites to take leykis 101…
he is great for your FINANCIAL HEALTH

Popular posts from this blog

Divorced women who literally turn their sons into women

The 30 second rapist

Religion and Recreational Sex: sharia-compliant threesomes and mini-orgies?