If I were a man I would not marry without a marriage contract. Since most lawyers in this country don't get it, or pretend they don't, I would have to convert to Islam to get myself a decent wife, rather than one who will divorce me in a few years to get my house and deprive me of my children. I may not wish to convert to Islam and may still wish to have lots of sex. If that is the case, then an option might be to go gay if there is no particular stigma in doing this any more and if I am not too bothered about going to my grave without producing offspring.
Two years ago, Stephen Fry rather got into trouble with saying that women didn't really like sex and if you were a man and wanted sex the best sex you could get was from another man.
He was shouted down of course and swiftly corrected. Liberated women loved sex just as much as men, he was told. Stephen Fry is not a liberated woman so he doesn't know what he is talking about, was the feminist line.
But is that really true? If that is true why do so many many men with female partners complain about not getting enough, way way way before even Feminism was even a twinkle in her father's eyes?
This "correction" was really feminists getting it together to cover up the truth, yet again.
Most women, after a while, think of sex as "work" and then become like employees who give shoddy service, cut corners, or are sullen and insolent, when they know they are unsackable - once they have a ring on their finger, perhaps.
For gay people, at least you know that when you have sex with another person of the same sex who is of equal age and equal status, they are doing it because they want to or really fancy you. Not so with a person of the opposite sex.
Man, known for being only after The One Thing, can only be managed by dangling before him the prospect of the only thing he is after.
If he will do anything for sex, then you control him by limiting the supply.
If sex is everywhere, then he will never get off his back to do anything worthwhile, preferring to lie on his back masturbating to porn all day, if that is what he is allowed to do.
How do you know if your civilisation has been cursed by God? If the cap fits why don't we put it on?
When women are cheap and gay sex is not prohibited, the morals of men will be corrupted, and all will suffer: men, women, children and the elderly, in an ever-vicious circle of lower standards of education, morality and competence.
The next degenerate generation will fail to bring up a next generation of sufficient quality to be internationally competitive or to be even be hired as employees by indigenous employers.
The country will fill up with foreigners because businesses need a labour force NOW to remain competitive.
The capitulation by the government and its opposition to this constant demand for willing and affordable labour (while simultaneously refusing to fix the female-dominated teaching profession who only conspire to hide their own failure) will upset the demographic, racial, cultural and religious composition of your society, and there will be civil unrest, if not disorder sooner or later after the rot of decline properly sets in.
So, there you have it. Sex has always been political. Whom we are allowed to have sex with has a serious bearing on the quality of the next generation. The quality of the next generation will mean whether our civilisation flies or falters.
It is therefore dismaying indeed that so few men in nationalism dare to discuss the vexed question of feminism, because they are afraid.
What are they afraid of?
They are afraid of not getting sex from women if they do not continue toeing the line of feminism. Or, they are afraid that the women with whom they are already have sex will reject them, divorce them, take half their stuff and deprive them of their children, which the law currently allows them to without having to prove fault at all.
If they do nothing now, they should not imagine that the next generation will fare better than they. Indeed, the next generation will be stupider, more weak-willed and far far far more corrupt and venal as well as ignorant and degenerate.
Is this not indisputably TRUE?
How do we make marriage more attractive to men then?
I have a good answer to this: marriage should be so attractive that even gay men envy the status of married men. Feminism has made marriage a mug's game, and most of the feminists have no desire to admit this because they are cowardly, dishonest and hypocritical women in denial.
Feminism is a cancer. Gay marriage is a tumour. Cut it out.