The Enemy of My Enemy Is NOT My Friend

The manosphere is a name given to an informal network of blogs, websites, and internet commentators that focus on issues relating to men and masculinity, often in opposition to gynocentricism. The manosphere is divided into three categories; MRAs, PUAs and MGTOW.

Mens Right Activists or MRAs are men who advocate for changes to be made to the current gynocentric and subsequently minsadric policies/laws that harm men and boys i.e. child custody, alimony, domestic violence, rape etc. There approach is to highlight the plight of men and hope that this will have the desired effect and lead to changes. What MRAs forget or just don’t know, is that for this approach to work people first have to care about the group in question and once they do, only then can you tap into that. Society at large simply does not care about men and social sentiment must proceed changes in legislation. MRAs lack of success is due to their lack of understanding the basics.

Not only do MRAs lack the basic understanding of how society works but they also lack an understanding of basic female nature. MRAs will tell you “women are a gender and feminism is an ideology and we are anti-feminism and not anti-women” and in their attempt not be seen as misogynist they reveal how deep their misunderstanding goes. Feminism is just a tool just like a gun is a tool and MRAs are similar to stricter gun law activists who blame existing gun laws after every school shooting and completely ignore the people behind triggers.

What they don’t understand is guns don’t kill people but people kill people and if they focused on the people pulling the triggers they will have more success preventing future mass shootings. Fact #1 the people behind these shootings are usually boys. And what do these boys have in common? This leads us to fact #2, that 90% of them are on prescription drugs. And why are so many of them on drugs? Fact #3 Because we have a school system catered to girls in which female behaviour is considered the norm and if boys behave like boys there behaviour is seen as disruptive and they are diagnosed with ADHD leading to them getting drugged up to ‘normalise’ them [1]. Or you could just blame guns and toxic masculinity.

Moving on from MRAs the other group of men in the manosphere are Pick Up Artists or more commonly known as PUAs. This group of men’s goal is seduction and sexual success with/access to women. Unlike MRAs, PUAs understand female nature but their problem is they limit their understanding of female nature to female sexuality only — if it won’t get them laid they aren’t interested and in the process allow their dicks to get in the way of their thinking.

All PUAs aspire to be an alpha male and an alpha male to them is the man that gets the most women. PUAs will say there is more to being an alpha and try ascribe noble characteristics to ‘alphaness’ like leadership and argue they teach men to improve themselves (workout, dress better, make more money etc) but don’t let this fool you, they only do this to increase their sexual market value (SMV). If you’ve improved yourself in all these areas but are still a virgin you’re a beta in their eyes. A man who lacks in all those areas like this homeless man [2] but can still pull women is more alpha in PUA eyes than a guy whose a cultured CEO with a six pack but whose a virgin. And if you think this is extreme, Rollo Tomasi, a prominent PUA, went further and said that prison has the highest concentration of alpha males [3].

PUAs, it seems operate in an irony proof prism since the core of their identity is based on female validation yet seeking female validation to them is a beta move. You quickly realise they’re a bunch of confused pussy begging beta males — to use their syntax. When you look at all of this and combine it with the fact that their goal is to sleep with as many women as possible in a society currently under going rape hysteria, it is easily visible that PUAs do more harm than good.

Men Going Their Own Way or MGTOW are the third group of men who make up the manosphere. What exactly are ‘men going their own way’ running away from? A gynocentric and subsequently misandric society that does not value male life and liberty. MGTOW want men to live their lives on their own terms and not on the terms dictated to them by women and the state.

Society has laid out a mans life for him before he is even born. A man is born a boy and this boy is put into a nursery on his 3rd birthday and as he gets older he moves up making his way through the education system (indoctrination system would be a much more apt name) and spends his childhood sitting in a classroom while looking out the window day dreaming about freedom, the freedom to go outside and run among nature by climbing the trees and roaming the fields. As he approaches his twenties he is told he better have a university degree if he wants a good career so goes to university but by the time he graduates he is up to his eye balls in debt [4] and his job prospects aren’t looking too good [5]. He tries to get a job to pay off this student debt but to get a job he needs experiences and to gain experience he needs to have a job so this forces him to work for free interning to gain the experience required to get his foot through the door [6].

Society doesn’t stop there and isn’t content on just making him do a soul draining job just to pay back his students loans. Society goes further and the poor young man into starting a family with a woman who doesn’t love him [7] and demands he spend couple months of his wages on an engagement ring [8] and present it to her on his knees, taking away in the process any dignity he had left. She also demands he spend almost a years salary to celebrate the big day [9]. And don’t forget the honeymoon to somewhere expensive, I mean romantic.

All this extra financial burden means the poor mans (literally and figuratively) has to spend more time at his soul crushing job [10]. Children, although cute, add to that financial responsibility and to come up with the extra cash he spends even more time at his soul crushing job and since there’s only 24 hours in a day he doesn’t gets to see his children — which begs the question, why have them in the first place.

My father used to work abroad for 7 months of the year. One year they demanded he stay for the remainder of the year because they needed him and fearing saying no will have a  negative impact on his career he agreed, he then agreed to another extension the following year which meant hand I didn’t see him for 2 years and in the mean time things got bad at our home country so dad decided that it was better that we relocate to Europe were he worked. The migration process was long and difficult and I didn’t see him for another 3 years. When I met him at the air port for the first time in 5 years he didn’t even recognise me. How many men cross the US border through Mexico each that left behind their families and work low paying backbreaking jobs just to send that money back home. These men don’t get to enjoy their labour nor their family. 

This is what MGTOW is freeing men from. Now what do these newly freed men do with their newly found freedom? This is an existential question, one that is essentially asking what is the purposes of a mans life? Why was man put on earth if?

This is where the enemies of MGTOW come in and accuse men going their own way of being unemployed basement dwellers who spend their days playing video games. They say this for couple of reasons; a) because they can’t fathom an existence in which they as men aren’t serving women and the state and b) it is projection on their behalf because these men as I have already stated have never imagined an existence in which they aren’t serving women and the state so when they encounter men who are free from these so called “obligations” and “responsibilities” for the first time they imagine all they do with this newly found free time is fill it with their hobbies. A bit like asking a boy what he will do if school was canceled for the day. Play games with his friends would be the first thing out of his mouth, right? But what about if school was canceled for life and he never had to go back, how long can he keep playing these games?

In the film Limitless Eddie Maura played by Bradley Cooper is a writer suffering from writers block whose broke and heart broken. After taking NZT (a drug that gives him 100% access to his brain) he starts working out, buys new clothes, gets a new haircut and spends the first couple weeks/months playing poker, banging chicks, flying in private jets and racing around foreign cities in sports cars with exotic babes riding shotgun. However the novelty of it soon wears off and he starts putting his newly found powers to bigger things like finding treatment for his aunty’s illness. To cut a long story short by the end of the film he’s running for the office of Mayor of New York and in the spin-off TV show he is a senator whose touted to be the next president.

And this reality is reflected in the real world. If you look at the architects of Western society it is littered MGTOW. Pierre Bayle, Robert Boyle, Johannes Brahms, Samuel Butler, Robert Burton, Franz Schubert, Ludwig van Beethoven, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Johannes Brahms, Giacomo Casanova, Frederic Chopin, Nicolaus Copernicus, Eugène Delacroix, Gustave Flaubert, Galileo Galilei, Edward Gibbon, Oliver Goldsmith, Thomas Hobbes, Horace, David Hume, John Locke, Adam Smith, Washington Irving, Henry James, Franz Kafka, Rene Descartes, Immanuel Kant, Voltaire, Jean Paul Sartre, Kierkegaard, Charles Lamb, T. E. Lawrence, Meriwether Lewis, Philip Larkin, Gottfried Leibniz, Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, Vincent van Gogh, Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, Sir Isaac Newton, Blaise Pascal, Alexander Pope, Marcel Prous, Maurice Ravel, George Santayana, Benedict de Spinoza, Stendhal, Jonathon Swift, Nikola Tesla, Henry David Thoreau, Henri De Toulouse-Lautrec and Herbert Spencer just to name a view [11]. 

Another reason that I haven’t  mentioned on why these men accuse MGTOW of being lazy basement dwellers is because they know MGTOW are not trying to seek female validation and the fact that everything they do in their own shitty lives is done with women in mind allows them to come to the natural conclusion that if we MGTOW are not trying to seek female validation then we have no reason to do anything. As if men study quantum physics to get pussy — because we all know bitches love quantum physics.

Now coming back to the manosphere, the mistake we as MGTOW made is we looked at the other men in the manosphere and saw that they like us were antifeminists and came to the common conclusion of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend” and this is why it was shocking and incredibly disappointing when we started receiving shaming language and even worse doxxing [12] — behavioural expectations we rightly reserved for feminists — from our fellow men in the manosphere. However if we take a step back it is easy to see that these men were never our brothers in arms since we were never fighting the same fight.

To understand this we have to go back to when we first entered the manosphere. We all started off as blue pillers who were suspicious of the ‘truth’ we had been told. We couldn’t explain our suspicion but we felt it, felt it our entire lives. That there’s something wrong with the world. We didn’t know what it was, but it was there. Like a splinter in our minds — driving us mad. It is this feeling that has us to the manosphere. Once in the manosphere it was clearly explained to us by MRAs that this patriarchy that we were told privileged us was actually oppressing us and they had the statistics to prove it — number of homeless that are men, number of workplace deaths victims that are men, number of men who commit suicide, number of men who win child custody etc.

And regarding our personal lives we knew that from personal experience that being nice to girls we were attracted to was not the way to go but PUAs explained to us why. All was good but there was something still missing and thats why we started going our own from our respective groups and eventually found MGTOW.

Those of us in the PUA community like myself were simply interested in more than getting pussy and the lure of pussy frankly started to wear off. The MGTOW who came from MRA side realised that a) MRAs had no success and that they hand’t succeeded in changing a single misandric law and since MRAs have been around more misandric laws have been passed and b) that feminism was just a symptom and the cause was female nature. These men decided to dig deeper into female nature and this cemented their downfall from the MRA community.

The manosphere has become the gynocentric systems fail safe. We as human beings naturally seek validation from other humans. It gives us comfort and a peace of mind that we aren’t the only ones going through whatever that is we are going through. Mainstream gynocentric society simply denies the legitimate questions men have about what they are being told and invalidates their concerns and more importantly suffering. A lot of men internalise this message and just think to themselves that there’s something wrong with them and not the system. However some men aren’t easily dissuaded and dig deeper resulting in them stumbling across the manosphere.

In the manosphere they find a safe space (I know I sound like a feminist with the use of safe spaces but bear with me) that validates their pain and suffering and they don’t feel alone or crazy. Now this is when the manosphere, which supposedly exists to wake them up and enlighten them, stabs them in the back by giving them gynocentric solutions and sending them back to the plantation. The message of the red pill is washed down and they end up with a purple pill which is some half way house between the red pill world and the blue pill world similar to the train station in Matrix Revolution.

The reason why the shaming language we receive from PUAs and MRAs is exactly identical to that of women is because they are both gynocentric at the core level. PUAs, like women, profit from men being slaves to their base biology. While MGTOW tries to free men their own biological drives and subsequently freeing them from women. PUAs teach men through their seminars and books how to better serve women – an alpha male and beta male both serve women. An alpha male and beta male can be compared to cricket and baseball. Although on the surface they look different with different rules, uniforms, equipment and playing style they’re identical at the core. Both can be summed up as one man throwing a ball as hard as he can at another man who has a bat whose job is to hit the ball as hard as he can. If he hits it so hard that it leaves the field of play job done but if he doesn’t hit it that hard and one of the out field players catches the ball before it touches the floor he is out. The differences are only in the details; how one throws the ball, how one hits the ball, the type of ball and bat etc.

MRAs are not fighting to leave the plantation but are simply demanding better working conditions — that is what the marriage strike is about. The beef between MRAs and MGTOW is similar to that between the house negros and the field negros — one happy with better working conditions while the latter wants total freedom. This is why we MGTOW have to go our own way from the manosphere just like we did with mainstream society. Since the manosphere exists in cyberspace we are not loosing any ground by leaving it — we will still have our own websites, blogs, youtube accounts and forums online. We will just not associate ourselves with the manosphere. MGTOW evolved when we separated from the MRAs and now the time is right for us to disconnect and disassociate ourselves from the wider manosphere.


[1] Drugging Up The American Boy 

[2] Homeless PUA 

[3] Alpha 

[4] 3/4 Graduates Paying Graduates Paying Student Loans Into Their 50s 

[5] Graduates Have No Hope Finding Jobs 

[6] Interns All Work No Pay 

[7] She Will Never Love You 

[8] De Beers myth: Do People Spend a Month’s Salary on a Diamond Engagement Ring?    

[9] Couples Now Spend More Than $30,000 to Get Married 

[10] Love or Money: Why Married Men Make More 

[11] Bachelorhood And Its Discontents 

[12] Prominent MGTOW Doxxed 

CONFLICT: Battle of the Sexes

This post is a follow up to my POWER: SOFT OR HARD post so please read that first.

There are limited resources and unlimited number of people on earth – this creates competition for those limited resources. Conflict is competition turned hostile. Humans, being social animals naturally form groups i.e. tribes which then become nations — those different groups then compete with each other for the limited resources, this type of conflict is known as intragroup conflict. Once one group wins then its time to distribute the booty so the competition for resources turns internal, this is referred to as intergroup conflict. Two types of intergroup conflict are class warfare and battle of the sexes. This post will be focusing on the latter.

Humans are a sexually dimorphic species with the sexual dimorphism favouring the male making men bigger, stronger and smarter than women. This means women cannot directly compete with men for the acquisition of resources. Women’s solution to this problem is to let men extract the resources then extract those resources from men i.e. letting bank robbers rob the bank then stealing their stash. Traditionalism and feminism are systems which women use to extract resources from men and only differ on tactics.

In traditionalism women extracted resources from men directly — every man was paired off with a woman who his pay cheque went to [1]. In order for a man to find a woman to pair off with he had to court her — courtship for a man consisted of showering the woman with gifts in order to show her his provisioning prowess. A woman catches his eye and he wants to talk to a her? buy her a drink, he wants to spend an evening with her? pay for diner and entertainment and don’t forget the random gifts she expected as proof that he was thinking of her even when he wasn’t with her — no romance without finance was the name of the game [2].

Modern hook up culture, free internet porn and social acceptance of waking (jerking off for the Yanks) has lowered the price of pussy but pussy still has a lot of purchasing power in todays society as demonstrated by this 23 years old woman from New York who went from “spending $500 a month on dinners alone to having someone else dole out an average $60-plus per night”. In total she saved $1,200 a month [3]. If a girl who has a job living in a first world country were men have easy access to porn can save that much money, one can’t even begin to imagine what girls back in the day were taking from men.

The courtship phased cumulates with the man presenting to the women couple months worth of his wages in the form of an engagement ring [4] on his knees — keep in mind that in Western society men only kneel to God and King — this tells you a lot about women’s position in society. Once she accepts his proposal and is done parading the engagement ring around town a date is set for the big day and with the average US wedding costing $30, 000 [5] it certainly lives up to its name.

After all the hard work of organising a wedding is complete the newly wed couple take a well deserved rest and go somewhere sunny — there’s no resting for the mans wallet since he is financing the whole trip. Once they arrive back at arrivals with tan lines and sand between there toes its straight to his house were she moves in rent free, forever. It’s back to the plantation for the man were he has to work even harder now since he has an extra mouth to feed [6]  — the arrival of children will only mean an increase in workload [7]. Men were pressured to marry young at an age when girls still have an advantage over them [8] and can easily manipulate them — once the honeymoon period was over and she dropped the act and the poor man realised girls weren’t made out of sugar and spice it was too late for him since the church didn’t allow divorce. This is precisely why Henry the VIII wen’t his own way and created his own church.

Now some men didn’t need to get married to realise marriage was a raw deal for men even back then. These smart single men were subjected to extreme shaming to the extent of having their sexuality questioned — being called gay when homosexuality is a crime is no laughing matter. Then there was the advent of shotgun marriages were a woman who got pregnant pointed the finger at any one of the men she was sleeping with at the time and said he was the father and since there was no DNA testing the man had no way to prove his innocence. 

The problem women had with traditionalism was each one of them was left on her own to find a man. This meant shaving half your head, growing your armpit hair and calling all men rapists [9] was out of the question for a woman, unless she wanted to resign herself to a life of destitute that is. This lead to women hiding their misandry and this is what PUA’s and MRA’s alike don’t understand when they pine for the good old days when ‘women were women’. Traditionalist women are far more dangerous than any of todays third wave feminists — feminists, specially radical types, are honest about their hatred for men and spew it public for all men to see while traditionalist women say they love men while demanding we sacrifice ourselves for them [10].

Feminism on the other hand is the idea that a) all men should provide for all women regardless of their relation to them and b) women have zero responsibility towards men unlike traditionalism which demanded women cook, clean and have sex with men. Feminism extracts resources from men indirectly via the government. This is achieved in two ways; through taxation and work placed quotas.

Men and women both pay taxes so we have to break down the numbers and examine how much each gender pays vs how much benefit it receives. Men pay 2/3 of the taxes while receiving 1/3 of the benefits while women pay 1/3 of taxes while receiving 2/3 of the benefits — in the United States there are over 200 women and children only welfare programs while none exist for men. In the UK £22bn of the £26bn saved from welfare reform by the Conservative party has been taken from women [11]— in short women’s suffrage created the welfare state. Before the creation of the welfare state a woman needed to locate the father and get money from him but now any woman can get pregnant and the government will feed, clothe and house her using money taken from men by force through taxation.

At work feminists demand half of boardroom seats of major corporations should be reserved for women [12]. To fully understand this feminist request we have to understand it was men who came up with the idea of a corporation, then started companies in their garages i.e. Apple/Google and incorporated them before turning them into multibillion dollar corporations. I’m gonna pause for a second and want you to think where have you heard of women demanding half of something they’ve had nothing to do with building before? That’s right, in divorce courts. Now keep in mind those women contributed zero to the acquisition of their soon to be ex-husbands wealth with majority hooking up with these men after they had acquired those resources but that doesn’t stop them from feeling entitled to half of HIS shit.

Now if women want to be CEO’s so badly they could simply start their own companies but they don’t do that because they want men to do hard work of starting the company and taking it to the point where it’s turning over 10 figures before they show up demanding to go straight to the top of the company. Women view their bosses the same way they view their husbands and politicians, just another man to extract money from. Before feminism women’s only source of income was their husbands salary. Women getting the vote meant male politicians had to start pandering to them and they did so by taking men’s money through taxation and giving it to women in the form of welfare programs. Women entering the work place and demanding half of top positions and creating the wage gap myth means now their bosses have to pay them too. Economically speaking, feminism was simply women diversifying their portfolio of men to extract resources from.

Combat between men started off hand to hand giving way to our modern day martial arts before the first man picked up a rock and hit the other over the head with and from that moment on it was who had the superior weapons. After rocks men picked up sticks to beat each other with until one of them got the idea of sharpening the end of his stick and stabbing his opponent — before long men were throwing these sharp sticks at each other giving birth to spears. Swords came along followed by bows and arrows before men started mounting horses and formed claviers which were still used to the modern era before tanks started rolling down the battle field in WW1 when warfare become mechanised. We’re now at the stage of unmanned drones flying above Afghanistan controlled by an operator in a California air base via a satellite in space.

These technological advancements lead to a change in tactics. To demonstrate this I’m gonna use Battle of Waterloo since 2015 is its 200th anniversary. On Sunday 18th June soldiers from both sides met each other in an open field, lined up and took turns shooting at each other and because there was so much smoke coming from their rifles they had to wear bright coloured tunics and each unit waved a standard in the air so the commanders on top of the hill could see were each unit was on the battlefield. Imagine we had the powers of resurrection and put Wellington, who was victorious that day, in a modern day battlefield were soldiers fight in an urban environment in their camouflage playing a deadly game of hide and seek — he would be back in his grave by tea time.

It is not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent that survives. It is the one that is most adaptable to change. A perfect example of this is the film The Last Samurai. The traditionalist Samurai who believed the katana was the “soul of the samurai” and guns were for cowards were at the end of the film gunned down [13] — the age of the sword perished along with their souls. Men who still marry in an age of no fault divorce are hopeless romantics just like Lord Moritsugu Katsumoto — simps to use manosphere vernacular.

In the struggle for survival, the fittest win out at the expense of their rivals because they succeed in adapting themselves best to their environment and this is what MRA’s don’t understand when they try to change laws — how long have MRA’s been around and how many laws have they changed in that time and more importantly how long will they take this insane approach (insanity being doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results) until they realise its hopeless. It is impossible to change misandric laws in a democratic state were women have the right to vote [14] — 96 years ago [15] there tactics would have worked the same 200 years ago Duke of Wellington’s worked.

MRA’s would have more success putting all their time, energy, effort and money into technology like the male pill [16] to combat misandry. MRA’s could learn from Katharine McCormick who was a wealthy female suffragist who the female pill wouldn’t have been possible without her. She studied biology at MIT and planned to attend medical school but instead settled down and married the wealthy but ailing Stanley Robert McCormick, the youngest son of Cyrus McCormick and heir to the International Harvester fortune in 1905 —a year later he was hospitalised for over a year at McLean Hospital and diagnosed with schizophrenia and by 1909 he was declared legally incompetent and his guardianship divided between Katharine and the McCormick family.

Her mother Josephine died leaving her an estate of more than 10 million dollars while her husband Stanley left an even bigger estate estimated 35 million dollars. She took this money and become a philanthropist using it to further women’s cause. In 1953 she met with Gregory Goodwin Pincus who had been working on developing a hormonal birth control method for few years and agreed to fund his research into oral contraception. She and Pincus persuaded Dr. John Rock to conduct human trials. By 1957 the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved the sale of the Pill for menstrual disorders and added contraception to its indications in 1960. McCormick had provided almost the entire $2 million it took to develop and test the oral contraceptive pill and continued to fund birth control research through the 1960s.

The pill was revolutionary and changed how men and women interacted. Before the pill women were slaves to their biology and sex was a dangerous endeavour for them. However women could now choose when and who they had a child with. On top of that women started to use the pill to manipulate men — half of pregnancies in the US are “unplanned” [17] in an era of safe, reliable and cheap contraception. Unplanned is is nothing more than a euphemism for she lied about being on the pill to trap him — the male pill would take away this advantage women have enjoyed for over half a century — no more forced fatherhood!

Another advantage women have within the realm of reproduction is certainty — women know the child is theirs while men have to take women’s word —not that assuring since women are found to be more likely to engage in extra-pair copulation and retain larger amounts of sperm during their most fertile phase of the month, and more likely to have sex with their regular partner during the infertile phase [18]. Scientists believe this is why the penis is shaped the way it is and the thrusting during intercourse serve to remove other men’s semen and men adjust the amount of sperm they ejaculate based on the time their mate has spent away from them. Paternity testing removed mens doubts and for the first time men could know if they were the father [19] or not [20]. 

Privileged people don’t like giving up their privileges and women are no different. Women in different countries have tackled paternity testing differently. Across the channel in France women have banned paternity testing and French men have to go neighbouring countries to do tests [21]. A Swiss lab claimed 60% of its clients were French while a Spanish one says 80% of its clients are French. For those who can’t afford a trip abroad they can order it over the phone or internet but this risky since customs can confiscate the package and those caught face up to a year in prison and a 15, 000 euro fine. The French governments justification is this “preserves the peace in French families.” — ignorance is bliss is the French governments defence. French psychologists who support the ban have suggested ‘society determines fatherhood not biology’ — keep in mind psychology is a female dominated field when reading that last sentence.

In the UK men can only do a paternity test if a) the woman gives consent and b) the child is old enough to understand what it happening — the government has that age at 12 years old. This means if you as a man paid child support for 12 to only find out the child is not yours you a) don’t get a refund and b) she doesn’t go to jail for fraud. The reason why women are required to give consent for the DNA test in the first place since the swabs are only taken from the father and the child is to make sure it doesn’t get to the stage were the man knows 100% he isn’t the father — its there to protect cheating women — if she knows you’re not the father she simply won’t consent to the paternity test in the first place.

Across the pond in the States it isn’t banned and men don’t require the woman’s permission to have a paternity tests and can buy the kits over the counter. However judges can and do ignore the results — there multiple cases were men have proved they are not the father and were still forced to pay child support or face prison. An example of this is Carnell Alexander, a Detroit man who was ordered to pay $30, 000 in child support for a child that DNA proved wasn’t his because the “mom wrote his named down because she needed to name someone in order to get welfare payments” [22]. She said “I had to put him down as the father, thats the only way I can get into the system”. Carnell speaking of how this has impacted his life said “I’m almost homeless, I’m almost in jail, I’m out of work, my money is being threatened to be taken”.

Now this mans financial situation might seem extreme to you at first but understand this isn’t limited to poor black men. A man making the median US income of $50, 000 a year will be in the 23% tax bracket but factoring the standard deduction his tax liability is $5,718.75 for federal taxes, $2,402.80 state taxes, $3,100,00 for social security $725.00 for Medicare. His final take home pay is $38,053.45. Child support for 2 children he would be responsible for $15,600.00 per year for his 2 children. Alimony is 20% of net income and would be $7,610.69 in this case. We would be using the standard living expense for a single person at $15,640.40 a year. This leaves the man with negative $797.24 — he is working a $50,000 job for no money and is wage slave to his ex-wife [23]. Refusal to pay means you loose your freedom and if you try running when an armed agent of the state comes for you could result in your untimely death. [24]. This is why we need the male pill.

Women aren’t stopping at paternity testing and are going after every bit of technology that could free men sexually from internet porn [25]. In their efforts to stop male sexual freedom they’ve managed to come up with some of the dumbest reasons in the process like this feminist who claimed in a Tedx Talk men can rape sex robots since they can’t consent [26]. To be fair to her she did start the presentation with a disclaimer “I’m not a scientist, not an engineer, I am not an inventor” going on to say “I’m not gonna to come here today and present years of research” which in of itself begs the question of how she end up giving a Ted Talk in the first place.

Men and women depend on each other and whichever gender can make the others role obsolete will win the battle of the sexes. In terms of technology in the sexual realm women are ahead of men by light years. Women have been enjoying their dildos and vibrators for decades while we’ve had to do with socks – we’ve ended up giving ourselves dead hands in our pursuit of pleasure [27]. Women’s advantages over men are even greater when it comes to sex for reproduction purposes with the combination of the pill and safe abortions putting an end to forced motherhood. Women don’t even need men to have babies with advent of sperm banks — scientist have gone a step further and created artificial sperm making parthenogenesis in humans a matter of when and not if [28]. 

Combine all of this with the mechanisation of the workforce [29] and men start to look like an endangered species. You think misandry is bad now, wait till half of the workforce is made up robots and women can have children without men. However I’m gonna end this article on a positive note. The same technology that is making men redundant will make it easier for men to go their own way but in order for that to happen men have to create technologies for themselves – all the tech women use against men are, ironically, created by male scientists. What if those male scientists were MGTOW and turned their attention to sexually liberating men. Women in the dating market demand to be wined and dined before giving up the pussy? Save that money and spend it on an Oculas Rift [30] [31]. Your girlfriend is pressuring you to not use a condom telling you to trust her she’s on the pill? Take the male pill and go raw all you like. Wanna have children without the fear of the mother taking them away from you one day looming over your head? Save 18 years of child support and invest half that money into the research and development of the artificial womb.


[1] Housewife? No, I’m The Family Chief Executive! 90% of Middle Aged Women Take Control of Paying The Bills 

[2] Gwen Guthrie – Ain’t Nothing Going On But The Rent 

[3] Woman Dates for Free Diner on 

[4] De Beers myth: Do People Spend a Month’s Salary on a Diamond Engagement Ring? 

[5] Couples Now Spend More Than $30,000 to Get Married 

[6] Love or Money: Why Married Men Make More 

[7] Fathers Earn More Money 

[8] Girls Really Do Mature Quicker Than Boys Scientist Find 

[9] Penis In Vagina is Always Rape, OK? 

[10] Costa Concordia Cruise Ship Accident: French Survivor Tells Husband Gave Lifejacket 

[11] Welfare Have Women The Hardest — a Set Back to The Path of Equality 

[12] New Swedish Government Mulls Quotas for Women on Company Boards 

[13] Last Samurai Battle 

[14] Who Votes More? Women or Men? 

[15] Women Get The Vote 

[16] Male Birth Control Pill 

[17] Not So Accidental Pregnancies 

[18] Sperm Wars 

[19] Best Maury DNA Reaction Ever – You ARE The Father 

[20] Maury You Are Not The Father Dance Compilation 

[21] France Upholds The Ban on Paternity Testing  

[22]Pay Child Support for a Kid That Is Not Yours or Go to Jail 

[23] Awakened While Married 

[24] Did Walter Scott run Due to back child support 

[25] Feminism or Fascism: Iceland’s Stunning Ban on Pornography May Be Spreading 

[26] Are robots the future of sex?: Jincey Lumpkin Esq. at TEDxSiliconAlley 

[27] Dead Hand Gang 

[28] We Create Babies without Men, Claims Scientist 

[29] When robots take our jobs, humans will be the new 1%. Here’s how to fight back 

[30] The Digital Love Industry 

[31] VR Porn Reactions on Oculus From First-Time Virtual Reality Viewers 


Humans are animals and animal societies are built on how sexual dimorphism plays out within the species. In humans the sexual dimorphism favours the males – not only are human males bigger and stronger than females but they are also smarter [1]. Now this raises an interesting question – if men are physically and mentally superior to women how come human society is female dominated? To answer this we have to look at how power works.

Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others to get the outcomes you want. Now there are two types of power: hard power and soft power [2]. The first is defined as the use of force and money to influence others whiles the latter is the ability to attract and co-opt people. Let’s further examine these different power dynamics.

Hard power is coercive power executed through military threats and economic inducements and is based on tangible resources such as the army or economic. Thus, the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 and its economic sanctions against Iran are examples of the US exercising its hard power. Hard power can be summed by two words; money and muscle.

Soft power aptly named ‘the second face of power‘ is the capacity to persuade others to do what one wants. Persuasive power is based on attraction and emulation and relies on intangible power resources such as culture, ideology and institutions. Since soft power relies on intangible resources it is vital those wielding it can generate legitimacy in order to enhance soft power – trust is vital to soft power.

The dispersion of American culture throughout the world via Hollywood indicates the existence of American soft power. The American film industry has a tremendous reach and influence across the world [3]. Within France, an ally of the US, double the amount of people watch American films than French cinema on average. This figure is even greater in America’s enemies; in Russia its triple and China, Americas biggest rival and next super power in line is responsible for half of the twelve films that reached billionaire box office status since 2011 [4]. This means the next generation of leaders of America’s enemies are being raised on Hollywood films. Obama acknowledged this in a recent speech when he said “Entertainment is part of our American diplomacy, its part of what makes us exceptional, part of what makes us such a world power. You can go anywhere on the planet and you’ll see a kid wearing a ‘Madagascar’ T-shirt. You can say, ‘May the force be with you,’ and they know what you’re talking about.“[5]

Other countries have realised the threat Hollywood poses. Some block or limit the number of foreign films, limit the amount of box office that goes to foreign producers and give support to their film industry, to protect it and help it grow. China for example has limited the number of foreign films in its cinemas to 20 and forces Hollywood to use a domestic distributor receiving 15% of box office receipts compared to America were distributors get 50-55% and 40-45% elsewhere on average. Russia has started to take similar steps since the Ukraine crises [6].

Beyond the numbers Hollywood also moulds perceptions about culture, peoples and even history. Film critic and historian Ed Rampell explains this in Black Hawk Down based on the Battle of Mogadishu “look at Black Hawk Down, the one thing everybody who was watching CNN at the time remembers about that actual real life incident was the dead US servicemen dragged through the dirt in the dust in their underwear by the triumphant Somalis. Where’s that in the movie Black Hawk Down which was heavily supported by the [US] military.”[7]

Access to power resources is what determines how effective the use of each power dynamic will be. When it comes to hard power size matters since large states with higher national income are financially able to maintain large armed forces and put economic pressure on other states. This means smaller states are forced to develop their soft power capabilities since they cannot compete with the large states.

At first it seems time is on the side of hard power because it’s based on tangible resources meaning generating it requires little time. Though, the initial results from military and economic coercion are immediate they are short lived since the nature of hard power means forcing one to act in a way different to one’s usual behaviour doing so involuntarily leading to conflict. In the long run, you realise time actually favours soft power since it changes one’s attitude to the end that one acts voluntarily in a way different to one’s usually behaviour inducing consent. Where hard power coerces soft power co-opts, where hard power is direct soft power is indirect, where hard power is aggressive soft power is passive.

Now geopolitics aside, lets examine how these different power dynamics fit into male-female relationships. The battle of the sexes is a civil war between men and women who are vying for a) resources and b) control. Contrary to feminist dogma gender isn’t a social structure and nature plays a major role in determining each genders tool for battle. Men are bigger, stronger and smarter so they’re naturally disposed to hard power while women being the smaller and weaker sex means they have to rely on soft power. Maybe this is why women are perceived as soft, who knows.

The first component of hard power is physical strength and men dominate this area. To those of disputing this go ahead and watch videos on YouTube of men and women getting into confrontations that turn violent. Women over come this hard power disadvantage by using their soft power to make it socially unacceptable for men to exercise it. Women achieve this via institutions starting with schools. In the UK 97% of nursery school teachers are female and 1/4 of primary schools in the UK are staffed entirely by females. All in all males only represent 12% of primary school teachers [8]. This means these female teachers are free to instill gynocentricism into boys from an early age – boys shouldn’t hit girls translates into don’t exercise your hard power advantages over females. Women’s control of schools means they can potentially modify any lifestyle that threatens them. This could explain why boys get expelled from nursery five times more than girls, are diagnosed with learning disorders and attention problems at nearly four times the rate of girls and nearly three times as likely as girls to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder which leads to medications.

The justice system is the second institution women use to curb men’s hard power – it’s the safety net. It’s in place for men who have questioned the social conditioning they have been subjected to since nursery and realised they were being manipulated/exploited. The threat of proxy violence stops these men from exercising their hard power over women. I, for example, would not hit a woman who hit me first, not because I believe it’s morally wrong to hit women but because I don’t want to get arrested, go to jail and get a criminal record hindering my chances of employment in the process [9]. 

The second component of hard power is money and men dominate women in this area too, but the reasons why this is so aren’t solely down to nature as is the case with the first component of hard power. The monetary advantages men enjoy are due to a mixture of nature and nurture. Work is divided into two fields; jobs that require brawn i.e. manual labour and jobs that require brain i.e. STEM. Men naturally dominate these fields due to sexual dimorphism favouring them. Testosterone which men produce in a higher quantity to women makes them more competitive and more likely to take risks.

Now lets look at how men are nurtured. All men are raised to view themselves as inherently worthless. If men fail there is not safety net and you can see this in homelessness and suicide rates among men. Men have to dig their way out of this hole if they are to get a woman or a place in life. This means work starts to become more than something they do to acquire resources to purchase their basic necessities in life such as food, clothing, shelter and starts to take a whole new meaning. Men start to base their identities on their jobs – success or failure in life determined by how well they can extract resources. This is why men kill themselves after loosing their jobs – the stress of loosing their provision with no safety nets in place to catch them combined with the stress of losing their identity marker which leads to an existential crisis.

Women on the other hand are raised to view themselves as being valuable by virtue of having a vagina. This means women don’t face the pressures men face and this reality is reflected in their career choices. Women like working in safe environments doing jobs that don’t require a lot of physical and mental effort and only half of the time – two thirds of women work part time. Any wonder men earn more money?

Women over come this hard power advantage by getting men to use their resources on them instead of against them, voluntarily or involuntarily. They go about this in two ways; personally and professionally.

In personal relationships women extract money from men using romance. Romance is a money making scheme that comes in the form of pyramid which consists of four levels – dating, LTR, marriage and divorce – each stage more expensive than the previous. It starts off with dating were she demands to be wined and dined which carries onto the second stage called the LTR (long term relationship) which comes with new added expectations on top of the old ones like contributing towards her day to day expenses like food and transportation. The LTR reaches its climax when she convinces him they should “take the relationship to the next level” and move in together, living in his house rent free.

The third stage comes when she pressures or traps the man into marriage. She won’t accept his proposal until he’s on his knee presenting her with three months of his wages in the form of an engagement ring. After she’s done parading the diamond ring to her girlfriends a date is a set for the big day were he will spend on average more than $30,000 [10]. Inside the marriage there will be division of labour – he earns it, she spends it. Here is an excerpt from a Daily Mail article [11] to further illustrate this “Nine out of ten middle-aged women have control over financial planning. More than a third – 36 per cent – said their partner or husband believed he was in control of the purse strings. But, in reality, they controlled the finances and were responsible for making sure bills were paid, balancing the books and keeping on top of household spending, they said. Nine out of ten of the women questioned said they made the decisions on furniture purchases, 92 per cent controlled the buying of large appliances – including TVs, stereos and computers – while 85 per cent said they decided where the family went on holiday. And the majority – 66 per cent – also revealed they had the final say on the family car.“ The situation is the same around the world with some places far less subtle than the situation in the UK. In Japan, the husbands literally hand over their wages over to their unemployed stay at home wives who then give the men ‘pocket money’ out of their salary [12]. No wonder Japan is paving the way for MGTOW.

After marriage comes the divorce were the woman takes the man’s money in multiple ways. First she can claim she can’t afford a lawyer so he has to pay for her lawyer fees on top of his meaning the man has to foot the bill for the whole legal process. Secondly she takes half his assets, whether she contributed towards them or not. Finally she claims child support and alimony from the remainder of his wealth. All in all the man stands to loose 80 to 90% of his wealth becoming a wage slave to her in the process.

In the professional realm women extract money from men indirectly through the government – this is what feminism is about in a nutshell. They achieve this first through the wage gap myth. Manwomanmyth makes an excellent video debunking this myth [13]. In the video he says “Tickets to the Wimbledon men’s final cost £965.00 the women’s final cost £325.00 yet prize money for both sexes is equal.

Add to this that men are required to play much more tennis than women, with men playing best of five sets and women only playing the best of three and men play tennis at much a higher standard than women and that the recruitment for men to play tennis means most male players have no time left to play in other events like the doubles meaning that women are able to earn much more than men at events.” He continues “Prize money in 2012 was £1.1 million with men required to play a minimum of 21 sets to win the prize whereas women were only required to play 14 sets to win the same amount.

As it played out in 2012 Roger Federer played 26 sets to win Wimbledon in contrast Serena Williams played just 17 sets. This means Federer received $44.000 per set whereas Williams received £67.000. That’s a £23.000 pay advantage for women per set and more than %50 higher rate of pay.” So not only did Serena Williams earn more money than Roger Federer per set she also had the opportunity to play in the doubles and pick up another prize.

The unfairness doesn’t end at centre court. Across the Atlantic, the new CEO of Reddit Ellen Pao banned salary negotiations because men are harder negotiators resulting in higher salaries for them. Pao said “If you want more equity, we’ll let you swap a little bit of your cash salary for equity, but we aren’t going to reward people who are better negotiators with more compensation.” [14] By people she means men. How much money are men standing to lose because of this feminist? The article says “not negotiating salaries means you loose $500, 000 by the time you hit 60.” Imagine what they could’ve done with that money.

Some feminists don’t even pretend to hide what their true intentions are. Heidi Hartmann, president of the Institute for Women’s Police Research, suggested the most common way to address the pay gap in companies “is to give larger raises to the underpaid group and much smaller or even no raises to the group that is seen as overpaid for the work being performed”. And this is exactly what former New York Times executive editor Jill Abramson did. “You bring the guys down to give a little more to the girls,” she said. “I did that at the Times. No one’s happy to get a cut, but too bad.”[15]

Another way women use the government to extract money from men is through taxes. Since men and women both pay taxes we’ll break it down by how much each sex pays in comparison to how much they receive back in benefits. American men pay two thirds of taxes while only receiving one third of welfare while American women pay one third of taxes and receive two thirds of welfare. There are over 200 welfare programs for women and children and none for men in the states. How much does the US government spend on women? 62% of total federal spending for 2014 was on welfare – Social security, unemployment and labour (35%) and Medicare and health care (27%).

It’s no different over here in the UK. 85% of the money saved from benefit and tax changes since the Conservatives came into power in 2010 “has directly come from women’s pockets” a Fawcett Society report found [16]. A guardian article [17] says “to put it another way: £22bn of the £26bn saved from welfare reform has been taken from women.” Make no mistake, women’s suffrage created the welfare state [18]. Both traditionalists and feminists agree male labour should support women but differ on how – traditionalists believe each man should support the women in his life while feminists want all men to support all women regardless of their relation to them.

So there you have it gentlemen. Women have strategically taken away our power by making it illegal for us to exercise our natural superior physical strength and by directing our resources for their own use.


[1] Men are Smarter than Women, Deal with it! 

[2] Hard vs Soft Power 

[3] Bigger Abroad – 

[4] China’s Pivotal Role in Hollywood’s Billion Dollar Movie Club 

[5] Obama Visits Dreamworks 

[6] Russia Mulls Tough Quota on Foreign Films Ukraine Crisis 

[7] Al Jazeera Empire – Hollywood: Chronicle of an Empire 

[8] Teaching in Primary Schools Is Still Seen As A Woman’s Job 

[9] FSU QB D’Andre Johnson 

[10] Planning for Wedding Costs 

[11] Housewife? No I’m Family’s Cheif Executive 

[12] Why male Japanese wage-earners have only ‘pocket money’

[13] It Pays to Be a Woman at Wimbledon 

[14] Reddit CEO Ellen Pao Bans Salary Negotiations to Equalize Pay 

[15] Jill Abramson Start Up to Advance Writers 

[16] Women Could Miss Out On The Economic Comeback 

[17] Welfare Cuts Hit Women the Hardest 

[18] Women’s suffrage created the welfare state 


“I can’t afford you”

“I’m not a hooker”

“Oh then I really can’t afford you” – Jack Reacher [1]

When talking about legalising or banning prostitution we first have to understand what prostitution is. Prostitution is merely the exchange of sex for resources. When you look at it that way then you see all male-female sexual relationships are one form of prostitution or another. Man meets a woman in a club? He buys her a drink in exchange for a dance. Man takes a woman out to date? He pays for the meal/entertainment. Men and women rarely interact sexually without money being involved directly or indirectly. So now we’ve established what prostitution is you see banning it becomes impossible.

Before we go any further lets first stop and examine the different ways a man can get access to pussy in much more detail. First up is free pussy. It’s the best type of pussy on the market, judging by cost benefit ratio which is zero investment with 100% return. Feminists call women who give out their pussy free of charge “sexually liberated women” but you might be more familiar with the traditionalist name for them, sluts. Sluts, to simplify it, are basically those women who you went to university with or lived in your area who gave it away for free and all you had to do was ask. Contrary to traditionalists, the sexual revolution of the 1960’s didn’t create sluts. You see, sluts have been around forever but have been persecuted so had to hide. What the sexual revolution did was remove the legal and social obstacles sluts faced. Sluts were punished because they flooded the market with their pussy when other women are trying create scarce environment. If you have a class of thirty students, fifteen boys and fifteen girls, with five of the girls being sluts while the remaining ten were prudes who demanded a dinner/movie date with no promise of sex afterwards, who do you think all the boys will flock to? This is why girls call other girls sluts more than men do. The interesting thing is, not only do sluts devalue the price of their own vagina but also the price of other girls vaginas in their vicinity i.e. school, work, neighbourhood. Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free. Sluts contrary to popular believe aren’t whores since they don’t charge for their pussy.

When it comes to paying, brothel type of prostitution is the cheapest form of pussy on the market. Even the most expensive high end escort is cheaper than maintaining a girlfriend or wife. The best thing about this form of prostitution you would be surprised to know isn’t even the sex but the honesty. You know where you stand with them unlike a girlfriend/wife who does everything in her power to convince you she isn’t with you for your money but you find out she’s lying the hard way when you loose your job and she leaves. According to a Citibank survey, 57% of divorced couples cited money problems as the primary reasons for the demise of their marriage [2]. However what the survey left out was over 70% of divorces are filled by women. We can safely conclude that a woman is more likely to divorce you for loosing your job than cheating on her or worse, battering her. Regarding the sex, prostitutes are pros and willing to do anything for the right price, with a smile on their face too. Unlike other forms of prostitution, brothel type of prostitution guarantees sex meaning a 100% return on your investment. What is great about brothel type of prostitution is they’re there to please you and that hour you spend with them is all about you, unlike any hour spent with other prostitutes in other forms of prostitution like dating, LTR or marriage. Like any other business, brothels want happy customers because if a customer enjoys the experience they’re more likely to return for more.

Dating is another way a man can get pussy. Bars, clubs and restaurants were dating takes place are often over priced making dating an expensive adventure. To give you an example of this here’s an article I found from the Business Insider. The article [3] is about a 23 years old woman from New York who was using men to subsidise her Manhattan lifestyle after she found her $45,000 a year salary wasn’t enough, catching herself dipping into her savings to sustain her lifestyle. Speaking of life before finding she is quoted as saying “I barely had enough money to pay for food.” The article says “her fortunes changed soon afterwards going from spending $500 a month on dinners alone to having someone else dole out an average $60-plus per night.” The article goes on to mention that “in total she saved $1,200 a month.” Most likely she isn’t even having sex with these men. She is using the promise of sex to get money out of them. In dating there is no guaranteed return in your investment.

Assuming the man has ‘successfully’ navigated the dating market and found a girlfriend he enters the next stage of prostitution, the long term relationship or LTR for short. What makes this form of prostitution really expensive is the habits from the dating stage carry onto the LTR with new added expectations. On top of footing the bills for the night outs the man is also expected ‘help’ her financially with her day to day stuff like transportation, food and even her rent and utility bills. If the LTR goes long enough soon or later she will propose that they should take their relationship to the next stage and move in together. If he agrees to this he opens himself up to the legal dangers of cohabitation and common law marriage. I will end this stage of prostitution with this statistic, 53% of women said they would end their relationships if they didn’t get a present on Valentines Day [4].

After the man and woman have been in a LTR long enough the woman will pressure him to ‘put a ring on it’, usually one worth three months of his wages. She will demand a day to celebrate this and make it official; costing him on average $30,000. (honeymoon not included) [5]. And that’s just one day. In India, housewives hold 11% of the world’s gold reserves. That is more than the reserves of USA, IMF, Switzerland and Germany put the West the marriage contract is basically this; the woman can opt out anytime she wishes at no cost while taking with her the house, half his assets, and children. On top of that she demands monthly payments in the name of alimony and child support. The man is left with paying for a pussy and children he no longer has access to. Basically he’s left with the responsibilities and none of the benefits. He is financially ruined forever dramatically limiting his chances of attracting another pussy. This form of prostitution is so expensive that you’re left with paying for the pussy long after it’s gone. More importantly it could cost you your life as men after divorce are 36% more likely to kill themselves [6].

So now you understand women, feminist or not, who want to ban prostitution only want to ban a specific form of prostitution, the type that takes place in brothels or streets, you have to ask yourself why they want to only ban this type of prostitution. Well ask them and they will say it has to do with protecting women. But what is safer, working in a legal field were you get all the protection afforded the average worker or an illegal one were you have to hide what you are doing in the first place? If prostitution is legal, a prostitute can sue her boss (pimp) over payment issues but if it’s illegal, what is she going to do? It’s the same as a drug dealer trying to sue the drug kingpin because he didn’t give him his fare share of the cut. They will both be arrested on the spot for admitting what they been up to.

“So women who say they want to ban prostitution to protect women are lying?” Well yes and no. You see it’s not black and white. When the women who want to ban prostitution cite protecting women as their reason, they’re, in part, telling the truth. However they lie about which women they are trying to protect. It is the women who don’t work in the sex industry. You see, what is putting men off prostitution right now is a mixture of it being illegal and more importantly the social taboos that surround it. Social norms are stronger than the law as we see it with drug use. Weed is illegal but getting high is socially accepted so people keep smoking. If prostitution was legal and not a social taboo women will have to start competing with prostitutes. Would you as a man rather go on a date with a woman risking rejection first and foremost then wine and dine her while listening to her boring life story pretending to be interested and after all of that you might not even get sex, Or you could spend that money on a prostitute, skipping the boring dinner, straight into action were she is willing to do ANYTHING you want with a smile on her face?

Everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power [7] and women have been exploiting men’s most primitive, intense craving to get there way for centuries. Humans, due to the development of science and technology, no longer live in small tribes of a few dozen people with high mortality rates. Instead we live in nations consisting of tens of millions of people with high life expectancy. This means the reproductive value of a single woman has decreased dramatically and policies like women and children first are now just outdated practices and not vital to the survival of the species [8].Coupling this with the impact technology (internet porn) and hook up culture has had on the price of pussy means legalising brothel prostitution will be one blow too many and will be putting the price of pussy into free fall. You can compare whats happening to the price of pussy to what happened the steel industry. Those who want to ban brothel style prostitution are merely in damage control.


[1] Jack Reacher

[2] Mine, Yours and Ours: Marriage and Your Money

[3] This Young Woman Scored $12,00 a Month in Fancy Dinners Using

[4] Half of Women Would a Partner Who Didn’t Get Them a Gift For Valentines Day: Study

[5] Average Wedding Bill Hits $30,000

[6] Why Divorce Is Bad For a Mans Health: Separation Increases The Risk of Early Death, Substance Abuse, Suicide and Depression

[7] House of Cards

[8] Whatever happened to women and children first?