Without further comment, I reproduce here the complete memo, published anonymously, by a software engineer at Google’s campus in Mountain View, California.

Reply to public response and misrepresentation

I value diversity and inclusion, am not denying that sexism exists, and don’t endorse using stereotypes. When addressing the gap in representation in the population, we need to look at population level differences in distributions. If we can’t have an honest discussion about this, then we can never truly solve the problem. Psychological safety is built on mutual respect and acceptance, but unfortunately our culture of shaming and misrepresentation is disrespectful and unaccepting of anyone outside its echo chamber. Despite what the public response seems to have been, I’ve gotten many personal messages from fellow Googlers expressing their gratitude for bringing up these very important issues which they agree with but would never have the courage to say or defend because of our shaming culture and the possibility of being fired. This needs to change.

TL:DR

Google’s political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
Differences in distributions of traits between men and women may in part explain why we don’t have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership. Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.

Background [1]

People generally have good intentions, but we all have biases which are invisible to us. Thankfully, open and honest discussion with those who disagree can highlight our blind spots and help us grow, which is why I wrote this document.[2] Google has several biases and honest discussion about these biases is being silenced by the dominant ideology. What follows is by no means the complete story, but it’s a perspective that desperately needs to be told at Google.

Google’s biases

At Google, we talk so much about unconscious bias as it applies to race and gender, but we rarely discuss our moral biases. Political orientation is actually a result of deep moral preferences and thus biases. Considering that the overwhelming majority of the social sciences, media, and Google lean left, we should critically examine these prejudices.

Left Biases

Compassion for the weak
Disparities are due to injustices
Humans are inherently cooperative
Change is good (unstable)
Open
Idealist

Right Biases

Respect for the strong/authority
Disparities are natural and just
Humans are inherently competitive
Change is dangerous (stable)
Closed
Pragmatic

Neither side is 100% correct and both viewpoints are necessary for a functioning society or, in this case, company. A company too far to the right may be slow to react, overly hierarchical, and untrusting of others. In contrast, a company too far to the left will constantly be changing (deprecating much loved services), over diversify its interests (ignoring or being ashamed of its core business), and overly trust its employees and competitors.

Only facts and reason can shed light on these biases, but when it comes to diversity and inclusion, Google’s left bias has created a politically correct monoculture that maintains its hold by shaming dissenters into silence. This silence removes any checks against encroaching extremist and authoritarian policies. For the rest of this document, I’ll concentrate on the extreme stance that all differences in outcome are due to differential treatment and the authoritarian element that’s required to actually discriminate to create equal representation.

Possible non-bias causes of the gender gap in tech [3]

At Google, we’re regularly told that implicit (unconscious) and explicit biases are holding women back in tech and leadership. Of course, men and women experience bias, tech, and the workplace differently and we should be cognizant of this, but it’s far from the whole story.

On average, men and women biologically differ in many ways. These differences aren’t just socially constructed because:
They’re universal across human cultures
They often have clear biological causes and links to prenatal testosterone
Biological males that were castrated at birth and raised as females often still identify and act like males
The underlying traits are highly heritable
They’re exactly what we would predict from an evolutionary psychology perspective

Note, I’m not saying that all men differ from women in the following ways or that these differences are “just.” I’m simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don’t see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there’s significant overlap between men and women, so you can’t say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.

Personality differences

Women, on average, have more:
Openness directed towards feelings and aesthetics rather than ideas. Women generally also have a stronger interest in people rather than things, relative to men (also interpreted as empathizing vs. systemizing).
These two differences in part explain why women relatively prefer jobs in social or artistic areas. More men may like coding because it requires systemizing and even within SWEs, comparatively more women work on front end, which deals with both people and aesthetics.
Extraversion expressed as gregariousness rather than assertiveness. Also, higher agreeableness.
This leads to women generally having a harder time negotiating salary, asking for raises, speaking up, and leading. Note that these are just average differences and there’s overlap between men and women, but this is seen solely as a women’s issue. This leads to exclusory programs like Stretch and swaths of men without support.
Neuroticism (higher anxiety, lower stress tolerance).This may contribute to the higher levels of anxiety women report on Googlegeist and to the lower number of women in high stress jobs.

Note that contrary to what a social constructionist would argue, research suggests that “greater nation-level gender equality leads to psychological dissimilarity in men’s and women’s personality traits.” Because as “society becomes more prosperous and more egalitarian, innate dispositional differences between men and women have more space to develop and the gap that exists between men and women in their personality becomes wider.” We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism.

Men’s higher drive for status

We always ask why we don’t see women in top leadership positions, but we never ask why we see so many men in these jobs. These positions often require long, stressful hours that may not be worth it if you want a balanced and fulfilling life.

Status is the primary metric that men are judged on[4], pushing many men into these higher paying, less satisfying jobs for the status that they entail. Note, the same forces that lead men into high pay/high stress jobs in tech and leadership cause men to take undesirable and dangerous jobs like coal mining, garbage collection, and firefighting, and suffer 93% of work-related deaths.

Non-discriminatory ways to reduce the gender gap

Below I’ll go over some of the differences in distribution of traits between men and women that I outlined in the previous section and suggest ways to address them to increase women’s representation in tech and without resorting to discrimination. Google is already making strides in many of these areas, but I think it’s still instructive to list them:

Women on average show a higher interest in people and men in things

We can make software engineering more people-oriented with pair programming and more collaboration. Unfortunately, there may be limits to how people-oriented certain roles and Google can be and we shouldn’t deceive ourselves or students into thinking otherwise (some of our programs to get female students into coding might be doing this).

Women on average are more cooperative

Allow those exhibiting cooperative behavior to thrive. Recent updates to Perf may be doing this to an extent, but maybe there’s more we can do. This doesn’t mean that we should remove all competitiveness from Google. Competitiveness and self reliance can be valuable traits and we shouldn’t necessarily disadvantage those that have them, like what’s been done in education. Women on average are more prone to anxiety. Make tech and leadership less stressful. Google already partly does this with its many stress reduction courses and benefits.
Women on average look for more work-life balance while men have a higher drive for status on average

Unfortunately, as long as tech and leadership remain high status, lucrative careers, men may disproportionately want to be in them. Allowing and truly endorsing (as part of our culture) part time work though can keep more women in tech.

The male gender role is currently inflexible

Feminism has made great progress in freeing women from the female gender role, but men are still very much tied to the male gender role. If we, as a society, allow men to be more “feminine,” then the gender gap will shrink, although probably because men will leave tech and leadership for traditionally feminine roles.

Philosophically, I don’t think we should do arbitrary social engineering of tech just to make it appealing to equal portions of both men and women. For each of these changes, we need principles reasons for why it helps Google; that is, we should be optimizing for Google—with Google’s diversity being a component of that. For example currently those trying to work extra hours or take extra stress will inevitably get ahead and if we try to change that too much, it may have disastrous consequences. Also, when considering the costs and benefits, we should keep in mind that Google’s funding is finite so its allocation is more zero-sum than is generally acknowledged.

The Harm of Google’s biases

I strongly believe in gender and racial diversity, and I think we should strive for more. However, to achieve a more equal gender and race representation, Google has created several discriminatory practices:

Programs, mentoring, and classes only for people with a certain gender or race [5] A high priority queue and special treatment for “diversity” candidates
Hiring practices which can effectively lower the bar for “diversity” candidates by decreasing the false negative rate
Reconsidering any set of people if it’s not “diverse” enough, but not showing that same scrutiny in the reverse direction (clear confirmation bias)
Setting org level OKRs for increased representation which can incentivize illegal discrimination [6] These practices are based on false assumptions generated by our biases and can actually increase race and gender tensions. We’re told by senior leadership that what we’re doing is both the morally and economically correct thing to do, but without evidence this is just veiled left ideology[7] that can irreparably harm Google.

Why we’re blind

We all have biases and use motivated reasoning to dismiss ideas that run counter to our internal values. Just as some on the Right deny science that runs counter to the “God > humans > environment” hierarchy (e.g., evolution and climate change) the Left tends to deny science concerning biological differences between people (e.g., IQ[8] and sex differences). Thankfully, climate scientists and evolutionary biologists generally aren’t on the right. Unfortunately, the overwhelming majority of humanities and social scientists learn left (about 95%), which creates enormous confirmation bias, changes what’s being studied, and maintains myths like social constructionism and the gender wage gap[9]. Google’s left leaning makes us blind to this bias and uncritical of its results, which we’re using to justify highly politicized programs.

In addition to the Left’s affinity for those it sees as weak, humans are generally biased towards protecting females. As mentioned before, this likely evolved because males are biologically disposable and because women are generally more cooperative and areeable than men. We have extensive government and Google programs, fields of study, and legal and social norms to protect women, but when a man complains about a gender issue issue [sic] affecting men, he’s labelled as a misogynist and whiner[10]. Nearly every difference between men and women is interpreted as a form of women’s oppression. As with many things in life, gender differences are often a case of “grass being greener on the other side”; unfortunately, taxpayer and Google money is spent to water only one side of the lawn.

The same compassion for those seen as weak creates political correctness[11], which constrains discourse and is complacent to the extremely sensitive PC-authoritarians that use violence and shaming to advance their cause. While Google hasn’t harbored the violent leftists protests that we’re seeing at universities, the frequent shaming in TGIF and in our culture has created the same silence, psychologically unsafe environment.

Suggestions

I hope it’s clear that I’m not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn’t try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don’t fit a certain ideology. I’m also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I’m advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).

My concrete suggestions are to:

De-moralize diversity.

As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the “victims.”
Stop alienating conservatives.

Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.

In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is require for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.

Confront Google’s biases.

I’ve mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation and personality to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.

These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.

Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women’s representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, prisons, and school dropouts.
There’s currently very little transparency into the extend of our diversity programs which keeps it immune to criticism from those outside its ideological echo chamber.
These programs are highly politicized which further alienates non-progressives.
I realize that some of our programs may be precautions against government accusations of discrimination, but that can easily backfire since they incentivize illegal discrimination.

Focus on psychological safety, not just race/gender diversity.

We should focus on psychological safety, which has shown positive effects and should (hopefully) not lead to unfair discrimination.
We need psychological safety and shared values to gain the benefits of diversity
Having representative viewpoints is important for those designing and testing our products, but the benefits are less clear for those more removed from UX.
De-emphasize empathy.

I’ve heard several calls for increased empathy on diversity issues. While I strongly support trying to understand how and why people think the way they do, relying on affective empathy—feeling another’s pain—causes us to focus on anecdotes, favor individuals similar to us, and harbor other irrational and dangerous biases. Being emotionally unengaged helps us better reason about the facts.

Prioritize intention.

Our focus on microaggressions and other unintentional transgressions increases our sensitivity, which is not universally positive: sensitivity increases both our tendency to take offense and our self censorship, leading to authoritarian policies. Speaking up without the fear of being harshly judged is central to psychological safety, but these practices can remove that safety by judging unintentional transgressions.

Microaggression training incorrectly and dangerously equates speech with violence and isn’t backed by evidence.

Be open about the science of human nature.

Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination, we open our eyes to a more accurate view of the human condition which is necessary if we actually want to solve problems.
Reconsider making Unconscious Bias training mandatory for promo committees.

We haven’t been able to measure any effect of our Unconscious Bias training and it has the potential for overcorrecting or backlash, especially if made mandatory.
Some of the suggested methods of the current training (v2.3) are likely useful, but the political bias of the presentation is clear from the factual inaccuracies and the examples shown.
Spend more time on the many other types of biases besides stereotypes. Stereotypes are much more accurate and responsive to new information than the training suggests (I’m not advocating for using stereotypes, I [sic] just pointing out the factual inaccuracy of what’s said in the training).
[1] This document is mostly written from the perspective of Google’s Mountain View campus, I can’t speak about other offices or countries.

[2] Of course, I may be biased and only see evidence that supports my viewpoint. In terms of political biases, I consider myself a classical liberal and strongly value individualism and reason. I’d be very happy to discuss any of the document further and provide more citations.

[3] Throughout the document, by “tech”, I mostly mean software engineering.

[4] For heterosexual romantic relationships, men are more strongly judged by status and women by beauty. Again, this has biological origins and is culturally universal.

[5] Stretch, BOLD, CSSI, Engineering Practicum (to an extent), and several other Google funded internal and external programs are for people with a certain gender or race.

[6] Instead set Googlegeist OKRs, potentially for certain demographics. We can increase representation at an org level by either making it a better environment for certain groups (which would be seen in survey scores) or discriminating based on a protected status (which is illegal and I’ve seen it done). Increased representation OKRs can incentivize the latter and create zero-sum struggles between orgs.

[7] Communism promised to be both morally and economically superior to capitalism, but every attempt became morally corrupt and an economic failure. As it became clear that the working class of the liberal democracies wasn’t going to overthrow their “capitalist oppressors,” the Marxist intellectuals transitioned from class warfare to gender and race politics. The core oppressor-oppressed dynamics remained, but now the oppressor is the “white, straight, cis-gendered patriarchy.”

[8] Ironically, IQ tests were initially championed by the Left when meritocracy meant helping the victims of the aristocracy.

[9] Yes, in a national aggregate, women have lower salaries than men for a variety of reasons. For the same work though, women get paid just as much as men. Considering women spend more money than men and that salary represents how much the employees sacrifices (e.g. more hours, stress, and danger), we really need to rethink our stereotypes around power.

[10] “The traditionalist system of gender does not deal well with the idea of men needing support. Men are expected to be strong, to not complain, and to deal with problems on their own. Men’s problems are more often seen as personal failings rather than victimhood,, due to our gendered idea of agency. This discourages men from bringing attention to their issues (whether individual or group-wide issues), for fear of being seen as whiners, complainers, or weak.”

[11] Political correctness is defined as “the avoidance of forms of expression or action that are perceived to exclude, marginalize, or insult groups of people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against,” which makes it clear why it’s a phenomenon of the Left and a tool of authoritarians.

…to punish father.

Crazy woman from the Houston (TX/US) area murders her daughters, to punish their father. The murders occurred on his birthday, on the run-up to wedding preparations for the oldest girl. The husband was not shot in a calculated ploy to make him suffer survivor’s guilt. Cunt was still waving her pistol around as the police arrived, and some poor cop was forced to ice her, saving the people of Harris County the cost of a trial.

Fortunately, facebook left the miserable old cunt’s web page up, so that the brothers can see what kind of woman they’re ending up with when wedding a “southern belle”.

High angle glamour selfies, dumb jokes, and vacuous product placement for south-themed transnational corporations. This will be the woman you’re shackled with, twenty years hence. Don’t you guys want to get married? Yeah, me too!

Case of beer for the cop on the Fort Bend County Sheriff’s Department force who took out the trash, payable on demand.

NOTE: Despite our obvious disagreements on a number of important issues, I really like Toad. He exemplifies what my average polygamous cousin would be like, if he took a shower, got off welfare, and went to get a Ph.D. or a law degree. My criticism of his positions should not be read as an attempt to belittle him. He’s a smart guy who has the ability to teach us all how to argue more succinctly. Of those who have been given much, much is expected.

NOTE: See part one here.

In a number of recent articles, Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) has argued the incompleteness of the New Testament. He graciously expounded when I asked for details and I believe that I understand his position. I argue here that while Toad’s interpretation is reasonable, it throws up an important contradiction.

Like my polygamous cousins, Toad begins our conversation by noting that he has the one true way, and that I don’t. As such, I will never be able to fully understand his arguments.

One of the central problems we bang up against in these discussions is that you are not a Christian, you are a natural man who does not have the Spirit of God. That, by your own admission, so unless something has changed I believe that to be correct. That is a fatal issue with respect to this discussion…

(source)

In previous conversations, Toad has made it clear that he does not expect other men to live as he does, but he also makes clear that by “Christian” he does not mean participating in the traditional sacraments of Christianity.

Given that I don’t subscribe to the teachings of the magical book of medieval opinions (otherwise known as the teachings and traditions of the church), the idea that you would be a Christian because you were the subject of a baptismal ceremony (possibly as a child) is the equivalent of claiming you are a cage-fighter because you took a Tai Kwon Do class when you were a kid.

(source)

So, like a traditional polygamist, Toad implies that he has some hidden, occult knowledge which is unavailable to unwashed normies (like ya boy Boxer). Unlike a traditional polygamist, the means for the acquisition of knowledge is nowhere well-defined.

In the first place, Toad has drawn a line of differentiation between his version of Christian (which I’ll subsequently denote with an asterisk) and the normie Christians who imagine that a baptism is the prerequisite initiation into the mysteries of Christianity.

I’ll begin by conceding here that I am not a Christian*, by whatever standard Toad uses to define that term, and grant that I am not privy to whatever occult knowledge is available to Christians* so defined. I believe that I don’t need such knowledge, whether or not it exists, to make my point.

I’ll subsequently state that while I’m not a Christian*, I believe I can competently act as an advocate for average, normie Christians, who may not agree with Toad’s numerous innovations.

Toad argues that the King James Version of the New Testament, when taken at face value, is an incomplete symbol. He implies that Christians* can apprehend, or intuit, additional, abstract commandments, which form a model for Christianity*.

In other words, there are some things that are comprehended only by the Spirit of God. At the same time, the tendencies of the flesh (the natural man) are at war with the Spirit of God and we see this time after time with Christians who are swayed by peer pressure and the doctrines of men. A good historical example is the arrogance of Augustine:

 

In his treatise “Way Into The Will” he discusses the nature of good and evil.

(ibid)

I haven’t read Way Into The Will at all, and I haven’t read Augustine in years, so I can’t comment on specifics. Yet, I find it interesting that Toad needs to cite a historical Christian to make his point about Christianity*. My readers may note a certain circularity developing in Toad’s argument. Toad has secret knowledge, which is only available to those who have the Spirit of God, and which supplants a reading of the text. Even though this secret knowledge is coherent with the text, its existence is nowhere hinted at in the text, and demonstrations must be extra-textual.

In fact, the text of the Bible is very clear about those who innovate new teachings from it. In Deuteronomy 4:2, we read:

Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

Later, in Deuteronomy 12:32, we read:

Whatsoever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

And elsewhere, in Revelations 22:18, we read:

For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book:

Toad continues, explaining that the text was never meant to be taken at face value. Christians* are its intended audience, and the bible was intended to be an incomplete supplement or addendum to their intuition:

Even though Scripture informs us with God’s own testimony that we are not capable of understanding God, likewise we are informed that while some parts of Scripture are so simple and pure that the natural man can comprehend them, God’s Word is designed to be spiritually discerned. Even so we can see that even Christians who have the Spirit of God can be lured astray by everything from established (wrong) doctrine to their own prideful arrogance and confidence in their intellectual abilities.

 

When this is the case and we see that Christians have difficulty dealing with God’s Word, how can we have a discussion when the book we’re using as the standard for behavior clearly states that you can’t understand it?

(emphasis mine)

Toad only thinks he is arguing with his Brother Boxer, at this point. He is actually contradicting Saul of Tarsus, the author of most of the New Testament. From Galatians, Chapter 1, verses 6-12:

I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel:

Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

 

But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.

 

As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you than that ye have received, let him be accursed.

 

For do I now persuade men, or God? or do I seek to please men? for if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ.

 

But I certify you, brethren, that the gospel which was preached of me is not after man.

 

For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ.

St. Paul warns Christians not to stray into Christianity*, nor to pursue innovations. He goes on to assert the completeness of his teachings.

My readers are already aware that all wimminz lie, all the time. Even so, I find it funny to note the depths to which they commonly stoop, in a desperate bid for attention.

Meet “Sally,” a cute but dramatic redhead, who had few talents so prounounced as the ability to make public scenes. This was a briefer than usual pairing (we went out a grand total of two times), and the brevity was largely caused by the incredible energy drain of just being around her. This morning, she decided she wants some more of Boxer’s life.

I’m honestly unclear about the best way to give the brush to someone. She’s not worth talking to, but she’s also not worth cursing out. She was more annoying than the typical wimminz, but it was never personal.

No doubt she wants to tell me about how her cat died, or how she got fucked and chucked by five guys (at once) on Tinder, or how she just got arrested for robbing the liquor store. The problem is, I don’t care.

Over on Dalrock blog, a critical article was recently published about the work of one Pastor Doug Wilson (link). Wilson is a cunning neo-feminist who uses various lawyerly tactics to redefine marriage in order to conform with feminist norms. Wilson noticed the critical article, and immediately confirmed his feminist credentials, by poisoning the well with broad accusations of wife-beating. (link)

Of course, the fact that people disagree with Wilson doesn’t automatically imply that they beat their wives, and people who use these fallacious tactics are safely ignored. It did surprise me to see Wilson use this cheap trick. He’s a very clever guy, and his arguments are (formally speaking, anyway) quite well constructed.

When I see men in the sphere talking about wife-beating, I instantly prepare myself for a handful of distinct, but related, neurotic types. In the first place, there is the feminist, who socks up to indulge in black propaganda. Our deluded sister will pretend to be a man of the sphere, and under her very manly pseudonym, will boast about keeping “his” little lady in line. There are also the trolls, who write over-the-top parody. Matt Forney is alleged to have created a funny web page about this, years ago. Disguised as a female, he drove the saps crazy with sexual allusions and garnered a few bucks in the process, from thirsty simps who just couldn’t help but fantasize about a night with this prize catch of a drag queen. And then, there are the fetishists.

My nigga Artisanal Toad (visit his blog here) is a quasi-famous polygamist and advocate of the spank fetish. Toad encourages men to spank their wives, going through a whole spectrum of less-than-optimal responses, until he touches on the perfect woman, with the perfect attitude.

The truth is if a woman is honest with herself, she’ll admit that at least some man exists for whom she will get undressed and with tingles running through her body… lay across his knee in anticipation of having her bottom turned cherry red.  But, only rarely does one find a woman who can admit she would do so for the man she is with.  She may love him and she may even be in love with him… but not like that.

If Toad’s thesis is correct, then, a wife who eagerly accepts her spanking is the perfect woman, who is perfectly in love with her man.

By the same token, there are men who may not be sufficiently interested in beating their wives for sexual thrills. These men are not merely people who have other interests. Toad explains in detail, as follows:

there are also many reasons why a man might object to this, chief among them is the claim that women are adults and should not be spanked.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  When men object, as a rule the objections are driven by fear.  They know the woman they are with would never allow such a thing to happen, which only leaves one of two paths to take.  Either they acknowledge their woman is just not that attracted to them, or they come up reasons why it shouldn’t happen.  Their wife or girlfriend will back them up on this 100%, knowing she would never allow him to do something like that and even claiming no man would ever be allowed to do such a thing to her.

In other words, if you married bros aren’t interested in spanking your wives, it’s because you’re insecure. You must conform to Toad’s weird sexual fetish, or you’re not a real man.

If you disagree with Wilson, then you’re a wife-beater. If you disagree with Toad, you secretly wish you were a wife-beater, but your wife isn’t sufficiently attracted to you to make you want to beat her.

If I were to take this nonsense seriously, I’d honestly need a spreadsheet to keep track of all these convoluted arguments about paraphilias and sublimated desires.

In reality, most men just aren’t interested in spanking their wives. They’re probably too busy fucking to bother with any of this other nonsense. Most men aren’t anorexics, pedophiles or zoophiles. Most men don’t get turned on by smelly feet. Most men don’t have granny fetishes. Most men aren’t interested in anal or oral sex. None of these normative men have a problem. They’re perfectly happy. I’ll stop short of speculating on the underlying neurotic energy that makes people like Toad and Wilson focus so much of their efforts on wife-spankery. Maybe these people enjoy it, and it’s nothing to me, but the fact that not everyone agrees with them doesn’t imply some underlying hangup.

I do think there is a general problem (with both social and individual dimensions) with fetishism. One aspect of paraphilic degeneracy (whether it be the spank fetish or something else) which seems universal, is the gradual overtaking of all other aspects of the relationship, by the primacy of the sexual fetish. For men like Toad, real emotional intimacy, and interpersonal connection, is secondary to the act of beating a woman’s ass. The fetish eventually comes to replace feelings of love and union. The act of beating a woman’s ass may eventually become a substitute for actual sex. Experiencing the beating is the telos, and intercourse may never occur, or may be a halfhearted, masturbatory afterthought.

Pull the full PDF (here)

So, what do people in your state hate?

The moral to this illustration is not to be a nice guy. Women just assume you’re desperate, and will treat you accordingly. Be an asshole, instead. It’s what they respond best to…

Down below, Renee complains:

Astutely, she brings up the correlation between being a side bitch (or a side nigga) and being LJBF’d by someone. In the first case, a side nigga is someone who is used for sex and possibly emotional/financial support also. Such a person is strung along by the object of his desire, while she (or he) makes great plans for the future with her (or his) first choice — who isn’t the side nigga. In the second, the situation is precisely similar, though even the sexual contact is removed.

If someone pretends to like you, and manipulates you into meeting her (or his) needs, while not even deigning to have sex with you, then you’re a chump. My prescription is to dump that bitch (or that nigga) and quit wasting your time.

A good rule of thumb is to ask yourself, in any relationship, if you are benefitting. If you’re not even gaining a tiny advantage in return for your time invested, then you should cut your losses immediately.

The correlation between the side nigga and the LJBF certainly needs some further deconstruction. Look for a more serious article in the near future.

An excellent illustrative article that shows the inherent weaknesses of Christianity, along with the inherent manipulative proclivities of women. This bitch can justify any contradiction, no matter how ridiculous.

“I would describe my relationship with Jesus as a bratty sub with a dominant…”

http://nypost.com/2017/07/13/a-christian-womans-secret-life-as-a-dominatrix/