Originally posted by Sonya610
...If they think you want and prefer them alone, if they think they can have you to themselves they will often protect you from the sexual advances
other males. Men don't like to share their partners if they can avoid it. Its biological. This provides the woman the chance to separate from the
group and just deal with one male instead of a gang.
*sigh*. Your feminism has affected you in ways that you do not even realize, and it's sad in a way. You truly think that males are all one and the
same. There are inherent differences in good men, and bad men. You need to learn this, before it gets you killed in a sit-x environment.
..."if they think they can have you"
? Honey, in a sit-x situation, unless you've got the firepower, IT WON'T BE UP TO YOU *IF* THEY HAVE
YOU OR NOT.
Men don't like to share their partners
. No, honey. GOOD MEN don't like to share their partners. To a bad man, you are just something that
is owned, like a car or a motorcycle. Motorcycle gangs are notorious for this. A woman rates WAY below their motorcycles. They often will not give
a crap about someone screwing their "old ladies", but they sure as heck will kill you if you touch their chopper. The only thing that "buddying
up" with the biggest, meanest guy will ensure, is that he does you first.
And by "first", I mean just that. There will be a big, long
line of them behind him, usually based on status of the group. If you think otherwise, you've never been around (or talked to someone who has been
around) truly anti-social men. This is where the phrase "pulling a train" comes from, because the guys in line look like a long train behind the
Your strategy would be successful in a group of guys where MOST of the men are good, and a few are bad. It would be entirely unsuccessful in any
other make up. This is even compounded by the fact that younger men are AWARE of women using their sexuality as a means of control over men. They
even have a phrase for it: "Bros before Hos".
You REALLY think your "sistahs" are gonna give a crap if you get raped in Sit-x? Know what they are going to say? "Better her than me!".
The reason the "cave man" mentality is still around, is because it served a vital survival function, allowing those with "cave man mentalities" to
thrive and prosper while other groups with "equality" did not.
Look at how easy women are conned and scammed by men who are natural charmers today. Do you think it will be any easier to spot "charmers" in a
sit-x? Look at the all "serial killers" that people like to point out. Ted Bundy was a very charming man. ALL TRUE SOCIOPATHS LEARN TO TELL WOMEN
WHAT THEY WANT TO HEAR TO GET WHAT THEY WANT FROM THEM (be it sex, or money, or protection.)
Am I saying that women should not prepare? Absolutely not. Learn survival skills, learn how to operate fire arms, learn all that you can. BUT
DON'T LET YOUR FEMINIST THINKING GET IN THE WAY OF THE TRUTH. Any group that has a female doctor would be stupid to relegate her to the kitchen.
But how many groups will have females that can contribute ANYTHING outside "domestic duties" that will aid in the survival of the group? This is
WITH women having 50+ years to pretty much do as they have wanted. How much less when Sit-x has been in it's 10th year?
In sit-x, if you give a guy too much lip, he's liable to slap you across the face. What are you going to do, call the cops? Let's face it, many
many women today will say and do things that, if they had a penis between their legs, would have gotten them knocked out. This "protection"
disappears in Sit-x. The cops aren't going to protect you from a man who decides to treat you equal (i.e., he will get physical with you just as
quick as he would get physical with a man who gave him ...stuff.)
There is a saying: "God made men. Samuel Colt made them all equal". Yes, a woman with a firearm is a dangerous opponent. Do you think a woman
with a knife, club, bat, or sword is going to be considered as dangerous as a man with the same weapon?
The women on here don't even SEE, let alone understand, the laughable dichotomy they espouse here. Let me see if I get this right.... You are too
scared to go into the "woods" with a group of survivalist men, when the CHECKS, CONTROLS, AND PUNISHMENTS OF MODERN CIVILIZATION ARE IN PLACE; WHEN
MEN ARE STILL HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND PUNISHED BY OTHER MEN; WHEN MOST MEN'S BEHAVIOR IS STILL BEING RESTRAINED BY INTERNAL OR EXTERNAL CONTROLS, yet
you are going to be a "survivalist", an amazonian she-ra when men are no longer held accountable to anyone but themselves? AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!
If you are smart and have prepared, or are very lucky, you will end up in a group of men willing to fight, kill, and die to protect you. If you are
unlucky (even if you are smart), you will end up in a group of men whom you will service (both in and out of bed), willingly or no.
As a man who has the psychological mindset to fight, defend, and even kill for those under my protection, whom do you think I am going to fight and
defend: Those women who claim "grrl power!" and "equality", or those who behave in what a manner that has always been defined as "feminine"? I
know who my biological nature screams out to protect, and it ain't the "women can do anything a man can do" crowd.
There is a HUGE liability in today's woman that goes unacknowledged. A liability that was not possessed in such large quantities by the women of
yore. That liability is the fact that today's women let their emotions control them, rather than them controlling their emotions. Granted, women
have always been the more emotional of the sexes. In it's proper place, this emotional nature was GOOD for society, and exherted a pacifying
influence on the male populace.
Given that the women today, who ACTUALLY HAVE A CHOICE, choose to mate with bad men (and this is now born out by scientific studies, not just
anectdotal evidence), how much more in sit x? Here, I am speaking as a group, not any individual woman. How many times do you think a group of
survivalists will allow women to choose their own mates, if they continually choose men who are detrimental to the group? How long do you think they
will be allowed "equality" if their choices (taken as a whole) harm that group?
Look to past history for the answer to that question. "Equality" in today's meaning won't last long. "Equality" today to women (again, as a
group) means "I get to do the same things as men, but I shouldn't have to suffer the same consequences as men". In a sit-x situation, women are
going to find that they don't want true equality any more.
How many times do you think a young woman is going to be allowed to bring a young man into the group, only to have him steal food, ammo, or medicines,
and be gone in the morning? That will happen once, maybe twice, before men say "You know what? You don't have the necessary judgment to know who
is or isn't a good man. Therefore, you have no choice in the matter."
Women, understand this... a TRUE sit-x, not just a temporary situation such as in New Orleans, is going to result in the clock being turned back 500
years on "women's rights". Women who champion "equal rights" and "grrl power" are going to find themselves ostracized, and outright exiled
from groups. To do any other thing is to risk the group itself. History shows this to be true. Nature shows this to be true. ALL THE ARGUING AND
MENTAL MASTURBATION IN THE WORLD IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THIS FACT.
You can either find a way to turn this to your advantage, as women are wont to do, or you can perish. There won't be any third options. Men are
going to go back to being how men were a hundred, a thousand, years ago, BECAUSE IT WORKED. Disagree all you want, but God-forbid a true sit-x
happens, you'll find out, and remember my words.