World of Decline

Sex Credit

Posted in Uncategorized by isochroma on April 20, 2009

Censors: I have the sourcecode saved locally and will repost as you delete. Furthermore, I will count how many times this post has been censored. Current count: 2

Ah, the glorious sex credit, a topic which has been on the back burner of my brainpan for some time, simmering into something only a due exposition could expunge.

It seems that in many areas, researchers are finding that women, far from being underdogs, are in fact the effective masters of many social interactions, and especially ones that relate to estate, money, etc. This mastery is not because of better skill, harder work, or any of the other numerous traits which our society praises and officially encourages. Rather, it is the mastery of sex credit, which produces the appearance of mastery over the many other things it affects.

sex credit is the extra, the benefit among males and institutions and even other females, which females are born with. When I talk of sex credit I don’t mean the things which are naturally credited to sex (reproductive ability), but its use as a tool of power and influence, both passively and actively. Examples of sex credit:

1. Women are rarely if ever ‘on the street’

2. Women are preferentially given accomodation

3. Women are paid to make babies

Below is a more detailed explanation of how sex credit works. I propose to define it mostly by its visible and not-so-visible functions, rather than the more abstract definitions which while simpler to write do not capture the subtle essence and ever-changing parameters of the function. For example, while prostitution is a form of sex credit it is neither the most common nor does it count much compared to the vast field of other sex credit mechanisms. It is just the most obvious, visible, legislated, and often controversial of the lot. As usual though, the real power of a river is in its depth, not its surface.

When I think of sex credit, I think about all the other, not-so-visible but yet infinitely more important things it buys. Like a guaranteed decent place to live, like an insurance policy against homelessness, joblessness. Like easy friends and partners. Like government favoritism, a welfare-state for women on many levels, largely subsidized by (deluded) men. The list goes on and on; read further for more.

This post was quite instructive:

Marriage 2.0, the end-product of the late-20th century divorce reforms, is simply a bad business decision for men. In an era when women file 70% of divorces (CDC data) and where men pay 96% of the alimony (IRS data), it is quite clear that Marriage 2.0 is a thinly veiled mechanism of one-way wealth transfer. Surely there are more cost effectice ways for men to get 4-7 years of romantic companionship than to go through the marriage/divorce sausage machine. It seems that young men have been paying attention. Rutgers University Marriage Study, which has compiled 50+ years of marriage/divorce data, has been documenting a steady slide in new-marriage rates starting around 1970.

Number of Marriages per 1,000
Unmarried Women Age 15 and
Older, by Year, United States:

1968 79.1
1969 80.0
1970 76.5
1972 77.9
1975 66.9
1977 63.6
1980 61.4
1983 59.9
1985 56.2
1987 55.7
1990 54.5
1991 54.2
1992 53.3
1993 52.3
1995 50.8
2000 46.5
2004 39.9

It is Adam Smith’s invisible hand at work. If you make something hazardous to one’s health, then people will avoid it. After seeing what has happened to their fathers, uncles, and older brothers, these young men are voting with their feet.


Furthermore, sex credit works in other wonderful ways. For example, when searching for affordable housing on craigslist, it can be found that 15% of housing ads in my area require female-only applicants, while only about 2% require male-only applicants.

Looking closer at just the ads which specify required sex of the applicant, and in particular those that specify an applicant of the female sex, it can be noted that in a significant fraction of these posts the sex of the current inhabitants is revealed. Interestingly, these folks are usually women. When we hear about sexism it is usually the men who offend. It seems that today, women’s own homegrown sexism seems to outplay men’s by 10:1 or more, at least when it comes to housing. As a footnote, sex discrimination is illegal in my jurisdiction, but it seems women don’t read much – they don’t have to (see below).

On every level of this society, women are subsidized. Another example is homelessness. I see lots of street people in my city every day, but 90% of them are men, while the local government reports 52% of the population are women, 48% men. Strange, isn’t it? Are men lazy? It seems that men do most of the real, hard work in my society…

Not so strange when you remember that women can easily avoid ‘the street’ by finding any man they can tolerate at a local club, bar, restaurant or other gathering place, and getting ‘taken home’ by him. Soon she’s living there, then she’s either off to some other manfare (ie. man-welfare) trough or gold-digging at the existing ‘lucky’ man’s home.

The few street-women I’ve seen are all ugly/old hoes or otherwise undesiring of a better life, or both.

Moving back for a moment to older posts on overpopulation, it must be remembered that women are the source of this problem. It is from their cunts that the babies of the devastated present and future are sliding. A constant and awful perpetuation of such a nasty species upon the planet. Women have the final say as to whether a baby is kept or not, if they are dumb enough to get pregnant. And women have been saying “yes, we can!“, especially those knocked up by the revoltingly stupid joe-sixpacks of the world. This process is helping erase any traces of intelligence from the species, as its own future locks into a short track to a nasty trainwreck.

And we pay them to do it! In my country and probably most others in the First World, women are paid to have children: they get extended qualifications for welfare, leave from work, maternity benefits, tax deductions, subsidized childcare, etc. Therefore the taxpayer is paying to overpopulate my country. Women ought to pay the full costs of their reproductive decisions, otherwise they will just follow their instincts and make an endless supply of future hell on Earth.

What really takes the cake is that I’ve been trying to find affordable housing in my city, but can’t due to the ridiculous competition for the few rents available. Why the competition? Overpopulation here plus bringing people from overpopulated areas somewhere else (immigration). The best laugh is that in the current ‘tight’ circumstance, it is these groups of women who are rejecting anyone but ‘their’ species for housing. In other words the women who made and continue to make the overpopulation which is making it impossible for me to find a home (and pay ludicrous rent if I do), are also busy rejecting me due to some sexist reason embedded in their pea-brains. Ironic, isn’t it?

Happy Women!

It can be easily seen on any given day, that the many women in public are not only dressed to attract (or at least ‘attractively’) for obvious geno-social reasons, but they are happy. Try to find a dour, sour woman on a street – you won’t.

After years of envy I finally understand why they’re so happy: though their jobs are usually lower-wage than men’s, they have something men don’t, something which (especially in these times) counts for so much more: security!

The foundation of true happiness is: home security and income security (ie. job security for the working class). Remember the carefree days of childhood? Running, playing, not even thinking never mind worrying about whether you’d have a home next month, or food tomorrow? Not all kids get that, but if you did then take that state and extrapolate it onto an adult and you get an ‘adult’ woman who will always have everything she needs, and is therefore secure and therefore happy. Just like a child, in more ways than one.

When I say security, I mean not only job security, but home security as well. Because they have endless sex credit, women can always find a home, and they can always beg a job (if the manfare isn’t enough) no matter how unskilled. Men don’t have those options, therefore when they lose their jobs in times of economic decline, crisis, etc. and can’t find another, they end up on the street.

Without their trusty sex credit, about half the First World’s women would be bums on the street.

Mere feet away from the real bums on the street walk the brightly coloured, laughing, chatting, happy cunts who don’t need to worry about such things. They have it made, not because they’re better people, just that they are female people. As such, their perpetual sex credit lifeline will always pull them up out of troublesome spots.

Bitchy Women?

Now of course we all know that despite their happy demeanor, when these women are making demands on their manfare-providers or talking amongst themselves in private they are often snappy, bitchy, etc. This of course is just their passive-aggressive way of getting what they want without losing the support they need.

Beyond that, however, it can be found that women – especially the more attractive, but all to a certain extent – have underdeveloped patience and often nasty personalities underneath their deceptively sweet exteriors. Why?

Because of their sex credit, women don’t have to develop their personalities in ways that would make them better people. Instead they use their sex credit to leech from men and the State through its numerous sexist women-only programs. Just like spoiled children they know that they don’t have to be better human beings because they can always acquire support somewhere else, ie. another man or another program. There is always another pitying fool of a man or government program to bail them out. Luckily, there’s an endless supply of inexperienced, gullible, joe-sixpacks with which to leech from – the kind of men whose balls lead them.

It can now be seen why the nastiness of a woman is usually inversely related to her level of sex credit (ie. attractiveness). Those with more sex credit don’t need to work as hard to get what they want, while those with less must be better people to reach a similar thrive-level.

On the whole, sex credit has been a shackle on the development of women’s responsibility, intelligence, etc. because it is a free ‘gift’ which excuses them from the difficulty which the other species, men, must endure. It is a ‘get out of jail free’ card, among many other things, which is unearned, and being unearned, its benefits are also not only unearned but not respected for their true value (ie. what they would cost a person with zero sex credit).

The attention and benefits of sex credit, from the woman’s perspective, are most conveniently attributed to whatever she thinks is so great about herself. Therefore the woman is full of a sense of her grandness, when in fact it is merely the effect of unearned sex credit which advantages her in every social situation. Her subconscious and conscious mind manipulate it to maximum advantage, while conveniently ignoring the obvious reality of this crutch.

Men (and to an extent ugly or otherwise undesireable women) don’t have sex credit so they actually have to become better people. They have to ‘sell themselves’ to society based on something they actually made themselves, not the sex credit they were born with. That is an important qualitative difference, so take note of it. Because self-development is the development of that which a person isn’t born with.

The ugliness of the situation is wrapped up in millions of years of evolution which isn’t consistent with today’s society. Deeply connected is also overpopulation, and the lack of population control in modern nations. Furthermore, overpopulation is in womens’ interest, while it disadvantages men. The greater the population, the more choice a woman will have for sperm and support. More men will compete with each other at all levels and wealths and skills, which means she will get a better deal. However, in a resource-constrained, overpopulated world wouldn’t her own existence become more difficult (ie. more work, less support)?

It might, but remember that there will always be enough men to support her, no matter how bad conditions get. Think of women as the fat that floats to the top of a pot of stew (their literal fattiness {overweight} is an obvious indicator of how our society pampers them). No matter how big the pot of stew, or how lean it is, the fat always floats on the top.

Men are conditioned and perhaps even genetically programmed to ‘give their lives’ (and their money, property, sanity, etc.) for these women, and it can be seen everyday in the movies as well as real life.

Worse conditions will force more men into desperation, from which they either recover, kill themselves, kill others (mostly other men, though sometimes women), etc. Whatever the result, so long as they live they exert competitive pressure on all other men, and that is to women’s advantage.

To put it simply from the woman’s viewpoint: knowing she can always stay on top, she strives to overpopulate her environment so as to increase the competition of men ‘underneath’ her. Just like Marx’s reserve army of the unemployed, who keep wages low and work-hours long, the reserve army of the unsexed men keep her partner’s temper low and his dick/cash supply long. If you wonder about the other half of the equation, the reserve army of unsexed women, you can forget it. Unlike men, women don’t usually compete with each other at such a level – they don’t need to, because they live within a welfare state whose entry pass is the golden sex credit card.

For them, competition is like getting men to chose between different brightly-coloured packaged products on a supermarket shelf. The reserve army of unsexed women is like the packages behind the front-row, waiting to be chosen. The shoppers are men, and they are often suprised at the price which must be paid at the till.

There are some sweet solutions, so next post will be about overpopulation, and especially how to control it through a technology-based tooltype. A basic plan for Government-regulated population will also be proposed.

%d bloggers like this: