Chapter 22: Single Men are Worst than Murderers

Previous chapter Next chapter

Chapter 22: Single Men are Worse than Murderers

‘‘A single man has not nearly the value he would have in a state of union. He is an incomplete animal. He resembles the odd half of a pair of scissors.’’

- Benjamin Franklin –

‘‘Any young man who is unmarried at the age of twenty one is a menace to the community.’’

- Brigham Young –

For thousands of years, people have lived under a strict conservative structure. You would reach an age when you must marry, form a family, have kids, and continue the ongoing cycle. It was expected that all respectable men get married and contribute to this universal duty. People who did not comply with this structure would be putting it at risk and for a man, the mere fact of remaining single would constitute a form of questioning the prevailing order. Everyone would follow the same path or face the risk of being rejected by their community, and in the distant past, this could be the equivalent of a death sentence.

Men’s labor is a precious resource, and we saw in the last chapter that the vast majority of the prosperous civilizations in history tried to harness it via the control of men’s sex drive. Some did it by creating incentives for men to work hard, while others wanted to do it through force, threat, and fear.

Unmarried men aren’t as productive as their wedded counterpart. And because of them, the economy stagnates, and the birth rate declines. It is imperative that they must be stopped or the growth of the empire will be impaired. They cannot be allowed to propagate. If we create a tax on bachelors; if we sanction men who refuse to marry, won’t they run back to the plantation?

This idea failed time after time throughout history, but even when its multitude of failures proved the complete uselessness of this belief, numerous governing officials stubbornly persisted in trying to tax and sanction bachelors.

In order for our dominance instinct to be efficient, men require a lack of innate empathy toward other men. How could it be otherwise when we have battled and killed each other over resources for countless millennia? On the other hand, women possess a mechanism called ‘‘own group preference’’, which essentially means that women spontaneously have each other’s back. Men also have a biological drive to protect women, and when you pair these factors together, it becomes obvious that we will always sanction men before trying anything else to fix society.

It seems natural to do so, and most people won’t even bear the thought of questioning such order. We shouldn’t expect anything less from how human nature expresses itself in large societies. Both men and women have a natural impulse to take care of women, but no one has a natural inclination to be concerned about men. It is no wonder that men are an easy target for society’s hatred.

With that said, let’s take a glance at the prevalence of bachelor taxes throughout the ages. Let’s also see why we will soon have a bachelor tax in most Western countries.

At around 18 BC, large shares of Roman men were reluctant to marry. To encourage men to marry, Roman Emperor Augustus passed a series of laws penalizing unmarried men and rewarding men who married and had at least three children (The Lex Papia Poppaea). Single men over the age of twenty-five were forbidden to attend public games and banquets. Unmarried men were also forced to sit in the less desirable seats in theaters. In winter they had to march around the market place in light clothes while they sang a particular song, which narrated how they were justly punished for disobeying the laws. Aside from this, they were deprived of the honor and gracious attentions which the young men habitually paid to their elders. On top of that, Roman men who remained unmarried had to pay a bachelor tax. Those sanctions applied to men from the age of twenty-five to sixty.

This is a translation of one of Emperor Augustus’ speeches:

‘‘O — what shall I call you? Men? But you are not performing any of the offices of men. Citizens? But for all that you are doing, the city is perishing. Romans? But you are undertaking to blot out this name altogether.’’

It wasn’t uncommon for Augustus to describe unmarried men as worse than murderers and robbers. Unmarried men, according to Augustus, were immoral beasts:

‘‘You talk, indeed, about this ‘free’ and ‘untrammelled’ life that you have adopted, without wives and without children; but you are not a whit better than brigands or the most savage of beasts. For surely it is not your delight in a solitary existence that leads you to live without wives, nor is there one of you who either eats alone or sleeps alone; no, what you want is to have full liberty for wantonness and licentiousness.’’

Augustus’ shaming of men suggests that Roman men were reluctant to marry because marriage deprived them of freedom.

Augustus devised a system of rewards and penalties to overcome the ‘‘selfishness’’ of bachelors. There were rewards for the responsibilities and hardships resulting from marriage, and penalties to outweigh the obvious advantages of celibacy. But Augustus’ marriage laws ended in a complete failure and had little to no effect on men’s willingness to marry.

The reason for that is easy to understand. If men were reluctant to marry, it was because guardianship over women (tutela mulierum) was a burden that men attempted to avoid. If marriage was an opportunity for Roman men to abuse women, selfish men would have been eager to marry.

The situation seems to have been the opposite. Marriage was a burden to men. Tutela mulierum was a complicated amalgam of regulations, but it gave women independence from their husbands. Free women were also referred to as emancipated women. Doesn’t it sound familiar to something we have today?

Women had little to no accountability toward their husband and could keep the entirety of their assets to themselves throughout the marriage, but the same could not be said for men. Husbands had numerous responsibilities and obligations towards their partner, which is why it was called ‘‘guardianship over women’’, but they held no tangible authority over their wife.

For a man living in Ancient Rome, marriage was a whole lot of duties and responsibilities that weren’t reciprocated by their wife. Women were independent of their husbands, but those same husbands had to provide for them, and when marriage becomes a one-way transaction that only benefits women, men withdraw.

In Ancient Rome, divorces were even easier to have than they are today, with our ‘‘no-fault-divorce’’ laws. In some cases of divorce, fathers would keep custody of their children, but in numerous scenarios where it was not the case, a court would require the ex-husband to provide child support to his ex-wife. There were many occasions when a woman discovered herself pregnant after having been divorced. In the absence of modern blood and DNA tests, paternity was hard to establish, and there were instances where vengeful ex-wives, just after a divorce, would pass off a stray foundling as a legitimate child in order to extract child support from their ex-husband. If a man should remarry, his ex-wife was allowed to come into his home and seize his new wife’s dowry.

Looking at that, I see a vivid reflection of our current western world. Today, men’s constitutional rights end where women’s safety and provisions begin. That is, men have become second-class citizens, and that is why there is a backlash.

Today, men refuse to marry or commit for the same reasons that they refused to commit in Ancient Rome. This isn’t rocket science we’re talking about. When men have sufficient benefits and incentives, they will naturally form families and will happily tie the knot. But if there are no enticements to get married; men won’t do it.

If, say, Emperor Augustus changed the guardianship over women’s laws and made it fair or if he instituted male authority, his crisis of unmarried men would have been solved in a flash. Men would have happily rushed back into women’s alluring embrace, marrying them by the thousands. As far as brain scans are concerned, sexual attraction for men shows similar results to obsessive-compulsive behaviors. In a lot of cases, the male sex drive is compelling enough to overwrite the survival instinct, which is to say that it is crazy strong. Marriage traditionally granted a life-long supply of sex to a man, and when men’s incentives to marry are so poor that the fanatical sex drive won’t push them to get engaged, it shows a lot about that society.

Both men and women inherently have more empathy for women than they have for men. Because of this natural tendency, we will never reform laws if it ‘‘negatively’’ affects women, or if it withdraws benefits, even the perceived benefits, from women.

Guardianship over women was a burden for male Roman citizens, but it was advantageous for female citizens. Thus, tutela mulierum could not be changed. In fact, it wasn’t even an option, and it could never be. We would prefer a thousand times to sanction, demonize, punish, and ostracize men instead of reforming unfair laws when those reforms could take away some of the women’s many advantages.

That is, instead of making things fair, instead of being reasonable, we will hammer men down until everything crumbles. This is the foolishness of human nature. Spoiler alert, the same thing is happening today, and at the stage that we are, a collapse is probably unavoidable. Relationships between men and women, as well as marriage laws, are broken. Men have woken up, they are not going back to the plantation, they are not going back to women, and this is horrifying for women. When the bottom men do not marry, women don’t really mind, but when men who are at the top of the hierarchy start to walk away, women get petrified with fright.

The majority of men did not reproduce in the early stage of human development, but all women did. Because of evolutionary circumstances, I argue that men have evolved to be way better at handling the single life than women, and I even believe that most women would be better off being in a wealthy man’s harem than being alone. The same cannot be said for men since a large portion of males were forced to live the single life in the early development of our species. In fact, an overwhelming portion of history’s greatest minds were never married. Here are a few examples:

Ludwig van Beethoven - Ludwig van Beethoven is arguably one of the best-known composers of Western classical music.

Henry David Thoreau - He was one of the giants of 19th century Western philosophy as well as an accomplished author.

The Wright brothers - The Wright brothers are famous for developing the first functional engine-powered airplane.

Nikola Tesla - Nicola Tesla was an American inventor, engineer, physicist, and futurist. Today he is best remembered for helping design the modern AC electrical supply system.

Isaac Newton - Isaac Newton was an English physicist and mathematician most known for developing the universal gravitation theory along with the three laws of motion.

Edvard Munch - Edward Munch was a painter and printmaker who largely influenced late 19th-century symbolism as well as the German expressionist art movement in the early 20th century.

Jean Paul Sartre - One of the most famous existentialist philosophers of the Western world, Jean Paul Sartre remained unmarried all his life.

James Buchanan, Jr. - James Buchanan, Jr. was the 15th President of the United States and served in office from 1857 to 1861. He is the only president of the United States who never married.

William Lyon Mackenzie King - More commonly known as Mackenzie King, he was the tenth and longest-serving prime minister of Canada.

Dr. Homi J. Bhabha - Also known as the founder of the Indian nuclear program, Dr. Bhabha was an Indian nuclear physicist, who played a key role in the founding and development of two of India's most famous research institutes on nuclear science.

Leonardo Di Caprio - The 41-year-old Oscar-winning actor is my personal favorite. He is known for dating actresses much younger than him but has never been in a serious relationship so far. He has never shown any intention to get married or settle down, and he seems to enjoy the hell out of his life.

Now let’s look at other examples of bachelor taxes.

Resm-i mücerred was a bachelor tax instituted in the Ottoman Empire during the 15th century. It was found that those who fell under the tax were more likely to migrate to other areas.

In 1695, the English Parliament passed The Marriage Duty Act or Registration Tax, which imposed a tax on births, marriages, burials, childless widowers, and bachelors over the age of 25. The tax was found to be ineffective and abolished by 1706.

By 1821, the State of Missouri applied a $1 tax on all unmarried men. It was more of a symbolic warning than a real bachelor tax, as it served as a reminder to all unmarried men that they were expected to find a wife.

In 1827, there was a protest against a New York legislature that tried to replace a current tax on dogs with one on bachelors. The bill was in direct violation of The Great Charter of Liberties.

The State of Michigan has made repeated attempts to institute a bachelor tax. In 1837, Senator Edward D. Ellis attempted to pass such a bill, but the measure failed.

In 1848, a petition made it to a House Committee but did it not reach the floor.

In 1849, another proposal was made in the House Committee that did not reach the floor.

Again in 1850, another petition reached the House but did not find a sponsor.

During the Civil War it was proposed again, this time as a revenue measure as opposed to a public welfare measure, but it once again failed to reach the floor.

In 1854, in Connecticut, a proposed bill to tax bachelors was discussed by legislators but did not pass.

In 1896, Mrs. Charlotte Smith, feminist activist and President of the Women’s Rescue League, was leading an anti-bachelor campaign. Her solution to the “problem” was to denigrate, shame, and sanction bachelors in order to pressure them into marrying. Mrs. Smith believed that bachelors have always been failures, narrow-minded, selfish, egotistical, and cowardly. Here is a famous quote from Charlotte:

“No man can be a good, honorable, and upright citizen who has not entered into the holy bonds of wedlock.” - Charlotte Smith –

Part of Mrs. Charlotte Smith’s remedy was to have bachelors excluded from employment in prominent public sector positions. Her second punishment proposed a universal bachelor tax of $10 per year be applied, amounting to between 1-4 weeks of the average wage at the time. Fortunately, this bachelor tax failed.

The bachelor tax attempts in Michigan didn’t stop, however, and were repeatedly brought up in 1897, 1901, 1911, and 1919, with the each of them resulting in failures.

The final proposed bill that also made the floor of the Michigan Congress was made in 1935, but before it too failed due to the economic considerations of the time.

On February 12, 1898, Assemblyman Waller of the New Jersey state legislature proposed a bachelor tax as a sumptuary tax; however, the bill was not passed.

In 1921, the State of Montana applied a $3 tax on all bachelors in the state. On January 11, 1922, the state Supreme Court struck down the “bachelor tax” and another poll tax applicable only to men. That ruling was probably made since the bachelor taxes had been the subject of considerable debate and controversy and it failed to encourage men to marry. One journalist in the Pittsburgh Press noted in 1921: [It was inappropriate to bully men into marriage, and any man who could be swayed in such a way “would lack the nerve and stamina necessary to make him a successful husband.”]

In California in 1934, as a response to the low 1933 birth rate in the state, the Minister of Finance, Roland Vandegrift, proposed a $5 to $25 bachelor tax, but the measure did not succeed.

In 1923, the town of Repelen, Germany passed a bachelor tax of 2,000 marks per month. However, this law was quickly overturned by federal authorities.

A bachelor tax was levied in Italy from 1927 until the fall of Mussolini in Rome in 1943. By 1936, Italian bachelors paid nearly double their normal income tax rate (priest, servicemen on active duty, and infirm were exempted)

In 1946, Poland introduced Bykowe, which was a tax on childlessness that included a tax on those unmarried above 21 years from January 1, 1946, to November 29, 1956. It was later extended to those over 25 years of age until January 1, 1973, when it was repealed. It formed a part of Communist policies and other taxes on childlessness that were instituted in the Soviet Union and Romania at around the same time.

Soviet Union: A childlessness tax was enforced from 1941–1990, although the tax was applied to all childless people, it was applied to childless men from 25 to 50 years of age, but childless married women from 20 to 45 years of age. The tax was income based and took 6% of the childless person's wages. Between 1991-1992, the tax was only applied to men before the tax was revoked due to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

Romania: In 1986, a celibacy tax was instituted. Explanations put forward for those laws were to raise revenue, and to promote morality. The law continued to be enforced until the Romanian Revolution of 1989.

In 1999, the mayor of Vastogirardi, Italy proposed to reinstitute a local bachelor tax.

As you can see, bachelor taxes have existed around the globe and throughout the millennia, dating back at least to ancient Greece and Rome, and women are notorious for being passionate advocates of bachelor punishments. In modern Western countries, men pay around 70% of income taxes, while women use roughly 70% of welfare benefits. That is, men’s taxes are paying for services given to women. We have a sort of covert, indirect ‘‘male tax’’, and soon enough, we will have a full-blown bachelor tax. But bachelor taxes never worked, and it won't fix the problems of the Western civilization. On the contrary, bachelor taxes are notorious for driving young and productive men away, and it can only serve to hasten a society’s downfall.

This is the part where I need to talk about the sex doll industry.

The sex toy industry now stands as a $15 billion market segment, with projections that it will surpass $50 billion by 2020, and sex dolls and sex robots are a fast-growing part of this industry. We will start seeing more and more feminists and traditionalists push against this. Hyper-realistic sex dolls with perfect, never-aging bodies, and sex robot with more refined artificial intelligence, dramatically threaten women’s sexual value, which is a disaster for women. Traditionalists are also furious about this, as synthetic sexual pleasures threaten to pull men away from their role as sacrificial providers.

We are even starting to see sex doll brothels opening their doors in various countries, with a portion of them being more successful than actual brothels with real prostitutes! This makes many women panic, especially the prostitutes whose livelihood depend on their customers’ loyalty.

In March 2017, Europe’s first sex doll brothel has been forced to close their doors and relocate after real-life prostitutes complained that sex dolls were stealing their business. Surprisingly, even the feminists were backing the prostitutes, saying that the sex doll brothel was another strategy of the patriarchy that presents women as objects without rights or soul. But if they were consistent, feminists would have done everything in their power to assist the sex doll brothel, as it possesses the potential to stop, or at least, diminish prostitution, which they have always described as the ruthless exploitation of women.

If that’s the case, why are feminists against sex dolls? Are feminists endorsing prostitution? No, they are not. Women's rights advocates are against sex dolls because it is a treat to women’s most potent form of power, their sexuality. By banning sex dolls, feminists are merely protecting their personal interests.

Sex dolls are not the objectification of women, but the womanification of objects. Unlike the strange looking, multi-function, rotating, vibrating and pulsating dildos that women use, men need something that resembles a real woman to get turned on. Male sex dolls, even the hyper-realistic ones with huge dicks, are unpopular with women and are mostly bought by gay men. Women do not need realistic-looking male dolls or lifelike dicks to get turned on and masturbate. However, men are turned on by the ‘‘form’’ of an object rather than by its function.

Nowadays, there are so many risks associated with being with a woman, like unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted diseases, false rape accusations, false claims of domestic abuse, child support and alimony payments, and on top of the cream, life-draining levels of emotional drama. Is it a wonder why men don’t even go to prostitutes anymore and prefer to go to a sex doll brothels?

For instances, an increasing number of Japanese men are turning to rubber romance. Around 2,000 sex dolls are sold in Japan each year, and men from more and more countries are turning toward this alternative. Some men, who have been deprived of sex and intimacy for years, even sleep with their sex dolls under the same roof as their wives! Here are a few quotes I found on Japanese men who purchased and reviewed their sex dolls.

‘‘Japanese women are cold-hearted. They're very selfish. Men want someone to listen to them without grumbling when they get home from work. Love dolls are less stress, and they complain a lot less than women.’’

‘‘After my wife gave birth, we stopped having sex, and I felt a deep sense of loneliness. At first, I bought a love doll for the sex, but it's more about connecting on an emotional level now.’’

‘‘People always want something from you - like money or commitment. My love doll, she never betrays me, and she makes my worries melt away. I'll never date a real woman again - they're heartless.’’

As you can see, some men tend to connect with their sex doll more than they connect with real women. People are quick to accuse these men of being creepy, but they are so quick to condemn them that they throw away their chance to understand what is going on.

I follow the YouTube channel of a man that I highly respect. This content creator recently bought a sex doll and reviewed his experience. According to him, the sex he has with his sex doll is just as good as the sex he had with an ex-lover he was in a relationship with, and it baffled him. Even if it was hyper-realistic, how could sex be so good with a Thermoplastic elastomers (TPE) sex doll? This successful and respectable man thought that this quality of sex was only possible when it was paired with a deep emotional bond, which could only happen with a real woman. He was also very clear that he had no such connection with his rubber mate. But then, how could his experience with a love doll be so good? After considering many angles, the man discovered that it was the lack of fear that caused him to have such a pleasurable experience.

Trust, or the lack of fear, was the secret ingredient. A woman with whom you have a deep connection with is a woman that you trust; you can let go of your worries and enjoy the sex for what it is.

This man was Red Pilled long ago and acutely aware of unwanted pregnancy risks (spermjaking), false rape accusations, false claims of domestic abuses, child support, and he was tired of the emotional drama. Because of this, he stopped having casual sex many years ago, only to rediscover enjoyable sex with his love doll.

Men who buy sex dolls are worry-free, and they can finally express their desires without concern or repercussion. People may think that they are losers, but that is far from the truth for most of these men.

As I am writing this book, I myself am experiencing something similar. I used to enjoy frequent spurts of casual sex, but the fear and guilt have entirely ruined the enjoyment that I used to acquire from chasing women. The fear comes from the same reasons that I expressed earlier, and the guilt stands from the fact that each new sexual partner that a woman has will decrease her future chances of having a successful relationship, and when I am added to their count, I negatively affect their statistical odds. Furthermore, when I enjoyed a prolonged period of casual sex and short-term dating with a woman, I was also ‘‘wasting’’ a portion of her youth and fertile years.

I also know that it would be easy for a woman to take revenge for ‘‘wasting’’ her precious youth by falsely accusing me of rape. I have been rolling the dice for a long time, and it is not a pleasant feeling at all. It is while writing this book that I finally decided to stop having casual sex, as I found out that I can no longer enjoy it.

I actually bought a sex doll of my own just before publishing this book, and I have to say, the results were surprising! Well, I guess that the human brain isn’t that hard to trick after all.

Men are wired to be sex addicts, and when they can no longer enjoy sex with women because of fear, it reveals a lot about the current state of our society. And I can't repeat this enough: The male sex drive is insanely powerful and women will never, never be able to understand it. It takes a gargantuan amount of hammering down to shatter the maelstrom of male energy that is generated from a young man's impulses to reproduce, and today, this where we are...

As a single man you will always be the number one target for society’s hatred. As such, a healthy amount of indifference is a fundamental requirement if you want to enjoy this lifestyle of freedom.

Bachelor taxes will always fail, but I fear that in our foolishness, these will endlessly sprout back up. It is part of an unending cycle, but more on that in the next chapter. Instead, you should focus on your life and on bettering yourself. There is nothing that you can do about this societal dynamic, and it is better to detach yourself from it. There are many pleasures, enjoyments, and meanings to be found in life, and it would be terribly foolish to limit your sight on something that is immovable. To end this chapter on a positive note, here are some quotes about singles men that I found to be particularly interesting.

‘‘All of the troubles that some people have in life is that which they married into.’’

- Edgar Watson Howe–

‘‘It is impossible to believe that the same God who permitted His own son to die a bachelor regards celibacy as an actual sin.’’

-H. L. Mencken–

‘‘You do not need to be loved, not at the cost of yourself. The single relationship that is truly central and crucial in a life is the relationship to the self. Of all the people you will know in a lifetime, you are the only one you will never lose.’’

- Jo Courdert –

‘‘Now I’m feeling how I should. Never knew single could feel this good.’’

-Jason Derulo–

‘‘I really enjoy being single again. I spent a lot of time in a relationship and the nearer we came to the end, the more difficult it got. You don’t see things clearly as long as you’re still involved.’’

- Dido Armstrong –

‘‘I think, therefore I’m single.’’

- Liz Winston –

‘‘Being single is getting over the illusion that there is somebody out there to complete you and taking charge of your own life.’’

- Omkar Phatakc –

Previous chapter Next chapter