Paula and the General: the Road to Slutdom

News of General Petraeus’s resignation, over an affair with married biographer Paula Broadwell, shows how America and the West has changed. Into a nation of sluts and Alpha males. With almost no exceptions. From the Daily Mail, we learn that Broadwell’s husband, though a radiologist, is a true beta male. No wonder she fell for a man age 60, a full twenty one years her senior. Five minutes of Alpha beats well, decades of marriage. To a doctor. With whom she’s had two kids. Welcome to the new world of marriage. One as unsustainable as everything else in the West.

Marriage, requires a husband to constantly amp up the sexiness. To be competitive with any and every man his wife could come across. Particularly those who are in command or order about lots of other people. Authority is an aphrodisiac. Almost any and every modern woman will fall for it. Since women are never taught (these days) sexual control and mastery of emotions and desire, and since most women never even feel real desire and longing, certainly not for their “nice” and “supportive” male peers, any hint of authority will have them offering sex to satisfy those urges and longings that overpower them. All women throughout history have always had this, however most in the West until recently were taught control by older women who urged a willful avoidance of the road to slutdom.

Meanwhile, its a slam dunk bet that nearly all men in any position of power and authority exercise a defacto harem, of married and single mistresses made up of employees, underlings, wives of underlings, and so on. My guess (and it is only a guess) is that at least one younger Supreme Court Justice is banging his law clerk with abandon. Said probable twenty four year old honey is probably wild about the fact that people are deferential or fawning over said Justice. That’s how desire is built. Twilight exploited this fact by having a boy that other boys are afraid of and who treats the heroine with contempt.

Its not just Petraeus (nearly all US generals and admirals are slimy, sleazy, and political as Petraeus.) Henry Nicholas III of Broadcom sought to build a secret sex dungeon where he had sex with prostitutes. Both LA Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa and ex SF Mayor now Lt. Governor Gavin Newsome had sex with subordinate’s wives. See John Edwards, or pretty much any big shot in government, law, entertainment, or really any environment.

Which makes marriage for the 90% of men who are not big shots, big deals, or big wheels, a losing proposition. While hubby Dr. Scott Broadwell is a beta male loser, he’s a beta male loser who can afford an $800,000 home, as a radiologist. His wife was so crazy for Petraeus, that she practically stalked him, and sent threatening e-mails to another woman (now revealed to be Jill Kelly, 38, also married, a frequent “visitor” and “friend” of Petraeus who is liason to JSOC for the State Dept.) she thought was showing interest in the General.

And lets be clear. While attractive, Paula Broadwell is no raving beauty. Her husband Dr. Scott could find younger, hotter, tighter nurses without too much trouble. Or flight attendants, or waitresses, or what have you. But a woman with much to lose: two kids, and a husband who makes good money, is handsome, and has other options, will still throw everything over for a few trysts with an Alpha male.

Like a debased currency, modern marriage suffers a body blow the more counterfeits are discovered. “Higher Betas” like the Broadwell husband are likely to opt out. Marriage is a good deal for most men, better than that for women, since they get regular sex and companionship exclusively (that’s the key word, exclusively). More than what most men would get on their own. By contrast, most women find single life better. They can have an Alpha male, and in today’s world raise kids by an Alpha, on their own. With resources from well, other men and women. That’s the model for the Black family: single mother, two or more kids by different (Gangsta) Alpha males. Increasingly this is the model for Whites (Hispanics seemed to tip over that way years ago).

BUT, and the key here is but … the advantage to men lies in exclusive access. A wife who cheats is no better than a whore men pay for all the time. That’s it. And no amount of selling companionship, “that’s the way it is” and other nonsense will make men buy it. Any more than men prefer fat old women to hot young ones. Its hard wired and thus can’t be reprogrammed. Even at that, men balk at women with long sexual histories. Look at porn stars — they end up with wild, unstable men with serious issues. Say, Charlie Sheen.

What is the result?

First, men who have “higher beta status” are likely to form intermittent, non-monogamous, “families” by having kids (for whom they take zero responsibility) with different women. Most of their resources and spending will be on maximizing sexiness, and thus “renting” always the newer models. Like those who constantly lease, not buy, autos. Not much care or commitment will be put into short term leases.

Secondly, the wave of economic failure in the West will create a family crisis. Single motherhood rests on massive welfare transfers that are not sustainable. They are already failing in Greece and will do so inevitably here as well. This is likely to spark confiscatory taxes, and massive, widespread evasion in response. Much of focused on the Black Market. For example, Misha Glenny in “McMafia” estimates that about half the cigarettes sold in the UK are Black Market, with extensive cuts from all sorts of criminal syndicates. Cigarette smuggling is one of the major (along with women) illegal trafficking keeping the Balkan states afloat.

Third, prostitution is likely to become widespread, as desperate single moms sell their bodies to keep afloat, and more and more men see no difference between a housewife and a whore. From both episodes like Broadwell being more and more common, and the simple fact of women selling themselves. Women they likely, know. The term you are looking for is social collapse. This is basically the case in Russia and much of the Eastern European nations save Poland and the Baltics and perhaps the Czech Republic. The Showtime series “Weeds” by posting a variant of that (widow becomes drug dealer and semi-prostitute) is a leading indicator. Women find prostitution “sexy” and don’t object to it being portrayed in a positive manner.

Fourth, a reaction, along the lines of say, Oliver Cromwell, and rigid well, “puritanism” is likely as a measure to stave off collapse. It won’t just be prostitues and johns swept up, but the simplest of pleasures, like whiskey and bacon and other minor vices. Women will be forced out of the public sphere, and into the private one, as a “New Model Army” for the Twentyfirst Century takes over. One marked by fanatical discipline and abhorrence of all that came before it. This could be Wahabbist or Salafist Islam, or something more Western, but decadence breeds fanaticism as surely as weakness breeds aggression.

But for now it is the world of Alpha males, picking and choosing any woman, even a married one, and women. Who can have at any time (provided she’s attractive and younger) the Alpha male of her dreams.

[As for Petraeus, it is reported that the FBI wanted to charge him, before the election, but Obama intervened and made Petraeus say nothing until after the election, then resign with no charges. Clearly, Petraeus is scum personified. He asked and demanded the most restrictive rules of engagement, from the lowest enlisted man, while flagrantly violating the military code of conduct, which expressly forbids adultery. A Captain or Lieutenant under him would have been charged and court-martialed, which the Alpha Male Petraeus skates. Without a care in the world. Not even the loss of his pension. Much less military charges, or those related to being a security risk as head of the CIA fooling around with sex under the desk (shades of Monica) with his married biographer.

I have nothing but loathing and contempt for Petraeus, who like nearly all high ranking Military men are lacking in honor, integrity, discipline, and values they demand from their subordinates.]

About these ads

About whiskeysplace

Conservative blogger focusing on culture, business, technology, and how they intersect.
This entry was posted in beta males, debauchery, decadence, degeneracy, marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Paula and the General: the Road to Slutdom

  1. Opus says:

    Good article, though I am surprised to learn that Adultery is an offence under Military Law. She, however, despite the photos on the Mail (flack-jacket – as she adjusts her make-up etc) is merely a modern day Courtesan.

    • Heil Hizzle says:

      Oral sex is also illegal according to UCMJ. Really, look it up.

      • wolf says:

        Yes for the military member ONLY! So if you are a man in the military and your wife is not, guess what? She can do what she wants and nothing will happen to her. Gotta love equality!

  2. oogenhand says:

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    And formal harems would be a step backward? If Petraeus would be promised captured women, would he refrain from adultery? The New Puritans would agree. Not just Salafism, but also Dual Seedline Christian Identity has designs in that direction.

  3. Mike43 says:

    Opus; you would be surprised for the things that get you in trouble under the UCMJ. It is one of the most harsh codes ever written. The only thing that prevents it from absolute tyranny is the intent of the commander. He has a lot of leeway in the application. That is the only reason that it hasn’t driven the soldiers nuts.

    I’ve seen UCMJ action for weight control, drugs, drinking, DUI’s, sodomy (the old fashioned Male/Female type) (Yes, oral and anal sex is prohibited under the UCMJ.) But like I said, the commander’s interpretation is everything.

    And whiskey’s last paragraph is a gem. And spot on; it always seemed the more gung-ho the general, the sleazier the person.

  4. anonymous says:

    I don’t see Patreaus as an alpha male. Did you hear/read about him sending thousands of emails to the girl after she ended the affair? I think circumstances matter a lot here: she developed a crush on him because her life was consumed by his life (writing his biography) which was amplified by seeing him be “alpha” within the military (its got to be a turn on when every single person says how high before he’s even finished saying jump). He was at first oblivious to her come-ons because he doesn’t have women hit on him, probably ever, then when it became blatant, he rejected her because of usual lame beta reasons like his career, his nation, etc, etc. These two things sent her hamster into OVERDRIVE and she then was able to persuade him. He quickly became obsessed right back.

    The real story to me is whether his wife’s position as “director of servicemember affairs” was given to her by an insider with a sense of humor.

  5. Quartermain says:

    Fred Reed did say that most senior officers are politicians…

    • Heil Hizzle says:

      The Martial spirit ended with Patton, and the military as bureaucracy began with Eisenhower (who was a decent man). Now, it’s all political gamesmanship. Most officers are so afraid of an EO complaint that allowing themselves to be murdered (as in the Fort Hood massacre) is preferable to being accused of Islamaphobia.

  6. robert in arabia says:

    Brave

  7. Doc says:

    “Dr. Scott could find younger, hotter, tighter nurses”

    During the first 10+ yrs of my sex-life I banged women like Broadwell almost exclusively. They were easy, available, and met my primary criteria – lots of sex, and few games. Most women when they hit 40 start craving for a last ditch effort of having a child – why not increase the odds? Study after study has shown that women tend to get pregnant more often when having affairs versus being at home. This is why, I am a strong advocate of DNA testing – I know of several children out there which could be mine, not that it mattered, I was getting what I wanted.

    Now, my age bracket of choice is 18-25 for the same reason I banged older women when I was younger – they crave the illicit nature of things and are always up for sex. Having sex with a man older than her mother is the ultimate form of competition, and it satifies a woman’s need for an Alpha man. Some guys get upset about this – I couldn’t care less. As long as she has her legs spread for me – I don’t care WHY.

    In the above, the husband should kick this b*tch to the curb and get himself one of those younger, sweeter, pieces-o-ass… I love nurses – they take the best care of you. :)

    • josh says:

      I was “in hospital” as the English say recently,and a young Filipiona,as I was awakening from anesthesia,ran her hand up my leg and touched my dick. S’cool,nomesayne?

  8. josh says:

    Beta males will continue doing what they do until there is no more opportunity to do it. This Doctor guy will divorce Broadwell(unless God fucking forbid!!! he for-fucking-gives her!! In which case he should be given sex-reassignment surgery)and immediately marry a (younger?most likely. prettier?Ehhh… woman and throw HER birthdayparties.

  9. josh says:

    Also I am going to say something pretty provocative but,for the sake of his children(do they have any?) should this doctor consider,instead of dee-vorce,an “honor killing”? Do away with ther,hope for a sympathetic jury. But the stain against him will be gone. (THo he will have a whole buncha new problems…)

    • They have two kids, according to the article – and it seems that she was a super-ambitious female-wanting-to-be-alpha-male type – the ones you dread having as a boss; the ones you do NOT want to date – the ones whom EVERY TV show seems to be about….I simply cannot imagine why the husband would have gone for someone like her. He needs to dump her, find himself a nursie and forget all about her.

      • superdestroyer says:

        Doctor have not married nurses for a long time. When physicians marry these days, they marry other doctors, laywers, MBAs, and other professional. Do you really think that someone who fought to get into medical school and complete a residency program is going to want to marry a state university graduate nurse who as a bachelors degree?

        The Broadwell’s marrying is a good example of assortive mating.

  10. matt says:

    I’m not a Puritan by any measure but can’t help feeling some schadenfreude (even though I don’t know Broadwell) at the public humiliation of Broadwell after reading about her acting without impunity; doing things like dressing provocatively in a war zone (because she was Paul fucking broadwell donchaknow)
    She probably loved every second of the monkey circus that is the Daily Show with Jon Stewart.
    As for Petraeus, I can’t help it. I see him as the savior of Iraq. He didn’t have a chance to change McChrystal’s population centric COIN strategy in Afghanistan b/c of the heavier political pressure. I hope he runs for office as a Republican in a year, probably a governorship and then President.
    If you know anything about Petraeus, no doubt that he was highly attracted to Broadwell, both have been accused of having too much ambition (Petraeus married the Superintendent’s daughter at West Point etc., derided as a kiss ass etc.)

    • Toddy cat says:

      Obviously, Petreus f***ed up big-time, in a particularly stupid way, but I wouldn’t dismiss him so quickly. Michael Yon and a lot of other guys who were actually in Iraq had a lot of respect for him, and that’s not nothing. His greatest mistake was taking the CIA Directorship under a man like Obama. Of course Obama threw him under the bus the second he became inconvenient and things got tough – why would he ever have expected anything different?

      • My understanding is VERY limited but once one rises to the position of General or Admiral, the ‘political’ nature of the job can be directly at odds with the skill set that gets one to that point – Petraeus may be deeply skilled with regards to commanding troops in OOTW, but when it comes to dealing with members of Congress, persuasion of a very different nature is required – much like being a top ER surgeon and MANAGING ER surgeons. At least that is my take away.

        And another thing – the ROE are, to the best of my limited knowledge, aimed at preventing civilian casualties, which in Iraq and Afghanistan can be VERY counterproductive to the broader effort. Anyone care to comment on that one?

      • anonymous says:

        Yeah I’ll comment Peter. FUCK Iraqi/Afghan civilians and FUCK “the broader effort”.

        The real broader effort is to get a whole lot of white boys killed. That’s what the ROE are designed to do, to make our boys sitting ducks and easy kills.

      • dcanaday says:

        In conventional warfare, the goal is to destroy the enemy military and/or hold terrain. The civilian population is usually in the way. When fighting an insurgency, however, the civilian population is the terrain. The goal is to win them over to your side. This often means rules of engagement that can be very frustrating to line soldiers. If you forget this, however, the civilian population will support the insurgents. They will be their commissary, their intelligence base and will provide them with eager new recruits. The insurgents simply cannot survive without the support of the people. Thus, we often will pass up on a chance to take out some insurgents if there is any risk to the local population. Again, this is very frustrating. Sometimes it means we take risks that we would not in a conventional fight. Sometimes the soldier on the ground has worked hard to position himself to provide an opportunity to the commander, and then the commander won’t OK any kinetic action. I’ve heard these complaints myself. I agree with the restrictive ROE though. You simply WILL NOT win if you don’t get the people on your side. If you are not willing to do what you must to win, then just give up and go home.

  11. matt says:

    Sorry, that should be acting with impunity

  12. asdf says:

    The Commander in Chief is a politician civilian. Should we be surprised who rises up the ranks in such an organization.

    Anyone who rises to a high government post is corrupt.

  13. Paula isn’t my cup of poison; but the first time I saw her pic I thought instantly of heartiste’s equation of the cokewhore=c*ckwhore stare. That glazed, venom-stung glare! She’s a hardass, half-man creature, built like an amazon but more forward. Petraeus’s power alone would’ve intoxicated her; but the sense of competition, of being equalled and *mastered*, must’ve been insanely intoxicating for her.

    At the same time– if new details about her facebook stream are correct, this girl’s been blabbing national secrets loverboy’s been blabbing to her. Are we to believe the Benghazi “consulate” was also a CIA black site? If true, could this leak be the spark that finally sends Benghazigate to the front of the national consciousness and sends Obama toward impeachment?

    Petraeus may be intellectually brilliant, and the Iraqi surge was doubtless better than the interminable status quo he inherited. But I can’t feel too sorry for him. He is a political animal, slimy as Whiskey suggests; and tho I’m no paleocon I sure as heck can’t see him as (according to his partisans) a man who’s “won” two wars.

    All the same– if this lunacy is what helps us get to the twisted truth behind Obama’s derelictions of duty, this sad adultery could be a very fortunate fall for the body politic.

    • Just my marginally informed opinion, but winning a war is not a necessary precondition for resolving conflict. It may be highly desirable – but as long as military effort prevents the formation of a coalition against the ‘global order’ (remember, a five word phrase described the West’s post-war approach to preventing another crisis/war – Prosperity at home, prosperity abroad) winning is not necessary; simply frustrating the efforts of the other side – witness Nixon going to China – made them less of an enemy to us, and more of a counterpoint to the Russians during the Cold War. Had the Russians and the PRC found common cause against the USA/West Europe, history might have been markedly different.

    • dcanaday says:

      Here’s why I don’t feel sorry for him. There is no reason to. I really don’t think he will be prosecuted for anything. While he did lose a job he enjoyed, there are still many opportunities out there for him. Oh by the way, he is also a retired four star with a pretty sweet pension. He will have to fix things up with his wife (or not, this could end in divorce and he will be free) and his kids. In the end, he will be just fine. I find it very difficult to feel sorry for people who have it so much better then myself, just because it is less than what they wanted.

  14. robert123 says:

    … and the Muslims do not like the idea of their woman turning in to Pauls Broadwells. Yet they are the ones who are called backward.

    • fakeemail says:

      Trust me, we don’t want to model ourselves after Muslims on anything. . .they’re freakin’ stoneage nuts!

      But your point is well taken. The men who CONTROL their reproductive resources (ie women) by whatever means will ultimately be the people who are around for the future.

  15. elmer says:

    John T. Reed explains the selection process for generals here :

    http://www.johntreed.com/tournament.html

  16. Mike says:

    Petraeus is a political animal, I do agree with Lucius on that. I’ve met officers who served with him when he was a junior officer and he was political even at that level. He had a large number of assignments as aides to General officers. Those are not exactly the preparation for a war time military commander. However, in the position, Petraeus turned out to be great for the job and turned around a sure defeat in Iraq to a victory. That means something.

    However, adultery is a crime under the UCMJ, and I’ve no doubt Petraeus ended the career of many an officer and NCO who did the same thing that Petraeus did.

    • dcanaday says:

      He probably did. However, he also had very little choice in the matter, especially if there are complaints from spouses. (There have been plenty of situations where the offender was given the opportunity to end the relationship and sin no more.) In these situations, the commander has to enforce the law regardless of whether or not he agrees with it. Not all marriages are made in heaven and not all cheaters are dirt bags. Some cheat on their wives like it was a hobby, but there are certainly situations where the wife is the one with the issues and the husband reacts by getting love and affection from someone else. I’m not saying it is right, but it is very human. Petraeus may have felt just as I do on the subject for all we know, but complaining spouses simply cannot be ignored.

  17. fakeemail says:

    I’m not ready to call Petraeus a scumbag; especially if Broadwell was the only broad he ever had an affair with.

    Think about it from his POV: he is a hugely famous and respected man. So many subordinates that he outranks. . .and he sees so many of them going home with tight and hot wives. While he, the boss, goes home with a matronly lady who looks like she could be his mother. It must have embarrassed and infuriated him. Like it undermined his authority, even, in his own subconscious.

    That fact must have driven him nuts; at least as much as the outright come-ons from a very attractive female admirer.

    Regardless, I don’t weep for any of them. Petraeus, the doctor, and the broad will all be high and dry in the end. But what about the betas who are not doctors or lawyers? How in the fuck are *they* supposed to get any play or marriage in this goddamn day and age? They have to resort to listening to a tall freak in magician’s hate; unfortunately. And that is just no way to live!

  18. Dan Kurt says:

    Want to know the problem with the officer Corps of the US Military–all Branches? Read the following book: The Path to Victory: America’s Army and the Revolution in Human Affairs by
    Donald Vandergriff, ISBN-10: 0891417664, ISBN-13: 978-0891417668, 2002.

    Dan Kurt

    • josh says:

      WE gotta read a book? Uhmm in lieu of that couldnt you drop a nugget or two and just at least give us a taste of what old Donald is cookin’??

      • Dan Kurt says:

        If you have been an Officer in the Military as have I, the book is a must read to show why the American Officer Corps is run by such mediocre individuals. I was a Navy Lt. 03 when I left the service but had a uniform experience of being out ranked by not the best of the best but by less than the best. I got out in 1970 and have discussed the situation with many, many former junior officers over the years who all have agreed that they had similar experiences to mine.

        If you have not been in the military, the book will explain how officer promotion works. The author shows that NO OBJECTIVE TESTING OF AN OFFICER”S KNOWLEDGE, WORK HABITS, CHARACTER, THINKING ABILITY, DECISION MAKING, LEADERSHIP and many other factors go into the decision for promotion of an officer. The fitness report of one’s direct superior is nearly the only factor that is taken into consideration.

        Dan Kurt

    • Mike says:

      I don’t need to read yet another book to know what’s wrong with the Officer Corps. At least in the Army the Officer Evaluation Report is a zero defect document. If you’ve had a failure at a mission, regardless of cause or reason, your career is pretty much toast. This encourages risk averse officers. Their goal is to not make mistakes, not to be good leaders, accomplish the mission, take care of their troops, or win the war.

  19. whorefinder says:

    It’s sad, but a small part of me was happy the military had a semi-attractive groupie fighting with another. Made a nice break from the nigger-fuckers who worship the NBA and hip-hop.

  20. Demosophist says:

    Strictly speaking he didn’t violate the military code of conduct because he wasn’t in the military at the time. Just pointing it out.

  21. samsonsjawbone says:

    Doctor have not married nurses for a long time. When physicians marry these days, they marry other doctors, laywers, MBAs, and other professional. Do you really think that someone who fought to get into medical school and complete a residency program is going to want to marry a state university graduate nurse who as a bachelors degree?

    This is true (I wrote about it here, trying to figure it out). It’s counterintuitive to me – if you’re a successful man who can afford one, why on earth don’t you want a traditional wife who will concentrate on keeping your home and family? But the SWPL set values (is taught to value) other things these days.

    • superdestroyer says:

      What is counter intuitive about someone who has survived a very Darwinian career process to want to marry someone else who survived the process. Then maybe their kids will get into Harvard and get even more successful.

      When credential are everything, someone with credentials is going to marry some one else with credentials. Most physicians would be embarassed to have a stay at home wife. Everyone would assumed the physician with such a wife is either Mormon or a religious fanatic.

    • whorefinder says:

      I think it’s a lot of conscious propaganda by SWPLs.

      Religious propaganda for centuries steered people towards certain social behaviors, and secular rulers for centuries were also strongly concerned with the effects of art on positive social behavior. “Censorship”, though a dirty word nowadays, was considered a positive thing for most societies at most times; the idea that novels, plays, paintings, and movies could negatively influence social behavior was believed. As do I: look at how proles today imitate the behavior seen in rap music videos and ghetto-sitcoms.

      Now, SWPL entertainment for the last few decades has strongly insulted men who marry “below” their station, as well as promoting “smart, confident” women as the ideal, and marriages being “partnerships.” Many SWPLs have bought into this; thus, they shun the hotter young secretary for an older, wisened bitch for marriage for propaganda purposes.

      As to why SWPLs promote this and degrade the other, its another whole discussion.

  22. shiva1008 says:

    I don’t think you should be calling Scott Broadwell a loser. He’s obviously successful in his work and has helped a lot of people in his life. By calling him a loser, you’re basically buying in to women’s frame.

    You think that if a man is not successful with women, he is a loser. So basically you still have not transcended feminist thinking because you still bow to the female imperative. And that goes for 99% of other bloggers in the manosphere as well.

    According to your way of thinking, women still have all the power because it is ultimately they who decide which men are worthy and which are not. By buying into this ideology and using this type of language you are simply reinforcing their supremacy.

    • Shiva makes a great point. Girls in high school want to date the captain of the football team, not because they know or care about football, but because all the other guys want to be him. Women like the men that other men admire and want to be like. They also want nothing to do with the men that other men look down on. By calling him and other accomplished, intelligent people “betas,” we are encouraging women to make bad choices.

Comments are closed.