This post is part of the ongoing Alphabet Series. Listen along to my recording on YouTube and/or read the article below ♥♀

Back in the late 1930’s, Swiss-American pulp fiction writer, Georges Surdez, first popularized the term ‘Russian Roulette’ to describe a very risky game of chance involving a single bullet, a gun to the head, and the precious and fascinating male brain in the throes of excitement, fear, and stupidity. The writer had indicated in notes and interviews that the practice he had put a name to had begun with the Russian army, but like with many beliefs, especially about history, there is no irrefutable proof of origin. There are however, references to similar gun-to-head practices in Russian literature, namely in 1840 by Mikhail Lermontov and later in 1913 by Alexander Grin (Grinevsky). Following the American popularizing of the game in books and film, Russian Roulette became both a proof of masculinity and a frightening and strange method of male suicide. For the purposes of this article, the history is rather unimportant as is listing and crying about all the dumb-ass males who died as a result of engaging in gun-play. The take-away here, in my opinion, is that risk-taking, and especially high-stakes risk-taking, are seen as a mark of masculinity and even bravery. Russian Roulette is only one of many practices that males, including male children, concoct and carry out in order to prove they are male. They do it without a thought to outcome, especially that of cleaning up the mess in the aftermath, paying the bills for any damages, and taking care of them in a wounded or permanently disabled state when things go wrong. You just don’t hear stories of women and girls doing the kinds of dumb shit that men and boys do unless they are influenced by males and end up along for the ride to prove loyalty or love. Males risking their lives by doing dumb shit or even doing socially-approved dangerous stuff will often end up rescued and taken care of by females, so they don’t actually need to think about potential outcomes for their dumbassery. Women usually aren’t so lucky, though and perhaps that is part of why we don’t see them playing Russian Roulette, setting their farts on fire, or jumping off roofs into piles of leaves or snow, etc.

The assumption is that females are not risk-takers of either the stupid or the potentially big pay-off varieties, and females are almost never seen to be brave or heroic – the one major exception being engaging in pregnancy and motherhood, which is actually neither brave nor heroic. We just say it’s brave in order to keep women in their assigned roles as breeding machines.

But I’m going to argue here that women are, in fact, bigger risk-takers than men, that their biggest risks are far dumber than men’s risks because there are mountains of data to back up the odds of death and destruction, and that the biggest risks they take are part of their own special version of what I’ll call Russian Roul-het. The major difference between male and female risks is that males make up their own games, while females continue to engage in survival behaviour that used to be forced on them throughout history, but that isn’t actually required to survive anymore. And the fact that the risk-taking is no longer forced makes it the dumbest risk-taking of all.

So what is female Russian Roul-het? Well, it is the heterosexual contract that outlines the transactional exchange of female sexual and domestic services for male money and protection. The perpetual transaction underlies an entire lifestyle that today’s women willingly seek out, sign up for, and refuse to give up even after it goes horribly wrong. Men designed this forced contract long ago, and as a result, it is so ingrained in all societies that even as times have changed, this area of social and economic traditions has remained relatively intact. In the past, girls grew up knowing that they had no choice but to marry and essentially become a domestic prostitute, servicing one male. A paltry few might somehow find their way into spiritual and psychological prostitution to a god. And a significant, unfortunate minority ended up in public prostitution, servicing any and all males. And of course, there were anomalies every so often who didn’t fit into a lady-category and escaped all forms of prostitution. But of the three main categories, all but the first option usually led to poverty and the occasional rich courtesan doesn’t negate this rule, by the way. Marriage didn’t guarantee wealth and security, but the false belief was created that it did and that it allowed women to fulfill their true purpose – breeding – in safety. And of course, despite the complacency and acceptance of many caged birds all over the world, history is also filled to the brim with women trapped in dangerous, inescapable marriage prisons, unable to earn their own money; dead at the hands of husbands or in childbirth; or thrown into poverty after the untimely death of their owner. The stories and statistics have mostly remained untold and thus erased from history. It is easy for all to pretend it didn’t exist and that the heterosexual contract was largely good for women.

It is only recently that in most places, women have achieved the freedom to reject it all, live as adults instead of dependent halflings, and actually contribute meaningfully to society through paid work. Of course, despite this relatively new freedom and the ability to support themselves, most women still choose one of these paths deeply rooted in female slavery. It is the mark of the continued and very successful colonization and brainwashing of females that women haven’t come to understand their shared and tragic history and run screaming through the open doors of their cages. Many women do realize that is it harder in many ways to live separately from men and to reject the trappings of femininity, and will rationalize their lifestyle choices in a variety of ways in order to reap the benefits of heterosexuality and fit into mainstream society. Some will even pretend that women are equal now and will choose to financially support male partners while still providing the sexual, domestic and emotional services that women traditionally offered in a heterosexual transaction. So if you think about it, many men are getting more out of marriage now than they ever used to, except perhaps the ego boost or power trip of having a woman fully under his control in all ways.

Yet despite these changes to the fabric of society, female Roul-het is probably the riskiest and deadliest game around. It is confusing and frankly, a little boring to talk about domestic abuse statistics because no one is actually interested in understanding what they really mean or changing the system that supports male power. Yet, they are talked about constantly. Everyone knows what a women’s shelter is, even if they’ve never visited one. Every one of us has known an abused woman. Many of us come from families where violence, psychological, or sexual abuse occurred. And everyone accepts it. If we didn’t accept it as a society, we’d obliterate heterosexuality and marriage and perhaps even men themselves. Instead, we pretend male violence happens to ‘someone else’. Mothers pretend it won’t happen to their daughters and dream of weddings and grandchildren, and daughters can’t imagine that their future husbands would ever do something horrible to them. There are handfuls here and there around the world of mostly heterosexual women who call themselves feminists who pretend that male violence can be somehow eliminated through education and correct parenting and government programs. And then we continue to fund shelters, and rape crisis centres, and anger management programs for violent men. And magically the statistics never go down. Girls keep dating boys and women keep marrying men. And the police, doctors, and social workers are kept in business dealing with the outcomes of male love.

Let’s put this in perspective. If you play the male version of Russian Roulette, you put a single bullet in a gun’s 6-bullet chamber, give it a spin, put it to your head, and pull the trigger, you have a 17% chance of doing some damage to your head and perhaps even dying from it. If you play the female version of Russian Roul-het – in other words, get with a male though dating, common-law partnership or marriage, there is at least a 27% chance and upwards of a 44% chance (if you include more types of abuse) of experiencing physical, sexual and/or psychological violence in that relationship. Male partner violence is the leading cause of injury to women – more than car accidents and violent crimes committed by strangers combined. Now personally, I haven’t met a practising straight woman who hasn’t experienced abuse from a male, and included in this mountain of women are highly educated, highly independent, and highly intelligent people. It doesn’t make a difference. Myself, if I were a betting woman, and I’m not, AND I could separate the ick factor from the odds in both situations, I’d feel safer putting a gun to my head than I would getting intimately involved with a male. Them’s the data. You cannot argue with raw crime data, and even with self-report data that I believe are very low for obvious reasons. Regardless, they are available on numerous websites for any and all women and girls to see. But women stubbornly hold the false believe that they are safe with men, thanks to a lifetime of brainwashing through family, school, and entertainment.

Now you tell me, who takes more unnecessary and stupid risks: men or women? And here is an added bonus question. If you were to consider investing in the stock market, would you plunk your life savings down without doing research into the history of the stock, the rate of return on investment, whether the stock is high or low risk, etc? No, of course not. So why would you enter a potentially fatal and very possibly dangerous and soul-destroying situation without doing your research – or even worse, knowing and ignoring the risk based on years of historical data? It boggles the mind, but you have to admire the fact that the heterosexual lifestyle was one of the most successful schemes cooked up by men to this date.

♀️ If you care to support Story Ending Never, we are appreciative. ⚢

Yes, he hit me
And it felts like a kiss
He hit me
And I knew I loved him
And then he took me in his arms
With all the tenderness there is
And when he kissed me
He made me his

He Hit Me (And It Felt Like a Kiss) written by Gerry Goffin and Carole King for the Crystals in 1962