grerp has an outstanding post titled More on Susan Walsh vs Friedman and Marcotte, where she describes the gradually changing landscape for women due to the sexual revolution:
In 1965 you could get a husband without sleeping with someone
In 1975 you could get a fiance without sleeping with someone
In 1985 you could get a boyfriend without sleeping with someone
In 1995 you could get a date without sleeping with someone
In 2010 you’re lucky to get a phone number if you don’t have sex first.
The irony of course is that feminists created this sort of inflation when they pushed for the sexual revolution. They saw women’s sexual power as a coin the patriarchy was preventing women from spending. Feminists took the tack of a young child: “I never get to have any fun!” As a result they inadvertently flooded the market, devaluing the coin of women’s sexual power.
A group of women in New York City who want to marry bankers has recognized the cost of this devaluation of women’s sexual power. Even though they have likely lived anything but a traditional life, they want a return to tradition when it comes to marrying rich men. As a result they repeat the old saying “why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free”. They yearn for a simpler time, when golddigging was easier. They explain in their post titled Sexual Revolution and Feminist: Wrong. Grandma: Right.
Just think about it. What if every single woman out there stopped having sex. No more one night stands. No more casual hook-ups. No more f*ck buddies. No more ex-sex. No more let’s start having sex and if it’s good then attempt to backtrack into a relationship. The boys of New York would have to start working for it!
Closing their legs until the cows come home.
They are proposing a sort of cartel, which allows women to collectively hold out for a better deal. This same model has worked quite well for OPEC, allowing oil producers to fetch a much higher price than they otherwise would receive. However cartels need moral or legal force to be effective. Otherwise everyone will encourage everyone else to hold out while they sell for whatever they can get. I’ll use the example of our golddigging friends in NYC to illustrate.
Lets say these women are serious, and decide to form a union (a form of cartel). They will need a suitably union sounding name if anyone is going to take them seriously. I propose: Women Holding Out for Relationship Equity. But there are other women having sex with bankers out there, so we need to identify them as well. These women aren’t in it for the money, but for the pure enjoyment of the sex and the ability to exercise their sexual power. Lets call them Sisters Lusting for Unlimited Titillation. To save space, I’ll refer to each group via their acronym in the rest of the post.
So lets say the WHOREs call a city wide sex strike. Do you think the SLUTs are going to take this lying down? Of course not! They’ll just enter into a backdoor agreement with the bankers and continue as usual. In addition, not all of the WHOREs will honor the strike. Some will claim they will honor the strike (lie) and then secretly cheat on the agreement. Thats right: lying cheating WHOREs. So if you are a banker, you have all of the SLUTS and lying cheating WHOREs you can handle. This naturally will bring the golddigging WHOREs to their knees.
What the golddigging WHOREs need is a method to enforce the strike. Labor unions use a combination of social pressure and legal protection to achieve this. However, the WHOREs are not in a good position to try to shame the SLUTs, so they probably won’t get enough social sympathy to enforce the strike or have the laws changed. After all, most of the WHOREs were in all likelyhood SLUTs until very recently, and as I mentioned earlier many of them are actually lying cheating WHOREs. More importantly, feminists have been very successful in creating an aversion to shaming SLUTs. Not too long ago shaming SLUTs was commonplace. But now as a blogger with a diverse audience I for example wouldn’t consider using slut shaming language, even to make a point. Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.
It is important to note that not all women are golddiging WHOREs, lying cheating WHOREs, or SLUTs. There is another category which is often overlooked in the manosphere. These women understand that marriage is something much more than a vulgar economic transaction, and they take it very seriously. Unfortunately as we saw in the beginning of the post, these women can end up paying a price for the actions of the SLUTs and the WHOREs.
Cows pic from Wikipedia Commons.
This post is perfection.
Nailed it.
Search engine + case insensitivity == win.
Cf. Lawrence Waterhouse’s theory of the Ejaculation Control Conspiracy in Cryptonomicon, a book with a strong subtheme contrasting fertility and contraception.
Hilarious, and true!
On a related note, I’ve long thought that the idea of the sex strike against warmongering, as in the fictional ancient Greek narrative Lysistrata by Aristophanes (which I admittedly haven’t read, but understand the jist of it), is rather unrealistic, because even if you could get all wives / girlfriends to close their legs until the men stop fighting, there would always be sluts and whores to break the strike. I suppose, though, that Aristophanes was counting on pedestalization, slut-shaming and whore-shaming, to make the effect of sluts and whores negligible.
A return to traditional girl game, a la The Rules. Hilarious that the article is on a site devoted to bagging rich men.
Too bad for them that strategy only works among average men, who have to do the chasing. Trying to hold out on a rich man will merely get them removed from his A list.
Really displays a shocking failure to grasp the realities of the dating marketplace. Perhaps as girls, they are really ignorant of how slutty women get in the presence of wealth?
I’ve read mixed things about rich men. Some say they can’t get girls and have to attend game seminars despite their riches. Others say they can go through girls like tissue. Whichever one is the case, it’s fairly clear that men in general don’t like golddiggers, though they do like hot women and lots of sex. They also want to be genuinely loved not for their utility, but for their (perhaps difficult to define) instrinsic person. They don’t really want to give up one or the other.
So this is one thing women can offer in addition to sex — love. Instead of milk, perhaps it is more like water. People like milk, but it can go bad, sometimes you’re just not in the mood for it, or it’s not as tasty depending on the quality. But water, like love, is basically essential. If a person never has any love, from family, friends, or animal pets, that person can wither away and slowly become crazy. A woman who can offer a refreshing, endless supply of pure clean water (in addition to milk) is much special than the woman who can only offer milk.
Is this a good analogy? Or am I totally out of my mind?
Dalrock, you’ve outdone yourself. This is pure gold. You are one creative dude. I actually toyed with this idea of a cartel, calling it The Lysistrata Project. As you say, it’s not feasible. However, it might be a good publicity stunt at some point….
ROFL!
Thanks!
I look forward to your take on this if you decide to do one. There is plenty of material to go around I think. Check out the comment section of that post if you want more material. Unbelievable stuff!
So this is one thing women can offer in addition to sex — love.
Absolutely.
I’ve argued before that a man is better off marrying a 6 who loves him than a 9 who doesn’t. I also think that once a man has experienced being loved by a woman he won’t settle for less (at least in a LTR). In addition to sex and love, there is another piece to the puzzle though, and that is trustworthiness. Marriage is such a legal disaster for men that this is more important than ever.
So there is a paradox here. The WHOREs and SLUTs make it harder for women in general, but at the same time cause high quality women to be even greater in demand.
The Lysistrata Project!! HA! Once again, Susan, great minds think alike.
As Dalrock might recall, I advised a girl called Rebellious Vanilla over at Roissy’s to get out of her bf’s bed and tell her friends to “go Lysistrata”as well. While it may be unrealistic in terms of strkebreakers and their effect on the SMP, women can at least save themselves from being used.
BTW, I can attest personally that saving it for a committed realtionship can indeed get you married to someone who will eventually become a top executive in the finance industry. 😉 Of course, I didn’t know what he’d become when I made that decision. We just both knew that we were into something too important to complicate with premature sex. (I recently described my first meeting my husband as love at first sight followed by a first date seven months later.)
On a more serious level, I think it’s important for a woman to safeguard her health and emotions in relationships, not to hold out in order to get something material from a man. Withholding sex won’t make a man love a woman. It’ll just keep her from heartbreak, HPV infection, unwanted pregnancy, etc
I think that Hope says it best when she talks about love. In this post-feminist era, all men and women really have to offer each other is love.
The social pathologist has a fascinating post on how partner count predicts stable marriage. I think that is yet one more reason for women to take sex seriously.
On the topic of love, while I certainly agree, I think there is a paradox there as well. I’m very adamant that a man shouldn’t marry unless both are head over heels in love. But I also think a man shouldn’t marry a woman who thinks marriage is all about love.
@Dalrock
Many ordinary women have come to see an insult to sluts as an insult to all women.
On the net, I’m probably one of those women. IRL, not so much. It’s mostly because I see PUA’s categorizing women as sluts as a way of justifying their own bad behavior.
Thanks for the much needed laugh, Dalrock! This was so clever, I had to post and link it myself!
Well done, sir!
That daba site really turned my stomach. Not a lot of pussy footing around there; they openly spell “MAN” the alternative way – “ATM.” Let’s all sign up for a bank card, shall we?
As you say, cartels do not work unless you can and will ruthlessly control the supply which can’t and won’t be done in our current society. I think these women are a little shaky on their Econ 101.
Thanks for the linkage and the compliment, Dalrock. 🙂
Dalrock:
This was an excellent post and very funny.
But I think you, Susan, and these women are overlooking a huge elephant in the room:
Marriage 2.0
Right now , it seems alot of women would love to get men to commit. Yet the risks are just too great for quite a substantial minority of men to even consider it. For the really desireable men, sex is still readily available and will likely remain so no matter what. That leaves the “average guy” or perhaps lower level PUA types. What do they get from women who don’t put out? Nothing. What do women bring to the table? The only two things that women have to offer men these days besides sex are love and babies. Quite a few women don’t want babies or will put off having them until later in the marriage – which means if the marriage is relatively short lived, it would have all been for naught on that account. Meanwhile “love” is often fickle, often confused with infatuation, and I really wonder if quite a few women are incapable of loving these days or really understand what it means.
Quite a few men are going ghost or foreign by choice. Quite a few men, esp in their twenties /early 30’s aren’t getting any sex now. What makes women think they will willingly play the role of suitor later, simply because women are harder to fuck? If I’m not getting any now, and if my girlfriend tries to pull some sort of ridiculous wait until we are married stuff -esp. if I know she has had a premiscuous past – I’m going to throw her out, and throw her newly found “virtue” back at her.
It is of course unrealistic but not because of this:
“I suppose, though, that Aristophanes was counting on pedestalization, slut-shaming and whore-shaming, to make the effect of sluts and whores negligible.”
but,
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AllWomenAreLustful
also,
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LysistrataGambit
The social pathologist has a fascinating post on how partner count predicts stable marriage.
I’m sure that’s true, but not because correlation equals causality. People with high partners counts probably lack the values that lead to a good marriage in the first place.
But I also think a man shouldn’t marry a woman who thinks marriage is all about love.
I agree that marriage is about more than love, but I’m interested in how you’d expand that idea.
Love is the ineffable quality that it’s hard to find and hard to replicate.
Offer this to a man, and he may melt.
I’m not sure we do it to justify our bad behavior – actually, we feel no need to justify our behavior at all. It just is. It’s *our* behavior, hence no moral authority required.
But – we do judge other women based on their behavior. It’s just instinctive. I can’t help myself.
I’ve never had a woman say to me – you’re such a slut. Whatever I did before I met her, I’m automatically forgiven for; but cheat on her now, … at least, in the wrong way – and I’m toast.
The truth is more stark. Women want me to be experienced but willing to commit to them. I want women to be, … experienced, … but not too much.
That’s just instinct.
Yeah, the daba site was both disguting and laughable. I was particularly amused by the gal who said, “We are HUMAN beings, with feelings. . . We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing. We see you can go out and get drunk with your stupid friends, so why can’t you be nice to us? You are silly adolescents, not men.”
My husband had never taken my skiing? Do you think I have a legitimate grievance there? LOL.
Why not just stop banging drunks? Is everyone on this earth an idiot? It can’t be that. I know literally no one IRL with these sorts of self-created problems, but people like this abound on the internet.
I think you protest too much, Gorby. You personally may be among the more civilized PUAs at CR, but read your compadres. They justifying some truly horrifying behvior with the notion that all women are drama-loving, hypergamous sluts. Yes, the daba post proves that such women exist, but there are plenty of sites on the net run by women with radically different worldviews. And there are plenty of real life women living perfectly average lives who neither fit the profile or garner your attention.
Pingback: Word Around the Campfire – the Cheerleader edition « Hidden Leaves
What you say is true – there are lots of women who aren’t like this at all. But they contain within them the elements that make others so. And some of the worst cheaters are bona-fide beta men, who seem so trustable. My ex-wife, for example, was one of these not-bad women; actually, I have nothing against her, at least now. Besides, she’s my age (halfway from my mid-30’s to my 40’s, which is a daunting deadline, really), and single and bitter about it. She hates men and thinks we’re all terrible. She left a marriage because she needed personal fulfillment. She wanted more exciting men, not even necessarily sex, just more excitement, more tingle. And off she went. Alas, … she got what she asked for.
I’ve known a lot of other women who weren’t like this, too. There was one that still breaks my heart. She was truly genuine. To this day, I regret not pursuing something permanent, in a way; she was broken by the experience, and the irony is: I couldn’t be with her because I thought she was too young (11 years younger than me). Now, that wouldn’t phase me. Then, it clouded the issue. Since then, she hasn’t dated, really, I learned last fall. Shattered. I have trouble looking at myself in the mirror over it, though my behavior was absolutely above-board.
So there are some. But in club-college lala land that is modern dating for the average 20-30 year-old PUA? Don’t fool yourself. Hang out in Boston or NYC or DC or LA or Chicago: These girls play musical beds, and have more sexual partners by the age of 30 than most men born in the 1950’s ever had in their entire lifetimes, maybe a couple times more.
I’m not talking about Scranton NJ, of course. I mean the big cities. Big city girls just let the juices flow.
So – while I agree with you, there are some true gems out there and I’m the first to credit them (and *not* take advantage of them, unless I’m feeling particularly weak), there aren’t as many as you think. And others are easily converted.
BTW, I always gave this advice to men in Korea: Don’t touch the conservative ones. 50% of the women are as loose as a pair of shoes 3 sizes too big. The other 50% are strictly conservative. I always thought deflowering them was a social crime. Unless you wanted to keep them.
I wish women would really go through with this, just because it would be such a grand show. *grabs some popcorn*
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Still Playing Catch-Up Edition (NSFW)
Dalrock, you rock. You nailed it and, in addition, you made me laugh.
cartels do not work unless you can and will ruthlessly control the supply which can’t and won’t be done in our current society.
Exactly, Grerp. This cartel was enforced repressing sexuality (mostly female sexuality because of the gatekeeper thing but also male sexuality) with every means possible. For example:
– Not having contraceptives. You can’t have a number like 20 or 30 sex partners without contraceptives. You would get pregnant much earlier (partner number one, two or three). Your attractive decreases with the pregnancy and number of children. In a traditional society, sluts were the women who went with three or four men, not 30 (I will call these women “patriarchy sluts”, although today they would be considered as “chaste traditional conservative girls”).
– Marriage as the only relationship allowed. You could have sex with someone other than your spouse, but it had to be very hidden (which was difficult because of the lack of contraceptives). If you got caught, the stigma will follow you all your life.
– Not having divorce. At least in my country, during the patriarchy, if you married a man or a woman, you were not allowed to reenter the marriage market, distorting it with the easy sex you give in order to attract your next husband.
This reduced slutdom in a great extent. However, it was not enough. It was necessary to also discourage patriarchy sluts. A set of measures achieved that:
– Religion. God will punish you if you have extramarital relationships. My mother confessed to a priest every time she kissed my father (her only boyfriend), although they only had sex after marriage (very little and very unsatisfying sex, I had to say).
– Sex as dirty. Women were brainwashed by priests and society that sex was the dirty thing they have to endure from men. I call this “mental clitoridectomy” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clitoridectomy). The aim (like real clitoridectomy) was to decrease sexual desire in women so they didn’t base their behavior on the tingle and they could get more in exchange of their sexuality. That is, to be more WHOREs and less SLUTs.
– Stigma for sluts and single moms. Nobody wanted to marry a slut. Other women saw sluts ending up alone and learned the lesson. In times of my grandmother, even women who had dated ONE man before (without having sex) were considered “touched women” and were not considered “marriage material”.
– Women not working. If you need a man to raise a child and not being poor, you will be careful not to get pregnant from a married man, irresponsible man, man you don’t know, foreigners, etc.
This way very few women were willing to break the cartel. However, there was a last escape valve if everything failed (and it restricted male sexuality not female sexuality):
– Shotgun marriages (in my childhood this expression was commonplace, now it is rare) Men were forced by society to marry the woman who they had impregnated. So they had also incentives not to indulge in casual sex. And, even if everything failed, every child were guaranteed a mother and a father (remember that divorce didn’t existed back then).
A feminist once said: “When you see all the legal, social and cultural measures used to repress female sexuality, you have the impression that people wanted to tame an amazingly mighty force”. Indeed. Raw sexual instincts would devolve us to the African savannah society. To try to tame biology, you have to repress, repress and repress.
This was the patriarchy, at least in my Catholic country. These were the measures that produced the unnatural cartel in female sexuality. This cartel produced civilization as we know it.
Contraceptives, sexual revolution and feminism removed all the measures to repress female sexuality. Now we have free female sexuality. Trying to establish these measures again is impossible. When you burn a paper, you can’t have your paper back out of the ashes. There are processes that can’t be turned back. Our civilization will be replaced by others that repress female sexuality (Islam in Europe), the ones that have not been that foolish to free women to follow their instincts.
Yeah, … Grerp, you may be fine and decent, but the social situation now isn’t conducive to men taking the plunge happily.
Great post and great comments. I am adding this site to my favourites.
How did I miss this one? It is very good, Dalrock. Priceless, I’d say.
At the risk of possibly offending some of my more rigid sisters, I am adding it to my delicious list.
Thanks! Glad you enjoyed it. Ironically it is the more rigid sisters I’m arguing for in the post, but I do see your point.
Pingback: The curse of female power | Dalrock
Pingback: Girl power! | Dalrock
Pingback: Brutal quote on marriage 2.0 | Dalrock
Pingback: Marriage strike? | Dalrock
Pingback: Romance as a form of male investment. | Dalrock
Pingback: Sex Cartel! « Traditional Catholicism
Pingback: A LTR is not a mini marriage. | Dalrock
Pingback: Economics of sex | Dalrock
I started laughing like hell at the WHORE and SLUT groups! Great job!
Pingback: Defining sluthood | Dalrock
Pingback: Stirring the Pot with The Private Man « Gabbing Girls
If only the guys would respond by forming their own cartel. Since the girls are not putting out, the guys should not buy them stuff, open doors, look at them or watch them – etc etc. Deny them *male attention*, and see who cracks first.
Pingback: Manosphere « Gabbing Girls?
Thanks for the inspiration! http://wp.me/p1GWYN-7h
Pingback: Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the woman’s terms. | Dalrock
Genius, pure genius.
This post explains the SaVE act, which criminalizes male sexuality on campuses. How to enforce the cartel? Can’t shame the sluts, so maybe criminalize the bankers. Um, no, they are probably too powerful to take on right now. I know! We’ll ignore the usual constitutional protections on college campuses and make normal male sexuality a crime if a woman later reports a particular internal mental state. Perfect! With each cohort of relatively powerless young men chastened or criminalized by their college, in time, we can easily extend this from the campus to society at large. Instead of women’s sexual value determined by the messy interaction of millions of men and women (the market), we have feminist (I mean government) price fixing.
Perhaps the feminists were sort of right, maybe “women’s sexual power [was] a coin the patriarchy was preventing women from spending.” More precisely, spending in the commercial markets of advertising, media, and social and workplace advancement. Post sexual-revolution, women are free to sleep their way to the middle, either blatantly and literally (Kim K.) or simply by sexually manipulating the men in their orbit without ever putting out (for the majority of sucker Betas).
Of course, spending all that sexual currency devalued the coin, including in the marriage market to which it used to be confined. So the sexual revolution did “empower” women; it gave them a license to trade sex (or the promise thereof) for material goods in a wide variety of markets. It led to large transfers of wealth from men to women. But it also destroyed women’s ability to secure high-quality commitment and long-term male investment.
Misandrist laws are attempting to “fix” the latter problem by reducing men reckless enough to marry and father children to indentured servitude, but that game can’t go on forever — men will, sooner or later, start to notice.
Pingback: If we were as foolish about male sexuality as we are about female sexuality. | Dalrock
Pingback: More ominous than a strike. | Dalrock
Pingback: Buyer’s Remorse Post-Sexual Revolution | iParallax
Pingback: Some feminists have begun to notice that sex-positive feminism has been sort of ungood for women. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Frigidity and power. | Dalrock
Link in article re-directs to a porn site now.
Great post. I am a Christian woman from a different culture (non-American) who has lived in America for a few years. I have been constantly confused by feminists. I start off a conversation thinking I am on the same page but by the end of the conversation it become apparent to me (every time) that feminism is all about matching the power/corruption that men might have and is hardly based on any moral values. I love your post – it articulates very well the things I have been trying to process in my conversations with feminists in liberal culture.
“They saw women’s sexual power as a coin the patriarchy was preventing women from spending.” — Don’t forget the number of loud voices now criticizing Women for actually spending that coin; contradiction run amok.
Pingback: The cheating hearts of the patriarchal cartel. | Dalrock
Pingback: The “Double Standard” is True | purushatma
Pingback: They’re back in your 20s where you left them. | Dalrock
Pingback: Vaginas of the world, unite! | Dalrock