Ever since I coined the term, I’ve been on the lookout for others who might be using the term post marital spinsterhood or any variants. It strikes me as a very powerful term which names the previously unnameable, so it wouldn’t surprise me if it caught on over time. Yesterday I found another blogger Big Little Wolf outside the manosphere who used the term. In the comments section to her own post Send me no flowers, the discussion turns to online dating and how it hasn’t worked for her:
And for those of us for whom it doesn’t work or isn’t “us?” Are we the new millennial post-marital spinsters?
She seems like a very nice person, and off the bat I’m impressed by her perceptiveness in this case. I’m not sure if she coined the term separately after I did (there were no instances on google when I originally used it back in September), or if she was exposed to it somewhere. The EPL video has had nearly 900 views so she may have seen it there. Either way the term may be catching on. I’ve found links to my recent posts on the topic on several mainstream web pages, obviously shared by readers of this blog (Thanks!)
But perhaps more interesting is the topic of her blog post and the discussion which follows. She and the women in the comments section are disturbed by the lack of romantic gestures they receive from men:
Once upon a time, I had a life as a woman. You know. Dates. Romance. Sex. And there were tokens of affection – little notes and cards, love letters, and even flowers. Signs of wooing, and eventually, love.
She provides as an example the man she dated before she met the man she divorced:
In fact, the man I was seeing before I married was incredibly romantic. Money wasn’t an issue and that helped – for a year, extravagant floral arrangements arrived at my office every other week or so. Each time, something different. Each time, with a card he always took the time to personally pen.I felt adored.
She continues, now describing the present:
But we also seem to have bought into the New Order of Millennial Commodity Dating – size ‘em up fast, toss ‘em aside, buck up for the next (there will always be another)
She wraps up with a call for men to offer women more romance:
Any Real Men out there? Hello? Might there be a romantic bone in your body? No, not that one. I said romantic.
Because if there is, I’m here to tell you there are wonderful women waiting for small gestures, as simple and powerful as the one in that film last night.
The blogger and the commenters are generally baffled by what has caused this change. Many think the busy schedules of modern life are to blame. Carol very nearly gets it and then shies away at the last minute:
Haven’t been there for several years now, but I have a distinct impression that these days it’s more about “hooking up” and less about relationships. The women’s movement the culprit? I don’t think so. I think it’s the current trend for “instant gratification” and moving on if you choose to.
NoNameRequired thinks from her dating experience that men are suffering from the misconception that all divorcees and widows (she doesn’t say which she is) want is sex, which she refers to euphemistically as riding the bicycle and exercises:
…the three approaches that went like this: one date and then on to exercises, was the immediate and expressed intent….NO ROMANCE AT ALL. Just an assumption that I want that ride.
I suppose I should be grateful for the bold winking offer to get right to bicycling, without even a two or three date threshold? Honesty! But again, an assumption.
Those of us who need (sometimes prefer) solitude and celibacy within which to work hard and parent are sometimes thought odd or prematurely spinsterish.
Some of the women also offer hope that romance isn’t completely dead. Kristen describes her husband:
I should hasten to add that he is far more adept at the bagels and coffee in bed sort of gestures you mention (and the whole taking care of the baby and toddler while I’m on bedrest for two months sort).
As much as I appreciate those gestures, I dp wonder if contemporary men got a memo some years ago saying that women don’t want flowers. An inadvertent byproduct of the women’s movement?
Susan describes how romantic a great guy she met online was before she ended her 2.5 year relationship with him:
We matched well and in particular matched in the area of romance and “old timey” thoughtfulness. I received flowers at work, he received hand written cards in the mailbox outside of his house – not the email inbox. I even sent HIM and bought HIM flowers on more than one occasion and he was incredibly touched. I printed out all our courtship emails and bound them in a book for a Christmas present so there would be a paper trail of “us”.
Michelle Zive describes the little gestures by her husband which she finds romantic:
David will bring home my favorite bottle of red wine, he’ll call from the road and ask if I want a Diet Coke, and just now he gave me a shot of Emergen-C because I’m getting sick. So who said romance is dead? In my case, you just have to look harder.
So what has changed? Why did the blogger and many of the others commenting go from being so treasured by men to just another woman in a long list, valued only or mostly for sex? Roissy would undoubtedly say that her SMV has gone down as she has aged. This seems likely, but I don’t think it is the whole story. Romance is a form of male investment. It can probably be best described as male emotional investment. As the cliché says, it shows he cares.
But why should a guy care about a woman who isn’t committed to him or shows a history of not keeping past commitments? As a man this seems so painfully obvious that I struggle to understand why women don’t recognize that they can have sexual freedom or men who care about them; they are highly unlikely to have both, especially from a man with options. So many women seem totally oblivious to this simple point. I created a crude chart back in August to help illustrate the tradeoffs women can make when deciding the kinds of relationships they want to have with men:
The Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
Key to understanding the chart is knowing that as a woman moves to the right of marriage 1.0, her opportunity to move back to the left and receive greater male investment is very limited. Male investment can come in many forms, including Emotional/Romantic, Financial, Monogomy, and Willingess to Marry.
Women are craving the investment men are withdrawing as the women themselves opt for greater sexual choice. Roissy talks about how women crave the feeling and status provided by male investment in his post The Duke Rejection List:
this chick was rejected by each and every one of these high status men she banged.
“But how can that be?”, some of the duller among you will ask. “None of the men turned her down for sex.”
Don’t you know it’s different for women? Failing to get laid is not how women are rejected; they are rejected when they don’t receive romance, love, and long term commitment from the men who f*ck them.
Susan Walsh posted last month on the disappointment many women had with the same lack of investment in the hookup scene in her post The Orgasm Chasm in Casual Sex. Susan quoted an interview with a man from hookup scene in a formal study on sex:
Definitely oral is really important [for her to orgasm], but with a casual hookup, I don’t give a shit.
Another man in the study actually used the term investment in explaining how he feels about different kinds of women/relationships:
Now that I’m in a relationship, I think [her orgasm is] actually pretty important. More important than [in a] hookup. Because you have more invested in that person…When it’s a hookup you feel less investment.
We see the same scenario at work in the extreme with online accounts of men deliberately farting immediately after casual sex. Obviously these guys are expressing their extreme lack of investment in the women they just had sex with by doing this. In Roissy’s post on the woman who bragged about having no strings sex with Tucker Max, the same woman complained:
The next day, he woke me up for sex, as promised. It was worse, because he was panting this time, and when he was putting his clothes on, he farted loudly, multiple times. I called a cab, and he gave me 20 bucks for the cab which I gladly took. (Hey, I’m in college.) He hugged me and said, “I’d totally hook up with you again. Call me if you’re ever in L.A.”
One of our gold-digging friends at DABA described a similar experience in the comments section of that site:
We are HUMAN beings, with feelings. We do not like being taken advantage of by slobs who fart and roll over after they come and do nothing to make sure us women are satisfied in bed and in a relationship.
The word RELATIONSHIP is a 4 sylable word that a lot of dumb guys just don’t understand. It is more than calling a women when you want to get your rocks off. It is more than coming over, grabbing our boobs and saying you are horny and pulling your pants down. We do not find this sexy or attractive. We want men who treat us right, buy us things and take us to go skiing.
Isn’t sexual freedom liberating!
Very nice to meet you, Dalrock. And I was unaware of previous references to the term “post-marital spinsterhood” when I used it. It fits, no? How delightful that both Mars and Venus are synchronous in our terminology.
I love that you are addressing the notion of romance as an investment. I’d say that’s true whether the gesture comes from either side of the gender divide, but in a world where valuing is so often assessed in terms of dollars and cents, I particularly like the concept of thoughtfulness, affection, and attentiveness inherent in true romance that needn’t require investment of big bucks.
I will say – I grinned (a little) at the graph you provided on Monogamy-Hypergamy. May I just say that this is one of the reasons I enjoy the differences in the way men and women think?
I will add that I find this article fascinating, and I only wish more men would stop by my little plate of crazy and read, visit, and comment. Don’t we all do well with more communication, and sharing the communication styles and behaviors in each other that we “don’t get?”
One last thought, regarding the issue of sexual choice versus romance. As with all things (and graphically speaking), in that particular bell curve, move of us would likely be very happy with moderation. A small measure of sexual choice, and a healthy dose of feeling valued. And I suspect that in this country, age plays a huge role in our sorrowful state of post-marital spinsterhood. Not only that, but sheer fatigue can do us in, when we’ve finally finished the work of raising our children.
By the way – choose to publish this remark or not – but I hadn’t seen your post or any others, and not the Eat Pray Love video either. I’m a weary, struggling writer-mother. I pump out my posts early in the morning, and move on to the other requirements of the day and night.
But I’m delighted to have found you. I will certainly stop back for the male view.
And if “post marital spinsterhood” is indeed now a term, then fabulous. Because God knows, I’m living the reality. Too bad, too. I’ve got fab shoes, and like many of us “out here” – much to give, lost in the battle for day-to-day survival.
For some reason I find it weirder that women do not understand that they cannot go back once they have lost there LTR value than that they get blinded by their amount of choice when they still have it. Are so many women really incapable of understanding the ways of the world? Men can be stupid too, but they learn with time, and these women are left with the the choices of these men who have learned their lessons of life.
“As a man this seems so painfully obvious that I struggle to understand why women don’t recognize that they can have sexual freedom or men who care about them;”
Us guys don’t recognize it because we are more logical. I think we have to understand that women use the concept that women use their emotions for the vast majority of the decision making in their lives. They desire eternal sunshine as they always want to ‘feel’ good and avoid ‘feeling’ bad, but this is an impossibility.
Just as it seems clear that wives no longer have to worry about pleasing or staying with their husbands as they receive alimony regardless, a man no longer has to worry about an emotional connection with just a simple ‘hook-up’.
If you want the trappings of a relationship, avoid hook-ups regardless of how they make you as a woman ‘feel’.
Awesome post, Dalrock! I appreciate what must have been a lot of time and effort in putting this together. I’m glad to have been included, thanks.
[D: Thanks Susan! Yes, that took a while to put together. I didn’t know what I was getting into when I sat down to write that one.]
@BigLittleWolf
Very nice to meet you, Dalrock.
Likewise! And welcome.
As with all things (and graphically speaking), in that particular bell curve, move of us would likely be very happy with moderation. A small measure of sexual choice, and a healthy dose of feeling valued.
I can’t speak for women, but this has been my sense as well. What I think women are finding is that elusive just a little freer but with all of the benefits of full or near full male investment isn’t what I would call a stable position. Women are shooting for serial marriage or serial long term relationships, and finding themselves fairly quickly sliding down and to the right to hookup. No one (including me) foresaw this because they didn’t understand or didn’t consider what the reaction of men would be to women changing the rules. This was precisely my point when I wrote the post which accompanied that chart.
I was unaware of previous references to the term “post-marital spinsterhood” when I used it. It fits, no? How delightful that both Mars and Venus are synchronous in our terminology.
I suspected you coined it separately. What is interesting is we are coming from totally opposite perspectives, but at its core the term we independently coined has the same meaning. I’m guessing that for you the term names a frustration which you see divorcées experiencing and yet goes unnamed or even outright denied in the media. I would like to also see it used as a cautionary term, to help married women understand that real life isn’t like EPL or Stella. The media is selling women a myth that all they have to do is divorce and they will lead a life of empowerment and excitement. The hard data and the real life examples of the authors of those two books/movies paints a very different picture. I find this to be quite cruel to men, women, and especially children.
A friend of mine who is Swedish moved back to Sweden a couple of years ago. She said to me recently that dating was very different now.
Whilst in the UK, she had found that she would go out on a date with a guy and think it was great, she’d find often the guy would never call her again. This did not happen once she’d moved back to Sweden. She thought it was linked to what was considered to be acceptable behaviour. I thought it would also be different in the UK between anonymous big city dating and say village dating.
I found it an interesting observation in any case. I always think of Sweden as being bigger on casual sex etc but perhaps the instant gratification and treating people as disposable has not reached the whole wide world.
This is why gamesmen advise men not to give a girl emotion validation until she puts out. The good she wants is romance, and the currency you’re charging is sex.
[D: Makes sense. A new take on the old “why buy the cow” philosophy.]
There’s something else going on here as well everyone seems to be leaving out. Romance for a man is a form of showing his feminine side. This doesn’t play anymore in modern romance.
The feminine seeks the masculine. Back in the old days, when women were very feminine, you could be romantic and not get laughed at. Now women more and more have taken on characteristics of men and thus seek men who are more masculine than they are. This translates into: you have to be a jerk or a ba*tard to be more masculine than women these days.
Flowers and love notes will get you dumped for the biker boy, rocker or stockbroker (there’s even and old 1960s song, “Words of Love,” that comes out and says this). She’ll laugh at you with her friends for being a chump. I’ve seen this many, many times — nice guys get mocked and jerks wind up with the girl in bed, eating the candy the nice guy sent.
Romance is retro. It’s what your dad did. There is a huge chasm between what women say they want and what they actually want. Don’t listen to what they say; watch what they do. They’re not running off with Romeo; they’re bitchslapping him.
Stockbrokers are most likely to send you flowers, or rather have their assistants send them. Means nothing. A wild flower picked during a walk in the woods or bring brought a cup of tea in bed is more romantic than a bunch of roses sent from interflora’s top 10 bouquets.
Not the best examples, but has given me the idea of a blog post about 5 minutes of Alpha/5 years of beta. Thank you!
There’s not much to disagree with here Dalrock. The idea of a cock carousel in a woman’s 20s is somewhat to fairly accurate in my opinion… not everyone gets on it. But post divorce and age 35+ that is all there is anymore except for a lucky few women.
No man wants to romance a woman he doesn’t love. Find a man who is in love with you and you won’t lack romance. Women should not expect romance out of dating, casual or hook up situations.
Days of Broken Arrows also has a point. If the woman is not in love with the man, but the man is in love with the woman, then the romantic gestures will unfortunately be a turn-off.
But if the woman and the man are in love with each other, then anything and everything will seem romantic. A simple kiss, a look, a phone conversation can be the most romantic thing in the world. It’s all relative.
Paying full price for what was once given away for free.
For some reason I find it weirder that women do not understand that they cannot go back once they have lost there LTR value than that they get blinded by their amount of choice when they still have it.
There’s a part of me that slowly wonders if women operate under the theory that even if they’re “aged”, they’re entitled to some emotional support from a man that they find attractive. So, a divorced woman or an older unmarried woman may operate under the concept that they’re entitled to have somebody love them, especially if they’ve been fed a diet from others that they and other women like them deserve this. They’ll feel that they’re not ugly, and if the divorced woman found a nice boyfriend/husband on TV that loves her, then so can they.
Well it does happen. My sister is remarried with a high earning guy with no kids. But she got kids early (mid 20ies), divorced early (early 30ies), has a good relation with the kids’ father and has high earning job herself as well.
@jack
Wrong mantra.? divorce theft one? Which would be the opposite? 🙂
@VI
The good she wants is romance, and the currency you’re charging is sex.
Wow, this is it, exactly. This is the sexual transaction in the contemporary SMP. It’s a stark shift from “the good he wants is sex, and the currency you’re charging is commitment.”
@Days of Broken Arrows
Now women more and more have taken on characteristics of men and thus seek men who are more masculine than they are. This translates into: you have to be a jerk or a ba*tard to be more masculine than women these days.
I haven’t heard this expressed before but find it a fascinating concept. Women getting more and more masculine, yet still needing to be the less masculine partner. That does indeed put men in a real bind. The reluctant bastard. That may partially explain why there are so many good guys not getting any women in college – aside from the social dominance/hypergamy factor, there may be many guys who can’t or won’t go the bastard route.
1. I don’t think it’ just her age – the culture has changed in the time she was off the dating market. If she were magically transformed into a 25-year old in 2010, I doubt she’d get as much romance
2. The reason for (1), the cultural change in romance, is that simply speaking romance doesn’t get you laid.
3. The reason for (2) is that the market has been flooded with casual sex opportunity, creating a new behavioral system where romance (investment) is not really required for sexual access. And as Susan Walsh frequently opines, there’s no longer a market for dating and a market for casual sex – they are in the same marketplace today.
4. “Women like romance” is among several dating-advice lines women throw out without proper context. To call them lies would be extreme – they are statements without appropriate qualification. Women like romance from men they are attracted to. An unattractive man who romances a woman is considered to be harassing her (literally – this was an example in my company’s sexual harassment training video). An attractive man who does too much romance will betatize and become an unattractive man.
5. To (4) and Vincent Igantius’ point, the best way for a man to test her attraction to him is if she will sleep with him. Since the risk of bringing an unnecessary rejection upon himself via too much romance is very high, it behooves a man to withold the emotional investment until she has passed his test of her attraction to him.
6. As a recovering sick romantic, I wholeheartedly wish (5) was not the case. Unfortunately it is – romance does not build attraction, it only adds to it, and can kill it if the initial attraction is not sufficiently developed. And despite what women appear to think (some girl at work told me men don’t feel pain in rejection, I had to tell her she was deeply mistaken) most men take rejection very hard and very much desire to avoid it.
7. Those whores at Dating A Banker Anonymous are committing a classic transactional mistake – voluntarily handing their goods across the table, and then expecting an in-kind return. They want to set themselves up as martyrs and victims, but they aren’t being “taken advantage of”; they offered their sex to the Fart Boys, the boys took it and left. They very system those girls use to slut it up with casual sex is the same one that disengages men from their own “social responsibilities” wrt to sexual relationships. So back to the point of Dalrock’s post – the girls can’t have it both ways, the choice and the expectation of investment.
They’d gasp and scream if a man said “well I took you to Morton’s, so now I expect you to sleep with me.” But that’s what they are saying to the men – “we gave you what you wanted, now you owe us romantic investment in return!” Emotional prostitution (did I just coin that phrase?) is a failing strategy.
@Lily
I found it an interesting observation in any case. I always think of Sweden as being bigger on casual sex etc but perhaps the instant gratification and treating people as disposable has not reached the whole wide world.
That example really is interesting Lily. I think you are likely right on the difference in acceptable behavior, and how this might be different in an anonymous vs small town setting. But for the women seeking casual sex more anonymity is probably something they are looking for. From an economic perspective, it isn’t that different than branding. A true generic product doesn’t have the incentive to provide more than the legal minimum in quality and experience because it isn’t worried about harming the brand and reducing repurchase.
As for Sweden vs the UK, I think when feminist social changes happen they are accompanied by a sort of social anesthetic. This mixes with the old values of chivalry, etc, and slows the response from men. Feminists are good at getting their message out, and they happen to
ownbe the media. It has taken 40 years for men’s attitudes to change about remarriage following the implementation of no fault divorce in the US in the early 70s. And as I’ve shown they still haven’t changed measurably regarding their willingness to marry in the first place. So ironically you might see that a more feminist place would be slower to see men’s logical reaction occur, because the culture is better at slowing it. This of course goes back to your point on what is acceptable.@Susan: I haven’t heard this expressed before but find it a fascinating concept. Women getting more and more masculine, yet still needing to be the less masculine partner. It does indeed put men in a real bind. The reluctant bastard. That may partially explain why there are so many good guys not getting any women in college – aside from the social dominance/hypergamy factor, there may be many guys who can’t or won’t go the bastard route.
Unfortunately for me, this point of view was developed from experience. I’d be very successful at first dating totally hot women, but after they got to know the “real me” they’d dump me, saying things like “dating you is like dating my brother.” So it wasn’t my looks or personality – it was my “persona,” that of someone who is mellow and intellectually curious, not an aggressive jerk. From what I see, things have gotten worse in the generation that’s passed since my college years.
I had two choices: fake being a jerk or date Jewish women, the only women I found who seem to value I.Q points rather than arrest records. I chose the latter.
I think Days of Broken Arrows has it pretty much right. As women have progressively masculinized, in relative terms, over the past few decades, the “field” of men who are attractive to such women has narrowed. That numbers game has been exacerbated substantially by the way that boys have been raised over the past several decades — specifically to be less masculine, less assertive, more expressive, more empathetic and so on, as a part of the feminist-inspired therapy culture and the widespread problematization of “masculinity”. So it’s been a double-whammy: the number of attractive men would have been reduced regardless due to the increased masculinity among women, but this effect has been compounded several times by the activist social engineering to de-masculinize boys and young men during the same period. In an effort to androgynize the sexes, the result has been that there are now rather few men who are attractive at all to most women. The situation has not bottomed yet, I’m afraid, as the real wave is coming in the next 1-2 generations as most of the educated class in the US at least will be female and will outnumber similarly skilled men by close to 2 to 1 — a looming dating/mating disaster for the women of that demographic, really.
The intersection between this and the topic at hand has to do with what we might call the “operative sex ratio”. It’s often been noted that a high sex ratio (males outnumbering females) leads to women being in control of the market and more empowered to demand commitment before sex, while a low sex ratio leads to men being in control of the market and more empowered to demand sex without commitment. But often the sex ratio analysis is to “macro”. In my view, the most relevant sex ratio is the ratio of attractive men to women. If that ratio is low — and by all accounts it is *very* low today for the reasons mentioned in the previous paragraph — then the men who are in that market are in firm control, and the market will be characterized by free sex and low commitment/emotional investment/romance by the men.
The important thing to note, however, is that this is very, very hard to change. Men and women are attracted to what they are attracted to — that isn’t subject to very much change. We could change the way we are raising boys to encourage masculinity rather than discourage it, but doing that means taking on an entrenched, dead-red-feminist educational establishment that itself is deeply invested in de-masculinizing boys — and frankly, I don’t see that happening on a wide scale in the near future. In the meantime, this low sex ratio environment seems likely to continue — both at the younger age, as well as in the older, divorced set (where the operative sex ratio is probably even lower, if anything).
@dalrock
I get the impression from that other blog that they are women who want to date rather than have casual sex with multiple partners, but don’t spend much time (or don’t have the time around children and work) to spend on dating endeavours. It’s not like college or being young in the city when there are lots of single people your age around.
I also think that people on the whole are a lot more insular than they used to be, so unless you make an effort to expand your social circle, it’s not going to happen. The insularity is a common complaint of my granny’s, she says people are much more wrapped up in their families/children than they were in her day. Even in her village, community things are falling apart as the old people die off (and they are not old people things to do, she’s been doing them since she was 30, despite having 6 children and being a doctor).
There is something about the anonymous. I have a male friend 1 year post divorce (player both before and after marriage) who recently told me he has got quite serious with a woman. I laughed (due to previous conversations) and he said “you’re right, I projected certain things onto her because of the way I met her (through friends) & the timing in my life, and if I had met her in a bar I would have had sex with her and never called her again. But she’s exactly the same woman.”
“It has taken 40 years for men’s attitudes to change about remarriage following the implementation of no fault divorce in the US in the early 70s.”
If we say that men have started reacting now I guess it will take about the same time for women to understand that this change has occured.
About sexual mores in Sweden, Swedes must have started behaving more recklessly than before, since Sweden and Finland used to have about the same abortion rate but now the Swedish figure is the double of Finland’s.
In page 12 there is an explanation of Finland’s recent success in the area of sexual health, if someone is interested.
http://www.euro.who.int/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/69528/en69.pdf
I was pretty much forced to learn Game when I again jumped into the world of online dating in my late 40s. Even women in their 40s play the little girl games from their 20s because most of them haven’t had the Wyle E Coyote moment and discovered that their sexual/relationship market value is not the same as when they were younger, more feminine, and thinner. I became the reluctant bastard just so I could get more than a first date.
I’m not particularly sympathetic to the middle-aged women’s call for more romance. If I would be accepted for my true persona and not my bastard persona, I could get behind some serious romance. I pitched some serious woo to my first wife on an ongoing basis (and at her ongoing and persistent requests) only to discover that I had transformed myself into a timid, compliant beta man. Marriage breakdown ensued without any hilarity. It’s taken years to retrain myself into being more of an alpha man.
Sexual liberation for women means that they are free to chase the men who provide the vagina tingle and nothing more. Sexual liberation for men means that I’m free from the constraints of “romance” and can hump and dump at my whim.
For the record, I would quite happily commit (but not marry) to the right woman, even at my age. I’m just not real thrilled with the pool of middle-aged princesses gadding shallowly about and “never settling”.
The implication of your closing remark (“Isn’t sexual freedom liberating!”) is noted and appreciated, at least by me. Whe I look at what has become the state of relations between men and women largely as a result of feminism, I can’t help but think of a refrain other parents of teenagers will recognize.
When our kids ask for certain things we tell them, “You don’t want that. You just think you want that, and if we give it to you, we’ll all live to regret it. Somehow that seems to fit with what we see are the results of the feminist movement, particularly since the 60’s.
Of all the women whose comments you linked to, I most appreciated the one from Michelle Zive. As a relationship progresses, it pays to learn how your husband or wife expresses love. We do them and ourselves a disservice when we dismiss a genuine act of love as nothing because we havebeen conditioned (by Hollywood adn advertisers, no less!) to view romance purely in terms of flowers and candle light dinners.
My husband does surprise me every once and a while with unexpected flowers, but those moments are few and far between. Making sure I don’t need anything on his way home, bathing the toddler when it’s clear I’ve had a hard day, and other gestures mean far more than a bouquet of flowers.
This was a good post. I think your overall point, that men aren’t inclined to invest romantically in women they aren’t committed to, has some merit.
“Of all the women whose comments you linked to, I most appreciated the one from Michelle Zive. As a relationship progresses, it pays to learn how your husband or wife expresses love. ”
Romance doesn’t exist in a vacuum or spontaneously pass through a membrane from another reality. Can’t be sure but methinks Michelle Zive is lovingly appreciative of her husband’s gestures, doesn’t hold his beta traits against him and start thinking about finding a “real man,” doesn’t stamp her feet expecting mandatory “romance” and threatening him with withdrawal if he doesn’t do it…you get the idea.
I bet the “macro” of their marriage is good, so they can handle the ups and downs of romantic spontaneity.
“This was a good post. I think your overall point, that men aren’t inclined to invest romantically in women they aren’t committed to, has some merit.”
This is a salient point. I have to educate young women I know all the time on the idea that “romantic gestures” from new guys are just as likely to be attempts to buy their way into your pants as they are to be harbingers of true love. In fact, a man who goes overboard early with the romance is (sadly) to be viewed with a pragmatic form of suspicion – he’s either a hopeless beta, a buyer of love or a player who is buttering you up for the other shoe to drop. Or he’s riding his own emotional wave, which is bound to fizzle out with him losing interest in you.
If there’s no commitment – or not enough ground under which TO commit – extreme romance and “investment” have no place in the discussion, and anyone who is doing it is doing something odd.
People have been spoiled by conflating romance with other things – two of them being displays of wealth and apologies. One time I was buying flowers for my lady and somebody (don’t remember if it was a guy or girl) quipped “what did you do wrong?” As if the only reason to buy flowers was a dumb guy making up with his all-wise woman. Maybe in their messed up world.
On the topic of false images of love and romance pumped through popular culture, I’ve long been wanting to take on this piece of garbage:
“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”
Who the hell came up with this idea?
If anything, love means actually BEING sorry when you say it, instead of one of these bogus non-apology apologies that’s all the rage in this era of “communication.” If you love somebody, you should be sorry when you’ve actually hurt them. This sounds like something made up by someone who doesn’t want to cop to their bad behavior that hurts people close to them.
I think the subtext of the line is “if somebody loves ME then I don’t have to tell HIM (her) I’m sorry…I’m so wonderful that the butterflies will make him (her) forgive me all by themselves!”
“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”
If I can postscript myself on the last comment, Susan Walsh just recently noted how prevalent it is to see “live laugh love” or somesuch hollow catchphrase on women’s online dating profiles. We’re awash in Oprahized sentimentalism and it’s not good for society.
There’s a book called The Five Love Languages that talks about how different people receive expressions of love differently. Some people prefer gifts, while others want verbal affirmations, acts of service or physical affection.
The problem is that women have been brainwashed by advertising and mainstream media into believing a man is not expressing “romance” via anything other than gifts. But the consume-oriented model of romance is not sustainable in the long term, nor is it practical for young men just starting out in their careers.
The other problem is that due to entitlement and media encouragement, women now expect romance from men but do not reciprocate. There are lots of dissatisfied men who say that women never compliment them, never cook or clean, and don’t appreciate the things that are done for them. Romance is not a one-way street, and it’s not something that women deserve for “just being female.”
The phrasing Dalrock uses is very telling — male “investment.” When you invest in anything, you expect a return on your investmet, not a black hole into which you keep giving and never receiving. Many women are now black holes of demand and entitlement, and they think just showing up is good enough. It’s not.
Women need to reciprocate male investment of romance by at least 1:1 ratio to keep giving the man incentives. Also they shouldn’t try to “ration” their efforts. An unselfish, giving and nurturing woman who goes out of her way to do things for an (average) man will inspire him to act romantically, but the toxic culture tells women that she’s debasing herself when she does this. So men respond by doing the bare minimum.
“An unselfish, giving and nurturing woman who goes out of her way to do things for an (average) man will inspire him to act romantically, but the toxic culture tells women that she’s debasing herself when she does this. So men respond by doing the bare minimum.”
Nailed it!
If doing something generous for a man is considered oppressive, than being romantic to a woman is simply worthless.
I’m not sure sexual freedom is the main thing at work here. My wife, for example, has negatively reinforced romantic gestures by me for a number of years, for instance criticizing the flowers, or the jewelry, or the brand of chocolate as not matching her taste. She is very critical in other ways as well and I don’t think it has much to do with sexual freedom***she was only with 1 other man prior to me, and didn’t find it very satisfying with him, from what she says.
I think maybe men focus too much on sex-related stuff as a cause of bad female behavior. Sometimes there are other causes, such as the endless media encouragement to have a critical attitude toward men or a family background encouraging the same.
In other words:
1. Women crave the attention of the same 15% of men they all find attractive
2. Later the same women wonder why none of those men swimming in female attention is willing to commit to just one woman.
The solipsism and idiocy of the female mind is once again proven to be limitless.
Novaseeker said:
In the interest of politeness and brevity, I will simply ask Novaseeker if he cares to even attempt to defend the point that boys are have been raised to be “more empathetic” to men, whites, children, people with real religious beliefs, or any other unfavored group. Perhaps he should replace “more empathetic” with “bigger suck ups”.
Cynic that I am, I cannot help but wonder what we would see of these women if we obtained a time machine and traveled back 10 to 20 years. Would we see younger women who were appreciative of men that were romantic and engaged in chivarlry, or would we see opportunists who took all the goodies that were offered as something deserved, and gave nothing but flippancy and heartbreak in return?
To put it another way: are these the women who in their 20’s shrieked and kicked men in the shins for daring to open a door for them, thereby oppressing them with patriarchy, who have all too late discovered that it’s nice to have a door opened for you once in a while when you are over 35?
“Investment” is the correct word to use, and women should understand that the financial aspect is really the least of a man’s worries. There is an emotional investment involved in this kind of behavior that isn’t trivial. Women absolutely have no clue what it is like to do all the approaching, and all the romancing, in a relationship. They also, as noted above, are generally oblivious to the fact that men actually have emotions and don’t much care for being taken for granted. Of course, there are women who do know this, and take advantage of it to twist the knife just a bit deeper, because it gives them pleasure to watch a man squirm and suffer.
Ask me how I know this. Go ahead. Ask me…
BigLittleWolf says:
As with all things (and graphically speaking), in that particular bell curve, move of us would likely be very happy with moderation. A small measure of sexual choice, and a healthy dose of feeling valued.
Translation: “Why can’t I have my cake and eat it too? In moderation, of course…”
Translation: “Why can’t I have my cake and eat it too? In moderation, of course…”
Yep, anonymous reader. Excellent translation.
“There is an emotional investment involved in this kind of behavior that isn’t trivial. Women absolutely have no clue what it is like to do all the approaching, and all the romancing, in a relationship. They also, as noted above, are generally oblivious to the fact that men actually have emotions and don’t much care for being taken for granted.”
Despite studies showing women have greater capacity for empathy, etc etc, I have found this to be a huge problem among young women of my generation. The lack of acknowledgment of men as emotional and feeling beings and their lack of concern thereof is astounding, mind-boggling and insulting.
Badger Nation said: “I have found this to be a huge problem among young women of my generation. The lack of acknowledgment of men as emotional and feeling beings and their lack of concern thereof is astounding, mind-boggling and insulting.”
Is it your generation? Or is it women today period?
The reason I ask is because I’m a kid of the 1980s, and I’ve noticed a difference in the same women I knew then and now. The way I see it is they got Oprah-field. Men don’t really watch Oprah much, so I think we discount how massively influential she is. But I’ve noticed women quote her on their Facebook pages and join her charities, etc. One of the memes out there is that women suffer the most in wars because they get widowed — this is completely wrongheaded because it leaves out the fact that men die! Isn’t that being the worst victim?
But this type of Oprah-thought seems to have bled into the way her audience views all men — as expendable oppressors. I think Oprah has done more than anyone to dehumanize men. Even if women don’t watch her or read her magazine, etc., they deal with other women that do so the influence is there all the same.
@Dalrock
Have you seen this? Interesting stuff! (Like SD’s Ireland olden times stuff lol)
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/
I found it on No More Mr Nice Guy’s blog
http://avpd0nmmng.wordpress.com/2010/11/01/an-old-article-in-look-magazine-about-unmarried-men/
Here’s where womens’ general suckitude at economics really kicks them in the ass. But the economics behind this situation are simple:
A) Romance and commitment are the currency that men use to pay for loving support and regular sex.
B) People don’t pay as much for used, especially when the item has a poor safety rating.
C) There is no C.
A general point about empathy: the term is used two different ways, which I’ll call empathy type 1 and empathy type 2. Type 1 is the ability to *perceive* what someone else is feeling and how they will likely respond emotionally to various things; Type 2 is *really caring* about the feelings of the other person. A good con man has a lot of Type 1 but little or no Type 2. A well-meaning but clueless individual may have a lot of Type 2 but not much Type 1.
@Susan
Wow, this is it, exactly. This is the sexual transaction in the contemporary SMP. It’s a stark shift from “the good he wants is sex, and the currency you’re charging is commitment.”
Actually, this is the exact same trade that Vincent mentioned (romance being a weak and temporary form of commitment). All that’s changed is the order of the trade. This isn’t unusual: the weak bidder in a trade is likely hand over their goods first, in an attempt to ingratiate the other party. Women have become the weak bidder for the reasons novaseeker laid out above: the number of attractive men relative to women has gone down, thanks to female masculinization and male emasculation, making male commitment and romance the scarcer commodity.
Women can’t solve this problem just by refusing to put out until they get commitment. Being an ice queen is no better a way to get a man to fall in love with you than being a slut. As with any price-fixing cartel, all it takes is a few women to undercut the others by selling below the fixed price (ie, having sex before commitment) to ruin it for everybody. And if you seem cold, you give a man good reason to suppose that he’s not going to be getting much sex for his commitment anyway.
The problem here is the fact that it has become a trade between sex and romance in the first place. Women potentially have a lot more to offer than sex. And while men want sex, men who are looking for a LTR want a lot more than just that. They also want love, support, warmth, and (almost entirely overlooked these days) respect.
A woman nowadays who wants to maximize her chances of finding a great guy and having a happy marriage, while minimizing her chances of getting her heart broken, should withhold sex but *not* the rest of that stuff. She should do all those things that feminists tell women not to do for the man she wants: “stroke his ego” by praising/respecting him, act in a nurturing manner, generally be an agreeable delight to be around, and generally make him feel like a million bucks.
That way, she has something to trade that the sluts don’t, and it’s something that can be traded over time at the same time as romance (as opposed to sex, which must be given either before or after). It also signals to the guy that the sex will be worth it, and that he won’ t get screwed over by offering partial commitment in the meantime. It makes the guy stick around, because sticking around feels good now, and builds anticipation for the even better that’s to come. Even better, once a guy is actually in love with a woman, sex with her ceases to be a fungible commodity (as it largely is with sluts), so the value of that goes up too. And, of course, this weeds out the guys that will *only* take payment in sex.
Thing is, I don’t think most women nowadays have a clue how to do this, or even a realization that they should.
Dalrock – you said: I would like to also see it [post-marital spinster] used as a cautionary term, to help married women understand that real life isn’t like EPL or Stella. The media is selling women a myth that all they have to do is divorce and they will lead a life of empowerment and excitement. The hard data and the real life examples of the authors of those two books/movies paints a very different picture. I find this to be quite cruel to men, women, and especially children.
I couldn’t agree more. Married women who believe the grass is greener, and haven’t really thought through what they’re doing when they consider divorce, ought to genuinely work through what are immutable obstacles in a marriage, balanced with a reality check of what it’s like “out here” past a certain age, or with children on your own.
Media offers absurd tales that may be (polished) 1-in-a-million scenarios, and they have little to do with anyone’s reality.
Returning to a bit of that reality and the issue of romance – when I wrote of the man who sent me flowers, I believe I also spoke of the fact that he would show up on a winter’s morning with piping coffee and bagels. He was busy, I was busy. For $5 and enormous thoughtfulness, I felt genuinely cared for. That was as romantic as you can get. As were the simple moments between us. The way he told a joke, the catch in his throat when he laughed. His Alec Baldwin smile. The flowers were “bonus;” the real romance was the man himself, and I hope for him what he felt in kind was genuine listening, true acceptance, and belief in him as I believed in myself.
That kind of interaction has nothing to do with money, and everything to do with time – and character.
I’d also like to agree with your assessment of Carol’s remarks on our culture of instant gratification. I agree – that plays a role. But so many other aspects of our culture play a role. Having lived abroad repeatedly (and from a fairly young age) I have other models of men and women – less adversarial and more complimentary, less slotted into pre-fab kits and more a little of this-a little of that, and yes – strong but feminine women who love being women, and strong, masculine men who love being men. Playfulness – sexually and otherwise.
We have to find the individual mix that suits – in a couple, just as we do in friends. A difficult task in our culture of instant gratification, insecure job situations, isolation that is part of our technology world as much as it provides advantages.
One last observation: It is eye-opening to read the comments here. Some are funny, some are thoughtful. And others reflect the growing meanness that is too often the norm in our country. Jabs that are fun (at times), others that are simplistic and simply nasty. They couch genuine hurt. The fact of having been taken advantage of, or unhappy, or simply underappreciated.
Somehow, we’ve glorified meanness in men and women both, and perhaps more so in women, and I personally find it appalling. Media gives us mean girls in every variation, and it pervades our sense of what is acceptable. It borders on bullying. It makes us ugly. All of us. As people.
Thanks for letting me stream-of-consciousness here a bit. If only men and women would savor each other, would each listen and take the other as an individual, formed of many experiences including hurts, and exploration still to come. That in itself would be, to me, extraordinarily romantic.
@The Deuce
She should do all those things that feminists tell women not to do for the man she wants: “stroke his ego” by praising/respecting him, act in a nurturing manner, generally be an agreeable delight to be around, and generally make him feel like a million bucks.
This is great advice for young women. John Gray talks a lot about how men want to feel appreciated and are incredibly generous when they are treated this way. I have certainly found it to be true not in my marriage. When I am thoughtful about expressing gratitude and respect for my husband, he responds in a way that I can see with my eyes – it literally enlarges him. When I am lazy and thoughtless, things are OK, but the dynamic is flat. I can understand how marriages fail when communication and appreciating one’s partner stops. I’ve learned that having a mindset of appreciation makes my husband happy, puts him in a good mood, etc. That means my home life is better. It’s a very small investment to make, with a very high ROI!
I’ve actually found the same thing at work. It’s very easy to make a male boss into a great mentor and advocate – make him look good, and make him feel like a million bucks. A male boss will repay a female subordinate with great loyalty when she delivers the product and makes him shine. Unfortunately, female bosses are just the worst – every one I’ve had has been petty, competitive and vindictive. They’re not so easily won over, at least by another woman 🙂
Sorry, that was “true in my marriage”
@Lily
Very interesting. Probably written by one of Don Draper’s ex-girlfriends.
Though I don’t necessarily think unmarried men have psychological problems, this is way too glib, it reminds me of the old Victorian belief that spinsters were mad.
it reminds me of the old Victorian belief that spinsters were mad.
Obviously unfounded.
Apart from post-marriage spinsters lol (watch out, Rivelino).
[D: See, the term is too good. You can’t help but use it. 🙂 ]
Pingback: Desire « Misadventures of Vincent Ignatius
Susan Walsh:
“I’ve actually found the same thing at work. It’s very easy to make a male boss into a great mentor and advocate – make him look good, and make him feel like a million bucks. A male boss will repay a female subordinate with great loyalty when she delivers the product and makes him shine. Unfortunately, female bosses are just the worst – every one I’ve had has been petty, competitive and vindictive. They’re not so easily won over, at least by another woman ”
Yes. A male boss with female staff – I am one – feels very protective in a nice way of his female subordinates. They should be careful not to play up to him too obviously though.
Lily,
That “Look” magazine article is a scream! Check out these choice clips…reverse the genders and it sounds just like today’s over-entitled young woman:
“Many men complain that they search in vain for a woman who lives up to their exacting specifications. Says a 53-year-old Catholic bachelor from a large Eastern city, “I’d have to have a wife who was a Catholic too. She’d have to be acceptable to my family as well as to myself. Because I’m short, I’d want her to be short. I’d want her to be as good-looking as my sister, who’s a real beauty. She ought to be a logical thinker, and she should be pleasant to be in bed with. Also, I’d like someone to have five children in three years; that would mean a couple of sets of twins, but, after all, I’m not a spring chicken any more. Oh, yes, and she should be distinguished-looking rather than pretty—so she’d still be handsome at the age of 80.
A far younger Protestant in Nevada sets up similar specifications: “I would like someone who has looks, a high IQ, money in the family, is Protestant, tall and slim, likes the out-of-doors, can cook, would be willing to live in a small community. To complicate things further, she should have the right blood type, be in the age group 25–35, have an even temperament, not smoke, drink or swear, care about her make-up and not have a history of inherited disease. . . .”
Psychologists agree that such a long list of requirements would condemn the writer to a lifetime alone. They explain that, while men who draw up such specifications may sincerely believe they want a wife, they have unconsciously created a barrier against marrying any real woman.
-snip
Some of the unmarried men in this category carry heavy psychological burdens. Raised with admonitions to “be a man—be independent,” some adult males become confused over the conflict between their determination to be truly self-reliant and the need to lean on a woman for love and comfort. . . . ”
Doesn’t that last part sound like a feminist-indoctrinated woman? This actually sounds SO MUCH like a gender-reversed version of an article about modern urban women that I wonder if it isn’t a hoax.
[D: Great point!]
VI: This is why gamesmen advise men not to give a girl emotion validation until she puts out. The good she wants is romance, and the currency you’re charging is sex.
[D: Makes sense. A new take on the old “why buy the cow” philosophy.]
J: So women use sex to buy affection, and men use affection to buy sex. Of course, this perpetuates the cycle of manipulation between men and women, but what the hey…
[D: You seem to have missed the point of the post (and many others). Women should avoid casual sex if they want greater investment from men. Why is this such a baffling concept to women?]
The key to real romance, as opposed to people mutually playing each other, has something to do with honesty and spontaneity…and with the courage to risk being hurt if other doesn’t reciprocate your feelings. (Though not being so stupid as to be a pushover.)
[D: Women should be free to write the terms they are willing to abide by. Men should be free to take it or leave it. The latter part seems to be what you object to frequently.]
HI Badger,
Women like romance from men they are attracted to. . . An attractive man who does too much romance will betatize and become an unattractive man.
I think part of the problem is that when a man romances a woman who is not attracted to him, he puts her in the position of having to choose between unintentionally leading him on and having to hurt him by rejecting him. It’s not a comfortable position, and many women resent being put in it by men. This is why you see women doing LJBF (to let the guy down easily–yes, I know it backfires) or exhibiting “contempt for betas.”
To (4) and Vincent Igantius’ point, the best way for a man to test her attraction to him is if she will sleep with him. Since the risk of bringing an unnecessary rejection upon himself via too much romance is very high, it behooves a man to withold the emotional investment until she has passed his test of her attraction to him.
That’s a pretty big investment from a female point of view, unless you are actually looking for a woman who views sex as a handshake.
And despite what women appear to think (some girl at work told me men don’t feel pain in rejection, I had to tell her she was deeply mistaken) most men take rejection very hard and very much desire to avoid it.
Geez, what a dummy!
Those whores at Dating A Banker Anonymous are committing a classic transactional mistake – voluntarily handing their goods across the table, and then expecting an in-kind return.
“Those whores at Dating A Banker Anonymous” have a book deal. I think their site is meant to satirize the SATC lifestyle and the sort of behavior you think they are advocating.
Days of Brokken Arrows
So it wasn’t my looks or personality – it was my “persona,” that of someone who is mellow and intellectually curious, not an aggressive jerk.
I personally find that very attractive in a man, especially if he takes me on adventures. The best vacations we have are ones where my husband,a mellow and intellectually curious sort of guy, has been to a destination on business, scouted out some cool stuff, and then shows it to me. We both really enjoy that.
@Terry,
Making sure I don’t need anything on his way home, bathing the toddler when it’s clear I’ve had a hard day, and other gestures mean far more than a bouquet of flowers.
I’ll go you one better. The ulitimate romantic gesture is when you have stomach flu and a man picks you up off the bathroom floor, tosses you in a tub of tepid water to bring down your fever and then cleans up the mess you made of the bathroom whitle joking that you need to improve your aim.
@Badger and Dalrock
This actually sounds SO MUCH like a gender-reversed version of an article about modern urban women that I wonder if it isn’t a hoax.
I doubt it’s a hoax. I think that people have really unreasonable expectations across the board and the thing that looks weird about these men’s unreasonable expectations is that they concern more than looks.
The current beauty ranking thread at CR is a case the illustrates Dalrock’s point about people looking for imaginary lovers. The belief that many CR readers harbor that everyday women should like what women who are professionally pretty look like after being made-up, lighted in the most flattering fashion, and then photoshopped into perfection is just as ridiculous as the expectations that some women harbor.
On the topic of false images of love and romance pumped through popular culture, I’ve long been wanting to take on this piece of garbage:“Love means never having to say you’re sorry.” Who the hell came up with this idea?
It a line from the movie Love Story. After an arguement, Ali McGraw tell Ryan O’Neill not to apologize because “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.”
If anything, love means actually BEING sorry when you say it, instead of one of these bogus non-apology apologies that’s all the rage in this era of “communication.” If you love somebody, you should be sorry when you’ve actually hurt them.
Absolutely!
@J
I’ll go you one better. The ulitimate romantic gesture is when you have stomach flu and a man picks you up off the bathroom floor, tosses you in a tub of tepid water to bring down your fever and then cleans up the mess you made of the bathroom whitle joking that you need to improve your aim.
That one is quite good! But I may have a better one. I once climbed on top of my wife in the middle of the night while we were in bed and held her in place. She was a little startled, but I’m pretty sure she thought it was romantic.
“It a line from the movie Love Story. After an arguement, Ali McGraw tell Ryan O’Neill not to apologize because “Love means never having to say you’re sorry.””
You mean the book inspired by Al and Tipper Gore’s relationship?
I should probably add some more context though. We were visiting LA when the Northridge Earthquake hit 7 miles away from us. We were under a window which was rattling so badly I thought it was going to shatter, and there was an unsecured bookcase next to the bed which I was sure was going to crash onto us at any moment. It was pitch black and I assumed the room was strewn with the lamp and other items I’d heard fall down. Plus the room was shaking too much to make walking possible. She is a sound sleeper, but didn’t grow up in earthquake country like I had (I’m from LA). I didn’t want her to panic and hurt herself by trying to run through the house during the worst of the quake. So I decided to get on top and protect her with my body instead. Long story, but it was actually a split second decision.
Novaseeker,
“The important thing to note, however, is that this is very, very hard to change. Men and women are attracted to what they are attracted to — that isn’t subject to very much change. We could change the way we are raising boys to encourage masculinity rather than discourage it, but doing that means taking on an entrenched, dead-red-feminist educational establishment that itself is deeply invested in de-masculinizing boys — and frankly, I don’t see that happening on a wide scale in the near future. In the meantime, this low sex ratio environment seems likely to continue — both at the younger age, as well as in the older, divorced set.”
One more reason to accelerate the inevitable and richly deserved demise of the current system.
D: You seem to have missed the point of the post (and many others). Women should avoid casual sex if they want greater investment from men. Why is this such a baffling concept to women?
J: When have you ever heard me advocate casual sex for women? Defend the young and stupid from being taken advantage of and then slut shamed? Yeah, guilty as charged, but I’ve NEVER said that I believe screwing around is a good strategy for women.
D: Women should be free to write the terms they are willing to abide by. Men should be free to take it or leave it. The latter part seems to be what you object to frequently.
I fully agree that men should be free to take it or leave it. What I object to is the gaminess. If leaving it is an option, then men should just walk away. I have far more respect for a man who says, “I refuse to play with a dishonest woman.” then I have for a man who plays the same stupid games that he castigates women for. And yes, I understand the excuse of fighting fire with fire. OTOH, I married man who feels that my greatest virture is my honestly.
One of the “promises” of 70s feminism was freer and more open relationships in which women could stop pretending to be Doris Day and would not have to use sex to manipulate men. Not being a manipulator, I thought that was a good thing. Forty years later, we have men being just as snarky, gamy and manipulative as women as always been accused of being. It’s really sort of gay.
You mean the book inspired by Al and Tipper Gore’s relationship?
LOL
I once climbed on top of my wife in the middle of the night while we were in bed and held her in place. She was a little startled, but I’m pretty sure she thought it was romantic.
I’m sure she did.
When we were still newlyweds and lived in a really crappy neighborhood, my husband once thought he heard gunshots outside our window. I slept through it but woke up on the floor with my husband laying on top of me, covering my head with his arms. He had pushed me off the bed like Michael Corleone did to Kay when the rival gangsters shot up his bedroom. It scared the crap out of me, but I though it was very romantic once I got my wits about me.
Forty years later, we have men being just as snarky, gamy and manipulative as women as always been accused of being. It’s really sort of gay.
It’s nothing new. Casanova types have been gamey and manipulative towards women for generations, with great success. The only thing that is new is that this is now expanding to cover the behavior of more men. This is a predictable outcome of a sexual environment that is drenched in casual sexual opportunity — it actually rewards this behavior by men. Men observe that, and adapt. It really is that simple.
@J
One of the “promises” of 70s feminism was freer and more open relationships in which women could stop pretending to be Doris Day and would not have to use sex to manipulate men. Not being a manipulator, I thought that was a good thing.
Your premise is wrong. No one ever forced women to manipulate men with sex, just like no one ever forced men to manipulate women with romance.
Hey D,
It occurs to me that it looks like I’m trying to one up you with romantic stories. Sorry.
Just for the record, your love for your wife makes you one of my favorite manosphere guys. And I don’t hand out praise lightly or frequently–so don’t expect to hear that again. 😉
[D: Thanks J. I won’t look for a repeat. I didn’t take it as one upsmanship. If anything, I would have been the one guilty of that. I was mainly having a little fun, telling part of the story in a way that might have left some readers guessing for a bit.]
@J
One of the “promises” of 70s feminism was freer and more open relationships in which women could stop pretending to be Doris Day and would not have to use sex to manipulate men. Not being a manipulator, I thought that was a good thing.
Underlying this promise is the premise that gender is a social construct, an artifice, and that men and women are therefore the same in their intellectual and emotional ways of being. Therefore, women are quite capable of handling anonymous sex, and men are quite capable of handling sexless domesticity.
How’s that working out for you? For all of us?
In elementary logic one learns that if a fundamental premise is wrong, every piece of reasoning built on top of it is falsified. Every single solitary one.
A key part of the scientific method is whether an hypothesis can be used to make accurate predictions. If an hypothesis makes predictions that are contrary to the observed real world, a scientific thinker does not disregard the real world, nor have a big tantrum about how unfair the world is. A true scientific thinker takes a hypothesis that can’t make accurate predictions and either modifies it until it does make accurate predictions, or junks it entirely.
Something to consider in your spare time.
No, I’m not wrong. First of all, I said, “One of the premises of feminism…” not one of J’s premises. Second, I’m a bit older that you are. I clearly remember a time when the sort of manipulation both of us recall our mothers doing (You mentioned your mom’s being manipulative a while back.) was the social norm. I grew on on my mother saying things like, “J, don’t ever let a boy know that you like him. A boy chases a girl until she catches him.” Then I got to watch her and my father drive each other batshit.
One thing that I loved about going with my husband is there was never any of that BS. It was, “I want you, you want me. What are we going to do about that?” We negotiated (to the best of our ability) a relationship that’s worked for 20+ years. When I see all the machinations people go through to have a relationshiup, it really breaks my heart. It should be easier than that–and more joyfull.
Great advice, Deuce.
She should do all those things that feminists tell women not to do for the man she wants: “stroke his ego” by praising/respecting him, act in a nurturing manner, generally be an agreeable delight to be around, and generally make him feel like a million bucks.
I agree that women should feel subservient in doing that. A lot of that comes naturally anyway when a woman finds a man who is truly admirable. I won’t tell a young woman to do that with every guy she meets, but an admirable man deserves admiration. OTOH, a lot of manosphere types (not you, obviously) want this without earning it or seek that sort of validation through some sort of stupid “daddy game” with poor and desperate third world women.
This is a predictable outcome of a sexual environment that is drenched in casual sexual opportunity — it actually rewards this behavior by men. Men observe that, and adapt.
I’m sure there’s some truth in that, OTOH, while I’m happy to be old, married and out of the game, I do worry for younger people. I believe it’s still possible for me to raise sons with integrity who will find decent women they can respect and love, but I acknowledge that the search for good guys and good girls has become harder than it once was.
Ironically, the view of romance espoused in this post is similar to a common feminist view of romance. The reason many feminists are suspicious of “romance” (at least as it is commonly understood and practiced) is that it feels EXACTLY like a quid pro quo. A man undergoes a series of mechanical steps (usually involving buying stuff, like flowers or jewelry or dinner) in exchange for the woman’s submission. I think you are quite right that many women do not understand this that these kinds of gestures are often thought of as an exchange.
I do think the post is in error by equating common courtesy with romance. I agree that a man need not start writing love poems or buying roses for a woman after a one-night-stand. But I don’t think basic respect for one’s bed partner (such as refraining from loud flatulence immediately after sex) is an unreasonable “investment” to ask. It should be expected of both the male and female partner. Granted, if you engage in casual sex, you risk waking up in the morning with a jerk — but that fact doesn’t excuse the jerk for his poor behavior.
I myself am most grateful that my husband has never once bought me flowers or an article of jewelry (not counting the plain gold wedding bands we exchanged). Romance ought to come from the outside in — that is, it should be an expression of genuine caring for the other person, and it ought to go both ways, not just something that men do for women.
J: So what you are basically saying is that if a man is met by validation and admiration by his partner he must have been looking for partners in the wrong places. 😉
Do you want more men to be more like Groucho Marx? (“I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.”)
Or is the idea that there is one club that you know that has the absolutely correct rules of admissions (and facilities and members fees) and that all men should do their best to get admitted to that club and no men should be able to refuse membership (because they do not like the facilities or the member’s fee) or to apply to another club (becuase they like facilities and the members fee better)?
Doomed Harlot: I have the distinct impression that (far too) many women hate the idea of negotiating a quid pro quo. They prefer referring to unwritten rules and postulating that no one should be rewarded just for not being a criminal.
It is all “basic respect”, “common courtesy” and so on, and very seldom “I would treat it as a big favour if you would/would not …” or “If you would/would not …, I would be willing to …”.
This may be off topic. Or maybe not. Romance is indeed a form of male investment, but supporting children is a much bigger one, and the monetary side is once again the least of it. DNA testing can now prove paternity beyond the shadow of a doubt, meaning that a man can know if he has been cuckolded. What woman would possibly have a problem with that? Well, for a start, there is Melanie McDonagh of the Spectator who writes this cute little paragraph:
At a stroke, the one thing that women had going for them has been taken away, the one respect in which they had the last laugh over their husbands and lovers. DNA tests are an anti-feminist appliance of science, a change in the balance of power between the sexes that we’ve hardly come to terms with. And that holds true even though many women have the economic potential to provide for their children themselves.
Anyone care to discuss? The rest of the article is at:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/essays/all/6391918/whos-the-daddy.thtml
So what you are basically saying is that if a man is met by validation and admiration by his partner he must have been looking for partners in the wrong places.
No, not if he is an admirable man anyway. A guy who says that he loves SE Asian women because his penis looks bigger in their little hands (and that is what one CR poster actually admitted)? Him, not so much…
I’m saying that the happiest of relationships are between two people who are strong, admirable and emotionally adult. I think that love that comes from a place of strength is better than love that comes from need. At least, IME the stronger I am, the more truly loving and generous I am. And I find that strong men find it easier to be magnanimous than weak ones.
Let me put it this way, although it is a bit exaggerated to prove a point. I’d prefer my son earn the admiration of a heroine than buy the admiration of a slut. It would make him a better man in the long run. Likewise, if I had a daughter, I’d prefer her to be a heroine than a slut.
I have the distinct impression that (far too) many women hate the idea of negotiating a quid pro quo.
I LOVE the idea of negotiating a quid pro quo. I love knowing what’s expected of me so I can either give it or say no. I love negotiating win-win situations for my DH and me.
@Anonymous Reader
Anyone care to discuss?
Sure! Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist. Politics sometimes make strange bedfellows, but it is largely a coincidence that this loon’s opinions mesh with what Roissy imagines to be the feminist agenda. How’s that?
@Anon Reader
Underlying this promise is the premise that gender is a social construct, an artifice, and that men and women are therefore the same in their intellectual and emotional ways of being. Therefore, women are quite capable of handling anonymous sex, and men are quite capable of handling sexless domesticity.
No, you just made a jump that I’m not willing to make. Wanting open and honest relationships does not equate to wanting to ride the carousel. Read the rest of my posts on this thread.
How’s that working out for you?
What I have personally works out just great for me, but my feminism is the feminism of 1977 or so. You know, equal pay for equal work? Not freedom to screw every Tom, Dick or Harry.
The rest of your post is interesting, but I think it applies more toward what you think I’m saying as opposed to what I actually said.
Me
Underlying this promise is the premise that gender is a social construct, an artifice, and that men and women are therefore the same in their intellectual and emotional ways of being. Therefore, women are quite capable of handling anonymous sex, and men are quite capable of handling sexless domesticity.
J
No, you just made a jump that I’m not willing to make. Wanting open and honest relationships does not equate to wanting to ride the carousel. Read the rest of my posts on this thread.
I didn’t make that jump. Feminists made that jump, years ago. The premise of gender as a social construct is fundamental to feminism. The conclusions flow from the premise. Therefore the hookup culture is a direct, logical result of a fundamental premise of feminism. Maybe you don’t like that, but facts don’t change no matter how much we don’t like them, do they?
Me
How’s that working out for you?
J
What I have personally works out just great for me, but my feminism is the feminism of 1977 or so. You know, equal pay for equal work? Not freedom to screw every Tom, Dick or Harry.
Feminism of 1977 also includes “equal pay for work of comparable value”, “all men are rapists, and that’s all they are”, “all men use rape to control all women”, “marriage is slavery” which of course promoted the creation of unilateral divorce as a crowning glory. Sure, I understand, you’re likely another cafeteria feminist, proudly standing up and saying NAFALT! But what you may not want to recall is how many of the 1977 feminist slogans became encoded into law, and thus are part of the current world, along with the cultural artifacts that feminism created that just happen to make romance an expensive investment for men.
You also left of the second part of the question: how’s it working out for the rest of us? The women referred to in the original posting, women on college campuses stuck in the hookup culture, women in their mid 30’s who suddenly want to get married before their biological clock runs down — how’s it all working out for them?
“I’m All Right, Jane” may make sense to you, but the rest of us are trying to have a civilization, here.
J
The rest of your post is interesting, but I think it applies more toward what you think I’m saying as opposed to what I actually said.
The rest of the my post is simply a couple of observations about logic and science. I can understand if you don’t want to go there. Most feminists can’t, don’t and won’t.
Anon–
I think you are setting up a strawman to argue with. I am just about as feminist as Susan Walsh. If you would call her a cafeteria feminist, then you can call me one as well.
I wouldn’t argue that “all men are rapists, and that’s all they are”, “all men use rape to control all women”, or “marriage is slavery.” I have never made any statements to that effect on the interwebz nor did I believe that crap in 1977, so don’t try to pretend that I’m Jaclyn Friedman. In fact, if you had read enough of my previous posts, you’d know that I’ve been happily married for over 20 years and have two teenage sons, so I may be more invested in the civilization they will have to live in than you are.
At any rate, I’m not going to let you attempt to push me into defending those positions just for the sake of argument. Go tell it to Jaclyn.
J: “No, not if he is an admirable man anyway. A guy who says that he loves SE Asian women because his penis looks bigger in their little hands (and that is what one CR poster actually admitted)? Him, not so much…”
And what about women who want a big strong masculine man to feel protected and feminine?
“I’m saying that the happiest of relationships are between two people who are strong, admirable and emotionally adult. I think that love that comes from a place of strength is better than love that comes from need. At least, IME the stronger I am, the more truly loving and generous I am. And I find that strong men find it easier to be magnanimous than weak ones.”
My argument is that in short or mid term you will only know what value they put on themselves and what value they put on you. Their real value will only show over time, even if it’s directly obvious in some cases.
“Let me put it this way, although it is a bit exaggerated to prove a point. I’d prefer my son earn the admiration of a heroine than buy the admiration of a slut. It would make him a better man in the long run. Likewise, if I had a daughter, I’d prefer her to be a heroine than a slut.”
But my point is that it is wise to look for market imperfections and find bargains. These might be found in different price ranges, but the higher the price the less chance of bargains and higher risk for overpriced assets. Limiting one self to a single market will make it more difficult to find bargains and more likely to get overpriced goods. “Earning the admiration of a heroine” implies that a) there are heroines, b) they can be easily identified, c) they have high standards for admiration, d) there are clear rules how their admiration is earned, e) the energy invested in earning their admiration would not give a higher ROI in another area of self fulfillment.
Lavazza says:
Doomed Harlot: I have the distinct impression that (far too) many women hate the idea of negotiating a quid pro quo. They prefer referring to unwritten rules and postulating that no one should be rewarded just for not being a criminal.
. . . It is all “basic respect”, “common courtesy” and so on, and very seldom “I would treat it as a big favour if you would/would not …” or “If you would/would not …, I would be willing to …”.
When I referred to “basic respect,” I was referring to not farting loudly immediately after sex with a new person. I assumed such an act was a hostile gesture intended to communicate, “You are a worthless skank and I despise you for having sex with me.” If my assumption is correct (and I suppose one would have to be there to read the situation), it would be really ludicrous to say, “I would really appreciate it if only you would be willing to not treat me like a worthless skank.” When I talk about “basic respect,” I mean things like not slamming doors in people’s faces, not insulting them, being generally polite etc. I like to think those are things you don’t have to negotiate or beg for.
Ironically, at least in my experience, it always seems to be men who want to introduce “romance” (like buying flowers and such). It is men who get the most bent out of shape about the death of chivalry. (“I’ll show those women! I won’t open doors for them anymore. Take that, mean feminists!”) Sure, there are some woman who want the door-opening without realizing that that traditionally came at the price of having to kow-tow and accept being a second class citizen. But mostly it is anti-feminist men who mourn the death of manners that once reflected drastically different gender roles.
I postulate that there is “romance” as understood in our culture, and then what I consider real romance. “Romance” (i.e. the cultural understanding of it) is the idea that men take certain steps (buying flowers, dinner, jewelry) and in exchange they get sex and devotion. Real romance, on the other hand, is a display of genuine caring and love by one partner for the other, male or female.
I don’t buy for a minute that men are impervious to real romance. In the morning after my shower I often write little love sentiments on the bathroom mirrors and windows where they are all steamed up — for my husband to find when he hops in the shower after me. It is the cheesiest thing ever and the man freakin’ loves it. And he is a typical gun totin’, baseball cap wearin’, football watchin’ American male. Men are human beings, not automatons insensitive to love and affection. They are every bit as sensitive and responsive to gestures of love and caring as we women are. It’s just that those feelings for men are not in the cultural script so many of us (male and female) accept unquestioningly.
OK, I’ll stop talking soon, but I wanted to respond to the idea that 1970s era feminism said that “marriage is slavery.” Someone above raised it.
See, the thing is, and I say this as a woman who has been happily married for many years, the 1970s era feminists were quite right. Marriage was slavery. I was there. I am the daughter of a 1970s era marriage. My mother’s choices in life were: (a) get married or (b) live as a “spinster,” pitied by all and without much prospect for making a living except in relatively low wage occupations like teaching or nursing (though that was starting to change). Her entire 1950s era upbringing was geared towards getting married. And when she did, she found that being married generally involved waiting hand and foot on my father, having him tell her what to do, and also taking orders from my father’s boss (such as being required to serve as social hostess at various company functions). The entire culture and social structure was geared towards the assumption that my mother was my father’s servant. Sure, opting out of marriage was an option — but only if you wanted to be a despised and disapproved of and pitied by your parents, your friends, your family, etc. And only if you were happy being poor and having no sex. And only if you thought to question (as the feminists did) the assumptions on which gender roles of the era were based. Otherwise, it was a lifetime of deference and picking up socks.
Well, there is always a certain degree of “mission creep” in notions like “common courtesy”, “basic respect” and so on. My idea is that if two people find each agreable enough to become lovers or even just friends, then their current behaviour is the bottom line for that relation, which means that improvements are gifts or favours, which should be reprocicated, for the relation to stay balanced.
Doomed Harlot,
men were also socially pressured to marry and their existence wasn’t that shiny either. They were expected to provide for their entire family, had to defer to their boss, serve in the army as conscripts etc. So we might as well say that both men and women were “slaves”, but in that case we just inflate the meaning of that word to a point where it becomes meaningless.
Hollenhund,
Yes, indeed. If you were a man of my father’s generation, you did your military service, you married, and you donned that hard-hat or that grey flannel suit for the rest of your life. There is no doubt in my mind that providing for a wife and children was an enormous amount of pressure for one person to handle.
This is yet another of the many reasons that I am a hard-core feminist.
Of course, the male role, while difficult, had compensations. Men were respected and deferred to, and exercised power in their families and communities. In my family, in the 1970s, my father made a big point of sitting at the head of the table. As a general matter, even the lowliest man had a woman who deferred to him. Women, in contrast, were constantly condescended to and belittled. I know because I was there and I saw it with my own eyes.
The traditional female role had compensations as well — less stress, more family time. But human nature is human nature whether you are man or a woman. Thus, it is extremely hard to cope with being told you are inferior, being expected to blithely accept a relatively powerless status, and being treated constantly with disrespect — all things women of my mother’s generation and before had to tolerate. These kinds of things make people angry, whether they are MRAs screaming about “emasculation” or feminists who complain of “slavery.” It always amazes me that people could possibly expect women to be happy with the mandatory traditional marriages of old.
@Doomed Harlot
It always amazes me that people could possibly expect women to be happy with the mandatory traditional marriages of old.
Those diabolical patriarchal bastards also tricked those women into thinking they were happier with their marriages as well!
Meh. I am sure my mother would say she was “very happy” with her marriage then and now. She still hated being in a traditional gender role. She still was furious about the way women were treated in our society. She still saw a need for feminism.
Also, I have never in my life posited the existence of a diabolical cabal of patriarchal bastards.
Doomed,
“I postulate that there is “romance” as understood in our culture, and then what I consider real romance. “Romance” (i.e. the cultural understanding of it) is the idea that men take certain steps (buying flowers, dinner, jewelry) and in exchange they get sex and devotion. Real romance, on the other hand, is a display of genuine caring and love by one partner for the other, male or female.”
Good point. “Romance” in culture is almost always painted as flowing from man to woman, because of holidays or apologizing for something, in exchange for the possibility of nookie. Absurd. Marc Rudov boycotts Valentine’s Day on the premise romance should be “spontaneous and mutual,” neither of which the Hallmark Holiday marketing abides.
“I don’t buy for a minute that men are impervious to real romance…men are human beings, not automatons insensitive to love and affection. They are every bit as sensitive and responsive to gestures of love and caring as we women are. It’s just that those feelings for men are not in the cultural script so many of us (male and female) accept unquestioningly.”
YES. Now please propagate this to other women who think men don’t have feelings.
Ha ha. I will do my best, Badger.
Just to tweak you a little bit, I note that men often seem pretty hard on other men in this regard. Men aren’t really supposed to admit to being “in wuv” or having all sorts of goopy feelings about women. Young men are particularly rough on each other in this regard.
Hi Lavazza,
And what about women who want a big strong masculine man to feel protected and feminine?
To what extent? I’ll admit to wanting some of that myself at times, but not to the extent that I’m willing to infantilize myself to get it.
Lavazza, the idea of female weakness as a basis for love and romance is a relatively new one. Pedestalization and chivalry come to us straight from medieval knightly romance. But most of us aren’t descended from lords and ladies. We come from generations of primitive hunter/gathers, followed by generations of farmer/farm wivers and common laborers. The average woman isn’t helpless. That America was wealthy enough for a while to allow a few generations of women the luxury of staying atr home and playing bridge between loads of machine laundry doesn’t men that it’s natural or good. Healthy people are sturdy people who can take of themselves and their spouses in a mutually interdependent way. The daddy’s girl crap is a manipulation for many women. An adult woman really needs a daddy is defective.
My argument is that in short or mid term you will only know what value they put on themselves and what value they put on you. Their real value will only show over time, even if it’s directly obvious in some cases.
True enough, but if you lok carefully, you do see early indicators of character. An example: On our way to a dinner where my DH, then boyfriend, was speaking we had a flat tire. Dressed in his best suit, my husband tried unsuccessfully to change the tire but the bolts were rusted too tight. I was impressed when he didn’t get nuts over it. He was impressed when I offered him the use of my AAA card. He liked that I always leaned over to unlock the driver’s side after he opened the car door for me. I liked that he brought me soup when I was sick. All that stuff indicates character.
As to earning the admiration of a heroine vs. buying the admiration of a slut, I did say I as speaking in extremes to drive home a point. Most of us are something in between. But there is a lot of heroism in everyday life, and I prefer to be around people who can demonstrate that. I’m not sure how to explain what the heroic feminine is because it might differ from man to man. It would depend on what the man valued. I know that there are obstacles that I’ve overcome in life and that my husband admired for it. The converse is true as well. I don’t know that “the energy invested in earning [each other’s] admiration” would not have give us as individuals a higher ROI if invested in some other area of self fulfillment. I do know that finding an admirable spouse was the basis for my and my husband’s happiness in marriage.
Interestingly “romance” seems to = Beta Male comfort building.
Athol,
“Interestingly “romance” seems to = Beta Male comfort building.”
I think most commentors on romance are operating under one of two premises:
1. An interested female probably already displays comfort behaviors instinctively.
2. An interested female doesn’t have to show any comfort behaviors, because she’s entitled to male resources, and men don’t have emotions anyway.
The former is the one on this board. The latter is the Cosmo opinion.
One of the great lies of omission to today’s beta men is that romance will not produce attraction – it can only amplify, concentrate or exploit it. Wish someone had told me before an unnecessary number of crash and burns in my early youth.
J: Thank you for reading my post carefully and for a well argued answer. I will not comment each part, but I guess it is the “earning admiration” part that gets me started. My motivators for any type of work/energy investment is the love to learn/create/share, or the fact that I have put myself into a situation that I have to sort out some way or another. “Earning admiration” is a signal that the “real me” which is the spontaneous result of living according to my own emotions and morality is not enough, which means that this admiration, if and when earned, will stand on shaky ground.
J, merely repeating NAFALT over and over again doesn’t prove much more than that you personally benefited from 1970’s feminism. It doesn’t change the fact that the system you benefited and continue to benefit from has continued on down the logical road, to the point that young men and even middle aged men are increasingly wary of women for perfectly logical reasons. Thus we now have the spectacle of the social scene described waaay up at the top of the posting, which you sort of acknowledge as a bad thing, but seem to regard as something that “just happened”, like a hurricane or earthquake. You don’t seem capable of understanding cause and effect.
PS: It appears you do not understand what a strawman argument is.
… romance will not produce attraction – it can only amplify, concentrate or exploit it.
Exactly, save romance for those who deserve it. But once you have someone who does deserve it, use it to augment the relationship.
J
Sure! Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist. Politics sometimes make strange bedfellows, but it is largely a coincidence that this loon’s opinions mesh with what Roissy imagines to be the feminist agenda. How’s that?
Facile. Whenever mandatory genetic testing at birth is suggested, as was the case a couple of years ago in Tennessee, feminists come out of the woodwork to oppose it. So it appears that Roissy isn’t imagining anything, because cuckolding husbands is a female reproductive strategy.
In the larger sense, banning paternity testing would increase women’s choices and freedoms while decreasing men’s options and increase men’s responsibilities. That’s feminist by definition. And that kind of mindset – that women are entitled to have what they want when they want it – is so widespread that guess what? It’s made men more reluctant to invest too much, emotionally as well as financially, in women without a lot of reciprocation one way or another.
Which is the topic of this thread.
L: Thank you for reading my post carefully and for a well argued answer.
J: You’re welcome.
L: I will not comment each part, but I guess it is the “earning admiration” part that gets me started.
J: Maybe it’s just the terminology. Maybe I come off a bit Randian with this stuff, but I truly believe in lasting love being based on values, not just sexual attraction. (Not that I’m against sexual attraction ;-). )It’s not like my husband put on some sort of dog and pony show to win me, he was just a really admirable person who exhibited as a part of his normal personality traits that I valued.
L:My motivators for any type of work/energy investment is the love to learn/create/share, or the fact that I have put myself into a situation that I have to sort out some way or another.
J: I actually share that sentiment.
L:“Earning admiration” is a signal that the “real me” which is the spontaneous result of living according to my own emotions and morality is not enough, which means that this admiration, if and when earned, will stand on shaky ground.
J: I hear what you’re saying. What I mean is more like your living according to your own emotions and morality has made you into an admirable person to some woman. What that will look like will vary from woman to woman. To further amplify that idea, there’s a big difference in what a “heroine” admires and what a “slut” admires. A heroine would admire certain indicators of good character; a slut might admire a guy’s prison record for assault on rival guys. Again, I’m using extremes, but is this making sense?
Badger Nation:
1. An interested female probably already displays comfort behaviors instinctively.
2. An interested female doesn’t have to show any comfort behaviors, because she’s entitled to male resources, and men don’t have emotions anyway.
The former is the one on this board. The latter is the Cosmo opinion.
From what I can tell, there is a definite distribution to the two options. The older a woman is, the higher the probability of option 1 although it never reaches 1.0. The younger a woman is, the higher the probability of option 2. Gen-Y women seem to be almost entirely in option 2, so far as I can tell. Which just might explain why so many Gen-Y men seem prote to take the slacker route…
@Anonymous Reader
It appears you do not understand what a strawman argument is.
From Wikipedia: “A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.[1] To “attack a straw man” is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the “straw man”), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.”
You have no idea what my position on MPT, cuckoldry, or female reproductive strategies are, but by pretending to know my position based on my saying “Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist,” you are indeed setting up a strawman. Your response to me is based not on anything I’ve said about the issue at hand, which is MPT, but on my opinion of McDonagh. And, I suspect you are doing it out of anti-feminist feelings as opposed to any knowledge of me. So yeah, go argue with Jaclyn Friedman. I hear she is branching out to cis-gendered men. If you are one, maybe you can stir up enough passion to get laid by her. Hopefully, the meeting of matter and anti-matter will blow you both up.
As it happens, I not so sure that paternity testing isn’t in the best interests of feminists, and more importantly of children, as it is a means of enforcing child support. I further suspect that McDonagh’ interest is in preventing abortion, not in building a feminist paradise. And, I goggled her. Her interests line up far more clearly those of right-wingers, not those of feminists.
I agree that women should NOT feel subservient in doing that.
Just saw my typo. Fixed. I meant to say it is NOT subservient to admire someone admirable. It is subservient (or manipulative) to pretend to admire someone unadmirable.
@Anon
Thus we now have the spectacle of the social scene described waaay up at the top of the posting, which you sort of acknowledge as a bad thing, but seem to regard as something that “just happened”, like a hurricane or earthquake. You don’t seem capable of understanding cause and effect.
No, I just don’t agree that women in law or medical school is the direct cause of the cock carousel. However, I do recall several unscrupulous men back in 1977 trying to talk me into taking a ride because the right to be judged according to individual merit was somehow the “equal right” to get screwed over by them. Didn’t equate then, doesn’t equate now.
But feel free to continue fantasizing about what you think my thought processes are. It makes me feel important. 😉
J, congratulations on learning what a strawman argument is.
You have no idea what my position on MPT, cuckoldry, or female reproductive strategies are,
Correct.
but by pretending to know my position based on my saying “Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist,” you are indeed setting up a strawman.
I don’t have to know what your position is to state facts: it is a fact that MPT was proposed in Tennessee a few years ago, and feminists opposed it. That’s history. It is a fact that cuckolding is a female reproductive strategy. That’s biology. It is a fact that feminism for years has increased female choice while reducing male choice. That’s history. Interestingly, none of these facts are about you. In fact, none of what I wrote was about you. It’s not all about you. It’s about facts and reality.
So yeah, go argue with Jaclyn Friedman. I hear she is branching out to cis-gendered men. If you are one, maybe you can stir up enough passion to get laid by her. Hopefully, the meeting of matter and anti-matter will blow you both up.
Oh, boy, more standard feminist shaming language! How novel, one hardly ever gets to see such an accusation nowadays. What daring, bold, strong statement will you make next, I wonder? Something about fish and bicycles, perhaps? Something about body parts? Gosh, the suspense is surely building…
As it happens, I not so sure that paternity testing isn’t in the best interests of feminists, and more importantly of children, as it is a means of enforcing child support.
Then why, pray tell, do feminists almost universally oppose it? Don’t trot out NAFALT, explain why feminists oppose mandatory paternity testing of newborn children. It certainly isn’t “for the children”, as feminism has a number of dogmas that hurt children in a variety of ways, and those dogmas are never to be questioned. Only losers who never get laid (and have small body parts) would ever do so…
J
No, I just don’t agree that women in law or medical school is the direct cause of the cock carousel.
That’s fine. Nobody here has made such a claim, so you appear to be debating with an imaginary friend. Of course there were women in universities over a century ago, long before the notion that gender is a social construct became feminist dogma. It is the notion that women are just men who can have babies that leads to the unleashing of female hypergamy, that leads to the sexual marketplace of today. So one of these things (women going to college) is not like the other (women and men are exactly the same), and thus pretending that 197o’s feminism was only about getting women into college is quite disingenuous.
However, I do recall several unscrupulous men back in 1977 trying to talk me into taking a ride because the right to be judged according to individual merit was somehow the “equal right” to get screwed over by them. Didn’t equate then, doesn’t equate now.
Cads have always existed. However, women did not used to reward them nearly as much as they do now, in the era of fully liberated women, free to pursue their own desires and needs without any hindrance or evil patriarchal limits. Once again, you avoid the fact that today’s hookup culture is a direct descendant of the 1970’s feminism that you embrace.
@Anon Rdr
J, congratulations on learning what a strawman argument is.
Why, lil old me! All I had to do was google, cut and paste! And now you know too.
J: You have no idea what my position on MPT, cuckoldry, or female reproductive strategies are,
AR: Correct.
J: but by pretending to know my position based on my saying “Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist,” you are indeed setting up a strawman.
AR:I don’t have to know what your position …
J: Very good. That’s exactly how to set up a strawman.
AR: is to state facts:
J: …that are unrelated to the discussion of whether or not McDonagh is a feminist. See, that’s a strawman!
As long as we are learning about logic, let’s try the syllogism:
All Kentucky Derby winners are horses.
Secretariat won the Kentucky Derby.
Therefore, Secretariat is a horse.
See how that works. Let’s try another:
Secretariat won the Kentucky Derby.
Kentucky Derby winners are horses.
Therefore, all horses are Secretariat.
That one doesn’t work. Compare it to your logic:
I read once that some feminists in Tennessee opposed MPT
McDonagh opposes MPT
All opponents of MPT, including McDonagh, are feminists.
Your syllogism doesn’t hold up.
Oh, boy, more standard feminist shaming language! How novel, one hardly ever gets to see such an accusation nowadays.
Is it more or less cliche than your reliance on the “no more NAFALT” meme. As to fish and bicycles, I quite understood that statement. I rather like men.
Then why, pray tell, do feminists almost universally oppose it?
I don’t know that they do, however, a hang-up that I see is that the newborn death rate will probably go up as angry cuckolds lose control of themselves.
That’s fine. Nobody here has made such a claim, so you appear to be debating with an imaginary friend.
My imaginary friend called. She wants to have dinner with your strawman. She’d offer to go Dutch, but NAFALT.
Of course there were women in universities over a century ago,
Certainly not in their current numbers, and few outside of nursing and ed school.
long before the notion that gender is a social construct became feminist dogma.
Tell your strawman that I never made that claim.
It is the notion that women are just men who can have babies that leads to the unleashing of female hypergamy
Really, I had the impression that the manosphere calls female hypergamy a natural product of evolutionary psychology. I hear that I am biologically programmed to screw guys like you over in my search for more and more alpha mates.
that leads to the sexual marketplace of today.
You have your meme wrong. The lack of oppression and the development of greater economic opportunities for women allows me to pursue my natural hypergamous instincts. We need more patriarchy to keep the women in line.
Pretending that many members of the manosphere don’t have paranoia about female achievement leading to women finding them unattractive is disingenuous.
Cads have always existed. However, women did not used to reward them nearly as much as they do now, in the era of fully liberated women, free to pursue their own desires and needs without any hindrance or evil patriarchal limits.
There we go.
Once again, you avoid the fact that today’s hookup culture is a direct descendant of the 1970′s feminism
Yeah, the general lack of morality in our culture has nothing to do with it. Those nasty feminists make men take advantage of women. Men have no control or morality of their own; they must rely on women to be the gatekeepers–while ignoring the women who are not “throwing themselves at the alphas.”
that you embrace.
Because you know what I embrace…
Whoops!
That should read, “I never quite understood that statement. I rather like men.”
J:
“Then why, pray tell, do feminists almost universally oppose it?
I don’t know that they do, however, a hang-up that I see is that the newborn death rate will probably go up as angry cuckolds lose control of themselves.”
Tell me you aren’t suggesting what it looks like you’re suggesting….
Paul–
What do you think I’m suggesting? That all men are murderers? No, of course not.
Are there men who will kill babies? Google up statistics about kids being killed when mom’s boyfriend is not the baby daddy. Now imagine the anger generated when that fact is a surprise. Shit happens.
[D: If only we could keep the babies someplace safe while the test results came in. Someplace with a nursery and doctors and nurses maybe. How long would a DNA test take? Or maybe control the environment when the test results are shared with the potential dupee. Or, maybe the mom shouldn’t be a lying whore. Just a thought…]
D:
If only we could keep the babies someplace safe while the test results came in. Someplace with a nursery and doctors and nurses maybe. How long would a DNA test take?
I’m not sure. I do know that they don’t keep moms and newborns in the hospital for too long. They pushed me out 48 hours after a C-section. My friend recently had a cancerous lesion in her colon removed during a routine colonscopy and was sent home that same day. In our present insurance climate, they want you out ASAP no matter what. Maybe there will need to be special shelters for moms and newborns awaiting test results. Who is paying for that?
Or maybe control the environment when the test results are shared with the potential dupee.
The logistics of that need to worked out, but OK….
Or, maybe the mom shouldn’t be a lying whore. Just a thought…
Well, obviously she shouldn’t be, but do we need to punish an innocent newborn for that? If we could kill people for the sins of their parents, the population would be much smaller. It would make the anti-natalists happy, at least. 😉
For the record, I don’t necessarily oppose PT. Perhaps, it should be a required to get child support. I do strongly feel that men should support their own children, but not a child who is not theirs. (While I don’t see McDonagh as a feminist, I do see her as a dishonest crackpot.) I’d also be quite pissed to find out that a child who I thought was my grandchild, really wasn’t.
OTOH, you yourself proved that men who believe themselves to be the bio dads of their kids are right 98% of the time (if I remember the number correctly). If this is true, how necessary is routine MPT? Certainly men who have doubts can simply refuse to support the kid and then demand a paternity test in court when the mom sues. Better yet, perhaps there should be MPT before a case concerning a kid can go to court. Or perhaps, there should be MPT before a government agency attempts to collect child support on the child’s behalf or as welfare reimbursement. That seems safer and more cost effective.
BTW, who will pay for routine MPT? Maury Povich? Private insurance, boosting all our rates? Medicaid, boosting all our taxes? Will the presumptive father have a right to refuse the test if he feels it’s unnecessary or doesn’t want to pay for it? Seems like there are variables here that go beyond feminism or MRA.
Quick googling turns up: Some DNA labs offer express 1-day service, so it seems that it could be done while still in the hospital especially if the hospital is set up for it. If not, it can be sent off and have the results returned before birth certificate paperwork has to be turned in. Prices run about $400-500 USD, which is a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to the total cost of delivering one at a hospital.
And they already do all kinds of poking and prodding and swabbing for all sorts of tests. Wouldn’t be intrusive at all, and if the guy asks why, you just tell him is a requirement for the birth cert.
There is not a good time to deliver this kind of bad news. I wouldn’t want to be the one to do it. But sooner would be better because bonding happens pretty quick.
Pingback: Commitment as a form of female investment. | Dalrock
J: You have no idea what my position on MPT, cuckoldry, or female reproductive strategies are,
AR: Correct.
J: but by pretending to know my position based on my saying “Melanie McDonagh is an ultra-conservative, anti-abortion, Catholic right-winger, not a feminist,” you are indeed setting up a strawman.
AR:I don’t have to know what your position …
J: Very good. That’s exactly how to set up a strawman.
No. I do not have to know or care your position on anything to state facts. Facts exist independent of whatever you may believe, indeed, they are independent of whether you like them or not.
AR: is to state facts:
J: …that are unrelated to the discussion of whether or not McDonagh is a feminist. See, that’s a strawman!
Please review the definition of a strawman argument at your leisure, since you seem to have forgotten it.
Compare it to your logic:
I read once that some feminists in Tennessee opposed MPT
McDonagh opposes MPT
All opponents of MPT, including McDonagh, are feminists.
Congratulations on using the strawman fallacy. A fine example. Did you have a point to make?
Oh, boy, more standard feminist shaming language! How novel, one hardly ever gets to see such an accusation nowadays.
Is it more or less cliche than your reliance on the “no more NAFALT” meme.
NAFALT is a cliche, to be sure, I’ve been tired of it for decades. But your shaming language is so typical of feminist “thought”, and so tiresome, and so predictable that it deserved, and deserves to be jeered at, and nothing more.
As to fish and bicycles, I quite understood that statement. I rather like men.
Come now, please do trot out some more feminist cliches, in lieu of argument. There’s a good girl…
Regarding MPT:
Then why, pray tell, do feminists almost universally oppose it?
J
I don’t know that they do, however, a hang-up that I see is that the newborn death rate will probably go up as angry cuckolds lose control of themselves.
Very typical feminist argument; no facts, no evidence, mere speculation with a touch of trolling-for-flames. And, of course, no admission that honest women have nothing to fear from MPT…
Me
Of course there were women in universities over a century ago,
J
Certainly not in their current numbers, and few outside of nursing and ed school.
So what? You made the claim that feminism was about “women in law and medical school”, implying the usual rainbow/unicorn version of feminism. The fact that women were in colleges long before the notion of gender as a social construct simply demonstrates that 1970’s feminism was not required for women to enter higher education. However, the notion of gender as a social construct leads to the mistaken notion that women’s sexuality and men’s sexuality are the same, which leads to the hookup culture of today.
As I wrote before:
long before the notion that gender is a social construct became feminist dogma.
Tell your strawman that I never made that claim.
Never said you did. And it is a fact that “gender is a social construct” is feminist dogma, regardless of what you claim. It has been for decades. And that notion leads to the modern hookup culture.
Me
It is the notion that women are just men who can have babies that leads to the unleashing of female hypergamy
J
Really, I had the impression that the manosphere calls female hypergamy a natural product of evolutionary psychology.
Please read more carefully. Hypergamy exists, regardless of what you believe. In a stable culture, female hypergamy is kept under control by custom and often law. If you carefully parse my sentence, you will note that I am asserting what unleashed, i.e. removed the control from, female hypergamy.
I hear that I am biologically programmed to screw guys like you over in my search for more and more alpha mates.
I’m sure you hear lots of things. But that is neither interesting or useful.
that leads to the sexual marketplace of today.
You have your meme wrong. The lack of oppression and the development of greater economic opportunities for women allows me to pursue my natural hypergamous instincts. We need more patriarchy to keep the women in line.
Nope. My theory is correct, because it explains reality.
J
Pretending that many members of the manosphere don’t have paranoia about female achievement leading to women finding them unattractive is disingenuous.
I have not mentioned the “manosphere”, preferring to stick to facts.
Me:
Cads have always existed. However, women did not used to reward them nearly as much as they do now, in the era of fully liberated women, free to pursue their own desires and needs without any hindrance or evil patriarchal limits.
J
There we go.
Glad to see you finally agreeing with reality.
Me
Once again, you avoid the fact that today’s hookup culture is a direct descendant of the 1970′s feminism
Yeah, the general lack of morality in our culture has nothing to do with it.
Feminism contributes to the decline in morality in more ways that one. But let’s remain focused on the hookup culture, since this is the “romance as a form of male investment” thread, shall we?
Those nasty feminists make men take advantage of women.Men have no control or morality of their own; they must rely on women to be the gatekeepers–while ignoring the women who are not “throwing themselves at the alphas.”
Nice strawman. Oops…sorry I oppressed you — nice strawperson.
that you embrace.
Because you know what I embrace…
Earlier you told us all that you were a 1977-style feminist. Were you lying?
Regarding “fish and bicycles”
J
Whoops!
That should read, “I never quite understood that statement. I rather like men.”
It has been established that you are a cafeteria feminist, that is not new. Whether you like men or not is unproven and uninteresting in any event. If you don’t trot out that cliche, it is of no moment, because you’ve already shown you prefer the usual, tired, feminist shaming language to actually attempting to read and understand facts and reason.
No matter how many trite slogans from your youth you drag up, the facts won’t change. It is 1970’s feminism that led to the current hookup culture. That’s reality. Deal with it.
Pingback: The other side of hypergamy: fantasy of the forced choice. | Dalrock
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: You Know What the Pattern Is Edition
“The fact that women were in colleges long before the notion of gender as a social construct”
I’d be interested in any links you may have about this in the US. Certainly, in the UK it was linked to ‘feminism’ in the 19th century.
Lily:
“The fact that women were in colleges long before the notion of gender as a social construct”
I’d be interested in any links you may have about this in the US. Certainly, in the UK it was linked to ‘feminism’ in the 19th century.
Not sure I understand the question. To the best of my knowledge, the anti-scientific notion of gender as a social construct is a product of the late 1960’s to early 1970’s. Women in college circa 1910 may well be tied to the feminism of the late 19th century, but that period of feminism clearly would have rejected the notion of gender as a social construct. Consider one argument for women’s suffrage: that women were “more moral than men” and thus would vote for the candidate of the highest character. Feminism has always had a strong streak of female supremacy in it, the alcohol prohibition movement showed that as well.
So did any of this blather accidentally ask the question you had in mind?
Pingback: Women are the ones who want to avoid commitment. | Dalrock
Pingback: Do you love me? | Dalrock
Pingback: Thoughts on the future of marriage | Dalrock
I would suggest that one reason that romance is dead is that romance is treated as stalking or sexual harrassement. Why should I run those kind of risks, with white knights ready to attack me. It is noticable how many of the women in the above article rejected the man who had been romantic. They claim that is what they want, but in reality they don’t. They regard romantic men as losers, wimps. Contra the Game crowd: If a woman is interested in you, she will let you know. These days it is more important to avoid getting mixed up with someone unsuitable. As most are unsuitable there is a lot of rejecting to be done, and women go through a hard selection process – I rather doubt they are aware that men do this. I get more street-cred by not sleeping with women of dubious reputation than I do scoring with them. The player may in a way be envied, but also pitied as an unpaid gigolo.
Pingback: Women today assume they can have marriage merely for the taking | Dalrock
no point in buying flowers for a girl who will soon be slobbering on some other dude’s cock.
Listen to me now and think for yourselves all of you. Paternity testing should be mandatory or at least would have to be included in the price UNLESS the father (or alleged father) explicitly demands no testing necessary, that’s his own choice that he makes. As the things are today, taking a paternity test is highly stigmatized, especially for married couples. Take note that close to 4% of babies born INSIDE OF MARRIAGE are raised by fathers who don’t even know that those aren’t their biological children. Cohabiting couples probably have even bigger figures but they probably do expect this and should do the testing anyways.
I’ve done research about paternity testing on the internet, it started off pretty weak with only a few people in USA doing the testing early on, but then it got a huge boost and it continues to rise. Last year 500,000 paternity tests were done, many of those for now elderly children and grown ups, but more and more people do the tests on newborn children. That tells you something. Testing should be included in the price during baby delivery, because less than 4 million children were born, and more and more people do the tests anyways.
Abortion operations are funded by federal government. Child care and free coupons and many other things are funded by state. How come millions of abortions that cost hundreds of dollars or even thousands for late abortions are funded by state, how come millions of people have fre coupons and child care and what not, while paternity tests, which would cost way lower if done automatically, are not included!?
We have finally evolved to a state where a woman CAN’T cheat her husband over paternity, however large social stigma and especially LAWS are deliberately making it an obstacle even today, after 20 years of such tests being around and available, so people are either completely bashed and shamed, they are denied by courts to do the legal tests, or they can even be jailed if they admit that they did a hidden test with their child before asking paternity testing, and they are still forced to pay child support. I can’t believe this is true and I realized it only after googling, had i been a minor my father wouldn’t be able to do the test legally!
To tell you how much alleged 4% of population is…. if those figures would be a constant for a worldwide population, that’d mean that 280 MILLION currently living people were raised or are still being raised by fathers who weren’t aware that those are not their biological children. Those are statistics for children born in wedlock. And i guess in poorer countries that filled with prostitution and what not, those figures are even higher.
Any person who disregards this enjoys misery of millions of people worldwide. People would like to have this option available without court obstacles, without social stigma and without fees that discourage them to do the testing out of “duty to trust other person”. I would like to have this option when i marry, and I think it’s my right and responsibility to know the truth without shaming and all the legal obstacles. It’s woman’s responsibility if she tries to fraud someone and any common sense would say that for such fraud the penalties should be severe, but obviously it’s about rewarding such behavior.
Telling about number of fathers who allegedly kill children due to not being their parents forgets to say that those are generally a minority and also a minority who is legally forced to pay child support or were living 10 or more years under deception of being a father of a child, because they TRUSTED someone and their trust was played on.
J, you have no heart. Do you have any contempt to your father, brother, maybe your son, or an uncle, do you hate them so much!? For being men?! Do you know that US laws make it possible for a wife to kill her baby that she delivers in secrecy with plans to secretly abort the baby and to get a low penalty for that, due to “partial insanity” if it’s done right after delivery, that is IF she is caught. And some people think that there should be no punishment, even though it’s an obvious preparation to commit a murder of a child. Those things occur much much more often than any killing due to paternity testing, you can count on that.
You don’t want to know that because it doesn’t concern you as a woman, it can never happen to you, you’re in control over that and you can make your choice. I’d ask you if a man would be carrying a child instead, would you wish it to be destigmatized, free of charge and mandatory, or not. I just know this will become reality one day whether you like it or not, maybe not today but definitely within a few decades. I bet you don’t reconsider a man should be entitled to chose to abort a child or not either. So what does that mean, a freedom of choice when it suits you, even at the price of making your father, husband, brother or your son less worth than a sperm donor, because even a sperm donor would have right to choose if he wants to participate in the process, while people consider that the consent is given by mere fact that they are men and that they had sex with someone else. Talk about rights and no responsibilities when it suits your gender, since that’s not how it works with pregnancy if you’re a woman!
There was a thing known as trust and it got lost in decades of promotion of consumerism where it’s all about someone’s ego. Trust has eroded so much in this society because there is no moral and people think they are entitled to do anything they want, because world is filled with fools who trust in things they sign and they don’t know how the cards are stacked when it comest to common sense and cheating. All the laws regarding marriage faithfulness and common values are demolished and used against honest people in the same time.
You can cheat someone over many grave things and be treated as if you did nothing wrong even though you signed and verified an official document (marriage), an agreement that has a strong value in front of worldwide community and in front of the law… but it doesn’t have sanctions for such things. But in that same time if you download a single mp3 song illegally you can be sued and even sent to jail. Talk about common sense!
To tell you all, I just randomed this site after googling for my “problem” and just wanted to share a story and an opinion. I am a grown up person who spent 22 years of life undoubtedly thinking that my father is also my biological father. I did a test out of curiosity, a “cheap test”, and it failed without doubt, which gave us huge anxiety within family, I couldn’t say it to my father right away, but I told him later on and it struck him. My “mother” DENIED it, and at that point I just had to know the truth so we did the testing even though she was convincing me that it is a mistake, she even claimed that she called them and that they demanded us to drive a long way to check it instead, something i decided to check directly by calling them myself by phone, only to find out it’s a lie.
This time we demanded official test, performed by official staff, and she still refused to participate, trying to put blame on me and my father for our wish to know the truth, she tried to put shame on us and then she forced us out of the house in an argument that day. It’s a good thing that we didn’t give up. Two months ago I found out that my father definitely isn’t my biological father. I was so sad and depressed at that point and i thought that i should just die. I even thought that he should kill me because that’s the right thing after so many years of living in a lie. I thought of it as a just thing to do, but he focused on me instead because he saw me being depressed. I am the only child that they “had” and my father has no other child, but he still told that I am his child and after weeks of thinking i have finally concluded that I had the real father with me all this time, but I didn’t have a real mother.
My “mother” NEVER admitted it, it’s been for two months that she left and now is in process of divorce, she simply never came home after the results came and we phoned her to tell her, she simply hung up, she knew it anyways, and then she moved away without replying in fear of consequences, not caring about any of us, thinking that my father would kill her. So much about it, because none of us made a search even for a car that she took. Later on, a “friend” of her told us her story, that she got pregnant prior to marriage to force a marriage. She dated my father and another man in the same time, my father was with her for 8 months before marrying. If she did such a thing like paternity fraud, who knows what else she did and for how long. I won’t contact her ever again, she’s dead as far as I’m concerned, and the “biological father” is an unknown thing to me, I don’t want a new father today whom I’d possibly be obliged to help when he gets old either, I’ve thought through it a million times before making my decision. I’d rather spend my life thinking of him as a homeless alcoholic old man than meeting him in person and find out that he had a happy life while knowing what he did.
My “mother” denied my father’s right to have his biological child and he was faithful his whole life, but she didn’t want to give another birth and she happily lived with such a lie, knowing that she deceived us both. I’m still thinking of this and I wish if he’d have another child, my new brother or sister, I’d be much happier after all of this, I’ve told that to my father but the reality makes it almost impossible because of his age.
That’s why i say it. Don’t let yourselves be fooled. Not all people do it, a small number does it, but you should ask yourself if you’d let hospital staff to choose among a group of people to give them some random child.
It’s important to lobby for paternity testing and stop all those initiatives to ban paternity tests, initiatives to limit them legally or initiatives that try to avoid free paternity testing of newborn children. Even if all newborns were tested and with current costs, that’s close to 1,5 billion $. Pay note that people spend hundreds of millions of dollars out of their pockets to do the tests, plus court expenses to solve this, and many people are victims of a fraud that eats lots of their money and inflicts loses not only on financial but also robs them their emotional stability and physical health.
After witnessing it with my own eyes, I’ve made my vow to do the paternal test no matter what, no woman should object about something that she’s sure about, it’s not me who should be ashamed but the people who do those frauds. Only problem i have with this are the laws that make this literally impossible for married couples because law makes a presumption of who the father is and gives little time to correct it.
I am sorry that i missed the topic of your article, I’ve just read it, but I had to tell this, sorry.
i have finally concluded that I had the real father with me all this time, but I didn’t have a real mother.
Don’t ever stop saying this. EVER.
Reblogged this on Philosophies of a Disenchanted Scholar and commented:
“women don’t recognize that they can have sexual freedom or men who care about them” I need this on a tote bag.