Thomas Robert Malthus is arguably the most misunderstood economist/philosopher of all time. His name today is synonymous with the antithesis of the point he was actually making; Malthus was not a Malthusian*.
Malthus’ core thesis in An Essay on the Principle of Population was that institutions like marriage and parental responsibility functioned as a check against out of control population growth. He was also arguing that state welfare payments will ultimately make the poor both more numerous and worse off.
With regard to population growth, he pointed out that something must be keeping human growth rates in check:
This implies a strong and constantly operating check on population from the difficulty of subsistence. This difficulty must fall somewhere and must necessarily be severely felt by a large portion of mankind.
That something he identified as misery and vice (emphasis mine):
Through the animal and vegetable kingdoms, nature has scattered the seeds of life abroad with the most profuse and liberal hand. She has been comparatively sparing in the room and the nourishment necessary to rear them. The germs of existence contained in this spot of earth, with ample food, and ample room to expand in, would fill millions of worlds in the course of a few thousand years. Necessity, that imperious all pervading law of nature, restrains them within the prescribed bounds. The race of plants and the race of animals shrink under this great restrictive law. And the race of man cannot, by any efforts of reason, escape from it. Among plants and animals its effects are waste of seed, sickness, and premature death. Among mankind, misery and vice. The former, misery, is an absolutely necessary consequence of it. Vice is a highly probable consequence, and we therefore see it abundantly prevail, but it ought not, perhaps, to be called an absolutely necessary consequence. The ordeal of virtue is to resist all temptation to evil.
Misery as he uses the term could probably best be described as the privations of poverty, and the desire of parents not to bear children which they could not clothe, shelter, feed, etc. It also applies to the misery of those men and women who are unable to marry, must delay marriage, or if married, must abstain from sex out of fear of having children they cannot afford to care for.
Vice describes any number of immoral ways men and women deal with misery as defined above. Malthus doesn’t go into detail on this, but sex outside of marriage, prostitution, abortion, homosexuality, and perhaps birth control (depending on your view) all seem to fit his use of the term.
All of this strikes me as very relevant to the social and legal upheaval feminism in general and the promotion of female promiscuity in specific have created. With a large percentage of young women today electing to delay marriage and instead focus on their careers while indulging in alpha chasing and/or serial monogamous flings, it follows that an equally large number of young men must choose between misery and vice. This problem is made worse by the transformation of marriage to a wildly unequal legal framework which encourages women to divorce, as well as the fact that a large number of women prefer cads to the average nice guy beta.
In letting this happen, as a society we are insisting that a huge number of men choose between misery and vice. From a theological perspective the answer is easy. They should choose misery. This is true despite the fact that churches across the west can’t be bothered to take meaningful action to preserve marriage or call out young women on the immoral choices they are making. God defines what sin is, and His definition of sin doesn’t change even when Christians as a block can’t be bothered to stand by marriage in a meaningful way.
But the fact that sin is sin doesn’t change the fact that Christians have largely lost their moral authority to speak on the topic of sexual morality. I think this is at the heart of the backlash some Christians have received from men in the comments section of this blog recently. Those who stand by allowing the choices more and more to become misery or vice while tisk tisking those who fail to choose misery understandably evoke a degree of ill will.
Tangled within all of this is the question of whether men and women should be shamed equally for sexual immorality. From a theological perspective it would seem to me that both are equally sinful. As I say in my advice to men choosing a wife, the ideal answer from a prospective wife is disgust with promiscuity across the board. However from a practical perspective I see three problems with shaming men and women equally for promiscuity:
- The focus of shaming men and women equally has in practice served to excuse female promiscuity instead of reducing promiscuity across the board. In practice once the focus is on fairness the result is lowered pressure on women to remain sexually pure, while not reducing men’s sexual immorality to a noticeable degree. This path leads to more misery and vice.
- Small amounts of promiscuity do much greater damage to a woman’s eventual ability to remain happily married than it does to men.
- Even Christian women want a man who has the benefits of the knowledge and confidence which come from sexual success.
I don’t know how to put all of this together in a neat consistent philosophical package. Sin is sin, but I’m interested in offering young men and women something other than a choice between misery and vice.
* Any reader who can point me to the specific quote in the text of his writings where Malthus predicted that population explosion would lead to famine in a traditional social structure would be doing me a great service.
Very interesting and a compelling explanation for why traditionalists and conservatives are getting lambasted by a growing segment of men.
Sin, is for the most part fun, or gratifying in some way. It wouldn’t be tempting if it wasn’t. We can argue about the long term misery created by sin, but the immediate gratification is there.
If the choice is between misery and gratification, a very large portion fo the population will choose gratifcation.
Especially when virtue is not just receiving misery, but punished.
I think though these are over time self-correcting as Malthus indicates. There is a limit to everything. The welfare state cannot last forever, nor can this.
Does shaming women work?
The ones who have already been promiscuous will either reject the shaming or internalize guilt that turns into a mental-illness.
The ones who have not yet been promiscuous *may* be deterred, but what happens if they fall anyway and sleep with the alpha stud because they had a moment of weakness? Chances are they are going use their rationalization hamster to reject everything they were told to protect their self-image.
By putting a heavy weight on an act you are both 1. increase its allure 2. increase its mental/emotional consequences. This can backfire by creating more promiscuity.
I believe the only way to properly deal with female promiscuity is to encourage the concept of virtual virginity..as proposed by the blogger at What Women Never Hear wwnh.wordpress.com
It allows redemption for failure which is important, while also communicating the importance of self-control.
As far as shaming promiscuous men-
I will continue to discourage the use of seduction to get sex. If you are hooking-up with a promiscuous woman on craiglist that is one thing…because there isn’t any false pretense. If you are leading a woman into believing she is liked for more than sex and then dumping her then that is an act of deception. I don’t care if the woman “deserved” the deception by falling for it… It is wrong to take advantage of naivety/foolishness for your own gain. PERIOD.
The focus of shaming men and women equally has in practice served to excuse female promiscuity instead of reducing promiscuity across the board. In practice once the focus is on fairness the result is lowered pressure on women to remain sexually pure, while not reducing men’s sexual immorality to a noticeable degree. This path leads to more misery and vice.
I would say that it’s never really been tried, but that even if it were it would not make a difference.
Feminism was about freedom for women, so it wasn’t going to be focused on raising standards for male promiscuity to match those for women under the ancien regime, because that wouldn’t increase freedom for women. So of course the other option was taken, which was to try to reduce shaming in total. Of course when you do that, the current SMP results for most everyone other than marginals such as committed religious people.
I think, however, that an attempt to shame alpha males (naturals or synthetics) into not behaving promiscuously would not work very well in any context other than an integrated social/religious framework, and even there it has its limits. The reason is that alpha males will generally not care if other men shame them for their exploits, because they are the ones who are monopolizing the ladies after all, not the reverse. In this sense men are different from women in that they are much less concerned, generally, about what other men think of them than women seem to be about what other women think of them — men feel less pressure to “fit in” than women do, I think, and certainly would not be pained by being ostracized by men as long as they are getting laid to beat the band. In a tight social/religious framework, the shaming can be more effective, because it can be enforced through social sanction — such that moral/religious transgressions would be enforced by reducing one’s job opportunities or creating tremendous social obstacles to functioning normally. One can see this in some small religious communities like the Hasidim or the Amish, for example. Beyond that, I don’t think shaming the men who are soaking up the sex is going to have any effect at all, because they’re getting what they want and as a result they don’t care what you think.
I believe the only way to properly deal with female promiscuity is to encourage the concept of virtual virginity..as proposed by the blogger at What Women Never Hear wwnh.wordpress.com
Hmm. From her site I read this:
Abstinence holds men off. Chastity keeps men interested. Virginity—real, virtual, or imagined—attracts the Marrying Man.
The more restrained a woman’s sexual activity, the easier to earn a man’s respect upon which his love can be built. (Coming soon: A post about the toxins of disclosing her sexual history.)
Sounds like deception to me. Basically pretending to be a virgin, and keeping quiet about sexual history. And the idea is to “empower(s) a woman to dominate a courtship.” I don’t see how that would be anything other than manipulating a man into marriage under false pretenses. How is that any better than a PUA who claims to be interested in marriage and then PnDs?
The blogger is an older man (late 60’s)
It would be false pretense to lie about virginity. To simply not answer questions regarding it would be holding on to a secret, which the man is free to accept or not accept as part of the relationship.
A great point, and this is exactly what is happening. I’ve noticed that a lot of the people doing the tsk-tsking are people who married and haven’t been in the dating culture for a long time. The “hookup culture” is becoming stronger with each year, and people who haven’t been in the dating market for the last fifteen or twenty years are clueless about the changes.
I think it’s also hard for guys to choose misery when it’s pretty obvious that there are alphas in the room that are choosing vice… and they’re happy with all the vice they’re getting, thank you very much!
It would be false pretense to lie about virginity. To simply not answer questions regarding it would be holding on to a secret, which the man is free to accept or not accept as part of the relationship.
Except that it seems to be saying that the man should be led to believe that she is a virgin, even if she doesn’t come out and say it. It’s still deceptive. It’s like the SEC rules say — one way to lie is to make a “misstatement”, but another way to lie is to fail to disclose something which, under the circumstances, makes the rest of what *is* said misleading.
It seems very close to the PUA situation you describe above. There a man leads a woman on in order to get what he wants: sex. I.e., she thinks she might be getting a boyfriend, but she’s getting PnD instead. Here a woman misleads a man into thinking she is one thing when in fact she is something else in order to get what she wants: commitment. In both cases the other person is being misled in order to secure what the person doing the misleading wants. I don’t see a big difference here.
“Cad shaming”, as opposed to slut shaming, never really existed. The problem of cads was usually solved by men mate-guarding their female relatives, not by shaming.
If a man says “How many sexual partners have you had?” and the woman says “I refuse to discuss it” then he is free to make up his own mind on whether he can live with the secret.
He may assume she is virginal or close to virginal based on chastity she displays in her relationship. If she refuses his sexual advances then she proves herself to have some virtue *currently*, but whether she has always been that way is a mystery.
And it isn’t the same as PnD because the woman is not lying about her *intentions*…..she wants an LTR. All she is doing is keeping her past a secret so she may maintain her dignity.
I’m not sure I agree with this statement: “Even Christian women want a man who has the benefits of the knowledge and confidence which come from sexual success.” Maybe I just don’t know how guys work, but a guy who has an obvious knowledge of how to pleasure women physically is a turnoff to me. Gross.
I am not stupid enough to think that there is any male in the world over 13 who is a virgin, but in my book, if he doesn’t feel bad about his sin, that is a dealbreaker. Besides, do you really need to have *ahem* home-base experience to have some kind of relationship success strategies? I would say not.
If I understand what you are saying Paige, that would be a lie of omission and blame the victim. If you are buying a car from me and you ask if it has any problems, and I say, “I refuse to discuss that.”, but take you for a ride in the care in which the car seems to work perfectly, but has many flaws that will manifest not long after you purchase it, it does a couple things. 1. I would be lying by omission, because I do know that there are problems with the car, I’m just refusing to tell you about them. This is the equivalent of pleading the fifth. Yes, you have a right not to incriminate yourself, but by exercising your right to plead the fifth, you are marking yourself a criminal. 2. I would be deceiving you. Your ride in the car in which everything seemed to work perfectly deliberately creates a false impression that the car is fine, when it isn’t. Allowing that deception to take root and indeed encouraging it, shows a total lack of character, moral compass, and honor. Let alone the total disregard for another human being displayed by that behavior. I’m not deliberately cheating you, I’m just keeping the car’s past a secret so that I can gain something I want. I think you are rationalizing deceitful behavior in the worst way. Let me give you another example:
I am a married man, you are a single woman, we are at a bar. I have no wedding ring on, but am married. You ask me if I’m seeing anyone, and I say, “I don’t discuss my relationships.” Then lead you to believe I’m single by saying something along the lines of, “My last relationship had a lot of issues.” or “I want a relationship without the pressure this time.” We begin dating, maybe having sex, then one day you find out I have been married the entire time. How would you feel about that? Would you think that I had lied to you? Would you be angry with me for decieving you about my marital status? Would you be angry that I hadn’t told you that I was married? Would you be ok with it because it was your fault you got into the relationship without finding out first? Would you be ok with it because we “love” each other?
I have a feeling you would be very angry and hurt by my deception, just like a man would be if he found out that he was given a VERY false impression on purpose by a woman who allegedly loves him.
The fact is that if you are willing to found a relationship on a lie of omission, you will be willing to lie and mislead in other areas as well, and that makes for an inherently unstable, and flawed relationship in the first place.
“If she refuses his sexual advances then she proves herself to have some virtue *currently*, but whether she has always been that way is a mystery.”
I think it’s more likely that she found the prior guys more attractive than her current guy, and she rationalizes this by telling herself she has become more virtuous.
I always tell everyone to choose chasitity (because it is morally correct), but I especially tell women to choose it because:
1) It’s a good way to hedge their bets in the marriage market.
2) They won’t end up the town bike.
3) For a lot of them, it’s one of the best things they’ve got going for them. In other words, women tend to completely overrate their looks, intelligence, charm, etc. I’m shocked by the expectations a lot of them have. Being young and virginal is pretty much what they have to offer, and if they squander that…
I don’t believe that keeping your past sins a secret is a lie of omission as long as there is not deliberate deception/mis-leading. Answering a question with “I prefer to keep that to myself” is not deception. My husband has not revealed to me all his wrong doings nor have I revealed all mine to him. We accept each others sense of privacy.
The only way to know if a car is not a junker is to take your time in discerning its quality. In other words… a long platonic courtship will test virtue and reveal major flaws.
No one is saying that a man or woman HAS to accept the other persons privacy. Its a choice you make. How much disclosure do you need to feel okay with that person?
A woman who asks a man if he is single and he says “I prefer to keep that private” is free to make a choice as to whether she can live with the secret.
This also assumes that a person is only as good as their past. This is blatantly not true. A persons past may influence their future UNLESS they have had a complete paradigm shift in their world view. Events like a religious conversion, major change, etc can do that. Instead of making a wholesale judgment on a person based on their past we should have a good way of testing their CURRENT virtue.
I know people who were promiscuous feminists who then went on to have a successful 30 year marriage. The lady at mommylife.net is an example of that.
I find the whole thing about deception very interesting because it would appear that paige has a double standard when it comes to the level of the deception.
Indicating ones intentions as false is lying (saying you want a relationship but not and then dumping someone) but being duplicitious about your nature (ie you were a slut) is not lying if you make it clear what you want.
What Paige is dancing around is that all courtship has an initial amount of deception to it. Make up, push up bras, high heels, hair extensions, laughing at a guy’s jokes even if he isn’t funny, and push/pull (if you are not being direct about what you want) wearing clothes that are stylish . . . on and on it goes.
Reading her own blog she posits that women don’t even realize that they’re doing these things when dressing “cute”.
The very real problem is: honesty is not a virtue in the sexual marketplace for men or women.
And the ones really being deceptive are the women that are offering sex in the hope of enticing (or trapping) a man into a relationship and then feeling burned by it.
Imagine telling all these women that the hook up culture was over and they were going to marry a man of comparable sexual market value and then all the boring dependable men (that they ignored) lined up and the 5-8s of women realized they weren’t going to have that “chance” of snagging the rich, powerful alpha of their dreams?
They would all scream in outrage. Hypergamy is a bitch. And what is driving the sexual marketplace isn’t men’s intrinsic nature.
Its women’s
Men are just adjusting (finally) to reality andwomen are finally seeing what they have wrought and don’t like it.
Too bad. Cry me a river because I have no sympathy.
Well, you’re certainly in a minority! A man who doesn’t have much experience with seducing women is going to come across as a little bit awkward at all stages of a courtship… from asking you out to the first time he holds your hand to the first kiss and afterward. I’ve heard women say that they don’t want a man with actual sexual experience, yet I suspect they’re rejecting men that don’t have it earlier in the courtship process.
Even at that young age there are betas and alphas. There are lots of 13-year-old virgin boys. I don’t have any data, but I’m pretty sure that the fraction of 13-year-old girls that have had sex is much higher than the fraction of 13-year-old boys. The SMV of a 13-year-old girl is much, much higher than than of a 13-year-old boy. (To be perfectly clear: I don’t chase underage girls. I’m just saying that it would be naive to think that a market doesn’t exist among teens.)
Paige said:
“Events like a religious conversion, major change, etc can do that. Instead of making a wholesale judgment on a person based on their past we should have a good way of testing their CURRENT virtue.”
There is no test. Ever heard of jail house conversions? I have stood next to plenty of men and women in court that find God in the jail and are zealous in their beliefs . . . until they get out of jail.
It sticks with some people, but it takes a long time to find out the wheat among all the chaff.
And sure, there are feminists that are happily married for life, or at least married. But we’re talking general rules and statistically a woman with a (notice the singular there) premarital relationship has bad odds of staying married compared to a virgin, very bad odds and it goes down from there.
If you Game a woman and she doesn’t fold to sexual pressure then that is 1 test. If you bring her in different situations and carefully analyze her reactions then that is also a very good way of testing. Here are some options:
-Have her a lot of questions about her friends and analyze whether she defends certain behaviors.
-Watch controversial movies and seek her reaction.
-Study how she acts around your friends, particularly the alpha ones.
-Take her camping to see how dependent she is on material things.
-Volunteer with her to see how she acts towards the less fortunate (especially homeless or mentally-ill men).
-Watch her babysit and see how much of a natural she is with children.
-Tell her you’re broke and see how she reacts.
Never take anyone at there word. Never ever ever.
Dalrock, thanks very much for the link.
alpha males will generally not care if other men shame them for their exploits, because they are the ones who are monopolizing the ladies after all, not the reverse.
There is a culture of shaming “man whores” or “man sluts” developing on college campuses. In other words, there’s a point where social proof boomerangs. Some of these alpha guys have a number well over 100. Their exploits are well-known their male peers, and of course, the women share the gossip and observe the walks of shame as well. There comes a point where they can still get with the most promiscuous women, but more discerning women are repelled by them. I suspect the origin of this has to do with STDs, as at least half of college males have HPV, and a third have genital herpes. College women refer to these males as “dirty,” and they won’t risk being associated with a guy who has zero standards – it doesn’t validate them or give them status in any way.
Of course, once they graduate, they may reinvent themselves in a large, urban center, becoming “virtual” men of discriminating character.
[D: Thanks Susan. Good points.]
Sorry, Paige, but I just don’t agree.
It’s like applying or a job and then telling the prospective employer that your employment history isn’t a topic you’re willing to discuss. Sure, the employer can (and will) toss you out, because the single most important fact — prior job experience and performance — is being omitted. And, if you lead the employer to believe that you’re qualified for the job when your prior experience history would suggest otherwise, then you’ve committed a lie of omission. That’s pretty much what you’re suggesting here.
There is no basis for distinguishing that lie simply because it doesn’t relate to her intentions. Lies are still lies, whether they relate to intentions or not. If I had refused to discuss my prior relationships (including my ex-wife) with my girlfriend, would that have been okay, because I wouldn’t have been lying about my intentions, and would be maintaining my dignity by keeping my secret? I don’t think so. A lie is a lie is a lie, regardless of what is being lied about or what one is being misled about through a deliberate lie of omission.
Even leaving aside the lie issue, prior relationship experience is the single most critical piece of information when evaluating someone as a potential mate. The reason for that is that this is the information about how they have behaved in previous relationships — it is the most vital piece of information there is. Sure, people change. I agree. But that can also be explained and conveyed as the history is conveyed. I would never get any distance down the road with someone in a relationship without having a good idea of her relationship history, nor would I be coy about mine. It serves no good purpose, and it withholds some core information — the only reason that would be withheld is because one fears the judgment of the other. If that is the case, why pursue a relationship with them to begin with?
Dalrock, it seems like you are saying that although men and women may have equal individual culpability for promiscuous behavior, the societal consequences are not the same. Throughout history, men have been “soiling” some women, but if that is restricted to a few women, the civilization survives quite well. Once the majority of women are “soiled,” the consequences mount. Since God judges us individually each individual will have to answer individually on Judgment Day, which is distinct from the temporal societal consequences of the actions of a majority of men or a majority of women.
Conflating equal culpability with equal consequences seems similar to the conflating equal opportunity with equal results as purported in Affirmative Action.
If women are the “weaker vessel” is it strange to think the temporal consequences of promiscuity may have a greater effect upon women? Weaker does not mean lesser since no one would claim a stainless steel flask is better than a crystal vase, so the women should resist getting their “panties in a twist” by my statement.
Since it is rarely disputed that women are the “gatekeeper of sex” and men the “pursuer of sex,” it is difficult for the pursuer to simultaneously be the protector. The solution to this dilemma is not so difficult. Fathers should have a disinterested love for their daughters (free from selfish motive). A fathers expects obedience but only for the long term benefit of his progeny and he si not easily swayed by immediate pursuit of pleasure. Therefore fathers act in conjunction with daughters to enforce the gatekeeper function.
Hence Patriarchy, which is not perfect but has functioned quite well throughout history. Older men act as a restraint with those in whom they have an interest (progeny “belong” to a father), against the follies of youth (especially daughters).
[D: Well put.]
@Brendan
If those are your relationship standards then you are entitled to them.
I don’t personally believe that a persons past should condemn them for life, so I believe everyone has a legitimate right to privacy. But everyone also has a legitimate right to not tolerate privacy if they prefer full disclosure.
I certainly don’t think that discretion is a lie. Everyone has a right to privacy.
Paige, you cannot get around the fact of the correlation of a woman’s lifetime partners with a higher tendency to divorce. This is especially true in the current legal morass of family court. I agree with Brendan.
There is a reason the current state of the SMP has coincided with the demise of fathers. It is interesting that there is little attack of the critical importance of fathers within the manosphere. Fathers are the key. It is a title of high responsibility and high importance.
“If you Game a woman and she doesn’t fold to sexual pressure then that is 1 test. If you bring her in different situations and carefully analyze her reactions then that is also a very good way of testing.”
Or it means she’s not buying my particular brand (either I’m too beta, she’s in love, or involved for that moment. The problem here Paide is that I know plenty of men that have high opinions of a particular woman’s “virtues” when I know from experience that she has none so to speak.
“Have her a lot of questions about her friends and analyze whether she defends certain behaviors. ”
If the woman in question is seeking a committed relationship form a man, she will play up her virtue and answer the questions in a way to solicit the answers she wants from the man in return (the benefits of mongamy). Even married women having an affair will answer this way to the guy she’s having the affair with, so this doesn’t work either.
“Watch controversial movies and seek her reaction.”
Again, this works to a point. But women are very good at scripting their answers and tailoring them to the situation. Here’s the thing, if I play the cad, then women respond a certain way, if I flip the script RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERACTION and play the provider, you can actually watch the paradigm shift occur and they change their answers to the very questions and statements they just made.
“Study how she acts around your friends, particularly the alpha ones. ”
When she thinks I’m watching or when she thinks I’m not?
“-Take her camping to see how dependent she is on material things.”
Since even the most high maintenance women I know will go camping to prove how tough they are, this doesn’t work.
“Volunteer with her to see how she acts towards the less fortunate (especially homeless or mentally-ill men). ”
Again, context is king. If she thinks I value it, she will play along if committment she is seeking.
“Watch her babysit and see how much of a natural she is with children. ”
Some of the most natural women with children have been the most promiscuous.
“Tell her you’re broke and see how she reacts.”
May weed out gold diggers.
I think if you ask any man out there, if they have known men to marry women thinking they were getting a certain woman (one that liked the same hobbies, sports, interests, whatever, we’re not even talking chastity) and then discovered after the wedding day that she didn’t want to do those things anymore, I guarantee every man knows of this occurring and have witnessed it happening.
The cruel reality is women are very deceptive in matters of the heart.
Which is more cruel? The man that deceives the woman into having sex, knowing that you cannot con a chaste woman into it, or the woman that decieves a man looking for a life long companion with a woman that is not what she says she is?
One con plays on a person’s sinful nature, the other preys upon their sense of decency.
I think a response of “I prefer to keep that private” is not going to be helpful to a woman. If a woman refused to discuss her sexual history with me, I’d assume the worst and would end the relationship. If she were instead open and honest, I might give her a chance, especially if it appeared she had really repented.
@Paige
I would advise men reading this to treat your advice on finding a virtuous women as suspect, given that your own definition of a virtuous woman is one who feels bad after cheating on her husband.
A person has a right to their standards. That goes for men and women. If my standard is that I be allowed to have my privacy then I eliminate men who can’t tolerate it. If a mans standard is full-disclosure then they eliminate women who won’t provide it.
Some women would rather have their dignity than a particular man. Some men would rather have the lady-like image of a woman than full-disclosure.
The only thing that can really test a person is time and pressure. The things I suggested can’t hurt but CL is right that they are not full-proof.
And FWIW-
My definition of a virtuous man is as sympathetic as my definition of a virtuous woman.
[D: It is troubling that you think this makes it better.]
Dalrock:
I have a Malthus-related question for anyone here: when I was in high school, I read book written during the 1960s or 1970s, I think. It was written by a team of scientists and debunked the myths of overpopulation and population control. I remember one statement from it: that a birthrate below 2.5 children per couple would produce extinction levels within a few generations. It covered a wide range of topics; probably it’s overt anti-feminist, anti-abortionist, and generally politically incorrect tones have led to a lot of informal censorship and suppression.
Anyway, if anyone knows of the title or authors of this book, please post it here, because I’d like to get a copy of it, but can’t remember its title. Thanks!
[D: My guess is the book in question was a rebuttal to The Population Bomb by Paul Ehrlich. His famous rival is Julian Simon, perhaps one of these is the book you are thinking of. However the dates seem later than you are describing.]
@ S. Walsh
Color me skeptical as to the actual effectiveness of campus man-whore shaming.
In any case, you’re only in college 4 years. After that, man-whore shaming becomes even more ineffective once you move to a city. Even on large state campuses with tens of thousands of students, I would posit that man-whore shaming can’t be all that ineffective—a fairly high degree of anonymity isn’t difficult to achieve.
The bottom line is that cad shaming is and always has been much less effective than slut shaming. Modern cad shaming is really just another example of women trying to have their cake and eat it, too—engage in the unrestrained hypergamy endemic to female sexuality, while constraining the desire for variety endemic to male sexuality. And, predictably, it fails except for a very narrow range of cases (ie, small colleges, etc).
Höllenhund
“Cad shaming”, as opposed to slut shaming, never really existed. The problem of cads was usually solved by men mate-guarding their female relatives, not by shaming.
Correct. There were cases of cad beating from time to time, however. But again, that was prior to the unleashing of female hypergamy.
@ Paige
I’m not sure I’ve ever seen a hamster work so hard to to justify behavior so blatantly dishonest and shady as the things you espouse in this comment thread. Reading your posts I can literally see the smoke pouring out of your ears as the poor varmint races on in its Ixionic task. There is truly no rest for the wicked.
I am not stupid enough to think that there is any male in the world over 13 who is a virgin,
You clearly don’t have the slightest clue what life is like for a “nice guy” under 30.
CSPB
Since it is rarely disputed that women are the “gatekeeper of sex” and men the “pursuer of sex,” it is difficult for the pursuer to simultaneously be the protector. The solution to this dilemma is not so difficult. Fathers should have a disinterested love for their daughters (free from selfish motive).
Interesting, then, that for 30 years denigration of fathers has been standard fare in sitcoms, with no real opposition from anyone except a handful of cranky men. I once was invited to a church one Sunday, and afterwards quite a few middle aged couples were standing around talking about this, that and the other. Some of them were sharing favorite TV shows, a couple stick in my head: Frasier and Home Improvement. Very churchy stuff — Frasier is divorced and constantly trying to get laid. The guy in Home Improvement is constantly woofing and generally acting like a child. Neither one shows men in a good light.
I used to watch old TV shows on bad weather days as a child. Re-reruns of Lucy, of Hazel, of Sanford & Son, and even older ones like Leave it to Beaver and Andy Griffith. The difference between shows made in the 50’s and 60’s and even early 70’s to today is really eye popping, if you don’t watch prime time TV.
So it should be no surprise that feminism has been pulling daughters away from fathers for 40 years, thanks to “men’s – fault” divorce, family court, etc. What is a surprise is how little the churchianity crowd, the trad cons, have to say in response. It takes more than a nice sermon once in a while. In my opinion.
My last note was pretty badly written. Let me try again.
* Feminism is anti-father. It has been for 40 years. I can provide reference after reference if needed. Patriarchy, “rule by fathers”, is the original target of feminism, including the “nicer” 1st wave ones such as Elizabeth Cady Stanton. Separating fathers from daughters has been an ongoing part of feminist campaigns for a very long time. Television shows have been feminized since the 70’s or 80’s, with female viewpoints always supreme – examples abound. To view these shows is to take in the message – “dummy Dad” – they peddle. I don’t recall any objection from trad cons.
The importance of fathers, as human beings, and as critical parts of any true family, is one of the themes that can be found all over the “manosphere”. Not so much in the tradcon world, although lip service is paid from time to time in terms of the usefulness of having a good ol’ mule to pull the family cart.
I’m all in favor of strong father/daughter relationships. After all, the feminists hate such things, so there’s one plus right away. It’s also something that’s been part of Western civilization for centuries, so the Marxists hate it as well, there’s another plus.
It’s going to take more than us cranks mumbling on blogs. For a start, churches could begin valuing fathers in a larger sense, and lay off the “ya, mule!” sermons.
Hope this is more coherent.
There is a culture of shaming “man whores” or “man sluts” developing on college campuses. In other words, there’s a point where social proof boomerangs. Some of these alpha guys have a number well over 100. Their exploits are well-known their male peers, and of course, the women share the gossip and observe the walks of shame as well. There comes a point where they can still get with the most promiscuous women, but more discerning women are repelled by them.
Show me. Name the campuses in question, and provide some genuine co-eds who could date these alphas, but will not do so. Frankly, given what I see of modern young women, I find this very difficult to believe. It does not match what I see in various places.
@Anonymous Reader
I agree. You were clear enough in your first post on fathers. It is ironic that the staunchest supporters of fathers is the manosphere and not the churches. This is telling!
@Dagnet
It would be wicked if my standards were different for men than for women, which they are not. I would not fault a man for keeping his sex life private, so long as he didn’t deceive or lie. Simply stating that he does not wish to share certain aspects of his past is his prerogative and the women he dates are free to accept it or not.
Misery and Gin:
@Helvetica
I’m not sure I agree with this statement: “Even Christian women want a man who has the benefits of the knowledge and confidence which come from sexual success.” Maybe I just don’t know how guys work, but a guy who has an obvious knowledge of how to pleasure women physically is a turnoff to me. Gross.
I would say you are fortunate then. Just a guess but I suspect you don’t need a great deal of alpha. Aside from the fact that many women don’t find them attractive, beta guys have great traits for marriage. If you are lucky you will find one like my friend Roland.
Paige:
And it isn’t the same as PnD because the woman is not lying about her *intentions*…..she wants an LTR. All she is doing is keeping her past a secret so she may maintain her dignity.
Sorry but no. A relationship built on deceiving the man you’re supposed to love for the rest of his life on a matter of serious concern and import to him is seriously off on the wrong foot from the start. And don’t bother telling me that it’s not really of any concern to him, or that what he doesn’t know won’t hurt him, because if that were true, you wouldn’t be pretending to be a virgin in the first place!
At least when a PUA misleads about wanting an LTR (which PUAs usually *don’t* do, btw), he’s not trying to trap the woman for life on the basis of that deception.
This also assumes that a person is only as good as their past. This is blatantly not true. A persons past may influence their future UNLESS they have had a complete paradigm shift in their world view. Events like a religious conversion, major change, etc can do that.
So what? Sincere and life-changing as it may be, a religious conversion doesn’t erase a woman’s memory. If a man has the possibility of being compared to previous lovers for the rest of his life, that’s a matter of serious concern to him (and the fewer partners he’s had, the more concern it will be)! It will likely affect how his wife feels about him, both sexually and otherwise, even if she doesn’t want it to, and even if she manages to resist the increased urge to divorce that a storied sexual history creates. And even if it doesn’t, the fact that she’s keeping him in the dark (thereby making him a chump) on a daily basis certainly will. That information is something a man ought to know and be able to take into account before committing, and someone who cared about him wouldn’t hide it from him.
I am not going to try and convince anyone that they should put up with secrets in a marriage if they feel it is too high of a risk. Its your life, your choice.
But a womans self-image is EVERYTHING… She can’t function at her best in the world if she is convinced she is nothing but a trashy cum-dumpster. That is why we are ALL entitled to our privacy..because we are all entitled to projecting the image to the world we want them to perceive.
I wouldn’t fault a man for not telling the woman he was dating that he use to be a hopeless beta that most women rejected but then changed his ways. I would fault him for not volunteering a porn addiction. So one should not expect a woman to accept “once a slut, always a slut” when so doing would only ruin her self-image in her own mind, as well as how is she perceived by everyone else.
If she ends up alone the rest of her life because no man can accept her secrets, then so be it. Some people would rather be alone and have their dignity than be with whatever man is willing to settle for them without any dignity.
It isn’t unloving to keep certain facts private anymore than it is unloving to accept a proposal for marriage 2.0. The woman knows the man is taking a risk, but it is HIS risk to take. She doesn’t put a gun up to his head. Men have every right to accept the risk or reject it. I am not going to try to shame or bully any man to take risks he doesn’t find worthwhile.
I am not going to try and convince anyone that they should put up with secrets in a marriage if they feel it is too high of a risk. Its your life, your choice.
But a womans self-image is EVERYTHING… She can’t function at her best in the world if she is convinced she is nothing but a trashy cum-dumpster. That is why we are ALL entitled to our privacy..because we are all entitled to projecting the image to the world we want them to perceive.
I wouldn’t fault a man for not telling the woman he was dating that he use to be a hopeless beta that most women rejected but then changed his ways. I would fault him for not volunteering a porn addiction. So one should not expect a woman to accept “once a slut, always a slut” when so doing would only ruin her self-image in her own mind, as well as how is she perceived by everyone else.
If she ends up alone the rest of her life because no man can accept her secrets, then so be it. Some people would rather be alone and have their dignity than be with whatever man is willing to settle for them without any dignity.
It isn’t unloving to keep certain facts private anymore than it is unloving to accept a proposal for marriage 2.0. The woman knows the man is taking a risk, but it is HIS risk to take. She doesn’t put a gun up to his head. Men have every right to accept the risk or reject it. I am not going to try to shame or bully any man to take risks he doesn’t find worthwhile.
Dalrock:
Thanks, I’ll check that one out. I did a report on it in high school (late 1980s) and it was an old book then. I remember because the mangina social-studies teacher I had used it’s ‘outdated source’ an excuse to give me a lower grade LOL. It seemed to have disappeared from the library shelf shortly afterwards Double LOL.
I must strongly disagree with Paige about this one. Keeping “secrets” is the worst thing a person can do, in regard to a loving, trusting and lasting relationship. A woman would not like it if a man lied to her about his past, either overtly or by omission. I know because it happened to me. The man kept piling lies upon lies for years, and I did not know that he had deeply deceived me until after we got married. I lost all regard, respect and trust in him. To this day I still do not know what he told me was true and what was false.
When I met my husband, I told him up front about my past. I told him that I was divorced, and I told him exactly how many partners I had. I resolved to be completely open with every man in the beginning about these facts, and if they did not see me as suitable then it was just as well. I cannot change my past, but I refuse to mislead anyone, because that is a fundamental betrayal. And I know firsthand how horrible it is to be so betrayed. It makes you feel like an utter fool, taken for an idiot, and deceived as if you did not deserve the truth.
Many men may find me utterly unsuitable for marriage. I had already accepted that when I filed for divorce, especially since at the time I had read all about how divorced women are worthless and horrible. But I would have rather been alone than to LIE about my past. Everyone deserves the truth, the facts, and to not be strung along until some convenient time to be allowed to gain access to real knowledge.
Paige – “I wouldn’t fault a man for not telling the woman he was dating that he use to be a hopeless beta that most women rejected but then changed his ways. I would fault him for not volunteering a porn addiction.”
Paige,
Put down the shovel, and step away slowly.
In your continued effort to find some explanation/justification, you’ve just accidentally hit on the perfect example (sort of like digging, and hitting a gas line).
A porn addiction for a man is going to be the same sort of handicap in forming relationship pair-bonding as would prior promiscuity for a woman. Porn addiction is, in many ways, a very good parallel to promiscuity. And either pathology, suffered by either gender, is likely to be a relationship impediment both for the one addicted, and for the one who cannot get past the others addiction to it (make no mistake, promiscuity becomes addictive. One can be “in recovery” for any length of time, but it will take very little to fall off the wagon). In fact, any addiction would be important to note when considering a long-term relationship.
Thus, your point that you would fault a man’s choice not to reveal an addiction to porn points to some possible hypocrisy in believing a woman should be able to keep her promiscuity a secret.
Paige:
So one should not expect a woman to accept “once a slut, always a slut” when so doing would only ruin her self-image in her own mind, as well as how is she perceived by everyone else.
Wha? Nobody said anything about a woman believing that she’s doomed to sluthood for life, or that she should think of herself as a slut forever. We’re simply saying that she should not mislead her spouse about actual things that happened in the past, which hold potential relevance to his future. I’m all for a woman changing how she thinks about herself due to religious conversion, but it doesn’t mean that her past ceases to exist. Are you saying that this “virtual virgin” nonsense is about a woman deluding herself, and not just her husband, about her past, because doing so is necessary for her own self-image? Sure sounds like it. And I’d agree that self-deception is what it’s really all about, but I don’t think it’s a good thing.
The funny thing about you bringing religious conversion into it is that Christianity is about *facing up* to your sins and repenting of them. The awareness of your sinfulness is supposed to produce a thankful heart. You are promoting the exact opposite: a woman compounding her previous sin by lying to herself and those closest to her about it, and pretending that it never happened. A woman’s renewed self-image should be based on the fact that she’s forgiven – not on the illusion that she never did anything in the first place.
And if a woman’s self-worth is based on her ability to keep secrets, then what would you say to those women who have a child out of wedlock, but then repent later on? Obviously the “virtual virgin” route isn’t open to them. So should they just consign themselves to “once a slut, always a slut”? It’s certainly the implication.
I am not going to try to shame or bully any man to take risks he doesn’t find worthwhile.
But you’re okay with tricking him into doing it.
Hope – “I must strongly disagree with Paige about this one. Keeping “secrets” is the worst thing a person can do, in regard to a loving, trusting and lasting relationship. A woman would not like it if a man lied to her about his past, either overtly or by omission. I know because it happened to me. The man kept piling lies upon lies for years, and I did not know that he had deeply deceived me until after we got married. I lost all regard, respect and trust in him. To this day I still do not know what he told me was true and what was false.”
Very true. It works both ways. The problem that Paige seems to be overlooking is that those “secrets” are bound to come out at some point, and then the fact that they were kept secret tends to cause even greater damage. I recall one story of a guy who learned about his wife promiscuous past through mutual acquaintances, and there are any number of accounts of guys learning the ugly truth after their wife admits to having been unfaithful.
I know that neither you nor Paige would wish to go to the MGTOW Forums, but they alway have plenty of examples of guy’s getting blind-sided. So, I went ahead a lifted a few links to give here, demonstrating the devastation guys feel upon learning the truth about their wives “histories”:
http://www.dearcupid.org/question/my-wifes-sexual-past-disgusts-me–over.html
http://nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100601174720AAkFgbE
http://forums.about.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?tsn=1&nav=messages&webtag=ab-depression&tid=22541
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20081111122509AAdID8o
That was a typo. My bad. I meant to say that a man shouldn’t feel the need to confess a previous porn-addiction.
A woman’s self-image is NOT everything. My self-image is quite bad, but I treat others well. How I behave is more important than what I think of myself, or what others think of me. They can think I’m a slut for having had multiple partners, but they do not know all the circumstances. I did bad things under bad circumstances. But I have learned valuable lessons that help me to avoid those pitfalls in the future.
I do not need or want to “project an image” of goodness because I I strive to be good, and I act with good intentions, therefore anyone who wants to investigate who I am now can see that I have changed myself from who I was years ago, and it’s not a facade or fake mask that I put on. It’s me, and I won’t deceive or mislead for my own gain or benefit, because THAT would not be me.
Part of real honesty is the willingness to face my past and reconcile with it, and to forgive myself. If I hide my past from others, then I’m really hiding from myself because I have judged that I’m not worthy of love the way I am. I am only who I am today because of my past, because of the paths I had walked and the lessons I had learned. I’m not proud of my past, but I would not make up a false past and create a deceptive persona to add to the list of things I wouldn’t be proud of… that would be mean I had not fully learned my lessons from that journey.
When you expose the rotten underside to the open air and light, the light burns away the rot and reveals the true material that was there all along. Hiding a dark past only keeps the rot in, until it festers and potentially wounds the whole. Being open and honest is the EASIER path, as it requires less effort, less mental energy and less rationalization. The truth simply… is.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING LYING!!
To say “I refuse to discuss my past sexual history” is in no way a lie.
Once you confess a sin it is “cast into the sea of forgetfulness”. You aren’t suppose to wear a scarlet letter for the rest of your life as a sign of your repentance.
A woman who has children is clearly not a virgin, but neither must she share her previous sexual behavior. You obviously can come to your own conclusions.
Everyone is lumping “privacy” in with “deception” and I don’t know how to possibly explain any more clearly that I do not advocate lying in anyway shape or form. If someone asks me a question I don’t wish to answer I simply say “I don’t wish to answer”. I do this quite a bit, actually.
It isn’t that different from a beta male becoming an alpha male. It is mostly a mental thing…you don’t go around advertising your beta-ness when you are trying to be alpha. There is a certain amount of faking it til you make it involved. Well, the transition from trash to class isn’t all that different. It is about discarding to “old you” as thoroughly as you can and embracing a new you.
Paige – “I meant to say that a man shouldn’t feel the need to confess a previous porn-addiction.”
But, the problem of the addiction would still be extant. I can’t imagine a guy wanting to divulge such an issue to a woman he was looking to form a relationship with, but that addiction is very likely to to cause considerable harm during the course of that relationship – and, be even worse for the woman because it was kept secret from her.
Hope doesn’t disclose the nature of the issue with her first husband, but clearly, the fact that he lied about them to her has had a substantial impact on her.
I think you’re mistaken about the supposed harmlessness in trying to hide previous promiscuity. I’m not thinking of your situation here, but rather those of the women in the links I posted, who’d been serious sluts, but pretended to be “good girls”. Their husbands speak to the devastation done to their marriages when that little secret finally got out.
Here is a great essay on the subject:
http://www.spectacle.org/0500/lies.html
It is talking about lying generally, but it definitely applies to the discussion at hand. In particular:
“The reason that I hate lies is because, like you, I wish to navigate carefully through life, and to do so I must be able to calculate my true position. When you lie to me, you know your position but you have given me false data which obscures mine.
Lying is theft. When you tell me something which I take to be true and as a result I invest my time, or my money, or even my care, you have stolen these things from me because you obtained them with false information.”
@Hope
You are entitled to your perspective on the matter. I won’t discourage you.
We all have to find our own way to make it in this rather cruel world. We set our own standards.
I am very honest with myself after I have sinned, but once I have confessed to a Priest the matter is over and not for anyone else to know. I don’t feel I have to be open with others to prove anything. It is silly to say we shouldn’t be ashamed of our past…of course we should be, if we did bad things. So we recreate ourselves into a new person who won’t make the same mistakes.
It is absolutely true that a woman who does not reveal her sexual past is a HUGE risk….as is a man who does not reveal a previous porn addiction.
BUT, I maintain that it is better to be alone with ones dignity and self-image intact than it is to be with another person and be seen through the filter of your past.
A woman or man who outright lies about his/her past is despicable and morally corrupt. If I say “I don’t wish to answer” then you obviously know you are taking a big risk in pursuing a relationship. If I lie, then you assume your risk is low when in fact it wasn’t. Totally different circumstances.
Paige – “It isn’t that different from a beta male becoming an alpha male. It is mostly a mental thing…you don’t go around advertising your beta-ness when you are trying to be alpha.”
Not a very good analogy I’m afraid. Your “porn addiction” one was much more apt (which ever way you intended it).
I did a lot of pathetic beta stuff early on in my marriage. I’d be embarrassed to go into detail, but admitting it helps me to avoid reverting now. It’s but the sort of “shady” thing that is bound to be a relationship-killer – like porn addictions and promiscuity could be.
I meant the beta/alpha transition in the sense that what you believe about yourself is very important in influencing how you actually behave. A woman who once behaved in a trashy manner has to convince herself that she is now WAY above that kind of behavior now.
One more thing:
A person will ALWAYS see you through the filter of your past regardless of how you currently act. Kendra Wilkinson will always be Hugh Hefners ex-girlfriend. She can try to remake herself in any fashion she wishes, but it won’t change how she is viewed by others. Because everyone will treat her the way her past warrants, she will never be able to convince herself of her new image either.. the way people treat her is a mirror that reflects her past, and so she will never escape it.
@Paige, I respect privacy a great deal, but what is more private than being husband and wife? It is very different to refuse to tell the man whom you love than to refuse to tell any random stranger your sexual history. Obviously I like my privacy, and no one aside from a very select few will know exactly how many partners I’ve had. But this is not information a woman should withheld from her future husband.
You say that refusing to answer is better than deception, but it only leads to more confusion and possibly misunderstanding. For example, the ex I had mentioned, in addition to lying about other aspects of his past, kept saying he doesn’t know or he doesn’t remember in regards to how many women he slept with, and every time I asked him he would make an excuse. Maybe that would have suited a woman who also didn’t want to reveal her number of partners, but to me it was maddening. It showed that he was maybe lying or he didn’t care enough to remember, or any number of possibilities. I had a number of fights with him over the issue.
Again, it is much easier to be open and honest, and it settles the question without creating a huge question mark in the other person’s mind. Being deliberately secretive also creates a wall between people and breeds mistrust. By depriving her husband knowledge about her past, the woman in your example is basically creating an imbalance of power. Unless the husband also tells her she can’t know how many women he’s been with, she has a certain amount of power over him due to his ignorance.
Now, what else isn’t shared? Maybe financial matters — she won’t let him know how much she’s in debt. Maybe work matters — he won’t let her know where he works. Maybe friendships — she has a close male friend whom he doesn’t know about, or vice versa. Maybe health issues — he has an STD and won’t talk about it. On and on the possibilities go, all in the name of “privacy” and “I refuse to tell you.” Maybe this isn’t as bad as outright lying, but the end result is not savory. Boundaries of privacy exist, but when it’s BIG issues like this and when it comes to choosing a life partner, honesty is essential.
I AM NOT ADVOCATING LYING!!
To say “I refuse to discuss my past sexual history” is in no way a lie.
Don’t kid yourself. You were advocating much more than that. The whole premise of that “virtual virgin” thing is that a woman should endeavor to make a man believe that she’s got a less storied sexual history than she really does. The “I refuse to discuss” thing is only a last resort if the guy asks point-blank.
A woman who once behaved in a trashy manner has to convince herself that she is now WAY above that kind of behavior now.
This is impossible to square with your claim that it’s not about deception. Why can’t the woman just say “I’ve got a sexual past that I’m not proud of, but I’ve repented and I’m above that kind of behavior now”? How is that incompatible with believing that you’re above that kind of behavior now?
BUT, I maintain that it is better to be alone with ones dignity and self-image intact than it is to be with another person and be seen through the filter of your past.
The only way to avoid that situation is to be forthright about the past. That way you can be sure that your partner accepts you as you are despite knowing about your past.
The strategy you advise does the opposite – it’s tailor-made to create situations where you end up with a person who finds out about your past only after it’s too late, and you’ve been pledged to them for life. And even if they never find out, you’re stuck with the guilt of misleading them forever.
A woman or man who outright lies about his/her past is despicable and morally corrupt.
But lying in a less than outright manner is okay, eh?
Because everyone will treat her the way her past warrants, she will never be able to convince herself of her new image either.. the way people treat her is a mirror that reflects her past, and so she will never escape it.
Bullcrap, and as a Christian you should know that. Repentance and renewal is open to everyone, even if others don’t accept your change. Sometimes people believe slander about you that isn’t true, too. Who you are is not defined by what others think, and your overriding concern ought to be doing what is right, not your image before others.
“For do I now persuade men, or God? Or do I seek to please men? For if I still pleased men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ”. – Galatians 1:10
If you believe you have a right to full-disclosure in a relationship then there is nothing I can say. If you cherish a persons sense of privacy as much as I do then you see nothing wrong with what I suggest.
If I would rather be alone than ever discuss my past then isn’t that my prerogative?
And if a guy is willing to accept the risk that I have a bad past and date/marry me anyway isn’t that his prerogative?
If I am willing to marry a guy who has a top secret job that I am not able to know anything about…and it may involve very dangerous stuff…isn’t that my prerogative?
Is it necessary to place all these value judgments on a subject that amounts to different priorities?
What I have an issue with isn’t that anyone disagrees with me, but that others seem to believe that there is something morally wrong with maintaining some privacy. I insist that it is only lying that is wrong. Re-writing your identity is perfectly fine so long as it never involves a lie.
“Who you are is not defined by what others think, and your overriding concern ought to be doing what is right, not your image before others.”
God does not judge you by how others see you, but that doesn’t mean that how others see you is irrelevant to your concerns. There is a reason why slander is a mortal sin.
One Paige says:
I will continue to discourage the use of seduction to get sex. If you are hooking-up with a promiscuous woman on craiglist that is one thing…because there isn’t any false pretense. If you are leading a woman into believing she is liked for more than sex and then dumping her then that is an act of deception. I don’t care if the woman “deserved” the deception by falling for it… It is wrong to take advantage of naivety/foolishness for your own gain. PERIOD.
Another Paige says:
If you believe you have a right to full-disclosure in a relationship then there is nothing I can say.
I don’t mean to sound preachy (and I know sometimes I do). But I had been affected by lies of omission as well as outright lies, and so I viscerally understand where the guys are coming from.
There’s a reason why the expression goes “open and honest” instead of “closed and honest” or “private and honest.” Honesty necessitates that you lay all your cards on the table to be examined, that you volunteer information instead of needing to have it asked of you, and that you don’t hold back anything.
Nobody can truthfully say they have never lied. But in every case it is a decision to lie, to withhold information, or to lay it all out. I would err on the side of telling people to be TOO open and honest than telling them, “It’s fine, don’t worry if you prevaricate just a little, or be a bit secretive, it’s for the best.” If you start with the ideal and push people toward the ideal, then when they fall short they may not fall so short as to cause a catastrophe.
@ The Duece
Bullcrap, and as a Christian you should know that. Repentance and renewal is open to everyone, even if others don’t accept your change.
Yes, but she is aiming to remove the Repentance step. Declare oneself a virgin and be done with it.
I don’t see the contradiction, Dalrock.
I am not saying the PUA needs to confess to having slept with a 100 women. Just confess that he doesn’t want a relationship. Being honest about your intentions is a different animal than fully-disclosing your past.
[D: Like her, he wants an uncommitted relationship. He just has a shorter time horizon. Neither make their time horizon explicit, because they want to avoid commitment.]
I am Catholic. I get my repentance in the confessional.
I don’t believe that betraying your privacy is in anyway an “ideal”. But there comes a point where you just have to accept such a fundamental disagreement.
If you think I am morally corrupt for my position I don’t think there is anything more I can do to defend myself against that accusation. I will just accept the judgment on my character even if I disagree.
I am Catholic. I get my repentance in the confessional.
Yeah, sorry, not what your Church teaches. Even this Protestant knows that.
What? The Priest gives the confessor a penance and the confessor has to do it for absolution. What do you think happens?
Do you think a sinner has to go around advertising their sin to everyone?
I am not saying the PUA needs to confess to having slept with a 100 women. Just confess that he doesn’t want a relationship.
Why’s he need to confess that? He can just “forget” to mention it if she doesn’t ask.
Do you think a sinner has to go around advertising their sin to everyone?
I think that simply talking to the priest is not a “get out of hell free” card, and that the repentance has to be a genuine change in your heart and in your life for it to mean anything. And I furthermore think that it’s not *just* about confessing to priests and never anyone else.
“Therefore confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man is powerful and effective.” – James 5:16
Nobody goes around telling their sexual history without at least being asked.
Full contrition is necessary, but confession to the general public is not. We only have to confess to a Priest and he is bound by secrecy.
UNLESS the Priest says that confessing to someone else is necessary for absolution (ie a murderer confessing to police)
Instead of maligning me over this why don’t you go and read A Guy Maligned’s full argument. I only got the idea from him, and I think it was a darn good one. If you read his full argument and still disagree or think he is morally corrupt then so be it.
http://wwnh.wordpress.com/content/
Paige, I am Catholic as well. However, you are making statements about the effects of the Sacrament of Reconciliation that can not be admitted.
The guilt of sin is remitted by the Sacrament, but not its consequences. We continue to suffer the effects of our sin even while being relieved of its eternal punishment. God will not be mocked. He is just as He is merciful and often He allows sinners to suffer the consequences of their actions to satisfy His justice and produce a greater conversion of heart.
The effects of promiscuity are not lifted away by Confession. Sorrow and remorse are good, meritorious qualities to possess in the wake of wrong-doing, but they do not fully repair the damage done to oneself and others. Promiscuity creates scars upon the body, in the mind, and on the soul that are often irreparable on this side of the gulf between life and eternity. In many ways they are much like third degree burns that remain as scars even after the wound has healed.
But, to return to the subject: because of the comprehensive personal and emotional effects of previous sexual history any man who wishes to become seriously involved with a woman has a responsibility to know what he is getting into.
Quite frankly, I am noticing a trend in the PUA/LTR manosphere. Not everywhere, but pervasive. On the one hand, men are celebrating the power of being a man, gloring in the very real advantages inherient in manhood. On the other, a contstant moaning about how the modern age has robbed us of our birthright and power.
It seems to me that if the power of a man is real, then it should be real all the time and at all ages. Certainly I do not argue that we have a world fashioned to make it easy to be hurt by women, but isn’t that what being a man is about? Learning the rules and breaking them? Beating the system? Can we not use our manhood to better judge our mates, and dominate the relationship in a way that we both find greater fulfillment?
I have not really thought this idea out enough to express it well here, but maybe some of you know what I’m talking about. The very worst thing about feminism and the modern age is the pervasive sense of victimhood it promotes. Is the manosphere movement in some way guilty of the same thing? Are we excusing our own bad behavior as a result of society in the same way we accuse women of doing???
“The very worst thing about feminism and the modern age is the pervasive sense of victimhood it promotes. Is the manosphere movement in some way guilty of the same thing? Are we excusing our own bad behavior as a result of society in the same way we accuse women of doing???”
You could be right there. Men everywhere are saying that ‘its all about the wimmenz’ and even Ferdinand Bardamu had dismissed the comments section of The Spearhead. Men do indeed have power and can retake certain venues if they so chose, but perhaps they don’t know how or believe they can.
I have seen the destruction due to a woman hiding her past. Her true count, abortion, and being sexually abused. I have also seen women that are honest about these things. These are Catholic women and I really don’t know if they have confessed to a priest. But I do know that the lies they tell, they end up believing. The rationalization hamster works this way. But these things fester.
Women that lie or omit these things are a poor risk in a relationship. Especially when hidden, these things correlate with a higher divorce rate. I also think such a woman trains herself to believe what she wants to believe. This is the type of woman that makes false allegations and acts in a way that the ends justify the means. So especially these days when a woman has all the power in a divorce situation, a man must be very very cautious.
Repentance and absolution are great, but the temporal effects still are present and as Hope says, the truth needs to be brought out into the light.
Back in the day a woman who became pregnant would be doomed to spinsterhood if she wasn’t hidden away until the pregnancy was over (and the baby was adopted out). Now a woman isn’t doomed to be a spinster but she is doomed to only ever get a man who disrespects her.
It use to be standard that a woman would never tell her sexual past. Whether she was raped, molested, or had a baby…she would take those secrets to her grave. The result was that it didn’t ruin a womans life.
There was a lot of wisdom to the “old ways” but now that we have the end of patriarchal marriage it seems that we also have the end to the right to privacy because anything but full-disclosure is too high-risk for the majority of men.
I guess we can chalk it up to another way feminism has screwed women. We have to work much harder to “qualify” ourselves and our past can really ruin our lives.
“Men do indeed have power and can retake certain venues if they so chose, but perhaps they don’t know how or believe they can.” – Learning how to be a man is, IMHO, the very best that the manosphere has to offer. I’m not one to “enjoy the decline” but rather am interested in being a part of the solution. I do not understand the contra-opinion, due to the paradox I seem to be seeing: men are strong, yet weak.
Women, I have learned, are very good at following the rules (one reason they do well in schools, where rule following is more important than learning). Men are very good at breaking rules, which is a common jab at us, said often in jest. However rule breaking is quite essential for any healthy society, as the rules were after all set up by men of one age and might not be appropriate to another.
The world in which we live is truly one where the rules have been set up by men with the intent of empowering and aiding women. We are all familiar with the consequenses for men and indeed society at large. But it seems to me that what was created by one generation may be undone by another, and a better way found. If we are so obsessed with simply hurting the women and enjoying the fall, we may miss our chance to create this new thing. If we embrace the idea that there’s noting we can do, we have only hedonism on the one hand and dispair on the other to look forward to. I’m more optimistic than that.
“There was a lot of wisdom to the “old ways” but now that we have the end of patriarchal marriage it seems that we also have the end to the right to privacy because anything but full-disclosure is too high-risk for the majority of men.
I guess we can chalk it up to another way feminism has screwed women. We have to work much harder to “qualify” ourselves and our past can really ruin our lives.”
The way I look at it; the “Old Ways” where simply people who realized the reptile ways of thinking in terms of men and women. They seemed to have a better bead on things than we have today. While I can’t imagine what it would be like for a woman to have the attention of several men who where high mileage, considering what that could mean in the future that is, (and no, I’m not saying that it’s right) on the other hand many women knew full well that playing that game would dramatically increase their odds of failure.
I work with a dude is playing this ‘game’ with several women thanks to media like Plenty Of Fish. He tells me stories of his conquests and at times it does have me reeling. Sometimes it’s like watching a trainwreck in slow motion, they have no idea what’s coming down the pipe at them, but the MSM keeps pumping their minds full of drivel which has little to no basis in reality.
It set’s them up for dudes like my co-worker to come in and take advantage. It adds to their partner count, while reducing their chances at future happiness while for him it’s yet another notch on his belt. Sometimes, these ladies have hard working dudes at home but they don’t care, no ‘excitement’ so to speak. Make no mistake, this is the kind of guy that parent’s would warn their daughters about…if only fathers had a voice in this day and age.
“The world in which we live is truly one where the rules have been set up by men with the intent of empowering and aiding women. We are all familiar with the consequenses for men and indeed society at large. But it seems to me that what was created by one generation may be undone by another, and a better way found. If we are so obsessed with simply hurting the women and enjoying the fall, we may miss our chance to create this new thing. If we embrace the idea that there’s noting we can do, we have only hedonism on the one hand and dispair on the other to look forward to. I’m more optimistic than that.”
I’m hoping so my man. Someone has to pick up the pieces. I’m married myself and I’ll be honest I’m scared sh!tless at what the prospects are for my two step kids. All I can do is give my kids my best and hope I’ve stacked the deck enough to make sure their chances are at least decent. In the end, I will have to let them make their own choices and we all know it’s a jungle out there.
One more thing:
A person will ALWAYS see you through the filter of your past regardless of how you currently act. Kendra Wilkinson will always be Hugh Hefners ex-girlfriend. She can try to remake herself in any fashion she wishes, but it won’t change how she is viewed by others. Because everyone will treat her the way her past warrants, she will never be able to convince herself of her new image either.. the way people treat her is a mirror that reflects her past, and so she will never escape it.
This isn’t really true.
People in general tend to be *very* inspired by people who turn around their lives, are open about their pasts without shame, and who explain how and why they “got right” in life. It’s because so many other people are trapped in their own shortcomings and see such stories as inspiration that they, too, can overcome them and aright themselves.
Christian history is replete with such individuals. Paul is the leading one (I guess everyone judged him through the lens of his past), as was St. Augustine, St. Mary of Egypt and countless, countless others. They have served as inspirations for millions of people over thousands of years, but none of that would have happened had they been “private” about their pasts.
Now, I’m not suggesting that everyone must go public with their entire life history. But I also don’t think it’s true at all that people will always see people through their pasts in a prejudicial way — much of the perspective people will have will depend on how/why someone changed.
What I sense in you is a great deal of shame about some things you did in your past. That’s not a good thing. You needn’t be ashamed of sins that have been forgiven. But in the specific context here, with a spouse and so on, that kind of shame, and the desire for “privacy” to keep it in check, is simply a euphemism for a wall between people. It is objectively far better to have no such walls with a spouse — nor should you be ashamed of things from your spouse. It sounds pie in the sky, but it’s actually very practical. Walls limit intimacy. Even when what seems to be behind the wall seems to be under control, and limited — it is a less than full giving of oneself to the other, which is what real intimacy in marriage demands.
My level of shame isn’t too bad, and my husband knows my past…but I also know that I would have a lot more respect from him if I had gotten married as a virgin. It doesn’t matter how “good” I am now or for the rest of my life. The truth will always be in his mind and color his perceptions.
I personally believe that no matter what a man says he never fully respects a non-virgin bride. He may be able to live with the diminished respect and marry the woman anyway, but I highly doubt the reality of her non-virgin status will ever stop being mildly painful…..at least not for most men.
Paige,
Privacy is not an absolute, just as freedom is not an absolute. Your privacy and freedom end when they meet up against another person, and when the exercise of these can potentially harm another person.
For instance, we are free to listen to extremely loud music in our homes, but when it affects other people we have an obligation to turn down the volume. Someone who insists on exercising his or her privacy or freedom regardless of how it might affect others, is at least being a bit selfish and inconsiderate.
I would also agree with Dalrock that in a marriage, true intimacy dictates that the wife and husband share themselves with each other in a way that others are not privy to. There are things that I know about my husband which no one else except maybe his parents know, and vice versa. They may be terribly embarrassing, even awful, but I love all of him, including his not-so-noble past, because his past has partially led him to become the amazing man that he is today.
Hope-
There is nothing more that I can say to defend my position. I think marriage is first and foremost a social contract meant to bring children up in the most ideal environment possible. Emotional intimacy doesn’t always strengthen the union…sometimes it actually weakens it.
If women expect men to understand us, sympathize with us, and easily forgive us our faults I think we are likely to be very disappointed. Men love a woman for the virtue they perceive in her. There is a certain mystique that keeps a marriage strong. Treating our husbands like our girlfriends can backfire, big time.
@Paige
But a womans self-image is EVERYTHING… She can’t function at her best in the world if she is convinced she is nothing but a trashy cum-dumpster. That is why we are ALL entitled to our privacy..because we are all entitled to projecting the image to the world we want them to perceive.
I think this is where you go off the rails. If the purpose of keeping the sin secret (you prefer “private”) from your spouse is to protect your own self image, then you can’t possibly have confronted and acknowledged the nature of the sin. I don’t see how one can repent from sin one isn’t willing to acknowledge even to themselves.
You acknowledge it, figure out why you did it, confess it, and then you do your best to forget it and start fresh.
@Paige
There was a lot of wisdom to the “old ways” but now that we have the end of patriarchal marriage it seems that we also have the end to the right to privacy because anything but full-disclosure is too high-risk for the majority of men.
Your pining for the good ol days, when women could be sluts and not have it harm their chances in marriage is truly astounding. I’m speechless.
I don’t think it’s a clear choice between misery and vice. If a man chooses misery he will still be accused of vice. If a man chooses the misery option of getting married (which by definition must be a marriage 2.0 marriage), he will get told that it’s all his fault, that his sin is responsible, for any problems in the marriage including a divorce. A man’s wife could let herself get gangbanged and commit paternity fraud, and the man will still get told it’s his “sin” (his vice) that caused these problems. The church will do this too.
If a man chooses the misery of celibacy, then he will be accused of fornication and if not that then he will be accused of being a porn addict, or masturbating, or playing video games. (Those last two things aren’t even sins according to the Bible.) Even if a man picks celibacy he will still be accused of vice.
This is one of the reasons why there was a backlash from men in the comments about this subject. No matter what a man does he will get accused of some sin/vice. This leads to the problem of if you’re going to do the time, you might as well do the crime. If a man is going to be accused of sin/vice no matter what he does, why not fornicate? Why not look at porn? The effective results are the same but if he engages in the vice at least he has some fun.
You read the worst possible intention into everything I say.
Not that women can be SLUTS…but that women could bounce back from a MISTAKE.
You have made it quite clear that you don’t believe women should ever live down a mistake, which just proves my point even more.
Women are human beings who sometimes make colossal failures in judgment…just like men…but unlike men such a mistake will not damage their reputation for LIFE as being dirty worthless sluts.
A little mercy isn’t possible with MOST men…the only thing that can redeem a woman is privacy, should that man be able to stand letting her have a secret.
But the thing is, your husband does know. Would you rather have him believe you were a virgin via deceit so he can respect you “a lot more”? The truth of reality is that NONE of us is perfect. We all have flaws.
I don’t treat my husband like a girlfriend. I treat him with respect, and respect means I tell him the truth. Respecting someone does not mean telling them what they want to hear — or what I think he would want to hear. Just curious, has your husband flat out told you he would respect you more if you were a virgin? Or do you think that conversation should remain in the “mystique” of marriage?
I would never have deceived him. In hindsight I would have just said “No comment” when asked. It might have have meant that he wouldn’t marry me…and so be it.
I have not asked him, but it is pretty clear in the tone he uses when he speaks of my past (something he does surprisingly often given that I have been faithfully married for 10 years). It is pretty clear that it bothers him.
This is why when I read the What Women Never Hear blog it made so much sense. I have been dealing with his frustration over my past for my entire marriage. It will probably never end.
Never pay very much attention to what people say. Pay attention to why they say it. What are they covering up? – Archbishop Fulton Sheen
“Not that women can be SLUTS…but that women could bounce back from a MISTAKE.”
Be a slut = let the football team gang-bang you
Bounce back from a mistake = stop letting the football team gang-bang you, and decide you really just want a “nice guy” instead
Perhaps you should talk to him about how much it bothers you when he brings it up, and how you have been talking about it here on this blog — get his opinion on the matter. I don’t want to be rude, or give unsolicited advice, but one theme that keeps coming up on marriage blogs is how important communication really is.
Maybe it makes sense through your current set of biases. Isn’t it just as possible that he has brought it up over and over again because he has found that you yourself are not fully comfortable with it, and it is a point of contention? Consciously or unconsciously, we tend to do things that get a “reaction” out of our mates.
I have not asked him, but it is pretty clear in the tone he uses when he speaks of my past (something he does surprisingly often given that I have been faithfully married for 10 years). It is pretty clear that it bothers him.
This is why when I read the What Women Never Hear blog it made so much sense. I have been dealing with his frustration over my past for my entire marriage. It will probably never end.
Well that’s a shame. You could have opted not to marry him if he was going to have that perspective, despite your changes. But that’s under the bridge now. At this point it’s probably going to be chronic, because something inside him is bothered by it for some reason — perhaps legitimate (to him) and perhaps not. I think the best you can do at this point is try to manage around it.
I would say generally that if you do disclose the past, as I think is the best path, and the other person isn’t accepting of your changes, and is still harboring doubts and problems about it, marriage isn’t the best idea. That’s one main reason why I think it’s best to air such things and react (both people) accordingly, really.
“Promiscuity” (among both sexes) isn’t new. It’s far older than the institution of marriage, and likely how human beings behaved as a norm before the introduction of agriculture (and the concept of personal property). Of course, promiscuity among men was allowed (and even encouraged) for thousands of years in many cultures, even if they were married. I suppose you really believe promiscuity is a bad thing (especially now that women are allowed to participate), but many who study history might say that attempting to impose morals on others has had far uglier consequences. And isn’t it funny how the people with the biggest outward displays of “morality” are usually the most depraved behind closed doors? All I’m saying is that promiscuity only became a sin when religion said so. Yes, in our modern world it can have other consequences that are undesirable, but the argument, “it’s a sin,” is the weakest one against it.
I actually think that I turned out fairly well given the stressers I had in my teen years and my natural disposition towards impulsiveness. I went a little crazy from 15-16 but I quickly snapped out of it.
The problem is that people can’t relate to your struggles…they can’t relate to your temptations…they can’t ever see your mistakes in the proper context because they are not you. It is actually easier to forgive yourself your own mistakes because you know what you were up against. It is much harder for someone else to forgive, because they can never possibly relate.
My husband will never fully respect me because he doesn’t know what it is like to be a teenage girl with some major emotional problems. I can, so I don’t disrespect a girl/woman who made a few mistakes. You can’t possibly expect others to relate or care.
Allowing a woman (or man) to keep their privacy seems merciful. But nobody deserves mercy…it is a gift you give to someone despite what they might actually deserve.
Country Lawyer said: “I think though these are over time self-correcting as Malthus indicates. There is a limit to everything. The welfare state cannot last forever, nor can this.”
I just hope it doesn’t end up in Shariah. I happen to like our way of life.
@ Caroline
Are you lost? I don’t think the computer’s in the kitchen
“My husband will never fully respect me because he doesn’t know what it is like to be a teenage girl with some major emotional problems. I can, so I don’t disrespect a girl/woman who made a few mistakes. You can’t possibly expect others to relate or care.”
Well I care, Paige.. I feel very sad for you. You’re a good woman.. You have proved that by being a faithfull wife for ten years, and in about another 6 months you will give your husband his sixth child.. 🙂
I’ll be honest, When I first met my husband, I was a little put off because he had had a few relationships and made a couple of mistakes.. He was no player.. Never used women up, but still, the thought of him having slept with a few women made me baulk a little..
I got over it though.I looked past all that stuff.. I knew that he loved me and would always be faithful..We have been happily married for fifteen years now.. Just because you made a few mistakes does not make you a slut Paige.. I know you are hurting 😦
Try not to dwell on the past (easy for me to say I know) Your future is rosy.
Btw Paige, didn’t your husband have a few partners before you. I seem to remember you mentioning that somewhere.
You know, I think it’s largely a matter of What to tell and When to tell it.
13 years ago when I was dating, I would be asked about my sexual history pretty early on. I would usually not ask until I felt it would be relevant — ie, I was really interested in the guy for a long-term relationship. After all, that’s what I was seeking, and I was clear about that up front.
I was also very clear when I wasn’t attracted to someone, and I’d say — politely — that I’d had a nice time on the (dutch) date, but that I didn’t see a future. I would always hope that he finds someone suitable to him, which of course I did. I just knew that *I* wasn’t suitable for him.
Now, that being said, my sexual history was . . . nothing. I had nothing to hide or share.
But, I’d learned through hanging out with various mixed gendered groups of friends that asserting one was a virgin and waiting for the right long term relationship in which to experiment and experience one’s sexuality in depth rather than breadth was essentially social suicide. for everyone one person who “respected” me, about 10 or more laughed at and teased me. Of course, being used to this since the schoolyard, I didn’t care so much by this point, in particular on a point that I did care so much about — my own sexuality and sexual experience.
So, in early dates, when I would be asked about my sexual past, I would essentially assert that I felt it was not yet the appropriate time for that level of intimacy between us, as we were not at the point where we would be talking about starting a sexual relationship.
This doesn’t mean, though, that I wouldn’t ultimately be clear and truthful with the right person at the right time in our relationship — at the point when a commitment is being made between the individuals.
When my husband and I were dating, I chose to begin to discuss my sexual experiences (or lack there of) at the point where I emotionally committed myself to the relationship. He had long-since committed himself to the relationship, and did desire a long-term one at that — with children and so on. I was slower to make that level of emotional commitment.
Once I did, we began to ask questions about each other’s past experiences physically, emotionally, and otherwise.
I can imagine that if, god forbid, I ended up back on the dating scene, I would follow this same process with men. First, I would look to older men who do not want children, and then secondly, wait until I felt there was enough of a commitment between us to begin to enter into a dialogue about our sexual histories.
What I have with my husband is precious to me, and should I loose him (eg, widow), then that experience would likewise be precious.
Out of love for my husband and the sexual life we have forged, and the privacy therein, I would be loathe to discuss my sexual history on demand, or be seen as being a liar because I choose to keep this private *for the time being*.
Yes, there is a time when the information should be shared — as a matter of knowledge for the parties to better understand each other and also as a matter or method of developing true intimacy between them.
But if I’m being gamed, or a previous gamer wants a wife and wants to get there quickly, well, he’ll likely not get the answer he wants from me right away, even if it is “one partner for many years.” I don’t want him to assume anything bad or good, but I think it is appropriate for me to keep things close until the relationship matures enough to contain the information.
Dalrock: “I think this is where you go off the rails. If the purpose of keeping the sin secret (you prefer “private”) from your spouse is to protect your own self image, then you can’t possibly have confronted and acknowledged the nature of the sin. I don’t see how one can repent from sin one isn’t willing to acknowledge even to themselves.”
If somebody wants to change it is a good idea to be open to people close, so that they can point out when you are not progressing or even going back to your old ways.
A person who wants or need that kind of change does not have the power to avoid the hamster all by themselves.
It is funny the one commentor mentioned POF.
I went on there and found a widow who seemed to have a low partner count for her
middle age,(as myself) and sought after her.
She clearly wanted a PUA, and to be gamed.
I even pointed it out to her, and the hyperlink on how to game from POF itself.
(cocky funny)
No. I will remain an honest nice-guy alone and she may have some wild sex but her emotional structure will be twisted beyond repair.
Combine that with NCU and the misandrist court system and I do not see the cost benefit
of having a woman at all.
Paige,
The Catechism says:
So, I suppose you are stating that a potential wife is not “bound to reveal the truth” because a potential husband “does not have the right to know it”. I disagree. Your potential husband is probably the only one with a right to your sexual history, just like he has a right to know your medical history, ancestral history, educational history, financial history, political/religious history. You don’t have to give him all of the gory details (and he probably wouldn’t want to hear them anyway), but a basic account is something I do think men (and women, for that matter) have the right to expect before they join themselves to someone for life.
Perhaps women used to keep that secret (although I doubt it), but then… women didn’t leave or cheat as often, and STDs and abortion were less common. One of the main fears men have is that a previously promiscuous woman will be unfaithful or infertile, and the statistics say that they are right to fear that. The more risky the investment, the more complete the disclosure should be. Marriage is very risky for men now, in our insane legal environment.
Btw Paige, didn’t your husband have a few partners before you. I seem to remember you mentioning that somewhere.
The point isn’t whether he or she had more partners, in some sort of sexual oneupmanship, but for whom it is a “bigger problem”. Clearly, it’s a bigger issue for her husband than for her, as is usually the case.
My husband knew “all about me” (what little there is to know, as I married quite young) before we married, as nothing is a secret in a small town. I’d hate to feel like I had deceived him in some way, in order to get him to marry me.
I am totally into telling my husband about my premarital experiences and hearing about his. To me, being in love means, in part, wanting to know everything about the other person! My husband doesn’t feel the same way, and I am actually disappointed that he doesn’t want to know any details about my premarital sex life. It’s part of who I am. I am actually a little hurt that he is not as curious about my past as I am about his. Ah well — everyone’s different. That said, despite my personal preferences, I agree with the idea that spouses should be allowed a zone of privacy regarding the past if they want it.
I also agree with Caroline’s take.
Has nothing to do with oneupmanship.. more of a case of,
“Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.”
“Clearly, it’s a bigger issue for her husband than for her, as is usually the case.”
That’s not the point, though.
Years ago men played around when they were married..
You know , married the wife had kids, then had a mistress, on the side for sex 😉 (some still do..) The woman was helpless in this regard. She had to accept his infidelity.. What else could she do? She had nowhere to go..
I don’t like to attack Paige’s husband…. but the fact that she had only two partners when she was sixteen (and had emotional issues) was honest with him when she married him, and has been faithfull all these years and has borne his children should be enough proof of her love and fidelity… If he himself was not a virgin or a widower when they married, then, I am afraid that he is a hypocrite.. I can understand Paige’s feelings here.
Why should she have to live with this ever present guillotine over her head..?? Better that she had kept her mouth shut, and kept it between her and God.
That is not a sin, either.
She was truly sorry for her past behaviour, confessed and was forgiven..
After all, what happened before she met her husband is not relevant.. Unless of course she was a raving slut.. (Which, clearly she was not!.)
Mat 6:14-15 “For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But, if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.”
We are all human beings.. We are fallible.. We all make mistakes..
The quality of mercy is not strained.
It droppeth as the gentle rain from heaven
Upon the place beneath. It is twice blest:
It blesseth him that gives and him that takes.
Tis mightiest in the mightiest; it becomes
The throned monarch better than his crown.
His scepter shows the force of temporal power,
The attribute to awe and majesty,
Wherein doth sit the dread and fear of kings.
But mercy is above this sceptered sway;
It is enthroned in the hearts of kings;
It is an attribute of God himself;
And earthly power doth then show like God’s
When mercy seasons justice.
Shakespeare.
I am struck by the absence of any discussion of Paige’s husband’s behavior here.
Paige: I would never have deceived him. In hindsight I would have just said “No comment” when asked. It might have have meant that he wouldn’t marry me…and so be it.
I have not asked him, but it is pretty clear in the tone he uses when he speaks of my past (something he does surprisingly often given that I have been faithfully married for 10 years). It is pretty clear that it bothers him.
My husband will never fully respect me because he doesn’t know what it is like to be a teenage girl with some major emotional problems.
Brendan: You could have opted not to marry him if he was going to have that perspective, despite your changes.
Brendan is right, of course, but I suspect that Paige’s husband didn’t make this clear up front, perhaps not even realizing it himself at the time. In any case, he did marry her, and she has borne him five children, and been a faithful wife and loving mother for ten years.
His inability to forgive her actions prior to her even knowing him is more than a little troubling, and I would encourage him to undertake a process of soul-searching to rid himself of what is obviously a poisonous resentment.
However, whether he can get over it or not, he needs to shut up about it. This is the deal he made, with his eyes wide open. I call foul on his constantly bringing this up for 10 years and making Paige feel unworthy of his respect. If he wanted a virgin, he should have held out for one. No fair whining now.
Although I disagree with Paige’s position on privacy, I believe that she is speaking from her own experience with a man who punishes her endlessly for sins committed when she was 15. If incentives drive behavior, her husband has certainly provided an incentive to wonder whether she did the right thing in telling him.
What he’s demonstrating is that he wishes he didn’t know. I think the takeaway message is not that women should lie about their pasts, but that men should only ask the question if they’re prepared to deal with the answer.
I actually have a friend who married knowing nothing of his wifes sexual past. He has a “feeling” she wasn’t a virgin but he has really no clue and she would never answer if asked. She doesn’t know anything about his sexual past either and would never ask. They seem to be getting along just fine. They have 3 kids and been married for about 8 years.
He has an enormous amount of respect and love for her and I can’t help but wonder if it has anything to do with his lack of knowledge of her past.
As far as I can tell it does work for some couples, though I completely understand that it is way too high risk of a situation for most to be willing to enter into.
Sorry, I cross posted with Kathy. Cosign everything she says here.
Susan Walsh: Thanks.
You are right, he should have just not married me if my non-virgin status bothered him so much. *shrug*. Maybe when I am 80 he will be over it.
Paige,
I agree with those above who said that your husband shouldn’t hold your past over you, for the reasons already stated.
You are clearly hurting and my intent isn’t to make that any worse. My concern isn’t with your past, but with how you are framing the issue. There is an underlying theme in your comments that young girls can’t control their behavior, so we need to find a way to paper over their promiscuity. The problem is the harm and pain this causes is real, as you can no doubt attest. My concern is in how we prevent other young women from making the same mistakes and experiencing the same pain you are already feeling. Telling them they can’t be expected to make the right choices, and don’t worry we’ll paper it over later is cruel.
And I have no doubt some young women are reading this, and others will read it down the road as these kinds of pages are inevitably linked by other sites. I hope their take away is the pain is real, and they can’t fully predict how it will impact them in the future.
@Kathy
That’s not the point, though.
Years ago men played around when they were married..
You know , married the wife had kids, then had a mistress, on the side for sex 😉 (some still do..) The woman was helpless in this regard. She had to accept his infidelity.. What else could she do? She had nowhere to go..
I don’t know how much of this is Don Draper myth, and how much is reality. I don’t know any beta guys who feel/act this way. Alpha guys do, but this isn’t because our culture condones it. The one couple my wife and I knew personally where the husband was unfaithful the wife had started off as “the other woman” breaking up his first marriage. My warning to women is don’t marry alphas, because they tend to act like alphas.
Beyond that this seems like a good example of how the push for “fairness” tends to result in less pressure for women to remain pure, which ultimately causes them immense pain. It feels like an old feminist canard. Just like the mother who was willing to sacrifice her daughter on the alter of “fairness”. She knew promiscuity would harm her daughter, but by golly Don Draper did it so she can’t stand by and enforce a “double standard”.
A lot of things hurt women more than it hurts men, precisely because we are the “weaker sex”. Our environment and our past more strongly influences how we feel about ourselves, unlike men who seem to be able to shrug off negative judgments more easily (generally). It takes a resolute mind to go against nature and social pressure and few women can do it without major psychological consequences…but they still want to believe they can because accounting for ones “weaknesses” and making choices accordingly feels like cowardice. And what is worse than cowardice ?
Susan Walsh – “His inability to forgive her actions prior to her even knowing him is more than a little troubling, and I would encourage him to undertake a process of soul-searching to rid himself of what is obviously a poisonous resentment.”
I very much agree. He is the one with the “issues” in their particular relationship. Someone else mention that Paige needs to address how much this (negatively) affects her – it’s actually another area where honesty needs to come into play. If she doesn’t confront him about it, it can turn into resentment if he continues to hold it over her head.
Her husbands seeming refusal to to weigh 10 years and (soon enough to be) 6 children against youth misjudgments now seems to have Paige wishing she’d have never told him. I can understand her rethinking her decision to do so in light of his continued response; however, I would still hold that it is best to be honest even if certain situations will not work out as well.
@slwerner
He is the one with the “issues” in their particular relationship. Someone else mention that Paige needs to address how much this (negatively) affects her – it’s actually another area where honesty needs to come into play. If she doesn’t confront him about it, it can turn into resentment if he continues to hold it over her head.
I’ve already agreed with the point that he shouldn’t be hold her past over her. He knew about it before they married, and it is in the past.
However, I wonder how much of his feelings are actually about her past vs how she feels about her responsibility to be faithful in their marriage. On another thread she stated that if given an attractive enough opportunity to cheat, she can’t say she wouldn’t do so. Moreover, her definition of a virtuous wife is one who feels bad after cheating. I can’t imagine any husband feeling comfortable with that.
However, whether he can get over it or not, he needs to shut up about it. This is the deal he made, with his eyes wide open. I call foul on his constantly bringing this up for 10 years and making Paige feel unworthy of his respect. If he wanted a virgin, he should have held out for one. No fair whining now.
I agree with this. It’s one of those things that needs to be weighed before deciding to marry, and then put away once you do marry. It’s not cricket to keep bringing it up once you basically “accepted it” by choosing to marry. And if you had nagging doubts about it, the time to resolve those is before you marry, not after.
I think the double-standard is the cause of the greater psychological harm women are subjected to when they have uncommitted sex. If you internalize the idea that you are a “slut” because you had sex, then it makes sense that you will feel bad when you have sex. If you don’t believe that, then you won’t feel bad.
In my case, I naively assumed when I was coming of age that the double-standard no longer existed. It never occurred to me that I was supposed to be more ashamed than a man for having sex. Then, during my relationship with my boyfriend, it slowly emerged that he thought I was supposed to be embarrassed that I slept with him right away. I remember he also got all worked up when he found out that his sister, who was my age, was on the pill. But his views didn’t make me feel bad, because I just thought he was crazy. I never accepted his frame. Growing up completely sheltered from the double standard protected me psychologically.
ACTUALLY, my husband came closer to having an affair than I ever did (when he was working overseas)..and I forgave him because I accept that temptation is increased when away from your spouse in foreign territory.
Perhaps his own weaknesses made him more concerned about mine?
Uh oh. That changes everything. This is obviously a situation we don’t, can’t possibly, have the whole story on. If Paige feels that way, there’s a good chance her husband senses it, in which case his insecurity, which is justified, is manifesting itself in his comments about her past.
I’m no marriage counselor, so I’ll leave it here. But I would encourage Paige to consider addressing this with a professional, disinterested third party.
I have known a lot of otherwise good men and women who cheated on their spouse. A LOT.. because these good people have made the mistake how can I know for 100% sure I wouldn’t? I don’t…hence the reason I am more ready to forgive ANYONE their mistakes.
By the way- I also can’t say I wouldn’t steal if I was starving and I am suspicious of anyone who says otherwise about themself.
I take a generally sympathetic view of human weaknesses…that is just how I am and how I have always been. That said…I try VERY hard to live a virtuous life. I don’t give myself a “pass” just because I like to avoid characterizing a person based entirely on their faults.
Dalrock –”However, I wonder how much of his feelings are actually about her past vs how she feels about her responsibility to be faithful in their marriage. On another thread she stated that if given an attractive enough opportunity to cheat, she can’t say she wouldn’t do so. Moreover, her definition of a virtuous wife is one who feels bad after cheating. I can’t imagine any husband feeling comfortable with that.”
I think this is a good insight you’ve noted here.
In that she admits that she cannot be certain she wouldn’t cheat, I do admire her honesty about that possibility.
Probably a case of TMI from me, but in my own situation, my wife was a bit more sexual adventurous that was I prior to our meeting. She did disclose this to me early on. (Actually, she disclosed most of it to me before we were even dating, and while she was still with her boyfriend before me).
I was comfortable with this, and it hasn’t been an issue for us – although, I must add, that it probability should have been a bit more of a concern for me (in retrospect). After 5 years of marriage, and our two daughters, she was nearly seduced by her boss (a wealth, very alpha sort, with a well known penchant for infidelity in his own marriage). The fact that prior to being with me, my wife had not only had several partners, but also a lot of male attention quite likely played into her willingness to allow his advance to go as far as she did. I had descended quite a bit into a “comfortable” beta-tude by that time, and was over confident in her oft-expressed revulsion at cheaters. Yet, she very nearly ended up cheating on me despite her expressed revulsion at those who cheat.
It is more difficult for those who’ve had more partners to bond as fully as those who’ve had fewer. There’s no way around the reality. Thus, when outside attentions are focused on someone who’s a bit less strongly bonded, things like the memories of how it felt to be given attention and being pursued, can have more of an effect on that person.
I think Paige is wise to acknowledge her human weaknesses. Her recognition that she isn’t somehow “immune” to be seduced may actually put her in a better position than one who’s convinced themselves that they are. She’s more likely to recognize it if she does start to have feelings for another , and be more honest with herself about what id going on.
Susan Walsh – “That changes everything. This is obviously a situation we don’t, can’t possibly, have the whole story on. If Paige feels that way, there’s a good chance her husband senses it, in which case his insecurity, which is justified, is manifesting itself in his comments about her past.”
You might have hit on something very “key” here.
Paige, it’s probably in poor taste for us to be “dissecting” your life here, so thanks for being such a good sport about it. I think a lot of people really do care for you, and feel quite a bit of sympathy for you in what seems to be causing you a good deal of hurt.
Freud would be proud. 😛
I talked with my husband about this topic, because I was curious about his opinion. He says that it is much better to just come clean. If a girl had said to him “I refuse to discuss my past,” he would assume the worst, because even in the heart of Mormon country, he has seen a lot of promiscuity and born again virgins.
If dissecting my marriage helps someone else then I guess it is worth it.
Neither my husband nor I are perfect, and my husband seems to worry more about me having an affair even though he has come closer to it than I ever have…but perhaps that is just a byproduct both of us experience from living in a world full of sexual sin, where even our good friends don’t seem to be immune.
Paige – “Perhaps his own weaknesses made him more concerned about mine?”
Could well be. Just because “projection” is something more associated with women doesn’t mean that men don’t do it as well.
At any rate, you and your husband really need to talk about it – honestly.
If it makes you feel better we are in counseling. In fact, we have been in counseling for years. Not sure it is helping. I tend to take the optimistic perspective that if you just hang tough then current problems will be exchanged for new problems and perhaps the new problems won’t be quite as aggravating as the old problems.
Key to lifelong marriage…endurance!
@Paige
I tend to take the optimistic perspective that if you just hang tough then current problems will be exchanged for new problems and perhaps the new problems won’t be quite as aggravating as the old problems.
I’ve been holding this for an upcoming post, but there is science backing up your view.
Paige—
Wrong. Girls shouldn’t go through periods of BEING a trashy cum-dumpster if they don’t want that reputation and reality hurting the SMV come getting married time.
Women aren’t morally entitled to deceive their future husband about something he cares a lot about, as a past behavior predictor of whether she’ll cheat and divorce, or lose interest in sex w/one man for the rest of her life and so on. Marrying a woman under false beliefs about her sexual history is far more serious with today’s rates of divorce filled for by women 2.5x as often as men, and under today’s divorce laws and family courts, which are heavily titled against men.
Paige–
A girls’ being very circumspect about her sexual history with a guy that she’s becoming serious with is a HUGE slut tell.
I agree. The problem isn’t that she told him, but that he’s acting resentful about it now.
This. I must say I would be suspicious of any woman who claimed she was immune to being seduced. Even if she meant it, the lack of wariness might be dangerous. It is best to walk around with one’s eyes wide open to occasions of sin, so that they can be recognized early and avoided.
Women forget sometimes that they are hypergamous, and that their infatuation with their husbands can turn on a dime. Marriages have highs and lows, and it’s best not to be “caught out” in a low. I’ve seen it happen often enough, despite women’s gushing that, “There will never be another one for me! I would never do that!” They all say that, just like they all say that they’re not hypergamous. I’ll believe my lying eyes on this one.
A shrewd and cautious woman is better than one so lacking in introspection.
Well… yes. That’s the main thing, really. You stick it out through the ups and downs, and then you look back one day and say, “Well, goodness me! Has it been 30 years already? Time does fly!” 🙂
Susan Walsh–
I agree with this.
@Alte
I must say I would be suspicious of any woman who claimed she was immune to being seduced. Even if she meant it, the lack of wariness might be dangerous. It is best to walk around with one’s eyes wide open to occasions of sin, so that they can be recognized early and avoided.
I would agree with you to the extent that everyone should acknowledge that they could be tempted. But I think there is a major problem with a frame of mind that they wouldn’t turn down an attractive enough offer. Moreover, she defined a virtuous wife as one who feels bad after cheating.
Am I the only one who has a problem with this?
I think it is important to note that on What Women Never Hear, a very large portion of his audience is virgins. A big reason for his stance on nondisclosure is as Sweet As mentioned, telling guys you are just starting to date, or trying to date, that you are a virgin waiting for a long term relationship will get the door slammed in your face and you will not have a chance to get to know each other.
I think this is a very important point as a mother to a young daughter who I am going to caution against sex out of very serious long term relationships (preferably marriage.) I want her to have a chance to date boys who will not immediately count her out, so they can get a chance to know her and build a commitment to her before they have sex. If this nondisclosure is not a way to get her foot into the door of dating, I am seriously lost as to what is. Boys who will date a girl who is obvious about “waiting until marriage” are not necessarily the only proper pool of boys to date, and may be just trying to overcome her for sport. She will also have a hard time with female friends. (WWNH also cautions girls/women against discussing their sexual history and intentions with other girls/women because they will use it against them.) Most good beta boys and men would not purposefully choose this sort of girl to date. My husband would have passed me by if I had told him I was waiting until marriage before we started dating (I wasn’t though) and there is no way I could have possibly ended up with a better match under any circumstances.
So full disclosure sounds nice, but we do not live in an ideal world. It sounds to me to be a way of trying to reconcile virtue with a corrupt world that does not accept virtue in an attempt to live a fulfilling wholesome life. At least in the case of virgins trying to date men who would discount them to the detriment of both in our sex-soaked culture.
“I would agree with you to the extent that everyone should acknowledge that they could be tempted. But I think there is a major problem with a frame of mind that they wouldn’t turn down an attractive enough offer. Moreover, she defined a virtuous wife as one who feels bad after cheating.”
I only said I wasn’t 100% sure I would have the strength to turn it down. I did NOT say that I was sure I wouldn’t be able to..
Like I said, I have friends who have cheated and felt terrible and made amends and worked things out. I believe they are still virtuous even though they made a mistake. They corrected and are now far more cautious.
And just to qualify my virtue…which is probably pointless. I have had temptations (a guy who I thought was handsome persistently hitting on me) that I rejected, but I did so by changing my circumstances so that the temptation would no longer be present.
Now if the circumstances was one that I could not so easily change, such as if I had a job and it was my boss who was doing the seducing…over a long period of time.. THAT is a circumstance that would be harder to judge. It is easy to just avoid people you are attracted to unless you work with them and you really need that paycheck. Most of the people I know who have cheated did so with a co-worker.
Knowing what I do about human weakness I would probably just quit if I felt a strong attraction developing. Poverty is better than adultery.
Changing circumstances is usually the best solution, I think.
This.
Although the Manosphere tends to assume that virgins will “have it easy” and non-virgins will “have it hard”, the sweet-spot (as far as marriageability is concerned) seems to be one to three LTR. Not a virgin, but not promiscuous either. Most men around here opine about premarital chastity, but how many really are willing to forgo sex indefinitely while dating? Not many, I think.
Even if they want her to be a virgin when they meet her, they’re usually quite eager to alleviate her of that burden before marriage, or even when marriage isn’t on the table. And if the relationship falls out… oh, well. Too bad, so sad.
If you stay chaste your dating market value is lower, but your marriage market value is higher. If you are unchaste, it is the opposite. But you usually have to date before you marry so… tough call.
I’m glad I’m already married!
aspiringlady, I think it is better in that case for a girl to be honest that she is a virgin, than to tell the guys that she won’t discuss her sexual history. The reason for this is precisely because there are so many women who treat sex casually. A man who is marriage-minded would rather know for sure than to be left guessing, and men (partially due to the influence of porn) have an immense imagination these days.
Also, she can stick to her guns that she won’t be sexual after marriage. This kind of conversation usually is not had until the courtship has become more serious anyway, but in doing so she weeds out men who want an “easy lay.” I also personally know guys who dated virgins and did not in any way see it as a detractor, and they would be careful about getting sexually involved unless they were very serious.
Finally, these days there are lots of men who want a marriage-material woman who have trouble finding one. When they do, they certainly would not dismiss her merely for the reason that she doesn’t rush immediately to bed with him. So teaching a girl all the good lessons about how to behave, how to treat others and how to think for herself will make her far more attractive than her peers. Have her remember that chastity is an incredible asset rather than any kind of detraction. When guys are at their most honest, they will say this.
Guys say a lot of stuff. I think women should be upfront and honest about it, but I wouldn’t be surprised if some guys gave them a pass. If she’s a virgin, then she probably wants to stay a virgin until she’s married, and marriage can take a while. Instant gratification is a very tempting alternative.
When they do, they certainly would not dismiss her merely for the reason that she doesn’t rush immediately to bed with him.
Really? Not immediately, but usually within a few months. That’s my experience, and the experience of every other women I know (three generations of women, in fact). Even when I was a virgin, it was very clear to me that “putting out” was expected even from the marriage-minded guys. They wanted to have sex with me and then marry me, not the other way around. Men generally see no problem with this, as they lose nothing socially in such a situation. It’s the woman who risks being devalued.
A Catholic woman wrote a book recently about her dating experiences (she’s now married), and she found the same, and received many letters from chaste young women who were struggling to find any man who was willing to wait until consummation, even among devout Christian men who were looking seriously for a spouse.
Men generally want a virgin, but they see little value in protecting her virginity from himself. That is usually on the woman, and in this marriage market…
I mean really, a lot of us married women in the Manosphere remind single women to “keep their legs closed”, but how many of us did so? I’m not saying that I think holding on to your virginity is wrong, as it’s the only truly moral choice, I’m just saying that we shouldn’t try to fool women into thinking that it will necessarily be expedient.
It is probably a good compromise to simply wait before you divulge all the information. So if a guy asks about your sexual history you can respond “lets get to know each other better before we discuss that”.
Girls have GOT to have a little bit of there own Game in this market. It is just too cut-throat and the fertile years are only so long.
Guys need “game” because women are primarily attracted to a guy’s personality.
Girls don’t need “game” (in the same sense), because a girl’s personality isn’t as important as long as she’s not a raving bitch. Men are attracted to youth and beauty.
There really Girls have GOT to have a little bit of there own Game in this market. It is just too cut-throat and the fertile years are only so long.
It’s only cut-throat because women make such stupid decisions. The best strategy is to go for the upper beta early on… when the girl is 20 and the guy is around 28 or so. (And pick a marriage-minded one, for Christs’ sake!) That’s when she’ll make her best catch.
The problem is that “empowered” women don’t want to do that: they want the high of riding the carousel and then try to catch the beta when she’s thirty. Even if she manages to catch one, the quality she catches will be far lower.
“Girl game” is just settling early and taking the upper beta that’s invisible to her hypergamous hamster at age 20. It’s not rocket science. Girls just need to get off the friggin’ cock carousel.
I guess we’re all formed by our experiences.
My ex-wife and I were fully open with each other about our prior histories. We were both virgins. We did not have sex before we were married. Were we tempted? Yes, we were. But we didn’t cross the bridge. I suspect that was mostly due to me, not because I am some kind of moral paragon, but because the idea of having sex with someone other than someone I am married to is very off-putting to me, personally. So, I wasn’t the guy who was constantly pushing the sexual boundaries, constantly trying to get sex from my fiance before we were married. We obviously shared non-sexual physical affection quite a lot, but not sex (and I don’t mean the Bill Clinton definition, either).
It can be done, but I think it probably very much depends on the disposition of the guy, and how much he is going to push for sex during the pre-marital or even extra-engagement period of the relationship.
(with the quotes fixed this time… these wordpress blogs really need a preview feature…)
Guys need “game” because women are primarily attracted to a guy’s personality.
Girls don’t need “game” (in the same sense), because a girl’s personality isn’t as important as long as she’s not a raving bitch. Men are attracted to youth and beauty.
It’s only cut-throat because women make such stupid decisions. The best strategy is to go for the upper beta early on… when the girl is 20 and the guy is around 28 or so. (And pick a marriage-minded one, for Christs’ sake!) That’s when she’ll make her best catch.
The problem is that “empowered” women don’t want to do that: they want the high of riding the carousel and then try to catch the beta when she’s thirty. Even if she manages to catch one, the quality she catches will be far lower.
“Girl game” is just settling early and taking the upper beta that’s invisible to her hypergamous hamster at age 20. It’s not rocket science. Girls just need to get off the friggin’ cock carousel.
That’s a good idea, although a lot of guys will just assume that means you’re promiscuous.
Guys mostly want to know if they’re going to get their rocks off in three days, three weeks, or three months. LOL. That’s what the female competition is up to, so let’s be realistic here. Three months is probably the limit for what most guys will wait, even “betas”, and then they’ll start unbuttoning their pants and doing the old “if you really loved me” routine.
So, I wasn’t the guy who was constantly pushing the sexual boundaries, constantly trying to get sex from my fiance before we were married.
That’s what my husband was like; constantly hounding me. We’d discuss it and he say, “Oh yes, baby. I can wait, no problem. You’re right. Good idea.” and then the minute we’d be alone he was groping me. That hasn’t changed much, thankfully, but still. I laugh about it now, and I’m grateful for his raging libido, but at the time I was constantly stressed out about it. I think it’s also that women are often attracted to aggressive men, and that doesn’t come for free. The aggression doesn’t just “turn off” in the bedroom (luckily, haha).
Maybe that’s because I wasn’t looking for a husband in some strict religious sect, or something, but that’s pretty much the deal for otherwise conservative Catholic men. I’ve talked to a couple of married male friends of my husband about this, and when I mention waiting for the actual wedding (rather than just for “the one”), they’re just incredulous. It’s like asking them if they would have wanted to marry a Martian. They were like, “Listen, if we’re that serious then she’s letting me do it. Otherwise, she’s probably frigid, or something.” It doesn’t help that my husband’s like, “Hell, yeah! Give it up, baby! Hi fives all around, dudes!” I mean, they’re all happily married, but geez.
The best strategy is to go for the upper beta early on… when the girl is 20 and the guy is around 28 or so. (And pick a marriage-minded one, for Christs’ sake!) That’s when she’ll make her best catch.
That’s what I did, but if you think his being older will make him more inclined to “respect your boundaries”, I’ve seen little evidence of it. He’ll be more inclined to marry you, but you better rush to the altar or risk having a 7-months child. LOL.
I am REALLY glad I’m not going through this anymore. It must totally suck to be a young person in the current dating scene. Ugh. It was hard even back in the day.
I’m actually laughing hysterically about this, but it’s a real problem!
Alte, most healthy men have a healthy sex drive, that’s for sure, and perhaps even more so when they’re in the glow of new love. I don’t have an answer for that particular dilemma, but I think I’ve given a good argument as to why girls should not refuse to answer questions about her past, nor lie about it in any shape or form. The mainstream culture is debased enough that a girl keeping a “mystery” is seen automatically as someone with something awful to hide, and even if she seems chaste/shy via her actions, guys may still assume the worst, or even suspect an assault in her past.
@alte
Dating does indeed suck. I’m a 25 year old male (a teacher by trade) and have been learning game for a few months. It’s helped some, particularly in detecting shit tests and undesirable qualities in women, but dating is still tough.
Here’s the funny thing: hooking up is now easier for me, but looking for a LTR is still hard. (I want to use game to find a good, moral wife. If dudes want to use it for hooking up, that’s fine too. Game has just helped me figure out what I want.)
Also, good post, Dalrock.
[D: Thank you. Welcome to the blog.]
I think I, and other young men, are choosing vice over misery.
I started dating my husband when we were both 20 and we got married at 22. He was poor, renting a room in a family’s house, a virgin and I doubt he was upper beta. We just went together perfectly and grew from there. We have been married 7 years. I would say he is upper beta now. I think it is a reasonable strategy for a girl to commit to a boy who has potential, instead of finding an older man who is already fulfilling his. I love the journey that we had to get here. Each of us contributed positively to the maturity of the other, and we talk about this pretty often. My mind recoils from other possibilities actually and I have trouble even conceiving of having dated an older man. To each their own.
I am also REALLY glad to not have to date now! I look at my children though, and I worry for them. I feel like I won the lottery and it seems very difficult to pass on that sort of luck, so I have to try to rely on stratagems for them that I am trying to work out. hahaha
I am considering “courtship” for them. I have an older friend who is having her children do courtship and they are seeing fantastic results in the marriages that are resulting. I just want to see my children happily married. My husband and I have seen such fruit and promise from our marriage that we are convinced it is a wonderful gift we want for our children.
I crosspost from Badger Hut:
“VI: “I think most men would rather find a woman who falls in love with him when he is low status, rather than waiting until he attains a higher status. The girl who sticks with you through thick and thin is going to earn more loyalty than the one you find only after you have fame/money/power.”
Lavazza: I also think that those pairings lead to the happiest and most committed LTRs. Most of the time the man will understand and appreciate that he “got lucky” and repay the woman for her belief in him, and the woman will see to it that she remains attractive, so that his improved SMV does not overshadow her’s too much.
If the woman’s gamble does not pay off and the man treats her shitty as his SMV improves, she will at least have a better chance than her same age (or even slightly younger) competitors with men looking for a quality woman, if she has that kind of track record.
Most of the time a woman making that kind of gamble will want kids quite early (and only make that kind of gamble with a man who wants kids early), which means that she will have the upper hand, anyway.”
What I mean is that *how* a woman has failed in her choices propably also plays a role in how a marriage minded man will look at her history. If the guy can see that the guy who failed her reminds him of himself, he will feel more assured than if the previous guy does not remind him of himself.
I find that the discretion issue seems to pan out as a “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” situation.
If you tell a person right away what your sexual history is — whether it’s promiscuous, chaste, or in the “sweet spot” of 1-3 LTRs — the person whom you are telling might bolt. Don’t tell them, they may assume the worst and bolt. Oh well.
In addition, I agree with the previous commenter about the issue of “waiting until marriage.” Now, in my case, we didn’t wait until marriage because I was living a different script (difficult to explain). But, we did wait until we were 1. committed and 2. ready.
My experience of many men is that if a woman asked to wait until marriage — even if marriage was 1-2 years away (which is not that long, imo) — then they would be incredulous. So, yes, the idea that they will not honor/protect/value a woman’s virginity/chastity is. . . frustrating.
It becomes frustrating because while a woman may “stick to her guns,” I know a lot of virgins over 30 who are unmarried *because* they wouldn’t have sex until marriage. These are not unattractive women looking for unattainable mates. These are attractive women who dated throughout their 20s, and when they asked/demanded a commitment before having sex, the guys left them.
Most of those men are married, but the women are not.
So, it does happen that women are “punished” for sticking to their guns on this issue. In addition, now that she is a virgin over 30, her value *really* goes down, because there is an expectation that she would have experience by now. A friend of mine (male) recently dated a virgin-friend of mine over 30, and he was completely *freaked out* by her “status” as a virgin, and broke up with her because he didn’t want to “put up with that” (what I don’t know), and he wanted a woman with “at least some experience.”
Seems to me that you end up in a situation of “you never know” what a person is looking for, what freaks them out, what makes them happy, and so on. So you just do whatever is right for you and hope for the best.
Sweet As: I find it hard to understand why a man would like to marry a woman that old. Marriage is a big commitment that gives the woman the upper hand, and it’s a gamble that it is only, if at all, worth risking with an attractive young woman.
“These are not unattractive women looking for unattainable mates.”
Well, you have to change it to “very attractive women” and/or “very attainable mates”, for it to work out. “Not unattractive” and/or “not unattainable mates” does not make the cut.
Very attractive women can do pretty much whatever they want except act totally bitchy or crazy (unless they’re Super Hot, and then they can torture small animals for fun), and a quality man will still marry them. If anything, when I think about the marrieds vs unmarrieds I know, the married women tend toward the “hot” side and the unmarried women tend toward the “not so hot” side. That’s the only major difference I can see, and chastity does not help the more unattractive women much, while a lack of it doesn’t seem to keep the more attractive women single for long. *shrugs* They might not get the “top shelf alpha” they were coveting the whole time, but none of them seem to really care. Even divorced moms with two kids get snapped right up, if they’re hot.
When men say that “character counts”, they mean that character is something they look for among hot women, not that it’s a substitute for general hotness. TTH wrote something recently, where she tried to downplay hotness as a male mate-selection factor, but I’m just not buying it.
Telling men to ignore looks in favor of character is like telling women to ignore alphaness in favor of character. She might take a slightly less alpha man who has better character, or he might take a slightly less attractive woman who has better character, but I doubt they’d be willing to substitute the one for the other.
For what it’s worth, no guy I’ve dated has ever cared that I wasn’t a virgin. Maybe things are different now, but I seriously doubt it. Most guys just want to avoid the real sluts.
Alte: “Most guys just want to avoid the real sluts.”
Which is not that hard. Few women are so slutty that they will disqualify themselves (for committed relationships) by sluttiness faster than they are disqualifying themselves (for any relationship) by age dependent degrading looks.
Apparently, there was a reading comprehension issue from one of the readers. Rather than diagram the sentence for the individual, I will simply restate it.
These attractive women were seeking attainable males — that is, they were playing within their own league.
In their teens and 20s, they dated but withheld sex until marriage. No one married them. Why? Could be a number of reasons, sure. But, these men later went on to marry other women, who apparently didn’t withhold sex until married and/or were not virgins when they met these men.
So, if the standard that men want is chaste virgins, and the women hold to that standard, why are they rejected? They aren’t unattractive, unfeminine, or sluts. The guys they are seeking are “nice guys” not alphas, not guys “out of their league.” Seriously, 5s seeking 5s. Those guys went on to meet non-virginal 5s, while the 5 women went on to not marry, and are now entering a very difficult market.
And honestly, most of these girls wanted to marry by 25 at the latest.
Ultimately, the same binds and frustrations that men complain about women can easily be flipped around regarding men. On the one hand, we should be virgins — attractive, feminine, whatever virgins — but on the other hand, if we are, we could easily be dumped for the next girl who has the same level of attractiveness but isn’t a virgin, and isn’t holding out until marriage.
So, what gives? In my opinion, everyone is being too picky.
Character also counts when the woman has the same or higher SMV than the man (and both know it). If the woman has a lower SMV (and both know this) she does not need character (she will get character, or he will leave).
Lavazza,
Yes, basically. Most of the men aren’t virgins either (neither was my husband), so they don’t really care about that anymore.
@Alte
Telling men to ignore looks in favor of character is like telling women to ignore alphaness in favor of character. She might take a slightly less alpha man who has better character, or he might take a slightly less attractive woman who has better character, but I doubt they’d be willing to substitute the one for the other.
I know it mattered to me, but I didn’t have to give anything up on the looks side with my wife either. I do advise men to go for character over looks though.
@Sweet As
So, if the standard that men want is chaste virgins, and the women hold to that standard, why are they rejected? They aren’t unattractive, unfeminine, or sluts. The guys they are seeking are “nice guys” not alphas, not guys “out of their league.” Seriously, 5s seeking 5s. Those guys went on to meet non-virginal 5s, while the 5 women went on to not marry, and are now entering a very difficult market.
It is hard to say what really was going on there. Strictly a personal observation, but churchly virgins can come with an extra helping of attitude. These men may not have been preferring non virgins to virgins, but may have preferred their prospective wife to come with less attitude, and been willing to trade virginity for that.
Sweet As: My simple explanation is that they were rejected because they did not trust the men not to dump them after sex and/or that the men did not put such a high premium on their virginity as they did.
You seem to forget what a huge gamble marriage 2.0 is for men. Equal SMV is not enough to make the “no sex until marriage” deal palatable. The woman need to be say 2 points higher than the man for that to become an anywhere worthwhile proposition to the man.
So do I, I’ve just never seen a man do it. Just as I’ve never seen a woman get married while holding onto her virginity until her wedding night. Apparently, all of the Christian women on the internet are virgins-until-wed, but the internet isn’t real life and the demographic in the Manosphere isn’t necessarily representative.
So, what gives? In my opinion, everyone is being too picky.
As a practical matter, I don’t think non-Christian men care as much about this as Christian men who are actually practicing their faith. So I think a woman can have some relationship sex before marrying if she is fishing in the secular market. She can also do it if she is fishing in the pseudo-Christian market (i.e., Christian, but sex doesn’t matter because those rules are out of date). If she is fishing in the serious Christian market, it matters, but if she is fishing in that market she is less likely to have a history to worry about anyway (less likely .. there are exceptions).
Having said that, in all markets, sluttiness is unattractive to the vast majority of men in a female long term prospect (but is positively selected for in the short-term market).
The problem is that the “pseudo-Christian” market (LOL) is by far the biggest marriage-market. A lot of secular guys don’t want to marry at all, and most women want someone who will at least go to church with her on Sunday. The “serious Christian” guys are a tiny pool to fish in (especially in Europe, where I was).
With the PCM, if you come out with the “chastity dance”, they’re just like, “WTF? Put out or get out. This isn’t high school anymore. I’m not going to hold hands for a year, like some sort of chump.” They don’t care about it, so if you care about it, they just think you’re weird or frigid or that you aren’t really attracted to them.
I know all the theology, and I know that the Manosphere is big on sexual mores and decorum, but I really just haven’t seen any negative effect of sex on women’s market value unless she has a high count. Looks, youth, and a pleasant attitude seem to be the main things men are looking for. Actually, in Germany the big thing men seemed to fear was Career Women.
I get called a slut on the Internet a lot because I wasn’t a virgin when I married. That’s an opinion so detached from normal reality that it always reminds me of how insular the Manosphere is, and how many of the guys essentially live in a parallel world to my own. It’s like, “Dude, where do you live? Are you Amish, or something?” Or are they just basement-virgins, or what? I know three women who married ONS, and are still happily married. I’m not saying it’s ideal, but it’s reality. Nobody in real life — and my history is no secret — thinks I’m a slut. The Internet is not the real world, that’s for sure.
MRAs are calling you a slut because you weren’t a virgin bride? I’m not buying that.
Oh yeah, sure. I get it regularly. Here’s the latest guy.
They call Kathy a slut all the time, too.
@Lavazza
I would agree with you there, Lavazza. I can understand postponing sex in a relationship, but not keeping it off the tables until marriage. There are too many risks in Marriage 2.0.
I’m not looking for a pure-white virgin to marry, but neither am I looking for a slut. (Of course, I’d choose ‘virgin’ if stuck with only those two options.)
For the most part, I have no idea what these numbers mean. LOL I used “5” to mean “average” and average probably is a sliding scale in the eye of the beholder. And honestly, I have no idea where I was on that scale (when I was young) or where I would be now (being “old” at 35).
Marriage is as much a gamble for women as men, and honestly always has been. I’ve largely seen it as a huge gamble for me, personally, because men do cheat, men do leave, and men do abandon wives and children. I also know that women do the same — but either way, you are making a long-term commitment to someone and something, which will involve bringing more people into that commitment (children) who don’t get to decide what their parents do or do not do. That is also a huge gamble.
Character is important, but I cannot say that my friends are of poor moral (or other) character. They are educated, dress nicely/well, were within normal weight ranges, and so on. They wanted to have families and children, tended to be spiritual/religions (though more often politically liberal).
I agree that the women placed higher value on their virginity than the men did, and I think that’s rather obvious. What is frustrating is that so many men *speak about* the virginity aspect, but as a previous commenter mentions — not enough to actually wait for it or protect it from himself. And if the relationship doesn’t work out (granted, marriages aren’t guaranteed either, but for both men and women, there is a higher standard to hold to. People tend to be loathe to end marriages.)
I find it really ironic to bring up that it’s an issue of trust in this point.
A woman who refuses to tell her sexual history is a horrible liar and probably a slut — definitely untrustworthy.
A man who refuses to wait until marriage — when ostensibly asserting that he wants a virgin — has every right to dump a woman because she doesn’t “trust” him to stay without the actual, demonstrative commitment?
Look, I’ll say that, for myself, marriage itself is rather irrelevant. I don’t need the social, sacrimental, or legal sanction of marriage in order to conduct my relationship. I have all of them because my husband desired them. Honestly, I didn’t even want a wedding because I could care less. I know that marriage or no marriage, there are no guarantees.
And, I know that it is risky for *both* parties and particularly for any children that they may create. God help those children (And I use God loosely, as I technically don’t believe in God.).
But at the end of the day, it sounds like the typical “whiney adult male” issue. He whines because she’s not a virgin. He whines when she wants to stay a virgin until that public commitment is made. He whines because it means she doesn’t trust him to stay.
Why should she? The marriage is more likely to stick — in her mind at least — than a LTR “commitment” (verbal commitment).
Anyway, ultimately, obviously for “those guys” it didn’t matter so much, and I agree that there are many men who do not care. They don’t want someone who was terribly promiscuous, but they don’t care about virginity per se.
Personally, I protected my body and my sexuality because of how highly I value it. Not how highly I value myself (which might mean over or under valuing it), but I do value sex, my sexuality, my body, my fertility, my health related, and any children that could arise out of it. That is a Big Deal.
And I have no idea why someone else wouldn’t consider their sex/sexuality to be a Big Deal — male or female. I’ve always found that confusing.
And, as it is a Big Deal, even if my first LTR ends, it’s not like I’m going to run the bars or whatever or wait until marriage (personally), but I’m not going to openly talk about our sex life and history right away, nor am I going to freak out should I share my BIg Deal with a guy who, it turns out, would not go the distance in the LTR.
But, I likely won’t ever have to worry about it.
“They call Kathy a slut all the time, too.”
Lol.. Water off a ducks back to me.. … shrugs.. 😉
What amuses me is the lack of humor some of these people show.
I often use humor to make a point.. Also to tease.. If they call me a liar, or make some assumption about my character, I just give ’em what they expect..
Sheesh.. And they are still not happy! Ingrates.
Here Goldenfetus hops in for his chop, after I have been “taking the piss” out of NWOslave.. who accused me of lying, trolling, being a modern woman, in the derogatory sense… So I gave him what he wanted..confirmation.. Lol! He realized eventually that I was playing him..
Golden fetus replies, to my comment with some heavy stuff ( heh heh heh)
“Looks like quite a bit of covert feminism and female supremacism breaking out into the light here.”
.. he then quotes me, below..
Me to NWOslave: “Just between you and me, NWOslave, my husband didn’t marry me for my intelligence .. If you get my drift..
And, when I get out of hand he just gives me a damn good spanking.
Of course (as you would expect) I do get out of hand quite a bit 😉 ”
Here is goldenfetus’s slam dunk!
“That almost physically turned my stomach. You probably think you’re being edgy and empowered, but it just comes across as a solipsistic female disgustingly thrusting her private sex life onto an uninterested audience – betraying the intimacy required for a healthy relationship so you can get male sexual attention outside your marriage. It’s filthy, nasty.”
Say what????
My reply to him was:
“It’s a joke you twit! I have never been spanked in my life.. lol..
What is it with these humorless people.. ? ..shakes head..
Lighten up… NWOslave knew that I was only kidding.. rolls eyes..”
I had the same problem once when I made a joke about the fluffy pink handcuffs and whips ( think it was on Alte’s blog, not sure) Well, did I cop a bollocking for being such a pervert and attention seeker, etc.. Now before anyone asks…
NO, I DO NOT OWN ANY FLUFFY PINK HANDCUFFS OR WHIPS.!
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/04/03/to-the-rescue/#comments
Sometimes I think that it may be due to a cultural difference. Aussie humor, as opposed to American humor..
The “serious Christian” guys are a tiny pool to fish in (especially in Europe, where I was).
That’s true, but it is what it is. There aren’t many women in that pool either, but I didn’t want to stray out of it. Other people decide that the odds are too bad and compromise.
It depends on what you want. I do not judge others, really. Everyone has different goals in life.
” There aren’t many women in that pool either, but I didn’t want to stray out of it”
And, you were indeed rewarded with a prize catch.. 😉
In contemplating Brendan’s statement, I got a sudden shock of recognition.
You see, I was willing to be single for ever if I didn’t meet the right guy. My standards weren’t impossible — but I did have standards. And, my husband meets and often exceeds those standards. I hope I do for him also.
So, there have to be standards.
I think that, where things go awry for many people is when their standards are skewed funny.
Case in Point: Dear friend of mine is 38 and single. Good job, owns his own home and car, no debt. All around decent fellow. A little overweight/out of shape. Likes comic books a bit overmuch, is that sort of consummate “collector” image. House is stuffed to the gills with “collectables.”
On one occasion, DH and I joined him at a comic book convention because our friend wrote a chapter for a scholarly work on a given comic book, and the editor was leading a panel of experts — of which our friend was one. So, in this environment, you can imagine that my friend was a “good catch.”
Unfortunately, my friend is also stupid. Instead of realizing the dozen or so gals who were of the same physical shape, same general look (paste-y, a bit funny dressed), and of the same interest (an unnatural interest in comic books and collectibles) who were interested in him, he was devastated that he couldn’t get the “booth babes” (models hired to sell collectibles) to look at him. “I’m a decent guy, smart, good job, basically healthy, but these gals won’t look twice.”
Yeah, cuz they are in a completely different sport, silly. He’s playing video game MLB and they’re playing MLB. duh.
In a similar story, another dear friend of mine has such high standards for a man, it’s ridiculous. First, she’s never in the social circle — nor ever will be — to bag a real live wealthy man. Seriously, she just isn’t. She’s solidly middle class and done well for herself, and unless she accidentally meets a millionaire, she’s never going to rub elbows. She simply “will not accept” a man who makes less than $500k a year or more. She, herself, barely pulls $55k.
In addition, even if she *did* by some miracle go into a circle with men who are earning at that level (and in her mind, she really wants “real” money — $5mil plus), it would be highly unlikely that she could attract such a man. She’s overweight, mousey, and seriously gives off the “i love you for your money” vibe. She plays very needy, too. Which, in my experience of millionaires, doesn’t go over well (and yes, I know several).
Of course, in irony, she is active in numerous clubs and activities and there are several men there who are working decent jobs, own their own homes and cars, are debt free, are very nice and kind, who share a common interest who ask her out. She *will not* date them because they are fat (she’s fat!), poor (everyone under $5mil is apparently poor; but she’s poor by that standard too!), and just not “dashing” or whatever.
Both bemoan how hard it is to find “compatible partners” but they aren’t *looking for* compatible partners. They are looking for people *well out of their league*.
So, yes, be picky, for sure. But don’t be so picky that you are overlooking the people available right around you who are probably a very good fit for you.
Sweet As: If the marriage minded virgins you are talking about does not demand monogamy until marriage from the men, I do not see their problem. Hey, I could marry them all, one at a time, but only if we marry in Sweden. But I do not want any intrusions from them until we are married. And I have to warn them that I take marriage as lightly as most women.
Are you suggesting that these women (or any and all) should allow a prospective husband, a man who asserts that he is interested in marriage — and in particular interested in marrying her — to have sexual relationships with other women until they are married if she will not have sex with him until this time?
How would this build the “trust” that she is supposed to have in him such that she would be willing to have sex with him before marriage, so that she could secure the marriage?
Likewise, how does this not create a double standard *and* a double bind for women?
That being said, I do not think that these women care about the sexual past of any potential husbands. That is to say, they don’t seem concerned if he was a womanizer or a serial monogamist, so long as he is monogamous with them during their courtship and subsequent marriage.
I also cannot speak to how women do or don’t ‘take marriage lightly.’ I, personally, am relieved that I have a legal way to get out if need be, but I cannot forsee that need, based on the fact that I chose carefully (and likewise so did my husband).
These last two years have been rough for us, but we feel strongly that our marriage is exceptionally important and valuable for a variety of reasons. 🙂
Sweet As: The woman has no obligations to the man during courtship (and few, if any, obligations in marriage). Why would the man have the obligation to not sex, and even not court, other women before marriage? What’s in it for him? I am quite sure that “your model” is not even applied to courtship before arranged marriages (with a marriage 1.0). Why should it apply to a “free market” with “man’s fault divorces”?
“… The families usually part after this initial meeting without any commitment made by either side, and with the expectation that they will confer separately and send word through the matchmaker should they be interested in pursuing matters further. These meetings are understood to be non-exclusive, i.e. both the boy and girl are expected to similarly meet with multiple other potential partners at this stage. There is, however, an expectation of total confidentiality. Families do not usually disclose who else is being considered for their son/daughter and expect reciprocal confidentiality from the other party.
…
Once there is mutual agreement between the prospective bride and groom that they would like to marry, and no red flags have emerged about either party in the inquiries conducted formally or informally, the other prospective spouses are declined and their photographs and other documents returned. Families usually attempt to maintain a high level of cordiality in these interactions, often invoking the idea of sanjog (predestined relationship, roughly equivalent to the idea that “marriages are made in heaven”) to defuse any sense of rancor or rejection. An engagement ceremony or a pre-engagement ceremony (such as roka) follows. In urban areas, the future spouses are often expected to go out on dates and develop a romantic relationship in the period between their engagement and their wedding. In more conservative rural areas, a period of greater freedom in interaction, or even romantic courtship, between the man and woman follows though dating may not be socially permissible. …”
I am quite sure that there is shaming or even pecuniary sanctions for breaking off such an engagement, and I am quite sure that the marriage date is set close to the engagement. In “your model” the man has no guarantees and no freedom during courtship and he will only get a mariage 2.0.
The couple must be very unevenly matched (i.e. the woman must have much higher value) for a man to consider “your model”.
Sweet As: The “double standard” is not a double standard, since marriage 2.0 is so heavily stacked against the husband/father.
A large sum security paid to the man, if the woman breaks off the courtship process or the engagement, and repaid to her, if he breaks it off, might also be enough to sugar the deal.
This sum should of course be the personal property of the man, and not become part of marital assets.
What happened to love??
What happened to the good old days? sigh…
Grandpa, tell me ’bout the good old days
Sometimes it feels like this worlds gone crazy
Grandpa, take me back to yesterday
When the line between right and wrong
Didn’t seem so hazy
(chorus)
Did lovers really fall in love to stay
And stand beside each other, come what may
Was a promise really something people kept
Not just something they would say
Did families really bow their heads to pray
Did daddies really never go away
Oh, grandpa, tell me ’bout the good old days
Grandpa, everything is changing fast
We call it progress, but i just don’t know
And grandpa, let’s wander back into the past
And paint me the picture of long ago
(repeat chorus)
Did lovers really fall in love to stay
And stand beside each other come what may
Was a promise really something people kept
Not just something they would say and then forget
Did families really bow their heads to pray
Did daddies really never go away
Oh, grandpa, tell me ’bout the good old days
Oh, grandpa, tell me ’bout the good old days
More lyrics: http://www.lyricsmode.com/lyrics/j/judds/#share
Kathy, Kathy:
You’d be so much more interesting if you owned a pair of pink handcuffs, or if your husband did, indeed, for fun, spank you daily.
And you’d be even MORE fun, if you owned and wore a pair of pink bunny slippers.
Alas, tis all a dream.
Life is so cruel, sometimes.
As for GoldenFetus that guy can take a big jump off a large cliff.
It’s getting harder and harder to get married at all in Germany, especially as quickly as I did (within a year), so women are rapidly losing their leverage on this topic. The alternative isn’t to be a virgin bride (basically a non-existent entity over there), but to be a perma-girlfriend. I suppose I just wasn’t willing to lower my standards on other issues in order to maintain my standards on this one temporary issue.
I guess the whole point I’m making is that young women are also sometimes stuck between misery and vice. Most women are going to choose the latter because they are looking for someone who makes a good husband and that they are attracted to, and they’re not focusing so much on who makes a good fiancé.
My husband and I waited but we only knew each other 3 months before we were married. We were going to to be moved to different military bases so we quickly got hitched so we could stay together.
Women who want to select from the serious Christian men pool also have to have made peace with the traditional patriarchal family power structure and dynamic – which generally includes responsibilities like having many children, homeschooling, economic dependence, deferring to male headship, wearing modest clothing, etc. Hardly any women are willing to make that tradeoff for a serious Christian guy these days.
I once dated a man from a family of 11 children. He was a solid guy, very manly, very resourceful, and his family was very nice and had many things to admire about it. I still go and see them because I like them and find their farming life so interesting. But he was utterly uncompromising when it came to his faith. To illustrate: in the early 90’s he protested at abortion clinics (non-violently). He and others would obstruct building and chain themselves to stuff to stop clinics from functioning that day. Eventually he did it enough times and was arrested enough times that a judge decided to send him to prison doing real time to make an example of him. It was allowed that if he signed a statement promising never to protest again, he would be paroled. He refused. Instead he imposed on himself a year of silence on behalf of the unborn. He did 2 years, half of them never speaking.
I met him some time after that and wasn’t Catholic then. I liked him and respected him, but I could see that if we were to get married, he would expect a big family and would think that if this was difficult on me, I’d just have to cope. My background was not his background, and I could see myself four or five years later with 3+ kids huddling in the corner of the bathroom and refusing to come out, and him being like “WHAT is the problem?” My sense was that he cared more about his religious beliefs than he did about me. He went on to marry a women from a larger family who was comfortable with that outcome. I think they are very happy and are a good match.
This family and the small network of families they are a part of are really solid and have largely bypassed the whole moral/social collapse of the last 40 years. They tend to be self-employed as well and are successful in their areas of interest – because they work tirelessly and have a lot of innate creativity. None of them live in luxury, though, because big families are expensive and they live in rural areas where the pressure to conform is less. They also expect their members to work hard. Amish Catholic, almost.
Of the 11 kids, all of which are now adults, only 1 has really bucked the program. Ironically, she has done the best financially. But she also was divorced in her mid-twenties and, nearing 30, has no kids. The family has put some pressure on her to conform to expectation and she has reacted angrily with , “If you loved me, you’d accept me and my life.” I can’t see her conforming and I can’t see them accepting, so I think passive estrangement is going to be the outcome.
How many still long for this?
The irony of my whole situation was that if I had gotten married earlier I might have been able to have kids. Or maybe not. There is a part of me that has a real yearning for these older ways of life, but another part of me knows that I would probably not have been a great mother to 6 or 8 kids. Temperamentally I am better with order and quiet than chaos and noise. INTJ.
Clearly, there are many different choices women can make – but it’s not a buffet from which they can pick the best things from this option and combine them with the best from that and get “perfect” men or sulk if it doesn’t work out.
I’m INTJ, too. I’m afraid I only have two kids, but the chaos and noise of 6. 🙂
Then you made the three-month deadline. I suggested eloping and convalidation, but he wanted that whole big wedding-thing.
I’m not going to lie and say I wish I had picked a different man, as I’m very happy with the one I’ve got, and everything worked out well in the end. I just wanted that specific man to wait another four freaking months. I suppose I basically totally lucked out, and now I’m just whining like a spoiled brat. I wanted 43 presents and there are only 42 presents on the table. Waaah! LOL. Many single women would give their eyeteeth for a husband like mine, so I’m not unaware of the fact that I sound terribly ungrateful in this thread.
I’m just pointing out that things are complicated for women too, and that this is because men care more about virginity than premarital chastity, and many care little about either.
Paige,
At the fourth month they start off slow with, “Hey, baby, it’s okay. Oral is moral,” “I just want to know it feels like. Just for a minute,” and eventually progress to, “We’ll just go to confession afterward. Then it’ll be like it doesn’t even count. We’re practically married, anyway.”
Next thing you know, you’re rushing to move the wedding date a few months closer, so you don’t appear with a baby bump. LOL.
Men!
This is probably why it is better to have arranged marriages with a veto power. The family/matchmakers find the mates and the men/women approve or disapprove the choices. Once they make the approval they mostly stay away from each other til the wedding day.
@Alte
I’m just pointing out that things are complicated for women too, and that this is because men care more about virginity than premarital chastity, and many care little about either.
No doubt that the issue is complicated for women. However, given the wildly unequal legal nature of marriage for men and women, there is some logic to the man wanting his future wife to have as we say in business some “skin in the game”. A woman wanting a man to marry her is expecting him to take a huge leap of faith on her. Her giving him her virginity prior to the actual wedding represents a similar kind of leap of faith on her part. Its a great trick, but you can only do it once. Not theologically sound, but sound logically.
That’s true. My husband was genuinely insulted by my refusal, as it was a trust issue for him. As if I thought he would knock me up and bolt out the door, or something.
It was also a question of obedience. If she’s giving him excuses and refusing now, when the love is still fresh and exciting, what’s it going to be like later? Is he marrying a frigid or disobedient woman (a big concern for a lot of men)? Do she not want to have sex with him? Is she a Churchian who’s going to throw the Catechism at him whenever he makes a decision she doesn’t like? Etc.
I have a lot of sympathy for the guys too, but it’s like trying to square a circle. The modern situation makes everything overly complicated for everyone.
“Does she not”, of course.
Dalrock: I cannot see any (strong) religion that would accept marriage 2.0. There is nothing theologically sound with marriage 2.0, at least nothing I can imagine.
At law school I wrote a short essay on annulment of marriage (that formally existed in Sweden until 1973 or something), and if I remember correctly the reasons for annulment were stuff that a man would find disappointing in a wife, in the vein of the thins you are writing about. Since a man cannot choose the old rules for marriage, it makes no sense for a man to accept ONE of the old rules that a woman likes and finds benefitting her. I have not read up on fault divorce, but I imagine that there are som male friendly aspects in that as well.
Sorry, it was Alte who wrote about those things.
Alte: The old German law:
“§ 32. Irrtum über die persönlichen Eigenschatten des anderen Ehegatten. 1. Ein Ehegatte kann Aufhebung der Ehe begehren, wenn er sich bei der Eheschließung über solche persönlichen Eigenschaften des anderen Ehegatten geirrt hat, die ihn bei Kenntnis der Sachlage und bei verständiger Würdigung des Wesens der Ehe von der Eingehung der Ehe abgehalten haben würden.”
But this is the lesser form Aufhebung not Nichtigkeit. But I guess more things were under Nichtigkeit in earlier laws.
Nichtigkeit translates to annulment, and I think the annulment laws (even in the States) are still quite generous.
@Dalrock….Have you read Roissy/Comments from Jan 2009 through November 2009?If so,you will realize the ability of a commenter to reduce a blog to brutal mediocrity.Do you observe any similarity betweenst Lady Raine and Paige?Yes,yes I know;a man who has the courage and creativity to run his own Blog has more legitamacy than some anonymous commenter,but still…..
[D: I’m not shy about those areas where I disagree with her, but I don’t see her as anything like a troll. Having different views is key to the conversation. She also seems to value her marriage, which puts her ahead in my book.]
To be honest, the real double bind is in what people are *stating*.
A man states that he wants to be married and he wants “marriage material.” He defines “marriage material” as a chaste woman (and/or virgin bride). He values this virginity until he wants to have sex with her, with the promise of marriage. If she gives in, and he breaks up with her, she is — to the next man with the same standard — a slut and therefore no longer marriage material. If she doesn’t give in, she doesn’t trust him.
The fact is, marriage *is* as much a risk for a woman as for a man. Yes, marriage 2.0 is. Because marriage has always been a risk for a woman, now the risks are just different. In particular, single parenthood. Today, she gets to keep her children; yesteryear she likely received no contact with them (children usually went with fathers *unless* fathers left, which was more common in yesteryear). Today, divorces can be started by either party.
The benefit of feminism — the baby so to speak — is the education, political involvement, access to broader work opportunities, and the ability to divorce. The drawbacks of feminism — the bathwater — have been the feminization of men (huge mess for everyone), inequity under the law (affirmative action quotas, etc), and certain aspects of the sexual revolution.
So, while many seem to call for an abandonment of feminism, I think a more pragmatic and prudent approach is to discern what is baby and what is bathwater, and dispense of that which is not longer beneficial — bathwater.
In addition, I truly believe that if people live by certain core values regarding their commitments (whether marriage or not), then there is no concern.
The problem is that these men assert certain values, then hold an assumption about the women around them — one that indicates a great distrust and dislike of women.
I do not consider men untrustworthy. I am truly blessed that most of the men in my life have been upstanding, generous, loving men. I have long believed that men were capable of faithful, long term relationships and holding to their commitments (whether it is marriage or simply LTR commitments).
What I’m hearing here is the idea that because of “marriage 2.0” and it’s inherent risks for men (without acknowledging the inherent risk of marriage 1.0 AND 2.0 and likely 3.0 when it arises for women) that women who espouse similar values to those men who espouse wanting virginal and/or chaste brides are inherently untrustworthy because of the legal situation in which they find themselves (marriage 2.0 legal situation).
This seems to be to be a situation where men want to “have their cake and eat it too.” He wants the cake of the faithful, chaste woman without having to be faithful or demonstrate fidelity.
In addition, as another poster noted, marriage can happen quickly — if both parties are assured that they want to marry. But if *he* thinks that *she* isn’t committing because “marriage 2.0” exists, then he isn’t truly trusting, is he? And now she’s taken the risk on the flakey guy.
I do not believe that most people see marriage as a 1.0/2.0 dichotomy. Most of the people whom I know wanted to be married, got married, and have stayed married. Honestly, I can count the divorced friends I have: 2. And it’s not because I avoid divorced people. I either know married people or single people. Most of the single people are either very young (under 25) or over 35. It’s interesting.
Over and over, the reason that I find that the people under 25 aren’t married is because they haven’t found the right person yet. Again, I feel that they are often too picky. The reason that the over 35s aren’t, I think they are being too picky (particularly the women).
I think the women are too picky because of the so-called “hamsters” — I feel that the men are too picky because, just as you assert a woman has to be of higher value than him for her viriginty/whatever to be valuable. But really, should a woman choose a lower-value man? That is also a double standard, imo.
I truly feel that people should be more open to others, and in particular, open to trusting others. Because what I see from both is a lot of distrust, largely based on cultural assumptions, and that can lead to bitterness and resentment, and from there, less likelihood of achieving the individual’s goal — which is true marriage (neither 1.0 or 2.0).
I think people really want that: a real marriage.
Being that I must have been lucky, I feel that I have one.
@Sweet as
A man states that he wants to be married and he wants “marriage material.” He defines “marriage material” as a chaste woman (and/or virgin bride). He values this virginity until he wants to have sex with her, with the promise of marriage. If she gives in, and he breaks up with her, she is — to the next man with the same standard — a slut and therefore no longer marriage material. If she doesn’t give in, she doesn’t trust him.
The preference for a virgin is practical, as the link in the second bullet shows. If she has been with someone else her ability to bond tends to be lessened. Also, this isn’t sex without commitment. At this point they have promised to be exclusive and to be together for life. She isn’t looking for uncommitted sex, so calling her a slut is quite over the top. But it doesn’t change the fact that her ability to bond to the next man is statistically lessened. But as I and others have said, she is asking for a huge leap of faith. Her giving her virginity before the wedding is as you say a risk, and a significant one. But this is what gives it currency as well, just like the risk she is asking him to take.
Beyond this, I think your dismissal of the uneven legal risks for men in modern marriage is very telling.
Sweet As: “The fact is, marriage *is* as much a risk for a woman as for a man. Yes, marriage 2.0 is.”
You are making a very weak case, if any at all.
Anyhow, more and more men are helping women to avoid the risks of marriage.
Dalrock has written extensively on this, and is advicing men not to con women into marriages, since marriages are bad and riskful for women:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/marriage-is-bad-for-women/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/11/18/men-stop-tricking-women-into-loveless-marriages/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/18/why-is-the-marriage-deck-stacked-against-women/
Sweet As–
I think you meant the genders reversed. But if he’s truly trusting that divorce won’t possibly happen, under the terms of divorce 2.0, he’s a fool.
Sweet As – “The fact is, marriage *is* as much a risk for a woman as for a man.”
In a word – NO!
This would be a large can of worms to open here, but the reality is that via the (Anti-)Family Courts, and the force of law behind them, together with the largely unilateral ability of women to use false allegations in order to gain the upper hand in marital/custody disputes, gives women who do get a man to commit (and sign the contract) a distinct advantage should the marriage dissolve.
Women realized their significant advantages long ago, and started talking about “starter marriages” and “starter husbands” long before men ever broach the subjects of MGTOW and “marriage strike”. In fact, the subject of “starter marriages” (for women) was already being published before the whole MGTOW/marriage strike stuff took hold (http://www.amazon.com/Starter-Marriage-Future-Matrimony/dp/0375505407).
I take it that your fairly new to the “Manosphere”, otherwise you’d be a bit more “versed” in the realities of Marriage 2.0/Divorce 2.0 and “child-imony”, etc.
Not that Marriage 2.0 doesn’t confer some risk on women – just nothing comparable to what it dumps on men.
Sweet as–
Yes. But we want to have the cake from someone selected from one set of girls (good girls and maybe semi good girls) and eat it too from another set of girls (sluts and semi sluts). We live in a diverse society in many ways and both sets of girls are out there. Though it’s true virginity in a girl past college has gotten hard to find among hot girls in the US, outside a few very religious subcultures. Mormons for example.
It’s a winning strategy that works for those both alpha enough and knowledgeable enough to employ it.
Now if you gave me the choice between voting for a prevalent ideology such as media post feminism in the US today, or more traditional and religious societies sex only w/in marriage, you’d pose a dilemma for me. But no one’s holding that referendum.
Sweet As–
Yeah I of course agree with all other men that have comment on that. Hell no. You’re completely wrong. I’ve never read any woman who’s evinced having read much in the Roissysphere to have continued to maintain that. Not one. It’s feminist tripe.
And no I’m not going to bother to detail for you why you’re wrong. Read up in the manosphere. You’ve already read up in the feminist sphere. You’re American and I’ll presume educated.
Pingback: Do you love me? | Dalrock
If there’s something I’ve figured out from reading women’s postings on these blogs and discussing MRM issues with women in real life, it’s this: the hamster is immutable. In very rare cases you might be able to slow it down, but it will never rest.
That’s why I believe the solution to reversing the evils created by feminism must rest with men alone. Women will never truly understand or support the effort, and their mere involvement only creates division between men.
*SIGH*
Guys: Look, even 30 or so percent of extremely (well ok, ten or over if I recall correctly) promiscuous women manage to be in long term marriages.
WHY?!
Given all the women with this kind of baggage, finding out what other factors besides partner count lead to a woman being decent marriage material is important. Why? Because women with 2 sexual partners or less willing to marry even as early as age 25 or still a very distinct minority, esp if one is not the member of a fundamentalist religion like the mormons. There simply aren’t enough to go around. But if 30 percent of the “sluts” can be salvageable if we knew why they could still pair bond, that might help things immensely.
The risk of divorce is pretty high for women. The risk of losing custody or going to jail is very slim.
Most men say marriage 2.0 is dangerous because it is accompanied by risks of child custody and jail time if they are falsely accused of a crime or can’t pay child-support.
When women say marriage 2.0 is risky they mean that it is risky to their emotional well-being, or their finances if they become dependent and then are financially abandoned.
I just had a quick scan of the long thread, interesting stuff.
Lavazza:
The woman need to be say 2 points higher than the man for that to become an anywhere worthwhile proposition to the man.
I found this an interesting comment give the frequent complaints about men can’t get women allegedly of the same league because they are out chasing ‘alphas’
If the marriage minded virgins you are talking about does not demand monogamy until marriage from the men, I do not see their problem
I do not want any intrusions from them until we are married. And I have to warn them that I take marriage as lightly as most women.
Why would the man have the obligation to not sex, and even not court, other women before marriage?
A large sum security paid to the man..This sum should of course be the personal property of the man, and not become part of marital assets.
Sweet as:
This seems to be to be a situation where men want to “have their cake and eat it too.” He wants the cake of the faithful, chaste woman without having to be faithful or demonstrate fidelity.
Doug:
Yes. But we want to have the cake from someone selected from one set of girls (good girls and maybe semi good girls) and eat it too from another set of girls (sluts and semi sluts).
What do you think Dalrock. You mentioned ‘logic’ in reference to certain male behaviours, do you think it would be a logical thing for a young female virgin to be getting engaged and having sex in this situation?
[D: It is a huge leap of faith, and therefore depends on how trustworthy the man is (just like women and marriage for men). Based on the above I would say not logical for Doug1 or Lavazza, but yes for grerp’s husband and Alte’s husband. You have to admit this has been my message all along. I’ve consistently tried to steer women away from alphas. The alphas don’t mind though, because they know most won’t listen.]
Paige – “When women say marriage 2.0 is risky they mean that it is risky to their emotional well-being, or their finances if they become dependent and then are financially abandoned.”
Well, since men can (and do) suffer emotional harm in marriage and the dissolution thereof, in that alone, the risks are roughly equal for both men and women. For there, the further harms fall disproportionately on men. Unless a man is himself “penniless”, there is no way he could easily “financially abandon” his ex-wife – especially one who was dependent on him (aka stay-at-home). The heavily female-biased (Anti-)Family Courts are intent on helping women “maintain the lifestyle to which they become accustomed…” (but, typically, don’t do the same for men). The reality is that for those who are not wealthy (90%+ of all people), it is very rare for a man to end up significantly better off than the women in the event of a divorce. One of the lies of the gender-feminists that conservative women have adopted is that the relative incomes of men are (on paper) higher than those of the women from who they are divorced. But this fails to take into account the reality that the transfer payments that a man must make to his ex (alimony, childcare, financial settlements) are NOT tax deductible, but those same payments do NOT count towards the ex-wife’s taxable income. Thus, the relative “taxable incomes” will appear to be in men’s advantage, but the reality is that after subtracting the transfer payments from the man’s income, and adding them to the woman’s they will end up a lot closer in terms of actual financial “income”.
And, woman go all-out for custody (including making false allegations of violence, abuse, and even sexual abuse) because the amount to child-support which will be awarded to them is based on formulas which take into account the difference between their incomes, and the percentage of time each will have custody. That’s why women often try to gain sole custody (more money coming their way). And, where the man’s income is high enough, the amount to child support awarded to his ex will often be well in excess of what it actually costs to support the children. This simply ends up augmenting the disposable incomes of the women.
The bottom line is that while both parties may end up worse after divorce, women do not typically end up worse-off than do men. And, is is the norm, where a man has brought significantly more in the marriage (savings, property, retirement accounts) , the “equitable division” of those assets will end up a substantial loss for him and a windfall for her.
And, we don’t even need to get into cases of paternity fraud, wherein in addition to the crushing emotional damage a man will suffer, he is also likely to end up paying $100k+ to his ex for someone else child.
On balance, the comparative risks for men and woman under Marriage 2.0/Divorce 2.0 really aren’t even close.
Yeah, it wasn’t much of a risk for me.
Slwerner:
A woman who stayed home is going to go from having her husbands full income to having whatever percentage of it the court awards. It is unlikely to be enough to live off of if the man was anything less than upper-middle class. She will have to get a job, and if she has not worked she might really struggle getting a decent salary. If she has young kids she may struggle to find and afford child-care and will probably end up needing government aids.
A woman who goes from not needing a job to suddenly needing one is going to be screwed. It is one reason why so many women are loath to become homemakers.
All very pie-in-the-sky, really, Sweet As.
The fact is, marriage *is* as much a risk for a woman as for a man.
No, having children is a risk for women. Marriage is a form of insurance against that risk. The fact is, on average women in current marriages will not make as much money or accumulate as much wealth as their husbands so in a 50/50 divorce for even a childless marriage he loses, she comes out ahead. Men stand to lose much, much more if there are children – essentially, the chance to be a daily, important influence in their children’s lives and to build a long-term intimate trust and knowing. Most women don’t have to face the idea of every other weekend and 6 weeks in summer if they are divorced against their will.
If they marry, have kids, and he walks, she is stuck, but not so much because he left, but because she has to care for the children largely on her own on a lesser income. That is a bad outcome, and many women have indeed suffered it, but I would say more Boomer women than Gen X or Millenials, since the laws have been changed to benefit women and penalize men when divorce happens.
Women tend to equate marriage and children, but in an era of ubiquitous, guilt-free birth control, they are, in fact 2 different decisions.
I stay home. My husband prefers it. It will affect my lifetime earning potential, but it was a decision I made, together with my husband, knowing both the pros and cons. As such I can hardly be called a “victim.”
I stay home. My husband prefers it. It will affect my lifetime earning potential, but it was a decision I made, together with my husband, knowing both the pros and cons.”
It was basically the same for me.. My husband wanted me to stay at home, and I agreed.. Never really thought that much about it. We knew it would be harder with the one wage.. (At the time my husband was earning about a fifth of what he is now earning..) We were both brought up in families where our mothers were stay at home Mums.. So really it was a no brainer.
Of course after fifteen years of marriage and being out of the paid workforce (I do some work at home for the business) I’d be stuffed if he left me. Oh, I could get a job I suppose, but I would never be able to earn anywhere near what my husband earns in this business that he built from scratch himself..
Anyway, he will never leave me.. Not if he knows what’s good for him.. I’ll tie him to the bed.. 😉
( Cue evil laugh)
Seriously though, that kind of thing never worries me. We have our ups and downs, but we love each other, and are committed to one another.. for life.. For better or worse. From a spiritual and religious perspective(we are practicing Catholics) we are both on the same page.. So we take our wedding vows very seriously.
I will say that if you are a woman with a high income marrying or married to a man with a lower income or income potential, you have the same risk. I suppose with women graduating more often from college than men, this may become an issue. As a general trend, however, women make less money – because they choose professions and jobs that are remunerated less generously.
“There is a culture of shaming “man whores” or “man sluts” developing on college campuses. In other words, there’s a point where social proof boomerangs. Some of these alpha guys have a number well over 100. Their exploits are well-known their male peers, and of course, the women share the gossip and observe the walks of shame as well. There comes a point where they can still get with the most promiscuous women, but more discerning women are repelled by them.”
I find this “culture” difficult to believe except in the cases of unusually active (triple digits) or unusually deceptive (highly talented) men, obviously there are only a handful of either. Only when a guy has really pissed in too many pots will women put down the “I can CHANGE him!” snowflaking and avoid him.
Pingback: Calling Out Bologna Sandwiches | The Badger Hut
[D: It is a huge leap of faith, and therefore depends on how trustworthy the man is (just like women and marriage for men). Based on the above I would say not logical for Doug1 or Lavazza, but yes for grerp’s husband and Alte’s husband. You have to admit this has been my message all along. I’ve consistently tried to steer women away from alphas. The alphas don’t mind though, because they know most won’t listen.]
I am not sure on how you interpret my view. If a hot young virgin would say no sex before marriage, I might still marry her according to Swedish law if the date was set within, say, a six month period. Since no hot young virgins are propositioning to me the question is moot, though. As a young man I had sex with some virgins, whereof one was hot, and none of them made such demands, since they (rightly) trusted my intentions and my character and/or did not have the idea that they were entitled to a guaranteed LTR or marriage.
Badger: “I find this “culture” difficult to believe except in the cases of unusually active (triple digits) or unusually deceptive (highly talented) men, obviously there are only a handful of either. Only when a guy has really pissed in too many pots will women put down the “I can CHANGE him!” snowflaking and avoid him.”
And this will only happen in small enclosed sexual markets, which the man can leave when that happens, so man whore shaming will never be very effective.
Withholding information from someone takes away their ability to make informed decisions about their own life. It’s a very selfish thing to do and if a woman does it and the man later finds out she withheld, he *will* be pissed. IMO, not exactly laying a good foundation for a LTR. And, yes, I am speaking from experience.
“Very interesting and a compelling explanation for why traditionalists and conservatives are getting lambasted by a growing segment of men. Sin, is for the most part fun, or gratifying in some way. It wouldn’t be tempting if it wasn’t. We can argue about the long term misery created by sin, but the immediate gratification is there. If the choice is between misery and gratification, a very large portion fo the population will choose gratifcation.”
Actually no, no growing segment of men is lambasting traditional conservatives. It’s just you MRA’s, gamers and PUA’s. You guys just proved to me how you are often the male version of feminists and nothing better than leftists. Liberals tend to want victory whereas conservatives stand on principle. Sin is only gratifying in the short-term, in the end it’s nothing more than superficial candy. It’s like fast food. I would rather have healthy food all the way. Life is short so why are you offering me trash? Some of you guys take the leftist tactic of accusing conservatives of ‘hypocrisy’ and then pour every single liberal caused vice unto conservatives. Why be an ‘alpha male’? Why learn tricks on how to please women huh? I don’t define myself with what a woman wants. Sure you guys enlightened me on how many women today are dirt and how marriage is a risky business. The current dystopic liberal version of marriage certainly is risky and I’m avoiding it like a plague. But we can have marriages in religious or other social communities who reject the state liberal definition of marriage. There are plenty of websites where men can find a so-so religious ‘beta woman’. I’m a Christian virgin engaged to another Christian virgin. We’re both in our mid 20’s. Both of us are only getting marriage licenses in a church. We’re still contemplating whether it should be Catholic or Eastern Orthodox though since we are disillusioned with the current state of Protestant churches especially the heretical health wealth prosperity Evangelical gospel.
“The problem is that the “pseudo-Christian” market (LOL) is by far the biggest marriage-market. A lot of secular guys don’t want to marry at all, and most women want someone who will at least go to church with her on Sunday. The “serious Christian” guys are a tiny pool to fish in (especially in Europe, where I was).”
Thankfully this is declining since most of these “pseudo-Christians” are turning secular or seeking Buddhism.
“Nobody in real life — and my history is no secret — thinks I’m a slut. The Internet is not the real world, that’s for sure.”
The Internet is a reflection of the real world where people display their secretive innermost thoughts out in the open without fear of getting hounded upon or shamed. How many outspoken far-right wingers you see in real life? I’m a reactionary and still in the closet. I have liberal friends at work and they know I’m a conservative but they don’t know how deep my views go. I don’t know why you say that being a virgin is unreasonable. If anything it’s a sign that this person isn’t a heretical ‘pseudo-Christian’. I’m a virgin, my bride is a virgin, my brother is a virgin, my sister is a virgin, my cousins are virgins. Unless of course she converted to Christianity. That’s another scenario.
“The benefit of feminism — the baby so to speak — is the education, political involvement, access to broader work opportunities, and the ability to divorce.”
Funny I view them all as drawbacks. Women in education has increased liberal influence in society and the indoctrination goes earlier and earlier. Science, medicine and other fields have become corrupted with either flawed, incomplete studies or outright frauds. College has turned into a scam where we accumulate debt endlessly. Women in my opinion should have part-time jobs or stay at home and not go to full careerdom. Women’s political involvement has lead to democracy and the rule of the mob. It has also lead to neo-cons mission to spread freedom and democracy to say the Middle East. The ability to divorce, unless in case of adultery, breaks families apart. Women are delaying family formation. They are going into promiscuity and the animal like sexual marketplace. They are investing in the here and the now instead of offering their services for society, community and the future. Many of them have nasty personalities. We are constanly brainwashed into the 4 pillars of freedom, equality, progress and autonomy never noticing how they are leading us into our destruction. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
“Withholding information from someone takes away their ability to make informed decisions about their own life. It’s a very selfish thing to do and if a woman does it and the man later finds out she withheld, he *will* be pissed. IMO, not exactly laying a good foundation for a LTR. And, yes, I am speaking from experience.”
This is the biggest risk of that WWNH “feminine mystique” nonsense. The world is flat and crowded, and chances are your man is going to figure out sooner or later you haven’t been forthcoming about things he thinks are serious. It’s Clintonian. You might say “I didn’t think it was a big deal,” at which point he’ll say “then why didn’t you mention it earlier?”
If nobody’s been checking, guys aren’t exactly lining up for marriage these days. Advocating that women bullshit their way to the altar is NOT going to bring more quality men to the wedding game.
If you’re just a virtuous person, that’s great, you’re a good candidate for marriage, and you don’t need any of this subterfuge. But “Guy” seems to be marketing his stuff to women who have some, er, “mistakes*,” and instead of telling them to own it and get over it, he’s encouraging women to treat it as some kind of sacrosanct esoterica. (We haven’t even mentioned the neurosis it creates to keep big secrets for a long time.)
*Convention dictates I cite the manosphere meme that a woman’s “mistakes” are always rollicking good times when you see the Facebook photos, only changing to “mistakes” when she might be judged for them.
Blue Blazer
Do you observe any similarity betweenst Lady Raine and Paige?
I see more differences than simularities. Likely Raine is more intelligent than Paige. However, while I might trust Paige in some situations & not trust her in some others, I would not only never trust Raine, I would not even turn my back on her so long as I could see her.
Raine strikes me as quite possibly some sort of sociopath.
“Raine strikes me as quite possibly some sort of sociopath.”
Roissy made a huge mistake picking on her. Never piss on people who truly hate you, they will do whatever they have to to bring you down.
Why am I being compared to this Lady Raine chick? What similarities do we have?
[D: Lady Raine is an unwed mother who tangled with Roissy over a year ago. I’m not clear on all of the details, but she tracked down his identity and posted a pic of him with his real name. I believe she may have gotten him fired from his job as well. I referenced her in this post a while back, and she came here to respond in the comments. Prior to that she was a rash on grerp’s site for several weeks, forcing grerp to ultimately turn on comment control.
I personally don’t see the comparison. As I said above, we disagree on some points which I’m happy to point out, but you aren’t a troll and you value your marriage.]
Paige:
You are NO LadyRaine.
LadyRaine is a very highly intelligent (if you’ve read her blog over a long period of time you’d see this) yet probably mentally ill woman who made quite a splash in the pua and MRA communities about a year or so ago. The thing with Roissy was sort of just in that he “started it” with her , and somehow in the end, they ended up in an impasse. What made LR notorious is that she would come onto an MRA or PUA blog, hurl insults and accusations and snark, and if banned or if the pushback was too hard she’d accuse one of misogyny or even threaten to have the blog taken down/ruin the blog host’s life/ that sort of thing. Since she had gotten the goods on Roissy and had written a long post full of half illegal things to do to ruin someone if you need to get revenge on them, she was taken seriously and many blogs ban the mention of her name. She teamed up with a lady whom I thought was on the up and up (and I’m probably responsible for introducing to Roissy because when I first talked to her I used one of his posts) named Denise Romano and they started an unsuccessful yet rather nasty war against PUA and MRA blogs and posters accusing them of being women haters, abusers, rapists and Denise even contacted the police on some of them.
While Denise seems to be sane, both her and Lady Raine have a very expanded definiton of rape as well as expanded definitions of abuse.
Anyway, this has all blown over and though some commenters from Raine’s blog maria, theescapist, and sexy pteradactyl occasionally show up to spread some hate on Roissy or other MRA /PUA or even a traditionalist site now and then, they mostly stick to Lady Raine’s blog where she posts stuff from the technical to the eostoric and waxes proudly about her single motherhood and her looks. She has many pictures.
Here’s a thread on feminist critics about the whole thing: http://www.feministcritics.org/blog/2010/02/04/game-over-denise-romanos-critique-of-pickup-and-seduction-rp/
I went over to her blog and saw that she has a dark/gothish theme which may be why I am reminding people of her. She is the same age as me as well, and has a few similar interests including private investigation which I am currently going to school for. Her writing style is also rather similar to mine in its excessive use of ellipses and forward slashes.
We do part ways quite a bit here (from her bio):
” I don’t care about society’s views and morals and I answer to no one but myself. ”
haha. I prefer my eternity without the fire and brimstone.
“LadyRaine is a very highly intelligent”
Yeah right.
Pingback: Why are so many tradional conservative women obsessed with making sure hookups are fair? | Dalrock
Pingback: Rules of the road for fornication. | Dalrock
@”He may assume she is virginal or close to virginal based on chastity she displays in her relationship.”
Uh, yeah, no thanks. I want a woman who is attracted me and can’t keep her hands off me … if she is great at ‘exercising chastity’, that really means she’s not interested in sex with that man. And that’s a terrible basis to start a marriage on.
Uh, yeah, no thanks. I want a woman who is attracted me and can’t keep her hands off me … if she is great at ‘exercising chastity’, that really means she’s not interested in sex with that man. And that’s a terrible basis to start a marriage on.
A woman’s sexual response is often like a slowly boiling water. So that she is not all over you says nothing, actually, about her subsequent sexual responses. The sexually aggressive woman is more likely to be putting up an act than the more quiet ones. I think you have watched too much television.
@”I think you have watched too much television.”
No, first-hand experience after multiple LTRs and a marriage. My wife was hot for me from day one, literally.
That said, most of my earlier relationships when I was younger were more the slow-boiler type you describe, and those were awesome too.
I think it depends on a few things, e.g. the individuals involved, as well e.g. experience and age … I find the older I get, the less I feel like going through months of slow courtship.
@”My wife was hot for me from day one, literally.”
Conversely, I have also observed multiple marriages of friends and colleagues who married women who displayed that supposed ‘chaste virtue’ and/or were ‘waiting for marriage’ etc. – and they were looking forward to it heating up once they were married – and where that never happened, they were sorely disappointed, and their marriages ended in disaster. So if I’m ever in the market again, I do not want to be trapped that way – I’d rather know from the start that she does desire me.
In some of these cases I’ve seen these women cheat because they married men that they weren’t really hot for, and then find themselves feeling bored and trapped (this even happened with one of my own employees some years ago, she wanted to start an affair with me, and it was obvious she wasn’t really attracted to the man she married).
Of course, the solution is that these women should be following God’s vision of marriage, and adopting these values and applying them.
Pingback: It isn’t insincerity, but fear losing women’s approval. | Dalrock