Hold it alpha! Your hookup partner didn’t get everything she wanted!
I should start by pointing out that not all traditional conservative women are like that. There are quite a few women in the manosphere who aren’t interested in defining and enforcing “rules of the road” for casual sex. But I would say a very vocal minority appear to be almost obsessed by this.
Many of my readers will recall that Kathy vowed to leave this site forever after I pointed out that she was far more outraged over the fact that an alpha was “getting some on the side” while “dating” a woman than she was over a sex positive feminist trying to normalize casual sex<.htma>. Likewise Paige is very concerned in the comments section of my last post that 15 year old versions of Karen Owen might not be receiving a fair deal when they decide to have sex with alpha athletes.
I’m not condoning casual sex, I’m just very perplexed why so many otherwise traditional conservative (and religious) women are so driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women. I understand why feminists feel this way, but I truly can’t understand why traditional conservative women choose to ally with them in this regard.
It is worth noting that I don’t see traditional conservative men wringing their hands over whether men are getting their needs met through casual sex. For example, I’ve never encountered a traditional conservative man who worried that Roissy might one day catch an STD from a woman who lied and said she was disease free. I certainly don’t lose any sleep over this prospect. It isn’t that I am pro lying or even that I wish Roissy ill, I just don’t have a compelling interest in trying to create an elaborate system of hookup etiquette. Instead I’m motivated to try to make marriage a viable option for as many men and women as possible, so I don’t see why I should focus on making being a pickup artist as fulfilling as possible. Pickup artists and the women who chase them are making their own choices. The ambiguity of their “relationship” is a feature, not a bug. If they want to make a formal commitment, they are free to do so.
As I have pointed out before, this obsession with making sure hookups are “fair” is a reason many mothers won’t protect their daughters. Given the high cost these women are willing to have young women and girls pay, there must be an extremely compelling reason for them to focus so much energy on ensuring that casual sex is fair and fulfilling.
Female referee photo from 2for6.
From a more general perspective, the fair sex does seem, on the whole, more concerned with ensuring fairness in all walks of life. Men tend to just accept that unfairness exists and adjust their behavior accordingly.
Of course, defining fairness is pretty much impossible, especially since so much of what constitutes fairness in relation to voluntary interaction is inherently subjective. A woman shags an alpha who later breaks up with her after sleeping with four women on the side has only herself to blame for the pain she feels, since she decided to shag an alpha in light of the risks. It’s not fair that the alpha cheated on her and then dumped her, but that’s a part of the bargain, which she willingly made.
To me, then, it just seems that women want the best of both worlds. They the convenience of a casual relationship and stability of a committed relationship and they want it on their terms. Basically, they want an alpha who caters to their whims. Of course, such a thing is,by definition, impossible. If they want a casual relationship with an alpha, they should be prepared to be treated like crap. And if they want a stable relationship, they should be prepared to forego being with the alpha-est of males.
I’d chalk up their desires to the eternal solipsism of the female mind. Being a conservative woman doesn’t negate one’s womanhood, after all (and thank God for that!)
Yeah, the trade off is if you want a stable relationship, you will have to date within your own tier (the horror!).
We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
What Simon said; females can’t help but put themselves in another woman’s shoes, and rally around each other – unless of course they’re competing for a man’s attention.
Even traditionalist women seem to only value men for what they can do for women, not in and of themselves. Sad, but it seems to be female nature.
“Waiting til marriage isn’t an option” means “I want sex more than love/commitment.” Such a person probably doesn’t really believe in marriage anyway; it’s more about feelings and indulging. Once the feelings are gone or ebbing, the “relationship” will likely end. As Dalrock has pointed out, under these conditions there really is not much difference between an LTR and a hookup. What’s the real difference between an alpha who doesn’t “feel” it after sex vs. a woman who doesn’t “feel” it for a guy who doesn’t maintain her excitement.
@Paige
We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.
It used to be different, but then feminists and traditional conservative women locked arms and changed the culture.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
I have no idea. I know how to make sure he wants to get married. How long an LTR are you thinking about? Is this a pledge to be together for a month? A year? Or just until the feeling passes?
One word for you Emotional Quotient and herd mentality. Men are not very good at placing themselves on other men’s shoes, women are waaaaay too good at doing the same with women that are or were simmilar to them and some preffered men.
If a woman had one bad experience out of naivitiy she will assume that all women that have bad experiences are doing out of naivity even if the enivorement and the women tell otherwise.
I myself had been guilty of this, but I have some limits I had a dumb friend that dated a cad, he ended up being a criminal I consoled her over ice cream telling her not to feel bad, she was just unlucky and deserved better, second time she practically threw herself at the next cad, and he broke up with her (he was actually a bit more ethical than the one before), I consoled her but I placed on “watch” list because I mean this other guy had the same profile how come she was so naive twice? Mmm then the third one was the worst and obvious piece of lying scumbag that even my sister that never had a boyfriend knew he was bad news the moment I mentioned one or two things that she did, she later got pregnant from him and he of course took off, not before having lived with her to cash in on all the money she was making. Then it hit me, she was not naive she was an idiot, and I had to stop talking to her because I just couldn’t bear seeing her doing her stupid things now with an innocent child part of her life (although it looked like motherhood had made her at least more cautious, thank goodness), now I’m a bit more skeptic of this idea that women are being lied by cads on a daily basis. But even traditional women can imagine themselves as the woman and few women (specially American ones) are so self aware to says to themselves” I was so stupid all the signs of this guy screwing me over where there, or I should had waited a few weeks more he would had left me alone without damaging me so much…” Being conservative doesn’t mean that you have “self awareness”, that is sadly as rare as having some “common sense” this days….I blame Canada. :p
We are assuming that men are always obviously alphas. 99% of men and women have no concept of the terms let alone an understanding of how to discriminate between an “alpha” and a “greater beta”. If the man is not obviously sleeping with several women or confesses to having a huge partner count then how is it obvious he is a cad?
I’m not condoning casual sex, I’m just very perplexed why so many otherwise traditional conservative (and religious) women are so driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women. I understand why feminists feel this way, but I truly can’t understand why traditional conservative women choose to ally with them in this regard.
In a word: Narcissism.
These days women are an all-time civilizational high for the amount of vanity, conceit and narcissism that they are encouraged by the Establishment to have, and apparently very few of ’em — including many ‘traditional’ and religious ones — want to, um, ‘miss out’ on the ‘fun’.
The secular standards (that seem to be agreed upon by both men and women)is that the relationship lasts until one or both no longer feel it is working. Badger admitted to breaking up with someone because he wasn’t feeling the love anymore and none of the manosphere men thought he was wrong because manosphere men judge manosphre men by secular standards. It seems that only women are judged by religious standards.
Secular standards say LTR’s are about mutual love and last as long as there is mutual love. This requires that people be honest about their feelings…hence the reason secular women frown on men who mislead/lie/etc.
[D: Are you a secular woman?]
@Paige
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
And how does the man know that the woman will not divorce him and rape him at a court?
You cannot require virginity in a system of no-fault divorce, promiscuity, short term polygyny etc.
But I understand that you want it all 😉
Women are actively choosing the man who won’t commit, and then telling himself he will. He is attractive because he shows no interest in commitment. If he had shown any long term interest, she may not have even chosen him! So this woman will eventually set upon a man who will disappoint her. The best outcome is she finds a man who feigns disinterest, but actually is keen on her, basically a “gamesman,” or that she “converts” him, an unlikely occurrence.
This is akin to a man sleeping with an attractive but crazy bitch. When men do this, they don’t complain. They know it’s a package deal – either enjoy the sex and put up with the crazy, or get out. They don’t think she’ll wake up one day a sweet, pleasant damsel. They just decide whether the sex is worth it, and act accordingly.
I am a religious woman but I don’t judge non-religious people by religious standards given the fact that we don’t live in a religious culture that supports/promotes religious standards.
There is such a thing as natural law though and I think that lying and misleading is a cross-cultural taboo because it violates an instinctual sense of right and wrong.
This sounds like a replay of an earlier Dalrock discussion, that many women want to be the only person in the equation who’s allowed to change their mind. They want to make sure that sex obligates “commitment” because it gives them a path to be the one who chooses to walk out. It’s a textbook rationalization – they don’t like being dumped, so they create moral imperatives to prevent it while preserving their own right to do it.
[D: Spot on Badger.]
Thats not what I am doing. I am saying that secular relationships by secular standards still require some kind of ethics and that means not being intentionally misleading.
This is a bit off tangent from the general post, but I want to address the “mothers won’t protect their daughters” part a bit.
It was my father who warned me about how my being promiscuous would lead to many men not valuing me as marriage material. I recall several “why buy the cow” and “don’t lead men on” conversations. There definitely was a double standard compared to what he told my brothers, but I knew he was looking out for me.
In the same way that many boys didn’t learn about women from their dads and end up having to learn game, many girls don’t learn from their dads how to avoid being pumped and dumped.
Most moms are weak at that. It’s fathers who are instrumental for teaching teens the ways of the world.
If the man is not obviously sleeping with several women or confesses to having a huge partner count then how is it obvious he is a cad?
Judge a book by its cover. People who act like douchebags are usually douchebags. Those who act like nice guys are usually nice guys.
Most women find this difficult because their vaginas love douchebags. Which is why evolution has also given women rationalization hamsters — the douchebag really doesn’t mean to be a douchebag, or the douchebag isn’t a loser but has potential and is going places, etc. etc.
And how does the man know that the woman will not divorce him and rape him at a court?
Prenup.
@Paige
I am a religious woman but I don’t judge non-religious people by religious standards given the fact that we don’t live in a religious culture that supports/promotes religious standards.
This isn’t just about judging people, it is about giving them good counsel. Telling a young girl that her sexual impulses are good and pure and she deserves to be rewarded for sleeping with the highest alpha she can is not good counsel. If even Catholic women won’t tell girls it is wrong to have casual sex, the Catholic church is in worse shape than I thought.
And Badger- I didn’t blame you for breaking up with the girl. I said you did the right thing, so don’t lump me in with women who believe men are always wrong for dumping a woman.
I am just advocating for emotional integrity on the side of both genders.
I tend to stay out of the advice giving business in general but especially regarding secular women who live by very different standards than I do. I will leave that up to people like Susan Walsh.
My debate is that the cad who lies is not more moral than the woman who believes him….by any standard religious or not.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
Say “No sex until we’re in an exclusive monogamous relationship.” I would agree to it if I really liked her. She’d have to assure me I’m not wasting my time, by not being flakey at all, and showing interest early and often. She wouldn’t be meeting strange men at bars, on Facebook, or much place else, while we’re dating. She has to actually be attracted to a man who’s interested in her, and not to an aloof cad. She can’t be having sex outside serious relationships pretty much ever. Otherwise, I’m wasting my time on a woman who is not truly ready for an exclusive relationship.
How many attractive women in practice adhere to those conditions? Exactly, so few it’s not worth talking about.
“If the man is not obviously sleeping with several women or confesses to having a huge partner count then how is it obvious he is a cad?”
It’s not always, and past behavior is not always an indicator of future (i.e. he could become a cad with no previous history, or drop his cad ways with a certain woman). It’s part of the risk one runs getting into a sexual relationship. Once society deployed the pill it was all but inevitable that the system at large would absorb that risk.
I think you are getting way too wrapped up in this idea that the woman can take steps to insure all moral culpability is transferred to the man, and then she can write hit songs about her pain. For people who get really wrung up about this, we’d really be better off telling them that maybe they did get screwed but they have to move on, than to encourage them to burn up in a rage about their moral righteousness. We’ve all known people who never got over a heartbreak from what amounts to an inconsequential high school or college relationship, it’s really sad.
An analogy is helpful. What’s really going on is that social technology is changing – hookup culture has replaced dating culture which had a predictable cycle of “escalating commitment” – but the arbiters of the old technology want to transfer their regulatory/cost model onto the new system (they want sex to equal obligations even if it’s first-night hookup sex). It’s like the RIAA wanting people who download music to pay the same rates they charge to manufacture, package and distribute a physical CD. They’ve won some big-ticket lawsuits and settlements, but they’ve only served to alienate the customer base, and file sharing is here to stay. Mp3 music became viable as a business when people like Apple finally got a product the market was willing to pay for, which in turn told the record companies what people were really willing to pay for digital copies instead of physical ones.
In the same way, the situation will improve when people are honest about the trading-floor market prices of sex instead of price controls based on a model that doesn’t apply. The old copyright regs that dealt with physical copies of wax recordings will eventually be reformed or eliminated. People will still get paid for music, but the old model and distribution path is gone in all but statute.
@J
While love and commitment are not a necessary part of sex. Sex is a necessary part of a successful loving and committed relationship between a man and woman. It might sound good that if you love each other “the sex will take care of itself”. Reality can be very different. Given the downside of a failed marriage, only star struck fools would enter a marriage leaving sexual compatibility to chance.
Since marriage 2.0 carries a MUCH heavier penalty for the man, it is no great surprise that star struck female fools find star struck male fools in relatively short supply.
“Thats not what I am doing. I am saying that secular relationships by secular standards still require some kind of ethics and that means not being intentionally misleading.”
But you’re still building your case on the commitment-for-sex exchange model. Outside of the marriage market, that model is over. The rules have been redefined to sex-for-sex, redefined a long time ago as a matter of fact. The sooner you accept this, the sooner the conundra will vanish.
I don’t necessarily support this model (I’d certainly like more than sex from a woman I am with), but I understand and accept it – which means I’m less likely to get burned in the market offering my “commitment” to someone who isn’t looking to trade for it.
In the previous thread Paige said:
I love you doesn’t necessarily mean I’m committed to having an exclusive relationship with you. Many guys mean that but others mean something more like “I’m not just sexually attracted to you, I also really like you as a person.”
Badger–
I agree with Dalrock, spot on.
“There definitely was a double standard compared to what he told my brothers, but I knew he was looking out for me.”
This is not a double standard. Sexual promiscuity hurts a woman’s marital market value. But same boosts a man’s market value, within reason (again, it’s women who decide the man’s market value, not men, and women have shown they prefer men with a dominant sexual vibe that is most easily gained by experience).
Unless he told you brothers not to get married, your father was looking out for the marital market value of all his children equally.
A prenup doesn’t protect you from the “child support as alimony” racket, VAWA or give you custody or your children or enforce visitation.
The things that a prenup really does protect you from can be protected by other asset protection mechanisms better than a prenup can. Prenups can and are arbitrarily thrown out by judges.
I am not as emotionally invested in this topic as my participation in these threads might suggest, but since I was quoted (or paraphrased) I wanted my thoughts fully represented.
I don’t envy people in the current sexual market place. I think the rules are strange…words don’t mean what they seem like they should mean…and there are double standards on both sides that don’t seem fair to me at all.
But I completely disagree that the Taylor Swift song is a perfect example of “whats wrong with the world”…. or that being sympathetic towards women who are confused about how to conduct themselves in the SMP is wrong.
“We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?”
I would put the number a lot higher than 1 in 100. I have several friends (granted they are those pesky beta types) who would be willing to wait for marriage if the girl was willing to do the same.
So how do you know if a guy wants a long-term relationship or a hook-up? Simple. Keep your legs together and tell him you’re waiting for a ring. If he bails, then clearly he wanted a hook-up. If he sticks around for a while (and isn’t too persistent about pressuring you to give it up) then he’s marriage material. Of course, this strategy will probably lead to you ending up with (gasp!) a beta who won’t cheat on you and will provide for you and your children.
Paige–
The traditional method and one that’s still employed by some girls is to make guys wait before having sex or full sex with them. Require statements of commitment and signs of commitment for months.
This will tend to week out all but the most commitment minded alpha — who will have likely been taken off the market already by hot HB8 and HB9 good girls.
So your secular 6’s and 7’s, if they want alpha sex, and a shot at relationship with an alpha they tell themselves, will end of like Taylor Swift’s 15yo, being treated to short flings and pump and dumps.
Of course nothing is preventing these 6 & 7 girls from pairing up with commitment first with their same sex ranked beta and greater beta counterparts. Nothing that is except her own biological gina tingkes natural urges, unrestrained and unguided by religious and traditional female morality, and in fact encouraged by sex pozzie feminism reflected in popular entertainment culture.
Even the “pesky beta types” won’t usually wait until the altar anymore, which is what counts for Christians. They’ll maybe wait until they’re engaged, but not until marriage. It’s generally a ring-for-sex trade, really. So the commitment-for-sex trade takes place pre-marriage now. Engagements can be quite long and seem to have become a time of sexual-limbo, where people start shagging and cohabiting. Moving more back to the idea of the engagement being the “first step of marriage”, I think, like in the ancient model.
No, he’s not more moral. He also probably doesn’t care about whether he’s moral or not, which is why he’s a liar. A moral woman should look for a moral man or expect immorality. If you want to trust his word, find someone who’s trustworthy. You did that. I did that. It’s not impossible.
And love=commitment died with marriage. Now people love each other, they love puppies, they love pizza, they love fuzzy slippers in winter…
@ Paige
My understanding of Badger is that he is choosing to live by the secular standard. Dalrock has an earlier post up about choosing to live by one standard or the other, not switching when it’s convenient for you. If I’m wrong about Badger, my bad.
As for your question, a woman can gauge how much a man is willing to invest in her in a number of ways – with the caveat that, of course, how much he is willing to invest will vary based on what she has to offer and on what competing offers exist (so being amazing wife material will not get you an alpha if he has a better competing offer, no matter what you do). A woman can see that a man wants a relationship over a hookup by, say, not sleeping with him right away. She’ll know he wasn’t into an LTR when he leaves – and seeing a few leave before meeting a good one is the price of doing business, here. A woman can see that a man wants an LTR instead of short-term by finding out if he’s dating other women concurrently before it gets serious – while that’s not really a bad thing by itself, any person that chooses not to date concurrently even when nothing is serious will probably be more eager for the long haul. It’s not always easy to find out, I admit, and it’s only going to get harder as more men realize that they’re better served by appearing to be in-demand than by appearing eager to commit to one girl. The game changes as people learn.
But that just ties in to the point of this post: hookups and the dating market are not fair. As a recovering beta in his mid-twenties, I find I would much, much rather have the problems women my age have than the problems I had as a teen and in my early twenties. I still have sympathy for the women, just not as much as for my own ilk.
Short version: don’t date guys with too many options. Also, sex is to a relationship as gasoline is to a car – you need gasoline to get any mileage out of a car, but gasoline alone won’t get you a car, and gasoline alone won’t keep a car running forever. And you have to select your car carefully – the flashy ones will use more gas, be less reliable, your friends will all want to drive it, and it’s more likely to be stolen. So yes, sex is necessary to keep a relationship, but it’s not sufficient. And sometimes the guy will leave no matter what you do. Tough noogies – the best you can do is optimze your chances with good choices.
Speaking of choices, I don’t think any reasonable blogger in the manosphere expects women to live a life without mistakes – the only one I can think of is Athol Kay, who also thinks the man should be a virgin before marriage, too. More likely, they want women to learn from their mistakes the first, second, or maybe sixth time some alpha burns them. Few men here are demanding virgins, or women who get everything right on the first go, or women untouched by alpha-lust. They just get suspicious and annoyed when women suddenly wisen up around the same time their market value starts to drop.
Badger–
I’d say it is a double standard, but one that’s entirely justified by biological differences between the sexes.
@ Paige
Emotional Integrity?
But to your earlier question, there are plenty of avenues for men and women to observe potential partners and come up with a pretty good guess as to whether that person will respect a long term, monogomous relationship. Church, school, work… whatever. The dreaded friend zone. If you limit your potential hookups to people you meet on a night out, then of course you massively increase the risk of a fling, but that’s an obvious characteristic of this day and age and not something I’m inclined to feel sorry about if it goes wrong for those involved. Or for that matter if it doesn’t go at all -nobody’s shedding tears for the schmuck who buys the booze and goes home single.
Flying on the seat of my pants here, but I’d make a case that a major support for traditional marriage was the relative lack of movement between communities – one’s future spouse was well known to oneself and one’s family for a long time before marriage or even courtship became an issue. It wasn’t just that individuals were scorned for inappropriate behavior, but they had no real way of past misdeeds being forgotten, and any possible suitors had near full knowledge of their character. Modern mobility has vastly increased the pool of potential of potential mates, and the corresponding culture has removed the social barriers towards thoroughly vetting these relative unknowns. But – and it’s an important but – those avenues still do exist for those who really care to persue them.
Nothing particularly profound, but it’s a false choice to say a woman is forced to either play the 19th century stereotype maiden or else flip a coin and hope for the best, which seems to be your main grievance.
As I have pointed out before, this obsession with making sure hookups are “fair” is a reason many mothers won’t protect their daughters. Given the high cost these women are willing to have young women and girls pay, there must be an extremely compelling reason for them to focus so much energy on ensuring that casual sex is fair and fulfilling.
…
I’m not condoning casual sex, I’m just very perplexed why so many otherwise traditional conservative (and religious) women are so driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women. I understand why feminists feel this way, but I truly can’t understand why traditional conservative women choose to ally with them in this regard.
It is worth noting that I don’t see traditional conservative men wringing their hands over whether men are getting their needs met through casual sex. … @Dalrock
__
Here are some of the potential motivating factors:
Some years ago, I met a girl in a bar, who placing her hand on my inner-thigh and asked me to sleep with her that evening. I could hardly refuse, could I? On the way to where she was sleeping, she began to play hard to get. (It was a shit-test, of course). I remained calm, and unfazed. Later on, in bed, she asked me to tell her that I loved her. She knew I didn’t as we had only just met, but said that it was nicer that way. I was later to learn from her that in the previous two years she had slepped with pro-rata 300 + guys but what she really liked was for the guy to stay the night.
Pondering on this over the years, I came to the conclusion that what she was doing was seeking the benefits of a relationship without any of the committment, or to put it another way, she was not patient enough to bide her time until she found a man she was prepared to commit to.
She told me that sometimes her lovers were not very good. My view is that if she wanted a gigolo (which was what she was effectively using me as) she should pay for one.
Badger–
I’d say the current SMP rules are somewhere between “sex for sex and commitment for commitment” and “sex for beginning a fling and exploring the possibility of enough compatibility for a LTR”, depending on where she stands on the slut / good girl spectrum.
If sex before marriage is a valid option for someone, then marriage is not a good option for that person.
It is quite simple Dalrock.
Does it advantage the man or the woman?
That is all it takes. I don’t care if its conservative, religious, secular, feminist, or moonbat witchery women, that is all the math they do.
If it advances women they are all for it (because they place themselves in the position of the woman) if it doesn’t they are against it.
That’s it. that’s as high as their moral development climbs.
…Also, sex is to a relationship as gasoline is to a car – you need gasoline to get any mileage out of a car, but gasoline alone won’t get you a car, and gasoline alone won’t keep a car running forever. … @Bob
One of the most coherent statements on this subject that I ever heard.
Protecting people so that they do not suffer the consequences of their bad choices only encourages and protects bad judgment. Life’s cause & effect chain is how most of us get educated, and it’s how species involve – tease a tiger, get eaten; avoid tigers, live longer. Protect those who would tease tigers, lose the cultural knowledge and (maybe the genetically-inherited) wariness toward tigers, thereby making the species weaker.
Paige–
I think the great majority of the time when a guy says “I love you” to a girl he is feeling love at the time. Not necessarily head over heals love, but deep attraction that he perceives as love, particularly if he’s a high school or college aged guy. However when he feels great lust for another girl who is willing to go for him cause he’s alpha and she’s kinda slutty, he’ll likely go for it. He probably doesn’t want to stop seeing the girls he said “I love you to”. He just wants to be with other girls too.
Hotter and sluttier girls do this now too. They also have several fuck buddies.
paige i agree, don’t put christian standards on non-christians. however since i personally believe that christian standards are the best i can’t in good conscience give any other standard. besides giving relationship standards to a secular person is like nailing jello to the wall. secular standards change with the wind and to try to make them fair is silly. if you are not going to follow the best standard then any other standard is just degrees of worse. examples of changing secular standard, cheating was once considered bad, now cheating on anything is considered necessary and excusable. stripping used to be considered the last resort of desperate women with no morals, now it’s just what you do to get through college. really the only way to know a guy is not going to sleep with you and dump you is marriage beforehand, anything else is just gambling and you need to realize and accept facts.
@ Paige
You’re basically saying there’s still a double standard. Well, yeah, it sucks, but it is what it is.
Don’t think I don’t feel bad for what happened to you, because I do. I know you’re married now.
You can’t expect people to be ethical, it’s buyer beware.
Basil Ransom has answered your question indirectly.
Substitute BR’s “she”s with he.
In addition, if he introduces you to everyone/his family as his official girlfriend (an actual title, not by just your name or as a friend), then it’s a good sign.
If he pursues sex before you’re ready (as he naturally might), you say “Sorry, I’m not into casual hookups, but I totally understand if you need to move on to the next girl if that’s what you’re looking for. As for me, I’m looking for a relationship.” (And Stand by it!)
Watch his actions carefully, especially how he treats others and listen to what others say about his character (be careful of the source).
If you’re weak, don’t put yourself in a position where there’s no return.
Then, proceed with caution. There’s no 100% guarantee, but you’ll lower your risk of being p&d-ed.
Paige-
I would guess that a substantial majority of American beta males would be willing to wait until their engagement to have sex, if that would get them a same sex rank cute 6 who’s 22-24 years old. Probably a very sizable minority of greater beta 7’s would too if that would get hem a same sex rank pretty 7 virgin.
It’s sex pozzie feminism reflected in the media, and girls protected by that ideology, the pill and backstop abortion, that have created the hook up, flings, fuck buddies, and multiple serial monogamy culture we have today.
Not all aspects of the hookup and dating culture are to most girls liking; there’s been a race to the sluttiest caused by little restrained following of gina tingles by many of the sluttier girls chasing alphas.
“So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?”
This is like asking, “how do I know when the attractive guy I want doesn’t want variety anymore?” Which is equivalent to a guy asking “How do I know when the hot girl I want isn’t hypergamous anymore?”
Badger @ 1:44
My father comes from a patriarchal society (and that’s what was present in my home growing up). He wasn’t pushing marriage on the boys, it’d be their choice if they did (preferably after they thoroughly played the field). But, I also think he would’ve liked it best if his daughters stuck to cats. lol
I don’t question that he wanted what was best for all of us. I’d like to think most parents do.
I mean double standard because each gender was given a different message.
A man with high numbers isn’t valuable to some of us who were raised watching playas up close. But I won’t argue that for most women, that’s true.
@Paige
But I completely disagree that the Taylor Swift song is a perfect example of “whats wrong with the world”…. or that being sympathetic towards women who are confused about how to conduct themselves in the SMP is wrong.
You misunderstand my position. I am sympathetic towards women who are confused about how to conduct themselves in the SMP. This is why I am so against feeding them a line of feel good BS which all but guarantees they make choices which will harm them. Telling the truth might sting a bit upfront, but it is far kinder.
Put another way, what would Roissy hope we tell young girls? Roissy laughs at conservative culture for grooming young women for men like him. That is exactly what the message in the song does.
@Dalrock
I’m just very perplexed why so many otherwise traditional conservative (and religious) women are so driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women.
Read this carefully: Women are herd animals.
Point me to the male version of Oprah and I’ll take it back.
—-
What about the reputation of marriage as the death of a man’s sex life? When doing a cost/benefit analysis of commitment that is definitely going to enter a man’s mind. If marriage had the exact opposite reputation I’d be willing to bet large sums of money that commitment would be much easier for women to get from men.
Maybe if women held “Insatiable Yet Somehow Faithful Wife Walks” instead of “Slut Walks” they might get more of the commitment they seek.
@ Stephanie Rowling
Men are not very good at placing themselves on other men’s shoes, women are waaaaay too good at doing the same…
This is incorrect. Betas are typically good at empathetic skills like putting themselves in other people’s shoes. Remember, one of our society’s problems is that we have FAR too many betas in comparison to what women prefer. You are talking here about alpha males. They make up a substantially smaller portion of the total male population and do tend to exhibit the lack of empathy you describe.
If a woman had one bad experience out of naivitiy she will assume that all women that have bad experiences are doing out of naivity even if the enivorement and the women tell otherwise.
This is called projection. It’s a psychological concept. It’s a type of error in judgement. Men, especially betas, tend to have their faulty concepts do real harm to them in society. So reality slaps them upside the head in a way it doesn’t do so much with women.
Then it hit me, she was not naive she was an idiot
In the Mannosphere, we call this listening to your rationalization hamster. The idea is that you allow your feelings to make your decisions for you, and have your logic back up the emotional decision. This leads to amazingly stupid and short sighted decisions, as you found out. This type of decision making is encouraged today among women in most circles. It leads to untold pain and confusion among women who are unable to get the help they really need.
@ Paige
We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.
Neither my mother or my father is particularly religious. I am a virgin by choice. I’ve decided that I need to start learning game because women don’t respect this decision.
Your estimate is far off. 1 in 100 is less than the number of omegas who can’t get sex without paying for it, much less counting for betas who are either unlucky or have enough piety to abstain. Alphas who choose to abstain may well be 1 in 100 of the general male population.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
Easy. Screen for virgins on the first date. Do not sleep with them till marriage.
Or, if alphaness is a non-negotiable: Screen for virgins on the first date. Screen for changeable guys on the second. Use the rest of the dating process to change the guy to be more alpha.
If the man is not obviously sleeping with several women or confesses to having a huge partner count then how is it obvious he is a cad?
This is the incorrect frame for discretion. Alphas have learned to display specific patterns of social signals. Much has been written in the Mannosphere about this. Instead, emphasize the set of social skills to pick up on relationships that are progressing too well or too fast.
Apparently, women are either generally poor at this, or really don’t care enough to develop this skill. See the development of Game.
What about traditional conservative men? Aren’t they concerned for their daughters?
If I ever started dating someone, I know my father would give the man a nice stern talking to before our first date.
I’m not stupid enough to fall for a CAD, nor would I ever put out before marriage. However if a boyfriend ever tried to pressure me for sex, I would tell my father.
The feminist movement has already answered that one. The glorifying of single motherhood, the undermining of the father role in mainstream culture, the bias of the legal system… the father is sneered at for ‘dominating’ his family with fuddy-duddy values and oppressing his daughter’s right to find herself, assuming he’s even in the picture at all.
The feminist movement has already answered that one. The glorifying of single motherhood, the undermining of the father role in mainstream culture, the bias of the legal system… the father is sneered at for ‘dominating’ his family with fuddy-duddy values and oppressing his daughter’s right to find herself, assuming he’s even in the picture at all.
“Right to find herself”?
A well raised young woman wouldn’t need to participate in indiscriminate sexual liaisons to “find herself”.
…a well raised young man wouldn’t take advantage of young women who weren’t blessed with a father to tell them that.
@Butterfly Flower
What about traditional conservative men? Aren’t they concerned for their daughters?
Yes they are. But if they are smart they will know there is no way they can make alpha chasing safe for their daughters. Neither can they make casual sex safe for their daughters. Pretending otherwise would be cruel. See my last post.
If I ever started dating someone, I know my father would give the man a nice stern talking to before our first date.
I think this frame is where many conservative fathers go wrong. They assume the choice of having sex is made by the boy their daughter is dating, and focus their lecture on him. He isn’t the one making the decision. She is. What the daughter most needs is a stern and honest talking to by her mother, reinforced by her father.
Giving the boy a good talking too isn’t a bad idea, especially if said father is coincidentally cleaning his guns. But that is mostly for entertainment purposes.
@Doug1
I think the great majority of the time when a guy says “I love you” to a girl he is feeling love at the time. Not necessarily head over heals love, but deep attraction that he perceives as love, particularly if he’s a high school or college aged guy. However when he feels great lust for another girl who is willing to go for him cause he’s alpha and she’s kinda slutty, he’ll likely go for it. He probably doesn’t want to stop seeing the girls he said “I love you to”. He just wants to be with other girls too.
I once read where a woman made a very similar argument about how women conduct themselves in serial monogamy:
Relating Pump-n-Dumping to Serial Monogamy assumes more self-awareness in the woman than she actually has. At the beginning the woman is convinced she will be in-love forever…if the romantic feelings decline she believes the relationship is no longer worthwhile for either partner. But she doesn’t just assume at the beginning that this will happen.
We are assuming that men are always obviously alphas. 99% of men and women have no concept of the terms let alone an understanding of how to discriminate between an “alpha” and a “greater beta”. If the man is not obviously sleeping with several women or confesses to having a huge partner count then how is it obvious he is a cad?
If a girl wants to know if a man is an obvious alpha, all she needs to do is ask the ‘gina. If it is humming like a tuning fork, the answer is yes.
It is humorous to hear my female friends say that so-an-so “isn’t very alpha” because he is not tall enough, or does not have a lot of money, or is a poor dresser. If a guy is getting laid like carpet with women that are conventionally attractive, he defines alpha.
The carnal mind cannot discern whether a man is alpha. The carnal ‘gina can.
To Dalrock, it is unfortunately true that many if not most of those who call themselves Catholics in this accursed day & age are Catholics in name only. They use the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to justify just about anything. I’m a Traditional Catholic, the true teaching, taken from the Holy Gospels, is that wilfully thinking or consenting to impure thoughts is a mortal sin worthy of eternal condemnation, let alone actually fornicating. This is one of the reasons that so few are saved, “Enter ye in at the narrow gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way that leadeth to destruction, and many there are who go in thereat. How narrow is the gate, and strait is the way that leadeth to life: and few there are that find it.” St. Matthew 7:13-14.
It is humorous to hear my female friends say that so-an-so “isn’t very alpha” because he is not tall enough, or does not have a lot of money, or is a poor dresser.
If a woman has to consciously think about a man when he is not in her presence, he is obviously alpha. Short of seeing/hearing about him getting laid with conventionally attractive girls, this is the test that you should apply to figure out who is alpha.
They use the so-called “spirit of Vatican II” to justify just about anything. Yeah, “Spirit of Vatican II” is a liberal catholic code word that more or less means “stuff we’re making up ourselves”. I ran into that a few years ago when I was researching the faith. I learned real quick that any author that mentioned “Spirit of Vatican II” as a justification for anything was not to be trusted.
@ Butterfly Flower
Women’s primary method of selection is rejection. Women could, in theory, decide as a group, they would require marriage for sex. Any large number of women that did this would necessarily pen themselves off from disease carrying alphas. Men in general would pick up on this and change their behavior to have a better chance at success.
Why do you guys all assume young women ONLY go after Alphas?
I like Betas. A nice man that won’t cheat sounds like a sweet deal. Contrary to popular belief, most sane women do not enjoy being treated like shit.
And did you ever think maybe a lot of teenage girls end up dating Alphas because Alphas are the only guys with the balls to ask them out?
Fifteen year old girls aren’t telepathic. Nor are fifteen year old girls known for being the most observant individuals.
Do you expect fifteen year old girls to seek out the quiet socially awkward guys and ask them out? Do you think most fifteen year old girls even have the confidence to ask a guy out?
….wait. I think there was a book out a few years ago with that exact plot. High School girls boycott the cheating Alpha boys in their High School and instead date their quiet awkward Beta classmates. They even give the Beta boys makeovers to look sexy. I forgot how it ended….*runs to the bookshelf*
One aspect of this no one else has brought up yet is that traditionalists for the most part only believe that men commit sexual sins. Traditionalists believe that any sexual sin a woman commits is really the fault of some man that tricked her so to them she didn’t actually sin. With that starting belief, it’s not far to thinking about “fairness in hookups”.
“This is incorrect. Betas are typically good at empathetic skills like putting themselves in other people’s shoes. Remember, one of our society’s problems is that we have FAR too many betas in comparison to what women prefer. You are talking here about alpha males. They make up a substantially smaller portion of the total male population and do tend to exhibit the lack of empathy you describe.”
You know this is a good point and probably there are more betas out there that can place themselves on women’s shoes. But no other men. That was my point. That is why you see men having little patience for others men stupidity while women will cuddle their friends for a lot longer. Men are competitive by nature with each other, but a lot less adversarial with women.
“What the daughter most needs is a stern and honest talking to by her mother, reinforced by her father.”
My plan when I have the talk with my daugther is to also cover sexual selection, I will show her how sluts think (major feminists sites) how the men that bang sluts think (major PUA’s sites) how traditional women think (Grerp, Susan and the likes) and how the men that respect them and will consider them for long term think (Dalrock, Athol and the like) and tell her to think about it and choose wisely because as much as I love her she will be the one suffering or enjoying the consequences of her choices. I will leave the boy to my husband, of course I’m not even pregnant (that I know off) but I always loved to plan ahead. I’m sure that by the time I have to talk about this we will probably have more people talking about this issues and hopefully women can do a really informed choice, not the full of BS choices they had been making for the last 40 years, YMMV.
@Butterfly: ‘Only’? Nobody’s saying that – no more than anyone in his (or her) right mind would say that men ‘only’ go for ‘conventionally attractive’ women. Surely you agree that there is a ‘conventionally attractive’ category of woman? ‘Women like alpha males’ is just a generalization about what defines ‘conventionally attractive’ men; nothing more. Every time someone says ‘alpha male’, replace it with ‘conventionally attractive male’.
Regarding only alphas having the balls to ask out girls: betas do not especially like getting kicked in the balls. What’s so surprising about that? And why do you get to frame the problem that way, when one could just as well ask why girls never allow friendships to become romances?
@Paige: “So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?”
Most guys who just want a hook-up will usually avoid saying anything that sounds like “I want a long-term relationship”. (Some don’t – they know that promising a long-term relationship is an easy way into lots of girls’ pants. That’s what reputations are for – a guy shouldn’t be able to get away with that more than once in any social circle.) It seems that lots of girls think that “Hey, let’s hook up Saturday” means “I want a long-term relationship”. There’s no helping those. But for those who pay attention to what that hunky/dreamy guy actually says (and doesn’t say), it’s not that hard.
As others have pointed out, making the guy wait for sex will also weed out most of the ones who really do just want a fling.
Paige says:
“We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.”
Ceer says:
“Your estimate is far off. 1 in 100 is less than the number of omegas who can’t get sex without paying for it, much less counting for betas who are either unlucky or have enough piety to abstain. Alphas who choose to abstain may well be 1 in 100 of the general male population.”
Oh, Ceer, Ceer. You are watching this from the logical point of view. When you read texts written by women, you have to think like a woman to understand them.
When a woman says “men” while speaking of dating and hooking up, she means “men I find attractive” (which are less than 5% of the male population). That is, alphas. Non-alpha never cross her mind.
When women bitch “all men do that”, “all men do this”, they refer to alphas.
Replace “men” by “alphas” in the text by Paige and everything makes sense.
I would like to Dalrock to program some script for WordPress that automatically replaces the word “men” by the word “alphas” when the writer is a woman. Then, a lot of misunderstandings would be avoided.
Dalrock:
“I’ve never met a conservative man who worried that Roissy might catch an STD”.
During our whole threads discussing the ethics of ‘pump and dump’ I expressed similar concerns several times. I advise men not to ‘game’ or pump-and-dump; not only because these bitches routinely lie about such things, but because the men who do it are bound—almost by sheer mathematical probability—to get hit with a false accusation of some kind. I’ve known guys who laid women (who conveniently didn’t mention that they were pregnant), and guess who got slapped with paternity suits?
The fact is that these Amerobitches hate men from way down deep, and men can’t even safely trust the ones they know, let the alone the ones they don’t.
Why are you guys ripping on Paige?
She’s just pointing out that Betas aren’t infallible. Betas can still hurt and take advantage of women.
When a woman says “men” while speaking of dating and hooking up, she means “men I find attractive” (which are less than 5% of the male population). That is, alphas. Non-alpha never cross her mind.
Not all women are attracted to Alphas. Not all women are getting screwed over by Alphas.
It’s like you’re using “Alphas” as an excuse to treat all women poorly.
Look I don’t know why I bother, (someone sent me the link for this post.) but ‘ll give it a shot, anyway.
Dalrock: ” I’m not condoning casual sex, I’m just very perplexed why so many otherwise traditional conservative (and religious) women are so driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women. ”
Can you get this through your head.. I do not condone pre-marital sex for either sex.
Yes I had sex with my husband when we got engaged.. Yes I was committing a mortal sin by doing so. I loved him and lacked self control(he was not a practicing Catholic back then) He never co-erced me into sex.. It was my decision. My weakness.
Prior to our wedding I confessed my sin to a priest and was given absolution..That was fifteen years ago. I never ever thought of having sex with another man in all those years.. If I had then I would as a practicing Catholic be committing a sin.
Women should not engage in casual sex. NOT NOW NOT EVER.
It is a mortal sin. (this is my belief) You are projecting here.
Casual sex is anaethema to me. I don’t care if you are a male or female.. CASUAL SEX IS WRONG.People who boast of their tawdry sexual exploits deserve no respect, in my view. I believe in faithfullness and fidelity..
I do not believe that casual sex should be satisfying for women, because I believe that casual sex is morally wrong, and it is a sin.. Once again…Can you understand this.??
What part of sex before marriage is a sin, don’t you get?
People are free to do as they wish…That’s their business..
However I cannot respect people (and I have said this before, you choose to ignore it)
who are sexually promiscuous (OF EITHER SEX.. I REPEAT EITHER SEX) and who use people up for their own selfish gratification and then boast of their conquests..It is one thing to think of having premarital sex, it is far worse to act on those urges, because you are involving others, here..and compounding the sin..
How the dickens you can come up with the idea that I am driven to ensure that casual sex is as satisfying as possible for women, beats the hell out of me.
I believe all casual sex is a mortal sin… wash rinse repeat..
This means that I believe as per Catholic teaching, that if a person does not give up a promiscuous lifestyle and seek forgiveness from God, then if they die in a state of mortal sin, they will go to hell.
Yes this IS my belief.
Stop trying to twist what I believe, Dalrock.
The more I read from ‘tradcon’ women, the more I’m convinced that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between them and any other American woman. The only difference between them and radical feminsits is that the tradcons wear lipstick and don’t clip their hair. Underneath, though, it’s the same shame-and-blame, all-men-are-pigs, it’s-all-about-me attitudes that any real man finds revolting.
Over on ‘The Spearhead’ blog, there was an interesting discussion of the NAWALT fraud, and a great article (posted 5/13/2011) by Lara Grace Robbins. It’s refreshing to read what she said and some of the female commenters contributed. Instead of hiding behind NAWALT, self-righteousness, and shaming tactics, these women stepped up to the plate, took some responsibility, and accepted reality. The ‘tradcons’ here should check out the article, if they want to learn how real women think.
We don’t live in a culture where even a tiny percentage of men are willing to get married before having sex. I would put it at like 1 in 100 unless you live in a very conservatively religious community.
So if waiting til marriage isn’t an option then how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?
This is what you do: you make it clear what your sexual morals are – that sex before marriage is not going to happen. And…you will get a lot less attention from young men. They will talk to you and flirt with you sometimes, and they will hook up or date girls who will have regular sex with them. Then when you decide to get serious about really finding someone to settle down with (and sooner is better than later) you cut your list of what qualities you are looking for in a man down to the absolute non-negotiables, and work from there. When you are older you will probably not be able to look back at that Golden Time when many men lived in the palm of your hand, but you won’t ever have had an STD, an abortion, and you will have lived according to your own rules.
I realize this is not that exciting a prospect for a young, attractive woman. There’s a definite trade off here. When I met my husband, I was 25 and he was 31. Had he been younger, he would probably not have put up with my chastity rule; he would have moved on. But he was looking to find someone long term, and I’d decided that I was too. And under these conditions, my sexual inexperience was a feature for him, not a bug. It made me seem like a better wife choice. For the record, he wasn’t particularly religious then either.
Women are going to hookup regardless. Whatever rationalization they use… Let me elaborate:
Can you feel like a child?
Can you see what I want?
I wanna run through your wicked garden
Heard that’s the place to find ya
But I’m alive
So alive now
I know the darkness blinds you
Can you see without eyes?
Can you speak without lies?
I wanna drink from you naked fountain
I can drown your sorrows
I’m gonna burn, burn you to life now
Out of the chains that bind you
Can you see just like a child?
Can you see just what I want?
Can I bring you back to life?
Are you scared of life?
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden down
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden to the ground
Can you feel pain inside?
Can you love?
Can you cry?
I wanna run through your wicked garden
Heard that’s the place to find you
‘Cause I’m alive
So alive now
Out of the dark that blinds you
Can you see just like a child?
Can you see just what I want?
Can I bring you back to life?
Are you scared of life?
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden down
Burn, burn, burn
Burn your wicked garden to the groung
STP
Country Lawyer nailed it.
“Badger admitted to breaking up with someone because he wasn’t feeling the love anymore and none of the manosphere men thought he was wrong because manosphere men judge manosphre men by secular standards.”
This is not exactly what went down. I broke up with a woman I loved because in my judgment we lacked enough compatibility and common lifestyle expectations to make the long haul worthwhile. Love is enough for a fling. Love is almost enough for a LTR. Love is not enough for a one-and-done marriage; it is a necessary but not sufficient condition.
“It’s like you’re using “Alphas” as an excuse to treat all women poorly.”
No, I only say that it is not 1% of men who want to wait until marriage. Many lesser betas and omegas would love to have a girlfriend even without sex (I was one of them when I was young and a lesser beta: I would have killed for a girlfriend who would have given me only affection). So the number is not 1%…
I don’t like to be put words in my mouth.
Now, what I do say is that all this excuses about being misled, complicated arguments that defy the laws of logic and contrived analogies (like Paige’s analogy about a car, that I discussed in other thread) are only means for women not to accept their responsibility. It takes two to tango but women want to blame men of all their bad decisions.
Grerp, as always, knows what she says and I wholeheartedly agree with her.
Paige puzzles me. She’s been around for a few months, but despite many people willing to teach her she seems to not be learning anything. Instead she is dedicated to exhaustively debunking and lecturing anyone who disagrees with whatever position she has posited in the comments section.
I think she needs to “stop thinking and listen.” Men are telling you how we work; I realize you have an enormous amount of erroneous information but every time someone tries to explain something, you respond with “well I’m a woman, how the hell am I supposed to know that?” and go back to parroting the same thing you came in with. The sooner you STAL the sooner you might pick up on some of it.
http://eumaios.wordpress.com/2011/04/02/stop-thinking-and-listen/
Paige: “how do you know when the guy wants an LTR vs a hook-up?”
This question sounds like it’s coming from an idiot. I really mean no offense, but still, is this a real question from a real person or is it a joke I don’t get? Is the world so dumbed down that this is considered a valid question now???
First of all, have some people skills for f*ck’s sake. Don’t fall for any BS and obvious lies just because you have your rationalization hamster which will console you the morning after the brakeup that you did everything right and you couldn’t have seen the signs. Of course you could have, you actually did, you just ignored them and now you’re whining. A girl can fall for players once, at max. Anything after that is just a hamster running overtime.
And ask him what he wants, without telling him first what you want. Don’t listen with your ‘gina, listen with your brains.
And also, do I really need to tell you that most real relationships “build up” over time? If a guy meets you in a bar, takes you on a “date” to the same bar the next friday and then he wants to bed you… do I need to tell you that it’s not a sign of everlasting pure love? Have some patience, for the love of God… If he does not leave after 3 sexless dates then you might be onto something real.
Don’t get me wrong, attraction can be instant, but you don’t have to give in at once. OTOH if you don’t feel attracted, don’t waste your time – and the guys’.
Of course this “waiting period” can be skipped if you think you know him enough and you trust him to be honest about his feelings. But don’t let your hamster decide on this, no matter what the little critter says. Use your heart and brain this time for a change.
This is just common sense. Is it so out of fashion these days?
Also, if you accept that women can enjoy sex this whole “problem” falls apart. She wanted sex, she got it. What’s the big deal? Did she tell him before having sex that she wants an LTR? No? Then wtf is she whining about? Why would she need “protection” from something she is doing willingly? Why would we need any rules for relationships if we consider women to be self-aware and an active agent in their own lifes? Noone forces them to do anything. What they do is of their own free will. If they have sex with a man they’ve just met it’s their own conscious decision. Do we need to protect them from that?!
I reckon this is one thing we have mothers for, to teach their daughters not to fall for players. So typical of the current feminist zeitgeist that instead of accepting the good old way of dealing with this “problem” they’d rather make new laws to incarcerate men who hurt teh poor wymyn’z feelings.
Pingback: Um, being choosy (selecting — part II) — Dark Brightness
@Deansdale
It is simple, if a woman has sex with player more than once (or twice) she simply wants it. The rest is just a poor excuse to her conscience, friends and family (slutting yourself still has some negative connotation).
Why? They’re planning ahead.
@ imnobody
Replace “men” by “alphas” in the text by Paige and everything makes sense.
Didn’t the text of my reply make it obvious I’m aware of this fact? I tried to reframe the issue to make this more obvious.
@Country Lawyer
Hole in one. There are no exceptions and all the adjectives in the world cannot change the noun “woman.” Everything else is a rationalization.
@Kathy
This means that I believe as per Catholic teaching, that if a person does not give up a promiscuous lifestyle and seek forgiveness from God, then if they die in a state of mortal sin, they will go to hell.
Yes this IS my belief.
Stop trying to twist what I believe, Dalrock.
Your outrage at Greenlander was because you saw him as a user and a cheater. I don’t think when you called him a piece of trash that you were trying to save his soul. You were furious that he wasn’t playing the promiscuous game the way you thought it should be played.
The reality is the world of casual sex is a world where the actors are trying to use each other. As Paige has described the women are hoping to keep the men around until the feeling fades, when they will drop him and find another man to continue their string of serial monogamy. They aren’t offering commitment. They aren’t necessarily offering monogamy. Instead they want the man to say he loves her so they can assume he is promising both without having made any promises of their own. This is a generation that Susan Walsh has described as not knowing how to date; all they know is hookups and the flings which may or may not follow.
In rides Sheriff Kathy, outraged that Greenlander isn’t offering these women commitment in return for their gift of casual sex, and assuming that if he is “dating” one he must have sworn exclusivity. Then you throw in with the local sex positive feminist, a woman who is so intent on normalizing slut-hood that she calls herself a slut and goes by the name Doomed Harlot. You say she isn’t advocating promiscuity on the technicality that she feels that not being promiscuous is also a valid choice.
So I called you on it, and you threw a tantrum and swore you would leave forever.
“In rides Sheriff Kathy, outraged that Greenlander isn’t offering these women commitment in return for their gift of casual sex, and assuming that if he is “dating” one he must have sworn exclusivity. Then you throw in with the local sex positive feminist, a woman who is so intent on normalizing slut-hood that she calls herself Doomed Harlot. You say she isn’t advocating promiscuity on the technicality that she feels that not being promiscuous is also a valid choice.”
Oh, dear I am banging my head against a brick wall here.
You don’t get it.
I am not interested in your personal issues with others.
Fact is ..Promiscuity is wrong no matter the sex.. You want to personalize this.. That’s your problem.
You have misrepresented my beliefs and views.
Can I make this any plainer… I have no respect for women who use men up, slut it up sleep around.. or advocate such behaviour.The same goes for men who use women up.
I have deeply held religious beliefs.. I very much value my marriage. I love my wonderful husband.
Get off your high horse and stop trying to cause a stir.. The only reason I came back was to clarify my position..
You in your fixation have made this all about a couple of people you know nothing about
“So I called you on it, and you threw a tantrum and swore you would leave forever.”
I only came back to set the record straight.
I knew that I would be thrashing a dead horse..
. It is plain to see what my views are here. Let other judge for themselves.
I do thank you for allowing me to voice my opinion and not censoring my comments.
Gee what a guy!
Sorry I missed this gem ..
“I’don’t think when you called him garbage that you were trying to save his soul. You were furious that he wasn’t playing the promiscuous game the way you thought it should be played.” LOL!
Save his soul? What a quaint notion. Of course I wasn’t trying to save his soul.. In any case he was not sorry and was quite happy to go along on his merry way..
No I called it as I saw it ..
Promiscuity is no game Dalrock..
The problem here, I think, is that you cannot understand the Christian point of view..
Having sex outside of marriage ..with many partners is a sin..
The problem, Kathy, is you evidently cannot see your own hypocrisy or self contradiction.
On the one hand you write “Having sex outside of marriage is a sin”.
On the other hand, you ally yourself with, and write praise for, a woman who calls herself “Doomed Harlot” who advocates sex outside of marriage if a woman wants to do that.
These two positions that you have taken contradict each other. Do you understand that? If you do not understand that, I’m sure it can be spelled out in great detail.
(We’ll leave aside the great, whopping lie you told for later. Is lying a sin, in your version of Churchianity? I’m thinking it isn’t.)
Butterfly Flower Said: “I like Betas. A nice man that won’t cheat sounds like a sweet deal. Contrary to popular belief, most sane women do not enjoy being treated like shit.”
This is a common misconception in my opinion. Let’s look at “being treated like shit”:
1. He is arrogant and conceited, and puts his needs before hers.
2. He does what he wants, when he wants, with whoever he wants.
3. He doesn’t take “no” for an answer, and will do whatever he has to do to get his way.
4. He will survey the outcome of a lie or the truth in any situation, and deploy whichever is likely to lead to his desired outcome without apology or guilt.
5. He reserves the right to change his mind at any given moment, break the rules, and form new rules out of the chaos.
Sound like anyone we know? Of course it does. It sounds like women.
Women don’t like “jerks”, they like men who are at least man enough to be a woman. In the ultimate display of advanced narcissism, they seek men just like themselves.
Country Lawyer cut to the quick with the answer of why women think they’re getting the short end of the stick (heh) in their hookups:
“Does it advantage the man or the woman?
That is all it takes. I don’t care if its conservative, religious, secular, feminist, or moonbat witchery women, that is all the math they do.
If it advances women they are all for it (because they place themselves in the position of the woman) if it doesn’t they are against it.
That’s it. that’s as high as their moral development climbs.”
FULL STOP. QED.
What Paige and her ilk are forgetting is that women are the sexual gatekeepers. Sex happens when, where and on what terms the woman decides. And when it’s being offered, there will be takers. Always, every day, all the time. If a woman decides to have sex, all but the most socially inept or physically repulsive can find a willing partner anytime, anywhere. (This is not a moral judgment. It is simply a key principle of the SMP.) So if hookups are happening, it’s because women want them and they have decided it’s to their advantage.
It is not that women have decided to put out because they think they need to do it to snag a man. They can do that anytime they want, at least while their SMV hasn’t taken too many hits. They’re putting out because they want the alpha. Then they’re complaining when (surprise) the alpha moves on, either in pump & dump fashion or after a few weeks or months. What else did these women expect?
detinennui32 nailed it too.
It boils down to a psychological feature of modern American women: they have not gotten over the narcissist phase that characterizes childhood. To be fair, it is not entirely their fault, because all the world (media, friends, family, feminism, beta men, etc) is constantly brainwashing them to keep them from growing up, to keep them from taking responsibility.
The difference between a child and an adult is that the adult takes RESPONSIBILITY for their actions and knows that the world is not there to SERVE him so desires does not always come true and frustration is inevitable. A child is blaming others and making a tantrum when their desires are thwarted.
This is why gender feminism is a movement that prevents women from growing up, preventing them to take responsibility using two strategies:
a) By ensuring their actions have no (negative) consequences for them (abortion, non-fault divorce, etc)
b) By blaming all their problems on men or patriarchy.
So the woman hooks up with the alpha, HOPING that this could end up becoming a relationship. When this does not end the way they expected, they are frustrated (so far, it is understandable, everybody gets frustrated when their hopes don’t materialize).
But, since they have the narcissistic idea that they are entitled to the hopes they have, the fact that the alpha does not want more than a hookup feels like a VIOLATION of her rights. They really know that this is not so but they feel this way.
So the rationalization hamster comes to the rescue to close the gap between feelings and logic (i.e, cognitive dissonance) twisting the logic to fit the feelings. So they believe that the alpha has been bad because he has misled the woman, even if the alpha didn’t promise anything and didn’t fool anybody.
If I choose to take a woman on a date, I may choose to pay for the meal, drinks, other entertainment, etc. I know at the end of the date that she is neither required nor obligated to have sex with me or even kiss me. I know paying for a date doesn’t mean I’m allowed to be physical with her.
This goes both ways.
If a woman chooses to have sex with me before we’re in a monogamous committed relationship, she should know I have no obligation towards her sexual satisfaction nor her possible desire for a relationship. In this world, one cannot make assumptions about what another person may owe another. She doesn’t owe me physical affection after a date; I don’t owe her a relationship after uncommitted sex. Period.
Dalrock,
Don’t have your e-mail, so didn’t know how else to contact you. Check out the post “300 is not a date movie” over at Cappy Cap. I’ll leave it to you to see whether it is “dalrock-worthy”
Cpt.
Very interesting comments and some good writing here!
I am the father of a successful 21 year old daughter, and I definitely had the talk with her. Not only about the dangers of hook-ups, but also to not conduct herself as an abuser of men’s hearts. I believe I said: “Men are romantic morons. They will turn their lives upsidedown for you at the HINT of your favors. Don’t be that woman that leaves a trail of emotional wreckage in your wake. It’s cruel and wrong. Treat men the way you wish to be treated.”
As with most fatherly advice, I’m sure it’s mostly ignored. But I hope I planted a seed that blooms within her before it’s too late.
Side note: I was re-reading Lord of the Rings, one of my favorite books of all time. I got the part where Aragorn was telling the story of Luthien Tinuviel, and literally stopped reading and had to take a break from the book for awhile.
For those non-nerds present, here’s the story: Luthien is an Elven princess. As all of the Elves, she lives forever in perpetual youth and health. However, she falls for a human man named Beren, and in so doing gives up her immortal life, and becomes mortal… for him.
(Cue record player screeching to halt.)
I found even the concept so preposterous it ruined my ability to suspend my disbelief. Yep, I could believe in orcs spawned by dark magic, wizards, magic rings that make you invisible and little people with furry feet living in harmony with the land… but a woman giving up eternal youth and beauty? For a man??? I call Bullshit!
Anyway, I had to rationalize the whole thing before I could continue reading the book and enjoy it. “Elves are mythical creatures with magical powers not human women… and even for Elven women, this only occurred twice in the history of their species. ”
Sign of the times I guess. This avenue of thought never occurred to me the other 5 times I read the book over the last 30 years.
Pingback: A LTR is not a mini marriage. | Dalrock
A lot of you seem to be creating this contrived dichotomy between “good” betas and “bad” alphas. If a woman experiences bad behavior on the part of the man then she must have been going for the “alpha”…because a beta wouldn’t do that.
I am not sure I have ever dated an alpha by the definition being used here. I am not very attractive (a 6 in my prime) and none of the 10 or so men I dated before marriage had a partner count above 5. Several of them were virgins. I have always known myself to be average so I was never very picky. I went out with anyone showing a genuine interest in me at least 2 dates to see what developed. Of these men I have been treated well and treated poorly and I can’t link it to the partner counts or their objective attractiveness. One of them was a virgin who dumped me because I wasn’t submissive enough for his liking (he asked me to do something embarrassing).
Some men are good boyfriend material and others aren’t and I don’t think it is readily obvious. This alpha/beta thing makes sense in theory but in the real world most people are such a combination of qualities that you can’t tell easily type them.
All these comments with the tone of “all women suck” are ridiculous. If you have never known a good woman then it simply means there is something about you that repels good people.
I have known a lot of women who said there is no such thing as a good man and almost all of them seem to purposely seek out people who affirm their beliefs. Men are no different in this regard.
And I am not pedestalizing myself as a good woman, but I have known saintly women who would take the shirt off their back to help *anyone*.
@ Paige
That which makes a woman a good person is merely the tip of the ice burg in comparison to what makes that good person a good wife and mother.
If you’ll go back and read every comment ever left in the manosphere, you’ll find that very few men say “all women suck”. They’re saying “all women have the option to suck if and when they choose to do so, our society and the legal system allows them to do so with impunity, therefore they demand no consequences for their suckiness. Betas fall for it, Alphas rise above it, Super Alphas manipulate it and make something so spectacular out of it for himself, you just can’t help but admire and hate him for it at the same time”.
We make a macro comment, you bring a micro rebuttal. We talk in generalizations (you know, the foundation of ALL human knowledge) and you bring up your Aunt Betty as a counterpoint. It’s as tiresome as it is fruitless.
These generalizations sound like the ridiculous crap that comes out of partisan politicians mouths. All liberals are closet commies and all republicans are backward rednecks. Gross generalizations serve no purpose other than to create hostility.
Paige:
“All these comments with the tone of ‘all women suck’ are ridiculuous. If you have never known a good woman it is because something about you repels good people.”
Of, course, it’s always men with the attitude problem, isn’t it? It can’t possibly be that women’s attitudes, by and large, do actually suck. For some strange reason, whenever I travel abroad, I meet lots of good women. Amazing, though, how I never seem to meet any closer to home.
“I’ve known many saintly women who give the shirt off their backs to help anyone”.
Me too, although most of them are either senior citizens or deceased. If you’re talking about women under 50 or so; most are more interested in taking the shirt off a man’s back; and his hide too.
Even assuming that all this ‘alpha/beta’ schmaltz really meant anything; why would any sensible man want to use it, even if it did work? A main reason why I quit dating in the Anglosphere was realizing that women were unwilling to commit, unwilling to contribute, or generally give anything worthwhile to a relationship. What’s the purpose of employing all this ‘Game’ if there’s nothing to gain from using it?
Really there is only a purpose to game in a culture like ours where women are a bunch of Amazons who treat men as competitors. Outside the Anglosphere, among real women, there’s no need for game, since women don’t intrinsically hate men; they accept or reject you on your own merits. A man can just be himself and not try to fit some ‘archetype’.
Generally, cyanide will kill you. Sure, Jennifer Meling survived a terrible cyanide incident back in the early 90’s, but I don’t recommend ingesting poison, generally.
Generally, falling 33,300 feet from the sky in a disabled airplane would kill you. Sure, Vesna Vulovic survived it in 1972, but I don’t recommend free falling in a fuselage, generally.
Generally, a man gets raped by a self-righteous ex in divorce court. Sure, my buddy Don came out with a fair enough deal, but I don’t recommend taking a 50% chance on losing your ass to a heartless woman, generally.
Oh, but wait, by the end of your very short comment, you went from talking about generalizations to talking about “gross” generalizations. So are you saying that generally, gross generalizations are bad? If so, I agree.
I’ll leave you alone now and let you have the last word. This is what I generally do because arguing with a women is like arguing with a toddler. Sure, you’re not that way at all, snowflake, but I wouldn’t recommend arguing with a woman, generally.
The problem with generalizations of any kind concerning any topic…whether it be gender, race, religion, etc is that if one is not careful one could sacrifice their humanity in exchange for the sense of security generalizations provide.
“These generalizations sound like the ridiculous crap that comes out of partisan politicians mouths. All liberals are closet commies and all republicans are backward rednecks. Gross generalizations serve no purpose other than to create hostility.”
I’ll grant your point Paige, to a degree.
I certainly think I’m in a period of readjustment after years of pedastalizing women, and seeking their approval.
Interestingly though, I’ve found that valid criticisms of female behavior are not respected by women, even when it has nothing to do with them personally. For instance, I have no problem with the statement: “Men are the source of most violent crime” because… well because it’s flat-out true. I don’t take it personally, because I’m not violent. (Ooops. I just lost several Alpha-points to women reading this.)
Women, however, positively froth at the mouth when I make a factual statement like: “Men start marriages, but women end them 2:1.” When it’s simply a statement of fact.
The responses I get are depressingly predictable. Women close ranks and go into shaming mode when their behavior is called into question. Even if it’s not their behavior being discussed!
I can’t imagine having to bear the cross for all the behavior of my gender. I kind of feel sorry for these women for lacking basic introspection skills. Just as I have a base violent side to me, (well repressed,) most women have a practical view of relationships that most men find… repulsive, when they admit it’s existence.
I guess what I’m saying is, the hostility in this case is often a refusal of women to accept that these behaviors exist. And if it’s proven they exist, then it’s justified because men suck. (Not that I’ve ever heard you say that.) 🙂
Rather than giving a predictable chastising that will be ignored, I think you are strongest when you discuss the positive points of women.
The reason I get emotionally invested in what people say is because I imagine it translating into what people do. Maybe you are just blowing steam but I can’t imagine such a corrosive attitude not resulting in behavior that is wrong. (And yes, I do get this same tone on feminist sites).
Paige, your comment about saintly women who would take the shirt off their back…oh never mind. :^)
Seriously, if I might go back to the original topic, I think that the big deal here is that women can see what men often forget; that men in general are the initiators, especially the mis-named “alphas”, often better described as “jerks.”
So the outrage over the jerk instead of against the “Doomed Harlot” has a simple reality; “Doomed Harlot,” if she managed to actually play the part of a harlot (thankfully she has not, it seems), only hurts herself , really.
On the other hand, when a jerk beds a series of naive young women, he’s hurt a bunch of women who are relatively innocent (not fully, but in comparison), as well as the ordinary “marriageable” men they would, or will, end up marrying. It is a nastier situation worthy of more anger.
Not that we shouldn’t warn “doomed harlot” types of the consequences of their actions, and work to help others who might become so of consequences, but it’s simply that the “jerk” type is nastier.
@Bike Bubba
Seriously, if I might go back to the original topic, I think that the big deal here is that women can see what men often forget; that men in general are the initiators, especially the mis-named “alphas”, often better described as “jerks.”
So the outrage over the jerk instead of against the “Doomed Harlot” has a simple reality; “Doomed Harlot,” if she managed to actually play the part of a harlot (thankfully she has not, it seems), only hurts herself , really.
To the extent that Doomed Harlot hasn’t hurt any other women, it is because she has been ineffective in her quest. The same with the women marching in slutwalks. They are actively campaigning to change the view of promiscuity. They want it to be even more accepted than it already is. They have been successful because too many traditional conservatives have backed their play.
While the alpha doesn’t care whether we condemn him or not, his current position is made possible by the above referenced sex positive feminists and their traditional conservative enablers.
Honestly, and I’m not being flip here, Paige: Try not to imagine what people are doing.
But you make a point that needs addressing: I believe gender relations are the worst they’ve ever been.
Sexist males used to be the ones who discussed the physical attributes of women, to the consternation of women. Nowadays, a man openly showing interest in women is flattering. “At least he hasn’t given up on us yet!” It’s like the 1950’s all over again. Women are just happy you paid attention.
Men are openly questioning the underlying fairness, and obsolescence of marriage. The availability of adult entertainment has generally lowered the demand, and opinions men have about women.
And that’s sad. Because we are two sides of the same coin. The loathing of women is also self-loathing.
But it won’t change until women decide to change things. Men can’t do it alone. We’d just be called ‘woman-haters’ and mysogonists. Now if WOMEN started publically shaming other women who ended marriages without cause, and demanded the parental rights of their father’s and brother’s be recognized…
If women marched with men, the same way men marched with women for their civil rights in the 60’s…
We wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Some men are good boyfriend material and others aren’t and I don’t think it is readily obvious. This alpha/beta thing makes sense in theory but in the real world most people are such a combination of qualities that you can’t tell easily type them.
I think that’s the wisest thing I’ve ever read the manosphere. I’m going to save Paige’s quote.
I think her comments unnerve so many men on the manosphere because the men here all think they’re perfect. No, they’re not. God didn’t make us perfect beings. If men were perfect beings than Adam wouldn’t have tasted the forbidden apple Eve offered him. If men were perfect then you men would all be living in Paradise right now while us evil flawed women would be suffering outside the gates of Eden.
Paige sounds like a faithful loving wife and a very committed mother. I don’t understand why so many men here have the audacity to call her a man-hating hamster spinner. I don’t understand why so many men here disregard her comments. It’s like you’re all agreeing that Paige’s observations are irrelevant just because she’s a woman.
[Paige, what does your husband think of the manosphere? Does he laugh at how the men here paint you as some terrible man-hating hamster spinner? I know my father would be laughing at the accusations I receive. My father certainly raised no hamster spinner]
“I certainly think I’m in a period of readjustment after years of pedastalizing women, and seeking their approval”
@Paige
Oak said this in an earlier post and I think this is an accurate statement about a great many men who have been through a divorce, break up, or enmeshed in what is now the minefield of dating.
You also hear a lot about cognitive dissonance on blogs about how people find out the real world is vastly different than what they thought it was. Many a man was brought up to respect women and value their viewpoint only to find out that their viewpoint meant little to nothing. I won’t go into all the descriptors of alpha and beta and try to categorize in such all or nothing labels. There are plenty of men out there who are successful in various areas of their life demonstrating leadership (alpha) trait who still ended up being married to women who rationalized every single bad thing they did as their partner’s fault. We call debate how “game” might have saved some of this but I have to tell you that sometimes the real world of just trying to raise kids, run a house, and, heaven forbid, save money for a future is so unsexy that for many women it just doesn’t measure up.
I had a buddy who was such a ladies man, but he always used to say, “No matter how hot some gal is, somebody is tired of fucking her”. Crude, I know. But the flipside for a lot of men is that no matter what they do to commit to marriage and life they may still end up with a woman who needs that tingle you only get when you start a new relationship. However short it may end up being. Can you guess who gets to be that bad guy there? The one full of brand new failings?
That period of adjustment in cognitive dissonance where you finally internalize how things really are end up being commented on in these blogs. Men walking their way to reality instead of the fantasy they bought into. The piece you miss in this is that many, many men make this trip in silence. They don’t blog. They just read. You see the one or two guys who are clearly angry and apply that to all the rest. I’m not angry. I doubt 85-90 percent of the men who even comment are really angry at women. Most men look inward for growth and change. How can I change me to work in what appears to be a new reality? Some stay brutally angry forever, but carrying that level of disgust and hatred 24/7 is just so draining. Most men I know now just have drawn the line much closer to themselves. They experience some nonsense out of some woman in their life? See ya.
“The reason I get emotionally invested in what people say is because I imagine it translating into what people do.”
Nope. I would bet that 85-90 percent of men who were fucked over by some dopey woman don’t fundamentally change as decent men. But their viewpoint on interactions with women do. That’s what you see on these blogs. Not hatred. Not anger.
Reality
I should clarify.
Many a man was brought up to respect women and value their viewpoint only to find out that their OWN viewpoint meant little to nothing.
There are so many labels in this one, it’s hard to know where to start.
First, I do not consider myself a traditional, conservative woman. I do consider myself a feminist, but not the kind of feminist that everyone is always hammering on about. I mean, I mostly focus on women having choices (eg, to choose work, being a housewife) and opportunities (for education, work, equal pay for equal work) and in the equal valuing of the genders (which is sort of an emotional/philosophical space).
It’s why I chafe at the idea that it’s OK for a man to run around and have sexual partners, but not a woman.
What I see in the manosphere is that it’s a good idea for a guy to get as many gals as possible, or to marry one, but she better be marriage material which means a virgin or close to (1-3 partners).
Of course, I’ve always puzzled on how it’s ok for a man to “sleep around” but with whom is he sleeping? Women, presumedly — and as soon as he does, he suddenly makes them not marriage material.
It’s a total cake-and-too process from what I can tell.
Anyway, I would prefer if no one was sleeping around with anyone until their was a commitment (which needn’t be legal or religious in my opinion), because then people wouldn’t be quite so yucky.
By Yucky, I’m not only referring to the ridiculous emotional baggage most people carry, but also the yucky grossness that is the very idea that my husband kissed someone else and is now kissing me. EW. And if he’d had sex with someone else. Ew EW EW.
And god forbid he had an STD either. Yucky-poo.
Not to be juvenile, but I think that most men who sleep with a lot of women are — quite honestly — dirty.
And I’m not even too bad about germs. I touch strangers all day long (yoga and thai massage).
But seriously. The idea of sleeping with this one guy who is a good friend of mine just turns my skin into creepy-crawlies because I know he was a womanizer for a time and was with lots and lots of women. Yuck.
But, by the same token, man, people are free to be as gross as they want to be. Just so long as I don’t have to have sex with them, I’m good.
😀
…and I’m going to save Butterfly Flower saving Paige’s quote to remind myself what soft core shaming language looks like.
You can put a cross, two doves, a set of praying hands and angel’s wings on it, but it’s still shaming language.
@ Sweet As
“Of course, I’ve always puzzled on how it’s ok for a man to “sleep around” but with whom is he sleeping? Women, presumedly — and as soon as he does, he suddenly makes them not marriage material.”
Uh, exactly. Now that you have this info, will you advise young women to be chaste?
“There are so many labels in this one, it’s hard to know where to start.”
Start at the beginning. We’ve labeled it for you, so it should make things easier. That’s kind of the reason we do it.
@Sweet As
I agreed with the bulk of your comment, but wanted to respond to this one part:
Of course, I’ve always puzzled on how it’s ok for a man to “sleep around” but with whom is he sleeping? Women, presumedly — and as soon as he does, he suddenly makes them not marriage material.
It’s a total cake-and-too process from what I can tell.
I don’t see many (any?) of the pua types advocating marriage. I’m an advocate of marriage, but not an advocate of sleeping around. I have consistently argued that “alpha” type men aren’t fit for marriage. I do struggle a bit with the conundrum marriage minded men face with even virgin Christian women expecting their husbands to have game but also be sexually inexperienced. I’m prepared to allow for a bit of leeway from a practical perspective there (although it isn’t my call to make).
Either way, my larger point isn’t that it is ok for men to be hos but not women, but that the fear of the double standard you raise is exactly how we got where we are. While on the surface not judging women appears to be kind, in practice it is quite cruel to the very group you are trying to be kind to. In the end when forced to choose I prefer to be “unfair” but save young women needless pain.
However Roissy is counting on us choosing the route of fairness to keep the supply steady, so perhaps we should take his needs into consideration. Or not.
@Butterfly Flower
I’m going to save Paige’s quote.
Excellent idea. I’ve been known to do the same. 😉
Paige sounds like a faithful loving wife and a very committed mother. I don’t understand why so many men here have the audacity to call her a man-hating hamster spinner. I don’t understand why so many men here disregard her comments. It’s like you’re all agreeing that Paige’s observations are irrelevant just because she’s a woman.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I don’t dislike Paige and I don’t think she is man-hating. I also agree that she sounds like a loving wife and a committed mother, and she has my respect for that. My issue isn’t with Paige, but with the ideas she is putting forth.
Quoth Paige: “All these comments with the tone of ‘all women suck’ are ridiculous.”
It is well known that the propensity of women to suck is inversely proportional to the L of the TR.
Our host: “I don’t dislike Paige and I don’t think she is man-hating. I also agree that she sounds like a loving wife and a committed mother, and she has my respect for that.”
She reminds me of my mother, plus feminism, minus fecklessness. That’s not an insult.
“My father certainly raised no hamster spinner”
All women, regardless of how they are raised have hamsters. The good ones just don’t have the poor creatures spinning as much as the other women.
Comedy gold.
#Oak: “Sexist males used to be the ones who discussed the physical attributes of women”
What the *bleeping bleep* are you talking about? Are you out of your mind? Talking about women’s looks is “sexism”??????
Get real, FCOL.
“Sexism” is a word like racism, it means believing in your gender’s total supremacy, you know, like, “women can do everything men can do, and do it better“. That’s sexism. Appreciating a fine piece of ass has nothing to do with that.
You’re either a feminist, or you’ve been seriously fooled by them.
#Sweet As: “it’s ok for a man to “sleep around” but with whom is he sleeping? Women, presumedly — and as soon as he does, he suddenly makes them not marriage material.”
You – and many other women – seem to be thinking that women are children. A man can not “make” a woman anything. Those women who sleep with lots of players are not marriage material in their own right. It’s not the players’ “fault” that these women sleep with them, it’s the conscious decision of these women, and that decision of theirs makes them unworthy of marriage.
It’s like deja vu since I’ve already had this debate with Paige.
“Sexist males used to be the ones who discussed the physical attributes of women, to the consternation of women. Nowadays, a man openly showing interest in women is flattering. “At least he hasn’t given up on us yet!” It’s like the 1950′s all over again. Women are just happy you paid attention. ”
This brings up an interesting point. IMHO the greatest fear among the sisterhood at large is not sexism, but the prospect of simply being ignored – that men at large will decide to do other things with their time than pursue these women. Being ignored is the ultimate nuclear rejection.
Deansdale,
I think you are reading Oak incorrectly. As I see it, she is saying that the popular perception of a sexist in earlier times was of a boorish chauvinist, who would call women hot and ugly in the presence of other women. However, today discussing a woman’s phyisique is flattering because so many women are desperate for male attention.
I don’t really buy this line of argument, mind you. Remember the apex fallacy – women have never wanted unworthy men to comment on their bodies. We are just in an age where the desires of women are focused on an ever-tighter cadre of acceptable males, so there’s less attention to go around. Combined with the long-standing shaming of male sexuality meaning that even some alpha males have given up on tradition pursuit.
Interested: “Nope. I would bet that 85-90 percent of men who were fucked over by some dopey woman don’t fundamentally change as decent men. But their viewpoint on interactions with women do. That’s what you see on these blogs. Not hatred. Not anger.”
True words. But since (most) women don’t want men wising up in that way, they must find some way of avoiding that happening in men (and also having to accept responsibilty for what gave the men the reason to find ways to wise up) , therefor blurring, shaming language, NAWALT and so on.
@Interested: a woman’s STATED viewpoint often means nothing as well as women often think in a manner that is NOT the same as what they say.
Since swallowing the red pill, that has come as the greatest shock to me. How can I trust women on what they say anymore? Thank god there is a resource (the manosphere) that explains how, on AVERAGE, they really think (with some variation from the average, of course).
Once you know how they really think, that helps some.
Sweet As—
You might not be the kind of feminist who throws around feminist lines about the omnipresence of date rape and how women virtually never make false rape allegations, but there’s plenty to hammer on about in your views. See below.
Too bad. It’s a double standard rooted in biological differences and it’s not going away, despite feminist efforts to make it go away for five decades.
Only alpha and lesser alpha guys will manage to do the former. As to the later a more common alpha cutoff might by 7 or 10 partners at 25.
Alphas are sleeping with slutty and on their way to being slutty girls mostly, but may have a LTR here and there with good girls or kinda good girls. They’re not marriage material for guys who’ve taken the red pill and unlearned a lot of feminist propaganda about how harmless a girls extensive experience with multitudes of guys is. There are still clueless feminism believing betas who haven’t, and so the sluts will marry, have a kid or two, that a few years after the last kid, commit divorce 2.0 theft on hapless chump.
Red pill takers make wiser choices.
The fact is in practice most cute and hot girls consider a guy who can get lots of hot girls and has, to be a stud, and want to sleep with him. Female pre-selection. Far more women say they have views similar to what you expressed above than act on them in a congruent fashion.
Country Lawyer–
There’s a lot of truth to that. Sweet As, take note.
Butterfly Flower–
Dream on.
Her right to decide whether to have casual sex. Her responsibility. Period.
@ Doug1
“You might not be the kind of feminist who throws around feminist lines about the omnipresence of date rape and how women virtually never make false rape allegations, but there’s plenty to hammer on about in your views.”
Exactly. Like the equal pay bullshit. That turd has been disproven several times in the manosphere, I think by Ferd and Whiskey(and more).
@ Oak
“If women marched with men, the same way men marched with women for their civil rights in the 60′s… ”
Men marched with women, not because they cared about civil rights(LOL) but because they wanted easy ass.
@ Oak
“But you make a point that needs addressing: I believe gender relations are the worst they’ve ever been. ”
But you don’t realize that feminism is the reason for that?
If women marched with men, the same way men marched with women for their civil rights in the 60′s …
Will never happen outside of a very unlikely doomsday scenario. The spur of this kind of “support” for men on the part of women would only be one thing: need. And that kind of “need” won’t come about without disruptive, paradigm-shifting changes along the lines of a doomsday scenario. Barring that, it won’t happen, because the current system undoubtedly tangibly benefits women at the expense of men. Unlike men, who went along with feminism either because of ideological commitments to kind of utopian fairness, or out of a mercenary desire to increase sexual opportuniyt by destroying sexual mores, women generally are far less inclined to be motivated by utopian ideology (at least not en masse) and have no need to support men’s issues in order to increase their own sexual access.
Women are, by and large, exceptionally pragmatic in these areas: what favors them, they favor, and what does not, they do not. This is also the basis of a lot of feminine moral thinking, when that thinking occurs outside the bounds of “patriarchal moral systems” — it’s usually described as compassionate, empathetic, community-based and flexible, when in fact it’s really just pragmatism based on what outcome the woman wants, which is most often the one that is most beneficial to herself or to women in general. So you won’t get women to march with you based on ideology, and you won’t get women to march with you based on sex, and you won’t get women to march with you based on pragmatism, because you’re essentially asking them to support limiting themselves, which is not something most women living today will support (outside of religiously conservative women).
In addition, remember that most MEN will not march with you, either, for equally pragmatic reasons (being an open MRA is a great way not to get laid, generally speaking).
So the whole thing is the result of thinking about these things the wrong way. Protests and mass movements and so on are not going to happen around these kinds of issues. The way you deal with these kinds of issues is personal. For women, the slogan was “the personal is political” – that is, women banded together to solve their personal problems (with men) by political means. Women did that on the basis of a pragmatic view of their own interests, because that is how women tick — they are moral pragmatists. For men, “the personal is political” doesn’t work, because most men won’t engage in a movement for men’s issues — sounds too much like whining, appears unmasculine, and may interfere with the all-important goal of getting laid regularly. And, as discussed, women won’t be joining up in any significant numbers, either. So for men the slogan is flipped. For men, “the political is personal”. What that means is that the only way to get past these political restrictions is by finding personal solutions in your own life to duck and dodge them, or manage the risks associated with them, in a way that makes sense given your personal goals and needs in life. There is no, and will be no, political solution for these problems. The political side of the women’s movement has won a near total victory on that front, and men will not be able to muster anything of the kind of scale needed to touch them. Not going to happen. What exists, however, are personal solutions. That’s where the focus needs to be — personal solutions. I think that’s where Dalrock himself has been focused, really, and to me it seems to make the most sense to focus on personal approaches and options rather than political issues, because the political battle has been definitively lost and won’t be regained any time within our life times barring some extremely unlikely paradigm-shifting doomsday event (which, again, in my view is extremely unlikely and therefore foolish to base one’s life plan around).
@Brendan
I sadly agree with you. And I say sadly because this approach will never change things on a meaningful way, the manosphere will continue to grow but on the real world women will keep limiting men till they bring the fall of western world. Oh well maybe Muslim or other Asian countries, will take over. Empires are bound to fall at some point. What I know is that women of the future are screwed men are extreme creatures seeing how feminism is a destructive force they will make sure to kill any woman with the slightest smell of demands at any point and things will be even worse for them, paying for Eve’s sin as usual, YMMV.
+1 Brendan
The only thing I would add is that some kind of “lesser doomsday scenario” seems already baked-in. Present levels of government are unsustainable long-term at any level of taxation. As the flow of free government cheese dwindles the rules of the game will change. A lot of men realize this, and that’s why you see a lot of guys on these sites cheering for the downfall.
Throughout history, abundant times (like we have now) have favored polygamy and alphas. Lean times have favored monogamy and betas.
If women marched with men, the same way men marched with women for their civil rights in the 60′s …
Holy crap! I spit coffee all over the screen. Please next time, warn when you are doing this kind of statements.
Brendan has explained very well so I won’t repeat it here.
Stephenie Rowling,
the funny thing is that the way you worded your comment just proves Brendan’s point. You regret that the status quo may endure because that will potentially harm…women. It’s women you’re concerned about; men’s situation in itself is of no interest to you . You only care about men’s overall situation because if it becomes really bad it might…encourage men to harm women.
Yes, Stephenie is being just like all too many other female traditionalists who hang around the manosphere: only concerned *ultimately* with what will benefit / not harm, women.
It’s always about them.
Of course, I’ve always puzzled on how it’s ok for a man to “sleep around” but with whom is he sleeping? Women, presumedly — and as soon as he does, he suddenly makes them not marriage material. It’s a total cake-and-too process from what I can tell.
Yes, it’s a double standard. Get over it. But men also have a double standard:
Of course, I’ve always puzzled on how it’s ok for a woman to be unemployed, have a bad job, a bad economic situation or to live in her parents’ house and this does not reduce her value in the marriage market. But as soon as a man is a loser, women suddenly make him not marriage material. It’s a total cake-and-too process from what I can tell.
Of course, you won’t see women protesting for this double standard. A woman can be at the bottom of the socioeconomic scale but she will want somebody who is economically stable even if she lives in her parents’ house, she has lots of debt and no job.
A men is a stud. A woman is a slut.
A men is a loser. A woman is a damsel-in-distress who has to be rescued by a man or cared for the society.
@Brendan
There is no, and will be no, political solution for these problems. The political side of the women’s movement has won a near total victory on that front, and men will not be able to muster anything of the kind of scale needed to touch them. Not going to happen. What exists, however, are personal solutions. That’s where the focus needs to be — personal solutions. I think that’s where Dalrock himself has been focused, really, and to me it seems to make the most sense to focus on personal approaches and options rather than political issues
Extremely well put as usual Brendan. You are right, I don’t see a political solution to the problems we see, and my focus is very much on practical solutions at the personal level. The only thing I would add is that I think if enough men start to follow the practical solutions eventually this might pave the way for some improvements. Whether these are political, judicial, social/cultural, or church based I won’t speculate (at least now). Either way it isn’t rational to hold your breath for such a change. All we can do is live our lives now making the best decisions possible with the best information available.
@ Interested
“That period of adjustment in cognitive dissonance where you finally internalize how things really are end up being commented on in these blogs. Men walking their way to reality instead of the fantasy they bought into. The piece you miss in this is that many, many men make this trip in silence. They don’t blog. They just read. You see the one or two guys who are clearly angry and apply that to all the rest. I’m not angry. I doubt 85-90 percent of the men who even comment are really angry at women. Most men look inward for growth and change. How can I change me to work in what appears to be a new reality? Some stay brutally angry forever, but carrying that level of disgust and hatred 24/7 is just so draining. Most men I know now just have drawn the line much closer to themselves. They experience some nonsense out of some woman in their life? See ya.”
Jesus – you’ve just described me! (This is my first post in four years of immersion in the manosphere)
[D: Welcome. This makes sense. This site gets far more hits than the number of commenters would suggest. Yesterday had 3,750 for example.]
@ Brenden
“So for men the slogan is flipped. For men, “the political is personal”. What that means is that the only way to get past these political restrictions is by finding personal solutions in your own life to duck and dodge them, or manage the risks associated with them, in a way that makes sense given your personal goals and needs in life. There is no, and will be no, political solution for these problems. The political side of the women’s movement has won a near total victory on that front, and men will not be able to muster anything of the kind of scale needed to touch them. Not going to happen. What exists, however, are personal solutions.”
Exactly – and I beleive that this is the where the future of male (re)empowerment lies. As we learn more about the true nature of men and women it becomes obvious that nature has a wonderfully nuanced sence of balance between the sexes. For every ‘advantage’ one sex has over the other there is a counter advantage that the other sex can deploy.
The triumph of western ‘patriarchy’ was to understand this at a very granular level and turn that understanding into a system that that made most people mostly fulfilled most of the time. Which is about the best you can hope for any system designed by humans.
Feminism seeks to upset that balance by transferring most of the advantage or power to women. And, as you say it has triumphed at a societal level, almost all institutions are feminised – feminism is in the air we breath. Modern women are the most priviledged group in history.
But…..nature itself seems to abhors this imbalance, and it is men who are now reacting – and it is more instinctive than conscious. Men are not banding together and calling for society to change by marching in the street, forming protest groups or agitating for political change. That is not the male way.
Instead men are waking up to, and communicating, the reality of true female nature, the risks inherent in marriage 2.0 and the posibilities of a live lived unburdened by obligations to women. Men are making decisions and choosing courses of action on a personal level that try to avoid or mitigate the dangers. I see it amongst young men my son’s age (late teens / early 20s). Women are just something else amongst a number of things that they enjoy. My son has developed a realistic appreciation of women – the one we advocate here – and I have had only a little influence. Most of his opinons are shared by and were formed amongst his peers. Certainly amongst the young men I know women are simply less important to them then they were to me and my peers when we were that age. This is how nature is ‘re-balancing’ – millions of men making the same rational choises when faced with the same reality. And just as women found strength in coming together to promote feminism, men’s strength lies in the distributed, unconnected nature of thier reaction. A formal mens’ rights organisation can be fought against and stopped; millions of men making their own individual decisions about how to engage (or not) with women cannot be stopped. Another example of the ‘balance’ nature so seems to love.
Feminism is not immune to the law of unintended consequences.
[D: That is one heck of a first post. Clearly you have been holding out on us!]
Doug 1 already addressed this, but I’ll reiterate it.
@ Sweet As-
It’s logical that the women who would adamantly oppose the double standard are the ones who want to sleep around without judgement.
Other women join in the protest simply because they believe that many innocent girls will be taken advantage of by playas (sorta like what happened to Paige). And sometimes they are, so that’s why the men are advising that marriage-minded women learn to make better choices.
*I’m guessing from what I’ve read that Paige’s experience happened when she was probably about 16ish, so yeah- naive.
But for the most part- playas sleep with women who know the deal and are willing to take that risk (like women who go home with a guy they just met at a bar).
It’s a situation of “what 2 consenting adults do in their bedroom is their business and they’ll deal with the consequences.” And one consequence is the double standard.
George Orwell, 1933, “Down and out in Paris and London”:
It will be seen from these figures that at the charity level men outnumber women by something like ten to one. The cause is presumably that unemployment affects women less than men; also that any presentable woman can, in the last resort, attach herself to some man. The result, for a tramp, is that he is condemned to perpetual celibacy.
For of course it goes without saying that if a tramp finds no women at his own level, those above — even a very little above — are as far out of his reach as the moon. The reasons are not worth discussing, but there is no doubt that women never, or hardly ever, condescend to men who are much poorer than themselves. A tramp, therefore, is a celibate from the moment when he takes to the road. He is absolutely without hope of getting a wife, a mistress, or any kind of woman except — very rarely, when he can raise a few shillings — a prostitute.
[D: Good find. Misery and vice.]
@Hollenhund
the funny thing is that the way you worded your comment just proves Brendan’s point. You regret that the status quo may endure because that will potentially harm…women.
Interesting observation. In the end I don’t see a problem with this though. As has been pointed out, plenty of men supported feminists for non ideologically pure reasons. Many hoped to get laid, trad con white knights were trying to rescue broken little damsels and fight that nasty double standard, pastors were interested in buts in chairs, etc. If she gets it, she gets it, even if she gets it for different reasons than a man would. She certainly has more foresight than the feminists who see the error of their ways once their sons are fed into the machine they themselves built.
As was mentioned above, in the end I think the solution will lie in men acting in their own best interest, and as this changes the field it will change what women see as in their best interest as well. Realistically much (most?) of what women are doing under the guise of feminism is against their own best interests today. Stephenie is forward thinking in this respect.
@ Dalrock
Wait a minute… Trad con men supported feminism back in the 60s?
[D: I may be wrong. I’m going by their actions today.]
I know that conservative men nowadays support it. I’ve had a dumbass “conservative” friend tell me that feminism has been around forever. What a load of shit.
Well my wording does seem to worry about women but I meant mostly the consequences would be worst for women of the FUTURE, I totally sympathize with this being a BAD PRESENT for western men and a GOOD PRESENT for western women. But on the future the consequences of this screwed up SMP, will be that feminism primary goal would be a total failure, women got power and abused it, thus once men regain it they will never dream of giving it back, is that a bit clearer?
[…] because the political battle has been definitively lost and won’t be regained any time within our life times barring some extremely unlikely paradigm-shifting doomsday event (which, again, in my view is extremely unlikely and therefore foolish to base one’s life plan around).
Gosh, what a pathetic attitude.
Although the past 50 years of Feminism weren’t entirely benevolent to American society, its mistakes aren’t irrevocable.
If women were powerful enough to create such damage, then perhaps idealistic girls like myself are the only individuals around capable of fixing our broken society. It won’t be instantaneous but our efforts certainly could make a difference.
You gotta admit, my solution sounds a little bit more sensible than just waiting around hoping something altruistic will saunter out of the abyss to clean up the messes of mankind.
@ Butterfly Flower
It’s probably going to be more like the way Roissy and Ferd think it’ll all happen: there’ll be a collapse and we’ll have to rebuild in the aftermath. Women are great at screwing things up, but are terrible when it comes to fixing things.
@BF
Brendan opinion isn’t pathetic, it is realistic. His view coincides with mine and many others have voiced agreement in the comments. Brendan is well respected by most and his reasoning comes from his observations, experience, study and are based on his Orthodox faith. Women cannot fix it because women have never fixed this type of thing before in history. Similar circumstances have occured in the past and it is always collapse that is the solution. The path out is not a retrace of the path in. What you advocate is contrary to the wisdom of the manosphere and Game. To fix it requires a long view in a very altruistic way and allowing much pain and suffering along the way. Women (and most men) will not stand for this. God’s way is to allow free will to run its course which means that society will keep up the facade until it cannot be maintained… meaning collapse.
Possibly with a different form of government it could be different (benevolent monarchy with a wise King Solomon) but in a democracy reversal is so improbable as to be impossible. This is just human nature.
@ CSPB
Well said
God’s way is to allow free will to run its course which means that society will keep up the facade until it cannot be maintained… meaning collapse.
Indeed, CSPB. Indeed.
“What I see in the manosphere is that it’s a good idea for a guy to get as many gals as possible, or to marry one, but she better be marriage material which means a virgin or close to (1-3 partners). ”
For the 1,000th time, no one in the manosphere is saying that promiscuous men “deserve” or “should get” virgin brides, and I haven’t heard any men say that HE deserves it himself. This argument is a strawman. A segment of the manosphere advocates male promiscuity or at least what I would call uninvested sex. Another segment advocates shunning promiscuous women such that a virtuous man does not throw his goodness away on a trampy woman.
The two lines of thought do not directly intersect.
Also for the 1,000th time, if you’re concerned that male sexual experience does not harm or even boosts a man’s marital market value, take it up with the ‘gina tingle. Men did not invent preselection as an attraction switch.
God’s way is to allow free will to run its course which means that society will keep up the facade until it cannot be maintained… meaning collapse.
That sounds more like the Devil than God.
God doesn’t intend for us to suffer. Like a good parent, God wants us to learn from our mistakes. He wants us to accept that the world isn’t perfect. He wants us to know that there’s more to life than just pain and disappointment. Above all else, God wants us to be happy.
I’m not going to give up and just let society collapse. I’m going to try to change the world for the better.
Brendan opinion isn’t pathetic, it is realistic. His view coincides with mine and many others have voiced agreement in the comments.
A bunch of grown men that go to bed at night wishing for modern society to collapse….because they’ve been burned in the past by women.
Uh, how is that not pathetic?
*giggles* Hamster Spinners, I say!
@Butterfly Flower
You are misunderstanding, they are no wishing for collapse of modern society they are just seeing the signs of this happening if things don’t change. I’m a woman and I agree with them western world is doomed unless a total collapse occurs that kills all the hamsters on women’s brains.
The chances of that happening are very slim, is like expecting Marie Antoinette (and I’m using her name because is the most recognizable, all the french royalty was guilty of the same) to understand why the french revolutionaries were so mad…she lost her head and I’m pretty sure she still didn’t got it. *le sigh*
“God wants us to be happy.”
Yes, but He is not responsible if we want to fuck up things. It’s called “free will”. We have this damn habit of stabbing ourselves.
“A bunch of grown men that go to bed at night wishing for modern society to collapse….because they’ve been burned in the past by women”
As I have said before, modern society is good for men. Men long for the fifties, daydreaming about this ideal marriage that only existed in TV sitcoms. Back then, if you weren’t an alpha, you married an ugly woman who was always complaining and asking for more. After the honeymoon phase, sex was rare. I lived in this kind of society in my home country and you only idealize it because you have not lived in it.
@ Butterfly flower
You cannot expect slaves to like or even adore you. Yes, you can make them obedient by force but you will never get their heart. Those slaves are men. They are supposed to fund the (unfair) system by taxes, alimony or even their lives.
And you cannot prevent slave from revolting (MGTOW, ghosting, PUA or even riots).
You are misunderstanding, they are no wishing for collapse of modern society they are just seeing the signs of this happening if things don’t change. I’m a woman and I agree with them western world is doomed unless a total collapse occurs that kills all the hamsters on women’s brains.
I’m not a rationalizing Hamster. I’m a well behaved virgin. Exactly what bad behavior am I rationalizing?
My optimistic non-hamster spinning brain thinks society is fixable!
A lot of the guys here just sound like quitters that would rather sit around wallowing in self-misery than get off their butts and attempt to fix society. The Men’s Rights Movement isn’t gaining much traction because men just aren’t a socially ambitious bunch. They go “…this is hopeless” than they give up.
Although when I said “fixing society” before I meant fixing the SMP.
I’m not really sure what I could do about a complete monetary system collapse. That’s not my domain….
You cannot expect slaves to like or even adore you. Yes, you can make them obedient by force but you will never get their heart. Those slaves are men. They are supposed to fund the (unfair) system by taxes, alimony or even their lives.
And you cannot prevent slave from revolting (MGTOW, ghosting, PUA or even riots).
Did you just imply that you think I’m a Dominatrix? *confused*
By “changing society for the better” I was talking about promoting pre-martial chastity, “True Love Waits…” and whatnot.
Stephenie,
your position is crystal clear and a repetition of what you’ve already said. Your greatest fear about the potential future fallout from the current mess is that women’s autonomy may get terminally eroded and some men may become such hardliners that they’d start killing feminists (which is the sort of utterly baseless, sensationalist “argument” one would expect to see on Jezebel.com). Your concern is thus mainly about the possible disadvantages women would suffer and not, say, the masses of men who would die horrific deaths in the same scenario.
I’ve seen examples of this self-serving female attitude before. Susan Walsh once said that the main reason why he wants men’s overall social condition to improve is because her female readers are interested in high-quality “eligible” mates. Kay Hymowitz also argued that men should “man up” and improve themselves because…the women want high-value mates.
All in all, I have never seen a single woman argue that she wants to see men’s grievances and problems addressed because she cares about them as her fellow human beings who deserve dignity and respect. What women say instead is that men should improve themselves in order to…provide women with the mates they want. In other words, women don’t believe that men’s prosperity is a worthy goal in itself. Women think it’s self-evident that men just OWE them various things.
I find it funny – easy to explain and not terribly surprising, but nevertheless funny – that virtually all women and the majority of men go through life under the assumption that women have enormous social value just by virtue of being women; that they are the ultimate prize in men’s lives; that their uteruses are worth their weight in gold.
We can observe this gynocentric attitude in society’s general treatment of male-female relationships. By and large, society considers it self-evident that a young woman should be picky when choosing a mate because she’s the prize and she deserves the best she can get by virtue of having an uterus, whereas a young man should pretty much have no standards and should just believe that any woman who agrees to put up with him is somehow God’s gift to him.
For the sake of argument, I’ll try to illustrate the absurdity of this attitude by offering a hypothetical scenario. Let’s suppose one of the well-known male journalists wrote something like this:
“I think women’s overall social condition is worrying. They need our help and advice. I believe we should encourage young women to stay thin, develop a positive, cheerful nature and learn how to be good lovers, because these are the sort of mates the average young man is interested in.”
All feminists and virtually all women would go apeshit and this man would lose his job the next day. Reverse the roles, and it’s just business as usual in the current media.
I think Butterfly Flower’s comments illustrate something profound with regard to female attitudes towards the MRM.
We all know traditionalist women routinely complain about the supposed fatalism of the MRM. If you ask them about this, they will of course tell you that what they object to is nihilist MRAs “whining”, “sitting around complaining” and rejecting traditionalist roles instead of manning up and doing something against the feminist system and proposing societal solutions. If you ask me, I think what really bothers them about the MRM is something completely different: the message of male self-preservation.
This is something incomprehensible to traditionalist women because they have always operated under the assumption that men are uncomplaining, expendable provider and protector mules who will accept any sacrifice society and women demand of them. But now we have a growing number of young men seeing both the patriarchy and feminism for the shams they are, refusing existing gender roles, going their own way and practicing self-preservation, becoming asshole cads etc. MRA authors encourage them not to take unnecessary risks, not to become victims, to consider marriage only optional, to carefully weigh their options and care about their own well-being. This phenomenon is almost unprecedented in human history and to the average traditionalist mind it falls in the “does not compute” category.
It is especially unnerving for traditionalist women because what they actually want is a sort of “soft landing” after the excesses of the past 40-50 years, a scenario where women only have to suffer minimal damage as men decide to adopt traditionalism, “grow a pair”, defeat the feminist monster and accept patriarchal roles again. What they actually want men to do is to band together under the rightist flag, mount a heroic frontal assault against the feminist pillboxes, suffer enormous losses – all right-wing ideologies just love the idea of martyrdom, after all – but eventually reach victory, reestablish the patriarchy, wipe the leftist blood from their bayonets and then graciously offer women the role of SAHM so that these precious creatures can once again grace with their presence the lives of the manly men who deserve it. In their minds, men only exist as providers (read: mules), white knights and heroic martyrs who sacrifice themselves for their morally pure, angelic women.
But men are wising up and telling them to suck it – in growing numbers. Traditionalist women are resorting to their old tricks, saying “the ultimate goal of the patriarchy is to benefit men”, but more and more men are realizing it’s bullshit. Some of these women started opportunistically sniffing around the MRM, hoping to find patriarchal knights in shining armor just dying to rescue the damsels in distress and slay the feminist dragon in mortal fight, but the MRM rejects them. These women actually believe that even after the decades of fire, destruction and suffering unleashed by the feminist culture war, if they simply say “I want to be a rightist SAHM”, men will grow a pair and sign up for marriage 1.0 like the mules they are, as if nothing happened in the past 40 years. What they don’t realize is that the blinders are off, women have revealed themselves for what they truly are and the trust between the genders is terminally broken. Even legal reform couldn’t resuscitate the marriage rate. Even if a law is passed to benefit husbands, it can easily be repealed 5-10 years later and more and more men know this. Western civilization is dying, but men won’t save it for women. More and more of them will simply keep out of the blast wave and preserve themselves, only for themselves and nobody else.
@ButterlyFlower
Above all else, God wants us to be happy.
Do you know the difference between philosophical and psychological happiness? Do you know what the phrase “the pursuit of happiness” means? You might be confusing contentment, psychological happiness, with true ethical/philosophical happiness, in which a man seeks out that which is actually good for him, and adheres to a code that keeps him seeking this. Thus, we cannot judge any man “happy” who is still alive, as the possibility exists he might seek some perceived good that is not actually good for him. See Mortimer Adler’s Ten Philosophical Mistakes for more info.
A lot of the guys here just sound like quitters that would rather sit around wallowing in self-misery than get off their butts and attempt to fix society. The Men’s Rights Movement isn’t gaining much traction because men just aren’t a socially ambitious bunch. They go “…this is hopeless” than they give up.
Learned helplessness is one rational response. There are a few men trying another approach, and I would suggest you seek out a Latin Mass congregation to find some. See the comments by “Antiphon” at this posting.
Bottom line: you cannot change society, but you can change yourself and your own family. If you want to change this sterile feminist society, there’s a simple route: outbreed it. You won’t see victory, but your great-grandchildren might. (By the way, did you know there is a negative correlation between number of partners and number of children, outside the limiting case of 0 partners?)
Höllenhund nailed it. His analysis of the situation is spot on and very clearly expressed.
“Like a good parent, God wants us to learn from our mistakes.”
By letting us make and suffer for them.
“I think women’s overall social condition is worrying. They need our help and advice. I believe we should encourage young women to stay thin, develop a positive, cheerful nature and learn how to be good lovers, because these are the sort of mates the average young man is interested in.”
This is actually a good advice, why would anyone think this is wrong?
No to mention that one of the first thing I did when I decided to find a good man for myself was to take modeling classes, I was already thin and cheerful but needed to learn to take more advantage of my body in order to attract a man, that is not offensive, no one buys a product in a ugly package, IMO.
The point you are missing is that if men lose now we are doomed but if women lose in the future we are doomed too. You cannot have a progressive society with one gender abusing the other regardless. Feminism started because of women feeling abused (regardless is that is true or not) in the future all you are going to do is create the conditions to bring another rise of feminism and a bunch of males will look at the women being killed forget exactly why this happened on the first place and we are going back to the same cycle. I’m reading the Fourth Turning BTW and I think it has great points about this.
I’m not concerned over the women only, mostly I’m concerned about the whole species, feminism 1000 years from now with lasers…we as species (women and men) are doomed. I’m quite fond of homo sapiens myself so I don’t like the odds of that.
The problem right now is that women want everything(protection, provision, etc) without giving anything in return. That’s feminism. Under patriarchy, women do get protection and provision, but they have to give other things(homemaking, child-rearing, doing as they’re told) in return. The MRA movement sounds like a male version of the feminist movement in that it wants men to have everything without giving anything in return to women.
@ Electric Angel
“Bottom line: you cannot change society, but you can change yourself and your own family. If you want to change this sterile feminist society, there’s a simple route: outbreed it. You won’t see victory, but your great-grandchildren might. (By the way, did you know there is a negative correlation between number of partners and number of children, outside the limiting case of 0 partners?)”
Great comment. Any solution to fixing modern society will have to be made on a personal level not on a political one.
“This is actually a good advice, why would anyone think this is wrong?”
Technically speaking, it isn’t wrong, but it would make virtually all women angry by suggesting that they base their lives around men’s expectations. This idea is a no-no in current times. Of course, the idea that men should base their lives around women’s expectations is self-evident to virtually all women and the men who cater to them, which is yet another sign of gynocentrism.
“You cannot have a progressive society with one gender abusing the other regardless.”
I said men should shield themselves from female abuse, not that women should be abused.
“in the future all you are going to do is create the conditions to bring another rise of feminism and a bunch of males will look at the women being killed”
Again, may I ask what’s this women being killed stuff? What are you talking about? Basic evo-psych will tell you that the notion of even a small minority of angry men banding together to systematically kill women for whatever reason is simply preposterous and belongs to the realm of feminist fantasy.
“The MRA movement sounds like a male version of the feminist movement in that it wants men to have everything without giving anything in return to women.”
LOL! Where did you get this idea from?
Pingback: A Trifecta From Höllenhund » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
@ Hollenhund
Is it not true?(i’m not sure, I’m haven’t read any MRA sites in a while). I support MRA stances on divorce, child-custody, and paternity. If that’s what the MRA is all about, then I stand for it.
BTW, are you a leftist?
“It is especially unnerving for traditionalist women because what they actually want is a sort of “soft landing” after the excesses of the past 40-50 years, a scenario where women only have to suffer minimal damage as men decide to adopt traditionalism”
It’s like they want feminism to be one colossal shit test that men will blow past.
“Feminism started because of women feeling abused (regardless is that is true or not) ”
No, for millennia, women have felt abused and have felt miserable (read the classic authors: Greek, Romans, the Taming of the Shrew), because women are miserable no matter how much you give to them: nature has programmed this way because it is the best way to get resources from men to themselves and their offspring.
They always want more so they always find something wanting. Bitching comes from bitch (female dog). Of course, there have always been some balanced women, but they had always been a minority.
Feminism started because Western countries were affluent so they could pay for things that women wanted and were previously paid by their husbands (this has also happened in the Roman Empire). Affluence allowed the economy to create a lot of (public and private) unproductive office jobs that could be performed by women . And the welfare state was expanded to support single moms, etc. In Freedomnomics, they prove that the welfare state was a cause of female suffrage.
Beyond their rethoric, the effects of feminism was for women to get married to the State, not to a man.
In the third-world country I live, most women don’t give a damn about feminism: they only want a man to make their life less harder. They know the State makes a bad husband: they can’t survive with what the State could give them.
“in the future all you are going to do is create the conditions to bring another rise of feminism”
Haha. We are not afraid. There are no conditions to create another rise of feminism: the America’s debt makes this impossible. When social programs are cut (as they will eventually be), you will see how women prefer survival to some heady slogans about fishes and bicycles. You will see them reject feminism and embrace marriage.
And, by the way, why feminism gets such a bad rap? Feminism has been good for men (not for the men who played by the old rules, but men who know how to play by the new rules). I wouldn’t want to be a work slave for an ungrateful, bitchy and aged woman in exchange for some boring and rare sex (as the previous generation of my family was: I have tens of examples in my life).
The so-called “patriarchy” was, in reality, a matriarchy in disguise, where men had the nominal power but all the benefits and real power went to woman. I have lived the “patriarchy” in my country and it is not good for men.
The Western civilization will decline: it is inevitable (read history books and see how when societies get affluent, they are going to decay). But men could benefit from this decay by getting free from the shackles that every man was bound for millennia.
We won’t see the complete collapse of Western civilization. We are not responsible of this decline (if women wanted to do stupid things, we are not responsible) and we cannot do anything. I have thought through about Roman decadence for years trying to find a way where the decadence could be avoided: but it is impossible. Societies, like people, are born, they grow up, they decline and they die.
But we can do the most of this decline. We can enjoy our short lifes the better way we can: today we will be dead. This is a great time to be a man, if you are not married. Stop getting married and enjoy life, my friend. It is that easy.
“You won’t see victory, but your great-grandchildren might.”
I know the post was not directed to me. But my great-grandchildren can kiss my ass. I won’t make my life miserable for some human beings that:
1) They can or cannot exist (I know people who don’t have children or grandchildren, let alone great-grandchildren).
2) If they exist, they will only have 12,5% of my genes.
3) I will never know them.
4) They can be good people or complete assholes and bitches.
Having said that, you don’t see that his great-grandchildren will see victory, only that they MIGHT.
Above all else, God wants us to be happy.
Absolutely wrong. Above all else, God wants us to be righteous. To worship him and follow his commands. Happiness often follows for this, and I would not argue that he does not want this for us, but certainly not above all else. As a parent, I do not want my son to be happy if being happy means using others, destroying property, and acting like a general menace. I want him to be a good, productive, loyal, kind, compassionate, strong, brave person. And I want him to be happy as a natural outgrowth of doing right.
Butterfly Flower – I’m not sure you aren’t a troll, but perhaps you should re-think utter certainty about life and the universe until such time as you have experienced life and the universe. After you’ve made a big mistake, a terrible call, failed at something you thought you could easily do, or suffered a real personal loss, you look at life less as your oyster and more as the deep, unfathomable, blue sea. And you start listening to others’ experiences of that sea for guidance.
@ imnobody
“I know the post was not directed to me. But my great-grandchildren can kiss my ass. I won’t make my life miserable for some human beings”
That’s your decision. Some of us care about genetic continuity.
I’m not sure you aren’t a troll, but perhaps you should re-think utter certainty about life and the universe until such time as you have experienced life and the universe. After you’ve made a big mistake, a terrible call, failed at something you thought you could easily do, or suffered a real personal loss, you look at life less as your oyster and more as the deep, unfathomable, blue sea. And you start listening to others’ experiences of that sea for guidance.
I’ve experienced pain and suffering. I know what it’s like to suffer personal loss. I make mistakes. But that doesn’t mean I have to spend the rest of my life broken and miserable. That doesn’t I accept disappointment and just give up.
I get up in the morning and the sun is still in the sky. There’s oxygen in the air. Full House and Saved By the Bell reruns are playing.
The world will never stop being my oyster because I’m a Pearl that cannot lose its luster.
…and did you seriously just tell a teenage girl the purpose to life is to cope with pain and suffering?
Absolutely wrong. Above all else, God wants us to be righteous. To worship him and follow his commands. Happiness often follows for this, and I would not argue that he does not want this for us, but certainly not above all else. As a parent, I do not want my son to be happy if being happy means using others, destroying property, and acting like a general menace. I want him to be a good, productive, loyal, kind, compassionate, strong, brave person. And I want him to be happy as a natural outgrowth of doing right.
I should have been more specific. I didn’t mean God wants us to be happy by making others suffer.
I meant God wants us to look past the world’s fault and appreciate the life he’s given us. God doesn’t want us to sit around feeling sorry for ourselves.
Unrelated:
I thought we cleared up the calling me a troll thing?
“A happy teenage girl…? Blasphemy!”
I’m a real person. These are my honest feelings and observations i.e. I think you people are all miserable quitters perpetually unsatisfied with life.
Butterfly Flower, show Grerp respect. She’s older than you and a mother, so she actually knows what she’s talking about.
Also, she doesn’t know that you’ve been proven to not be a troll.
A happy teenage girl…? Blasphemy!”
I was a happy teenage girl once. I also didn’t know anything about anything in life. At all.
Above you essentially called Novaseeker stupid. Novaseeker. That’s rich. Are you adding anything substantive to the discussion or doing anything but preen before a male audience while insulting older women for…not being you?
Pardon my French, but fuck off.
One of the main reasons the problem is now unfixable (with currently approved solutions) is that by untethering female sexuality from marital fidelity, you have unintended pregnancies each and every day. And each most out-of-wedlock pregnancies results in a mother and child who will have to be at least partially supported by the state -that’s the taxpayer – because the mother will not be able to or simply will not swing it herself. Out-of-wedlock children also mean children who are not going to be adequately nurtured, educated, or disciplined, and they also mean a lot of emotional chaos for mother/father/grandparents/the rest of society, chaos that will distract these people from doing more productive things. Soon these inadequately parented kids will represent a majority of our young society. Each of them is a leak in a dam that is no longer a dam. Look at Detroit. No one can save it. It’s irredeemable. Sad, but true. Anyone who even remotely tries to alter the things – heck, a thing – not working there is met with so much push-back resistance.
And illegitimate children are not the only children growing up in chaos. Oh, no. what percentage of children live with both of their parents now? 25%?
You can’t fight that with a positive attitude. And we enable these terrible outcomes for kids and us every time we nod and smile at evidence of female promiscuity. Because no matter how many birth control alternatives are available, casual sex will result in unintended pregnancies.
Essentially we are spending most our time and money trying to fix what women broke by separating sex from marriage . Because women choose to have children. They are the only ones who have a choice in fact, once the underwear comes off. If they won’t pick stable men to have families with and we don’t force them to make that choice, that’s kind of it for our whole society.
Not to get religious, but it’s the Devil who wants us to be happy… without having to be righteous (that’s boring and stiff, you know). Nice guys are boring. Commitment is boring. Alpha-chasing is fulfilling… for the alpha anyway. Broken marriages, unhappy people, etc. Really, it’s the Devil who wants us to think we deserve to “be happy” without working at it– look at what kind of misery that causes.
Butterfly Flower, show Grerp respect. She’s older than you and a mother, so she actually knows what she’s talking about.
I wasn’t being rude. Disagreeing with someone isn’t a sign disrespect.
& I usually agree with her advice but this time I felt like Grep was way off the mark.
I must, like, come from the weirdest family in existence. Happy confident successful adults that think life is just awesome. Are those uncommon traits among most people?
“Is it not true?(i’m not sure, I’m haven’t read any MRA sites in a while).”
In other words, you pulled this “argument” out of your ass.
Oak:
Paige might be tired of the ‘all women suck attitudes from men’ but I am just as sick of the NAWALT and shaming tactics women are continually trotting out on this forum.
What they’re doing is trying to argue that the ‘exception proves the rule’. They can find a half-dozen or so women who don’t hate men; or another half-dozen or so happy marriages and distract everyone from the fact the average single American man can live his whole life in the US dating scene and never meet a woman worth marrying; or point to even one happily married couple around him. In fact, for all these ‘saintly women who would give the shirts off their backs’ that Paige brags about; I could point to dozens of even more giving, caring men whose lives have been ruined by the supposedly ‘tender sex’.
Paige says he doesn’t hate men and that women don’t intentionally seek to hurt men. At the same time she (and others here) brag about the ‘alpha jerks’ for whom they swoon—I wonder how their husbands feel about their wives talking that way in public? Knowing though that that’s the opinion of most women, I prefer to leave them to the kinds of losers they can’t seem to resist.
Next, the Shaming Tactics are spun: we men make bad choices, we don’t don’t do enough; we want/expect too much; we only care about sex; we’re bitter; &c. &c. &c.—all these shaming tactics are, of course, female attitudes projected onto males. One of the best statements Paige made was when she said that I thought that most women were ‘narcissistic sociopaths who don’t give a damn about who they hurt’. I can’t think of a better description for most women than that one.
Until women decide to stop blaming men, get off their asses, and actually DO something about their atrocious attitudes; none of this psychobabble smog-screen about ‘trad women’, ‘alpha males’ ‘choice addictions’ or any of the rest of this schmaltz amounts to anything. It’s action, not words, that count; and women’s actions in our culture have pretty clearly demonstrated that they utterly despise men, if they feel anything for us at all. That’s what they need to address if anything will change, because, as things stand now, no decent man wants anything to do with them.
That’s your decision. Some of us care about genetic continuity
Of course, that’s your decision. But don’ think you’ll be less dead only because you have kids.
I understand the desire to have children. But making big sacrifices only to a possibility that your great-grandchildren could reap the benefits? Well, everybody can do whatever he wants.
Above you essentially called Novaseeker stupid. Novaseeker. That’s rich. Are you adding anything substantive to the discussion or doing anything but preen before a male audience while insulting older women for…not being you?
I didn’t call him stupid. I just said he sounded pathetic [possibly clinically depressed?]
I didn’t intend for what I said before to be malicious; it was just an honest observation.
Soon these inadequately parented kids will represent a majority of our young society. Each of them is a leak in a dam that is no longer a dam. Look at Detroit. No one can save it. It’s irredeemable. Sad, but true. Anyone who even remotely tries to alter the things – heck, a thing – not working there is met with so much push-back resistance.
So what you’re trying to telling me things are hopeless and I should just give up trying to make the world a better place? *blinks*
If that is the case, then why do you have a blog giving advice to women? According to your logic, trying to change things is just a waste of time. The lost art of self preservation? A lost cause.
You can’t fight that with a positive attitude. And we enable these terrible outcomes for kids and us every time we nod and smile at evidence of female promiscuity. Because no matter how many birth control alternatives are available, casual sex will result in unintended pregnancies.
When did I ever say I approve of promiscuity? I’m a virgin. I don’t think very highly of sluts.
Grep, why are you trying to make me feel ashamed of myself for aspiring to make the world a better place?
Pingback: The cost of cuckoldry. | Dalrock
If Grerp tells someone to fuck off, they almost certainly are in the wrong. I haven’t read the whole exchange, but I’m not sure I need to…
@ imnobody
“Of course, that’s your decision. But don’ think you’ll be less dead only because you have kids. ”
Why would I think that? Death comes for us all.
@ Hollenhund
Dude, chill the fuck out. I’m asking you to correct me and tell me what MRAs actually stand for on this matter, not to be a little menstruating bitch.
If Grerp tells someone to fuck off, they almost certainly are in the wrong. I haven’t read the whole exchange, but I’m not sure I need to…
Actually, can you?
I usually agree with Grep blog posts, but I feel like almost everything she told me just now was severely incorrect.
She told me to just give up on trying to make the world a better place….
You’re just hopelessly naive. Gerp’s analogy about Detroit is on the money: nothing can save it. If you think you can personally make the world a better place, then I admire your bravery. But one silly teenage girl with her finger in the hole of the dam won’t stop what’s coming. You could enlist a million fellow teenagers and it wouldn’t matter. The force you’re up against is simply too strong.
Eventually, the bond markets will revolt against all the socialist crap we have going on in this country (social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, unemployment insurance, makework government jobs, unions of public employees, welfare, social programs, etc.) Then, we’ll be just where Greece is right now.
Having traveled damn near everywhere in the world (or so it seems), I understand exactly where imnobody is coming from when he says “In the third-world country I live, most women don’t give a damn about feminism: they only want a man to make their life less harder. They know the State makes a bad husband: they can’t survive with what the State could give them.” I’ve seen it firsthand. In most parts of the world, an upper beta guy is really a catch, and the upper beta strategy is perfectly viable for catching attractive women in their twenties.
Imnobody assertion that men aren’t really better off under patriarchy is an interesting one. In any event, we’re going to have the opportunity to see it firsthand when our experiment with socialism comes to a grinding halt.
@ Butterfly Flower
She told you that because there are so many problems in the world that it is impossible.
Everything will get worse before it starts to get any better.
This is what I was reacting to:
’m a real person. These are my honest feelings and observations i.e. I think you people are all miserable quitters perpetually unsatisfied with life.
You can make your world at the micro level a better place, yes. At the macro level, probably not. There are too many factors, too many balls already set in motion, ready to collide. My blog is for people who are willing to look into the long term and make sacrifices today, to discipline themselves so they can work toward a functional future. It has a small audience, and even among that audience, some real detractors.
Yes, it is worthwhile to work hard and believe in the possible so that you can make a better life for yourself, your family, your husband, your children, but the impact most people have on the rest of the world is minimal. And you can’t, of course, force anyone to change.
“Yes, it is worthwhile to work hard and believe in the possible so that you can make a better life for yourself, your family, your husband, your children, but the impact most people have on the rest of the world is minimal.”
Exactly. You can only fix your problems, not anyone else’s and definitely not the world’s.
@Why would I think that? Death comes for us all.
It’s only that I don’t get the concept of “genetic continuity”. Don’t get me wrong: if it works for you, it’s great. I understand the desire to have children and grandchildren, because this is human nature and I see how these people can enrich your life.
But worrying about what will happen one hundred years from now to people who share with you 5% of their genes (for example)? I don’t get it. I don’t love my genes so much.
If I was forced to choose between saving a friend of mine from cancer and saving a great-grandchildren from cancer, I wouldn’t doubt it. My friend is more important for me, even if we don’t share any gene.
@ imnobody
Cool. Once again that’s your decision. Do what you want.
“Yes, it is worthwhile to work hard and believe in the possible so that you can make a better life for yourself, your family, your husband, your children, but the impact most people have on the rest of the world is minimal. And you can’t, of course, force anyone to change.”
Grerp, you’re great. You should have a blog. Oh, wait, I forgot that you have one and I read it often 🙂
“Grerp
Essentially we are spending most our time and money trying to fix what women broke by separating sex from marriage . Because women choose to have children. They are the only ones who have a choice in fact, once the underwear comes off. If they won’t pick stable men to have families with and we don’t force them to make that choice, that’s kind of it for our whole society.”
What an excellant summary of the current situation.
This is why I’m happy to be a MGTOW. I have written off having children (because I don’t believe that the future is looking real bright, right now). And will accept no shaming from teenage kids about how I’m not willing to recommend men throwing themselves under the bus being driven toward the cliff by cheering and honking feminist wimminz.
I don’t accept any modern form of ‘original sin’ just because I’m a man. I’ve never seen this patriarchy, let alone been part of it. Women need to ‘man-up’ and take responsibility for themselves, otherwise I truly believe we are headed somewhere dark. The thing is, I’m not fighting your battles for you, you go grrrlls
And Hollenhund, you have been exceptional today – well said.
Imnobody YOU should have a blog…seriously
(you haven’t yet, right?)
Eric- I don’t speak for all women. Some women are narcissistic sociopaths. I don’t know very many of them personally because I have a hair-trigger spook reflex and tend to stay far away from anyone who gives even the slightest sense of alarm. Evil women are conniving manipulators who can do an enormous amount of damage through subterfuge. I am as wary as anyone of such women.
The implication that women are more genetically predisposed towards evil is one I take issue with but since it is largely a philosophical difference there is probably no point in debating it.
It isn’t “shaming tactics” to say that our choices, attitudes, and thoughts play a strong role in our experiences. This is the same thing the men say to women who complain they are repeatedly treated badly by men.
“Team Woman” really only exists in theory. In real life most women routinely throw other women under the bus to get what they want. Women can also be typed into “alpha”, “beta”, and “omega”. Alpha women have beta women orbit them (see mean girls) and eat the omega women for lunch. I would probably be considered an omega because most alpha women consider me too useless to be worthy of their orbit.
Alpha women will come to the aid of a beta woman so long as the beta woman provides absolute loyalty. They will ignore omega women because without enduring loyalty they have no use for such women.
It is true that alpha women tend to cater to alpha men and ignore beta men while sometimes coming to the aid of beta women. This may create the illusion of a “Team Woman”. The fact is that unless the woman is truly altruistic her help will come at a price regardless of if you are male or female. Altruistic people of either gender are *extremely* rare.
I’m going to back Svar against Hollenhund on this one.
Hollenhund, I agree with you on 90 to 95 percent of your MRA stuff. The posts that PMAFT highlighted today are awesome even if they are a bit unnuanced, there’s most of the truth there. But I don’t know what it is with you and some commenters – it seems easy to get you suspicious for some reason. Svar is a good kid, and I can assure you his questions are serious. He’d like to know, do you want to tell him or I should I do it?
Paige gets a big hug for me because she gets lots of criticism, some of it justified, some of it not, but she comes back for more and is usually very respectful and thoughtful.
It is funny that I am being lumped in with feminists considering that I don’t really believes the sexes are equal.
I DO believe that women are inherently vulnerable (not to be confused with inherently good) and that men as a gender are inherently more capable in just about every area except for the few that are specialties of women (nurturing babies, midwifery, empathetic mirroring, etc).
I don’t believe that women are “entitled” to consequence-free living but I do believe that they need a society that better protects them from themselves. I also believe that such a society should be patriarchal and that men should generally have more privileges.
I don’t know of any feminist clubs that would allow me entrance.
Grerp:
One of the best comments ever. It’s true that unless one of us gets really wealthy (and I mean in the hundreds of millions at least) or otherwise enters the current power structure, there’s very limited things we can do for the world as a whole. We can make our lives and o ur immediate environment better, we can sometimes give help to organizations like your local church or Fathers and Families or the Kiwanis club, and we can publicize or help publicize injustices that we see or that come to our attention bu that’s about it.
Maybe the world really would be a much better place if I had Ultimate Authority, but I don’t, neither do you, and you’ve put that in the proper perspective.
Thanks for the hug, Clarence. 🙂
This is not addressed to anyone in particular. If it makes anyone feel better, I’m talking to myself.
The quality of an idea, position, argument, etc. is independent of the person holding it. To criticize, and even attack, an idea someone holds is not at all the same thing as asserting that person is “a bad person”. The truth or falseness of a proposition in no way depends on who is making it.
So it’s not good in the long run to take a disagreement, or even an attack, upon an idea as a personal attack upon you. On the other side of the coin, it is better to deal with ideas than with personalities, with facts rather than with “you are…” statements.
This has been a public service announcement.
“Again, may I ask what’s this women being killed stuff? What are you talking about? Basic evo-psych will tell you that the notion of even a small minority of angry men banding together to systematically kill women for whatever reason is simply preposterous and belongs to the realm of feminist fantasy.”
First I’m Dominican coming from the third world so I wasn’t raised with feminists fantasies, basic evo says that men won’t kill women as long as there is the chance of this women are supplying sex and exercising loyalty to them (personal, political, or religious), check the census of how many women were tortured and killed during the witch hunts, men were convinced this women were rotten fruit that will destroy society so they decided to kill them for the greater good, honor killings of women that had sex before marriage or cheated on are also documented, not by feminist but by history books, written by men = facts.
I’m not saying that this is the natural state of things or that men naturally kill women, this women were exceptional cases and this were scary times, but fear is a very strong motivator to override many prime directives. I mean evo psych says that a mother will protect her kids, how many mothers had killed their kids historically? And those are acts against basic evo wiring that still happened, nothing in nature is 100% truth.
“but the impact most people have on the rest of the world is minimal.”
Disagree with this, feminism impacted the world in a very real way, if that were truth we wouldn’t be in this mess, YMMV.
One of the best comments ever. It’s true that unless one of us gets really wealthy (and I mean in the hundreds of millions at least) or otherwise enters the current power structure, there’s very limited things we can do for the world as a whole.
Perhaps members of the Elite aren’t sympathetic to the MRM/manosphere plight because they think you guys all sound like whiny and pathetic quitters?
Misogyny is just as childish as Misandry.
If the manosphere ever got its act together [doubt it], I’m sure TPTB would be willing to lend a hand.
Butterfly Flower==
Re: your recent dissing of Brendan/Novaseeker for being pathetic, I’ll say this.
No it’s not theoretically impossible to reverse most of feminism of the last 40 years, it’s just politically impossible in the US. “Just”. There’s no plausible coalition. Women as a whole are enormously self interest re: their group rights as compared to mens’. there are tons of male white knighters on both the right and the left, who are just blind to how unbalanced divorce law, VAWA, sexual harassment law, female affirmative action application, including Title IX, etc. are.
Now a military takeover with a male agenda could work. But that has it’s own huge costs.
The situation is not happy meals, little puppy.
Yes it’s barely plausible to turn around say 40% of men in the US on that, IF WE HAD THE MEDIA cooperating, which we definitely DO NOT. Maybe more if we really did, but really don’t.
However it’s totally implausible that we could turn around more than say 20-25% of women with a totally cooperating MSM. That’s how self interested women are as to group rights for women, as compared to men.
You do the math.
@Gendeau.
Thank you. I’ve been thinking about that. A blog requires a lot of time. Now I have plenty of time, but I am usually too busy for a blog. But I am still making my mind.
“Team Woman” really only exists in theory. In real life most women routinely throw other women under the bus to get what they want.
WRONG. This is true only in private life (for example, when female friends fight for getting the same guy).
But, when it comes to public life, that is,
– Dealing with men in general (as opposed to any given man).
– Dealing with feminism.
– Dealing with family law.
– Dealing with any woman who appears in TV or any celebrity
When it comes to this, women favor a female killer to Gandhi. You see this in how traditionalist women want hookups to be fair.
Go! Team Woman!
One thing that is irritating me is the implication that I advocate or “obsess” over “hook-ups being fair to women”. That isn’t true at all.
I am an advocate for honesty and integrity in all situations including relationshjps. If you want casual sex don’t pretend you wan an LTR. If you want an LTR don’t pretend that you just want casual sex. It isn’t a gender specific thing.
I DO believe that women are inherently vulnerable and that men as a gender are inherently more capable in just about every area except for the few that are specialties of women (nurturing babies, midwifery, empathetic mirroring, etc).
This will be the fourth wave of feminism. It will use evo-psych (which is becoming the dominant ideology in our society) to argue that women are especially vulnerable and, hence they need special privileges. The usual lie about equality has outlived its usefulness and will be jettisoned.
The theory will change. The practice will keep on being giving more privileges for women. You know that, in feminism, theory is not important and can change as many times as it is useful.
I don’t believe that women are “entitled” to consequence-free living but I do believe that they need a society that better protects them from themselves.
No. Women are adults and they are entitled to fuck up her life whatever they want, as any other adult. If they want to be protected from themselves, let’s go back to the Roman law, where woman was considered a legal minor and has to be under the authority of a father or a husband.
But, it is always having their cake and eating it too. They are adult so they can vote, have property and business, work, decide who they can marry and who they can divorce, etc. But they want to be protected from themselves (read: more privileges).
I also believe that such a society should be patriarchal and that men should generally have more privileges.
I don’t want the privileges of the patriarchy. They are only nominal and come to a very heavy price: being a slave of women. In my native country, the patriarchy lasted until the 80s and was not pretty. It was not like these TV sitcoms: “Father knows best” and so on
For example, the patriarchy was based on the exchange of work (by men) by sex (by women. But women can stop giving sex whenever they want and nothing happens. Women can get as fat as they want and you cannot do anything about it. Women can stop cooking, can be always bitching, can be always ungrateful and unhappy and you cannot do anything about it. I have known men who were desperate in their marriage but, since there was no divorce, they had to be miserable until dropping death. Women don’t have to keep their side of the bargain in a patriarchy (they usually do it with alphas but not with betas).
But if a man stops working for his woman, the law intervenes and gets him in jail. Men have to keep their side of the bargain.
What privileges has a man in the patriarchy? Being the only one who can have property? Since all the family can use this property and there is no divorce, this “privilege” is hollow. Being the head of the household? He is in theory, but in practice, women complain and complain until getting what they want (I have seen this in the old generations of my own family). Having the right to vote? Big deal.
As I always say, the patriarchy was only a matriarchy in disguise. Women let men have the nominal power (so they can save their face in public) while women have the real power (in private).
“If you want casual sex don’t pretend you wan an LTR. If you want an LTR don’t pretend that you just want casual sex. ”
Nobody pretends anything. In a hookup, future is usually not discussed.
The woman secretly hopes that this ends up being a LTR, but the man has not promised anything. Then, the rationalization hamster kicks in, and the woman feels betrayed although nothing has been promised.
your recent dissing of Brendan/Novaseeker for being pathetic, I’ll say this.
I didn’t personally diss him, I just said his attitude [and all the other Betas that were agreeing with him] was pathetic.
Wishing for World War III ’cause you hate your life or think the world is unfair just seems like a childish approach to a problem.
It’s like pressing the reset button whenever Super Mario starts to get hard.
Eventually you need to put on your big kid pants, face Bowser, and rescue the princess.
I feel like the MRM/manosphere could be a little more optimistic. Heck, it actively discredits itself! “The world sucks, there’s nothing we can do about the injustices, it’ll just get worse…”
“Eventually you need to put on your big kid pants, face Bowser, and rescue the princess.”
*snort*
“One thing that is irritating me is the implication that I advocate or “obsess” over “hook-ups being fair to women”. That isn’t true at all.
I am an advocate for honesty and integrity in all situations including relationshjps. If you want casual sex don’t pretend you wan an LTR. If you want an LTR don’t pretend that you just want casual sex. It isn’t a gender specific thing.”
Come on, Paige – are you on medication or are you drinking?
Just sweet tea, Badger.
But you and Dalrock seem to know so much more about what I actually think than I do so please…enlighten me.
Sporadic lurker and first-time commenter on this blog. I don’t agree with everything Dalrock writes, but he’s often an interesting read.
Not to attack Paige individually, but I think her comment clearly shows some women’s perception issues with Dalrock’s original question, when she writes:
“One thing that is irritating me is the implication that I advocate or “obsess” over “hook-ups being fair to women”. That isn’t true at all.
I am an advocate for honesty and integrity in all situations including relationshjps [sic] … It isn’t a gender specific thing.”
It seems to me that a primary issue is that Alphas, the women who choose them, and the traditionally-minded who look out for those women, don’t agree on what “honesty and integrity” *is* for the situation. Alpha and woman agree to hook up, and both enjoy the experience similarly, at that time.
However, afterwards when the Alpha then dumps, and goes to pump the next woman, THEN the past agreed-to hookup becomes seen as “unfair” by traditionally -minded women. For that past action to ever be “fair”, they want the Alpha to FEEL the same way the dumped woman would, and share more of her assumptions than what was agreed to at the ‘time of transaction’. (But hey, if that were so, the guy wouldn’t be an Alpha, would he?) This echoes (and seconds!) what ‘imnobody’ wrote
earlier at 10:55 pm.
Interesting observation. In the end I don’t see a problem with this though. As has been pointed out, plenty of men supported feminists for non ideologically pure reasons. Many hoped to get laid, trad con white knights were trying to rescue broken little damsels and fight that nasty double standard, pastors were interested in buts in chairs, etc. If she gets it, she gets it, even if she gets it for different reasons than a man would. She certainly has more foresight than the feminists who see the error of their ways once their sons are fed into the machine they themselves built.
There’s a big problem with this. These women aren’t seeing a problem with feminism because of what is happening to their sons. These women are seeing a problem because a future backlash will affect their daughters (or really their granddaughters). This is an admission that these women don’t care what happens to their sons as long as women benefit. It’s clear that if these women had no fear of a future backlash then they would have no problem sacrificing their sons to the feminist monstrosity.
“These women are seeing a problem because a future backlash will affect their daughters (or really their granddaughters).”
Actually it will affect my sons and grandsons too, if 100 years in the future feminist rise again they will have more technology to “protect themselves from abusive men” castration and killings of men because “I felt threatened by his presence” and the such. The women demanding and gaining rights had been a constant for centuries, (check the Victorian age new woman, the crazy 20’s…) technology like the pill and more cushy jobs made things for them to gain power after the 60’s easier. A new rise on the future can certainly end in up in a manless dystopia, unless the transition can be done less traumatically, next time it happens they probably will have artificial wombs, cloning, robots and sexual selection at hand. I might be paranoid but technology has been instrumental on every cycle.
Romantically speaking like Dalrock, and Athol. I believe in marriage and you cannot have a real marriage if you are constantly thinking that the women in your life are just going to screw you up the moment you let the guard down, I want my sons and daughters and my whole species from here to 1000 years on the future, to have a nice happy life and I believe marriage, a real marriage, is basic for that.
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: _______ Edition
Clarence,
Svar is not a “good kid” and he wasn’t asking a question. He deployed the sort of shaming language one expects from white knights, made a baseless accusation against the MRM, drawing a false parallel with feminism that PMAFT rightfully dismisses as triangulation and then he lazily called on me to either prove or disprove his statement instead of citing any proof himself. Fuck that. This is not the way a debate is conducted. If he wants to know something about the MRM, he has to find out himself. He knows where to look.
paige,
none of this stuff about alpha females, mean girls and beta orbiter girls is of any real interest to the average man. With respect to Team Vagina, what I’m interested in is this: if I get into a conflict with an unscrupulous, evil, aggressive bitch for whatever reason, will other women, on average, side with me or her? Will they throw her under the bus in order to help out an innocent man? Will they openly side against the woman in case of a false rape accusation or divorce theft? If they refuse to do that, I have no option but to assume that AWALT, Team Vagina exists and it’s my mortal enemy.
Stephenie,
honor killings and witch hunts are both simple examples of the eradication of women who broke patriarchal rules or undermined the patriarchal order. Women who defy their fathers are undermining the role of the paterfamilias; most witches opposed the ruling religion and helped women have abortions and poison their husbands; for a patriarchy to endure, such women had to be all killed. But this is completely different from what you seem to suggest, namely that some men will band together after the demise of feminism and start killing women out of some sort of vengeance, which is preposterous and something Andrea Dworkin would’ve said.
@ Hollenhund
“Svar is not a “good kid” and he wasn’t asking a question.”
First off, you don’t even know me as well as Clarence does and yes I was asking a question.
“He deployed the sort of shaming language one expects from white knights, made a baseless accusation against the MRM, drawing a false parallel with feminism that PMAFT rightfully dismisses as triangulation and then he lazily called on me to either prove or disprove his statement instead of citing any proof himself. Fuck that. This is not the way a debate is conducted. If he wants to know something about the MRM, he has to find out himself. He knows where to look.”
Debate? What debate? I’m asking a question that you apparently can’t or won’t answer. “Oh noes, an eighteen year old boy used shaming language on me… buu huu what to do?” Grow some thick skin, you little twat, who gives a fuck about “shaming language”?
And on top of that I didn’t use any shaming language:
Me: “The problem right now is that women want everything(protection, provision, etc) without giving anything in return. That’s feminism. Under patriarchy, women do get protection and provision, but they have to give other things(homemaking, child-rearing, doing as they’re told) in return. The MRA movement sounds like a male version of the feminist movement in that it wants men to have everything without giving anything in return to women.”
I don’t see any shaming language. If you took offense to that, if that hurt your feeewwings, Scheissehund, I don’t know what to say.
Here’s a little sample of your “debating” skills:
Me: “Is it not true?(i’m not sure, I’m haven’t read any MRA sites in a while).”
You: “In other words, you pulled this “argument” out of your ass.”
If this was ever debate(it wasn’t, it was just me asking an honest question) it stopped being one when you pulled that wonderful turd out of your ass.
@ Clarence
It is evident that Hollenhund won’t answer my question. I have your email, I’ll send you a message.
“but this is completely different from what you seem to suggest”
Actually that was exactly what I meant. Women demanding rights or equal treatment again will be perceived as threads to society. Wich will start the cycle of gender wars all over again. Again what I’m suggesting is breaking the cycle not starting it all over gain with fear but trying to do it logically. See how Dalrock talked to his wife and explained things on a way that allow her to see that this was a wrong sympathy to have. She is not feeling repressed or that her ideas have no meaning, feminism feed women’s (and some men) hamster with fear and the idea that all that men want is to hurt women unless they are 24/7 actively in guard, fear is a HUGE motivator for any animal in this planet to flee or fight, women can’t flee of the planet so they fought and now men are starting to fear women too and fight back, we are on a cold gender war that will get worse with time, with ill result for all of us, men and women, YMMV.
To be honest, I seriously do not understand it.
There’s a difference between understanding something and accepting it (that there is a double standard, etc). And, no, I don’t believe in rescuing damsels either per se. Users are users, you know?
I’m still trying to puzzle out — and have for years — HOW it works that men “can” sleep around and yet women need to be good.
That is, if a woman is good — which I’m assuming we’re all advocating here — then the women will not be having sex with men unless they are married to them or close-to (committed in some way). This means *zero* women having sex.
So, then who is having sex with these men?
There are obviously “slutty” women — but who are these women? This is what I don’t get.
I suppose that there is a part of every population that might fall into this category — would it be fair to say that it should be about 10% of women should take one for the team (of women) and everyone else be trained to be good?
Seriously, it has long been a thing that I do not get. I do not get how it works — in the minds/hearts of those out there who are in that part of the game.
where it boggles to me is that these women are, in a sense, ‘taking one for the team.’ they loose social value so that women and men can benefit. men get to be studs, and women get to be marriage material.
so, then i can’t figure out why this ‘taking one for the team’ isn’t somehow socially sanctioned or valued in some specific way.
seriously, i just don’t *get it*.
I do not get how it works — in the minds/hearts of those out there who are in that part of the game.
The women you mean?
Combination of a few things.
First, there are women who are truly epic in their libidos — call them “High T” or “highly revved” or what have you. These women were really, really, really pissed under the ancien regime, and are now living it up. They don’t care about the impact they have (beneficial or not) on other women — for them, it’s all about scratching their itch.
Second, there are women who are SATC-motivated “envelope pushers”. These are often motivated by peer pressure, the desire to fit in, and the dream they have bought into that they can have full-on sexual libertinism yet also find that elusive “one” for a LTR/marriage with no problem. This group often ends up disillusioned.
And, third, there is the ideological hardcore “sex positive feminist”. These are women who are, in part (sometimes small, sometimes large) motivated by ideological activism in the idea that their own personal sexual behavior will help to bring about social change they think is desirable. These often revel in the idea that their behavior is transgressive of norms and expectations. Some of these are motivated by a desire to, bit by bit, undo the old norms by encouraging enough women to transgress – the idea being that if, ultimately, all women behave like sluts men won’t have the option of choosing a non-slut –> men will *have* to change their criteria, because there won’t be any women meeting the old criteria.
As for the men, they engage in this behavior because (1) they get sex from it and (2) women reward men for sexual experience and pre-selection by other women (provided the history isn’t truly prolific, in which case they will screen out these guys for a LTR/marriage, but not for fling, a hookup, or an affair).
@Sweet As
I don’t think there is a moral difference from a Christian perspective. From a practical perspective there are three reasons for the double standard:
1) As the Social Pathologist has shared the data shows women’s ability to be happily married is dramatically reduced by any partners other than their husband. There is probably a similar impact for men, but on a far lesser scale.
2) For women having many partners is a sign of lack of self control. There is no skill/prowess involved. Even fugly girls can (and often do) rack up high numbers. This isn’t the case for a man. It is the difference between being able to snack alot, vs being able to solve a rubiks cube.
3) Women are more attracted to men who have experience. Men aren’t more attracted to women who have more experience.
As an aside, people should realize that those who talk about “Conservative” values… most of their beliefs would be mocked, ignored, or result in very loud yelling if presented to ANY of the founders of the US Government. Hamilton and Washington and Jefferson… one and all. Quite an achievement to hold such beliefs and still consider one-self “Conservative”.
Sweet As said: “where it boggles to me is that these women are, in a sense, ‘taking one for the team.’ they loose social value so that women and men can benefit. men get to be studs, and women get to be marriage material.”
Naw, they’re planning ahead… making sure the alphas are properly civilized and disciplined when it’s time for them to go ahead and get theirs after all the disruption has settled– Giddyup, Trigger, mama needs her G-spot and cervix knocked!
I just wanted to say thanks for the kind comments left for me above from imnobody and Clarence and the support from others. I do appreciate it.
First, I think that the double standard has always existed, so my question is really how — and I think Dalrock answered it a bit.
I still don’t ‘get it’ — largely because I don’t “get” how other women think — now or then for that matter. I get Abigail Adams, though. Her letters are awesome. She was pretty awesome. But that is off topic.
My main thing is that one would think that in a society that shames sluts (say, the pre-feminist world), one would think that sluts would have their own social value because they are both making men more attractive (I guess) and then also saving other women from such behaviors and advances. And I assume that would have *some* social value on the whole. But what, I cannot say.
In a completely different vein, another thing that I never really “got” about pre-feminist marriage is that men could quite easily have affairs, and in fact it’s fairly normal for them to do so — often with the “help.” And, marriages stayed in tact even though the woman suffered the infidelity.
To be honest, I would find this heart breaking. While I would likely work on my marriage, it would be a massive hit to my ego if this happened, and I don’t know how easily I would recover. The rejection would be immense. I do not think it would increase my husband’s alllure, and it could well ruin me for a fair bit of time. I wonder what sort of bitter woman I would be, attempting to raise my son in the specter of my husband’s affairs. And, if he had other children by this woman — children that I was expected to care for in some way (even if modestly financially), I do not know how I would bear the upset.
I wonder if I would feel shamed by the whole process and how long would I carry it? I wonder how many women under patriarchal marriage felt the same?
“I’m asking a question that you apparently can’t or won’t answer.”
Again, look at what you’ve written:
“The MRA movement sounds like a male version of the feminist movement in that it wants men to have everything without giving anything in return to women.”
This isn’t a question; it’s an accusation – a case of triangulation. You offer no basis for this argument and expect me to prove or disprove it as if I was some sort of spokesperson for a unified MRM. If you make a statement, be prepared to back it up with something. Pretty basic stuff.
“I didn’t use any shaming language”
LOL, you aren’t too good at lying.
“little menstruating bitch”
“Grow some thick skin, you little twat”
“If you took offense to that, if that hurt your feeewwings, Scheissehund”
This is exactly the sort of standard shaming language traditionalists, feminists and white knights deploy in order to implore men to “man up” i.e. fulfill a “proper” male role and be women’s providers and protectors i.e. useful idiots.
Look dude, I bear no ill-will towards you. You’re still young and thus probably don’t yet realize that the subconscious urge behind the behavior you display here is to throw your fellow man under the bus and thus present yourself as a better potential mate to women. Learn some introspection and avoid uterus worship.
grerp,
I also responded to an older post of yours, in case you’re interested:
http://grerp.blogspot.com/2011/05/letter-from-reader-re-manosphere.html?showComment=1306601784999#c7688453249507062399
“Women demanding rights or equal treatment again will be perceived as threads to society.”
Well, sorry but this is inevitable. Every social system enacts measures to protect itself from any internal enemies who undermine the existing order in any way. Then again, you’re describing a wholly hypothetical scenario that has no conceivable chance of happening in the West before, let’s say, 2150.
“Wich will start the cycle of gender wars all over again.”
The gender war, as it’s called, will never end, for the simple reason that male and female reproductive strategies are at odds. If you don’t like this, I guess you can only complain to God or Mother Nature or whatever.
“To be honest, I would find this heart breaking. While I would likely work on my marriage, it would be a massive hit to my ego if this happened, and I don’t know how easily I would recover. The rejection would be immense.”
This seems to be a clear case of projection. You don’t seem to realize that men aren’t hypergamous. For a man it’s very easy to cheat on his wife with a younger slut while and at the same time retain both his love and respect for his wife as a wife and his material support for her and the children. This concept, of course, is utterly alien to women due to their own hypergamy so it’s no surprise they find it baffling.
“That is, if a woman is good — which I’m assuming we’re all advocating here — then the women will not be having sex with men unless they are married to them or close-to (committed in some way). This means *zero* women having sex.
So, then who is having sex with these men?”
By and large, women want everything from betas but their sperm and they want nothing from alphas but their sperm. Once you understand this, female sexual behavior doesn’t seem mysterious anymore.
@sweetas
“My main thing is that one would think that in a society that shames sluts (say, the pre-feminist world), one would think that sluts would have their own social value because they are both making men more attractive (I guess) and then also saving other women from such behaviors and advances. And I assume that would have *some* social value on the whole. But what, I cannot say.”
I’m not really seeing it. 90% of males took us from eating dirt to modern civilization. Which hates them. If that’s possible, well then hey, maybe it is a little strange that those females with low standards of self control (even for females) get such a rough deal.
“For a man it’s very easy to cheat on his wife with a younger slut while and at the same time retain both his love and respect for his wife.”
For a man with no morals or principles, yes, H.
Whether he really loves his wife deeply and is steadfastly loyal, I don.t think so.
I love my husband and would never cheat on him.. He loves me too, and I trust him implicitly.. This makes for a deep and loving bond. I would follow him to the ends of the earth..
I certainly would have no respect for a feckless husband that cheated with on me with some slut.. And I would leave such a faithless man.. I would not want to share my man with any other woman..
A couple who have an intense physical emotional and spiritual bond, are not interested in straying.. As I always say to my hubby..
I .. AM.. A.. VERY.. LUCKY…. WOMAN… 😉
iamnobody–
What country is this? Man up and name you’re former country. That’s hardly identifying. I live in NYC. That hardly identifies me.
I don’t believe such a patriarchy has ever existed, except for lower betas, imprisoned by their own weakness.
In such a mythical country I’d in effect divorce my fat and useless wife by openly taking a mistress, and spending most of my time and resources on her. I see my kids yes, and provide for them directly, but I’d not give much support to my useless wife.
I’d refer to my mistress as my real wife.
iamnobody–
Making comparative comments about relations between the sexes and how divorce etc. works between America and a country you won’t name has no credibility.
Your personal anecdote is beautiful, Kathy. It also has nothing to do with my argument. What I meant is that men can compartmentalize sex in a way women cannot. Having a mistress is psychologically easy for them and doesn’t necessarily weaken the marital bond they’re in.
@ Hollenhund
Whatever. Your belief that ALL men should team together is ridiculous. Are you related to me? Are you my friend? Most men who aren’t my family or friends will screw me over if they had the chance. Who should I trust more, a girl that is family/friends or man who isn’t? That belief sounds exactly like what feminists want: a society where all women are banded together against men, against familial ties. Triangulation, my ass.
You started the shaming when you said I pulled an argument out of my ass. You can’t bitch about shaming, when you do it yourself. It’s not even a big deal, you called me a white-knight, but I didn’t give a fuck(I did get pissed off at your bitching). I’m not pissed off at you anymore, but I doubt that I’ll think like you when I get older. I don’t know any guys my age or older in real life who do.
@ Hollenhund
But I’m done now.
“The gender war, as it’s called, will never end, for the simple reason that male and female reproductive strategies are at odds. If you don’t like this, I guess you can only complain to God or Mother Nature or whatever.”
In the past there were not a lot of no gender war in the sense we have now, but gender conflict, men bitch about women, women bitched about men, but that was the extent of it, they still got married, raised families and more or less were aware of how different their strategies were and were at peace with it, nowadays is a real world with campaigns, recruitment, speeches and all that. A lot different and more damaging, IMO.
Svar
“Whatever. Your belief that ALL men should team together is ridiculous.”
feminism and the world-wide sisterhood is a commonly thrown around term?
“Most men who aren’t my family or friends will screw me over if they had the chance. ”
Wives are family?
“The problem right now is that women want everything(protection, provision, etc) without giving anything in return. That’s feminism.”
The problem is that they want men to give it to them. Feminism isn’t merely giving women choices, but men to enable women to have those choices, sometimes by stepping out of the way, sometimes by tracing out a path for them. And at the same time berating men for keeping them down.
When you have stopped laughing at the stupidity of it all, you can’t help but feel profound disgust.
“The MRA movement sounds like a male version of the feminist movement in that it wants men to have everything without giving anything in return to women.”
Since men and women aren’t equal, even if your argument held water, it would still not imply any sort of equivalency.
Stephenie Rowling
“Women demanding rights or equal treatment again will be perceived as threads to society. Wich will start the cycle of gender wars all over again.”
There is no gender war. War needs fighting, battles and no war follows the disgusting way of declaring victory over your own ally.
There are calls for female emancipation throughout history, technology has made this one a lot stronger and longer than the previous.
“There is no gender war. War needs fighting, battles and no war follows the disgusting way of declaring victory over your own ally.”
Fair enough, what term would you use to define the state of feminism against males and MRA against modern feminism?
“There are calls for female emancipation throughout history, technology has made this one a lot stronger and longer than the previous.”
I already said that, that is why going back to repress women’s emancipation with violent means only will end up the new call be done with even more enable technology that will probably be used to take out the male gender. Imagine a world where cloning is safe and legal, and sex both can be custom mane, women will chant again that they won’t need men and proceed to clone themselves, they will be miserable and unhappy but they would never rethink it as being against their own interest and do what many of the speakers do “In case of problems, add more feminism”, again we, as species, are doomed unless we can break the cycle.
As a young man, I am looking forward to the future, however bleak it may be. I see it as a challenge and a teeth-sharpening excercise. Today’s Western society is pleasant but doomed, mainly due to its uncontrolled consumerism, cost-cutting and greed. I think a lot of powerful men in the West have gone soft in the head – outsourcing lots of productive industry and replacing it with bloated services and financial districts (aka get rich quick schemes or casinos). Then they try to fund big improvements in health, education and welfare. However, I think that men and women are equally to blame for the financial mess that we are in. Western society as a whole has demands and expectations that are too high in terms of money, energy and services supplied.
I also think that the differences between men and women are overemphasised by the media to create controversy and get more viewers, listeners, sell papers etc. I think women are a lot like men when they are not making an effort to be girly, and conversely men can be a lot like women too if they are not trying to be macho.
If I meet somebody who I perceive to be an evil, greedy, lying, corrupt bastard I will do away with the chit-chat and fucking smash them one, no matter who they think they are.
Feminism won’t be rising again because a woman like that will be treated as a terrorist by whatever government exists 100 years from now. There will probably be guaranteed executions for women who make such arguments in court.
Most women won’t be able to do that as they will not be getting child support checks in such a scenario. Cloning and artificial wombs only get you a baby, not the means to raise them.
And such an argument sounds exactly like the arguments socons and tradcons make. This means that traditionalism is fourth wave feminism which actually makes sense.
PMAFT: “And such an argument sounds exactly like the arguments socons and tradcons make. This means that traditionalism is fourth wave feminism which actually makes sense.”
Incisive. Glad you’re here.
Svar said: “I’m not pissed off at you anymore, but I doubt that I’ll think like you when I get older. I don’t know any guys my age or older in real life who do.”
Please do me a favor will you? Write down or otherwise somehow save what particular concepts that have been espoused that you think are wrong. And in 10 years time go back and read them to see if you still feel the same way.
I know a lot of people belittle the younger generation for not knowing the truth when they see it because their youth and inexperience simply won’t let them. That’s not what I’m doing here.
All I ask is that you take the time to realize that right now you know nothing and that’s not your fault. You haven’t been kicked in the teeth by life enough to learn the hard lessons yet.
If given enough time you will look back on this point at your past-self and wonder, “What the f*ck was I thinking?”
“If given enough time you will look back on this point at your past-self and wonder, “What the f*ck was I thinking?””
About two years after getting married, in my case… YMMV
Pingback: Economics of sex | Dalrock
Pingback: The Thinking Housewife › Reckless Politicians
Hookups, fair?? LOL
Pingback: The ethics of pump-n-dump. | Dalrock
Pingback: Nothing is more subversive than the truth | Dalrock
Pingback: Nothing is more subversive than the truth - The Spearhead
Pingback: SMP searching costs and the unmourned death of courtship. | Dalrock
Posted above: “(By the way, did you know there is a negative correlation between number of partners and number of children, outside the limiting case of 0 partners?)
Please please a link to this. I have a major personal need for that study.
Will people ever agree about the definition of some of these words we are using? What IS love? One hundred different people will give you one hundred different answers. I am losing hope. My definition: read The Art Of Loving, by Erich Fromm. Disagree with his politics (he believes capitalism creates an unhealthy environment for love, I don’t), but his description of love and pseudo love is spot on. It’s NECESSARILY HARD! Eros, Agape, Philia & Storge, anyone?
Women being concerned that hookups are “fair” to women: But, is anyone concerned that hookups are “fair” to the wast majority of men that get no hookups?