Women have been continuously renegotiating the social contract in their favor for over 40 years. They have been incredibly successful by making never ending incremental demands. When you consider the full scope of their success it is truly awesome.
Normally when progressives and cultural marxists make demands for change conservatives point out that by changing the terms of the agreement there will inevitably be unintended consequences. Demanding that insurance companies cover preexisting conditions means health insurance premiums must increase. Rent control eventually leads to housing shortages. Minimum wage laws and union negotiated pay and benefit increases mean employers are less willing to hire local workers. These changes are to some degree inevitable, and for most people the only question is the actual scope of the unintended consequences and whether they are worth the improvement gained.
However, in the case of the gender war feminists have made an unspoken agreement with traditional conservatives:
You hold him down while I rob him.
Not only have Social Conservatives agreed, they were so eager to assist that they even volunteered to create an alibi for the crime. Whenever anything goes wrong with the heist, conservatives loudly blame men.
Feminists sternly tell us that 40 or so years ago women looked to their husbands as the rightful leader of the family. Men and women both married young, and with generally little previous sexual experience. Marriage was almost universally seen as a partnership for life.
Now women are actually proud to call themselves sassy. Lack of self control is now a virtue for women, and is openly celebrated in very young girls. This new high attitude woman however doesn’t come with the increased ability which would back it up. Women are being told they should delay marriage until they are at least 30, and many are following that advice. Yet after waiting so long to marry, women are now as likely as not to decide that they either don’t want to be married or have married the wrong man. Those who do stay married are very likely to feel justified to deny their husband sex and generally usurp his traditional role as head of the household. In the years prior to marriage women no longer feel that they must abstain from sex. Social conservatives have signed off on removing slut shaming, with the pretext that women’s preferred form of promiscuity is more moral than mens and any women who are slutty are merely innocent victims of the men they have sex with.
In fairness to feminists they would argue that this is all a matter of perspective. To them all of the changes listed above are great achievements. Sassy brassy career women are far better than submissive wives from the feminist perspective. Women embracing their sexuality and enjoying it to the fullest on their own terms is something they worked decades to achieve. Women putting education, career, and personal development* before marriage is a great improvement in their eyes over women marrying while young. Furthermore, women having the right to divorce at will and have the state force the costs onto men is a monumental achievement. If we are honest, feminists have a lot to be proud of. They created a wish list and have achieved nearly everything on it.
But what have men received in return? Their wives often come with a decade or more of kinky sexual experience with exotic men. That has to be worth something. While she is more likely to deny him sex, at least he can take comfort in the knowledge that she isn’t frigid. Women now make more money than they did in the past; this has to be a major benefit, right? Unfortunately the career woman also often comes with student loans to match or exceed her career, which need to paid off whether she continues focusing on her career or not. She also comes with expensive tastes developed by spending a decade or more with a large amount of disposable income. Furthermore, women are being told to get a career so they can be comfortable kicking their husband out should they ever feel the need.
Don’t get me wrong. Women should be free to make all of the changes listed above except for the unfair treatment men receive regarding child support, custody, alimony, divorce theft, presumed guilty rape laws, and out of control domestic violence laws which make it a crime for a man to even be rude or insulting to a woman.
While women have every right to pile on the ultimatums, men must also have the right to say no thank you. That deal is no longer attractive to me. After all, an ultimatum means take it or leave it. Yet the men who more and more say leave it are the people in our society we are criticizing the most. We made the terms of the deal unpalatable, and instead of understanding when they walked away we are furious with them. Take the simple issue of women postponing marriage while feeling free to be true to themselves with the most alpha men they can land. In the US the median age of first marriage is 26.5 for women and 28.4 for men. Since we are in the middle of a large jump in the postponement of marriage these figures likely significantly underestimate the reality we see. Even taking them at face value, half of men are having to wait until they are 28 or older to marry. Large numbers of men can’t marry until their mid to late thirties. At the same time they are surrounded by large numbers of promiscuous attractive women being as true to themselves as they can possibly be. Men in this position have three options:
- Stay celibate by choice.
- Stay celibate or close to celibate due to being rejected by hypergamous young women.
- Learn how to have sex with the hordes of young women riding the carousel.
This isn’t a question our society has spent much energy wrestling with. The underlying feeling is; who cares, so long as they man up and marry these women once they are done riding the carousel. It turns out however that the men themselves very much do care. This is an extremely long time we are expecting men to go before marrying. During this time we have the unspoken expectation that they will work their tails off to be ready to act as a provider while not getting too used to being single. Each decade we have pushed the envelope a little further, and we expect each new generation of men to simply suck it up a little more and fill in the gaps. One can argue that they should have beat another man to the punch and married one of the small number of chaste young submissive women who were looking to marry. But this is just shuffling the deck chairs around. At the end of the day this will only determine which men marry in their early to mid 20s and which ones are forced to wait it out; the overall numbers won’t change because the change is being driven by the choices of women, not men.
Social Conservatives and Feminists have been pretty happy with this deal for the last 40 years. What could possibly go wrong? Now along come men like Roissy and Roosh who say to young men not only do you not have to spend your youth in grinding celibacy, but you don’t need to sign up to marry a brassy sassy career gal slut who just as likely as not will deny you sex and/or take you to the cleaners while ripping your children away from you. They will teach young men how to pass the decade or so they would otherwise wait for their wife to tire of slutting around. Even better, they will teach them how to have all the sex they want with the youngest, prettiest women, all without having to knock themselves out career wise. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives gave men lemons; Roissy and Roosh taught them how to make lemonade.
Who reading this doesn’t understand that this was absolutely bound to happen? Why is anyone surprised at this? After 40 years of cumulative one sided demands (and concessions), men now see another option. Feminists and Traditional Conservatives are furious. How dare they choose something else! But they are the ones who turned marriage from a lifetime partnership to a way women can defraud men. They are the ones who told women to slut it up in their 20s and told men to wait for marriage until the women were done. They were the ones who denigrated the status of husband from leader of the family to cowering scapegoat. All I can say is they should get used to it. If it took 40 years of one sided demands to get here, it could easily take as long to move back to equilibrium (assuming it does).
*Banging men in exotic locations.
I work with a lot of young men under 30. These are bright, capable guys and they all know about Game, Marriage 2.0, and the broken social contract. They are adapting quickly and it doesn’t look good for young women.
are being told they should delay marriage until they are at least 30, and many are following that advice.
On the perils of delayed fertility….. behold nature’s vengeance:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45262603/ns/today-today_health/
Cultural marxists eh? Welcome to the club 🙂 As always enjoy reading you.
+1 Dalrock. Dude, you hit the nail on the head. Seriously, you should write a book.
At least in my generation (I’m late 30s), we didn’t even know what was happening. Why were we tooled by women for taking them out on traditional dates? Why couldn’t we attract our peers in the dating market? Why did women do one thing and say another? Why are women so attracted to douchebags? Why did all women want to chase guys that they had no realistic chance of catching? etc.
I’m jealous of the guys who are twenty years old now and can read all this great material on the internet and learn the truth about what is happening. I spent all my twenties having untold grief with women until I finally figured it out and took the Red Pill.
Another tour de force, D.
greenlander
You and I are from the same generation and I asked myself those very questions. I had one female acquaintance tell me I wasn’t getting any because I was a “nice guy who will make a great husband to some lucky woman someday” (BETA!) but at the same time she couldn’t explain why she kept gravitating towards guys who treated her worse than dirt. The last time I heard (third hand info), she was working her way through a second divorce.
Based on the above woman’s honest words and careful observation techniques, I eventually figured out a haphazard version of Game on my own that comparatively worked wonders (especially with online dating sites back in the day), but I still couldn’t figure out why it did.
Of course, had I had access to all the info available today, it would have made my life much easier.
There’s a lot to agree with here…but I wish I could believe that more men were holding off on marriage because of high-minded concerns about the social contract. Alas, I do not really believe this to be the case–I think it’s much more likely because of declining economic opportunity. If these same guys thought they could make it to the top of their respective cubicle farms, they’d probably be wifing up in droves the same mannish, bitchy American women they’re complaining about.
Apparently, Paul Elam of A Voice for Men is planning a “White Feather” campaign for socons when he returns from vacation. Anything that exposes the feminsts and socons as two sides of the same misandric coin is a very good thing.
advocacy of The Way of Roosh and Rossy is responding to evil with evil (the method, not the people)
what about all the fatherless boys resulting from the Let’s Fuck Everybody philosophy? the PUA road leads to even MORE defenseless boys in the hands of single females — the largest social set for serious abuse in the western world (esp involving boys under age 5, when they’re completely without recourse or hope)
the PUA mentality shares with feminism utter narcissism and self-absorption — it deepens, insteads of corrects, the western matriarchies
good analysis in this piece of the collusion between conservatives and feminists, tho
@ray
If 40% of women are down for being baby mammas, what does it matter if their children are sired by 10% vs 20% of men? Either way 40% of the children are still fatherless. This isn’t a moral argument, it is simply acknowledging the facts on the ground. The moral argument was lost 40 years ago. The only thing which changed is the degree of enthusiasm Christians like Glenn Stanton and Sheila Gregoire have for the status quo.
I’m not advocating men to choose the path of Roissy and Roosh. My advice is to try to outcompete your peers for the ever shrinking pool of worthy women willing to become wives at a young age. But this doesn’t change the fact that the rest of the men need to live with the result. The nonchalance with which so many would tell them to simply remain celibate or suck it up and marry a career gal slut is the fundamental problem.
@ray
“what about all the fatherless boys resulting from the Let’s Fuck Everybody philosophy? the PUA road leads to even MORE defenseless boys in the hands of single females — the largest social set for serious abuse in the western world (esp involving boys under age 5, when they’re completely without recourse or hope)”
You are wrong, it’s not PUAs but women who choose this way.
With respect and general sympathy for/agreement with the argument, I think this goes to far in a few respects.
1) I think you overestimate the extent to which SoCons willingly, knowingly went along with feminism. I think instead what happened is that they found early feminism, feminism 1.0, unobjectionable and impossible to resist. That is, they could not conceive of a principled argument against opening up educational or career opportunities to women. To do so would be to endorse “unequal treatment” and they had no intellectual ground on which to do so. Some of them tried on religious grounds but they just got laughed at and their argument was never taken seriously in the wider debate and was soon swept aside everywhere but in their own small communities.
SoCons were NEVER happy with the Sexual Revolution and still aren’t. They didn’t put up much of a fight at first because they considered it fringe and also it seemed not to be affecting their own daughters. By the time it had swept the country, many of their own daughters had participated and everyone loves his own and it’s hard to condemn your own daughter. So they adjusted. That’s a big part of how “good girl” came to be defined as “few LTRs” rather than “virgin.” That was an accommodation, though, not a matter of willing participation. And, some SoCons have rallied and attacked the SR and made a rational stand for chastity. You’re not giving them any credit. Late to the party, sure, but some have done it.
2) We’ve sparred on the whole number of partners/forms of promiscuity thing before. Let me say that I find your view to be more and more convincing. That said, I don’t think the SoCon thought process is as you describe, i.e., they took the lead in attacking “slut-shaming.” No. They still are totally uneasy with sluttery and don’t want their daughters to become sluts. But, again, SoCons have had to accommodate themselves to the prevailing culture. They concluded, rightly or wrongly, that they couldn’t stop their daughters from having pre-marital sex. So the next best thing was to try to instill in them whatever restraint they could. In practice that meant not being too harsh about LTRs. SoCons are still very harsh and openly judgmental (at least within their own families) about “hooking up.” Beyond that most of them have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy because, really, what father wants to know every detail about what his daughter is up to?
3) There are a number of causes for this, but culturally it somehow became “uncool” in the middle class and above to have kids who were not high achievers, including daughters. So even SoCons internalized this and became vaguely ashamed of a daughter who married at 20 but hugely proud of one who went to Harvard to be filled with feminist/liberal bilge. They want their girls to get fancy educations and start careers. It’s a status marker. Low Rent People get married young. That’s for hillbillies. Not my daughter!
Now, an unintended consequence has been all that you describe. But SoCon’s didn’t choose or encourage this except insofar as they encouraged their girls to get educated and get “careers” rather than mere jobs. Perhaps they should have seen it all coming, as you seem to think they should have. I dunno, but anyway, at worst they are guilty of a failure of foresight.
I can tell you I am guilty of this myself. My wife actually went to Harvard and has said from the day our daughter was born “There is no way she is going to Harvard.” I used to chuckle at that and figure I could change her mind (assuming the kid even got in) but now I have come around completely, and there is no way my daughter is going to Harvard, at least not on my dime.
4) As for SoCons blaming men: I think you and other “manosphere” bloggers have done great work on this. Not in demonstrating that the SoCons are simply wrong but that their knowledge is woefully incomplete. They blame men without understanding the causes of male misbehavior, and without understanding that the primary cause is female misbehavior which is at least as bad as, and arguably worse than, male misbehavior.
The thing is, though, much of the Hymowitz/Bennet criticism is not false. They are attacking male behavior that is genuinely lousy. You always have to caveat your praise of Roissy/Roosh with “not that I’m endorsing this” yet you never seem to wholeheartedly condemn what they are doing either. And what they are doing is wrong—morally, ethically, politically, in every way. To paraphrase Lincoln, if manwhoring isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong. Then there is no sexual morality. Just because women are hypergamous sluts, it’s not suddenly OK for men to be polygamous cads.
This should hardly need to be said, but apparently does: A life spent in pursuit of pussy is an empty, wasted life. Whether you are successful at it or unsuccessful. And I don’t need recourse to religion say that; unassisted human reason is sufficient. Those guys are losers. They accomplish nothing, they degrade their souls, they hurt their country, they defile (non-innocent, to be sure) women, and they coarsen society. And think of the opportunity costs.
5) You leave out the point that the rise of working women led to the dominance of the two-income household, which led to the necessity of the latter by driving up housing and schooling prices (and much else). This is all demonstrated in the Harvard-Lib Elizabeth Warren’s book The Two Income Trap. Say what you will about her, she’s intellectually honest.
Also, to go with that perfect late marriage, an article on women’s fertility:
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/45262603/ns/today-today_health/
Comments are hilarious to say the least.
@dragnet
I don’t think the actual mechanism is so conscious. In past generations these men in their early 20s would have seen men just a few years older than them finding women who were looking to marry. Now they don’t see that signal with nearly the same strength. They also are seeing the women who are their peers be ever more open about their promiscuity. Not only are the women not interested in marriage, but they are less likely to want a long term relationship as they would have been in the past. The signal which told men of past generations that if they worked hard and prepared to be a provider they would then find a wife has been greatly muted. At the same time the value of marriage for men has also been declining. Why would they strive to be like their father or their friend’s father who knocked himself out only to be emasculated and/or unceremoniously kicked out and forced to pay? It isn’t that they say being a husband used to be worth the effort but now it isn’t. They just look at the amount of work they would have to do to become one, how long in the future it would be, and how pleasant it appears for those who are husbands. Given the choice between working their tail off in a brutal economy and slacking off with the guys, many more will choose the latter than would have in the past, especially since learning game is much easier and free sex is so plentiful.
Yeah… one thing I really don’t like in the general manosphere is the thought that celibacy is the worst fate that can befall man. I’m a big fan of game in general as it has helped my marriage, and do think laws need to change, drastically. But celibacy really isn’t a bad option. After dating around women that have been on the carousel for years, and then had a “conversion experience”, yet still espoused feminist ideals, I found my wife. I was determined, though, that she’d be my last attempt; after that, I’d serve God by being celibate, and donating my extra time and money to the Church and other organizations. I was tired of dating endless people that had no interest in a traditional marriage, and didn’t have the emotional resolve to continue. Embracing the option of celibacy gave me the peace I needed; I was perfectly fine with the thought of dying a virgin.
van Rooinek: Gah! Late.”
Escoffier
“They blame men without understanding the causes of male misbehavior, and without understanding that the primary cause is female misbehavior which is at least as bad as, and arguably worse than, male misbehavior.”
I wouldn’t say male misbehavior, I would call it a male’s rational response. Whether we want to impose our morality on the situation, men are genetically predisposed to have sex with as many women as possible. A rational response. Those men who can’t or won’t Game women do not want the slut at the end of her spree. Another rational response.
If nothing else, Game teaches us that a women who has had more than a few sexual partners is a bad potential longterm partner. These women are shooting themselves in the foot and are only listening to those loading the gun.
It’s only a rational response at the base level, if you believe we are just higher animals. Everyone here has no problem getting into high dudgeon about female hypergamy, which is also a matter of “genetic predisposition.” That doesn’t stop you guys from morally condeming the women who indulge/give in to it. But you are all to ready to excuse the men who give in to their “genetic predisposition.”
Both sides are to blame. Women more, because “they started it.” But that’s not an excuse for the men. It’s an explanation but not an excuse. We still have duties and morality is still what it is. Or else, it is nothing, and then you have no ground to complain about the behavior of anyone, for any reason.
None of the above should be construed as me saying that women who screw around and then can’t find a husband aren’t getting what they deserve. I think they are. They sewed, they should reap.
“There are a number of causes for this, but culturally it somehow became “uncool” in the middle class and above to have kids who were not high achievers, including daughters. So even SoCons internalized this and became vaguely ashamed of a daughter who married at 20 but hugely proud of one who went to Harvard to be filled with feminist/liberal bilge. They want their girls to get fancy educations and start careers. It’s a status marker. Low Rent People get married young. That’s for hillbillies. Not my daughter!”
If marriage and family were prioritized in American culture, which it is not, then teens would be encouraged to marry and then attend college TOGETHER as a couple.
Good points, Escoffier.
Escoffier how old are you?
Escoffier,
Well said on your last two posts. I have a lot of respect for sober reasoning like that.
Good post Dalrock,
On “Social Conservatives and Feminists being pretty happy with this deal for the last 40 years”, here is something for you: Woman Up.
Pingback: Whirling Dervish « Patriactionary
@ ray
I don’t disagree with your sentiment that responding to the broken social contract with Roissy-style PUA is fighting evil with evil, but then again, when Roissy waxes serious, I think even he knows that, why else enjoin everyone to “Enjoy the Decline?” The crux of the matter is the method by which any sort of correction to gender relations occurs. From Roissy I get the notion that there is no going back, and that the West must descend into some form of barbarism before such a correction will happen. In historical terms, what we are seeing might be akin to what happened to the ancient Romans, but in reverse. Some argue that the Romans out-competed the Etruscans because they were lead by the group we refer to now as the patricians, or father people. Romans lead by this group were better able to organize resources and reduce internecine conflicts to the extent that the Etruscans, which apparently did not have the same codification of rights, duties, and privileges held by the male members of the patrician group in Rome, were pushed off the map. The group of Romans we refer to as the plebeians, or simply the people, were more like our own single-mother type of family structure and adopted the same male-female relationship as the patricians because it proved a more effective life strategy. What we are currently experiencing is the plebeification of western society with only the elite maintaining low(ish) levels of out of wedlock birth and divorce, the future neo-patrician class / oligarchy.
Escoffier:
I’d love to agree with you. In fact I do agree that morally, the male response to women’s misconduct and maltreatment of men is wholly at odds with the Judeo-Christian ethic. Problem is, the moral fight has already been lost. All these arguments have been deployed to negligible effect. No one’s listening to the moral imperative that premarital sex is wrong; that sleeping with sluts is wrong; and not marrying your baby momma is wrong.
The only moral imperative being deployed now is “You men need to man up and marry the sluts when they’re done on the carousel!” Even the CHURCHES are saying this. Exhibit A is Glenn Stanton in Dalrock’s post. What Stanton is really saying is “You men need to wife up those single moms and start raising the alpha cads’ children!”
Or how about Exhibit B: Sheila Gregoire, who says essentially: “Men who watch pornography are adulterers. You men need to man up, love your wives and stop cheating on them by watching videos!”.
I cannot help but notice there is no concomitant moral imperative upon single moms to find a good husband and be faithful to him, and do everything she can to make her marriage work.
I cannot help but notice there is no concomitant moral imperative upon young women to constrain themselves and find good men to marry while young, so as to prevent them from becoming little more than petri dishes with God only knows what organisms residing in their nether regions.
I cannot help but notice there is no concomitant moral imperative from Ms. Gregoire or others like her, telling women to love their husbands, not have affairs; and not commit highway robbery on their husbands in divorce court
The best moral imperative comes from none other than PrivateMan, who exhorts women to “Woman Up!” meaning women need to provie themselves worthy of investment and commitment.
There are a couple of reasons why no one is saying “You women need to woman up, get married to the local betas, and start pumping out babies” is twofold:
1. That phrase is considered shaming language and sexist. Our society has bought hook, line and sinker the notion that women are just evening the score after centuries, nay, millenia, of unfair and brutal treatment at the hands of men.
2. Young women have been freed from the old constraints on hypergamy. Now that there are no constraints, women are free to sex up the alphas. They are free to travel (code for “have sex with strange d*ck and exotic men with names like Fernando, Francois and Marco”). They are free to say anything they want to anyone they want, or do anything they want anytime and anywhere they want, with impunity.
Pingback: How we got from there to here « Patriactionary
@Escoffier
Until you fix the system which is the fundamental problem, you don’t have the moral authority to condemn Roissy and Roosh. Does your church truly support marriage? Do they measure to make sure they aren’t sending grooms in as lambs to the slaughter like all of the other churches? If so, you need to list them ASAP on the page I have set up for that. My readers desperately want to know about it, and I promise to make at least one post singling your church out if this is the case. Lets be honest, that isn’t likely to happen in our lifetime. The obsession with a few pickup artists profiting from the moral decay we have collectively embraced is truly, profoundly, absurd. Focus on the fix. Roissy and Roosh didn’t break the system, and either way they can’t fix it. At least they have helped the rest of us understand the reality we live in. I can’t say the same for those who would condemn them. The abject foolishness of Christians today is something only history will be able to fully process.
“Until you fix the system which is the fundamental problem, you don’t have the moral authority to condemn Roissy and Roosh.”
Oh, horseshit.
You seem to be a morally serious and reasonably intelligent person. Do you really NEED a refutation to that? Because I can provide one. But so can you. Unless I have vastly overestimated you.
Dalrock,
Amen. No more needs to me said.
Keep up the good work.
1) I don’t think I have said that I am not troubled by mass suicide, or whatever, but in case it’s unclear, I am troubled.
2) Was it really obvious in 1960 that opening educational and career opportunities for women would lead to all this? No, it wasn’t. It could be, and was, couched in terms of justice and in way it WAS just. And, you guys have simply not thought about all the deeper forces at play here.
Even if you want to stay mono- or bi-causal, the SoCon blaming is laughable given that over the last 50 years this entire experiment has been driven by the left. It was conceived by the left, implemented by the left, expanded by the left, defended by the left, rationalized by the left, etc. You’re infinitely more pissed at the bystander who failed to anticpate and prevent the crime than you are at the actual perpetrator.
I have yet to read a coherent explaination what game is stated clearly and without contradiction. So, yes, I suppose I don’t understand. To the extent that I do, I see its (partial) value.
What I see here is incredible bitterness and anger (from you, not so much from D), which may be justified on a certain level, but which clouds judgement, leads to mistakes, and gives rise to sophistic defenses of indefensible behavior. “They started it” is not an argument.
Who are these men who are dying to get married in their early 20’s? Almost every man I’ve ever met has WANTED to wait to get married until at least age 25, and many aren’t interested until their 30’s.
And in the meantime, men certainly have options other than be a) celibate, or b) a manwhore … they can, you know, get a GIRLFRIEND.
You and I must live in different worlds.
Any response from to Love, Honor, and Vacuum? Seems like she’d want to defend herself, and I am curious as to what she’d say to the very legitimate criticism.
Escoffier, you seem to be insisting that men must do their manly duties for women, no matter what women as a group and as individuals may do to men. In other words, to you any and every woman is Woman and must be respected upon her pedestal, no matter what she has done. In other words, paraphrasing the old Boy’s Town slogan, “There’s No Such Thing As A Bad Woman”.
Is that correct? Or am I misreading?
SoCons were not “minding the store” in 1960. There WAS NO social conservative movement in 1960. There were lots of socially conservative PEOPLE but they didn’t think of themselves as such. They thought of themselves as the mainstream. Because they were. Social Cons arose in reaction to the ’60s. And, as I have said, they never made a serious attempt to roll back the basic gender equality premise of feminism because they were intellectually incapable of doing so. Just to be clear again, that’s a criticism. But it’s still a qualitative difference from saying that they were knowing, willing collaborators with the worst of man-hating feminism.
I am guessing that even today, if we were to ask Dalrock, “Do you want your daughter to be able to pursue whatever level of education she wishes and any (lawful) career she wishes?” He would say “Yes.” If so, he has exactly the same attitude as all those dumb dads of 1960.
I can say and have said over and over that I broadly accept the general argument about womne’s hypergamy and culpability but because I question certain points at the margin I am accused of being just another feminist who wants to shame men into marrying sluts.
ooooookaaaaaaaay
And in the meantime, men certainly have options other than be a) celibate, or b) a manwhore … they can, you know, get a GIRLFRIEND.
Finally someone acknowledges that men under 30 don’t want to marry! I’ve been saying that for a long time now, but each time, I’m either ignored or accused of playing on “team woman”.
Dalrock lives in Texas, the heart of the Bible belt, so it’s different there. However, he should at least acknowledge the flip side, that the women under 25 who do want to get married have no one to marry, unless they go for a guy much older than her.
As well, how is a young couple supposed to support itself? It’s easy to advise the 18-23 group to get married, but who pays for their rent, their utilities, their food and other expenses? Do they live in their parents’ basement?
@ LJ:
“Who are these men who are dying to get married in their early 20′s? Almost every man I’ve ever met has WANTED to wait to get married until at least age 25, and many aren’t interested until their 30′s.”
I submit most do want to get married and take themselves out of the game. It’s easier. But they can’t in today’s society. Most men aren’t attractive to most women. So most can’t find a GF, much less a girl worth marrying.
“And in the meantime, men certainly have options other than be a) celibate, or b) a manwhore … they can, you know, get a GIRLFRIEND.”
See above. It was hard enough finding a GF 20 years ago. It’s got to be even harder now. Most women essentially want a man who looks like Brad Pitt, has money like Warren Buffett, and is as kind and “nice” as Oprah. Their standards are impossibly high. When they don’t get what they want, they simply leave for the next man who tingles them.
Dalrock, another excellent hard-hitting piece, but why use the term “traditional conservatives” when describing those on the political right? That’s exactly the term some of us have chosen to distinguish ourselves from an older, lamer kind of conservatism. The kind of rightism you are criticising is most often a confused mixture of right wing (classical) liberalism with an element of social conservatism attached either as a vestige of Christian orthodoxy or else to play a secondary role of propping up or stabilising the liberalism.
Take Bill Bennett who I criticised in this post. Bennett follows a liberal principle in believing that modern society is on course in delivering a freedom of the individual to self-design. He wholeheartedly endorses the way that women have embraced this “freedom” to be careerists. But he thinks that for things to work out men must instead follow “time-honoured” values of masculinity – which clearly contradicts his larger liberal aim of self-design.
That contradiction doesn’t belong to Bennett alone. He is drawing out something that has been happening in the West for decades: women get to be wayward liberal individualists, men are supposed to prop this up.
So what do we call men like Bennett? His underlying principle of self-design is the standard liberal one. But he goes further than most in impressing on men more traditional values – in order to prop up the female liberalism. He is not therefore a principled conservative, let alone a principled traditional conservative. If we are going to call him out on his “conservatism” then better to call him something like a “mainstream conservative” – though a more exact term would be something like “conservative liberal”.
“’They started it’ is not an argument.”
To jump in, it most certainly is when you diagnose what is a fair end to hostilities. Every year of my life, the situation for betas has deteriorated. Even today, according to feminists/socons, men are either still privileged or should take responsibility for all the problems. Since, things have not gotten bad enough for men or men haven’t bailed women out of their problems enough, is their position, they want it to continue to get worse for me and my teenage son. I’m not going to chant, “thank you sir, may I have another.” You can continue your white knighting for people who don’t deserve it and won’t reciprocate, but I won’t.
I’ve suspected that feminists and social conservatives were natural allies for a long time. It’s just becoming harder to ignore this reality as society heads south. Feminism for years has acted in ways that are harmful to young women, but that make them into good corporate workers. Ignore husband, family, home, etc. and learn to “have it all” via a career. Most of the other feminist efforts have been partial victories at best (i.e. women have lost at least as much as they’ve gained in most categories). But they’re good corporate cogs now.
Social “conservatives” on the other hand have pushed men to ignore their own interests, both socially and economically, and be good husbands and fathers even when it is completely irrational to follow this script. Men vote in large numbers for socially conservative politicians while those same politicians cater to corporations and are handsomely rewarded for it. They spend this money on gifts for their third wives as well as alimony for their previous ones. Traditional values indeed.
If men and women behave in an open-minded and non-materialistic way–in other words like true liberals–then corporations lose out because people don’t work as hard and don’t buy as much unneeded crap. If men and women behave in a manner that reflects traditional mores and personal responsibility–in other words like true conservatives–then corporations lose out because people focus on spiritual, family and community values rather than working mindlessly and buying unnecessary crap. But if young men are convinced that they have to work hard to be a man by the social conservatives, then the powers-that-be will benefit. If young women are convinced that their biological nature is misleading them they will work hard and ignore home and family–once again to the great benefit of those corporate and political interests that have no interest in our well being as a society.
Even the suppression of the price of a unit of labor benefits these companies and their political servants. When did women first enter the work place in large numbers, something still widely heralded as a victory for equality on both sides of the political fence? Probably around 1970 or so. When did a man’s real earnings in the U.S. last increase? Probably around 1970 or so. The average American, male and female, has been treading water ever since.
Escoffier, good points overall, especially #5. But at the end of #4, you demonize men who “spend life in pursuit of pussy.” It’s been said before, but needs to be said again, pursuing vigorous sex life does not preclude more noble pursuits. As Dalrock said, we’ve been given lemons, we’re making lemonade. We can build institutions, create impressive art, generate value, and still make lemonade. To pretend otherwise is a logical fallacy. Even the lives of Roosh, Roissy & Rollo provide value to young men who know little about the psychology of female sexuality. Thus your judgments aren’t much more than thin moral attempts at enforcing monogamous hegemony. Which is to say, enforcing an agenda that benefits *women* far more than men.
To quote young Jedi Freedom Twenty-five: “Women’s sexual liberation has turned the sexual marketplace into a winner-take-all jungle, and we have been dropped into this quagmire dick-first. The problem is compounded by our culture’s demonization of healthy masculine values, and the viciously anti-male bias in our social norms and justice system.”
To you, sir Escoffier, I hoist my glass of Patron-enhanced lemonade. Cheers!
“Escoffier, you seem to be insisting that men must do their manly duties for women”
Where the hell are you guys getting this? I agree completely with D on this. If you can find a good woman, really vet her character and be sure of her, (and also if you love her), then marry her. If you can’t, then DON’T GET MARRIED. Don’t marry a woman unworthy of your respect, don’t “settle” for a reformed slut (at least, you would be unwise to, though there’s always a chance it will work out). Women need to earn men’s respect through good character and good behavior. It absolutely DOES matter what she has done in the past. There are plenty, oceans of bad women. Etc.
If you can’t get married, well, then what? Sleep around? I guess, if you want to. I can’t stop you, the law doesn’t care, the mainline churches don’t care, etc. You can even lie to yourself that what you are doing is “OK.” But it’s not. You will “get away with it,” sure. You may be no worse than she/they are and perhaps a little bit better. OK.
But it’s still not “right.” Either there is sexual morality or there is not. If there is, the rules apply to both sexes. If the women are not playing fair (which they are not, I agree, I need to repeat this over and over apparently), the narrow answer may be for the men not to play fair but it is not the RIGHT answer.
Wasn’t this the point of D’s “Misery or Vice” post? Vice is still vice. Just because it’s one of two bad options and the other side made it that way, it’s still vice. Women’s shitty behavior has not sanctified and does not excuse shitty male behavior.
“Chels says:
As well, how is a young couple supposed to support itself? It’s easy to advise the 18-23 group to get married, but who pays for their rent, their utilities, their food and other expenses? Do they live in their parents’ basement?”
By keeping their expectations in check, not developing high tastes, realizing that their parents only have such a nice standard of living because they’ve had 30 years to get there, and that they started out struggling as well.
By getting jobs, and finding small apartments, cooking at home, and not buying tons of crap.
By not lusting after the newest laptop, or iphone, or designer handbag, and spending carefully.
The concept young people have today of what they ‘need’ is ridiculous.
It is entirely possible to support yourself when the expectations are reasonable.
@deti, “They are free to travel (code for “have sex with strange d*ck and exotic men with names like Fernando…)
Escoffier
Even if you want to stay mono- or bi-causal, the SoCon blaming is laughable given that over the last 50 years this entire experiment has been driven by the left.
If you are in North America, then you are either ignorant or not telling the truth in the above statement.
Item: The Bradley Amendment, passed in 1986 with the support of SoCon Ronald Reagan, clearly set the stage for grossly wrong imprisonment of divorced men. Case in point, the man in Iraq a couple of years back who was kidnapped by insurgents, held for months in a secret location, rescued by US forces, and upon his return to the US – arrested for the crime of not having paid his child support while he was held hostage in Iraq. That’s an extreme example, there are many more.
Item: The Violence Against Women Act (VAWA), conceived by left wing dingbat Biden, but passed with the support of SoCons in the Congress. It is VAWA that federally funded “battered women’s shelters” from coast to coast, and turned them into feminist propaganda machines. It is VAWA that defines “domestic violence” so broadly that the vast majority of men and women who have ever been married, or lived with a lover, have committed DV at some time. Ever shout at your husband or wife? That’s potentially DV. Ever leave a room in anger and brush past your husband/wife in such a way as to make them move the slightest bit? That’s potentially DV. Ever have your wife ask you for money, and tell her she’s spent enough? That’s DV.
Every single time VAWA has come up for renewal, the SoCons line up to support it. Either SoCons are incredibly stupid and support legislation they have not read, or they have read it and like what they see. But either way, SoCons are on board with the entire divorce machine, and most especially the ongoing expansion of DV to the point that any man can, at any time, be arrested and charged with this crime if he has a woman in his house for more than a few hours at a time.
Because if SoCons opposed this stuff, they would stop supporting it, right?
So much for your claim that the “entire experiment has been driven by the left”. The left may or may not be in the driver’s seat, but SoCons are not just riding in the back seat some where, no, SoCons are buying the gas, cleaning the windshield, checking the tires and arguably handing a nice, cool Slurpee to the driver.
Now that I have addressed a tiny part of your ignorance, it is time for you to amend your remarks, if you are honest.
See above. It was hard enough finding a GF 20 years ago. It’s got to be even harder now. Most women essentially want a man who looks like Brad Pitt, has money like Warren Buffett, and is as kind and “nice” as Oprah. Their standards are impossibly high.
A woman with impossibly high standards is not going to find a boyfriend (or at least one that doesn’t cheat on her). But the flip side is, men with impossibly high standards aren’t going to find girlfriends either.
BTW and FWIW, I can’t think of a single thing that I disagree with in the analysis of feminsim that I have read so far here and elsewhere on related sites. I wonder if any of you has read Carolyn Graglia’s book Domestic Tranquility. Very eye-opening for me 13 years ago.
By keeping their expectations in check, not developing high tastes, realizing that their parents only have such a nice standard of living because they’ve had 30 years to get there, and that they started out struggling as well.
By getting jobs, and finding small apartments, cooking at home, and not buying tons of crap.
By not lusting after the newest laptop, or iphone, or designer handbag, and spending carefully.
The concept young people have today of what they ‘need’ is ridiculous.
It is entirely possible to support yourself when the expectations are reasonable.
LOL So you encourage young adults to drop out of school just so they can get married? Or how else can they both hold down jobs to pay for their expenses? And what types of jobs can the attain without an education? Neither my parents nor my grandparents abandoned school to get married; for their generations, it was possible to be financially independent sooner.
Today, the average student is finished with schooling by 23-25; that is if they don’t go on to med/law/graduate school.
You make such a bad argument–be poor and marry early! Why would anyone listen to such advice when they can just as easily get married in their late 20s/early 30s, and be much better off?
“no one has a right to say men are the only group who should not act towards self-preservation.”
I disagree. Everyone has the right to say any stupid thing he wants. But he also opens himself to refution. So if anyone comes along and says “men are the only group who should not act towards self-preservation” I will be the first in line to refute him.
D- absolutely killin it lately.
The reason why Socons get so much (very well deserved in my opinion) outright hatred from this corner of the internet, Esc, is not because Socons were the ones leading the charge — we know they were not. It’s because, today, Socons are absolutely, 100%, completely and entirely useless to young men who are coming up and into the system. The “answer” from Socons for young men is largely either (1) pretend the changes didn’t exist, and play under the old rules or (2) act as if you can turn back the clock to the old rules and create your own personal “old rules bubble”. It’s quite obvious that neither of these related solutions is of any use to young men in the current SMP/MMP. Heck, I’m 44 and even I know this based on my own experiences in the SMP/MMP 20-25 years ago. And all the Socons have to say is “don’t do that, because that gives in to the current system”. Pfft. Actual men need actual solutions. And Socons provide nothing at all to men in this age — not one thing of use. Bennett’s ridiculous diatribe is only the most recent Exhibit A at hand.
You Socons have your ideology and your movement and so on. What you don’t have, at all, is any kind of practical approach for young men growing up into the system we have today because almost all of you have altogether far too much sympathy for women, period. After all, that was traditional as well.
Dalrock, being that you’re a Christian I wondered if you ever watched any of the Black rom-com movies. They deal with all these subjects – the sexual market place, game, playas and playettes, those who want to get married but can’t find a good man/good woman, the affects of fatherless on boys, etc but there is an underlying theme of Christianity throughout. And they usually look at things through the perspective of one or more of the male characters too, quite different from White rom-coms.
I hate rom-coms myself but I find the Black ones much more bareable and insightful than White ones.
Mark Richardson
Dalrock, another excellent hard-hitting piece, but why use the term “traditional conservatives” when describing those on the political right?
Perhaps because unlike you he does not find the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to be fascinating.
Now, I’m sure you have other things to do – deleting comments on your blog that you don’t agree with, for example – and so there’s no need to take up any more of your precious time with reason and logic.
A LTR’s is just women’s preferred promiscuity. Men “cheating” on a relationship is just men’s preferred promiscuity. I used to be stupid enough to assume that women were right. Women don’t commit. I don’t see why men should…
“today, Socons are absolutely, 100%, completely and entirely useless to young men who are coming up and into the system”
I am sympathetic to that but not 100% in agreement. You disparage the teaching that “you can turn back the clock to the old rules and create your own personal ‘old rules bubble.'”
But isn’t that true? Isn’t that exactly what D is advising men to do, at least those who can? From personal experience and observation, I know that such bubbles exist. I wish they were the norm and not bubbles but it’s better to have the bubbles than to have the State of Nature prevail absolutely everywhere.
@Cecil
“Yeah… one thing I really don’t like in the general manosphere is the thought that celibacy is the worst fate that can befall man. ”
Then you’re wrong. The general consensus in the so-called Manosphere – both among PUAs and MRAs – seems to be that the worst fate that can befall man is getting disemboweled in divorce court or getting thrown to jail due to a false rape / domestic violence accusation. And they’re probably right.
“Chels says:
LOL So you encourage young adults to drop out of school just so they can get married? Or how else can they both hold down jobs to pay for their expenses? And what types of jobs can the attain without an education? Neither my parents nor my grandparents abandoned school to get married; for their generations, it was possible to be financially independent sooner.
Today, the average student is finished with schooling by 23-25; that is if they don’t go on to med/law/graduate school.
You make such a bad argument–be poor and marry early! Why would anyone listen to such advice when they can just as easily get married in their late 20s/early 30s, and be much better off?”
Who said anything about dropping out of school?
Personally, I held a part-time job that was enough to pay for my minimal expenses while I was in university. I knew a number of other people who worked full-time (or more) in the summers, and part-time through the school year and were able to support themselves.
And if your parents and grandparents were in school, then they were starting out at the same point afterwards.
The average student takes until 23-25 to do an undergraduate? If correct, that is because the ‘average’ student is a lazy partier. If you enter school at 17-18, you should be finished a four-year degree by 22-23. You could cut off even a year from that by doing spring and summer courses if you want to be out earlier.
I’m not actually making any argument for marrying early. I’m just pointing out that it is entirely possible for young people to support themselves, even during school, but very easily after school, as long as they are willing to have some lean years rather than just expecting their parents’ lifestyle to come to them magically.
If a young couple meets in school and wants to marry, there are often family residence options. If they decide to wait until they graduate, then marry and move out together, that’s still done by age 23.
I think a lot of young people just expect to move out of their parents’ house into one the same size, with the same amount of disposable income.
I think it is highly beneficial for people to move out and spend a couple years having to budget carefully and learn how to spend wisely – and all the better if they are doing that together.
I don’t think you must marry by 25 or there’s something wrong with you, but I do think that if you are young and have someone you want to marry, financial considerations don’t have to hold you back.
Escoffier
So if anyone comes along and says “men are the only group who should not act towards self-preservation” I will be the first in line to refute him.
When do you plan to begin your self-refutation? Soon? Later? Never?
LOL So you encourage young adults to drop out of school just so they can get married? Or how else can they both hold down jobs to pay for their expenses? And what types of jobs can the attain without an education? Neither my parents nor my grandparents abandoned school to get married; for their generations, it was possible to be financially independent sooner.
Exactly…especially if you want to support children, most jobs that you can get with a high school diploma in 2011 are not going to support a family the way that they did in 1965.
“Who reading this doesn’t understand that this was absolutely bound to happen? Why is anyone surprised at this?”
One likely reason is that the patriarchy has existed for too long. Older people, both men and women, simply assumed that men will always keep working like pack mules and getting married while young regardless of external circumstances because that’s all what they, their fathers, grandfathers and bygone male ancestors have ever known.
The only thing I have said men should not do is screw around. I am well aware that nothing I will say will stop them. But I am also not obligated to accept their false arguments that screwing around is good, or justified, or neutral. That’s a self-deception and a harmful one. If the only cost to screwing around is that some anonymous moralist on the Internet will say you are being immoral, then I think you will have gotten way close to scott-free.
By all means, stay away from evil women who will cheat on you, falsely accuse you, divorce you, rob you, etc. By all means. Defend yourselves from those women.
“TFH says:
Kai,
The concept young people have today of what they ‘need’ is ridiculous.
Very true. Despite the bad economy, the basic necessities of food, shelter, clothing, and entertainment are a smaller percentage of average income today, than in 1981.
An iPad may have become a ‘necessity’, but even the richest person in the world did not have an iPad in 1981.”
Really? I leave out entertainment, which I don’t think *needs* any spending money.
But I was pretty sure that housing had gone up quite a bit in comparison to income, and I thought food was there as well. Granted, I’m not sufficiently motivated to go chart-hunting at the moment.
Perhaps it’s that it’s still cheaper per square foot, but people are buying many more square feet in a house. Of course, I support living in smaller spaces, but when society goes so strongly to the mcmansion, it becomes very difficult to find a small place to purchase.
When I was in university, the number of things people I knew spent loan money on as ‘basic life necessities’ was obscene. And the number of people I know who lived with their parents paying no rent on an engineer’s salary for a few years because ‘they just *couldn’t* live with roommates’ or they were buying nice cars instead is pretty appalling. I think that if you live with your parents to save money while you’re in school, it’s reasonable, but once you’ve graduated and found a job, it’s time to grow up and get out.
“Yeah… one thing I really don’t like in the general manosphere is the thought that celibacy is the worst fate that can befall man. ”
Oh, what garbage. While I’ve never had the personal experience, I’m certain that being anally raped in prison is a lot worse than celibacy. Men put in prison due to rape convictions are low in the prisoner hierarchy, and thus likely to be targets for rape. Men convicted of rape due to a false accusation thus are on the one hand not guilty of any crime, but on the other hand very likely to actually be raped (unlike their accuser). And what do SoCons say about false rape charges, eh? Don’t get me started on that.
So there’s one example that shows you are wrong. There are others. Like Thomas James Ball. Or reaching back about 15 or so years, Allan Wells.
Suffice to say, Cecil, you are full of hot air, to put it politely.
@ Escoffer
I must quibble:
“And what they are doing is wrong—morally, ethically, politically, in every way. To paraphrase Lincoln, if manwhoring isn’t wrong, nothing is wrong. Then there is no sexual morality. Just because women are hypergamous sluts, it’s not suddenly OK for men to be polygamous cads.”
The solution here is for the socons to be as publicly intolerant of female promiscuity as they currently are of male promiscuity. Men might be more likely to “man up” if they thought socons really had their backs—but there is absolutely no indication whatsoever that socons are serious about applying equal pressure on the their daughters. Most men think socons will pressure them into marrying…AND THEN WILL DO ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO CHANGE THE BEHAVIOR OF THEIR WIVES AND THE BULLSHIT LEGAL AND CULTURAL NORMS THAT ARE CURRENTLY DESTROYING THEM. Gee, why ever would they would think something like that?!??!?!
Dalrock isn’t saying that what the PUAs are doing is morally upright. He’s saying that it’s the logical outgrowth of unrestrained hypergamy and proud sluthood. He’s isn’t saying that socons are the prime movers of the sexual revolution on par with the feminists, only that they have been derelict in their duty and as such are bereft of moral authority.
I concur wholeheartedly.
Kai, I’m speaking as someone of that generation–I finished my bachelor’s at 23, and my master’s at 25. I did work, but I worked during the summers as part of my co-op program. However, my earnings went towards paying for my tuition (even though my parents helped), and towards having pocket money. Could I have been frugal and moved out? Sure, but it wasn’t worth it, and I don’t regret the choice that I made. And that’s how the majority of people my age think–they have long term relationships, live at home and enjoy being young without “grownup” worries.
As well, in addition to financial issues (including the fact that it takes around a year to land that first job), most young people don’t have marriage on their mind–first, they have to have a stable job, buy their first car, their first apartment and then get married, lots of things must be checked off before marriage. And also, they’re not particularly interested in getting married either as they see it as the death of their freedom.
Dalrock, and other supporters of young marriage, haven’t provided any incentives for doing so. I know that he’s Christian and that should be enough, but that argument isn’t going to fly.
“The solution here is for the socons to be as publicly intolerant of female promiscuity as they currently are of male promiscuity.”
OK, sign me up. I intend to be equally intolerant of promiscuity in both my children (one male, one female). I’ll do what little I can.
I would suggest the following as a fix for these problems.
1. A complete overhaul of divorce statutes and jurisprudence.
a. “No fault” divorce is eliminated.
b. Alimony is conditioned in part on fault. If adultery, abandonment, abuse or other “fault” grounds are proven, the offending spouse forfeits alimony with prejudice forever, regardless of his/her financial situation or employment, with no later recourse based on change of circumstances.
c. Overhaul of child support laws and determine support levels on case by case basis instead of on percentage of income basis.
d. Gender-neutral divorce laws. If the breadwinner is female, she pays alimony to the househusband she divorces. No presumption of child custody to the mother. Abolition of the “tender years” doctrine.
e. Make it harder to divorce. Require formal separation periods before the court will enter an order of dissolution of marriage.
f. More equitable property distribution.
g. Prenuptial agreements are presumed valid except for agreements that limit child support obligations. A prenup’s validity is assessed based on the circumstances at the time of execution, not the circumstances existing at divorce.
2. Children and child-rearing:
a. Mandatory paternity testing at birth as part of the routine battery of blood tests on the newborn.
b. Re-institution of in loco parentis at schools, colleges and universities.
c. Elimination of laws prohibiting corporal punishment/discipline by parents upon children.
3. Churches need to get serious about protecting marriage. No recognition of civil marriage or divorce. Instruction to divorced women of whether they are biblically free to remarry. Churches need to take seriously and teach seriously the “Men love, women respect” instruction. Churches need to take seriously the biblical instruction to men to be dominant and women to submit to a husband’s leadership. Reinstitute excommunication. Deny the sacraments/rituals to persons in willful disobedience to church and/or biblical doctrine.
4. Culture: elimination of shaming men into marrying at all. Reinstitution of slut shaming. Excluding promiscuous women from polite society, denying them employment, services, accommodation at churches, etc. Excluding so-called “libertines” and “rakes” from polite society.
Another point, FTR: I support reforming the divorce and child support and DV laws exactly the ways that D has outlined. Can’t think of a single detail I would change.
I would also add to what Chels is saying as a barrier to young marriage is that even if you do meet someone you really love and want to spend your life with in college, you’re 2 people who each need to find a job and in this economy you can’t always be picky about only taking a job in the city your partner lives in. So a lot young couples either break up, or have an LDR, which may or may not last.
@ Escoffer
This is a total strawman. I really doubt Dalrock is arguing that. He’s just saying that it’s a logical response to conditions that are in place in part because the socons are part of the problem. The feminists started it, but the socons have absolutely no real solutions for men in a world created by the feminists and most of what the socons propose is actively destructive to men—even more so than sleeping around.
Great post Dalrock, not sure how old you are but I’m elated that men are waking up.
To the “ladies”, there is a reason for the old saying… “you can’t turn a slut(ho) into a housewife”.
This is not hard to understand. Very simple.
“Another point, FTR: I support reforming the divorce and child support and DV laws exactly the ways that D has outlined. Can’t think of a single detail I would change.”
It’s all well and good to say “Oh, I agree with you about X or Y”. But the problem is that 99% of your mental energy on these various blogs seems to be directed toward castigating men who seduce willing women (and thereby defile them), with the remaining 1% directed toward perfunctory statements “Oh, sure that too. Sure, sure, of course I’m against divorce rapings that end up in suicide.” So, you’ll have to forgive others if they take the prioritization of your energies to be an indicator of that which bothers you by far the most.
Escoffier
“Escoffier, you seem to be insisting that men must do their manly duties for women”
Where the hell are you guys getting this?
From someone named Escoffier who wrote this gem:
Both sides are to blame. Women more, because “they started it.” But that’s not an excuse for the men. It’s an explanation but not an excuse. We still have duties and morality is still what it is.
Got that? We still have duties, so it seems to me that you are saying this:
Men have duties, women have choices.
And that is exactly what feminism teaches. So one more time, you seem to be insisting that men must, must, must fulfill duties towards women, no matter what the women are doing.
Where do I get this stuff from? From your words, which state that men must fulfill duties to women – all women – no matter what. So if a woman is stabbing me in the back with a carving knife, my “duty” is to turn around and give her a clear shot at my heart from the front, right?
Brendan nailed it.
I was more talking about the self-justifications of the PUAs themselves. Dalrock’s position seems more like, “They may be bad [though he has not said that], but you have no right to say that they are bad until you have solved the problem that they diagnose.” Really? The others argument is more, “How dare you say the PUAs are bad when you never say or see that women are bad!” Even though I have said the latter over and over.
Lots of you guys seem to look up to the PUAs as heros. Which is sad. There are real heroes in the world who have earned your admiration. You all want to be “men.” Well, I suggest looking up to some real men.
Escoffier
The only thing I have said men should not do is screw around.
False.
You wrote this, I have marked in bold the relevant passage:
Both sides are to blame. Women more, because “they started it.” But that’s not an excuse for the men. It’s an explanation but not an excuse. We still have duties and morality is still what it is.
What does “we still have duties” mean to you?
I think I was the one who brought up marrying in college and going to college together first but my comments aren’t getting through.
You ask, “how will they cover their expenses”.
Answer: same way they would cover them as singles.
Escoffier, can you please turn your powerful attention to the Bradley Amendment and VAWA, and the white-knighting SoCons who continue to support those laws? Or are actual legal details too trivial for you to consider?
The reason I have pointed out more than once that the PUAs are bad is because not only does no one ever say it in this sphere, but because most of you misguidedly revere them. That, and because it’s true. They are bad. I really hate to see anyone waste his life in admiration or emulation of something so base. I can’t stop you. I can’t even make you listen. But it needs to be said and no one else is saying it.
Men do have duties. “Men” as in “humans.” See, I am so untouched by feminism that I use the masculine pronoun to cover both sexes.
It does not follow that when I say “men have duties” I mean “men have the duty to marry and support and be divorce-raped by flakes and sluts.” I meant what I said. All humans share the duty to behave morally. Being a PUA is to behave immorally. Hence it is contrary to duty.
I said flatly: don’t marry unworthy women, not out of duty or for any other reason. I mean it. Don’t do it. There is no duty to marry an unworthy women (unless, perhaps, you knock her up but that rule is really Gone With the Wind, so forget I brought it up).
Since you asked, I do believe that to some extent Roosh and Roissy are preying on women. And in fact that judgement flows from YOUR premise. Because, as you all believe, women are irrational, selfish, and ruled by low instinct, she is prey for the cunning man to manipulate her into sex. He has the advantage of understanding and superior reason. This does not absolve her of responsibility. But it doesn’t absolve the male either.
If I were to break it down, I would say that the true slut, nope, no preying. The cougar desperate for cock, no preying. The “star fucker” who has to have the hottest guy? No preying. These chicks know what they are doing. The noob who just blundered into the hook-up scene and doesn’t understand herself? Yeah, some preying is involved. The drunk? Certainly.
You guys want these PUAs absolved of all blame but it doesn’t fly. It doesn’t fly even–especially–if your account of womanhood is 100% true.
Seems to me that the PUAs have helped guys in only two ways, one wholly bad the other partly good.
1) By teaching game, they help betas get pussy. Since getting pussy outside of marriage is immoral, this is bad.
2) They help doe-eyed innocents wake-up to the true nature of modern marriage and women. To the extent that they help certain men avoid marriages that would otherwise have ended in tragedy (for the men), that is good. To the extent that they make cynics and misogynists out of men who might otherwise have ended up happily married, or who leave their wives for frivilous or imagined reasons after swallowing the “red pill,” that is bad.
Not a great record but not one devoid of achievement either. Others have done less, I understand that. They are better than the feminists, I understand that. Still doesn’t make them good, moral, heroes, or right about everything.
Escoffier is either a woman or a low T male.
It’s only a rational response at the base level, if you believe we are just higher animals. Everyone here has no problem getting into high dudgeon about female hypergamy, which is also a matter of “genetic predisposition.” That doesn’t stop you guys from morally condeming the women who indulge/give in to it. But you are all to ready to excuse the men who give in to their “genetic predisposition.”
There’s a fundamental flaw in your argument.
Hypergamy and male promiscuity were traditionally kept in check by social forces. Honor, shame, virtue, all those things our present culture scoffs at as quaint, out-dated notions. But that’s not where the equation ends. Those forces can’t be held back indefinitely. Any man who has ever had a proper amount of testosterone in him post-puberty knows that celibacy is choosing every day to hold back an ocean of primal need that only seems to increase in pressure each day it is denied.
The pressure to marry young was an attempt to control both male promiscuity and female hypergamy. The husband got to release the tide of his sex drive on his virginal wife who then bonded with him through the pair-bonding process, including that wonderful substance called oxytocin, which suppressed her hypergamous instinct. Ideally after a short while of this bonding process there would one or more children added to the family to consume the majority of energy and attention. At this point the need to see the offspring succeed would begin to offset the mating instincts in both husband and wife and both male promiscuity and female hypergamy would be further suppressed.
What you’re asking men to do is hold back those forces possibly until their mid thirties or even later, assuming he can find a worthy woman at all. That’s almost laughable. I say almost because a very long time ago the clergy got a lot of respect for their celibacy because even the most common man knew it was extremely difficult to endure. Now celibacy is a secret shame for many men, even some that are married…
“Chels says:
…
And that’s how the majority of people my age think–they have long term relationships, live at home and enjoy being young without “grownup” worries.
As well, in addition to financial issues (including the fact that it takes around a year to land that first job), most young people don’t have marriage on their mind–first, they have to have a stable job, buy their first car, their first apartment and then get married, lots of things must be checked off before marriage. And also, they’re not particularly interested in getting married either as they see it as the death of their freedom.
Dalrock, and other supporters of young marriage, haven’t provided any incentives for doing so. I know that he’s Christian and that should be enough, but that argument isn’t going to fly.”
You’re stating my point.
It’s not that you *can’t* afford to marry young – it’s that young people don’t want to. They want to have fun and be young, and not grow up. Then ‘growing up’ includes buying a car and stuff before getting married.
Marriage certainly does lose you some freedom, but the tradeoff is for a lot more. And if marriage is the death of all your freedom, you’re doing it wrong.
You don’t *need* a car or your own individual apartments before marrying. A stable job is a good idea, but it doesn’t have to be your dream job.
The incentives for young marriage is bonding with one person rather than flitting your way through many, not having to try to marry later on when it won’t be as easy to find someone, having a partner to support you through the finding of a job and an apartment and any other struggles, enabling children as soon as you want them, and the fact that if marriage is a good thing, there’s no reason to wait for it.
I’m not actually a supporter of ‘young marriage’. I am a supporter of marriage, but I don’t think it’s for quite everyone. But I thin that if you do want to marry, it’s a good idea to make that a priority.
And I strongly think that if you have someone you want to marry and you’re lucky enough to meet them young rather than having to search for a long time, being young and poor is no reason that you can’t marry and work through it together.
Actually, I thought of a third way that is good but it applies to only one man: Athol Kay is helping men stay married AND be happy AND make their wives happy. That is wholly good.
“LJ says:
I would also add to what Chels is saying as a barrier to young marriage is that even if you do meet someone you really love and want to spend your life with in college, you’re 2 people who each need to find a job and in this economy you can’t always be picky about only taking a job in the city your partner lives in. So a lot young couples either break up, or have an LDR, which may or may not last.”
This is really interesting, as I was discussing this very thing last night.
It’s a very American problem.
There is this big culture of going away to college and then going across the country for work, and moving around with a company and such. This doesn’t apply everywhere.
If you have that kind of mobility, you’d think the two of you could choose a place likely to have work, and both seek work there.
If you really want to marry the person, that shouldn’t stop you. You just have to balance how much you want to be together with how much you want to do your own things. And if you’re not willing to make some job sacrifices to be together, it’s probably not for the long haul.
I’m not asking anyone to do anything. I’m simply pointing out that something you all want to be right is in fact wrong.
What do you care? I’m an anonymous person on the Internet. If you understand game, are capable of getting pussy, and want pussy, go get some. I can’t stop you. I don’t approve, but so what? In fact, I believe it is objectively, morally wrong–with or without recourse to religious teaching.
I am actually stating a DEFENSE of the old order that you all profess to prefer. You guys are torn between your preference for the old order and your desire for pussy. No, that’s not quite right. Between your desire for GUILT FREE pussy. But if you believe what you say you believe, then there is no reason to feel guilty. And there is no reason to argue with me. Just say, “The Bible is false, there is no natural right, human nature is mechanistic not teleological, the virtues are shams,” etc. Done.
@Dalrock
“If 40% of women are down for being baby mammas, what does it matter if their children are sired by 10% vs 20% of men? Either way 40% of the children are still fatherless. This isn’t a moral argument, it is simply acknowledging the facts on the ground.”
Dalrock, thank you, this is the best way I have seen this sentiment expressed in clear, concise language. I will be borrowing your phrasing, and referring people back to this post, whenever possible.
Re: Kay, if he has said that had he learned game at 18 he would have been a PUA, then that is said, because he seems to me like a genuinely happy man with a great family and it would his loss, and our loss, to never have had that. Had I learned game at 18 I might have become a PUA too because the hormones were so strong and the reason not quite developed. As it stands, I would not go back in a heartbeat, not for all the pussy in the world.
His account of “game” makes more sense to me than any other, though I see in it serious differences between what he teaches and what others teach. And yes, I have yet to read of anything he has done that I disaprove of. It does not follow from that that I must approve of the PUAs.
“sad” not “said”
Haha! I have to admit, that’s a clever escape. But is real or a bluff?
In addition to TFH’s questions, answer this: What duties do you believe women have?
A continued attempt to reframe by giving only shared “human duties” is an unacceptable answer. Some examples of shared duties are fine, but please give them in terms of what women are obligated to do for men and society as a whole.
You women need to woman up and:
1. marry that beta man!
2. stop opening your legs for every alpha cad who tingles you!
3. stop indulging your romance/emo porn fantasies of Stella/EPL!
4. stay married to that hardworking beta man who works so you don’t have to!
5. take care of your children!
6. keep your weight down, your hair long and your makeup on!
7. be kind, nice, demure, pleasant to be around, and optimistic!
8. stop buying Louis Vuitton handbags and learn how to live within your means!
9. learn how to be humble and ladylike!
10. suppress your hypergamous conduct and don’t cheat on your husband!
“reeks of a desire to hold women to some lower standard of accountability.”
Not at all. Let’s hold women accountable, by all means. How? Reform the laws like all of you have said, let’s do it. Raise better daughters, I’m trying to do that. If you have any other ideas, state them.
It’s YOUR premise that women are fundamentally irrational and selfish that holds them to a lower standard. They are, in your view (at least implicitly) like Aristotle’s natural slave. There is no point in holding them to any standard because they can’t meet it. They have to be simply ruled.
“PUAs offer solutions.”
They offer two solutions: 1) Screw around, here’s how. 2) Don’t ever get married. That’s it. That’s not going to save us.
deti’s list is pretty good.
This is just idle complaining, but Roissy and the other PUAs have completely ruined the lives of those of us, who are truly too unattractive to be celibate. Game doesn’t work for us, but now not only are we below the top guys who can sex up and woman they know, but also with all the rest, for whom game does work. As game has been spreading, being a reject in my late teens, early twenties and now mid-twenties is becoming harder and harder. The stigma’s growing that much heavier.
“If you have that kind of mobility, you’d think the two of you could choose a place likely to have work, and both seek work there.
If you really want to marry the person, that shouldn’t stop you. You just have to balance how much you want to be together with how much you want to do your own things. And if you’re not willing to make some job sacrifices to be together, it’s probably not for the long haul.”
It’s hard right now for new college grads to find a job at all, let alone 2 jobs in the same city. But I agree, if 2 people want to be together, they’ll find a way to make it work. But it’s a tough road to hoe, compared to when only men had careers and women were willing to go wherever it was best for their husband’s career. I think this is why you’ll see (or at least I’ve seen) that a relationship that starts between age 25-30 is a lot more likely to end in marriage than one that started around age 20-25. Around your late 20’s if you’re lucky by then you’ve found a stable job and are relatively settled in the sense of “I like living in X town, and I think in 5 years I’ll still be here.” At that point it’s a lot easier to date with the intention of building something long-term than when you’re 22 and don’t know where you’re gonna be next year.
80% seems high but anyway, the HUGE difference is Kay loves his wife, is a good husband to her, a good father to his kids, and a good citizen. Roissy hates all women and is a destructive force on society. The very best you can say about him is that he is simply a hedonist who is not hurting anyone. Even that would be pathetic. It’s also not true.
Also, I wouldn’t advise my daughter to sacrifice her career by moving somewhere just because it was where her boyfriend found a job, unless they were engaged.
1) Because the worst instincts of female nature have been liberated by feminism and the SR while men have been fed PC lies and cowed into not rebelling aganist them. Gee, really hard question. You almost had me!
2) Ditto, at least the first half of the above, the second is n/a.
You guys remind me, in a small way, of one of my professors. You could agree with 99% of what he was saying but question that 1% and he would hammer away on that and insist you were completely corrupt, bankrupt, a sell-out, didn’t get it, etc. Impossible to agree with. Man who could not take “yes” for an answer.
Oh, and Roosh clearly also hates women, or at least holds them in total contempt, the exception being his sister.
Ehm, you’re not doing this right, Escoffier. You’re making yet more assertions that require backing up, but the debate is idling on your assertions that were made 3+ hours ago.
Why bother making public claims that you’re not willing to defend? Maybe you are more suited as a lurker than a commenter.
It’s okay to lurk, and I have my own reasons for doing so. I don’t have much of importance to contribute, so I’m mostly silent. Rather than make useless comments that reveal my inadequacies, I sit back and learn.
This post is exactly right, but for one thing, which is the use of the term “unintended consequences.”
Unintended consequences are the ones that AREN’T predictable. They often give you the reverse of what you wanted. So, raising vehicle fuel economy standards, which was intended to reduce gasoline use, instead led people to drive more because it lowered the cost of driving. The same with buying up and junking “clunkers,” to reduce air pollution: by raising the cost of used cars, you cause people to hold onto their older, more polluting car longer, and you get more air pollution on net.
Otherwise, what you wrote is exactly right: humans respond to changes in incentives, and men have responded to changes in the incentive structures that feminism has caused. Make marriage a bad bargain? Get less marriage. Same for rearing children, being “chaste,” going to college, treating women politely, etc. Feminists changed the incentives, and now don’t want to admit that they are responsible for the consequences.
As you point out, in many cases, it was perfectly moral for them to say they wanted to change what they were putting on offer in terms of relationships: that’s their choice. However…actions have consequences.
This is not an answer, but a cop-out. You take refuge in indistinct ambiguity. So, your snarkiness about providing a fake answer to TFH’s question nearly an hour late is actually pretty embarassing.
A clue to a proper answer: What are those “worst instincts?” Are you willing to behold them, or will you avert your eyes to the same degree you avoid answering direct questions?
1. Screwing around in itself has no moral componant, and could only be addressed in a moral context in a society in which morality was present.
2. An entity using morality as reason to encourage other entities to act in ways beneficial only to itself and in fact detrimental to those other entities, is by definition the epitomy of an immoral entity.
3. The extent of such immorality is increased if that entity using moral reasoning itself indulges, or has indulged, in the very acts it condemns.
I can defend any claim you like. I have been doing nothing but.
Roissy’s contempt (more accurate than hate, so let me amend) comes through in every post. I can’t recall ever reading a single non-disparaging thing about women on that blog but there are thousands of disparaging things, often couched in respectful terms like “cuntbag.”
As for his influence on society, he has diagnosed a problem that he is gleefully making worse. He is a teacher of vice and recruiter to the ranks of the vicious. If you accept my premise that there exists an independent (from men’s will) standard of right and wrong, then it follows that this can’t be good and must be bad.
@Escoffier
Demonizing Roosh and Roissy is a copout, a way to pretend to stand up for Christian sexual/marriage values while really only doing so “in your head”. If you feel such passion for marriage, why not join a church which actually supports marriage. If you can’t find one, find others who actually believe in traditional marriage and start your own. If you can’t find enough like minded Christians to create such a church, then you now know something about (current) Christian ideals when it comes to sex and morality. I hold you and men like you to a higher standard because it is simply right to. Blaming men like them while whistling through the graveyard is exactly how we got here. Christians who want to have the moral authority to judge others need to first repent from their abandonment of Christian marriage values.
Logically you may be right in reserving your practical judgment almost soley for men like Roissy and Roosh, but you won’t have any currency with me. Find 30 or so other Christian families who really value marriage and start your own congregation and I will take you seriously. I’ll not only take you seriously, I’ll give your church top billing. But keep taking the easy way out, loudly proclaiming your theoretical support of Christian marriage while looking the other way in practice, and you have no moral currency with me.
1. is basically a social contract argument and as such is wrong. Morality is not the creation of the contract, of human will. Either it exists as a thing in itself or it does not. If it does not, then it’s true, men (humans) can come together and form a contract. But they could declare “good” and “bad” anything they wanted. They would require and forbid whatever they wanted. It would all be arbitrary or based on will alone.
Well, if that’s what you think, then all that has happened is that women backed out of the old contract. Nothing immoral about that because there is no morality. You may conclude from that that men are fools for still following the contract and under your premise you would be right. But men have no basis for being mad at the women. Various thinkers from Hobbes to Rousseau have tried to imbue the act of “contract making” itself with moral significance but they all fail.
In the end, there are only two possible grounds for morality: 1) God said. 2) Nature says. That’s it. If you reject both of those, then anything goes.
It is now prudent for us to consider the possibility that Escoffier is trolling.
Regardless, his/her points — whether honestly held or not — have all been properly refuted many times over. His standing in the debate has collapsed into oblivion.
I’m not supporting Christian marriage at all. I’m also not disparaging it. As I have noted, I think there are problems inherent in Christianity which helped get us to this point. The traditional marriage teaching is not part of that however.
What I am standing up for is natural right.
Where do you get that I “reserve [my] practical judgment almost soley for men like Roissy and Roosh”? Have I not said enough critical things about modern women? On this narrow question of the PUAs, I am just pointing out, since no one else will, that the lives they lead are empty and bad, and that their teaching is bad. They encourage men to vice. That’s bad.
That is something no one else here is willing to say. Everyone else is willing to criticize women endlessly so one more voice in that chorus is hardly needed.
Escoffier says:
November 15, 2011 at 3:47 pm
Another point, FTR: I support reforming the divorce and child support and DV laws exactly the ways that D has outlined. Can’t think of a single detail I would change.
You are half way there Escoffier. Now Lets find a solution. The solution is not moral, normal, right, or christian but the solution is what a responsible man,husband and father does for his childrens future. Playing house and having the high ground and looking moral is the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Understand game and looking at the legal realities and what needs to be done and you will see the savoirs of the western world are PUA and peter pan’s believe it or not.
All of what is going on from the laws to all of the things discribed by Dalrock is being driven by female hypergamy. False rape, sluts,divorce laws,abortion, DV laws all of it is driven by hypergamy.
Eincrou’s One-Sentence Refutation of “Unbacked Escoffier Claim #41”
Nature does not speak nor offer advice.
@LJ
You are assuming men and women act similarly in the uncommitted SMP. They do not. When women don’t feel pressure to find actual commitment (or at least strong pressure to get and keep a boyfriend vs mcflings) they will ignore the bottom 60% to 80% or so of men. This is as true for the overweight homely women as the pretty ones. Sometimes surprisingly they can be even pickier than their more attractive peers. For men there are roughly three zones they can be in. They can be alpha and getting a lot of female sexual attention. They can be greater beta and doing ok, or they can be below greater beta and go for long spells between any female interest.
Those men who aren’t at least greater beta would benefit from learning game to move up, certainly. But the ones going without a girlfriend aren’t necessarily refusing women in or even near their own league. Women don’t understand this because they tend to fixate on the alphas and greater betas. They see a lot of guys doing just fine, but they don’t see the other mass of men.
“LJ says:
It’s hard right now for new college grads to find a job at all, let alone 2 jobs in the same city. But I agree, if 2 people want to be together, they’ll find a way to make it work. But it’s a tough road to hoe, compared to when only men had careers and women were willing to go wherever it was best for their husband’s career. I think this is why you’ll see (or at least I’ve seen) that a relationship that starts between age 25-30 is a lot more likely to end in marriage than one that started around age 20-25. Around your late 20′s if you’re lucky by then you’ve found a stable job and are relatively settled in the sense of “I like living in X town, and I think in 5 years I’ll still be here.” At that point it’s a lot easier to date with the intention of building something long-term than when you’re 22 and don’t know where you’re gonna be next year.”
See, in Canada, we don’t have the same culture of mobility. People usually go the their local university unless there is a specific program they want somewhere else, or they particularly dream of living in another place. (Universities are more strictly regulated here, so all are of a pretty decent quality, and with our few cities, pretty much every actual ‘city’ has one.)
It’s also not very common to seek work all over the country unless there’s really nothing. The vast majority of people I know went to high school, university, and got a job all in the same city. The ones who were unable to find something tended to look nearby.
I’m not saying that girls should blindly follow their boyfriends.
But if you are genuinely seeking to get married, you can pre-select at the beginning for people you might marry, not just have fun with for a couple years. If you’ve been dating a bit, it might not be worth throwing everything else away to follow each other. But if you plan to marry, it’s worth sacrificing to make it work. It depends on what you want out of your life together too – are both people planning to have big careers? Or does one actually have earning potential and the other a sociology degree? One career might logically be prioritized.
You might be 22 and not sure where you’ll be next year. But it’s entirely possible to know who you’ll be there with.
Again, my point is not any particular ‘should’ regarding marriage other than that you should not let silly excuses come in the way.
This idea people have that marriage is what you do *after* you’re done having fun is ridiculous.
What I am standing up for is natural right
What that natural right is, is hypergamy. It is comepletely natural and normal for woman to be shameless and selfish sluts. There is nothing more natural for a woman. What you are doing is playing house. What the christianity has done is play house. They have become pleasing to man and not to God. The paved road to hell thing again.
Interesting… I wonder if it’s because population in Canada is more highly concentrated in a few cities with good job markets. Whereas in the US, you have lots of young people growing up in the Rust Belt or elsewhere with few job opportunities.
I’m not sure.
The stats I checked (2001 for Stats Canada, 2000 for US Census) said that Canada is 80% Urban to 20% Rural, while the US is 79% to 21%.
Minimal difference.
We do have some places with no jobs – the maritimes for example. A lot of Newfoundlanders move to Alberta for work, but that is because there is nothing at home.
A friend summed it up as “Americans live where they work; Canadians work where they live”, and I think he hit it. If a young Canadian couple from different cities graduated, they’d probably choose a city they wanted to live in that would likely have job opportunities, move there, and then search for work.
I think it’s just one of those culture things.
Escoffier
1) Because the worst instincts of female nature have been liberated by feminism
Discuss these “worst instincts of female nature” in detail. Provide examples. Explain where these worst instincts come from – what possible means of evolution, or creation as you prefer, could have caused them to exist so widely in the female population?
Then tell us all again, in detail, why Game is a fraud. Take your time.
PS: Still waiting for you to discuss the SoCon support of legislation that has been proven to harm men and benefit women, ie. Bradley and VAWA.
Kai
I disagree: I live in Toronto and I have exactly 2 married friends, and they’re all older than I am (I’m 26, they’re 28).
Most of my colleagues from university are either in LTRs or busy building their careers; they’re only now starting to get interested in marriage. Getting married around 19-24 was completely out of the question because they didn’t have any money, they were busy studying and it was impossible to handle both school and a job at the same time.
As well, the age at first marriage for women is higher in Canada than in the US (~28 vs 26). And I still haven’t heard any arguments for getting married young–what’s the point of roughing it when one can get the same thing and live under much easier conditions? There are absolutely no incentives to do so, except for religion.
Escoffier
Seems to me that the PUAs have helped guys in only two ways, one wholly bad the other partly good.
1) By teaching game, they help betas get pussy. Since getting pussy outside of marriage is immoral, this is bad.
I see, so you do not understand that Game is applied psychology, shorn of all the romantic hogwash about women, and therefore is of great use to married men? I personally know of men who have put Game to work in their marriage. They are now happier, their wives no longer are nagging, shrieking harpies and are also happier, the children are happier because there is much less anger and tension in the home. And you call this “wholly bad”?
You appear to be a typical SoCon White Knight troll, here to prove how “evil” men are. Then you can scurry back to your wife and tell her what a good doggy you are for showing up the Bad Men, and how you deserve a treat.
Pathetic.
Escoffier: “In the end, there are only two possible grounds for morality: 1) God said. 2) Nature says. That’s it.”
Eincrou’s One-Sentence Refutation of “Unbacked Escoffier Claim #41″
Nature does not speak nor offer advice.
———
I think nature does speak and offer advice. For example wanton unbridled sexuality invaribly leads to disease and multiple unwanted pregnancies, both of which lead to immense human suffering.
Anyone heeding nature’s advice would be careful.
Escoffier:
“By teaching game, they help betas get pussy. Since getting pussy outside of marriage is immoral, this is bad”
Says who? Who decided that sex outside of marriage is immoral? We are not all Christians here. Not all of us take it as a given that extra marital sex is immoral. It really bothers me that, in the manopshere, there is often some sort of unspoken assumption that everyone has conservative/Christian values. I don’t. And there are plenty of men out there like me.
The real issue is that marriage is now a shit deal for men, whether they marry at age twenty, thirty, forty or whatever. The feminists and their mangina/white knight allies (both conservative and liberal, Christian and non Christian) have made this so. Unless until the law changes, and women more or less agree to follow Deti’s ten points, marriage will continue to suck for men.
So, what should men do? Stay celibate? Why? Because revealed religion says they should? Again, that may be a good enough answer for those who believe in revealed religion, but what about folks who don’t? The desire for sex is a normal, natural thing. In young men it is close to overwhelming. It is unhealthy to try to deny this desire entirely.
Now, if there were a reasonable alternative to having sex outside of marriage, and marriage could be shown to be the bulwork of society, and a reasonably good deal for men, and readily available, THEN, perhaps, a moral argument that stands or falls on its own merits (as opposed to being based on “what God said”) could be made that sex outside of marriage is immoral. If sex were availbable in marriage, and marriage was essential for society, and marriage was readily available on reasonable terms, then a moral argument could be made that a man who eschews marriage, who eschews the societally approved and better for society outlet for his sexuality, is acting in an immoral way.
And, basically, that was the deal under Marriage 1.0. It’s not that men were so holy back in the day. That’s not why most men got marred and why most husbands stayed faithful. Rather it was because being married was a pretty good deal. You got your sex taken care of. Your wife got access to your resources. You got access to the product of her reproduction, ie kids. You got your share, and your buddy got his, and so on and so forth, throughout most of society (with only the very bottom and top excepted). Only “omega” guys could not get married at all, and only “alpha” guys could more or less openly have multiple women. A reasonable deal was on offer to the vast majority of guys (“betas”) that was better, in the long run, for everyone and reasonably good for the individual guy. If you didn’t take it, and tried to get your sex on in some other way, then a case could be made that you were “cheating” the system and acting immorally, even if only consenting adults were involved, etc, etc.
“If you understand game, are capable of getting pussy, and want pussy, go get some. I can’t stop you. I don’t approve, but so what? In fact, I believe it is objectively, morally wrong–with or without recourse to religious teaching.”
Why is it “objectively, morally wrong–with or without recourse to religious teachin”? Do you think sex in the ancestral, pre the existence of marriage as an institution, evolutionary environment was “objectively” wrong? Do you think cultures that do not have such strict views of lifetime monogamy than is typical in the Judeo Christian world are “objectively” immoral? And, if so, why?
“I am actually stating a DEFENSE of the old order that you all profess to prefer. You guys are torn between your preference for the old order and your desire for pussy.”
The old order was based on Marriage 1.0 as outlined above. You are defending one half of the old order, the part that applied to men. In doing so, you are just like the trad con/white knighting, chivalry defending trad cons. Women, in their own actions and through the laws and social mores they have promulgated, have blown up the deal, and have completely abbrogated their responsibilities under it. Yet, somehow, men still have a “duty” to act as if the deal were still in place and to fulfill their resonsibilities under it. Why would this be the case?
“No, that’s not quite right. Between your desire for GUILT FREE pussy. But if you believe what you say you believe, then there is no reason to feel guilty.”
I agree, there should be no guilt. If the rule is that sex is there for the taking, and there is no other deal on offer, then there should be no guilt in taking it. One can take that view even though one would prefer, in a better world, that the old deal should be restored.
“Just say, ‘The Bible is false, there is no natural right, human nature is mechanistic not teleological, the virtues are shams,’ etc. Done.”
Well, frankly, I have no belief in the Bible or “the virtues.” As for human nature, I think it can be channeled in a way that makes things better for most people over the long run. But it can’t be denied altogether. And, again, I’m not sure why just assume that all or most of us believe in a teleogical universe. Is that some requirement to be an MRA/MGTOW? Or to believe that Marriage 1.0 was a better deal for men, and for society in general, than Marriage 2.0.
Forget it, AR. I asked him to do that 82 minutes ago, and he has declined to do so.
In fact, in the time since I asked, he has actually said, “I can defend any claim you like. I have been doing nothing but.”
I believe you are correct to call him a troll.
Escoffier
Actually, I thought of a third way that is good but it applies to only one man: Athol Kay is helping men stay married AND be happy AND make their wives happy. That is wholly good.
Congratulations, you are the Self-Contradicting Trad Con White Knight of the day. Having gone out of your way to declare “Game” a bad thing, and any man who uses it a bad man, you now turn on a time and decide that when Game is used to make women happy it is a good thing.
So to you, the sole function of men is to make women happy. Right?
PS: Athol Kay is not the only blogger on LTR/married Game. Keoni Galt, gamingmywife and others are also writing on the topic. Maybe you should try thinking before posting some time?
@Escoffier
Then you have no moral argument, no moral basis at all to judge these men. These men don’t owe it to the women they have sex with to refuse them. They certainly don’t owe marrying and following the traditional path to a society which has stacked up 40 years of ultimatums. These men aren’t promising marriage to the women they bed. They aren’t using biased courts to steal their wealth. The worst crime they are guilty of in your natural right world is failing to be the sucker the women pegged them for.
Why you are so invested in having it work out better for the promiscuous women than the promiscuous men I’ll leave for you to figure out yourself.
Dalrock–
There is a fourth alternative to you list of three for beta guys to pursue in their twenties while many of their same sex right female age peers are riding the carousel.
That’s to learn enough game to raise their SMV and make it to higher and kinda edgie greater beta or lower lesser alpha (or sexier than that is fine too of course, if feasible), and then have several serial committed relationships in their twenties with progressively younger than them girls who in fact want a serious relationship if not yet marriage and babies.
Then at 30-35 marry a girl 5-10 years younger who wants that, having gotten better at game of the relationship variety.
Of course this course can be mixed with periods of gaming some carousel riders for flings if he gets good enough. Even soft harem multiple simultaneous flings.
@Mark Richardson
The problem is there is no other organized form of rightism. Your form of rightism is all but unique. There is no group on the right which is fighting for traditional marriage. In the US everyone assumes this is Focus on the Family, but as I’ve shown this is farce. This isn’t to say that it is impossible to exist. I think there is much room on the right to make the case for traditional marriage, just as you are doing.
Escoffier
Men do have duties. “Men” as in “humans.” See, I am so untouched by feminism that I use the masculine pronoun to cover both sexes.
Oh, come on, this kind of sophistry is just pathetic. You have not used “men” in the generic term previously and have gone out of your way to agree with the Hymowitz/Bennett “Man UP” critique of young men, it is just preposterous to trot this out now.
A more likely explanation: as a SoCon or TradCon or some sort of traditional thinker, you unconsciously think of a very small subset of “women” as representing all women (Fallacy of Composition) and so you naturally regard yourself as having duties to those women, because they are good women in your eyes, and you just don’t really “see” all the bad women who take advantage of men, deliberately cause harm to them, and so forth. So when you are taken to task for this, you immediately tend to react in a baffled fashion. Why, of course “we” have duties.
But the reality is this: the 28 year old lawyer /legal assistant running her credit card up buying Prada as part of the lifestyle she’s become accustomed to, on the way to a date with her latest “boyfriend” (number 45 in the long line of men she’s sexed) who decided the other day she’d like to settle down and have a child – she has no duties at all, she only has preferences and choices. And you are ready to sacrifice for her, provided it’s some other man of course.
No. Your attempt at a defense is pathetic. You have not answered the challenge at all.
If you wish to claim that women have duties, then list them off, now. Be specific, not general, and don’t hold back. Here’s your first clue: women are not morally superior to men.
For men new to game, or somewhat or a lot hostile to it but also curious to learn more about how it really works and whether or not it does, the best place to start is to read Heartiste/Roissy’s relationship game week posts, starting with the one that collects some of Dave from Hawaii’s best epic comments on game to turn around a failing marriage. Read the agree and amply post in the same week too. Also epic. It’s the go to method of dealing with female shit testing her man, and will also teach you what a shit test is and why women instinctually do them. There are other ways of successfully dealing with shit tests but A and A is the simplest to grasp and remember, and requires the least finesse to pull off well. Ok, here ya go for D from H.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2009/08/14/relationship-game-week-a-readers-journey/
[D: Thanks Doug1. I haven’t caught up on the game for pastors post comments today but if you haven’t given your own suggestion on that one I would be very interested in your take on it. No need to read all of the comments unless you want to.]
@ LJ
“Who are these men who are dying to get married in their early 20′s? Almost every man I’ve ever met has WANTED to wait to get married until at least age 25, and many aren’t interested until their 30′s.
And in the meantime, men certainly have options other than be a) celibate, or b) a manwhore … they can, you know, get a GIRLFRIEND.
You and I must live in different worlds.”
No, you simply have carousel tunnel-vision(cannot see the forest for the trees).
“In the end, there are only two possible grounds for morality: 1) God said. 2) Nature says. That’s it. If you reject both of those, then anything goes.”
Really, with all this talk about natural rights, and God, and teological and mechanistic views of the universe you are getting way far afield. This isn’t a bull session in a dorm after a class of Intro to Philosophy. Dalrock is dealing with the real world, with notions of incentives and unintended consequences and social change over time. Issues of the ultimate nature of reality and the various theoretical basis of morality (of which your little couplet above doesn’t even scratch the surface) and so on are really besides the point.
Most of us want some sort of reversion to Marriage 1.0. I agree with you to the extent that you are sceptical that Game is going to do much in getting us there. But there is no need to go and on about “objective” morality and so on and so forth.
Why can’t young men and women who want to get married and have kids find each other, marry, go to the same college together as a married couple, and support themselves the same way they would if they were single. Many colleges have co-ed dorms so they could room together, or get a cheap apartment and room with other students. Since most parents help out there kids in college, the money each parental set sends can be pooled. If they go to a college in a town where at least one set of their parents live then why can’t they live with them, like in the basement or something?
Seems it might actually be CHEAPER to get married and go to college together as couple rather than as a single person spending all kinds of money on frivalous shit meant to attract the opposite sex on the campus sexual market scene.
@ LJ
“A woman with impossibly high standards is not going to find a boyfriend (or at least one that doesn’t cheat on her). But the flip side is, men with impossibly high standards aren’t going to find girlfriends either.”
The realities of sexual dimorphism invalidates any notion of symmetry you are supposing – females are the limiting sex in all dimensions of mate choice.
This is reality.
And thus, the onus of mate choice lies squarely upon *females*.
Escoffier—
Dalrock isn’t endorsing Roissy/Roosh pumping and dumping. I’ve read enough of him to be quite confidant in making certain statements about where he’s coming from. (Actually that isn’t even Roissy’s preferred modus operandi. He’s more about flings in search of a girl to love for a year or two, probably together with concurrent flings, which tends to make it six months to a year at most before she get’s fed up.)
Instead what Dalrock is endorsing is relationship game, and learning enough “pick up” game to start the relationship with an all around very attractive quite chaste girl to begin with.
The realities of sexual dimorphism invalidates any notion of symmetry you are supposing – females are the limiting sex in all dimensions of mate choice.
This is reality.
And thus, the onus of mate choice lies squarely upon *females*.
What does that even mean? Are you saying men don’t choose or discriminate? If so, that’s just not true. Just like the hottest guys get the majority of attention from women, the hottest girls get the most attention from guys. I don’t have it handy right now, but the okcupid dating site did a study that found that the top quintile of female profiles received something like 5x the # of incoming messages as the middle quintile female profile.
@ LJ
“Exactly…especially if you want to support children, most jobs that you can get with a high school diploma in 2011 are not going to support a family the way that they did in 1965.”
And you would be a fool to expect otherwise, so what’s your point?
But, interesting how such concerns fail to hinder the precedent choices of single-mothers(a demographic on the ascendancy, courtesy of evolutionary success, for all it’s ruinous implications to western civilization).
Perhaps females who appeal to economic reservations are just appealing to it as a pretext, for not have yet happened across any receptive male who is sufficiently tingle-worthy.
Here it is: blog.okcupid.com/index.php/your-looks-and-online-dating/
@ LJ
“What does that even mean?”
It means that males are nowhere near as selective as females.
“I don’t have it handy right now, but the okcupid dating site did a study that found that the top quintile of female profiles received something like 5x the # of incoming messages as the middle quintile female profile.”
Which disproves your point – if it had been to the exclusion of the middle, then your claim might be cogent.
But, this only underscores the subtle, but material, differences between preference, and selectivity.
Paragon has a peculiar way of writing that is not tuned for easy comprehension by people educated in our horrendous public education systems (…such as myself), so I’ll help out here.
He’s saying that in the mating market, females select and males display. You refer to male selection, but this is illusory. Males can choose who to make their displays of value for, but the female has the final decision whether association will take place or not.
There are many effects and logical consequences that flow forth from this basic fact, many of which are extremely complicated and challenging to understand.
If you want to know more, I recommend reading this legendary article by F. Roger Devlin.
But, interesting how such concerns fail to hinder the precedent choices of single-mothers(a demographic on the ascendancy, courtesy of evolutionary success, for all it’s ruinous implications to western civilization).
Perhaps females who appeal to economic reservations are just appealing to it as a pretext, for not have yet happened across any receptive male who is sufficiently tingle-worthy.
Paragon, most of the single mothers are from a low economic class and they’re uneducated. Personally, I used the financial argument because the idea of early marriage doesn’t seem very well thought out by those who encourage it.
Thanks for translating 🙂
But I don’t think it matters. Men pursue, women choose. Okay, but men CHOOSE who to pursue. And if a man is batting .000, as some of you are claiming all these men are who just want to marry a nice girl, then maybe they need to widen their search field.
What truly bothers me is the damage our people are doing to themselves and each other. The more sexual partners someone has had, the less likely they will be able to ever settle down with just one person. This is especially true for women, but true for men as well. The rate of decline is faster for a woman than for a man, but what evidence there is shows both have less chance of a successful marriage as their notch count climbs. Given that a man and a woman in a stable relationship have the best chance of producing children with their heads on straight, I fear for the next generation. Children of single mothers and divorces already fill our prisons, and the trend is getting worse.
Scene: Burning House
Response-
MRA/PUA: Let it burn to the ground and lets rebuild
Fems/Socons: Its still good, its still good…….
@Chels
You are mixing up my arguments. I think it is to your benefit to marry young. If you disagree, I have no problem with that. What I am saying here is women have dramatically changed the terms of marriage over the last four decades. People are freaking out that after 40 years of cumulative one sided renegotiation men are starting to say no thank you to marriage (or at least the prep work which would make them attractive for marriage once their female peers are ready). You have the right to delay marriage. Men have the right to decide if they want to marry you when you are older. Men your age also have the right to decide if they want to knock themselves out until their late 20s or even 30s to be able to marry you (or your peers) under the current legal climate. Does that help?
You know Dalrock the one or maybe the solution is for the carousel riders to receive nothing and that includes my own daughters should they allow feminism to guide their life. involutary childless spinsterhood, Heaven is only heaven because there is a hell. With out the MGTOW,”peter pans” and the pick up artist we have feral women divorcing as a reward for hypergamy. With out law,religion,or social custom to check hypergamy the default is the MGTOW,peter pans and PUA. They have replaced the church as the check they are the morality. It will be a long process for TFH repeatedly reminds all the females have no cause effect reasoning and he is right. A carousel rider will climb aboard at 16-20 years of age and ride until 28-35 and then have some shamed bets marry her so she can divorce him at 35-45 with his kids and wealth with the thought of the freedom of the carousel. A much better reality will be for a woman ride the carousel and not find a man to marry or father her a meal ticket,hostage. We now have a single 45 year old used up childless slut will no personality and no chance of getting the man she wants. Working to provide for herself completely because with out hostages she is not entitled to a mans labour. She has no family over for the holidays and dies alone. Also women have a hard time with retirement. (the articles are already starting to appear about divorced baby boomer women) So it looks like it will be a 25-30 year process to jack some young chicks ass and even then the dumb ass will think it is mens fault. The tipping point will be when the magina and whiteknights as we had here today tell her it is her fault and what she could have done to change the outcome.
As you siad Dalrock women are driving this bus. As an MRA I’m working to get men in the drivers seat. My goal is to move from delusional hypergamy childless and with hostage spinsterhood to man driven involutary spinsterhood.
@ Dalrock
I think it is to your benefit to marry young.
Yes, I can see how it would be, and that’s not what I’m disagreeing with as I also believe in marriage. However, I just don’t see how it is financially possible to do so, especially in the current economic climate.
What I am saying here is women have dramatically changed the terms of marriage over the last four decades. People are freaking out that after 40 years of cumulative one sided renegotiation men are starting to say no thank you to marriage (or at least the prep work which would make them attractive for marriage once their female peers are ready).
Modern marriage definitely sucks for men, and I don’t blame those who don’t want to take that risk. I also think that feminism has made it harder for women to marry, and a woman that wants to marry now has to actually prove that she’s worthy of it. Personally, I would have loved to be 26 ten or twenty years ago; I look at the men between 30-40 and they’re different than those my own age; they’re simply better (not that I’m losing sleep over it as I feel lucky to have found a great guy). However, I hear the same complaints from my single friends, and the dating market is horrible.
Men have the right to decide if they want to marry you when you are older. Men your age also have the right to decide if they want to knock themselves out until their late 20s or even 30s to be able to marry you (or your peers) under the current legal climate.
I don’t understand why older men feel entitled to younger women, most young women would prefer men their own age. As well, it’s not like women are the only ones delaying marriage for education/careers, men are doing the same thing. I will never understand what’s so hard to understand that most men under 30 do.not.want. to get married.
I’m a bit late to the party but here is my Woman Up blog post:
http://theprivateman.wordpress.com/2011/10/13/woman-up/
There are two other posts to go with it and the links are in the first.
LJ
Men pursue, women choose. Okay, but men CHOOSE who to pursue. And if a man is batting .000, as some of you are claiming all these men are who just want to marry a nice girl, then maybe they need to widen their search field.
You are ignoring the fact that many of the “nice girls” may not be riding the carousel, but they surely are watching it. Hypergamy leads women to be “narrower” in their attractions than men are, and when all the other girls are drooling over the Alphas, and the kool grrls are bedding the Alphas, then any man who is not an Alpha is simply not visible.
A man can display to any number of women, but if the can’t see him then they won’t react.
Ask the men on this site who have the T-shirt how this works.
In previous years when assortive mating was more the standard model, there would be far fewer carousel riders and fewer watchers as well and therefore more women would be able to “see” the beta men.
LJ is a classic example of a carousel watcher. She simply does not acknowledge the existence of the 80% of males at her SMP level. All the men commenting on this site included. She will simply ignore you, just as she does in real life.
JohnnyComeLately
Scene: Burning House
Response-
MRA/PUA: Let it burn to the ground and lets rebuild
PUA’s are lighting cigars off of the burning embers with a smirk.
Fems/Socons: Its still good, its still good…….
SoCons to men: “Man Up! Man UP! Run into this building, if we pile enough bodies on the
fire we can put it out!”
Feminists to SoCons: “Here, throw this water on the fire”, as they hand a bucket of gasoline over…
And we all know the SoCons will throw that on the fire, and then blame men for the blaze getting bigger, too.
@Chels
“Modern marriage definitely sucks for men, and I don’t blame those who don’t want to take that risk.”
Again, as Dalrock and others have said. It isn’t that they necessarily are on a marriage strike. It’s just that the incentives put in front of them to make themselves into “marriageable material” (i.e., the overall marriage expected value) are no longer strong enough to motivate them through the daily grind of getting there. This is exacerbated by the fact that the process of “getting there” has become more and more difficult as a result of (i) cost of living and (ii) perhaps more importantly, forced advances in women’s income which, by definition, make fewer men appear “marriageable” in the thinking of most women.
“I don’t understand why older men feel entitled to younger women, most young women would prefer men their own age.”
You need to reconcile that statement with your observation one paragraph earlier that men 10-15 years older than you just seem “better”. Consider that they might not have looked “better” when they were your age. It may be that most women prefer a hypothetical guy “their own age”, who just happens to have all his shit together (career, confidence, etc.) to the same degree as guys 10 or 15 years older than him. Good luck finding a lot of those.
Yes, I can see how it would be, and that’s not what I’m disagreeing with as I also believe in marriage. However, I just don’t see how it is financially possible to do so, especially in the current economic climate.
This is madness Chels you are still alive and need to take of yourself today tomorrow and for 1,2,3,4,10 years until your ready. This is what commitment is all about. Not having everything you want just like it was when you left moms house. If you were the youngest child that house was in the making for maybe 20 years or so. Two broke 20 year olds marry with commitment and honor as the glue rather than gina tingles will be one powwerful couple having built a family fom such humble beginnings. If you you think gina tinkle is love wait until that too young married couple has the grand kids over for the holidays.
Your greatest security is not finacial but YOUR character and honor. Be worthy of a commitment and let yourself feel blessed when one is given to you.
Arch
Excellent summary of how things used to work. That is what my wife and I did. I am not a huge natural alpha, but getting to my wife when she was still largely untouched and, bluntly, in retrospect, treating her roughly in a sexual sense seemed to get her to bond. Children came along and attendant concerns, and I went into a beta-ish chump slump. But Game has helped me, a more conscious awareness building on some natural game. Recent years have been better. At my age, 56, I don’t want a huge amount of sex, but I get it when I want it. And I have a devoted wife, who is only as crazy as the average woman.
I learnt conscious game off the Internet.
In the old days, being a virgin bride in a traditional patriarchal marriage may have had its downside for the woman, but it probably engendered In her fear, respect and commitment. Or, in the vernacular, continuing gina tingles.
Escoffier, be assured that Game does work in marriage, and can be used for good.
“I don’t understand why older men feel entitled to younger women”
Er, they don’t. Perhaps some, maybe even many of them, would PREFER to marry women significantly younger than themselves. But they don’t feel “entitled” to.
It was true, though, that under the old paradigm, and even to some extent today, the groom is usually somewhat older than the bride. Back in the day, the notion was that the guy had to make something of himself first, had to have a real job, a little money saved up, etc, before he could take on the expense of a wife, and then soon after, kids. Whereas all the woman had to bring to the table was her fertility.
“most young women would prefer men their own age”
True, although many do not mind if a guy is somewhat older, perhaps even up to ten or fifteen years. And some young women really do have “a thing” for older men.
“As well, it’s not like women are the only ones delaying marriage for education/careers, men are doing the same thing. I will never understand what’s so hard to understand that most men under 30 do.not.want. to get married.”
Who said that was hard to understand? Most guys in their twenties don’t want to marry. But, again, biology doesn’t care about that “equality,” or whether it leads to “unfairness” or not. A guy can marry in his thirties or even forties, and maybe even his fifties, and have kids. A woman’s fertility is at its peak in her late teens and early twenties, starts to decline at age twenty five. At thirty five it really starts to go down. At forty it flatlines.
So, if the concern is having healthy kids and having them in a married, two parent family, and having them without the expense and trauma of feritility treatments and so on and so forth, it would behoove women to marry in their twenties and certainly no later than their very early thirties. But there is no reason why a guy can’t wait somewhat longer.
“A carousel rider will climb aboard at 16-20 years of age and ride until 28-35 and then have some shamed bets marry her so she can divorce him at 35-45 with his kids and wealth with the thought of the freedom of the carousel. A much better reality will be for a woman ride the carousel and not find a man to marry or father her a meal ticket,hostage. We now have a single 45 year old used up childless slut will no personality and no chance of getting the man she wants. Working to provide for herself completely because with out hostages she is not entitled to a mans labour. She has no family over for the holidays and dies alone. Also women have a hard time with retirement. (the articles are already starting to appear about divorced baby boomer women) So it looks like it will be a 25-30 year process to jack some young chicks ass and even then the dumb ass will think it is mens fault. The tipping point will be when the magina and whiteknights as we had here today tell her it is her fault and what she could have done to change the outcome.
“As you siad Dalrock women are driving this bus. As an MRA I’m working to get men in the drivers seat. My goal is to move from delusional hypergamy childless and with hostage spinsterhood to man driven involutary spinsterhood”
Exactly. Don’t marry, don’t cohabit. That’s how to start to win the war. The personal is political. None of my resources are going to women. We men in general should deny them our resources. Let them sink or swim on their own. Get through your twenties and thirties, when your sex drive is strong, any way you can…Game, prostitution, porn, short term girlfriends, whatever. But don’t marry. Don’t cohabit. Use Game, but don’t overrate it. Don’t think it’s “OK” to marry because you can then “Game your wife.” Even a Gamed wife is still a wife in a Marriage 2.0 marriage. She can turn on you at any time, and steal your resources and your kids. Plus, you have to spend your life essentially “courting” her, by having cute and quick responses to her shit tests and dealing with the rest of the bullshit that is only worth in the singles bar because sex with a new and hot woman is potentially on offer. Who wants to go through all that just so some aging woman, who is, in fact, lucky to have you as a husband, won’t dump you and go EPL? Better to not marry at all.
After a few decades of women dying alone, with no kids and no husband. Or having to live as low status, low income, poor single mothers, perhaps they will get the message. If not, you still have your own personal freedom. This way, both your interests and the interests of society are served by your actions. If you marry, you undercut that. You undercut the “strike” or boycott, and you send the message that Marriage 2.0 is just fine. It isn’t. So don’t buy into it.
A woman’s dowry… is her youth. 🙂
Guys, you are accusing the others of Marxism, but what the manosphere want is sexual Marxism : Marxism means that people of lower class will destroy people of upper class and share their wealth after. What the manosphere want is that the beta males destroy the alpha males and share all the women after. It’s sexual Marxism.
@ LJ
“But I don’t think it matters. Men pursue, women choose. Okay, but men CHOOSE who to pursue. And if a man is batting .000, as some of you are claiming all these men are who just want to marry a nice girl, then maybe they need to widen their search field.”
But this line of reasoning poses an inescapable problem – do you see it?
No, of course you don’t, so let me elaborate.
If we take the (justified) assumption that guys are more inclusive in their mating choices, and consider a higher male optimal mating rate, we also come to an inescapable conclusion: that not only should the most attractive males mate with the most attractive females(duh), but also a significant proportion of average females as well(given the higher male mating rate).
Which, of course, renders less available ‘average’ females to be mated with average guys – necessitating an imbalance that progresses down the attractiveness scale(rendering a sexually asymmetric mating dynamic).
What this translates into, is a palpable female scarcity, for all males except at the top of the scale.
You cannot simply imply that a huge population of males should be pursuing a small population of female fugs, and expect to be taken as anything more than a rank female apologist, attempting to shift the blame onto males through the posing of specious solutions.
“Guys, you are accusing the others of Marxism, but what the manosphere want is sexual Marxism : Marxism means that people of lower class will destroy people of upper class and share their wealth after. What the manosphere want is that the beta males destroy the alpha males and share all the women after. It’s sexual Marxism.”
The “deal” of mongamous marriage does have a distributive justice/equality dimension to it. Every man gets one wife, no man gets more than one wife, no man gets no wife. Of course, not everything that smacks of equality or distributive justice is “Marxist.” One person, one vote is not necessarily Marxist. Nor is the notion that every citizen should be equally liable to the draft. And, whether this statment, “Marxism means that people of lower class will destroy people of upper class,” is true or not, it is NOT true that a regime of monogamous marriage means that the alpha males will be “destroyed.” They will simply be limited to one wife.
The deal of monogamous marriage has other benefits too. For example, it means that all children will have a father who has only one set of children as his responsiblity. Thus, more children will have a father meaningfully in their lives than if the alpah males were permitted to have harems and mutliple “sets” of children.
@ Chels
“I will never understand what’s so hard to understand that most men under 30 do.not.want. to get married.”
Forrest-for-the-trees – women have a unique faculty for denying the existence of undesirable males.
Johnycomelately says:
November 15, 2011 at 6:47 pm
“Scene: Burning House
Response-
MRA/PUA: Let it burn to the ground and lets rebuild
Fems/Socons: Its still good, its still good…….”
Add in that the Fems/ Socons won’t do a damned thing to put out the fire and the analogy is complete.
Ruddyturnstone
One good thing about having a gamed wife, is that she will cook and do your laundry. I was brought up when that was woman’s work. And it it still is.
“One good thing about having a gamed wife, is that she will cook and do your laundry. I was brought up when that was woman’s work. And it it still is.”
Bah! With modern conveniences, cooking and doing the laundry are a snap. Only women make a big deal of “having” to do them. But, if a man really wants a woman to do these things for him, it is much, much cheaper, and safer, to hire a maid to come in and clean up his house, including doing the laundry, and to eat out.
Anyway, even when and where you were brought up, there were plenty of single men who took care of their own cooking and laundry.
And, really, I have no patience for the kind of “I’m a patriarch because my wife agrees to it” type statement you are making here. A real patriarch is one because his country’s laws and his society’s and culture’s mores say he is one. Not because one woman has provisionally agreed to let him act like one. What is provisionally given can be just as easily taken away.
@johnycomelately; legion
“Scene: Burning House
Response- MRA/PUA: Let it burn to the ground and lets rebuild
Fems/Socons: Its still good, its still good…….”
Funny, right after reading this, I saw this article. Check out the picture.
http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/couple-says-wedding-resort-went-flames-183421299.html
@ no more mr nice guy
“Guys, you are accusing the others of Marxism, but what the manosphere want is sexual Marxism : Marxism means that people of lower class will destroy people of upper class and share their wealth after. What the manosphere want is that the beta males destroy the alpha males and share all the women after. It’s sexual Marxism.”
My corresponding arguments follow not from Marxism, but in consideration of evolutionary stability.
Large human populations become untenable once the breeding population becomes sufficiently perturbed(in this case, where the male breeding population has been dramatically shrunk through female hypergamy run amok), entailing increased fertility costs, and corresponding losses in the form of sub-replacement fertility, as well as the specter of inbreeding depression effects(observable symptoms in all developed world populations infested with a ruinous latitude of female sexual choice).
“Fret not, my brethren. You will be a master of the universe in the long run, so long as you stick to the script. In the end, good guys get the last laugh.
These players, or as Roissy says “alpha males,” are doing all the rest of us a favor in the long run. They operate very much like short sellers in the dating market, exposing fraud and helping to discover the true prices of commodities (women).
I’m not a big fan of evolutionary psychology, so I’ll implore you to think about the situation this way. Let’s take a 21-year old chick who’s between a 7/8 (cute to pretty). She’s the equivalent of Roy Jones, Jr. in his prime, all attributes, no fundamentals or technique. She garners the attention of males both older and younger. She can pretty much get sex whenever she wants it and with whomever she wants to have it with. And that is ultimately her downfall.
Young women (and some older ones) have an overinflated sense of the value of their vaginas. I mean, they have Wharton MBAs paying for exotic trips and they’re drinking Cosmos in the VIP with the Wizards. Why wouldn’t they? Since they are able to get such easy access to “alpha” dick, it follows logically that they should also have access to “alpha” wealth, marriage, and the lifestyle that accompanies all of that, right?
Wrong. See, when women gain this enormous sense of pussy power, they swing for the fences. That’s what power does to people. It makes them crave more. So, the cute guy with a 3.8 GPA, but no car? Nope, not good enough. The nice-looking pre-med student? “Nah, I’ll just get back to him later. I heard Jude Law’s hotter brother is transferring here this semester.” They invariably end up overplaying their hand. They chase these players looking to get a ring, and then that ring never comes. So now they’re 27. It’s a good thing she kept that pre-med Johns Hopkins student in her back pocket just in case things didn’t work out with the player, right?
Wrong again. In a vacuum, women would have their way. Men beg for sex. Women decide whether to give it to them (and for most guys, they will not give it to you). But luckily, we don’t live in a vacuum. We live in the real world with social constraints, and there are two that work distinctly to a man’s advantage: reputation and age.
Men take notes. Ladies, don’t think our homeboy didn’t tell us about the time he bought you drinks, only for you to walk away and make fun of him with your girlfriends. Don’t think we won’t remember your bitchiness. And don’t think we won’t remember those guys who you ran behind like a cum bucket. We remember. And we punish.
When a man sleeps with 100 chicks, he’s a stud. When a woman sleeps with JUST ONE guy, that eliminates you as wifey material to ALL of his friends. Seriously, how many times have you met a cute girl and your friends said, “Oh, she was with _____.” It was a wrap. Women who aren’t able to learn their true value quickly and then make wise decisions early on pay a hefty price in the long run.
The height of a woman’s value, in terms of her value as a long term partner, is around the age of 27. That is the praecipice. She must make the decision: settle down or play around. Her best choice, if she wants to get married, is to begin actively pursuing a husband. But she faces a couple of problems. First, she wants to marry up (older, richer, higher status). But by this time, her peers are just hitting their prime. They’ve picked up some wealth and game along the way, and are seeking to exact revenge against the throngs of women now begging for engagement rings. Second, she’s got competition. Those new “alphas” aren’t trying to mess with used goods. They want that 21 year old model. And for a Harvard MBA on Wall Street, that’s not an unrealistic expectation.
The older she gets, the more her singlehood gets scrutinized by men. Why the hell is she still single? Who’s cock has she been sucking all these years? This bitch must be crazy or something. And let’s face it, what virile, successful bachelor wants to entertain a 29 or 30 year old as wifey potential? She’s going to want to become a baby factory right away and rip away the last vestiges of your freedom. I don’t think so. It’s now my time to swing for the fences and bang some of these 21 year olds that I couldn’t bang in college.
In conclusion, a woman’s value is really defined by the type of man who puts a ring on her finger, not the type of guy who will fuck her. It takes a lot of women a long time to understand this, and thus, they overplay their hand. If it wasn’t for the players dogging them out, these women would not get a sense of their true value and start to seek out men who fit within their price range.
One last thing.
I would encourage attractive women to read Greek mythology, especially the story of Icarus. Icarus, with his new but fragile wings, could not resist flying too close to the sun.
Attractive women, with their pretty faces and firm backsides, often can’t break the spell of the intoxicating power that comes along with those attributes. Power’s a hard thing to give up. It’s a lot like winning at the craps table. Some people just don’t know when to quit and cash in their chips. And when they don’t have the good sense to cash in their chips, they often end up just like Icarus–dead in the water.”
OMG I’m watching JUMPING THE BROOM, and the first 60s seconds has a beautiful, successful career woman waking up naked in the bed of this SUPERHOTASS playa while he’s talking on the phone to another harem member and then goes into her promising God that if he just sends her a good man that she’ll “save her cookies” for him.
Now I’m at the part where her and this good man who God later sent her are making out the day prior to their wedding and she refuses to have sex with him because she promised God that she would wait til AFTER marriage before having cookie sex again. LOL.
You guys got to see this.
Dalrock –
You just keep getting better and better.
Give ’em hell, Harry.
Sexual Marxism? You mean from each according to her ability, to each according to his need?
😉
No, the advice is not to get married at all if you aren’t already.
If you are married, sure, try game, maybe it will help. The best thing to do is not get married in the first place, but THAT advice can’t help those already married.
Under Marriage 2.0, no matter the actions of behaviors, YOU are HER b**** the second she wishes so.
At some point women get drunk on fitness tests and expect you to somehow game your way out of being arrested by the police, which you cannot. THIS is what TFH refers to when he says “women’s shit tests get too strong, and the whole structure collapses”.
Ruddyturnstone.
I take your point about Marriage 2.0 but I live in Australia. The laws are fairer to men here and attitudes are probably more pro-male than in most of the West. I don’t think we have seen a legal patriarchy for a century. But societal attitudes can produce a de facto soft patriarchy.
Not to be overly pessimistic, but I have noticed that female carousel riders become quickly (mal)adapted to short-term gains(the transient exhilaration of the pump-and-dump).
And when symmetry finally breaks, they are far beyond the point of redemption.
David,
I’m not qualified to speak authoritatively about the situation in Australia. But I have read some stuff by Australian MRAs/MGTOWs to make me doubt your statement about the fairness and pro male nature of the laws in Australia. Still, I leave it to any Aussies out there to rebut your claims.
My advice to men not to marry, cohablit with or impregnate any woman is based on my experience, the experience of men I know personally, and what I have read, primarily in, from and about the USA. If other Western country’s truly have laws, social and cultural mores, media climates, government policies, etc, etc significantly different than thoise in the USA, then the advice does not apply. Again, from what I have read, MOST countries in the Western world do NOT differ significantly from the USA in these regards, but I will leave to folks in those countries to weigh in dispositively.
Re: sexual marxism.
What primarily seems to be advocated for in this forum seems to be the contractual (and binding) exchange of one parties surplus for the other parties surplus to the mutual benefit of all parties. This is not now, and never will be, marxism.
Paragon
Not to be overly pessimistic, but I have noticed that female carousel riders become quickly (mal)adapted to short-term gains(the transient exhilaration of the pump-and-dump).
There is reason to believe that this is as much a physiological event as it is a psychological one – the role of endorphins, oxytocin, and other brain chemicals is not at all totally clear, but the bits we do know are suggestive. The maladaption makes it essentially impossible for the carousel rider to even notice, never mind be attracted to, any man less than the Alphas she’s been riding.
@ Chels
“Paragon, most of the single mothers are from a low economic class and they’re uneducated. Personally, I used the financial argument because the idea of early marriage doesn’t seem very well thought out by those who encourage it.”
I think it’s already been established that early marriage *is* economically feasible(even for a Canadian – which I am myself), but entails sacrifices and trade-offs(as it should).
But, what you keep alluding to, is a dearth of ‘incentives'(conveniently ignoring that females rot on the vine quickly as observed – or presumed – to be riding the carousel), which betrays what I suspect is a common female bias.
Intuitively, my own personal observations would seem to suggest, that it is not for want of practical concerns that would seem to forestall marriage, but a female’s naive quest for an education in gina tingles.
Pingback: Talking About Men Raping Women Leads To Men Getting Raped For Real In Prison | Omega Virgin Revolt
Pingback: Young Christian man, follow Sheldon. | Dark Brightness
I’m no fan of PUA’s, but I will say they do have the moral highground in taking the so called born again sluts, saving good God fearing men from being unequally being shackled to a pretending slut.
They are indeed “doing God’s work in defending the weaker amongst us.
A great service.
” No greater love is there than a man who will lay down his life for his fellow man.”
Let the bad girls have the bad boys and leave those kids alone!
They sow the wind and reap the whirlwind.
That is true justice.
Some things even bleach cannot remove..
It seems possible to me that women are built to bond to the first man who masters her. In a healthy society, this will be a Mr Alpha-Enough who is her first and only lover, and for whom she is expected by social pressure to become Mrs Alpha-Enough. The problems develop when this process fails and she is left permanently bonded to such a man in her mind but in reality married to Mr Another-Guy. Or not married at all.
This is where Roissy’s “five minutes of alpha” being better than a lifetime of beta comes into play.
@ Anonymous Reader
“There is reason to believe that this is as much a physiological event as it is a psychological one – the role of endorphins, oxytocin, and other brain chemicals is not at all totally clear, but the bits we do know are suggestive. The maladaption makes it essentially impossible for the carousel rider to even notice, never mind be attracted to, any man less than the Alphas she’s been riding.”
Yes, there is also some evidence that females can grow tolerant to oxytocin(possibly contributing to the conspicuous number of basket-cases with indications of chronic carousel riding).
But, I really do think there is something to be said for the observation that females rot fast on the vine when riding the carousel.
Abso-frickin’-lutely! 🙂
SRSLY, y’all haffa watchdis movie.
Its got EVERYTHING you’re talking about here – from carousel riding to show off weddings to making the nice guy fiancee wait 6 months for sex (after having spent years on the carousel), to hiding her sexual past, to hypergamy and “settling”…. its all here;
http://www.movie2k.to/Jumping-the-Broom-watch-movie-776552.html
“But what have men received in return? ”
An infinite smorgasbord of sexual delights, variety and ever-escalating bedroom skills among the women of America.
As long as you aren’t the ones married to them, they will puuuut out. I have never been with so many women that can put their ankles behind their heads (3 in the last two years), assiduously strip, wax or shave their poonanis (pubic hair on women is just about extinct), or who readily assent to ropes, vibrators and ball gags (“bring me your leash and collar if you want to play, slave”).
Excellent. Why bother getting married anymore? It’s only worthwhile if you hate sex and money….
” or who readily assent to ropes, vibrators and ball gags”
Now I’ve heards it all – ball gags? Really? How do they manage to gag your balls?
Are you into those bead strings too? My god, I think all this “kink” must be a European stock and Japanese thing only. I never hear other ethnicities talk about this stuff.
…oh and I forgot, the movie also has the middle-aged, bitchy, nagging wife (though its Angela Bassett so she still looks young and hot) and the older, wealthy Alpha husband and dad who cheats on her. He even says, “your manner of speech is unattractive” and attempts to “neg” her – after she negs (nags) him first.
It also has eye candy for both the guys and girls, this movie is basically a Manosphere blog come to life so far….. lets see how it ends….
http://www.movie2k.to/Jumping-the-Broom-watch-movie-776552.html
POSTPARTAL DEPRESSION – A CLINICAL PARADIGM
So, perhaps oxytocin tolerance is not appropriate, but carousel-mediated oxytocin-exahaustion syndrome, sounds very possible.
” Both depressed mothers and their babies have increased amounts of Cortisol in their blood and the high Cortisol levels make the infants vulnerable to overreacting to stress later in life.”
This raises the further possibility that female basket-case carousel riders are contributing to the liklihood of social/bahvioral pathology in their progeny.
[D: Shortened the quote and provided a link to what looks like the original paper.]
David Collard,
“I take your point about Marriage 2.0 but I live in Australia. The laws are fairer to men here and attitudes are probably more pro-male than in most of the West. I don’t think we have seen a legal patriarchy for a century. But societal attitudes can produce a de facto soft patriarchy.”
To a very, very small extent I think you are right. John Howard changed some laws which meant we were slightly better off than americans or Brits. But laws get ignored in the courts:
http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/02/01/australias-shared-parenting-laws-have-failed-to-increase-shared-parenting-arrangements-new-study/
And Julia Gillard is busy reversing the laws anyway:
http://www.thefamilylawdirectory.com.au/article/safety-first-in-gillards-family-law-changes.html
So seriously, get your hand off it. Almost as bad and getting worse is not a win. We are the country that gave a divorce settlement to a mistress FFS. Or if I’m wrong why don’t you have your wife call the cops and tell them you are yelling at her and she is afraid. See how you go mate.
As Men increasingly GTOW and opt-out of the current unfair system I suspect the Feminazis and SoCons will double down on legislative misandry.
Some of the things I see coming are:
Easier Rape convictions (lower burden of proof)
Defacto Marriage legislation for cohabitees (coming to the UK soon)
Higher Child Support payments and entitlement to Mans assets even if not cohabiting (For teh Children!111)
VAWA like DV legislation (being trialled in several UK cities right now)
Lower tax on Women/No tax on single moms
Bacholor Tax on Single Men (for not MANing UP)
No Prison for Women
Single unemployed Men in work camps or otherwise conscripted for work
But basically they’re just going to SHIT on Men.
The moral argument was lost 40 years ago. The only thing which changed is the degree of enthusiasm Christians like Glenn Stanton and Sheila Gregoire have for the status quo.
Dalrock —
the moral argument has no expiration date! lol
the PUA thang: i’m concerned b/c the target group (teen/twenties boys) are a v vulnerable and impressionable population, easily deceived and used . . . often naive and semi-literate, with many fatherless, searching for male authority figures
the hard truth is god was right and we were Rong: sex outside of marriage erodes and demeans us individually and collectively
unpopular, but then i’m not selling workshops and d.v.d.s, so i get to say shit like that :O)
we agree about the betrayal of men (re marriage and elsewise) by the modern “churches” and their socon base; the left propagates the matriarchy, and the right colludes with cowardly, self-aggrandizing paternalism
the future belongs to the intersection of love of god and the men’s movement — some lone, male christians (typically non-affilliated) indeed do Get It, and are natural allies of men’s advocates
at any rate, the p.u.a. issue was only a small element in a good sermon — i enjoyed it
[D: Thanks! The fixation on PUAs is most problematic because is a crutch. It is much easier to find a small group of men to focus all of their judgment on than do the difficult work of actually supporting Christian marriage. God’s view on sex & marriage hasn’t changed. But those who are so up in arms about the PUAs are disingenuous in my opinion. After 40 years of giving the church the benefit of the doubt on the issue, I say no more. Put up or shut up.]
Additionally to my comment above:
The definition of “cohabitation” will be broadened to include those who regularly spend the night together even whilst maintaining seperate residences thus falling under the Defacto Marriage legislation.
Plus:
Free legal counseling/advice to Women on how to [falsely] acuse a Man of Rape and get away with it. Of course it will be termed as legal “advise” but will be a “how to accuse a man of Rape” service in a similar way to how DV shelters “advise” women on domestic violence and lawyers “advise” Women to make false accusations in court.
Escoffier asserted that the PUA lifestyle is morally corrupt and bad for the country, and deleterious to both men and women. Assessed against Judeo-Christian mores that used to prevail in this country, Escoffier is correct. And if you dig deep enough in the Roissy/Heartiste archives, you’d find even Roissy agrees. His attitude is summed up as “I know what I’m doing is contributing to society’s downfall and is ruining women too. But I didn’t cause this. I’m just responding to the situation on the ground, and besides, I’m just giving women what they want. I don’t force this on anyone who doesn’t want it.”
Dalrock challenged Escoffier, saying Escoffier has no moral authority to condemn PUAs. I think this stance is correct too. Our past political, civic and religious authorities stood by and let feminism run amok. Even the mainline churches have allowed it.
Upthread I posted some suggestions on how to start fixing this: cultural, legal, political fixes. But TFH is right that they won’t be implemented. I’m starting to conclude – reluctantly — that our society doesn’t have the ability, the willingness or the know-how to fix this problem in a way that benefits both men and women.
Men will have to find their own solutions. The tradcons and socons don’t have workable solutions. “Man up and marry the sluts” is not a workable long term solution because it will lead to misery or divorce or both. Some will learn Game, some will GTOW. Most will still marry, and divorce, and then become PUAs or GTOW.
And men have to find their own solutions because, I think, a lot of women like it just the way it is now — until they reach their mid to late 30s and still don’t have husbands.
The solutions aren’t workable right now because they would require cultural shifts and changes in legal framework to support them. They would require women, individually and collectively, to cooperate, compromise and, yes, submit.
If there is to be any real, lasting change, women will have to give up some of what they want to get most of the rest of what they want. Women who marry and have children will have to assume appropriate roles in families, churches, and societies. Women who want to work and have careers will have to accept that they probably will not have children nor that they will find a man sufficiently attractive. That would require a level of understanding that many women seem unwilling or unable to accept, mostly because they don’t understand hypergamy. They truly know not what they do. Women who want to “have their fun” on the carousel will have to accept that they severely reduce their odds of marrying later. Again, that would require an amount of forward thinking and future planning that many women don’t seem to want to do.
Never mind that it’s men who learn early on and accept as part of life the concepts of compromise, sacrifice, opportunity costs, short range and long range planning, and the greater good of a family, a neighborhood, a society; and incorporate them into their lives. I don’t think women do this with nearly the frequency or urgency that men do.
I don’t think women want to accept or even consider these hard truths. And that’s why we are where we are, and that’s why I think it will get worse before it gets better.
I often tell my aunts and mother that the chance of me marry is near zero because there is nothing at all to benefit me. Of course, they shame me and tell me that only worthless men do not marry. Whenever I defend my points, their final comebacks is accompanied with despondence and the unsatisfactory comeback of: “you cannot be like that.” Yes i can be like that and I enjoy it very much. I am 22 and will be entering a prestigious law school next year. Many women have told me that I will make a great husband and that I should look to settle down right after law school. F THAT. I’m no one’s meal ticket.
“I don’t think women want to accept or even consider these hard truths. And that’s why we are where we are, and that’s why I think it will get worse before it gets better.”
They’ll just fall back on their default position: ITS ALL MENS FAULT – BLAME MEN – MAN UP!
It is a bit unfair to blame women for what may be an intrinsic incapacity to think strategically.
It’s not blame; merely an observation. Moreover, I’m not saying women cannot think strategically; merely that they don’t do it as often as men do.
That’s probably why we read articles from the Kate Bolicks of the world saying things like “I just always assumed I would marry”. Implicit is the assumption that there would always be a sufficiently attractive man just for her, ready, willing and able to marry her up whenever Bolick decided he should present himself and whenever Bolick decided she was ready.
Still love watching the woman who split with me when she was 28 struggling to find a taker. 7 years later I have what she always wanted, a child, and she is a desperate, lonely, embittered 35+ year old, on the cusp of spinsterhood. Funny how life turns out. Her looks are gone and she’s completely bitchy all the time…..shocking that no man wants her. She had a laundry list of everything that was wrong with me, and indeed, now has the compulsory 300 item bullet list of what she demands in a man.
Or how about the story I related on here a few weeks back, about the 38 year old woman who was married to a good looking guy, who made good money, was a great father to two young boys, whom she left to start screwing loads of other guys, only to come back 2 years later to find a much younger 28 year old woman sleeping in her former bed, in the beautiful house that she once lived in, taking care of the children she abandoned, whom he now has married.
Or the plethora of women I grew up with in the 80s, many of whom I saw at a party recently, all single, all childless, all just about 40 or older.
Or the girl I dated when I was 21, who went from a smokin’ hot 8/10, to (17 years later) a 240 lb. bisexual, radical feminist with an arse the size of an axe handle, who wouldn’t merit a 0.01/10 on the looks scale now.
I could go on and on.
Yep, 40 years of feminist bullshit has really done the job up here in Canuckistan, where the women are shriller feminists than any of you in other countries could even comprehend.
And here’s little ol’ me at 40 who shagging a 26 year old.
Life is good – thanks feminist skanks!
Why can’t young men and women who want to get married and have kids find each other, marry, go to the same college together as a married couple, and support themselves the same way they would if they were single. Many colleges have co-ed dorms so they could room together, or get a cheap apartment and room with other students. Since most parents help out there kids in college, the money each parental set sends can be pooled. If they go to a college in a town where at least one set of their parents live then why can’t they live with them, like in the basement or something?
Seems it might actually be CHEAPER to get married and go to college together as couple rather than as a single person spending all kinds of money on frivalous shit meant to attract the opposite sex on the campus sexual market scene.
Agreed. My husband and I were both in a transitory period (educational and every other way) when we got married. I actually think it solidifies a relationship when assets are built together from the ground up.
Good comment, Aquanet.
Woman up.
Every woman who complains about not having a man needs to answer these questions:
Why should any man invest time, money and resources in you?
Why should any man willingly give up his single life and commit himself, his life and his talents and resources to supporting you?
Why should any man tie himself down with children you bear him? And what will you do to assure him those children are his?
Why are you worthy or deserving of his time, money and resources?
What obligations are you willing to shoulder? What are you willing to sacrifice and compromise for the good of the man who invests in and commits to you?
What can you offer him besides a romp in the sack?
Why should any man sign away his basic human rights by entering Marriage 2.0 with you?
I agree that this argument has no expiration date, but it is timelessly ineffective.
The problem is, it isn’t the hard truth that sex outside of marriage necessarily has these effects. When people first begin to do it and discover that the world is still turning and their lives are pretty much the same, the people who told them it would be ruinous lose all credibility.
Christians have been making arguments like this for the entirety of the cultural decline. It doesn’t work. Too few people care about living up to Christian morality. It’s time to promote these ideas based on actual real world causes and effects. TFH regularly discusses the damage of unwed sex, but he is more effective and more relevant because he does so based on ideas people can relate to.
This is a hopeful outlook on the future, and I hope you’re right, but what does a love of god contribute to dealing with these issues, in and of itself?
@DC
“It is a bit unfair to blame women for what may be an intrinsic incapacity to think strategically.”
Well, if our fellow commenter Brendan is to be believed, young women are indeed thinking strategically, although mostly on a subconscious level. They prefer to “roll the dice” by trying to lasso an alpha into commitment rather than settle early with a beta. They see the worsening marriage marketplace but they’re willing to accept that disadvantage in return for a gynocentric regime that coddles and pampers them in every conceivable.
I think they’d find more justifications for their current behavior if someone actually bothered to openly explain to them that there are stark choices to face. Either we create a society where men’s average social status is elevated above women’s (either through the imposition of hard patriarchy or the complete dismantling of the structures of modern civilization), in which case women will be surrounded by men they find attractive, OR we can have the Western status quo i.e. coddling women in every conceivable way (AA, female-friendly legislation, female-friendly education system etc.) through the marginalization and demasculinization of men (it isn’t possible in any other way), in which case they will be surrounded by masses of unattractive, harmless, polite, domesticated „men”. There is NO third option.
I think the average young woman would rather choose to become a spinster, a single mother or live in soft polygyny with some alpha rather then give up her current privileges and practice assortative mating in Marriage 1.0.
Maybe we’re underestimating women’s cynicism, and practical way of thinking completely bereft of moral considerations?
in every conceivable = in every conceivable way
“Christians have been making arguments like this for the entirety of the cultural decline. It doesn’t work. Too few people care about living up to Christian morality. It’s time to promote these ideas based on actual real world causes and effects.”
Judeo-Christian-based moral arguments against adultery and fornication lost their moral force decades ago when mainline protestant churches incorporated feminism and turned a blind eye to the divorce, adultery, fornication and premarital sex in their midst. Many Catholics openly disregard or disobey RCC teachings against artificial birth control and premarital sex. Those outside the church point at those inside and shout, “Hypocrites!” And those outside the church are largely correct.
A fantastic comment made over at the GROIN blog a few days ago sums up the undercurrent here in perhaps the best articulated way I have seen so far. A few highlights:
We used to expect men to make a conscious decision to stoically go down with the ship so women and children could escape in the lifeboats. He had to be stoic, because if he wasn’t, some woman might feel sorry for him and give her seat to him. Because of this expectation, all people were conditioned to measure a man’s humanity through what he could do that a woman could not or would not wish to, and to feel as little empathy as possible for him because it’s really hard to demand someone trade their life for yours if you empathize with them. If there was room in the lifeboats, men would be allowed seats because they were good rowers, and women needed good rowers. The rest would gain honor and humanity through their deaths, which honor is deserved, for sure, but not the greatest outcome for the man in question, heh.
But now? All the lifeboats have outboard motors. Men are only dead weight slowing the boats down, or taking up space that would be better utilized to store women’s luggage. We can let men drown even if there are extra seats in the lifeboats, because that’s just more room for a woman to stretch out her legs. And we can do this because we’ve been conditioned not to fully empathize with men and boys, because for most of human history we depended on things going exactly this way.
The conditions that liberated women from dependence on men are not going to go away unless society falls. The cow’s been milked–there’s no squirting the cream back up her udder. Sticking to traditional male honor, as suited to humanity as it was for millennia, and as necessary and incredible and as awesome as it was, is really only embracing your objectification as a useful tool that can be thrown in the trash once you’re no longer useful, or as someone who’s expected to die so a woman won’t have to.
There are only two ways I can see for men to rise again, and that is through refusing to participate long enough for society to fall and for women to be forced back into traditional roles, or for society to begin to see men, for the first time in history, as human beings with inherent value rather than earned value–that is, for us all to learn how to have empathy for men. And the only way to train society to empathize with men is to diametrically oppose feminism’s exploitation of the traditional “women first” dynamic that only seeks to further dehumanize them.
Emphasis added is my own.
Go and read the whole thing here: http://www.groin.com/freedom/comment-page-1/#comment-7240
Pretty much perfectly encapsulates the current situation and the conflict between (1) men who want to hang onto the old values and (2) the men who see how fruitless this is in the current contemporary scenario.
And, of course, a woman wrote this. Not all women are like that — some really do understand the current problem in a way that transcends the interests of their own sex. Not all too many, but some do.
“I think the average young woman would rather choose to become a spinster, a single mother or live in soft polygyny with some alpha rather then give up her current privileges and practice assortative mating in Marriage 1.0.”
I think you’re right. There’s no going back to the old system. Women LOVE LOVE LOVE the current setup which benefits them in so many ways. Maybe theres the possibilty of a new equilibrium after a number of generations of spinsterhood but short of societal collapse theres no way Women will want to give up their priviledges in the near term.
Pingback: DALROCK ON THE FEMISERVATIVE ALLIANCE AGAINST MEN
@Will
I think this is absolutely true in the sense that there is no real motivation for women as a group to push for change. Where I would differ a bit is that women like the current system so much because they assume they really can have it all. If/when divorcées are widely understood to be more post marital spinsters than EPL heros, and if/when carousel riders find they can’t jump into the loving arms of a credulous beta at the end of the ride this attitude of wholehearted acceptance will rapidly evaporate. What we will face then is a screaming hoard of stunned women who can’t believe we let their bad choices have bad outcomes. They will demand change, and that change won’t (initially at least) be change to stop other women from making the same dumb choices. But over time more and more younger women will look at the end result of their cat lady aunts and fear will be more of a motivator than (alpha) greed.
I find it strange, amusing and sad that, on a Christian blog, 90% of the commenters and the blogger himself are attacking the simple statement of fact that it’s immoral for men to devote their lives to screwing as many women as possible. If that’s not a sign of coming apocalypse, I don’t know what is.
Anyway, “Then you have no moral argument.” No, of course I do. As I said, it is natural right. There is a standard of right and wrong that exists independent of human choice or will. It is knowable to man through reasoned investigation. Whether that standard is created or eternal, whether its source is God or nature or both, I can’t say. I might believe it comes from God, but that’s faith, not knowledge. I certainly don’t think it’s incompatible with faith. This is, by the way, the foundational philosophy of the United States of America: “Laws of nature of and of nature’s God” … “We hold these truths to be self-evident …” etc. Political and legal right are grounded in natural right. It is not simply asserted or made up.
Let’s dismiss one very silly argument up front. Natural right is not being an animal, following low nature. Human nature is a mixture of high and low elements. By nature, men (males) have unlimited appetites for wealth (food, shelter, clothing, luxuries, stuff) and sex (as many times as they can get it with as many women). Some of them are also by nature vain and prone to tests of “dominance” which lead to violence. They can be quick to murderous rage if they feel that their stuff or their women or their “respect” are being threatened.
All that is by nature. Because it is by nature we don’t say, “OK, since you can’t help feeling that way, indulge yourselves. Go out and steal, kill and rape.” Yet some here want to say exactly that about the sex drive. Not rape, but by all means, screw around.
In any event, all that does not exhaust the nature of man. There are higher elements to our nature as well. The duty of men is to cultivate and fulfill the higher aspects and suppress or channel—i.e., govern—the lower aspects. To all the touchy feminists here, yes, women also have this duty.
This is all just true. At least, I believe it is. I don’t need any “moral authority.” MORALITY ITSELF is the authority, not me. It’s either true or it’s false, it either exists or it does not. I’m just reporting.
“The worst crime they are guilty of in your natural right world is failing to be the sucker the women pegged them for”
No, the worst crime they are guilty of is living like animals. Are you a Christian or a libertarian? If you are a libertarian, then I have misread you fundamentally but at least your views on this would now make sense to me. If you are a Christian, then you must understand what I am talking about.
And that does not exhaust their crimes. As I have said, they are also promoters and suborners of vice. As a Christian, do you think that the promotion and celebration of vice is something good in itself? Do you think it constitutes a good life? Would you want your son to read game blogs and become a PUA dedicated to his notch count?
And, yes, I do believe that they hurt women. Every time I say this everyone gets outraged that I am letting women completely off the hook. I’m not. I’m just pointing out that when two parties get together to do something wrong, they are both to blame. You guys want to blame the women and cheer on the men. Is that Christian? Is it moral? The PUAs hurt women by making them worse, the same way a drug dealer hurts a junkie by making him worse. The junkie is still depraved and responsible for his actions but the drug dealer is not blameless. Using Aristotelian terminology, we may say that he is the efficient cause, or one of them.
Nowhere have I said or implied that sluts deserve husbands or that men are obligated to marry anyone unworthy. I have said the opposite, in fact, over and over. Why you all keep coming back to this I don’t know.
Similarly this: “Why you are so invested in having it work out better for the promiscuous women than the promiscuous men I’ll leave for you to figure out yourself.”
What? How many times do I need to say it? I don’t want anyone to be promiscuous—boys or girls. In that, I am unlike a lot of the guys here, who seem to want to be able to screw around as much as they can and then settle down with a virgin (assuming they can find one, which of course is very difficult). How is that not just as self-serving as what they accuse carousel riders of? Anyway, I want no one to be promiscuous. I want as many people as possible to get married, to be virgins on their wedding nights, and to have one lifetime partner. I want there to be happy intact families everywhere raising happy, well adjusted, productive children.
What I am trying to tell you people is that 1) your extreme cynicism and bitterness are not wholly warranted, 2) there is a rational basis for the morality that at least some of us believe is true and wish to defend; and 3) there is a receptivity to your ideas among parents of my generation.
Let me expand on that a bit. No parent that I know, and I know a lot of them, wants their daughters to grow up to be sluts or the sons to grow up to be players. They understand, or sense, on some level that the SR has been a disaster and they are afraid for what their children face. They may not at this point actually want a restoration of 1960 morality. But a lot of them could be persuaded into it. And a lot of them could be persuaded to raise better children, including daughters, if they were taught the right lessons.
But constantly calling the mothers whores, the daughters proto-whores, and the fathers loser-betas and otherwise screaming and gnashing teeth is not going to help anyone. I exempt Dalrock from that last comment because what he’s doing is clearly extremely constructive and his tone is always measured, even if I think he’s wrong on the margins occasionally.
I also find it amusingly sad, or sadly amusing, to read so many guys here defend the PUAs for “helping us betas.” Or something like that.
As I have said, to the extent that they have helped some of you avoid marriage to an unworthy woman, that is good. But it’s also incidental. They are not writing to serve you. They are writing to boast about themselves and to vent spleen. And–I hate to break this to you–a lot what they vent is vicious, withering contempt for guys like you. They think you are protists, hardly worthy of their notice, except as subjects of ridicule. This drips off of their every post. In their moral universe, “real men” screw lots of women. Pussy faggot betas don’t. Period. That’s the only distinction that matters. Hence, for example, Winston Churchill–who in all likelihood went to the altar a virgin at age 34 and never cheated on his wife (though there are indications that she had an affair herself–was a hopeless loser pussy beta.
ooookaaaay.
Hence, for example, Winston Churchill–who in all likelihood went to the altar a virgin at age 34 and never cheated on his wife (though there are indications that she had an affair herself–was a hopeless loser pussy beta.
In all likeihood, he was, in sexual/relational terms. Slumlord spells this out in his most recent post here: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/there-are-some-people-who-state-that.html
@Escoffier
I can’t and won’t argue that someone devoting their lives to screwing as many women as possible is moral from a Christian perspective. What I have said repeatedly is that Christians who can’t be bothered with Christian teachings regarding marriage except to say all of the right words while being careful not to upset those not fallowing the rules don’t have any moral authority on the issue. They will not be taken seriously because they are quite honestly a farce. But none of this changes what God has said on the issue.
However, you are arguing that it is immoral from a secular perspective, and you simply have no grounds to stand on. You wrote several paragraphs above, and even managed to quote the Declaration of Independence, but in all of that you failed to make an actual argument. I have sympathy for you there, because I don’t have any idea how you should go about trying to do that either. Saying moral is moral, and nothing changes that has no meaning if you take God out of the equation (as you have done). It is pure nonsense. Each of us can simply declare with the same amount of earnestness that the opposite is moral.
One thing I should point out is that I’m not presenting this as a “Christian blog”. I am a Christian and do challenge Christian leadership for their utter abandonment of Christian marriage laws, but most of my writing is from a secular perspective. I’ve probably muddied this up more recently by having several Christian related posts all together.
Sure, you can declare anything you want as “moral” but would you be right? That requires investigation. And the investigation leads to the outline of what morality is. The investigation begins by noting the various shortcomings and contradictions in popular opinion, proceeds to exclude certain definitions by demonstrating their faslehood or untenablity, and then slowly, painstakingly arrives at the outline of what the truth is (or is likely to be). That process is called “dialectic.” I know of no other way.
Since dialectic takes forever, it’s not easy to sum up in one line but if you want to know what I believe morality to be, the one best book is Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, which presents the summary or results of a prior dialectic into the matter.
Doyourownresearch says:
November 15, 2011 at 8:49 pm
Good work, that’s a classic message with a solid explanations of the men’s and women’s viewpoints. And the message always needs repeating.
Brendan, OK, if Churchill was indeed a “sexual beta” that only shows how limiting the concept is and how narrow the conception of the game community is. Churchill was in every other respect an alpha, a totally superior person.
Brendan, OK, if Churchill was indeed a “sexual beta” that only shows how limiting the concept is and how narrow the conception of the game community is. Churchill was in every other respect an alpha, a totally superior person.
I’m not a Churchill groupie, but it seems to me that there is a distinction between (1) success with women and (2) success in other aspects of life. Even in my own personal experience, I have known quite a few men who had (2) without (1). There is overlap between the skill sets, but still there are significant differences. If Churchill’s wife had an affair, Slumlord is probably right as to at least a part of the reasons for that, and that doesn’t contradict the rest of Churchill’s apparent success.
Churchill was apparently “undersexed”. He was once asked how he had so much energy to do all he did and he replied “I don’t waste my essense in bed.” Then again, Clemmie was pregnant within a month of the marriage and they had five children and one miscarriage.
The affair is asserted as fact by Manchester, left more ambiguous by Gilbert. I don’t know if it’s true or not, only that there are indications.
My point is, using your criteria, #2 is way more important than #1 but the game bloggers elevate to surpreme status #1 but have nothing to say about #2, except to riducule those who embody it.
The point is that no-one cares what you believe morality to be.
Aristotle was excellent at deciding that something was x merely because he thought his way to that point. He held science back a number of years as the ruling class was enamoured by his “my brain has led me to this conclusion!” enough to ignore what was in front of him. Yes, you can dialectic your way to an announcement of morality, but that comes out as a matter of opinion – and there’s no reason to believe that yours, or even Aristotle’s is any better than anyone else’s.
The fact is that unless you have a rule-maker, all morality is of opinion. Even if some of us may agree that premarital sex is wrong, there are other cultures in which it has always been considered completely acceptable by both parties – so the argument that it’s a natural law that everyone inherently feels loses out.
If you’re not going to appeal to Christianity, the only secular argument you can make is that *you* think the PUAs are wrong. And that’s just not all that convincing.
I agree with your morality, but there’s no standing as a universal rule.
David Collard says:
November 16, 2011 at 6:47 am
Women are adults and therefore are responsible for there own actions. If they don’t want to be held responsible, they must become someone’s (obviously only to a man then) ward who has responsible for and has the corresponding authority over that women.
Until that happens, women are to be held responsible. I’m not holding my breath for either to happen.
“The point is that no-one cares what you believe morality to be”
Well, I can’t dispute that.
However, the rest of what you wrote is not true, at least not necessarily. Aristotle is not merely making assertions. He has reasoned through the false and contradictory opinions to the right opinions. He does make an arguement. It’s up to us readers to decide whether we are convinced. I am.
On the larger point, I think that total reliance on God boils down to nihilism. Do you believe that all of Gods commandments have no natural basis? That the universe is a completely arbitrary product of God’s will? That is the essense of Islamic metaphysics, incidentally, and it’s a huge problem for them. I would also point out that millenia of Christian thinkers have not agreed. From Aquinas on down they have taught that God is the creator and cause (efficient, formal and final) of the natural world but that the tenets of the natural world are in accord with God’s will.
Someone in a prior thread brought up Plato’s Euthyphro. It’s very apt here. Is murder wrong simply because God forbids it? Or does he forbid it because it’s wrong? Could he change his mind and make murder right? Similarly, could he change the laws of physics and make gravity a principle of repulsion?
Natural law can’t be found through reasoned investigation that results in everyone agreeing on all outcomes of that investigation, therefore they are not natural, any secular realization of them results in certain persons imposing certain codes of conduct on certain other persons. By itself, that imposition is not necessarily a bad thing, a point I’ll touch on later. The Declaration of Independence gives just three natural rights: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Any number of ideologies can draw from that to go on their own paths, natural law advocates like Escoffier being just one of these, Christianity, feminism another and PUA represent others. Escoffier does not have a leg to stand on regarding natural law. Natural law to him isn’t natural law to me or to the Pope or to the Imam or to the bankers or to ….
However this isn’t to say moral codes and morality are bad things, only that they must be argued from knowledge of human nature and its effects on civilization. At least Escoffier has a good sense of that one. The reality is there is no natural law to be drawn from this, only codes of conduct we need to impose to get to the society we hope to achieve. Christianity as originally presented would certainly be relevant here, but its bastard offspring we see today have lost their moral authority as Dalrock has convincingly presented. I rather suspect that any changes are going to have to start there among other choices as part of reclaiming the lost ground is going to be confronting (and shaming) women and feminists with the consequences of their choices in public
“Anyway, “Then you have no moral argument.” No, of course I do. As I said, it is natural right. There is a standard of right and wrong that exists independent of human choice or will. It is knowable to man through reasoned investigation. Whether that standard is created or eternal, whether its source is God or nature or both, I can’t say. I might believe it comes from God, but that’s faith, not knowledge. I certainly don’t think it’s incompatible with faith. ”
Thanks for that. As an atheist I am usually told that I can have no morals without a belief in a god. This pisses me off as I was married to a Catholic. As a life long atheist I regard myself as being far more principalled and moral than her…a better xtian in fact. She lied, cheated etc etc with impunity.
Dalrock, congrats on this blog. It continues to go from strength to strength. Your christian morality worries me not at all, in fact I find your views to be sound, real-world based. If more Christians were worried about men in the real world then the church would be on a better path toward relevance, I’d welcome that (For What It’s Worth – clearly)
I hope that Dalrock is right, in that cat lady aunts finally cause girls to make mature decisions (being optimistic here, but I did say ‘hope’).
Until then ‘Sluts v Players’ is a stable situation until the legal framework is burned down, the ground salted and rebuilt from scratch.
As long as Joe Taxpayer can be forced to subsidise the crap decisions of Jane Ho, Jane Ho won’t change a thing…until it causes HER pain and she realises that pain is a consequence of HER actions. This is where the optimism is required, by the bucket load
It’s interesting that Dalrock is being criticized heavily for not being Christian enough in outlook in his writings here.
Funny enough, I find this blog is largely demonstrating in painful detail one of the core truths of Christianity, which is that the pursuits of the flesh are just so much vanity.
Simple materialism has caused a lot of the destruction of traditional social arrangements, and this whole mating and dating market is in utter chaos largely because everybody thought it would be good for women to abandon the pursuit of traditional things that have mostly abstract value – a life of family, faith and love – in exchange for a life filled with more room for selfishness, cheap sex and money. In my early 20’s I learned a primitive form of game; treat women badly, and you will have a lot of women. I went this way for a year or two, had a lot of shallow fun (but not much deeper satisfaction), then met a woman that I judged to have the character traits I was looking for. After our initial encounter – with me in PUA mode – I realized that I had to do better and started treating her as she should be treated. It worked out and has led to a pretty satisfying life, but the satisfaction doesn’t come from my good job, okay enough house or nice car. It comes from coming home to a hug and a great kid, spending time with them, and the sense of satisfaction I get out of providing for them, and being taken care of by them at home. It’s all about the family.
In the end we find that the material things are not satisfying; being a successful career woman at 37 with no husband and no family, and increasingly no booty calls, is apparently not all it’s cracked up to be. Being an Alpha with a long string of girls on the tether, including a 40 year-old increasingly insecure wife, probably isn’t a picnic either.
Yet still our media and opinion elites continue on with their lies about how you can have it all, why it’s better to push of marriage until after 30, why being a single mom is no big deal, why men just don’t matter. Don Draper and Murphy Brown are the role models. But these characters, archetypes really, are great deceivers. In secular terms, they are selfish assholes.
I have a young son. The hardest lesson to teach him, I find, is that people – particularly peoiple who look like they should matter based on their fame, fortune or position of power – are callous liars and destructive. They should not be believed. That is a secular phrasing of it but the principle should be familiar to Christians.
I wish it were not this way but increasingly it is. While these are easy times materially, they are very hard times spiritually. I’m really appreciative that we’re able to discuss this here at Dalrock’s place, because although it’s a bit of vanity to stand here chucking rocks at society, it forces concsious consideration of a touch question, how then should we live? This beats a hundred Sunday school classes…
This: “therefore they are not natural” does not follow from this: “that results in everyone agreeing .”
I agree, everyone is not always going to agree. Although we did a pretty good job of getting most people agree in the Founding era, then it came apart with the Civil War, then was reestablished, then came apart again with the rise of the Progressives and now we are where we are (which sucks).
Anyway, even if people don’t agree, that doesn’t make the truth any less true.
Finally, society presupposes the law and the enforcement of law. The truer the law is and more people agree on its basis, the happier and more successful that society will be. Some measure of compulsion will always be required both because some people will never agree and because among those who do, people being flawed, will slip and do or be tempted to do bad things.
Your disintction between natural right (note that I have not said “natural law”) and “moral codes and morality … argued from knowledge of human nature and its effects on civilization” seems to me to be not a distinction at all but a way of restating the same thing. Natural right is nothing if not natural, that is, derived from nature and learned by the observation of nature.
@Just1X
I’m not saying one can’t make any secular arguments about morals. This is something I frequently do here. What I am saying is there is no secular basis to make the specific argument he is trying to make. He could for example make an excellent argument that it is immoral for a man to propose marriage with no intent of actually marrying the woman. Or he could make a convincing secular argument that women committing divorce theft is immoral. What he can’t do is make a convincing secular case that pickup artists are immoral for failing to refuse to have sex with promiscuous women out of a greater concern for the woman than she has for herself. What he is really objecting to isn’t the promiscuity per se, but the fact that some men are getting good at it. He is as I said before, arguing for a kinder, gentler carousel.
I don’t know why everyone tends to get all bent out of shape over the issue of ‘game’, like it is some latent ‘super-power’ that needs to be harnessed with careful consideration(cue Stan Lee quote), lol.
Most facets of game(like learning to call female bluffs, etc.) are functionally useless because ‘game’ is highly dependent on many variables which cannot be trivially acquired through knowledge or experience(limiting its utility among that population of males who are in most dire need of its assistance).
Thus, the usefuleness of ‘game’ is *vastly* overstated.
D, you continue to misread me and glide past things that I say.
“out of a greater concern for the woman than she has for herself.” I never said that. I said there are three very good reasons why being a PUA is immoral: 1) it puts you on the level of an animal; 2) it’s bad for civilization; 3) you are making women worse.
You just pretend that 1&2 have never been said and you misinterpret #3. A man should not refrain out of greater concern for the woman. He ought to refrain because by participating in vice, he becomes an active agent of her vice. Her vice is still her responsibilty. That does not absolve him for participating, the same way the dealer is not absolved by the junkie’s moral agecny. Is it good to be a promoter and practioner of vice or not? If it’s not, then don’t do it, even if she is willing.
“Escoffier says:
However, the rest of what you wrote is not true, at least not necessarily. Aristotle is not merely making assertions. He has reasoned through the false and contradictory opinions to the right opinions. He does make an arguement. It’s up to us readers to decide whether we are convinced. I am.”
So again, you or aristotle, through reason, come up with a so-called ‘truth’. Despite the fact that it’s completely different from what someone else might have come up with, you now feel sure in your ‘truth’.
It’s the only reasonable way to come up with morality outside of a god, but you can’t claim it as a universal truth. If it is a law given by god, then it can be objectively ‘true’ regardless of people’s assent. But if it’s a supposedly natural law reachable by reason, then everyone’s reason should be able to reach it. If that’s not the case, then you have no argument for universality other than ‘because I think so’.
@Dalrock
I wasn’t accusing you of anything! Sorry if it came across as such.
Your blog is my most valued for insight and quality of argument. I don’t post much, but I do read it a lot.
BTW, where do you see things with regard a return to marriage 1.0? Given that a lot of men have been shown what women are naturally like (let’s leave it at ‘painfully human’ to avoid flamewars), I for one, do not have any interest in returning them to the 1.0 marriage pedestal. Marriage 2.0 is clearly broken. Is 3.0 Cat ladies, Hos, Players and Console game enthusiasts?
This, I think, is the saddest thing about where humanity is headed. No more Star Trek (plenty for all, excitement, happiness), we seem to be heading for Soylent Green – a miserable existence for all, but hey equality rocks yeah?
“Just1X says:
Thanks for that. As an atheist I am usually told that I can have no morals without a belief in a god. This pisses me off as I was married to a Catholic. As a life long atheist I regard myself as being far more principalled and moral than her…a better xtian in fact. She lied, cheated etc etc with impunity.”
There’s a conflation. Of course you can have morals without a god. What I don’t think you can have is a universal morality. You can definitely decide on a code of conduct and stick to it, but you have no standing to announce that your morals are a universal standard of morality to which everyone must adhere.
You can certainly set up a society with laws based on those morals, and morals that seek to effect a harmonious society, in which case ‘the society has set up these laws’ is sufficient reason to have the law, but you can’t claim ‘the morals that were revealed to me by thinking about it’ has the same universality.
I’m not a moral relativist – I do think there are things which can be stated as completely wrong, but I am honest about the fact that it can’t really be proven without appealing to a higher power.
No, everyone’s reason is not necessarily capabable of reaching it, nor is that a requirement for natural right to be true.
This gets to a profound question about the nature of society and its relationship to the truth. In short, Aristotle’s answer was “Most people will never fully understand natural right and that is an inescapable fact, so the best we can do is work through public opinion as it exists to mitigate its worst aspects and make it better.” The (early) modern answer is “Aristotle was wrong, society is rationalizable, here’s how.” Everything important that we are talking about stems from this change.
All the ideas that you guys are so (rightfully) upset about stem from this change. It didn’t start with feminism or even the Progressives, you have to go back another 500 years.
Kai, “If it is a law given by god”
I see what you are saying about natural law (I agree), but whose god?
Even within the same root religion, people are very capable of becoming jehovah witnesses, mormons, protestants or catholics using much the same source material. Once you start with Zeus, Odin, etc…whose god? Turn the other cheek vs only righteous death is in battle…
I don’t have dog in that fight, but it’s a clear problem with your argument, isn’t it?
@Just1X
Thanks! I didn’t take it that way. I just wanted to acknowledge the nature of my arguments. I’ve been hammering the church very hard lately. What is fascinating to me is how once you have an accurate understanding of human nature how many of the biblical rules which so many moderns have determined to be hopelessly lost are actually right on target. Learning game can make one sound surprisingly orthodox.
Edit: I missed the following the first time.
I don’t see marriage ever going away, at least for the middle class and above. It is far too important an institution for raising children. I think we will see a generation of women at some point fearing that marriage isn’t a given, and this might happen fairly quickly. On the margins more women in that generation will make better choices. It won’t be an actual mass stampede from the carousel, but in many ways the panic will resemble one. Women have absolutely no fear of ending up spinsters right now. They could easily swing very quickly to being terrified that they won’t be able to have it. This is again focused on the middle class. Those women who don’t provide a stable father lead household for their children will over time/generations drop out of the middle class. There is also the status side of this which I’ve covered as well. Many mistakenly assume that marriage doesn’t hold any status for women. Unmarried women don’t fear being seen as spinsters by their peers today because they are able to convincingly argue that a secret multimillionaire hunky handyman is just around the corner. For young sane non ballbusting chaste women the promise of marriage will probably always be fairly good. But for divorcées we already see the grim reality in the data. This seems likely to occur for carousel riders as well. As the true pathos of the situation sinks in their status will drop accordingly. Women are absolutely brutal to each other about this kind of thing, even if it is done at an unconscious level. All of this will play out with men becoming more aware of the exact things we are talking about (again on the margins). They will understand women better and drop the pedestal. As they start to scrutinize potential wives more this will reinforce the change in behavior for women on the margins. So in the near term I think we will see some stabilization, but with women losing some or perhaps much of the power ground they have achieved. Marriage won’t be dead, but it will become something which isn’t a given. I think we could very well limp along as a society for quite a long time that way, with the middle and upper classes scrambling to make marriage work, and everyone else devolving further into babymamma land. The system will probably be just stable enough to muddle along. What ultimately happens after that I can’t even speculate.
Kai, you raise “proof”. This another important point. Aristotle says at the outset of the NE that ethics is not an exact science like math. We must expect from it only the precision that the subject matter allows. That means that some of the results of the investigation will be fuzzy and perhaps “probabalistic” rather than dead certain in the manner of Euclid proof.
The moderns say, anything that can’t be proved with mathematical certainty is not knowledge. Period. The early moderns (Hobbes, Descartes) think that they have found human principles that admit of such proof. The later moderns (Rousseau, Hegel, Nietzsche) demolish that certainty. What they don’t get is that Aristotle was right all along. You can’t “prove” natural right mathematically but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
@ Escoffier
1) it puts you on the level of an animal; 2) it’s bad for civilization; 3) you are making women worse.
1. Well, people have needs, and it’s up to them how they want to satisfy them. PUAs usually have no intention of getting married, so it’s either whoring around or remaining celibate. If it wouldn’t be for so many loose women, perhaps they would get married or they’d have to resort to visiting prostitutes.
2. That depends; it could be seen as actually preventing “bad” genes from being propagated. It’s up to women if they want to marry a guy with a lot of sexual partners; and it’s up to men if they want to marry an ex slut.
3. You’re putting women on a pedestal with that statement. No one’s forcing the women to sleep with them; the women are making an active choice, and they don’t feel like they’re made worse–they think of it as gaining sexual experience and getting in touch with one’s body. And no one should slut shame them for it.
I really don’t understand why you’re focusing so much on PUAs. I agree that it’s not moral, but then neither is the behavior of those women. If PUAs disgust you so much, then so should promiscuous women.
This phase of feminism started in earnest with the conservatives ignoring and acquiescing around 1850.
The rest of your article was likewise erroneous and off in scope and understanding solutions.
“Escoffier says:
No, everyone’s reason is not necessarily capabable of reaching it, nor is that a requirement for natural right to be true.”
So we’re back to ‘It’s true because I have thought about it and decided it is true, and anyone else who thinks about it and does not come to my conclusion is simply incompetent.’
Yeah, sorry – not convincing.
@ Escoffier
“I never said that. I said there are three very good reasons why being a PUA is immoral: 1) it puts you on the level of an animal; 2) it’s bad for civilization; 3) you are making women worse.”
I really don’t understand what the big deal is about gamers – there has always been a small population of males inclined towards doing what gamers do now, they just appealed to it in different terms.
What has apparently swelled the ranks of ‘gamers’ by any significant measure is not the dissemination of ‘game’ principles so much as the lag-effect of female sexual liberation(where female self-awareness at being free to ride the carousel with impunity, has taken generations to diffuse at a rate of information efficiency).
“You’re putting women on a pedestal with that statement”
No I’m not. I’m restating the very obvious home-spun truth that two wrongs don’t make a right.
“PUAs disgust you so much, then so should promiscuous women”
They do, moreso, in fact.
Kai
“I’m not a moral relativist – I do think there are things which can be stated as completely wrong, but I am honest about the fact that it can’t really be proven without appealing to a higher power.”
Then I think that we are pretty much in agreement (except for the existence of such a power, but as long as your belief and my lack of it allow us to live in peace, I’m content. This is where it tends to go wrong IMHO!)
Kai, either what I am talking about exists or it does not. A reasoned argument can be made for its existence. You seem to insist on equating that reasoned argument with mere assertion. I disagree. There is a massive difference.
BTW, there are all kinds of things that are true that not everyone understands. Do you fully understand Bernoulli’s Principle? I don’t. But I believe it is true.
“Just1X says:
Kai, “If it is a law given by god”
I see what you are saying about natural law (I agree), but whose god?
Even within the same root religion, people are very capable of becoming jehovah witnesses, mormons, protestants or catholics using much the same source material. Once you start with Zeus, Odin, etc…whose god? Turn the other cheek vs only righteous death is in battle…
I don’t have dog in that fight, but it’s a clear problem with your argument, isn’t it?”
Oh, I’m with you on this one. My point is that it is possible to say “This is god, and this is what he says, and it is truth and morality and law, and anyone who fails to recognise it is wrong.” That has a lot more standing than “I am Escoffier and this is what I have decided is right”. When you have a god-based morality, the question is no longer the legitimacy of the morality, but whether the god exists, is sovereign, and whether we are clear on what he has said. those are certainly open for debate, but if satisfied, then the morality is clear. just like laws in a society are decided by whoever runs the society, and while you can argue the legitimacy of the society-runners, if they have made a law, it’s legitimately a law.
I’m not a theist. I feel the same way as you about the various gods. My point is that to have a clear law, someone needs to make it.
“Escoffier says:
Kai, either what I am talking about exists or it does not. A reasoned argument can be made for its existence. You seem to insist on equating that reasoned argument with mere assertion. I disagree. There is a massive difference.”
Sure, but a reasoned argument can also be made for its lack of existence. When it comes down to it, it’s just one person’s argument or another.
It’s not that for something to be true or extant that everyone must understand it. But if there really is a universal natural truth, it’s basically declaring yourself god to explain that your reason has revealed it to you and anyone else’s reasoned arguments are wrong.
I wondered if you ever watched any of the Black rom-com movies. They deal with all these subjects – the sexual market place, game, playas and playettes, those who want to get married but can’t find a good man/good woman, the affects of fatherless on boys, etc but there is an underlying theme of Christianity throughout. And they usually look at things through the perspective of one or more of the male characters too, quite different from White rom-coms.
I hate rom-coms myself but I find the Black ones much more bareable and insightful than White ones.
I went through a period in my late 20’s when I shunned black movies because they felt so stereotypical. Someone I respect mentioned a movie that was spot on about the difficulties that have plagued relationships between black men and women for decades but that white and mainstream couples are just starting tackle via forums like this.
So I started giving them a second look, and yeah she’s right. You’ll find a much more realistic portrayal of the modern woman in relationships in a black romantic comedy than you ever will in a mainstream movie.
It’s quite remarkable really. The film work is often a bit below the standard you’ll find in big budget movies, but movies like “Not Easily Broken” “The Family That Preys” and the one someone added a clip from above (which I haven’t seen yet) impressed me with their honesty.
Not every one offline is living with their heads in the sand on this stuff. The problem with the black community (and I can say this based on knowledge not speculation) is that they are bound to liberal ideology as such there isn’t much room for the realities they portray so well on film to be addressed in real life.
the women are making an active choice, and they don’t feel like they’re made worse–they think of it as gaining sexual experience and getting in touch with one’s body
People make an active choice to smoke, and at first they don’t feel they’re made worse — they think that smoking just feels good, a pleasure for the body and mind! The damage appears much later, and oftentimes when it’s too late to fix. Furthermore, even when the harm becomes evident, some smokers are so addicted that they still can’t quit, even while it’s killing them.
The parallels between smoking and carousel riding are rather obvious. It’s fun at first. The damage comes much later; it can be STDs (possibly incurable and/or life shortening), infertility (due to abortion scars, STD damage, or just plain waiting too long), and failure to find a life partner because all the good men are either taken or off the market by the time a girl hits her mid 30s and tries to quit the carousel. And, some of them are so addicted to the carousel that they seemingly can’t quit, even when they are old hags…it’s really pathetic to see….
If one is to state that morality requires no pre-marital sex by anyone, then it is entirely justified to state that it is completely wrong for women to do it (even when they have offers) AND it is completely wrong for men to do it (even when they have offers). And that it is two complete wrongs when it is done. And therefore, no matter how wrong one sex is to offer it, it is still completely wrong for the other to partake in the offer.
I disagree as to the existence of this magical morality, but if one were to assume the basis, the rest of the argument does logically follow, even if it is frustrating in this sphere to hear the emphasis put on the men.
Dalrock
“What is fascinating to me is how once you have an accurate understanding of human nature how many of the biblical rules which so many moderns have determined to be hopelessly lost are actually right on target. Learning game can make one sound surprisingly orthodox..”
This is EXACTLY my experience, coming from the opposite direction. My estimation of the bible as a guide to living has been rising (though my level of belief has remained at zero). I was originally rather hesitant to read a christian related blog, but you keep addressing central issues in a calm, ‘moral’ way. I respect where you are coming from, I hope that your approach allows a wider audience to approach the issues in a helpful way.
“Sure, but a reasoned argument can also be made for its lack of existence.”
True, but which argument is stronger? I find natural right stronger than nihilism.
“When it comes down to it, it’s just one person’s argument or another.”
Well, what else do we have? Whose judgement do you want to prevail, the one who believes in natural right or the nihilist?
“But if there really is a universal natural truth, it’s basically declaring yourself god to explain that your reason has revealed it to you and anyone else’s reasoned arguments are wrong.”
No, not at all. I didn’t discover any of this and it was not “revealed” to me. I learned it. It was explained to me, which is very different. Lots of people can learn it. I wish they would. The world would be a better place. Of course I think the other arguments are wrong. If I didn’t, I would believe those arguments instead. The point is, I am doing my best to use my reason to discover what is true, I am not just making assertions.
The unification of a spurious game theory, simply allows promiscuous males to attribute their success to individual self-determination, and thus construct a fanciful red-herring for their mating inferiors to pursue, in place of (real)systemic solutions that would limit female choices(and likewise, the sexual success of the most privileged male cohort).
“What is fascinating to me is how once you have an accurate understanding of human nature how many of the biblical rules which so many moderns have determined to be hopelessly lost are actually right on target. Learning game can make one sound surprisingly orthodox.”
Absolutely on target!!! Paul understood human nature nearly 2000 years ago. And It. Has. Not. Changed. One. Bit. Since. Since I learned about game, when reading Bible passages like “men love your wives, wives respect your husbands”, it became crystal clear to me why Paul said it THAT way. The wisdom we have thrown on the scrap heap … Along those lines, reading Solomon’s excellent post on Proverbs 31 was a real eye opener.
Being a Christian is not incompatible with the understanding of our baser natures as brought to us by the very PUA’s that Escoffier dislikes. It’s OK to dislike their conduct for its outcomes, but there’s no denying the PUA community have performed a valuable service for the rest of us in bringing the discussion of the true natures of men and women to the foreground. For it is only through that knowledge that we can come to truly understand Paul’s letters and the wisdom they contained. And through that, come to understand where we’ve gone off the tracks. How we get back on, well that will likely take another generation or two.
People make an active choice to smoke, and at first they don’t feel they’re made worse — they think that smoking just feels good, a pleasure for the body and mind!
I disagree Van Rooinek. Every smoker knows that smoking is bad for them, its negative side effects are told everywhere, including having to look at a disgusting picture every time one opens the package. However, they still continue to smoke because they’re under the impression that it won’t happen to them; like they’re invincible or something.
I also think that we, as a society, have reached a sad moment when a person does not know or has to be told that it is wrong to be promiscuous. One does not need to be Christian to understand the negative effects of promiscuity/waiting too long; one just needs to have bought to the feminist mantra (see Slutwalks, etc…).
No I’m not. I’m restating the very obvious home-spun truth that two wrongs don’t make a right.
Perhaps not intentionally, but you are doing it by putting all the blame on the men who choose to whore around and none on the women who choose to be a cum disposal and who rather enjoy it. Try telling a slut that she’s a slut, and just watch her reaction.
“but you are doing it by putting all the blame on the men who choose to whore around and none on the women who choose to be a cum disposal and who rather enjoy it.”
I realize I am long-winded and I am posting a lot but you guys really are not reading what I write.
@Escoffier
1 isn’t a moral argument. You could say the same thing about eating, drinking, and defecating. One can make arguments about disrupting the order of society (eg urinating or defecating in an inappropriate manner), but this is your argument #2 which I address below. What is left is an arbitrary preference for the female vs male preferred form of uncommitted sexuality. You are deeply invested in the female preferred version, but as I have argued repeatedly this doesn’t make it any more moral, or more importantly the male preferred version any less moral. You have yet to make a case for this.
2 They aren’t going against the norms of society by not marrying, and even if they were society has no leg to stand on here (see the original post). With this said the question is do they have a secular moral obligation to remain celibate if unmarried. This question is already answered in our society from a secular perspective. This brings us back to how you want them to manage their non married sex lives. You clearly feel it would be more moral if they were to prefer serial monogamy. But as I have pointed out there is no logical basis for this. Women prefer one kind of promiscuity, men another. They therefore must come to their own arrangements on an individual level. Each can demand what they want, but if the other side isn’t willing they will have no takers. You and I have no right to go in and arbitrarily put our thumb on the scale for one side or the other.
“3) you are making women worse”
It is actually you who is making women worse by providing them with cover for their bad choices. You yammer on about how innocent and sweet the youngest carousel riders are, and how the big bad PUAs are tricking them into having casual sex. But this is pure fantasy. Even if it weren’t, there is still the issue of moral hazzard. Cruelty is telling them it isn’t their fault. Kindness is being honest with them about their own motives and making their responsiblity to make good choices crystal clear. Dangling Roosh and Roissy in front of them as the scapegoat is just pre-programming their hamster. They don’t even need to think of their own rationalizations with people like you doing it for them. Proof of the reality of this can be seen if you look back in the past. We kept women from making bad choices by shaming sluts. This is a tried and true method, going back to the ancients. It simply is the only way to do what you are trying to achieve. The feminists saw this and had a fit about the double standard. Traditional conservatives felt bad for women and jumped on board. So be it, but that double standard prevented a world of misery as we now see every day. We know what the solution is to the problem you are trying to solve, but it makes you uncomfortable because you would have to focus your judgment on women.
Who are these men who are dying to get married in their early 20′s?
Church. Conservatives. Virgins til marriage (or, trying to restrain).
Almost every man I’ve ever met has WANTED to wait to get married until at least age 25, and many aren’t interested until their 30′s.
Does not apply to the substantial subset of the population that still believes, at least in theory, in the old morality. Also does not apply to the huge number of old fashioned romantics out there. But religious men are invisible to nonreligious women, and old fashioned romantics tend to be treated like absolute dirt (which is a big reason for the rise of the Manosphere and game… )
And in the meantime, men certainly have options other than be a) celibate, or b) a manwhore … they can, you know, get a GIRLFRIEND.
First of all, the old, ie Biblical, morality makes no distinction between sinning as a manwhore, or sinning with just one girlfriend. ALL sex outside marriage is considered wrong. “Get a girlfriend” to take care of one’s sexual needs, is not an answer for the traditionalist. For a traditionalist, a “girlfriend” is someone you’re considering marrying — not a plaything.
Secondly, there are a huge number of decent men who can’t get a girlfriend to save their lives. At least not til their 30’s when their income rises and the women’s looks start to fade. Til then, they are involuntarily celibate. They can’t get a girlfriend to fornicate with, and if they are traditionalists, they can’t get a girlfriend that might want to get married either. They just can’t attract women, at all, in any way. Again, hence game theory and the Manosphere.
And speaking as a man who didn’t go all the way til the wedding (well into my 30s, alas), let me tell you that I turned down sexual offers — (I’m tall and goodlooking, a physical alpha despite a totally beta personality). It is MUCH easier to be a manwhore, than it is to get a relationship! Indeed, in my 20s I asked, quite bitterly and often, the reciprocal of your question: “Where are all these women who bitch and moan about men not wanting to commit?? Here I am, more than ready to marry the right girl, and no woman will give me the time of day!!!!”
1) of course dedicating your life to eating or drinking is immoral in the same animalistic way. That’s why temperance or moderation is one of the four cardinal virtues.
I’ve said it before and I will say it again (not that I expect you to listen, since you’ve ignored it every time), I am completely against female promiscuity of every kind. You keep accusing me of being the opposite despite my clear words. I really have no idea why.
2) is just an argument with someone else. My argument does not logically lead to “Men should be monogamous within LTRs short of marriage.” It leads to “men should be chaste until marriage” I have said over and over that everyone should.
Let’s do a thought experiment. Suppose somehow men magically followed my advice and stopped hooking up. There would be no more carousel to ride. All the dumb or confused or corrupt women who ride it would have nowhere to go. Their hypergamy would not have no outlet for indulgence. Perhaps then their attitude would start to change. It would have to. But as long as the desirable “alphas” however defined continue to screw around, the carousel will spin and this will go on. That’s why I say they are damaging civilization.
So my message to girls is: cross your legs, understand your base impulses and learn to control them; wait for a (one!) good man. My message to boys is: stop screwing sluts, even (especially) if they throw themselves at you; become a good man and wait for a good girl. Is any of that going to happen? Probably not likely. Will it happen if we don’t insist on the change? If we don’t raise our sons AND daughters with these messages. No effing way. Does celebrating/excusing PUAs make it more or less likely to happen? Clearly less.
Since this is absolutely the only solution to the problem, however improbable its implementation, I see no downside to trying except for those who, if they follow the advice, will be less able to indulge their carnality. But since the premise is that they will be better off in the long run, that’s a feature not a bug.
3) Again, you’re having an argument with someone else. “You yammer on about how innocent and sweet the youngest carousel riders are.” This is just a joke.
Escoffier:
I said there are three very good reasons why being a PUA is immoral: 1) it puts you on the level of an animal; 2) it’s bad for civilization; 3) you are making women worse.
Let’s unpack this:
1. Once again we see the typical SoCon demonization of male sexuality. “Men’s sex drive bad, women’s desires are pure as the driven snow”, how predictable and tiresomely so.
So Escoffier demands that all men should remain chaste and sexless until a Special Snowflake Princess decides that he’s worthy of her hand in marriage, right?
2. Note well how Escoffier spends his energies. Does he energetically condemn Marriage 2.0 as “bad for civilization”? No. Does he even mention divorce theft as “bad for civilization”? No. Does he have any problem with false rape accusations and the misandry implied as “bad for civilization”? No. How about babymommas, has Escoffier ever stated that women “marrying” the government in order to pump out more bastards is “bad for civilization”? No, no, never. So what we have here is a huge focus on a rather small minority of men, and a total blind eye turned to the larger social and legal dysfunctions that brought the PUA’s into existence in the first place.
Escoffier is like some aristocrat strolling about the smouldering remains of a city burned down by a civil war, busy fussing about how messy the sidewalks are, and how immoral people are for not putting their yards in order. All the larger issues, all the bigger problems are nothing to him – he is concerned only about the PUA’s.
3. Once again the see the SoCon mindset at work. “Something is bad for women! EEEEK! We must Do Something!”. All the damage done by carousel riders to themselves and to the sucker Betas that the marry is irrelevant to Escoffier. All the damage done to society by AA, by VAWA, by other unjust laws does not matter. But the PUA’s matter – because they are taking pure, Special Snowflake Princesses and soiling them with their base, animalistic , foul, male desires. The fact that the PUA’s are actually sexing up carousel riders apparently has not crossed Escoffier’s mind – he can’t imagine that any woman would ever get off of her pure, clean pedestal to do such nasty things, except to bear children for her husband of course.
Escoffier claims that he doesn’t like promiscuous women. Yet he expends 99% of his energy criticizing 1% of men, and effectively 0% of of energy criticizing any women at all. This shows where his real concerns are: White Knighting.
Come on, Escoffier, what’s the real story? Got yourself a carousel rider in the family that you can’t quite bring yourself to criticize, maybe? Can’t quite bring yourself to admit the true nature of women, not even to yourself (still waiting for you to explain why murderers get lots of fan mail from women, for example)? Can’t put yourself in the place of a man who discovers that one of “his” children is not actually his, or in the place of a man whose wife decides she’s not haaaapy anymore & dials 911 in order to whisper “I’m scared. He frightens me” so hubby can be arrested?
Or are you just another philosopher-king wannabe who would like to be able to dictate men’s behavior, while giving women a free pass?
What’s the real story? And just how old are you?
Humans are probably the most adaptive creatures on the planet. Single men, whether never married, divorced, or widowed have come to accept the reality of Marriage 2.0, Divorce 2.0 and the impact of feminism on individual women. It has taken a couple of decades, but these men are all reacting in a similar manner. That is they are avoiding marriage. As I mentioned elsewhere, young men who happen to father a child, now pay child support rather than marry.
Chel bemoans the fact that men under 30 don’t want to get married. This generally true and quite different from 35 or so years ago. She neglects to address why. It truly is simple. Men see marriage as a bad deal. I posit that the majority of single men at any age do not want to get married to women of comparable age. There is a trend for 30 something men to shop for marriage among pre-carousel riding early 20 year olds. One of the happiest married couples I know is between a 39 year old guy and a 24 year old woman. He took her off the market when she was in her late teens. She never got near the carousel. The age difference caused some consternation in her family, especially since prior to his marriage he was a player, but they share a faithful and happy marriage. Even so the prenup is comprehensive, having provided the carousel to a large number of women he hedged his bet as far as the law allowed. To the extent that men seek younger women for marriage, they are merely trying to improve the odds that they won’t experience the downside of Divorce 2.0
Women have engineered the one sided farce that marriage has become. They have engineered the one sided chainsaw that divorce is for a man. Men, especially young men, have adapted to this reality. PUA, game, refusal to marry are all central to that adaptation. Longer term this will have a further consequence. As fewer and fewer beta’s are willing to take the leavings of the carousel, aging women will end up having casual sex with them.
Game exists to artificially raise the SMV of men. This is important only because women are in the position to say yes or no. A the market place becomes more and more top heavy with 35+ year old former carousel riders who lost their seat to younger women, it will become the privilege of the men they formerly classed as betas to say yes or no. The market place is relative. Men hold their value longer than women. Their unwillingness to marry make certain that eventually betas will get to play, even those without game.
Women have created something pretty ugly for men. Now it is coming full circle.
Why is it automatically assumed that Escoffier’s call for male virtue is divorced from a call for female virtue? I think Dalrock has done a very good job of differentiating between the secular argument and the religious argument, but I think Escoffier is being unfairly judged here.
I for one am fairly tired of the demonization of the male sex drive and would never condone such, but a Christian calling for Christian standards of sexual behavior shouldn’t be offensive.
[D: He is specifically making a secular argument. I thought he was making a Christian one as well, but he clarified that for me.]
“but you are doing it by putting all the blame on the men who choose to whore around and none on the women who choose to be a cum disposal and who rather enjoy it.”
Escoffier
I realize I am long-winded and I am posting a lot but you guys really are not reading what I write.
I’ve read it all. You go on and on and on and on about how PUA’s are bad for civilization, and then once in a while throw in a token “Oh, yeah, women should be good, too”. It is easy to see that you are focused to the point of obsession on a small, even tiny, minority of men and have no time at all to look at the much larger set of women who behave badly as well.
And that is why people keep pointing out the obvious: you are all worked up about PUA’s, and that’s pretty much your sole focus. The larger issues, the entire legal and societal misandry doesn’t even seem to register with you. The 40 years of ultimatums doesn’t matter until somehow it affects women. Then, and only then, do you care. So it isn’t “civilization” you want to save.
It’s women. You want women to be protected at any and all cost.
(PS: Would you care to expound on the “base nature” of women? Oh, wait, you’ve been asked that multiple times, and are not up to the job. Never mind. Resume your worship of the pedestal.)
PS:
Pretend that Aristotle didn’t like VAWA. Maybe you could bring yourself to examine that bad law?
Chel bemoans the fact that men under 30 don’t want to get married. This generally true and quite different from 35 or so years ago. She neglects to address why. It truly is simple. Men see marriage as a bad deal.
No, that’s not why. They’re still getting married, only they do it when they’re over 30 and established in their careers. As far as I can tell, there’s no marriage strike, despite how much MRAs want and encourage it.
@Escoffier
This is an extremely weak moral argument. They aren’t leading the balanced lives you feel they should. The reality is that for men sex is a huge motivator, and social order is largely based on harnessing this motivator through marriage. These men could probably argue that they are focusing less of their effort on obtaining sex than the average man, freeing them up to become enlightened philosophers.
You accuse me of not paying attention, but I have gone through in painful detail explaining why society has no grounds to insist that men marry. We have taken a functioning system and tuned it entirely against men. You can’t base your argument around men needing to marry, but you have nothing else so you keep returning to it.
Because you insist on finding the most round about, impractical solution to a problem we already know how to solve. As proof I present your very next statement:
Why do a thought experiment when we can look to the history of western civilization? The practical solution to the problem you claim to want to solve is universally clear. You are either a clever silly or wedded to solving the problem without making women feel uncomfortable, or (most likely) both.
But over time more and more younger women will look at the end result of their cat lady aunts and fear will be more of a motivator than (alpha) greed.
Only a small minority of women will ever voluntarily restrain themselves out of self-preservation. We have enormous amounts of data showing what a slog life is for single mothers and children of single parent households, yet girls are continuing to have and keep their illegitimate babies. I don’t think even the Great Recession has changed that at all. What you have to have is older people suffering because of the choices of young girls, those older people properly identifying the cause, and then clamping down on the freedoms of the young in order to save themselves financial, emotional, physical stress, etc. That’s really how it always worked, and it only changed because of 1) the general growing prosperity of America in the post-War years and 2) the illusion that reliable birth control would limit illegitimacy and the host of negative consequences for society illegitimacy brings with it. For this to happen, you need a drastically shrunken pool of communal assets, small enough that no one wants to dole out for people who chose badly of their own accord. So: no WIC, welfare, Section 8, food stamps, etc. The government could voluntarily shrink the pool, but everyone associated with gov’t knows this would be suicide and would probably lead to serious violence. I suppose we will see if the terrible social and economic choices this country has made will crash the economy enough for mothers to lock down their daughters so all of them won’t starve. At this point Boomer mothers/grandmothers don’t seem to be repenting of their “Live your own life according to your own truth” philosophy. But then, the money spigot is still flowing, if not nearly as briskly as before.
As far as Roosh and Roissy go, they are giving women what they said, and still say, they wanted – no-strings sex. That this isn’t actually good for women, short- or long-term, is something they need to identify and then strongly state (the follow through). But then that would be going against everything feminism stands for: good times paid for by someone else.
“They aren’t leading the balanced lives you feel they should.”
If you really are a Christian, then they aren’t living the lives that YOU think they should either, to the extent that you are committed to Christian principles. The difference is that I am willing to condemn them and you aren’t.
“The reality is that for men sex is a huge motivator, and social order is largely based on harnessing this motivator through marriage. ”
Absolutely. Which is what both you and I would like to see restored. My point is that one component of such a restoration will have to be the de-glorification of the PUA.
“These men could probably argue that they are focusing less of their effort on obtaining sex than the average man, freeing them up to become enlightened philosophers.”
Funny stuff. Yeah, they could say that but I see no evidence whatsoever that it’s true.
Where am I insisting that men must marry? I’ve said over and over, “Do what Dalrock says and only get married if you find a worthy girl.” I can’t make that any clearer.
Another thought you put into my head is that I don’t want to make women uncomfortable. I absolutely realize that restoration will require making a great many women extremely uncomfortable. This is not only necessary, it is desirable.
@ Escoffer
The reason why your words cut no ice here is because we know, for a fact, that socons are simply not to going to bring the hammer down on women. At all. Sure, you will personally hold men and women to the same standard of promiscuity, but we know for a fact the larger community of socons and traditional conservative thought leadership and opinion makers will absolutely not. They will continue to shame men into marrying and “manning up” and then will do nothing to change the cultural, social and legal environment in which men have to operate. They simply cannot be trusted.
And the idea that it’s the men who should stop sleeping around first—with the idea that controlling male sexuality in this manner would leave slutty, hypergamous women with no place to go—is the most ass-backward idea ever promoted on this site. There is a reason why every single goddamned civilization restricted female sexuality as a means of indirectly controlling male sexuality and did not attempt to control male sexuality by direct social edict. Now you want to reverse thousands of years of human history to do something that has never actually worked, while foregoing the only thing we know has been successful??
Dude, wake up.
Elspeth
Why is it automatically assumed that Escoffier’s call for male virtue is divorced from a call for female virtue?
Speaking only for myself, I note the great deal of energy Escoffier devotes to declaring PUA’s a bane on civilization, and the very few words he dribbles out regarding women’s behavior & I frankly regard his calls for female virtue to be insincere fig leaves at best. He’s enraged by the PUA’s, but cannot spare a moment to be even slightly angry about the social and legal forces that created the PUA’s in the first place. Escoffier is like a doctor who is determined to energetically treat symptoms while studiously ignoring the disease that causes the problem.
I believe he’s a White Knight SoCon who doesn’t ‘really understand women very well, and what little he may have learned from critiques of the PUA’s likely scares him. Just look at previous postings on Game – he’s all over the lot, first declaring it to be A Bad Thing, then deciding that Athol is ok. All of this suggests to me that he’s very ambivalent about Game, because it reveals women to be just as animalistic as men are, and that surely creates a cognitive dissonance in the mind of any man who was raised in many US communities in the last 50 or more years.
PS: I don’t think you can call Escoffier a Christian, either, for what that’s worth.
“PUAs disgust you so much, then so should promiscuous women”
Escoffier:
They do, moreso, in fact.
Yet you expend a great deal of energy condemning PUA’s, and Game (except when you decide Game is ok, except when it isn’t) and basically have no interest in anything but the mildest bleat regarding bad behavior by women. Can you not see your own blatant double standard?
“the idea that it’s the men who should stop sleeping around first—with the idea that controlling male sexuality in this manner would leave slutty, hypergamous women with no place to go—is the most ass-backward idea ever promoted on this site”
I said it was a thought experiement and highly improbable. The point was just to illustrate my assertion that PUAs vultures picking at the refuse of civilization.
What really needs to happen is that BOTH sides need to stop, and shame needs to be reasserted on everyone. That will require, as I have said, the de-glorification of the PUAs. Along with much else.
@grerp
I think the missing component is the current assumption by women that marriage will always be there for the taking. This is muting the powerful status marriage holds for women. Middle and upper class women already avoid giving birth outside of wedlock because of the low status it clearly signals. What many have convinced themselves at least for the moment is that becoming a baby mamma by the indirect route (give birth in wedlock, then divorce) doesn’t have the same stigma. This is largely true for now, but I don’t see this as being permanent. We already see signs of higher class women fearing the damage divorce would do to their children. We are in a period of resorting to see who really belongs in the middle and upper class and who will sort down to the lower class. The sorting will happen because the effects on children are real. Men becoming less willing to marry women with a history of promiscuity will reinforce this fear, as marriage starts to become perceived as scarce, even for middle class women.
All of this would be further reinforced if/when the fantasy that women can bank on remarriage following divorce is dispelled. Right now they still hear the official sources telling them nonsense based on women who divorced when I was a young boy. I’ve gone through the problem with those stats in detail. What we have now is an information lag, but it won’t last forever. This then reinforces the status of marriage issue. Women who are married can then gloat over their divorced peer’s abysmal prospects. They will of course couch this out of great concern for their fellow sister, but the subtext will come through loud and clear.
Escoffier:
“The PUAs hurt women by making them worse, the same way a drug dealer hurts a junkie by making him worse. The junkie is still depraved and responsible for his actions but the drug dealer is not blameless. Using Aristotelian terminology, we may say that he is the efficient cause, or one of them.”
Classic, trad con, white knighting, mangina reasoning….why is the woman the addict and the PUA the dealer, in this little analogy? Why not the other way around? Why isn’t the PUA the “pussy adddict,” and the carousel riding slut the “dealer?” Using the stereotypical (if not actually factual), lurid scenario about how dealer/junkie relationships work, isn’t the woman the one offering her highly desired wares to someone desperate to have them? As hot as women are to experience alpha, I doubt that drive is stronger than the sex drive of the average twenty something young man. I really don’t buy this, but I don’t buy your script either. As Dalrock has mentioned, you have cast the PUA as the heavy in your little vignette, because you can’t help yourself. You refuse to see women as having agency, as being fully accountable for her actions. So you make the guy partly responsible too.
Now you’ll turn around and say….”But look at what I wrote! I SAID that she was still depraved and responsible for her actions, just like a junkie is…why aren’t people reading what I wrote!!!!!” Yes, you did say that, but only after you laid some of the blame for the woman’s fate on the PUA. While, at the same time, you have laid NONE of the blame for the PUA’s fate on the woman. In your view, yes, the woman is responsible for her “bad” actions, but it is partly the PUA’s fault too, while the PUA is responsible for his actions, period. Full stop. The woman is nowhere to be found at this point in your analysis. She is not a contributing factor to the PUA’s “bad” actions or fate.
This kind of thinking is like the air you breathe. It is for most trad cons. They just can’t seem to grasp the notion that women are NOT, qua women, victims. That they have agency. That they don’t always merely “consent” to sex but initate it sometimes too (quite often, actually). That they are fully resonsible for their actions, just like men. A woman in a singles bar looking to get picked up is totally responsible for her actions. Just like the guy there looking to pick up a woman. Neither one is a victim. Neither one is akin to a helpless junkie (again, assuming that stereotypical portrayal is accurate) viz a viz a conniving, profiteering, predatory, “pusher,” dealer.
As a final note, I really wish you would drop the appeal to authority, “but Aristotle agrees with me” bullshit. Nobody cares if Aristotle agrees with you, assuming that is even true. If you are going to make a moral argument, whether a full blown one like you claim about natural rights, or a brief one as you do here for “efficient” causes, it is on you to show what your claims are and how your arguments follow necessarily from unobjectionable premises and so on and so forth. It is not nearly good enough to say…”well, Aristotle says so in such and such a book, and I find his arguments persuasive, so, if you disagree with me, you must be a nihilst or some other undesirable thing.” Really, I think you would do better altogether to drop the high fallutin’, abstract philosophy and ground your claims in real world experience, but, if you’re not going to do that, then you must rely on your own proofs, not what you say that Aristotle has proven to your satisfaction.
ruddy, it doesn’t matter. Flip it around, she’s the dealer and he’s the junkie. The point is the same. Both sides share blame.
@ Escoffer
“
Yes, both need to stop. Okay, fine.
But what’s the mechanism for bringing that about?? Phrases like “shame needs to reasserted on everyone” just glides over the real issue—how to actualize the cessation of promiscuity. The guys in the manosphere, being a logical and observant bunch, are promoting the only solution that has ever worked in the history of human civilization: slut shaming and the restrictions on hypergamy.
So what do the socons support? I argue that if they don’t support the manosphere solution it means that they aren’t truly serious about fixing the problem because this is the only solution that can and has ever worked. Trite, reality-free, fluffyisms like “shame needs to reasserted on everyone” is total bullshit.
We know what works. It has to start with the women.
dragnet, don’t disagree with any of that except maybe this: “The guys in the manosphere, being a logical and observant bunch, are promoting the only solution that has ever worked in the history of human civilization: slut shaming and the restrictions on hypergamy.”
They are? Which guys? What I read are guys who say “This is the best time in history to be a guy because I can get all the pussy I want.” Dalrock fits the above description but who else?
Of course, shame does need to be re-asserted on everyone. Call it trite. “Cross your legs” is also trite. As you guys have noted many times, the problem is understood and the solutions are known. OK, they may be trite but they are the opposite of “reality-free.”
ruddyturnstone
This kind of thinking is like the air you breathe. It is for most trad cons. They just can’t seem to grasp the notion that women are NOT, qua women, victims. That they have agency. That they don’t always merely “consent” to sex but initate it sometimes too (quite often, actually). That they are fully resonsible for their actions, just like men. A woman in a singles bar looking to get picked up is totally responsible for her actions.
Exactly. Just as some married woman discretely dropping a bucket load of obviously sexual IOI’s on a man during a more refined social event is also totally responsible for her actions. I’ve seen it, I’ve even been the target of it a couple of times, and until I learned about hypergamy and Game I was totally befuddled & disgusted by it.
Well, now I’m not befuddled anymore. I understand women’s nature much better than I did even 3 years back, and that definitely includes the parts that can be rather disgusting. Again, I think that’s why Escoffier is all over the place about Game – it includes some truths about women’s nature that is totally opposed to what he was taught about women as a boy / young man, & the resulting cognitive dissonance is distressing. If that’s true, I can absolutely say that I understand his distress – but turning back to the pedestal is not going to make it go away.
Escoffier
Which guys? What I read are guys who say “This is the best time in history to be a guy because I can get all the pussy I want.” Dalrock fits the above description but who else?
Your extreme selectivity in reading is noted. Please bear in mind it’s not our problem, it’s yours.
@ Escoffer
I guess this isn’t the best time to inform you that I lean closer to that school of thought myself. I’m well aware of the fact that my whoring around is contributing to civilizational decline—I just don’t see better alternatives for someone in my position because I don’t see any institutions on the horizons serious about tackling it. I’m just trying to make it clear here why exactly the socons get so much hate in these parts.
And any suggestion to control male sexuality by telling them not to partake in the buffet of young sluts on offer is, in fact, “reality-free”. “Cross your legs” has to happen first. Take away the buffet and then men will fall in line. No, simultaneous shaming will not work either. Restrict women first, and men will follow—as it has ever been.
THIS IS THE ONLY ORDER THAT WORKS.
@Escoffier
I’m still waiting for that secular argument you keep promising. Telling me I should agree with you because I’m a Christian isn’t a secular argument. It does however smell an awful lot like an admission that you in fact can make no such argument.
Nonsense. The great irony is that PUAs doing their immoral (from a Christian perspective) thing is the most likely thing to push us back towards sanity. Right now women can enjoy the carousel. Make it less enjoyable for them and more risky and fewer will participate. Roissy and Roosh help restore balance in two ways. They are spreading the word, warning beta men on the dangers of marrying a ho in a way the white knight So Cons mysteriously haven’t gotten around to for over 40 years. They are also changing the terms of the promiscuous sex deal. Instead of it happening on women’s terms, it is starting to happen more and more on men’s terms. Instead of a world of endless courtship, they are finding pump n dump, participating in a soft harem, etc. This discomfort which they are causing is exactly what bothers you so much. Making bad choices uncomfortable for women is a good thing however. The system is on the verge of self correcting, and you can’t stand it.
Best. Thread. Ever.
The conservatives commenting here are intelligent and I think well-intended. What they don’t realize is that we lost. We lost in every way imaginable and we lost 40 years ago. We lost in the universities, we lost in the legislatures and we lost in the churches. All those educational and career opportunities we opened up to women in the So-Con halycon days of the 1980’s, all the millions of unassimilable immigrants the So-Con’s have enthusiastically welcomed since then–this was at the expense of opportunities for American men. We didn’t expand the pie at all; we just kept slicing it thinner. THAT’S why men can’t afford to build their own households until their late 20’s and even their early 30’s. Why shouldn’t they extend their juvenescence? There is literally nothing better to do.
The feminization of the US Protestant/Evangelical churches in the US is well-documented. Their other dirty little not-so-secret is the Ponzi-style support for ever more immigrants to fill their offering plates. So while the slick preacher with the “theology” degree is enjoying his tax-exempt allowances, his native male congregants are having to compete in the giant mud-wrestling match of the US job market.
The So-Cons stood by slack-jawed while the Left sowed the wind and they are still just standing there with their thumbs up their [expletives deleted] while the whirlwind blows around them. There is nothing left to conserve. Get on the reactionary Alternative Right or get lost.
“Restrict women first, and men will follow—as it has ever been.
THIS IS THE ONLY ORDER THAT WORKS.”
IOW: Men will man up when women man down.
Exactly–I made this point on The Spearhead sometime ago.
I’ve got a ton of respect for MRAs like Paul Elam and the few religious leaders who stayed true—what those guys do is important and they bring a lot of energy to the manosphere. But they need to understand the core truth of the last 50 years: that when misandry was on the march, most men bent over and took it in the rear end, and the guys who went into fightback mode got defeated. And decisively so.
Us young guys have noticed this and we’ve decided to fightback on our terms. We’ve concluded that forming “movements” and “raising awareness” doesn’t work and so we’re trying a new tack—either disengaging from the system as much as possible or by being a net drain on it. By using Game to give women the short-term fix they crave—but at the expense of their long-term reproductive goals. And so on.
There’s no guarantee us young bucks will be anymore successful than the Paul Elams—but I don’t think we’ll be all that worse off for it even in the worst case scenario. Most of us young guys don’t own homes, 401Ks, have families or even steady paying work. Whatever ends up happening we have the least to lose because we didn’t have much invested in the system from the get-go.
Escoffier
You are in deep denial about the problem and how we got here. Not all that long ago women were the primary focus of social pressure against promiscuity. As I said before, feminists had a fit and argued that we shouldn’t shame women unless we equally shamed men (which is your stance if not argument). This was a ruse to stop shaming sluts, and it worked beautifully. Shaming sluts is all it takes. But you can’t live with a simple and practical solution, for reasons you have yet to articulate. Until you can I will continue to fill in the gaps with speculation about your motives.
More urgently than we need slut shaming however we need to restore fairness to the marriage bargain. This is the absolute most urgent thing we need to fix. Beta men very much don’t want to go through the trouble of learning how to be a PUA, and the vast majority of men are this way. If you were truly concerned with fixing marriage, you wouldn’t be so distracted by PUAs.
Shame isn’t going to come back on ant significant scale unless the social system collapses, which I consider quite unlikely. The reasons are well-stated in the comment from GROIN that I posted above, namely: women no longer need men. Because they no longer *need* men, they are much less susceptible to being shamed about their behavior with men — the “cost” is much lower than it ever was in history of being the female object of shaming. On the margins, women will continue on their merry way because they can, because they do not need to worry about the fallout from attempted shaming, on the margins, like they did in days of yore.
As for men, trying to shame men who get a lot of sexual access into restraining themselves is a fool’s errand. Men are not going to be ashamed of getting laid a lot — period. They never have been, even at the height of sexual morality in the past. That’s because of the biological and social reality which underlies the double standard, and the fact that having a lot of sexual access is a “social proof” (and a biological one) for male success/desirability, and still is (and always will be) because females don’t dole out sexual access easily, no matter how permissive the sexual mores are in general. This is why the shaming focused on women — the gatekeepers of sex, and the choosers of whether to open their legs or not. By successfully making that shameful, casual sex was clamped down on (never eliminated). Trying to shame men who actually *have* sexual access doesn’t impact such men at all — it simply reduces even further the sexual access of the also-ran men.
We have to deal with reality as we now face it. The genie is out of the bottle. The cow has been milked. Men need to deal with women as they now are, not as we would like them to be in some ideal world in the recesses of our own minds, or out of the pages of history. And that means equipping themselves to deal with women who desire men but do not need them — which means women who are much more selective than ever before in history, while being much less attractive as mates than ever before in history. For guys who want to play that game, they need Game, full stop.
@ Brendan
I get your point, but I’m not sure total social collapse is the only way slut-shaming makes a comeback. Women do still need men…because women still want to get married. Women are acutely aware of status and are always trying to attain it—intrasexual competition is as fierce for them as it is for us. Securing long-term male investment will always be considered a status booster for most women—whether or not she needs this to survive. This drive, combined with the beginning relative economic decline of post-industrial societies could cause women to reassess their decisions on a limited basis, at least.
I’m not sure it’s likely that slut shaming makes a huge comeback, but I don’t think collapse is the only circumstance under which it can happen.
Dragnet –
I guess I would draw a distinction between a want and a need. Women *want* to get married, they *want* men — I agree. However, they do not *need* them. A woman isn’t going to live in poverty because she isn’t married. She isn’t going to be homeless, she in’t going to be living a solitary life, or be a “spinster”. She isn’t even going to be childless. She can live just fine, even if she may be unhappy she isn’t married.
I think it has to be a more dire *need* in order for it to support shaming at the time when it is needed — i.e., the under 30 set. I see no real evidence that upwardly mobile under 30 women are feeling needy when it comes to men or marriage — hence shaming their behavior is going to fall on deaf ears, I think.
I hardly ever comment on blogs, but I’d like to thank the commentators (and Dalrock himself) for posting their thoughts. I learn things from many of those with whom I’m more inclined to agree, but I enjoy the posts of almost everyone here.
Cheers.
1—-2—3—4—5—6—7—8—9—10
2,3 4 6 1 5
I feel pretty good about my moral compass.
Dalrock should be over towards the eight or nine. White space is all the same in HTML 😦
tfh, male birth control pills will also remove one of wimminz’ fave tactics; the whoops pregnancy. no more shotgun marriages (if they still exist in any number)
I understand ‘the four’ bit rings better, but I think that they have a mate
Ok, on secular morality, as short as I can make it.
Men are different from animals because of logos, reason or speech. Logos gives men a telos, or natural end, which is the cultivation of what is special and highest in man. The virtues are specific examples of the excellence that is unique to man and his duty is to practice them to the best of his ability. This—and this alone—leads to true happiness, which is the end or purpose or final cause of human life, that is, the one thing desired for its own sake and not for the sake of anything else that it can bring.
Now, I don’t expect you to believe this. In fact I expect you to reject it. I will note in passing however that every Christian philosopher from Augustine to CS Lewis has believed this, with Aquinas being the supreme example.
I also think it would be a better rhetorical strategy on your part, when encountering a natural right advocate (not that this happens much), to say “Hey, welcome to fight, glad we’re on the same side” and then perhaps whisper when he leaves the room “That poor bastard is lost without God.” But whatever.
The more important point is this. If you don’t believe that there is anything natural about morality, that it is simply willed by God, some very difficult consequences follow from that. I outlined several of them above. Here’s another, perhaps the most important. The predicament we find ourselves in today did not first arise with feminism. Feminism is rather a culmination of 500 years of philosophic attacks on both natural right and the religious tradition. The early moderns rejected natural right in favor of a mechanistic understanding of man that reduced him to his base appetites, what most men actually want and seek most of the time. Their two-fold project was to attack and destroy all sources of religious and classical philosophic authority and to set up a new order that would be efficient at delivering for man what he actually wants, not what he ought to want. Early modern mechanistic, satisfy-the-passions philosophy inevitably degenerated into “historicism” and finally nihilism, which is where we are today. Nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Except if you believe in God, but the foundation for that belief is gone and its most important ally is in tatters. You like to point out (and you make a very convincing case) that SoCons believe themselves to be opposed to feminism when in fact they are in league with it and accept its premises unthinkingly and unknowingly. I would say that the same is true of you: you do not understand the vast extent to which you are in league with and share the premises of your true enemy, which is modern philosophic nihilism.
As for your point about R&R, that is very interesting and original. It would not change the morality of what they are doing, except insofar as “the ends justify the means.” It reminds me of the fundamental premise of modern philosophy, that there is no justice in itself; the foundation of justice is always injustice. Good can only ever arise out of evil. I don’t think I believe this myself but it’s certainly plausible.
“Making bad choices uncomfortable for women is a good thing however.” You bet, I just think there are better, more moral ways to do it. In any event, if the correction you foresee is just around the corner, I’m delighted.
I got by on looks most of my life, and at 40, I’ve dated an awful lot of women, and had three long-term relationships, with women from all walks of life, and I’ve also been fucked over one way or another by ALL those spoiled white princesses. That is all the lesson I need. Modern white women are shit and not worth marrying.
Just1X – “no more shotgun marriages (if they still exist in any number)”
The modern equivalent of yesteryears “shotgun marriage” is a court order for child support. The guy is “hitched”, and has a rather powerful “gun” aimed at his back if he doesn’t pay-up, regularly, and on-time.
Looks like a good segway moment (or, at least as best as will likely come up) into plugging Keoni Galt’s latest: Bureaugamy.
The reason shotgun marriages aren’t needed any more is that thew women in need simply marries the ultimate beta provider/white-knight protector and enforcer – the state. Whether she simple collects the multitude of welfare benefits, or if she has the state enforce the transfer of money from the baby-daddy to her, the state is the one who’s taking care of her needs the way a husband was once the only source for such provision. Why marry the bull when the grass to make the milk is sex/relationship-free?
Escoffier ive been asking you for DAYS.
HOW OLD ARE YOU?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/11/15/40-years-of-ultimatums/#comment-21114
It seems PUAs are the new ‘Gay marriage’ for SoCons, as in an excuse they use to demonize an insignificant number of people, in reality because they are afriad to address the elephant in the room…
Yes, it’s a deflection. Burkean conservatives wring their hands about “morality” and “traditional values” and “those lousy PUA’S!” Meanwhile, the institutions to which the Burkeans still belong are stealing everything that isn’t nailed down and grinding whatever is left of organic American society into the dirt.
TFH: “Shaming won’t come back. The Misandry Bubble will collapse due to entirely different causes. The Four Horsemen of Male Emancipation are :”
I would add a Fifth Horseman, the addition of further misandric anti male laws (which I listed in an earlier comment) by feminists, whiteknights and SoCons which will be the straw which broke the camels back and cause many more men to opt out of the system and seek alternatives.
I agree misandry is a bubble, though I’m not sure anyone can really predict what year it will burst.
Still well done for proposing the concept or at least formulating the idea that misandry is a bubble.
@Will, misandry may be a bubble,but how do you de-brainwash generations of young women?
“If marriage and family were prioritized in American culture, which it is not,”
I think it’s more like marriage and family are prized, but only as ideals, not in their real forms, which lead people to abandon them when they don’t measure up to the fantasy.
Dalrock hit on this idea when he noted that women seem to want to “commit,” but only when the situation they are committing to is perfect, which of course isn’t really commitment but just staying around until things get tough. I have noticed the same tendency among young single women (and Susan Walsh agrees with me) – they don’t want a relationship, they want a “relationship” with a perfect guy, and a man offering a relationship is giving her very little of value unless he has superlative value alongside that “commitment.”
D—by all means, let’s shame sluts. But now who’s being mono-causal? Is that one thing going to fix everything? Of course not. But yeah, let’s do it. I have done it over at HUS (perhaps in terms you find too polite) and as I have said, I am raising my own daughter not to be a slut and I am teaching her that she ought to look down on and be judgmental about sluts. What else would you have me do? (Serious question.)
I do think that in any transaction where there are two parties, supply and demand, both sides of the ledger have to be addressed. Not merely because this is the right thing to do morally but also simply for the sake of effectiveness. So, we know that by nature a very large number of women will seek alphas and serially dump or ignore betas. (Just to be clear: shame on them! Shame, shame, shame!) We also know that this is only possible because the alphas are available.
Now, there will always be rakes. Some small number of men will always be libertine and will never be talked or shamed out of it. What we can do, however, is try to keep that population as small as possible. Only 20% of men are capable of it anyway because those are the only guys the majority of girls want. Some other not-huge but not-trivial % can also participate if they learn game. Well, if we want to re-regulate the market, why the hell would we encourage that? To be clear, I am not talking about “marriage game,” with which I have no problem and even support. I am talking about notch-count game. The thing is, only maybe the natural 20% of alphas and then next slice of those who learn game will ever become PUAs. But it’s clear that lots and lots of men want to try and would do it if they could. Why encourage that? It seems to me that that amounts to encouraging male polygamy the same way feminism encourages female hypergamy. How the hell is that a good idea?
You recently posted the only defense of manwhoring that I have ever found the least bit convincing, viz., that the sheer awfulness of it for women will force a market correction. Maybe. But that still would leave us with the fact that, in the long run, for the “new-old” market to work, male polygamy is going to have to be discouraged just as female hypergamy has to be discouraged.
Oh, and by all means, let’s fix the marriage mess too. I’m all for it.
In answer to repeated questions as to why I am focused on X and not Y, the reason is that Y has been done to death and I have nothing new to add. X apparently needs to be heard, however.
My question stands E.
In effect, you are condemning a substantial percentage of men to celibacy.
For the time being, yes. Do you have a better idea? Perpetuating the current system sems to benefit only the PUAs.
BTW, don’t worry about it, as you can seen, no one accepts anything I say anyway.
Escoffier – “In answer to repeated questions as to why I am focused on X and not Y, the reason is that Y has been done to death and I have nothing new to add. X apparently needs to be heard, however.”
Are you seriously suggesting that “Y” (the need for slut-shaming) has been done (to death) anywhere but in the very limit realm of the Manosphere? Where it has yet to be done, at all, is the realm of Churchianity. Churchianity has done “X” to death since I was a teenager in the late 70’s (systematically shaming boys and young men about their sexual inclinations). Now (or, more accurately, ~40 years ago) what needs to be heard is much, much more of “Y”.
“Y” used to work quite well. Why not try it for a change if you really wish to return things to teh way they used to be?
In his 1998 book “Transforming men:Changing Patterns of Dependency and Dominance in Gender Relations” Geoff Dench foresaw the development we are now seeing. To Dench patriarchy is a way in which women lure men into making themselves useful to society and women. The trick was that the woman subordinated herself to the man who were then becoming ultimately responsible for the well-being of the family and society. In this way male freedom was diminished, but the cost to women was their subordinate role.
Now women do not wish to be subordinated and therefore men are gaining more freedom and less responsibility. The cost to women for this will be tremendous in the long run.
Modern women has no way in which they can force men to become responsible to them or their children. A man can take on these responsibilities but he does not have to.
This will leave women with much more work to be done and the wealth created by men will soon vanish, as more and more males opt out of the system to become drones. What women have forgot is that a man who does not need to provide for a family does not need to work as much to keep the same standard of living. When men work less they will not transfer the sam amount of resources to women, neither through the family nor through the welfare state. Women and children will be poor.
Another cost which women and feminist have not thought is the cost of rearing boys who will fail. Many women – especially single mothers – will se their sons fail. Suicide among young males is sky-rocketing and although we do not hear about this it is a tremendous cost to his mother. It is also a tremendous cost to the mother when her son is falsely accused of DV, rape etc. And of course it is a tremendous cost to society locking up thousand of innocent men in jails. This take resources from children and women and contribute to their poverty.
Last but not least i think that the biggest cost to women will be that they increasingly will be forced to get children through insemination, making them nothing but machines in a reproductive industry, even without any power to choose the father of their children.
No, I’m saying Y has been done to death here so there is no point in me talking about it here. I have nothing to add.
For the time being, yes. Do you have a better idea? Perpetuating the current system sems to benefit only the PUAs.
A better idea is giving men at least a fighting chance. I don’t believe in sacrificing a generation of men to celibacy “for the moral good of the system”.
Escoffier what is your age?
“So, we know that by nature a very large number of women will seek alphas and serially dump or ignore betas. (Just to be clear: shame on them! Shame, shame, shame!) We also know that this is only possible because the alphas are available.”
This is backwards. Women seek alphas and dump or ignore betas precisely BECAUSE the old restraints on hypergamy have been been removed. There is no more shame in divorce. There is no more shame in sluthood. There is no more shame in single momhood or in promiscuity. Women drive the market because they are the sex gatekeepers. Women can now pursue alphas with impunity, and get them for a night or two, but that’s it.
Reinstitute shaming, and sluthood would be reduced and pushed to society’s margins where it used to be. Assortative mating would return and order would appear from chaos. It would take a generation or two, but it would eventually happen. I don’t think shaming will return, but it would work if it was returned.
Escoffer – “No, I’m saying Y has been done to death here so there is no point in me talking about it here. I have nothing to add.”
So, don’t limit your use of “Y” to just your daughter, spread the word in your church.
Of course, doing so will likely get you shunned by all the good-little So Con pseudo-Christians who can’t stand by and watch women be made the least bit uncomfortable.
You’re right, you have nothing to add here – and “slut-shaming” is just one issue to which that seems to apply.
Then I don’t see how we’re ever going to get a better system. Unless you guys are right that if the girls start first and the guys do nothing, it will all work out. That might be true, but what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of convincing more than a tiny % of women that that’s true/in their interest? This is to leave aside the moral question.
Like I said, the parents of my generation are receptive to your message. But you (general you, not you personally) are not putting it in terms that they will listen to. I have outlined many of the reasons I see. What you (should) want, among other things, is for parent to raise better daughters. If so, the message–not the content so much as the presentation–needs to be adjusted.
[D: I have presented it differently here.]
Escoffier:
“ruddy, it doesn’t matter. Flip it around, she’s the dealer and he’s the junkie. The point is the same. Both sides share blame.”
It DOES matter, becuase the way you originally presented it shows how you really think, I could have done what many of the other posters here have done, and shown how you have, in chapter and verse, condemned PUA, while barely bothering to condemn either the feminist system that produced them or their carosel riding sluts partners in crime.
Instead, I chose the example of the drug dealer analogy from all of your posts because it reveals the unconscious bias that you have towards women. The deep seated, white knighting impulse that almost all trad cons have. Sure, sure, now that I point it out to you, you say I can flip around, that the point is the same and that “Both sides share blame.” But that isn’t even true, because, in either scenario (pua as dealer/woman as junkie or woman as dealer/pua as junkie), one (the dealer) is to blame for himself AND the other (the junkie), while the other (the junkie) is only to blame for himself, and so which way one is cast (as dealer or junkie) DOES matter. And that is revealing as well. In your haste to pretend that your scenario was gender neutral, you have completely overlooked this aspect of your own analogy.
If men “drop out” en masse, that is quit their high tax bracket jobs and get part-time work at Dollar General in order to pay the rent in a house they share with 4 other guys and therefore the economy, taxes, Big Government and Big Corp plummet incredibly – how is this a bad thing? People will just start growing their own food and living in communal like environments which is what you see a lot of out West and Hawaii.
The people I know living like that are much happier than those I know running the rat race.
Less is more.
Wait, are you really saying she (as dealer) is somehow enticing and corrupting him? That he would not sully his innocence if not for her? He might, but only because she is unavaliable, not because he didnt want to. That is, unless he had been properly brought up.
There are two sides to this problem, each side is following its base nature to the extent that it can. If you guys want to insist that what the women are doing is morally worse, that’s fine, might even be true, but it still wouldn’t absolve the men.
Then I don’t see how we’re ever going to get a better system.
More likely, at least several generations of men will need to come to a modus vivendi with the current system. Building a different mousetrap is an interestin goal, but not one that has any real practical value for a man who is now 20. Therefore, pragmatic approaches are preferable.
Above all, I see social conservatives struggle with this – it’s all about “fixing the system” for them. Fine. But that has no value for men who are now in the market. None. The idea seems to be to sacrifice these men in favor of building a better system — something which is a very unlikely bet to begin with and, in any case, is objectionable because so many would be sacrificed in the process. This is, in any case, the key disagreement: pragmatism in the present vs. sacrificing a generation or two in the “hope” of building a better system for the generations after that. And I’m speaking of you, here, Esc. Most socons don’t even want that — they think the current system is fine, and just want men to “man up” (see, e.g., Bennett, Hymowitz, et al).
Escoffier: “For the time being, yes. Do you have a better idea? Perpetuating the current system sems to benefit only the PUAs.”
Brendan: “A better idea is giving men at least a fighting chance. I don’t believe in sacrificing a generation of men to celibacy “for the moral good of the system”.”
Good lord. Can we even imagine what a society will look like with 20 to 40 million men living in forced celibacy? (1) dropping out and refusing to contribute (what we have now) or (2) mass rioting and criminal activity due to underemployment and pent up frustration. Or perhaps it will be (1) followed by (2).
“BTW, don’t worry about it, as you can seen, no one accepts anything I say anyway”
That is equivocating. Either you are making an argujment or claim, or you are not. You can’t simultaneously say “X” and “but don’t bother arguing with X because no one but me accepts it.”
My remark about women not thinking strategically was partly ironic, although I do think that women may simply be more inclined to discount the future – as economists say – than men.
What socially conservative men don’t often get is that even nice girls will be a slut for the right man. I have personally seen the starchiest little misses do incredible and degrading things to please a man. This is not a myth. I suspect the famous recent reddit cuckolding story is a troll by a guy into cuckold fantasy, but the female psychology on display is not fanciful.
And I agree that the churches fouled up badly when they went soft on premarital sex, divorce and the rest. The only lasting solution is to give white weddings only to girls who can wear white.
In other words, you are condemning an entire generation of men to celibacy. Well then, you have to defend that, you can’t both say that that is how it should be AND that no one can call you on it.
One other thing, B: the manosphere takes for granted the following logic (which seems unassailable to me). Only 20% (or whatever, the point is, it’s a minority) of men are natural alphas. In a world with unrestrained hypergamy, they will get the lion’s share of the pussy. Game can enable some significant slice of the rest also to get pussy. How many? Certainly not the remaining 80%. Another 10%? Let’s be generous (though this is almsot certainly false) and stipulate that of that remaining 80%, almost half can learn game effectively. That means that now, in a hypergamous world, 50% of men can get pussy.
But 50% can’t. Or not much. So, as much as you object to me for condemning men to celibacy, it’s inescapable that you are too. The difference is, in my dream world, it’s temporary and in a good cause. At the other end, the % of men who can get women rises dramatically. Under your proposal, the have/have-not distinction is perpetuated indefinitely.
Unless the girls change it, which people here are divided on whether that will actually happen.
Escoffier – “Unless you guys are right that if the girls start first and the guys do nothing, it will all work out.”
to a rather large extent, the actions of men have been a response to what worked to get women. From society-building, down now to PUA’s and adult ‘Peter Pan’s”, it’s all mostly just a male reaction to what is currently working best vis-a-vis woman/sex (“Peter Pan’s” of course, being a response to the realization that they currently have little chance of successes)
“That might be true, but what are the chances of that happening? What are the chances of convincing more than a tiny % of women that that’s true/in their interest?”
In this regard, you may have a point. Yet, the chance of such success are far and away greater than the chances of shaming sexually successful alpha men into stopping their promiscuity.
If we are to do one over the other, maybe we should play the odds?
Anyway, as another poster has already noted, slut-shaming is secondary to some real and badly needed (legal) reforms in regards to marriage, paternity, and divorce. The best bet is to disincentivize bad female behaviors. If they have to pay for their mistakes by themselves, they will be less likely to ever make those mistakes. As it stands, we have in place too many ways to “bail out” women who mess up their lives for there to be any serious disincentive.
Hell, even when it comes to personal shame and regret for their promiscuous behaviors, we’ve provided them with a way to greatly diminish that shame – the “Rape Card”. Any woman who feels regret about a hook-up, and wife or girlfriend fearing her infidelity is about to be exposed, need only declare that she’s not a slut, she was raped. The vast majority of reported “rapes” are of the “he said/she said”, and a significant number of those are little more than a woman’s regrets or an attempt at an alibi.
Escoffier
So, we know that by nature a very large number of women will seek alphas and serially dump or ignore betas. (Just to be clear: shame on them! Shame, shame, shame!) We also know that this is only possible because the alphas are available.
Wrong. This is only possible because female hypergamy is uncontrolled.
It is trivial to test your hypothesis above, and explode it. I shall now do so. 60 years ago when hypergamy was still controlled, there were plenty of Alphas (look at images of women fans at Elvis’s concerts, or Frank Sinatra’s appearances) but the average woman knew she had no chance to get such a man to commit, so she was able to bond to a man closer in SMV to her. Assortive mating ruled. Thus the Alphas were as available then as they are now, but because hypergamy was constrained women reacted to them differently than we see now.
Thanks to AA, men’s – fault divorce, various forms of birth control, and ever more Draconian laws that specifically are aimed at forcing men to do women’s bidding, female hypergamy is unconstrained in a substantial percentage of the female population. These women cannot see the beta men around them, because either due to carousel riding or carousel watching, they are only attracted to Alpha men.
For most women, the Alpha men are not available for commitment at all.
Thus once again, you are denying any agency within women, and ascribing all agency to men.
You need to examine your premises, as I’m sure you are aware there is no logical conclusion reachable if one starts with a false premise.
Nugganu: “@Will, misandry may be a bubble,but how do you de-brainwash generations of young women?”
You can’t. Or at least not more than partially.
Feminism is like a computer virus. Once infected often the only sure method of removal is to do a complete re-install of the operating system totally overwriting any existing software that was there previously.
Obviously you can’t do that with a human being, So most of these Women will likely go to their grave with much of their brainwashing still intact.
However.
Feminism has to be seen to fail.
Once it has failed and been seen to fail it will be possible for new generations of young women to grow up without the feminist brainwashing as long as they are not being actively indoctrinated into feminist ideology.
deti: “This is backwards.” I understand that. Just making the point that availabilty matters and that moral education is needed for both sides. But in any case, badly stated on my part.
Dalrock have you noticed Alvanistas post on :
women on OkCupid have rated 80% of the men (on OkCupid) as unattractive …
Demonstrates how clueless all women are at understanding their own biology, not to mention completely clueless at spotting a decent male
“Not surprisingly, it shows that women are focused as strongly on appearance as men are. Surprise? Not really. Cause for moral outrage? No. The real shocker is this: women on OkCupid have rated 80% of the men as unattractive, including four demonstrably average-looking men (OkCupid staff).
this publication contradicts much of what society prefers to believe about women: that they are kind, less shallow than men, and relatively accepting of the average man’s appearance.
The average man, based on the histogram, appears to have been rated at about 1.4 stars (out of 5) by women.
Men on online dating sites are assumed to have poor game, and to be single, two severe attraction killers.
This, in my opinion, explains why the men were rated so badly– and, yes, 1.4 stars is not merely below-average, but abysmal, keeping in mind what I said about rating inflation. I would argue that the cutoff for a “good” average is probably in the mid-3 range (this is someone who is substantially attractive to a few women). Yet less than 10% of men are rated so highly.
On that note, my guess is that the OkCupid developers, rated as unattractive by their site’s women, posted pictures of themselves next to attractive women, they’d get ratings in the 3-4 range, not the abysmal scores that these average-plus men were given.”
Escoffier
No, I’m saying Y has been done to death here so there is no point in me talking about it here. I have nothing to add.
Or to put it another way:
“Yes, I know that the city has been burned down, that has been talked about enough. I wish to condemn those who do not sweep their sidewalks and keep their yards tidy”.
So, as much as you object to me for condemning men to celibacy, it’s inescapable that you are too. The difference is, in my dream world, it’s temporary and in a good cause. At the other end, the % of men who can get women rises dramatically. Under your proposal, the have/have-not distinction is perpetuated indefinitely.
Rather, under your system, many more men (20% is “many”) are sacrificed in this generation for the promise of something that may never happen — not acceptable, in my view.
“But 50% can’t. Or not much. So, as much as you object to me for condemning men to celibacy, it’s inescapable that you are too”
Actually, no. For a couple of reasons. First of all, you are too categorical. It is not ONLY PUAs and alphas who are having sex. So even non PUA beta guys can get some. Secondly, every beta guy has at least a chance of learning Game and getting more.
Contrast that with what you are saying…that all men should abstain entirely from extramarital sex (and, combining that, as it must be combined, with the disaster that is Marriage 2.0, that means that all men should abstain from sex period.
“The difference is, in my dream world, it’s temporary and in a good cause.”
Right. Because it is a dream world. One in which men are expected to just forget about their sex drive.
“Under your proposal, the have/have-not distinction is perpetuated indefinitely.”
Not so. Under what Dalrock is saying, in the end, after being pumped and dumped, after the marriage strike, women will see that spending a decade and a half on the carousel leads to disaster. And their younger sisters will all repent and marry betas! 🙂
I’m talking about 20% of men being celibate for a generation or two, you’re talking about 50% of men (at least) being celibate forever.
It’s all speculative nonsense, so whatever, but if the people who understand and hate the system the most don’t want to change it, then it’s never going to change.
I addressed the point about game.
Also, from what I have read about D, he thinks the MS is a myth. It may yet happen but it hasn’t yet.
Anyway, I hope it all works out as you guys predict because as painful as it all will be, at least it will work out.
“One in which men are expected to just forget about their sex drive”
Seems to me like you guys want and expect women to control their sex drives but you have no similar expectation for men, and in fact even encourage them to indulge. Who’s really the one excusing one sex here?
A more astute person would probably take a clue from that.
I wonder sometimes about the efficacy of Game, and whether or not ht e adoption of Roissy-and-Roosh-style asshole game won’t result in a never ending Darwinian Spiral.
Hypergamy BY DEFINITION means that women will only be attracted to the “best men”, whatever the percentage is, and 20% is as close as no matter. An influx of previously undetected males into the visibility zone should only result in women’s expectations ratcheting higher.
I am beginning to see no endgame possible other than men requiring a return to Patriarchy 2.0, even if it limits my daughter’s and my granddaughters’ choices.
“Wait, are you really saying she (as dealer) is somehow enticing and corrupting him? That he would not sully his innocence if not for her? He might, but only because she is unavaliable, not because he didnt want to. That is, unless he had been properly brought up.”
WTF? No, what I’m saying is that there is no “dealer” and no “junkie.” That both are immoral under traditional notions of morality (whether derived from God or from Aristotle or from “logos” or whatever), but one is no more immoral than the other. But, the way you originally presented it (which I believe shows what you really think and feel), the man was MORE to blame, because he was the man. Thus, he was made the dealer and she the junkie. The notion that he could just as easily be made the junkie and her the dealer was only there to point out to you the inherent bias in your casting.
And, mind you, that’s the story under traditional morality. As I look at it, a man in a system such as exists today is NOT acting immorally at all when he has sex outside of marriage, but that’s a different argument. For now, I’m playing on your ballfield.
“There are two sides to this problem, each side is following its base nature to the extent that it can. If you guys want to insist that what the women are doing is morally worse, that’s fine, might even be true, but it still wouldn’t absolve the men”
Nobody said it would, again, if traditional morality applied. What the guys here are saying is that, as a practical matter, the women must be the gatekeepers, or the gate won’t get closed. That may or may not be “fair,” when it comes to gender egalitarianism, but it is the only way that a system based on marriage and assortive mating can work, in the long run.
And what you keep dodging is that your initial, instinctual move was to make the guy more culpable and the woman less culpable.
@ Escoffer
I’ve already acknowledged that you are doing the right thing in your own personal life. I’ll restate here what I said above:
It’s not really about what you do, but the larger socon community.
“Seems to me like you guys want and expect women to control their sex drives but you have no similar expectation for men, and in fact even encourage them to indulge. Who’s really the one excusing one sex here?”
Er, you do know, don’t you, that, countless articles in Cosmo magazine to the contrary notwithstanding, that the male sex drive is much, much, much more powerful than the female one, right? That’s kinda the reason why the worldwide, multi cultural, all civlization spanning notion of women as being the gate keepers in a system of monogamous marriage came to pass in the first place. Cuz it’s easier for women to control their sex drives than it is for men. It has to do with basic biology, the birds and the bees and all that….
I think that slut shaming won’t be sufficient in today’s poisoned environment. The anti-male laws cited throughout the comments have to be addressed otherwise the volume of men who bypass marriage because it carries too much risk will become a critical mass. It has already gotten a lot of notice in the mainstream media (e.g., Bennett and Bolick) but so far, socons (as championed by Bennett and Escoffier) and reality don’t inhabit the same room. It would be an excellent start though…
Socons were once for slut shaming but we haven’t found them doing that for at least 40 years now. If anyone contests that, Dalrock has a place for you to post where. Escoffier, do you want to volunteer your church?
Does Bennett engage in slut shaming? If Bennett has ever done that in public, in writing, let’s have the link! Just illustrating that it is so very difficult in general for socons to grab their balls in PUBLIC and call out sluts. Heck, Escoffier who pictures himself a shining example of a socon had to be shamed into putting slut shaming anywhere near close to the same level he wants to shame PUA’s, and still cannot comprehend that multiple cultures, both western and others, have handled this for thousands of years by a combination of slut shaming and lack of independent access to resources for single mothers.
How much do you want to bet that while Escoffier will discuss slut shaming with his wife and his daughter, he won’t do it with his circle of friends? Let alone his congregation or community? Much easier to go after the men! Because that’s the socon position which Escoffier had bought into hook, line and sinker. With great enthusiasm I might add.
Ruddy, FTR, I never meant to blame the men more. I mean to correct what I saw, and still see, as the attempt here (and elsewhere) to absolve men of all blame.
I don’t expect men who benefit from the system to listen to me (though it would be nice), nor do I expect much agreement from the really bitter betas. However, Dalrock is a happily married man, writing a very decent and useful blog that I think does a service but gets some important points wrong. I really do think it is harmful for a Christian man who wants to reform marriage for all the right reasons nonetheless to praise/excuse/defend the PUAs.
Escoffier
I’m talking about 20% of men being celibate for a generation or two, you’re talking about 50% of men (at least) being celibate forever.
No one is saying that. The current system is not stable in the long term.
Let’s examine your proposal economically. You are calling for the equivalent of a “cartel” of Alphas that will deny their services to women. This cannot succeed, because the first time one Alpha breaks the cartel, he will be overwhelmed with women desiring to ride the one-pony carousel. Immediately other Alphas would follow suit, because an Alpha who is scoring lots of women has high prestige. Since men tend to be more individualistic than women, any attempts to shame Alphas will have minimal to zero results – “Dude, you’re just jealous ’cause you can’t get any….” with grinning, sly contempt.
The alternative is a “cartel” of women, who won’t have sex outside of marriage (or at least formal engagement in a public manner). When a woman breaks the cartel, and gives sex away without marriage, the others publicly shame her and have nothing to do with her. Since women care more about the opinions of others than men do (see evo-bio for details) if slut shaming is carried out quickly and without mercy, the rest of the women will stay in the “herd”.
Your solution is 100% out of synch with human biology and the evidence of human history. It has never been found to work before. So why do you push it?
Could it be that you just cannot bring yourself to make women unhappy?
Escoffier
Ruddy, FTR, I never meant to blame the men more. I mean to correct what I saw, and still see, as the attempt here (and elsewhere) to absolve men of all blame.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
“Ruddy, FTR, I never meant to blame the men more. I mean to correct what I saw, and still see, as the attempt here (and elsewhere) to absolve men of all blame.”
Escoffier, sorry but I find that hard to believe. Again, the analogy, as you originally presented it, clearly blamed men more. I have to assume that represents what you really think and feel. Not what you say after the fact, after you have been called out on it.
“I don’t expect men who benefit from the system to listen to me (though it would be nice), nor do I expect much agreement from the really bitter betas.”
That’s kind of poisoning the well, doncha think? If someone disagree with you, it must be because they either personally benefit from the system or are embittered? That really does nothing to advance the discussion.
In all fairness, I do think you have been treated somewhat shabbily also. There is no need for you to have answer pre packaged, “gotcha” questions a la Mike Wallace on Sixty Minutes. This is a blog, not a courtroom and thus cross examination tactics are not appropriate. Nor should you have to disclose your age or any other personal information.
“However, Dalrock is a happily married man, writing a very decent and useful blog that I think does a service but gets some important points wrong. I really do think it is harmful for a Christian man who wants to reform marriage for all the right reasons nonetheless to praise/excuse/defend the PUAs.”
Well, I think Dalrock has done a pretty good job of defending his position viz a viz PUAs. To briefly recapitulate, as I understand it, what he is saying is that women created this mess, they screwed up marriage to the point where men are starting to reject it, meanwhile, they created the cock carousel. All that being the case, the PUA phenomenon is merely an effect, not a cause, of the current set of problems. As another poster keeps saying, it’s like the messy sidewalk after the city has been sacked and burned down. Sure, messy sidewalks are not good, but why would anyone focus on that, when such greater and more fundamental problems are at hand. Why focus on the messy sidewalk rather than what caused it and the rest of the devastation. Also, the PUAs are doing the work of showing women just what the alternative to traditional marriage is. They are removing the sugar coating. They are, as that Roissy guy says, killing the pretty lies. And that may actually be a positive thing.
There is that, as well as anyone with two brain cells to rub together would plan a resource management strategy based around the most limited resource, not around the most plentiful one.
Let’s take an extreme hypothetical example of one instance of a desired resource (a bag of gold, a fertile woman, etc.) and 1,000 instances of people who desire it. Now, would it make more sense to assign 1 man to guard the desired resource, or 1,000 men (each of whose integrity might be suspect) to guard the 1,000 men who desire it?
If I had a daughter, I think that impressing on her to not sleep with any man who wanted to sleep with her would be far more effective than trying to convince every man around to be afraid to sleep with her. If I only missed one and had a 99.9% success rate, she still ends up maybe pregnant or pumped and dumped.
Only an incredible fool wastes his energy on the course of action most likely to lead to failure.
But, we are talking about socons, so the term “fool” is redundant.
@Brendan
“I think it has to be a more dire *need* in order for it to support shaming at the time when it is needed — i.e., the under 30 set. I see no real evidence that upwardly mobile under 30 women are feeling needy when it comes to men or marriage — hence shaming their behavior is going to fall on deaf ears, I think.”
Being a member of the approaching-30 set, and knowing many single carousel riders, I do believe the message is beginning to trickle down younger and younger. One of my close friends, an “unapologetic” carousel rider, broke down in tears when I mentioned, in passing, the possibility of her ending up as a lonely cat lady. (Of course, she hasn’t changed her behavior yet, but I’m just one voice against a sea of validation.)
More fittingly, I was just best man at my buddy’s wedding. We are both approaching 30 with relationships of 4+ years with younger women (2-3 years). When we got into our relationships, we were looked at slightly askance by our friend group; we were, after all, successful young up-and-comers, why tie ourselves down to a committed relationship? Well, now, 4 years later, the two remaining “single and loving it!” ladies spent three days with looking like deer in the headlights. Not only was it clear they regretted not picking one of us, but they clearly were worried about their own lack of prospects. Lots of wistful sighs and faraway looks.
The greater youth culture right now is, to me, something akin to the Handicapping Devices from Harrison Bergeron. Give a young lady some time away from mass media and her “empowered” friends, and the truth starts to seep in. Only by blaring a siren every 20 seconds can TPTB keep these women living under the delusion that carousel riding, commitment-less sex is “having it all”. Our message just can’t compete with “do what you want, all the time”, especially because we keep subsidizing the results of socially acceptable hedonism. Brave New World, indeed.
@TFH
I don’t blame any man for feeling the need to defend women as our current white-knight poster-boy does. It is a bitter pill to swallow when one reads about, sees, and lives the total debasement of generations of their wives, sisters, daughters, MOTHERS. There is an element of self-hate that comes from the realization that everything you thought you knew was a lie, everything you were told to believe was wrong. Sometimes the truth is to horrible to accept, and the mind recoils in horror, just ask Mike McQuery.
The day i discovered the true nature of women can be best described as the same as the day I discovered what “death” meant. It is a catastophe for the mind that is irreversable, sometimes ignorance really is bliss.
Only a fool would not embrace either P&D or ghosting in this day and age. But I understand those who refuse to acknowledge the day and age they are in.
“pedestalize” has a very expansive meaning here. Basically, it seems to mean “If you’re not talking about female sin 99% of the time, and especially if you dare bring up male sin, you are a pedestalizer.”
Every time I state one of my many, many agreements with the basic thesis that is waved away as “he was shamed into it.”
The purpose of a blog, I thought, was to get ideas out there and influence other people. D seems to be doing that and I hope it continues because his influence strikes me as almsot all to the good. However, to the extent that you guys are talking to yourselves and attacking people over imagined disagreements, that influence will be limited.
As I have said twice now, parents of my generaltion are open to this message. They want to raise better daughters. You want them to raise better daughters. You have not however come up with a way to talk effectively to them. You have instead devised a rhetoric that seems calculated to repel them. What good that is going to do anyone, I have no idea.
Escoffier in what year were you born?
Escoffier is a typical populist Conservative Christian, his starting point is invalid to begin with
You cant argue with entrenched set-intheirways conservatives, they’re fanatics to their cause
You cant argue with people with a fixed view point of reality, fanatics & fanaticism simply dont have the ability to learn or analyse their indoctrinated brainwashed ideology
Fanatical conservatives are simply fanatical at keeping their ignorance of the way the world really works, at all costs, no amount of evidence will ever persuade a person fanatical about preserving their ignorance
You find fanatical conservatives everywhere, whether its fanatically ignorant on health & blind hate on alternative health, or fanatical ignorance on feminism & christianity & stealth hate on MRA by feminists & manginas who think theyre MRA’s, or fanatical ignorance on evolution & science & blind hate to alternative science, or real alternatives to evolution
The result is you have a conservative who is conservative about ignorance, basically a radical conservative, fanatical about their belief in ignorance,
Fanatical in the beliefs of the makeup of their ignorance, ie their fanatical belieif in their inability to learn from differing & competing & validity of the truth in a non-mainstream alternative
Their fanatical inability to consider the truth leaves a fanatic, a fanatical conservative radical in the makeup of the belief structure comprising their ignorance
In short you cant argue with a fanatical radical who confuses conservatism, christianity or feminism as a valid excuse for their ignorance
At the end of the day regardless of your conservatism, feminism, liberalism, your inability to learn from the value of competing truths makes you simply a fanatical radical conservative of ignorance, ie a feminist radical in their ignorance, labelling everything misogyny, or a conservative christian labelling everything a sinner or christian women as pure virgins
Radical conservative ignorance is one of the hallmarks of pop westernism, & pop western politics, which is why you have hordes of couch potatoes & feminist pushing feminazis
Radical ignorance is easier to accept then the radical truth
These arent conservative feminists, or conservative christians, they are fanatically radical in the denial of their ignorance
There won’t be a return to Patriarchy. What will happen is that some men will drop out of high tax bracket jobs and live a communal frugal life with other men, and the rest of the men will be living a frugal communal life with other women. People will not be buying big houses, SUVs, expensive electronics and other non-neccessities. Half or more of the country will be growing their own food and using baking soda in place of soap, toothpaste and laundry powder.
The system is crashing and living off the earth is the way of the future.
@Random Angeleno
“How much do you want to bet that while Escoffier will discuss slut shaming with his wife and his daughter, he won’t do it with his circle of friends? Let alone his congregation or community? Much easier to go after the men!”
Have you ever tried discussing slut shaming with a group of under-30’s? From the liberal/mangina/feminist sphere, you get nothing but contempt and derision; you might as well be advocating genocide. From the PUA/Alpha/Bro sphere, you get “what are you, a fag?” and “this is the best time to be alive, why would you want to ruin it?”
What you have, essentially, is two diametrically opposed ideological groups BOTH fighting against slut shaming, for vastly different reasons. There are no allies on either side. The Manosphere is the only place I’ve found where slut shaming is acceptable, and that occasionally degenerates into actual, no-foolin’ misogyny which lets our opponents write us off altogether.
The problem is bigger than slut shaming; we as a society have no stomach for shaming women altogether. Single mothers are no longer shunned, because we haven’t the heart; instead they turn into TV Stars and Women To Look Up To. Meanwhile, loving, committed wives who had children responsibly and did all the right things are totally ignored, almost mocked as throwbacks to a bygone era.
Even my fiancee, who shames sluts constantly, doesn’t like to *call it* “slut shaming”. It makes her uncomfortable. We appear to have reached a point in time where even the statement “Maybe it’s not such a good idea to shove every random penis you find into your vagina, et al.” gets you shouted down as an Oppressor or mocked for not being a Real Man.
@ TFH
i know its just the point that she wont tell us.
I’d advice the readers here to take a trip out West or to Hawaii and live amongst the self-sufficient intentional communities there to see what the future of the US will look like. Growing your own food, living very frugally, walking barefoot and being overall happy. And the people are healthier and better looking than all the urban and suburban 9-5ers who work for fat cats on Wall Street.
So if you guys “drop out” – the sooner this country can get back to a simpler, more natural lifestyle.
@Escoffier.
When I started reading, I was thinking “this is a guy who I agree with”. The arguments you did about Roissy and Roosh being excused on the manosphere sounded right to me. And yes, I agree that SoCons were not happy with the sexual revolution and nobody could have predicted what opening studies and career for women would entail. Fair enough. And I could accept even more things.
But you lost me very soon. Very, very soon.
By the time it had swept the country, many of their own daughters had participated and everyone loves his own and it’s hard to condemn your own daughter. So they adjusted.
Wait a minute. If conservatism is the philosophy that promotes the maintenance of tradition (Wikipedia), where does this tradition of not condemning your own daughter comes from? Is there an eleventh commandment telling “Thou shalt not condemn your own kin”? For millennia, fathers have condemned their daughters because they misbehaved. Not because of cruelty, but because part of education is saying “no” to bad behaviors, so your children don’t have to regret your indulgence later in life. Ancient generations (and Biblical character) had no qualms about condemning their daughters, because tough love is love.
Compare your tirade at 3:17 about men sleeping around not being right with “it’s hard to condemn your daughter”. Talk about double standards
In addition, this goes beyond the private sphere. Conservatives favored laws that ass-raped men in the workplace and the divorce court. This is not related to your own daughter. These are public initiatives.
But, again, SoCons have had to accommodate themselves to the prevailing culture.
Had to? Were they put a gun and forced to approve promiscuity? What was the punishment that keep conservatives to SPEAK in favor of their principles? Were they threatened with jail? Were they threatened with poverty? They daughters were not happy between the salad and the turkey?
If they had to accommodate themselves to the prevailing culture, why don’t accomodate to Game and PUAs? Talk about double standards.
Beyond that most of them have a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy because, really, what father wants to know every detail about what his daughter is up to?
You have a funny concept about fatherhood. A father who doesn’t want to know what his daughter is up to, who doesn’t want to condemn her, who accept misbehavior on the grounds that “she is going to do it anyway”.
Look. My (Catholic but not SoCon) father told me not to do this, not to do that. Did I pay attention to him? Sometimes. This is why I didn’t do drugs, even if everyone in my classroom was doing it. My father didn’t tell me “Well, since you are doing drugs anyway, please smoke pot instead of enjoying cocaine”.
Sometimes I rebelled and did exactly the opposite that my father told me. But, inside me, there was a voice telling me: “this is wrong. my father wouldn’t approve that because it is wrong. he is an old fart but he is right that this is wrong”. Of course, a young man can shut this voice up very easily with rationalizations. But it cannot be removed completely. And this can do all the difference in the long run.
“Single mothers are no longer shunned, because we haven’t the heart”
We dont shame single mothers, because its politically incorrect
Same goes for slut shaming, welcome to brainwashing wage slaves 101
Orwellian Double think has always been used to enslave men, ie traditionalists convinced men it was politically incorrect not to open doors for women, & politically incorrect not to have a duty to marry a woman
Double think, or crime think or self censorship has always been used to enslave man, whether it was to a woman through marriage, or as a wage slave
Politically correctness has always been the tool of choice to enslave man, for traditionalists, feminists & corporate slavers for centuries
Women have always been basically societal slavers for centuries, no better then parasites, the same way corporations & governments enslaved men
The only difference is the jargon used in the political correctness used by the parasite
Feminists & traditionalists never gave up enslaving men, they simply shifted the enslavement of men through divorce courts etc.
A slaver never gives up their slaves without a politically correct reason
It seems to me that the reason this blog focus near 99% of the condemnation on the women is because the rest of our society DOESN’T. It’s not that folks here don’t realize that men do immoral things, it’s just that if you want to hear about that, you’ll be able to find plenty of resources. You come here to see the flip side.
It’s funny, because just last night I was involved in a debate on A Voice for Men about a Celibacy Pact for Justice and Male Liberation.
Believe it or not, Escoffier has done a better job of making his point than those guys did. They admitted that it would accomplish nothing, but at least they would be free of women’s manipulations, man!
But, ‘better’ is a relative term. Escoffier has of course failed to propose a viable plan. It’s really amazing to me that someone would advocate an impossible plan when simpler and more likely ones are available.
When considering his fear of holding women to account for their love of alphas, it makes sense why he’d go with what comes easier to him and all white knights: speak freely about how to better shame and control men.
But it gets better (that is, worse).
Because, as you all believe, women are irrational, selfish, and ruled by low instinct, she is prey for the cunning man to manipulate her into sex. He has the advantage of understanding and superior reason. This does not absolve her of responsibility. But it doesn’t absolve the male either.
PUA is immoral: 1) it puts you on the level of an animal; 2) it’s bad for civilization; 3) you are making women worse.
And this is my point against SoCon. This is why I am not a SoCon although I am conservative and I am a believer. SoCon is NOT a traditional ideology.
If women are irrational, selfish and ruled by low instinct (as opposed to men), then abolish female suffrage, forbid any female in any decision-making role (politics, mass media). Revert to the old Roman legal concept, where women were legal minors and they submitted to the authority of a father or a husband. No jobs, college, bank account or money for women. Women won’t have the power, and won’t have the responsibility. Men will be to blame about women’s misfortunes.
Or do the opposite. Suppose that men and women are equal. Then give women all the power to do as they please (that is, the current situation without the advantages of women in divorce court and general culture). But then men are not responsible of women’s misfortunes.
But no, these SoCons want all the rights for the woman and then all the responsibilities for the man (or most of the responsibilities for the man). They are equal in some occasions and ruled by low instinct in other occasions.
They will appeal to tradition to blame the man, but not to blame the woman. A PUA is responsible and a cad but a daughter that sleeps around is “well, she only does it inside LTRs -whatever this means- and she is going to do it anyway so I will have to adjust, after all I don’t want to know what my daughter is up to”
the SoCon blaming is laughable given that over the last 50 years this entire experiment has been driven by the left
With the political support and man-bashing of the SoCons. Without them, it wouldn’t have been possible, as somebody says.
It is easy to fight against feminism (because they are OPEN about their agenda). So you can say “these guys are against men and families” and people get that. But, when it comes to SoCons, they talk about tradition, they talk about the Bible, they talk about family values and then, they approve laws that are against tradition, against the Bible, against family values and bash men for the consequences.
Not at all. Let’s hold women accountable, by all means. How? Reform the laws like all of you have said, let’s do it. Raise better daughters, I’m trying to do that. If you have any other ideas, state them.
I have one. Go to a feminist forum and defend that promiscuity is bad, that laws against men have to be reformed with the same passion and obstinacy you have attacked Roissy here. Or do it in a SoCon forum. Roissy and Roosh are cads, no doubt about it. But, instead of fighting the speck of sawdust in PUA’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in feminist eye.
After all, for every PUA, there are 100 sluts and you are attacking the PUA. Talk about double standards.
@ ruddyturnstone
” It is not ONLY PUAs and alphas who are having sex. So even non PUA beta guys can get some. Secondly, every beta guy has at least a chance of learning Game and getting more.”
What kind of chance?
If you are suggesting any kind of liklihood, then, no, ‘game’ can’t accomplish that – it simply makes males more aware of female hypergamy, and encourages them to challenge female nonchalance, and call their bluffs of disinterest(which only works in favor of those males who are already attractive to females in the first place, but too naive to appreciate it).
Your interpretation of ‘game’ is appealing to a ‘lek paradox’ dynamic, in that if all guys were able to acquire the ability to make suffiicent fitness displays, any common factor would lose all fitness value, and females would simply begin to split hairs elsewhere(as female selectivity is necessarily adaptable to evolving information of the system – observable male variance).
I also don’t buy this stance that women will fall in line through their own self-mediated systems of deterrence(single mother poverty, spinsterhood, etc) – that seems as naive as pining for a kinder gentler carousel.
Similarly, it is likewise naive to rally around the notion of a male-consensus ‘marriage strike’, when marriage remains the only strategic means of acquiring sex for a huge population of males – despite it’s otherwise toxic indications, marriage is entangled in the fitness optima of males who are deprived of short-term mating opportunities(read: the majority of males).
It seems to me that the reason this blog focus near 99% of the condemnation on the women is because the rest of our society DOESN’T. It’s not that folks here don’t realize that men do immoral things, it’s just that if you want to hear about that, you’ll be able to find plenty of resources. You come here to see the flip side.
This is what usually happens, however.
As you say, the rest of society is biased in the other way. So the manosphere is biased in the opposite way because the other message (blame men) is already ambient in the culture. But what often happens is people come to blogs like this and then say “hey, this isn’t balanced”, and demand balance here. What that would result in is the ambient world being biased against men, and spaces like this being balanced, with the result still being an overall tilt against men.
And since evolution limits the frequencies of traits that are maladapted for reproductive success, any phenomenon of ‘marriage strikers’ would be necessarily transient, in multi-generational terms.
The fact of the matter is that the margins define the discussion. If we come at this discussion from a milquetoast “middle-ground” perspective, guess what? That’s what the so-cons did.
I have no intention on starting this debate from a middle/losing position, and neither do the majority of men, Roosh, Roissy, Dalrock etc. Let’s start from a mentality that was used so effectively against men.
After all, don’t I deserve to have it all?
@imnobody “and nobody could have predicted what opening studies and career for women would entail.”
Women’ve always had these, & yes everyone always knew what this would entail, hence the massive amount of men only clubs, universities, men only cafes, restaurants & vast areas where women would be ridiculed for trespassing a mans right to be free from a family orientated female based social network
Segregation of women prevented women from destroying vast areas of society,
In the same way segregation of poorer, illterate blacks & immigrants prevented their ghettos from creating crime sprees & destruction of jobs in most white area’s
Segregation of race & women has always been the first line of defence as refuge from the insane parasitism of women & the rise of corporate wage slavery thanks to africans & immigrants, ie. loss of local community based jobs
“Your interpretation of ‘game’ is appealing to a ‘lek paradox’ dynamic, in that if all guys were able to acquire the ability to make suffiicent fitness displays, any common factor would lose all fitness value, and females would simply begin to split hairs elsewhere(as female selectivity is necessarily adaptable to evolving information of the system – observable male variance).”
Right. I get that not all betas can profit from Game, because if all betas learned Game some other criteria would be used by women to sort the desirables from the undesirables. What I meant was that ANY beta could learn Game, not that all or every beta can learn Game. Sorry for the poor writing.
And what is it worth if I can show equal(or higher) success rates for broke males, who fail to self-identify with ‘game’ at all?
http://www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/activism/the-mens-movement-fair-but-imbalanced/
“Similarly, it is likewise naive to rally around the notion of a male-consensus ‘marriage strike’, when marriage remains the only strategic means of acquiring sex for a huge population of males – despite it’s otherwise toxic indications, marriage is entangled in the fitness optima of males who are deprived of short-term mating opportunities(read: the majority of males).”
Maybe you don’t realize just how awful marriage is for many men. It’s not just the possibility of divorce that makes marriage toxic, it is the experience of marriage itself. For many men, marriage means almost no sex whatsoever. Actually less than they were getting, even as no Game single betas. And then too, the subsitutes for sex,,,porn, prostitution, etc, are often “oft limits” to the married beta. Beyond the sexual dimension, marriage is often an unremitting series of humilations at the hands of his wife. Today’s wives think nothing of openly mocking her husband, to his face, and in public. Plus the endless “honey do” lists. And the alienation of his friends and his family, coupled with having to kiss the asses of her family and friends. And the curtailment of his hobbies and interests. The squandering of his resources on her debt and all the useless and overpriced female gee-gaws she insists on buying. And so on and so forth.
Many, many men are refusing to marry. Others are cultivating lifestyles, consciously or not, intentionaly or not, that precludes them from being “marriable.” The fact is that the marriage rate has never been lower. Fewer people, as a percentage, are now married than ever before (at least since records have been kept). And, no, that is not merely the product of folks marrying later, because it is true for every age cohort of men and women. Fewer women, as a percantage, of each age cohort, are married than were married even just five or ten years ago.
The marriage strike is already on. It may be that, at present, it is confined to the “late marriage” or “remarriage” group (ie women in their late thirties and up), but there is no reason to think it is going to stop there. Guys now in their twenties, who are getting no play because they are no Game betas, are not going to stay in their twenties forever. When they hit thirty, and their marriage value goes up while women their age find their marriage value going down, what makes you think they are all going to flock to the altar? At that point, they can join the cock carousel and pump and dump and STR party. They can get sex without marriage. And keep in mind too that each suceeding generation of young men are witnessing progressively worse and worse female behavior.
I am beginning to see no endgame possible other than men requiring a return to Patriarchy 2.0, even if it limits my daughter’s and my granddaughters’ choices
no kidding, Btw don’t consider it limiting choces it is living as a civilized woman (a Lady) It is amazing what happens when the red pill takes effect and male logic is allowed to think though a real life problem. I have two daughters and my one night mare for them is to see them climb aboard the carousel. The worst would be for them to make choices base on status within the herd and not what grows and protects their own families the best.
“And since evolution limits the frequencies of traits that are maladapted for reproductive success, any phenomenon of ‘marriage strikers’ would be necessarily transient, in multi-generational terms.”
Dude, it is envisioned as a short to medium term behavioral trait that is culturally determined. Not as a biological trait that needs to passed down from generation to generation indefinitely.
People really, really overrate “evolutionary” arguments sometimes. Gays and lesbians don’t reproduce (or not much, anyway), and yet they have been around since anitquity, if not longer. Monks and priests and nuns don’t reproduce either. And yet they have been around for thousands of years. Boys are born and they become priests. They don’t need to pass down the “priest” trait or gene for there to be more priests in the future. As long as the cultural phenonmenon of priesthood continues to be viable, there will be more priests. Similarly, marriage strikers, even assuming none of them ever breed, need not pass down the “marriage strike” trait or gene to future generations. They need merely to convince younger men to adolpt the same stance.
I should point out that NONE of the female commenters here, NONE, are defending Escoffier. A groveling pedestalizer is repulsive to women.
No, that’s not why I’m not defending him, I don’t find him repulsive at all. I’m sure that he means well, and he’s an awesome husband and father.
However, what I do find repulsive is his constant protection of sluts, so they don’t get their feelings hurt. Just how sheltered do you have to be not to see that sluts are actually proud of being sluts, they’re proud that they’re sexually liberated, and they’re proud that they can now act like men? (even though it seems like they picked up the worst aspects of being a man, while giving up the best aspects of being a woman).
Look at Slutwalk and how it began–with a police man telling women that they might have a lower chance of getting raped if they were to actually dressed appropriately. Times like this make me ashamed to be a woman and a Torontonian.
“What I meant was that ANY beta could learn Game, not that all or every beta can learn Game. ”
This is actually the main problem with game, not all beta’s are productive wage earning guys, the vast majority of betas who learn game are usually loosers bordering on deadbeat status, the kind most women love
The productive wage earning beta rarely learns game, & the nerd highly intelligent, too socially inept to even consider it as an option
The people who inhabit the manosphere & PUA forums are usually high i.q & vastly more technically literate, then the average beta who learns game & eventually succeeds with a woman
A society based on monogamy always rewards the inept, as its based on rewarding productive wage earning beta’s, infertile women
While rewarding inept retarded betas through game & inept alphas with fertile women
The sheer stupidity required to maintain a monogamous society, requires denying the biology of men & women to insane heights
The denial of the biological needs of men & women in A monogamous society always leads to the enslavement of men to a infertile woman
Monogamy & marriage is simply the protection of infertile women & their need for promiscuity
This is essentially what western culture really is
imnobody, I’m not defendnig SoCon failures (I still think that terminology is being used inaptly, but that aside) I’m giving a speculative explanation of why so many of them reacted to the SR the way they did. D says they did so knowingly, willingly, eagerly. I don’t agree. Certainly they failed their daughters and society. They should be blamed for that. Fathers of my generation, at least all the ones I know–all of them–are not making that mistake. A guess I don’t know how tiny a subset we are or how well we will do. Only time will tell.
“I should point out that NONE of the female commenters here, NONE, are defending Escoffier. A groveling pedestalizer is repulsive to women.”
It’s a bogus argument anyway. Besides being an appeal to the crowd, it is also a no win situation. If the women were agreeing with him, that would be portrayed as showing his mangina-hood. He would have fallen into the trap of letting a woman turn him against his fellow men. As it is, since women don’t agree with him, he is called a repulsive pussy groveler. Heads he loses, tails he doesn’t win.
Femnism, marriage, monogamy & western culture is really about the enslavement of the reproductive biology of man
On the question of how I can “slut shame” in my own life, I admit I don’t have many opportunities. I have had all of two friends get divorced in the last ~20 years. The first were not close friends but more or less friendly acquaintences. They never explained why they got divorced beyond “We just weren’t right for each other.” However, they had a little kid and I thought it was outrageous and so did all my friends. They were expelled from our social circle.
The second was a close friend but the divorce was his fault. Or I should say, I don’t know what was going on in their internal lives but he was the one that took the momentous immoral step that ended the marriage. Also expelled.
Beyond that we have no divorced friends and none of the parents of my children’s friends or schoolmates are divorced. I have no idea what the divorce rate is like for our church but I never hear about anyone getting divorced. I never hear excuses from the pulpit either.
This is deliberately absurd but: what am I supposed to do? Go up to random women and ask “What’s your count?” and if the answer is more than 2, say “Slut!!”?
Once again, the notion that PUAs stop screwing around was not a serious proposal. I mean, it was serious in that I think it would be good for them and for everyone if they did, but it’s absurdly unrealistic.
A big part of the solution, as I have said over and over, is to raise better daughters. For saying that I am called a “slut defender.” Huh? Even by a woman.
Chels: I don’t think most sluts are proud of it. Some are but the rest of their commentary reeks of pathetic self-justification. Susan W has done a good job deconstructing many slut blogs and it’s clear to her (and me) that they are miserable and lying to themselves. R&R say the same thing.
Oh, one more example of personal slut shaming. One of my friends was very close to marrying a bad girl. All of us rallied round and told him not to do it. We were quite blunt as to why. He broke it off, ended up marrying a very good girl, is very happy and has a nice family.
@ruddyturnstone “It’s a bogus argument anyway.”
Thats because you dont bat for team woman, or MRA
You bat for team mangina, a completely different part of feminism
Which is why you’re Always looking for an excuse to excuse manginas in most of your posts, to the point of calling out feminists
The retarded arguements you use are worn out ideas used by manginas in the manosphere, ie your post “If the women were agreeing with him, that would be portrayed as showing his mangina-hood.”
Even though chels is for the most part a fruitcake, i would agree with her ““I should point out that NONE of the female commenters here, NONE, are defending Escoffier. A groveling pedestalizer is repulsive to women.””
Only a retarded mangina would consider a woman stating the above as a no win … lol
Dude, get a grip. That was not Chel’s comment, she was responding to it. You can’t even get your facts right, and your posts are borderline incoherent.
And I bat for “Team” MGTOW, to the extent that there is such a Team. I’m all about the Marriage Strike, but I have no problem with PUA as a coping strategy for single guys.
How does any of that make me a mangina?
TFH:
Why does Escoffier have to answer your question? Who are you to give him mandatory assignments? He is allowed to participate here, subject only to our host’s disapproval, without having to comply with your insistent “requests.” Really, man, give it a rest.
So, let me get this straight. Roissy and Roosh are doing a yeoman’s service by banging current sluts and creating new sluts while also blogging about how you(the avg. man) too can learn game and PUA skills and maybe get some pussy on the side.
All the while, you’re railing against “so-cons” and anyone else who isn’t 100% in line with methods prescribed on this board for calling out slutty behavior and slut-shaming women when some of you are working diligently to become the next slut-maker, if only given the chance. That’s almost sadistic. If you put shit in your cereal, don’t complain it tastes like shit.
@ TFH
“Whether the ‘Game’ in question was natural ability or self-taught, it is the same thing.
Any man outside the topmost echelon of fame/wealth, who is doing well with women, has some level of Game (again, whether natural ability or learned). The biggest boost is the elimination of anti-Game. Men who simply detect and shed all their anti-Game will already start doing better with women than most.”
My issue is not with what ‘game’ per se, but over what it should be seen to represent – as a unified system of knowledge, rather than the naive notion of a reproducible skill, that can never be disentangled from its confounding dependencies(ie. how do you quantify what measure of success to attribute this knowledge, relative to independent display signals – like physical characters – without unifying everything under a broad definition of ‘game’, rendering it useless to analysis, and thus meaningless).
I have already submitted what I think is the only consistent definition of game, that unifies with a broad evolutionary synthesis(and , in particular, the ‘handicap’ principle of fitness signalling).
Namely, that game is a system of knowledge, in which differential investment relates its fitness handicap(ie. relative effort expended through ‘game’, is a proxy measurement of fitness handicapping – all things being equal, successful males who are *less* energetically invested/liable in terms of ‘game’ are displaying ‘higher’ fitness).
@Escoffier “One of my friends was very close to marrying a bad girl”
I’m assuming you’re a female, a REAL group of MALE friends would’ve prevented him from marrying full stop
If you guys pointed out the real dangers of marriage to a woman, the marriage to another carousel riding “good girl” would never have happened …
“Hooking up smart” is the name. Susan W wants women to be happy so she advises a way for women to have LTR’s, which are just women’s preferred promiscuity. That you think Susan is on men’s side proves how delusional you are. Dalrock and Susan will agree on much. They are not, in any way, on the same side.
Better daughters my ass. A woman with one sexual LTR a year for 5 years is on the exact. Same. Moral. Plane. As. Roissy. That would be perfectly fine with Susan. And you apparently. You are a slut defender.
“A woman with one sexual LTR a year for 5 years is on the exact. Same. Moral. Plane. As. Roissy. That would be perfectly fine with Susan. And you apparently. You are a slut defender.”
Clarity!
@ruddyturnstone Your dodging the issue
This is what makes you a mangina … you’re basically trying to manufacture fictional excuses for being a mangina
A mgtow or someone for a marriage strike is nowhere near that retarded …
“Besides being an appeal to the crowd, it is also a no win situation. If the women were agreeing with him, that would be portrayed as showing his mangina-hood. He would have fallen into the trap of letting a woman turn him against his fellow men. As it is, since women don’t agree with him, he is called a repulsive pussy groveler. Heads he loses, tails he doesn’t win.”
troll
The blog dynamic is quite interesting. Some people (Joshua, dragnet, TFH, AR etc.) always try to push/beg some commenters (doomed harlot, dubious wonder, chels, Escoffier etc.) to answer some question to win the argument by logic but mostly these requests stay ignored/dogded.
Like in this thread: E. please say your age, are anti-male laws (vawa, bradley amendment) really unfair to men, please tell me why team women network socially and defend each other, why the brave bad boy prison mates are so attractive, please rate my statements by perceived morality, please ask me more questions to expose my stupid beliefs! And shaming of E. to man up won’t help either! Not nice! Haha! 😀
Clarity and brevity is something you’ve lacked.
Please attack my simple argument. 1. LTR’s are not marriage nor are they committed in any sense since they end whenever either party wants. 2. Uncommitted, “LTR’s” are preferred by women over “casual” sex. 3. Only by assuming women’s preferred uncommitted sex is “correct” can Susan be better than Roissy.
Of course, riding the phallus carousel women anchor themselves to their perceived SMV. But due to aging, bonding, male expecations these experiences do not translate to the MMV.
BTW rooshv also talked about the physics experiment: 3 bowls of water (hot,medium, cold). Depending whether you put your hands in the hot or cold water first, and then the medium bowl, what does the medium bowl temperature feel like: http://www.rooshv.com/the-bolivia-effect
Hey, I can be long-winded but I think I’ve been extremely clear.
#1: true, with the caveat that they can and often do lead to marriage.
#2: true, stipulate.
#3: I have a problem with this one. Because in morality as in everything else there are differences of degree and differences of kind. Differences of degree are not ipso facto trivial. This is why we punish those who steal lots and often more than we punish those who steal once and a little. Yeah, yeah, bad laws, rogue prosecutors, etc. but the principle is there.
So, it does strike me as absurd to say that someone with one LT partner is on the exact same moral plane as someone with 100 ONSs. I am willing to listen to an argument, though.
“The blog dynamic is quite interesting. Some people (Joshua, dragnet, TFH, AR etc.) always try to push/beg some commenters (doomed harlot, dubious wonder, chels, Escoffier etc.) to answer some question to win the argument by logic but mostly these requests stay ignored/dogded.”
That’s not how you win an argument by logic. You win an argument by logic by presenting a series of claims based on premises that are uncontestable and syllogisms that follow from them.
What you are talking about, instead, is trying to box your opponent into talking about what you want to talk about. Basically, it’s a bullying tactic, not an appeal to logic. If a particular point that a commenter makes is in question, then it is fair to ask him to clarify it. But to present a laundry list of questions for him to answer is not at all in the spirit of blogging. We are all supposed to be equal here. You, and TFH, etc, are not the prosecutor, or the government investigator, asking questions of a witness in court or a suspect in jail. But taking a “you will answer these questions” attitude is pretending that you are. You are creating, or trying to create, a power inbalance.
In this case, it is even sillier, because what is being demanded is that the poster “rate” certain unrelated phenomenon on a made up one to then scale of “morality.” So, besides being bullying, it is juvenile besides. Whatever rating he gives, the other poster is going to claim that somehow “proves” something to his detriment. It’s a trap. A cheap, argumentative trick. And he has every right to ignore it.
Moreover, nobody has the right to demand personal information, like age, from a poster. Anonymity is an accepted part of internet blogging. If you don’t like it, start your own blog and demand that everyone use their real names and provide other personal information on demand. But don’t make such demands on other people’s blogs.
“A woman with one sexual LTR a year for 5 years is on the exact. Same. Moral. Plane. As. Roissy.”
I dont see roissy as immoral, considering this is what feminists & most women want, freedom to have sex with ppl like roissy ie pua’s gamers, alphas etc. as often as possbile …
Women want, make that need … ppl like roissy ie pua’s gamers, alphas etc because women are biologically hardwired to want them
Women dont have the rationalising ability to culturally want ppl who pump & dump & emotionally abuse them through game … Or is that too incoherent to understand … ?
Would it kill you to actually respond to my argument? I said 5 years, encompassing 5 different dicks. This is what women want when thay are promiscuous; “Relationship” sex ’til it gets old or a better man comes along.
You know what men want.
Why is women’s preferred promiscuity correct?
Regarding the preferred way of female promiscuity women absent of their actual psychology one could frame this problem as one of satisficing which was developed by Herbert Simon among others.
It is like in the famous secretary problem http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem which could be solved by dynamic programming or reinforcement learning. If we assume a woman samples n=10 men it should be enough to test 4 of them. Problem is women don’t sample uniformly among the men but rather only evaluate the ones perceived of higher values due to hypergamy instincts. And then, their SMV declines to due to increasing lack of bonding and age.
Because feminism.
@nugganu
Just read the post and all the comments. In doing so I could not help but think of some recent experiences. One of my neighbors, a over 45 year old single mom recently drilled me royally for even suggesting that the SMP isn’t so kind to older women who don’t take care of themselves. Who carry an extra 30-40 lbs and are totally out of shape. The shaming language was immediate. I didn’t care.
But then I saw this post on her FB page.
“Dear Men, If you are going to criticize a woman’s figure or any other aspect of her appearance, please make 100% sure that you are Brad Pitt or Johnny Depp”
She copied it from some web page. Of course, it had all the usual cheering from her fellow out of shape nothing to offer friends. So I guess men should refrain from ANY negative comments to a woman unless he is Brad or Johnny.
But it made me think about the last four women I have dated. All seemed pretty cool upfront. Fit, seemingly smart, and fun. All 42-48 years old. But when we went out and I got a chance to dig in a bit the story changed.
#1: Still married and living with her husband. Just in different rooms. Didn’t bother disclosing this before asking me out. Doesn’t want to divorce because that would be hard financially. But she made it clear she wanted a relationship with me.
#2: Fun, but spent every bit of money she had from her divorce. Beautiful home now in foreclosure. Looking for the next gravy train.
#3: No job. Not even looking. Living off her savings by choice. Received a large severance that she used to remodel her house. Rapidly running through what is left.
#4: This was the worst. Solid Christian woman. Sweet, pretty. But then she let on that she was wild until 28. Found Christian faith. Married a douche bag Christian Alpha who cheated on her relentlessly. Played the no sex early in the relationship card right away with me. A little game cast some doubt on that. No real job prospects. No job skills. Looking for the next good Christian man who is willing to “man up”.
These are all women who live in nice neighborhoods. Great schools. Two of them I would term frivolous divorcees. One is still married, but not haaaaaappy. The last one was the most depressing. Deep down the same as the first three, but with a nice Christian frosting covering up the same shallow worldview. None of them had hobbies, volunteered, read any meaningful books, NOTHING. It’s like they all still operate under the assumption that their fun personality is enough.
Before I was divorced I would have probably felt sympathy for these ladies. I would have excused their behaviors. As Dalrock would have said the “rule following beta”. Then my wife came home and told me she wasn’t happy, except when she was banging her married coworker. I showed her the door.
This is what forty years of ultimatums has delivered. If you are in your mid to late forties and still think you might find some great gal your age this is what you have to wade through. If I had not swallowed the red pill I would probably being seriously involved with one of these women. And each and every one of them was shocked when I told them that I did not want to see them again. Amazing.
E:
If a Roissy wannabe only scored 5 times in 5 years is he still worse?
@ruddyturnstone
lol you whine about boxing ppl in with GASP logic
& then whine nobody having the right to demand anything, then you demand they start their own blog if they dont like it ….
No wonder you’re complaining about coherency & logic … lol
“Why is women’s preferred promiscuity correct?”
@anon: There are two rules.
Rule 1: Women are always right.
Rule 2: See rule 1.
That was easy, isn’t it! 😀 😀 😀
I misread. OK, but the same argument applies. 5 is better than 100 because it’s lower and my belief (and it’s only that, a belief) is that lower is better when it comes to sexual partners. Feel free to talk me out of that.
One is ideal. One is the standard. One is what I want everyone to have. I don’t (yet) see why all numbers greater than one are inherently equally immoral.
troll, again
“If a Roissy wannabe only scored 5 times in 5 years is he still worse?”
No.
I forget which blogger wrote about it but writing about partner count for modern women is irrelevant, Number of LAYS is the accurate measure for a modern grrrl.
#1: Still married and living with her husband. Just in different rooms. Didn’t bother disclosing this before asking me out. Doesn’t want to divorce because that would be hard financially. But she made it clear she wanted a relationship with me.
Classic. Roissy Rides Again.
Roissy: men, “have the all the promiscuous fun you want and here’s how.”
Susan: women, “have the all the promiscuous fun you want and here’s how.”
Only by assuming women’s preferred uncommitted sex is “correct” can you complain about Roissy and think Susan is making better daughters.
I give up on you.
Wait, what? I have criticized/disagreed with Susan many times directly about her advice. I’ve said bluntly to her that I don’t agree with her advice to young women and I’ve said directly to many of the young women on her blog WAIT FOR MARRIAGE.
The comment about raising better daughters is about me and my friends and my peers, the people I know. I don’t know Susan. I am raising my daughter to wait for marriage and every single father of a daughter I personally know is doing the same thing.
FTR, I don’t think Dalrock is immoral or dumb; I’ve said over and over again that I think he is moral and smart. I think he is wrong on a couple of important points and I think he is actually hurting his cause with his praise of the PUAs.
@ ruddyturnstone
“Dude, it is envisioned as a short to medium term behavioral trait that is culturally determined. Not as a biological trait that needs to passed down from generation to generation indefinitely.”
Evolutionary systems operate on the same principle with behaviors – organisms that adopt maladaptive behaviors tend to fail(in evolutionary terms), so organisms evolve inherent biases towards indications of successful behaviors(as evolution maintains a strict limit on the frequency of maladaptive deviations).
So, assuming you could assemble a substantial number of males to strike(unlikely), the resulting evolutionary fallout would make subsequent generations even less likely to strike.
You make fine rational arguments against marriage, but I think people like you(and I) are not typical of desperate males, who are less hindered by such critical assessments.
Thus, I think it is actually more a case of females *rejecting* prospective suitors, than males who are reluctant to settle down(I could be wrong here).
“People really, really overrate “evolutionary” arguments sometimes. Gays and lesbians don’t reproduce (or not much, anyway), and yet they have been around since anitquity, if not longer. Monks and priests and nuns don’t reproduce either. And yet they have been around for thousands of years. Boys are born and they become priests. They don’t need to pass down the “priest” trait or gene for there to be more priests in the future.”
No, but that is because this kind of variance is a function of mutation-selection balance(with implications for stabilizing selection), and random chance.
Sterility is further excepted in cases of kin selection, etc.
@RTS: Asking for the name is inappropriate but asking a few general question is just curiosity on topic. Of course, it shouldn’t be a list of like 20 questions. You also even don’t have to say your age but rather an age bracket. Let me white whiteknight for the horse rider: He may be bullying be repeating his requests but dogding those questions is dishonest in a discussion. There nothing which stops E. to aks any other commenter a question to clarify a certain point or retrieve a particular attitude.
“You, and TFH, etc, are not the prosecutor, or the government investigator, asking questions of a witness in court or a suspect in jail. But taking a “you will answer these questions” attitude is pretending that you are. You are creating, or trying to create, a power inbalance.”
If E. were a woman the horse rider would DHV her by qualifying and not taking shit.
“This thread would be a lot shorter if Escoffier could debate in good faith.”
Demanding your interlocutor fill out a questionare that you prepared for your own purposes is hardly debating in good faith. If you have an argument to make, why don’t you just make it?
“Questions like mine reveal the checkmate aspect of such a debate. He can either answer (and thus quantify that he thinks Roissy and even Dalrock are worse than NOW and Bill Bennett), or dodge, which itself speaks volumes, for it shows that one part of his brain knows his worldview is fatally flawed. It is a struggle between dueling halves of his mind.”
He is simply not required to debate in the terms that you command. And “rating” immorality, with nothing to go by but subjective feeling, is stupid anyway. It’s obvious that he has big problems with NOW and Bennet, even if he also has some problems with Dalrock (whom he praised over and over again in general terms) and signifigant problems with Roissy. Why don’t you simply work with that, rather than ask him, in a jejune fashion, to “rate” the degree of immorality of the various persons? He has expressed some issues that he has with Dalrock, and more significant ones that he has with Roissy. Why not critique these views, which he has already expressed. If his views on Dalrock and Roissy are so insupportable, you should have no trouble exposing that fact. Even without your precious “ratings.”
Moreover, what makes you think that you are in a position to simply dictate the structure of the debate. He is posting about what he wants to post about; he is not obligated to debate in terms only of what you want to talk about. You are not a moderator here. Or a judge. You are simply another poster, one who disagrees with him. Why can’t you simply express your disagreement without resorting to bullying?
“It also shows how someone who can swiftly declare that Dalrock is neither moral nor smart, is incapable of telling us more about his own moral compass, for he knows it will make this debate a lot briefer and more transparent.”
Far from it. His “moral compass” is not even relevant. Deal with his arguments, not his personality. Transparency doesn’t come from personalizing the debate, rather, more heat than light is shed that way.
I want to apologize for any part I played in feeding the troll.
If this thread has proven one thing it is that Socons and Feministas are first and foremost, stupid (despite appeals to Aristotelian logic) and are completely, comprehensively and without reservations in bed together.
“Evolutionary systems operate on the same principle with behaviors – organisms that adopt maladaptive behaviors tend to fail(in evolutionary terms), so organisms evolve inherent biases towards indications of successful behaviors(as evolution maintains a strict limit on the frequency of maladaptive deviations). So, assuming you could assemble a substantial number of males to strike(unlikely), the resulting evolutionary fallout would make subsequent generations even less likely to strike.”
I’m sorry, but that’s fancy talk that makes no sense. I’m not talking about a behavior that needs to be passed down from father to son, but rather one that is passed down from man to younger man. Evolution simply has nothing to do with it. Like the priesthood, but with the advantage that we are not talking about a behavior that needs to last for centuries. A decade or two long marriage strike would go a long way towards achieving what we have in mind. And, as I indicated, the strike has already begun.
“Thus, I think it is actually more a case of females *rejecting* prospective suitors, than males who are reluctant to settle down(I could be wrong here).”
If you think this is true for women in their late thirties and older, than you are wrong. They are desperate to marry. And men are shunning them.
“No, but that is because this kind of variance is a function of mutation-selection balance(with implications for stabilizing selection), and random chance. Sterility is further excepted in cases of kin selection, etc.”
Whatever. Priests and gays don’t reproduce, yet priestly and gay behavior has existed for hundreds of years in one case, and thousands in the other. Again, I don’t need anything like that duration to make it work. And while gay behavior may have something to do with the concepts you are talking about here, priestly behavior does not. It is purely cultural.
@Interested
“It’s like they all still operate under the assumption that their fun personality is enough.”
This is what i mean, these 35-40+ women are medically speaking infertile
Monogamy & the social structure around them is all about protecting infertile women
Which is why any attempts at criticising their figure, weight etc., is seen as an attack on their protected status as an infertile woman
Which is why women, especially christian women think they’re entitled not to work & stayathome as parasite moms
All women know monogamy & marriage is about enslaving a man to a woman, who after reaching her window of fertility, becomes biologically useless to a male who can procreate well into his 70’s
This is why feminism & traditionalism have always been about sheltering infertile women past their age of childbearing, but have NEVER considered the need for men to constantly reproduce with fertile young women
Monogamy & marriage & traditionalism AND ultimately feminism have ALWAYS originated in western culture, precisely because monogamy is ABOUT denying men their LARGER window of fertility, while protecting women from their lower window of fertility
As PUA’s AND Gamers have been saying for DECADES if we abolished monogamy, feminism, & single moms, welfare, political correctness etc., would in fact vanish overnight
As long as the social structure in western culture insists on being based on monogamy ie. NOT the protection of fertile women, but the protection of infertile women it will ALWAYS be against men
Am I being too incoherent, or is the above straightforward enough to understand?
Ruddyturnstone,
So you’re apologizing for his refusal to answer questions. Wow.
To be clear, he doesn’t even refuse to answer the questions. He pretends they were never asked. He makes assertions, and when asked to back them up, instead moves on to make a half a dozen more unbacked claims.
Even if you say TFH’s questions aren’t good questions, why are you explaining why they shouldn’t be answered? He should do this himself if that’s his reason, which I doubt.
And, what explanation will you offer for Escoffier’s decision to ignore my question? Look for my very first post on this thread that I made yesterday.
What about that question was “in bad faith,” thereby deserving more than 24 hours with no answer?
Oh, shit. I guess now I’m asking you questions.
“So, let me get this straight. Roissy and Roosh are doing a yeoman’s service by banging current sluts and creating new sluts while also blogging about how you(the avg. man) too can learn game and PUA skills and maybe get some pussy on the side.
All the while, you’re railing against “so-cons” and anyone else who isn’t 100% in line with methods prescribed on this board for calling out slutty behavior and slut-shaming women when some of you are working diligently to become the next slut-maker, if only given the chance. That’s almost sadistic. If you put shit in your cereal, don’t complain it tastes like shit”.
Yeah Herbie that is correct you have that right. Once you get past the lies you have been taught you will understand the valid and nobile reason.
The comment Brendan alluded to upthread left by a woman at GROIN has a youtube video. In my estimation, there is a fork in the road and men have two choices to make. You can live as though there will one day be a natural catastrophe (which could happen) forcing both men and women back inside the box, that is – traditional gender roles – or you could for the first time in history view yourself as though you had inherent worth. Unearned, unmerited worth. To consider your career as nothing more than a fulfilling hobby, just as a woman does – if that is your choice.
E:
I game my wife. Game is the best hope I have to have a happy, satisfied wife and satisfying marriage. PUA’s like Roissy’s taught me how to do that because they see the world as it is, not lying to me with what it “should” be.
SoCon’s advice is wrong. Roissy’s is right. Susan’s advice is better for men, women and society, than what you’ve said or what socon’s say. And Susan is not a friend of men. Deal w/ that.
If Marriage is at 30 for women, Waiting for marriage is dumb. And you are too if you think women will waste their prime years before 25. It doesn’t work, hasn’t worked, won’t ever work. Grow up
“RTS: Asking for the name is inappropriate but asking a few general question is just curiosity on topic.”
Curiosity would be asking once. Not asking over and over.
“Of course, it shouldn’t be a list of like 20 questions. You also even don’t have to say your age but rather an age bracket.”
He needn’t give his name, his age, his age range, or anything else. And it has no bearing on the argument anyway. Address the argument, not the person.
“Let me white whiteknight for the horse rider: He may be bullying be repeating his requests but dogding those questions is dishonest in a discussion.”
Nonsense. The discussion is an impersonal one. That’s the whole point and nature of internet discussions. His personal data is simply not relevant.
“There nothing which stops E. to aks any other commenter a question to clarify a certain point or retrieve a particular attitude.”
Clarifying a point already under discussion is one thing, presenting a detailed questionaire and demanding that a poster “rate” this or that under some contrived-for-the-purpose-on-the-spot, bogus morality scale quite another. And, yeah, E could stoop to this behavior too. So what? How would that make it right?
“If E. were a woman the horse rider would DHV her by qualifying and not taking shit.”
Whatever. This is not the pick up bar, so PUA techniques are no more appropriate than bullying tactics.
OA: well then I don’t get it. On the one hand, you say that any woman who doesn’t wait is a slut. OTOH, you say that women are simply not going to wait, I am deluded.
So, either all men are going to have to marry sluts or they simply should not get married. Is that right?
“So you’re apologizing for his refusal to answer questions. Wow.”
Argument from incredulity? Yeah, wow. The point here is to have a conversation, not to demand “answers” from somebody as if he were in the dock.
“To be clear, he doesn’t even refuse to answer the questions. He pretends they were never asked.”
Distinction without a difference.
“He makes assertions, and when asked to back them up, instead moves on to make a half a dozen more unbacked claims.”
Well then, why don’t you point that out? Quote an actual assertion of his, and then ask him to back it up. If he doesn’t, after posting again or a reasonable amount of time, point that out. And if you have already done so, then fine. You “win” on that point, at least viz a viz your discussion with him.
“Even if you say TFH’s questions aren’t good questions, why are you explaining why they shouldn’t be answered? He should do this himself if that’s his reason, which I doubt.”
I don’t like bullying. Plus, there are no private conversations here. Everyone is allowed to comment. Just as you are commenting on my response to TFH.
“And, what explanation will you offer for Escoffier’s decision to ignore my question? Look for my very first post on this thread that I made yesterday.”
Don’t have to. And don’t intend to. I was responding to TFH’s badgering. I didn’t see any badgering from you and don’t care to look through your posts.Suffice to say, if the shoe fits you too, then wear it. If it doesn’t, it doesn’t. But, then again, I never said it did.
“What about that question was “in bad faith,” thereby deserving more than 24 hours with no answer?”
See above.
“Oh, shit. I guess now I’m asking you questions.”
Right. Meanwhile, the substantive discussion has completley stalled, even though I am answering them.
Rmaxd says:
November 16, 2011 at 5:43 pm
Femnism, marriage, monogamy & western culture is really about the enslavement of the reproductive biology of man
–
And all of that is flying out the window. TFH predicts the misandry bubble will burst by 2020. The seeds of change have begun, OWS is one example. The housing bubble, the corporate bubble, the misandry bubble, the big pharma bubble, the big dairy bubble, the big beef bubble, the big agro bubble ALL of these bubbles are going to burst!
The change won’t come over night, but we are seeing the beginnings of a very different USA in the making. Its not going to collapse, its going to transition into a more nature based society.
You are going to see A LOT less Taco Bells and Mickey D’s, Walmarts, colleges and schools. You are going to see more and more people living communally, sharing housing, turning their backyards into mini-farms.
The “American Dream” – which is really what enslaves men and women both – to a life of ever increasing material acquisitions (that don’t make us happy), is not something aspired to by many young people any more.
We will buy less cars, less houses, less electronics, less clothing and accessories and we will spend more time barefoot (but not neccessarily barefoot and pregnant 😉 … )
This whole working-as-an-office-drone-to-acquire-unneccessary-goods-way-of-life will not be the American way of life by 2060.
MARK MY WORD.
Yes. That is how it works when the rules are stacked in women’s favor.
Best practice, marry early to a low/no count woman or don’t at all. Marrying a 30 yr old woman is a bad deal for a 30 yr old man whether she is a slut or not, unless she was far too hot for you before. Consider holding your nose then, if you must marry.
For the less preferred options: If you can or were forced to make it to 30 without sex, marry a low/no count early 20’s woman or not at all. If a man sluts it up ’til 30, marry a low/no count early 20’s woman or not at all. The advice is always the same.
When a woman has peak power in her early 20’s she can use it to, 1. slut it up with men too good for her, 2. waste her power on nothing, or, 3. marry the best man she can. I only recommend men marry intelligent women. Personally I consider the “starter marriage” women in 1 or 2 depending.
@ greyghost,
LOL. I’m 42 and learned in my teens what I suppose could be considered a raw form of game, even if I didn’t know what the term was then. All it entailed was sound judgment and a basic understanding of human nature. I was never lied to about this and my pastor took the time to explain to us kids some of the passages in the Bible dealing with human nature, including what to look for in a potential spouse(and what to avoid). Though not always heeded, those lessons learned have, for the most part, kept me out of trouble. I suppose Roissy may have something to teach the younger men but really he’s not exposing any new truths. And without some moral guidance to his methods, it will likely lead the younger crowd down the wrong road.
So why are you calling me a fool for raising my daughter to wait until marriage? It is my fervent hope that she has one husband (and partner) for her entire life. Maybe that will be achieved and maybe it won’t, but isn’t that what I should aspire to for her, by your own standards?
@ ruddyturnstone
“I’m sorry, but that’s fancy talk that makes no sense. I’m not talking about a behavior that needs to be passed down from father to son, but rather one that is passed down from man to younger man. Evolution simply has nothing to do with it. ”
It makes alot more sense when you appreciate that behaviors are entangled in biologically determinable quantities of inheritance.
This is why males have evolved strategic tendencies that optimize their reproductive
prospects – and for many, marriage, as toxic as it is, remains the only game in town.
Interestingly, I seem to observe that those males who seem to be the most intractable in consideration of marriage, are either those for whom it does not represent a reproductive optima(promiscuous males with a high rate of sexual success in short-term mating), or those for whom their is little prospect of a receptive bride.
I don’t think that is a coincidence.
Ruddyturnstone,
What are you doing?
Why did you pretend that I made the argument from credulity? Watching you act like you’re a debate coach by incorrectly invoking fallacies from your Logic 101 book is beyond the scope of my interest in talking to you. Listing logical fallacies with no accompanying explanation reveals the lazy shallowness of the accusation.
You’re standing on ground with the consistency of peat moss, Ruddy. It’s embarrassing to see you instructing me to do things that I did 24 hours ago.
Your taste for bullying is irrelevant, and you answered the rhetorical question rather than the one that needed a response: Why does Escoffier not provide any rationale for his inability to answer questions?
This challenges your claim that his refusals are legitimate.
So you didn’t look through my posts, but nevertheless thought it appropriate to instruct me on how I should have conducted myself in this debate. That goes far to explaining why your perspective is so out of touch with what has been going on.
Since you readily admit that you haven’t followed this debate with Escoffier closely enough to know what’s going on, let me inform you that Escoffier has dodged MANY questions, not just the list from TFH that you say is bullying and badgering.
Escoffier refused to answer direct questions from at least four people since yesterday.
You refuse to look at my posts earlier in the thread because they would demolish your ignorantly proposed stance that Escoffier is legitimately not answering questions because he’s being bullied.
E: so your real issue is that you want men to stay stupid for your daughter’s sake? I have a son and a daughter. Ignorance is not bliss and I won’t condemn my son for your daughter or mine.
PUA’s are right about women, including your daughter. You can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. Or feminist society stepped on it, hard.
Ok, again, what?
Your advice to men is to marry (if they marry at all, which you don’t recommend, even though you are married) a no count woman if you can find one. I’m trying to raise one. But you have called me a fool over and over. Why?
I do not equate goodness with stupidity or ignorance. But, yes, I don’t want my daughter to marry a PUA. Call me crazy.
Lets not talk about (control)freedom of sex drives, women have true sexual freedom, men do not.
That’s the difference between men and women. They have options we don’t.
Who really has freedom to be sexually liberated? The one’s who have a choice right?
Well… when “WE”(cough..bullshit) become pregnant we men have a choice to opt out of parenthood right? NO we don’t.
When you don’t have the option to opt out of parenthood.. you really don’t have true sexual freedom.
Women can have a baby or have an abortion= sexual freedom.
Men have to wait on her decision= no sexual freedom.
Females can fornicate with 2 or 3 guys in one night not knowing who the “baby daddy” is and then they can decide if they want the baby or not.
Can we do that?
Sure would be nice if men had the option to have true sexual freedom.
On another note it seems when manginas are present the 13th commandment is enforced… “thou shalt not criticize a woman” 🙂
In addition to my above predictions, contrary to what some paranoid conspiracy nuts predict, we will NOT go the way of socialism rather libertarianism is the form of government that is more compatible with communal living.
There are not going to be enough Americans working office drone jobs to keep paying taxes and keep a Big Government operating. Americans are going to drop out of Big Economy and create their own. Small scale organic farmers will barter with each other. People with small farms in their backyards or urban farms in their homes and ‘hoods will barter with each. Need a pound of kale? Great! I ripped a T-shirt today and need a new one – trade?
Getting older and need weely massages to keep limber? Great. I’m trained in massage therapy and will trade you massage for you tutoring my kid in math. Like that. In fact, this is the way many Americans are doing this right now without relying on welfare or social security.
We don’t need Big Government and we don’t need Big Corporate. They provide the extras, not the neccesseties. Nature and human exchange provides the neccessities and that’s why’s going to happy here increasingly over the next several decades.
Big Corporate will be based out Asia and Asia and Africa will make the same mistakes we made starting since the industrial revolution. But we here in the US are going to get back to nature and trading with our neighbors.
We won’t become like a “third world country”… we will become a healthy and goodlooking nature loving new-millenium smart hippie libertarian country.
MARK MY WORD!
“It makes alot more sense when you appreciate that behaviors are entangled in biologically determinable quantities of inheritance. This is why males have evolved strategic tendencies that optimize their reproductive prospects – and for many, marriage, as toxic as it is, remains the only game in town.”
Yes, men have an evolutionary drive to reproduce, and marriage is a, perhaps for most men, the way of satisfying that drive. I am not debating that obvious truth. Nevertheless, a cultural counter drive (to repeat, ad nausium, similar to the priesthood) can exist within that overall context. That’s all I’m looking for. Behaviors are indeed “entangled in biologically determinable quantities of inheritance,” but that entanglement need not be all-encompassing, and especially not in the short and medium term. A cultural trend or tactic or whatever you want to label it need only “buck” biology for a brief (evolutionarily speaking) period to have a real impact on the culture.
An obvious example….people had fewer kids during the Depression and WWII…this led to the Baby Boom right after the War…and that produced a critical mass of children all coming of age at the same time such that it produced a youth culture like never seen before, affecting the culture, politics, society etc, etc in ways that are still being felt. Sure, those folks in the late thirties and early forties had the normal urge to reproduce, but they didn’t, for reasons that have little to do with biology and a lot to do with human culture (economics, politics, war).
“Interestingly, I seem to observe that those males who seem to be the most intractable in consideration of marriage, are either those for whom it does not represent a reproductive optima(promiscuous males with a high rate of sexual success in short-term mating), or those for whom their is little prospect of a receptive bride. I don’t think that is a coincidence.”
It’s not. And, indeed, that represents the old paradigm under Marriage 1.0. The betas all got married and stayed married. The alphas either never married or married more than once, but, in any case, had mulitiple partners. The omegas never married (because no woman would have them). But now we have Marriage 2.0, and it is a shit deal for men, betas included. It does not gurantee sex, not even with one woman. Men are reacting to this. Partly its organized, partly not. The orgnanized part is obvious, the unorganized part not so much. But many, many guys, guys who “would” have gotten married under Marriage 1.0, classic betas, are not marrying. Some are not marrying even though they have become “Greater Betas,” men whom women actually really want to marry. Others are simply refusing to live the lives that would make them Greater Betas, ie the so called Peter Pans, with their stereotypical video games. You might say that they have little prospect of a bride, but that is because they refuse to settle down, to buckle down, as their fathers did, in the hope of getting a bride. They are consciously or unconsciously taking themselves out of the marriage market. And that is all part of the strike too.
This is now easiest to see in the above age thirty five crowd. Guys are simply refusing to marry women of this age. So the never married and the divorced and not re married category for this age cohort of women is going up. My belief is that this is going to spread to the early thirtysomethings. Already, this age cohort of women has, as a percentage, lesser amounts of married and ever married women than it had before. And, of course, there is the rising age of the average first marriage. So women even in their twenties now are less likely to be married or ever to have been married than before. These trends will soon run into each other, and many of the twentysomething women who are “waiting” to get married may find out, when they hit age thirty or so, that they waited too long.
Let me put this in economic terms, which seem to be better accepted here than philosophic terms.
You are all unhappy that the supply of good girls (no- or low-count, successful at suppressing their natural hypergamy) is low. You want that supply to be higher.
Well I and a lot of other fathers I know are doing our utmost, at considerable effort, to increase the supply. Yet you all have nothing but scorn for us. The smarter of us are going to do it anyway because we understand that it’s good for our girls. But your scorn is still incongruous and illogical. Also, don’t discount the possibility that on the margins your scorn may actually dissuade producers who might otherwise have tried to produce the product you want more of. I.e., your own scorn may in fact have the perverse effect of limiting the supply.
@Anonymous Reader
Your economic evaluation is right on, but I would add a bit more even. Escoffier’s solution to reduce the supply of alphas only works if the reduction is nearly perfect. If you reduce the supply of alphas by 20%, 40%, or even 60% you will have no measurable impact on the number of women who can ride the carousel. His model has to reduce the availability of alphas nearly perfectly to have any success. Just a few alphas can and gladly will service a very large number of sluts.
Realistically any improvement will come on the margins. The solution which works must cause improvement if only effective on 5% or 10% of the population. From there it can continue to make incremental improvement. This is how social change occurs in the real world, outside of philosophy 101 courses (even the really good ones at Harvard). If the first round of slut shaming convinces 5% of women to stay off the carousel, this is a meaningful improvement. 5% of women are spared the harm of the carousel. 5% more Betas can find worthy wives. 5% more children grow up in in tact families. Do the same and reduce the supply of alphas by 5% and you still have the same number of sluts, SOL betas, and fatherless children.
Making his suggestion even more absurd is the fact that alphas are highly correlated with the dark triad personality traits, a group which promiscuous women find highly attractive. For his model to gain traction it has to be nearly perfect at getting narcissistic sociopaths to give up what they want for the greater good. I can imagine no more foolish argument.
@E
How old is your daughter? I have a 12 year old who bright and good looking, but is destined to be very very beta no matter what I do – maybe a match made in heaven. 🙂
Eincrou:
“Why did you pretend that I made the argument from credulity?”
That’s incredulity, actually. And no pretending. When you simply restate my claim and then say “Wow,” what would you call it? You don’t believe X, therefore X can’t be. That’s an argument from incredulity.
“Watching you act like you’re a debate coach by incorrectly invoking fallacies from your Logic 101 book is beyond the scope of my interest in talking to you. Listing logical fallacies with no accompanying explanation reveals the lazy shallowness of the accusation.”
Now you have your explanation. I didn’t think you needed it. Sue me for overestimating you. And, if you have no interest in talking to me, then don’t. I’ll live.
Me:
“Well then, why don’t you point that out? Quote an actual assertion of his, and then ask him to back it up. If he doesn’t, after posting again or a reasonable amount of time, point that out.”
Eincrou:
“You’re standing on ground with the consistency of peat moss, Ruddy. It’s embarrassing to see you instructing me to do things that I did 24 hours ago.”
Am I? Is it? Then why didn’t you quote my next two sentences:
“And if you have already done so, then fine. You ‘win’ on that point, at least viz a viz your discussion with him.”
So, I already accounted for that possibility. But I will do it again, just to make you happy:
If you have already done so, then fine. You “win” on that point, at least viz a viz your discussion with him.
“Your taste for bullying is irrelevant, and you answered the rhetorical question rather than the one that needed a response: Why does Escoffier not provide any rationale for his inability to answer questions?”
You asked and I answered. I can’t read your mind as to what is rhetorical and what is not. Plus, if I didn’t answer you, then I would be ducking the question, just like E, right? Damned if I do and damned if I don’t. As for what you are now calling the question that needed a response, my answer is that, once again, I am not a mind reader. Perhaps E had not either answered your questions or provided a rationale for what you claim is his inability to answer them for the reasons I stated, perhaps for some other reason. Perhaps because he does not consider your questions to be important, or pertinent. Whatever.
“This challenges your claim that his refusals are legitimate.”
Actually, it challenges squat. Because, if you’ll remember, my objections were to TFH’s questions and the questions about E’s age, not to your question, which I said nothing about at all, and which you brought up, all on your own.
“So you didn’t look through my posts, but nevertheless thought it appropriate to instruct me on how I should have conducted myself in this debate. That goes far to explaining why your perspective is so out of touch with what has been going on.”
No, again, I was “instructing” TFH, not you. How hard is that to understand?
“Since you readily admit that you haven’t followed this debate with Escoffier closely enough to know what’s going on, let me inform you that Escoffier has dodged MANY questions, not just the list from TFH that you say is bullying and badgering.”
Again, if that is the case and the other questions were legitimate, then so be it. How many times do I have to say this? How does that change the fact that TFH’s questions are bullying and badgering. And I have followed the debate closely. But that hardly means I have memorized every one of the four hundred posts that are now on this thread.
“Escoffier refused to answer direct questions from at least four people since yesterday.”
See above.
“You refuse to look at my posts earlier in the thread because they would demolish your ignorantly proposed stance that Escoffier is legitimately not answering questions because he’s being bullied.”
My “stance” is that TFH’s questions, and the questions about E’s age, were bullying. And that is neither “ignorant” nor “proposed.” Your posts would not only not demolish that stance, no matter what they contain, but are not even relevant to it.
Choice for men already exits.
Condoms.
@ ruddyturnstone
No one here can fairly accuse me of bullying anyone. I’ve argued logically at all times and haven’t badgered anyone.
I stand by everything I’ve said here and the manner in which I’ve said it.
First of all, Dalrock, my hat is off to you. In a very short time of blogging, you have zeroed in on one of the largest causes of the cultural dysfunction which characterizes most of our environments. The recent explosion of the volume of comments for each of your posts indicates that you have hit a nerve.
Second, reading this thread has made me absolutely want to scream. You could have titled this essay “40 years of socons backing down from women’s ultimatums.” And, just as men have started to get their feet under them after being attacked by the coalition of the willing – feminists and socons – as TFH predicted, the socons are doubling down in their white knighting and trying to force men to knuckle under for even just one more quarter.
I have never heard of a problem being solved by intensification of the behavior which caused it in the first place.
The socon model certainly has plenty of traction – look around you and see its effects. Compare all major measures of social well-being today, to what they were 40 years ago. The socon model is carrying us further and further into the quagmire.
I have pointed out several times that Christians are turning to cannibalism – they are now eating their own. The only people they are able to harm by getting them to follow their advice are the ones who believe as they do. Those men with the Dark Triad pay no attention to them, and largely escape being chewed up by the system that the socons have created.
No wonder they want the faithful to breed more little boys to use as cannon fodder – the unbelievers have stopped allowing their sons to be used in that manner.
Not really a first, TFH. It’s part and parcel of avoidance of white feathers campaign – smear those who have one, praise those who don’t.
It is as you predicted – the WKs will keep doubling down on their whiteknighting until they go bankrupt.
@ Herbie
I suppose Roissy may have something to teach the younger men but really he’s not exposing any new truths. And without some moral guidance to his methods, it will likely lead the younger crowd down the wrong road.
That is where you come in as 42 year old man. I phrase i have is involuntary childless spinsterhood for carousel riders. The MGTOW, ‘peter pan” types ,and the PUA are needed and neccesary to end feminism and mainly the laws of misandry. Learn game why it works and the psychology of hypergamy. So-con are fools for they see woman as fantasies. MRA’s see woman as who they are. Understanding game helps a man seperate out his logic being projected on to women and actually seeing woman for who they are. As a man on the blue pill the moment it hits you will be emotional. At that moment you will realise in your heart and soul that a woman does not have the capacity to love as a man can and does. It will take your breath away. But it is normal. But it also explains how abortion is legal,paternaty fraud is legal,filing false claims of abuse and rape is legal,how things like title IX is legal and supported,etc. it is normal stuff for a woman. They truely do not see anything wrong with any of it. I could go on for ever with this and other obsevations but the point is you are not going to see any change in females based on any empathy or good of the society shit or best nterest of the child.
Knowing this about woman and the current laws what do you think will actually make a woman change her behavior for wicked childish selfish reasons. (Always remember that part never changes even if a woman dives on a grenade to save a group of men from injury you can rest easy knowing it was an act of normal female selfishness.) A woman will behave with chaste and loyalty to her man only if it is in her best interest. Fear and social status in relationship to other women are huge emotional drivers for women. Another huge hysterical fear is the fear of responsibility and the death of the rationalization hamster. And number one is the end of hypergamy. The old childless spinster has run out of options and is of no value to any one including her hamster. No child support,no half of anothers retirement,no half of anothers total assets, and most sadly no child to take care and just hold your hand or talk to as you die. Tell that to a feminised 16 year old cunt getting breast implants for her sweet sixteen. A young women can get all of the dick including the dick she wants. As they ride and age it is a lot of dick including the ones she will settle for. The old spinster can only get lucky for her to even get dick and never one she would want. The female nature of selfishness will fall back to what ever is available to remove the fear of life as just described. .
Dalrock, there is an addendum to my little model, that indicates why SoCons would rather try to police Alphas 100% than resort to real-deal slut shaming.
Recall the “women’s cartel”. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that it is within some church or other community of faith. In order for this to work, the slut shaming must have some real teeth. That is, it must be public to some extent. If little 16 year old Doris Droppanties sluts it up in such a way as to get caught, she’s going to have to pay a price. Maybe she’ll have to submit to very strict control of her life – no phone, no social media, all activities are with church groups / school groups / family, no dates of any kind, etc. This will make her not haaaapy. Some see where I’m going, but I must belabor the obvious.
And here comes the other shoe. Adult women of this community must be shamed by other adult women, seriously. If Susie Homemaker has an affair with Al the Alpha, she is going to be wearing a virtual scarlet “A”. She won’t be allowed to teach children any more, she won’t be allowed to have any leadership role of any sort, she’s going to have to submit to a lot of scrutiny by other women in the group. It’s going to look a lot like the 12 Step programs, in many ways, starting with the “admit wrongdoing” phase.
Now, all of the above logically applies to men as well. But from what I can tell, men in such communities are already under scrutiny much of the time. There’s already a presumption of wrongdoing, based on what I read at this and other sites, and various interventions.
Real, live, slut shaming hurts the woman it is aimed at. It’s hurtful stuff. It can be cruel – but from what I read about 12 step programs, some of the people in those programs can be cruel, too, because the truth hurts in those situations. The real, painful hurt done to one surely keeps others who are wavering on the straight and narrow, though, and that is one of the main purposes.
And so where do we wind up? Simple: social conservatives, traditional conservatives, whatever thy want to call themselves do not want to cause any woman, ever, to be hurt. Not even if they deserve it. They would rather try to police the actions of 1,000 men than tell one woman “Your behavior is bad and it must be changed for a period of time before can be trusted again.
That’s it. That’s the bottom line. It is that simple. Better to punish a lot of men, at least some of them innocent of sexual wrongdoing, than make a single, solitary woman unhaaaapy. Pedestalizing and the White Knighting that must inevitably accompany it.
There are communities that do manage the hypergamy of their women – Orthodox Jews come to mind – and I wager that slut shaming, very serious shaming, is part of it. I also wager that such communities have a higher goal than ensuring that women are haaaapy, too.
Anyone who worries more about the happiness of women than, say, the preservation of their culture is likely going to wind up disappointed on both counts.
D, as I have now said about 20 times, my “thought experiment” about PUAs stopping screwing around was just that, a thought experiment. It was in response to your constant excuses for them. I simply said, what if they did what I (and you, implicitly) say morality requires them to do? The result would be a massive improvement over what we have now. You want the same thing, just from the other side. So do I. I am less concerned, as a moral matter, about which side stops first. The point is, if either side were to stop, the whole system would crash. Since I believe (and you must believe, to the extent that you are a Christian) that both sides are moral actors, I believe they both need to stop. Best if they do it all at once. If one goes first, that’s OK too.
I am still rather amazed and dismayed by the incessant excuses/justifications for male immoral behavior by all these supposed Christians. And, frankly, the intellectual quality of the “argument” that “You don’t complain about women enough” is not high. Would you like me to get a tatoo that says “I oppose female hypergamy”?
I won’t, FTR. Nonetheless, I do oppose it.
This is now easiest to see in the above age thirty five crowd. Guys are simply refusing to marry women of this age. So the never married and the divorced and not re married category for this age cohort of women is going up.
Also what is happening in that age group is that divorced men are remarrying *far* less frequently than they used to. Still more than divorced women, but less than previously. This is a big contributing factor to the lower marriage rate overall — people are not remarrying as often after divorces.
What is more slut shaming than to be a 48 year old childless spinster. or 57 and last hugged or kissed 6 years ago. And have an article or a daytime television show that said that these women were young sluts that no good man (simple beta) wanted. Right now it is man up. (beta boy is an asshole for not marrying the slut) My goal as an MRA is for the story to be “you sluts brought it on yourself.”
Escoffier
Would you like me to get a tatoo that says “I oppose female hypergamy”?
That would be quite foolish, as it would display your ignorance for all to see.
I would urge you against such a course, just as I would urge you not to get a tattoo that says “I oppose women’s desire to mate with a man who is taller than they are”.
I won’t, FTR. Nonetheless, I do oppose it.
I don’t think you even understand what hypergamy is.
Ah, well – since I first witnessed the neo-religi-cons falling all over themselves to crawl into bed (metaphorically) with Andrea Dworkin and Catherine MacKinnon in order to burn other men back about 30 years ago, few things surprise me.
Let us not forget the #1 lie of the Patriarchy mythos – women have always projected their own faults onto men and accused men of what has recently been termed “playing for Team Woman” – always favoring their own sex over the other. The reality is that the socons are doing exactly what the majority of men have done for all of human history – looking for a good excuse to hate and burn other men.
Women just make a great excuse for men to do that – which is what they naturally want to do, anyway.
@ ruddyturnstone
“But now we have Marriage 2.0, and it is a shit deal for men, betas included. It does not gurantee sex, not even with one woman. Men are reacting to this. Partly its organized, partly not. The orgnanized part is obvious, the unorganized part not so much. But many, many guys, guys who “would” have gotten married under Marriage 1.0, classic betas, are not marrying. Some are not marrying even though they have become “Greater Betas,” men whom women actually really want to marry. Others are simply refusing to live the lives that would make them Greater Betas, ie the so called Peter Pans, with their stereotypical video games. You might say that they have little prospect of a bride, but that is because they refuse to settle down, to buckle down, as their fathers did, in the hope of getting a bride. They are consciously or unconsciously taking themselves out of the marriage market. And that is all part of the strike too.”
Yes, I actually think there is some ethological parallel(and when I dig it up, I will post a reference), but it is otherwise not intuitive.
But, in general terms large human populations become untenable once the breeding population becomes sufficiently perturbed(through any number of causes relating to female hypergamy run amok – including emergent/unintended systems of deterrence, like marriage 2.0), entailing increased fertility costs, and corresponding losses in the form of sub-replacement fertility, as well as the specter of inbreeding depression effects(observable symptoms in all developed world populations infested with a ruinous latitude of female sexual choice).
So, in speaking to your call to activism, I should say that it is unnecessary – any such affected population is unstable in evolutionary terms, and thus, we can expect that the carousel utopia known as female sexual liberation is a transient phenomenon living on borrowed time.
It will all collapse, without a single finger lifted in conscious resistance.
Let me try something new.
Chels: can you explain this? “However, what I do find repulsive is his constant protection of sluts, so they don’t get their feelings hurt.”
Why do you think I believe that, especially since I have denied it specifically about a hundred times?
Here is a simple question for social conservatives, traditional conservatives, what have you, to ponder. “Promise Keepers” is now over 30 years old. One of the goals is the promotion of sexual purity – especially fidelity in marriage.
In view of the fact that women bring 60% to 65% of divorce filings in the US, surely there must be a “Promise Keepers” equivalent for women, that is also engaged in promotion of fidelity in marriage. Yet I cannot seem to find such an organization.
Why is that? Why isn’t there a huge, Christian oriented national organization that encourages women to keep their marriage vows – all of them – but there is such an organization for men?
Escoffier to me you are the target drone and the training aid for MRA’s to use to teach game. You have been a huge help in guiding a discussion and arguements for the lurchers that are looking for answers. There is no reaching you and that is to be expected for the real change is with men that can actually see what is going on. The police need to tase somebody it might as well be you. Somebody needs to be cuckolded you are as good at any man. Somebody has to pay alimony and child support why not you. The rest of us MRA,s MGTOW “peter pans and PUA’s will be showing you as an example for our youger brothers.
Escoffier, if you want to try something new, try actually defining a term, such as “hypergamy” for a start.
“Much of the social history of the Western world, over the past three decades, has been a history of replacing what worked with what sounded good.” (Thomas Sowell)
Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/t/thomas_sowell.html#ixzz1dvvU6uRP
Haha, E. must feel like a celebrity. So much attention, everybody wants to ask a question. Some wants to expose his flawed views, somebody as teaching objects for MRAs, etc.
AR: Hmm, he doesn’t answer my question about anti-male laws, let us see whether he understands some sociology term like hypergamy. Let us see whether he takes the bait.
I got it.
There can be a kind of conservation law at play, when males apparently undermine their own reproductive success.
What appears to be happening, is that greater strategic investments(in terms of time/energy cost), require higher qualitative thresholds of return, to be justified(it is a quality over quantity trade-off).
The problem is, that female hypergamy run amok entails such high investment costs from the typical male(entangled in a long term fitness optima game), that most females can no longer possibly justify the investment!
This manifests, as an increasing number of males ‘passing’ on from the ‘mediocre’ reproductive prospects which become available to them.
The developed world has truly sown the seeds of its own destruction!
I guess Escoffier isn’t going to betroth his virgin daughter to my fine catch of a beta son. Looks like it’s PUA bootcamp for him.
“The system is on the verge of self correcting, and you can’t stand it.”
the PUA method is on the verge of self-correcting the vast problems of the dying West? or even of hypergamy?
Dalrock, that’s just nonsense
it does illustrate the cult-like hold that PUAism seems to have over some young u.s. men — no doubt living in desperation under an anti-masculine matriarchy
Escoffier is getting scapegoated from the backlash of this, partly because “conservatives” and fathers of daughters have been so instrumental in forcing OTHER guys into apartheid “citizenship”
but what’s with the group-thug? who named you people Inquisitors, constructing lists and demands for the personal info of those disagreeing? the hive-response smacks of feminism’s methods
despicable
well-done to Escoffier for maintaining a fair perspective
Chels says:
Chels raises a great point. Why does every man except as a fact that he needs a house, needs to be able to support a SAHM, AND needs to be able to pay for kids before a woman can marry him?
Because of contraception, it is quite easy to delay kids. Future wife obviously isn’t living in a house right now. And she is working right now. So….. why does she needs all these shiny’s to be induced to marry?
Don’t give me that “ambitious” *bleep* or that “women like success” *bleep*. That’s a cover story. No one seriously expects a 20 year old man to be well established.
So why does she demand all these things? Because she is a whore. That’s why.
Hee hee. My god you are such an unmitigated jackass.
“What is more slut shaming than to be a 48 year old childless spinster. or 57 and last hugged or kissed 6 years ago. ”
Do 57 year olds really care about being hugged or kissed? One can hug their friends if they don’t have kids or grandkids. We women usually have a close circle of girlfriends and are usually huggy with them. Besides in the internet age I think many people, of a wide variety of ages, prefer blogging to socializing in person and hugging people. Something you guys don’t seem to be accounting for here. Technology has changed us. We even prefer to watch movies at home than go to a cinema. I often feel that “human interaction” is overrated.
[D: Of course they don’t care. In fact, they don’t care so passionately that my post on women being done with men continues to be the second most viewed post, even today with all of the attention on this one and the other recent ones (see the list on the sidebar). Women violently don’t care about men after age 55.]
“The system is on the verge of self correcting, and you can’t stand it.”
The system is changing, not self correcting. We are not going to go back. Right now we are in growing pains but mark my word, by 2060 at the latest the change will be complete and this country will look vastly different than now – on all levels: economic, social, sexual, religious, familial.
It will be better. It will be improved. But it won’t be Leave It To Beaver, I can tell you that much.
Re: Promise Keepers. The female equivalent is Promise Rings and Purity Balls, both of which have a really big “ick” factor, but its an attempt by fathers to keep their daughters “pure” for all you nice Christian boys out there.
@PT Barnum:
Women have a checklist for men they “want to be married to”.
They don’t have a checklist for men they “want to hook up with”.
Maybe the reason men don’t manage to have relationship success … is because this shell game is being run.
The men that get married … are basically gaining a person with mileage. He’s the person she’s with when the music stops. That’s what it looks like to me.
@ray
My point is that after 40 years of swinging against men, the tide is starting to turn. He and others like him can’t stand this. I’m not saying the system will magically fix itself, but there is some self correction which is beginning to happen. It is the very correction which animates him so much.
Ray, that’s just nonsense
I find this unlikely. I believe it is almost certain there is an absolute and a relative scale in action. That is, after a certain point of masculine traits are reached, it doesn’t really matter “how the other men score”, the girl is interested. Likewise, after a certain DECLINE in masculine traits is reached, it doesn’t matter that the very neutered man is “better” than the very very neutered men, the women are simply not interested. Neutered is separate from feminine men which can have their own appeal to women.
A very simply example is with women. If all women in America were to suddenly gain 5 points on the beauty scale… ALL OF THEM…., then yes, the 15 would be a beyond perfection in look, in gait, in voice, and gesture…. but guys would still be very, very happy to have the five that is now “only” a 10.
“There are communities that do manage the hypergamy of their women – Orthodox Jews come to mind – and I wager that slut shaming, very serious shaming, is part of it. I also wager that such communities have a higher goal than ensuring that women are haaaapy, too.”
You spoke too soon! Read this…
http://www.unpious.com/2011/07/girls-night-out/
Also, watch the movie A Price Above Rubies starring Renee Zellwegger and this Youtube mini-documentary
“Women violently don’t care about men after age 55.”
Violently? LOL. They just GTOW. They’re not out there shooting bullets. They’re blogging.
😉
He and others like him can’t stand this
i doubt his equivalence to bill bennett, as one commenter offered
c’mon dalrock: would you want to be evaluated based on your imputed association with a nebulous “others like him”?
the point re socons having been ferociously made, he deserves to be evaluated on his own statements, not on those expanded to our betrayers in the churches
if he is equivalent to bennett, then he’ll share in bennett’s reward — is that not sufficient?
to close positively, the piece clearly struck a collective neural Interstate lol; the lead sentence is a keeper
The original post was pretty decent, but the comment thread is an echo-chamber. There are about a dozen keyboard commandos who all hate Escoffier so much that they all have to flame him at once. Sadly, a lot of Internet sites become low-quality echo chambers.
The Internet is useful for transmitting factual information, but it often fails to produce intelligent debate, because it takes a lot of skilled labor to prevent a discussion from degenerating into a flame war.
Inexperienced idiots who happen to be on the winning side of a flame war think that they know how to debate, and the cycle of idiocracy spirals downward…
zed says:
November 16, 2011 at 3:18 pm
“no one accepts anything I say anyway.
A more astute person would probably take a clue from that.”
Can everyone put in there two cents so Escoffier can get a clue finder.
Speaking of inexperienced, you’re ignorant of what an internet flame war is if you think this thread has been one.
@Brendan
“In all likeihood, he was, in sexual/relational terms.”
I’d argue Churchill was a beta in every sense of the word. An utterly savage, arrogant buffoon of mediocre intelligence, arguably the least competent politician to lead a country in war in the 20th century besides Saddam Hussein. It’s exactly the type of behavior one would expect from a typical beta when given way too much power. Hitler was not that much different. Stalin, on the other hand, displayed many alpha traits.
I doubt slut shaming ever worked anytime in history. In bygone eras most women refused to become sluts not because they wanted to avoid being shamed but because sluts were social pariahs routinely and universally treated like garbage. Even beta chumps refused to marry them, and governments refused to subsidize their bastard alpha spawn. Oh, and neither legal, safe abortion nor legal, cheap, reliable contraceptives existed.
I have to agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that this all sounds like you want to institutionalize some form of Sexual Marxism and redistribute sexual resources equally among all. If the hottest guys are able to attract the majority of the hottest women in their prime, leaving the rest of the men out, well, why should the other men demand that those women get distributed to them first?
These men are getting all of those women for a reason. The Sexual Market is a FREE Market where cutthroat competition reigns. If you can’t compete, why should you be handed a woman for free?
That comment at groin.com is indeed excellent.
I doubt slut shaming ever worked anytime in history. In bygone eras most women refused to become sluts not because they wanted to avoid being shamed but because sluts were social pariahs routinely and universally treated like garbage. Even beta chumps refused to marry them, and governments refused to subsidize their bastard alpha spawn. Oh, and neither legal, safe abortion nor legal, cheap, reliable contraceptives existed.
I hope everybody is getting Hollenhund’s post here. This is the femiinist remove list from society so we can find the elusive delusional female happiness through hypergamy. the laws of misandry and the hate all men legal and social culture is all for hypergamy for all woman even a bitch no sane or normal alpha would want.
This is where we are heading “In bygone eras most women refused to become sluts not because they wanted to avoid being shamed but because sluts were social pariahs routinely and universally treated like garbage. Even beta chumps refused to marry them, and governments refused to subsidize their bastard alpha spawn”
This is why I like The MGTOW,”peter pans” and the PUA. MGTOW and peter pans insure reduce finacial power for government to carry sluts. PUA help the good beta types know who the sluts are and give the sluts a place to ride. All three together are a hypergamy buzz kill.
A true woman hater could really stick it to woman on a global scale selling girl power delusion. Come aboard ladies it is the cock carousel. From borrow this student loan money. Go to girl power university we will set the rules so you always come out on top. 15 years later “ok girls off you go” is it over? yes it is you need to be young pretty and fertile to ride the carousel. I don’t make the rules you do and men are asshole it’s their fault. One day Hollenhund it will be her fault for being a slut and riding the carousel. A man church or society that actually loves it’s women will tell a woman that.
Höllenhund: Of course shaming very seldom is enough to stop somebody from using or abusing a priviledge that can’t be taken away from them.
What a monkey house this place has become. Stop flinging shit at each other and listen to sense.
“Social Conservatives'” dogma on the SMP proceed primarily from one very flawed man, George Gilder, who wrote “Naked Nomads” in the mid 70s. His thesis was that serial monogamy, which was just emerging at that time, was bad for society because it deprived men of wives at a time when they needed to be connected to a wider society, undertake familial responsibilities, and ‘man up’ in today’s lingo.
Gilder’s book, and the one that followed “Men And Marriage”, had one very large and fatal flaw: Gilder thought that women were naturally monogamous, that they naturally preferred hard-working, stable guys, and that if men could curb their polygamous instincts, assortive mating would re-emerge naturally. Hence, man-shaming entered into the mimetic DNA of both the secular and Christian right. What Gilder failed to discern, and it has proved fatal to the neocon enterprise, is that the desires of WOMEN were driving the new SMP. Christians [except me] don’t read the Bhagavad Gita, but if they did, maybe they would have meditated on these words:
“And when immorality prevails, O Krishna, the women of the family become corrupted; when women are corrupted, social problems arise.”
On the other hand, what SoCons are prescribing for young men is vital: man up. But not for the sake of women, nor for the sake of the Church, nor for the better of society. Man up because it is your true nature, because boy-men are not fit to carry a warrior’s spear. Even Gilder, despite his many shortcomings, caught sight of this:
“..men are inferior sexually…but they are superior in the workplace and in the great creative ventures outside the family circle. This has been true throughout human history and always will be true. The denial of it is perverse and destructive because men do have an absolutely central role in society that is commensurate with, yet different from, the familial role of women.”
Patriarchy 2.0 will come. Even good women are demanding it now, and more women will be demanding it in the future. But it won’t be guilt by PUAs or White Knights.
Patriarchy is for fathers.
What a monkey house this place has become. Stop flinging shit at each other and listen to sense.
“Social Conservatives'” dogma on the SMP proceed primarily from one very flawed man, George Gilder, who wrote “Naked Nomads” in the mid 70s. His thesis was that serial monogamy, which was just emerging at that time, was bad for society because it deprived men of wives at a time when they needed to be connected to a wider society, undertake familial responsibilities, and ‘man up’ in today’s lingo.
Gilder’s book, and the one that followed “Men And Marriage”, had one very large and fatal flaw: Gilder thought that women were naturally monogamous, that they naturally preferred hard-working, stable guys, and that if men could curb their polygamous instincts, assortive mating would re-emerge naturally. Hence, man-shaming entered into the mimetic DNA of both the secular and Christian right. What Gilder failed to discern, and it has proved fatal to the neocon enterprise, is that the desires of WOMEN were driving the new SMP. Christians [except me] don’t read the Bhagavad Gita, but if they did, maybe they would have meditated on these words:
“And when immorality prevails, O Krishna, the women of the family become corrupted; when women are corrupted, social problems arise.”
On the other hand, what SoCons are prescribing for young men is vital: man up. But not for the sake of women, nor for the sake of the Church, nor for the better of society. Man up because it is your true nature, because boy-men are not fit to carry a warrior’s spear. Even Gilder, despite his many shortcomings, caught sight of this:
“..men are inferior sexually…but they are superior in the workplace and in the great creative ventures outside the family circle. This has been true throughout human history and always will be true. The denial of it is perverse and destructive because men do have an absolutely central role in society that is commensurate with, yet different from, the familial role of women.”
Patriarchy 2.0 will come. Even good women are demanding it now, and more women will be demanding it in the future. But it won’t be built by PUAs or White Knights.
Patriarchy is for fathers.
On the other hand, what SoCons are prescribing for young men is vital: man up. But not for the sake of women, nor for the sake of the Church, nor for the better of society. Man up because it is your true nature, because boy-men are not fit to carry a warrior’s spear
Oh piffle.
Signing up for this is signing up to be tools to be used and discarded, something which makes absolutely no sense other than for masochists in a world where women are economically and reproductively independent from specific men. Far better for men to pursue their own interests. For some this will be spear-carrying warriors, and for others it will not be. But forcing men into this role when women are independent of men is a foolish ct, and one which is steeped in the true vanity of believing one can resurrect the past. You can’t. Get over it. Move on.
Gilder’s book, and the one that followed “Men And Marriage”, had one very large and fatal flaw: Gilder thought that women were naturally monogamous, that they naturally preferred hard-working, stable guys, and that if men could curb their polygamous instincts, assortive mating would re-emerge naturally.
There are two flaws in one here, and it is important to separate them out. Gilder not only believed in the myth of natural female monogamy, he apparently didn’t even know hypergamy exists. I believe that one can argue Gilder essentially confused correlation with causation in terms of assortive mating, but given the fact that at that time no one had seen a society with uncontrolled female hypergamy, it is an understandable error. Gilder was writing at the very beginning of Marriage 2.0 – before the creation of the anti-Family court star-chamber, before the creation of “deadbeat dad’ debtors prison, before the creation of “domestic violence” definitions broad enough to capture any man who stands up to a woman, before mandatory arrest laws, and before rampant Affirmative Action essentially displaced men from entire careers. The US of that time looked more like 1959 than 1999.
However, that is water under the bridge. The problem now is pretty simple: SoCons and TradCons for the most part are just as ignorant today as Gilder was 30+ years ago. There’s not nearly as much excuse for them. They do not have the excuse of writing from a time when Jimmy Carter was President. In order to make the same mistakes today that Gilder made back when, a certain degree of deliberate ignorance is required. If I put my hands over my eyes and bellow “I don’t see what you are pointing at” whose fault is it, mine or yours?
On the other hand, what SoCons are prescribing for young men is vital: man up. But not for the sake of women, nor for the sake of the Church, nor for the better of society. Man up because it is your true nature, because boy-men are not fit to carry a warrior’s spear.
There are several problems with this. The first and most obvious is simple: the SoCons are by and large not attempting to train any man to carry a warrior’s spear, but rather to trot behind women toting spare tampons. There’s a big difference between being a real patriarch, a “father who rules”, and being a blowhard, pedestalizing, White Knight. Far too many SoCons/TradCons can’t seem to understand that.
Is abortion safe? A good question. Maybe. Do you think that either side, absolutely committed to it’s own ideology, NO MATTER WHAT, will give an honest answer?
The feminists see nothing wrong with claiming “a woman can easily have kids in her late 30s”. That’s been proved totally wrong.
The Conservatives think abstinence combined with delaying marriage till you can have kids(late 20s) is a winning combination. Cause everyone can/will wait for over a decade before they have sex.
As we can see, neither side presenting the “facts” on abortion is particularly concerned about reality.
As far as I can tell, the deepest thinker on all the questions you are grappling with here is F. Roger Devlin. He is the true progenitor (or discoverer) of all your ideas, as I expect some of you are aware.
I read his book on Kojeve when it came out and recently found his essays on women, the SR and the SMP. Last night I went back and took another look at the Kojeve book. I would suggest that D and others do the same. It’s quite revealing on the big issues we’ve been discussing here.
Nuts. Managed to post before writing one more paragraph.
Another problem with the whole “man up and tote your spear” notion is legal: feminists have effectively criminalized real patriarchy, and that was no accident, it was intentional. Reversing that will require at a minimum that SoCon women themselves must get rid of the feminist notions that they carry around in their heads. As we have seen in Dalrock’s recent threads, this is not easy. For example: a real family patriarch would likely not view porn – but that would be not just due to any moral argument, but moreso because his sexual needs were consistently being met by his loyal, trustworthy, obedient and lovable wife.
It is interesting to note that one of the demands of some strains of feminism is that men love them unconditionally…no matter how unlovable they may be. “No such thing as a bad woman”, in short. (See any online dating site for such notions as “If you can’t handle me at my worst, you don’t deserve my best”) From what I can tell, far too many SoCon/TradCon women are also carrying around this error in their heads. A real family patriarch might indeed love his woman unconditionally, but that would be in part because has the right to chastize or even rebuke her for bad behavior and demand that the behavior stop. A man who has to measure his words not out of love for those under his authority, but out of fear for what they might do to him can’t be a patriarch. He’s not able to rule, or even govern, he’s at best some sort of mid-level manager.
Patriarchy is a complex topic. “What is patriarchy” might be an interesting topic for a different day.
asinus: That quote is from when Arjuna is trying to find reasons not to fight. Arjuna is saying that when the Pandavas are slain the Pandava women will become corrupted.
Of course Krishna tells him off for his fear disguised as care:
“The Supreme Lord said: You grieve for those who are not worthy of grief, and yet speak the words of wisdom. The wise grieve neither for the living nor for the dead. (2.11)”
And points to the illusion of a beginning and an end:
“There was never a time when I, you, or these kings did not exist; nor shall we ever cease to exist in the future. (2.12) ”
And according to the law of Karma nothing can never be stopped, it always finds a way.
“In Karma-yoga no effort is ever lost, and there is no harm. Even a little practice of this discipline protects one from great fear (of birth and death). (2.40) “
Aqua net
Re: Promise Keepers. The female equivalent is Promise Rings and Purity Balls, both of which have a really big “ick” factor, but its an attempt by fathers to keep their daughters “pure” for all you nice Christian boys out there.
Nope. You are wrong. “Promise Keepers” is oriented towards adult men, especially those that are married. Promise rings and Purity balls are oriented towards teenaged and young adult women who are not yet married. So you did not even come close to answering my question. Care to try again?
LOL!! Add my piffle to yours, Brendan. You’ve got to wonder about socons who try to keep selling the snake oil that other men’s highest calling is to be cannon fodder to serve the interests of the socons, their wives, and their daughters.
“Man up, because it is your true nature, because boy-men are not fit to die vomiting blood due to the spear of a warrior from another tribe being stuck in his guts.”
White feathers all around, gents.
A buddy of mine went to France last year and during his travelogue of slides he showed some of the Palace of Versailles and made the comment – “Once you have seen this place, you understand the reasons for the French revolution.” The disparity between the unbelievable opulence of the ruling class and the hardships of lower class life could not lead to anything except envy and resentment. The arrogance of the upper class in believing that they were simply entitled to it is echoed in the entitlement mentality of women and socons.
Yes, they keep trying to tell me that it is “my true nature” to be their cannon fodder, and paddle their lifeboats until they get outboard motors – at which time I become excess baggage and thrown overboard.
Perhaps some selective application of that time-honored device – the guillotine – would do most of us a world of good.
To all of those who are trying to hand out white feathers and try to hoodwink me into believing that it is is my “true nature” to pay for their luxury, and the luxury of their daughters and wives, with my life – carry your own fuckin’ spear!.
Here is the bottom line for socons – something they really should think about real seriously —
your attempts at social manipulation are now failing because you have held men down long enough while feminists stole from them every thing they had to steal. Shaming language no longer works on men because men are waking up to what complete hypocritical and manipulative bullshit it is.
You socons have destroyed the belief in the value system which is the source of all your power.
Enjoy the decline.
I find the job description ‘spear-catcher’ more descriptive than ‘spear-carrier’
@Anonymous Reader
Read and weep.
Bit late to the party here, but speaking of:
Those who do stay married are very likely to feel justified to deny their husband sex and generally usurp his traditional role as head of the household. In the years prior to marriage women no longer feel that they must abstain from sex.
The Evil of False Teaching
[D: Good post CL.]
Aqua Net, did you actually read the article? Do you understand why they had to drive so far away to go dancing? Do you understand that “some” and “most” and “all” are not synonyms?
Re: Read and Weep
I sincerely hope this guy is gay, ‘cos no woman is going to sleep with him.
He needs to rush himself to the Roissy Critical Care Unit right quick
Re: Read and Weep
Manginas maximas. Its not a disease, its a way of life.
A comment at the Read and Weep link:
I did that once at a hookup’s house. Despite the fact that it was three guys living in the house, they miraculously had tampons (I assume it was one of the other dude’s girlfriend’s). It was awesome, and saved me having to wear the crumpled-toilet-paper pad on the already awkward bus ride back to my place.
Anyone else thinking that having a tampon available is the least of her problems?
The word “awesome” is quite overused. Once I was visiting relatives a few hundred miles away, and went with one of them to church, where I was told by a 20-something mother that it was “awesome” I’d come to visit. Yeah, ok, whatever…
I find the Grand Canyon of Arizona to inspire awe, and therefore to be “awesome”, for example. Discovering a convenient cardboard tube with cotton inside…not so much.
And yeah, CL, I think tampon availability is the least of her, er, “issues”.
I would also like to draw attention to the fact that this girl fondly remembers a hookup where she had to ride the bus home.
To the men who still believe in chivalry: read that post again, and again, and again until it sinks in.
LOL! This ongoing farce of “porn is some sort of problem, and as soon as we figure out why we will let you know” has reached the point that all we can do is laugh at it.
Thirty years or so ago, “porn” was considered to be a problem by such luminary anti-porn activists as Andrea Dworkin – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrea_Dworkin
So, which is it, good-Christian-wives? Is sexual intercourse a part and parcel of marriage? Or, is it “coercive and degrading to women?” Why is Sheila demanding the right of women to punish men for refusing to “coerce and degrade” them?
Thirty years ago “porn” was bad because it would so inflame male desire for that “coercive and degrading” act that it would cause men to want to “rape” women. Now, “porn” is bad because it makes husbands not want to “rape” their wives and “doom them to inferiority and submission.”
So many contradictions, so little time to fisk them all. 😉
YaBoyMatt, seems all she’s fondly remembering is the “awesomeness” of finding a tampon, but yeah, pretty pathetic ain’t it.
must have missed a closing tag,
[D: There were several nested blockquotes (3 total). I removed one layer and closed the other extra one. Hopefully it looks at least close to what you had in mind now.]
Many years ago a woman I was dating indicated needing a tampon. (asked me to give her a ride to the local convenience store so she could buy some.) I had some on hand from a previous girlfriend and offered her one. She flew into a screaming rage at me because she was certain that was proof that I was cheating on her and had the tampons on hand for the woman I was cheating on her with.
Go figure.
you got it, Dalrock. Thanks.
“Women violently don’t care about men after age 55.”
Violently? LOL. They just GTOW. They’re not out there shooting bullets. They’re blogging.
Fair enough. There’s no violence. What about “whiningly” if this word exists in the English language. These blogs are full or “Where are all the men gone?”, “I was victim of the sexual revolution/Madonna” (appeared on the daily mail), “This Christmas spare a thought about old single women like me” . Like, for example:
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/12/07/a-post-marital-spinsters-rationalization-hamster-in-the-final-stages-of-exhaustion/
And yes, they just GTOW: they Go Their Own Whine.
imnobody
What about “whiningly” if this word exists in the English language.
If it did not exist before, the word “whiningly” (or for Brits, “whingingly”) clearly exists now.
Bingo.
Dalrock says:
November 17, 2011 at 9:54 am
Did not want to registar to comment. It would have just been along the lines of: Do it only for the women who are considerate enough to take care of your d*ck when you are at their place.
Probably would have been down voted.
@Ray
I think I understand the confusion. I’m not accusing Escoffier of being like other conservatives. I’m accusing the other conservatives of being like him.
“and sexual penetration may by its very nature doom women to inferiority and submission, and “may be immune to reform.”
I’ve seen commenters in the Manosphere put this theory forth.
Roissy also wrote that the most satisfying form of sex to him is sex in which he can inflict pain onto the woman, particularly in anal, which by the way, has origins in homosexuality and is believed to be a cover for closeted men.
Some men just cannot or will not get away from the dom/sub theme in sex.
Lavazza,
And according to the law of Karma nothing can never be stopped, it always finds a way.
“In Karma-yoga no effort is ever lost, and there is no harm. Even a little practice of this discipline protects one from great fear (of birth and death). (2.40) “
–
Karma and karma-yoga are 2 different things. Karma is action, activity. Karma-yoga is when an individual consciously performs activity in service to God and offers the results of such activity as a sacrifice to God, not expecting any return for himself.
So the thread devolved into porn and denial of sex AGAIN. Unequal interest in sex seems to be the source of much grief in marriages. Face it – libidos wax and wane, especially over decades. There is no way both partners are going to have the same level of libido all the time throughout a marriage. By mid 40s sex shouldn’t even be a concern to either. Those are traditionally the grandparenting years, not the viagra years. They should be more interested in spending time with their grandkids or taking on the role of “wise elder” for their community, not trying to compete with 20 year olds in the girls/guys gone wild category of sex.
Sex obsession into advanced ages is another sign of civilizational decay and prolonged youth that Americans are famous for.
Get some dignity and act your age!
Since I agree with almost everything you have written here, I still don’t understand where you are finding this vast difference between our thinking.
All I can positively say for sure is: I believe in natural right and you don’t; and we both believe that PUAs are immoral but you think I shouldn’t say so until I can show that I belong to a church that supports marriage. All the other stuff you accuse me of believing are not things that I do in fact believe. Really, it has happened dozens of times in this thread that I have said “I believe X” and you have replied “You believe Not X.” For instance, I’ve said over and over “women are not innocent.” You reply over and over “You say women are innocent.”
Perhaps all this is somehow the implicit but unseen (by me) consequence of what I have said. Which, if that is true, I would like to have it explained so that I can correct my thinking.
@ Escoffier
Give it a rest dude. It’s not so much about attacking you personally, but rather about the larger body; in this case, social conservatives, don’t take it so personally. I don’t understand why you keep coming back to correct what certain people said about you–” you’re judging me wrong, I didn’t say that, waaah”. It’s the Internet, it’s anonymous, no one knows who you are, chances are you’re not going to meet any of these people in real life, so I don’t understand your desire to prove yourself innocent.
This thread has turned into a game of “he said vs he said”, which is nauseating and childish. And to answer your question to me above, it’s for the same reason as others have already said–you focus 99% of condemning PUA, but 1% on sluts.
Another problem with the whole “man up and tote your spear” notion is legal: feminists have effectively criminalized real patriarchy, and that was no accident, it was intentional.
That is why patriarchy will have to re-emerge in pockets of counter-cultural sodalities; sodalities which will likely have to be defended by force, eventually. This makes it crucial to win the battle for the hearts of young men of military age and on the police forces. I don’t think SoCons will be much help here. Too much obsession with legitimacy and Constitution. The changes in the sexual constitution are far more devastating to society than either Big Government or Big Corporate, and those who have a bead on it are a very small minority.
A real family patriarch might indeed love his woman unconditionally, but that would be in part because has the right to chastize or even rebuke her for bad behavior and demand that the behavior stop. A man who has to measure his words not out of love for those under his authority, but out of fear for what they might do to him can’t be a patriarch. He’s not able to rule, or even govern, he’s at best some sort of mid-level manager.
This is so true it should be broadcast across the Internet and taught to every young man from 11 to 31. But it needs to be amplified with something positive.
@Escoffier
I have a new post in the works which might help, but honestly I think I have laid it out pretty clearly already. I’ll offer the following recap of what I’ve already shown in the interim.
1) Focusing on shaming PUAs is a crutch which is being widely used to avoid addressing the real issue. When someone doubles down on this without a compelling reason, I smell rationalization out of fear of upsetting women.
2) The kindest message we can deliver to young women is “if you sleep around, you have no one to blame but yourself”. The fixation on blaming PUAs even “equally” negates that message, and is therefore cruel.
3) Focusing on changing the behavior of Alphas/PUAs is an exercise in futility, and would actually make the problem worse than doing nothing at all (see item 2 above, and I’ll elaborate on this further in the upcoming post). We know what works.
4) Fretting about the double standard is the exact stupidity which lead us to the disaster we are now facing. Until we can acknowledge that fatal error, we will continue making it. I can show repeated examples of this, but I also understand that no amount of logic or proof will burn through this compulsion on the part of conservatives.
5) Promiscuous men are in my understanding sinning from a Christian perspective, but there is no logical case to make that they are immoral from a secular perspective. I’ve outlined my argument here in great detail, and you have not addressed it. Christians who are concerned for the salvation of the promiscuous men have a valid concern. Those who wish to focus on shaming them do not (see points 1-4 above).
Chels: well, I came here because I thought it was interesting and a force for good for a problem that worries me a great deal. In other words, I’m in substantial agreement with the premise and the purpose of this blog. Now look at the way I’ve been treated–leave aside the commenters, consider D himself. He’s asserted over and over that I believe the opposite of what I have written and he culminates in his last post with saying that I am the heart of the problem.
OK, well, leave aside intellectual integrity, as a strategy for changing the culture and widening one’s influence, it doesn’t make sense to me. If the point is to keep the space as narrowly constituted as possible, then it makes sense.
As your other point, my initial PUA comment was incidental. It’s everyone else who made it the heart of the argument. And it’s still frankly absurd for a Christian blog to defend PUAs and porn.
This blog is not what I thought it was or what it appeared to be. I’ll just leave it at that.
2 Dalrock and others
Which parts of the Scripture declare PUA behavior sinful?
If a guy has sex with lots of women which are 1) not married 2) not virgins, then is it sinful?
Thanks, D, that helps. As I have said, there is much less that separates us than you seem to think.
1) I don’t want to focus on shaming PUAs. I brought it up because I think it’s counterproductive for a pro-marriage, pro-morality blog to be so deferential to those guys. The topic spun off from there not because I think it’s the most important issue in this space (I don’t) but because everyone kept stating absurd, untenable defenses of them
2) I agree with that. Best possible message. Let’s teach it to every girl. My point was not in any way an attempt to relieve girls of responsibilty. It was just to state the abstract moral fact that when two people get together to do wrong, they are both doing wrong. If as a rhetorical strategy, it’s best not to stress that but to put all the emphasis on her culpability … yeah, I can see that. I am certainly not going to be telling my own daughter “Don’t forget, it’s his fault too!” I’m going to tell her, “Whether you do this or not is entirely up to you and DON’T DO IT!”
3) Again, not a focus, just an argument about their lack of morality. I am not sure I agree with your point that their activities help in a sort of Leninistic “worse is better” way. Maybe it does. It would be nice if all that bad behavior had a silver lining. In any event, you don’t seem to give much truck to my concern that excusing/glorifying the PUAs creates more of them, and hence more bad.
4) Hmmmm. Again, rhetorical issue. Because, of course according to morality, there is no double standard, sex is for marriage, period. But your point is, society can function when men screw around but not when women screw around. Female promiscuity and infidelity are worse than male. I agree with that. I take your point that SoCons are hung up on the moral question and oblivious to the societal question.
5) This is the only point on which we truly disagree. I think that Christianity is strengthened by recourse to natural right, FWIW. Not kidding, I would urge to read Devlin.
Since I see Roissy is now plagerizing from the works of David Deida on his blog, you might as well go to the source.
Audio: Enlightenment, Marriage and the Dark Side
http://www.michaelaboehm.com/store/audio/daviddeida/enlightenment-marriage-and-the-dark-side/
At this point maybe we just need to buy this girl the clue outright. I know, I know better to teach her. Unfortunately you cant force the horse to drink.
Escoffier – I just read all 500+ comments of this thread. (Good lord D, you’ve blown this blog up!)
You’re the one here who has turned this thread into a debate about your personal dislike of PUA/Game.
No one is deferential or deifying guys like Roissy, Roosh and Rollo.
Most of us simply read their observations and find the verisimilitude in their writings compelling.
I don’t want to focus on shaming PUAs. I brought it up because I think it’s counterproductive for a pro-marriage, pro-morality blog to be so deferential to those guys. The topic spun off from there not because I think it’s the most important issue in this space (I don’t) but because everyone kept stating absurd, untenable defenses of them
Here’s the problem you’re failing to recognize.
Ours is a society that has been brainwashed. Many, many men are lead astray and fall into dysfunctional relationships with females because of this pervasive influence of mass media society.
I refer you to a post made today at In Mala Fide: http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/11/17/the-decline-of-masculinity-in-the-seventh-art/#comments
What you fail to comprehend here, is WHY guys like Dalrock will cite/link/refer to “PUA’s” even in the midst of a debate regarding Christian morality and marriage.
The ‘PUA’s’ are often the only place many, many men who have been unduly influenced by the emasculation programming of the mass media, face the truth that they’ve been lied to their entire lives.
Whether it comes from Jesus Christ himself, or a promiscuous PUA like Roissy or Roosh, the TRUTH is the TRUTH.
Finally, trying to focus the blame on PUA/Players for promiscuity is blaming the effect while ignoring the cause: there could be no players, if there were not a large segment of young women ready, willing and able to sleep with them.
I’m not religious, but I think I could craft secular arguments as to the immorality of it. And they are probably the same reasons that pretty much every organized religion concluded that God said it was immoral – namely that, even with birth control, sex can make babies. If you are not prepared to properly deal with that consequence, then you are committing an immoral act toward that potential innocent child. These arguments are only lessened, but not eliminated, by birth control. I’m quite certain that most of these PUA types would run screaming from that responsibility and/or demand that the woman to get an abortion, notwithstanding Mystery’s alleged devotion to little “Dakota”, or whatever her name was. And, in my opinion, “being prepared to properly deal with that consequence” means being ready, willing and able to raise it in a two parent household.
Chels: well, I came here because I thought it was interesting and a force for good for a problem that worries me a great deal. In other words, I’m in substantial agreement with the premise and the purpose of this blog.
I wasn’t asking you why you visit this blog, but rather why you spend so much time and effort correcting others on what you said. I’m actually on your side, I do believe that you’ve been unfairly attacked, but you need to understand that there are certain commenters with an agenda that will twist and turn your words to fit their own beliefs. It doesn’t take long to figure out who these are, and it’s best to just ignore them, no need to engage with them.
consider D himself. He’s asserted over and over that I believe the opposite of what I have written and he culminates in his last post with saying that I am the heart of the problem.
I admit to skimming through the comments (who really has the time to go through 100 comments of pure bickering?), but Dalrock is pretty good at keeping things balanced. From what I’ve read, it doesn’t seem like he thinks that you’re the heart of the problem—no need to take things so personally. Rather, what he’s been attacking is your statements excusing slut behavior (and I do see plenty of examples of you doing this). It’s easy to first say one thing numerous times and then once you start being attacked, start saying that “oh but sluts are bad too!”.
As well, and it’s taken me lots of time to understand this, this blog highlights and focuses on women’s bad behavior. According to some, the reason for this is that there are many other sources that focus on men’s bad behavior, and there’s no point in spending too much effort on this. However, this doesn’t mean that men’s bad behavior is excusable or acceptable, at least not to Dalrock. (as a woman, that paragraph was tough to write, when what I really wanted to say was NAWALT)
OK, well, leave aside intellectual integrity, as a strategy for changing the culture and widening one’s influence, it doesn’t make sense to me. If the point is to keep the space as narrowly constituted as possible, then it makes sense.
I don’t think Dalrock is trying to narrow this space or to make it into an echo chamber; there are a lot of disagreeing voices here, it’s just that some are louder than others.
I know that the comment section can be offensive, but you shouldn’t attack Dalrock for what other people say. If anything, that’s just more proof for promoting intellectual integrity. I really don’t think you’re going to find a better blog than this in the manosphere (I’ve tried) and you’re not giving the author of this blog enough credit.
And it’s still frankly absurd for a Christian blog to defend PUAs and porn.
But this is not a Christian blog, and Dalrock already said that he’s writing this from a secular perspective. As well, no one’s defending PUAs, a better word would be “tolerate”. I’m not familiar with the Bible’s view on porn, but if Sheila Gregoire’s blog is any indication, it’s apparently a sin, even though others have disagreed with her.
[D: Thanks Chels.]
But, notwithstanding what I wrote above, I believe guys like Roissy have done us all a favor by revealing many truths, and I’m not sure they could have done that without first bedding a lot of women.
Escoffier, as far as I could see, your statements lined up nicely with good, old fashioned Judeo-Christian absolute morality. With that as a foundation, wrongful acts are always wrong, regardless of who commits them; two wrongs will never make a right.
However, not everyone here appears to be dealing from that deck, and it appears many of them completely misunderstood your basis of reasoning. However, I’m glad at least someone tried.
KG: I don’t disagree with any of what you wrote and in fact came here already understanding and agreeing with it.
Passer_By: “I’m not sure they could have done that without first bedding a lot of women” Lucky them. 😀
Steffen: the morality I believe in is indeed consistent with the Bible. I’m just saying it also has a rational, secular basis.
Chels: thanks. And, yes, sluts are really bad. I can expand on that if you like. So can you, it sounds like.
Passer By, “I’m quite certain that most of these PUA types would run screaming from that responsibility and/or demand that the woman to get an abortion, notwithstanding Mystery’s alleged devotion to little “Dakota”, or whatever her name was. And, in my opinion, “being prepared to properly deal with that consequence” means being ready, willing and able to raise it in a two parent household.”
I don’t know to what extent Mystery has stepped up to the plate in his daughter’s life, however another famous PUA guru, Owen Cook (stage name Tyler Durden) has gone hook, line and sinker into domestic mode after his below 5 looking illegal Mexican immigrant girlfriend “accidentally” got pregnant. He is a proud, beaming and glowing father – changing diapers and all.
So the 2 biggest names in PUA were not able to avoid getting pregnant (bamboozled by conniving women) and they both are doting fathers now.
Awwwww, how sweet.
I’m not a PUA guy but I agree with those who say that often those blogs are the only place for men to get the straight truth about women and relationships. As a Christian and as a married man, I generally agree with those on the comments who have said there is a moral problem with many PUA practices. However, I know that those blogs are very valuable even to me as a place to read about these issues and how they are warped by mainstream (i.e., pro-feminist) society.
I’ve been fortunate that I generally haven’t struggled with women in life and know that many of the recommendations on PUA type blogs are aimed at other men. But the overall critique found on Roissy, et al. remains very valuable if I want to be a happily married man. My wife is a great woman whose values do not reflect those of most women today (she’s very traditional despite being raised in a secular household), but I’ve needed game techniques to keep my head above water nonetheless. Even the most reasonable woman can be quite the adversary when it comes to getting her way as often as possible (which made sense back when women needed such a natural advantage, unlike today). It’s just female nature unfortunately.
Things are not leaning in our favor these days and men need to be aware of these issues. Even with the stars lined up perfectly in the case of my marriage, it has still been quite the challenge and I’ll make use of every option available to me to level the playing field.
Stephen, I like Kay a lot, FWIW.
“I have to agree with No More Mr Nice Guy that this all sounds like you want to institutionalize some form of Sexual Marxism and redistribute sexual resources equally among all. If the hottest guys are able to attract the majority of the hottest women in their prime, leaving the rest of the men out, well, why should the other men demand that those women get distributed to them first?
These men are getting all of those women for a reason. The Sexual Market is a FREE Market where cutthroat competition reigns. If you can’t compete, why should you be handed a woman for free?”
absolutely ridiculous. how can expecting two people who entered into a voluntary contract to uphold their end of the agreement to be Marxist? and how in the world is the current sexual market place a free market? men are being taxed and paying for kids they didnt sire. abolish the welfare state along with awarding child support outside of marriage, and then we can say that there is a free market. women are free to be promiscuous, knowing full well that the government will extract wealth from men on their behalf. when the government externalities in the SMP is pervasive, only a fool will try to claim its a free market.
E: you claim you don’t disagree with points and then talk so much you prove you don’t agree at all. You “agree” by saying you agree and then emphasizing unimportant side issues while ignoring the main point.
Btw, you can’t be “against hypergamy” any more than you can be “against a .7 waist to hip ratio.” I am against societal, and SoCon, encouraged and subsidized hypergamy. You still want to bitch about the only tiny subset of men who are not being actively harmed by all this. I.e. PUA’s. Women are getting what they want far more than guys who follow your rules.
I’ll play by women’s and SoCon’s rules. When 9 out of 10 in jail are men and they don’t care, when 7 out of 10 divorces are filed by women, I know that until at least 7 out of 10 women get pumped and dumped, I shouldn’t even remotely care. “They deserve it” is the proper answer.
Fair enough, I am against the encouragement, indulgence and excuses for hypergamy. I understand it is just a natural force, no more to be complained about than the wind.
Whether it comes from Jesus Christ himself, or a promiscuous PUA like Roissy or Roosh, the TRUTH is the TRUTH.
This.
I’m not familiar with the Bible’s view on porn, but if Sheila Gregoire’s blog is any indication, it’s apparently a sin, even though others have disagreed with her.
Who made her such an authority; besides herself of course?
Who made her such an authority; besides herself of course?
Ahaha well besides herself, her compliant followers? I just felt like throwing her name in there because she really pisses me off, and her attitude is part of the reason why Christian women go on Athol Kay’s blog (a SEX blog, none the least), acting all holier than thou, and start preaching about how any type of sex (except for that in the missionary position, of course) is bad/perverted/animalistic/whorish *rolls eyes*
Even though I disagree with Sheila on the issue of porn as a justification for divorce, are we seriously arguing from a Christian perspective that porn use is acceptable?
E:
any hope you’ll stop white knighting? That is a form of societal encouragement of hypergamy.
“Even though I disagree with Sheila on the issue of porn as a justification for divorce, are we seriously arguing from a Christian perspective that porn use is acceptable?”
Does it even matter? I didn’t shoot that man. And if I did, it was self defense.
What possible advantage is gained for men by discussing porn? It only comes up because women don’t like it and wish to excuse their own misbehavior.
(except for that in the missionary position, of course)
Don’t forget the sheet with a hole in it lest the husband get a “lustful” gander at his wife’s body!
You would have to explain to me how I am “white knighting” and encouraging hypergamy. I can assure you that if I am, it’s unintentional.
And who was it that lied to them? Who was it that claimed that women were “the fairer sex”, “the weaker vessel”, the “better half” of any marriage, never lie, and in general are just plain morally superior to men? Answer: feminists and socons.
Slightly over a month ago, now, Muammar Gaddafi was toppled from his 42 year reign with his boot on the neck of the Libyan people. Did they try him in an international court of law like Saddam Hussein?
No. They executed him on the spot.
Why?
Few things will make people hate you more than riding roughshod over their rights and treating them like chattel. As I referred to above, the French aristocracy lost their heads over such things. Keeping a boot on someone’s neck makes them hate you.
From the 1960s through the 1990s, Arthur Anderson LLP was one of the 5 largest accounting firms in the United States. Then, in 2002, the firm voluntarily surrendered its licenses to practice as Certified Public Accountants in the United States after being found guilty of criminal charges relating to the firm’s handling of the auditing of Enron – covering up the criminal fraud perpetrated by men like Ken Lay.
In 2003, Martha Stewart was indicted on nine counts of federal crimes, including charges of securities fraud and obstruction of justice. She was acquitted on all counts leading to the original investigation, but was found guilty in March 2004 of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators – in other words, “covering up.”
Covering up the crimes of others is considered a crime in and of itself – often times a more serious crime than the one being covered up.
About 20 years ago the fellow who published “The Everyman Journal” published an essay on how Western Culture seemed to have an intractable blind spot when it comes to female evil. In the 20 years since then, the resistance of even admitting that female evil exists has simply intensified.
The socons philosophy appears to be – “when a woman does something wrong, a man must be found to blame for it.” They have scapegoated millions of men, and been complicit in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of other men.
Google “Thomas James Ball”, and read the articles on A Voice for Men of how wikipedia ruthlessly suppressed information about his self-immolation. In June 1963, a Buddhist monk named Thich Quang Duc burned himself to death protesting against the Roman Catholic persecution of Buddhists by South Vietnam’s Ngo Dinh Diem Roman Catholic administration. This event which happened 48 years ago is considered important enough to include in wikipedia, but the suicide on June 15, 2011 by Thomas James Ball protesting against the persecution of fathers by the US family courts was deemed “irrelevant.”
Hmmmmmmmm? I’m beginning to smell a cover-up.
Perhaps you have heard the saying – “Once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but the third time it is enemy action.”
We are way beyond the third time when it comes to white knights covering up female evil. Any thinking man these days must consider socons to be his most bitter of enemies.
Their denying female evil, which enables it to be perpetuated, is an even greater evil than they are covering up. The feminists would not be able to rob men the way they have, without socon supported laws like VAWA and the Bradley amendment putting men in handcuffs and leg irons and throwing them to the looters.
I think most socons are as deserving of criminal charges being brought against them as Arthur Anderson was.
The saddest thing for everyone is that the only people they can burn are the ones who believe in them – the ultimate in con artists. It is the sons of the Christian men here who are being lined up to be cannibalized to support the carousel riding whores that the socons are raising.
Roissy and Roosh are immune to their manipulations.
THAT is why they hate them so much.
I would much prefer that they would hate my son than love him enough to boil him alive to serve to the whores their daughters have turned into.
@ Chels:
I just felt like throwing her name in there because she really pisses me off, and her attitude is part of the reason why Christian women go on Athol Kay’s blog (a SEX blog, none the least), acting all holier than thou, and start preaching about how any type of sex (except for that in the missionary position, of course) is bad/perverted/animalistic/whorish *rolls eyes*
Years ago, before I even knew who Sheila was, I had women on my old blog complaining about the kinds of things you’re referring to now. Trust me Chels, there are plenty women with sex hangups who never ever heard of Sheila or any other Christian blogger. I used to hear from them, LOL.
My advice is and has always been: you take your cues about what makes for a good wife from your own husband. Period. When you do that, ministers, bloggers, and authors preaching a message can’t undermine your marriage. This isn’t rocket science. But with the lack of trust (not to mention the experiences and baggage most people bring to marriages today), many people are looking for someone to help them figure it all out.
I think Sheila’s message overall is sound. And no, I am not one of her “followers”. Like I said, I was writing on marriage before I even knew who she was.
Damn Z. I love it whenever you get inspired to fire off another rant like this.
Chels, out of interest, do you believe you personally are on the exact same moral plane as Roissy?
Yes, Escoffier, Devlin is brilliant. Gilder did good work for his time. The Englishman Steve Moxon is excellent too. I found him on the Evolutionary Psychology discussion list arguing with a fembot called Julienne. He wrote The Woman Racket.
Some woman recently posted some rubbishy rape statistics on that list and got an intelligent critique in response. Feminist bias and nonsense is being increasingly challenged. Not just in the Manosphere.
I am old enough to have seen thinking on the nature of woman evolve and become more realistic over the last few decades. The explanatory power of the ideas seems to be increasing.
I have always been suspicious of the sugar-and-spice model of woman. The emerging reality makes more sense to me.
Escoffier, sometimes people will treat you as an exemplar of views you may not necessarily entirely represent. Have you heard the English term, Aunt Sally?
@ Terri
Years ago, before I even knew who Sheila was, I had women on my old blog complaining about the kinds of things you’re referring to now. Trust me Chels, there are plenty women with sex hangups who never ever heard of Sheila or any other Christian blogger. I used to hear from them, LOL
My advice is and has always been: you take your cues about what makes for a good wife from your own husband. Period. When you do that, ministers, bloggers, and authors preaching a message can’t undermine your marriage. This isn’t rocket science. But with the lack of trust (not to mention the experiences and baggage most people bring to marriages today), many people are looking for someone to help them figure it all out.
I think Sheila’s message overall is sound. And no, I am not one of her “followers”. Like I said, I was writing on marriage before I even knew who she was. .
Oy, are we going to turn this into a sex convo?
Well, here goes nothing…Sheila Gregoire is not promoting Christian marriage, what in fact she’s promoting is a type of egalitarian marriage with a few sprinkles of Christianity. That would be fine if she didn’t have thousands of viewers who listen to her and who actually apply her advice.
She’s not saying what you’re saying, that women should take cues from her husband, she’s in fact telling women what they should be looking for, and she’s feeding them false information. There are many examples of that, one such example being her sympathizing with a reader who said that she resents having sex because she thinks it is all about her husband, that he is the only one getting pleasure; instead of telling her that she’s being quite selfish, that it is her Christian duty to please her husband, and that her body is actually his (in addition to telling her that if he’s the only getting pleasure, they’re doing it wrong!)
There are many more such examples, and therefore, I do not think that her advice is sound, not even for a secular woman. She’s really doing more harm than good, and instead of promoting Christian values, she’s bowing to women’s feelings and trying to make them happy, and in turn, harming husbands and marriages.
@ Lily
Wait what? Where do you get that from? To be on the same moral plane as Roissy, I’d have to be a whore, and that’s one thing I’m not.
sometimes people will treat you as an exemplar of views you may not necessarily entirely represent.
Very well said, DC. I agree and I think the Internet kind of feeds that to be honest. I see it happen quite regularly. A person espouses a thought on one issue and they are promptly lambasted by people insisting that they are saying far more than what they actually said.
Of course, Excoffier has left several verbose comments (I have not read them all), so either he is failing to represent his views clearly or most of the readers here are simply not interested in Christian sexual morality.
Is this the same Chels from Alte’s blog? LOL Never thought I’d see the day where I disagree with Terri and agree with you on anything…
That is precisely my problem with Sheila. She’s a false teacher.
Chels, one of Escoffier’s issues with Dalrock’s position appears to be that it seems that perhaps Dalrock does not make any distinction between a woman who has 100 sexual partners and one who has 1 or LTRs prior to marriage (they are both carousel riders).
Orig Anon took it further “A LTR’s is just women’s preferred promiscuity. Men “cheating” on a relationship is just men’s preferred promiscuity. A woman with one sexual LTR a year for 5 years is on the exact. Same. Moral. Plane. As. Roissy. That would be perfectly fine with Susan. And you apparently. You are a slut defender”
“the only defense of manwhoring that I have ever found the least bit convincing, viz., that the sheer awfulness of it for women will force a market correction.”
The Sexual Devolution is the infection.
Players are the fever.
DC: I knew about Devlin long before I read about this stuff at all. He wrote a book that I read seven years ago about a philosopher who is not well known outside the discipline but huge inside it. I only found his other stuff later and then connected him to that earlier book.
It’s alright Keoni. No one is perfect, LOL.
For the record, my intent was not to imply that I agree with Sheila on everything. I don’t, and she is well aware of that fact.
I was simply making the point that she isn’t necessarily feeding into women’s sexual hangups.
This is quite a thread. I only read through about 1/5 of it.
Escoffier, does the following articulate your anti-PUA position, at least on the practical level?
Going the Roissy/Roosh way is bad because of the inevitable collateral damage. Water does find its level and slutty career girls tend to be PUAs’ eager pump and dump participants, but there will be a non-trivial number of good girls fooled and ruined for other men by the PUAs.
It’s alright Keoni. No one is perfect, LOL. Except the problem here as I see it is that Chels is 100% correct in her assessment of Sheila’s “ministry.”
It’s Oprah-fied egalitarianism under the facade of Christianity.
“Churchianity!”
I never read any of her blog before Dalrock’s post about her porn = adultery and valid divorce justification, I’ve only seen her occasionally comment at TC.
I’ve read plenty of her posts now.
She’s got some good advice for Christian wives….but than the most dangerous propaganda is always going to have half-truths mixed in with the lies.
Dalrock is right to call Sheila on her position and her self-appointment as an authority on Christian marriage.
Looking at her website, it’s quite obvious she’s in it for the money (Buy her books! Attend workshops! Sheila does speaking engagements!).
Looking at the big picture, Sheila does far more harm than good.
Escoffier:
I personally consider any focus or attempt to say “men do bad things too” by discussing PUA’s as white knighting. Things have changed wrt women and women behave worse.
Women have gained many freedoms and rights, legal and technological, over the last 50 years. Pill, abortion, equal rights to employment/schooling. Men overwhelmingly, have the same freedoms/rights as before. The only place where men AND women have gained the same freedom, the freedom to divorce at will, I see women abusing this freedom far more than men.
To the extent that women behave badly, it is their own fault or is a case where society has insulated them from the consequences. PUA’s are entirely beside the point. MDBTT is white knighting.
Yeah, Chels has really learnt a lot.
Porn use is against my religion. But I do suspect it is a convenient chink in men’s armour, like the domestic violence issue, which feminists exploit to the hilt. Oddly, my wife doesn’t care if I look at porn. Women who obsess about this make me suspicious.
I have a blog under my real name, which contains scientific material that Wikipedia has been happy to link to, except in one case where I wrote something that might have upset feminists. I don’t think there is a conspiracy. It is just the kind of people Wikipedia editors are. Mostly nerdy liberal males.
BTW, I agree that shows like Everybody Loves Raymond are hopeless from a masculine perspective. The nebbish who plays Raymond sucks up to live female audiences too, so he knows what he is doing. But I am currently watching the final season of Numbers on DVD and it seems pretty man-friendly to me. Many of the women, including the ass-kicking babes, seem to end up looking foolish. I suspect audiences are bored with the Omnicompetent Female character.
I think Escoffier has copped some unjustified heat. But that just goes to show philosophically divided on core principals the manosphere is.
I write from a Catholic perspective. But even if I was writing from a Protestant perspective, it would be hard to justify fornication, and hence the lifestyle of Roosh and Roissy. Jesus specifically listed fornication as the express route to Hell. However, Roosh and Roissy still deserved to be praised, even if they are going to go to Hell, because the insights they have gained are the truth and the reality of female sexuality. Truths which they have graciously shared.
I can understand how non-Christians could be annoyed with Escoffier, but that reflects more a foundational difference in belief rather than an error of logic on Escoffier’s part. But a point to remember: A society loses its stability once it entrenches promiscuity and anyone promoting the ideology is sawing away at the branch he is sitting on.
Finally, hypergamy is not a vice, betaness is.
@Passer_By
Well argued. This is probably the most solid secular argument. The kids born out of wedlock are entirely innocent, they don’t deserve the disadvantage this causes them.
But I don’t think this is the true source of the venom against PUAs/players, given the drooling pass So Cons give the unwed mothers and frivolous divorcées. There also is the question of incentives and effective social policy. The number of out of wedlock births is a function almost entirely of the number of women who want to have them. Beyond that it isn’t a matter of how many illegitimate children will be born, but which irresponsible men will sire them. Moreover, we already have very punitive measures in place curbing men (and only men) from creating children out of wedlock.
Another problem with the whole “man up and tote your spear” notion is legal: feminists have effectively criminalized real patriarchy, and that was no accident, it was intentional.
This is the whole reason for this article and my comments. The purpose of involuntary childless spinsterhood is to give a reason for women to check themselves. When enough women are crying about no good men some brave soul will repeal a law of misandry or actually apply the law with out a pussy pass to woman. And women won’t vote to stop it.
Chels etc.
I wasn’t as clear as I hoped, but 5 years, 5 LTR’s was my woman example.
5years/5″LTR’s” is just promiscuity on the same moral plane as a PUA. It is just a woman following her biological programming with no morality involved at all. Just like a PUA.
I think it was Gilder who argued for the patriarchal family. An outlet like Time wrote about the amazing adjective. Male journalists were especially quick to abandon the idea of patriarchy.
From my Traditionalist Catholic perspective, the idea that a woman should divorce her husband for porn use is laughable.
Sadly, I think the recent reference to girls being ruined by alphas is not just rhetoric. I suspect it happens a lot. The Whit Stillman film, Metropolitan, is really all about this. Made in 1990, a very good movie worth digging out (it is in the Criterion Collection). This is my model of conservatism, one informed by reality about women (Stillman actually has a character dilate on what we would now call hypergamy.)
Also, there is nothing in traditional Christianity to lead women to imagine they are morally better than men. If she were an honest Christian woman, Sheila GregoIre would accept her feminine limitations as a moral guide. I am lucky to be a Catholic. We never get preached at by females.
2 Slumlord
===============
I write from a Catholic perspective. But even if I was writing from a Protestant perspective, it would be hard to justify fornication, and hence the lifestyle of Roosh and Roissy. Jesus specifically listed fornication as the express route to Hell.
===============
Could you cite Scripture on that (including the definition of “fornication”)?
Passer_By
I’m not religious, but I think I could craft secular arguments as to the immorality of it. And they are probably the same reasons that pretty much every organized religion concluded that God said it was immoral – namely that, even with birth control, sex can make babies. If you are not prepared to properly deal with that consequence, then you are committing an immoral act toward that potential innocent child.
Ok, I’ll agree with you. Now then, how many PUA’s are there in the US? Hundreds? Thousands? Pick a number.
How many women bear children outside of marriage? Overall, it’s 40%, in some subgroups such as our black sisters, it’s close to 90%.
So you tell me: who is doing the most to bring babies into the world into “family” situations that are clearly bad for them, the PUA’s or a plurality of women? I think the numbers answer the question.
Now tell me: who do SoCons like Escoffier spend 99% of their time attacking, the PUA’s or the babymommas? I believe this thread answers that question quite handily.
Question: If SoCons are so interested in morality, why do the concentrate on the smallest possible source of the problem, and ignore the biggest part?
I can ask that question a different way, too.
Reverse Question: SoCons spend a great deal of energy attacking the tiny minority of men who may or may not be contributing to babies outside of marriage, while ignoring the plurality of women who actually bear babies outside of marriage, so what is the real objective of the SoCons like Escoffier?
Is the SoCon bellowing about morality or is it about control of men? I suggest it is the latter. Because if there’s one thing SoCons will not do, can not do, it is stand up to a women’s tears, or whining, or screeching.
Because if all this was really about morality, the PUA’s would be a minor side issue, and we’d see continuous, thundering, raging denouncing of babymommas. Right? Right.
@Dalrock
“The number of out of wedlock births is a function almost entirely of the number of women who want to have them. Beyond that it isn’t a matter of how many illegitimate children will be born, but which irresponsible men will sire them. Moreover, we already have very punitive measures in place curbing men (and only men) from creating children out of wedlock.”
I get that this won’t necessarily change the numbers. And I get that women have legal reproductive freedoms that men don’t share. This was not a policy argument about the number of illegitimate births – policy arguments aren’t really abstract moral arguments. Nor was it about me causing societal harm if I fall down on this. This is solely between me and my child. I just believe I have a moral duty to my own children irrespective any law or what 50 other women are doing with 20 other men and regardless of who was more at fault in terms of birth control failure.
Now, somebody might say that “What’s your secular argument that supports a moral duty to your children?” Maybe it goes without saying, but I just think that, without regard to theology, there are some moral instincts innate to all human beings who aren’t sociopaths – i.e., you can’t club somebody over the head to steal his dinner, you don’t stab him just because you’re angry, you don’t chop up babies and drink their blood, etc. A duty to your children would seem to fall into that category.
“But I don’t think this is the true source of the venom against PUAs/players, given the drooling pass So Cons give the unwed mothers and frivolous divorcées. ”
You may be very right about that. I was just giving you a secular moral argument against a pump n dump lifestyle, if you want one.
Now, I suppose if some guy gets his tubes snipped and confirms he no longer shoots live ammo, the odds of reproduction are so close to zero that this goes out the window. In that case, pump away, Jose.
[D: I don’t disagree with your argument. Men have a responsibility to their own children. The vasectomy angle is an interesting one. I think you are right there as well.]
Sheila Gregoire is not promoting Christian marriage, what in fact she’s promoting is a type of egalitarian marriage with a few sprinkles of Christianity.
Yup, Chels is right this time. Pretty much what I said in my post today.
@Lily
You are right. I don’t see a moral distinction. Perhaps one could tally up the number of uncommitted sex acts, but I’m not sure even that makes sense. If Roissy has sex 100 times with 25 women, is this worse than a woman who has out of wedlock sex 100 times with 5 different men? Or should we count the cumulative number of years one has dedicated to the process. Women live longer than men though, so that one is tough too.
There is a presumption that serial monogamy is more moral than men’s preferred form of promiscuity. I have yet to see a compelling argument that it is.
Is a woman who has never had sex out of wedlock, but has divorced frivolously and remarried really better than Roissy? What if she had kids with the first husband and ripped them away from their father and profited from the act? To my knowledge Roissy hasn’t fathered any children out of wedlock. I suspect he is very motivated by the powerful disincentives we place solely on men not to allow that to happen. What about a woman who has had children out of wedlock, not married the father, but has yet to kick him out of the home? She’s keeping her options open, but she hasn’t yet made her children fatherless.
The one part I would agree with you on is the part about cheating. However, in this case I think there is an extremely important distinction to be made. If he promised her they would be sexually exclusive then he has lied and it is actually cheating. If he is profiting from the mutually desired ambiguity of the relationship then he is no worse than the woman who pushes for emotional investment from the man and then drops him the moment a better offer comes along. From what I have read of Roissy he isn’t against lying but he thinks it is a sign of bad form. He advises having strong enough game that you can outright tell her she isn’t the only one, or not making any promises either way. If his game is as good as he says, he may not be cheating at all.
@AR
I agree with most or all of that. It doesn’t negate the moral duty to one’s child. The question at hand was whether there is a secular moral argument against male promiscuity, and I was attempting to provide one. I wasn’t attempting to say PUAs as a group were the source of some societal woe – obviously they are not. And, if you look above in this thread, I was the first to point out to Escoffier that his expenditure of energies on this topic would cause reasonable people to conclude that it’s the PUAs who really chap his hide, rather than all the other stuff.
You clearly have a very firm grip on the issues, Dalrock, but that last sentence does not seem to say something which is consistent with the other messages you promote. In particular, the use of the word “curb.” With 40% of all US births being out of wedlock, I don’t see a lot of curbing happening among those who don’t suffer much in the way of social consequences. The law may provide means to hunt down and extract whatever resources a man has for fathering a child, but those same laws are used against men who became fathers while married and then went through a divorce which might not actually be frivolous, but probably does fall in the category of “I really am not sure why this is happening.”
Bill Price has written a great piece over on the Spearhead called “Becoming a Deadbeat Dad” that shows how a man can very easily go from being a married father of 2 children to someone who lives under the chronic risk of incarceration due to being behind on his child support.
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/10/26/on-becoming-a-deadbeat-dad/
There are two points I want to hammer on here. First, the laws are not being applied in a way that affects the behavior used as a rationale to pass them. Laws against deadbeats are not being used to effectively curb the lowlifes from producing children – they don’t have any assets to confiscate in the first place so all the asset confiscation laws in the world do not affect them. And, second, the real key to dealing with the issue is in the first sentence of yours that I quoted – if even some very small percentage of men irresponsibly father children they can very easily provide all the sperm that the number of women willing to produce illegitimate children need.
If a group of 100 men has 99 decent men and one lowlife man in it, then he can easily knock up 100 lowlife women. On the other hand, if a group has 99 decent women and one lowlife woman in it, even if 100% of the men are lowlives, that one lowlife woman cannot produce an illegitimate child with every man.
[D: I don’t see any points where we might be in disagreement on this.]
Passer_By
I agree with most or all of that.
Agreement right back at you. I just chose to pivot off your good, nontheological reasoning to point out the obvious. Because as we’ve seen, belaboring the obvious is required in order to get facts through to some people. And yes, I do recall you pointed out the obvious to Escoffier waaaay up the thread, not that it seems to have done much good.
That is a very interesting quote. Care to explain your reasoning behind that?
@Dalrock
“To my knowledge Roissy hasn’t fathered any children out of wedlock. I suspect he is very motivated by the powerful disincentives we place solely on men not to allow that to happen. ”
I think he has said that he goes bareback once a certain level of trust is there. In the end, if he hasn’t had children (or pregnancies that had to be terminated), he has gotten lucky.
If I wanted to make a moral case in favor of the female preferred method to the male preferred method, I would say that, in the event of a genuinely accidental pregnancy, the female preferred method is far far more likely to result in a child with two active and caring parents (possibly even deciding to get married) than the male/Roissy preferred method. And, as a direct result of that, far less likelihood of abortion.
@Dalrock
“Beyond that it isn’t a matter of how many illegitimate children will be born, but which irresponsible men will sire them”
I’m just trying to understand your viewpoint better. Does this sentence mean that in the same way that you don’t see a moral distinction in the difference between a woman in the different situations, that you don’t see a distinction between someone like Doug who if he was to father children seems more likely to do it in a live-in situation but not marry the mother, and the stereotypical black guy in a ghetto pumping and dumping (but impregnating first)?
@Dalrock,
I wasn’t indicating that we might be in disagreement. (Damn that stroke, it really messed up my language abilities, I see the issue clear as day in my mind, but just don’t seem to be able to get it said concisely and accurately)
I was 1) examining your use of the word “curb”, because it does not fit in with the rest of the things you have written about, and 2) using it as a springboard to rip on some of my favorite broken-record topics.
Despite some of the most draconian and punitive measures – such as revoking a man’s drivers or professional licenses and thus depriving him of the ability to work – the percentage of OOW births has continued to rise. Some of your charts may have shown that OOW births have declined in certain socioeconomic segments (I can’t remember) but that has not been the trend for the total population.
I think it was Sanford Braver who came up with the counter to the “deadbeat dads” meme by coining the phrase “beat-dead dads” and pointing out that 90% of the men who were targeted by this witch hunt never had and never would have the assets necessary to get them out of arrears. It was just a legal maneuver to trap as many men possible into peonage.
In addition to it being ineffective in curbing the reproductive habits of the lower rungs of the socioeconomic ladder, those weapons which are ineffective for the uses for which they were forged, are being used TO GREAT EFFECT as a funding mechanism for frivolous divorce – a woman, Christian or not, can leave a marriage any time she likes and still have a very extensive legal apparatus to enforce her claim to her husband’s assets – as in Bill Price’s case.
Now, to the “unanticipated consequences” of Escoffier’s witch hunt toward men – if the only purpose a man serves in a woman’s life is to be someone that the socons can blame for every evil thing the woman does, they put the man in a position where maintaining a safe interpersonal separation is necessary.
Or, in other words, the methods and practices of the socons are exactly what has produced guys like Roissy and Roosh, and the more vigorously they pursue and escalate them, the faster they will produce more guys like them.
A great piece of advice – when you realize that you are in a hole… stop digging.
Female hypergamy is a big problem that must be constrained in order for marriages to work reasonably well for most people and thereby for a society to become strong. What is a different problem, however, is what happens when men fully understand what the word hypergamy really entails. It makes most men vastly more reluctant to make any long term commitment to a woman. There are several reasons for this, most guys here understand them.
There is no cure for this. There is no way to make the average female sexually desire her available SMG-mates. Social structures can put them into marriages but only when the typical guy has wrong and impossible notions of what to expect from females.
Traditional societies succeed largely by hiding these truths from men. Not consciously, but by suppressing female sexuality for other reasons.(Pregnancy, etc.()
@Lily
I honestly haven’t given much thought to the question of degrees of illegitimacy, but I can see where one might make that case. The child in the latter situation would seem to be the worst off of the three. But in all of those cases the child has been denied what once was considered standard issue, something all but the most irresponsible parents provided barring unexpected death.
It does raise some interesting questions. If the parents stay together for the duration (life? adulthood for the child?) the child of unmarried cohabiting parents could arguably be said to be better off than if his parents had been married at his birth but then divorced while he was a child. Retrospectively it starts to look an awful lot like a marriage, and I think many such parents are thinking that way. But I would say the child still suffered from the implicit lack of commitment caused by the fact that his parents weren’t married. He (and we) could only know after the fact if his parents really ever intended to stay together, and this kind of uncertainty can be very difficult on children as I understand it. Sadly this is very often the case for married parents as well though.
What all of this points out is that we (as a society) have taken clear cut simple rules and made the whole thing hopelessly complex. At the same time, there is an implicit assumption that serial monogamy is morally superior to other forms of uncommitted sex. I don’t know that I can make clear consistent sense out of the new complex reality people are creating. But either way I certainly don’t see a convincing argument for the presumption that serial monogamy is morally superior to other forms of promiscuity.
When I think of the word hypergamy I associate it more on social constructs than woman’s biological drivers. I associate it more with the world depicted in Jane Austen or for example the way Indian people look at the people that they want their children to marry. One of my sisters is a doctor and became friends with quite a few Indian people at medical school and work. One of her really good friends liked a guy but couldn’t even consider him because her parents wanted her to marry someone of a certain ‘level’ (doctor/lawyer/engineer). This was a parental/societal thing not her. She was more interested in his looks & personality. But she couldn’t even consider dating this guy.
Luckily for my sister and me, English parents are a bit more easygoing. And for us in these times, it’s not like we need men’s pay packets so we can be with whom we like. I would have imagined for men this would be a good thing. But apparently not?!
The women hold all their cards in their early 20s and should cash in (or whatever the gambling terms are) to the highest bidder seems very Austenesque to me. And I would not have imagined that world not much in favour of ‘beta males’.
Dalrock, just saw your post, my guy’s just on his way back from the airport so I have to go but I’ll have a think on it/sleep on it and come back. Have a nice evening.
@zed
I wasn’t sure if you thought that or not. It wasn’t you being unclear, it is the nature of the medium.
I agree with all of your points. Individual men have a responsibility to do what is in their power to provide their own children with a proper environment to grow up in. I also agree that the current system is a disaster, because it encourages women to become baby mommas either via the direct or indirect routes, while demonizing and severely punishing men who often are blameless. The only curb in place is a curb on responsible men to avoid out of wedlock pregnancies. There is not only not a curb on women, there is outright incentive for them to be irresponsible. And as you point out, it only takes a very small number of irresponsible men to sire all of the out of wedlock children the baby mommas want. The obsessive focus on punishing men has guaranteed a huge number of innocent children grow up without fathers. I had made that last point early on in the thread, but it is so long I realize I should have reiterated it before.
Most women react to an honest discussion of female hypergamy by
1. Pretending to not hear what is being said.
2.Changing the subject.
3.Blame it on society/men.
Lily got right to it.
@ Orig. Anon.
“Btw, you can’t be “against hypergamy” any more than you can be “against a .7 waist to hip ratio.”
No, but you can, but you can seek to limit and control it, in your favor(all incipient civilizations necessitated a limit to female hypergamy).
But, strategic opposition of female hypergamy is a *predictable* manifestation of sexual-conflict, where males and females have conflicting reproductive agendas.
What is a different problem, however, is what happens when men fully understand what the word hypergamy really entails. It makes most men vastly more reluctant to make any long term commitment to a woman. There are several reasons for this, most guys here understand them.
There is no cure for this
This is so true Rum. that reluctance from men will be what causes women to control their hypergamy or not interfere with others efforts to control hypergamy. (laws of misandry go away for some reason) For the sluts with no hypergamy control they get the PUA carousel rides and as men learn of hypergamy no takers when the ride ends.
@ Lily
“Luckily for my sister and me, English parents are a bit more easygoing. And for us in these times, it’s not like we need men’s pay packets so we can be with whom we like. I would have imagined for men this would be a good thing. But apparently not?!”
It is, for a select minority of men.
Haven’t you been keeping up?
@Sandy
Any elemental Google search on the term from Catholic, Anti-Catholic, Strictly Protestant religious sites will find numerous biblical injunctions against fornication.
Jesus does not explicitly give a definition of fornication (as far as I’m aware) except that it’s assumed to be used in the common sense usage of the term. Any other reading of the term leads to contradiction.
@ greyghost
“This is so true Rum. that reluctance from men will be what causes women to control their hypergamy or not interfere with others efforts to control hypergamy. ”
You dream.
As I’ve said before, any compromise will need to be imposed upon females under duress of the harshest and most unforgiving conditions.
And predictable outcomes over evolutionary time will see to that.
Escoffier: I for one have enjoyed your participation here, although I fear that this medium is unsuited to the kind of intellectual discussion you are attempting.
I’d like to raise two objections to the philosophical arguments you laid out. First, you suggested that we should consider sexual behavior within the framework of natural right, and teleological virtue ethics, and you suggested that this could be established within the domain of secular ethics. To me, secular teleological virtue ethics means Aristotle. One problem that comes up in Aristotle’s Nicomachean ethics is that the identification of action in accordance with virtue and happiness simply isn’t plausible, for being deprived of some things spoils our blessedness (Book 1, Chapter 8). Aristotle is able to deal with this to an extent, but he is forced to admit that his system only really applies to an elite. Now, today it may not be necessary to belong to the economic elite in order to attain blessedness as it was in Aristotle’s time, but belonging to other elites, such as the sexual elite, may be. In our time as in Aristotle’s, being deprived of those things – such as women – that make for a good life spoils our blessedness. In addressing most men today, then, you are in the position that Aristotle would have been had he been addressing slaves. Aristotle would have told slaves that happiness was unattainable to them – tough luck, guys. What do you say?
Second, you suggest that pragmatically minded thinking about sex is based in believing that the ends justify the means, and the modern (well, 17th century, but still influential despite counterrevolutions) philosophy, of which we can take Thomas Hobbes as exemplar, that roots higher things in the low passions. The challenge of modern though, was already substantially established by Machiavelli, for instance in his argument that idealist goodness, if it remains merely that, is extinguished when it comes into conflict with badness, and that therefore it is necessary to learn how to be bad. If we adopt a Christian framework, I’d put my question like this: Can situations exist where one is faced with a situation where either choice you can make is sinful? where inactivity would be a sin of omission. If such situations exist, what does one do in them? (Obviously, the example of such a situation that I’m imagining is my own, or more generally that of a general modern young man.) Pagan religion certainly acknowledged this problem – for instance, Iphigenia’s death was commanded by a god, yet Agamemnon was still punished for obedience. What does Christianity say about such situations? (That’s a real question – I have no idea. I am reminded of the teaching that monarchs were justified in actions that would normally be considered sinful if they were taken for good of their kingdoms, though.)
In general, I would not so much disagree with your particular positions as point out that your considerations, learned though they are, really don’t address the most urgent problems facing the readers of this site. If you do want to continue this discussion, I’m interested, but some other forum is better – the whole thing is tangent at best to what Dalrock is addressing here.
Aqua Net says:
November 17, 2011 at 1:31 pm
“Get some dignity and act your age!”
Said the anti-semite.
You dream.
As I’ve said before, any compromise will need to be imposed upon females under duress of the harshest and most unforgiving conditions.
And predictable outcomes over evolutionary time will see to that.
You and I agree here, Involuntary childless spinsterhood. 45 single for life and childless is fear. Keep your eyes and ears open for the mangina selling divorce and sex in the city to woman is said to be someone that hates women.
zed says:
November 17, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Superb post.. hat tip:)
Dalrock,
Sandy keeps asking for people do define sin and immorality here, scripturally. You keep saying that women who sleep with men before marriage are “immoral” and just as “immoral” as Roissy. Please explain why that’s “immoral” in your view. Is it immoral from your Christian perspective or secular perspective. Can you give evidence for either?
Lily,
you are 100% right about arranged marriages. They are arranged hypergamously by the woman’s parents. If the woman wants to, of her own volition, marry who her parents deem to be “beneath” her – it won’t fly. She’ll have to elope.
Legion,
Is calling me an “anti-semite” supposed to hurt my feewings?
2 Slumlord
=======================
Any elemental Google search on the term from Catholic, Anti-Catholic, Strictly Protestant religious sites will find numerous biblical injunctions against fornication.
Jesus does not explicitly give a definition of fornication (as far as I’m aware) except that it’s assumed to be used in the common sense usage of the term. Any other reading of the term leads to contradiction.
=======================
Fornication is a translation of porneia. Porneia defined a list of bad sexual behaviors and pre-marital sex was not one of them
@Keoni –
I do my best rants when guys like you give me ideas to use as a springboard, T’anks 🙂
Sandy, “Fornication is a translation of porneia. Porneia defined a list of bad sexual behaviors and pre-marital sex was not one of them”
Adults have been brainwashed for centuries to think normal, natural activity is “bad”. This PUA says that’s the rationale behind women’s “that one didn’t count” and other rationalization hamsters.
2 adults indulging their humanity is bad? Really? You can’t be a successful PUA and think like that.
(He speaks in English, the reporter in Norweigen)
Pingback: Fundamentalism and Religion win long term. | Dark Brightness
Now, for something lighter…
“After a devastating breakup, Eric Smith does the only sensible thing: he buys a full set of armor inspired by Halo. …”
http://bygonebureau.com/2011/11/16/master-grief/
I always have a good laugh over feminism and its consequences. One of the so called greatest reasons for feminism was to stop the “abuse” of women over being viewed as sex objects for men. In the end, all feminism has done is make women nothing but “sex objects”. That’s all they are, sex slaves to Alpha cock which soon turns into 30 + year old, over used skank hoes, with nothing at all to offer real men. Couldn’t happen to a nicer bunch of whiny b!tches!
Women today are nothing but men with tits!
Well Aqua Net that is what a nice invitation to come ride the carousel looks like. He made himself look like a really nice mangina. Men just need to see feral sluts as not bad people. And women need to see feral sluts as ok and it’s natural and liberated. Not like back when women were property. The serpant curled up under the apple tree running game on Eve.
Future slut:” those dicks sure look good on that carousel,player”
Player; “come get you some,shit you are a grown woman and can do as you please,And besides that you are fine enough to ride any thing you want.”
Did I forget to add that most women now come with sexual and emotional baggage that’s enough to keep BA Airways busy till Christ returns?
Aqua Net should just become a porn star already, that way she will get all the cock she will ever need. And she will get paid for it. Sounds like a win-win to me.
Why is sleeping around immoral you ask? Well, women today sleep around right through their late teens and twenties and then just expect some upstanding, financially well set, intelligent, loving and caring man, to just “man up” and marry them. That’s immoral, whether you look at it from a Christian stand point or secular stand point. These women need to face the consequences of their own dreadful behaviour without even thinking, never mind expecting a man to pick up the pieces, financially, through transferal of wealth via taxation, divorce court or the multitude of laws passed to serve as appeasement to feminazis, or by absolving her of her reckless behaviour by marrying her. She must face her choices alone, no shaming the men into helping her, ok?
What about the double standard with men who also sleep around, you may ask? Once again, I think you will find that no one protects these men from their reckless actions or expects good, down to Earth, moral and virtuous women to marry and financially keep these pricks. These pricks aren’t held up by the state to the detriment of normal women, are they, Aqua Net?
If women were truly held accountable for their current behaviour then no one could really fault them. If they want to be lonely b!tches at 40 with 20 cats to keep them company, so be it. However, that’s not what is happening. Instead, they are getting a free pass by the governmental systems and Religious Institutions, which are meant to protect both men and women, to do whatever the hell they damn well choose without having to bear the consequences of their own actions. Everyone else, read “MEN”, must protect and secure them and according to the church, must also marry them so that they can feel haaaapy and belong to the community. Until such a time as they feel bored and they initiate divorce proceedings.
Wow, I simply just don’t understand why modern day men are not chomping at the bit to be in holy matrimony with these types of women? Beats me!
Escoffier, I agree with you, let’s bring back Slut Shaming for both men and women. In equal proportions. When your daughter comes back home, after partying with her friends and by “accident” tells you that she fell on the cock of some Alpha Cad you warned her about, don’t forget to call her a Slut whilst at the same time shaming the guy who doesn’t give a crap about you, your daughter or your Church. Yep, that’s bound to work!
Slut Shaming works on women only, because it keeps the “good ones” in line and therefore does not allow for them to be tempted by the apple/snake/alpha cock. You cannot change the Alphas who take advantage of their Alphaness, they will simply mock and shame you instead, whilst sleeping with your daughter behind your back. This might sound harsh to you. However, I think it’s important to understand it, so that you can focus your energies were they are needed most, i.e. your daughter’s behaviour and the behaviour of the women that surround her, both at home and at your church.
I must say, I have enjoyed reading your blog, Dalrock. The comment sections too. This should be a must read for every single guy wanting to find that right women to marry and have a family with. I might sound critical of women and I am at that but I still believe there are women worth the pain and the cost to marry. I wish there were simply more of them, that’s all!
Susan Walsh said that when she was in college/universty in the mid-70s, she had sex in a stairwell in an academic building, on the top floor of the parking garage, on the floor of the art museum, the top floor of the library in the stacks, so I’m not sure she’s on your side :
http://blastmagazine.com/the-magazine/features/doin-it-and-doin-it-and-doin-it-in-public/comment-page-1/#comment-8568
Susan Walsh is the Voice of Experience.
Hollenhund:
Women malinvest in the alpha casino hoping for a big win instead of investing in the beta business.
Many commenters continue to expect further moves toward state-sanctioned misandry.
Possibly.
I would point out, however, that perhaps it is only the DEMANDS for more misandry that will increase. We can convert the white knights faster than they can make them. Besides, it is not a man’s natural state to be a pussified loser.
Each man has his breaking point, and without the cooperation of a majority of men, feminism collapses. Once a mangina can TRULY see that he is playing a rigged game, his natural beta rage can be redirected against the source of his oppression.
I was once fairly white-knighty (although never a mangina), and I have moved so far to the other end in two years (thanks to Saint Roissy) that many women of my acquaintance have noticed, and are have ATTEMPTED to use shaming language on me.
Needless to say, this is swatted down promptly. I have become a fearless challenger of feminism in all the social groups that I am in. I enjoy causing consternation and distress among the princesses. Women have used men as scratching posts for long enough. My turn now.
Finally, hypergamy is not a vice, betaness is.
That is a very interesting quote. Care to explain your reasoning behind that?
Zed —
I think, based on his pretty consistent view at his blog, his idea is that hypergamy is natural and normal and the issue is that there are too many wussy men, which is making the mating market and the situation in marriages, dire. In other words, men need to “man up” and get more alpha’d up, and things would be better in both areas. It’s fairly consistent with Game ideas, I think.
Luckily for my sister and me, English parents are a bit more easygoing. And for us in these times, it’s not like we need men’s pay packets so we can be with whom we like. I would have imagined for men this would be a good thing. But apparently not?!
Not, because the kinds of men “whom we like” is a very small percentage of men who have that combination of attractive traits. That’s what “hypergamy” is, in the current context. It isn’t about pay packets, it’s about looks/charm/Game. And it’s even more of an aristocracy than the pay-packet one is, especially since the latter, when it existed in our culture as a mate selection vector, also went hand in hand with much more social policing of sexuality/monogamy, meaning that it encouraged assortative mating among those with lesser pay packets as well. The current system, however, is a full-on aristocracy of attraction, with no real monogamy or restraints on sexuality — this means that the female attention all floats up to the looks/charm/Game aristocrats to a hugely disproportionate degree, without being checked by socially enforced monogamy. Alas, this is something that should be pretty plainly clear from reading the manosphere or Game blogs even just a tiny bit, but it still amazes me that “hypergamy” is still taken to mean financial “hypergamy”. The whole point of Game is that financial hypergamy is largely dead for all but the truly wealthy guys (and even there it’s dying quickly) and has been replaced by looks/charm/Game hypergamy. When this is coupled together with no real social restrictions enforcing monogamy, this is in no way at all beneficial for most men — it’s detrimental to nearly all of them.
Pingback: Another mega article by Dalrock « Rivelino in Spain
Aqua Net says:
November 17, 2011 at 8:42 pm
It keeps the truth about you out in the open. I don’t care about your feelings one way or the other.
@Rum
I’d be delighted to discuss hypergamy if it were discussed in a reasonable manner. Example, a statement like ‘women have a propensity to want to trade up if they get a better offer, X% blah blah’. However the word is thrown around in this neck of the woods in so many ways it has become as meaningless as criticising men for not wanting to date fat women.
@Aqua Net
She wasn’t expected to have an arranged marriage but was expected to date within a certain socio economic set only. Date with view to marrying not date around.
@Brendan
I wasn’t talking about ‘financial hypergamy’ in that example of the Indian girl.
Even with my sister and I if it were 50 years living ago, we would not have been what I would consider hypergamous in terms of money, but there would have been an entry level at which men below that would not have been considered. That point would have been considerably higher than it would be today. As would background.
I am beginning to understand the vitriol displayed here towards the social conservatives. In the cases where it counts, they not only fail to effectively oppose the liberals, the ones who own the courts and the legal profession, but actively supports them. What Dalrock said at the very beginning of this post s entirely true:
However, in the case of the gender war feminists have made an unspoken agreement with traditional conservatives:
You hold him down while I rob him.
Not only have Social Conservatives agreed, they were so eager to assist that they even volunteered to create an alibi for the crime. Whenever anything goes wrong with the heist, conservatives loudly blame men.
In the never-ending struggle between “let it all hang out” and “enough already”, I am pretty much on the side of “enough already”. That alone makes me a social conservative. A lot of what the social conservatives say resonates with me. A lot of what they say about masculinity resonates with me. Men should be responsible, self-controlled, and self-directed. If that makes them prey for a self-devouring system that exonerates women and enables them at the expense of men, that is a sore evil and needs to be addressed, but the answer is not for men to cease aspiring to be good men. That is what I meant about warriors and spear-carriers ( a man carrying his own spear, not another’s).
That being said, I find Bill Bennett’s rehashing of George Gilder’s thirty-five year old arguments irritating in the extreme. Female evil is different from male evil, and it goes entirely undetected. I suggest that if you want to stop illegitimacy, just stop all transfer payments to the mothers of those children. Let the father go his merry way with a sparkle in his eye and a smirk on his face. “No ring? No responsibility.” Of course, this was the status quo in 1875 and that didn’t keep Jack London from being born.
But it would have to work better than what we have in place right now.
Even with my sister and I if it were 50 years living ago, we would not have been what I would consider hypergamous in terms of money, but there would have been an entry level at which men below that would not have been considered. That point would have been considerably higher than it would be today. As would background.
In exchange for other “points” which are now *higher* than they would have been 50 years ago (looks’charm/Game). It used to be assortative within “bands”, where there was a “floor” in terms of what you are calling “entry level”. It’s true that this is “lower” today, because women are financially independent. However, the *other* points are higher, and are more restrictive to men because they are not assortative due to hypergamy which is not constrained by bands. That’s the issue.
Lily
Even with my sister and I if it were 50 years living ago, we would not have been what I would consider hypergamous in terms of money, but there would have been an entry level at which men below that would not have been considered. That point would have been considerably higher than it would be today. As would background.
In other words, you and your sister would not be hypergamous in terms of money, it’s just that you would not consider any man who earned less than some “floor” amount. Hmm.
Y’know, hypergamy isn’t just about “trading up”. Originally it wasn’t even used in that context, if I understand correctly. It’s a term that has to do with the minimum requirements women place on men they might mate with. Kind of like, oh, a “floor” on attraction of one sort or another. Are you sure that you and your sister are so different now than you would have been 50 years ago?
Money isn’t as much a factor as it was 50 years ago because women have jobs and don’t need to be supported, as a rule. That’s what all the triumphalist “End Of Men” feminist articles are about to some degree. If Mary earns 1.5 times what Joe earns, she’s not going to be attracted to him as a breadwinner. So any attraction will have to be in some other area of life, period.
Now go re-read Brendan’s last few comments, where he’s discussed some of the implications.
In the never-ending struggle between “let it all hang out” and “enough already”, I am pretty much on the side of “enough already”.
There are angry men who agree with that. In fact, I believe that the majority of the righteously angry men are clearly saying “Enough, already!” as loudly as they can.
That alone makes me a social conservative. A lot of what the social conservatives say resonates with me. A lot of what they say about masculinity resonates with me. Men should be responsible, self-controlled, and self-directed.
And how should men learn these things? Let’s take, for example, a boy growing up with his feminist mother (2nd wave / 2nd stage for those who keep score). When he’s between 5 and 7 years old, suddenly Daddy isn’t coming home any more. He had to put all his stuff into gym bags and boxes, and move away to live in a little apartment. The boy is constantly immersed in misandry, as his mother tells him over and over again how rotten men are. At school he learns that the best way to stay out of trouble is to act like the girls do. Some of his classmates who bounce around too much wind up having to go get pills from the school nurse every day, and they don’t seem as much fun during recess as they used to be. As he moves into secondary school, he continues to notice that the best way to get along in school generally speaking is to act like a girl. Upon graduation he finds out that getting into college depends more on grades and extracurricular activities than it does on his SAT or ACT score – and so he is going to a state university. In the state university, he’s taught as a freshman that he’s a rapist, that any time any young woman doesn’t like what he’s doing with her it is either harassment or rape. He sees a relative handful of men with a new girl by his side every week, while he is treated more or less like a leper. He gets a degree in business and goes to look for a job. It’s tough out there for a variety of reasons, and it is frustrating that his female classmates are preferred hires by the companies he’s looking to get a job at.
Now comes Bill Bennet, Kay Hymowitz, et al to shame him for not “being a man”. But he’s learned since childhood that men are bad and that he should not be one. He doesn’t even have much idea what “man” means – is it “get married, have a child, get kicked out of the house”? Is it “act like a jerk, get laid but never by the same woman more than three times”? Is it “Be a doormat for women”? What does this phrase “man up” really mean?
And why should he do it? What’s in it for him? Marriage? He’s seen where that leads. Fatherhood? What’s the point of that? “Manhood”? Again, in whose terms?
Now, this is just one composite picture of a few young men that I’ve known, both online and in person. It’s somewhat worse than average, I agree. But it isn’t nearly as rare as a lot of people over 40 would think, sad to say. And that’s what a lot of SoCons/TradCons just don’t seem to even want to look at: the young men they are trying to shame often come out of a broken home, out of a feminized K-12 education system, out of a feminist-run university system where they have been told all their lives that men are bad. Telling someone at the age of 25 to “man up” after all that is like tying cement blocks to someone’s feet, and ordering them to run a marathon, then shaming them because they don’t get very far.
I did not say that that hypergamy is just about trading up. I used it as an example of the word being used in a correct way.
Re that particular sister and I and the ‘floor’ in terms of money and background, it would be more to do with parental expectations than our biological drivers. Our requirements for things like social skills and charisma would not have been any different. And going back more than 50 years, to my grandmother’s generation, their thresholds were certainly not lower. It was just that less men would have been in the running in the first place. Perhaps there is a difference here between the UK and US and/or class, I don’t know. But none of my grandmother’s peer group (aged around 90) were married to omegas etc. On the whole, they are/were all quite charming men.
Quite a few spinsters though, much more than in my parents generation but that’s what a war does.
Actually, given the no of spinsters in that generation in England, it would be interesting to know if all the single men got snapped up. As in % of men alive married and procreating much higher than other generations. That would be the logical thing but my gut feel is not significantly.
That may be a social class difference, if you are talking about the UK upper middle and above class. The same would hold true for the class analogue in the US, but that’s a tiny slice of our population, and, importantly, does *not*, for these purposes, include “strivers”.
“Yet after waiting so long to marry, women are now as likely as not to decide that they either don’t want to be married or have married the wrong man.”
I think there needs to a change to the laws so that before marriage a chick has must agree to pay out if she breaks up a marriage no matter the income of the man.
Hypergamy means that an amount of women will unavailable for a larger amount of men, by sharing the same fewer men, either at the same time in a harem or over an extended time in serial monogamy (or waiting for an opportunity to join).
This can be more or less extreme, but I don’t know any good way to measure trends up and down or for different countries, regions or populations.
I passed “enough already” back in 1985 when Mary Koss really got the Counter-(sexual)Revolutionaries stirred up by claiming that “1 in 4” college women had been raped. She did this by examining their experiences and applying her feminist ideology after the fact. Over 70% of the women she claimed had been raped did not see the experience as “rape.”
But, man, did the socons climb all over that!! That was proof that those horrible college boys were forcing their virginal daughters who would never have a sexual thought on their own in their entire life, to have some of that awful sex!!!!!!!!!!. It went right along with the anti-porn crusades waged by the likes of MacKinnon, Dworkin, and the religious right.
By god that awful male sexuality was EVIL, and it must be stamped out!!!!
I passed through the land of “enough already” into the land of “I hate your fuckin’ guts” with the passage of the Bradley Amendment in 1986.
Boy, did they ever!! Here are a few provisions of the Bradley Amendment –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment
In other words, once you owe it, you owe it for life.
Nothing in any of this legislation makes any sense. If you lose your job and fall behind, they take away your drivers license so you can’t get another. If you are a highly paid individual (like a salesman) and lose your high-paying job and and can’t find another and have to take one paying half as much, it doesn’t matter: your child support is calculated on “imputed income” – and child support is calculated on how much the judge things you could have made.
If socons were not such lying sacks of shit, they would have stood up for fathers’ rights for the past 25 years, not shown creativity which would make Steve Jobs envious in coming up with ways to turn paternity into peonage.
Instead, by the mid-1990s the breakdown of marriage, children raised by single moms, and the escalating extortion of child support by the marriage-breadown-mafia’s various rackets had gone so far that it created a concept of fatherhood which Andrew Kimbrell characterized in “The Masculine Mystique” (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345386582/102-9726292-4532103?v=glance&n=283155) as “Daddy pay, then go away.”
If socons were not such lying sacks of shit, they would have gone to the courts demanding that young boys were not placed on heavy psychoactive medication to destroy their normal young male energy.
Instead, they counted their quarterly profits from their investments in Big Pharma as millions of young men were put on this drug, which caused 186 documented deaths between 1990 and 2000, which are estimated to represent 10-20% of the actual deaths. http://www.ritalindeath.com/
And, now, this arrogant, idiotic, blowhards are telling these boys to “man up”?
Strangely enough, most people who know me personally consider me to be pretty conservative. I do not believe that the US Constitution is a “living breathing document” whose meaning changes depending on what the meaning of “is” is. When I read the Bill of Rights I assume that when they say “congress shall make no law…” means that congress shall make NO law…”
I consider calling what arrangement that 2 people of the same sex agree to by the name of “marriage” is as idiotic as me cutting off my legs and replacing them with wooden ones and trying to call myself “a table.”
In short, I do consider myself to actually be pretty conservative.
However, what I am not is a bible-and-chest-thumping sanctimonious hypocrite.
And I am sure as hell not going to allow a modern day incarnation of Robert McNamara throw away tens of thousands of men’s lives (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/07/us/07mcnamara.html?pagewanted=all) while a bunch of armchair Monday-morning quarterbacks who didn’t lift anything more strenuous than a 16 oz beer over the weekend, indulge their Rambo fantasies about how much better they would do anything and everything if they weren’t so busy holding down the couch with their asses.
Poor Lily. She just doesn’t get it. Sincere thanks for at least trying cause most woman wouldn’t even do that. If a woman who tries to understand cant get it, what hope do we have for the rest of em?
Here is an important word: “No”.
Was talking with a man the other day who has a daughter that is early teens. He observed, philosophically, that sometimes it seems his main “job” with regard to his daughter is to say “No”. Not as often as he did when she was 5, but often enough, and sometimes with more determination; he’s got to ignore tears, pleadings, pouting, door-slamming, sudden affectionate attempts at emotional manipulation, and so forth. He’s got to say “no”, and stand by it, on a regular basis.
He’s a married guy who lives in what used to be a normal situation, and his wife supports his decisions, they probably go to some church, so this is not going to be a sad story. The point is, he has to say “no” to his daughter a lot, and make it stick. I suspect he says “no” to his wife from time to time, too. He’s in charge of the house, at least in the areas he talks about.
So from this, I derive one property of patriarchy:
A patriarch is a man who can say no to a girl or woman, and make it stick.
Maybe he can’t say “no” very often at his job, but he has to be able to do that in his house, else he is not the head of the house. Feel free to disagree as energetically as desired, but I’m going to run with this a bit.
Assuming that I’m right, part of the “manning up” that the SoCons want men to do involves said men learning how to say “no” to a woman and make it stick. So where does a man learn this? In the feminized school system? In the feminist-controlled universities? From watching popular, “moxie” filled movies / tv, filled with Laura Croft wannabes? How about from church, any churches actually teaching that men should lead, women should follow, and if the man of the house says “no” that has to stick? Did Bill Bennett or Kay Hymowitz write anything in praise of men who can say “no” and make it stick?
So far as I can tell, there is one – and only one – source in the modern world that can and will teach a man how to say “no” to a woman and make it stick: Game. And what do the SoCons as a rule (Escoffier is now an exception to this) say about Game? They hate it. They hate and despise and condemn it, for reasons that I won’t discuss here.
So there’s the irony of the day:
1. In order to “man up” truly, a man must learn how to say “no” to a woman and make it stick.
2. All the institutions of modern culture insist that men should say “yes” to women.
3. Only Game teaches men how to say “no” and make it stick.
4. SoCons demand that men “man up” but refuse to teach them to say “no” to women, and constantly attack Game.
Conclusions:
I. SoCons do not really want men to be patriarchs, they want men to be suckers.
II. Not all with Game are patriarchs, but every patriarch must have Game.
Because a patriarch is a man who can say “no” to a woman and make it stick.
Hypergamy means that an amount of women will unavailable for a larger amount of men, by sharing the same fewer men, either at the same time in a harem or over an extended time in serial monogamy (or waiting for an opportunity to join).
I think women sometimes think “this is no different than it used to be”, because, of course, hypergamy *has* always existed. The difference today is that it isn’t happening in “bands”, it is happening in a wide-open market. One might think this would improve the chances of men, but it does not. It simply makes *different* men more appealing at the top of the hypergamy heap in a much less banded marketplace, and overall, because the banding is much weaker/non-existent in some levels, leaves many more men high and dry than a banded/controlled/assortative hypergamy did.
The situation of the US upper echelons is rather mixed. In the “striver” segment (people who make a good living but work hard for it), the market is open hypergamy — these are the DC lawyer chicks Roissy writes about. It’s similar among the striver segment in NYC, LA and any other larger metro area in the US. Above this, in the more blueblood set, it’s a bit different. There is a lot of screwing around going on, but also a lot of traditional values, on the surface, in terms of getting/staying married (but often straying during the marriage, as has more or less always been the case for the blueblood set). The demographic in the US of two college educated professional spouses (i.e., the strivers) has low divorce rates, but also late marriage ages and low birth rates — it’s a lot of women who are stepping off the carousel and marrying betas who are more appealing when the woman is around 30 than when she was 24.
Outstanding post, AR – you laid it all right on the line.
After the socons have held these boys down, medicated them, spent billions and billions of dollars supporting their single mothers throwing their dads out of the house, sending in storm troops by the half-dozen armed with automatic weapons to throw the man to the ground, shove their automatic weapons in his face, and PUNISH him for marrying cupcake but not keeping her “haaaaaapy”, NOW they want these boys to work themselves into an early grave to pay off the debits these assholes ran up voting themselves big bonuses out of our tax-dollar financed bailout money?
If all these Muammar Socons want to see their future, they need to take a look at what guys like Vox Day and the In Mala Fide bloggers are writing about boomers.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2011/11/you-aint-seen-n-n-nothin-yet.html
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2011/01/19/the-rise-of-generation-zero-part-1-everything-you-know-is-wrong/
http://www.inmalafide.com/blog/2010/12/08/mounting-evidence-that-the-baby-boomers-are-trying-to-kill-you/
They would be happy to turn us all into Soylent Green, except for the fact that I think they would find it more gratifying to eat us alive.
Addendum to my previous comment:
SoCons are people who have been unable to say “no” to women as a group for 40 years.
How can they tell men to “man up” now with any credibility at all?
(Yes there are exceptions to this. They prove the rule.)
BS – if a man did say “no”, all the woman has to do is pick up the phone, dial 911, say “I’m not haaaapy”, and a swat team will be dispatched to the house in nanoseconds.
I think Roosh just hit the nail on the head about what “manning up” the SoCons want men to do –
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/11/im-ready-to-man-up-by-roosh.html
crap, blockquote should be ended after first paragraph.
Dalrock, all we want for Christmas is a preview function! Some of us put a lot of work crafting our comments, and bad formatting screws them up.
[D: I fixed the original comment. The line about picking up the phone and saying “I’m not haaaapy!” was pure genius. You and AR are both on a tear right now.
I know you put a lot of work into your comments, and it shows. I have been trying to fix those kinds of things when I see them. I hate it too when I’m on another blog and that happens. If you can point me to a doc which shows me how to turn that on, I’d be happy to. I’m guessing I would have to leave the free version and go to paid self hosting though, and I’m not looking to do that at least for now.]
Joshua,
She does get it, better than many of the commenters here, and the not getting it lies at the heart of the inability to find (crucial) common cause with socons. You can’t agree on a solution because you’re not seeing the actual problem, but rather the problem you wish were there.
“When I think of the word hypergamy I associate it more on social constructs than woman’s biological drivers.”
Lily, that is exactly right – it is the lust for social status that drives hypergamy as well as what is left of a real desire for marriage. The truth that both commenters here (Dalrock flirts with it when he speaks of women’s preferred promiscuity, et al, but even he is reluctant to confront the full abyss) and certainly socons are unable or unwilling to see is that many, many women, including a growing minority approaching a majority of young women, no longer seek real monogamy at all, including marriage, regardless of hypergamy. Lip service sure, but actions are what matter. The key insight is this:
Hypergamy is not the base instinct, and thus is not equivalent to the (widely understood) male base instinct of polygamy. The female base is cuckoldry, ideally with a succession of different roosters.
Female base instinct is no more monogamous than male.
The male free from any restriction, moral, cultural, or legal, seeks to spread his seed as widely as possible. The corresponding female, likewise unrestricted, pursues the same strategy at one remove, by conceiving the maximally sexy son to spread her seed. The maximally sexy son does not commit any more than the unrestricted male, so therefore the man who conceives him does not either.
The base female does not want the alpha to commit; I man who commits is not, by definition, alpha enough.
What young women with power (options) and no restriction are in fact primarily seeking is the seed of the non-committal, whether in fact (pregnancy) or feeling (carousel riding), accompanied by the security/status of someone else to support her – financially, emotionally, physically.
Traditionally, the latter has been a beta chump, i.e. the herb (if she chooses someone too close to her SMP value, that creates a flight risk), but with the revolt of the herb and the emergence of the (not so) good-old-girl network that runs or culture/employment systems, those needs have increasingly been met by the state, careers, etc…
Me:
Assuming that I’m right, part of the “manning up” that the SoCons want men to do involves said men learning how to say “no” to a woman and make it stick.
Zed
BS – if a man did say “no”, all the woman has to do is pick up the phone, dial 911, say “I’m not haaaapy”, and a swat team will be dispatched to the house in nanoseconds.
Minor quibble: “I’m not haaaapy” won’t do it, she has to say “I’m afraid. He scares me”, and that’ll do the job – because as we both know, VAWA mandates a response to the call, and in many states cops are all but required to arrest the man on any potential DV calls.
Anyway, this is part of the criminalization of patriarchy I mentioned earlier in the thread. So, hmm, this means that on the one hand, patriarchy is technically illegal. So…the only way a man can be a patriarch in the current culture is if his wife agrees to let him be one. And how do we get women to agree to things? Do we “man up” and do the dishes? Do we generally beta-ize ourselves as all the helpful, happy home hints tell us to do ?
Nope. Game is the way to convince a woman to submit. So I stand by my final observation: any man who wants to be a patriarch must have Game.
As with other things in life, it’s a matter of probabilities. A young man who uses Dalrock’s interview/filter questions, who is careful where he looks for an LTR/wife, who establishes a strong frame at the start of the relationship and uses Game judiciously, who is careful about his wife’s friends and acquaintances will reduce the odds of divorce theft considerably.
But as you point out, there’s still some really bad possibilities out there, thanks to institutionalized misandry and the criminalization of patriarchy. Heh. I just had a thought: the culture is feminized, so any men and women who indulge in the practice of patriarchy are counter cultural…it’s definitely not 1968 anymore, Toto.
I think Roosh just hit the nail on the head about what “manning up” the SoCons want men to do –
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/11/im-ready-to-man-up-by-roosh.html
Nice piece of work, great link, expands my observation that SoCon/TradCon “man up” means “be a bigger sucker” in excellent detail.
Ya know, Kay Hymowitz could save a lot of time by just copying Roosh’s post into her next article, shorn of the last paragraph or two. Bennett’s ghostwriter still will have a lot of work to do, though, to bloat Roosh’s article into 200 pages or so of boring words. Maybe he could offer to ghost write for both of them, in his spare time?
The anger is not from the omegas, its from the alphas who want to have a strong society so either play by the rules necessary to produce one (at great personal cost) or adapt to the new rules as players. Many of us still manage to find one of the decreasing number of good women left by our mid-twenties, and the rest of us have our pickings between 25-35, but in that searching process, we see the utter devastation first-hand that is missed both by the good alphas of previous generations and the younger betas, both of whom are oblivious to the workings of today’s SMP.
@Desiderius-“Hypergamy is not the base instinct, and thus is not equivalent to the (widely understood) male base instinct of polygamy. The female base is cuckoldry, ideally with a succession of different roosters.”
You’re wrong. Newborns look like their father. This is kind of a natural paternity test. if the female base was cuckoldry then they would’ve evolved to have infants that looked like themselves not the father.
@Desiderius-“The base female does not want the alpha to commit; I man who commits is not, by definition, alpha enough.”
They don’t want an alpha to commit. They want one to OWN and DOMINATE them. This is the way woman evolved. From 250,000 to 10,000(beginning of modern civilization). The alpha grabbed his woman and owned her. That’s what they want, but they cant have it.
That should read—-“from 250,000 yrs ago to 10,000 yrs ago”
@Joshua
“You’re wrong. Newborns look like their father”
I see this thrown around a lot, and I could see how it would work for sons. But how would a newborn daughter look more like the father than mother? In other words, how would the body identify which X chromosome came from the father and which from the mother, so that it could selectively favor the traits on the father’s X chromosome? Once the egg is fertilized, the two X chromosomes are indistinguishable, no?
The whole point of Game is that financial hypergamy is largely dead for all but the truly wealthy guys (and even there it’s dying quickly) and has been replaced by looks/charm/Game hypergamy. When this is coupled together with no real social restrictions enforcing monogamy, this is in no way at all beneficial for most men — it’s detrimental to nearly all of them.
Ya Lily, if you are still reading, if you don’t know that we’re onto you, now you do, We know that women view most men as Steve Buscemi. Actually, it’s much worse. You view most men as Steve Buscemi without the money and fame. This is why hypergamy is the kiss of death for most men.
Joshua,
“They don’t want an alpha to commit. They want one to OWN and DOMINATE them.”
“Commit” means “be exclusive to her”. Owners and dominators rarely restrict themselves to one woman. We’re not disagreeing.
“You’re wrong. Newborns look like their father. This is kind of a natural paternity test. if the female base was cuckoldry then they would’ve evolved to have infants that looked like themselves not the father.”
Just another shit-test for her herb to massively fail, further cementing her dominance of him.
Legion,
The blogmaster of this blog is a Christian and so are many of the commenters. They don’t give a rat’s ass if you think I’m an anti-semite or not, or if I am one or not. If holding the opinion that Euro-descended Jews do well (practically better than anyone else) wherever they live and don’t need to migrate to a dry strip of desert in the Middle East where they neither hold the cultural values of the people of that area, nor assimilate to them, makes me an “anti-semite” (whatever the hell that means in 2011), well then yell it from the roof top “Aqua Net is an anti-semite) big frickin deal. You should know by now that shaming language like “racist” “sexist” and “anti-semite” have all but lost any real meaning because its bantied about in an attempt to shame and shut people up. Yes, there are some blogs on the internet where that still works. This isn’t one of them.
Kapish?
Joshua,
“Newborns look like their father. This is kind of a natural paternity test. if the female base was cuckoldry then they would’ve evolved to have infants that looked like themselves not the father.”
LOL. How scientific. All newborns look like aliens.
Desiderius
I agree that female base instinct is not more monogamous than the man’s. I’m not sure on the cuckoldry though, I think it’s a side effect rather than a biological drive.
Let’s say a woman’s driver is to secure the best seed from the man who will give her the strongest offspring & but she also wants strong protection for her and said offspring. However, the man who is going to give the strongest offspring may not necessarily be around for long. Maybe in caveman days the strongest men were also the ones who were most likely to get eaten by a wooly mammoth.
She then has various trade offs to make. But I think the biological base instinct is still to procreate with the stronger man and even with the downsides over this strategy, she’s still pushed that way over the other extreme which is procreate with the man who never leaves the cave. (though there should be a range here – let’s say some of these men are too sickly, but some of the men are good at technical things like keeping the cave warm, some are good enough with a spear to protecting the cave but are not good hunters etc). Another strategy may be safer but her offspring won’t be as strong. She has to make that tradeoff.
She does need the offspring looked after though.
So if she’s gone with one of the hunters, sometimes this ends up in cuckoldry (I know people in this neck of the woods like to lump this in with all the stuff against feminists particularly in the US but I don’t think it is any more rife there than other countries at other times in history, I’d be really interested if anyone’s got any comparable stats), sometimes it ends in other sets ups. e.g. ghettos/welfare state.
I would not be surprised if in caveman days women actually lived and raised their offspring in their family units (and the patriarch would be her dad who does not go out hunting anymore) rather than in a nuclear family. If she was with a hunter anyway. He would be gone for a long time, so makes more sense she’d live with her family, her partner would be more one she had nights with/looked after when he was back from the field.
@ passerby-“Once the egg is fertilized, the two X chromosomes are indistinguishable, no?”
One if foreign genetic material, one isnt.
David Collard, “Susan Walsh is the Voice of Experience.”
And what was her experience? She rode the carousel in her youth and landed a greater beta husband and babies before 30. Decades later she’s sitting pretty in her big New England Victorian home, blogging and enjoying the love and loyalty of that very same husband.
What are young women supposed to “learn” from her “experience” exactly?
That we really CAN have it all (like she does)!
Joshua
If that were the case there would be no cuckoldry!
That said, I don’t know how many cases you know of IRL (I know of 3* – but in every instance the man actually knows it’s just not many other people know).
I just googled it, seems it’s not true
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=babies-paternal-resemblance
*And before anyone goes off on one (Tim you’re onto me? rofl), I am on record several times both here and Roissy’s back in the day that I commented there that I don’t see what possible objection anyone could have to mandatory paternity testing. And I think it would be quite straightforward to get in if you position it properly (and before anyone goes off on one on this, in the UK there was lots of whining about no prenups. Whining and no action. *Finally* a rich woman takes gets it tested. Nearly unanimous on a mainly male panel of judges. Sorted).
Desiderius, Excellent Insights
D:“The female base is cuckoldry, ideally with a succession of different roosters.
Female base instinct is no more monogamous than male.”
Looking at what single mothers do, I.e. their actions confirms this –
It does appear that they are (unconsciously) following their base female equivalent of the male drive to spread their seed (amongst multiple women) by having children as they so often do so with multiple different fathers.
I agree it does look like Women are NO MORE Monagamous than Men it just takes a different form due to biological differences, such as serial Monagomy or Cuckholdery which allows them to obtain the sperm of multiple different men or in other words following genetic diversity as a reproductive strategy/instinct.
D: “The base female does not want the alpha to commit; I man who commits is not, by definition, alpha enough.”
On Game blogs they report that any sign of commitment from a man BEFORE the (young) Woman presses for it causes her to RUN A MILE. The female response is “creepy” (I.e. beta NOT Alpha).
Tim I am afraid the Steve Buscemi reference is lost on me. Sorry.
@ Lily-“She then has various trade offs to make. But I think the biological base instinct is still to procreate with the stronger man and even with the downsides over this strategy, she’s still pushed that way over the other extreme which is procreate with the man who never leaves the cave. (though there should be a range here – let’s say some of these men are too sickly, but some of the men are good at technical things like keeping the cave warm, some are good enough with a spear to protecting the cave but are not good hunters etc). Another strategy may be safer but her offspring won’t be as strong. She has to make that tradeoff.”
Those are modern day issues your projecting onto the past. until modern technology made it easier for a man to specialize he was a jack of all trades.
@Lily-“If that were the case there would be no cuckoldry!
That said, I don’t know how many cases you know of IRL (I know of 3* – but in every instance the man actually knows it’s just not many other people know).
I just googled it, seems it’s not true
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=babies-paternal-resemblance”
I read that article and they didn’t justify anything. But you just contradicted yourself cause in every real life situation you know the man knows he aint the father.
“On Game blogs they report that any sign of commitment from a man BEFORE the (young) Woman presses for it causes her to RUN A MILE. The female response is “creepy” (I.e. beta NOT Alpha)”
Depends who it comes from. If it comes from an Attractive (not necessarily alpha but Attractive), it would not be creepy. And if it does, it could be enough for her to reciprocate interest (‘wow someone like him is interested in someone like me’) or at the least flattering. If it’s from someone she doesn’t consider attractive at first sight, then she could think creepy.
On the flip side if the man is not that attractive but seems like he is not that interested, then a young woman, especially one who is not sure of herself may try to flip it so that he is, at which point then he displays and then she selects and if he’s unattractive it will be not.
Lily,
Single-motherhood is often the cuckoldry of choice. This is why so many single mothers are able to quickly “get religion” and magically discover what their non-mom sisters loudly exclaim to be so mysterious – how to land a good man. Alas for them, many of the good men aren’t interested in being cuckolded, so we don’t bite, but we do notice the difference in behavior between the single-moms seeking a man and the others claiming to be.
They can’t hide those lying eyes.
Anonymous Reader, the MANNING UP blog written by Roosh is excellent!
http://markymarksthoughts.blogspot.com/2011/11/im-ready-to-man-up-by-roosh.html
I’ve already predicted here that the US is going to go the bohemian route over the next 5 decades and by 2060 we are going to be nature-luvin’-tree-huggin-self-sufficient-grow-our-own-food-and-weed-libertarian-country.
The Corporate World will not disappear entirely, but it will be based out of Asia. Americans are going to be living a much simpler and healthier lifestyle. Young people will not aspire to spend their lives in canned air offices. We will prefer to live more frugally and in tune with our natural environment. TRAVELLING and EXPERIENCING the world and its cultures are going to be what we aspire to, rather than the white picket fence in the suburbs “American Dream/Nightmare”
When we return to the USA we will live in yurts or on communal organic farms where we will work and save for our next trip. Many of us will write books, give seminars, teach others how to grow.
I AGREE WITH ROOSH ON THIS ONE 100%!
It boggles my mind that there are YOUNG men and women who aspire to the staid “manning up” and “womaning up” life that Roosh detailed. When I read some comments here by young men and women it sounds so OLD. Where is your sense of adventure and wonder?
I can understand if you don’t want to travel the world and game people into riding the cock or cunt carousel with you, but there is so much else you can do all over the world. There’s a huge planet out there wil so much to learn from and you want to live in the suburbs, work in a canned environemnt and eat at Applebees? And you are YOUNG????
ARE YOU FRICKEN KIDDING ME???
@Lily
“That said, I don’t know how many cases you know of IRL (I know of 3* – but in every instance the man actually knows it’s just not many other people know).”
That seems like a large number for you to know of, if “not many other people know.”
@Joshua
“Those are modern day issues your projecting onto the past. until modern technology made it easier for a man to specialize he was a jack of all trades”
Really? All men were hunters?
“I read that article and they didn’t justify anything. But you just contradicted yourself cause in every real life situation you know the man knows he aint the father”
‘aint’? That aside, it follows that babies look like their fathers, there would be no or very little cuckoldry. Men tend to you know physically attack each other.
The personal cases I mentioned were just in passing. When I first read about it many years ago, the words were similar to ‘10% of children’s fathers aren’t who they think they are’. It wasn’t 10% of children that men think are their children aren’t. And certainly I’ve read articles and know of cases personally (not the 3 that I mentioned, those are people in my age group roughly) for example in the 40s and 50s where the first child wasn’t biologically the husband’s but he knew about it, but the child didn’t/doesn’t.
Lily,
“Depends who it comes from. If it comes from an Attractive (not necessarily alpha but Attractive), it would not be creepy.”
This depends on age gap.
A woman in her 30’s will say “you’re too good for me” or likewise initiate some female anti-game.
In her 20’s, she will still do the “you’re outside the rules” body language, but often won’t go so far as to use the “creepy” language unless the man isn’t “getting it”. Again, this behavior is triggered by signs of commitment interest; lacking that she will be good to go (I’m speaking of interactions that began with IOI’s from the woman in question, so attraction was established).
“On the flip side if the man is not that attractive but seems like he is not that interested, then a young woman, especially one who is not sure of herself may try to flip it so that he is, at which point then he displays and then she selects and if he’s unattractive it will be not.”
Often her efforts at flipping it consist of mirroring male behavior that would be attractive to her (aloofness, amused mastery, negs, social proof via sparking interest in other men) and so are counterproductive to her goal.
@ Lily,
Google Steve Buscemi. Few people would call him handsome. Most would call him ugly. Apparently he does have quite a bit of talent. But, going on looks alone, most guys would rate his and looking creepy.
By “onto you” I mean knock off this “hypergamy means Jane Austen” bullshit. This is an American audience in the 21st century. If it is a book or a piece of fiction you need which demonstrates modern female hypergamy, read “Clan of the Cave Bear” by Jean M. Auel. Men don’t like having to peacock, wear ear-rings, necklaces and so and so forth, because it is not our strong area, and we are out-competed by women. We are much better at throwing on a shirt and tie and being done with it. “Connectivity” and ‘synergy synapses” are not our cup of tea. Most of these manosphere blogs are not just about women, although ostensibly that is what it looks like. It’s also about principles, and what the future may or may not look like. If a woman is married to a doctor but she births the bartender’s baby, well, that is a problem. And this is hypergamy. Do you get it? Hypergamy has nothing to do with money. Hypergamy in the modern sense is a woman’s desire to delve into deep history, before the time of patriarchy and nuclear families. It is a woman’s desire for rebellion, and that quest for “synergy synapses” with a modern caveman, ie., the dude you meet at a bar with a feather boa and an ear-ring. Sure, this rare in the upper classes, but who cares? One out of three kids born today in the US is in poverty, and matriarchy rises up from the bottom.
At this point Lily your either being obtuse or you are just stupid. I don’t know why you expect a smoking gun to make everything fit into place perfectly it aint(yes i use aint) gonna happen.
The idea that cuckoldry is the preferred female strategy makes no sense. What you have to believe is she would willingly leave the alpha to be with a herb, and only go back for sex. There is a bit of truth to this in the sense that women’s attraction preferences tunes according to her fertility. But this is taking it to an extreme. Once she is hooked on alpha, so long as he is available and keeps gaming her properly (which includes some comfort along with the attraction) staying with him is her first choice (until/unless a better alpha comes along). She doesn’t say “Gee, this man really makes me tingle, but I’d really rather spend time with a sensitive new age guy now”. Excessive betaness makes women queasy. They aren’t drawn to it, it gives them the creeps. Look at the contempt wives feel for their excessively beta husbands if you doubt this. Cuckoldry is plan B, when the woman can’t get both comfort and attraction from the same man, and this typically means when the alpha is only willing to treat her as a FB. The fact that it is an attractive substitute for something which is generally difficult to obtain in one package doesn’t change the fact that it is still plan B.
As for women being naturally monogamous, it is true in the sense that they tend to naturally push for commitment. They prefer it that way. This is why Susan Walsh and the Millionaire Matchmaker always urge women to wait for sex until monogamy. Everyone assumes it is a moral argument, but it isn’t. They suggest it because they know the women will be happier if they do. It also doesn’t mean actual commitment from the woman. The monogamy only lasts so long as the woman wants it to. I’ve shared the quote from Paige on this before which demonstrates the thought process perfectly:
This is women’s preferred form of promiscuity; monogamy until they don’t feel it any more. If she isn’t pushing you for monogamy then she just isn’t that into you.
@Passer_By
“That seems like a large number for you to know of, if “not many other people know.””
It’s a weird thing about me, something my guy has commented on several times. I would say I know a lot of people but only consider some my close friends. None of these 3 people are my close friends. But people tend to tell me things. I thought it was because I’m not very judgemental (though I do have strong opinions and a moral code of conduct for myself, though would be different from say dalrock’s for himself) but he thinks it’s something to do with my eyes. I met one of his friends from childhood the other day at a wedding and this guy told me loads of stuff about his life, his wife and all sorts of stuff that my guy doesn’t know though they’ve been friends for 25 years. Bizarre. Shame as I would have liked to have a dance.
Brenden, “I think women sometimes think “this is no different than it used to be”, because, of course, hypergamy *has* always existed. The difference today is that it isn’t happening in “bands”, it is happening in a wide-open market. One might think this would improve the chances of men, but it does not.”
So what? An open and free market is COMPETITIVE. What would you rather – Sexual Marxism: from each according to her ability to each according to his need?
Tim “If a woman is married to a doctor but she births the bartender’s baby, well, that is a problem. And this is hypergamy”
No Tim this isn’t the definition of hypergamy.
It could be all sorts of things, perhaps it could be hypergamy (depends on the bartender), but not necessarily.
“As for women being naturally monogamous, it is true in the sense that they tend to naturally push for commitment. They prefer it that way. This is why Susan Walsh and the Millionaire Matchmaker always urge women to wait for sex until monogamy. Everyone assumes it is a moral argument, but it isn’t.”
Dalrock I agree with you, this isn’t a moral argument. It could be a sensible strategy for women (though this is debatable) but it isn’t a moral argument.
It seems to me that most of the men on this blog, even the young ones, are invested in the “American Dream” of house, 2 cars, boring job and weekends at Applebees with wife and kids.
Why?
If that way of life is dying out – who cares?
There’s a huge world out there to discover. Where is your sense of adventure? I’m with Roosh on this one (minus the cock/cunt carousel). But you will learn more by travelling than you ever will in college.
I just find it very, very odd that YOUNG people are pushing for that boring, life-sucking, way of life. Young people usually have more spunk and energy.
“We are not going to go back. Right now we are in growing pains but mark my word, by 2060 at the latest the change will be complete and this country will look vastly different than now – on all levels: economic, social, sexual, religious, familial.”
It will more resemble something out of Mad Max the Road Warrior than what you envision.
You fucking idiot.
Dal,
“If she isn’t pushing you for monogamy then she just isn’t that into you.”
At least you share the socon’s (and feminist’s) favorite cop-out. But the point you miss is that yes she will push the man for monogamy, it’s a key element of anti-slut defense to do so, but her actions show that she doesn’t want him to give in to the pushing. A man will likewise push for easy sex, and likewise doesn’t want her to give in.
With all due respect, you’re married and I’m on the fucking ground, and furthermore have a 23-year-old sister who is too. She was explaining why she broke up with her second-to-last LTR and said it was because he never said he loved her. I asked her if she’d ever told him that she loved him, and she looked at me like I was nuts. This is not the behavior of someone seeking monogamy, especially the real monogamy of marriage which would require striking while her iron is hottest, as it now is.
Got to go, but I’ll follow up via e-mail tomorrow when I have some more time.
Dalrock,
“What you have to believe is she would willingly leave the alpha”
She’s never “with” the alpha in the first place beyond hooking up. If he’s willing to be with her (to commit), he’s not alpha any more. That’s what the 467-bullet-point checklist is for.
The Groucho Marx mechanic.
This can of course be played by a man with sufficient game, but the thing that needs to be played is the underlying instinct you deny.
“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.
This is women’s preferred form of promiscuity; monogamy until they don’t feel it any more. If she isn’t pushing you for monogamy then she just isn’t that into you.”
Serial Monogamy is NOT Monogamy I.e. lifetime with one sexual partner.
Serial Monogamy is Women (unconsciously) following a reproductive strategy of Genetic Diversity. It just differs in form from the Males strategy of spreading his seed.
“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.
This is women’s preferred form of promiscuity; monogamy until they don’t feel it any more. If she isn’t pushing you for monogamy then she just isn’t that into you.”
This is entirely consistent with what I’m saying.
What causes her to stop feeling it is exactly the man’s willingness to truly commit to exclusivity.
OK, I’ll discuss them, then, because to me that is the most important concept in this entire thread.
Now, there you go, discussing it, even after you said that you weren’t going to. Sheesh! 😉
Socons want to make noise about “manning up” because contemporary fashion no longer allows us to wear codpieces without looking silly, but they are incapable, themselves of doing it. That is why they hate, Hate, HATE, HATE any man who can. They just want to TALK ABOUT IT, being the nice SNAGs that they are.
Like you said, manning up requires that you tell women “no”, and make it stick.
“No, darlin’, going up to Roissy’s apartment at 1:30 am was a really, REALLY, bad idea. It’s too bad that you withdrew your ‘enthusiastic consent” sometime between 1:47 and 1:55, but no, you were not ‘raped’, you are not a ‘victim’, you were stupid.”
The reasons that socons hate guys like Roissy is, that by simply existing, he shows how gutless they are by contrast.
I’m sure someone can post the video of rich a-hole giving his teenage daughter an expensive car for her 16th birthday. She threw an absolute fit because it was the wrong color or something, and the pathetic Herb just piddled himself while she threw the tantrum.
That is the picture that comes to mind every time Escoffier posts.
@zed
“I’m sure someone can post the video of rich a-hole giving his teenage daughter an expensive car for her 16th birthday. She threw an absolute fit because it was the wrong color or something, and the pathetic Herb just piddled himself while she threw the tantrum. ”
C’mon. That’s gotta be fake.
I’ll first let you know that I’m speaking from the point of view of a mid-40’s divorced man.
The real problem (in my opinion) is the way men are depicted in society and the ease with which people point their fingers at men for being the root of all problems in relationships. If men are always at fault (which is the message women are getting and giving) it makes it way too easy for women to excuse their own behavior and always blame the man. After a while, the man feels like he can’t win, and the woman ends up with whatever she wants, although it’s always a hollow and Pyrrhic victory. The woman’s natural consequence to this dynamic is resentment followed by divorce and/or cheating.
A natural instinct toward hypergamy might exist in every woman, but this is an instinct that can be corralled in almost all cases.
Maybe. I’ve known a few rich folks and seen things like this happen in real life.
Well, it looks a little staged to me. But it’s still funny. If it’s true, that brother must have had a fun time posting that video of his sister being a total bitch. You almost wonder if he’s the one who convinced the dad that red would be a good choice, knowing she wanted blue. LOL Can you imagine having to live and grow up with that girl for 16 years?
Don’t worry guys, 2060 there will be no more socons 🙂
Lily–
It’s a good thing for alpha guys.
It’s not such a good thing for strongly earning good status greater beta and beta guys.
Though the traditional considerations matter more to most Anglosphere women than Roissy suggests — WHEN they’re looking for a relationship that the hope will turn into a marriage. Particularly when they’re 30 and older.
Lily–
It’s hypergamy as that term is used in the gamesphere. It’s hypergamy as that term is used on this blog, Heartiste/Roissy’s, and the rest of the sphere.
Yeah I know the traditional dictionary definition is the tendency for women (and esp. their parents) to want to marry up in status and wealth, and for it to be fine with men if they do, in order to get a prettier wife and one that will look up to him.
The game definition of hypergamy is for women to want to mate with men of greater attractiveness, and to be willing to “pay” for that in these feminist push back against slut shaming days by offering fast sex without a pre-existing sense or explicit deal of his commitment and exclusivity. In terms of raw sex appeal Roissy says the female attractors in order for the large majority of girls are status, game (psychosexual playful dominance or charisma), looks (mostly fitness, height and looking strong/dominant), and money.
You keep wanting to use terms differently from the way they’re used in the sphere even when commenting on blogs within it. You do the same with alpha and beta.
For marriage for women I think it tends to be in order status, game, belief he’ll be faithful, compatibility, money and then looks (same as above for looks).
Well zed and A.R. you just made the case for PUA MGTOW and peter pan . If it is crimminal for a man to be a man well have at it then bitch. The three types of men are how you survive in the feminised world of criminal men. I must be one of the few MRA types that can see the huge value each group type of man with each playing a rule in this quest for punishment for feminism. The amazing thing is each group of guys plays an important role while at the same time allowing for there individual needs to be met as best as possible.
zed
I’m glad you brought up the baby boomer topic zed. I remember back in the late eighties early nineties telling some of my fellow marines how much i hated those spoiled brat piece of shit baby boomers. Their parents lived though the depresion fought W2 and korea and lived under a nuclear umbrella rebuilt the world and raised the most spoiled brats in history. Those punks brought us socialism, feminism, and turned the melting pot into a salad bowl and us government to parcel out wealth or priviledge to those PC worthy.
Lily
You are either playing dumb, Or are playing team woman on this hypergamy thing. It is a female happiness pursuit thing it has no logic and is based purely on feelings and emotions at the time or period in life. Hypergamy can also be influenced that is where following the herd thing comes from and it is not universal what a womans paticular hypergamy drive is. (that bell curve thing can be use) If enough women were seen as poor dicusting cat ladies to the point of hysteria. panic and fear of the herd will chaged the drive and direct of hypergamy. the only constant is hypergamy. (that is why game works) These list women like to have are basic ly guides women use for there hypergamy. These list are also not based on any logic they are based on status in relation to other women. Nothing to do with love building a solid family anything it’s all pure how I feel. Pick any thing Money ,looks,nice guy,thug, big dick,redhair,friendly,strong, humble,black guy,asian,white guy, sadist,masochist it doesn’t matter and it doesn’t matter to hypergamy. The only thing that matters is social status. If hypergamy says fuck lots of guys then I’ll make every body say it’s lberating,or men do it too, you can’t do that it is a double standard, i was taken advantage of, or the altimate restorer of the staus of virtue is to be a victim of somekind of rape or abuse. Or we’ll just make being a slut normal with a slut walk. (gotta remove those checks on hypergamy) Well Lily i hope that helps you out or gives some of you fellas some ideas on what hypergamy is.(which is who I’m talking to any way) . .
More predictions: rather than faith and myth based, people will approach religion and spirituality from a more experientially based platform – meditational practices will be widespread, which will in turn help people to control their passions and lower natures. Science and technology will increasingly develop ways for us to conserve nature rather than exploit it and most, if not all of our products will be recycled.
Recreational drugs will be legal and hence our prison population will be cut in half. People will be imprisoned for serious, violent crimes only. Government will be small. There will be no “nanny state” and people who need help will get it from their communities rather than the government.
Legal marriage may be done away with. People will enter into committed relationships by choice and via a private contract.
The future looks good!
Damn zed that girl nees a cigarette burn on tip her nose bad. Right before her prom. For all of you good christians out there I have this to say. There is nothing immoral about a line of PUA,Players, or beta chumps that changed their minds fucking that bitch to 35 childless and left alone. There is a a point when it is immoral and it has nothing to do with any body but that girl.
“We are not going to go back. Right now we are in growing pains but mark my word, by 2060 at the latest the change will be complete and this country will look vastly different than now – on all levels: economic, social, sexual, religious, familial.”
Yes, it will resemble Latin America (the matriarchal society I lived for 11 years – full of single moms, promiscuous men, poverty and violence). People smarter than I have said that.
En la calle, el idioma predominante será el español. Get used to it.
Hypergamy is just an ugly reality of marriage these days (and no, I don’t want to debate the meaning of the word). I’ve been married to a good woman for almost 10 years. We met at 18 but didn’t marry until 24, no other sex partners before each other. She was raised secular but is very traditional overall. I lost my job at one point a couple of years ago and found myself dealing with the fact that while I struggled to find more work, my wife was already well on her way to flirting around with guys at her office and even random men who came by the apartment for maintenance, etc.
The thing is I knew it would happen. I even mentioned it to her once and she just laughed at the notion. But I remembered being just out of college years ago and having a few weeks go by without a job offer. Her attitude toward me then was one of subtle contempt. I did the foolish beta thing and tried to be more attentive, do more housework until I could find full time work. She loudly told me then that she “didn’t need a housewife.” Luckily I found work before too long.
This time around was very different and guys were coming out of the woodwork. She was also frequently telling me how I’m not much of a man and telling jokes at my expense. I found work and things worked out and got better. But my question now is–do I want it to? Should I kill myself working 80 hours a week in my profession, giving her what she wants, so that if I ever fail on that point some delivery driver can get lucky with her? She claims sometimes she doesn’t know why it all happened (I know–hypergamy, etc.). Other times she claims it never happened. A few months of hell for me though.
We did everything right I think, met young, slept only with each other and minimal other experience, found a church when she expressed interest in that, focused on my career and her teaching job so that she could work while still being a wife (her choice). I hadn’t been a beta at all since the housewife comment she made when we were in our early 20s, and really wasn’t before that. I’ve turned down so many women over the years it’s ridiculous, but that also makes it harder to just forget her behavior and want to stay married.
I also think that so much of “the system” we have in the West now is basically rigged for a man’s failure. If I fall down on the making money front, she either makes me get up and get running again (to her economic benefit) or divorces me (and gets paid that way). My temptation now is to leave her when I’m still young and not yet wealthy (in my profession I will be) so her payout is minimal. What really blows me away is how at all and any other time than those two times I was unemployed, she’s the perfect woman in so many ways. She even sees the man’s side of a third party dispute more often than the woman’s side, which I think is rare. But it’s all too fragile. I’m tempted to bail though despite her argument that she never meant things to go down like that.
Sorry for the long story but I just want guys to know that the advice of so many bloggers not withstanding, and an overall better approach to marriage, still may not add up to enough to keep a man from going through hell these days.
greyghost, it would really help if you could put some paragraph breaks in!
I’m sorry I can’t understand it, you need to make clear what hypergamy and have other people agree with it. Otherwise, you will never be able to discuss let alone come to any agreements with these SoCons or other enemies. if you use it as a such a fluid word, it ends up with no meaning and you will never achieve anything.
I will say that I doubt enough women will be seen as ‘poor dicusting cat ladies’ to achieve your aims. I don’t know where you live, I live in England. Masses of our young men were killed fighting for freedom, Armistice Day was last weekend. We took my grandparents (who were both in the war, my granny was hardly knitting socks) somewhere particular for it. Somewhere they haven’t been for years but my guy felt it was important (as they probably won’t make many more) and arranged a car to pick them to drive them 100 miles etc.
Do you think that the effects of the MGTOW will be bigger than the second world war? The second world war didn’t make the women of that generation marry just any old man, do you really think that all these years later, you can make women want to do anything with the equivalent men by threatening them with cats?
(though of course Armistice Day was originally for the Great War, my grandparents aren’t that old lol. Actually they still act like they’re 25)
@Stephen
What are your exact issues with your wife?
@lily
“@Stephen
What are your exact issues with your wife?”
Are you kidding? Maybe the fact that the two times he was most down on his luck – when he needed her the most – were the times when she immediately seemed to lose all respect for him and started planning (consciously or subconsiously) to trade up? Or perhaps you think it’s appropriate that the words “for better and for worse” only bind the man.
@Lily
Exact issues? The first time around it was the way she treated me like dirt as soon as the dollars didn’t flow for a time. The next time around (2010) it was the same, plus the other guys coming around, her disrespectful “jokes”, etc. The guy at her office that made some serious headway in getting her to break her vows, which she denied until her older female coworkers told me in an awful way.
But it all jibes perfectly with the hypergamy theory that’s been present by some commenters on here. A man has certain uses to a woman, even if she loves him, and then if he fails on those fronts he’s out. I don’t think she cheated, but the fact that she left that door open really gets to me even a year later. These things have happened each time when the money issues arose, and disappeared when I got work again.
Thing is, I know so many guys going through this right now. We talk about it and each of us is suddenly like, “Wait, you too?!” It feels better but makes me realize what’s going on at the same time. My good friend from grad school, a serious Mormon who works a great job for top pay, has been going through the same treatment from his wife. He works too many hours and makes too much money, so she’s not happy that she’s not #1 in his life (she says). He offered to quit and work a lower paying but fewer hours job. She said she’d divorce him.
@Passer By
Exactly, I’m glad someone gets it. Those were my exact thoughts.
“It’s a good thing for alpha guys.
It’s not such a good thing for strongly earning good status greater beta and beta guys.”
Its good for all guys because there’s always women of lesser status than you, for whom hooking up with or marrying you will be indulging their hypergamy.
All traditional cultures arranged the marriages of their girls to boys higher status than her family, if even just a smidgen. But as there is no such thing as a classless society, there will always been lower status girls available.
You should have dumped while unemployed – would have probably been cheaper. Though dumping her now would have greater impact.
@Passer By
Honestly those thoughts are just now entering my head, over the past few months. It’s all too much and the only thing I ever really asked of her was to “be there” when I got home. I don’t mean literally, but to have my back. Her argument is that she has my back now, so I should just forget it all. No way.
Thanks for clarifying, and yes I agree completely in your situation.
(and from a personal perspective, my guy’s very wealthy but it’s a really bad time at the moment and he nearly lost one of his businesses this year, so I’ve been helping cover his back though it’s been really hard and it meant the time we had planned for me to be free with our babies did not happen – I got most of the time off my work but I’ve spent it helping him – and no our babies are not neglected – and I consider ourselves lucky, when my grandparents made those tradeoffs their babies were certainly affected more than ours)
The reason I asked was mainly because of this because ‘if I fall down on the making money front, she either makes me get up and get running again’ I’ve seen a lot of statements in this neck of the woods in the sphere of young women investing in young men and helping them achieve more.
@Lily
I think “get me up and running again” is much more what she demands, not what she enables. I either make the money come again or I’m out. She says it’s not like that, but the pattern fits too well. It just took several occurrences for me to notice. She dumped me once in college because I was working as a writer and she didn’t see a future in that for me, financially speaking. Went through hell to get her back even then. She agreed after months to come back, but explained it all away as her being too young to know better (my rejoinder these days is “I was the same age, and kept us together. If it was up to you we wouldn’t even be together today”).
Now we’re in our early 30s and all I see is more of the same going forward. Even if it only happens now and then, those hypergamy instincts will come roaring back. And no offense to the ladies present, but my wife is, despite everything, a cut above the average woman out there these days. Finding a non-religious virgin who ends up liking sex and feels instinctively that the man is the head of the household probably won’t happen twice in one schlub’s life.
Stephen, I think you need more of an abundance mindset, you shouldn’t be calling yourself a schlub.
(n.b i’m not saying you should bail)
@Lily
You’re saying I should stick with all this? How could I rely on her?
Sorry everyone if I’ve jacked the discussion. Didn’t mean to kill off the other debates.
Sluts are shamed less these days and so are spinsters. Unmarried older women used to be patronised and devalued as pathetic old maids. Perhaps this is coming back with the “cat lady” thing.
I gave up reading National Review Online partly because they were becoming pro-feminist. For example, I like Jonah Goldberg. He is funny and insightful, but he has the usual blind spot on feminism. He couldn’t even get his wife to change her surname. No patriarchy there.
The Economist is still economically conservative but is now full of feminist assumptions.
Stephen, interesting story. Any emotion is better from a wife than contempt. Beta behaviour leads to a woman’s contempt. I do a bit of housework, but I make damn sure my wife knows that she is the housewife. And there are some jobs I just don’t do, although she has shown me how to run the washing machine because she will be in hospital next week.
Good for you marrying a virgin, Stephen. A very good start. It is the best way of avoiding the depressing discovery that your wife used to be the town bike.
From personal experience, Game does help one be a patriarch, but the laws of the country have to be at least not actively anti-man. Things are better here in Australia.
A Christian wife might be more inclined to obedience but quoting scripture won’t work as well as Game.
@David Collard
Side note: I started reading the Economist when I was 15 (I’m weird). I noticed the sudden shift to a feminist outlook a few years ago and dumped the subscription. I’ve got better things to spend $125 a year on.
I feel like I’ve done everything pretty solidly other than those times when I was without work. She definitely knows she’s the housewife and she takes pride in that. I can’t help if I want to. She made that clear with her comment then.
I’m naturally pretty solid on “game,” one of those guys who reads the game blogs and thinks that it’s all common sense.
My wife is Christian now. What I liked about her was that she held basically natural law-related values without having any religious upbringing at all. But this all makes the sudden shift in her behavior when I’ve been without work that much more jarring.
I’m really impressed with the quality of this post and the number of comments. I doff my hat to you and dedicate this gin & tonic to you.
The Economist did change a few years ago. Recently, they have published articles bemoaning the lower earnings of women everywhere, from Sweden to Pakistan. Are they so goddam dumb that they cannot see that women have children and choose to earn less? And in the latest issue, there is a gem about Italian women choosing to stay home, and this is supposed to be a bad thing somehow.
I got a look of contempt from my wife precisely once. Anything is better than that. You have to nip that in the bud. And never let the minx show disrespect in public. Women will do that shit test sometimes. I used to notice her respect would drop when we went shopping together. Easy solution – let her shop by herself.
@David Collard
Solid advice, thank you. I think that my problem now isn’t any of the things I do or that she does currently, so much as what went down when I was out of work. I get that it’s the female instinct to do that. But I’m still struggling with the concept that to her, at some level, I’m a walking wallet. When I wasn’t a wallet, the odds of another man or men getting with her skyrocketed. I would never have believed it until her coworkers “warned” me (about the guy working on her at work) or in the case of her flirting, when she did it within my hearing.
It’s funny that you mention the Economist and its feminist angle now. I for a long time actually thought I was imagining things. All these articles about how women are the future of any developed economy, etc. I hate that because until women become economic or technological innovators, there will be no female led economy, just the usual male-labor based economy with women plugged into various “important” positions.
I’m sorry Stephen. At this point you have all the info just remember she is now a depreciating asset. Best get out now before it bottoms out and then costs you even more money. But you and i both know you wont do that.
@Stephen
I’m not sure it’s my position to say, but since your brought it up, if you stay, I think you will be almost certainly be kicking yourself in a few years when she finds some other pretense for dumping you at your most vulnerable point. I realize our host would strongly disagree with this comment.
Stephen, stay with her but Game her hard. Shock and Awe.
Every man goes through what I call “chump slumps”. Having kiddies tends to betafy a man. Just watch her reactions and tweak the alpha and beta as required.
You sound like you have an attractive young wife, but even my middle aged missus got “hit on” recently. If she wants affection and to spend time with you, those are good signs. Make her come to you. Very important.
Another funny thing. I used to get a bad reaction from giving her presents sometimes. Not sure why. It might have felt too supplicating.
The Economist seems now to be written by Oxford-educated feminists. They have blind spots about religion and a few other things, including sex differences. Of course women are not the drivers of the economy, except as consumers. The idea of the female innovator reminds me of one of those “economist jokes” – “assume we have innovative women”.
@David-“Stephen, stay with her but Game her hard. Shock and Awe.
Every man goes through what I call “chump slumps”. Having kiddies tends to betafy a man. Just watch her reactions and tweak the alpha and beta as required.”
I was sad for him before but this advice astonishes me. Is this the future you want stephen?
greyghost
Well zed and A.R. you just made the case for PUA MGTOW and peter pan .
Question: Name three groups of men that SoCons, and feminists are united in hating.
Answer: PUA’s, MGTOW’s / Free Range men, “peter pans”.
Question: Why are those guys all hated on ?
Answer: Because each, in a different way, says “no” to teh wimmenz.
Garsh. The PUA’s “manned up” to the current sexual marketplace and said “No, I will not play your stupid game and be your disposable tool, I will play my own Game….” while the MGTOW’s “manned up” and said “No, I won’t marry you and be your disposable fashion accessory” while the “peter pans” got all “manned up” and said “No, I don’t care what your priorities are, I’m not going to take that raw deal of playing Cap’n Save a Ho, I’m going to live life on my own terms no matter how much you scream about it”.
Yup. That’s the pattern I see. Say “no” to teh wimmenz, get called a whole lotta names by feministas and SoCons/Tradcons.
Sticks and stones…
Lily
Well the point is not that being lonely and a cat lady in specific but the denial of hope in hypergamy and the herd mentality of the definition of happiness and actual sense of an emotional well being. Lonelyness reguardless of the trash talk women do to show off to each other is miserable. I do not know the social dynamic in England But some of the stuff I do see shows the englishmen are really second class citizens there.
Stephen: Yeah, its a sad state when this is about the best we can expect from above average women. Men do seem to be set up to fail even when taking due diligence.
The Economist as long as I’ve been aware of it, is a secret bed of communism, just like the BBC.
First of all, don’ t panic, and don’t get depressed. Putting on the glasses has different results for different men, but we all get to see some aspects of women that are just plain disgusting to us. That’s how they are, though, and eventually getting over the anger is a good thing. If she had an allergy of some sort that made her incredibly short tempered, you’d just make sure to keep allergens away / medications on hand, etc. to be able to deal with it. Can’t change it, but can live with it.
+1 on David Collard’s advice. Game her hard. Accept that there will be times when you get more betaized (and children absolutely will do that) and if possible, plan accordingly. Seriously, scope out some particular Game gambits that you might use in future crises. In the event you are out of work again, amp up the Game immediately, don’t wait for her eye to start wandering.
I don’t doubt that she “doesn’t remember” some events, the rationalization hamster seems to have the power to cloud not only women’s minds but their memories as well. A woman can say something really obnoxious on a Monday night and by Wednesday morning she “can’t recall” saying any such thing. The hamster is a defense mechanism in more ways that one. I would suggest not bringing that stuff up any more, it looks too much like beta grudge-holding. Remember it in the context of “previous Game errors” or something else nonemotional.
You may find this to be a bit too dark, but instilling a bit of dread in her might be prudent. She’s likely got an unconscious premise that you can’t “do better” than her, and/or that she can have another husband just like hailing a taxicab. She needs to understand that she’s not 20-something anymore, and the reality of your SMV vs. hers has been changing for a while now. From the Game that you know, and your own self, you should know that if she did leave, there would be another woman for you in due time. Make this thought true within you. Don’t articulate it, don’t say it out loud, there’s no need to. Just know it inside.
I don’t have heartiste up on this machine right now but there was a good article last summer on this topic. Women pick up quickly on anything that might look like another woman is going to “poach” on their turf. Don’t do anything heavy handed, don’t do anything that even hints of an affair, but it might get her attention sharpened up if she notices that attractive women like to talk with you at social functions. It’s a kind of reverse social proofing: instead of using a gal pal to provide social proof to other women, you’d be using the interaction with another woman to provide social proof to your “gal pal” wife. The message sent is “Oh, look, other women regard your husband as an attractive, desirable man…”.
Again, some may regard this as dark, but she should also be allowed to learn that over 30, her SMV has declined enough that it’s very unlikely she would find a better man than you. It might be that you can point out a divorced woman you both know who seems to be either living alone, or dating men your wife finds unattractive. It might be that she finds articles about how divorced women over 30 don’t remarry nearly as fast as expected. Most women don’t want to live alone. Letting her know, subtly, that such a fate is likely if she dumps you will instill a bit of dread as well.
If you choose this route, do it as lightly as possible. It’s kind of like a neg, in an LTR negs must be used as sparingly as possible because it’s too easy for them to be perceived as outright attacks. You don’t want her to fear that you are going to leave. But she should not be able to take you for granted as casually as she may have done in the past. She should subtly realize that cheating on you or dumping you would come with a price to be paid, and that price will get higher every year.
Lily, no they are not communists at The Economist. They have just defaulted to feminism, as do most conservative organs eventually. I once went to an ostensibly conservative Canadian website and the first story was celebrating a woman becoming captain of a coast guard vessel. Another male started a conservative blog and began by using generic female pronouns.
The only way to win this war is to offer no quarter. Demand a hymen. Laugh at sluts and the men who marry them. No placatory language.
Stephen
Flirting within your hearing? That smells to me like a fitness test. Have you read Athol’s blog, http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/ ? Some of his advice is pretty pedestrian (“take out the trash”) and some of it is much more interesting. His advice on shit tests is more oriented to married game than what you’d find at heartiste, and thus more useful to you.
Really, if she was flirting within your hearing, odds are she knew you could hear, and wanted to see your reaction – not necessarily deliberately, either. When I first read about fitness / shit testing, I rationalized it as some sort of deliberate action that younger women would do as part of mating. That’s partly true – but it is not always deliberate. And when a man gets “too beta” for his woman, the shit tests will happen, and will escalate until he responds in a way to shut them down. I’m now convinced that much of that behavior is not conscious on the part of women, it’s like a nervous tic that just pops up when she feels insecure in certain ways. Steamrolling a test like that is the sure way to shut down future tests for some time to come.
Anything that raises your SMV a bit more over hers will help to solve the problem, IMO.
Thank you David and Anonymous.
@David
I’m sorry to say they are. Hotbed of communism. I have a few friends from college (or uni, thanks Mike from Neighbours) who work there.
When it comes to the issues you raise wrt to the Economist, bear in mind the old saying, ‘cui bono’, or ‘who benefits’. Remember, alpha males love feminism. Feminism has opened up a buffet of pussy for men at the top, pussy that was locked up prior to feminism. So the Economist is going to favor as much women in the workforce as possible because it also means sexual free agency – at the top.
@Anonymous Reader
I think you’ve given me some solid information. I’ll take a look at that blog. Thanks so much, I can use the help.
Yes, my wife is in her place at the moment, but that took and takes work. Not effort. More like cunning. And some darker stuff too. Not bad, but tough. Women are not made of spun glass.
If you see a marriage with a happy wife, it didn’t just happen. The man must have gotten it right. Women don’t just behave well of their own accord.
Lily, OK. Yeah, “uni”.
Tim, yes. I am not the conspiracy theory type, but they damn well came out and said it in the last issue. “Italian women staying home are not contributing to the economy.” I do wonder if it is not just alpha males wanting to steal the ordinary man’s pussy for himself, either for his factory, his office or his bedroom, oops, boardroom.
I know the Economist=Communist thing was a joke, but the aim of that publication is very much to break down the traditional economic barriers in each country and encourage globalization. For years they said this would actually help everyone from top to bottom on the economic scale. Then in 2008 they admitted, in a small article toward the back of one issue, that the result of globalization going forward could already be seen, and for most people it doesn’t look good.
I found the article amazing, because they were basically admitting their whole belief system would wreck everything except for an elite few at the very top of the international economic system. Most developed countries would see substantial declines in quality of life as jobs are off-shored, and those developing economies wouldn’t gain nearly as much as had been claimed. But the heads of governments and large corporations would be able to dictate things economically from centers of power while enjoying the rare privileges of wealth and status not available to the ordinary masses of people–a new oligarchy ruling over workers who struggle to meet basic needs. I wonder what economic system that sounds like?
In the end they argued it was all still well and good for globalization, basically rationalizing it by claiming that it was more fair for everyone (except that elite at the very top) to live decent lives, even if no one lived a truly free and flourishing life.
About a year after that, Paul Krugman did one of his usual op-eds in the NY Times and said that the U.S. could end all trade with other nations tomorrow and lose only about 2% of its GDP, but quickly making that up through increased job and other opportunities within the U.S. But then he said that would be wrong because its better to have everyone live decent lives everywhere, with the man in Kansas the equal of the man in Zimbabwe, rather than allow those of us in the West to flourish while poor people starve.
I think ultimately Krugman is just more honest than the Economist folks, because basically they want the same thing despite their very different schools of thought.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/box-6-caught-playing-doctor-is-accused-of-sex-assault-pi33ogg-134089743.html?referrer=reddit
There you go, socons, another virgin-daughter-defiler caught!! String him up before he gets YOUR daughter!!!
the words “strong women” caught my eyes
the comments about men being pigs is something else
http://shine.yahoo.com/love-sex/strong-women-dump-misbehaving-men-demi-moores-powerful-193400767.html
“Most developed countries would see substantial declines in quality of life as jobs are off-shored, and those developing economies wouldn’t gain nearly as much as had been claimed.”
BUY LOCAL.
In the long run I think its going to work out because were going to see more and more cottage industries sprouting up in rebellion against Big Global. That’s what OWS is about. We’ll be back to wearing homemade sandals and bartering within a decade. It will be better for our health, happiness and environment. Invest in a yurt.
I’m a bit late to the party. I don’t have time to go through the comments right now, just wanted to say great work man, kudos.
I take great satisfaction at the envious and disapproving looks from single, dried-up women in their 30s when walking around with a hot younger Asian woman I’m sleeping with. I open the door for her. She carries my things for me and gets up from the table to get me something to drink and insists that I not move, because I’m the man. These dried-ups look at her with envy and disapproval. They look at me with disdain. Suck it ladies, you’ve gotten everything you wanted, except now you won’t get a younger man to buy…you’re not that good looking. That’s the currency you may have had but have now spent. I’ve taken the red pill and won’t be buying either. I know what lies behind that door. A lot of men are doing everything they can to make sure that other men don’t fall for the traps you’ll try and snare them with. Strong men don’t need you or what you have to offer, which isn’t much. Enjoy your cats and your vibrator while you look down on women in other societies who you see as “weak” and “submissive”. These women understand the way of things between men and women, the dance, subtleties that you’ll never grasp in your extremism. If you really care about the plight of women you’ll swallow your pride and realize just how poorly things have worked out for you and encourage younger women to re-evaluate their behavior and decisions before it’s too late for them. Oh but wait, you’re too self-centered and egotistical to ever do that, right? I mean, why would you want to do something that benefited another person, solely for the purpose of helping them, if you can’t see what you’d be getting out of it? If you can see the value of doing just that, there may be hope for you yet.
Lily–
It wasn’t nearly so left 20 years ago. It’s still rightist on things that are bedrock classical liberalism such as free trade. It’s become just totally oblivious and denialist to any of the costs to host nations of mass third world immigration. And yeah it’s damned feminist without seeing any of the unfairness to men that’s developed.
PA, no, I would not say that that’s my primary concern, though I’m not indifferent to it either.
Pechorin:
The first course I took in which we studied the Ethics, the prof brought up the Priam example (Ch. 9, not 8, FWIW). Priam did everything right and yet he ended up miserable. A raises the issue of “blessedness” which seems mysterious. The prof treated this as a huge interpretational problem. Seems to me A is only saying, you can do everything right and be in full possession of all the virtues and yet still be ruined by chance or other external factors. The rest of your point seems to get to A’s argument about “equipment.” Yeah, most men can’t be happy if they are forced to scratch subsistence out of dirt, although the Stoics (claim to have) managed it and Socrates was totally indifferent to wealth.
I am hardly a theologian but I don’t see how abstaining from sex (outside marriage) can be considered “sinful.”
Dalrock,
Somewhere above you acknowledged in reply to someone else that there are certrain things that make fornication immoral from a purely secular perspective, e.g., could lead to abortions, fatherless children, STDs, etc.
Well, that shows a (perhaps unconcious) falling back on natural right. Because who cares about any of those things if man is just a collection of atoms or a higher animal? Then abort all you want, abandon your kids, spread AIDS, whatever, it doesn’t matter. If nothing is true, everything is permitted.
Dal,
“I have a new post in the works which might help, but honestly I think I have laid it out pretty clearly already. I’ll offer the following recap of what I’ve already shown in the interim.
1) Focusing on shaming PUAs is a crutch which is being widely used to avoid addressing the real issue. When someone doubles down on this without a compelling reason, I smell rationalization out of fear of upsetting women.
2) The kindest message we can deliver to young women is “if you sleep around, you have no one to blame but yourself”. The fixation on blaming PUAs even “equally” negates that message, and is therefore cruel.
3) Focusing on changing the behavior of Alphas/PUAs is an exercise in futility, and would actually make the problem worse than doing nothing at all (see item 2 above, and I’ll elaborate on this further in the upcoming post). We know what works.
4) Fretting about the double standard is the exact stupidity which lead us to the disaster we are now facing. Until we can acknowledge that fatal error, we will continue making it. I can show repeated examples of this, but I also understand that no amount of logic or proof will burn through this compulsion on the part of conservatives.
5) Promiscuous men are in my understanding sinning from a Christian perspective, but there is no logical case to make that they are immoral from a secular perspective. I’ve outlined my argument here in great detail, and you have not addressed it. Christians who are concerned for the salvation of the promiscuous men have a valid concern. Those who wish to focus on shaming them do not (see points 1-4 above).”
This is rock-solid gold. I hope you turn it into a post verbatim. And I hope Escoffier revisits his response with a lot more serious reflection than his reply here has shown.
As for the commenters’ treatment of Escoffier, he’s only a conservative in the “liberal whose daughter is likely to get mugged by the SMP” sense. He’s about as far from Joel Osteenville as one can get. The legal reform required to fix the SMP will require getting men like him on board, and it won’t be accomplished by feeding him shit tests. Yes, that means you, TFH.
@Desiderius
Thanks! The Gilligan post was actually the one I had in mind. Looking back on my own list, I covered everything in that post except part of bullet point 5.
I think that the term “immoral” has so many connotations to it that cloud the issue. We step immediately onto the thin ice that the concept of “faith” provides.
If we define “sinning” as “if you do this, God is going to get your for it”, it requires, at a minimum, faith and belief in both God and in the person delivering this message. I can, for example, believe in God, but not in the socon mouthpiece running his yap at me claiming to know exactly what God thinks or wants.
The problem with the concept of sin is that it is an infantilizing process – “if you do this, I will punish you for it.” There is no attempt to understand why it is bad – just that it is bad and some entity with power and authority will punish you if you do it. This breaks down when a person begins to question that authority and power.
This is further compounded by telling elaborate lies in an attempt to scare the person into compliance – “if you do this, you will rot in hell forever” or “if you do this, you will go blind.” Someone who does it and their vision is unaffected becomes a little less of a believer.
For those who prefer a rational explanation (acknowledging in advance that not all will be swayed by it) the substitution of concepts like “extremely harmful” or “very painful” allow people the sense of taking control of their own lives by making rational decisions.
I can’t really say that pointing a loaded gun at one’s foot is “sinful.” I can say that doing that and pulling the trigger is going to hurt like hell.
If you look at the list of the 7 deadly sins, it is pretty easy for most adults to see why they are sins – they harm both the person and those around them. “Sin”, in this case, can be seen as including the meaning “causing harm to oneself or or others.”
Among those 7 sins is gluttony. Anyone can look at the epidemic of obesity sweeping much of the modern world and easily see why gluttony is harmful.
Promiscuous sex is sexual gluttony. Sinful or not, it is as destructive to the people who practice it as it is to people around them.
I believe that shaming by a group of people that the fornicators have come to hold in absolute contempt will be less effective in changing behavior than trying to point out that it is to one’s best interest to avoid self-destructive behavior.
“Are you kidding? Maybe the fact that the two times he was most down on his luck – when he needed her the most – were the times when she immediately seemed to lose all respect for him and started planning (consciously or subconsiously) to trade up?”
You picked a fine time to leave me, Lucille, with four ugly children and a crotch that won’t heal…
“Promiscuous sex is sexual gluttony. Sinful or not, it is as destructive to the people who practice it as it is to people around them.”
Yeah.
zed,
Is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg%27s_stages_of_moral_development
What you’re looking for?
Jesus radicalizes the concept of sin (the Hebrews of the time were getting lazy with the concept of good enough/at least I’m better than the Joneses) in the Six Antitheses (they follow the Beatitudes in the Sermon on the Mount). Sin becomes falling short of the glory of God (which we all do inevitably, being fallen humans), which is not as bad as it sounds in the context of grace. Through confession, you become aware of exactly where you’re falling short (and that others are too, so you’re not alone), but by the grace of God you’re given the strength to overcome it and become a better person once you repent. This is called sanctification and is the reason why people who spend a lifetime really “getting” spiritual discipline end up with such strong characters.
I went to Seminary to study this process after noticing so many of these (older) people and such a shortage of such people among my peers.
Where tradcons go wrong today is in ODing on cheap grace, especially for women, so they miss out completely on the whole self-examination thing and never get to repentance or character development.
zionist neo-cons are not social conservatives…although they pretend to be, dont get them mixed up. A real social conservative is a racist and would never negotiate with
feminism/marxism/zionism–which are all the same entity. Without the racist element, anyone claiming to be a social conservative is a fraud…usually a jew in wolfs clothing.
Most of these comments (except for a few) are so whiteknight beta, so Roosh might have been intoxicated when he linked to this (or he just saw his name in the post). The article mixes together sluts and feminist career women. Sluts can be a man or woman who openly expresses their sexuality. Card-carrying feminists are butches who want to dominate and destroy men that most males would not even want to bang. So, this article is about the middle of the road women who go to college to party and then delay marriage until after their career is established. Once I even considered marriage and that a wife ideally should be a homemaker mom because this is what churches said, now I don’t care if a woman has a job she likes to do because I will never get married anyway. Most of the commenters would like to see a 1950’s era type fantasy utopia where people get married young (to be just like them and so their kids are also just like them), so those must have been the good old days. The original Greek word in the bible was originally not about “Pre-Marital Sex” and it was mistranslated in the 1400s into fornication to control people. For 15 years I went along with the churches saying fornicators (using the wrong interpretation) go to hell and even going to chastity conferences all while the viper (in public they are such nice guys and behind close doors they were monsters) omega priests/pastors were molesting boys and making their own kids terrified. The men who stay in most churches turn into wussy beta nice guys told to please everyone by homo church elders who preach sex is for marriage and who never tell them the truth about modern marriage where most of these unsuspecting betas will get destroyed by their wife by current divorce laws. Better advice to them would be to go jump off a bridge. I’m an Alpha man who broke free so I’m never going to get married. The only 2 priests/pastors I knew of they left the church for real women (Thank God they were at least honest straight real men). All of these comments about shaming is so beta weak and pathetic. I am a Christian Alpha man and I love sluts (those women who like sexuality in a healthy way that’s natural – maybe even the sexuality created by God). Even when Roissy was posting he said most men neg in the wrong way and it leads to spite (not attraction). The same way the whiteknight beta geniuses in the comments are saying to shame sluts (and even alpha males) because they want others to get married earlier. I am against this because I have seen it done in the real freakin world and fail (the shaming tore a family apart, made an insecure woman even worse, and it was not a christian thing to do even though they thought it was). Try to shame an Alpha like me or others to our face and you will wish you did not. Maybe someday there will be this marriage utopia (that good guys want for themselves and their kids to be like them) when there is a huge world disaster (the sun will burn out eventually), or in Heaven (although there’s likely no marriage there).
Seems to be a lot of hemming and hawing over the morality and effectiveness of game in the commnets. Its all been said before, and yet men continue to game.
My question to all the people who are against game is, what can you do to stop it?
I know some of you will answer that game is contributing to the downfall of society by creating more bastard children, creating more single mother families. But what can you do to stop it?
In the article about being trapped on slut island Dalrock states that alpha shaming doesn’t work. In fact, calling attention to men who get laid a lot and then publicly trying to shame them into changing their ways only draws more attention to them and social proofs them to other women because it essentially says, ‘Look, these guys get laid so much that they are a menace to society. We have to publicly shame them to change their behavior!!’
Shaming language, like ultimatums, are a sign of powerlessness.
Pingback: Playing career woman | Dalrock
Pingback: Bardamu’s Bookbag: Freedom Twenty-Five: The 21st Century Man’s Guide to Life
Pingback: Freedom Twenty-Five | SNY Ideas
In my experience, with the introduction of social networking, women have even more power.
Now they can sleep around, deny it, and further deny it and bad mouth over these social outlets.
They moan when the guys take advantage, they’ve brought it on themselves.
I’m not sure what all the complaining is about on our (the guys’ end), besides about divorce law (get a prenup, despite your examples they hold up almost all of the time). A guy like me can sleep around with tons of women all through my 20s (I’m 24), get in a relationship pretty easily when they’re tired of it (as I just did after 2.5 post-college years of being single by choice), as most women in this day and age are thrilled with a guy who will commit in any way, and then marry a 28-year old when they’re 35. Sounds like a pretty fantastic lifestyle to me. Granted, I have certain advantages in this arena (it will sound egotistical, but height, looks, job, education) over most men, but with Game or pseudo-game (really, the biggest thing is just overcoming fear and being confident), even your average guy can do very well in most big cities. Here in NYC, I’ve heard stories from girls about being dumped by their way less attractive BF because they “snore too loudly”. This only happens because that average-looking guy knows he can go out and replace her in 2 days. Oh, and all the while I’ll be developing my career and upping my earning power (taking GMAT in Feb), so by the time I’m 35 and want to marry I’ll be even more of a “catch” than I am today. What’s not to like here? My dad is 73 and has been married 3 times (28 years and going strong with my mother), and apparently was very successful with the ladies when he was younger. Despite this, every single time I relate stories to him about my single life, his response is a version of “Man, I was born in the wroooong time”.
If you think “getting a prenup” is sufficent to protect you from all the issues highlighted on this and other websites linked to it than I implore you to make the smart choice in life and never get married. You simply aren’t protected by a prenup the way you think you are. Just avoid marriage completely.
Pingback: The weakened signal | Dalrock
Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock
Great post dalrock…..will put it onto CAF as well.
I’m way late here, but even though I’ve heard this before, this is a pretty succinct and effective way of saying it. Well worth “bumping” this thread.
Pingback: Will betas shrug? | Dalrock
Pingback: More grim news for carousellers hoping to jump at the last minute. | Dalrock
Well, in Finland mean age at first marriage is 30,6 for women and 32,9 for men.
In the US that is not even close.
deti:
There is solution for them:
MailOnline: ‘Was I selfish not to give my daughter a daddy?’ Louise had a sperm donor baby at 42 and was happy to be a single mum, but now she sees the price her child is paying
This will be more common.
http://townshipnews.org/?p=3527
Kindly read my article “Joseph Stalin: Founding Father of Feminism”. You will see that the system of driving women out of the home into the job market, granting them maternity leave to make babies on the company’s time, etc., was pioneered by Joseph Stalin and his Jewish commissars. This is the true origin of feminism.
As to the argument that women should have equal rights in the job market, that one is demolished by Steve Moxon in “The Woman Racket”. As Moxon explains it, a man has no chance of getting married unless he has a good paying job. A woman can attract a husband merely by spreading her legs. Therefore, men should have all the jobs to equalize all the babies for women.
http://whatmenthinkofwomen.blogspot.com/2007/11/red-feminism-american-communism-and.html#!/2007/11/red-feminism-american-communism-and.html
Find the essay entitled “Feminism Explained” and read it. It makes everything clear.
THE NAME OF THE GAME IS LIE
It is pure infantilism to imagine that political disagreements are honest disagreements of opinion. They are not. Political disagreements are about using self-serving lies to get what one wants. Let us illustrate by using “sex discrimination” as an example. Women know perfectly that they were never victims of “sex discrimination”. They were not victims of discrimination when getting everything their husband’s money paid for in divorce court, or in getting automatic custody of the kids or in picking up their child support or alimony checks. They weren’t victims of discrimination while climbing on the life boats first or in sitting on their privileged female ass while the opposite sex did the fighting and dying. Discrimination only became a problem when they figured out they could grab all the jobs too.
Now it is pointless to tell women that they are lying about discrimination. They know they are lying the same way that the Jews know they are lying about the “six million” who did not die. Therefore, why point out the obvious? “Snivel rights” for blacks is another example of the principle that truth has nothing to do with it. Blacks know perfectly that their own behavior, not white racism, is the cause of their problems. But if they can make white racism a bogey, then they can use it to extort whatever they want. So, too, with the Jews and their beloved state of Israel. The Jews know perfectly that they are the cause of the problem because they stole Palestine from the Arabs. But if they can convince the ignorant, brainwashed Americans that the Arabs are the cause of the problems by misleading them “terrorists”, then Israel can continue its odious policies with the blessings of the American treasury
The name of the game children is lie. Lie, lie, lie. Never tolerate the truth. Shout it down; suppress it; turn facts upside down; shout epithets and nonsense at the top of your lungs. Make the truth whatever supports your interests. That is the real world. Anyone who wants the objective truth had best search for it in the archives and rare literature. It will not be found in the real world of self-serving liars.
Pingback: The GOP and the Manosphere | Red Pill Theory
It`s all about women nowadays…. there are people who really enjoy being bossed around by women, by letting them do their own ways it`s making our stand look terrible.
Reblogged this on The Human Scorch's Blog and commented:
AGREE.
Pingback: Desperate for your MRS degree? Don’t worry about it! say the women of Christianity Today. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: 3.7 Fair Sex | Radish
“As well, how is a young couple supposed to support itself? It’s easy to advise the 18-23 group to get married, but who pays for their rent, their utilities, their food and other expenses? Do they live in their parents’ basement?”
Great question. Why shouldn’t parents and friends help a newlywed couple buy their new home as a wedding present by helping provide a substantial down payment?
@ Tom H
Simple answer: the parents & friends of the couple are broke as well.
Great question. Why shouldn’t parents and friends help a newlywed couple buy their new home as a wedding present by helping provide a substantial down payment?
An even better question here would be this: how much money did the young couple spend on their wedding – at the princess bride’s insistence?
Odds are that the answer is “enough for a down payment on a house.” But hey, it’s all about HER. Priorities, ya know…
@feeriker
Why not use the money that would have been spent on the wedding on a new house, ask the friends to contribute money towards the house instead of wedding presents, and just have a much cheaper party to celebrate the new couple’s marriage? I think that my daughters would go for that, but they think more like me than they do like their mother.
Pingback: Selling Sense | Alpha Is Assumed
Pingback: Reading Roundup: 13-10-20 | iParallax
Pingback: The Church Man | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Who is the true enemy of Neoreaction: The Red Pill or Social Conservatism? Part 1 | Atavisionary
Pingback: Of Madonnas and Whores | Atavisionary
Pingback: Taken 3 And The Idiot Father « Calculated Bravery
Pingback: Marriage As A Team. | Your Slaviswife Is Evolving
Tom H says:
November 26, 2013 at 10:45 am
“As well, how is a young couple supposed to support itself? It’s easy to advise the 18-23 group to get married, but who pays for their rent, their utilities, their food and other expenses? Do they live in their parents’ basement?”
“Great question. Why shouldn’t parents and friends help a newlywed couple buy their new home as a wedding present by helping provide a substantial down payment?”
Uh uh. If family wants to help out a newlywed couple with housing, that’s great. However, the housing needs to be immune to frivorce theft. The in-laws owning the house, and allowing the couple to live there (at no or reduced rent) as long as they’re together is the way to go. Alternatively, in the event of separation/divorce, they could allow the children and the innocent spouse to live there.
Freely giving to a newly married couple would have worked better in marriage 1.0. It would be quite dangerous today, as Luke notes.
This is exactly, PRECISELY the way it should work, the way it MUST work nowadays,
This is a reality for our family. My grand parents-in-law purchased our choice home for us. Now, we pay them a monthly payment with minimal interest into an escrow account. The house is titled in my husbands name and not mine. This has infinite benefits. Namely- incentive to fix up our home, the freedom to do so, frivorce safetey net for my husband and a significantly smaller house payment. This arrangement is greatly beneficial to us, although I’m uncertain what benefit my husband’s grand-parents had to help us so enormously.
“I’m uncertain what benefit my husband’s grand-parents had to help us so enormously.”
That’s easy enough to answer, YGW. They get 1) grandchildren 2) near them that 3) aren’t raised as divorce orphans, but in an intact home (so they don’t drop at least one social class).
“Large numbers of men can’t marry until their mid to late thirties. At the same time they are surrounded by large numbers of promiscuous attractive women being as true to themselves as they can possibly be. Men in this position have three options:
Stay celibate by choice.
Stay celibate or close to celibate due to being rejected by hypergamous young women.
Learn how to have sex with the hordes of young women riding the carousel.”
I’m currently in this long, dark valley right now. For about four years I’ve gone back and forth between 1 (most of the time) and 2 (occasional rebellion against my condition). I can’t tell you how angry it makes me…it always has, way before I had any conception of what was going on. I remember trying to articulate it to people and getting total befuddlement. Most painfully, even the other young guys around me seemed to fail to get what bothered me.
Even when I was getting some, it made me angry. It made me angry that girls had unrestrained license to act and dress immodestly and promiscuously. I always had an automatic, intuitive sense that this was a kind of harm or humiliation to me. My older theory, back when I was a “feminist” myself, was that female “objectification” and reducing them to sex objects was a really bad thing. But feminists have long claimed such self-objectification as a form of “empowerment.” This never made any sense to me. Rather than capitulating to the feminist framing, I retained a sense that something was wrong and hoped one day to figure it out. Only very recently have I come to understand: sexual self-objectification (“empowerment”) does give women power over men.
First, it forces men into a base, sexual frame—giving them no quarter from their own sexual instincts. This is the opposite of what civilization has always required, and I believe it directly results in the depressed achievements of men, who grow up under coeducation. Moreover, it divorces girls’ sexuality from men: their sexuality is for the “market,” and hence for their “market value,” rather than being committed to a particular man—and this is something that can remain true even in a supposedly monogamous relationship. Finally, it is inherently emasculating and humiliating to constantly be around girls displaying their sexual value (that’s a euphemism for 20 year olds wearing crop tops and tights), but not to be able to do anything about it. Every single time you have to viciously repress your innate masculine instincts (pursue, chase, get it), on pain of severe legal or social consequences, even for looking at a girl the wrong way. That constant repression is emasculation, and learned helplessness.
I would love to forget all about this crap and just do my work, which I love…but it’s spring again, and girls all around me are dressing like sluts again. I am in graduate school, which means they are everywhere, even in the library. Most days, you end up in a constant, enraging state of arousal that you can do nothing about. I don’t even want, let alone feel entitled to, sex. I just wish I could be left alone. I occasionally try to find a girl, even though I don’t really believe in casual sex, but immediately founder because even to ask a girl on a normal date now makes you a kind of weirdo, someone who doesn’t get it. I don’t have the time or the desire to develop “game,” because I’m extremely busy career-wise and don’t like the effects it would have on my personality (I don’t want to lower myself to the level of the shallow and vain, even if I get sex out of it). I used to wonder if I was a pervert with an out of control sex drive, but I realized that I am completely normal. It’s the girls around me who are out of control. I know that all the guys around me feel the exact same way, but it makes me sad, even frightened, that there is no way for us to even commiserate, to acknowledge what’s going on around us. I know that the society is deaf to my complaint, and refuses even to acknowledge the harm. Instead it treats that harm as a sign of a grave moral defect in me. I worry that I will never be able to reach the heights of greatness of men of the past, because I am forced to endure a condition that will never enable me to overcome sexual instincts in a way that used to be completely natural in a civilized society.
Pingback: Expel The Tradthot Among You! | The Anarchist Notebook
Reblogged this on Madison Elizabeth Baylis.
Pingback: Marriage today – and its dystopian future
Pingback: Starting World War G: the gender wars
Pingback: La historia de Michael, mujeres casadas - La Píldora Roja
The growing unconstitutional imbalance of Woman’s rights in the last 40 years is not derived of Marxist theory, it violates it. Like every other imbalance here in the good old USA it is driven by profit (capitalism). It takes away a fathers right to due process in American courts custody battles rendering the constitution impudent as does the inexcusable and sick “no fault” law. Marxism if ever used correctly strives for balance and equality or at least a humane standard of living in a very unequal social economic environment. If this movement was communism then we practice the greatest system of communism in the world for the wealthy (state civil servants, court employees, child protection, support agencies, court shrinks, etc each making 70K plus with big pensions compliments you fathers the new wave slave) and this is just the legal market. An old Irish proverb from Murphy’s law states ” where a man stands on an issue depends directly on where he sits”
In May 2019 I marched with Leon Koziol jn DC, we met with as many representatives as possible, yes it can be like pissing in the wind, but we made the effort and we tried. I have read all the remarks here and I can see that we all truly understand the problem. We have to do something to bring this system change as they did 150 years ago to end emasculation and slavery which is exactly what we have here now indiscriminately this time and as always for profit. This capitalistic extorting system of business, (yes it is one of the greatest) profit culture will find a way to make the man pay even if marriage is abolished by law. I have a friend who is paying alimony in AZ. now simply for living with her for 6 months, I can believe it because we have all heard of palimony. This ungoverned system of government which some nasty dictator once called it, has created a provisional income for woman, that earns it a great income off the backs of men bleeding them dry. It is unsustainable because when the payments cease (child support / alimony / palimony etc.) the recipients will be mostly financially broken. How does the government care for this multitude which is now the greatest generation of single woman going into their senior years without family support, now having been cultivated this way by themselves. Who will be stuck with this bill, what is their sexual market value now? I believe that eventually a man will be charged in court with support simply because he was proven to have taken her out to dinner last Tuesday. Am I being ridiculous? You know not the capacity of this uncontrolled governments limitless greed. Children are now the casualties. The school shooters were the product of the 1st generation of teens growing up in the wake of the 60’s divorce spike, all found to be from fatherless homes and they are only the tip of the visible iceberg. My daughter 10 years old cries sometimes wanting to know why mommy can’t be here together when she bounces back and forth, how do I tell her that mom has been living on dating sites for the last 6 years? guess I just have to pucker up “thank you sir may I have another”. She has a right to leave as an adult true, but let her pay her own way through life and split our child’s expenses 50/50. Want to be a man, then man up and take it like a man, no support or crutches. Gentlemen, if Farrakhan can raise a million man march why can’t we raise a 50 million man (peaceful Dalrock) march and or refuse to work in solidarity? At least 50 million men in this country are affected, that number conservatively stated. What the hell are we waiting for? or have we become genetically docile, good for only military service and domestic punishment?? we