This is one meme which simply will not die. On a logical level it makes no sense; why does nearly everyone feel so strongly that the carousel should be a forgiving, enjoyable experience for women? But on another level it does make sense that this meme is so hard to destroy. This is an idea that I would argue nearly all of us hold or have held at one point in time. It is something unchallenged, planted there fairly recently by the prevailing culture. No doubt generations prior recall watching this meme being planted and fighting against it then.
For the vast majority of people today including Christians, Christian leaders, and leaders of Christian leaders this is for all intents and purposes gospel. We need to face this; most of us either believe or have believed at some point that women have a right to enjoy their preferred path of promiscuity; anything which stands in the way of that path is nearly universally accepted as an injustice. The fundamental belief is universal, even if the manifestations of it vary. Many believe that women have the right to swing from marriage to marriage, so long as they can gin up a suitable pretext for divorce.
Many others believe that women must be ensured the experience of swinging from monogamous LTR to monogamous LTR in their teens and early 20s, until they decide one of those LTRs should be converted into marriage and/or motherhood. Commenter PA felt so strongly about this that he argued women who were in danger of being denied the full experience to which they were entitled should resort to any measures required:
I am around a lot of smart, attractive late 20s / early 30s girls who have long term boyfriends that to my best judgment are greater betas to lesser alphas, but no marriage or children on the horizon. Further, those girls are really wanting to get that ring and start a family. I talk to a few of them, and overhear conversations of others. The boyfriends won’t shit or get off the pot. And I want those girls to have children.
…
Seriously, those girls ought to tell their boyfriends that she wants to start a family, and to give him a way out if he is unwilling; And if he doesn’t take the exit door, to just get herself pregnant with him. I’d rather those girls have out of wedlock children than no children at all, especially knowing that the boyfriends would come around to assuming the responsibility of fatherhood.
It’s a tragedy that the “Knocked Up” movie is a model for girls who look like Katherine Heigl to not go extinct.
He elaborated his fundamental argument further down in the comments section. It boiled down to an argument that the last in a series of boyfriends for these women had somehow stolen her youth and therefore must pay.
Another manifestation of this view is that women should be able to have sex with men they don’t really even know and expect this to lead to marriage. We’ve seen this view in the outrage over Marcos’ con, and more recently over the claim by PMAFT that he is attending the Sunday Morning Nightclub (crass site warning).
It isn’t just women making this argument. I’ve seen this argument made by fathers. One MRA commenter on the great game debate started by pointing out how he had been chewed up by women playing by the new rules of the sexual marketplace (SMP), but then fretted that his daughters might not get to fully enjoy their own promiscuity. And besides, what if women don’t approve?
…I believe most mra’s at one point played the “game”as I once did. Then the game got old, I settled down with “the one”and when she got bored…I got burnt. I get to burn for another 8 years or so before those flames with burn out…
Having three daughters who are entering the dating years also scares me on the affects that pua’s will have on how they view men in the future. On that angle alone, I would tend to argue that pua’s do not help the mra’s……. what do they say about a woman scorned ?
Commenter Escoffier (after offering some excellent advice to women to stay off the carousel entirely) criticized Roosh at Hooking Up Smart for giving brotherly advice to his sister (and women in general) to avoid the worst parts of the carousel yet not working to make the carousel a kinder, gentler, more rewarding experience for women:
There’s something skeevy about all these game guys who nail anything they can but who would naturally feel very protective of their own sisters or daughters. Ideally, I’d like to channel that protectiveness into better behavior on their part, a la Kant’s Categorical Imperative (a concept I otherwise have no use for). But for now, that’s clearly a pipe dream, although it was part of the old order. Roosh at least is not a hypocrite. He knows what he’s doing and he tries to protect his own from it. It’s better than nothing and the implicit recognition that all this is very, very wrong is mildly encouraging.
I should clarify that I’m not making a moral justification for pickup artists. What I’m saying is they are on the same moral plane as the women who are having sex with them. Serial monogamy for women is no more or less morally justified than a pickup artist pumping and dumping and/or having a harem. Just as important, nothing I can say or do will ever make the carousel a safe place. Part of what makes alphas so attractive to these women is that they are rule breakers. Normal men with self control seem meek to these women because they aren’t in control of themselves.
The most bizarre part of all of this is while nearly all of us either do or have at some time taken the preferred form of promiscuity as a right owed to all women, there is no historical precedent to this in western civilization which I’m aware of. When besides now and maybe one or two generations back have women been generally free to have sex with one or more boyfriends before deciding one of them should marry her? Likewise when except in recent history have married women been able to expect to divorce when not haaaapy and marry another man? I’m not saying promiscuity never happened in the past, but today nearly everyone sees this as a divine right of women which needs to be protected at all costs. When in the past was this even a significant minority belief in the western world?
Quite so; tis an unprecedented time in our history, as a civilization; nay, a race.
Well, I have found a 100 + years old literary character who was able to pull that off. But she is an extreme:
What would have seemed difficult or even impossible to another woman did not cause the least embarrassment to Countess Bezukhova, who evidently deserved her reputation of being a very clever woman. Had she attempted concealment, or tried to extricate herself from her awkward position by cunning, she would have spoiled her case by acknowledging herself guilty. But Helene, like a really great man who can do whatever he pleases, at once assumed her own position to be correct, as she sincerely believed it to be, and that everyone else was to blame.
The first time the young foreigner allowed himself to reproach her, she lifted her beautiful head and, half turning to him, said firmly: “That’s just like a man–selfish and cruel! I expected nothing else. A woman sacrifices herself for you, she suffers, and this is her reward! What right have you, monseigneur, to demand an account of my attachments and friendships? He is a man who has been more than a father to me!” The prince was about to say something, but Helene interrupted him.
“Well, yes,” said she, “it may be that he has other sentiments for me than those of a father, but that is not a reason for me to shut my door on him. I am not a man, that I should repay kindness with ingratitude! Know, monseigneur, that in all that relates to my intimate feelings I render account only to God and to my conscience,” she concluded, laying her hand on her beautiful, fully expanded bosom and looking up to heaven.
“But for heaven’s sake listen to me!”
“Marry me, and I will be your slave!”
“But that’s impossible.”
“You won’t deign to demean yourself by marrying me, you…” said Helene, beginning to cry.
The prince tried to comfort her, but Helene, as if quite distraught, said through her tears that there was nothing to prevent her marrying, that there were precedents (there were up to that time very few, but she mentioned Napoleon and some other exalted personages), that she had never been her husband’s wife, and that she had been sacrificed.
“But the law, religion…” said the prince, already yielding.
“The law, religion… What have they been invented for if they can’t arrange that?” said Helene.
The prince was surprised that so simple an idea had not occurred to him, and he applied for advice to the holy brethren of the Society of Jesus, with whom he was on intimate terms.
[D: Good find. It has been a long time since I read War and Peace. I didn’t recall that part.]
There’s a mad gaiety in that remark, a sort of dizzying, frivolous, lunatic charm. It’s like a kitten. You don’t expect a kitten to have any brains; you expect it to tear joyfully around the house knocking things over and falling off shelves.
Here’s the standard formulation of the CI: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.”
And Escoffier says that sounds like a great idea — for everybody but him. Nice!
“I like marksmanship and think it is a good judge of character. A good shot is almost always a good man, because shooting calls for self-control, and self-control is one of the important aspects of a good man.”
-Col. Jeff Cooper
Without self control, misandrist law will land a guy in prison. With self control, a guy who adheres to the current standards of society will render himself invisible to women. Society’s ensuring its way to the dustbin of history at this rate.
Interesting point. Courtesans, mistresses, prostitutes were always able to do this, but it was understood that they were not part of polite society. Marriages of state among the aristocracy would also have people playing around as long as they could keep it reasonably discreet. It seems to have come in full flower with the baby boomers, free love and subsidizing single mothers. Stigmatizing bastardy also went out of fashion then. This speaks of the immense (if soft) power of society that women wield.
Good post, Dalrock. It’s something I’ve often thought about. I totally understand this quote from PA:
The obvious answer is that those girls are in relationships with men that are at or below their SMV value but below their MMV. Why should a man marry a 31-year-old woman when he’s getting the sex for free? The entitlement complex of women who want to spend their teens and twenties riding the carousel and then catch a higher beta or lesser alpha is just amazing.
Women who actually want to get married should follow something akin to a saying my friends in college would say in bars: “go ugly early!” (i.e., if you want to sleep with a girl don’t hold out for a hot one. Pick up the ugly one and take her home.) The version for women is “go beta early.” A 22-year-old women has the best pick of men she ever will in her life: she should use that to pick one that will actually marry her and down the deal. Having not ridden the carousel for so long she might actually be happy with him. Lock him down quick and cut the cord if he won’t marry you (which is a sign that the woman is below his MMV). However, you can’t actually give that advice to a 22-year-old woman: they don’t listen.
Don’t worry, Dalrock! All of this behavior is underwritten by Big Government. As you can see in Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy, Big Government isn’t sustainable. We are all Greece now. Eventually, government discouragement of correct behavior incentivizes bad behavior, and eventually there isn’t enough net productivity to sustain Big Government. Eventually this leads to a harsher world where being beta is more attractive.
Dalrock – I think you miss something.
In today’s society most of us think that all persons, regardless of gender, have a right to enjoy their preferred promiscuity. For the most part we expect that those persons will deal with the consequences of their choices. The problem is notion that women are entitled to do this without consequence. For a time, gentlemanliness was instrumental in overlooking a woman’s past, or even current behavior. However feminism has largely destroyed gentlemanliness and with it the notion that a woman should be protected from ugly consequences stemming from her poor choices. So now other institutions are pushing to reinstate the double standard.
@Greenlander,
I too know a number of women in that situation. I believe it has little to do with relative MMV or SMV or the fact that they have access to sex without marriage. From comments made by the men it seems clear that they pretty much understand that they would be utter fools to get married under the current implementation of marital law. All of them have friends who got horribly burned by marrying and are very gun shy. If they father a child they would rather pay child support to their “baby’s moma” and see the child at their convenience. For more and more of that generation of men, marriage is simply off the table.
If these women want to be married, they should be working to restore fairness to the divorce laws.
How intriguing that the Sunday Morning Nightclubber made this comment:
“I would also avoid Eastern Orthodox churches. I only say that since the Eastern Orthodox churches tend to attract more men than women. Supposedly they aren’t that feminized either, but I don’t know if that’s really the case or that’s temporary because the Orthodox churches haven’t been on the radar screen since they aren’t very visible in North America.”
I converted to Eastern Orthodoxy for a number of reasons not the least of them being that they are the original Church, thank you, but also one priest told me that they would have female clergy somewhere around the time of the heat death of the Universe. I asked him why this was, and he said it was because the Tradition demanded that priests be bearded. And bearded they most certainly are:
http://mlkshk.com/r/7RF8
I don’t know why Orthodoxy is so appealing to men. Orthodoxy is demanding. We eat vegan half the year. Our services are long, repetitive, and not known for their entertainment value. I think that being in the Marine Corps of Christianity appeals to men. I know we have a lot of men in the Church, more than most churches, and they’re real standup guys, too, not John Eldridge style faux-machos. We have our share of betas and Herbs, but we also have Russian mafioso-types who come in two or three times a year to confess and make things right.
It is so odd. Catholicism is such a ladyboy religion in this country and in every other place I’ve been. Evangelical men are so conflicted, but Orthodox men are like Muslim men; they love their religion and don’t feel like their devotion compromises their manliness.
“I don’t know why Orthodoxy is so appealing to men. Orthodoxy is demanding. ”
Anything demanding and challenging is properly the realm of men. The easy stuff is for women. If you want to drive off the men, make something easy enough for women to do well.
The deti humbly offers his thoughts:
1. The “quest for a kinder, gentler carousel” is the symptom of the larger disease process of feminism and its letting hypergamy out of Pandora’s box. Our society no longer restrains hypergamy in any real fashion. Dalrock astutely noted in a past post that right now, the only thing holding a woman to her marriage vows is her own character. Everything else — the culture, her friends, mass media, even her own church and Christian leaders, male and female alike — exhorts her to something better, more fulfilling.
2. I find it fascinating that even some men seem to throw in the towel and say, “if we can’t get rid of the carousel, might as well try to make it SAFER!” I’ve been as guilty as any other man of this.
3. There seems to be more to this than just women wanting their cake and eating it too. Many commenters on todays SMP, of which the carousel is an integral part, seem to know that their strategies aren’t working. There are blogs devoted almost entirely to this concept. These strategies — hooking up with only “decent” men; looking for possible marriage partners through indiscriminate sex — aren’t getting women what they claim to want, which is fulfiling, satisfying LTRs and marriages. And those strategies don’t work in large part because men don’t want to sign up for being the last one in a string of men, who now is being called on to wife up the carousel rider because she’s now, at long last, “ready” for a husband.
I’m hoping for a sudden, shocking return to reality, whereby all the carouselling women melt down in fear, uncertainty, and doubt.
“I’m hoping for a sudden, shocking return to reality, whereby all the carouselling women melt down in fear, uncertainty, and doubt.”
Outstanding comment. When my daughters reach fucking age I’m telling it like it is. no mercy on that one. If fear isn’t generated it sure kills the good girl swept up in romance bullshit.
A quick-killing no-cure STD which women were especially susceptible to would do the trick. That would be a silver bullet into the carousel machinery.
I’m reminded by my own thoughts of Jurassic Park, where Goldblum comments that nature has her ways. Wouldn’t it be sweet of Mother Nature herself to put a stop to her miscreant children!
Today Rod Dreher posted a link to an essay by Joe Carter from last year: http://www.firstthings.com/onthesquare/2010/06/dads-donrsquot-go/joe-carter. I think Carter’s directing his message at the wrong sex.
[D: His wife left him because she was gay, and his takeaway is that men don’t fight hard enough to keep their marriages together. It is almost laughable to see how predictable this stuff is. No matter what women do, men must somehow always be at fault.]
“Depend upon it, sir, when a man knows he is to be hanged in a fortnight, it concentrates his mind wonderfully.” –Samuel Johnson
The “kinder, gentler carousel” is an attempt to revive the old lie told to boys and young men:
“Be nice, be yourself.”
It’s a fitness test.
It’s women telling men: “I get to have my fun, and you have to be nice to me and treat me well while I do it. You’re not allowed to judge me. You’re not allowed to shame me or stop me. You have to make sure that the carousel is kind to me, that the men are nice to me, and that I don’t get hurt while riding. And if I want to get off, there has to be a nice, kind, loving, rich, alpha man waiting for me. And if (when) I want to ride again, you have to let me ride, without judgment or shame. And the same men who let me ride before have to let me ride again, on the same terms I rode before.”
The Continental Op
We had that it is called AIDS. What is happening now is doing the job. Make carousel riding waht it is and not sugar coat it. Here’s how it works. You ride the carousel then you are a worth slut cunt. You get knoocked up on that carousel “i feel sorry for your bastard having a slut for a mom”
Get old and find yourslf saying there are no good men after 10 years on the cock carousel, Of course there are no good men for slut bitches with bastard kids.
Put that on your sons bumper stick as he goes to college. That is also a highly advised conversation starter at the dinner table with a 17 year old daughter that likes to act grown up and christian.
They just want housebroken, regulated “safe” Alphas who’ll commit and not dump ’em after using them for a glorified booty call. Ha. [Cue theme from “Man from La Manche” here.]
Greyghost, AIDS does not primarily affect women. On the contrary, over half of people with AIDS (in the United States) are homosexual men.
“The Continental Op says:
A quick-killing no-cure STD which women were especially susceptible to would do the trick. That would be a silver bullet into the carousel machinery.”
Maybe in the long run as women realized they couldn’t continue that way. But for a while, it would just be the same number of men with a lot fewer women around – leading to much higher power for the women (see China or many other countries with a heavy son-bias and ultrasounds).
The old joke about Protestants (fill in the blank) first child always being premature has become a little passe. Lovers who would kanoodle around until she became pregnant then marry was a less risky mating / dating strategy when marriage was the norm. The religious-social-cultural-financial pressure that used to compel most couples to marry for the sake of the child is no longer enough to form a bond. In addition, genetic testing now makes it much harder for the woman to use pregnancy by someone other than the provider to pressure him into marriage. Within a few years we will have a male birth control pill which will make this even more difficult. At some point both sides will have to start laying their cards out on the table first before they can expect a family. Not a bad thing in my opinion.
I am reminded (this time) of Dame aux Camelias, that is to say La Traviata [The Fallen Woman not, note, Il Traviato, The Fallen Man]. Violetta is a courtesan: She likes to party (and all that goes with it – this woman is one major carousel rider). She meets Alfredo Germont, a nobleman and they fall in love. Alfredo’s father visits Violetta. “The time will come” he says ” when making love will no longer appeal to you so much”. He persuades her, that really aspiring to marry into the Germonts is not really a good idea. It seems to me that a lot of women are now like Violetta. The problem, which Dalrock correctly diagnoses as being entirely new in civilization – at least to the extent that is happening – is that there must inevitably be a pay-off for dashed-male expectations and female promicuity in terms of either MGTOW or PUAs.
p.s. Lavazza is apparently on a mission to copy out the whole of War and Peace into the internet. (see the Spearhead). Tolstoy portrays Helene as something of a monster. Comes to a sticky end, if I recall correctly, as does Violetta which is usually a sign that an author does not know what to do with his character. In real life they just go on, either marrying – perhaps some ‘open relationship’, or acquire a number of cats and start a blog bewailing the awfulness of men, but assuring us that they have never been more attractive, happier or free to enjoy life. Who am I to judge?
p.p.s. Dalrock refers to Alphas as being attractive because they are rule breakers. The three most recent Alphas that I have come across are all married. Seems to encourage the women even more. The man is vouched for, dangerous (as he has a lot to lose), but unlike single men is not looking for a relationship, and thus no commitment is expected of the woman either. The woman can then hypocritically make out that she is ‘virginal’ and berate any single male as a creep who attempts to ingratiate himself with her. Such women deserve and need to be outed!
These strategies — hooking up with only “decent” men; looking for possible marriage partners through indiscriminate sex — aren’t getting women what they claim to want, which is fulfiling, satisfying LTRs and marriages. And those strategies don’t work in large part because men don’t want to sign up for being the last one in a string of men, who now is being called on to wife up the carousel rider because she’s now, at long last, “ready” for a husband.
Well, it’s also the problem that women are not attracted to most men (at least *currently*), and the hypergamous carousel and the choice addiction it enables really fuel this. It’s true that women are hypergamous by nature, but hypergamy can be exercised in “bands” of relatively equal SMP, or it can be exercised in the endless choice environment of the carousel (which, as I define it, includes not only ONS type sex, but also serial monogamy, which is just a slower version of the carousel). If things are restricted into bands, women have fewer choices and are forced to “settle” (*shiver*). If things are unrestricted, you get serial monogamy run amok due to the combination of hypergamy and endless choice, which creates a kind of choice addiction.
The other exacerbating factor is that as women become more high achieving, more financially independent and more “ball busting”, their hypergamy drives them to seek men who are even *more* in all of these areas than they are. This gives rise to the PUA, the uber-macho player, the caricature of exaggerated masculinity which women seem to find most sexually attractive in this culture, precisely because as women climb the social ladder themselves and become more masculinized as a result, the pool of hypergamously attractive men (to them) shrinks quite a bit.
This is why places like Manhattan and DC are basically frenzies of hypergamy fueled by choice addiction. There are a lot of “power women” in these places who are all chasing the very small pool of men who can “best them” (not necessarily more financially successful, of course, but uber-dominant men) — this feeds the carousel culture, really.
Without social restraints, this system continues until the culture collapses as a result of it. In the meantime, individuals can (and will) make individual choices to opt out of the system or sidestep the system or find an exception to the system or play the system. But I honestly doubt social restrictions are coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon outside of a complete cultural collapse — which I am not very sanguine about, either, contra many in the manosphere.
Dalrock, you misunderstood me or I wasn’t clear enough. I have absolutely no interest in a “kinder, gentler” carousel. I want to see it destroyed, forever, and so long as it exists I would like to see as few women as possible climb aboard. There is no possibility of “reform” and all attempts at such would either fail or make things worse. Not sure where you got that I was saying something else.
Woof, the problem with the CI is not that I want to exempt myself but that it is philosophically untenable. Think of (if you’ve read it) Socrates’ argument with Cephalus in Book I of the Republic. Plato anticipated and refuted the CI 2,000 years prior.
When besides now and maybe one or two generations back have women been generally free to have sex with one or more boyfriends before deciding one of them should marry her? Likewise when except in recent history have married women been able to expect to divorce when not haaaapy and marry another man? I’m not saying promiscuity never happened in the past, but today nearly everyone sees this as a divine right of women which needs to be protected at all costs. When in the past was this even a significant minority belief in the western world?
All darn tootin’. Good post.
It is the right of every liberated woman to enjoy her freedom and if that includes the cock carousel,well get on there and ride. I now see the light. The manosphere and Dalrock in paticular are full of it. Rather than further punishing women with more sexual repression we should be helping women to enjoy their lifes as god intended.
PA’s suggestion that these women go for gotcha pregnancies was wrong, but I’ve seen the types of situations he’s talking about and it isn’t always about pardoning the carousel. As I read it, he was talking about girls who were being strung along. Obviously it takes two, but I do have some sympathy for those girls who aren’t only about the career and who were too patient with the dude they started dating in college and who feigns a desire to shit bc he doesn’t want to get off the pot.
Brendan – Seriously. I don’t want to hunt for my dinner or defend my family and land against marauders. Society post-collapse would
*Society post collapse would suck
You’re reading the hell into my comment and extrapolating something that wasn’t there from it. I never endorsed the carousel or girl-directed serial LTRs, or either scenario entitling a girl to marriage.
“you” being Dalrock, not Ulysses.
@PA
Are you saying these women in their late 20s and early 30s were all on their first boyfriend?
Ulysses there used to be a check on that shit or get off the pot thing. Don’t fuck before you get married slut or you will be treated as a slut you stupid dick warmer. You should let those really good girls getting strung along that and see what they do. That is a line I got ready for one of my daughters when she starts complaining about being strung along. Didn’t that sound like some good daddydom
Of the three girls I had in mind, two of them (27, 30) I don’t know that well personally except that they have good personalities, don’t seem slutty or recovering-slut at all, and have been with their boyfriends a very long time. I’be heard anecdotes from both of them about joint family events having occurred years earlier.
The third girl (26) is one I know very well. Pretty but more cute than sexy (no Whiskey, not fat). And this is her first boyfriend.
So don’t put words in my mouth, ok?
Well PA if they are sexually active they are sluts and if you are that worried about them and care about them as individual human being let them know and advice them to find some new dick the trick into marriage. That is harsh and make you look bad. but it does show hardness on your part. Be care ful though for you may find one of them checking you out if you are not ready to marry and have kids with a slut>
“Without social restraints, this system continues until the culture collapses as a result of it. In the meantime, individuals can (and will) make individual choices to opt out of the system or sidestep the system or find an exception to the system or play the system. But I honestly doubt social restrictions are coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon outside of a complete cultural collapse — which I am not very sanguine about, either, contra many in the manosphere.”
I don’t relish it either, but I think we’re well on our way to that cultural collapse, soon to be followed by societal and economic collapse, I think. Here’s one scenario:
Life is already getting more and more difficult for many women, who increasingly are aging into their late 40s and early 50s with no husband, no children and no family. These women will increasingly look to an already overburdened government for sustenance. More and more women work in makework, useless cubicle jobs until they meet their Prince Charming, who, of course, never appears. Instead they have an endless stream of frogs who never quite measure up to their 463 bullet point checklists.
And what of men? Many men have no incentive to improve their lives. They can’t get into college or find it’s not worth their while. They can’t get decent paying jobs. So they work at low paying jobs, enough to pay some rent. They learn to spit Game. Some will succeed and become PUAs, the exaggerated caricatures of masculinity Brendan cogently wrote about. Some will have a little success and probably become baby daddy to some women’s children. Some will succeed in PUA here and there. Most won’t succeed and will GTOW, leaving the system to rot. The majority who choose to marry will divorce. Most male divorcees will not remarry, choosing PUA or GTOW or some combination thereof.
The birth rate will plummet further, the tax bases will erode more and more. More and more children have no semblance of family and repeat the errors of their parents. Eventually government won’t be able to borrow more money. The bureaucracy, already stretched far beyond its limits, reaches the breaking point. Welfare recipients won’t receive their checks indefinitely. The military won’t receive its pay either. States won’t receive their block grants. Mass government and private debt defaulting occurs. The NYSE and other major world markets begin crashing. Enormous rioting breaks out in major cities. The rioters are 10,000, 50,000 strong, even into the hundreds of thousands. Members of local police agencies, told they aren’t getting paid either, walk out in droves. There’s nothing to contain the civil unrest erupting in every major and minor population center over 75,000. Looting and mayhem occurs everywhere. The rotted out hulls of our cities explode in firebombs, destroyed business and financial centers, and massive property damage and theft. What remains of the state and federal government cracks down hard. Martial law and curfews are imposed.
What does this mean for women and men? Women will be looking to men for provision and protection. Some men will step up to protect wives and children. Most women will be on their own. Most men will adopt an “every man for himself” attitude, and protect none but himself. It’s not going to be pretty. Many women and children will perish, mostly of starvation or exposure. The survivors will probably be intact families, men with guns and real property, and those in rural areas who escape the worst of the civil unrest.
Some semblance of order will rise from it, but it will look quite different from today’s society.
@PA:
This should be a good comments thread, but anyway.
It’s a really simple calculus, for a guy:
– If I get sex most of weekends and some during the week, but I don’t have to give her access to my checking account…
– Then I have no reason, other than moral compulsion, to marry the girl.
This is why it’s societies control their Young Men (the only section that’s truly dangerous) with the Young Women.
Or, more simply put: If the guy wants Sex, he has to marry her. Without that, there’s no reason to marry a girl.
Let’s sum up some dating history:
Dating 1.0 – Rather traditional courtship. No carousel.
Dating 1.5 – Carousel starts up, alpha riders, beta guys don’t know what’s going on
Dating 2.0 – Carousel well established, hook up culture establish, beta guys know and are pissed off. Game gains traction.
Dating 3.0? We’re not there yet.
@PA
This doesn’t contradict what I said. You are asserting that their most recent boyfriend stole their youth. They were entitled to swing from boyfriend to boyfriend and at the appointed time demand to convert a LTR into marriage.
I’ll ask again: Are you saying these 27 and 30 year old women are both still with their first and only boyfriend? Just because they have been together for a few years, it doesn’t change the point.
@Deti:
I see you’ve been to southern Europe recently.
A collapse of American society will look very different than that of Europe. Mostly due to the large amounts of weapons in the suburbs and rural areas. Food will be the major question. There would be a sudden return of Militias and actual crime rates would drop, after the initial breakdown.
All I can say for sure is that 2030 will look very different than 2012.
The 26 girl is on her first boyfriend. The other two I don’t know as I don’t know their earliest situations. That’s all I can say.
And since neither one of us knows, feel free to GTFO with your mischaracterization of my opinion about the carousel or serial LTR. And my original criticism of stringing non-slut girls along being a bad-faith move still stands.
Escoffier, the CI always did strike me as a bit silly and arbitrary.
But you have to admit, if you start talking about applying the CI selectively, that’s funny, in an xkcd kind of way.
This is a good post. I think that women’s sexual independence was sold to fathers in part with the idea that if women were allowed to experiment with different boyfriends, they would learn from the experiences and find a better mate than they otherwise would. This is the gist I get from talking with most older men. Of course, we now know this isn’t true…
The media also represents the reality of serial monogamy. FAthers seem to think that their daughter’s “experimentation” typically involves going through a series of tender-hearted men. She is always the one to break it off, but everybody remains friends. The media also obviously tends to represent it this way as well, where you have the old or jilted boyfriend remain loyal to the girl, i.e. Twilight with the rejected male suitor(Taylor Lautner) continuing to perform heroic deeds for Bella.
We know the reality…
Dalrock, as you have rightly pointed out in prior postings, we are stuck in a sort of continuous courtship / dating mode. It used to be that women would become a “debutant” as a way of signaling her intention of finding suitable husband to settle with and start a family. It rigged the competition for results and not maximum convenience or endless indulgence. I think what some feminists now want is what might be oxymoronically referred to as a “second debut” or possibly an “afterbut”. Like the equally absurd notion of “second virginity”, it is an attempt to shove the time-fertility-children genie back in the bottle after having your three wishes; it is incompatible with how the world works. The problem with the continuous courtship / auction model we are currently laboring under is that these women will never be taken as being completely serious when they intend to settle down. It is like buying a used car. It will never fetch the same premium as when it was new.
Plus, men have this silly belief where only trashy or drug-using women sleep with assholes. Not *their* daughter.
“If things are restricted into bands, women have fewer choices and are forced to “settle” (*shiver*). If things are unrestricted, you get serial monogamy run amok due to the combination of hypergamy and endless choice, which creates a kind of choice addiction.”
Yes. Social restrictions put men and women into assortative mating patterns. You got paired off with someone in your relative SMV band and you stayed with him/her. He stayed with her because (1) he didn’t have a lot of game (he didn’t really need it); and (2) she would get most of his stuff and money if he left her. She stayed with him because (1) her SMV would decline rapidly as she aged and she knew she would be very hard pressed to find another man if this didn’t work out; and (2) she had no other means of support. Not to mention the social consequences of either one leaving; he because he just doesn’t want to be married anymore; or she because she’s not haaaaappy.
He was taught to be a decent husband and provider. She was taught specifically to be a wife and mother. You got what you got and you didn’t throw a fit, so to speak. And this worked pretty well because this was just what society, your church, your parents, your extended family and your friends expected. It’s what everyone did.
I think that women’s sexual independence was sold to fathers in part with the idea that if women were allowed to experiment with different boyfriends, they would learn from the experiences and find a better mate than they otherwise would.
Um, no. I don’t think most fathers have ever bought into that line of thought, Maybe the most rabid feminist men like our recent commander-in-chief, but not many fathers believe this. Fathers of girls want their daughters to wait. This almost across the board. Far too many aren’t in a position to have a real impact, though.
The problem is that the majority of fathers are being expelled from the lives of their daughters (and sons) by frivolous divorce, unjust custody laws, or the fact that they never were in the home with their kids ti begin with.
Let’s sum up some dating history:
Dating 1.0 – Rather traditional courtship. No carousel.
Dating 1.5 – Carousel starts up, alpha riders, beta guys don’t know what’s going on
Dating 2.0 – Carousel well established, hook up culture establish, beta guys know and are pissed off. Game gains traction.
Dating 3.0 — Blue Screen of Death. Power Cycle
The “kinder, gentler” carousel would be… Beta men. But, the whole point of carouselling, is to allow the girls to enjoy short-term pleasures with higher-SMV Alphas who would otherwise be totally out of their reach. So a “kinder/gentler Beta carousel” would be utterly pointless.
“Um, no. I don’t think most fathers have ever bought into that line of thought, Maybe the most rabid feminist men like our recent commander-in-chief, but not many fathers believe this. Fathers of girls want their daughters to wait. This almost across the board. Far too many aren’t in a position to have a real impact, though.”
Not from what I”ve heard. I am talking to middle-class men, mind you,.but not exactly “rabid feminist men” either.
Not from what I”ve heard. I am talking to middle-class men, mind you, but not exactly “rabid feminist men” either.
Seriously, Anonymous? There are fathers who believe that?
That is the most discouraging thing I’ve ever read in the blogosphere with regard to this topic. Maybe I’ve projected the perspective of the men from my life and childhood onto men in general. I tend to do that. I do so hope you’re wrong because if fathers don’t feel inclined to protect their daughters’ virtue, things are worse than I thought.
Wow.
Opus: “p.s. Lavazza is apparently on a mission to copy out the whole of War and Peace into the internet. (see the Spearhead).”
Hehe. I read it this summer and I found that there was a lot of red pill stuff in it. I guess it is the same with a lot of classic literature.
woof, I wasn’t trying to apply it selectively. I was saying that as a philosophical construct I find it fatally flawed. However, it came into my mind when thinking about Roosh. He’s clearly a nihilist, or at the very least a materialist/hedonist, he doesn’t believe in God, teleology, natural right, the primacy or eidos of the Good or anything like that. “Nature” for him just means his base desires and the mechanistic workings of the world as he finds it. So, according to his “principles,” he should not give a f*^kc about what his sister does or what happens to her.
Yet he does care. Why? Because in spite of himself he is still seized by the natural impulse to love what is how own and that love forces him to recognize some of the outlines of right/wrong, good/evil, happy/miserable and want the first and not the second ones for her. He wants that good for her, or at least he wants her to avoid the bad, but he is an eager and enthusiastic participant in delivering the bad to other guys’ sisters. What I was saying is that here is an instance in which the categorical imperative actually makes sense. Would he want to unversalize his own behavior? No, he has said that he absolutely would not.
But as you note, you don’t have true CI unless a rule can be universalized, hence Cephalus is trapped over the contradiction between justce = always paying debts (a CI avant la lettre) and don’t return a borrowed weapon to a man who has gone mad with murderous rage.
It would be nice, if a pipe dream, if the Roosh’s who worry about their own sisters remembered that the girls they defile are also someone’s sister.
I half fear that Dalrock to read this and say “There you go again, blaming men and exempting women,” which is not my intent at all. Blame should be parcelled out as deserved and both sides deserve a ton. He focuses on the blame that women deserve because he thinks it’s too often excused or overlooked, which is true, but that doesn’t mean that the men who play the game also don’t deserve blame. They do.
And you showed in a graph that the most happy marriages 5 years out are the ones where the man was the first sexual partner. Why can’t women get it through their heads about this?
I think the idea fathers have of having the girl “experiment so she can make the right choice is just a beta dad being the “good” dad. That same man in a society that had a different definition of good dad would be just as “good” The church was supposed to fill this one in but it looks like “good” is defined as “what ever makes you happy and just be careful honey and we love
you.” here is an example of a good father. This is also what the carousel can be and it is emotionally just over welming for a young gina tingle. http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/chicks-dig-jerks-game-is-its-own-status/ As Dalrock likes to say CAD warning.
As one concerned father of a teenaged daughter (and another soon to be), I can assure you that I haven’t gone anywhere near the “if women were allowed to experiment with different boyfriends, they would learn from the experiences and find a better mate than they otherwise would” line.
@Elspath:
Father’s get hamsters too. There’s a chunk of the non-religious, “go along, get along” set that *will* say that. Though they really are more convincing themselves that it’s not a problem. A few might even believe it. But I’d just assume they’re lying, firstly.
The other side is the Fathers that act like their daughters aren’t pretty whores already. Those are the sad, sad ones.
Quite a few of such fathers are also quite cowed by their feminist wives, who see such experiences in their daughters as empowering, liberating and (vicariously) exciting, and definitively put a stop to the father trying to resurrect any “old fashioned ideas” about this.
I think the feminist establishment also was successful in coming up with techniques to shame fathers out of this impulse by attacting their sexuality. One example was coming up with academic opinions (which, of course, can’t be challenged by ordinary people) that concluded that this urge was borne of a desire to keep the daughter sexually for himself – in other words, an incestual urge. Since no father wants people thinking that he has sexual designs on his daughter (or, worse, that he has already been taking advantage of her), this works to shame fathers from acting on their natural impulse.
My guess is that this type of stuff will be less effective as fewer people tend to take university research at face value outside of the hard sciences.
That’s “attacking”, not “attacting”
Okay. So I am 21 year old girl and I haven’t gotten onto the carousel (and never intend to I’m really traditional and am considered the “prude” of my group of friends (yes I am shamed for not being a slut)). Anyone have any good zingers the next time that’s brought up?
I just want to make sure I am fully understanding how the mmp/smp works. My best plan of action would be to find a guy who is interested in marriage/kids and settle down with him sooner rather then later? Be as attractive as possible, learn how to cook, be pleasant etc etc etc. Now is the time for me to start looking for this? When do I bring this up to a guy who has the potential? I don’t want to scare anyone by bringing it up to soon/thinking that I’m crazy. I’ve been on a date where a guy asked me what my long term goals were and I was afraid to mention that I want a family/get married because I feel as though society now shames this way of thinking/way of life and that I am too young to even be thinking about this. Yes I feel ashamed of thinking of marriage and kids… family members tell me to wait till I’m older/not worry about it but I think that I’m being misled.
“PA says:
And since neither one of us knows, feel free to GTFO with your mischaracterization of my opinion about the carousel or serial LTR. And my original criticism of stringing non-slut girls along being a bad-faith move still stands.”
Who’s stringing whom? Did the girl(s) ever state that she wanted to be married? Did she ever clarify his desires/intentions? Did she ever give him any reason to get married?
Why should a man marry? Why should a man procreate? If he really wants to, he’ll go for it. Otherwise, a woman needs to give him a darned good reason.
If these nice girls actually wanted their men to marry them, they should have held out for it – not slept with the guys, perhaps lived with them, and then wondered why there was no motivation for a ring.
The girl offered free sex and companionship. The guy offered they same. They took each other up on the offer, with no attached requirements (ie. marriage). There’s no ‘stringing along’ when someone takes you up on an offer freely made.
“Passer_By says:
My guess is that this type of stuff will be less effective as fewer people tend to take university research at face value outside of the hard sciences.”
This would also be less effective with fathers man enough to say “It has never been ridiculous for a parent to keep his child from making poor decisions she’ll regret later on”.
It seemed to me that the more permissive parents I knew really didn’t think there was something wrong with their own premarital sex, so felt no justification to tell their children to do otherwise, even if no father every actually wants his daughter to so much as date.
My mother and wife are both quite conservative but both have implied that my 17 year old daughter might soon start to become sexually active. I have however told her that she should remain chaste until she marries. My mother actually said to my daughter when she turned 16 that she had reached the “age of consent”. I was very annoyed by this crass remark.
I think there is a bit of Team Woman in this area.
As I said on the earlier thread, the born again “virgins” PMAFT is finding at church and fucking are getting rough justice. Cheats should not prosper. And, as I also said, the crucial feminist advance has been removing the stigma on women from losing their virginity before marriage. As long as sluts can have white weddings, little will improve.
“I do so hope you’re wrong because if fathers don’t feel inclined to protect their daughters’ virtue, things are worse than I thought.”
Well, parents in general want their children to conform to societal expectations and be socially accepted. So if the media is saying that female promiscuity is desirable, most girls’ fathers will not make a big deal, because they don’t want their daughter to be socially isolated.
@David:
It’s wish fulfillment by proxy. Far, far too many middle class women do that, or worse, to their daughters. But, after being sold that rampant “free” sex is a good thing for 40+ years, it’s understandable why it happens. It’s an offshoot of the “I wish I had traveled the world” set of desires.
Though your wife might just be noticing the trend in your daughter. I’d get to know her boyfriends very, very well. And explain the consequences to them, lol.
”
I think the feminist establishment also was successful in coming up with techniques to shame fathers out of this impulse by attacting their sexuality. One example was coming up with academic opinions (which, of course, can’t be challenged by ordinary people) that concluded that this urge was borne of a desire to keep the daughter sexually for himself – in other words, an incestual urge. Since no father wants people thinking that he has sexual designs on his daughter (or, worse, that he has already been taking advantage of her), this works to shame fathers from acting on their natural impulse.”
I can only agree. Academics have labeled normal evolutionary behavior – wanting to make sure your daughter is impregnated by a good man – as being perverse.
Looking Glass
My daughter and I have always been close and we seem to think alike. She knows how I feel partly from my random remarks. When I see a slut in the media, I call her a slut.
There have always been sluts. The difference today is that feminism is trying to make men feel bad for not seeing sluts as good long term relationship material.
A says: Okay. So I am 21 year old girl and I haven’t gotten onto the carousel (and never intend to I’m really traditional and am considered the “prude” of my group of friends (yes I am shamed for not being a slut)).
Yes. Here’s your zinger. Condoms don’t stop HPV or other viruses. Carousel riders DO get diseased even if they use condoms every time. And realistically, once you get habituated to unrestrained sex, sooner or later something will happen, and there won’t be a condom handy….
Even more important. You need to surround yourself with some new friends, those who believe as you do. Unless you’re slightly “aspergerish”, you may have trouble resisting peer pressure for year, after year… they may just wear you down. Join a church, if you are a believer, and even there, watch out for hypocrites.
I just want to make sure….My best plan of action would be to find a guy who is interested in marriage/kids and settle down with him sooner rather then later? Now is the time for me to start looking for this?
Yes, if that’s what you actually want. There are links in this site and others, where old feminists sing tales of woe, that they missed their chance to marry/have kids when young, focusing either on their career or on “freedom” (read: promiscuity) — assuming that marriage would be there for the taking later.
One recent article, bemoaned the fact that a woman turned down a dream man in her late 20s, for no real good reason, and 10 years later is enduring the agony of watching him marrry someone else… and she’s got nobody on the horizon, the vast pool of men that seemed to always be there
When do I bring this up to a guy who has the potential? I don’t want to scare anyone by bringing it up to soon/thinking that I’m crazy.
First date. Or before the first date. Don’t waste time on a guy who wants to spend his 20’s “having fun” (read: sleeping around) and get married many years later. Only date guys who share your goals and values. Even if it means being alone a lot of Friday/Saturday nights.
And…. NO LONG TERM “RELATIONSHIPS”. A relationship is either on marriage track, or it is not. If it’s not, DUMP HIM. Dont’ “date” for 5 years, 5 years you can never get back. If he can’t pop the question in a year, utter the magic word: “Next!” (Plus, 99.999999% of such long-term-“relationships” involve premarital sex, otherwise the guy would have either left or proposed long ago.)
And avoild drinking/drug parties at all costs. Huge numbers of “date rapes” happen in such environments. If you want to have a glass of wine with dinner, fine. Don’t get drunk with a man… ever…
i’ve been on a date where a guy asked me what my long term goals were and I was afraid to mention that I want a family/get married because I feel as though society now shames this way of thinking/way of life and that I am too young to even be thinking about this. Yes I feel ashamed of thinking of marriage and kids…
You seriously need to be in church. A sensible church, rather (that excludes a lot of them). In a rational Christian environment, wanting to marry and have kids is considered honorable.
family members tell me to wait till I’m older/not worry about it but I think that I’m being misled.
Your family members are castastrophically misled. The right time to marry, is when you find the right person… and not a moment later.
Finally…. get some good advice from women who have achieved what you want. Although I disagree with them sometimes, these 3 have good info:
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/
http://grerp.blogspot.com/
http://terrybreathinggrace.wordpress.com/
“The difference today feminism is trying to make men feel bad for not seeing sluts as good long term relationship material”
Been going on since my youth in Mesozioc Era.
@van Rooinek
Brilliant.
Another quote comes to mind about aiming in a gunfight, I think from Bill Jordan*. Something to the effect of “Take your time, but quickly!”
*Someone who knows this better feel free to correct me.
A…. a few more things,
This discussion on mate choice, although aimed at men, may be of use to you:
http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/2011/09/06/men-marry-a-zealot/
A journalist who missed her marriage window… sad…..
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/11/all-the-single-ladies/8654/
and ALL the Dalrock stuff…
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/category/finding-a-spouse/
Hello, A. Welcome to the mad-house that is mating these days. You have lots of company in it. 😉
You have a pretty good idea about how the Mating Market works. Be as attractive as you can possibly be – and by that I mean “attractive” in a general sense, not just looking pretty – so that when a man is considering “lease or buy” that buying makes the most sense to him.
As far as when to tell him? – the absolute first time any opportunity to bring up the subject comes up.
Think of it like getting on a bus. Dating is a sort of “relationship” even before one has sex. Maybe the first date is a hookup, but all encounters after that is what passes for dating these days.
So, what is the most important question to ask when getting on a bus? – “where is this bus going?” If you don’t want to go where it is going, then there is no reason at all to get on it in the first place – any time you spend on it will be wasted because you will have to spend the same amount coming back.
So, you want to go to San Francisco, but you get on a bus labeled “Chicago.” Why? “Well, because I like the scenery on the way to Chicago, and besides I have plenty of time to get to San Fransisco. And, besides, I can always get off before it gets there and turn around.”
BUZZZZZZZZZZZ!!!! Wrong answer.
If you know NOW that you want to be married and have a family, don’t waste one second of your time – or his time – with a guy who wants to take you for an endless test drive around town and not go anywhere.
This is like the well known tendency to want fried or toasted ice. A “kinder, gentler” Alpha would be a Beta, and women would not want him.
Another quote comes to mind about aiming in a gunfight, I think from Bill Jordan*. Something to the effect of “Take your time, but quickly!”
Bill Jordan might well have said that, but Wyatt Earp is widely credited with saying “Take your time … in a hurry” as his method for winning gunfights. The philosophy is clear: once a target is lined up in the sights, don’t hesitate.
Applies to more than one thing in life, for sure.
[D: Thanks!]
“Though your wife might just be noticing the trend in your daughter. I’d get to know her boyfriends very, very well. And explain the consequences to them, lol.”
I’m not so sure this would work. I’m don’t remember which blogger(Dalrock, Roissy, the Spearhead, Captain Capitalism, etc.) pointed this out, but mothers often live vicariously through their daughters’ relationships with alphas – and are just as liable to be charmed by such alphas.
“van Rooinek says:
A relationship is either on marriage track, or it is not. If it’s not, DUMP HIM. Dont’ “date” for 5 years, 5 years you can never get back. If he can’t pop the question in a year, utter the magic word: “Next!” ”
I think there’s a middle ground in between. Dating for ages isn’t a good idea, but diving into a marriage with someone you haven’t known for very long when you’re young and still figuring everything out isn’t a great idea either. If you’ve known a guy for a while, and you start dating, it might be reasonable to decide whether it’s going to go to marriage in a year. But I wouldn’t be trying to get a proposal within one year of meeting a guy. There’s a lot that a person can hide in one year. (I also wouldn’t tend to suggest a guy propose to a girl he’s known for only a year for the same reasons.)
“Bill Jordan might well have said that, but Wyatt Earp is widely credited with saying “Take your time … in a hurry” as his method for winning gunfights. The philosophy is clear: once a target is lined up in the sights, don’t hesitate.”
Yes, but for a woman to find “the right man” in modern society is extremely complicated. A better system might be “pick the best willing man prior to turning 23”.
A
I just want to make sure I am fully understanding how the mmp/smp works.
Step one: disambiguate the terms. The Sexual Market Place and the Marriage Market Place are not…not….not the same thing. Badger wrote about the “two ladder” theory a while back but I’m on a funky link and don’t have time to look it up. But either someone else can link it, or a search engine will find it. Executive summary: lots of men are ok with having sexyfun with promiscuous women, but they don’t want to marry them. “No rings for sluts”, in other words. So you want to make clear which ladder you are on. The SMP can lead to marriage but may well not, the MMP is much more likely to lead where you want to go, if you are intent on marriage.
For now, think of the SMP as picking a motel room, and the MMP as shopping for a house. You wouldn’t confuse a motel room for the night with a house to live in for years, right?
Social settings that seem more likely than not to lead to a motel room for the night are part of the SMP, and if you want to get married that’s not the place for you to be.
“A says:
Okay. So I am 21 year old girl and I haven’t gotten onto the carousel (and never intend to I’m really traditional and am considered the “prude” of my group of friends (yes I am shamed for not being a slut)). Anyone have any good zingers the next time that’s brought up?”
Everything eventually fails. Condoms fail, pills fail, not all STDs are protected against by condoms. Gonorrhea is back in a shiny new drug-resistant strain. I just told my friends for years that sex meant more to me than just a fun evening. If there’s actual pressure (not just a well, that’s our A, she’s an oddity), you need new friends.
“”A says:
Now is the time for me to start looking for this? When do I bring this up to a guy who has the potential? I don’t want to scare anyone by bringing it up to soon/thinking that I’m crazy. I’ve been on a date where a guy asked me what my long term goals were and I was afraid to mention that I want a family/get married because I feel as though society now shames this way of thinking/way of life and that I am too young to even be thinking about this. Yes I feel ashamed of thinking of marriage and kids… family members tell me to wait till I’m older/not worry about it but I think that I’m being misled.”
Sooner you start, the better your chances.
I don’t agree with the church recommendation. If you ARE a Christian, it’s a great way to find men with your belief system (and who are more likely to appreciate what you have). But not everyone is, and I don’t think theology is a necessary part of this.
If he asks your long-term goals, then you should tell him your long-term goals. You can convey that a long-term goal of yours is marriage and children without sounding like you have baby-rabies (I really really want kids and I can’t wait to be a mother and I’m really just interviewing you as a potential father and I’m hoping to get pregnant RIGHT AWAY and won’t you marry me tomorrow so we can start spawning????)
I’d say that if you know the guy, it should be brought up on your first date, so he knows what you’re looking for, and can bow out if it’s not the same. If you’ve newly met the guy, I wouldn’t bring it up until the second date, to give him a chance to get to know you a little, but if he asks, it’s because he too wants to know how your goals line up with his, and you should explain.
Don’t feel ashamed. The best thing you can do when you’re young is decide what things are really important to you and make sure you set up your life in order to make those things happen. Women who claim they want kids but don’t make any effort to get there until they are 35 are the ones who should be ashamed.
Any decent guy will respect you for knowing what you want and being honest about it.
Any indecent guy won’t be around to matter anyways if you stick to your intentions.
It’s not that you must get married right away. But you should be looking, if it’s something you really want. It often takes a bit of hunting to find someone compatible, and there is a cutoff, so better to get in the game early.
As a lot of young guys aren’t looking to settle down just yet (less clock for them), looking for guys a few years older will probably help. Remember also that there’s very little motivation for men to marry in this climate, so you need to give him a lot of motivation to decide that you’re worth it.
I think anyone, but especially a young woman hoping for marriage and family could do well to read grep’s blog. It will probably help to give you the rational other side to what you’re hearing from those around you.
I normally stay out of arguments over the Christian religion, and allow believers to argue other believers to death over the nuances of the difference between their individual set of beliefs, but I think there are a couple of issues that have to be acknowledged if any progress is ever going to be made, and if religious men do not want secular men to view them as bitter enemies and to keep driving men out of their own churches into the secular ranks.
Insiders (Brenden) have made this point –
You can blame men for the mis-deeds of women from now until Judgment Day, and it will be as ineffective in dealing with the problem as blaming illness on evil spirits.
The largest of many elephants in the middle of the room is that young women have a sex drive, too.
Cultures which acknowledged this and which also had a strong religious influence allowed young women to marry very young so that they were able to have an outlet for this sex drive within a culturally sanctioned circumstance. Delaying marriage for a good 10+ years after puberty – and past the years of peak fertility – puts young women in an incredibly uncomfortable position which is almost impossible to maintain.
Aunt Haley writes very eloquently on this subject. I have read some of her posts where it seems like she is so horny that she is about to chew the wallpaper off the wall. Covering valid theology with layers and layers of pop religion leaves the young people of the church living in such a contradictory mess that none of them will ever be able to figure out a workable course through it, and the vast majority of them have little choice except to lie or leave.
While I understand the thinking behind TFH calling PMAFT’s “Sunday Morning Night Club” “doing god’s work”, that applies only within the strangely conflicted value system those young women have to to live in. Their lies are necessary to get along within the expectations that they have no desires and that they must blame men for everything they did that the churchians did not approve of.
As long as prostituting her virginity for a support contract by a man is required, Team Woman and Team Man are going to be at odds,
Sorry, a little epic.
My personal experience is more with women doing dumb things that are counterproductive to what they claim to want than men getting screwed (not saying it doesn’t happen – I’ve heard enough. Just that I have less personal experience there), and I think women actually learning about the tradeoffs in different life options and deciding what to prioritize while they are young enough to have all the options open is extremely helpful to those women, but also helpful to men (who would be screwed by women less often if the women could be more upfront and recognise their own tendencies). It may require more rational capacity than is present in a lot of women I’ve met, but I prefer to treat everyone as an adult (in both expectations and responsibilities) unless I’ve learned it’s impossible and I must continue to interact.
Kai
You don’t want to get too cute making sure every thing is right. It may get away from you waiting on things to get right and next thing you know she has been screwing her fiance for 8 years and they’re almost there. One thing a woman can do and should be doing to make it a part of her. Just smile and be pleasent. Get it in her head that a man is a human being. That alone will get you a marriage proposal.
“TFH says:
November 11, 2011 at 7:12 pm
The Sexual Market Place and the Marriage Market Place are not…not….not the same thing.
They have BECOME one in the modern world.
Societies that actually maintained the institution of Marriage 1.0 effectively prevented a Sexual marketplace from existing outside of brothels.
Marriage 1.0 works if ALL adults do it. Not if 60% of adults do it and 40% are in a Sexual Marketplace.
Marriage 1.0 requires women to have 0-1 sexual partners before marriage. Period. No way around that.”
Could it be that we now have one marketplace in which two different goods are available for sale/purchase? Thus, there is no longer a clear differentiation (I’m at church, therefore I’m in the MMP), so it’s the advertisers who need to be extremely clear as to which good they are selling, and which good potential customers want to buy.
Even if one has to barter within a mixed marketplace, you can still be clear that you’re up for negotiating marriage, but not hookups.
You can’t get marriage 1.0 in today’s legal morass, but you can still get the marital benefits of having 0-1 partners.
“greyghost says:
Kai
You don’t want to get too cute making sure every thing is right. It may get away from you waiting on things to get right and next thing you know she has been screwing her fiance for 8 years and they’re almost there. One thing a woman can do and should be doing to make it a part of her. Just smile and be pleasent. Get it in her head that a man is a human being. That alone will get you a marriage proposal.”
Of course not. As far as I’ve seen, there’s never a moment where the heavens open and the angels announce that this is the one to marry. Sooner or later, both partners have to just decide that it seems right, and they’re going to go ahead.
I agree that a 5-year LTR isn’t going anywhere (barring, perhaps, some occasional rare cases), and you need to be clear about your track from the start. I’d tend to say that if you’ve hit three years and you’re not planning a future, it’s most likely time to give up and find someone who will.
I just thought that the one-year limit for a ring could be a little hasty. I’ve seen some young couples dive right in having barely known each other in my parents church, and I’ve seen some bad results from that.
I’m not certain as to your meaning in the “…should be doing to make it a part of her” bit.
I firmly believe that any woman who wants marriage today needs to work hard to demonstrate that she’s worth the risk – and I’d expect a lot more than the basic human treatment if I was thinking of proposing to a woman. But I think dalrock’s posts on that topic are spectacular, and I wouldn’t have much to add.
Amen and thank you Zed. The sex drive thing…it has to be acknowledged. Honestly it seems like it can’t be psychologically ideal to be stuck in a sea of temptation PAST your most fertile years, with no release.
@zed
“Aunt Haley writes very eloquently on this subject. I have read some of her posts where it seems like she is so horny that she is about to chew the wallpaper off the wall.”
Really? I don’t get that sense. I get the sense that the thought of sex with nearly all men makes her skin crawl, and the few who don’t make her skin crawl would merely rate a “yeah, I guess that wouldn’t be so bad” type response.
Does it *depend* on deceiving the male gender, or is it simply that it makes it easy to deceive the men, because he can’t trust that a woman presenting herself as marriage material really is?
Or do you mean that the MMP is simply gone, since the SMP has taken over?
I’d say any woman open to a PUA in the SMN wouldn’t be getting those benefits anyways. The ‘born-again virgins’ don’t count here.
I meant that an individual woman can still decide not to sleep around and marry a guy, giving the marriage the previously discussed benefits from an inexperienced woman.
Or did you mean that a man can’t reliably get those benefits for himself, since many claimed low-count women aren’t?
Something that is going to make them go after the badboy, and more single parenthood on the horizon:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2060417/How-tame-hellraiser-Having-children-turns-bad-men-good-claims-study.html
Bad boys can be tamed and turned into good men when they have children, research has found.
My take? Just don’t expect Mr. Reliable Beta to pick up the slack.
A woman does not value a man, if she is not willing to be with him at her most attractive, young and fertile periods.
Many men are waking up to the fact that women find them irresistable … after having had a child with someone else, having lost their looks, and when they’re too old to have another.
How flattered should the men be in that situation?
Really? I don’t get that sense. I get the sense that the thought of sex with nearly all men makes her skin crawl, and the few who don’t make her skin crawl would merely rate a “yeah, I guess that wouldn’t be so bad” type response.
My sense is that Aunt Haley would only be satisfied with a man who could effortlessly put her well and truly in her place. This is what I was speaking of before. Haley is quite bright — which is not a problem in itself, but in her (as in many of her contemporaries), this manifests in a need to be snarky, sassy, constantly score points and so on. She is desperate for a man who can not “keep up with that” (probably what she thinks she wants), but who can shut that down because he is superior to it and it has no impact on him — that is, he moots the sass, the snark and the point scoring because she can’t win, so she stops and surrenders. That is what I meant when I was talking about high-achieving women needing uber-macho supermen (who, in Haley’s case, are also godly evangelicals) to be attracted.
Kai
I’m not certain as to your meaning in the “…should be doing to make it a part of her” bit.
I firmly believe that any woman who wants marriage today needs to work hard to demonstrate that she’s worth the risk – and I’d expect a lot more than the basic human treatment if I was thinking of proposing to a woman.
Alot of women will do what it takes to catch a man. The old no sex after the first kid routine. (with out a child to hold as hostage you can still get rid of a wife.) If you are a kind woman you have to be a kind woman from the inside out. Not just while you are fealing the tingles. And trust me on this Kai any woman that treats a man as a human and as made that treatment a normal part of who she is she will stand way the hell out and will be marriage material. It will also give her what it takes to stand by her vows when the tingle isn’t there.I’ve joined team husband attitude with really help emotionally with the daily grind of life. Smile and be proud of your choice to marry your man. (girl game bitches)
Zingers: Thank you for them! It’s the most promiscuous of my friends that tends to bring it up and a former “prude” who has been in a relationship for 3 years. I rarely see the one but she always tends to bring it up whenever we all get together. (Maybe next time I see her I’ll greet her with a “hey slut.” (So not my style though)).
I guess I must be asperger-ish I have no desire to participate at all. I think it’s so gross and my parents slut-shamed and made sure we understood it was unacceptable. I see all the ramifications and have noticed how the guys treat girls who act in that way (an older cousin gave me all the nitty gritty details when I was a teenager… I was horrified).
“Don’t get drunk with a man… ever…”
I realized that when I had first turned 18. I NEVER drink at house parties. So many friends have made “mistakes” (A couple of the guys in our group always wonder why I never drink/consider me to be boring)
The right time to marry, is when you find the right person… and not a moment later.
-I cannot wait to find that person.
Thank you for the bus analogy. It definitely helps!
“pick the best willing man prior to turning 23″ : 23 REALLY? Wow my time is ticking.
“If you’ve newly met the guy, I wouldn’t bring it up until the second date, to give him a chance to get to know you a little, but if he asks, it’s because he too wants to know how your goals line up with his, and you should explain.”
– I really wish I had known this sooner. From now on I will be a lot more straightforward with men that I’m dating. I’ve let a few good ones slip through my fingers without realizing it/mentioning what I’m honestly looking for AND I REGRET IT. (I wish I had found this blog last April… I think I would have been headed in the direction I wanted with someone who wanted similar things.. I just didn’t ask him… I always assume hook up and I DON’T want that at all.)
Thank you everyone! 🙂
Kai to A: I don’t agree with the church recommendation. If you ARE a Christian, it’s a great way to find men with your belief system (and who are more likely to appreciate what you have). But not everyone is, and I don’t think theology is a necessary part of this.
But Kai, our friend A is very “traditional” sexually. I assume that means, she wants to save sex til the wedding night. Speaking as a man who did wait, and was mocked for it, I can tell you one thing: You virtually …CAN…..NOT…..FIND… a man like that in our society anymore, except in the ranks of the hardcore religious. The catch — such a man won’t marry outside his faith. So, if she really wants to save her virignity til marriage, and she’s not already religious, she needs to do some serious rethinking about it, and have her “come to Jesus” moment, so to speak.
I really didn’t intend to draw Haley into the conversation as a subject. I am not a follower of hers, but I have read at least a couple of posts by her describing how little workable guidance young people get from the church regarding negotiating the mating market these days. Several months ago she wrote about some high profile evangelical woman who, after waiting 17 years, scored some hunky missionary well known within the church. I remember Haley using the term that they were spending their days now having “godly sex” – with what I perceived was a bit of wistfulness.
Like Brendan, I get the sense that she has quite a bit of Apex Fixation. However, given the value system she lives under, if she only gets the chance to spend her much vaunted virginity once, I would expect that she would want to hold out for the highest price she can get.
All that aside, having some sort of mental distaste for sex does not necessarily mean that there is no physical desire. On the least intense end this might be having the “impure thoughts” that Christian boys are beaten either mentally with guilt or shame, or physically, for having, We just has a couple of posts about how women are justified in divorcing men who look on some other women (or even pictures of them) with “lust in their hearts.” And there was that female politician who became more famous for running on an anti-masturbation platform than anything else she believed or stood for. Christine O’Donnell, or something like that?
Even the early theologian Origen experienced enough physical desire that some historians claim that he had himself castrated so his physical desires did not interfere with his spiritual pursuits. That isn’t a strategy the modern church can recommend for its male members because most men would leave the church and those that stayed could not breed any more churchly followers.
The bottom line point I was making is that contrary to Christian fathers’ wishes, a lot of women really do have a sex drive and the need to have it satisfied. As long as people demand that women pretend that they don’t and place all the blame on men for “leading them astray” we are going to live in a mass of lies and never make any progress.
“You virtually …CAN…..NOT…..FIND… a man like that in our society anymore.”
– I have a lot of work to do.
I am Catholic but not devout. I was seriously born in the wrong generation.
VR Don’t get drunk with a man… ever…”
A: I realized that when I had first turned 18. I NEVER drink at house parties. So many friends have made “mistakes”
You are wise. But I’ll go a step furhter in my suggestions. Don’t go to house parties at all. No good ever comes out of them. Find a more sensible social venue. After all, house parties attract dangerous types sometimes and you don’t have to be drinking to be raped… or drugged and raped.
Reallly… seriously… start checking out churches. And be careful EVEN THERE. (Sad to say)
One of the biggest mistakes I have seen young women make is falling into the mode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer/ Xena the Warrior Princess/ Laura Croft – “I’m as big and tough as any man, and can do anything he can do.” Due to metabolic differences, each drink for a 180 lb man = 2 drinks for a 120 lb woman. A woman even halfway trying to keep pace with a man’s drinking is actually drinking far more heavily than he is.
“Gee, I had a great time getting drunk last night.”
“Oh, what happened?”
“Well, I don’t actually remember a thing, but everyone tells me that I, and they, had a great time.” 😉
Nothing like visiting a few of those un-boring people in the hospital, or even the funeral home, to figure out that boring can actually be very cool.
A: I am Catholic but not devout. I was seriously born in the wrong generation.
The only guy who will respect your wishes to wait, sexually, is a DEVOUT one. But such a man will only marry a devout woman. So you have a choice to make: A step upward in faith, or a step downward in sexual morals (which I do NOT recommend). Take some advice — romantic, matrimonial, sexual — from married Catholic women while you’re at it. Their blogs —
Alte http://traditionalchristianity.wordpress.com/
Grerp http://grerp.blogspot.com/
For meeting Catholic men, I’m sure there are plenty of websites for that. I met my wife on a Protestant dating site, so I know it works. Just google Catholic dating or Catholic matchmaking or something like that. (BTW, all internet meetings MUST be done in SAFE public spaces with FRIENDS NEARBY, you do know that, don’t you!) Or……… If you are in Southern California I can set you up with a 40 year old PhD chemist, a devout Catholic who has been waiting a LONG time for his wife….
“TFH says:
Yes, it depends on deceiving men. Just look at the previous two posts from Dalrock.
…”
I think we might just be thinking of different things here. It doesn’t seem sufficiently worthwhile a point to try to clarify, since I agree with the general points.
“greyghost says:
Alot of women will do what it takes to catch a man. ”
Ah, I see where you are going now. And I completely agree. When I spoke of giving the man a reason to marry you, I meant in the genuine sense – make yourself the kind of person that a man wants to be married to, and continue to work at staying that way. Not ‘bribe him until you get the ring’ as can definitely tend to happen.
“A says:
It’s the most promiscuous of my friends that tends to bring it up and a former “prude” who has been in a relationship for 3 years.
I guess I must be asperger-ish I have no desire to participate at all. I think it’s so gross and my parents slut-shamed and made sure we understood it was unacceptable. I see all the ramifications and have noticed how the guys treat girls who act in that way (an older cousin gave me all the nitty gritty details when I was a teenager… I was horrified).”
Slutty women have a vested interest in having sluthood considered the norm and ensuring men have only sluts to choose from. It’s like ‘friends’ who encourage the dieter to eat more, because her weight loss makes the rest of them feel bad.
You don’t need ‘friends’ like that.
@ Escoffier
Yet he does care. Why? Because in spite of himself he is still seized by the natural impulse to love
This is a base part of our human nature… via protect the tribe mechanics.
It would be nice, if a pipe dream, if the Roosh’s who worry about their own sisters remembered that the girls they defile are also someone’s sister.
Right on. I’d say that’s accurate because he’s not likely to be taken seriously by any of them, even as he’s banging them into his bed. I view Roosh as a resource for people who have seen the problems with the current society and are striving in their own lives to do something about it. Ten good men who learn game, can lock up ten good women if both play their cards right. The SMP has told me that it’s important for marriage minded men to learn game.
“van Rooinek says:
But Kai, our friend A is very “traditional” sexually. I assume that means, she wants to save sex til the wedding night. Speaking as a man who did wait, and was mocked for it, I can tell you one thing: You virtually …CAN…..NOT…..FIND… a man like that in our society anymore, except in the ranks of the hardcore religious. The catch — such a man won’t marry outside his faith. So, if she really wants to save her virignity til marriage, and she’s not already religious, she needs to do some serious rethinking about it, and have her “come to Jesus” moment, so to speak.”
Strategically, I agree. But you can’t just ‘do’ faith. It’s inappropriate to seek Christian guys as a non-Christian, and it’s completely wrong to pretend belief just to find a believing guy. So perhaps it’s worth going on a quest (especially with A’s situation, as she says she is nominally Catholic, there might be something for her to find), but if you don’t believe, you don’t believe. And that’s a whole other issue.
I think that if you make yourself a useful, worthwhile human being, and prove the value in marrying you, it’s not common, but possible to find a guy willing to wait. You’ll have to hunt harder outside of the church, but better to do that if you just aren’t a part of the church.
PA my take on it is that these women value the higher status guy more than marriage. Think carefully, are there no men in your acquaintance that would happily marry these women as they are? I would think there would be. I am quite confident you can think of some. Why then did these women not choose guys who were/are marriage-minded?
My view is that they did not value marriage as much as a high status guy. They were unwilling to trade down in sexual excitement to get a guy who will happily marry them. If the women are attractive and low-mileage, surely there are men you yourself know who would be interested not just in sex but marriage.
Attractive women do not ever want for male interest including even today, marriage. BUT those men most attractive to women have many options. The guys refusing to marry them therefore must be confident they can do better. I’m sure they in fact, will do better. Now you see the problem with Alpha males unbounded sexually (or really, female sexuality unbounded, same thing, just a different side).
It’s inappropriate to seek Christian guys as a non-Christian, and it’s completely wrong to pretend belief just to find a believing guy.
Agree 100%.
So perhaps it’s worth going on a quest (especially with A’s situation, as she says she is nominally Catholic, there might be something for her to find), but if you don’t believe, you don’t believe. And that’s a whole other issue
Again, agree 100%. She needs to get hold of God for herself. And if she just doesn’t beleive…well, that’s that.
I think that if you make yourself a useful, worthwhile human being, and prove the value in marrying you, it’s not common, but possible to find a guy willing to wait. [outside of the church].
I absolutely do not believe that. I know the male sex drive. Without the fear of God, I just cannot see a guy waiting. Not nowadays. I think I was the last one in America (I decided to wait at 14, didn’t get religious til 19… so for 5 years in the late 70s/early 80s, there was ONE….).
If she goes on a quest, and comes back, saying, “Sorry, I just don’t believe”, then, I have no advice for her — I don’t know where to send her, unless you have a time machine. The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian is just a nonexistent entity in my world. Heck, even most Christian guys don’t make it…
I believe the contract between the sexes was originally written by Rob Fedders, though Bardamu may have a better take on it.
http://no-maam.blogspot.com/2008/02/questionators-should-women-have-right.html
hey dalrock…. I have a post in moderation… please kill it, as subsequent info changes the picture… thanks
@Kai:
You’re assuming the guys in the Church, especially some of the bigger ones, are terribly Christian. “A” is pretty mild in the faith, there’s plenty of guys of that type as well. It’s just a matter of if she can handle dealing with an “outward introvert”, most likely.
And, who knows, maybe she can find a bit more faith in the process. It won’t hurt her.
As for advice for “A”, a few thoughts, since she’s so new:
– Men value honesty over just about anything else, especially in a relationship. Saying “that isn’t working, but I don’t know why and I need to think about it” will be your best skill in a relationship.
– http://dannyfrom504.wordpress.com/detinennui32s-advice/ Read this. Learn this. You will be better at things than 95% of the population.
– Be interesting. Have a hobby/something you enjoy doing.
– Introverts aren’t very good in “big groups”, but expect them to talk your ear off together.
– Knowing how to “listen” is a critical skill.
– Serious, read the link. Deti’s advice is short, simple and most of what you need.
@ A
[quote] Okay. So I am 21 year old girl and I haven’t gotten onto the carousel (and never intend to I’m really traditional… [/quote]
Wow. I’m very impressed. VanRooinek got most of the important points. I’d go over approach ideals with you. Let me dig out an old comment: http://www.hookingupsmart.com/2011/10/05/relationshipstrategies/how-to-let-a-man-know-youre-interested/#comment-63823
My comment is #20. You may also want to read the original post.
[quote] When do I bring this up to a guy who has the potential? I don’t want to scare anyone by bringing it up to soon/thinking that I’m crazy.[/quote]
Typically, guys start thinking in terms of marriage as early as their late teens or early 20’s. As long as you’re tactful about it, and you’re talking to the right man, there’s no reason to fear bringing it up as early as the second date. Here’s how:
Since knowing what you want and going for it is an alpha (in context, go getter) trait, you will have to balance that with beta (in context, housewife) type DHV. Men who make good fathers/husbands will tend towards the beta side of the spectrum.
I posit that for women, alpha and beta qualities are demonstrated by different aspects of womanliness. First, provoke your date into showing his high value by bringing up a subject he likely does well. If he needs help, smile and compliment him in a genuine, but generic way. After he has impressed you, you can compliment him about it specifically. This is done best if you can compliment an action by saying: “You did [such and such]…I appreciate you.” You are then clear to bring up your plans for a family. Select a few Beta demonstration of higher value items from the list and work them in with your plans. The vibe here should be that you are a feminine, intelligent woman who knows that what’s best for her is to start family.
Brief List of Demonstrations of Higher Value by Trait:
Alpha DHV: beautiful, important, good style, high sex drive, demanding, outwardly social, assertive
Beta DHV: loyal, hard working, friendly, easy going, intelligent, good with kids, caring, frugal, demure
After you do this, if you do not get another date with this particular man, don’t worry about it. He is simply tactfully letting you know that you are not what he is looking for. Feel free to move on.
As a caveat…be aware that the current SMP isn’t very nice to beta guys. Particularly before age 25. The advice behind telling you to go all out as early as possible is due to the fact that a woman’s marriage value steadily decreases after about age 20, while a man’s can still be on the way up at 30. Focus on the positive aspect. You have the information and advice that can potentially make you very fulfilled for life. Use it to the best of your ability.
The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian is just a nonexistent entity.
That’s where I get confused. Keep count low, save for marriage but then the guy rarely exists… aka my frustration/confusion.
I’m currently in a theology course and I’m still having a hard time with religion. Do I just hope that the guy I end up getting serious with isn’t just going to dump me (This is why I’m always so skeptical… I guess it’s all I can do)? My sister and a friend of mine waited till the guy said they loved them etc and my sister has been with her bf for a year (they’ve discussed future) and for my friend its been three(they are planning on marrying after she graduates). Both guys revealed that they haven’t ever fallen for girls like this before.
Oh yeah, the advice for getting married by 23 is straight forward:
The female physical peak is 25, by median. For almost all women, it’s down here from there.
A, if you are reasonably pretty and prepared to be a real wife, and you are ready to marry in your early twenties, you shoud be able to find a good husband. I married a girl like that. She was pretty, fairly slim, early twenties, a Catholic like me, and ready for a man. I imagine a lot of men are looking for what I was. I was presentable, with a secure job, no baggage, some sexual experience but not a lot. The girl I married (three kids, still together after 25 years) was a virgin when I met her. We did get up to some mischief before we married, but I think we were both pretty sure we were headed to marriage.
A man who wants to marry and is a real prospect himself with a good character will know his value. He may not be a major “alpha” but he will not be a broken-down beta either. Such a man will know the value of a non-slutty, pretty girl who is happy to put most of her energies into being a good wife and mother.
@ Ceer
Thank you thank you thank you!
I can definitely say I have all the beta traits covered. I’m a kid magnet/I’m already saving for retirement/don’t have any debt. I don’t think I’m hideous (but who the heck knows I’m so confused with all the info out there) but I tend to be shy in social situations. I just don’t want to waste my time. My mom was with my dad at 19, sister is in a strong relationship at 19… I don’t want to waste my opportunity and end up alone and I’m allergic to cats LOL.
Wait a second…Catholic, virginal, and marriage minded. Reminds me of…
@ Dalrock
If I wanted to leave my contact info for a certain someone, how would i go about doing that?
@A:
I’ll attempt not to cause a row with Susan Walsh’s stats, but something like the majority of men will have a low partner count up to age 24. You just might not “see” them.
Also, Tech, Science & Finance guys will make a lot more money than anyone else. So when selecting for future potential, keep that in mind, haha.
@Ceer:
Eh, I’ve been trying to hook Danny up with some of Bb’s commenters for a while. I’d make a Yahoo email account and have her send you there, lol. 🙂
@A:
You might also be interested in Bb’s thoughts and ideas:
http://bbsezmore.wordpress.com/2011/09/09/the-bb-fall-challenge-for-women-only/
Dalrock, here is an article right down your alley –
Study Shows Divorced Women Have Less Economic Security Than Women Who Stay Married
(the guy who writes it looks like a real sleaze-bag, but it fits right in with your continuing series on the negative effects of frivolous divorce.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflanders/2011/11/01/study-shows-divorced-women-have-less-economic-security-than-women-who-stay-married/
@ looking glass
haha I am one of those commenters. I really want as many perspectives as I can get and try to figure out how I am going to handle/make long term decisions that are the best for me. I need a few more months (finish up my school year/get my cooking skills to par) and then I am going to start actively searching. Some of my friends think I am going to end up in one of the better relationships and i can only hope so. I know I’m willing to work at it/for it,
VR -The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian [male] is just a nonexistent entity.
A -That’s where I get confused. Keep count low, save for marriage but then the guy rarely exists… aka my frustration/confusion.
Outside the church, the ancient pagan double-standard reigns supreme. A man with a lot of partners is an admired stud, a woman with a lot of partners is a slut. Not fair at all, but that’s the way it is. So, keeping the count low helps a woman’s SMV even outside the church.
But holding the count to zero… I just don’t see nonChristian men out there willing to wait all the way til the wedding. If they are still around, they are very, very rare, and are probably extreme Betas who just couldn’t score though they tried. Otherwise, you’re lucky you’ll marry the one that takes your virginity but he probably won’t tolerate waiting all the way til the wedding to do it. In my experience, only hardcore religious guys are game for that.
You first need to settle the question of your own beliefs, if any. That will answer the question, what type of guys to date.
May I also warn you….. For most women, losing their virginity is something they bitterly regret (unless they waited for marriage). Ask some of your friends, privately. I think you’ll be surprised how many “proud sluts”, cried their first time, and/or secretly wish they’d never started.
@ Looking Glass
*snaps fingers*
I’ve got an e-mail just for that purpose too.
*dusts off old e-mail addy*
outtolunchcoupons -at- yahoo -dot- com
Also, I’m not sure I’m familiar with Bb…I’m familiar with Dalrock, Badger Hut, HUS, Chateau Heartiste, and a bunch of others, but not that one.
@ A
Please feel free to send me an e-mail there. I’ll give you my real e-mail addy then if you’d like to.
The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian is just a nonexistent entity.
We may be exceedingly rare, but we do exist. Case in point: me and my wife, both atheists (I abandoned religion in early adolescence; she’s a “cradle” atheist), met at 21, married at 23, going strong after ten years. Both virgins by choice when we met, both because we were serious about getting married when the opportunity appeared.
What’s funny is that my now wife used to spout the usual liberal/feminist nonsense when I met her, she just didn’t practice it at all. Example: *I* very consciously shit-tested her in this way during the initial screening process to decide whether she was possible marriage material: “Hey, have you seen the movie ‘Bridges of Madison County’? Lots of girls say they love it”. Her answer: “Yes, I’ve seen it. Well, as you say, my friends all love it, but I myself don’t think it’s that good…The message is not quite right”. Yep, she was censoring her own ideas because she didn’t think it possible to actually say that feminism was WRONG, and that because of this the movie sucked. She was afraid I’d think she was weird for not liking the movie… ha ha.
In time, of course, I’ve helped her come to the light side of the force, by the simple argument: “why don’t you preach what you practice”?
Bottom line: religion may be important, but nothing, absolutely nothing trumps character.
@Ceer:
The Bb link was for A, but I completely forgot I’d seen her over there. My bad!
Now, the next question:
Is that a DHV or DLV Ceer just did? haha
Surprisingly on topic for this post – a “Nationally Recognized Relationship Expert & Pop Culture Analyst” has “analyzed” Kim Kardashian’s recent media event, I mean “wedding.”
“Kim Kardashian May Have Missed The Red Flags, But Did You?”
Clearly clues to the eventual breakdown of the marriage were scattered throughout the TV show. 😉
You’re right, TikkTok – the last vestige of common sense in this culture died years ago.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bree-marescakramer/kim-kardashian-may-have-m_b_1071799.html?ref=divorce
Of course, it is Huffington Post which week-old fish object to being wrapped in because it makes them smell bad, But, it is indicative of how the most deeply personal event and relationship can be turned into a media circus – the carousel complete with flashing lights and a resident barker.
The Bridges of Madison County was a disgrace. I wish you Americans would stop producing this sludge.
@van Rooinek
Speaking as a man who did wait, and was mocked for it, I can tell you one thing: You virtually …CAN…..NOT…..FIND… a man like that in our society anymore, except in the ranks of the hardcore religious.
@A
The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian is just a nonexistent entity.
Did somebody call for a unicorn?
And I’d advise people to read 1 Corinthians 7:13.
You’re welcome!
“van rooinek says:
I absolutely do not believe that. I know the male sex drive. Without the fear of God, I just cannot see a guy waiting. Not nowadays. I think I was the last one in America (I decided to wait at 14, didn’t get religious til 19… so for 5 years in the late 70s/early 80s, there was ONE….).
If she goes on a quest, and comes back, saying, “Sorry, I just don’t believe”, then, I have no advice for her — I don’t know where to send her, unless you have a time machine. The save-it-til-marriage nonChristian is just a nonexistent entity in my world. Heck, even most Christian guys don’t make it…”
Ah, my mistake. I think there are two different levels at play here – the guy who is willing to wait for sex with a particular girl until he marries her, and the guy who is willing to wait for sex until he marries period.
If she is okay with marrying a guy who is not a virgin (but still has a fairly low count) and is willing to wait to sleep with her, I think that can be found.
If she is only willing to marry a guy who is also a virgin, then I agree that she’s pretty out of luck.
“Looking Glass says:
@Kai:
You’re assuming the guys in the Church, especially some of the bigger ones, are terribly Christian. “A” is pretty mild in the faith, there’s plenty of guys of that type as well. It’s just a matter of if she can handle dealing with an “outward introvert”, most likely.
And, who knows, maybe she can find a bit more faith in the process. It won’t hurt her.”
I would have thought that among marginal Christians, especially marginal Catholics, sex is still pretty likely to happen, but I agree that her chances of finding a virginal guy interested in marrying a virgin are better within a church setting, even if it is just the setting with a pairing of C&E Catholics.
DHV or DLV
Dating higher value or dating lower value?
If I have that right then DHV.
Yep usually go by allie but it’s a little to close for comfort if I start sending people over to these sites (I know a few who need to read this stuff).
Oh heck no. I’d be fine with someone who has a partner count. It isn’t a huge deal to me in that regard I’d just make sure everything was spic and span if you catch my drift.
DHV = Demonstrating Higher Value
DLV = Demonstrating Lower Value
“A says:
I’m currently in a theology course and I’m still having a hard time with religion. Do I just hope that the guy I end up getting serious with isn’t just going to dump me (This is why I’m always so skeptical… I guess it’s all I can do)? My sister and a friend of mine waited till the guy said they loved them etc and my sister has been with her bf for a year (they’ve discussed future) and for my friend its been three(they are planning on marrying after she graduates). Both guys revealed that they haven’t ever fallen for girls like this before.”
It’s a good idea to decide your boundaries now. You say you are traditionally-minded, but decide for yourself exactly what that means.
Are you only interested in marrying a virgin and having sex on your wedding night?
Are you holding out for marriage, but okay marrying a man who’s been with a couple others?
Do you want to wait until you are engaged?
Do you want to wait until you are in a committed relationship that seems to be moving towards marriage?
I wouldn’t put much stock in the ‘I love you’. – Especially not if you’re laying out your cards to a guy early in the relationship (which you should, given that the standard today (problematic as that may be) is sex fairly early on). It’s easy for a guy to bring those words out sooner if he’s going to get sex out of it.
I’m not telling you what your standard should be. That’s not my stake. But decide for yourself now, so that you can stick to it once you’re in a relationship and wanting it. Decide whether it’s important for you to marry a virgin / marry as a virgin / marry your first guy, or just marry with a low number.
“Ceer says:
Wait a second…Catholic, virginal, and marriage minded. Reminds me of…”
I see a difference in the “help me understand this; I need advice” vs. “I’m a young, pretty virgin – why aren’t the 35-year-old men lining up to marry me???” 🙂
“A says:
Oh heck no. I’d be fine with someone who has a partner count. It isn’t a huge deal to me in that regard I’d just make sure everything was spic and span if you catch my drift.”
That’s just smart. (the drift)
I do think that you can find a guy with a fairly low count who is willing to wait to have sex until commitment/engagement/marriage, even if it won’t be easy.
Don’t forget to look outside the usual streams to find these guys – a lot of men with the highest later-in-life potential (not just financially) aren’t the ones having their best years in college.
@A:
If you’re in a theology course,
are you expecting the guy to do all the work that brings in money for the family?
The reason I ask that is because, as PMAFT keeps showing us … people with qualifications in the arts,
are having a harder time gaining employment.
I’m raising a 15yo daughter and lucky for me we have a family relative who is a notorious cum dumpster. I’ve never passed on an opportunity to trash this slut in front of my daughter. This gal is college educated and has a decent job, but I make sure my daughter knows that all of her life accomplishments are meaningless because she is such a tramp whore… without morality and character a person is not deserving of respect. Hey gals, fyi, guys find trampy, foul mouthed, slutty, whores repulsive.
Nice one Buck!
Without slut shaming, all the men of the world will simply be unknowingly participating in a game of “Musical Cocks” … last cock pays for all the ones previously.
That’s why a woman who strongly believes in feminism …
is also usually the slut.
Because it’s a lot easier to turn up in a white dress when you spent the previous part of your life being railed by the football team …
when you believe all men are oppressors and deserve to have justice done to them.
@The Continental Op
“A quick-killing no-cure STD which women were especially susceptible to would do the trick.”
Maybe all people concerned about the current SMP should contact scientists who were employed in the USSR’s massive biological weapons program and pay them to develop such an STD? Not that I want to give anyone such ideas…
@Brendan
“But I honestly doubt social restrictions are coming back in any meaningful way anytime soon outside of a complete cultural collapse”
Didn’t you mean to write economic instead of cultural collapse?
@van Rooinek
“So a “kinder/gentler Beta carousel” would be utterly pointless.”
I think the proper description would rather be “onthologically impossible”.
I feel a bit like a black swan here. Male? Check. Non-religious? Check. Not a hopeless beta? Check. Waiting until marriage? Check.
While I’m no stud, I’ve had at least one explicit opportunity for sex and two other highly probable ones. I passed on them all because it would’ve been simply for the physical aspect; I didn’t feel any emotional connection. In general, I see no reason to engage in a risky, meaningless action for temporary pleasure and prestige. I would consider sex at some point in a long-term relationship, but would still have moral qualms to overcome if it came before engagement. The origin of those morals is an excellent question that I continue to investigate and attempt to reconcile with the modern SMP. A classic idealist vs. realist clash.
FWIW: my last LTR ended because she wanted to find a good *Christian* guy (or, as I suspect now, because I started getting too beta). Several years later, she’s still looking. As are many of the other “good” Christian girls who turned me down back then.
A: “I need a few more months (finish up my school year/get my cooking skills to par) and then I am going to start actively searching.”
The way to a mans heart is through his belly.
My daughters age 12 and 14 made me a three course meal (wraps with soft goat cheese and ham, pasta salad with feta cheese, chocolate cake) as a birthday gift, so they are starting early acquiring those skills.
Alat: “Bottom line: religion may be important, but nothing, absolutely nothing trumps character.”
I agree. A sizeable minority of seculars share the same attitudes as (a minority of?) religious people. They only argue differently when explaining their attitudes/behaviour (“in the long run I think its better”, “I just want to avoid drama”, “I am not interested in wasting my time on something dead end”).
“A” is still a human female and you call tell she whats a guy that is interested in marriage but doesn’t want a dear woman type. She is ok with a guy that has a partner count. This is normal for a woman it is the gina tinkle helping with mate selection. The only thing stronger is pure fear of getting nothing for life. A good way to sniff out a man of honor is to check his credit rating or ask how he feels about people that don’t pay there debts or even if the guy does not like to have debt. Is the man you are interested in the type that will go without for stretches at a time or get a second temp job to cover a need or want. Would the guy you are checking out occupy the fat chick so his buddy could get the girl he wanted. just a few things to bring up on a sexless date That dicusses deep values that will give the experience of intimacy and thought. a woman that can discuss things that are part of the daily life grind and not just how she feels and what she wants raises her marriage market place value. Bring something to the table besides a young face a virgin pussy and a list of demands. Most guys know woman are a burden, and know all you have to really offer is sex.
“I see a difference in the “help me understand this; I need advice” vs. “I’m a young, pretty virgin – why aren’t the 35-year-old men lining up to marry me???” :)”
Haha.
But MMV compablilty and probability goes up with age difference. For a reasonable MMV compablilty and probability the age difference cannot be small. 5 years is entering safe territory. 10-15 years starts to enter “shooting fish in a barrel” territory. On average, A might get lucky, but it cant hurt thinking about what is necessary to not having to rely on luck.
On average. A might get lucky, but it cant hurt thinking about what is necessary to not having to rely on luck.
An example: A divorced father I met on a yoga retreat told me that he recently had his second child with his second wife. I was surprised that he was stupid enough to start a second family, but then he told me that he met her when she was in her early twenties and he in his early forties, and then it made sense.
A quick-killing no-cure STD which women were especially susceptible to would do the trick
Haven’t you heard of black-clap? The Vietnam-era legend has finally, horribly, come true. There’s a new strain of gonorrhea from Japan that is INCURABLE. Herpes and HPV can be sort of lived with, and managed, but gonorrhea, untreated, quickly causes irreversible sterility. Even if a cure is found next year, if you get it now it’ll be too late.
Yet another reason to wait for marriage. And to avoid situations of high rape risk
I’m a kid magnet/I’m already saving for retirement/don’t have any debt.
You are a goddess.
My mom was with my dad at 19
If your parents are still together, they are your BEST source of advice. Print out this whole thread and talk to them about it. Seriously.
@ van rooinek
Could you pedestalize anymore? Your hurting her not helping her.
All of this could easily be turned around and applied to men. Accept that “A woman doesn’t owe a man anything.”
But what if I said, “Would you want your son to be rejected in five seconds by a carousel rider?”… “Would you want your son publicly humiliated for asking a woman out?”
But nobody really cares if women act with any degree of caring or humanity to men. A woman doesn’t owe a man anything. It’s only when a man says that “He doesn’t owe a woman anything” that they go nuts.
Cause, ya know, well, ya know, right?
And yes, the pretty little dears, though so weak and frail, can keep their yap shut about being asked out and they can endure a boring hour of talking to someone that doesn’t immediately make them wet. In fact, I would EXPECT it. Go so far as demand it. Now, expecting a man to marry, for life, a woman cause she managed to seduce him into a one night stand…. well no. Ha. ha. That’s a pretty stupid thing to say.
It’s kinda odd that one hour is viewed as more severe than the entirety of someone’s life. But then you have to realize. The man is nothing. He does not exist as a person. He has no feelings, no wants, no needs, no hopes, no dreams, he is nothing but an ACCESSORY for a woman life’s.
@van Rooinek
My wife has mentioned that she had two rules regarding parties. 1) She never drank anything harder than a soft drink. and 2) She never dated any men she met at parties.
I think both choices were incredibly wise. I’ve written separately about the problem looking for men in the wrong venue can create for women. It tends to change what they find attractive in a man, and not in a good way.
Dalrock
My wife has mentioned that she had two rules regarding parties. 1) She never drank anything harder than a soft drink. and 2) She never dated any men she met at parties.
For all of the hype about various drugs such as GHB and Rohypnol, the most common “drug” used to facilitate sex in college remains alcohol. Remaining sober while others are getting drunker can be very useful in evaluating them in a number of ways.
Not dating men whom one meets at parties seems interesting, especially on the flip side; suppose you had gone to one of those parties, and considered her not worth dating because she went to them?
You are a goddess.
No not a goddess at all… I could never describe myself as that. I’m practical in that sense but have plenty of other things I need to work on and I know that (Which is why I have been reading so much and have just now started commenting).
Thank you everyone for all of your input I totally hijacked this thread sorry Dalrock. The doom and gloom about the current MMP that I have been reading about has really got to me/had me worried.
But nobody really cares if women act with any degree of caring or humanity to men.
– And that is my biggest change to date. Since reading so many different posts, (information binging) I’ve realized how secondary a guys feelings, wants, needs, hopes and dreams are in our society now. I have no desire to treat a guy like that. It’s such a perspective shift (which is sad to say but it’s the society/culture I grew up in. So much reprogramming/deprogramming is necessary).
I was reflecting further on La Traviata – and I confess I do tend to see the world through the prism of Opera and its characters – and I wanted to add that although I do not care for Traviata much – I find Verdi is very sentimental towards Violetta – the message which I take away is, that if you are a courtesan (read carousel rider) you cannot expect to marry. You may be very beautiful, and good-in-bed, but your chances of a good marraige or a marraige above your station must be slim. Further, your occupation rather suggests that the constancy and routine and loyalty required of a married woman never mind the ability to bond with another human is largely missing.
Of course, these days many women do not wish to marry, or so they say, yet even the most hard-headed of sluts has moments (as did Violetta) when a different sort of life calls to her . She would probably not be suited to marraige however, for marraige cannot match the thrills and excitment of Drinking (possibly drug-use) and Carousel-riding, but the problem with carousel riding is that like a top athlete, ones powers decline over time. The carousel rider drops lower and lower in the calibre of the men she can seduce. My observation, from experience, is that ultimately no woman gives sex away without expecting some form of commitment – in the long run; but men are not going to see the carousel-riders putting-out as anything but an invitation to pump-and-dump. It is also the case that promiscuous women tend to have problems of an intractable sort. Their girlfriends may assure you that they are envious of their friends success with men, noting her exciting life and popularity but underneath that bravura and glamour resides a deeply troubled person – at least that is my observation of the three women I knew, who I knew had had in excess of a hundred lovers (one at least over three hundred – by age twenty eight).
A year or so back I considered and set out what I thought were the main problems of casual sex for a woman. I now set out what I then wrote:
1. The danger of falling for the other person.
2. The possibility of health problems (STDs)
3. The knowledge that the man is only sleeping with you because:
a. you are offering yourself
b. (if such be the case) that you are paying for it, and if b
c. because you are white
4. As with all addiction, the after effect when you ‘come down’ is the need to repeat the experience so as to validate yourself again.
5. The danger of Pregnancy/ The distress of a termination.
6. The risk of being filmed (although the internet is to some extent a dustbin for amateur porn).
A — I’m a kid magnet/I’m already saving for retirement/don’t have any debt.
VR — You are a goddess.
Joshua — Could you pedestalize anymore?
Credit where credit is due, and see also Psalm 82:6. Furthermore, note how humbly she refuses it:
A — No not a goddess at all… I could never describe myself as that
Yet she goes on to prove herself worthy of it:
A — But nobody really cares if women act with any degree of caring or humanity to men. And that is my biggest change to date. Since reading so many different posts, (information binging) I’ve realized how secondary a guys feelings, wants, needs, hopes and dreams are in our society now. I have no desire to treat a guy like that
Once upon a time, most women were this way, and everyone was happier. Why do you think “pedestalization” began in the first place? At one time women were deserving of it! We all long for those days to return! Even those of us, such as myself, who have good wives, see the harm that bad women do to other men (or to us when we were single.)
The problem is that many modern women are not only unworthy of the pedestal, but use it to cruel advantage. Which is why it needs to be kicked down. BUT when one shows up that “gets it”, that is worthy of the old pedestal, it’s time to dust it off and bring it out for her.
Assuming, of course, that she’s being honest with us. But I have no reason to doubt her.
*EPIC FACEPALM*
http://static.rcgroups.net/forums/attachments/2/7/7/9/3/9/a2939043-72-Facepalm%20jesus-facepalm-facepalm.jpg?d=1261197525
@Anonymous Reader
It is a good question. I wasn’t looking for a wife at the time. I had just hit that age where all of a sudden women saw me as husband material. Several of my buddies married around that same time. I had run for the hills from other women who brought the subject up. But my wife was very different. I know this is a manosphere cliche, but I had the benefit of observing my PUA roomate and how women interacted with him. She was very innocent, very much unlike the other women I knew. I truly fell for her, and all of a sudden found myself open to marriage. In hindsight I realize that this same experience has lead many other men astray, which is why I warn about it in my interview post. But my wife had the basic qualities I wrote the interview questions about (I of course added more based on observation of other marriages). She was the real deal, and as cynical as I was (even moreso than today) I could tell she was.
The problem is that many modern women are not only unworthy of the pedestal, but use it to cruel advantage. Which is why it needs to be kicked down
True.
BUT when one shows up that “gets it”, that is worthy of the old pedestal, it’s time to dust it off and bring it out for her.
No.
That is how we got here in the first place, remember?
Women may be at their most desirable and fertile early 20’s but believe me, we are not mature enough at that age to make lifelong decisions like kids. I’m talking about most American women here. That maturity doesn’t come until we are older, many times in our 30s. Same with guys. We are a youth oriented culture and thus while we may mature sexually earlier than other cultures, our emotional intelligence does not form until much later.
We’d need to overhaul American culture from top to bottom and left to right in order to prepare young women to marry in their early 20s, and that too to older men in their late 20s or 30s.
Americans marry for personal fulfillment over and above everything else. The thought of building a family and staying in it for the long haul is an after thought. Sure, we’ll have kids, but we have absolutely no intention of staying married forever for the sake of those kids. No intention at all.
Remember, individualism, freedom and libido are the cornerstones of our civilization.
Until this is at least acknowledged, there will be no change. Not ever.
Because it is relevant to this thread, I will mention that Butterfly Flower is engaged.
Sorry Dalrock erase the other one
I usually say that in the past sex was a privilege you fulfilled certain requirements for women period and marriage for men tests of womanhood and you were allowed to enjoy sex because you proved that you were capable of dealing with all the entailed good and bad. Modern time treat sex as a right something that you should have the social sanctioning to pursue (with a few rules) as soon as you get horny.
That obviously is not working, but it does describe why things are the way they are and why the carousel is defended. I wonder what would bring it to a stop. Maybe like many MRA’s say once the government runs out of money to subsidize the consequences: STD’s, welfare, abortion people will start to think twice before banging, it won’t be pretty of course, but no social change ever is, YMMV.
I normally just leave links for you Dal, but I have to comment on this [as if it will be seen in the 200 comments you get:]
“I should clarify that I’m not making a moral justification for pickup artists. What I’m saying is they are on the same moral plane as the women who are having sex with them.”
This is the key point. Any of the quotes you referenced are giving a free pass to female promiscuity by “alphas” or “cads” or “general men” or whatever term you choose to call a man that woman chose to have sex with.
UNLESS, they are saying that woman are lesser beings, and unable to exercise moral authority when in the presence of such a being? I don’t think they will claim that, because they will claim female superiority, yes? Or at the very least equality.
To any future detractors, I’m not claiming that women are either of the above. I’m merely pointing out the logical inconsistency in your arguments. Either you are a moral agent [equal to men,] able to make your own choices and be responsible for them… OR YOU ARE NOT able to make your own choices in the supreme sway of the men that you find attractive, [thus recognizing the ones you find not attractive as unworthy.] You cannot have it both ways.
Cheers as always.
Congrats to Butterfly Flower.
@Aqua Net
“Women may be at their most desirable and fertile early 20′s but believe me, we are not mature enough at that age to make lifelong decisions like kids.”
That’s a rather curious statement considering that women around the whole world normally became mothers in their early 20s throughout human history.
Where is this logical inconsistency in what I wrote? I am genuinely curious how D (and now L) got from A: Don’t get on the carosel ever; and B: Alpha cads are scum or at least behave scummily; to C: females are always innocent victims so let’s further rig the terrible system in their favor. C obviously does not follow from A or B or from A & B yet I’ve now (if I’m reading correctly) twice been accused of saying that it does. Can someone please lay out the logic chain? Just curious.
@Escoffier
The problem is in how you are framing it. You have an implicit assumption that women’s preferred form of promiscuity is less immoral than men’s. The women you were advising to stay off the carousel are no less scummy than the PUAs you are trying to protect them from. Both are looking for sex without offering commitment. Both hope to use the ambiguity of the hookup marketplace to their own advantage. Also, you are forgetting the betas these women will chew up and spit out. We teach that women naturally want commitment, and betas tend to buy this (being polite rule followers). But this is absolutely false. Women want commitment from the man, but they desperately want to avoid it for themselves. This is the fundamental truth behind our current SMP, and is what 99% of people are missing. This is what our divorce epidemic is really about. It isn’t about men dumping their wives for younger models, it is women wanting to swing from monogamous relationship to monogamous relationship. For women like this, marriage is just a way to get a lot of status and attention upfront and cash and prizes on the back end.
The innocents on the female side are the small percentage of women who are looking to marry without riding the carousel first. Their obstacle isn’t PUAs, because PUAs don’t use “engagement ring game”. Their obstacle is the mass of women eagerly riding the carousel but claiming to want commitment. This creates a huge smokescreen in the SMP, and makes it harder for the women wanting marriage without riding the carousel first to do so. Note that it isn’t the women riding the carousel warning betas not to be chumps or trying to help other women navigate the SMP safely, it is only the men who know what is up who are working to help others understand the truth.
Note also that the massive damage to innocents is actually being done solely by women seeking serial monogamy. They are victimizing 1) The husbands who thought they were signing up for marriage, 2) Their innocent, fatherless children, 3) The non promiscuous women wanting to marry, and 4) (to a lesser degree) the betas who think they are getting a committed LTR but are actually signing up to be mcflings. Yet you reserve all of your uncommitted SMP judgment for the much smaller number of men who aren’t actually harming the innocent.
Women want commitment from the man, but they desperately want to avoid it for themselves. This is the fundamental truth behind our current SMP, and is what 99% of people are missing.
I agree, but I think it needs to be remembered that the word “commitment” has also been redefined in a way to be serial monogamy friendly. Hence the phrase “in a committed relationship” — nobody really knows what that means, which is kind of the intention, other than to say there is some kind of relationship as defined by the two parties (if even implicitly). That “committed relationship” does not need to be a *permanent* commitment, however. What it means, as you say, is typically that the man commits to not see other people, and the woman agrees to this for as long as she likes. Then when the relationship is ended (typically by her, when it comes to “committed relationships”), she moves on to find a new “committed relationship”.
Marriage, in this view, is simply an “accredited” or “officially state recognized” form of “committed relationship”, and as such is breakable at any time. And now we are even seeing articles here and there about “the new monogamy” and “monogamish” or “negotiated monogamy” marriages and the like. The overarching paradigm behind *all* of this is serial monogamy — and it is, full stop, the preferred female way of relating. One can find or speculate about evo psych reasons as to why this is, but in any case, it simply *is*. The relationship and marriage expectations and culture have been completely recast in the mold of serial monogamy, from soup to nuts. And there is no end to the articles and books that are written praising this “transformation” (e.g., Stephanie Koontz’s books lauding marriage 2.0 … as well she would, as a woman).
Powerful stuff Dalrock at 10.15am – and I am particularily conscious of your point 3, that the behaviour of the carousel-riders adversely affects those women seeking commitment as they will become tarred with the same brush (hence the need for women – older women – to call out sluts).
I would like to add (this is my own observation) that even where the woman apparently is merely concerned with her pleasures of a one-night-stand (mutual pleasures perhaps) she seems to want them on her own pseudo-commitment terms (I won’t go into the embarrasing details), but effectively married by night and then single again by day. This is really using the man as an unpaid gigolo.
As I implied in my earlier message, promiscuity would be fine if it were possible for emotions and desires (as opposed to carnal lust) to be tamed, but it is not, and frequently someone gets hurt. People even fall in love with their Prostitute or Gigolo; Professionals with whom no relationship can be possible, beyond utility.
“Höllenhund says:
That’s a rather curious statement considering that women around the whole world normally became mothers in their early 20s throughout human history.”
But throughout human history, women didn’t have any choice in the matter, so there was no decision to make. (I don’t mean this as ‘the evil bad men oppressed women. I mean that you simply got married, and married people had sex, and sex meant babies.)
It’s only pretty recently that people have the possible choice to have sex and *not* become parents. A lot of choices are possible now that never were before.
Combine that with our educational system and social fabric which infantilizes people such that sixteen-year-olds are considered barely capable of deciding what they want for lunch…
And I agree. Most people in their early twenties today are by no means capable of making big decisions. Half of them are partying in a junk degree at college then moving back in with their parents, wondering why no-one will pay them big money to follow their dreams. People in that state shouldn’t be having children.
I don’t agree, however, that this is the natural state of things. In the days when people had babies in their early twenties, they were expected to be adults (and were perfectly capable of meeting those expectations) in their mid-to-late teens.
I think it’s possible to be an adult at twenty today, but our society certainly doesn’t encourage it.
“That’s a rather curious statement considering that women around the whole world normally became mothers in their early 20s throughout human history.”
Hollenhund, I’m specifically talking about American women because American culture is frivalous and anti-family. I have been to family oriented countries where girls and boys are marrying and having kids in their teens and it works out OK because their culture prepares them for adulthood and parenthood early.
Re the last paragraph, not quite as you say but I’d say the upper classes in England and France quite close to it. Not considered unusual for the women to have lovers and children by their lovers, and as long as they’d had an heir for their husband not much was said about it. Some men like the 5th Duke of Devonshire put their foot down at the illegitimate children being brought up in the same household (though of course often like in this case there were often illegitimate children of the man in the same nursery as the legitimate children) but not all. Affairs, divorces, trading up, all sorts, every time I look up anybody for any random reason, there’s always something. These days it seems everyone wants to act in the way that was the preserve of the upper classes. Post war social mobility? The English have always been a feckless lot though.
Dalrock at 10:15
I agree with Opus that is a powerful comment. And you have a very valid point.
However, I note Opus talks about one night stands but I’m interpreting this blog post and accompanying comments that if a woman isn’t
a) virgin at point of marriage
b) getting married quite early
c) staying married no matter what
Then she is a carousel rider. And it’s caveat emptor in the same way as say her as being in the market for a second hand stolen car as opposed to say being in the market for a second hand car.
Am I understanding your position right?
What are your thoughts on young men for the young women? Is it a reasonable expectation for young men in this age to be virgins and be abstinent until marriage?
@PT Barnum says:
“But nobody really cares if women act with any degree of caring or humanity to men”
I’ve had a few conversations in the last few months where there is a young woman and we were talking about a young man who liked her (3 different young women in friends or family). In all these cases there was a ‘nice guy’ who liked her and when talking about it the women were more on giving him a chance but there was no male solidarity, empathy with the boy or even any sympathy for him from the men. None at all.
I’m also curious about Roosh’s advice. It starts with ‘All men are pigs. Yes, even I am a pig. All we want is to have sex with the least amount of effort. We will say anything you want to hear in order to get it’
How many men here agree with this?
@Lily
I think this is very close. The carousel certainly isn’t limited to one night stands. I wouldn’t call women who have sex with their finance and then marry him carousel riders though, but this is arguably a grey area. B is tricky because of the “unicorn carousel”, but strictly speaking a woman who waits to marry isn’t necessarily riding the carousel to pass the time. For C I don’t think women need to stay married no matter what, but what we have now is the use of the flimsiest of pretense to justify serial polyandry. The Christian leader who argued that a woman is justified in divorcing and remarrying if her husband views pornography, or if she claims she was “emotionally abused” (a term with no real meaning) comes to mind.
I’m not sure if I would go so far as equating carousel riding with seeking to buy a stolen car, but your caveat emptor certainly applies. Perhaps a better analogy would be someone playing in an unregulated poker game (maybe offshore) or betting via a bookie, then wanting society to keep the game fair. I don’t know how to possibly do so.
I also think this analysis holds even without a religious element (I hope this comes through with despite my recent calling out of the church). The damage in our society is being done almost entirely by women practicing serial monogamy (or hoping to practice it). Men have their part when it comes to out of wedlock children and husband initiated or husband at fault divorce, but we have very harsh penalties in place already for these things. One can have no moral preference one way or another, and yet see how harmful this has become.
I struggle with this for practical reasons. However, I agree that if a woman feels that she should only marry a virgin man she has every right to make this a requirement. The man is also opening himself up to negative effects of the uncommitted SMP as well. Where this gets difficult from a practical perspective is how a virgin man can get the confidence and experience with women which comes with sexual success without actually doing so. Even virgin Christian women seem to have a fairly high bar of game which they expect from their husbands.
D, my only assumption, which is not implicit but explicit, is that racking up fewer partners–for both sexes–is better than racking up more partners. I gather that you would have to answer “yes” to Lily’s question: there is in your view no difference between 2 and 200. It’s either zero or one, otherwise: slut.
To move to specifics (or at least hypotheticals), a true Karen Owen-type slut is IMV every bit as scummy as a PUA. A confused, badly taught girl who blunders into the scene, gets burned a few times, realizes she is being made totally miserable, and then stops is not.
As to your archetypal serial monogamist, I had never really thought about it the way you put it. Because when I was growing up/young adult, those girls did not exist. A serial monogamist was a girl who maybe had two or three LTRs before marriage. A girl with 10 or even 5 “boyfriends” with whom she was exclusive as long as she was with them would have been considered a slut. OK, maybe not 5 but certainly 7 and some would have said 5. Certainly, I and all my friends would have rejected out of hand not just a true hook-up slut but even a serial monogamist of that sort. In fact, I can cite instances of it happening.
Plus, back then it was not uncommon–it might even have been prevalent–for the boy to “move on,” not the girl. Lots of people had “campus marriages” in college, exclusive sexual relationships that ended with graduation because, you know, the guy was moving to another city, off to grad school, whatevs. Many girls of my acquaintence were heartbroken by this. They might not have been exactly lied to but they were misled. In other words, the situation today is so different from what I remember that is hard for me to come to terms with it. I am trying. I haven’t quite swalloed the red pill but (so far) only the children’s chewable. Plus, I am quite pleased/impressed with my wife and my mother and since they are the two women I know the best it’s hard for me to accept how bad modern woman is supposed to be.
So, given how many hook-up sluts and serial monoagamists there are out there today, it does seem to me that, first, a girl in this SMP who managed to become neither but is not a virgin is a reasonably valuable commidity in that market. Also, she deserves some credit for not becoming what she could have become, especially with all the pressure to do so and total lack of counterveiling messages from anywhere, including her parents. Finally, what are we supposed to do with all these people? Especially if they really turn a corner internally? Some of them might actually be decent and marriagable.
Anyway, I don’t expect you (or anyone) to read everything I have written at HUS, but I have explictly said I think the problem with Susan’s approach is that she is seeking some “middle way” between pre-Sexual Revolution mores and hook-up culture. I don’t think such a middle exists, not as something sustainable. Once the restraints are torn away a little they will be swept aside altogether, which is what happened. I came of age in the “middle” of the process, now it is complete (apparently). Her view is, We Can’t Go Back. My view is, maybe not, but we have to try and we have to insist on that standard for ourselves and for our own–not that we can guarantee that even our children will live up to it. But they certainly won’t if we don’t insist.
Finally, I don’t reserve ALL my contempt for the cads. I’ve had plenty of unflattering things to say about the ladies. However. I gather this is a religiously oriented website. It certainly is oriented around morality. Yet, you–like a lot of other “good guy” “manosphere” bloggers–regularly refer to game blocks with respect and admiration. While I find many of their insights valuable, it seems pretty damned obvious to me that they are not “good guys” but “bad guys” or worse, who are deliberately and knowingly profitting from the wreckage of civilization. So, yeah, I have contempt for that. “Contempt” is actually too soft a word.
A related point is, in our infinite wisdom, we have made it economically impossible or at least very difficult for people to marry young. I gather you are in Texas where this is less of a problem. I grew up in Northern California. When I was a kid, it was still America. It was a normal place. The reason all the hippies came to SF in ’67 is that it was dirt cheap.
Well, now it is something else. It takes a long time to work one’s way up the ladder to the point where even two incomes can buy you a very modest home. People delay marriage for that reason above all. And, since there is no longer any societal pressure not to have sex, of course they don’t delay sex.
This is not justification just explanation. Unless the economics are fixed (which they are not going to be), only a strong regimen of moral education is going to get this genie back in the bottle. And only for the select few who are taught it and practice it. And even then, given how long they will have to wait to get married, there are going to be A LOT of lapses. So, the best case scenario I see is something like the blue state UMC bubble emerging for sexual morality, in which there is a small but significant subculture of “waiters”–some religious, some not–who provide society with functioning marriages and families.
“not quite as you say but I’d say the upper classes in England and France quite close to it. Not considered unusual for the women to have lovers and children by their lovers, and as long as they’d had an heir for their husband not much was said about it. (though of course often like in this case there were often illegitimate children of the man in the same nursery as the legitimate children) ”
Good. This is as it should be. There is no reason children should suffer because their parents are too damn horny to keep their skirts or pants zipped tightly up. Infidelity is NO reason to break up a child’s home and ruin his/her life.
Aristocracy, the upper classes and rich people have the resources to absorb many children. No child should be made poor and orphaned because of the bad choices of adults.
Adults need to adult up.
“What are your thoughts on young men for the young women? Is it a reasonable expectation for young men in this age to be virgins and be abstinent until marriage?”
“I struggle with this for practical reasons.”
No doubt. Abstinent til marriage in this society often means abstinent until 30 or higher. By that time the libido, sex hormones, etc is waning, not waxing. In cultures that traditionally taught abstinence until marriage, people got married in their sexual prime – teens! Or at least early 20s.
Of course it is doable for men and women to be celibate even their entire life, sexual release and often sexual satisfaction can be had with masturbation. But they will of course the overwhelming majority want to experience sex with another human being.
Lifelong celibacy or abstinence until a late age is usually only functional amongst people who are not really “people persons”. Loners, introverts, etc.
Escoffier, “In other words, the situation today is so different from what I remember that is hard for me to come to terms with it. I am trying. I haven’t quite swalloed the red pill but (so far) only the children’s chewable.”
LOL. Me too. The thing is this, today’s teenagers separate emotions from sex and they separate commitment from sex. I’ve read that only men can do this but the fact is, only a certain generation can do this and that is the generation that is coming up now. Both girls and boys see sex as, well, just sex, not something that should, would or even could be tied into emotions and commitment. Traditional dating and romance is gone, gone, gone.
Those growing up in two parents households with traditional and/or religious values may be the only ones in this coming up generation that tie emotions and commitment to sex, and they are probably a minority.
How old are you Escoffier?
“However, I note Opus talks about one night stands but I’m interpreting this blog post and accompanying comments that if a woman isn’t
a) virgin at point of marriage
b) getting married quite early
c) staying married no matter what
Then she is a carousel rider. And it’s caveat emptor in the same way as say her as being in the market for a second hand stolen car as opposed to say being in the market for a second hand car.”
Keep in mind that outside of a small minority of celibate by choice religious men, there is an entire world of men that would be jumping for joy at meeting a woman who limited her sexual activity prior to meeting him just to seriel monogamy.
Brendan
Hence the phrase “in a committed relationship” — nobody really knows what that means,
The first time I heard it I immediately started thinking in terms of nice, white jackets with really, really long arms and warm rooms with very soft floors, walls, etc. Silly me…
Brendan
Marriage, in this view, is simply an “accredited” or “officially state recognized” form of “committed relationship”, and as such is breakable at any time. And now we are even seeing articles here and there about “the new monogamy” and “monogamish” or “negotiated monogamy” marriages and the like. The overarching paradigm behind *all* of this is serial monogamy — and it is, full stop, the preferred female way of relating. One can find or speculate about evo psych reasons as to why this is, but in any case, it simply *is*.
One can observe this at work in girls of even preschool age. They all have a “best friend”, at a play group or in the neighborhood, at kindergarten, etc. Then a week later they have another “best friend”, different from the other “best friend”, and some of them spend a lot of effort sorting out all the ‘best friends” from each other. In grade school one can even see little girls swinging from “best friend’ to “best friend” on school playgrounds. Therefore I’m inclined towards nature vs. nurture on this one, and evo psych is suggestive.
This is all a long winded way of backing up Brendan’s last statement: it just is what it is.
Joshua says:
November 13, 2011 at 6:40 pm
“How old are you Escoffier?”
Escoffier, do take note of the brevity and try to apply it in your writing.
Interesting data:
http://www.dearcupid.org/question/why-cant-i-get-my-gfs-past-sex-life-out-of-my-head.html
Sometimes it takes a few words to explain things, don’t read it if you don’t want to, I don’t care and I wasn’t talking to you anyway.
lol @ Legion
Question stands Escoffier.
About Roosh : The guy say that “All men are pigs. Yes, even I am a pig. All we want is to have sex with the least amount of effort. We will say anything you want to hear in order to get it”. Why a Christian man that want a life-long Christian marriage would agree with that ? And why a Christian woman would want to marry a guy like that ? Usually it’s pornstars that end up with guys that think like that.
David Collard says:
November 13, 2011 at 7:30 pm
Interesting data:
http://www.dearcupid.org/question/why-cant-i-get-my-gfs-past-sex-life-out-of-my-head.html
Men should realize when they post things like that, its just going to encourage us women to LIE about our past sex lives.
Beyond ” are you clean? ” and getting an answer (and tested) its probably not a good idea for either party to discuss the details of their sexual past with their current partner.
@Lily:
“Keep in mind that outside of a small minority of celibate by choice religious men, there is an entire world of men that would be jumping for joy at meeting a woman who limited her sexual activity prior to meeting him just to seriel monogamy.”
Nope. I wouldn’t.
I’d see myself as the last guy to pick up the check for someone elses’ dinner.
The serial monogamy makes it very difficult for the man not to think that she’s going to change as soon as the right guy comes along.
Because all the guys she was with previously, were right enough for sex with her.
But we are supposed to assume that for women, past behaviour is not an indicator of future behaviour?
Is this an example of where we get to hear “Only God can judge me” , “Cast the first stone” or “Judge not lest ye be judged”?
Aqua Net, many of the women did lie. The truth came out, and the men are now unhappy.
David, I would then advise men not to ask questions they really don’t want to know the answers to.
Ignorance is bliss.
The quest for a kinder, gentler carousel?
Ha!
Pleas that now fall on deaf ears.
Jesus forgives….I don’t
Since females are the limiting sex(observed in carousel riding, hypergamy, etc), there can never exist any common or ‘sympathetic’ solution.
There is no shortage of males who are non-integral to the carousel machinery – but the problem is, that these are not the kinds of males an attractive female with options will tend to preferrentially consider.
As I’ve said before, any compromise will need to be imposed upon females, under duress of the most unforgiving conditions.
@ Lily
“I’m also curious about Roosh’s advice. It starts with ‘All men are pigs. Yes, even I am a pig. All we want is to have sex with the least amount of effort. We will say anything you want to hear in order to get it’
How many men here agree with this?”
Unfortunately, in evolutionary terms, women have nothing of greater value to offer.
@ Lily
“What are your thoughts on young men for the young women? Is it a reasonable expectation for young men in this age to be virgins and be abstinent until marriage?”
There is no shortage of male virgins in the western world – what planet do you presume to be living on(the realities of the carousel dynamic, entail it)?
@ Escoffier
“A related point is, in our infinite wisdom, we have made it economically impossible or at least very difficult for people to marry young. ”
It may require some flexible accomodations(extended family dwellings), but it can be done.
If single-motherhood is economically feasible, then marriage surely is.
Was at a wedding reception over the weekend, invited by a friend of a friend and so did not know the bride or groom. He’s mid 60’s (wealthy, reasonably fit for his age), she 35-45ish ( hard to tell, well preserved), both alleged Christians. New-Bride is chatting me up, asking my wife about me etc…weird.
I go sit by a camp fire later in the evening. I’m by myself, having a beer, looking at a harvest moon and a blanket of stars, a coyote is howling, a beaver is working is a nearby stream…bliss.
Suddenly New-Bride comes out to the fire, alone, and proceeds to pull a chair right up next to mine, I immediately move my chair a reasonable distance away from her to establish propriety. Her conversation is a bit uncomfortable so I discretely text my wife to come join me at the fireside, she does. Later wifey asks me what was up with me and New-Bride….NOTHING! Wifey then starts connecting dots. New-Bride was asking wifey about me in the house, even wifey found this a bit strange, but again, we never met her before and just figured she was being polite.
MEN…ATTENTION….this was her wedding day!!!!!
She claims to be a Christian!!!!!
I too believe in Jesus and I want to believe a Christian woman is a safer bet in the marriage market place…NOT!!!!
Shit test potential mates and make sure they only have eyes (heart, gina-tingles) for you!!!
@Buck:
The easiest way to tell that is whether the woman you marry is with you at the peak of her attractiveness, fertility and youth.
Any other situation means you are being settled for.
Mr. 60 year old is going to get a rude awakening from his new over the hill wife.
Single motherhood is economically feasible because it is subsidized by the government, and even then, the lifestyle one can afford falls well short of what a typical middle class couple hopes to achieve.
Even with various subsidies to the MC, for instance home mortgage deduction, the government shafts families in so many other ways you’d think it was deliberate policy to keep people apart and to discourage having kids.
I forgot where I read this but the truth of it made me laugh: in the advanced, rich countries “children are now luxury consumption items.”
@P Ray
I fear you are right, Mr 60 is about to know what rape is all about.
I should have mentioned that this is 2nd marriage for both, both have baggage from previous marriages.
I though recall my wedding day and me and Mrs were focused on only one other person in the room…
@ Escoffier
“Single motherhood is economically feasible because it is subsidized by the government, and even then, the lifestyle one can afford falls well short of what a typical middle class couple hopes to achieve.”
But that’s my pont – having children is a trade-off.
Always has been, and always will be.
That is why I don’t buy this whole children are too expensive BS – expense is ‘relative’, and for all but the slightest interval of time in developed world populations, rearing children has always entailed even more expense/liability than they do now.
So, what does that say about those who appeal to such trivial expenditures as a pretext for their decision making policies(despite the fact that they represent likely evolutionary dead-ends)?
I think another subtlety lost on those naive enough to comtemplate an ‘improved’ carousel, is that women don’t necessarily want to ride the carousel, per se.
It is rather a case where they want the most physically attractive males, who – for evolutionary reasons – will tend to be fixtures of the carousel machinery(this is because physically attractive males have a high-rate fitness optima, and thus, evolution will limit the frequency of monogamous-tending deviations accordingly, given the implied fitness handicapp).
Paragon
I think another subtlety lost on those naive enough to comtemplate an ‘improved’ carousel, is that women don’t necessarily want to ride the carousel, per se.
This has been discussed on this site many times.
It is rather a case where they want the most physically attractive males, who – for evolutionary reasons – will tend to be fixtures of the carousel machinery
This is due to hypergamy, which has been discussed on this site many times.
(this is because physically attractive males have a high-rate fitness optima, and thus, evolution will limit the frequency of monogamous-tending deviations accordingly, given the implied fitness handicapp).
Maybe you should try reading other people’s text before restated what has already been said multiple times? The increased verbosity improves nothing.
We already know about hypergamy, we already know that in addition to carousel riders there are also carousel watchers. In fact, I believe that I told you these things a while back, and you disagreed.
Welcome to the party, pal…
“Maybe you should try reading other people’s text before restated what has already been said multiple times?”
I think I offer a different take, which is worthy of contribution – where I try to make my appeals in evolutionary terms, rather than PUA lingo.
“We already know about hypergamy, we already know that in addition to carousel riders there are also carousel watchers.”
My issue was with the whole spurious alpha/beta/omega convention, but this seems like an impervious meme, so I just let it slide.
@Aqua Net
David, I would then advise men not to ask questions they really don’t want to know the answers to. Ignorance is bliss.
Nice try. Since the sexual revolution started, women had tried to change men’s attitude towards to a woman’s promiscuous past. Kind of “the past is the past, let’s forget it, let’s leave it behind”. That is, doing things without reaping the consequences. They can also try to get dogs to stop barking and birds to stop flying. Even one of the slut-friendly rom-com crap with which you American corrupt the rest of the world is named: “What’s your number” (which is another step forward in the decline that started with “The Bridges of Madison County” and continued with “Eat, Pray, Love”).
To be fair, this worked for the FIRST generation after the sexual revolution, since betas were not aware of the change. And this entails:
I think the problem with Susan’s approach is that she is seeking some “middle way” between pre-Sexual Revolution mores and hook-up culture. I don’t think such a middle exists, not as something sustainable.
As I said, this middle way existed for the first generation of woman after the sexual revolution. They managed to have it all. So, for example, Susan Walsh was able to have seven or eight sexual partners (I don’t know the number) and still get an upper beta and have kids and the white picket fence. With good intentions, Susan wants to teach this way to the new generation of women. But this middle ground is not available anymore. Culture has moved on. Promiscuity has skyrocketed between women. Betas are becoming more aware of the game. So I think Susan’s strategy is fundamentally misleading (although she doesn’t know it or doesn’t want to know it).
Nice try. Since the sexual revolution started, women had tried to change men’s attitude towards to a woman’s promiscuous past. Kind of “the past is the past, let’s forget it, let’s leave it behind”. That is, doing things without reaping the consequences. They can also try to get dogs to stop barking and birds to stop flying. Even one of the slut-friendly rom-com crap with which you American corrupt the rest of the world is named: “What’s your number” (which is another step forward in the decline that started with “The Bridges of Madison County” and continued with “Eat, Pray, Love”).
Exactly.
It’s just a power-grab, plain and simple. The idea is to take the power away from men to discriminate against long sexual histories in women in terms of selecting long term female mates. That is, in essence, a political power struggle between men and women in the mating arena, because if women win that “debate”, then they have their cake and eat it, too: slut around on the cock carousel for as long as they want, and then get the “nice man” who is good husband material, too, because her past is veiled in a shroud. It’s designed to disempower men from discriminating against sexually promiscuous women when choosing mates — a transfer of power from the men doing the discriminating to the women doing the fucking. That’s all this is.
imnobody: I agree completely. I like Susan, she seems like a nice lady and her heart is in the right place but I find her project doomed for the reasons you state. The good news is that her thinking has evolved a lot already (in the right direction) and maybe it will evolve further.
“Paragon says:
That is why I don’t buy this whole children are too expensive BS – expense is ‘relative’, and for all but the slightest interval of time in developed world populations, rearing children has always entailed even more expense/liability than they do now.
So, what does that say about those who appeal to such trivial expenditures as a pretext for their decision making policies(despite the fact that they represent likely evolutionary dead-ends)?”
Children *are* expensive. That’s not to say that you shouldn’t have them, but that you should take a good look at your budget and make sure you’re ready to spend on them.
The commenter above who brought up the expense wasn’t saying not to have children, but rather suggesting that it was a good idea to put them off a little until the parents have completed a post-secondary education so as to provide more earning potential to raise the kids.
That’s not unreasonable. You’re about as fertile in your late twenties as your early twenties, so a small delay might make you a lot more ready for a little less time.
imnobody
As I said, this middle way existed for the first generation of woman after the sexual revolution. They managed to have it all. So, for example, Susan Walsh was able to have seven or eight sexual partners (I don’t know the number) and still get an upper beta and have kids and the white picket fence. With good intentions, Susan wants to teach this way to the new generation of women
That’s one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is simpler: slap enough paint on a well used car, then sell it as a new model with no or low mileage (this is called “fraud” in other markets).
Still a more cynical way to look at it: she’s deliberately launching beta-hunting Q-ships.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q-ship
@ Kai
“The commenter above who brought up the expense wasn’t saying not to have children, but rather suggesting that it was a good idea to put them off a little until the parents have completed a post-secondary education so as to provide more earning potential to raise the kids.
That’s not unreasonable. You’re about as fertile in your late twenties as your early twenties, so a small delay might make you a lot more ready for a little less time.”
Yes, but my point is that this seems an inordinate pretext appealed to by women riding the carousel – which does not lend much credence to their sincerity.
Intuition tells me that a population of women cloistered in perma-chastity belts(and thus deprived of fully indulging their tingles) might be a little more eager to consider early marriage.
It would make for an interesting social experiment, at least.
Thanks Dalrock for clarifying your thoughts. I’m not that familiar with gambling so will have to mull over that part.
ME: I would then advise men not to ask questions they really don’t want to know the answers to. Ignorance is bliss.
IMNOBODY: Nice try. Since the sexual revolution started, women had tried to change men’s attitude towards to a woman’s promiscuous past.
Nowhere did I suggest, “try to change mens’ attitude towards womens’ sexual pasts”
I suggest – DON’T ASK, DON’T TELL.
Regarding Susan Walsh, I wonder how her husband feels when he reads things like this on her blog;
“It was so unexpected, the kiss and then the wine, that my mind was reeling! My whole body shivered and it was like a dart to the clitoris. It was very, very far from disgusting. Perhaps not to everyone’s taste, but I think guys might want to try it. At the time, I told all my gf’s and we were all atwitter.”
She’s talking about some dude she slept with in college who spit wine in her mouth over dinner in public at a restaurant.
Then there’s her excapade writing about the different public places she had sex on campus.
And oh yeah, her kids read her blog too.
“Paragon says:
Yes, but my point is that this seems an inordinate pretext appealed to by women riding the carousel – which does not lend much credence to their sincerity.
Intuition tells me that a population of women cloistered in perma-chastity belts(and thus deprived of fully indulging their tingles) might be a little more eager to consider early marriage.”
Okay, I see your point. But I don’t equate early marriage with early parenthood. Unless you’re a no-birth-control Christian/Catholic, it’s entirely possible (and recommended) to wait a bit between marrying and procreating.
So I think the argument is reasonable for delaying the bearing of children, I don’t think it is remotely relevant to an argument for or against getting married young.
If your excuse for not marrying young is that you’re too poor to start raising kids, you’re conflating issues, and I agree that there seems to be an ulterior motive.
If you’re a young couple who would marry but the only thing holding you back is that you’re still fairly young, I don’t think that’s any reason to put it off very far (I do think young relationships should run a little longer before marriage to ensure time to know each other), even if you don’t want kids for a bit.
I meant only to comment on the argument for delaying parenthood – not support its use as an excuse for other issues.
The people I know how married quite young (19-22ish) mostly just waited a little longer than average before having kids in their mid-to-late twenties (compared to those who married mid-to-late twenties and started having kids in the 29-31 range). Worked just fine for them.
I keep saying it. Don’t marry a girl who cannot wear a white dress for the traditional reason.
Demand a hymen.
Exactly. It’s not an unreasonable request. Seems there’s lots of young female virgins in the USA, even Roissy admits it.
However, the flip side to that of course is that in order to lock them down, a man probably needs to marry young like you, Dalrock and Athol.
The man doesn’t need to be young to marry. He just needs to marry someone who is still young. He can be as old as is still able to interest/be interested in younger girls.
Of course not. That’s why I said probably. Clearly a 21 year old good looking virgin girl has better offers than from a typical 40 year old man. There are exceptions on either side of course.
Lily, I was 30. My wife was 25. She was a virgin when I met her. And, no, sne was not ugly. Not at all.
The only way to avoid buyer’s remorse.
I have to say I am stunned at Susan Walsh’s slutty past. And this from a woman who tried to shame me for my behaviour with my wife. An excellent example of female entitlement.
David, for some reason I thought you were younger, for some reason I recalled you only had one previous partner (the girlfriend or wife of someone else) then your wife but perhaps I was wrong. I never thought your wife was ugly. You’re both Catholic and you (or at least now it turns out she) married young.
I haven’t read or absorbed all the Susan Walsh stuff. As some like Doug know, I called her out last year as a hypocrite (along with Sdaedlus, brightstormyday & Vassy) and have no time for her. It is bad enough when people say things like ‘clit twinge’ (my skin crawls just typing that), it’s another when they try and claim a moral highground whilst shaming ‘sluts’. Or as you say, you.
David my previous comment on the 40 year old man is that some like to mix and match from different ages in different countries. I suppose it’s like Cafeteria Catholicism.
One particular meme seems to be that men should be able to act like players and ‘studs’ til they are say 35 and then demand a virgin wife of 21. And if they can’t find a woman like that, then that means all women are hypergamous sluts blah blah.
And they start to sound an awful lot like the 53 year old (funnily Catholic) man here
http://historymatters.gmu.edu/d/6564/
@David
“I have to say I am stunned at Susan Walsh’s slutty past. And this from a woman who tried to shame me for my behaviour with my wife. An excellent example of female entitlement.”
Refresh me, what did she try to shame you for?
Lily, I don’t approve of “players”. I had offers that I turned down, so by the time I married at 30, I had only slept with one girl before my wife, a newly married woman who got me drunk and seduced me.
I posted that thing about virgins because I am horrified at the number of men who end up with women with long, slutty histories that slowly reveal themselves. It seems that Susan Walsh is happy to write about hers publicly like a giggly little tart. I feel really sorry for her husband. He must be more herb than a cottage garden.
This from a woman who tried to shame me for my patriarchal behaviour and attitudes, with my own wife.
Pingback: Who is a feminist? « Thinking 8
Pingback: Rules of the road for fornication. | Dalrock
Pingback: “Boomerang Preselection” Is A Red Herring | The Badger Hut
Pingback: What is to be done? « Free Northerner
Pingback: Father Know’s Best: Dalrock’s Donnerstag Dozen « Patriactionary
Pingback: Understanding the Put-Out Vote, Part 1 | Christian Men's Defense Network
Elizabeth Vargas Interviews Satan, the Gentle Giant:
Pingback: Beware the Carousel | notesfromaredpillgirl
Pingback: Does Fornication Matter When It Comes To Marriage? | The Society of Phineas