Fly Fresh and Young (FFY) has a post where he ponders the morality of being a player, titled Are women “collateral damage”? (H/T In Bona Fida):
Look, I love women. I love the chase, I love the seduction. I love that look in their eyes when you know it’s on, I love getting to know the cool ones better. I love having sex with them, I love having one night stands with them. I love having wild yet short flings with them, I love being f***buddies with them. I love being in a relationship with a worthy woman (rare as they are), and I love being in love.
However, I have the power to get all of the above from many women, and often a few concurrently. So I do.
He is touching on a topic I’ve discussed previously, but the problematic mindset is so prevalent that this is very much worth revisiting. Most Traditional Conservatives are obsessed with creating and enforcing rules of the road for fornication. There is an unspoken assumption that young women engaging in uncommitted sex have a right to swing from man to man on an ultimate path to marriage. Once the woman tires of the carousel, Christian and secular Traditional Conservatives ride in on a white horse and start demanding that whichever man the woman is having uncommitted sex with now must do the honorable thing and marry her. However, Trad Cons go a step further and also create elaborate rules of the road for fornication in their desperate attempt to make the carousel as pleasurable and rewarding an experience for women as possible. These two issues are interrelated, because the underlying assumption is that promiscuous women need to be treated as marriage material, they just haven’t gotten around to getting serious about marriage yet. Another assumption is closer to the College Boyfriend view, that women need many years of “relationships” until they find the man they want to marry, and in the meantime they may as well have a career. This issue came up a few months ago on the blog Darwin Catholic, where one commenter lamented the changes in the culture:
There are only so many years of fertility that a woman has, and it seems the secularists have won a great victory with this education/career nonsense encouraging an awful lot of women to waste that time in dubious endeavors.
This outraged Mrs. Darwin, who scoldingly explained that what looks from the outside like women putting career before marriage is really just women looking for a husband for a really really long time while working (and sampling a quantity of men):
I’ve said this before, and I’ll continue saying it until my voice gives out: One does not choose marriage in a void; one can only discern marriage in the light of another person, real and present, whom one wants to marry. All this talk of how women ought to get married young posits a world in which women browse through the orchard of love and pluck likely men off trees. Real relationships don’t work that way. Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.
One might assume Mrs. Darwin was limiting her passionate defense to career women who delay marriage while remaining virgins, except it turns out that men not wanting to marry non virgins is another hot button issue for the Darwins. Commenter GKC/Mr Anonymous politely argued the practical and biblical merits of men being averse to marrying non virgins on another Darwin Catholic post, and this resulted in him being banned from the Darwin Catholic blog and the thread being locked from further discussion. Mr. Darwin sent him on his way with:
Now, I’m done with you. In your initial comments, you seemed like you were open to reasonable and polite discussion. Your last few comments have become increasingly insulting and, frankly, suggest some rather perverted obsessions. Take them elsewhere. You’ve shit tested one too many times here and it bores me. If you comment again on this blog, I will delete it.
And I’m closing comments on this thread. I’m not impressed with the level of thought coming over from manosphere blogs, and I’d rather spend my limited writing time talking about something interesting.
I think it is safe to add one more to the man up and marry those sluts column.
Before we go any further, I’ll reiterate a point I’ve made many times before. If you are a Christian the moral issue isn’t to find the most moral way to fornicate. FFY isn’t being moral, and neither are the women he is with. But the moral answer isn’t for him to switch from being a player to a nice guy serial monogamist (with or without cash and prizes). The moral choice would be for him to ditch the hos and either remain celibate or find a worthy wife, although since he is an alpha I wouldn’t advise a woman to marry him.
Yet Trad Con moral angst is directed almost exclusively at the men in the fornication market who they feel aren’t playing by the rules. It isn’t that these men are fornicating, it is that they aren’t doing it the way Trad Cons want them to do it. As I wrote above, this comes from a generally unspoken assumption that fornication is the logical path for women to follow to marriage. Therefore their partners in fornication need to live up to a set of high fornication standards. With seemingly no discussion this idea has somehow become sacred, something which must not be challenged.
This is when you consider it a truly bizarre idea. Why do the Darwin Catholics and Pastor Driscolls of the world look at women engaging in the hookup culture and see marriage material? At the same time, why do men like FFY see these same women as good for a good time and nothing more? I think the answer to both questions can be found in the shift from a dating/courtship/marriage Sexual Marketplace (SMP) to our current hookup/serial monogamy SMP, and this is closely related to the changing age of marriage:
The chart above uses data from this US Census spreadsheet, and shows the long term trend in the US regarding age of marriage. To better explain how this long term trend has impacted the SMP, I’ll break it down further below by decade. I’ll also focus on median age of marriage for women, since young women are in the power position in the SMP.
Note: The red lines in the charts which follow indicate the average for the decade.
Put yourself in the shoes of an 18 year old young woman in the 1950s. As you can see, half of her peers are married by the time they are a few months past their 20th birthdays. Since marriage isn’t something which typically occurs overnight, these women have likely been in the courtship and engagement process for several years. A woman who marries at age 20 was very likely strongly considering marriage at age 18 if not younger. Many of the women around her have in fact married at younger ages than 20. Young women in this kind of situation will approach the dating market very differently than young women do today. They may not plan on marrying their first boyfriend, but they are generally looking for a boyfriend who they feel is husband material. This focus on dads over cads is reinforced by the fact that other women are looking for the same dad traits. This creates what is called in game parlance preselection, and can be very powerful.
Now place yourself in the shoes of a young man in the 1950s. As it has always been, young women are the prize of the SMP. If you want them to give you the time of day, you had better be offering what they are looking for. As I’ve just shown, generally this meant demonstrating dad potential. This isn’t to say that players/alphas didn’t exist or didn’t have success, but the playing field wasn’t stacked in their favor as it is today.
Fast forward a decade to the 1960s. As you can see, the trend has continued but the fundamental SMP hasn’t changed; the median age of marriage has increased by only a few months. If you are an 18 year old young woman, you still find that your peers just a few years older than you are very likely to already be married. The pressure is on to find a husband. Screwing cads for sport might be enticing, but there is no time to waste, and developing a reputation would harm your near term goal of finding the best husband you can attract.
Since the women are still looking for dads and not cads, as a young man the signal is still strong; work hard and prepare to act as a provider. Young women will spot the young men with the best potential and want to be with them.
Ten years later and we are in the full swing of the sexual revolution. On top of that, the trend towards later marriage for women has continued. However, a young woman’s peers are only marrying a year later than her mother’s peers did in the 1950s. This isn’t a lot of time to embrace the carousel, and marriage is still a near term goal for an average 18 year old woman. Certainly more women are screwing cads like FFY for sport than in previous generations, but the smart ones stay off the carousel or at least seriously limit their exposure to it. Many no doubt decide to split the difference with a series of college boyfriends until she finds the one she likes the best, and then pressure him into proposing.
By all accounts this must have been the golden age for greater betas. They have enough alpha/cad to be attractive to women on the carousel, and they also have the dad/beta qualities that women were still considering with marriage just around the corner. This golden age of greater betas seems to be what so many Trad Cons have etched in stone in their minds. This along with the apex fallacy leads to the premise that most men have all of the options. They can either use and discard women looking to marry, or they can marry them. Better yet, why not decide to have the best of both worlds and use and discard marriage worthy women until they decide to marry?
Note that the split-the-difference strategy in this scenario looks strikingly similar for men and women. One would be hard pressed to determine who was conning whom.
Now we are in the 1980s. While it took 20 years for the median age of marriage to go up one year between the 50s and 70s, it has gone up another two in the last decade. However, AIDS and the fear of STDs in general have put a bit of a damper on the promiscuity of the last decade, and when it comes down to it large numbers of young women are still in the marriage market from the beginning. 18 year olds look to 20 and 22 year olds for an understanding of what they should be doing, and those women are actively hunting down husbands. This isn’t a good time to develop a reputation, but a college boyfriend or three probably won’t do any harm. A few cads might find their way accidentally into the mix as well.
For greater betas the split the difference strategy still probably works pretty well. Cads are doing better because a larger number of women are delaying marriage into their late 20s and some even past then.
Enter the 1990s and the median age of marriage for women is now 24 and a half. While an 18 year old woman in the 1950s saw herself likely marrying in 2 years, an 18 year old woman in the 1990s doesn’t see this happening for over 6 more years. 6 years is a lifetime to an 18 year old of either sex, so her initial foray into the SMP likely isn’t looking for a husband. However, there is an inertia to inhibitions and the “good girls” are still following the college boyfriend script, even though fewer women now feel compelled to follow it. Those who chase cads assume rightly or wrongly that they can clean up their act and marry an unsuspecting beta once they are ready.
For the greater beta things are starting to get much tougher. Fewer women are seeking out dad qualities, and those who are could well have been chasing cads just a year or two prior.
Skip ahead to the generation that survived Y2k. Women are marrying roughly an additional year later than they did a decade ago, and 7.5 years later than they did in the 1950s. An 18 year old woman’s peers aren’t looking for a husband, and neither are the women 2 and 4 years older than her. The women who are looking for husbands are in a very different life stage than she is, so this removes her sense of urgency. The only thing holding her back from fully embracing the now raging hookup culture would be a strong moral belief that sex shouldn’t occur before marriage. For the rest, why not go after the hottest men they can find? There will be time to paper it over with stories about college boyfriends later. Besides, everyone is doing it.
For young betas this SMP is an unmitigated disaster. Your choices amount to finding one of the rapidly vanishing young women who are looking to marry, learn to emulate the cads, or remain celibate (voluntary or otherwise). On top of that, courting young women has become outright foolish unless one has a high degree of certainty that she is motivated to marry soon. Young women will gladly accept your quaint offer of gifts, free food, and entertainment, but most won’t be on the market for anything serious for many years. Courting older women has the same basic problem, with the additional negatives of them being less attractive and more likely to carry baggage of STDs, be hung up on a past alpha, or raising another man’s child.
For players like FFY, this is the time to be alive. Sexually unscrupulous young women are literally throwing themselves at you, and the only thing you have to worry about are the finger wagging Trad Cons who want to make sure the hos enjoy the ride. These same conservatives have generally turned their backs on marriage in the past decades, allowing it to become a mechanism to crush honest men. But even if the Trad Cons hadn’t squandered their moral authority it wouldn’t deter men like FFY, because he is one of the bad boys women are flocking to. His bad boy nature is both what makes him attractive to hordes of young women seeking out cads, and also what makes him not care what society in general and Trad Cons in specific think of him.
As you can see, the trend of women having “relationships” with men for an extended period of time has continued in the most recent years data is available for. Unfortunately, Trad Cons are so obsessed with the rules for the road of fornication they can’t focus on bringing us back to a truly moral situation.
See also:
+1 Dalrock.
One more time you hit the nail on the head.
[D: Thanks!]
Another case in point, rules of the road for fornication “Christian” style:
http://www.christianforums.com/t7644466/
I’m surprised you didn’t post this juicy morsel from Darwin:
“Neither women nor men who have sinned and sought God’s forgiveness are denied marriage, nor should they be — even if it would satisfy some twisted appetite you have to think of women who have sinned sexually as uniquely wretched in a way that men are not. That you are so excited about Old Testament notions of ritual purity and so uninterested in Christ’s notions of forgiveness of sins suggests a problem — if what you want to be is a Christian. So no, I don’t think it’s scriptural, I don’t think it’s Christian, and I think that woman who have had sex before marriage but truly seek God’s forgiveness and commit themselves to a Christian marriage are far more likely to be successful and happy in their marriages than the creatures who seem to inhabit the “manosphere”.”
IOW, slut it up as much as you like, and then when you want to get married seek God’s forgiveness and then embark on the Christian life. This is great evidence of why so many here are distrustful of the socons.
Re the remarks about careers, it seems the commenter was trying to suggest that if one is really serious about marriage they will put that search first and foremost over a career and Darwin acts like women are powerless to take charge and prioritize this aspect of their lives. One can find the right man pretty quickly if they are serious and willing to think outside of the box (i.e. seek older men).
“One does not choose marriage in a void; one can only discern marriage in the light of another person, real and present, whom one wants to marry.”
Seems here “discern” is a softer word for carousel. How is a girl suppose to know who she wants to marry if she doesn’t try them out first or discern them first. A nice way to make the provocative become Christian…Christians girls aren’t sleeping around they are just being discerning in their mate selection.
“I think it is safe to add one more to the man up and marry those sluts column.”
This made me think you should make a list on the side of you blog (not a link list, just a list) that displays all these Christian feminists you are finding. People can google the sites on their own as to not directly link traffic there. So many of these women are not used to being called out and its about time.
“I’m not impressed with the level of thought coming over from manosphere blogs, and I’d rather spend my limited writing time talking about something interesting.”
IOW, the level of thought she is referring to is reason/logic. Most women are not impressed by such…surprise, surprise.
Well done. I would never have thought of these trends in quite this way.
Neither women nor men who have sinned and sought God’s forgiveness are denied marriage, nor should they be — even if it would satisfy some twisted appetite you have to think of women who have sinned sexually as uniquely wretched in a way that men are not.
Interesting concept. Of course they are not “denied” marriage, as in the Church forbids them from marrying. Yet, there is also no requirement for a man to marry them either. Also, the concept of reputation would seem to be weak as well.
According to St. Thomas Aquinas, women are more susceptible to concupiscence than men, so the seducing cad sins more gravely than the deceived maiden. However, he also states, even though women are more frail than men in their capacity to resist temptation, because adultery by a woman threatens the introduction of a cuckold child, the adultery of women is considered a more serious crime, because it threatens marriage more. This is why a man seeking a wife has more reason to fear marriage to unchaste woman. Of course, I’ve never heard any of these people who say we must not consider the sexual histories of women ever say that they need not consider the past sexual histories of men. It’s a complete double standard. They whine about a double standard when THEY are the ones with the double standard. In Old Testament times, a woman who claimed falsely to be a virgin could be put to death. In Catholic history, a woman who claimed falsely to be a virgin could see her marriage annulled. Men absolutely have a legitimate interest in marrying virgins, regardless of their own sexual history, just as women, regardless of their sexual history, have a legitimate interest in avoiding cads and players. No one is required to marry someone they don’t want to marry. It’s not judging a woman’s soul to refuse to marry her. It is however, rash and sinful judgement to pharisaically accuse men of being “judgmental” for their rational decisions.
This is why I love this blog. Couple of things that struck me:
From Mrs. Darwin: “Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.”
Note here that there is no concept that maybe she should focus on being the right woman. No, every woman–every little princess– is assumed to be the perfect woman, and the problem is the guys are just garbage.
And from our own Dalrock: “I think it is safe to add one more to the man up and marry those sluts column.”
I think anyone who claims to believe the Bible, and yet tells Christian men to “man up and marry these sluts,” ought to read the first couple of chapters of Hosea VERY CAREFULLY. Yeah, Hosea marries a slut per God’s instruction, and a few versus later we find her having a son. God tells Hosea to name the kid “Not my people” (literally, Lo-ammi)”. Or in modern parlance, “hey, that kid isn’t mine!!!”. Yeah, Hosea was cuckholded. That’s why a Christian man should not marry a slut. In the Bible times, they called that the “Duh!” principle of picking a wife.
But you know, since women are innately good, as soon as she’s ready and finds a Christian guy who is good enough for “God’s little princess,” she will change overnight into someone perfectly virtuous.
Morons.
Until all the links to “Christian” Forums I didn’t realize there was this seamy, sordid subterranean world, like the sewers underneath Paris, in Christianity. Heroic effort to plunge in there and report back to us.
BTW, for more fun: Do Women SIn?
http://www.drurywriting.com/keith/Do.Women.sin.htm
“Christian” princesses have a hard time thinking of female sins.
One of the most interesting aspects of that thread at Darwin Catholic was conspicuous by its absence. I refer, obviously, to anything numerical. For a guy who preens about his analytical, numerical, nature – a guy who viewed the post WWII classic The Best Years of Our Lives in terms of the estimated wages of each character – the “manosphere” posting was remarkably light on facts or figures, and heavily overweight with “I think” and “I believe”.
One has to wonder why someone who prides himself, visibly and conspicuously, on numeracy could not be bothered to mention, oh, what percentage of divorces are filed by women, or what the incidence of suicide is among men recently divorced, or the tax status of child support payments, etc. Perhaps he does not know these things.
Perhaps he does not want to know them?
Laura Grace:
That was brilliant commentary. This “slut it up and then when you want to marry, just seek forgiveness and embark on the Christian life” is EXACTLY what I was thinking.
It is simply “when you’re done, come on in and get your ‘born again virgin/reformed slut’ creds, and we’ll get you fixed right up with one of our Christian men. So many to choose from!”
“I think that woman who have had sex before marriage but truly seek God’s forgiveness and commit themselves to a Christian marriage are far more likely to be successful and happy in their marriages….”
First of all, it’s a little presumptuous to say there will be men for these women to marry. It’s as if the Darwii simply assume men will be there to marry these women. Where will these men come from? Only a few have been patiently waiting for them to alight from the carousel. The rest went their own way, or are married and divorced already and sworn off marriage, or are learning Game and cadding it up because they got tired of waiting.
Well, assuming there might actually be men for these women to marry, is anyone going to roll up their sleeves and get about the hard business of teaching them how to “seek God’s forgiveness” and “commit themselves to a Christian marriage”? Where do the Darwii think these ladies are going to learn how to do that?
Anyone want to educate them on the hard realities of the differences between SMV amd MMV? Anyone want to tell them about The Wall and that they are about to be introduced to it … the HARD WAY? Anyone want to tell them that herpes reduces your MMV? Anyone want to tell them that no, it isn’t going to be just as easy to have kids at 35 as it is at 25? Let’s get on it, trad cons!
Who’s willing to break the bad news to some of these girls that Harley Thuggerson and Alpha McGorgeous aren’t going to wife them up? She’s going to have to settle for Louie Lawyer or Ernie Engineer or Stan the STEM Guy or Paul Plumber or Earl Electrician or Tom Teacher.
And, she needs to be told that pair bonding might be a little difficult because of all that alpha carouseling. She needs to be told that some of these Steady Eddies might not want her because she’s slept with the equivalent of a couple of football teams.
And she needs to be told that if she wants a man, she will have to settle for what she can get. And “what she can get” might be “nobody”.
Volunteers? Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?
And one of GKC/Anonymous’ most cogent points and objections was that we cannot say a woman can slut around and then not be responsible for it. She IS a moral actor, she DOES have moral agency and free will, and she IS responsible.
“IOW, slut it up as much as you like, and then when you want to get married seek God’s forgiveness and then embark on the Christian life.”
God will forgive her for being a slut. But eternal forgiveness doesn’t imply there are no temporal earthly consequences for being a slut. One of those consequences is Christian men might not think a woman who has an established weakness for sexual temptation is fit to be his trusted companion and the mother of his children. Just because she may be a Christian now (assuming her conversion is genuine) doesn’t mean she doesn’t still have weaknesses. And maybe STDs.
“IOW, slut it up as much as you like, and then when you want to get married seek God’s forgiveness and then embark on the Christian life.”
So instead of a 12-step program for promiscuous women, it appears Churchianity has a 1-step program – and none of that “admit you did wrong” or ‘apologize for hurting people” nonsense, either. Interesting, isn’t it? And unlike Chuck Colson’s prison program, there’s none of that business of having to accept whatever penalties that may have accrued due to past behavior, either. Also interesting, isn’t it?
Gee, I wonder what the success rate is, in terms of behavioral change? Oh, wait, we already have an idea, don’t we?
The Christian weboshphere must tremble when they hear Dalrock’s thunderous steps.
It must pain these ‘Christians’ that a dude with a blog is shredding their warped stance and exposing it to light of day.
Dalrock, the last graph shows an increase in age of women at first marriage of 6 months in the space of one year. So as TFH pointed out, the 2nd derivative, the rate of change, is increasing. There could be many reasons for that. But it seems to me that if there were a “marriage strike” going on, one effect would be…that graph.
Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.
______________________________________________________________________
That’s easy… Become a better woman. That means a biblical woman as well if they even know what that really mean.
dear mrs. darwin
I take pity on your pathetic husband. he might have an idea the kind of hell he is in for, being married to you, but I don’t think he really understands how bad it can get.
love,
buddha
Outstanding article Dalrock. That article meeds to be forwarded to the email box of every Seminary in the western world.
If they are ignoring or even supportive of carousel behavior from women, then the Social Cons in question aren’t really So Cons and Trad Cons aren’t really Trad cons. The relativism of excusing carousel riders while telling guys to man up is anything but conservative. Identifying them by those terms is therefore a misnomer. Dalrock himself is more of a So Con / Trad Con than they are.
I’m not just trying to nit pick. It’s just that these days it seems everybody wants to pile on conservatives.
[D: Certainly not all Trad Cons are like that, and as you suggest I’m fairly conservative. The problem is so many who consider themselves conservative have bought into the nonsense. Those of us who haven’t need to be careful not to give shelter to those who have.]
Right again.
As a woman just put it…
“What American Men Can Learn From French Men About Sex,” by Amanda Chantel, Your Tango, 29 Mar 2012
http://www.yourtango.com/2012147482/french-men
“… I briefly bonded with a Frenchman over NYC [New York City] and after a mere 30 minutes into our conversation, he asked if I wanted to go some place to “f**k.” My answer, in that case, was obvious. I mean, he was gorgeous.”
good exposition — the Median Age chart 1950 to 2011 illustrates it well
Ms Darwin — “Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.”
damn right it’s positive, she and her sisters have the entire weight of government, media, and academy of the most powerful nation on Earth financing and empowering them from cradle to career, with preference and encouragement at every step
the results have been great for the wealthy and upper-income husband/wife double dippers, and for females generally (short-term)
but a disaster for boys, men, fatherhood, the economy, education, innovation, on and on
what’s a woman to do? remain a virgin and stay out of the job market, so men can work and lead families
of course . . . that would mean women wouldnt rule over men, cant have unequal craziness like that. . .
men must have prioity in education and the workplace for any “economy” to survive, but of course Ms and Mr Darwin are riding high right now, comfortable lives and to hell with the dystopia left in their wake, theyll be retired in tucson
the only tragedy worse than fem-driven late marriage has been fem-driven late childbirth, at ages when most of them are far (way far) past truly bonding with any man
this isn’t best done by girls in teen years, as sane societies understood, it is ONLY done in teen years in females, mid-twenties was considered old maid
by the time theyve screwed eight guys (many by sophomore year) and banked their own paychecks, do you really think theyre going to “bond” with engine engine number nine?
where is Ms Darwin’s ever-so-evolved concern about the destruction to others wrought by her demands uh “choices”?
over one in ninety u.s. births are now autistic, a phenomenon directly related to pastor dalrock’s marriage charts, with births in late thirties not uncommon . . . where is Mr Darwin’s indignation over those paying the price of Ms Dawin’s endless choices?
we’re tired or Ms Darwin and her neverending rights and choices, and we’re equally tired of Mr Darwin and Co. backing her up
Bravo, Dalrock. One of your very best posts.
I’d like to hear from the Catholics, but my understanding of Protestant society in the modern era most women were educated or trained until late teens and then were “out” and were expected to have a husband within a year or so.
The Puritans argued that men should marry early… to minimise the risk of fornication and use of prostitutes. There was no argument about women. Women married early.
In this post modern era, both are delaying, and both men and women are now fornicating. Which is an obvious consequence of delaying marraige in an era of contraception. The odd thing is that early marraige leads to the woman having kids in her 20s, training for her career in her 30s, and then (with her children now gone) making a contribution, paid or unpaid, in her 40s to 70s. She has it all, but not all at the same time. The current situation harms women, hurts men, and increases the rate of divorce, as you decrease the rate of bonding between young people.
Once a priest gave a sermon at a traditional chapel about the reasons that people married later. And he claimed it was because young people were more “immature.” What nonsense. These statistics tell the story.
Very good stuff. It would be interesting to see median age for first birth (specified for in or out of wedlock, if possible) and percentage of people who are in their first marriage, as well.
Great article. This is always the problem for the SoCon side of the spectrum. They’re trying to shoe-horn the fundamental amorality of the carousel into their vision of a moral universe. There is no room here for women who are “impure” in thought and deed and men who react rationally (if ruthlessly) to that tangible truth.
This is why DarwinCatholic could respond with the trite, “Meh. Like I said: I’m against divorce” in response to GK’s link to Stephen Baskerville’s article in Touchstone. They don’t accept divorce as part of their vision, ergo the cash and prizes for women and the egregious consequences for men are moot.
The Darwins have created a morally equivalent bubble-universe where manosphere commentators are unwelcome precisely for trying to engage with reality and the inevitable consequences of certain actions to both men and women. We might as well be debating with a tree.
… and this from a Catholic – where are The Jesuits when you need them!
I am (just) old enough to recall – and the above charts confirm the same – that most women had found the man they wanted, (the man usually being a year or two older), by their late teens or early twenties. For what it is worth all my lawyer friends had married usually by their mid twenties, indeed in my first years at law college (when I was 19, two of the students were already married – so it can’t be that hard to find a mate, really. After a courtship, agreement to engage, (a strange state, I think) and thereafter engagement, many would marry – there was a housing shortage and lack of money, which might have added to this process, and some but not all would be virgins at marriage, but if not with few if not just one sexual partner. Of course, if you are slightly defective in normal human empathy, or perhaps unlucky, it might take a bit longer.
The catch (which DarwinCatholic seems oblivious too is this): The longer a woman remains single, (as she pursues her career) the less likely she is to marry, as I will explain. If she does not marry, she will either remain celibate (which as Dr Johnson observed has few pleasures) or, there being no comittment and thus no person-to-person stability in her life, she will indulge herself at will. She will thus swing between celibacy and whoredom – which is what Eat Pray Love describes. Anonymous urban living, the pill and abortion can grant her fake chastity. She will discover (provided she is neither too fat or too ugly) that she will have no shortage of men dancing attendance to satisfy her sensual cravings. The more men she sleeps with the less likely any one man will be to satisfy her as her jaded appetite will merely compare and contrast. Along the way she may acquire either inoperable STDs or unremovable children or, if her actions are not quite as secret as she hopes, a bad reputation. Her MMV will thus fall even without the effects of age. As she moves up the corporate ladder, there will be far fewer available and suitable males from which to choose, than when she was a Teen. She will thus become a modern version of either a Courtesan or a Nun – a slut or a blue-stocking.
This, however, seems to be a peculiarly American problem, as older women, where I am, show not the slightest desire to marry, and few seek children. The only natives, here, who seem keen to marry, are the Aristocracy and the Homosexuals (coming shortly). I don’t think we have SoCon’s, or if we do, they have no power or influence, but then the influence of Christainity is, I would say – although most identify as CofE – weak.
Great post Dalrock.
If you read Heartiste at all he adds one other element to this disaster of a SMP for young betas. The fact that much greater portions of our population are grossly overweight. I seem to recall that one of his posts highlighted the fact that in the late seventies, early eighties only 10-15 percent of the population was categorized as overweight. In today’s world that would probably be more like 40-45 percent. Maybe more depending on the age group.
Sure, just as many guys as gals are overweight, but look at it from the perspective of some young beta who is actually fit and trim. It doesn’t matter. He is practically invisible to the sixty percent or so of slim women in their twenties He just doesn’t stand out in the eyes of all these slim ladies his age who have been spoon fed the message that they “deserve” some apex male. Hell, he doesn’t even stand out to many of the ‘larger” ladies because in their eyes they too “deserve” some apex male.
Sometimes it seems that this particular group of men get branded as the angry MRA types. But I really have not found that to be true. Many of them are successful men with all kinds of varied interests. They are just more realistic in what they see in the SMP. And those clear eyes don’t see some reformed Christian or tired party girl in her early thirties as such a good choice.
I would also add that your starting point of the change in the 90’s has yielded a nice sized group of ladies in their late thirties and early forties who have bought into the sex and the city nonsense and now feel that they are more “mature” and desirable after their divorce. And if you dare to try and act any differently than they dictate you get branded as immature or angry at women. Just like you see over at Darwin Catholic or TC. Forget any fact based discussion. It’s all about feelings!!!
I would bet many of these younger betas (yes, I was one at one time) have come to realize what it took some of us until our forties to realize. Why bother? My highest earning years have come since my divorce. My relationship with my kids has grown into something way beyond what I ever expected. I have rediscovered all the varied interests and activities that I enjoyed before I got married. So faced with the hordes of these newly divorced women in their late thirties an early forties I have adjusted. When I meet a new woman, I don’t even bother to assess them for MMV.
Opus
“This, however, seems to be a peculiarly American problem, as older women, where I am, show not the slightest desire to marry, and few seek children.”
I have observed this phenomenon in Australia as well.
Wonderful article. I always wondered why the Trad Cons where so locked into their views. It’s because that’s when they went to college! I also have a hunch that most Trad Cons were lesser betas in college. Which might explain why they’re so angry at the men.
I second Interested’s point that this reads well with Heartiste’s current beta pedastal article.
As I read this again, I thought of a couple of things, especially after reading Dalrock’s post again on SMP searching costs and the unmourned death of courtship.
In Marriage 1.0 and up to about 1970, men and women had a much better sense of the effects of time on their SMV and MMV, and the relationship of advancing time on their lives. Both men and women understood that time would work against them, and that they should find not just marriage partners, but SUITABLE marriage partners. They did not have all the time in the world to find spouses and they knew this.
That has disappeared. Since 1970, women are falsely told that time works for them when it still does not. Betas and lesser betas lose too under this scenario. Even though they are still available for relationships, the women do not wait for those betas. They wait for their turn to ride the alpha carousel. Or they stand around as carousel watchers. And so the only ones able to use time to their advantage are alphas like Fly Fresh & Young, who laughs all the way to the bedroom.
I thoroughly enjoy the posts that go through the numbers…
Have you read the book “Tipping Point”. I think those concepts are at play here. During the transition period, there will be seeds of carousel rides and cads (60s?) which grows into larger enclaves of this subculture (70s) which blooms into being the predominant social and culture structure (80’s & 90s). During the late 70s & early 90s I can see that quick transition as the tipping point.
20yrs might seem like a long time, but it is a transition that happens in the span of 1 generation. Compared to hundreds of years of cultural history, its a quick transition.
It occurs to me that tradcons like the Darwii approach the SMP and MMP the way they do in the Darwin Catholic thread that Dalrock mentioned above, because they have a very different view of the SMP and MMP in particular and a different worldview in general.
Tradcons still believe the old rules operate, with the exception of women wholesale entering the workforce. They also have quite different views of what an alpha is. Tradcons still approach sex and marriage from this worldview:
1. These traits are alpha: faithfulness, loyalty, stoicism, industry, ambition, compliant, earning power. These kinds of men are attractive to women.
2. These so-called “alphas” the manosphere speaks of are arrogant, boorish, rude, crude, vulgar, profane, and irreverent. They have no respect for modern society, conventions of decorum and comportment, or human decency. They may look well dressed and well read, and might speak well, and might even earn good money. But these so-called “international playboys” and “players” and “playas” are really nothing more than thugs, criminals, mentally disturbed and societal outcasts. How can it possibly be that men like this are attractive to women?
3. If women are attracted to these so-called “playas”, it is because they are tricking and duping these uncorrupted paragons of sweetness and virtue. They are playing false and putting on elaborate acts of faithfulness and commitment to ensnare these pure women into bed and deflower them. And we know this because…..
4. Women are basically pure, noble, altruistic and good. Men are basically tainted, base, self-serving and bad. Women don’t have to be taught. But men can be taught as boys to be pure, noble, altruistic and good.
5. If women cannot find husbands, it is because we are not doing a good enough job of teaching men and training them up to be true alphas with traits like loyalty, faithfulness and stoicism. If these men would just get educated, get better jobs and earn more money, they will make themselves more attractive to all kinds of women, especially the sweet paragons of virtue we have right here at the 10 am service. (Cover up that tattoo, honey. Here’s a breath mint.)
6. Meanwhile, we have no problem with women earning money — if that’s what they want to do. These sweet paragons of virtue need SOMETHING to do with their time while they wait for these overgrown boys to grow up and man up and stop playing those video games.
7. Women have moral agency in every area of their lives EXCEPT sex and relationships. Anytime a woman is with a man, he is responsible for her. He must sacrifice to the point of death for her. He must prove his worthiness with tribute — gifts, meals and entertainment. She owes him nothing until such time as he has proven himself worthy, but she can be relieved even of that obligation if she’s not haaaappy or he does not lead her or he lusts in his heart. Looking at porn is the unforgivable sin of marriage.
Dalrock,
Long time lurker here. This post is epic. Thanks for all the research and thoughtful analysis you put into this post. I think you just sank their battleship.
[D: Thanks, and welcome!]
Then it appears that the Darwii do not actually believe that men and women are different in substantial, deep ways. So they don’t really understand evolutionary biology. Thus the Darwin Catholics do not understand evolution…
Well, that meets my Recommended Daily Allowance (RDA) of Irony.
So what were the underlying numbers showing? Does the median describe the underlying changes meaningfully?
Tracking a median that rises and accelerates in that rise suggests that that the following two things might well be happening:
1) a mound of people still marrying young. Religious, young idealistic people etc. This mound presunably slowly dropping in size but not moving in age, staying young.
2) a second mound that is accelerating even faster than the median is. My guess is this that this may be spreading out in range of age. The bulge becoming wider as it moves as moves towards increased age through the 50 years.
So, if you miss the boat young, is the picture even worse than the median suggests? (Yes, I realise the difference between mean, median and mode)
Tradcon rules of the road for fornication:
1. Young women can’t count on a man. So she needs to find a way for a career. In the meantime she is entitled to discern men suitable for marriage for her (i.e. ride the carousel until she finds a horse she likes enough to keep).
2. While women are discerning men (i.e. riding the carousel), the men must be kind and nice to her. He must evaluate her for marriage. He must take her on real dates. He must provide her with tribute in the form of meals, gifts and entertainment. Whatever she wants, he must give it to her.
3. The character of the relationship is entirely her choice. She may select from any of the following and she may change her mind at any time:
Sex but no relationship
Relationship first and sex later
Relationship and no sex
Sex and a relationship
Nothing (because she didn’t like the sex or he’s too beta)
4. When she decides she has found a man suitable for marriage. the man must immediately propose marriage.
5. If she is sleeping with a man she has found suitable for marriage, he must immediately propose marriage.
6. Even women who have had many premarital sex partners are entitled to marriage so long as they seek forgiveness (i.e. pray a prayer) and commit to a marriage (i.e. accept the proposal).
@Just1X
This is always a risk when you use statistics to simplify. Part of the exchange is you of course loose the detail. In this case I used the data most readily available, but I do think that median is a very good fit for what we are discussing. Knowing that half of all women (who married) had married by a given age strikes me as more meaningful than knowing the average age. Likewise breaking it down by decade is arbitrary, but I think it helps the reader conceptualize the undeniable shifts in the data. Lastly, I’ve taken the statistical liberty of averaging the median for each decade. Some might object to this, but I think it is still functional for the purpose at hand.
I’ve shared bracketed census data here, which shows the kind of picture I think you are looking for.
The challenge in answering your question is two fold. The first problem is we won’t have the data we need to answer this question for the current group of young(ish) women for quite some time. Anon Reader alludes to this in one of his comments above. As he accurately points out, the data isn’t inconsistent with a marriage strike. However, it also isn’t conclusive. My own guess is that what we are seeing is primarily the intent of women to delay marriage. However, it does seem likely that they will eventually overplay their hand here. Even if the cohort of men who would traditionally marry them opt for the “take it” side of the “take it or leave it” ultimatum, they can’t all magically turn themselves into suitable providers.
The other challenge in answering this question is that something strange is going on with respect to marriage and longevity. As you look at older and older segments of the population, the never marrieds continue to shrink as a percentage of the population.
Having acknowledged the two challenges above, the data on marriage rates by age does show that women find it harder to (re)marry as they get older.
@Dalrock, brilliant, one of your best posts ever. Top 5, for sure.
@Brent, I just learned something new about what’s in the Bible. You had me pulling mine out and reading the first 3 chapters of Hosea. And all I got to say is … day’ammm. thank you. Have to add a comment that the whole thing is a metaphor for the shame and punishment God will bring on Israel for acting so poorly. And the fems think they’re entitled to exemption, why?
Darwin Catholic: needs to read Dalrock or spend 40 years lost in the wilderness…
Great post Dalrock.
That FFY guy is also not husband / life partner / long term boyfriend material. He is a moral degenerate. I wouldn’t touch him with a six foot pole. He might only get someone who is equally morally challenged, there is no way he will get a normal, healthy woman.
The truth is that you NEED those women who have had sex before and who you consider “sinful” (a non existent term in Europe, btw) – you need them to become companions, wives, mothers. You can’t be choosy here and desire a virgin – you simply will get none. Even a woman who has slept with 50 guys can get married at age 30+ and become a mother (namely, create the children that the society needs) and she can even be an ok wife if she is in love with the man. There is nothing wrong with her. Whereas there is a lot wrong with someone like FFY because he most likely misleads women who he sleeps with. He is not just a bad boy, he is most likely above average in looks too (and maybe has sex appeal which is innate). This is why he can pull it off, 90% of the guys can’t. Jenna Jameson also has it – she can fuck a thousand men and still get married at 30 or smth and become a mother. Not saying this is ok or right, but this is the age. Yes, it is disgusting. It seems love and trust are dying. But this is what the West has chosen as a society – to treat their fellow human as a means to an end, not an end in themselves. Most women don’t ride a carousel for fun – pure male projection. They ride in hopes that the guy will commit. An 18 in the 1950s did not feel “enticed” as you said, an 18 is almost still a child and is still dreaming about princes, not multiple insertions or multiple partners – that is pure male pornified projection. Women are not into many partners, they are into one superior (loved) partner. Sure some like to sample different men, but that is mostly serial monogamy with an intention to achieve smth more serious. Women don’t jump from cock to cock. That’s men’s biological behavior.
Correction – an 18 year old girl is dreaming about A (one) Prince, The Prince. She is not looking around with hungry eyes thinking how many cute boys she can fuck. She sees one boy (or man) she falls in love with and then dreams about him all day for a long time. I first fell in love at age 12, and dreamt about that boy for several years, nothing happened of course, then at 15 I fell for another, and dreamt of him for another 4-6 years, nothing happened again. This is how it is for girls, they don’t look around with sultry hungry eyes, wanting to jump on various cocks, it’s the other way around. In the 1950s both women and men had strong social control. Btw, there were women both in the 1930s, 40s, and 50s who married for the first time at age 30-35. Not many but there were such. In Europe at least.
@deti
And men have to sign that deal with blood.
@Dalrock
Marriage per se is done.
I find the described female behavior(s) as a transitional phase to matriarchy. Because of these signs:
– shift to temporary relationships based on pleasure
– rising promiscuity and cheating on men
– significant wealth transfer and preferential treatment of women when it comes to shared property
– Total redefinition of system of belief (religion) to elevate women as greater sex
– marginalization of men in all spheres
Just look at existing matriarchal societies like Mosuo and parallels are obvious. And this includes also a formation of patriarchal elite.
@Random Angeleno
“And the fems think they’re entitled to exemption, why?”
Because, as demonstrate by Dalrock on a recent post, while St. Augustine erroneously argued that original sin is carried by the sperm (something Christians historically never accepted), Christians today have not only revived that view, but gone further by implying original sin is carried strictly on the Y chromosome.
God stuff, Dalrock.
There are few rewards for men looking to go the old route these days. They would be the only ones playing by those rules.
I would also add that the only time the elders and pastors see Christian girls is at church, when the women are wearing their good girl hats. Dressed nicely, smiling, singing, praying intently, friendly they are the embodiment of virtue.
Were they to see them out at the bars or parties, they’re opinions would change pretty d*mn quickly if they have the mental agility to accept what they are witnessing.
Deti @ 9:25- Money. That describes my mindest to a T when I grew up, and it’s no coincidence that some of what I write about is combating the tendencies of traditionally oriented men to ascribe women those default halos.
Dalrock-
While I wouldn’t expect much of your readership to adopt my views, and neither do I seek to convert anyone, as a formerly very religious person I will say Christian men looking for a great Christian woman may be best served by at least adopting some ruthless pragmatism and ignoring efforts by their elders to shame them into compliance. There are tons of bad apples out there and, if the girls from my church are any indication, very few good ones left. But leadership would have them all be eaten, patting you on the back and congratulating you for doing your duty afterwards when you get food poisoning.
FFY:
All I can tell you is that my parents, pastors, church elders, teachers, and others in authority delivered loud and clear the messages in my comment at 9:25.
I was also told that church girls were different from other girls. Church girls are nice, kind, sweet and virginal. They want to meet, date, and marry nice church boys and make lots of babies with them. They told me that if I wanted a wife, I needed to marry a church girl. I was told in no uncertain terms that players, bad boys and “layabouts” were scum and good-for-nothings.
But I wondered for years — how was it that these players, bad boys and layabouts always seemed to get girls? All kinds of girls? And how was it that when it came to men, the girls in church never seemed all that different from any other girls?
All I’m saying is that we men weren’t told the truth, because the elders just didn’t have any idea about how the rules had changed.
Dana:
“Most women don’t ride a carousel for fun – pure male projection. They ride in hopes that the guy will commit.”
So — how many alphas does your average carousel rider sleep with before she figures out he’s not going to commit and never will? How many pump & dumps does she tolerate before she finally gets it?
How many before she learns the lesson? Two? Five? Twenty?
How many times do you put a hand on the hot stove before you figure out you’re going to get burned?
How many times do you put your head underwater before you learn to hold your breath?
How many times does Charlie Brown try to kick the football Lucy’s holding?
Oh goody, it’s time for a good Saturday afternoon fisking! (Gives whole new meaning to the term “afternoon delight”).
@Dana
The truth is that you NEED those women who have had sex before and who you consider “sinful” (a non existent term in Europe, btw) – you need them to become companions, wives, mothers.
Why do they NEED them? They can live perfectly happy and productive lives on their own; many men do just that and who can blame them?
Even a woman who has slept with 50 guys can get married at age 30+ and become a mother (namely, create the children that the society needs) and she can even be an ok wife if she is in love with the man. There is nothing wrong with her. Whereas there is a lot wrong with someone like FFY because he most likely misleads women who he sleeps with.
What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. You can’t just assume a woman who has had 50 cocks in her hasn’t misled any of the men attached to those cocks. Also, that much strange and being 30+ seriously reduces her chances of having children. Only a fool would want to put his bare member in that petri dish.
Jenna Jameson also has it – she can fuck a thousand men
She can get f*cked by a thousand men, not the other way around.
It seems love and trust are dying.
Not in my life; maybe you should do something about it in your own life then, instead of projecting a load of garbage that people around here will see through in about 2 seconds flat.
Most women don’t ride a carousel for fun – pure male projection. They ride in hopes that the guy will commit.
Ahh ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Oh, please, you’re killing me!
An 18 in the 1950s did not feel “enticed” as you said, an 18 is almost still a child and is still dreaming about princes, not multiple insertions or multiple partners – that is pure male pornified projection.
An 18 year-old is not a child dreaming of being a fairy princess. They may be naïve, but they are not 8 year-olds. How on earth do you know an 18 year-old in the 50s didn’t feel ‘enticed’? Do you really think the human brain and biology have changed so drastically in the last 60 years? All you’re seeing now is the result of taking away societal restraints; what you see now is the truth of what happens when women’s sexual urges have all the consequences stripped away – or at least, what was the biggest consequence before artificial contraception got so reliable, namely, out of wedlock pregnancy.
Women are not into many partners, they are into one superior (loved) partner. Sure some like to sample different men, but that is mostly serial monogamy with an intention to achieve smth more serious.
It’s an extremely poor strategy. You should read a post I wrote, but I warn you, you will have to come back to Dalrock’s to read another of his (linked in my post) because you’ll miss the point if you don’t: Lovable: An Optimistic View
Women don’t jump from cock to cock. That’s men’s biological behavior.
When was the last time you left your high tower?
Dana, if what you say is true, and women are rational actors and have moral agency, then women who sleep with alphas like FFY are stupid because they don’t understand even the simplest cause and effect lessons.
But I don’t believe that. I don’t believe carousel riders really can’t figure out what’s going on. I don’t believe the women racking up the high counts aren’t putting 2 and 2 together.
It’s not that they’re stupid. It’s that they want the alpha. Guys like FFY are simply giving these girls what they want. They might SAY they want relationships. But by their actions, they want alpha men to sex them, and that’s what they get.
This has been a very interesting post.
I am particularily keen to try to work out the future trend. One reads in the Man-o-sphere, frequently, that there is a marriage strike by men. I have never thought that the case: certainly the females I have been serious about – and there have been one or two – merely used my interest to jerk me around and bask in their power; but I put that down largely to my taste for difficult women. It seems to me, therefore, that it is the women who are delaying marriage, either because they never intend to marry (what a fitness test that is!) or are still expecting to meet their Brad Pitt (or met him and will never get over losing him – an even worse fitness test). Women – all women, perhaps – talk of love and romance and finding happiness – and when they are not doing that they fantasize about Evil Rapists and Stalkers – like adolescents they see the world as comprising two opposite extremes – and some even talk of having children (with or without a Husband) but as they grow older and more set in their ways, and more demanding and seemingly more unrealistic in their requirements, (those guys in the next corporate cubicle are creepy and weird after all) surely the point will be reached where, unable to obtain what they seek, marriage, will, like the VCR (to choose a recent Dodo) begin to slip away. Generally, I take the view that most people get to where they are going to get to in life by their late twenties – after that age it tends to be more of the same; thus if the median age for female marriage is now twenty six and a half and twenty eight and a half in the U.K. and Canada an even higher in Spain, Ireland and Iceland, we are coming dangerously close to that ‘tipping point’ where marriage will cease to happen. Why should the woman worry? She will continue to receive male attention, she receives a good salary and with her female network (facilitated by Facebook) she can always enjoy herself socially or sexually and with as much foreign travel as she chooses. Sluts are not to be shamed anymore than ‘heroic single mums’ and all women are in any case victims of either Rape or Domestic Violence’.
Men will of course respond, to this never ending game of Prisoner’s Dilemma by being bad boys, or building Harems, or simply losing interest, in a rigged game where the prize is not worth having(which will only make matters worse for those women who would want to marry and who are not already ruined with STDs or other men’s children) but if Men are the Gatekeepers of Commitment and women are not interested in the male offer, there would seem little point in the manning a gate no one wants to pass. Evolution will favour the Cad.
Perhaps this is too pessimistic: TFH predicts the Misandry Bubble bursting in 2020; my above scenario does not apply to Chavs (Trailer Trash); Muslims; Hindus, and doubtless many other groups. The Liberal West, I have long thought, has the seeds of its own destruction (tolerance for Anything anti-thetical to its own survival) contained within it.
Thanks for highlighting the dating trends. I need to do an article using this as a basis for why the church is so wrong in the way it handles “purity” for teens and beyond.
“I think the term ‘Dalrocked’ works pretty well here.
Darwin Catholic got “Dalrocked”. The will never be the same again.”
i’ve also been using that term, contemplating the many (many) other “ministries” and false churches and “christian” radio networks just crying out for a good dalrocking . . . add a little bit of truth to their “preaching”
as the Victims pile up, the chant goes out across the land:
you
have
been
Dalrocked
“Even a woman who has slept with 50 guys can get married at age 30+ and become a mother (namely, create the children that the society needs) and she can even be an ok wife if she is in love with the man. There is nothing wrong with her. Whereas there is a lot wrong with someone like FFY because he most likely misleads women who he sleeps with.”
yeah FFY is a loser . . . ironic to see him called an “alpha” lol
but you’re wrong about the 30+ woman who has Liberated herself with 50 guys
it took me a few decades to realize what other guys have recently pointed out — that such females DO NOT BOND deeply and fully with men (no matter how “good” or “alpha” the man is) after the women are sexually experienced . . . and especially after theyve entered their wonderful independent careers, bossing and commanding men, prosecuting and judging them in “courts” etc
girls and young virgin women retain this capacity for lifetime bonding with their FIRST man (tho it’s only a capacity, not a certainty, and does not necessarily follow simply b/c marriage occurs)
of course, women and the male leaders/enablers of the matriarchal West can’t handle this truth — it completely blows up their Empowered Woman bullshit: females can be handed the entire society, awarded the educaction and jobs, and screw as many guys as they want, and then the Mere Males can just be badgered, shamed, and legislated into providing for and marrying them whenevery The Little Princess is ready . . . age 29 . . . age 35 . . . age 47
the reality, tho, is that once females start the carousel, they can never get off
signing a marriage document changes nothing — the female’s ability to cleave to her husband is already LONG gone . . . to “become one” with him biblically
what then happens to the woman’s sons? they need consistent male presence, but even at age 39 she “needs” a string of “romantic adventures” to maintain her delusions that she’s still sixteen years old
the little boys, owned by mommy, end up with eight different “daddies”
feminism (like your woman-enabling preachers) LIED to you, Dana, that you’re “just as good as new” after your Sex in the City lifestyles
the presence of other men in her body, soul, and spirit precludes her bonding with her husband, and the likely result is her becoming Unhaaapy in a few years b/c she’s already addicted/polluted by her sexuality with previous men, and by the Ongoing Drama that serial “monogamy” provides to women
there is a solution to this problem, but it’s not a solution gynocratic western cultures will like, much less accept
I’ve tweaked this a bit, but kept the archaic flavor. There are still some Catholics that speak truth, sneaking it in where they can.
“Lady, if thou dost give out favors of thy body for lust, but not love, thou dost injure thine own soul. There was never a woman made to give herself to all; thus thou wouldst slowly shred thy soul away, till nought was left, and thou didst not truly exist. And this doth happen whenever thou dost open thy body to one who loves thee not, and whom thou dost not love. That breaks the wholeness of thy soul, for we are made in such a wise that our inner selves and bodies are joined as one, and when the one doth open, the other does.”
“Thou didst then say, ‘It matters not; I am still whole. This is my own nature, to give of my body and not of my soul; mine only true aim is pleasure.’ And to prove it to thyself, thou didst seek to couple with every male that exciteth thee—yet each time, thou wast more torn, and didst need to prove it more—so thou didst frantically seek out more to pleasure thee, though in thy depths, thou knew it pleasured thee not at all. For in truth, ‘twas only an excuse.”
“ ‘Tis a male conceit that a woman’s self may be rended by a one-night’s coupling, while the man’s is not—but ‘tis only a conceit. We, too, are made all of one piece, body and soul so shrewdly welded together that we cannot give of the one without giving of the other. And we, too, can be rended by a first coupling with a one who loves us not, and may seek to deny that hurt by seeking to lie with every maid we may. Thus is the legend born of prowess male, and many a man’s soul is shredded by the promiscuity that comes of thus attempting to prove himself a legend”—which is to say, a ghost. But if men would speak the truth, they would own that there is little enough pleasure in it—for loveless coupling, at the moment when pleasure should transform itself to ecstasy, truly turns itself to ashes, and the taste of gall.”
FFY
I would also add that the only time the elders and pastors see Christian girls is at church, when the women are wearing their good girl hats. Dressed nicely, smiling, singing, praying intently, friendly they are the embodiment of virtue.
Were they to see them out at the bars or parties, they’re opinions would change pretty d*mn quickly if they have the mental agility to accept what they are witnessing.
Don’t even have to go to parties/bars. I don’t have a link anymore to SolomonII’s posting about the deacon’s daughter, but if ever there was a picture worth 1,000 words, the one she took in the mirror with her phone is such. Maybe it is archived? I hope so. That one posting could be used like a wedge to split open a Tradcon’s myths about “good, Churchian girls”.
Because in truth, AWALT, for the right mix of alpha…
Based what we have here Dalrock. From your earlier articles over the last year or so Ican draw this conclusion. Girls and young women are sluts now and ride the carousel enjoying that alpha dick or what they think is alpha dick. Along the way losing the ability to get the gina tingle.(too much of that good dick will do that) BTW women don’t have the capacity to love but they do gina tingle. Also until western society actual discovers the concept of fatherhood and rights of children to fathers it’s best to keep cheering on about the greatness of mothers otherwise we will see more dead and abused kids not counting abortions. Getting back on track and as the carousel loses its thrill and working for a living along with the student loans dampening the lifestyle it is time to get the virginal virtue back and find a “good” man. He gets the woman a house she gets to play stay at home mom for one to three kids and goes back to work or stays home and then cashes out and ends the marriage at about 30 to 37 depending on age when she got married.
Dalrock are you sure you are a promarriage and family guy? I hate to tell you Dalrock if you were on a MGTOW blog the other would think you were cool. ha ha ha
FFY
Wear that booty out man, you are doing the lords work. Try to show as many guys as possible how it is done. Have your boys each have their own church to work. You may not know it or care but guys like you are doing more to save christian marriage than 95% or more the so called preachers and practicing christians.
deti, most women go through serial monogamy, they don’t fuck as a sport. It’s just not women’s nature. When they start a relationship, it’s usually when they fall in love. Ofc the hook up culture is on the rise, and young girls should in fact be protected from it – they can get HPV etc.
And it is hypocritical to just look at women, when men are no better – namely degenerates like Roosh, Roissy and this FYY.
“She sees one boy (or man) she falls in love with and then dreams about him all day for a long time.”
…And when that doesn’t work out she does it again, with a different boy. And again. And again. Starting to see a pattern here, Dana? It’s called serial monogamy. Do you think it’s not promiscuous as long as the woman thinks she’s “in love?” Every time? Are you suggesting that a promiscuous woman is a slut if she’s honest about her intentions, but she’s not a slut if she has deluded herself into believing that “He’s the One?”
I’m talking from my own experience, from when I was an 18 year old woman (I was a virgin until 19). The first attraction to the guy was romantic physical, not sexual. Sure, there are sexual urges, but you fall in love with one guy or you start liking him. I don’t see anything alpha about this FFY fucker, quite the contrary, I wouldn’t touch him as he must be disease ridden and without self respect. The guys that I slept with were young, hot AND in a steady relationship with me. It’s just that they didn’t want to get married, so I had to leave those relationships in a year or two.
I’m married now and I have plenty of love in my life, not just from men or my man. I was just talking about the general vibe in the West. If you think women are trash and non marriagable, the same can be said about many guys – they are not fit for marriage or even LTRs because they are too selfish. Men and women are two sides of the same coin in a given society.
Suz, first of all, I don’t use the word “slut” because in more progressive societies than America, such words don’t really have any meaning. Serial monogamy is ok, because for most girls, yes, it is based on love or infatuation. Girls usually don’t go after boys for fun, like boys do. You know this damn well. Girls always hope for more in a relationship. At least until about 28-30. Most normal girls, with norrnal, natural mentality. Who are not brainwashed by porn and other crazy stuff. A lot of easy sex is due to alcohol consumption. Why do you blame the women if the men don’t want to marry (actually that’s changed now, it’s the other way around in America). Your society at large thinks it’s ok to enjoy prolonged adolescence / youth. Who are the ones defiling these virgins? Who are the ones fucking the women into oblivion?
Ok, 50 partners is too much ofc, but a woman who has had 10 can easily still have children and be a good wife / mother. Oh, and who needs her? 🙂 The society needs her, if they want to survive. The men who want a family needs her. Don’t spoil these women first, you lowlives, then you’ll have cleaner women.
@Dana
“Even a woman who has slept with 50 guys can get married at age 30+ and become a mother…”
A woman who has had 50 partners will no longer be able to pair bond. As well, she will constantly compare you to the other 50 guys she’s been with. Somehow you expect her to magically become continent once a guy puts a ring on her finger? I would never never never ever marry a woman who has had 50 men. Aside from the obvious threat of STDs (she almost certainly already has herpes like 1/6th of all Americans and I don’t want a burning itchy nutsack for the rest of my life thank you), why on earth would I trust a whore to be the mother of my children? Not when her weakness for sexual immorality means she has a very heightened chance of cheating, hypergamously/frivolously divorcing me, or cukckholdering me. I’m not saying I demand a woman be a virgin, but any more than a couple of partners and she’s a real threat.
What man would want a loose whore to be the mother of his children and his helpmate for life, especially given the very anti-man nature of divorce laws coupled with the high likelihood of a hypergamous divorce a few years after marriage when she’s no longer haaaaaaaaapy.
“Correction – an 18 year old girl is dreaming about A (one) Prince, The Prince”
Yeah, I agree that 18 year-old girls are young immature mindless idiots like we all were at 18 (centuries ago 18 was considered adult and people that age were expected to demonstrate emotional maturity). But a woman more mature than her needs to inform her that her lustful (it is an emotional form of lust) fantasies of “the perfect prince who comes riding in on a charger and saves her from the evil dragon” is horribly unrealistic, and instead she needs to look at men from the perspective of who would be an ideal father to her children and leader of her household. That means, instead of a prince, maybe she needs to look for an engineer or an accountant. Yeah, not an exciting prince, but throughout history princes are notorious for being complete cads.
“Most women don’t ride a carousel for fun – pure male projection. They ride in hopes that the guy will commit.”
This is typical talk of a man committing to a woman, with no reciprocity of a woman committing to a man. Your statement is self-contradictory. Did you even bother to think logically about it before you wrote it? By the very nature of “riding the carousel” instead of finding a good beta man and committing to him as he commits to her, the woman is demonstrating she has NO desire for commitment. Zero. Zilch. Nada. If she wanted commitment, the obvious answer would be to keep that aspirin pill between her knees until her wedding night. Yeah, I went there. Deal with it.
There are tons of honorable men looking to find women with whom they can have a real marriage. The problem is they are all betas, and betas don’t do her the nasty alpha way she likes. Because, you know, they respect her.
The point of this blog, as I understand it, is not to deny that there are reprehensible men in our culture, but to balance the common narrative that rarely calls women out for their bad behavior.
I agree with Opus, many women have no need to marry, and won’t if they don’t find their love. I wouldn’t have if I didn’t. I would’ve just stayed single for the rest of my life, it’s not that terrible. Why work for a relationship, if I can’t get what I need out of it? A good man is nice to have around, but it’s not like you will die without one. Besides, with more guys like FFY the male gender starts becoming kinda repellent.
Agreed about the age too.. by 28-33 you really change. You won’t bust your ass for a relationship with even that hot guy anymore. Just not worth it. Unless you find the special one, like I did.
It kinda sucks that family is gone, for most, not for all, there are still ppl like me who can have it, but for too many ppl it is increasingly hard to create (and maintain). I mean, both he and I have our past, but we love each other.
@Dana
“The society needs her, if they want to survive.”
Screw “society.” When Rome fell, it was because of a total breakdown of basic individual responsibility and morality. As the Founders feared, America is following Rome’s script to a T. I do not prevent this by behaving with wanton irresponsibility myself. And as I have already shown, marrying a whore is horribly irresponsible.
“Are you suggesting that a promiscuous woman is a slut if she’s honest about her intentions, but she’s not a slut if she has deluded herself into believing that “He’s the One?”
Are you for real? People make love because… they’re in love. Duh.
What does it have to do with sluthood or anything? You think people should feel guilty for making love to a person they are in love with? You are insane.
I agree that girls should not sleep with guys easily, actually, most girls that I know in the younger age group don’t. They expect the guys to commit first. I didn’t have sex until I was 19 and in a steady relationship. I had another bf later, with who I corresponded in emails for almost a year prior to even meeting each other, we had already formed a romantic bond in letters, and then had sex only several months after we even met. No, there is nothing promiscuous about love.
The problem is that there is no pressure to marry and have kids. Guys love to stay in that romantic stage. I hope the younger girls are learning about that from the previous generation. 🙂 Girls see these patterns, they’re smart. 🙂
Brent, you can do as you wish, I’m not gonna save this civilisation either, it is trash – full of porn, moral relativism and Roissies. But then don’t make my kids paid the roissies’ pensions when they’re old and have left nothing behind them. Ok, you agree to be eutanize, alright, fair enough.
Brent, who do you think she got those STDs from? You think women want stds? You can get infertile from that. You think guys are not infested? You think they are some pure angels? They’re the ones who spread it around with their hyperactivity and promiscuity. It doesn’t even pay off to be an expensive prostitute these days, given how much infested dicks there are out there.
Dana said; “Most women don’t ride a carousel for fun – pure male projection. They ride in hopes that the guy will commit. An 18 in the 1950s did not feel “enticed” as you said, an 18 is almost still a child and is still dreaming about princes, not multiple insertions or multiple partners – that is pure male pornified projection. Women are not into many partners, they are into one superior (loved) partner.”
Umm..no, not really. More often than not, women are not some fragile, naive, innocent little things being diabolically taken advantage by the FFY’s/Alpha’s of the world, quite often, women know what and whom they are getting involved with, they just choose to ignore the obvious reality; That Alpha’s are largely in it just for the sex and all they(the women) get out of it is the temporary ‘gina tingles that game creates. Some women at least admit that’s all they’re in for. The problem is that if women actually tire of this routine, it is either too late and they’ve reached their 30’s with lower fertility rates or they face mating with beta’s whom they feel far less attachment to.
Even if one concedes that women are these naive, innocent little things that are being taken diabolically taken advantage of by the FFY/Alpha’s and have now wised up/become self-aware of what they really want, the end result is the same; a significant portion of women with a higher number of sex partners than the males they would finally prefer to marry which has been shown by various measures to be problematic in itself.
Perhaps, it is true, as you suggest that it is just the way it is now in the West, and men should just accept it as the way it is-that the women they seek to marry and build families with have spent their lives previous to marriage intentionally or unintentionally riding the c*ck carousel. That’s all before one gets to the disincentives to get married like no-fault divorce, punitive custody/alimony/paternity laws against men not to mention the cultural demonization of men like me whether they take up fatherhood or not.
The thing is, I don’t have to accept things as they way they are, I have another choice, which is to opt out of a crappy system and go my own way. I’d much prefer to stay in the US, but I find it increasingly difficult to justify staying in a nation where there is nothing in it for me and quite probably despises me outright. Either way, I’m done.
Why do you say all alphas are nasty? The boy I fell in love with at age 12, in my class, was special, right, he was cute and played hockey well. But other girls didn’t run after him. And he was very respectful – of his mother, and other women, girls. He later on finished school and had an athlete’s career, and now he is together with an average looking woman. Every man has a combination of attractive and unattractive traits and most women marry regular guys. Have you ever seen nerdy love birds? Btw, when I look back to some of the guys that I was in love with and thought the world of them, now I look at them and they just seem like regular guys to me, nothing special. They didn’t have hoards of women running after them. We just happened to fancy each other, that happens a lot in your 20s.
A young girl will love a young attractive guy, that’s just natural, you can’t force her to love another type. You can’t control who you fall in love with. Not all boys that girls fall in love with are cads. Yea, women like quick, masculine men, that’s just evolution. But humans also have brains and emotions / feelings, not just reproductive organs. What some girl considers cool aggressive alpha behaviour, another girl may reject as crude and unpleasant.
@Dana
This is excellent insight into the nature of female promiscuity. To promiscuous women, lust is love, and therefore there is no moral compunction against acting on it. Then once the lust/love wears off, the woman moves on to the next man. This is the essence of serial monogamy. Whether it takes only one night, one month, one year, or one decade for the lust/love to wear off, makes no difference. A former commenter here put it brilliantly, speaking as you are from her own experience:
If only our moral leaders like Mr. Stanton weren’t so busy pedastalizing women, they could save men, women, and children great pain by helping young women understand and curb this side of their animal nature.
FYI, I’ve put you in comment moderation for the time being. You aren’t banned, but you risk overwhelming the discussion with your frequent comments. Please slow down and I’ll free up your comments as I have the opportunity.
@Dana
It is true that Cads are not exempt from taking part in the immorality. But the comment above focuses instead of the lack of accountability that the church is currently giving women. Sure it takes 2 to tango but a woman’s ability to bond is seriously jeopardized by the carousel.
Love is sentimentality from what I gather from you. But uh sorry to break your bubble. Those women can no longer bond with their husbands should they marry and of course the risk of divorce shoots up. So of course when it feels so right Does it make it right? Think about it.
ray, I am just as good. I didn’t quite have the Sex and the city lifestyle, but yea I’ve had several hot men (in steady relationships). Of course, I know that one night stands can be traumatizing for women, the more you interact with men sexually without love the more you start to detest men as a sex. Yea, you start seeing them for what they are. But if you fall in love, you can still bond. 🙂 Quite nicely. I wouldn’t have stayed with the man I lost my virginity to. I am happy I left him after about 2 years of being together (he was not good for me and much older). I’m not bonded to him at all, I would have never married him (realizing what he was like).
You just want virginal because you are selfish. Because it’s nice to have screwed around and sampled women and then to come to a clean, nice, young girl with a sweet tight clean pussy that other men haven’t ravaged and everything is so new to her that you are the hero and the man. Hahahah. Keep dreaming. What about love? Not a single word about it. Just the act of fornication. Soul, love, person – don’t matter. Just the untouched sexual organs and the pure naive mind on which you can imprint whatever you like, not even giving the young girl a chance to develop on her own. You don’t really respect a woman as a human, thus you can’t truly love her. Hence, your problems. Nice swazi, btw. I’m NS too.
will, don’t judge about what love is to me, you don’t know my love.
Yea men become repellent if you have too much ons and sex without love.
But you think a woman wants some guy who has fucked around like Roosh does? Or this FFY?
You’ve got to be kidding, I wouldn’t touch them with a six foot pole, even if they weren’t as ugly as they are. It is hypocritical to defile a woman and then blame her for not being a virgin.
Dalrock, you justify PUAs and womanizers and you will preach to me about what real love is? 🙂 Please. I actually did have a bit of respect for you.
“Women are not into many partners, they are into one superior (loved) partner.”
Maybe that’s what FFY is doing too. Maybe he’s just sampling all of the girls he “loves” until he finds his “superior (loved) partner”.
Who are we to judge?
Ahh time to post my lessons in understanding women:
Women, beingincapable of seeing existence beyond what is directly in front of them and lacking the ability to think abstractly have only 3 steps to their thought process, Dana has moved into the second stage:
1. Deny the issue exists.
2. Create a false equivocation
3. Shame
So long! I got a kick out of you calling generation nihilism an alpha dalrock, maybei should move back into my parents house and be an internet alpha too!
@Dana
“Brent, who do you think she got those STDs from?”
I see. So a woman is never responsible for the results of her actions? If a cad alpha male is responsible for contracting STDs because of his actions, why is his willing female sexual partner somehow not responsible for getting it from him? If she has had 50 partners, as you originally stated, then it is highly likely that she not only contracted an STD from someone, but also gave that same STD to multiple men. Why isn’t blame shared equally?
As well, her carousel of alpha type sexual partners is what put her at risk in the first place. Men are not pure angels either, but you fail utterly to distinguish between 80% of beta males, who will have at most very few sexual partners (and who are much more likely to have long term monogamous relationships with those partners), and the 20% who are alpha males, and will have tens to even hundreds of non-monogamous and often essentially anonymous sexual partners in life. If you are a watcher of the TV drama NCIS, do you think she got her STDs from a shy, socially awkward, low masculinity, highly intellectual, and somewhat clingy nerd like McGee, or from a dashing, suave, extremely handsome, highly masculine alpha male like DiNozzo (who also happens to be a total philanderer)? Apart from the philander depiction, which of the two do you think better exemplifies the fantasy “prince” every woman is looking for? On the other hand, which of the two would be a better father and husband?
The thing is, you can’t strip the alpha male DiNozzo of his philanderer part, and indeed it is partly his raw masculine sexuality that makes him so attractive to women (unless you believe women don’t have sex drives). This is part of DiNozzo’s genetic makeup and upbringing (the show makes clear his dad was the same kind of guy). He is indeed based on a type of male that biologists have observed in multiple species, including our own, and so is his counterpart McGee. If a girl has an unrealistic fantasy about a prince, she will by nature be nailed by a long line of DiNozzo’s. It will be a long line because DiNozzo’s–unlike McGee’s–are biologically and psychologically incapable of commitment.
If a girl was indeed an innocent victim, she should have figured up this obvious factor after her second or third DiNozzo. That it took our hypothetical slut 50 guys to figure this out indicates that, far frm being a victim, she’s actually making a conscious decision. Unless you believe women are incapable of the simplest cognitive exercises. Even a dog, after two or three times of being shocked by an electric fence, will put two and two together and never go anywhere near that damn fence again in his entire life. That a woman keeps going back to get “shocked” 50 times indicates she is either dumber than a dog (unlike you I am not so mysogynistic as to believe women are THAT stupid), or she rather likes getting “shocked.”
Whether or not you care to admit it, there are a lot of women out there who honestly just love a diversity of cock an awful lot.
Woman breaks it down for us dummies: The “too nice” guys they don’t get excited about are weak/naive/boring in their view, so be inflexible, read their mind and give ’em excitement (maybe they can get you to commit… ).
@ybm
“Women, beingincapable of seeing existence beyond what is directly in front of them and lacking the ability to think ”
This is simply inaccurate. Women do have the ability to reason. I’ve seen plenty of women do it. The reason most women–Christian women especially–refuse to jettison the “women a innately good and always the victim of dangerous male sexuality” viewpoint is what it says about the possibilities their own sexuality as women. I am not in any way at all calling any woman here unchaste. I’m saying they have a pride problem.
After my ex-wife cheated on her beta husband with an alpha, she at a moment of rare honesty admitted that she never thought she was capable of something so sinful like this (of course later it was back to it all being my fault). Women–especially modern Christian women–never want to think that it is highly possible that they might someday fall to temptation and express their own feminine sexuality in a patently destructive and irresponsible manner. This makes them even easier conquests for our friend FFY. They have been (willingly) indoctrinated their entire lives that female sexuality is always morally good and positive. This indoctrination plays on their pride and ego, making it very hard for them to ever overcome this view. It is wrapped up in their identities. For any woman to admit that there is such a thing as destructive female sexuality, she would have to admit that she might be somehow capable of sexual sin. This is particularly hard for Christian women to admit, given the more negative view of sexual immorality in Christian culture. Sexual sin is something MEN do, like lookng at porn for instance. Women in our society are taught to always see themselves as essentially perfect, minus a few minor flaws like “lack of self-esteem.”
The one moral control men have on their sexuality is that they are told from childhood that their sexuality can be used destructively, and additionally they can be sued for cash and prizes when they use it in such a manner. Again, not saying any woman here is sexually immoral. Just saying they have an identity/ego problem.
I think you might have taken that wrongly, considering your following paragraph pretty much is boilerplate around here. What I meant is that when you are arguing with a woman, she has no abstract to pull from. Her arguments will simply follow the same tired script they always do without a thought to the abstract. When a woman’s blinders are on, which is pretty much anytime she Iis expressing an opinion that isn’t based around music or which pair of stilettos to wear to the club that night will only be deny, equivocate, shame, until the argument is fatigued. In her mind, this Is a victory.
YBM,
I get what you mean now. My bad.
It went right over your head, didn’t it, Dana? You really think it’s OK for a woman to have, say, 16 sex partners before she’s ready to get married, SO LONG AS she is “in love” with every one of them? Brent explained it better than I ever could, but I’ll add my two cents:
Step 1. You’re attracted to a hot guy.
Step 2. It’s mutual, so you start spending time together (but no sex yet, because you’re not that kind of girl.
Step 3. Your attraction intensifies under the flattery of his hard-won attention, and turns to “love.”
Step 4. You start having sex, because you’re obviously well on your way to a lifetime commitment. (Once he get in your pants, he’ll never look at another woman again. Right?)
Step 5. He gets his fill and walks.
Alternate step 5. He falls in love with you, grovels at your feet, and suddenly his clinginess is suffocating you. You walk. (or treat him like dirt, so he’ll walk.)
Step 6. Repeat steps 1-5.
Newsflash: That’s not love, it’s lust. Any woman who doesn’t acknowledge this is either dumber than a box of hair, or lying to herself.
The main difference between the FFYs of the world, and most of the women they sleep with, is that the FFYs don’t want to get married, and probably won’t change their minds, which makes their “dirtiness” a non-issue. OTOH, after ten years of sleeping around, most women decide they want to “settle down and have a family,” or at least get a man to support them. Because we all know it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind.
You’re right about one thing; male sluts are no more fit to marry than female sluts, but male sluts have the sense to know they’re not “solid spouse material.” Female sluts apparently refuse to be restricted by things like sense. They get all bent out of shape the minute someone DARES to suggest they might be lacking something.
(Incidentally, I’m not judging from a position of moral superiority, I’m judging from a position of experience. By modern standards, I was not a slut, but I was hanging around the carnival and I took a couple of spins on the carousel. While I did have a niggling sense that I was doing something wrong, in the end it was luck, not my own good judgment, that sent me in the right direction. In other words, I don’t rationalize my mistakes – I admit they WERE mistakes and I’ve learned from them.)
Oh. Dalrock, I just watched “Courageous.” It was exactly 1/2 of a good message. Guess which half was missing?
[D: I recently watched it too. Not nearly as bad as Fireproof, but still bad. I don’t know when I’ll get around to writing up a post on it.]
Dalrock
Dan was a pretty good find. Nice training aid you got there.
I like the christian PUA articles.
@Suz
“You really think it’s OK for a woman to have, say, 16 sex partners before she’s ready to get married, SO LONG AS she is “in love” with every one of them?”
Oh, she said something far more asinine. She held Jenna Jamesonup as an example. She mentioned Jenna Jameson is now married, so why can’t another, lesser whore be married? In other words, Dana appears to think it is okay for a man to marry a wife who gets paid a lot of money to cheat on him daily. With dozens of men.
I have argued with a fair number of stupid people on the internet, but Dana is probably the dullest person I have ever had the unfortunate privilege of arguing with. Not because she disagrees with me. A lot of actually intelligent people disagree with me all the time. But because she used such an obviously illogical and self-defeating argument: C’mon guys, marry these porn actresses! Why on earth would you have a problem if she cheats on you regularly as part of her career?
Brent you are a straight talker.
@TFH
I probably should have made it more clear that there are two parts to Darwin Catholic, Mrs. and Mr. Darwin. I used the right names for each quote, but Mr. Darwin’s writing style is quite easy to confuse with that of his wife.
Dana, we’ll be downtown tonight if you and your friends want to meet up
“You just want virginal because you are selfish. Because it’s nice to have screwed around and sampled women and then to come to a clean, nice, young girl with a sweet tight clean pussy that other men haven’t ravaged and everything is so new to her that you are the hero and the man. Hahahah. Keep dreaming.”
Dana, get real. Most Christian men have very few sexual partners, if they have any. I know quite a few single Christian men who are virgins. They’re not socially awkward or hideous, They had chances to have premarital sex, but chose not to because of morality. The reason why Christian men want virgins is because a person’s sexual history is a good indicator of his/her morality. No moral man wants an immoral woman.
Shit. This is like a front row seat to the world’s first live female volunteer for experimental research. Dana just volunteered to have us do experimental exploratory surgery on her hamster.
Striking. Just a striking example of serial monogamy. The hamster in action, rationalizing the worst behaviors.
I’ll be waiting for the write up and its peer review by Roissy, Roosh, Rollo and maybe Badger and Privateman.
In good news, though, just got back from a wedding of one of my “sisters” (she’s marrying her longtime Army boyfriend, hooah!!) Far be it from me to know all, but this is one of those ones you know has a shot. They got that magic, and I’ll admit I was watching her face for tics or any other “why am I doing this???” giveaways. Didn’t see any, didn’t expect any, looked anyways. Her sister and her husband are still going very strong as well. Good stock, those two. I credit their dad- he’s a strong straight shooter, loving dad, and brought them up right.
Unfortunately, unlike her sisters wedding (bridesmaid swoop yaaaa), there was hardly anyone remotely my age, or single. Had to bounce. Free booze was good though.
“Dana, we’ll be downtown tonight if you and your friends want to meet up.”
FFY, you magnificent bastard!
So Dana, you are familiar with Roosh?
What’s a good girl like yourself reading him for?
He’s fascinating, isn’t he? This horrible philanderer, the way he seduces women, the way he can have almost anyone he wants. Terrible, I know. So fascinating, though. So much that you might just want to meet him someday, to see what real evil looks like. Maybe he might come up and talk to you, though. Then what would you say? It would be nerve-racking. You might be tongue tied, then what? He’ll come closer, maybe accidentally touch your hand. It was just accidental though. Then what? Those stories of Brazil and Argentina and Poland, and of all the things he’s seen and done. How interesting. You might have to buy him a drink, but only one. Just to hear another story. But he is gross after all, and you’re just doing this take one little look at the heart of evil, really, it means nothing….
Watching James Bond right now. Casino Royale. Bond is in the process of bagging another hottie, and she says, “You like married women, don’t you James? What is it about bad men? You.. My husband… I had so many chances to be happy. So many nice guys. Why can’t nice guys be more like you?”
Bond: “Because then they’d be BAD.”
Hottie: “Oh yes, but so much more interesting.”
Our point so perfectly illustrated.
Before I polish off this last red bull vodka, I want to say one more thing-
I went/still kind of go to a smallish church. 500 people tops on Christmas/Easter.
Youth group is around 40 people total (on good days) freshman->senior in high school.
When I graduated high school, there was only one girl in youth group my age that was still a virgin. And that was because she is ugly as sin, and fat. And by sheer happenstance my ex works with her, and she aint a virgin now either. Faaaaar from it (further proof all a girl needs to do is show up, even in college)
That summer, I deflowered a girl in youth group a year younger than me. And the following summer did that again. Other dudes my age followed suit.
Don’t subscribe to the Purity Myth. It aint true
@deti
“All I’m saying is that we men weren’t told the truth, because the elders just didn’t have any idea about how the rules had changed.”
Truer words were never written. It took me twenty years to discover that the problem was not me, the problem is that the rules I followed were not working anymore. I wasted all my youth.
I’m only one of millions of men who tried to be a good guy and follow the rules and ended up with pain, heartbreak and the best years of their life wasted.
Oh Lordy! Gadzooks!
If I didn’t know any better I’d have thought Dana was a caricature created by Dalrock to encapsulate everything he has written about since starting this blog.
Sometimes when I think the manosphere might be going too far, the Good Lord sends this manna from heaven….
Went to church this morning and a poor beta schlub was accused of stalking a woman in her 30s because he waited outside for her, I dunno, is there anything more accursed under the sun than a poor beta schlub?
“Went to church this morning and a poor beta schlub was accused of stalking a woman in her 30s because he waited outside for her, I dunno, is there anything more accursed under the sun than a poor beta schlub?”
Yes, the extremely effeminate, but nominally heterosexual, “worship/praise leader” that is virtually considered an orthopraxis requirement now in most churches. I can see the pastor and elders interviewing trying to hire one right now:
“Let’s see. The guy has has a Phd. in musical composition from Oxford, with 10 years experience composing and performing religious music, not to mention a couple of Grammy awards, but dammit, he’s just not enough of a flaming queer to really satisfy the hard-core traditionalists.”
I loved Dana’s reference to European women being the ones breeding for the future at any age they decide to. Yet all European countries do not have enough children for replacement rates of the existing population. A population needs 2.1 babies born to each women or they will die out. Southern Europe is worse with a birth rate of 1.1 babies per women. This includes muslims who produce 4 to 5 babies per women.
Face it Dana, the European, 50 cock stuff old bat ain’t reproducing. Mohammed is the most popular boys name in many European countires. Your shining example, Europe, is on its way to muslim conquest by the simple fact that european women are slutting around too much.
After the conquest, enjoy your clitorectomy.
Dana – You just want virginal because you are selfish. Because it’s nice to have screwed around and sampled women and then to come to a clean, nice, young girl with a sweet tight clean pussy that other men haven’t ravaged and everything is so new to her that you are the hero and the man. Hahahah. Keep dreaming. What about love? Not a single word about it. Just the act of fornication. Soul, love, person – don’t matter. Just the untouched sexual organs and the pure naive mind on which you can imprint whatever you like, not even giving the young girl a chance to develop on her own. You don’t really respect a woman as a human, thus you can’t truly love her. Hence, your problems. Nice swazi, btw. I’m NS too.
well i dont know what NS means, but you seem to know me better than myself, so i guess you can understand it for us both
if i wanted sex with virgins, o Goddess Dana, it wouldnt be difficult and i sure wouldnt need to ask
i’ll let you continue imagining it happens, seeing how it enrages you so much
i dont believe you about fully bonding w/yr husband; i think my generation (boomers) was wrong, and sex before or outside marriage irremediably damages a female, and precludes full bonding later, destroying families and leaving boys bereft w/o fathers
youre correct, if i took a wife i would absolutely want to “imprint” upon her the values of the bible, rather than the values and conditioning programs of secular american society (female rebellion, female supremacy and entitlement, and female “liberty”)
that wouldnt be possible with a sexually experienced 30 y.o. woman
youre also correct that i would not permit her the “chance to develop on her own” and follow the darkness of her human heart and desires, esp given that she’d be immersed in a nation so hellbent on pissing off God
again — correct that i dont “respect” women — it’s not in my nature, nor (and more importantly) am i commanded by God to “respect women”
for yr comfort, tho, i DO acknowledge women as part of humanity . . . the weaker and inferior part
hey Dana mebbe i’ll round up a passel of virgins just for you :O)
oh, NS = National Socialist, duh on me
but no dana i’m not a Socialist, national or otherwise, nor is that an NS symbol
i’m a monarchrist w/no tolerance for politics
Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Support In Mala Fide and Get Free Stuff Edition
I really did not intend to add anything further to this thread, but I can barely resist playing with the Hamster (that is to say Dana, from Europe – I don’t know where that is but wherever it is it is certainly nowhere near here). I really shouldn’t, as she was kind enough to refer favourably to one of my two above comments – for which I am grateful, yet behind her alternate rationalising and shaming, do I not detect a certain confused guilt?
So, I would like to reassure her, that she is really not that bad if by chance she is the woman who slepped with fifty guys before age thirty, because that, at the rate of one every three months or so, is really fairly restrained, when you think about it, actually. In my long and varied career as a researcher in slutology I have had the opportunity to interview many women who would regard such a strike rate as niggardly. One interviewee in particular comes to mind : a christian girl, as it happened, who boasted to me that she had slepped with a different guy each Friday, Saturday, and Sunday night, for a period of two years – not the same guy on any occasion, which by Math I deduce must be over 300 men. Just before I interviewed her, she proudly told me that she had been ‘very good’ as having just returned from three weeks in Florida, she had slepped with ONLY five men (including one of Florida’s finest – a police officer). It would however be wrong to think of her as a slut (a hate-term no longer acceptable in Academia), even though as she said to me: ‘I was like an unpaid Prostitute’ for I think she was mistaken there: It would have been truer for her to aver, that the men were unpaid Gigolos, though unlike Gigolos they did not always satisfy her as some merely used her a cum-dump. It would also be mistaken to think that she was merely sleeping with those men just for the sex, for as she explained to me she always wanted them to stay the night. Naturally, as so often happens in a professional relationship, she fell for me, and was convinced that I was THE ONE – and told all her female friends of this and that happiness had now arrived at her door. ‘Oh Mr Gorgeous’ she told me, ‘How could you reach the age of thirty-two and still remain unsnapped-up’. I put that down to my not having found Miss Right, yet – an answer which satisfied her hamster. She was equally puzzled as to why it was (as I confessed) that in the nine months before meeting her I had remained celibate. This she could not quite understand for as she knew, to have sex, all one has to do is to walk into a bar and smile at a man, and invite him home. Every one is doing that after all and she was terribly popular with everyone – she had to be, as men were always sleeping with her; she had a high SMV and so she supposed a correspondingly high MMV – to be used whensoever she chose. Naturally she wanted to sleep with me too, and I blush to confess that she was good, but I quickly tired of her, for various reasons, not least of which was that when sex is offered on a plate, it really is rude to refuse – and one must never offend a woman, you know, and instinctively I knew that if (as was the case) she had given up her live-in lover of two years prior to her Shag-Fest – ( a guy I may add, who oddly enough I was to meet, and of whom I can thus say he was as desirable, – given all his circumstances – as one could reasonably meet, – tall, good looking, calm, financially stable) – she would do the same to me. She was not, in short, the type of girl one could take home to Mother. Now, as we all know, women become more attractive and desirable as they age, but she was twenty-eight when she and I met and parted company, and I can hardly be blamed for doing so, as in our short time together, she confessed to me that she had shagged two more guys behind my back, and there may have been more. Some people age well but from her photos I’d say that she would have hit the wall sometime in her mid-thirties, so I cannot think that life can have worked out too well for her, and that the calibre of male she could attract must have decreased badly. She will however always have the satisfaction of knowing that in her twenties any man would sleep with her. How she was to explain to her friends, that – after all – I was not the one, I do not know, although I do not doubt she will have done so with ease.
Oh dear, so entertaining.
Did we forget to remind our precious daughter that more women than men actually have stds? Which means that most of those nasty, horrible seducers are vastly outnumbered by wonen willing to try reforming them? Oh sorry, they were in love, of course. That makes it all better.
Statistically speaking, most men will not marry a virgin. That is because a small
number of unaverage men are very busy raising the average male partner number. I suspect the median number of partners would be an interesting contrast.
Never mind the numbers, run fast little hamster, and run hard. A little logic will never catch up.
@Opus
“if by chance she is the woman who slepped with fifty guys before age thirty”
Previously I stated to Dana:
” Even a dog, after two or three times of being shocked by an electric fence, will put two and two together and never go anywhere near that damn fence again in his entire life. That a woman keeps going back to get ‘shocked’ 50 times indicates she is either dumber than a dog (unlike you I am not so mysogynistic as to believe women are THAT stupid), or she rather likes getting ‘shocked.'”
In the possible case that Dana was indeed the woman who had 50 partners, I would like to modify my attempts, if I may, to read:
“…unlike you I am not so mysogynistic as to believe MOST women are THAT stupid…”
Poor girl.
@Brent
Your comment on mine gives me the oppotunity, to expound slightly on female promiscuity. I can see little wrong with it, as such, particularily if it makes the woman happy, however from my observation women who are promiscuous also tend to be insecure and in seeking sex they are actually seeking approval (rather than ther sex itself). There may be exceptions but I have yet to come across them. Promiscuous women tend to be women who are incapable of sustaining relationships and mistake sex for love, and frequently as in the example I gave, go from one extreme to the other, (for they are human and deep down also seek commitment) blindly throwing themselves at either entirely unsuitable or uncommitted men.
Imagine that you are a woman who is in a open relationship with any number of men you choose. Will she sleep with all equally in rotation? Surely not, for she will prefer one to another, and equally to enlarge the example, if you introduce more men into the sample some men will prefer other women to her. The slut, however does not seem to be affected by these considerations finding all men equally acceptable. She in that sense is litle different from a common prostitute in that she will sleep with anyone.
Your analogy of the electric fence is therefore well made, except that it may take a while for the woman to recognise that the fence is electrified.
It went right over your head, didn’t it, Dana? You really think it’s OK for a woman to have, say, 16 sex partners before she’s ready to get married, SO LONG AS she is “in love” with every one of them? Brent explained it better than I ever could, but I’ll add my two cents:
Step 1. You’re attracted to a hot guy.
Step 2. It’s mutual, so you start spending time together (but no sex yet, because you’re not that kind of girl.
Step 3. Your attraction intensifies under the flattery of his hard-won attention, and turns to “love.”
Step 4. You start having sex, because you’re obviously well on your way to a lifetime commitment. (Once he get in your pants, he’ll never look at another woman again. Right?)
Step 5. He gets his fill and walks.
Alternate step 5. He falls in love with you, grovels at your feet, and suddenly his clinginess is suffocating you. You walk. (or treat him like dirt, so he’ll walk.)
Step 6. Repeat steps 1-5.
Newsflash: That’s not love, it’s lust. Any woman who doesn’t acknowledge this is either dumber than a box of hair, or lying to herself.
Indeed.
I would say that the most subversive idea that has come out of this generally excellent blog has been the insight that the serial monogamy culture is really just the female way of recasting lust-based relationships in as positive a light as possible, which permits the female version of casual sex to be validated culturally. The point being that this serial monogamy culture is no more conductive to the development of lasting partnerships than the hook up culture is, because it is the same thing from the female perspective (the hook up culture itself representing the male ideal of casual sex).
The trouble, I think, is that it’s hard to discern realistic alternatives. Given the choice, most women (and most of their parents) are going to opt for the “build career to as to have financial independence as a security measure” in the early to mid 20s rather than the “get married early and take your chances by being financially dependent on one man” approach. I think this is just human. In the past, fewer opportunities were open to women as a cultural matter, and so the early marriage route was encouraged. Second wave feminism rebelled against this to a large degree and created a world where women can avoid financial dependence on one man if they choose to do so — and many will, if given the choice. That is, most, if given the choice, will choose to work on a “Plan B” that gives them at least the option to support themselves well if needed (e.g., marriage never happens, marriage breaks down, etc.) rather than “rolling the dice” on financial dependence on one man in their early 20s. Of course, it’s a dice roll to some degree either way, but one dice roll seems a bit riskier than the other one to most people. So you see women setting themselves up in careers or even just jobs in their early and mid 20s, with a view to marrying in the later 20s (26-32 area, with it bobbing up every few years).
Of course, these same people are not going to want to go without men until their late 20s — at least not most of them, and not voluntarily. So you end up with the hookup culture, on the one hand, and the serial monogamy culture, on the other. It’s a byproduct of these “risk management” oriented life decisions that are being made in the early 20s. I don’t see how that gets unwound, because I don’t see women, en masse, opting to take what appears to be a bigger risk of foregoing that risk management exercise in favor of early financial dependence on one man. Coupled together with this is the perception that for most women the “cost” of doing so is low: women are still getting married, albeit later, and are still having kids, albeit far fewer. These are “costs” that the average woman seems more than willing to pay so that she has her Plan B set up before committing in a relationship in her late 20s or early 30s. There are, of course, women who get left out in the game of musical chairs — often because they are either too picky, or wait too long (Kate Bolick) or are truly slutty. But most women are still getting married. So the “parade of terribles” that would be used to discourage women from taking this path seems not so terrible to most women — and that’s the issue.
I don’t see an easy fix for this.
“I don’t see an easy fix for this.”
No, probably it has to run its course.
@Brendan
You are ignoring the obvious middle-ground choice, which is to get a marketable college degree (to fall back on just in case) and marry a beta. Marriage isn’t as huge a risk to the female as you make it out to be, because she gets cash and prizes and government aid and legislated preference in hiring in the job market.
The problem is psychological. She has been brainwashed from a young age to believe she is absolutely perfect and deserves absolute perfection and she can do anything and have anything if she puts her mind to it. As such, she wants the “Prince” spoken of by Dana, where a prince is pretty much the textbook definition of an alpha (especially considering that princes are notorious philanderers). Marrying a good, devoted beta is an insult to her ego. Considering part of her brainwashing includes being taught she doesn’t have an ego, but instead her key problem is always lack of self-esteem, and she consequently lacks the psychological capability for valid and accurate self-criticism. This capability is one of the hallmarks of an emotionally mature human being. She has never matured past the stage of being a silly 14 year-old girl, and likely never will.
You are ignoring the obvious middle-ground choice, which is to get a marketable college degree (to fall back on just in case) and marry a beta. Marriage isn’t as huge a risk to the female as you make it out to be, because she gets cash and prizes and government aid and legislated preference in hiring in the job market.
But that’s what is largely happening. Women are getting their degrees, and then marrying mostly betas in the later 20s, average age around 26, which means guys they are meeting likely around age 24, which is like 2-3 years after graduating from college.
I am admittedly new to red pill thinking, but one solution is for beta males to learn to exude just a bit of raw masculinity. Every man has at least a little bit. But betas have largely bought in to the idea that women find masculinity off-putting, which makes about as much sense as saying men find huge tits off-putting.
Or, in simple English: See John Wayne. See John Wayne fight. See John Wayne not back down from challenge of stupid girl. See John Wayne be cool. See John Wayne roughly grab arguing girl by shoulders and kiss her long and hard square on her lips. See girl swoon. Be John Wayne. Good boy.
nothing like watching a real live hamster vivisected on a blog — and for its host to VOLUNTEER to have it vivisected.
@Brendan,
I should have specified that I meant she should keep herself chaste throughout college, thus increasing her MMV thereafter. Regardless of the view on the manosphere,, as a bit of an intellectual, I find lack of a basic education rather off-putting in a woman, because it signals she is only slightly more intelligent than dear little Dana (admittedly, this isn’t always the case: My mother is a very intelligent and even rational woman who lacks a four year degree, but the two are correlated). I personally would like to have intelligent children because, as the saying goes, life is tough, and it’s even tougher when you’re stupid.
Oh I can well understand that. The only way I was able to avoid the same thing with my ex-wife was by meeting her basically 1-2 months after she graduated from college.
My own perspective, though, is that expecting someone to remain chaste until ~25 or so in this culture (which is the age a woman would be if she met someone 1-2 years after college at say age 23 or 24 and decided to commit to him 1-2 years in … so not a very slow timeline really) is a low likelihood expectation for everyone other than the very genuinely religious, or those with lesser opportunity (which latter reality often masquerades as the former, unfortunately). That’s where the rubber hits the road in terms of “what is chaste?”. Dalrock’s argument is that there is a tacit acceptance of serial monogamy by conservatives and Christians precisely due to this situation of education delaying mate selection (it’s even more pronounced if professional degrees are involved) and the implications this has on behavior prior to mate selection — Mark Regnerus argues the same, while reaching a different conclusion. Dalrock’s subversive idea is that this de facto, tacit tolerance of serial monogamy is tantamount to accepting the female version of casual sex before they are interested in settling down. I think that’s a very interesting and subversive idea, but I don’t see the underlying reason for it — everyone’s interest in having women receive higher education — as dissipating, nor do I see the likelihood of women remaining chaste until 25-26 as a very high likelihood scenario. Hence I don’t see a way out of this one.
I’ve been mulling over the college-and-career vs. marriage during the early 20’s conflict, and I do see potential solutions, but they are way outside of the norm. They break with the current paradigms, and would appear to limit a woman’s ability to “have it all right now.” Duh. As if women CAN have it all right now. One example: Start college and marry a man a few years older. Spend the next “x” years finishing college (as an “adult,” rather than as a “college girl”) working part time and/or having children. A young mother should be able to get a marketable degree part time throughout her children’s school years, and be prepared to work full time when they are in high school and college. Against the feminist agenda, she can have her “career” AFTER raising her children. She would most likely be a much more responsible and productive employee, entering the workforce as a 35-45 year old. She would also be a better mother and wife, not trying to cram career, husband and children into the same two decades. Nice, huh? Pie in the sky. Unfortunately, and also against the feminist agenda, this would require establishing realistic priorities and committing to them. Sacrifices and all. *sigh*
This is somewhat similar to what my mom did, except she started late. She had a career as a nurse and married at 28 (ancient in 1959.) Then she was a homemaker until my little brother started junior high. She became a realtor (flexible schedule) to put 5 kids through college. The advantage to that early career was that although we lived on a strict budget, my parents always had money in the bank. Her career wasn’t just a hobby to support an extravagant single lifestyle; she planned carefully for a future as a wife and mother.
If I had a daughter I would advise her to stay away from “residential” college, which is little more than a 4-year party plan, and attend a “commuter” college, populated largely with working adults who are grateful for the opportunity to be there. (And probably paying for it without much help from Mom and Dad.)
A little off topic but just in case you think that this misandric control is only on some religious forums take a look at this forum which is in yet another protestant christian denomination.
http://clubadventist.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/535277/
The thread in this forum ended up getting locked by the moderator. I’m not sure what direction they were trying to go but it seems they’re no better than the rest of them.
@Brent
Two thoughts come to mind.
1) There is an implicit assumption widespread in our culture that being married prevents a young woman from going to and completing college. Unless one believes birth control is immoral, marriage doesn’t need to mean instant babies and therefore completing college shouldn’t be an issue. I speak from experience here as my wife and I married when she had only completed maybe one full year of college. She completed the rest after we were married. Since I had already graduated and was working full time, it actually was fairly easy for us to pull off financially without going into any debt. She worked part time and we had to have a place to live and food to eat either way. Her folks picked up a good portion of her textbook costs, but aside from that we paid as we went without any outside assistance. For those who believe birth control is immoral, the woman remaining a virgin and unmarried until fairly close to graduation would seem required if graduation is a priority (nothing wrong if it is). However, if the woman remains unmarried but isn’t remaining a virgin (sampling prospective husbands of course in “relationships”) then she either must be using some form of birth control or is running the risk of (out of wedlock) pregnancy ending her college career anyway.
2) As you say there is a correlation between college graduation and IQ. However, the causal arrow doesn’t point the way so many assume. The authors of The Bell Curve did some solid work demonstrating that IQ is the driving factor in both life outcomes (divorce, economic wellbeing, etc) and college graduation (including the different outcomes depending on the prestige of the university). This isn’t to say women shouldn’t go to college if they feel this is important, but that the measured benefits are almost universally misunderstood.
Suz has the right idea. But many will not view it as attractive or lucrative, I think. The idea of a college girl at 19 or 20 marrying a man of 23 or 24, already out of college or in a grad degree program, is a good one. It’s also countercultural, even though it would serve the interests of most young men and women. A young man and woman doing this will buck the entire culture.
I think a return to assortative mating is the key, but it won’t work for most in this culture. Most young people — especially young women — are told by this culture that they must never settle: Never settle for a man; never settle for second best; you can have it all right now. Most of the desirable men are swimming in women. Most of the remaining men can’t get any women, because their attentions are fixated on the desirable, hot alpha men.
The reason this isn’t an easy fix is that my proffered solution (wholesale return to assortative mating) would require millions of women to pair off — voluntarily and permanently — with their MMP counterparts of similar MMV. But they simply don’t want to do that, largely because the culture and everyone and everything around them tells them not to, they don’t have to, and they should not (because what if someone better comes along?). And it would also require divorce law overhauls, and making no fault divorce very very difficult to get. I don’t see that changing anytime soon either.
And a third problem is the Church’s own acceptance of serial monogamy as “appropriate” and even “moral” within Christian parameters, as Brendan said.
@Brendan
Thanks for the kind words. Your point of view is always of great interest to me and I often learn something reading what you write.
I agree with you that right now the incentives aren’t there for women in general to change course, and I also agree that a woman remaining chaste until 25-26 is unlikely enough that we shouldn’t expect the current popular path to result primarily in brides who haven’t experienced men other than their husband sexually. My only disagreement is I think the putative reasons for delaying marriage are more of a smokescreen than a reality. College and even career don’t need to be put on hold if a woman is married. The issue is fundamentally one of most people having accepted core feminist values. They are uncomfortable with the idea of women marrying young because they see this as dis-empowering psychologically. They want her to fully solidify in her girl-power before marrying, lest she somehow be tricked into submitting to her husband. All other arguments are merely smokescreens, and can easily be proven as such.
What seems likely to change is eventually a generation of women will push the “take it or leave it” ultimatum too far. They will miss their window of marriageability and/or as a generation end up with too few marriageable men due to the missing signal. At this point one of two things would seem to be the likely outcome. Either marriage becomes all but unimportant culturally, or one generation of spinsters (with out without illegitimate children) gnashing their teeth serves as a warning to the younger generations of women to rethink their girlpower fueled script.
The other factor to keep in mind is that marriage isn’t just a Christian value. There are strong and I would argue immovable practical reasons why lifetime marriage is needed for the proper raising of children. One can always cut corners, but it does show up in the finished product. Buying into the script of delaying marriage and childbirth and then doing so either out of wedlock or in temporary wedlock reduces both the quantity and quality of the finished product. This in itself might provide a long term corrective opportunity. If not, it could otherwise spell true disaster.
One by one, men are shown the truth, and the womens’ formerly hidden strategies and behavior are being exposed.
This is not unlike how blogging and alt media have made the mainstream media more accountable in terms of their reporting.
I think a lot of women are beginning to regret their former sexual strategies and a lot of the shaming and censorship is being promoted in the hope that they can repress the realization of what they have done.
This in itself might provide a long term corrective opportunity. If not, it could otherwise spell true disaster.
Right, which is where I am at, intellectually speaking, on this issue at the moment.
Of course, that doesn’t mean you and others shouldn’t advocate as you do — it may work, after all.
How many partners I’ve had is nobody’s here business. It was just an example. You did read what I wrote about one of my ltr bfs? That we corresponded for a year prior to even seeing what each other looks like? And that we had sex only months after even becoming a couple? And that I lost virginity at age 19, unlike most women, who lose it at 14 or so? I have also not had a single abortion. Do I sound like someone who would sleep with 50 men? There aren’t even 50 men who are good looking enough for my standard’s in my vicinity that I’d want to sleep with, and even if they were, why should I sleep with them just like that? They haven’t deserved to sleep with me.
That was just an example. To say that she can still have white, healthy babies. Ofc, 50 is too much of a risk. Did you read what I said – that these days, with the current frequency of STDs, it doesn’t even pay off to be an expensive prostitute. Too many guys have herpes and HP V (can cause uterine cancer) and even a condom will not protect you. So it is not worth it to make over 6000 dollars a month to sleep with that many men. I never said that women should sleep with that many, in fact, they should be much much more discriminate than they are these days because guys today tend to take advantage, they like to have that milk running free. What we as women need to do is to stop the flow of the milk. I believe it is possible to control.
I will ignore the ad hominem stuff, but I will note to Brent, who doubts my intelligence – I speak four languages, how many do you speak? (English is not my first language). I have a master’s degree and an impressive resume. I don’t need you to admit that I’m intelligent, I already know that I am and my man has told me repeatedly how lucky he is to have a smart and pretty woman like myself.
As to the marriage, it has to be high quality. If ppl in the West do not know how to create and maintain fruitful and high quality relationships anymore, then so be it. It is up to them how they choose to live their lives. The only thing is that young girls should be protected from untermensch like Roosh and FFY.
What matters is the baby, because these days husbands / boyfriends come and go, the child stays. The child is your genes and a possible help in the future. A boyfriend can leave you when you turn 40 to run after next young hot thing. Like we’ve seen since the 60s. Your own biological child is all that matters. A quality man – good if you happen to meet one and he likes you too. But a child is number one. I’m no longer responsible for the future of this civilization – it is not mine (too much consumerism, too much porn, too much PUAs). So I will not defend it. All that matters to me is that my genes are perpetuated even in just one baby. You didn’t care about us in the 70s when you fucked around (and in the 1990s in Russia when you left your 40 year old wives en masse for 18 year old gold diggers), we saw your “values” and your true self. We won’t invest in you anymore and won’t contribute.
And thank you as well for your kind words (I wish WP had an edit function, but alas it does not).
Dalrock, you definitely hit paydirt here. Dana certainly opened this up for everyone. I am surprised that she’s not a top poster on CF with logic like hers. BTW, for honest Christian input on marriage, I prefer “The Marriage Bed” where even the women would pull up the posters on CF for lack of logic and poor theology.
I think that Dana understated her examples. At college (in Europe) in the mid 1970’s), there were some females who got through a new sexual parner each week of term. That would be 30 a year for three years, to which one can add the vacation entertainment.
I think she is off target when she tries to blame men for women being promiscuous. In one British city, in the mid 1970’s there was a ‘commune’ with six women and a number of men who varied from four to about eight. The women were relatively fixed, but the men changed fairly regularly because the men would want to pair off with one woman each but the women wanted to be free to have sex with whomsoever they chose when they chose, and therefore men who wanted to pair up were fairly regularly thrown out.
Whe she criticises men for wanting to marry a virgin, she has forgotten one important statistic: that is that the probability of the woman committing adultery is directly related to the number of previous sexual partners she has had. So it’s the fault of the men to want to have permanent marriages. I suppose that would put the kybosh on serial monogamy.
Legion, the North is now close to a full reproduction level with Iceland almost at 2 kids per a woman and Norway is experiencing a baby boom (close to 2). The most feminist countries in the world. What we need is just 1 or even 0.5, 0.7 more kids per woman. That is not a lot. We only need a little push. If all EU countries did what Norway did, we’d be fine.
As to the Muslims and Non- Europeans – they have no place in the EU and should not be let in. The ones who do not assimilate / integrate should be expelled. This is a rather popular opinion in Europe these days. Btw, the young Arabs aren’t even having that many kids, in fact, they’re birthrates are currently lower that those of the whites. At least in the North.
@ukfred
“So it’s the fault of the men to want to have permanent marriages.”
Of course it is! With permanent marriages, women cannot commit divorce theft while hypergamously trading up and thereby parasitically increasing their material and social standing without doing anything actually productive. Men = cash and prizes.
And lest anyone here bitch about how horribly emotionally wrenching divorce is for women (it is far worse for men, judging by suicide rates), I have known since my freshman year of college watching girls go through the drama of boyfriend breakups, that a large portion of women actually enjoy the emotional roller coaster of things like divorce. Most modern women LOVE emotional drama. Among other things, it generates a high amount of affirming attention from her female Team, and as long as she is going through it, she will be the center of her Team’s attention and sympathy for months, if not years. Especially if she cries a lot. And she can often get $$$ from mommie and daddy because she’s daddy’s little princess.
@Father Marker,
I used to be an Adventist before becoming a Protestant Christian. Well I will not go into their doctrines here, they are not really a Protestant Christian denomination anymore than Mormons or JWs are.
As well, they were founded by a woman named Ellen White, whose writings are full of feminist ideas about home and family. Her writings talk about a husband’s desire for sex as the base animal passions, and how a woman must subjugate these sinful passions by denying her husband sex, and giving in only once on a while. I know one former Adventist women who is now a devoted Christian who has said quite clearly that following White’s advice on how to treat her husband was the cause of the demise of her marriage. I know of another former Adventist woman who is quite clear that, as Adventist women, “We were trained to be feminists.”
@Opus
This is a great point, and something that I’ve often thought about. There are really TWO marriage strikes: one by men and one by women.
The one by men is from those guys who have enough life experience to see and take the red pill. It’s also by older guys or guys who have been mistreated by the marriage 2.0 and divorce 2.0 meatgrinders. They’ve taken off the blinders and see older (28-40) women for what they are. Their position is something like, “This system is unfair, and I can opt out by just taking my toys and going home. And so I’m doing that!”
The second one is by young women. I’d summarize it like this: “women of marriageable age don’t want to get married.” This is the strike that Dalrock has summarized in his post here. Their cute little heads are filled with so much feminist drivel that they end up on the carousel for (at least) several years. Many of them don’t even realize that’s the path they are choosing, since the SMV of a nineteen-year-old woman is at its peak. That SMV, combined with feminist dogma and a healthy amount of naiveté makes them unable to realize that the alphas they get attention with don’t really want a relationship or marriage with them.
@Brendan
+1 Brendan. Young women have this mental block about seeing themselves being used in “committed” relationships. The right strategy for a women in her youth is to eject a guy who doesn’t propose marriage after a year or two. I know a number of embittered soon-to-be cat ladies in Silicon Valley who were in “committed” relationships with alphas who found them convenient playthings for a string of six or seven years while they were in their twenties, but got traded in for a newer model once they turned thirty. A women who engages in a series of “relationships” with men of higher MMV under the delusion that he will eventually commit are just engaging in a form of carousel-riding.
The idea that having a series of transient relationships is more virtuous than having a bunch of short-term flings is just BS. Carousel-riding is carousel-riding.
@Brendan
The good news is that the endgame is starting to become visible. Feminism hasn’t taken off in most places in the world not because those countries haven’t been exposed to the idea, but rather that those countries can’t afford the carrying costs. What is backstopping feminism in the west is Big Government policies and programs that insulate women from the cost of poor behavior. Remarkably, the carrying costs of all this socialist crap just gets bigger every year. As TFH routinely points out, this isn’t sustainable and will eventually come crashing down just like Greece is doing now.
It’s a big question what will emerge afterward. Will the country devolve into a dictatorship? (That’s historically the endgame for democracies.) What kind of dictator would emerge? A useless socialist like Hugo Chavez or Fidel Castro? Or a crazy warmonger like Adolph Hitler? Or perhaps we could slowly devolve into an ungovernable morass, like Mexico is doing now. Would it all happen suddenly or would it happen gradually? The only thing that be said for certain is that if something is unsustainable, it won’t happen forever. Big Government is the final bubble.
Dalrock, your last few articles have truly been an experience to read. The Stanton article shows undoubtedly the problem facing the Christian Church. We are all in sin, everyone, but it seems Stanton and most women think they are not. According to them, women have no ability to discern for themselves the risks of relationships and that the reason these women have children out of wedlock, many partners before marriage and high divorce rates is simply because of all the ‘bad men’ that do bad things. No accountability at all. It’s astounding.
I fundamentally believe that both boys and girls need the training that proper parents and a community can give them. Children simply don’t grow up properly without it. Nannies, daycare and the all important ‘career’ have destroyed the ability of parents to give their children what they truly need. Love, affection, direction and care. I don’t believe you can simply leave girls, or boys, to themselves and that they will grow up to be perfect little angels. Quite the contrary, if one looks at the world today, it’s a cesspool. Women go around from bed to bed and man to man, they have no moral fibre. It’s quite simple if you’re a Christian woman, if you can’t find a moral, upstanding man, don’t sleep around or have children out of wedlock. When they choose to have sex outside of marriage, to give themselves to the bad boys, they have acted outside God’s guidance and thus must bear the consequences. They don’t deserve marriage or a good Christian man. They do deserve forgiveness though.
However, I also agree with Stanton. On one point only; and that is that boys do need to be raised, or as he puts it “Manufactured”. By both a mother and a father. If you kick out the father the boy will have no one to learn from, no one from which to have guidance. There used to be communities who were interested and Churches a boy could learn from in the unfortunate circumstance of him losing his father but alas, not anymore. If boys are left to their own devices, they will go for the easy life.
What Stanton misses, or at least seems to miss, is that girls will also choose the easy option. School, College, Career, Sex and the City and then Marriage and Divorce followed by cash and prizes and all the drama she requires. Top down the system is built to cater to the shallow depths of a woman’s vanity and pride. It’s a system doomed to failure.
This quote just sealed it for me though. Of course no boy has ever been a man, duh! Kind of logical that, hey Mr Stanton. The problem with your amazing insight here is that no girl has ever been a woman either. What utter garbage Stanton preaches.
Damn Dalrock, with your articles and Dana’s responses, it’s just as if all your Christmases are coming at once!
@Greenlander
The pattern of Rome, which America is more or less following pretty well, is a de-evolution into anarchic chaos as the empire becomes incapable of maintaining any semblance of political and social cohesion. Incidentally, following Rome’s pattern is precisely what the Founders feared would happen, and Franklin said America’s Constitution gave it “a Republic, if you can keep it.” (The last notable republic in history at that time being Rome).
Rome was left without any capable defense against a horde of savage invaders (the Germanic tribes-Goths, Huns, etc). America currently has the most powerful military in the world, but we now lack any ability to finance it becaus all our money is wasted on an irrational and socially destructive welfare state. The welfare state exacerbates the situation by ennervating the culture and causing a breakdown in cultural morality, unity, and cohesion. This is exactly the situation Rome experienced at the beginning of its demise, especially the out of control welfare state. The next step, a total and aggressive debasement of the currency, is presently being pursued energetically by our dear friend Ben Bernanke.
In America’s case, as we are beginning to see in Europe, the result will be an invasion by Islamic fundamentalists, who, though often barbaric, are indeed much more masculine than America’s effeminate men. Advantage Muslims. Same with the Huns vis-a-vis the Romans. I suspect this will happen to the US within 100 or so years.
God help us all.
Dana:
“Do I sound like someone who would sleep with 50 men? ”
Oh no! Of course not! You’re not one of THOSE girls! But beyond the risk of STDs, you see very little harm in what they do. You seem to have a pretty firm grasp on what promiscuity does to men. A guy who spends his youth indulging and nurturing his most base and frivolous desires, is a poor prospect of a husband isn’t he? He has never learned to commit, to compromise, to make sacrifices when things get tough. You know that if he marries, the minute things go south he’ll be out the door in a flash. Yet from your earlier comments (before you started backpedaling fast enough to cause whiplash) you make it clear that you don’t believe the same of women. A woman who spends her youth falling in love with man after man, each one better than the last, is apparently NOT learning and reinforcing habits which are detrimental to solid marriages. Really? Women just magically mature into responsible adults right around age 30, no matter how they’ve spent the previous decade?
You know, I matured into a responsible adult right around that age, but I suspect it was because I’d spent most of the previous decade learning to do what I knew was right, even when I didn’t feel like it. I was IMPROVING my potential to be a good wife and mother, not suppressing it in order to have fun.
“Until a woman meets the right man, what is she to do? Having a career sounds like a pretty positive option.” said ms Darwin
But I think she is wrong. Every woman who makes a career does it at the expense of some man who cannot pursue that career. The man would have worked his whole life in that career, but the woman will opt out to get children. Thereby the resources that society has invested in her will be wasted.
In the next years we will see a shortage of professionals in all those branches in which women dominate.
Women are making careers for narcissistic reasons and they will not be so enduring in the labor force as men who are pursuing careers for altruistic reasons – to get a wife. The result will be that society’s resources is allocated wrongly.
Suz, I don’t think you are in a position to lecture me what is or what isn’t love. Beats me how you became so arrogant to assume you know what constitutes love in other people’s lives and that you have the real definition of love. Very judgmental of you. And you are, of course, wrong about your imaginary “love steps”. 16 “loves” is way too many for someone to experience until they are, let’s say, 30-35, and even in their lifetime, because love happens rarely. The steps you named are not really correct, and usually love doesn’t even happen step by step, it develops on its own, irrationally, only courting can happen step by step. First of all, a woman doesn’t even need to be initially attracted to a “hot guy” because sometimes attraction and deeper feelings can develop after friendship. Like in one of my cases, where I got interested in a guy on a common interests forum, I got interested in what HE SAID, I had NO IDEA what he looked like. Ofc, I didn’t jump on him, but said a few things that I knew he might find interesting and basically positioned myself so that he would notice me and what I say (my personality). Then I corresponded with him for almost a year without knowing what he looked like. And only then the relationship was gradually created, and this is not even one of the few guys I loved the most. But I would have taken him as a husband (so happy it didn’t happen now that I look back at it). The guy I really loved deeply (there are only two guys who I have loved truly and deeply and I’m with one of them now) I also met online, and yes I saw his picture and was immediately struck by him. We happened to have similar interests. We started developing a friendship, no sex, no romance, no nothing, just pure conversations. Sometime during that time I realized I love him, but as a human (it surprised me because I thought I was only in love with him as a young man). Namely, I was infatuated with his looks, bound by the magic of his persona, and realized that I love him as a human, as an individual. Just happened to be a very magical, deep individual. And only then, later, after 2 years of friendship we slid into a romantic relationship. This guy was also aesthetically very attuned, for instance, he didn’t even like doing it from behind, it was offputting for him (it must have reminded him too much of animal sex). Porn used to gross him out (it was unaesthetic for him), when his friends got together to watch it he objected and sometimes would even cover his eyes and would ask them to stop it. Maybe he’s changed now that he’s in his 30s (probably not as pure anymore). This is to give you an example that, no, it is not all lust. You are just repeating the conservative or whatever talking points. Just because a big part of society are promiscuous, doesn’t mean there are no people who genuinly love. You are no judge of what is love in other people’s lives. You did understand that love came BEFORE even becoming a couple (almost on a platonic level)? About not “that kinda girl”.. that’s simply laughable. I understand your willingness to slutshame, you guys cling to slutshaming because that is your only way to control women (doesn’t even work), but that is really laughable. No there is NO any kind of girl! Girls are girls, and a certain type of girl should not be demonized (unless she ruins another couple). You have sex if you want to, or you have a relationship first or develop a friendship first, it’s up to you depending how you feel about a given person.
And – no, an 18 year old girl does not think or act the same as an 18 year old boy – this is a mistake you make in your reasoning, and a grave mistake at that. If you build your premises on such a faulty assumption, you will get to inaccurate conclusions.
Oh, no, just because FFYs don’t intend to get married DOES NOT make their dirtiness a non issue. Btw, they are soiling the women for other men who do want to get married to someone with a low partner count. They are nevertheless dirty – meaning, you don’t wanna sleep with them and above all – they don’t deserve your respect as men. They’re not real men according to the traditionalist viewpoint. I would never even date a guy like Roosh, that is so unattractive, all of it, the pussy chasing, the women hating, the unwashed look. Gross.
My problem is that you claim to be morally superior here and yet you are hypocrites – you justify these guys and give them major slack, even though from a traditionalist (and especially Xtian) perspective, they are extremely sinful. They also have hubris as they brag about their sinfulness, they laugh in God’s face – see, I can defile and get away with it and be a hero! And they are non repentant.
Brent, do not twist my words. I never held Jenna Jameson as some paragon of perfect womanhood (whatever that is). In her case, all I mean is that even a porn star can still get married, because she is super hot (and still fertile). All your slutshaming and “unable to bond” theories goe out the window in one second – as long as the woman is hot, she’ll be forgiven and good in her case, because those are good genes to perpetuate. Ofc, Jenna Jameson has had a lousy love life (but who knows), mainly because she was abused as a girl, but there are hundreds of guys who would not only fuck her (dream on!), but who will marry her. She said she’s had like 20 male sex partners or whatever. She is over 30 now and has twins. Maybe she’s not the best example. The point was merely such that – even if a woman has gone through serial monogomy, let’s say, she’s had 3 steady boyfriends and 3 casual sex partners. Even at age 30 she can still have at least one or two kids (if not more) and she can still be an ok partner if she wants to be. The main point – kids. All else is a luxury and optional. Same goes for guys. All that matters is their health. But for you guys virginity is such a big deal. It’s not because you want “a good family”, it’s because you are selfish – you want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to sample life, sample the opposite sex, learn about them, take whatever you can from life, stabilize financially, get educated, explore the world, fuck women of other races (in some exotic country away from the eyes of your neighbors and female relatives), and THEN at age 30-35, when your own sperm quality is becoming worse, you finally want to marry…. an 18 year old virgin. Please. You want to have everything but you won’t let the girl have her own life. You want to have tasted the fruit of Eden, you want to have the wisdom of the Snake, you want to wallow in sin, but you won’t let the girl have the experience and let her form her own opinion of the world and men. It is a pure fantasy to control women. It doesn’t even anger me, because it is so unrealistic. It is that very same thing if a girl dreams of a prince, a movie character. You need to be a bit more pragmatic and focus on quality of life, health, quality of relationships, not the state of a girl’s hymen.
Unless you’re a TRUE Christian, of course. In that case, virginity is important – your own first and foremost. In that case you shouldn’t even be having sex before you marry that one girl. If you’re a REAL Christian, you court the girl, marry her, have sex and NEVER divorce her and NEVER cheat on her. Let’s see how many fellas today will choose that path. Everything else is hypocrisy and moral relativism.
This is a completely off topic question, but one that comes up for me from time to time:
With women and changing their name in a marriage, what is the best argument for (1) telling a woman to change her name and (2) denying her request to combining names (ie. mylastname-herlastname) or something like that?
I am not in a serious relationship now, but the question comes up casually and in group conversations from time to time so I am just trying to get different perspectives.
I was curious how people framed this both in the context of a relationship (aka a woman who seriously wants to either keep her name or combine her name with yours) as well as a group conversation (aka the group feminist/fattie who essentially says it is a woman’s right to keep her name, etc.)
Thanks.
Dana
Legion, the North is now close to a full reproduction level with Iceland almost at 2 kids per a woman and Norway is experiencing a baby boom (close to 2).
Please support this claim with some evidence. If it is true, it would be a startling reversal of a trend going back over 20 years. Extraordinary claims require proof.
But, guys, let’s think of this realistically. What do you expect to happen? Let’s not talk about the Christian environment in America, that still has those chastity rules, but the mainstream dating game. How do you expect the courtship to look? For the young people to be separated everywhere like in Pakistan? Then guys would come to the girls and court them and the parents will nudge the girls which guys advances they should respond to? You want the girls to force themselves into relationships with guys they’re not attracted to? Forget about girls loving nerds and lower betas, that will never happen. A good looking young girl below 28 is much higher in status than any man, except the biggest of alphas. She (or her mother) will never sell herself short. You think it will be good for the guys? Not be loved for real? Some beta finally got his ration of a female – so what, she doesn’t even love him or worse. Only in that they get to fuck them a bit (because the girl will refuse sex most of the time). What about real couples in love (like the ones who got married voluntarily out of love and are STILL married, namely, 50% of couples, or the convenience couples, where the 40 year old alpha guy enjoys his beautiful younger wife and she the fruits of his labor – perfect harmony.). What will Roissy and FFY do when girls are controlled? Not even 4s or 5s available, much less 8s. Not even a fatso to pump and dump. Roissy will be very unhappy, he already admitted he really enjoys this gift of the modern age – promiscuity and access to women. What will regular club guys do who at least have some access to drunk girls – all of a sudden no girls at all. Can’t play video games and drink anymore, gotta work your ass off for that one wife you’ll be fucking for the rest of your life, even past 40-50.
Btw, what Brendan said makes sense. About the life stages of a woman’s life. About the Plan B and all. Getting married at 29 or so. Btw, the median age at marriage in the US is still pretty low compared to Europe. In Sweden they only marry at 32 or so. What matters more ofc is the age at which the first kid is born. But, yes, Brendan mentioned the obvious fact – that most women in America do marry young. Most do not wait until they’re 30. So technically everything is ok (except the custody laws). 🙂 Then why all the raving? I suspect the raving is about the picky ones who postpone it until the 30+. They are such an eye sore. 🙂 Because those are usually the highest quality women – educated, from upper middle class families, often pretty too. Too bad they don’t want what you want.
“Women are making careers for narcissistic reasons..”
Women are making careers because it is nice to have a meal every day and it is nice to have a roof over your head. It is also nice to be able to afford medical and dental services and nice to be able to take care of your own kid if you happen to have one. It is also nice to be free and not at the mercy of some guy’s whims.
And, please, instead of career, use simply “a job”. Most women have jobs, not some spectacular careers. Many women would like to stay at home with the kids, once they have them, but that option is not available in the West. In America, you have an upaid maternity leave of ONE MONTH. When I first heard it I almost fell off the chair. Even 6 months is not that much.
Dana: How many partners I’ve had is nobody’s here business.
Proof that you are ashamed of the number. I’ll tell you mine up front: I’ve gone all the way with exactly one woman, my wife, on my wedding night.
women …should be much much more discriminate than they are these days because guys today tend to take advantage, they like to have that milk running free.
Correction: a SMALL percentage of the guys take huge advantage, while large numbers of men go without any female attention at all.
we as women need to do is to stop the flow of the milk
At last something we agree on. The Christian answer is the simplest: no sex til marriage.
The only thing is that young girls should be protected from untermensch like Roosh and FFY
Only their own self control can protect them from Roosh and FFY.
what matters is the baby, because these days husbands / boyfriends come and go, the child stays. …. A boyfriend can leave you when you turn 40 to run after next young hot thing.
Such a man is deserving of condemnation but he is the statistical rarity. In the USA, at least, the vast majority of divorces are filed by women, and the reason is NOT usually adultery or abuse, but simply a vague “unhappiness”. Lots of men commit suiicide or become alcoholics due to the depression of having their kids taken away.
I don’t use the word “slut” because in more progressive societies than America, such words don’t really have any meaning
“Progressive” is a synonym for “doomed”. I am utterly uninterested in the opinion of any progressive society.
But educate yourself:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/slut
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/prostitute
Dalrock, you justify PUAs and womanizers and you will preach to me about what real love is? Please. I actually did have a bit of respect for you.
Dalrock does NOT justify them. He advocates Christian marriage. As it happens, however, PUAs are often closer to a true understanding of female nature, than most Christians. That is his only common ground with the PUAs.
Ochen’ sumashchedshaya.
As Dalrock points out, marriage and college ae not mutually exclusive. And i recall that in the fifties, college was described as the mrs degree, with most women getting married soon after finishing.
When i went through college, i was hoping to meet someone interesting. Now that i better understand the careerist thinking of women, i appreciate why it was not likely. Secular girls were actually more interested in ltrs than the church girls. Anyhow, one of the christian girls got engaged in her last year and married soon after. The reaction was amazing. Most of her friends shunned and distanced themselves as they thought she was throwing her life away.
More likely, her ‘friends’ simply wanted time to ride the carousel and the sunday morning nightclub.
Twenty years later the fruit of their decisions has become clear. Most of those who did marry are now divorced. And whilst women are protected from the consequences of their decisions, i think we will not see much change. No fault divorce law means women can delude themselves into thinking their marriage will be different, ie long lasting, and if it is not then they benefit anyway.
I can’t see this changing any time soon whilst government defines and regulates marriage.
Concerning the birth rates: I’m not claiming that Northern Europeans are having more children than the folks in certain African or Asian countries. What is true though, that out of all European countries, the Nordics, who happen to be the most secular and the most women friendly, have the highest rates. Iceland has 1.89 per woman, Faroe Islands have 2.4 per woman, Norway – 1.77, FInland – 1.72. Other sources show even higher, so one would have to look at the sources more carefully, but that doesn’t change my point that all these countries need is another little push and they will get to the replacement level. They basically just need 0.4 more kids per woman. That is a considerable number, but it’s not that big either. If Nordic natality policies were to continue and improve just a little, they would be fine. The next step then would be to reform the immigration laws and the labor policies (or sign a selective immigration treaty with Russia or even China or some Buddhist countries). You preserve both the European nations, the culture (secularism and feminism) and the living standard. All of that is doable.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html
Norway population info is at http://www.ssb.no/befolkning_en/ and states that the latest average calculated was 1.8 children per woman. It also notes that immigrants and their children make up 11.4% of the population, mostly from Asia and Africa (Moslem). Now, if 90% of the women are having 1.6 children (the rate in Norway before high immigration) and 10% are having 4.0 children, the number derived is 1.84 children per woman, which tracks fairly well.
The feminists of Norway do not have long to enjoy their primacy, the Moslems will see to that. At the current rate of change, fifteen years will be enough for them to be a substantial minority, equal to all but the strongest political party, and in thirty they could be dictating terms to the Labour Party.
I haven’t bothered to look at the discussion at Darwin’s blog; is it clear that he puts women on a pedestal, attributing to them a “enlightened” sexuality and fails to recognize female lust?
van Rooinek,
Yes, I do believe that a person’s sexual life is kind of their own business. I only answered to Brent’s or whoever’s claim that I was the one who had had 50 guys. That was just an example.
As a Christian, it’d be better if you stuck to your ways and not lecture others how to live. After all, I’m not telling you how to live your only life (as we know so far).
Your American small perceptage of guys is only due to the high competition between males you have there, the sex ratios there favor women. In other cases, where the sex ratios are not as favorable to women, regular guys sleep with many women too without consequences. That by itself is a good illustration of men’s morals. Although my impression is that even in America, lots of regular guys get to have no strings attached sex. I do not know for sure (haha) but that’s how it looks. Don’t tell me that only alphas sleep around, everyone does sees days. The guys on Jersey shore are no alphas.
Another Norway birth rate number suggests – 1.98 in 2010.
Map showing population growth in Norway:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Annual_population_growth_of_Norway.svg
Increase of births since mid 1980s and esp since early 2000s. Norway is relatively homogeneous, so this is all legit. That’s why I didn’t include France which also has high rates, around 2, because I no longer consider France ethnically European, same as the US.
I assume this isn’t the same “dana” that was at CR and elsewhere…
[D: I don’t know, but she is different than the Dana I referenced in this post.]
Dana’s Hamster is really getting a work out.
@Brent
“I know of another former Adventist woman who is quite clear that, as Adventist women, “We were trained to be feminists.””
It looks like I’ve got my work cut out for me. Question is where I start. That forum and others like it are full of pussy worshipers and when I mentioned that to one person privately their response was – you mean they’re normal hetero men.
As one who thinks the 10 commandments are actually commands and not suggestions this chick was actually admitting that these men place pussy before God. I thought that was what pagans did.
Dana says:
April 1, 2012 at 12:19 pm
Yes, the Scandinavian countries are the outlier societies in Europe. They have the most babies per women and even the most mothers and fathers staying together to raise their children.
Again, your example will not be to much effect. No Scandanavian country has been considered a power since Charles the XII of Sweden lost to Peter the great of Russia at Poltava in 1709.
Again, not much hope for Europe. Maybe those Scandanavian countries will remain free. Particularly Iceland. They do not like immigrants, even white ones. They are close enough to the USA to fall under our protection, as long as we don’t bankrupt ourselves.
christiankp says:
April 1, 2012 at 3:52 pm
No rings for sluts. Women will have to stay in their carreers and find out what men already knew. Working hard, no matter how you feel or need, is a crummy lot in life. Ladies who don’t want good men in their twenties aren’t going t0 find many good men in their thirties.
Tmason says:
April 1, 2012 at 4:01 pm
Try, “My name or no marriage.” Either you will dodge the bullet of a women who won’t change her name or doesn’t like your attitude, or you’ll have some great sex that night.
You can thank me later.
Dana says:
April 1, 2012 at 5:01 pm
“But, guys, let’s think of this realistically. What do you expect to happen?”
If you want some really sad news, Google the phrase’ “Enjoy the decline”.
Wow, Dana!
I’m impressed! that was a LOT of words you used to say: Women can have sex with as many men as they want and there’s noting wrong with it. However men who have sex with as many women as they want, are “soiling” women.
Got it. Now, you were saying something about hypocrites?
The trouble, I think, is that it’s hard to discern realistic alternatives. Given the choice, most women (and most of their parents) are going to opt for the “build career to as to have financial independence as a security measure” in the early to mid 20s rather than the “get married early and take your chances by being financially dependent on one man” approach. I think this is just human. In the past, fewer opportunities were open to women as a cultural matter, and so the early marriage route was encouraged.
If something can’t go on forever, it won’t.
The feminist program of transferring wealth from men to women s.t. women are “independent” destroys the basis of family formation and depresses birth rates, not only below those of competing cultures, but even below replacement. So feminist cultures cannot reproduce, and will therefore be swamped by those that can.
The “alternative” to the feminist program is a culture that respects — or even privileges — men. If your culture won’t do that, it will be replaced by one that will. If we take your analysis as correct, the obvious conclusion is that the future belongs to those cultures that don’t “give the choice”.
@TMASON
“With women and changing their name in a marriage, what is the best argument for (1) telling a woman to change her name and (2) denying her request to combining names (ie. mylastname-herlastname) or something like that?”
Speakong of this, anyone else here ever get the suspicion that feminism is really just one giant society-wide fitness taste, which men are failing quite badly?
Fitness TEST. Damn autocorrect.
FFY – don’t flatter yourself, I wouldn’t even consider someone like you or esp Roosh. I’m just reading him because I want to see what tricks they’ve got under their sleeves and to what lows some men can actually fall these days. Also I’m reading about his travels because he’s also writing about my country. It’s interesting to see from outside perspective. But, no, he is not attractive, absolutely the opposite from my type, as I prefer blondes. Fucked up personality too.
Brent, I asked that question somewhere a while back and was told that Roissy opined an answer – “yes” – a couple of years ago, but I don’t have the link to hand.
Twenty – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Inevitability_of_Patriarchy
Senor Legion, ustedes es En Fuego! Bravo!
@Father Marker – http://www.formeradventist.com is a good place to start.
Anonymous Reader says:
April 1, 2012 at 8:07 pm
Thank you.
My meager Spanish skills understand the gist of what you said. Googling a spanish-english translator confirm it. The internet is a wonderful thing.
Great news, Dalrock! Great news: Eureka Alert.
Dalrock,
I’ve responded in depth to your comments (including your analysis of marriage age in relation to divorce and premarital sex) here:
http://darwincatholic.blogspot.com/2012/04/how-to-marry-nice-girl.html
Enjoy.
–Darwin
My anecdotal experience is that delayed marriage by women (or early marriage strike) is causing them to marry ‘down’ dramatically later. My two friends who are virtually unemployed married women in their late 30s earning +200k, the rest of my female friends in their 30s are virtually celibate waiting for alphas to sweep them off their feet.
“My two friends who are virtually unemployed married women in their late 30s earning +200k”
The fact that women in this society can “earn” (does receiving money in wages necessarily signify “earning” money these days?) a lot more than some barely unemployed men they’re marrying hardly means they’re of better stock than the men they’re marrying. There seems to be an implicit assumption these days that women receiving more money than their husbands are “marrying down” when in a sane society the distribution of resources to men and women would be completely different. And one is inclined to ask the question, what is the point of working to earn more than a woman is receiving, if she will ultimately be the one receiving what the husband earns? No sane man who earns a lot of money would give a claim to his earnings to a woman who gave the best years of her life to other men or a career.
It’s important to compare apples to apples. Median marriage ages in the US were consistently much lower than they are now. That was true even when most men in the US earned less than $600 (early 1900s) a year, which would have meant having a very meager lifestyle.
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005061.html
Your statistics from European history, even if reliable, don’t account for the changes in attitudes about marriage ages.
Archbishop Fenelon wrote about the oppressive poverty in the countryside – and how his ideal King would allow the countryside to be prosperous, so the young people could marry without fear of increasing their distress. It was clearly recognized that the delay of marriage was a social evil.
Modern historians are interested in manipulating data and statistics to fit their narrative of ever-changing social conventions. European society has also gone through periods of corruption in the past.
Religiously raised women who don’t marry young (and their parents) are making a choice. It’s not for want of suitors. I see this in religious parents who don’t want their 18 year old daughters courted. I see this in 22 year old women who call off weddings at the last minute. We hear: “you have your whole life ahead of you” – “you’re too young to marry” – very often this advice comes from ostensible tradcons. Those attitudes are the major reason for the increase in marriage ages in the US.
What is happening in Europe today goes far beyond what happened in the past. There needs to be a reliable, comprehensive view of the customs pertaining to the historical age of marriage if you want to challenge Dalrock’s thesis.
Having a false view of young unmarried women as being sexually inert is not traditional. It really isn’t believable, this claim that most of these young women go into careers because they have no serious prospects for marriage. They go into careers because that’s what society tells them they’re supposed to, they delay marriage because that’s what society tells them to do, and what tradition and religion tell them to do is obviously of secondary or tertiary importance, and this tends to be extremely common even among some of the most ostensibly traditional church groups – groups whose members are certainly more traditional than those who would sport a Darwin Fish icon.
I read DarwinCatholic’s screed, and found it pompous and unenlightening. I was about to leave a reply there, but then thought: Why? It’s a waste of time to argue with the guy holding the microphone, in front of his home crowd. He’s a buffoon. F*ck ’em.
For the record:
1.) Snotty analysis of shaky data from pre-20th century sources doesn’t mean much. The pill (and modern condoms, and the welfare state) drastically altered the payoffs to slutting it up.
2.) His position strikes me as “man up and marry those sluts” (as long as they claim to have reformed, and demonstrated it by not sleeping with you). It’s like paying new car prices for a used car because of the seller’s assurances that it’s as good as new — after all, you haven’t put any miles on it!
3.) His post is littered with references to what women like, and what men have to do to be worthy of women, blah blah blah. Very little about what a woman has to do to be worthy of a man — and, in the current legal climate, that really ought to be where the burden of proof lies.
4.) His hatred for the manospere is palpable … I guess he really doesn’t like anyone questioning feminism. He even implies that women won’t like you if you’re not on board with the latest bien-pensant “gender” thinking and/or feminized cultural norms … in fact, he claims that women can detect crimethink even if you don’t openly express it. (Bitches be psychic!) I guess someone forgot to tell Roissy, Roosh, VK, FFY, Krauser, &c.
5.) His notion that stamping one’s feet and crying out “no sex before marriage” will accomplish anything is ridiculous. His own figures show average age of first boink at 17.6 — couple that with a median age of marriage of 26.5 (women) and 28.0(?) (men), and his plan is for most people to remain voluntarily celibate for 9 – 10.5 years. Let me know how that works out for you.
My question to him is the same as to all other TradCons: Are you working to reform biased family law? Address false DV claims? Revoke chillimony? Bring back shared (or even — gasp — default father) custody? Eliminate AA for women? Fix our feminized schools? Restore a culture that honors men?
Or are you just insisting that men give women what they want?
Well, there seems to be a correlation beteween wealth and early marriages as well. Look at page 4 (Swedish statistics 1900-2000).
http://www.scb.se/Statistik/BE/BE0101/2011M05/Gifterm%C3%A5l_skilsm%C3%A4ssor.pdf
For 250 years of Swedish statistics, if you have a fast connection.
http://gupea.ub.gu.se/handle/2077/857
Here’s the kind of reaction you get in Trad communities when a girl is planning to marry at the age of 19:
“Are you kidding me? These pictures look like two young 15 year olds playing dress-up and house!
You think it’s OK to allow two overly-sheltered SSPX KIDS to get married this young? You’re nuts. Your daughter appears as if she can barely leave the house and successfully grocery shop – you’ve got her dressed in irrelavent clothes that bring to mind the Victorian period.
She will be tied to the slavery of early motherhood and too many babies. Her life is going to be miserable. She is too young to understand what love is, what marriage really requires. And I say all of this as a conservative Catholic.”
Note the feminist memes: When a girl a late teen – they immediately mention early younger teens and try to draw an equivalence. This is the meme that 18 year old girls are “babies” – not young women read to think about marriage, as past custom and even today’s law recognizes. “Overly-sheltered” – this goes to Dalrock’s comment about feminists thinking the young women haven’t developed their “girl power”. Obligatory snooty comment about wearing traditional style, modest dress. “Her life is going to be miserable” – The idea that Christian marriage and motherhood are miserable for young women, who supposedly have better things to do. “She is too young to understand what love is” – “I say this as a conservative Catholic” – what idea of love does this woman really have? The idea of Christian self-sacrifice, or the idea of “being true to yourself” – “conservative Catholic” – someone who thinks feminist values, scorn for marriage and child-bearing by young women is Catholic – ie, a femitradcon.
“Women born more than 100 years ago had many children, and they had them cornparatively late in life. Women born in 191 1 often gave birth first when they were between the ages of 3035, during the war years in the early 1940s. The situation was completely different for women born in the 1930s through the 1950s. They had a comparatively high fertiliiy and they had their children early, often around the age of 25. Fertility for women born in 1971, has so far followed the same paiiern as for women born in 191 1. The question is if they, like the women from 1911, have
postponed childbearing or not.”
Sweden is really not a good example. A country as far gone as Sweden has had serious problems for a long time. Consider the playwright Strindberg, and his themes that are considered “misogynistic.”
DarwinCatholic says:
April 1, 2012 at 10:38 pm
Oh good. There are a couple space cadets here telling us about marriage. Lets make sure all us men learn to ride that grravy train. YeeHaaaa!
(Hahahaha, lololololololol, roflmao, etc., etc., etc.,…)
Divorced. Involved as a consumer of family law. Raising sons solo. No partner…
and I agree with only half Darwin’s theology. The issue of “man up and marry…” ain’t correct.
It is TEST her and MAKE sure she is NOT sleeping with ANYONE and has REPENTED. (Same applies to you, of course). Many women talk the GodTalk but will not deal with this.
Ask about finances, competencies and church life, theology, and if she will move to the most mosquito ridden part of Manitoba for you… Heck Dalrock has the best list of questions at hsi interviewing the wife post.
Full Calvinistic response at http://pukeko.net.nz/blog/daybook/nicking-wisdom-from-the-papists/
Twenty — “My question to him is the same as to all other TradCons: Are you working to reform biased family law? Address false DV claims? Revoke chillimony? Bring back shared (or even — gasp — default father) custody? Eliminate AA for women? Fix our feminized schools? Restore a culture that honors men?”
defund and dismantle the thousands of feminist organizations? address male homelessness? male suicide? war PTSD? scrap the male-predatory Prison Industrial Complex? reform the feminist education system, K – doctorate?
“Or are you just insisting that men give women what they want?”
he’s insisting, and the men with power and guns back him (and his wife) up
agree w/Joe Sheehy, this Darwin character exemplifies what’s wrong with western FemShrines oops i mean churches
“conservative Catholic” my ass
neither Empowered Independent Women nor Mary as the Redeemer of Humanity are conservative concepts, nor are they the Catholcism my father taught me, nor will i tolerate such “Catholcism”
“Note the feminist memes: When a girl a late teen – they immediately mention early younger teens and try to draw an equivalence. This is the meme that 18 year old girls are “babies” – not young women read to think about marriage, as past custom and even today’s law recognizes”
no shit they’re helpless children when that suits these peoples’ interests, and theyre powerful liberated wonders soaring far beyond the immaturity of mere stupid boys, when that suits
what a Mommy of a planet!
and you guys are EXACTLY right, the”conservatives” have played ths game right along w/the feminists, pinning men in the middle as scapegoats and villains, making money and careers off other guys
the sooner a girl is betrothed and married, and under the spiritual protection of a man, the easier it is to steer her away from our anti-biblical, anti-christian societies, and into a stable and lifelong love with a man
that’s family stability, a secure base for raising kids — actual conservatism
this system will only work biblically, tho — “I hate divorce” etc
socio-biblical prosciption against divorce is a safeguard for the bride and her parents, ensuring lifelong commitment, and facilitating a platform for kids to live with both parents, usually biological
. . . a bit like 1950’s America, before the “improvements”
Well, the problem is that you need to go back to Victorian divorce laws: husband gets the kids, and divorce is either annulment (Catholic countries) or tightly controlled by the church courts (protestant countries). It requires the reintroduction of shame, proprietry, and at the same time restarts traditions such as balls.
And restricting the vote to property owners, who pay a poll tax. Don;t pay taxes, don’t vote.
You probably need to go back to something like Austen’s England. Love to see a modern version of that. Until then, the best thing we can do is be as countercultural as possible.
Means we will be called cold, unloving, unchristian… by the feminists, who are using words such as freedom and self empowerment to destroy the family.
@Suz
“Got it. Now, you were saying something about hypocrites?”
Nice.
Am I the only one here to suspect that Dana’s self proclaimed ‘impressive’ CV is packed with wimminz degrees BBS / MBS / DBS.
There’s a lot of feelings going on, but not so much reasoning. She’s seen numbers saying that the population replacement rates are being met, but didn’t think to analyse who was doing the replacing.
I really hope she’s not teaching the next generation of facts-are-acts-of-patriarchal-oppression femtards
“She’s seen numbers saying that the population replacement rates are being met, but didn’t think to analyse who was doing the replacing.”
She is not totally wrong. Foreign born women are only slightly (0,4 children) more fertile than ethnic Swedes, and their Swedish born children are slightly less fertile than ethnic Swedes (0,1-0,2 children). And foreign born women are still less than 10 % of all women in Sweden.
http://www.scb.se/statistik/_publikationer/LE0001_2010K02_TI_02_A05TI1002.pdf
The replacement level (2,1) has only been met by ethnic Swedish women and not foreign born women 1 year out of the last 35 years. Most of these years the figures have been closer to 1,5 than 2,0.
I think it is time to remind ourselves of the view held by Schopenhauer. He observed – and I think with my slight age adjustment that he is correct – that women do not mature after the age of 21 [he said 18]; whereas – as the Romans legislated – men continue maturing to twenty eight, if not later. How often have I heard some mature female with Masters Degree or higher, reasoning like a spoilt fourteen year old and acting like one too. God/Darwin (as suits your fancy) did not create women incapable of bonding until they had ‘matured’ and tasted the delights of multiple men (i.e. what we call Alpha’s) before finally settling on the last (for the earlier ones are all gone). One is thus reminded that in reply to a question by Boswell, as to whether there were fifty women in the world suitable for any one man, Johnson replied ‘aye Fifty Thousand’.
The increasing popularity of chick-crack fiction since the 1970s by Miss Austen cannot hide the fact that Miss Bennett, will only marry money, and thus it is a toss-up between merely two men, the odious stalker Mr Wickham and handsome but aloof Mr D’Arcy – they are of course outside of Miss Bennett’s fevered imagination indistinguishable. As a school boy I was rather shocked that my Literature teacher, a rather touchy and testy gentleman, opined as to his recent marriage that he, having decided upon matrimony – as a generally desirable state, had looked around, but advised that there were only two or three women one could possibly marry – he knew no others. As a callow youth, I was shocked by the lack of choice, but now I think he is wrong for a different reason: it is not that there are only two or three, but probably only one, if any atall.
You either want to marry or you don’t and Marriage (in its new guise of serial monogamy) remains popular and women will only end their serialism when their options begin to run out. For myself, I am a slut-finder, probably, in fact the Slut-finder General, for I can spot a slut at fifty paces and have clearly made it my life’s goal to save them from themselves. What greater challenge can there be than saving a woman from the pleasures of multiple partners and replacing them with the ultimate male, oneself. I am thus certainly no Alpha (as they have no taste) and some slut’s are too far gone even for my strange tastes – heroic single mums and divorcees (and that includes the serial monogamists) are off the menu, I’m afraid. I am seeking the woman who acknowledges that she is indeed Mary Magdalene.
@Twenty
“His post is littered with references to what women like, and what men have to do to be worthy of women, blah blah blah”
For someone who claims to be Catholic, you’d think he would deal with all those texts from Proverbs regarding prizing virtuous women and staying away from unvirtuous ones. It appears however, like most Christians today he thinks a Christian man is duty bound to marry just any woman and be happy about it.
I wonder if he, like our dear friend Dana, believes that a man should marry Jenna Jameson? Hypothetically, what if Jenna Jameson got religion and repented of boinking hundreds of men in front of a camera? Would she then be good marriage material for a Christian man, Mr. Darwin? Should a man, as Dana intimated, “Man up and marry these porn actresses!” If not, why?
Secondly, Mr. Darwin, what can we learn from Hosea chapter 1–to wit, Lo-ammi, or “That kid isn’t mine!”–about marrying a formerly promiscuous woman? Or are all Christian men who have kept themselves pure before God morally required to pick up the pieces of an unchaste woman’s life? If so, where does one find that in Scripture?
Thirdly, how do you deal with the fact that statistically speaking, someone who has had multiple sexual partners before marriage is significantly more likely to commit adultery during marriage? Is it responsible for a Christian man to put his future children at risk of a failed marriage like that? Or do you think Christian women don’t commit adultery? If so, what are you smoking and where can I get some?
@Brent
One small correction if I may.
You suggest that the Catholics should be reading their Bibles, and if they did so, they would have come across the adulterous women in Proverbs. I know (because you say so above) that you are a Protestant (though of which denomination you do not say) and Former Adventist, but I must tell you that Catholics do not generally, and probably are, forbidden from reading The Old Testament. What they read are their Missals which is why their minds are saved from having to read of these sinful women – they only do pure ones like The Virgin Mary. Their Priests are kept On-Message by the Curia (formerly the Inquisition) . Only Protestants (who have no central organisation) read The Old Testament which is why there are so many different types (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterans and many others) as none can agree on the true meaning. This is all the fault of Martin Luther and Guttenberg for printing the book in the first place – so, as usual, you can blame the Germans.
@Darwin
“So, in general, is the use of terms like “slut”, “ho”, “c***”, etc”
I know that modern feminized Christianity believes the greatest sin ever is being “not nice.”. However, I wonder how you deal with Biblical texts that are actually stunningly direct and graphic in referring to unchaste women? To wit, would I be allowed to even quote the Bible’s reference to the “Whore of Babylon,” on you blog?
As well, why is there not a similar warning against use of the terms dick, cad, predator, or player when referring to men? Would the apostle Paul be allowed to come on your blog and wish his ideological opponents would castrate themselves? Or would that, too, be “not nice”?
“It’s also why I personally have a low level of sympathy for the argument that it’s impossible to remain a virgin a long time for marriage.”
Evidently, by your argument in your blog, you mean “I personally have a low level of sympathy for the argument that it’s impossible FOR A MAN to remain a virgin a long time for marriage” since you see no reason that a Christian man who has remained chaste to desire that in his future wife, and in fact have shamed us Christian men for pointing out that the Bible strongly favors–though doesn’t explicitly command–that a man ought to have this standard. This, not male charity before marriage, was the original point of Dalrock’s post.
By the way, I also agree that it isn’t that hard for a BETA man, in our current SMP, to remain a virgin. The reason is that most women are falling in to bed with the 15-20% of men who are alphas, and therefore fulfill Dana’s stereotype of “the Prince.” What you are saying in your posts is that the sexually inexperienced beta men must be expected to pick up the pieces of a woman’s sex life that she ruined by jumping on alpha men throughout college and in her early career.
Our arguments are not against sexual virtue in men. Dalrock’s broader arguement, if you bother to put this post in the context of his others to which he links, is that women today are being raised in an extremely permissive and patronizing way, constantly told of their complete perfection and superiority–“you can do anything and be anything and have a thing, and God has a PERFECT man for you.” This has created a generation of young women who have zero personal accountability and never truly grow up. It hs even gotten to the point that Christian leaders like Glenn Stanton of Focus on the Family argue essentially that women are born without Original Sin.
I can understand if this might be a blind spot for you, since it has probably been a long time since you’ve been in the MMP, but as a 31 year-old successful, eligible, and good-looking (not to mention Ivy-League educated) Christian young man who hopes to find a virtuous honorable wife to be the mother of his future children, let me set you straight: Christian women have no interest n guys like me. None. Nada. Zilch. Why? Because all of their lives they’ve been told, “God has a perfect man for you!” I cannot tell you how many times I read a lady’s profile on ChristianMingle.com and find rose exact words, or some similar statement. No one is perfect, but the incontinent alphas are much better at faking it than the continent, and usually naively transparent betas.
Women want a “perfect” man, without the reciprocal understanding that this means they be perfect themselves. But no one is perfect. Ergo, we reach a logical contradiction. Biologically and psychologically, unless women are trained up and taught to think otherwise, “perfect” always means an alpha man. She wants excitement, daring, dashing, devil-may-care. It used to be that a Christian woman’s mother and grandmothers would be responsible for teaching her why these are not the traits she should be looking for (they are highly correlated with players who are unable or unwilling to ever commit in their entire lives). Instead, they would tell her, you should be looking for a man who will be a good, stable influence in the home, a devoted father to your children, is well-positioned to provide for you and your children, and will be a loyal husband to you.
Dalrock’s hypothesis, which you entirely failed to deal with–an EPIC fail by definition–is that women go from alpha to alpha, hoping for commitment but never getting it, and sleeping with them in the hopes this will convince them to commit (even though, psychologically and chemically, it creates the opposite response in an alpha). Eventually, as they get older and realize their prospects are drying up as guys like FFY move on to the next crop of 21 year-olds, these women panic, grab the first beta they can find, and marry him if he’ll have her. In terms of our modern amusements, this would be like Penny from Big Bang Theory marrying Leonard, which we all know will happen on the series finale. In real life, this would be a disaster for Leonard, as Penny would be entirely unable to pair bond (which we already saw in an earlier episode where she had an Inability to tell him she loved him, even during the hormonal afterglow following coitus), and would have a high likelihood of adultery.
Though I have resigned myself to the probability that a future spouse may have fallen and had one, or maybe at most two, previous sexual partners, maybe now you understand why guys like me don’t want to “man up and marry these sluts”! This, not the idea of chastity before marriage (a point in which you both agree), was Dalrock’s point, a point you utterly missed.
@ Opus
“Only Protestants (who have no central organisation) read The Old Testament which is why there are so many different types (Baptists, Methodists, Lutherans, Presbyterans and many others) ”
I personally subscribe to New Covenant Theology, which solves a lot of these sticky problems vis-a-vis the OT, but this is not a theology blog so I won’t go there. However, these Protestant groups agree on about 99% of all doctrinal concepts (with the exception that sovereign-grace Presby-Lutherans and Arminian Methodists are probably only at 95% agreement). In fact, I have personally attended an Evangelical Free, an LCMS Lutheran, and now a PCA Presbyterian church, all within the past 12 months (as part of a work for find a good, gospel teaching church–I prefer conservative Lutheran theology but cannot find a qualifying church nearby that really teaches it). Their statements of doctrine are almost indistinguishable, and differences are focused on the secondary (to most Protestants except conservative Lutherans) view of the nature of the two Protestant Sacraments. Almost always, differences are found at a congregation-by-congregation level.
“This is all the fault of Martin Luther and Guttenberg for printing the book in the first place – so, as usual, you can blame the Germans.”
Fine. Be that way. We of German descent will just take our highly-tuned and precisely engineered autombiles; our finely crafted, smooth-drinking beers; and our large-breasted blue-eyed blond women and go home, thank you very much.
Pingback: Mr Darwin Responds. | Dalrock
A few scattered replies, just for kicks:
@Twenty
1.) Snotty analysis of shaky data from pre-20th century sources doesn’t mean much. The pill (and modern condoms, and the welfare state) drastically altered the payoffs to slutting it up.
The data on median age of first marriage back to 1890 that I linked to came from exactly the same source as Dalrock’s data: The US Census. The fact is, Dalrock (doubtless unknowingly) picked a low point in average marriage age in modern US history (the 1950s) and acted as if it were the norm. As I pointed out, the median marriage age in 1890 was the same as it was in 1980, and far fewer of those people got divorced than did those who married in 1950 at 20 or 1980 at 22.
As for contraception: BINGO! Yes, contraception is the prime enabler of sexual immorality in our modern society. By making sex without biological consequences (realistically, it doesn’t even do that, look at the number of “unintented” pregnancies women have while using birth control) it fools people into thinking sex is without any consequences. And, obviously, it’s not. Sleeping around as if sex has no consequences damages both women and men morally, emotionally and physically, making some of them incapable of ever forming stable and happy marriages, and making it more difficult for all. That is why I don’t just utterly reject sex outside of marriage, I utterly reject contraception in total. To quote my post:
@Brent
I wonder if he, like our dear friend Dana, believes that a man should marry Jenna Jameson? Hypothetically, what if Jenna Jameson got religion and repented of boinking hundreds of men in front of a camera? Would she then be good marriage material for a Christian man, Mr. Darwin?
No.
Since I already addressed the question of marrying a woman with bad sexual history, I’ll just quote my post:
So to reiterate: marrying someone with a bad sexual history is like marrying a recovered alcoholic. It may work, but you better seriously ask yourself:
– How bad this woman used to be, and how much baggage she still has from that history
– How long this woman has been “on the wagon”
– How committed she has shown herself to staying on the wagon
I know that modern feminized Christianity believes the greatest sin ever is being “not nice.”. However, I wonder how you deal with Biblical texts that are actually stunningly direct and graphic in referring to unchaste women? To wit, would I be allowed to even quote the Bible’s reference to the “Whore of Babylon,” on you blog?
Sure. You can even go comment on my post about the Whore of Babylon from a while back if you’d like. The reason I stated a ban is not that I get the vapors at the sight of bad language (I can enjoy my Tarentino and Mamet with the best of them) but that I don’t like what I’ve seen of the manosphere’s tone.
I don’t think that the name calling I that was going on on that Patheos thread a while back (which elicited my original post linking to Dalrock) was “prophetic” any more than I think some of the jackassery I’ve seen aimed at our military by “pacifist” Christians has been “prophetic”. I think it’s mostly just rude acting out. St. Paul I do not find to be a jerk, and I don’t find his use of strong language to be unacceptable. He’s welcome to come post in my comment boxes any time he likes. I’ve always had a fondness for the guy.
[oops. sorry for the open link tag]
[D: Let me know if my fix wasn’t what you intended.]
The data on median age of first marriage back to 1890 that I linked to came from exactly the same source as Dalrock’s data: The US Census.
ROFL. You drag in crap from 16th-century Belgium, and when called on it, you use the facts that I refer to “pre-20th century sources” and that you cited a single decade of pre-20th century US data to pretend that my objection is moot b/c you’re taking your data from the same source as Dalrock. Way to boost your credibility.
Furthermore, you acknowledge the impact of contraception, but then cheerfully proceed to ignore it when it suits your purposes, claiming equivalence between age-of-first-marriage numbers in radically different contexts.
Finally, although you responded to me, I note that you didn’t answer my question:
My question to him is the same as to all other TradCons: Are you working to reform biased family law? Address false DV claims? Revoke chillimony? Bring back shared (or even — gasp — default father) custody? Eliminate AA for women? Fix our feminized schools? Restore a culture that honors men?
So I’m just going to put you down as a “No”.
I have to go with the Darwins here. He is promoting magisterial Catholic [and Orthodox] sexual praxis, which is just plain hard, with no quarter surrendered to the clamouring flesh. The day TradCons stop holding both men and women to that austere standard, I will hand in my TradCon card. However, TradCons do need to be reminded that women as well as men are equally ill-disposed to follow traditional sexual praxis, albeit in different ways.
What the Darwins are promoting is a world away from HUS’s approved carousel-lite/serial monogamy behavior. Just because women are delaying marriage is no [i]certain [/i] sign that they are indulging their darker impulses. I think you committed a category error.
This post is epic dalrock. I also enjoy deti’s comments.
@asinusspinasmasticans
I would agree with you if you had instead stated:
But to say that of women delaying marriage in general, especially in the specific context of our post sexual revolution and thoroughly feminist society, is simply absurd. Are you honestly saying you don’t believe the hookup culture exists? Are you asserting that young women today are seeking out husband material boyfriends, yet somehow are accidentally finding themselves going home with men like FFY for casual sex? Are you (like Mrs. Darwin) asserting that women in general aren’t actually delaying marriage to focus first on career, but instead are passing the time in their earnest search for a husband by having a career?
@Twenty,
ROFL. You drag in crap from 16th-century Belgium, and when called on it, you use the facts that I refer to “pre-20th century sources” and that you cited a single decade of pre-20th century US data to pretend that my objection is moot b/c you’re taking your data from the same source as Dalrock. Way to boost your credibility.
I brought in three sources from the 17th through the 19th century in Europe. (FYI: the 16th century would be the 1500s.) They’re based on very good surveys of church registry and legal records, both of which record birth dates and marriage dates of individual people, and there was some pretty good sociology work being done in the 1800s on the question of marriage age and fertility because it was a topic of intense interest after Malthus had written about the topic.
However, the reason I reverted to the US Census data in referring to your comment is that even that data set going back to 1890 points out that the ’50s were an unusual period, not the norm.
My question to him is the same as to all other TradCons: Are you working to reform biased family law? Address false DV claims? Revoke chillimony? Bring back shared (or even — gasp — default father) custody? Eliminate AA for women? Fix our feminized schools? Restore a culture that honors men?
– I’m not particularly working on family law issues because 1) I’m neither a legislator nor a lawyer and 2) it doesn’t affect me much since I don’t believe in divorce in the first place.
– When I look up “DV claim” I get results dealing with car values
– I would tend to think that shared custody doesn’t work very well. To my mind, the person who should by default get custody is the one who doesn’t leave the marriage. But again, this isn’t something I spend much time on thinking of since divorce is simply not an option in my religion/culture anyway.
– I favor completely abolishing public schools and at most having vouchers for private schooling.
– I have already chosen to reject mainstream culture and belong to a culture which honors men (and honors women as well — not in the way the modern feminism does, but through the perspective of a Catholic understanding of the authentic calling of women), and so far as I can tell the mainstream culture is pretty far gone. I think it would be great if the mainstream culture ceased to disrespect and degrade both men and women in the way it currently does.
@ Dalrock,
Are you (like Mrs. Darwin) asserting that women in general aren’t actually delaying marriage to focus first on career, but instead are passing the time in their earnest search for a husband by having a career?
She didn’t state that. She stated that a woman can’t necessarily wish a good guy to marry into existence just by force of will power, just like a good guy can’t necessarily find a good woman to marry right away just because he wants to, and that given that, it isn’t unreasonable for her to pursue a career while she is looking.
Dalrock, I detect more than a little sample error in the Darwii posting(s). It could well be that Mrs. Darwin knows some small number of 20-something women who genuinely are having a career while searching for a husband. I’m doubtful, but it could be true. But even if it is true, it is simply absurd to extrapolate from a tiny, self selected group to a larger population. It is statistical nonsense; it is also indicative of a solipsistic mind set. I suggest that this is merely another variation on the tedious cry of “NAWALT”, and as usual it is being employed not to further discussion and expand knowledge, but to shut down criticism of women – and perhaps pedestalize them a bit as well.
Now, Mr. Darwin’s posting is interesting, but appears to contain a similar error: he defines “TradCon” as basically himself and a rather small group of people just like himself. It is as if the Amish were to declare themselves the only true TradCons. The problem is, there are no set rules for defining what a TradCon is – as with feminism, one can play No True Scotsman as a smoke screen for an indefinite period of time, until everyone else has lost interest, whereupon it’s time to declare victory. Again, the appearance of investigation, but very possibly it is merely another attempt to stop any criticism of women’s bad behavior.
Mr. Darwin would be more convincing if he would accept that the TradCon group includes rather a lot more Catholics than just him and those that agree with him. It seems to include non Catholics as well (although that’s nothing a good Inquisitor couldn’t solve, given enough time and pain-inducing implements, perhaps). However, one need not go that far to find a “Man UP and marry the sluts!” TradCon – exhibit A being one Bill Bennett, who claims to be a Catholic (Darwii are free to disagree, that’s a fight I have no interest in) and with all due respect, Bennett is a whole lot more visible than the Darwii niche group, and IMO a whole lot more representative of the US “Traditional Conservative” mindset.
However, I must point out how Mr. Darwin’s posting is much more agreeable than his previous one. It is a bit risible to see someone who is “spoiling for a fight” essentially close and bar the door when he gets one. Perhaps this time around, he can be a bit less arrogant, and employ fewer logical fallacies?
@Darwin,
I thank you for responding.
“So to reiterate: marrying someone with a bad sexual history is like marrying a recovered alcoholic. It may work, but you better seriously ask yourself:
– How bad this woman used to be, and how much baggage she still has from that history
– How long this woman has been “on the wagon”
– How committed she has shown herself to staying on the wagon ”
I don’t have a huge problem with this, and I thank you for dealing with it. If you are going to advise Christian young men, you might want to deal with the biology of pair bonding, and point out that beyond only a very few partners, she will not be able to bond with him emotionally after their first sexual encounter on their wedding night. It isn’t just that she’s a “recovered alcoholic.” She might have permanently rendered herself incapable of pair-bonding with her husband. It isn’t just a matter of spiritual exercise or depth of repentance. This heightens the risk she might someday fall again to temptation (we all sin), and if that is the case, a man ought not expose his future children to that risk.
Your caricature of Protestant understanding of confession and repentance is, of course, just a caricature with no basis in fact. You might be surprised to find, since you mentioned Luther, that traditional Lutheran churches do not practice the revivalism of altar calls. Since this isn’t a theology blog, I won’t go into great detail. I simply suggest you might want to become more familiar with conservative traditional Protestant theology before bad-mouthing it, so as not to make yourself look un-informed. WhiteHorseInn.org is a good place to start. Most of the reformers would have shared your disdain for revivalism. Luther, in particular, spoke against the forms of Christian emotionalism that were present in his day. Not to mention Bonhoeffer’s screed against it in Life Together, which, as a Catholic, you might be surprised to find is heavily pro-monastic.
DarwinCatholic – ” Since I already addressed the question of marrying a woman with bad sexual history…”
Your comment seems reasonable. But, you are skirting a larger issue – the one that Dalrock is actually seeking to address.
It is no secret that a larger part of those identifying themselves as Christian in the Western World have, in fact, taken a very “soft-line” on female promiscuity, and do, as Dalrock has suggested, find ways to rationalize the popular acceptance of female promiscuity, especially that practiced prior to marriage.
Perhaps Dalrock errors in that he (over) conflates self-identified Traditionalist (practicing their faith in accordance to God’s word) with the pseudo-Christians who make up the bulk of those who would self identify as either Social Conservatives (SoCons) or even Traditional Conservatives (TradCons).
But, this seeming error can be well explained as the inability to be able to distinguish between the SoCon/TradCon types and those who are actually much more Traditional.
And, here’s the rub. You, and yours don’t act to make it easy to make that distinction. It’s hard to see where, if anywhere, you specifically denounce the excesses taken by those who can be more accurately denoted as “Churchians” (as opposed to true Christians).
Harder still when you (and yours) make statement which seem to be in lock-step agreement with the new-fangled Churchian views:
For example,
In response to this (partial) commenton your blog:
”However overall I find the advice incredibly useful. Chief amongst that advice is to not marry women who are have slept with other men. If they are willing to violate their conscience, risk pregnancy and dependency they are just too unstable as a marriage partner.
There is a strong, even in me, visceral reaction amongst social conservatives to such a response. But bit-T Tradition and Scripture both evidence this view. The Law allowed for virginity tests for women and Tradition, as you point out, is rife with warnings against temptresses.” – (2/23/2012 1:07 PM)
Your own wife, MrsDarwin said:
Actually, I believe the words of Christ to the woman caught having sex with a man not her husband were “Go, and sin no more” — words that certainly don’t preclude marriage, especially if one consider’s Paul’s advice that it’s better to marry to burn.
Also, I believe that the Old Testament holds men to a fairly strict standard as well: “When a man seduces a virgin who is not betrothed and lies with her, he shall pay her marriage price and marry her. If her father refuses to give her to him, he must still pay him the customary marriage price for virgins.” (Ex. 22:15-16)
“If a man comes upon a maiden that is not betrothed, takes her and has relations with her, and their deed is discovered, the man who had relations with her shall pay the girl’s father fifty silver shekels and take her as his wife, because he has deflowered her. Moreover, he may not divorce her as long as he lives.” (Deut. 23: 28)
In case it has escaped you, what your wife is advocating that is that the only admonishment necessary for a cheating wife (or any other slut, for that matter) is that she stop engaging in that sin. And, she seems to extend this to mean that the woman taken in adultery should not be considered as unmarriageable. (am I wrong here? I’m using her own words, in the context they were presented)
But, on the other hand, she finds it reasonable to exact a high price on men who engage in promiscuous behaviors.
So, to recap the thusly stated position of the DarwinCatholic blog, for promiscuous women, the proper course is merely to stop being promiscuous; while for men who are promiscuous, they must marry (or otherwise pay-up) as the due penalty for their having engaged in the same sin.
As I mentioned earlier, your (and your wife, and your blog) seeming acceptance of the (promiscpous) female-friendly Churchian SocCon-sphere is the primary issue that Dalrock has taken exception to.
@DarwinCatholic
I encourage anyone who is curious to look at the original discussion for full context, using the link I provided in the OP. She was rebutting this statement:
We aren’t talking about one individual woman, we are talking about the trends of the day.
@DarwinCatholic
– I would tend to think that shared custody doesn’t work very well. To my mind, the person who should by default get custody is the one who doesn’t leave the marriage. But again, this isn’t something I spend much time on thinking of since divorce is simply not an option in my religion/culture anyway.
You then are ignoring the problem which exists in the Catholic Church. Divorce is common and rampant. The number of women that have instigated a divorce and are sitting in the pews is astounding. Parishioners readily accept her tale of woe and would never shame or challenge her about her assertions.
Because of the Catholic Church (in Parishs) silence on civil divorce (of the no-fault flavor), there is no way a father can have any say in the upbringing of children. To claim that you ”reject mainstream culture and belong to a culture which honors men (and honors women as well”] , while being blind to this common occurrence is disingenuous at best.
The disadvantaged fatherless children are out there will interact with your children. Who knows, one of your children may even fall in love with one and marry one. I suppose this is not a problem to worry about for those living in the land of ShudBee.
@OstrichCatholic
(FYI: the 16th century would be the 1500s)
Thank you for pointing out my irrelevant error, while completely ignoring my larger criticisms of your pre- and post-birth control comparisons. I note that you also have completely ignored the impracticality of calling for 9 to 11 years of voluntary celibacy as a society-wide norm. In fact, you don’t much seem to like to engage uncongenial arguments at all.
Furthermore, when asked whether you’re doing anything to address the society’s punishment and marginalization of men, you offer a long list of excuses that basically adds up to: “No, none of that stuff is my problem. Man up and marry those sluts!” You’re so appallingly ignorant that you don’t even know what “DV” stands for. (Protip: Try the entire first page of Google results for “false DV claim”)
You write that “I have already chosen to reject mainstream culture and belong to a culture which honors men …” — this marks you as a fantasist. Perhaps you’re familiar with Trotsky’s maxim: “You may not be interested in war, but war is interested in you.”
I also note your endless “and women”-ing … effectively minimizing the reality that this culture is uniquely hostile to men, and that it, in fact, reflects much of what women are stupid enough to think that they want.
Dalrock –
So what is the point you are trying to make? I read the previous discussion. It seems a long leap from Mrs. Darwin’s statement that women shouldn’t be discouraged from pursuing a career in the absence of immediate marital prospects to the assertion that the lack of condemnation for women doing so is a tacit approval of female promiscuity.
Maybe I don’t follow you. I don’t see anything objectionable in what the Darwins are saying, although I do agree it is a more bracing tonic than 90% can swallow these days. I also don’t see where FFY seducing silly young girls is anything except reprehensible behavior. I perceive a serious lack of Father Hand in both FFY’s behavior and that of his conquests. I have a son and daughters, and I would not be thrilled if my daughter brought FFY home (indeed, I would take it as a personal affront, although she would be much more likely to sneak around with him behind my back), nor if my son brought home one of his wretched castasides.
DarwinCatholic
She stated that a woman can’t necessarily wish a good guy to marry into existence just by force of will power, just like a good guy can’t necessarily find a good woman to marry right away just because he wants to, and that given that, it isn’t unreasonable for her to pursue a career while she is looking.
To this external observer, it appears to be a very hair splitting difference. First of all, the decline in female fertility is a function of time and it is independent of intent. Second, the longer a woman lives the life of a modern career woman, the more demanding her hypergamy will become and bigger the hurdle any potential suitor will have to vault in order to meet her requirements. It is not at all unlikely that after a few years, even if she stays off of the carousel, such a woman will make herself unable to marry.
It is most interesting to see a “traditional, conservative” woman offering advice that is substantially in agreement with advice peddled by modern feminism. But it is not at all new, or novel.
Brent,
You’re right, I massively simplified the various theologies of forgiveness and repentance that Protestants adhere to, and I apologize for that. I was attempting to head off at the pass the “What, so all you have to do is say you’re sorry once? I’ve seen lots of conversions and they don’t stick,” line of argument I’m used to getting from lapsed Evangelicals. I should not, however, have written in a way that does a disservice to serious reformed Christians.
@asinusspinasmasticans
Mrs. Darwin didn’t say “women shouldn’t be discouraged from pursuing a career in the absence of immediate marital prospects”. She said that the reason women are marrying ever later while pursuing careers is because it takes time to find the right man. She is denying the impact of feminism on our culture, and pretending that women (as a group) are earnestly seeking husbands from the beginning, but (as a group) mysteriously can’t find them until they have established their careers and their biological clocks can no longer be ignored. She is in profound denial, and you are in denial about her denial. I don’t know of a clearer way to state it.
Agreed. If you ever find anyone stating otherwise, please let me know. In the meantime, why do you bring this up?
I have much more respect for a person such as DarwinCatholic, who is consistent in his values, than the moral relativists and PUA/male promiscuity apologists who seem to be populating the MRM. And he is right: not all women who are single in their 20s indulge in sex, I had dry spells in my 20s that lasted up to a year, it’s not unusual if it is even more for other women. We are all damaged by the mainstream culture and I have also rejected it – I will not invest in the Western culture anymore, as I can’t support a culture that is based on disrespect for humans and total license.
Another note: according to statistics, the median age of marriage in the US is still below 30, for women it must be something like 26. This means MOST women are getting married young. I suppose the real eye sore are the 30+ highly educated, upper class SWPL woman who are picky or have decided to stay single. But they are a minority, at least from the first glance at the stats.
[D: No need to guess on the stats. I provided them in detail in the OP. Did you not see them?]
Dalrock: I apologize for some of my hasty replies which are not in line with the motto of your blog. Ofc, I do not support women having 50 sex partners. I was just trying to make an extreme example.
@Darwin
“You’re right, I massively simplified the various theologies of forgiveness and repentance that Protestants adhere to, and I apologize for that. I was attempting to head off at the pass the “What, so all you have to do is say you’re sorry once? I’ve seen lots of conversions and they don’t stick,” line of argument I’m used to getting from lapsed Evangelicals. I should not, however, have written in a way that does a disservice to serious reformed Christians.”
I appreciate your apology, and I accept it. Good day.
@Opus
“You suggest that the Catholics should be reading their Bibles, and if they did so, they would have come across the adulterous women in Proverbs. ”
Actually, just last night my fiancee and I were reading about those in Proverbs, and more, and we’re both Catholic. Just sayin’ that NACALT (not all Catholics are like that), with tongue in cheek.
“The replacement level (2,1) has only been met by ethnic Swedish women and not foreign born women 1 year out of the last 35 years. Most of these years the figures have been closer to 1,5 than 2,0.”
The Norwegian numbers are slightly better than the Swedish ones and Icelandic even better.
My point was not that this would be a major influence on the European birth rates – it will only affect the region. The idea was just to note that a change is possible – sure, it is a very new trend, but apparently something IS being done right. This signals hope.
I did know that the second generation Arabs/Africans have less kids, it would just require a closer look at the stats. I would dare to speculate that they have smaller rates because their men tend not to help out as much as Scandinavian men tend to help out in the family (one of the reasons for the rise in birth rates, because the men are doing actual work which is more important than the child benefits). Besides, there isn’t that many migrants, only about 12%. Only 3.4% Muslims in Norway, officially. Whereas every native Nord who is born is automatically counted as a member of Lutheran church. Also, the latest influx of immigrants is from Poland – hence, the number of Catholics rose by 1.4% in just the last few years. Out of the 600 thousand immigrants, at least a fourth are Europeans (secular or Christian). The new born Arabs are getting secularized. The second largest political party (Progress party) is anti-Muslim. There is no way that even in 100 years that country will be Islamist. Again – this is just an example that even a secular European state can manage fertility and retain its culture.
@ Dana
not all women who are single in their 20s indulge in sex, I had dry spells in my 20s that lasted up to a year
LOL Translation: Not all women indulge in sex in their 20s. I did but sometimes I didn’t (for reasons unstated) so that just proves it!
CL, I’m not Christian so I have not insisted in my life that there should be no sex before marriage. However, it is a good idea generally. It is an honest approach – and it would do good to society these days,
What did you expect me to do? I come from a culture where they don’t marry you first. I already told you that I never had sex without securing at least some form of a commitment first – a steady exclusive relationship. I had sex out of love and expected the relationship to proceed into a marriage and children. They were not alphas. That’s why I started freaking out when it didn’t move on in a year or two – I just showed I wasn’t satisfied or left the relationship. Now as I think back to it, I do regret that I didn’t do it earlier – about 8 months of actual relationship (with about a year of friendship before) would have been enough to seal the deal. But no longer. Like another poster above, this is a strategy I would suggest to younger women who want to get married – do not let the guy waste your time and eject him if he doesn’t proceed to the next level. Do talk about marriage, do talk about kids. If he bails, so be it. There are plenty more out there. Although easier said than done when you are in love and puppy love is so genuine. Older women (or man) here should nudge a bit. Then again – fast forward 10 years and I’m married. Nothing really tragic has happened, but why risk? This would also teach a good lesson to men. No sex before marriage – what a fantastic method it would be to put guys in line.
Dana –This would also teach a good lesson to men. No sex before marriage – what a fantastic method it would be to put guys in line.
the Bible does not authorize women to put men in line
that’d be your anti-Christ, anti-biblical matriarchy, with its courtrooms full of female prosecutors and female false judges, and its Legislatures and White House full of female-grovelling “men”
“As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them”
may the sovereign Lord put YOU in line, rebel
ray, I’m not Christian. Are only Christians allowed to comment? Oh, well
FemDOM ***ALERT!***
“No sex before marriage – what a fantastic method it would be to put guys in line.”
Although the concept is valid the controlling sentiment is a HUGE warning sign.
I already told you that I never had sex without securing at least some form of a commitment first – a steady exclusive relationship.
Stop sockpuppeting, Dalrock! Your “no sex before commitment” formulation is very clever; there’s no need to conjure up a commenter to blab it about as an object lesson!
As for “No sex before marriage – what a fantastic method it would be to put guys in line”: Oh, please, please, please don’t throw me in that briar patch!
Think about it: If women couldn’t wave their sex around, would they have (a.) more power, or (b.) less power? 3 guesses and the first two don’t count.
Hmm… reminds me of a blog post I once read somewhere…
Oh, yeah… this one.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/03/sex-cartel/
Dana, If you can’t handle Ray, you don’t belong here. (You’re hitting TFH’s 3 day limit on trolls anyway, so I don’t expect to here from you much longer.) I’ve disagreed with Ray on more than one occasion; his “morality” adheres very strictly to the Bible while my “morality” is based more on logic, because I believe certain aspects of the Bible reflect historical culture and are arbitrary. But you know what? His morality and mine are almost identical, because most of the “rules” in the Bible ARE clearly and irrefutably logical. Only a fool would dismiss him for his “Christian” bias. In fact, if more Christians held women as accountable as they do men (like Ray does) this blog would be redundant.
@Twenty
It really is quite amazing, isn’t it? This happens with so much frequency that one could be forgiven for suspecting that I’ve made them up.
The truth is the sock puppets like Dana are just a smokescreen in my diabolical plan. My true evil genius lies in the creation of entire forums (christianforums.com), Trad Con Blogs, and even pastors of megachurches and directors at Focus On The Family.
The truth is the sock puppets like Dana are just a smokescreen in my diabolical plan. My true evil genius lies in the creation of entire forums (christianforums.com), Trad Con Blogs, and even pastors of megachurches and directors at Focus On The Family.
Dalrock, you magnificent bastard!
ray says:
April 2, 2012 at 4:44 pm
My friend, just call me Legion.
The funny thing is that this name isn’t in referenve to Beelzebub.
“No sex before marriage – what a fantastic method it would be to put guys in line.”
Just ’cause your knickers stay on, doesn’t mean you get a marriage.
After all, some women are just too hideous either in personality or appearance for a “bit of the old in-out”.
“It is an honest approach – and it would do good to society these days”
That’s why professional gynaecologists are able to test women for virginity. ‘Cause letting the sluts marry virgin men is wrong, amirite?
… and since some of those gynaecologists are women, they are supporting virtuous women, by exposing the slutty ones.
After all, since men and women can lie, (and “nice guys never ask girls about their past” and “If you loved me it wouldn’t matter”) it’s nice to know that there are professionals who can give an expert assessment.
Please, no “tampon did it” or “I’m a horserider” or “One time I fell on a cucumber”.
Please, no “tampon did it” or “I’m a horserider” or “One time I fell on a cucumber”.
What about, “One time, at band camp…”?
Pingback: What, Me Worry? | Dalrock
“Or, in simple English: See John Wayne. See John Wayne fight. See John Wayne not back down from challenge of stupid girl. See John Wayne be cool. See John Wayne roughly grab arguing girl by shoulders and kiss her long and hard square on her lips. See girl swoon. Be John Wayne. Good boy.”
I would add a caveat there: if the girl has cold sores you’re SOL. ‘Sides, she can turn it around into molestation if she has an attack of the pique or hysteria (30 day period between incident and report, if I remember right, is the statute of limitations).
I’ve observed too many women are cavalier about their health because they believe men and modern science will always be there to rescue them (or: revenge fantasy, give the guy a disease for being with other women),
and when they can’t … it’s the patriarchy holding women down.
“I’m not particularly working on family law issues because … it doesn’t affect me much since I don’t believe in divorce in the first place.”
WTF?
WTF?
WTF?
I mean, WTF?
How is it possible to be this vapidly stupidly ignorant of what is actually going on?
WTF?
Excellent post Dalrock. About time someone gives some facts and what really is happening.
I’ve been knowing these facts for awhile now but you explain so well. Many Mgtow fellas know about these stats and go their own way! 🙂
By the way Dana.. you nearly missed the marriage train didn’t you? 🙂
Just remember your husband is the prize not you. You should appreciate a man who takes a non-virgin woman past her prime even though you Loved various men. 😉
Pingback: Feminism Is in the Air « Patriactionary
Pingback: Darwin Catholic has hit the Jackpot! « Patriactionary
Pingback: DarwinCatholic and Dietrich Bonhoeffer | Christian Men's Defense Network
Dana,
All human beings are capable of hedonism. A woman is a human being, therefore she is also capable of hedonism.
Being a slut is one way of being a hedonist. All sluts are hedonists, by definition. However, being hedonistic and being moral and/or pragmatic aren’t mutually inclusive. Therefore, a woman can be hedonistic and not moral and not pragmatic.
Hence, your conclusion that women are sleeping around simply to get the guy she desires to commit isn’t valid. She could be doing it for pleasure or commitment or both. It may be cogent, but we will never know, as we do not have access to anyone else’s mind aside from our own.
Still, as someone else noted above, if the woman is really trying to get the man to commit, then sleeping with him pre-commitment is a bad strategy.
Women are hypergamous. They seek desirable men or men who are at least better than them. Desirable men have many women chasing after them. Once women start competing for men by supplying pre-marital sex, it gives the man one less reason to commit. The main reasons men marry: family or sex or both. I doubt a man would marry just because he comes across a really unique woman, as marriage requires a substantial amount of resources to sustain.
Furthermore, most alpha males probably aren’t interested in a monogamous relationship, even if he wants family.
Furthermore, most attractive males who have high N-count are probably aware of the fickle nature of women, which discourages them from commiting.
In conclusion, if you sleep with your prospect before acquiring the ring, your chances of capturing him is low.
You may choose not to sleep with him before the marriage …
but before the marriage happens you may have your virginity tested.
Still on board for your idea of “no sex before marriage”?
‘Cause it doesn’t have an honest definition, if it actually means … “(I have) No sex (FOR YOU) before (the) marriage (to ME)”.
The point of this article:
Having sex with a woman without any intentions of marrying her is immoral. But women are not passive objects; they are agents of free will. Promiscuous women are actively choosing to be immoral and delaying marriage. Therefore, players and PUAs have no moral obligation to treat immoral women morally nor marry them.
@P Ray:
True. There’s no sure way of determining a woman’s virginity without the taking it premaritally. Nor do we completely need to. What we really need to do is to determine whether the woman is trully capable of commiting or not, virgin or otherwise.
The issue is not with women who’s had 3-4 partners. It is with women aged 20-27 with 10+ partners, and older women with even higher N-counts.
“The issue is not with women who’s had 3-4 partners. ”
It doesn’t work that way. Even being the second makes a big difference. And if there’s no way to know before the wedding night (because apparently women can’t be expected to divulge the truth) – there’s even less way of knowing how many. How many women will say they’ve had 3 or 4? Should a man reward a lying woman and turn down an honest woman?
“Having sex with a woman without any intentions of marrying her is immoral. ”
How do you come to this conclusion? Does a man having some intention of marrying mean that it is not immoral? What about feminine intentions? What’s interesting is that women expect to rely on men’s intentions, and if they don’t really have intentions (and give no indication of having such intentions) they are blamed, but men are supposed to believe, whether justified or not that women are interested in “keeping the man” – we’re supposed to take their word that reputed “good girls” always have the intention to marry. Until they show that’s a very rash assumption to make! If a woman is willing to fornicate it’s evident she’s not willing to wait to marriage, ie, it’s probable a man is not the first to engage in such conduct with her, and that she is not bound by traditional morality.
[quote]”There’s no sure way of determining a woman’s virginity without the taking it premaritally.”[/quote]
So if a man had the intention of marrying a woman, but finds out she’s not a virgin, would it be okay to then not marry her? Should men “test women out” to find out?
You are trying to set “The Rules of the Road for Fornication” – and it’s not surprising, because what you’re saying is what’s tacitly accepted by so-called Christians today.
“The point of this article:
Having sex with a woman without any intentions of marrying her is immoral. ”
Okay, sorry, in the last post, I misunderstood your post.
“The issue is not with women who’s had 3-4 partners.”
I dunno, many women are not that good with math. What “counts” as a partner? The guy she hooked up with while drunk? The handjob for assignment help? The sympathy bang?
Sorry, but until that’s clarified it’s
safe to err on the side of caution – divorce is expensive and sluts have the potential to bring disease into your life and the life of your children if you decide to marry said slut and have babies with them.
And the financial cost of her preexisting conditions that she didn’t tell you about before she got married to you.
(analogously) Is it fair for someone to ask for sticker prices for a used car?
Not to mention that you will be denying a good, chaste woman, the chance of a marriage.
Is the sisterhood okay with that?
Hence the virginity testing.
P.S. Most hymen reconstruction surgeries are
1) Done by women 25 or older
2) With independent income (Parents don’t want to know their daughters are sluts)
3) Who may have mental/STD complications from their many past relationships
P.S. The later you have a child, the greater the chances of both autism for them, and cervical cancer (for you).
Use it or lose it, appreciate the good men that you find around you.
@Joe Sheey, first post:
Non-virgins definitely pose significantly more risk than virgins: http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJNmT1kCE0I/AAAAAAAAAOo/1goljoWCDl0/s800/Male+female+2002a
However, my comment was a response to P Ray, where she pointed out that some men may opt for a virginity test, because if they don’t, a woman may lie about her non-virginity. Therefore it is impossible not to have pre-marital sex if we need to determine virginity.
My response was that the issue isn’t about whether the woman is a virgin; the issue (for men intending to marry) is about whether she is promiscuous or not. This is because there is data hinting that promiscuous women are not very capable of commitment.
I don’t consider 3-4 partners incredibly promiscuous, but I do consider 10+ partners incredibly and sufficiently promiscuous. I also took into account that maybe she had 2-3 alphas before knowing that there would be no commitment, and thereafter searches for men who can commit, leading to a 3-4 partner count.
Yes, since we cannot fully trust what a woman says in a situation where she has motive to lie, we should create a marriage fitness test.
@Joe Sheey, second post:
Indeed, the assumption is false. Read my very first post and you will see that I have determined that women CAN be purely hedonistic and have no intentions to marry.
I’m not sure as to whether we should conduct a virginity test. Every person is capable of lying; we should never take information at face value.
However, I would rather devise a marriage fitness test, without demanding overtly that she surrenders her virginity. I will not disclose my fitness test for fear of being flamed by some women here and to prevent women from trying to tailor their answers to pass my test.
I also think that every man should devise his own test, to ensure that the woman’s responses are genuine. This non-disclosure technique is not a novelty; many psychological research has been done in a similar fashion.
@P Ray:
Determining what a “partner” is really isn’t the issue here, but I’m sure this blog covered that at some point or another. Something like “doing something that you wouldn’t do to anyone other than your husband if you’re married”.
I agree that even women with 3-4 partners poses a risk. See my reasoning when replying to Joe’s first post. In short, it is women unable to bond that we are trying to avoid when considering marriage. Of course, there’s STDs to take into account, which should be checked before marrying.
This is an instant classic. Thank you for explaining the obvious to me. Seriously.
[D: Thanks! Welcome to the blog.]
“I also took into account that maybe she had 2-3 alphas before knowing that there would be no commitment, and thereafter searches for men who can commit”
For the woman who made the incredibly bad choice of sex before marriage,
I don’t buy that they do so for just any guy – since female STD infections are some multiples compared against the males who also have them.
Hence, the females ARE SHARING the males.
So, it is safe to say, all of them pick the same alphas.
Have you heard the idea somewhere, that 5 minutes of alpha is worth a lifetime of Beta?
This brings to mind the movie, Titanic (recently released in 3D, watch to learn an important lesson).
Rose lost Leonardo diCaprio … and decided to be with the Billy Zane character, while holding out the yearning for Leonardo.
How much do you want to bet the child wasn’t Billy Zane’s?
In other words, have sex with the alpha, the beta foots the bill.
Which is why for me, the criteria is just like a variation of the slogan: “Meth – Not even once” : “Alpha/Sex – Not even once”.
I can’t think of anything more utterly disrespectful than expecting to build a life with someone else when you previously shared your sincerest intimacies with someone else previously … but expect and hold the new guy to a ridiculous standard that the first guy never had to meet.
@P Ray:
I do not disagree that it is unfair to apply different criteria to different prospects. However, it doesn’t change the fact that women often do make the (stupid) mistake of sleeping with someone pre-marriage. It also doesn’t change the fact that applying the same criteria will probably result in more pump-and-dumps. It is also a fact that some women did not intend to marry when they had sex the first few times. Hence, for the sake of the woman, it is better to hold off sex until marriage.
It is a pragmatic solution, albeit an unfair one.
In exchange, to balance the mistake, male prospects should not offer full devotion and romance to such women (with 3-4 partners), nor should they date them monogamously, due to the unstable state of the relationship, until marriage is a certainty.
Of course, for any woman with more than 4 partners, male prospects should not devote at all, if he is to protect himself from a potentially frivolous woman.
Pingback: Momma Always Said… | genuineapproach.com
Pingback: Free Yourself | genuineapproach.com
Pingback: Man up and marry those sluts, Friday afternoon light reading edition. | Dalrock
Hi, I’ve been lurking here and a couple of other places ( e.g. Vox Day, Athol Kay). Is there a FAQ available so I don’t start on the wrong foot?
Pingback: Losing control of the narrative. | Dalrock
Pingback: Which sex is driving delayed marriage in the US? | Dalrock
Pingback: Father Know’s Best: Dalrock’s Donnerstag Dozen « Patriactionary
Pingback: Decoding Chivalry: Sketching at the window of this train of thought
Pingback: A secret the KGB couldn’t have kept. | Dalrock
I’ve just learned about game over the last few months, and I’m wrestling with the question: to play or not to play? On one hand, as many have pointed out, there’s never been a better time to be a player. On the other hand, as you’ve pointed out here, fornication is fornication. I assumed it was more righteous to be a serial monogamist rather than a hook-up man…you’ve convinced me that is not the case.
Still, I’m leaning towards playing. In my mind, exercising the freedom that comes from being biologically expendable (by virtue of being male) outweighs the guilt I would feel from the shadow of christian morales I was raised under.
Do you have any other thoughts on whether a young beta should use game or not?
If you have to ask for permission to be a player, or whether or not it’s a good idea, the answer is no. Don’t let anyone (especially people who don’t care about you) convince you to try a lifestyle that doesn’t benefit you. That’s the same problem women are having with feminism.
Pingback: Women’s morphing need for male investment. | Dalrock
Pingback: The Types of Women in Church – A Primer | The Reinvention of Man
Pingback: Rabble rousers | Dalrock
Pingback: A Course In Relationships | The Sound and The Fury
In regard to Mrs. Darwins comments, I know from experience that high SMV women don’t wait and look for the chance to marry an equitable male. They are too inclined to explore hypergamy to the farthest ends of the bedroom. Whenever they go to bed with a man, they have the mindset of, “Maybe he’s ‘the ONE'”, but of course, he’s never the “ONE”. He’s always one of “the TWENTY+ might-have-beens”. I would estimate that a woman in the western world, with an SMV above 8, who is also a virgin waiting for marriage, is probably less than 0.001% of all women. It is noteworthy, in this regard, that researchers have found that the prevalence for any personality disorder in the United States is 9.1%. I would bet my luck that the 0.001% lies within the 9.1%. Sad, sad, sad…
Pingback: Starting World War G: the gender wars
Dr. G.,
“I know from experience that high SMV women don’t wait and look for the chance to marry an equitable male.”
Easy proof: look at the marital history of successful actresses and Playmates. An unusually high proportion never marry or have multiple marriages.
Pingback: Eve Ill Idolaters | Σ Frame
Pingback: Women are liberated. But they still need men. - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: "An Apologetic Against Dating in High School" — how conservative Christians encourage the marriage crisis they bemoan - The Chi Files
Pingback: Making the world safe for foolish promiscuous women. | Dalrock