There is a new study making the headline rounds about 6-9 year old girls wanting to be sexy. As so often happens the actual name of the study is not mentioned in the news stories and even if it were, the study itself is likely only available via journal subscription. Still, there are a number of articles about it including the LiveScience article Why 6-Year-Old Girls Want to Be Sexy. According to the article, the researchers at Knox College showed young girls paper dolls and asked them to:
…choose the doll that: looked like herself, looked how she wanted to look, was the popular girl in school, she wanted to play with.
The “sexy” doll won out as both the doll they wanted to look like (68%) and the one which is in the girl’s opinion more popular (72%). The LiveScience article includes a picture of two dolls differently dressed, but I’m not sure these are actually examples from the study. If so, I would say they should use the word “slutty” instead of sexy, since the sexy doll is dressed like a hooker.
Unfortunately the researchers seem to be laboring under a great deal of confusion about our current culture and female sexual nature. The presumption in the article is that young girls are being driven by the culture to self sexualize. Given what we know from game and the social revolution driven by feminism, the opposite is much more likely. Girls are no longer being constrained by the culture, and are reverting to an animal like state. Feminists have openly worked to remove all cultural constraints from girls and women, and this is what has happened. Feminists rebelled against the view that women’s chastity is important and that young women should see themselves as preparing for marriage. Even Traditional Conservatives now passionately defend the trend of delayed marriage.
What else should we expect when words like slut are deemed hateful to all women by feminists and Trad Cons alike, and young women plan on spending a decade or more in the sexual marketplace before beginning to look for a husband? If the qualities of a wife aren’t important, raw sexuality is how women will compete for the attention of the most desirable men and thereby their status with other women. Grade school girls are watching and learning from middle school girls, who are learning from high school girls, who are learning from college girls.
How is any of this a mystery? If we started a movement to remove all social constraints from boys and men and after 50 or 60 years of profound success we found that boys were becoming violent womanizers, would anyone really be surprised? Why then all of the handwringing that removing all social constraints from girls and women has lead to uncivilized girls and women?
Perhaps most troubling is that the researchers didn’t study the potential impact of fathers:
Starr studied the influence of mothers because there’s more evidence that daughters model themselves after their mothers, but she believes that fathers may also play an important role in how young girls see themselves. She would also like to look at how fathers and the media influence boys’ understanding of sexualized messages and views toward women.
The presence of fathers doesn’t just impact the girls themselves, it impacts the mothers. A wife who submits herself to her husband is sending her daughter a very different message than a sexually empowered single mother (or soon to be single mother if she doesn’t get her way).
You know what Dalrock your research and observations you have made for your blog has lead you to a whole new view of the world. Thanks for sharing. Every day it seems we find more reasons for traditions and laws and culture that to a modern eye seem oppressive etc. But they allow so much freedom and security and wealth that with out character one living in such a world will get a false sense of individual strength.
The real question is why is it that average men can see and write about such things and the educated creditialed professionals cannot see what is staring at them in the face.
Assuming the dolls pictures are the ones they used, my girls would pick the slutty one because she’s wearing a skirt and the other one is dressed like a boy. Way to skew the “study”, idiots!
Compare what Dalrock has correctly stated here:
With what Glenn Stanton, Director of Family Formation Studies at Focus on the Family, states here:
Stanton is of course simply regurgitating the tired old line of feminism that women are innately good, and therefore should not be constrained in anything. As I opined in a comment on another brilliant Dalrock post in regards to Stanton, I have no idea what “Family Formation Studies” is, but I strongly suspect it is just a sub-discipline of “wymmin’s studies.”
CL,
I was thinking the same thing. I asked my eldest which doll she would rather play with and she said the one in the skirt. I asked he why and she said “Because she looks a bit prettier”.
Thanks Greyghost and Bskillet!
CL and Stingray: It is interesting that feminism has lead us to see women as either men or sluts. I don’t know if the researchers made that unconscious choice, but whoever chose the photo for the article appears to have done so.
Dalrock,
Without a doubt, if one of those dolls had on a beautiful, tasteful dress/skirt/gown, my girls would have chosen that. I think a lot of young girls would (I do not know how it would compare to the slutty doll, though) I don’t think this negates your premise, rather it shows what most girls naturally tend to. Our society changes that. At a later age, say junior high, I would guess most of the girls would choose the slutty doll.
I’ve enjoyed your blog since I was led here by … I think it was Hawaiian Libertarian. Your blogs and the like help guys like me clarify and strengthen our “radical views” and that is much appreciated.
One thing I find very interesting is how so many people seem very unable to connect groups to people, or rather to understand that groups/collectives are made of people. So, my friends and relatives will talk about the “government” or “culture” or “society” or “Church,” and they’ll use these terms as though the collective is somehow separate from the the people.
In your post on Raising Feral Females and the related WSJ article, the author – J. Moses- and the woman interviewing Moses talk about the culture, the media, celebrities, etc. influencing young girls. Of course, I think the authors are correct, but not in the way they are thinking. They are correct that the culture is influencing young teens because the young teens are the culture, the parents are the culture, the journalists are the culture.
The culture and the people people aren’t separate forces; they are the same.
Once you grasp that concept, and if you have an understanding of economics, then it’s easy to see that people are consumers and the consumer is king. The teens, the parents, the journalists, they drive the market and the market is giving them what they collectively want – a cheap, pornographic society.
Assuming the dolls pictures are the ones they used, my girls would pick the slutty one because she’s wearing a skirt and the other one is dressed like a boy. Way to skew the “study”, idiots!
I think they’re mindset was, “I want as great a disparity as possible. Give me ultra-slut and give me completely non-sexual.” No thought to, “Give me slut and give me traditionally feminine.” Look at the pants they have the “girl” wear. Cargo-pants. Now, I’m sure some girls wear them, but is that even typical for the average girl? They are boy pants. Utilitarian, more durable.
It seems to me that the “researchers” were out to prove a conclusion already made. Those pictures are basically leading questions. As Stingray says, and I was thinking the same, a long flowing gown would have won out over the slut-wear, most likely, because it would look “more fancy”. My girls would perceive the second one as “dressed like a boy” and thus pick the one that is “dressed like a girl”.
It’s also pretty naive to assume girls aren’t naturally aware of sexuality outside some kind of cultural imposition, so this really proves nothing expect that – gasp! – girls have sexual awareness. Whatever the culture throws at them works because of this and milks it for all its worth. It’s idiot parents who buy Slutz dolls because that’s what the kids “want” or let them watch hours of degenerate rot on TV. Are we helpless babies being spoon fed?
But they want so desperately to pin it on “the media” and probably Bad Men™ rather than dealing with reality and taking responsibility for raising girls with some boundaries and restrictions, which would be easier with fathers in homes, which goes against their anti-family, feminist agenda. No doubt “mothers are the answer!” while “fathers may also play an important role in how young girls see themselves” (where can I get paid to come up with such genius hypotheses?)
I agree that this doesn’t negate your premise, but this study is not showing what they think it shows.
I just showed that picture to my daughters. The almost-thirteen-year old said, “I like her skirt” and pointed to the whore-doll. The seven-year-old pointed to the boyish-doll and said, “This one, she’s more civilized,” which filled my heart with motherly pride, since the overall point of this post was how uncivilized females have become. The 11, 9, and 4 year-old have apparently swallowed some kind of diversity pill and wanted both dolls.
The presence of fathers doesn’t just impact the girls themselves, it impacts the mothers. A wife who submits herself to her husband is sending her daughter a very different message than a sexually empowered single mother (or soon to be single mother if she doesn’t get her way).
I have an acquaintance who has three daughters by several different men, is currently unmarried, and has an on/off live-in boyfriend. I always wonder what she tells her kids when a new man first begins sleeping over.
Dalrock, a topic to look at could be earlier and earlier onset of sexual activity. I`m not quite sure to what extent that is really the case but studies I have seen have shown teens loosing their virginity a year or so sooner than a few years back. The way I see it feminism is largely about returning to the serial monogamous/combined with promiscuous R strategy breeding that species tend to choose when life is comfortable and there is little competition and that is often found in martilinear tribes. R strategy is about producing AS MUCH offspring as possible rather than focus on the quality of the offspring as in K strategy because when offspring survives easily you get more surviving offspring by producing as many as possible rather than the best possible. So part of how R strategy works is to start sexual activity as early as possible to allow for as many pregnancies as possible during a womans fertile years. Sexual activity in matrilinear tribes often starts at 10-11 for girls and 11-12 for boys.
@Dalrock
This is the first time I’ve truly understood what feminism’s effects are. I already knew it was societally destructive and downright evil. But, now I can see that it must, by its nature, lead to a Hobbesian decent into female savagery.
”Grade school girls are watching and learning from middle school girls, who are learning from high school girls, who are learning from college girls.”
Who learn it from their mothers – A very sensible girl: Meet the 14-year-old who unlike her mother and four sisters is refusing to have breast implants
From years ago when I was still a Churchian, I’ve continued to receive (the late) Chuck Colsen’s BreakPoint Daily email. Yesterday’s entry, entitled Falsely Drawn: Challenging Our Culture’s “Fake Women” (by John Stonestreet), (predictably) tries to find a way to put the blame back onto men for women’s increasing sexuality/sexual display.
Your analysis of the LiveScience article is dead-on. It isn’t men “forcing” women to sexualize by demanding it of them, it’s women freely choosing to do it. If they are feeling any pressure to do so, it is coming largely from the other women who are already deeply engaged in overt sexuality. Men don’t so much demand it (like they would really reject women who weren’t obviously over-sexualized) as woman believe that they need to do it in order to compete for (alpha) men’s attentions (a situation which is exaggerated by the relatively small “supply” of alpha males as compared to the number of women “demanding” such males while ignoring/excluding the majority of men who would otherwise be their natural SMP/MMP equals in a society wherein female sexuality was still restrained).
The long flowing gown is what someone that participates in Dalrocks blog would choose. Disney is losing money on the traditional princess movie types. Due to young girls wanting to be seen as “hot”. Young girls are more likely to see thems sleves as sexy things walking all over the beta chumps with their mouths hanging open to position themselves for the alpha coming to greet them. And more important than that and most of all other female have to jealously see them as hot. To be enveiously refered to as a slut is huge herd status in the feral cunt world. (have you seen the pictures from the slut walks?)
Here you go:
Sexy Dolls, Sexy Grade-Schoolers? Media & Maternal Influences on Young Girls’ Self-Sexualization
Christine R. Starr & Gail M. Ferguson
Sex Roles
DOI 10.1007/s11199-012-0183-x
In the pictures in the article (there are only 2 pairs), the slutty girls have skirts. The more modestly dressed girls have cargo pants. The midsection is showing for each slutty girl: one is wearing a halter top type thing, and the other is wearing a strapless top. The modest girls are wearing either a long sleeve shirt, or a well-fitting sweat suit top.
It didn’t even occur to the researchers to think about fathers. I used Acrobat to search the article for the word ‘father’ and didn’t find any matches. Searching for ‘mother’, obviously, produced many hits. The authors’ statements about fathers must occur only in the after-publication interviews.
This is clear from the regression variables they decided to examine: none of the variables mention father. It seems clear that they already had assumed a form for the results, and then performed the study to validate the their initial assumptions.
On another note, here’s the breakdown of the participants:
Sixty girls ranging from 6 to 9 years (M=7.78, SD=.98) and 47 of their mothers participated in this study. Most girls (78 %) were recruited from two public grade schools in the Midwestern United States (average of 85 % free and reduced lunch) and the remaining 22 % were recruited from
a local dance studio (approximately 85 % public school attendance). The average temperature in the Midwestern region of data collection was 59 °F, and girls were observed to be dressed primarily in long-sleeved shirts/sweatshirts and jeans/sweatpants (covered by a jacket/coat when going outdoors). The majority of mothers in the sample self-identified as White (77 %) and the remainder self-identified as Black or African American (13 %), Hispanic or Latina (6 %), and Multiracial (4 %). In addition, 91.5 % of mothers described their religious views as Christian, 4.3 %
as non-religious or secular, 2.1 % as Buddhist, and 2.1 % as Unitarian Universalist. Chi-squared analyses showed no significant differences in race or religion based on recruitment location.
[D: Thank you, and welcome! The high participation of free/reduced lunch is important, since this very well could be different across race and class. It is interesting that they chose not to mention this in the article.]
Dalrock wrote: Grade school girls are watching and learning from middle school girls, who are learning from high school girls, who are learning from college girls.
Grade schools are not only watching older girls. They are being specifically targeted for feminist indoctrination and sexual corruption. Do recall this little gem from two years ago:
The World Association of Girl Scouts and Girl Guides hosted a no-adults-welcome panel at the United Nations this week where Planned Parenthood was allowed to distribute a brochure entitled “Healthy, Happy and Hot.” The event was part of the annual United Nations Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) which concludes this week. The brochure, aimed at young people living with HIV, contains explicit and graphic details on sex, as well as the promotion of casual sex in many forms. The brochure claims, “Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse… But, there are lots of different ways to have sex and lots of different types of sex. There is no right or wrong way to have sex. Just have fun, explore and be yourself!” The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating. Mix things up by using different kinds of touch from very soft to hard. Talk about or act out your fantasies. Talk dirty to them.”
source:http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=35758
Yeah, the Girl Scouts have really changed from their roots. They were never and will not (forseeable future) be the sister organization of the Boy Scouts of America. BSA flatly refuses to be associated with them. Their sister org is the Commonwealth Girls (I think).
Acutally, the BSA is partnered with the Heritage Girls
RTP – Yep, we are Heritage Girls over here. Although there can be individual troops in GSA that are okay, the national organization is run by some truly evil women. They’ve had partnerships with Planned Parenthood in various states, as well; what does that tell us about their priorities?
Girls do tend to be oversexualized more in American than in Europe (Toddlers and Tiaras would be considered scandalous and disgusting in many European countries and would be outlawed in some; there are no places like Hooters in Europe either). Americans just tend to place a big value on oversexualized females. Things have become more feral – 20 years ago at the peak of feminism we used to have singers like Alanis Morrisette who didn’t used to get undressed, now almost ALL female singers undress and flaunt their sexuality.
Besides Western men already became feral and animal like in the 70s. With all the feral, sexually promiscuous behavior that went on at that time (men sleeping around, leaving same age wives, all sorts of sex focused sects, the rise of pornography and Hugh Hefner). The men were feral because they could get away with it – the sex ratio favored them and the cultural norms were loosened up. It was first of all men themselves who wanted it.
greyghost: “The long flowing gown is what someone that participates in Dalrocks blog would choose. Disney is losing money on the traditional princess movie types. Due to young girls wanting to be seen as “hot”.”
Very true. Girls used to want to be “princesses” before the rise of the consumerist ultra-capitalist raunch culture. As a girl, I always drew princesses with long hair and dresses, yes, feminine looking, but never sexualized. There was no raunch culture where I lived as a girl and neither of the other girls ever aspired to any oversexualized ideals. Beauty – yes, long hair and dresses, yes, – but never “slut outfits”. Sluttiness is just more in your face now because it sells.
As a former Boy Scout [girls not allowed] – I’ve still got my badges and toggle and scarf and beret – I believe I am not forgetful in saying that at no time were we involved with Planned Parenthood (or similar organisation) nor were we ever advised as to any matter concerning the subject of sexuality – and we would not have been interested therein, as we were much preoccupied with such things as knots, map-reading, and the use of the compass, as well as making fire and camps and ropes on pulleys.
Clearly I led a deprived childhood.
““Many people think sex is just about vaginal or anal intercourse.”
Hilarious rhetoric. These people are insane.
Hooters is actually scheduled to open its first restaurant in Hungary this year, and Prague already hosts a Hooters. Just saying.
Saw an actual study a while back about how girls go through puberty earlier in the absence of a father. Scientific opinion was basically that this evolved I attract a surrogate protector.
Shouts out if that’s a John Mosby ref.
this is an important post, and I am trying to share it with everyone I know. keep up the good work, dalrock.
“Girls do tend to be oversexualized more in American than in Europe”
Have you never been to Europe? Nude beaches, nude billboards and advertisements… the Euros often mock us for being more puritanical on the subject of sex than they are.
I can’t agree that women are more sexualized in the US than in Europe. I’ve lived in Europe for extended periods (years) twice in my lifetime, and it’s saturated with sexuality. From sex shops on pedestrian shopping streets to brothels and red light districts to porn and quasi-porn on broadcast TV — it’s everywhere, and that’s in the tamer countries. The US is downright prudish compared to how saturated Europe is in sex.
Hungarian chicks are HOT. Spent two months there in 99. Jaw-dropping quality. Of course, I had just come from Pittsburgh, so you have the “hungry man, first bit of food” phenomenon. Roosh may never leave that country if he visits (though I heard the same thing about Polish women).
There was a Rolling Rock cafe in Budapest, as well.
Besides Western men already became feral and animal like in the 70s. With all the feral, sexually promiscuous behavior that went on at that time (men sleeping around, leaving same age wives, all sorts of sex focused sects, the rise of pornography and Hugh Hefner). The men were feral because they could get away with it – the sex ratio favored them and the cultural norms were loosened up. It was first of all men themselves who wanted it.
Thank heavens someone has appeared to remind us that all bad things are ultimately men’s fault. For a moment there, I almost started to think that perhaps women could have destructive impulses all on their lonesomes. Also, I was engaging in some false consciousness in re: anti-family feminism far predating the 70’s.
It is, of course, true that men are not blameless. It was foolish to ever give women the vote.
If Wikipedia is to be believed, Austria and Germany also have Hooters restaurants. The more you know…
Pingback: The sexualization of children | Save Capitalism
Girls do tend to be oversexualized more in American than in Europe
I don’t agree with this. Recall from last summer that French company Jours Après Lunes with its ad campaign for “loungerie” for children between the ages of 4 and 12, complete with photo spreads of little children in bras and panties. Sickening.
Twenty wrote, It was foolish to ever give women the vote.
Now you’re speaking my language!
So PUAs and their followers who are even around here on this site are not feral? 🙂 Western men are more feral than they realize.
Well, 99% of porn comes from America.
And American gender roles are much more distinct than in Europe. In Europe women are viewed more as individuals, in America they are more sex objects or pedestalized.
Opus wrote, As a former Boy Scout [girls not allowed]
Not even girls who thought they might be boys?? What were you all, a bunch a transphobes?
😉
It was good of Realist to remind us all of the seventies and in such alluring terms – I almost wish I had been there – all I can recall are three-day weeks, studying by candle-light, football hooliganism, mass unemployment, terrorism (blew up the pub opposite the library where I used to study), naff clothes, worse hairstyles and largely debatable music – the decade that fashion forgot. As for pornography – very much under the counter stuff – if you could find any and police officers doing their best to make life as difficult as possible for homosexuals – I was to represent (in Court) such a man as late as the late eighties for public indecency, as well as arguing before the Court of Appeal in the 90s as to the legitimacy of imported Gay Porn – they rejected that idea without trouble. Apart from that however I am intrigued to learn that the sex ratios favoured men. Had their been a dieing off of women? (with 105 men born to every 100 women and no major wars that seems hard to believe), not to mention the usual financial ruin men faced upon divorce and with a marrying age for women of about twenty-one – thus putting pressure on men to marry so as not to miss out – I do not recognize any of this at all – although I accept that there was abortion and the pill. Feral animals? Not round here, so I think Realist should tell us more.
I should perhaps also point out that when Brendan mentions Europe he means Europe – that large land mass on the other side of the channel. No brothels, red-light districts or sex-shops round here, – except one or two in London which seem to be frequented by women purchasing sex-toys. A European friend of mine arriving here in 1989 and being inquisitive was amazed (so he told me) on a visit to Soho as to how tame the sex mags were. There was a proposal to open a lap-dance club here but the local Christians objected and so we are still lap-dance free, (which suits my wallet) although there is an Ann Summers in the shopping arcade – but that is aimed entirely at women of course.
I am sorry if this has gone a bit off topic, but I felt it needed to be aired.
I felt it needed to be aired.
Get your feelings under control, pal.
Realist – ”So PUAs and their followers who are even around here on this site are not feral?”
Did anyone claim they aren’t?
And they are such a small percentage of the population that trying to suggest that PUA’s are steering women into becoming more feral is, well, just stupid. Much more likely, PUA’a are simply an adaptation by certain men in order to try to take advantage of the increasingly feral nature of the women around them. It isn’t women adapting to the demands of men’s desire, but rather men adapting to the changing sexual nature of women.
”Western men are more feral than they realize.”
Wrong! Western men are constantly barraged with the notion that men are promiscuous and unreliable “dogs”. The truth is that the majority of western men are far less feral that they are routine portrayed. It’s just another form of the “Apex Fallacy” that you are subscribing to. You observe a relative few men who are feral, and assume that it therefore means that all men behave similarly.
” Well, 99% of porn comes from America.”
Citation please. I’d have to doubt this claim.
Of women in America, the only thing you could reasonably argue is that they tend to make themselves into sex objects more than women elsewhere. From “Toddlers and Tiara’s” right up to “Girls Gone Wild” it is women who chose to make themselves and their daughters into sexual objects. And, they do it because they enjoy the attention of men (even perverse attention) and see themselves as competing against other women to see who can get the most of that male attention.
FYI, if Realist seems familiar it is because she has been here before using different handles. Before she was Realist she was Windy, and before that she was Dana.
BTW, a bit of a thunderstorm going on that I thought Dalrock may be interested in. Doug Wilson has caused waves by citing the obvious. See:
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/gospeldrivenchurch/2012/07/13/the-polluted-waters-of-50-shades-of-grey-etc/?comments#comments&utm_source=buffer&buffer_share=30a0e
And
http://www.dougwils.com/Sex-and-Culture/walk-a-mile-in-my-cowboy-boots.html
So you wanted a pastor that stood up for some of this stuff and now we have a very public and high profile one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_Wilson_%28theologian%29
Now I seriously doubt you will agree with everything the man has to say but he’s sharp as a whip and deserving of some support. He’s a Calvinist I can generally like and a friend of a friend.
“Well, 99% of porn comes from America.”
Bull. Euros, Russians, japanese, et al make plenty of porn. Maybe all of the porn that YOU consume comes from America. lol
Face it – girls sexualize themselves because the huge amount of power and/or ego validation that they see other young girls get from exploiting their sexualtiy. There was a time this wasn’t allowed so much, now it is. And those young women and girls who do it are drunk on the power of their sexuality. Boys don’t do it because there is no payoff – the only attention they would get is from gay men.
If they claim they “have to do it to compete”, then it’s because they are only willing to compete for a small subset of men.
@Höllenhund:
Even Singapore has a Hooters.
Thanks for the links GKC. I wasn’t familiar with him. One rule of thumb I have is if a pastor or church is truly anti feminist, they will be surrounded by loud claims that they hate women, are rapists, etc. There are no pastors or congregations out there quietly and effectively countering the corruption of feminism. You simply don’t buck a belief system as passionately held as feminism without receiving a chorus of absurd and emotional accusations (ask me how I know 🙂 ). Pastor Wilson clearly passes that initial test from the link you shared, and he does appear to be a logical thinker to boot.
@Realist:
In Europe women are viewed more as individuals, in America they are more sex objects or pedestalized.
Germany has FFK, Amsterdam has the Red-Light district, the UK has Stringfellows …
your statement clashes with apparent reality.
Yeesh. FFK should read FKK (Freikörperkultur)
Is it me or can you tell that’s it’s a woman when they use emoticons? They say something so profoundly and trivially stupid and then sum it up with a smiley face.
Actually Id argue its Betas who are feral, as it takes a concious decision to game chicks, while betas simply irrationally supplicate & pedestalise sluts & whores on sight, unconciously thanks to their social pussy whipped conditioning
Also Betas act out of instinctual fear & self loathing, all primal feral traits
Game is far too calculated to be considered feral …
I like how the first mode of argument that so many women use on that link is to announce how “upsetting” or “disturbing” the post was and how they almost came to tears. This, of course, means the issue should never be raised. Only a bad person would do that.
^ You see the words typed to the effect “makes me want to vomit, and my stomach is in upheavals now”
I want to see “my hand caught fire, I was so incensed”. Oh well, a dream is sometimes worth hoping for.
Women use emotional tantrums to win arguments. This is not new.
From Douglas Williams 50 Shades of Gray post link to by GKC:
This is the first paragraph, obviously added later. I haven’t even read the post yet, but I needed to say this. This right here is one of the reasons I hate feminism so much (an no, I was not immune from it either as I would have felt something akin to these women once upon a time). It has made women stupid. Sound too harsh? I don’t know. Women can’t think to save their lives these days, almost literally. We have been taught that we can rely completely on our emotions to get what we want. It has taught us that we don’t need to think logically, to such an extent that we are not able to read a piece and even understand it because we have an emotional response to a sentence, phrase or even a word (!) and can’t comprehend the rest of the piece. I find it . . . incredibly frustrating, bordering on anger. To make matters worse, it is not women who are expected to change for the better, but for the world to change around us so we don’t have to experience and work our own way through those big bad emotions. It really ticks me off.
@Joshua D
“and the market is giving them what they collectively want – a cheap, pornographic society”
Not true, women are cheap & pornographic in nature, as Dalrock points out, without social constraints women always revert to dressing like sluts & whores
Basically being a slut & a whore is the true nature of women in general, it takes a civilised society, with traditions & values to keep women in check & tame their slutty, carousel riding tendencies
Women dont value security, or stability, or a stable family
They value the dynamics of drama & all the evils of their self perpetuating pornographic nature
In short Women are emotional & sexual pornographic addicts
Nothing turns a woman on more then emotional porn
While real emotions, like empathy & sympathy & giving a shit about a person, turn women off
Women are essentially vultures, circling for their next emotional, dramatically charged fix
Women dont want a cheap, pornographic society, they are cheap & pornographic
Its women, who wanted single mothers, not men
Its heterosexual women who dominate the pornographic industry, not men
Men are essentially the audience, the exploited victims of porn, as they pay through the nose for prime subscriptions of what a woman should be
You can try & pass the buck of pornography onto men, all you want, but it was women who wanted the right to be socially pornographic & perverse, in all aspects of society
Not men
Ironically male sexuality is only acknowledged when theyre being exploited
The disavowing & unacknowledgement of a mans paternal rights & mens sexuality, is what destroys a society
As its men & their rights who build society, not women
Women dont understand or want real rights
As real rights, include responsibility & dont benefit minorities or special needs parasites
Basically real rights, dont give women gina tingles … or the ability to cry rape
Mark, there’s so much truth in ‘Women dont understand or want real rights’.
However, I certainly see them screaming about ‘rights’ that they should have. They love having rights, it’s simply when it comes time to ‘pay the piper’, they push men to the front of the line.
I wish society would include something in a Constitution. If you want these ‘rights’ you must partake in establishing these ‘rights’ by taking up these ‘obligations’. The document could then list certain obligations for men, such as combat and obligations for women, such as child birth for two children or more and being a stay at home mom.
There is no such thing as a ‘right’. They are all in fact privileges. And the thing with privileges is that someone has to sacrifice to create them. They don’t just magically appear, they are brought and paid for in blood and sweat. Mostly men.
There is no such thing as a ‘right’. They are all in fact privileges. And the thing with privileges is that someone has to sacrifice to create them. They don’t just magically appear, they are brought and paid for in blood and sweat.
Yet women fight for the ‘right’ to decide who gets the privilege, based on nothing more principled than a whim, of being born in the first place.
lzozoozo
before da central bankers
attacked fatherhood
and da greta books for menz
and edocnstructed da greta books
for men
da greta books for men
and fatherz
used to teach womenz
dat der were higher goods
dan gina tingles and but tinglezlzllzoloz
now dat da neoocncoths have deocnstructed
da bible zeus thor homer moses mises
no longer to the little ladeies hear
“thou shalt not butthext!”
“theou shalt not tempt!”
“thou slahdlt not covert covet!
and so they grow up
coveting
butthexting
tempting
an detsoryng da faily culture
aborting da unborns
aborting 50,000,000 innconentz innocnentz
while butetehxting and sexting
as it is MAN who creates culture and civiltyit
and WOMAN who do not know better
as ben beranke wants them too
zlzoozozozllzo
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2012/02/26/roger-devlin-sayss-dat-womenz-mate-like-babooons-zlzozlzozo-without-proper-trianingsz-from-menz-who-read-da-great-boooks-for-menz-like-da-bible-men-love-da-great-boooks-and-womenz-love-da-babooooons-z/
roger devlin sayss dat womenz mate like babooons zlzozlzozo without proper trianingsz from menz who read da great boooks for menz like da bible men love da great boooks and womenz love da babooooons zlzllzlzlzlzzol stsyle dodoycyc babbooon styelels zlozlzzl
@CL
Assuming the dolls pictures are the ones they used, my girls would pick the slutty one because she’s wearing a skirt and the other one is dressed like a boy. Way to skew the “study”, idiots!
No joke.
@bskillet,
Stanton is of course simply regurgitating the tired old line of feminism that women are innately good, and therefore should not be constrained in anything
They are. As are men. Saying anything else in a Christian context is either over the top Calvinism or Manicheanism. Evil as such doesn’t exist (as evil can’t create [cf. Tolkien and the shadowy Nazghul] or his troll/ents or his goblin/elves). People are made in the image of God and anything negative you see is a corruption of their innate nature.
It bugs me that so many here by into a Manichean/Materialist view of women. Women _are_ nurturers. They are all of the good things that the “Tradcons” contend they are. However, just like when an Ent get’s corrupted you get an afraid of the sunlight bruiser Troll, when a nurturer gets corrupted you get an out of control breeder who abandons her children for the next hit on the procreation.
The conclusion is remarkably similar but the method is different and important. It is important because it allows us to refocus women in a useful direction instead of just noisily complaining.
@Dalrock,
The presence of fathers doesn’t just impact the girls themselves, it impacts the mothers.
This line makes me want to weep tears of joy. Also thanks for the thanks on the post. I always feel guilty when I post comments like that but for obvious reasons there’s not a better method here if I want to keep hidden.
@RockThrowing,
American Heritage Girls. Link here:
http://ahgonline.org/
….but now I see you got there first. Its a good organization. Heavily evangelical though which bugs me some.
@Realist,
20 years ago at the peak of feminism we used to have singers like Alanis Morrisette who didn’t used to get undressed, now almost ALL female singers undress and flaunt their sexuality.
Did you miss Madonna by chance? I can even dig up a few in the 1920’s. Madonna toned back during the AIDS crisis and very publicly complained about it. And not all female singers dress down now (though even in the period you discuss many dressed down as they aged and went the Playboy route). This post needs some serious rework.
lozozozozo
while men watch porn
womenz are da once who
perform it
while a man may pay $10 for a porn wacthi session
women will take $1,000s of dollarszz to perfomrm it zlzooozl
“The presumption in the article is that young girls are being driven by the culture to self sexualize. Given what we know from game and the social revolution driven by feminism, the opposite is much more likely. Girls are no longer being constrained by the culture, and are reverting to an animal like state. ”
Disagree entirely. Do you know any children who are raised without television in the home and zero mainstream media? They is a world of difference between them and your average kid.
while a man may pay $10 for a porn wacthi session
women will take $1,000s of dollarszz to perfomrm it zlzooozl
____________________________________________________________________________
You know, I never really thought about that before. You sure hear a lot of verbal rocks being thrown at men in the church for viewing porn (and these admonitions to avoid sexual sin are correct, as porn is corrupting) but I do not think I have ever heard a pastor (or any other Christian, really) call out the actresses and models and say that they are sinning. The closest I’ve heard is stories of ex-porn girls and how Jesus led them out of porn (which is good) but those stories always include sad tales of all the ways they are abused by men over their lives; not ever is it suggested that she was behaving like a sinful slut. Women are always portrayed as the victims when they leave the sex industry.
“What else should we expect when words like slut are deemed hateful to all women by feminists and Trad Cons alike”
While amongst regular mainstream kids is a term of endearment, like n*gga. Girls joke around by calling each other “slut” and enjoy it. Add “pimp” and “ho” to that list too.
Dalrock, based on your observation above me here about the ‘porn girls’ that get out of the industry and all their sad tales of abuse and neglect, people will still point back to men- the horrible abusers, the bad fathers, absent fathers…. and if they say something like “If her father wasn’t such a deadbeat, she never would have done that” and they’re right. A good father can prevent all kinds of stuff like that. The point they would miss is that men no longer have any authority over women in any way. A boss even has to think twice before firing a female employee, let alone fathers controlling their daughters.
There’s no way you can frame the girl as anything other than a victim, even if she comes out and says she was willing, straight up. The poor girl must have been brainwashed, they’ll say.
It’s funny… if a girl takes money for sex, she is a whore committing an illegal act
if she takes money for sex while a camera is rolling, she is an actress.
If she decides to stop, she was a victim of abuse all along.
In the end, women set the ambiguous terms any way they want them, at all times, subject to change without notice, and will vilify and persecute anyone that tries to stop them.
and even then, if teh evil patriarchy weren’t such creepy sickos, consuming porn, all the whores/actresses/victims would never have done any of that stuff, and would be home cooking dinner like a good girl.
As good of a point as it is, that women have accountability in the porn problem, there’s no way to make it stick.
In the cocaine industry, they blame the people that produce it, and the poor buyers are victims. Hence, they persecute the coca farmers.
In the porn industry, they blame the demand- the buyers- and the victims are the poor girls that produce it.
Is the producers of debauchery that are the problem, or the consumers of it? If its both, then that has to apply to other societal ills.
except that sex is not evil or bad, its free and easy and casual… except for when it isn’t. Seriously, its enough to make you go mad.
sry, sunshinemary, my comment is in reply to yours.
Sunshinemary
I have an acquaintance who has three daughters by several different men, is currently unmarried, and has an on/off live-in boyfriend. I always wonder what she tells her kids when a new man first begins sleeping over.
Does she ever go to church? If so, I may have seen her…
GKChesterson, I think you are on the right track, though your view of the Manichaean heresy is a bit off. I haven’t really seen anyone on here I’d describe as ‘Manichaean’ using the term either as Theophylact did (creation by an evil God) or the more Zoroastrian dualistic mindset.
Being European, I admit that, in Europe, there is more hardcore porn than in America. But I don’t think that women are that sexualized. Red districts are populated by professionals. But you don’t see the girl next door flashing her boobs in Girls gone wild. We have our sluts but they are not screaming at the world: “Look at me!!! I’m a slut!!” (except they are porn actresses)
About American women, I think they have two modes. Mode A is from Monday to Friday. They dress in a very masculine way. They speak in a very masculine way. They behave as if they were men with vaginas. Meanwhile, their European counterparts behave more naturally. They don’t feel the need to prove the world that they can be better men than men themselves.
When the weekend comes, American women are willing to do everything to get some attention. So they dress in a slutty disgusting way. Meanwhile, an European woman can get a sexy dress but it’s not flaunting their overweight flesh the way American women do. And don’t dress as if they were low-class truckers. Some images who would be hard to see in Europe:
I think that American women have a psychotic relationship with their feminity. They try to suppress it so much during the week that, when they want to show it, it shows in strange ways. They don’t know how to be femenine and sexy. They only know to show flesh, the more disgusting the better. They are also extremely narcissistic and do anything for attention. I wonder if the pedestalization experienced by Anglosphere cultures has made women addicted to attention. In Europe or Latin America women are not that weird.
“Is the producers of debauchery that are the problem, or the consumers of it? If its both, then that has to apply to other societal ills.”
Its both. Its everyone who contributes to that industry, even if they only ever watch free porn, especially if they have kids. There is just no justifying having anything to do with that industry at all if you have kids. Stats say that a large % of women who go into it have been abused as children. I wouldn’t be surprised if the same holds for the men as well. Oh, and lets not forget child trafficking and child porn. The whole nine yards of the industry is disgusting.
You can watch the Yale Sex Week on campus interview with big name porn stars on Youtube. These college students see porn as an honorable career. When they asked the famous male actor (forget his name, someone here will probably know it) if he has kids and he said “yes” then they asked him if he would want his kids getting into porn, he hesitated, they prodded him until he relunctantly conceded a sheepish, “yes I’d support her”. THE CROWD OF STUDENTS CHEERED.
When the female porn star says soon she plans on getting married and settling down, no one batted an eye or asked “settle down with whom, exactly?” I think one of the male students offered to marry her IIRC.
Face it. The Pimp/Ho culture is glorified in today’s America. Good luck trying to keep your kids away from it.
“I have an acquaintance who has three daughters by several different men, is currently unmarried, and has an on/off live-in boyfriend.”
This^^^ is a norm in my current middle class neighborhood. YBM rants against upper middle class women. Is it common amongst them too?
“Girls are no longer being constrained by the culture, and are reverting to an animal like state. ”
Not true. Without any sort of constraint, children who are not exposed to mainstream media do not become obsessed with looks, what to speak of age inappropriate looks. Dalrock I think you just may not be as tuned into mainstream media as most people are. Its on the TV, radio, movies, in the products that Big Industry pimps out to kids and parents like the “Bratz Dolls”
Its all about mass consumption.
Pingback: Why oh why should i bother to try for an LTR? « M3
GKChesterton
This is from 1981 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IasCZL072fQ
Chachi
Why do you think its called liberation. Society kept that in check. Only a feral woman in a sain society would dress up like a street whore as seen on some TV show and walk around proudly proclaiming herself a slut. Women today are not behaving as civilized women. To put it plainly ….”them hoes is feral jack”
Greyghost, Dalrock is arguing that its not media influence but the lack of any kind of influence that is freeing it up IN LITTLE GIRLS 6-9. This is ridiculous. The girls are watching TV and interacting with other mainstream kids who watch TV and they are playing with toys like Bratz Dollz.
Please don’t tell me you think little girls who have no media exposure whatsoever, and who do not play with other kids exposed to this stuff, would choose those clothes and think the most popular doll would wear them. This is all what they see around them, in the media and from people exposed to media.
Slutty clothes at 6 years old is nurture, not nature.
I’m new here but how frequently are comments like this https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feral-females-in-the-news/#comment-46031 allowed through?
The two sentences that stood out to me the most were, “Men are essentially the audience, the exploited victims of porn, as they pay through the nose for prime subscriptions of what a woman should be”
“As real rights, include responsibility & dont benefit minorities or special needs parasites”
Chachi, Dalrock didn’t use the word “influence”, he used the word “constraint”. It means a limitation or restriction. What Dalrock is saying is that women receive no influences in their lives which teach and encourage them to do good things or punishes them for doing bad things. Culture and even the church has gotten so there is none of this, and even state that women are incapable of doing bad things. This means that they get to do whatever they want and are not taught at all. Usually it is indeed the media along with lack of constraint that moves these young girls and women into these things. Media influence has happened for a good while before the societal constraints were removed and nothing was affected. It was when the constraints were gone that all hell broke loose.
Case in point with the 6-9 year old girls. Where are the parents teaching them to not dress this way, or not allow access to things that encourage this behavior? Where’s the parents of the older girls (let’s say 12-15) not allowing the purchase of these clothes or allowing their children to wear them? Where’s the greater society encouraging chastity, even the church?
Society, government, the church, even parents have decided that girls and women are incapable of doing evil things, hence all constraints upon girls and women have been removed, including any consequences. Hence, you have girls and women doing evil things, unrestrained by any good and decent moral or social rules. They are not civilized, hence they are feral, doing whatever they please and whatever is right in their own eyes.
Samuel Solomon, “In the cocaine industry, they blame the people that produce it, and the poor buyers are victims. Hence, they persecute the coca farmers.”
Buyers and sellers do jail time. And there’s more time for buying/selling crack than powder. You can thank Reagan for that bit of justice.
“In the porn industry, they blame the demand- the buyers- and the victims are the poor girls that produce it.”
They blame the actual producers too. You have to understand with porn that the real culprits behind it are the producers, the actual producers of the films, and especially the ones running the child-porn rings.
Samuel, I take it from your comments that you are for a ban on porn?
imnobody, re: europe. “I think that American women have a psychotic relationship with their feminity. They try to suppress it so much during the week that, when they want to show it, it shows in strange ways. They don’t know how to be femenine and sexy. They only know to show flesh, the more disgusting the better. They are also extremely narcissistic and do anything for attention. ”
Europe is a lot less religious than the US. Religious influence could be correalated to our perceived “psychotic relationship” with our own feminity, repressing it on the one hand, as you say, and then letting it all out in “strange ways” on the other.
I’ve often heard that Europeans are not as repressed and uptight as Americans are. Hard to conceive as Americans as “repressed” but there may be some remnant of Puritanism still bleeding over into the culture that makes us bi-polar about femininity and sexuality. What do you think?
Greyghost, Dalrock wrote, “Unfortunately the researchers seem to be laboring under a great deal of confusion about our current culture and female sexual nature. The presumption in the article is that young girls are being driven by the culture to self sexualize. Given what we know from game and the social revolution driven by feminism, the opposite is much more likely. Girls are no longer being constrained by the culture, and are reverting to an animal like state. ”
His opinion is that the children are choosing the slutty attired doll as the “more popular” one and the one they’d most like to be like, because, well, 6-9 year old little girls by nature want to dress in a slutty way.
I say he’s wrong. I say they, like 99.9% of American children, are influenced by the media, what they see on TV, hear on the radio, and what they hear and see relating to others who are influenced by media. Do you know what “Bratz Dollz” are? They have there own TV show, you know.
“I’m new here but how frequently are comments like this https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/feral-females-in-the-news/#comment-46031 allowed through?”
And why not? A non-abusive post, written in a coherent manner expressing an opinion. Are you the owner of the internet? May I ask why you think this should be censored? Just because you disagree?
“The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating.”
Well, at least this is positive. Masturbation is natural, innocent and far better than getting involved in a sexual relationship at too young of an age, or promiscuity. However, nobody needs to be taught how to do it. We all figure out that our private part feels good when we touch it at about the age of 2. Its a form of self soothing for toddlers.
“Girls used to want to be “princesses” before the rise of the consumerist ultra-capitalist raunch culture. …..Sluttiness is just more in your face now because it sells.”
Capitalism has much to do with it. Like I said, this stuff is pimped out to kids on TV, in ads, movies, internet, radio, all day long, for a reason. It nurture, not nature.
“The brochure goes on to encourage young people to “Improve your sex life by getting to know your own body. Play with yourself! Masturbation is a great way to find out more about your body and what you find sexually stimulating.”
Well, at least this is positive. Masturbation is natural, innocent and far better than getting involved in a sexual relationship at too young of an age, or promiscuity. However, nobody needs to be taught how to do it. We all figure out that our private part feels good when we touch it at about the age of 2. Its a form of self soothing for toddlers.
“Girls used to want to be “princesses” before the rise of the consumerist ultra-capitalist raunch culture. …..Sluttiness is just more in your face now because it sells.”
Capitalism has much to do with it. Like I said, this stuff is pimped out to kids on TV, in ads, movies, internet, radio, all day long, for a reason. It nurture, not nature.
Funny, I was thinking just the opposite: that socialism has much to do with it. All this socialist crap we have (food stamps, welfare, affirmative action, sexual harassment lawsuits, Title IX, childamony, no-fault divorce, medicare, medical, medicaid, social security, etc) backstops bad behavior on the part of women. Now women don’t have to get involved with an icky beta, they can now just extract the sperm from the alpha and then marry Big Government.
Porn *is* mainstream.
You can’t get more plain vanilla MSM than CNN, and what do we see there? Well, gushing stories about how interesting porn stars are (http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/19/showbiz/porn-stars-twitter/index.html?iref=allsearch). Pretty much as mainstream as you can get, really. And places like CNN are as politically correct and feminist as the day is long. Newsflash: sex-positive feminism “won”, and ushered in the slut culture as a badge of honor for women, and women are celebrating their newly-won, hard-fought freedom to be as slutty as they want to be, and many are reveling in it.
“I have an acquaintance who has three daughters by several different men, is currently unmarried, and has an on/off live-in boyfriend.”
This^^^ is a norm in my current middle class neighborhood
It will not remain a middle-class neighborhood for long. In a generation it will be poor and violent.
@Brendan:
I get the feeling that MSM is trying to make out that only those with serious personality issues have seen porn,
and ignore things like Sex and the City, Girls and Beate-Uhse’s sex-shops.
the saying is “Erotica is what turns me on, PORN is what turns you on”.
After all, dildos are something women joke about with pals.
A fleshlight is something to be ashamed of. Double standard right there.
When you see 8-9 yr old girls in real life dressed as mini sluts /hookers in training its quite an eye opener for sure. Its not just media influences though that forms a part. A lot of these oversexualised young girls are getting their example / model of behaviour from their own mothers who dress sexually provactively themselves and who have a parade of “strange” Men coming into their lives / house to sample the mother “wears”.
Advice please. 50 Shades of Grey is now on sale in the local supermarket in this Australian town. I haven’t read it. Should I mention this to my wife? It is on sale in a bin near the checkouts. Is it good or bad for the average wife?
^If she liked Twilight, she’ll love 50 shades.
the saying is “Erotica is what turns me on, PORN is what turns you on”.
After all, dildos are something women joke about with pals.
A fleshlight is something to be ashamed of. Double standard right there.
Of course, because liberated feral female sexuality is celebrated, whilst male sexuality is denuded, shamed and wished that it were more “feminine” and less “testosterone poisoned”. I can’t imagine if a male-oriented sex fantasy book involving enslaving a woman subordinate sexually (i.e., 50 Shades from the male POV) were on the best-seller list that we wouldn’t be seeing stories every day about how pathological this is, and how much misogyny men harbor and so on. More double standards,
The double standard on sex toys is based on the idea that men have a harder time accessing sex than women do, so a woman using a vibrator or dildo is simply an act of liberation for women (i.e., they can have sex when they want, but choose to prefer a dildo over a “useless man”), whilst a man using a sex toy is an act of desperation (i.e., can’t get laid, so stuck with porn and fleshlights). While this is true to some degree, there are quite a few women who are cozy with their vibes who are also sexually frustrated because they can’t get the sex they want from the men they want on the terms they want. Desperation in women exists as well, it just shows up differently, and it fuels the huge, absolutely huge, market for female sex toys no doubt.
^ If women can accept that double standard, they should not complain about not being approached or considered only for flings when they lose their looks … 🙂
@imnobody
I think that American women have a psychotic relationship with their feminity. They try to suppress it so much during the week that, when they want to show it, it shows in strange ways. They don’t know how to be femenine and sexy. They only know to show flesh, the more disgusting the better. They are also extremely narcissistic and do anything for attention. I wonder if the pedestalization experienced by Anglosphere cultures has made women addicted to attention. In Europe or Latin America women are not that weird.
That’s very interesting. The modern American workplace can be rigidly anti-sexual. Women dress in clothes that, with a change here or there, could pass as men’s clothes. When they’re in the clubs, they’re not wearing pant-suits and sensible shoes. They may feel the need to be feminized, but without the constraints of shame (to use an example) they overdo it.
@Chiachi,
I doubt everyone agrees with every sentiment posted. If you see something that you object to, challenge their statement and provide a counter argument. Isn’t that more a better way to maintain open dialogue? Unpopular opinions shouldn’t be suppressed. Debate them and seek to learn from and enlighten others. My two cents.
She hasn’t read Twilight.
Spin it how you like, there is something devastating to feminism in all these Aussie housewives packing a copy of a novel about sexual submission into their grocery bags.
@David Collard:
Sexual submission to a man in the pinnacle of all worldly success that she will never meet in real life … thus giving her the right to treat normal men like dirt.
Oh, it’s feminism 101 actually.
Spin it how you like, there is something devastating to feminism in all these Aussie housewives packing a copy of a novel about sexual submission into their grocery bags.
It really depends on what one thinks “feminism” is. Sex positive feminism, which is the strain that eventually won out in the broader culture, exalts porn, GGW, BDSM, Craigslist zipless fucks and the like — it isn’t new, really. It’s not really just “spin” for feminists to claim that 50 Shades is feminist because it embraces the expression of female sexual desires — that’s pretty much lock, stock and barrel in accord with sex positive feminism, which has always said that any form of voluntary, consensual sexual expression by women is per se feminist and liberating for women. And, remember, they always claimed this would be good for men, too (assuming all men are tall, alpha and rich like Mr. Grey, which has always been the “catch” of sex-positive feminism for most men who are not alphas like Grey). To be honest, a novel which celebrates women’s desire to be dominated by older, wealthy alpha males simply supports the existing feminist sexual revolution and reinforces it — it basically is the carousel on steroids, which isn’t really something that undermines feminism. It reinforces the feminist cult of the liberation of women from most men, to free them up to voluntary enslave themselves (literally or figuratively) to men like Grey. Nothing really new here, other than things coming more out into the open, really.
Sooner rather than later, someone on the PUA wing of the Manosphere is going to dissect that horrible little book, and extract seduction lessons from it. Look for a Roissy post titled “50 Shades of Game”….
Should be called ’50 shades of smut’. That’s just me though…
@DC
I didn’t read Twilight, which I’ve heard the 50SoG story is based on, but I did read this trilogy. First I have to say that it is not just one book; at the end of the first book the reader is left at a point in the story where they have to get the next book; the same leading into the last book. So if you mention it to your wife, plan to purchase all three.
It’s a basic story about two people who meet, get involved and get married with a lot of graphic sex scenes(mostly d/s to an extent) thrown in. The thing I saw in the story and what makes it probably so popular with women is the overall message that I haven’t seen written about anywhere.
He’s a dominant man (with good looks and unlimited income) who seeks yet another submissive woman. He finds a virgin, imagine that, that is his undoing in the end as she fights his dominance throughout the entire story, not knowing what she wants but enjoying the domination in the bedroom giving her all the tingles she wants. Outside the bedroom she wants to be her own woman. Over time he gives in to her wishes, little by little letting go of who he was when she met him. She becomes the one who controls the relationship including getting pregnant accidently when she failed to keep up on her bc. When he gets angry about it he is wrong. Eventually he comes away from all his ‘bad’ ways to realizing how he can be good because she has done more for him than any psych doc he has seen all his life, even more than his parents have been able to do for him in all his growing up to help him heal from his past abuse, in a matter of a few months.
And of course she suffers no permanent or long term ramifications for anything she does in the story. She is perfect and takes such a desirable yet imperfect man and makes him perfect with her innate goodness.
This is the story in a nutshell. Take it for what it’s worth.
So Jacquie, to summarize:
1. Slut has hot, adulterous sex with powerful, rich alpha male.
2. Slut “accidentally” forgets her pill and gets knocked up by said alpha male.
3. (Implied) Slut gets alpha male to wife her up because she got knocked up, thereby securing all his wealth for herself.
Yeah, why on earth would feral women love this book? /sarcasm
OK, I don’t like the sound of that. I won’t mention it to my wife. She has a submissive streak, but I don’t think this book is a good idea.
Jacquie —
That is what I had understood from the reviews I have read as well — it is not far off from a standard romance novel theme of a woman flipping the alpha, getting him to turn away from his caddish ways and become her loyal man, transformed by her love. In other words, it’s close at its core to the “flip the alpha” core fantasy of many romance novels, but is set with a contemporary spin in terms of the BDSM aspect being the context for the womanizing caddishness in this case.
I haven’t read it, but from Jacquie’s description, it sounds like another “I’m a special snowflake” story which has just as much draw, if not more so, than the dominant sex scenes. That theme is a powerful one.
That’s about it, except he didn’t marry her out of obligation (she got pregnant on their honeymoon), no, that would mean that he got cornered into it. Instead he married her out of his love for her because she is the perfect one for him. This reasoning spins the wheel so much better.
I’ve heard that FSoG also has scenes of anal sex. Yuck! Sodomy is an abomination, even if it’s “heterosexual”. In a righteous nation, it would be a capital crime.
Chachi
I think you are playing dumb. Ballista74 basicaly answered with there is no restraint or check. Children do not grow up in a vacuum and then at puberty (or first gina tingle) suddenly appear in the world. But if that was the case the gina tingle is feral and with out any foundation to stand on we would still have what we have today. BTW to add salt to the emotional wound. It is comepletely normal and natural for females to behave that way. And men just abnormal men behave that way also. the 80 percent beta male type doesn’t naturally behave that way.
If you look at the MRM in general it used to be in a large part directed at women and the government with the goal of appealing to campassion (that doesn’t exist). Now it is more directed at men in an effort to change the natural beta male tendancies of men. I few years ago this exchange we are having now would not have happened.
Jacquie
Thank you, it is no wonder that book is so popular. It is just the usual I got mister big with sex. It fits right in with todays article. BTW I wonder how the story would read if he had a male pill and the female character had to ask him to let her have a child.
I disagree here. Feral connotes something that was once civilized and tame, and then reverted to a wild, uncivilized state. Feral dogs do not pedastilize humans. But tame domesticated ones do. Feral dogs don’t supplicate to humans, but domesticated ones will beg for food and do tricks to get attention.
Betas have been domesticated beyond what is fitting for humanity. They have been essentially enslaved like domesticated dogs.
@GKC
As your last paragraph suggests I suspect at least part of this disagreement is semantics. While there could be some interesting linguistic nuance, that isn’t what I’m most interested in here.
To make this clearer, I’m saying that both men and women are fallen. Both have the capacity to sin, and their own tendencies on how they are likely to do that (with all standard caveats about generalizations). Moreover, both need to be taught to resist the temptation to sin. They need to be constrained by conscience and the rules of civilization to properly mature. Boys/men without constraint tend to be criminally violent and unproductive. Girls/women without constraint tend to be rebellious of male authority and want to usurp it, and they tend to become enthralled with the power of their sexuality and the pursuit of the top man/men.
Stanton believes that boys need strong parental instruction to grow into good men. I don’t disagree. He also believes that girls don’t need this to grow into good women. This latter part is what you appear to be signing on to, but attributing it to boys as well. If you have a Biblical case here, I would be very interested in reading it. If not, (respectfully) why do you keep making the assertion?
They are. As are men. Saying anything else in a Christian context is either over the top Calvinism or Manicheanism. Evil as such doesn’t exist (as evil can’t create [cf. Tolkien and the shadowy Nazghul] or his troll/ents or his goblin/elves). People are made in the image of God and anything negative you see is a corruption of their innate nature.
It bugs me that so many here by into a Manichean/Materialist view of women. Women _are_ nurturers. They are all of the good things that the “Tradcons” contend they are. However, just like when an Ent get’s corrupted you get an afraid of the sunlight bruiser Troll, when a nurturer gets corrupted you get an out of control breeder who abandons her children for the next hit on the procreation.
————————————————————————————-
This is really something….this post.
People, men and women have proclivity. Period. That proclivity IS innate. This over defining of “made in the image of” ignores much. When men here make remarks about women, they are not being Manichean whatsoever. They are suggesting that they have given over to the proclivity. There is a difference and I’m very surprised you do not see it.
The whole frame is simple once you realize these proclivities exist in everyone and, perhaps an even harder sale these days, that the proclivities generally differ in men and women in terms of which is predominant in which gender, not that everyone does not have them all in some degree.
Men’s proclivity is generally sexual. That is the gateway, and the proclivity men may have emotionally will be secondary. The reverse is true for women. Men can do sex and limit its impact on emotion, or not. Women fall into sin more often through emotional rationalization. I am speaking here of churchian women, of course there are sexual sluts in both genders.
The issue is that mens proclivities are acknowledged and womens are not….and thats why the claim that women are innately good is BS. Its suggestive of an absence of proclivity.
Anyway regardless if you agree on the specifics of the proclivities, since the proclivities are innate it must be qualified when saying women are innately good. Try selling the idea that men as a gender are innately good, in fact I’d imagine that under a different context, and without foreshadow of what I’m getting at, you would react agreeably to an assertion that men are not innately good because you may magnify the proclivity of men.
How funny Dalrock we were writing simultaneously about the same thing and making coincident points.
[D: Very true. Had I waited just a few minutes I could have profited from your comment. Proclivity was the term I was searching for…]
If you have a Biblical case here, I would be very interested in reading it. If not, (respectfully) why do you keep making the assertion?
———————————————————-
Dalrock
I offered my guess on that in my last sentences….just a guess.
Brendan
Newsflash: sex-positive feminism “won”, and ushered in the slut culture as a badge of honor for women, and women are celebrating their newly-won, hard-fought freedom to be as slutty as they want to be, and many are reveling in it.
A couple of years back I was in the DC area and talked with a desk clerk at the small hotel where I was staying. He was from central Africa – Uganda, I think – and hadn’t been in the country long. In a moment of candor, he asked why it was that Americans allow so much porn on broadcast TV. That question took me back a bit, because I don’t watch much TV. But his first example was “Sex and the City”, & I had to think more. That was a cable-TV only show when it first was presented – HBO, or one of those networks – and it was on at night, after 9:00. Since then it’s gone into syndication. Now it’s apparently broadcast in some markets in the middle of the afternoon. So schoolchildren who are living the latchkey life can see it. Progress….
And with that leadin, this article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/9407978/Teenagers-can-be-corrupted-by-Hollywood-sex-scenes.html
Adolescent humans are malleable and influenced by video. Anyone surprised?
Good to see you back Anon Reader. I trust all is well.
Along the same lines, I saw Zed commenting over at the spearhead the other day. Good to see that he is back in the sphere.
Compare Genesis 1:27–“God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.”–with Romans 3:23–“all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Yes, humanity was created in God’s image. But we have, by will and by inherited nature, corrupted that image, falling short of God’s glory. I think Jeremiah 17:9 speaks for itself.
I am still puzzled about this. Why do feral women simultaneously resist male authority and lust after the biggest man? Is it unrestrained hypergamy? Pride?
I keep saying this. Not only are women as fallen as men, and as mired in Original Sin; arguably they are worse, based on scripture. The New Testament contains passages that warn against women being given power, precisely because they “transgressed first”. I am bewildered as to how modern Christian teachers ignore this and pedestalise women. Creatures lower in a hierarchy should clearly not be put on a pedestal.
I am still puzzled about this. Why do feral women simultaneously resist male authority and lust after the biggest man? Is it unrestrained hypergamy? Pride?
Resistance to male authority is done “in general” — i.e., men in general. That is, the priest and minister, the father, uncle and brother, and the typical beta boyfriend. These men are not “worthy” of wielding authority, only the “biggest man” is, only the Mr Greys of the world are. Feminism is about equalizing things between women and all of the non-Mr.-Grey men in their lives so that these “lesser men” can be cleared away to permit women to access the “biggest men”. The link between the two is hypergamy, yes, but in a broader sense –> only certain men are “worthy”, and the rest need to be knocked down to the level of “equality” with women. This is the crucial link between hypergamy and feminism, and why feminism essentially works to create world that is safe for the freer exercise of hypergamy by women, a world where all women can play the “flip the alpha” game of the romance novels, without restraint from father/brother/uncle, priest, etc.
@Anon Reader
Not surprised at all. I think where most people go wrong though is to assume that men and (especially) women are a blank slate, and the differences we observe are created by media influence. Much more accurate is to acknowledge that the negative impacts of the media tend to reinforce our own proclivities. Take a young boy and a young girl (in separate unsupervised environments) and provide access to both male and female forms of porn. The boy will tend to pick up the Playboy and the girl 50 shades of grey, Sex and The City, EPL, etc. The difference is very few are foolish enough to assume that the boy only likes looking at naked pictures of beautiful women because the culture pushed him to. Yes the culture is making it worse by telling him it is ok and even good, but the proclivity is there. I suspect very few fathers on finding a son’s cache of Playboys lecture:
If only we weren’t so foolish with our daughters.
Regarding hypergamy:
with great power *should* come great responsibility.
Power used irresponsibly hurts
others,hence draws attention to itself.
@Brendan
Part of the resistance to male authority is a process to determine who is the real deal, who is worthy. She want’s Mr. Grey to overcome her rebellion, to tame her. Much of the enjoyment in fact comes from being tamed. This is an important nuance, because the Biblical command to wives to submit to their husbands is telling them to do something which doesn’t necessarily feel natural, and quite often feels exactly the opposite. Many misunderstand female nature and therefore assume that if she doesn’t want to submit he “must not be loving her like Christ loved the Church”. But if it were simply a natural byproduct of a loving husband there would be no need to repeatedly command wives to submit to their husbands.
This conversation is very profitable to me. At my house we do not “do” modern culture – we have no television (just a dvd player hooked up to an old TV with no reception), we’ve got an authoritative husband/father in residence, and we explicitly teach modesty to our daughters. Nevertheless, only one out of five of them rejected the “slutty” paper doll – the other four kind of liked the look of her. I had been assuming that we were good to go with our girls because we’re “raising them right”; I hadn’t been thinking about proclivities.
If only we weren’t so foolish with our daughters.
So what’s the right thing to do with them? Do we tell them, “You have slutty proclivities. You need to guard against it.”? It sounds odd, but maybe that would be a good thing to do. It might put the responsibility for avoiding sluttiness back on the girl.
Fifty years ago William Golding, a school master wrote a novel entitled Lord of the Flies – the basic premise being, so I understand, that if you leave eleven and twelve year old boys to their own devices they will turn feral – and this, being on a desert island, was without any assistance from the media. In English Law, Animals were divided into two classes: those which were mensurae that is to say tame and those that were ferae i.e. naturally fierce. What category should we place little girls into? or even big girls like Anastasia (the heroine of 50 Shades of Grey)? – I am predicting a sequel Fifty Shades Sulkier in which she becomes unhaaaapy with her now mensurae husband and seeks cash and prizes, however on a well earned holiday in an exotic locale she meets a man, Marco, who shows her enlightenment etc etc.
@Sunshinemary
There is a balance here, but yes. You may never actually need to use those words, but acknowledging the reality is ultimately kindness. It would be cruel to say the foolish lecture you reference to a boy. It is no different for a girl. This doesn’t mean you call your daughters sluts for dressing immodestly, but I would say you shouldn’t be afraid to acknowledge that such a thing exists. Simply stopping denying that they exist is a huge step in the right direction. There are ways to be very clear on a message without crushing the recipient, and the strength of the message should fit the nature of the infraction. If the media can be trusted in these matters our great grandmothers were all over this.
On feral females:
There’s a rapidly growing subculture of whoreish women and white-knighting men online. It’s becoming more and more normalized. I’m speaking not of hard porn–that’s something else entirely–but of the cam girl phenomenon. These young girls start up their webcam, look pouty, complain about their lives, giggle, and diddle themselves, and in return horny white knights pay them compliments and (sometimes) big bucks.
Some women do this for the money, but I’m convinced most do it for the ego boost. For most of the girls the money isn’t all that great. But never will you see a greater collection of white knights than on these sites. The girls are worshiped for having cunts.
On other websites you can find young women whoring themselves out to white knights in return for money to purchase breast implants. White knights pay to see graphic pictures and videos, and in return the girls get money for new tits and dump emotionally on these men. After they get their tits, these girls dump their current boyfriends in search of someone better and the white knights cheer them on.
It’s quite disgusting. But I’m convinced that this subculture will grow in the coming years. Girls who have grown up status whoring on facebook have few compunctions about whoring themselves off on live video–and bonus, they get free money!!! To stop this phenomenon from spreading the white knights need to cut off the money, for we are far past the time when shame would work. Luckily, the economy is imploding on the white knights, and so too on these women, hopefully.
P Ray – “After all, dildos are something women joke about with pals.
A fleshlight is something to be ashamed of. Double standard right there.”
You need to put out a NSFW warning when you mention things like this “fleshlight” I wasn’t sure what it was, but figured it was some sort of sex toy. Good thing I Google’d it on my tablet rather than my work computer.
I do not think its correct to say that the girls have ‘slutty proclivities’. It may seem like playing with words but its not…..what they have is proclivities that can lead to sluttiness. BIG difference in terms of how to parent, and particularly to father around it.
If you head off sluttiness it will seem severely incongruent to their reality and mindset. It would be like taking a person and throwing them into rehab before they had anything to drink or took any drugs. You are jumping past a step. The step before is where to parent…..now….before I get ahead of myself in a major way, no, I am not an expert on parenting any more than anyone. I have 2 girls, 21 and 6…..(same mom)…but my point here is less about knowing about parenting than it is my belief in my theories on female proclivity
Opus
Anastasia gets her groove back in Jamaica mon
SunshineMary, empath:
My talk to my daughter sounds something like this: “You are about to be given a great deal of power. I will teach you how to use, and not to misuse, that power. If you use this power wisely, it will bring you great happiness. If you misuse it, you will bring great destruction, shame and misery upon yourself and many others. You do not yet have any idea how immense this power is, and how destructive it can be if misused. I, however, know full well its destructive power.
You, and you alone, are responsible for your use and misuse of this power. If you misuse it, you will answer to me, and I will hold you responsible, unless and until you marry. If you marry, you, and you alone, will stand before your husband and explain to him how you used this power.”
Im curious….a daughter that is 25, working, living alone and in that sense stable….in what way does she answer to you?
I ask because thats all great and I agree with the gist, I just don’t see the threat of “answering to me” as very effective when the rubber meets the road.
My oldest is 21, and I have some leverage only because she is a student and relies on me for some things but it is markedly less than whatever influence I had 5 years ago. She may be somewhat influenced simply by not wanting to defy dad, but unless she is convinced internally, morally, spiritually, logically as well, I learned fast that my clout is lessened at a certain time.
Maybe thats because we do have a TV, and we are not outside the world as much as others, though we home schooled and did I think a lot to keep them away from stuff.
I have two daughters my wife is dreading my talk. I won’t be as nice as deti. There will be delusions of love and romance from me. I can already tell my youger one will be most inclined to a thug type.
a daughter that is 25, working, living alone
It is my sincere hope that this will never describe any of my children. My strong preference would be for them to go straight from their father’s house to their husbands’. I hope none of them will be 25 and unmarried. They ought always to have a man in charge of them to whom they must answer. Some will possibly think my argument is harsh or unrealistic, but I find in looking around me that our society has tried an experiment of having girls/women on their own with no man to answer to, and it is a failure. Even Christian women are spending long periods of time under no man’s authority; the result is unsatisfactory.
empath
Once the kid is old enough to call her own shots legally let them know “you are on your own. ” Don’t be a safety net for feral behavior. A good chuck of the laws of misandry to enable feminism is safety net for feral women. The manosphere calls it the pussy pass. To test what I’m saying start a conversation with any woman and sooner or later standing by and letting a woman suffer from her own choices will be said to be abusive or hateful to women.
On a somewhat similar tangent, look at this piece by our dear friend Sheila Gregoire on the movie Magic Mike:
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/07/magic-mike-marriage-and-womens-libido/
Basically, she says the reason women like the movie Magic Mike is because “culture” has trained them to like something that they wouldn’t naturally, if left to themselves. So Magic Mike is the result of some cultural “constraint” or “influence” put on women. If we removed this constraint or influence, women would naturally not like a movie like Magic Mike.
Generally, whenever anyone with an degree in Wymmin’s Studies says “culture” has made women do something, they mean “the evil male penile patriarchy.”
I haven’t read through all the comments so this has probably been said before, but this is a shit study. In each case, they were given the option of two dolls, a slutty one and one that dresses like a man. (I looked at the journal article, and they showed two pairs of dolls, one of which is seen in the linked article.)
With only two dolls, you are clearly eliciting preference for one of those dolls over the other, but there is no way to even guess at if the chosen doll is even liked, (it might just be preferred over an even shittier doll), much less how much that look is preferred over any number of intermediate looks (or more extreme looks). Furthermore, they frame the dolls as differing on a single quality (sexiness) when they clearly differ on multiple factors (feminine/masculine, concern for aesthetics, utilitarian usage, and so forth). Any sort of good study would have tried to take these issues into account. This is not a good study, which is why it was published in a nothing journal like Sex Roles.
“Basically, she says the reason women like the movie Magic Mike is because “culture” has trained them to like something that they wouldn’t naturally, if left to themselves.”
There’s a difference between grown adults and small children. Magic Mike is about male strippers, right? Obviously heterosexual adult women enjoy the bodies of attractive looking men, with or without culture conditioning. That’s nature.
But do children world wide or are not exposed to American media choose slutty clothes for their dolls? And Jbaee’s comment above outlines the details of this so-called “study”.
“Adolescent humans are malleable and influenced by video. Anyone surprised?”
Advertising is a multi BILLION dollar business for a reason. Of course media influences those who watch it. Who would even doubt that?
Bskillet81 – ”Basically, she says the reason women like the movie Magic Mike is because “culture” has trained them to like something that they wouldn’t naturally, if left to themselves. So Magic Mike is the result of some cultural “constraint” or “influence” put on women. If we removed this constraint or influence, women would naturally not like a movie like Magic Mike.”
Heartening to see another woman, Amanda take her to task:
”Instead, this post is full of gender stereotypes that do more harm than good. These statements are harmful to women and insulting to men. They promote that common “Christian” myth that women are more spiritual and less sinful than men. The tone of the overall post implies that “men are just in it for the physical sensation of sex. They’d be out there screwing everything in a skirt if they had their way. Thank goodness that women are better than that and are still holding on to marriage.”
“Fifty years ago William Golding, a school master wrote a novel entitled Lord of the Flies – the basic premise being, so I understand, that if you leave eleven and twelve year old boys to their own devices they will turn feral – and this, being on a desert island, was without any assistance from the media.”
– and this, was fiction.
@empath
This is where my husband and I are currently. All of our children are adults but only one still lives at home. We also homeschooled and limited the outside world coming in, but what we did allow we used as teaching lessons hoping to prepare them for what they would see when they did go out on their own and how they should respond.
Our oldest daughter is twenty-five, our son is twenty-one. Without going into detail they have been very heavily influenced by the people they met once they left our home. They have made decisions that we haven’t agreed with but not sure what to do. We call them on it as much as we can but at the same time I don’t wish to push it to the point that they no longer come to talk to us at all and then we don’t have any opportunity to advise them or be a positive influence on their decisions. Even just this weekend I was blunt with my oldest daughter when she was visiting concerning her attitude toward the man she’s with. I was informed after the visit by my youngest that my oldest cried over what I said. I was only honest with her and didn’t tickle her ears with my advice therefore now I am the mean one. It saddens me to watch this.
Similar things with my son and the girl he’s seeing, a real EPA. My husband is advising him every opportunity. But again it’s a balance. How far do you go before you’ve pushed them so far away that you possibly lose them completely? Our youngest is listening to the older two and pushing for her rights as an adult even though she is still dependent on her dad and I. I fear she may decide to move in with one of her siblings to ‘get out from our control.’ The saddest thing is that we now see how much of this was taught in our very own churches. In a way I feel my husband and I learned some things too late to teach it to our children.
“Similar things with my son and the girl he’s seeing, a real EPA.”
What’s an EPA? The mainstream culture is so at odds with most of my values, yet at the same time I cannot completely cut myself and go live alone on a mountain top somewhere, at least not yet. We can cut ourselves and our kids off but then when push comes to shove we and them won’t know how to navigate the world around us. At the same time if we mingle too much, there’s a chance of becoming consumed.
Its astounding when I see ads and commercials now after not being exposed for a long time at the unnecessary things we are made to think we need. And I’m talking about the very basic stuff like hair removal products. Its a racket.
Chachi – “What’s an EPA?
I think that was a typo
An EAP is an “Evangelical American Princess” (http://cmd-n.org/2012/05/01/evangelical-american-princess/)
Aight is ya boy matt here to spit some truth down this pipe:
Chachi and Jacqui have turned out to be my favourite female commentators on this blog in a long, long time.
I’m not saying that it is a conscious effort because just like Chachi says capital has a whole vested interest in selling as much shit to fems (spend more than 2/3 of all household purchase decisions) it might be just the dollar leading the way. And we all know how wet chicks get ova dollars right? I just got back from LV and i swear it was cheaper to buy a girl from the bank at the Bellagio then to go over to the Spearmint Rhino. They were dressed basically the same too aha!
Anyway onto the real point:
The slut signal in the brain would be there even if culture were absent. However, in the past, the negative consequences of slut behaviour were obvious, and kept it in a very small strata of the population.
Now, our culture has sent the signal that the big bad male oppressor (your beta boy daddy) was the one restraining your slut signal, not tha natural consequences of being a slut.
And your daughters have eaten it up, kind of like a couple other things I can think of aha!
Yes, it was a typo, thank you for catching that.
SunshineMary, my wife went from her father’s house to mine. My 18 y.o. daughter knows she can stay under my roof as long as she likes.
This was why women were “given away”. They explicitly left their father’s authority to go under their husband’s.
@Chachi
You are quite correct. Lord of The Flies is entirely a work of fiction (as for that matter is Hamlet, Othello and Romeo and Juliet), and any resemblance between the characters in the novel and any real life person is entirely coincidental. Quite how a school-master (as he then was before he embarked on a successful professional literary carrer) like Golding could come up with such a picture of feral youth when all he saw day in and day out were twelve year old schoolboys is quite beyond me and thus your powers of literary criticism put me to shame – except that a few years ago a british television company set about re-creating Lord of The Flies for real, – not on a desert island – but in an old and large house – placing a dozen or so boys of that age on their own for a week in the house and without any adult supervision but merely CCTV to observe the outcome. Now you will doubtless say it was in some way fixed; for you will not doubt that as must have been hoped, within twenty four hours or so the boys were tearing up the place so much so that eventually adults had to intervene to prevent damage to person and property – which by co-incidence, in the person of a Royal Naval officer is excactly what happens, as invented by Golding, to rescue the boys, in Lord of the Flies.
Opus, what the Royal Navy officer says at the end of the novel is very effective, “I would have thought that British schoolboys …”
I also remember one science fiction story that referred to “the astonishing depths to which ordinary women can fall”, but that was written before we all discovered that women are, in fact, perfect.
“The slut signal in the brain would be there even if culture were absent. However, in the past, the negative consequences of slut behaviour were obvious, and kept it in a very small strata of the population.”
Wrong, the SEX signal in the brain would be there (in post-pubescent kids) even if….. because sexual attraction and the body’s drive to reproduce is natural science. The “study”, if it can even be called that, is not talking about sex, its talking about clothing, the type of clothing that is pimped out to pre-pubescent children by the media.
This is why I disagree with Sheila’s article about Magic Mike;
http://tolovehonorandvacuum.com/2012/07/magic-mike-marriage-and-womens-libido/
Heterosexual pubescent and post-pubescent females are by nature, not nurture, attracted to a fit male physique. The only thing being promoted by the culture, and this movie, is paying to oogle it in a strip club.
The “study”, if it can even be called that, is not talking about sex, its talking about clothing, the type of clothing that is pimped out to pre-pubescent children by the media.
—————————————————————————
Pimped out using what as the hook?
Sex
We get it, media bad, capitalists bad….but sex sells BECAUSE of the sexual nature, not just because of slick adverts
Once again we see the underlying feminist ideology: When women show any sort of morally questionable behavior, or female sexuality is shown to be anything other than pure and angelic and so on, it automatically gets blamed on cultural programming or “the media” or what have you.
Of course, when guys show the desire to bang their own wives a little more often, Churchians interpret this as “lust.”
“Once again we see the underlying feminist ideology: When women show any sort of morally questionable behavior, or female sexuality is shown to be anything other than pure and angelic and so on, it automatically gets blamed on cultural programming or “the media” or what have you.”
The blog and “study” is about 6-9 year old children, not women.
I never claimed “female sexuality is pure and angelic”.
“We get it, media bad, capitalists bad….but sex sells BECAUSE of the sexual nature, not just because of slick adverts”
Sexual nature in pre-pubescent children 6-9 years old?
I’m not denying the nature of post-pubescent sexuality, that is why I disagree with what Sheila wrote about Magic Mike. She says women lusting after fine male physiques is a cultural construct. She’s wrong. Dead wrong. But Dalrock’s blog here is not about post-pubescent sexuality.
Again, people, scroll back up and read what Dalrock originally wrote, follow the links, look at the pics.
Dalrock’s hypothesis, which is not unreasonable, is
The last two groups are now notorious for promiscuity, and even some middle schoolers are sexually active.
His point, overall, is that 6-9 year-old girls derive these values from older girls, and that older girls are feral because they’ve grown up with almost no guidelines or constraints put on them. Society does not see fit to educate girls at any level that they should exercise self-control. Instead, every act of sexual immorality these little angelic snowflakes commit is blamed entirely on the evil boys.
The church, particularly, is a huge purveyor of this idea. In fact, I would say it is the chief cultural institution promulgating this philosophy.
“Grade school girls are watching and learning from middle school girls, who are learning from high school girls, who are learning from college girls.”
That’s part of my point as well. While a latent sexuality begins to burgeon in puberty, and that is perfectly normal and natural, pre-pubescent children choosing a doll dressed in a sexy manner has nothing to do with natural sexuality. That is nurture.
But there is still too much being read into this. If you look at the dolls, the manner of clothing that most 6-9 year olds wear is closer to the sexy one than the non-sexy one. Aside from winter and year-round cold regions, parents usually dress both girls and boys in shorts, girls in skirts, sun-dresses and other types of light and easy clothing. Little girls are not dressed in jeans and longs sleeved shirts outside of winter.
Do the readers here consider children in bathing suits to be “sluttily” dressed?!
Do you really think this “study” applies to children in the Gobi desert, the Amazon, Siberia, etc?
This non-scientific study is clearly an example of nature over nurture.
Do you guys think that the introduction of 50 Shades and the likelihood that teenage girls are among the millions of readers, that men will have no choice but to take up BDSM activity in order to retain a girl?
Off topic.
The Patriactionary has a great post of old anti-suffragette cartoons and postcards here:
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2012/07/20/humour-interlude-offend-a-suffragette-edition-2/
You’ll see feminists running rampant over weak men. It’s disgusting, yet prescient.
Samuel:
Not BDSM. But a lot of men will probably resort to more hardcore a**hole dominance, on occasion. Not “smack the ho around” dominance, but more badboy jerk dominance.
Note that this isn’t a good foundation for a relationship, I think. A woman who needs this much dominance probably isn’t fit for marriage.
No, the ending of the book it the typical female-fantasy schlock. The books aren’t really about BDSM, and the ‘s/m’ parts are utterly vanilla, no dominance play beyond the typical college girl fuzzy handcuffs and some hitting and dom-talk. Absolutely nothing like what actual kink culture does.
This is aside from the horribly sappy ending of ‘love conquers all’ and SHE ends up being the dominant one in the relationship by the end. Twilight is similar in that the main character girl dominates both a vampire and a werewolf. Its female supremacist fantasies, which is what REALLY turns women on.
Or to phrase it in a way you and I will understand: In both books she is topping from the bottom.
well, if the girls are wanting to get the titillation and thrills from the adrenaline and endorphin release brought on by things like whips or spankings or sex toys, as portrayed in 50 Shades, they may be curious about the implements and implementation, and seek it out, no longer as content with the straight sex 2-position guys that aren’t into any kink.
Girls that top from the bottom might as well be an EAP with her beta schlub. That’s what it amounts to.
Thus why those books are so ridiculously popular. They are literally female porn. The billionaire ‘Mr.Big’ submitting himself to some random girl with a liberal arts degree because of da powah of dat pussy. Can the college girl crowd come up with ANY bigger fantasy?
Solomon, please google “sex week”. Kink, BDSM, etc are being taught on mainstream university campuses. Porn is seen as a valid career track. You’re behind the curve.
I’ll also add that BDSM themes are everywhere on mainstream, primetime TV shows today, from sit-coms to crime shows, either overtly or covertly.
We get it, media bad, capitalists bad….but sex sells BECAUSE of the sexual nature, not just because of slick adverts
Sexual nature in pre-pubescent children 6-9 years old?
—————————————————–
Yea the blog entry as about 6-9 year olds. My response was to you, and your comment deviated from 6-9 year olds OR YOU were assigning sexuality to 6-9 year olds. You cannot have it both ways
lozzozo
the other day i saw
a group of hookerz and stripperz
outside of a dance club
with protest signs
a sign said
“stop giving it up for free you hos!
andother sign said:
“you’re puttin us outta busisnezz hos! zzozlzozozo”
anotherz sign said:
“americanz womenz are crosisng da picketz linez!”
If you look at the dolls, the manner of clothing that most 6-9 year olds wear is closer to the sexy one than the non-sexy one.
For what it’s worth, the demon-possessed “prophet” Mohammed, married his wife Aisha when she was 6, and consummated when she was 9. Is this why liberals make common cause with Islam — because they’re both pedophilic? Damn them all to hell.
Wow Van that was pretty out of hand.
Wow Van that was pretty out of hand
It’s also historically accurate. Mohammed married Aisha at 6 and consummated when she was 9.
two failures… I give up.
Go to youtube, look for Ann Barnhardt’s channel, then go to “islamic sexuality”, part 4 of 4.
[D: Fixed.]
The feral female paradigm is spot-on.
@DC
I keep saying this. Not only are women as fallen as men, and as mired in Original Sin; arguably they are worse, based on scripture. The New Testament contains passages that warn against women being given power, precisely because they “transgressed first”. I am bewildered as to how modern Christian teachers ignore this and pedestalise women. Creatures lower in a hierarchy should clearly not be put on a pedestal.
This is only puzzling if you accept the premise of evolutionary psychology…which I don’t. The argument against religion–rather, against divine revelation–is that it’s they’re lies told by old men with big sticks and funny hats that they used to gain power over others, conceal their weaknesses, and explain their right to rule. Thereafter, each successive leader adopted the previous’ lies, adding on as they found necessary. This narrative is compelling to evolutionary psychologists (which must include every sort of evolutionist) because this is exactly the method they use to “construct” what is hidden in the mists of time. They make the same mistake that the authors of this “study” do.
This is why I like the noir genre so much. It’s the only one that–as a whole–allows for the truth about the depravity of the both sexes.
To the “Women broke it, women should fix it” crowd: there’s one problem with leaving it to the women to fix. They can’t. DC said that the New Testament (mostly St. Paul) warns against allowing women to lead because they sinned first. That’s not quite right. St. Paul says that women mustn’t lead because Eve (the archetypical woman) was deceived. This is important. It’s important because the problem with being deceived is you don’t know it. The solution to allow the deceived to correct the deceived is a total failure. Bad as Adam was, he chose evil. Which means he has the chance to choose good. Women have these choices too, but sooner or later, the irrationality comes, the hamster is in control, and there’s nothing she can do about it. Without a man around her to slap her, she’s lost. Adam’s sin–our own–is we too often give attention to the wrong cheeks.
Dalrock, what is the correct tags to use for block quotes? I can’t get either one to work properly.
[D: [blockquote] and (closing) [/blockquote] substituting “[” with the less than symbol and “]” with the greater than symbol (if I use the actual tag it won’t show as text).]
St Paul says that the woman transgressed and became a sinner. She was punished. God punishes justly, so although she was deceived, she also made a sinful choice. St Paul also states that man is the head of woman, who occupies a lower place in the hierarchy, and refers also to her secondary creation. He also tells women to ask their husbands to clarify spiritual questions for them.
Despite all this, incredibly, we have Christian pastors pedestalising women.
That was my point.
Yes, I think men should teach and correct women.
Thanks Dalrock. That’s the one I’ve been trying to use most. It seems I fat-finger it every time. I suppose it could be an issue with Chrome on Mac. We’re about to find out.
@DC
Yes, I didn’t mean to sound as if I’m giving women a pass. But it’s simply facts that:
1. Women are more susceptible to lies.
2. Women are going to be lied to more than men, because of 1. Look what female acquaintances tell each other; even the decent ones.
I should add that I am not a biblical literalist, and I am interested in evolutionary psychology. I believe the Genesis story and science are both revelatory.
I know.
Chachi, we covered this already. You want to go follow Satan, be my guest. Society has decided to follow Satan, that’s their choice, God gave them that choice. As for me and other Christian men and women on this blog and elsewhere in this world… go peddle your bullshit to those that like it. According to you, that group shouldn’t be too hard to find. Off you go now.
Feral women only resist BETA male authority, I think.
A little off topic, but I really wanted to link this, as I got a good laugh:
http://news.yahoo.com/chinas-unwanted-single-women-feel-pressure-061239813.html
The best party is the study of single Chinese Men. They’re a bit more perceptive than I suspected. I also loved the “I want a husband, but he needs to be better off than me.” I think Deti’s Hamsterlator would throw a torque converter on just the few quotes in this one.
Thanks, D.
As for the pedestalization of “sinless” women…. If women are morally and spiritually “superior” to men, then why does the Scripture mandate that only MEN be church leaders? Don’t these feminolators ever wonder about that?
….or should that be “gyneolators” (starting with a greek instead of a latin root?)
Regardless of age once she gets her menses shes not a child. Therefore it aint pedophilia. I thought you were smarter than that Van.
Joshua says: Regardless of age once she gets her menses shes not a child. Therefore it aint pedophilia. I thought you were smarter than that Van.
Joshua, the age of puberty has dropped recently due to changes in diet, etc. Back in Mohammed’s day there is NO WAY that his “wife” Aisha was sexually mature at age 9. NINE! A man who nails a 9 year old deserves to be shot. No discussion.
Then why would he wait till she was nine?
Talking of feral women, especially feminists …
Everyones heard of the feminist woman heathcote helping a muslim woman & getting charged for a hate crime …
What really happened, the feminist woman, assaulted a 6 month old pregnant woman, after refusing her help, she shoved a 6 month old muslim pregnant woman to the GROUND & called her husband a terrorist …
Which is WHY the muslim couple pressed charges in the first place
The media as usual is basically a cover up of what really happened
[D: Cropping the extended (copyrighted) quote and providing the link to the source instead.]
Oh btw for anyone who missed it, the reason the husband couldnt help with the groceries …
“the husband refused to help his wife because he was too busy taking care of their children.”
Notice the misandrist use of the word refuse … you cant actually refuse anything if youre too busy taking care of the children …
Cane Caldo wrote: To the “Women broke it, women should fix it” crowd: there’s one problem with leaving it to the women to fix. They can’t…St. Paul says that women mustn’t lead because Eve (the archetypical woman) was deceived…the problem with being deceived is you don’t know it. The solution to allow the deceived to correct the deceived is a total failure…sooner or later, the irrationality comes, the hamster is in control, and there’s nothing she can do about it. Without a man around her to slap her, she’s lost. Adam’s sin–our own–is we too often give attention to the wrong cheeks
YES! We can’t fix it. I tried to say something like this before, that women are deceived because they like being deceived, and want to continue being so because it is fun for a time. After it stops being fun, they find they are painted into a corner that they can’t get out of. Women are seriously stuck, even Christian women. The current narrative of what a woman’s life is supposed to look like is ubiquitous; a mother is considered suspect if she doesn’t want a prestigious university degree, good career, and plenty of exotic travel for her daughter. Try being a mother of daughters and saying to other women, “What I’d really like for my girls is to find good Christian husbands and marry young” and watch the room go so silent you could hear a pin drop. It violates the narrative. Women are painted into a corner here, and we can’t get out! There are like five of us who’ve come to our senses and are trying to yell warnings to other women, but they think we’ve lost our marbles. Either men are going to fix the situation or it simply won’t be fixed.
Either men are going to fix the situation or it simply won’t be fixed.
Men can’t fix it either. Any attempt to reform is met with complete opposition by 99% of women and most men (white knights, manginas) who are under their pussy power. Any time a man says something with common sense, women and their white knights start screaming “this is because you are a male chauvinist and you want women without rights”.
In America, women rule.because of sex and because of pedestalization. No measure can be passed with the opposition of women. Women are the ones who must change their attitude for the problem to be fixed.
As I have said here, women are not willing to give up their new privileges (vote, economic independence, hot sex with alphas) because they think they can have them along with their old privileges (being economically supported by a man, marriage, kids, white picket fence).
http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/05/23/kay%E2%80%99s-man-child-revisited/#comment-92075
The future will be this way: more and more single women, less and less help to single women (because public finances can’t afford it), poverty, a lot of spinsters, a lot of thugs and MGTOW, women writing articles whining because they don’t find a men. Misandry will get historical heights: men depicted in the media as a sex-crazed maniacs, selfish commitment-phobes who don’t do their duty to society (that is, to women).
This will go on for a while while society crumbles. 20 years? 60 years? Only God knows. Until women are fed up with the situation. I mean completely fed up. They are sick about it, they are desperate. They are willing to give up the new privileges to get the old privileges. Then, they will suddenly discover the attractive of traditionalism.
And this will fix the problem but the cost will be huge pain for millions of women. You know, women are slow learners. They need amount amounts of pains to kill the hamster for a while.
a lot of thugs and MGTOW
Men going the PUA route and the MGTOW route IS a way to fix this. A painful way, but a way nonetheless. For all the “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” tripe, we want men around, whether we will admit to it or not. Men are leaving of their own volition and in this way, things are starting to change.
it is my understanding that the Bible explicitly describes faults inherent in every person. There isn’t any mystery anymore and this fact requires the thinking individual to move on to improving and creating, not just glossing over it.
But such a truth will meet with massive opposition by those who are inherently shallow and self-centered.
As such, feminism and its feral folk is just another incarnation of an age-old struggle.
The solution, once the truth has come out, is to keep revealing the truth. For the alternative is to continue down the slippery slope of narcissism, greed etc etc.
The Truth will Set You Free
Thanks Dalrock, for speaking the Truth
and allowing the Truth
and helping
to Set us Free
🙂
Thanks Dalrock, for speaking the Truth
and allowing the Truth
and helping
to Set us Free
from da Butthext Matrix lxolzozlzolzozlzo
i can show you the way, neo, but you will have to walk it zlozlzlzozzlozlzlzo
ozlzlz the more you read me and roissy the mroe your life will improve as you come to see the fiat butthex matrix for what it is — you will see the green streams of fiat data (dripping with buttdouche fresh off the butthex presses) like the matrix but with a subltle difference as some of you wieinsteinas have already seen for urself lzozzll
at the ned of the matrix neo saw it as
1010101011110100101
1101001010100101010
1101010101011101001
0101010000010101111
0100101111111101010
1101010101001001001
1101001010101001010
1101001010100001010
0100101010010101010
and when you have walked the path you too will see the butthexing matrix for what it is and how the fed funded the desouling of womenz with massive amounts of douchcock frrom an early age in all tehir orfices and are acting through the soulles temptresses to seize your assetts now when a girl says, “what i really really want is a nice guy, i’m tired of the asswholes (lozlzl who got her younger hotter tighter)” instead of hearing what she says and then trying to be a nice guy you will hear the truth behind the butthexing matrix’s facade lzozlzl:
10101010010110101010101010
10101010101010101010010110
101010z01010z0101l01zzlzozll1
1o1o1o1o1ozozozo1o1o101011
1o1o1o1oozozzozozozozo01011
lozlzlzozlzozlozzlzozlzozlzozzoz1
1010i1o1o1want1010a01010001
douchebag10to butthex me0101
010and i want you 2 buy me100
01meals and a ring while i01011
0101give by butt & vagina01010
010away for free to butthexers1
100who tape it scretely lzozl100
zlzozllzlzlzozlzozzloozzllz and101
1010make my anus sore for010
1010days010101 101010101011
1010lolsolsoslslollzzlozlzzozlz010
0101pay 4 my meals0101001010
101010and1010maybe1010u1010
1001can1010touch1010my10dry
101001dried1010up110pussy100
101stds stds stds0101010101010
10101buy me 1010a ring1010101
1010for100the1010pussy1010i100
0101gave1010away1010for0101
1010free1010when1010it0was10
100younger1010hotter0110lozlz
lolzlztighter1010and010propose01
1010so1001i1010can0110rape10
1010your101010anus1010in0101
1010divorce01010court1010and01
10transfer010your0101assets1001
1010to1010bernanke1001and1010
1010the1010fiat1010buttheex1010
1001matrix01010lozlzlzlzlzlzzozllzzl
omglzozlzlzllzlzlzzzlzllzlzlzlzlzlzllzlzllz
10lzozllzlz0zzllllzllzllzlzz1ozozlzlzl0
010111010101010101101010101
the sublime act of butthex is a beuatiful metaphor for what the fed does to a currency and a country, which is why the neocon weekly standard celebrates butthexers–es[pecially those who taope it without the girkl’s conthent and profit off the act. lzozlzlzlzl!
[on the war that devastated the Real World]
Morpheus: We don’t know who butthexed first, us or them. But we do know it was them that videotaped it without our consent while scorching the sky wioth a long trail of butthex lies. At the time, they were dependent on butthex power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the common man’s collective anushole. lozzllzlzlzzl
Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading roissy & GBFM. You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
Neo: What is the butthex fiat Mathrix?
Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo, and it’s looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
[Neocon sees a black cat walk by them, and then a similar black cat walk by them just like the first one]
Neocon: Whoa. Déjà vu.
[Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neocon: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
Trinity: What did you see?
Cypher: What happened?
Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
Neocon: What is it?
Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthexMatrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer asscockig carousel in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl
lozlzlzlzlzl
Morpheus: The Fiat lozllolozllzzl butthex Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. lzozozozozl! But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, bloggers, teachers, betas, lawyers, herbs, carpenters, and neocon womenz writing for the weekly standard, repeating the fiat lies of secretive tapers of butthex without teh girls conthent lzozlzlzlzl. The very minds and anusholes of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that butthex system and that makes them our anus’s lozlzlzozzozozl enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unbuttplugged. And many of them are so inured to butthex, so hopelessly dependent on the system of secretive tapings of butthex without tehir conthent, that they will fight to protect it and reapet the lies of secretive tapers of butthex in teh pages of the weekly standard even though they seem to be nice neocon ladies.
[Neo’s eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress (woman as temptress in the heor’s journey myth) who was desouled via copious fiat-funded butthex from butthexers celerbated in teh pages of the weekly standard?
Neo: I was…
Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
[the desouled, massively-butthexed woman in the red dress is now a bestselling new york times author, pointing a cock at Neo’s ass; Neo ducks]
Morpheus: Freeze it.
[Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
Neo: This… this isn’t the butthex Matrix?
Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us lozlzlzlzlers, you are one of them butthexers.
lozlzlzl
i wanna start lzozlzlzl media where we have a character based on roissy who sees green streams of streaming data every time a bernankified chick opens her moutrh and throughout every episode all the herbs and betas pay for the meals of the chix roissy butthexes in the end due to his supreme knowelge of being THE ONE lzozlzlzllzzl
i would be more like one of those minor characters along for the ride in the mother ship stanidng off to the side going lzozlzz zlzozlzozlzozlz zlzozllzozlzlzlz and don’t gte me worng i would score with all the hotties but like roissy woudl get first pick for his lead dick and i’d get the next two as that’s only fair lzozlzlzlzllzlzllzl
involuntary childless spinsterhood is an effective fix. The good thing about that fix is the the intertia to keep it in place is misandry. As long as misandry is ever present men can learn and will learn to over come the blue pill natural betaness. When men reach a point of red pill beta civilization is saved. Women won’t think they are happy but so what. men need to worship god and not pussy. That pussy is not going any where ,faith. Adams original sin waas not eating the apple that was the act, his sin was listening to his wife and not listening to god. Mans worship of women through feminism and misandry to please women hasn’t done us any better. The results are what we have today.
A male birth control pill bails out a lot of institutions that have fallen for feminism and the state.
imnobody women don’t give anything unless it is in there own selfish interest. One thing I’m starting to notice is civilization has roles and duties and a kind of order. The society of men is to produce and contribute and the society of women seem to be to just minimize the damage.
Men have to be taught to not pedestalize women and women have to be taught to give a damn about some other than their own fulfullment.
@sunshinemary
The only way to fix it is to not try to fix it. Let me explain.
If men try to make women into submissive creatures, through either physical acts or language, the women and white knights will scream misogyny like its bloody murder. The authorities in place punish such activity. Men are ostracized or placed in cages for attempting change–and their attempts at change are cited as evidence that patriarchy and misogyny are real problems that need to be addressed by further pedestalizing and coddling women. Thus, attempts at change are counterproductive.
But you’re right, women can’t change anything either, for similar reasons. The forces of our inertia are too strong. Collective action won’t even work.
We’re on a railroad to destruction and the only thing to do is to embrace it. Let things continue on their current course. In a perverse way, not attempting change will achieve the necessary change. Let marriage crumble as an institution. Let women use contraception to rid their wombs of life; let them grow old without children, thinking this is a good decision. Let the gays raise children in a haphazard way, where the only daddy is government. In short, allow social liberalism to run its course, and allow for the inevitable collapse that will follow.
After the collapse, civilization will rebuild itself in the way it always has–on the backs of strong men who are nurtured by caring women.
This frightens you, does it? No wonder the women around you are out of control. Why are you afraid of feminists and white knights?
I have a feminist superior at work who is constantly calling me a pig, literally. She can’t help it: she loves me, and this is how she shows it. Years ago we had a conversation about our families and home lives, and she was “appalled” at my description of how the Caldo household ran. That is: what Cane says goes. Her household is run by her because her husband doesn’t have a well-paying job; his work record is spotty; it’s his second marriage (with kids from both)…She says he’s great. There are a lot of white knights and manginas in my department that she could work with, yet she requests me. Why is that?
Because I don’t care what she thinks, or says–and she knows this. She loves it. It’s the careerist version of “No. Please. Don’t. Stop.” In return, she recommends me to others, i.e., I get paid more. What’s more: I could have her body at any time I chose, and I’m not a terribly handsome man. Though I am tall; which helps set the frame, a bit. There’s another lesson here, for men with feminist wives: Don’t let her go to work. She might meet someone like me.
Very few men are individually punished for having the “wrong” views. Men are punished for not being up to snuff. So: Be up to snuff.
I should have been clear that no one is going to “fix it” completely. My meaning was local, not global. You can influence your surroundings.
“Very few men are individually punished for having the “wrong” views. Men are punished for not being up to snuff. So: Be up to snuff.”
lzlozlzlzol
Again we see William Bennet and Kay Hymowitz weighing in and telling men to “man up.”
If you just “man up,” and fund da sluts buttcocking both pre and post marriage, all will be good!
allow me to translate Cane Caldo for y’all heathensz zlozzlozlozlozlz
-1. butthext and deosul teh womenz of a generation
0. sit the little harlots in satanic church pews, and tell all the good men they must now man up and pay the bills and fund the future asscocking sesisons of all the harlots via child support and alimony
1. deconstruct the great books on univeristy campuses
2. tell men they need to man up
3. dumb down the entire schools system
4. tell men they need to man up
5. assrape men in divorce court
6. tell men they need to man up
7. send men to die on foreign shores in foreign neoocn wars
8. tell men they need to man up
9. drug boys with ritalin/adderoll for being boys
10. tell men they need to man up
11. encourage woem to giver thie aholes and ginaholes early and often to douchebags
12. tell men they need to man up
13. destroy the classical, heroic character in their neocon movies, replacing them with asscocking gay cowboys
14. tell men they need to man up
15. print money from thin air and inflate and dlate bubbes to seize a man’s home and property
16. tell men they need to man up
17. enocurage women to become fat, whiney bitches
18. tell men they need to man up
19. publish, promote, fund, and finance asscokers licke tucker max who film secrtive tap9ng of assockinhg session without the girl’s consent, tucker ma rhymes with goldam sax, repeating tucker’s lies that he is six fet tall inthe neocon weekly standadth .
20. tell men they need to man up
21. transofrm the church from an instititution where a man coul once go to meet a virginal, exalted wife, into a front for the divorce industry, where single mothers with three children from three asscockers go to rope in a betabmale to pay for the assocker’s spawn
22. tell men they need to man up
23. castigate, attack, and impugn men for acting like men
24. tell men they need to man up
25. transform the noble, exalted university into a nursery, ruled by neocon women exalting asscockers, asscokcing, and good grammar, exiling and deconstructing the great book and men, and rewading the servile future nannies of teh nanny state with fiat dollars delivered fresh from ben beranke’s helicopter
26. tell men they need to man up
27. remove all men from the publishing industry, so that priscialla painton of simon and schuster sodom and scheister can publish tucker max rhymes iwth godlman sax’s stories on how he asscoked a girl (somone’s future wife who will asscock her future huspband in divorce coutrt as revenge for having been assocked by a neocns) and taped it secrtly without her conthent lzozozlzoo. remove all men form the publishing industry and repalce deep, prodoufn real great books for men with twilight vampire asscocking female rape fanasty rape fanatsatsy “roamance” novels
28. tell men they need to man up
29. conceive of a hundred government programs to criminalzize men and force them o hand over their assetts to women
30. tell men they need to man up
31. financially incentivizee womem to file for divorce, promising them that their former husdband will have to pay for all their futrue assocking sessions, and that they get the kids/house/car/assetts
32. tell men they need to ma up
33. fill the law schools with fatm, embittered, burned-out, nasty (in looks an spirit) post-asscoked lawyeresses, an replace Moses’ and Zeus’s law with bernake’s banker laws whichexlats theft via the inflation tax
34. tell men they need to man up.
lzozoozozo
what aalalz am i mizssing here:???
feel free to addodoon ti oit! lzozlzl
Hot debate. What do you think?
Pingback: They Like Magic Mike, but It’s Not Their Fault! | Christian Men's Defense Network
extreme white knight betas like Cane Caldo are responsible for the decline and fall of the west.
lzozzozozzlolzlzloloz
what aalalz am i mizssing here:???
Context and nuance.
Manning-up doesn’t always mean more sacrifice. Sometimes it means this: http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Try not to debate definitions of trems with different context.
I hope you’re speaking to GBFM, because I didn’t bring the term manning-up into it. He did.
lzoozzlzo little cane caldo writes:
“Very few men are individually punished for having the “wrong” views. Men are punished for not being up to snuff. So: Be up to snuff.”
translation: “Men aren’t being legislated against and having their children and property taken from them because they are men, but because they are not man enough. Men aren’t being afforded an entire generation of buttcocked, assocked women because the the women were buttcocked and asscocked, but men are being called upon to mary and provide for buttcocked, asscocked women because they aren’t “up to snuff.” So, man up.
megabeta white knights like Cane Caldo are *exactly* why the west is declining.
they are simultaneously neutering men, allowing their women to be buttcocked, and then telling the men to man up, whereupon they buttrape the men in divorce court, just like they watched on and clapped tehir hands as the man’s future wife was buttcocked and desouled–a ceremony exalted and sanctified by most preachers these days.
lozlzozoz
@ Cano. You have the right to deal with your superior the way you see fit, but not to tell other men who have felt the brunt of them and their HR pitbulls’ wrath to follow them willingly into betahood.
The work environment you inhabit is likely in the minority, where you are able to joust with the careerbitch. In reality, most workplaces are under a shroud of threat and intimidation should anyone dare to speak contrary to PC ‘wisdom.’
@Cane Caldo
I think this is the key. Unfortunately this means that large numbers of men today will need to pass on marriage and fatherhood. Individual men can learn how to better spot the women who are worthy of marriage and be more attractive to her, lead in the marriage, etc. But many other men must by simple math do without. This last point is something we need to not gloss past. Something absolutely terrible has occurred. All we can do is try to manage the damage in our own lives and help others do the same. Even those who put the odds in their favor in selecting a wife and maintaining the frame of the head of the household aren’t guaranteed success. Husbands can do it all right but if the wife chooses not to submit and instead sells out her family for 30 pieces of silver he can’t stop her from doing so.
What I think both you and GBFM would agree on is No Rings for Sluts, whether they were buthexed (and secretly taped) with neocon fiat dollars or not.
The solution is relatively simple, but something which the Cane Caldo’s refuse to see!
Exalt in the Great Books and Classics! –In the Great Books for Men!
From Homer Cane Caldo would learn honor.
Caldo would learn not to sell out his fellow men while not only kneeling before a feminist farthead, but boasting about it.
But instead, like Achilles, or Moses, or Dante, or Jesus, or Socrates, Caldo would fight for the good and the true and the beautiful.
You’re all insane, goddamn insane. GBFM might be the only sane person in this whole despicable conversation.
“After the collapse, civilization will rebuild itself in the way it always has–on the backs of strong men who are nurtured by caring women.”
And the cycle repeats itself. This is why I’ve given up on the manosphere, men, misandry, and all the other shit and work EXCLUSIVELY on funding judicial reform groups: To protect you idiots from yourselves. As soon as pussy spreads her legs and says “take me back beta boy” you dogs will all slobber over yourselves running back into the chains.
Don’t you get it? THIS way is the better way. You want to be a slave? You want to carry the burden of the world on your back? You are a fool. A damn fool.
Fortunately for you I fund groups to protect you morons from yourselves.
Nothing changes. The turning of the breaking wheel is powered by a beta-male slave not the radical feminist. You will all sign right back up won’t you?
Men are hopeless. They’ll cut their brothers throat just for a sniff.
lzoozozlz
amen ybm.
never will tiny little men
like Cane Caldo
stand up to da publishing industry
that is promting publishing finanicincing
secrteiev taperz of butthext
and bondage porn sodomy female fntaises
and secrteiv tapersz of butthext without the girlrths conthent
but insted the little cane caldo
will gloat and boast
dat he gets along fine
with his fmeinisst feminist boss
and takes pride
that she demenas him by calling him a pig
and says, “hey guys just pretend the piss on you back is rain! it eases da pain!”
and da little can caldo
will tell the manosphere
that if they manned up,
like him
they too would enjoy their feminist bosses
demeaning them and attacking them
if only they all manned up like cane caldo
men could elarn to accept a genertaion
of assocked, embittered, entttled, desouled, eberankified woman
and pay for their their assockings
past, presnt, and future
as cane caldo
redfinies manhood
as paying funding the
past
present
and future asscockings
of one’s deosuled
embittered entiled brankified
wife
lzozozozoozzoz
ybm you have hit the wall. Cane is a guy that is surviving within the status quo. For a time it was that. Basicly it is how to give here what her feral ass wants and still pretend we are civilized. Screw that I’m for fixing it by having women suffer for generations by indifference. ( i’m talking siucides and women cutting babies out of pregnant women. The end will have women openly fighting to have the bitches stop fucking with men so men will love us and not just fuck us, birth rate so low schools start closing ) I’m past the stage of reason and discussion. Even Dalrock has changed his approached or more correctly as he has gained more insight rather than cling to a fixed agenda he has followed the truth. Cane is a blue piller at this time.
when they sentenced socrates to death
cane caldo was tehre
telling socrates to man up
when they crucified christ
cane caldo was there
telling jesus to man up
when they executed cato
can caldo was there
telling cato to man up
when they burned bruno at the stake
cane caldo was there
telling bruno to man up
when they persecuted the prophets
cane caldo was there
telling them they needed to man up
as cane caldo statted thusly to them all,
“where only you a man like me, who let their feminist boss call them a pig, then ye could have escaped persecution, like me.”
Ghosty there really is no easy solution to this; its either return to the old ways, or embrace this brave new world. Many women come to the blogs and say ‘poor widdle us we are infwerior pweze help us big stwong beta boy’ and guys just eat that shit up.
Men have been bred to embrace the ‘noble sacrifice’ and ‘bustin your ass for your women’ and ‘chivalry’ because a thinking slave has no use.
Guys here is a hard truth I learned last night. I’m young, not too young but young. I was at a backyard party with a few girls 16-17 years old with their 19-20 year old boyfriends. Who were these men? Drug dealers, the unemployed, no car, tattered clothes, ugly acne ridden faces, fat. You know what all these men have in common? They are EASILY MANIPULATED. A thinking man has no utility, he would think before marching off to war to protect ‘his women’.
These are men this girls give there virginity to, then come onto blogs telling you to man up. And you eat it up.
ybm,
“Don’t you get it? THIS way is the better way. You want to be a slave? You want to carry the burden of the world on your back? You are a fool. A damn fool.”
– Preach on brother! Men are finally free and they want to be bound up in chains.
– One thing still puzzles me though: Why did the women decide to free the slaves? Or is it that they didn’t mean to; as inobody says they thought they could keep both their old and new privileges?
Nas, you asked, “Why did the women decide to free the slaves? Or is it that they didn’t mean to; as inobody says they thought they could keep both their old and new privileges?”
Well for the bast 50 years, the decline of marriage was a huge profit center for the neoconcths.
Neocons always profit by debauching and debasing both the culture and the currency.
Via marriage, they lured beta boyz in for a corproate-state marriage contratc, designed to transfer assets from men to the fiat master bankerz lzozozzo
Then they deconstructed the marriage, while yet funding hollywood happy ending movies wherein men were to now accept assocked, bernankified, deosuled women into their homes and assets. the neoecncths sectrely taped the buttcocking of the owmenan’s asses in coolege s the womenz were deousled in the dorms and reporagmnnd in their femins8st studies classes to transfer welath from tehir future husnabdans to the bernake central bank cartle zlozzoz
But now, men are finally catchin onz!
Even men like Cane Caldo, who wren’t dealt a full deck, are glimpsing the Truth!
The neococnths ar etusly getting ready to leave america having bankrupt its ucrrency and culture, and will soon fly to china to do the same tehre zlozlzozozo
Nas,
Women thought we could have both. We are entitled to it, dontcha know.
Yes yes yes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jewish_feminists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_feminists
lzozozoozozozo
Stingray says:
July 21, 2012 at 1:56 pm
And you will, because men are too stupid to want anything for themselves. You’ve bred us that way.
“And you will, because men are too stupid to want anything for themselves. You’ve bred us that way.”
Yes–the very pinnacles of manhood–reason, logic, and wisdom–have been criminalized, deconstructed and debauched while soaring manhood and independence have been defined as diseases to be cured by aderoll and ritalin.
A man’s role now is to let his feminist boss call him a pig, while he goes forth and calls upon all his brothers to man up and find a feminist boss to kneel before and worship instead of Christ and Moses and Homer.
zlzoozozozozzoz
@ Dalrock,
I linked to your “Raising Feral Female” article via my Twitter.
This was a resultant conversation with a woman:
19 Jul Me ► “Given the choice, [women] will protect the young version of themselves instead of protecting their own young.” ◄► https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/raising-feral-females/
Her @ me ► “bad”? Bad is an extremely subjective term.
Me @ her ► Tell that to the guy that wrote it. See what he says.
Her @ me ► I read it, twice. I think his application of the term “bad” (as he applies it to behavior, etc) is a warning light.
Me @ her ► I did not say “read it”. I said “tell him”.
Her @ me ► I don’t know that I want to process more information coming from that particular viewpoint. It’s difficult to wash off.
Of course, I stopped the conversation there as it was already obvious she wasn’t reading what I was writing
No, we don’t end up with both privileges. Men (as a whole) are at least waking up to the fact that if women decide to act like men we shall be treated like them. Whether we want it all the time or not. The Costa Concordia cruise ship shows that.
You are arguing at the margins. ‘Women and Children first’ is an utterly anglo tradition that isn’t known anywhere else and was only applied in 2(3?) shipwrecks in all of human history. The real argument takes place in the areas of life expectancy, incarceration rates, workplace injury statistics, and wartime casualties. Making reference to an absurd, marginal non-tradition that was almost never practiced shows how much you still need to check your privileges.
Not that I expect you will.
All right. When women tend to think of privileges we have lost we think of chivalry. Think of the whining women in the news lately at the loss of this. I am not following this as I thought I was, so I ask you to please help me out? What are the old vs the new privileges as regards life expectancy, incarceration rates (I expect you mean women are not incarcerated for the same crime a man would commit), workplace injuries (women would be injured more or even cause injuries in jobs they have no place in?) wartime casualties (again, women having no place in war and dying and causing more deaths with their very presence)?
Well no, you’re actually overthinking it, which is the same problem men have. These are really simple things. The old privileges are essentially: Women expect men to work and die for them. The new privileges are that women can have sex and reproduce with unlimited men while this is going on.
-Women live longer than men (the symptom) The common response from women is “that’s nature”
It isn’t.
-Men are incarcerated at absurdly disproportionate amounts compared to women. Women’s response is “men are more violent”
Why? Because men are given no support structures and are expected to compete for any degree of comfort in their lives. If a man should seek comfort in his life he is relegated to the ‘genetically unfit’ and will not be granted reproduction.
– Men die and are injured in jobs at truly alarming percentages. Women say that is because those jobs require men to do them.
That is because men have been bred by women to do the legwork of society while they sat back and enjoyed whatever pursuit they enjoyed most. The slave is bred to work, whether by hand or by brain, to earn his pay. Otherwise women invoke the ‘genetic fitness’ canard and say he is not ‘fit’ because he would choose not to injure himself for women’s comfort.
– Men constitute the vast majority of wartime injuries such that statistics indicate as much as one in every FIVE men that have ever existed has died due to war and disease related to aggressive war.
Men have been forced through conscription, the white feather campaign, and any number of other techniques to be convinced to fight for ‘their women’. What they find is that if they lose, the men are butchered and the women simply spread their legs for the new invaders.
There is a dirty word that starts with P that unifies all of these items together. The only thing feminists differ from all other women in is that they are in the open about wanting to dump the patriarchal sexuality attitudes, but not the female privileges that come from patriarchy.
@ybm {July 21, 2012 at 3:08 pm}
Much of what you are saying is supported and echoed here:
http://www.therudeguy.com/?p=57
ybm,
What are your thoughts regarding those same things in a solid patriarchy?
What I just wrote got me completely attacked by the manosphere as ‘feminist’ ‘misandrist’ and ‘socialist’ to the point I only post on Dalrock and Blackpill with a new name.
Bingo. The bolded men are who I am talking to. It’s important to note that who those men are is not set in stone. Those who can: Better yourselves for your own sake.
To my detractors:
Or don’t. Have at greyghost’s and imnobody’s nihilism.
Let’s trace this “Cane is a Beta” logic:
1. Women want alphas, and will put up with chauvinism to get it
2. I tell you that women in my private and work life want me, regardless of my chauvinism
3. Lonely goons who choose names for themselves like “greyghost” call me the beta
Number 3 doesn’t quite follow does it? At the very least you’re forced to say that I can’t understand the plight of ordinary men because I must be a natural alpha (supposing what I’ve said is true). Offend away, but be logically consistent.
Stingray says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:18 pm
I don’t identify a difference between a soft patriarchy and a solid patriarchy, could you define the differences between the two? In my view, the only difference between a solid patriarchy and a soft one is no fault divorce and female promiscuity.
Been bred by women? That’s the same sort of irrational basis that the Stanton’s of the world use to stipulate that women are essentially born pure. Men were made to work. Period. We aren’t “bred” to be women’s slaves. The problem is not rejecting the idea that women should be free to be frivolous.
I think of a patriarchy in terms of (generally speaking) men being the bread winners and women supporting men in their earning. Divorce in extenuating circumstances only, female promiscuity is extensively shamed, etc.
Also, I do not understand how what you said could be seen as misandrist or socialist.
Hey Cane Caldo
if you’re such an alpha
why are you working for a feminist boss
and letting her demean you by calling you pig?
here’s a list of true alphas who did not work for femisn8st bosses
and let them demean them
by callin them
pigs
1. clint eastwood
2. chuck norris
3. tom brady
4. owen wilson
5. kid rock
6. eminem
7. fitty cent
8. christian bale
9. tom leykis
10. brad pitt
ar eyou saying dat you are more alpha then these menz because you work for a fmeinsit boss who you kneel before and let her caall you pig? lzozozolz
Cane Caldo says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:25 pm
You aren;t getting it. Men were bred to work by women. You can say its irrational and tell me I’m a feminist, I’ve heard it all before and I don’t fucking care. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and hypergamy is accepted nomenclature in most discussions. 1+1=2
1. Women are the gatekeepers of sex
1. Women want to attain the highest resourced male possible
2. The gates of sex only open to the highest resourced male.
Your utility is the only thing useful to a woman.
Argue against it if you like, that’s your business.
Stingray says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:26 pm
Yup, but statistics and studies time and time again show that women simply don’t fuck guys that aren’t higher status then they are. Being blessed with Italian blood and a rich family means I am able to enjoy the system as it is now, but do not for one single second say patriarchy is anything good. Men should not be forced to be injured and to die in wars for an idealized ‘women’ that only exists in their brains. Men have the right to comfort too, not only utility and work.
ybm,
I don’t disagree. I do however, disagree that men only go to war for an idealized woman. Some do, yes. But many go of their own volition.
Also, I agree with your thoughts on a right to comfort. The idea in a patriarchy is that there is a trade off. The man provides his utility and work while the woman provides comfort. If the man chooses this, it is a very workable option. That being said, I also understand MGTOW, especially today,
Stingray says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:44 pm
Its a process so I wouldn’t expect (nor want) you to immediately digest everything some random guy on the internet says and integrate it into your life, that is a recipe for a very very confusing life for you and everyone around you. We will have to leave it at the war point, my belief in the consistent life ethic is what influences my feelings on war. I am a pacifist.
ybm,
Please don’t take this harshly, but while I understand much of what you are saying, I disagree with portions of it (obviously). I am not, nor will I ever be, a pacifist. That being said, I wanted to further understand what you were saying as I clearly did not. Understanding it better I can say I agree with some of what you said, especially in the environment we find ourselves in today. Though, I do not wish to argue any of what we discussed, merely try to understand.
I’m saying our utility is the only thing useful to ANYONE, including ourselves. You seem to be upset about this, but it remains true that only useful things have utility. 1=1. You were made to useful, and I reject the idea of a right of comfort for anyone. To make it a right is to remove the pleasure of it, and invite some bureaucracy to regulate it.
This whole conversation strikes me similar to the dread of death. There comes a time when everyone realizes they’re going to die. There is no escape from it. Saying death is bad (and it is), and then deciding to spend every moment fending off death is not freedom from it, but slavery to it. You’re still going to die. Suicide has the same result. Freedom only comes once you accept your impending death, and then you pursue what you want anyways. It’s a paradox.
Easier said that done, sometimes.
[b] ybm said:
And the cycle repeats itself. This is why I’ve given up on the manosphere, men, misandry, and all the other shit and work EXCLUSIVELY on funding judicial reform groups: To protect you idiots from yourselves. As soon as pussy spreads her legs and says “take me back beta boy” you dogs will all slobber over yourselves running back into the chains.
Don’t you get it? THIS way is the better way. You want to be a slave? You want to carry the burden of the world on your back? You are a fool. A damn fool. [/b]
You’re making the same mistake that first-wave feminists made. They tried to convince women to abandon the power of their sexuality and to embrace equality on the same terms as men. What we’ve seen in the years since is that “equality” has become a buzzword; feminists want to be equal for the good things but retain the privileges their gender previously enjoyed. Women are not wired, evolutionarily speaking, to give up the power of the pussy. Even if it would be good for society for them to do so, they simply cannot do it.
In a similar way, men will not abandon the role of savior of women in the future–no matter the hand wringing, no matter how logical it seems to do so. Encouraging such behavior will only lead to a first-wave feminist type outcome.
IMO, we have to embrace what we evolved to be if we are to recreate a stable society. Men evolved to be protectors of women and we can’t run from that, there’s no escaping it. Women have a biological need for children and a hypergamous instinct, and feminists are learning that they can’t run from those instincts either.
Arguing that we all should embrace this brave new world, that we should screw without emotion and refuse to do anything for women is to do exactly what the first wave feminists tried and failed to do. We should learn from their history.
Cane Caldo says:
July 21, 2012 at 3:59 pm
I reject the idea of a right of comfort for anyone.
You would accuse me of being upset, as if the rights of men were not worthy of emotion. You are wrong, it is you who are upset; to be a person so lacking in self-esteem that he can only define himself on the basis of the utility to others is a pitiful existence. To be only capable of defining oneself externally is a hollow life to live. To accuse those who would seek a life of pursuits of enjoyment, pleasure, and comfort as decadent is the very male slave mentality that I rail against.
The only thing that keeps me contributing to the social programs I do is the hope that one day, men like you will be the minority.
I think this is the price we pay for dominance, more men die, more men become rich, more men fail, because men are supposed to be tested. And we have in a sense greater genetical stress on us than women. All women have to do is breed and look good. Men will marry awful women if they look good, and they are going to compete with other men within their territory usually so they can come off with a pussy prize. In a way all the problems argued here comes from the fact men assess women poorly.
willis says:
July 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm
You are arguing against a feminist straw-man as countless other manosphere commentators have done because I agree with every single thing you wrote save for “IMO, we have to embrace what we evolved to be if we are to recreate a stable society. Men evolved to be protectors of women and we can’t run from that, there’s no escaping it. ”
Mankind is worthy of more than utility. As I posted above, hope is the only thing that keeps me from abandoning the blogs and the social programs I support entirely. You may be so deep in the darkness that you have slipped into nihilism.
I have not.
ybm said:
“Mankind is worthy of more than utility.”
You’ll have to explain this. Doesn’t make sense to me, unless you are saying that men have inherent rights by virtue of being men–that is, that men are like women and are special creatures.
If that’s your argument–that men are just as special and deserving of “rights” as women claim to be–then I will double down on my point that you are making the same mistake as the feminists made. You presumably want equality for men in the “rights” department, the area where women get special treatment, but want women to give men the privilege and respect that all men want and need. Just as the feminists want equality for women in politics and the workplace, but would like to retain the special rights of their gender in other places.
You should reconsider your views, for they are mistaken in the same way as the feminists.
willis says:
July 21, 2012 at 4:29 pm
ahahaha I’m getting deja vu. Call me a feminist again, I don’t care. there is no common ground to reach on someone who would vomit that out even after I said I have been called a feminist a thousand times before and I don’t fucking care.
I am leaving this conversation now as there is nothing left to be debated after the feminist canard appears, similar to Goodwin’s law for me.
I simply close by saying that I guess the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen was written for no reason at all.
I am not calling you a feminist–your views are diametrically opposed to theirs. I am saying that the mistake you are making is the same one that the feminists made. You seek to obtain the benefits evolutionarily bestowed on the opposite gender for yourself while at the same time retaining the benefits evolutionarily due your own gender.
So saith the serpent.
Interesting that you would reference a document that at the heart of one of the more infamous horrors of history. This way lie guillotines.
hey dalrock
a lot of my comments aren’t being set free
is there a reason for this?
please do let me know what i must do so as to be treated equally as others.
for are we all not equal in jesus’s eyes, endowed by our creator with the same natural rights?
if there is some reason why you consider me a lesser man, please do let me know! i’ll be happy to tell god all about it! 🙂
thanks! lzozozlzoz
[D: You have a tendency to overwhelm any site you comment on. Also, while I appreciate the method to your madness there is a limit to how many graphic references to buthex I’m willing to expose my readers to. If you can dial it back a bit I would appreciate it.
lzozozlzoz]
The kids were given just 2 options; a summer outfit and as someone else said, a winter outfit. Mapping a sinister adult sexual agenda onto the minds 6-9 year old children is sinister in itself. Like someone else said, these are pre-pubescent kids with no stirrings of sexuality in their physiology yet. If you want to question the motives of sexually mature females, be my guest, but something is really off when you attribute them to small children.
“If so, I would say they should use the word “slutty” instead of sexy, since the sexy doll is dressed like a hooker.”
If that girl is dressed lke a hooker, then the downtown area in my town is litterally crawling with prostitutes between 16 and 26. Skirts that short are the norm.
@Strawberry – girls definitely have the desire to be noticed by boys and the ability to gain attention with expressions of a sexual nature as young as seven. It must be hard wired or something, even though they don’t understand it.
Having said that, I always questions studies like this where children are asked to choose between two preselected people. I find them to be generally soaked in an agenda with the conclusions drawn up ahead of time. I remember the one where black children were shown pictures of white and black children and asked questions like, “which one is dirty”. Children are too young to understand that they can say “not enough information, they’re probably the same. They also pick up on the interviewer’s expectations and choose accordingly. Of all the sociological tests, I find this method to be the most manipulative.
Indeed, Strawberry. I’m actually very impressed with the conduct of a typical 6-9yo. Sure there is some immaturity, screaming about bedtimes or whatever, but they seem to have a good outlook on life and respond very well to anyone who treats them seriously and cordially.
But puberty is a disaster. The boys have not done so badly, going to the usual adjustment to a more competitive atmosphere, and tending to come out as better citizens (except not as well educated as in the past). The girls, yikes, have not done as well with the change in our culture. Puberty for them now means that instead of defiance over bedtimes, they have defiance over tattoos. And puberty makes their taste in males go into the crapper.
“@Strawberry – girls definitely have the desire to be noticed by boys and the ability to gain attention with expressions of a sexual nature as young as seven. It must be hard wired or something, even though they don’t understand it.”
You’re projecting. Toddlers “masturbate” and it has nothing to do with sexuality. Small children develop affections for and crushes on each other. This is not sexual. The comments here are reading a sinister sexual agenda into non peer-reviewed, non double-blind, unscientific “study” where children are given a choice between a summer outfit and a winter outfit. Its not the little girls in this ”study” who are the sinister ones. No wonder we parents today are so cautious about who we let our kids say hello to! I certainly don’t need any adult taking their relationship failures out on, and projecting their jaded attitudes onto my kids! That’s creepy as hell.
As much as anything, technology and wealth broke the system. We can “afford” the costs of feminist silliness. That is, we can afford it until we can’t. By then it may be too late.
“Puberty for them now means that instead of defiance over bedtimes, they have defiance over tattoos.”
Defiance over tattoos? These days I see parents and kids getting tattoos together! In fact today while out I saw a 3 generational family, grandparents, parents and teen kids, all with tattoos! I think this tattoo craze is harkening back to tribal days when group identification and heritage was past down generationally. The US is not exactly known for “culture” and despite our efforts to propagate the non-necessity of it, most people do crave to be cultured in some way and also crave to belong to a group/tribe and have a symbol of that. We thought we were becoming more civilized by stripping ourselves of myths, symbols and all that but its the opposite.
” girls definitely have the desire to be noticed by boys and the ability to gain attention with expressions of a sexual nature as young as seven. It must be hard wired or something, even though they don’t understand it.”
Reminds me with my little boy who is not even 5 yet and the 6 year old girl down the block who he “play dates” with every weekend. His uncle was teasing him about his “little girlfriend”. Uh, no, they are friends, play mates, don’t project your fantasies of having a girlfriend onto my innocent son, thankyou very much. One can say its “harmless teasing” but its not. Its an example of how we sexualise everything in this society, even 4 year olds who just want to play with their friends, and I find it disgusting. He will have plenty of time when he’s grown to have “girlfriends”. Let him be an innocent child for a few years for god sake. Honestly some adults make me sick.
thanksx dalrock! 🙂
yah i know der are not enough electrons let alone hard drive space to conatain all da preachings and teahcings of da gbfm 🙂
you kindly write:
[D: You have a tendency to overwhelm any site you comment on. Also, while I appreciate the method to your madness there is a limit to how many graphic references to buthex I’m willing to expose my readers to. If you can dial it back a bit I would appreciate it. lzozozlzoz]
yah i know i knowz i know lzozozoz
the modern church present church also wants to limit the number of times dat judgment is passed on buthext and sluts and slutty fornictorz and classical exalted jufdgementz ad mentionsz of sodomy
and so, instead of doing da job of da classic exalted prophetz
da church spearheads da declinez lzozozoo
but yah it is a fine line to walk between skirting da issue and flallllingz in lzozlzozo
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You: 7-22-12: Holmes Killer Edition | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
Now this is interesting. Children raised by single dads do better in 26 different areas of measurement than kids raised by single moms, and one of those areas is empathy, tradtionally thought of as more present in females than males. “the more contact a child has with her or his father, the more likely that child is to be empathetic”…. “empathy does not create empathy, it turns out that boundary enforcement is more likely to force the child to think of somebody else’s needs before their own” and more!
(my question: is it possible that single dads are less likely to date while they are raising their children and thus not only are able to spend more time and invest all their emotional focus on their kids, but provide them with a chaste example as well, and that is one of the reasons they kids do better with them than with single moms?)
A key component of empathy is kindness.
Zeus–the patriarchal Greek god–was the god of kindness towards strangers and beggars.
2800 years ago Homer noticed that women are oft vain, self-serving bitches.
Indeed, the very Trojan War was caused by Helen running off with another man–a playboy PUA–after her starter husband. And the only reason she ran off with Paris was that Paris accepted her as a bribe from Aphrodite for choosing Aphrodite in a beauty contest between the goddesses. Yes, Homer noticed that the highest form of the archetypal woman–the goddess–was mostly concerned with beauty and vanity. While it was Zeus who looked after the beggar and stranger.
So you can see why the banksters deocnsturcucted and debauched da GREAT BOOKS 4 MENZ zlzoozzozzlo as da TRUTH of WOMANZ is exposed.
(In light of the large female Christian audience of this blog, this post was respectfully created without the use of the word butthext. Abortion is OK of hundreds of thousands of evangelical and born-again Christians, but the site of the word butthext is an abomination in the eyes of our Lord and Saviou Jesus Christ: “Christian Women Having Abortions
by Heather Koerner on 01/24/2008 at 6:36 AM
Yesterday, on the 35th anniversary of Roe v. Wade, I read a study by the Alan Guttmacher Institute reporting that one in five women having abortions claim to be born again or Evangelical Christians.
If that’s correct, that would man that this last year over two hundred thousand of our Christian sisters had an abortion. Even if the number were half that, that is still a staggering number of women in crisis. It made me think, what must it be like to hear a celebration of the Sanctity of Human Life knowing that you had an abortion? All I can imagine is that it must be extraordinarily painful.”) –http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/01/christian-women.html
Yes, and what about the pain for the murdered fetus? Oh yah dat does not matter lzozozozoz
Also, if dey are aborting, dey must be fornicatingz.so maybe instead of forcincicating in da ginahole dey should forinicate in da buttholexz? dat we dey can sin forincate and sodomy without sin murder lolzozozoz)
“women in crisis”
Nice euphemism.
@Cane
greyghost that fuckin lonely goon is married with 3 children. Im not here to survive i’m here to find a way to change western culture in general. I have two daughters oldest 11.5 years. If I am successful my little girls may die old spinsters. Childless and never married Or they may choose to be pleasant and appreciative be young brides to a young groom and work together to build a future. All done out of wicked selfishness because of what that asshole daddy did to the world. What more could a father ask for for his daughters
GBFM
Empathy is a natural characteristic for a beta type male. What ybm needs to understand is that is normal for a beta type and is why she seems frustrated at how men always fall for the pussy. That same nice guy drive can be used to change the culture. That same beta that pedistalises the pussy for the good of the society can with the red pill kick that pussies ass for the good of society.
Also a lot of the talk about men being utilities is a well a ,,,,,,,,,no shit. That is is just plain biblical one of the first things god told adam after stepping on his crank was that he was to toil to get the dirt to bare fruit. ( for now on you’re working) I may not have got it quoted exactly right but I think you get the picture.
@Cane Caldo
Individual men can learn how to better spot the women who are worthy of marriage and be more attractive to her, lead in the marriage, etc.
Well, I did this. I live outside the toxict Western civilization and there are many women worthy of commitment here. I’m in a LTR with one of them for the last 15 months and I’m very happy. No need to game her every day to have her loyalty. No insane expectations. Only peace and love.
This does not mean that I like to think about the toxic relationship between men and women in America. It is a fascinating topic for analysis and a good opportunity to practice my English.
Or don’t. Have at greyghost’s and imnobody’s nihilism.
Well, I don’t know what you mean by nihilism. But the dictionary says:
1. total rejection of established laws and institutions.
2. anarchy, terrorism, or other revolutionary activity.
3. total and absolute destructiveness, especially toward the world at large and including oneself: the power-mad nihilism that marked Hitler’s last years.
4. Philosophy . an extreme form of skepticism: the denial of all real existence or the possibility of an objective basis for truth. nothingness or nonexistence.
I don’t think it applies to me. I believe in truth, I believe in God, I’m not an anarchist or a terrorist. I have a good job and a good woman. I pay my taxes and I am a good citizen. Nothing of this is nihilism. Unless you only wanted to use some shaming language on me.
If by nihilism you mean “rejecting toxic American women”, I’m very nihilistic. If by nihilism you mean “seeing the reality the way it is”, I’m very nihilistic. But your definition of nihilism is different from the one that the rest of the world uses.
I’m catching up with the comments.
@Cane Caldo
Any time a man says something with common sense, women and their white knights start screaming “this is because you are a male chauvinist and you want women without rights”.
This frightens you, does it? No wonder the women around you are out of control. Why are you afraid of feminists and white knights?
One. I am not frightened at all. I only say that men changing the current situation in America ON A MACRO LEVEL is not a feasible strategy. Feminists and white knights rule the political sphere and mass media. They won’t tolerate changing the law to accomodate manosphere’s grievances.
Two. You lack any intellectual rigor. You don’t know me at all. You imagine things and tell me how my life is. Believe me, Cane Caldo, you don’t know how my life is. I don’t have any problem with feminists. I don’t live in a feminist society. And I use manosphere’s arguments in my everyday’s life. I have had no problem with a women because of that. Many women agree. Some of them disagree with respect. You only have to be polite.
Three. When does this conversation has become a conversation about me (or about you having a feminist calling you a pig)? We are talking about men and women in America. IN GENERAL. Believe me, Cane Caldo, I don’t give a sh***t about your life and I don’t know why you give a sh**t about mine. Instead of saying if my arguments are right or wrong and explaining why (I could very well be wrong), you recur to telling me I’m a nihilistic, I’m frightened and to telling me how my life is and how my feelings are. Are you unable to have an intellectual conversation between grown-ups, instead of focusing about me and making veiled “ad-hominem” attacks.
When the wise man points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger (Confucius)
Four men used their bodies as human shields to save women in the Batman tragedy. Zero women used their bodies to save men:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/aurora-shooting-died-bullets-sweeties-article-1.1119395
It seems that feminism has failed to provide women equal opportunities, but only a lot of money and lotsas cockas from douchebagz and alimobniez and lotsa chcild supportz.
GBFGM: You are correct. What has been less reported is the woman who dumped her own four month baby in the floor while running to save her own worthless carcass. I’m sure you can probably guess how she had her soul shaved off piece by piece to the point she abandoned her own child.
greyghost writes:
“GBFM
Empathy is a natural characteristic for a beta type male. ”
See this is what the Feminists and Bankers Want You to Believe, as they define alpha as beta and beta as alpha.
All the great heroes from Clint Eastwood’s Man With no Name to John Wayne were marked by the same empathy for the innocent and the downtrodden that were Odysseus, Aeneas, Moses, and Jesus.
The banker elite deconstructed the classic clint eastwoodian western, exalted buttcocking cownboyz in brokeback mountain, and the neocon weekly standardth hails butthexter and secrteiev taper of butthext tucker max rhymes with goldman sax as a successful hero, while ignoring those true heroes who die on foreign shores in their foreign fiat wars.
Empathy, nobility, charity, goodness, cheerfulness, honor, duty, piety–all these are alpha traits.
In Virgil’s Aeneid, Aeneas was heralded as the “Pius Aeneas.”
When his Troy burned, Aeneas carried his elderly father upon his back to safety, along with the statues representing his gods. Aeneas had empathy for his elderly father.
greyghost — sorry the bankers and feminists got to you and deconstructed and debauched your soul, possibly through your buttholoiol even as does tehir favorite hero tucker max whymes with goldman sax lzozlzolzozlzooz
GBFM
You are using a different definition of alpha than I am. Clint Eastwood character is a masculine man higher beta type. An alpha in the sexual since are guys woman what to fuck thats it. Those guys tend to be rather worth less for much else. Tiger woods is an example of a beta man that is or was thought to be alpha. The tell is that alphas tend not to concern thems with anything beyond themselves. the primative psychy of the female sees that as strength (just a guess) but it does have the effect of a good panty remover. (boones farm wine) Empathy and concern for others is a male trait. That trait is what makes it possible for men to build civilization. It also makes for a blue pill or less masculine man very susceptible to duped into feminism. A mangina /white knight or just plan nice guy is destroying the very civilization he thinks he is fairly maintaining as a productive member. Divorce trauma force feeding of the red pill beta type will try and save society and other men. That is where I think the concept of MGTOW comes from. The whole manosphere thing in general. Still beta men building a sustainable civilization.
Look at it like this a beta man or preacher with the red pill that understands “game” (female psychology) he chooses a leadership role and as a beta type ( a builder and maintainer of civilized society) He uses red pill bases of action he will look very masculine and alpha. Blue pill thinking and action is tradition with out knowing why. Traditions and culture are just short cuts so that each individual doesn’t have to consciously think about every matter and to form a community order of expectation. cultural leaders try to set the standards, other influences are the environment,and incorperations of other traditions. I see myself as attempting to red pill the baseline for western culture. The key to a powerful and strong tradition is to have tradition that will amplify nature. A woman will wickedly selfishly behave in a kind and pleasant way with simulated empathy if it is in her best interest. A red pill beta man can due that.
greyghost writes,
“You are using a different definition of alpha than I am. Clint Eastwood character is a masculine man higher beta type.”
yes–clint eastwood is a beta. the buttfucker tucker max is an alpha, accoring to you lzozozozz. yes no woman ever wanted to have sex with clint eastwood because he is too beta. they all want tucker max rhymes iwth goldman sax because teh noeocnth weekly standardth repeats his lies about his height in their pages.
hey greyghost–how did you become so bernankified? raised by a single mother? did they drug you up on ritalin and adderoll and dumb you down in the public schools? someone touch yur buttholio during a ts a pat-down? lzozozloz
What the hell is bernankified? BTW the manosphere does need to get the definition of alpha and the context cleared up.
Do I seem dumbed down? You have to have a sense of humor to exchange commets wth GBFM and the thick skin and selective short memory of a defensive back.
What has been less reported is the woman who dumped her own four month baby in the floor while running to save her own worthless carcass.
It all connects. If you would take an infant to a midnight showing, then you are a bad mother. Her subsequent actions confirm this.
alpha = exalted noble honor courage compassion empathy manly turth beauty virtus honoris bellus cheerful thrifty brave clean reverent
beta = butthexting peacocking ebrankified deceptive bitchy whiney moany assholeish degraded debuached bernakiffied butthetxing
what the fmeinist movement has done, and what the manosphere has playedinto, is teh iversion of beta and alpha.
because most women naturally love beta qualities–da butthexters and liars and assholes and peackcocoking furry hat weaarers, most men aspire to be betas
left to their own devices, women will breed honor and integrity right out of humanity, as they seek out the buttcocking beta spermaozonasa, instead of the noble, exalted man
the ancients recognized this and built civilization around many men malnly men noblitllity honor truth and beuaty
the bankerz, who profit vai the enslavement of men to debt and debauchery, funded teh fmeienist moevement to docnstruct the greta books and classicsz anddetsory teh greta books for menz
and so you get greyghost who knows not his true ftaherz
lzozlzozolzlzlzzo
Pingback: If we were as foolish about male sexuality as we are about female sexuality. | Dalrock
@okrahead
I’m not sure how many babies were in the theater and left on the floor, but this story makes it sound like it was the father and not the mother who left the baby on the floor and then made his way outside, and the mother picked the baby up and carried him out. It also sounds like he drove away (perhaps home?) and then had to drive back to pick them up:
because most women naturally love beta qualities–da butthexters and liars and assholes and peackcocoking furry hat weaarers, most men aspire to be betas
That is not a beta. You just described a thug. The behavior does in a lot of women trigger the same gina tingle as an alpha. Both have the same characteristics of being guilt free and my guess is that gives an impression of strength and power or confidence is a better word.
GBFM I think you are intentionally messing with me. And messing with everybody else by intentionally jacking with the terms. The good thing is this is not an e mail exchange and others may get some ideas on the subject and get an understanding of the arguements in the manosphere and why things get bogged down.
To on lookers , Notice how my definition is not like his that’s fine because that is the topic of the exchange. But see how he says those mean and hurtful things to me Ha ha ha (lzozlolzzlolzzl) Dalrock must be out with the family to allow such thing. All kidding aside it is something the manosphere needs to define to reduce confusion and to assist in my quest to find my father who ever he is lzzolzzlalzzolzzo
GBFM,
God Bless you sir. I’ve been trying to say that about alphas around for some time now. Sometimes it is well received, but most often not. Though, I know that is doesn’t help coming from a woman. It seems to slowly be catching, though.
Stingray
If the example GBFM gave as alpha are the characteristics you find tingling then I’ll take it. If your personal definition of alpha male is a man you find tingling the definition that GBFM posted is a masculine beta, red pill father type. Good to know a woman has a positive view of a man like that. Most guys like that get the cops called on them.
I have to go to work but this would be a great subject to discuss. BTW do you know what bernankified is?
Ah, great, looks like I got it backwards…. The young thug did indeed ditch his four month old son in the floor and run to save his own skin. Words fail me.
Holy shit if anything could show you just how absurd the alpha/beta discussion is among the blogs its this weak-ass discussion.
@ybm …
‘Holy shit if anything could show you just how absurd the alpha/beta discussion is among the blogs its this weak-ass discussion.’
HA! Couldn’t agree more!
greyghost,
The virtues that GBFM describes as alpha, are not beta characteristics, though many AFC’s (Average Frustrated Chump per Rollo Tomassi) would extol them. Alpha or beta could have these traits. What stands the alpha apart from the beta exhibiting these same virtues is the level of manliness he exhibits as well. I guarantee that any strong, unbending man who portrays all the traits GBFM wrote, he would not have the cops called on him.
Bernankified. What I am pretty sure GBFM is talking about here is buying into this idea of alpha (or any idea, really) that is given to us by the government (femininism). It is a play on Ben Bernanke. There is not just one Red Pill in this world to swallow. I have discovered that there are several.
“I’m not sure how many babies were in the theater and left on the floor, but this story makes it sound like it was the father and not the mother who left the baby on the floor and then made his way outside, and the mother picked the baby up and carried him out. It also sounds like he drove away (perhaps home?) and then had to drive back to pick them up:
“It just felt like the worst thing ever because my son’s still in there,” he told ABC News. “My girlfriend is still in there. I’m out here. Who leaves their child there?””
I wouldn’t make too much out of this, regardless if it was the father or mother who dropped the baby. The people in this situation were under high stress and impulsiveness kicked in, survival mechanism, like when the doctor hits you on your knee and by unconscious impulse your leg automatically reflexes.
It does not speak to whether the person who dropped their infant is otherwise a good parent or not under normal conditions.
Dalrock, I just read the original research paper. I think much of your displeasure with the article is misplaced. For example, when you say,
I think you’re creating a false dichotomy. It’s a simply no longer the case that current culture is independent of feminism. Rather, the opposite is the case: Feminist thought–including the normalization of single motherhood, slutiness, and so-called sex-positive empowerment–has now completely saturated our culture and the media. This is what Starr and Ferguson actually demonstrate.
One might gripe that these authors don’t draw the connection to these feminist-inspired antecedents (which is outside of the range of their methodology and would be rejected as speculation). Likewise, one might fault the paper for omitting the role of fathers (which would require a completely different study design). But I can find fewer more solid indictments against young girls’ patterning after their vain and feminist-inspired mothers than the findings found in this paper. It’s this particular finding (media consumption * maternal self-objectification) that is the key result in the paper. Daughters of mothers who were not as self-absorbed were not affected by the negative media messages. Mothers can intervene and prevent their daughters’ internalization of feminist-inspired slut principles.
Back from work and the subject has died
@koevoet,
GKChesterson, I think you are on the right track, though your view of the Manichaean heresy is a bit off. I haven’t really seen anyone on here I’d describe as ‘Manichaean’ using the term either as Theophylact did (creation by an evil God) or the more Zoroastrian dualistic mindset.
Manichianism doesn’t require an evil God. It only requires that evil exist proper (which in some ways is the same as having an evil God).
@greyghost,
Had never seen that one. Video production is awful. But thanks for adding more evidence to the claim.
@Dalrock,
on assertions…
I may miss it here as this thread is already old, but which assertion? That the above is Manichean? If so it is because we lose track of the goal and it exhausts evil. I don’t see you making the mistake, but what BSkillet wrote is wrong. It also opens us up to the claim that we just hate women. Instead, women are good but exhibiting corrupt behaviors that need correction.
And below is why…
@Empath,
The whole frame is simple once you realize these proclivities exist in everyone and, perhaps an even harder sale these days, that the proclivities generally differ in men and women in terms of which is predominant in which gender, not that everyone does not have them all in some degree.
I’m confused as to where I disagreed that there were general proclivities and that they differed by gender. I challenge you to find where I said that.
The issue is that mens proclivities are acknowledged and womens are not….and thats why the claim that women are innately good is BS. Its suggestive of an absence of proclivity.
No. No it doesn’t. It doesn’t anymore than saying men are innately good, as Christians have done for millennia, when men do bad things.
Anyway regardless if you agree on the specifics of the proclivities, since the proclivities are innate it must be qualified when saying women are innately good.
Again no. What was said waaaaaaaaay up above is that, and I quote, “Stanton is of course simply regurgitating the tired old line of feminism that women are innately good,” to which I responded, “they are.” This is not a discussion of proclivities it is a discussion of being. If you are discussing proclivities go right on ahead. However, if you make claims as to the nature of women being innately evil then I will raise issues with that because it is theologically unsound.
Try selling the idea that men as a gender are innately good, in fact I’d imagine that under a different context, and without foreshadow of what I’m getting at, you would react agreeably to an assertion that men are not innately good because you may magnify the proclivity of men.>
Given that I said men were innately good and that I have never said the above you would be dead wrong. Given that I’ve argued on the historic belief in the understanding of the Fall I can’t even understand how you would make that fantastic and faulty leap of logic.
@Dalrock,
<iTake a young boy and a young girl (in separate unsupervised environments) and provide access to both male and female forms of porn. The boy will tend to pick up the Playboy and the girl 50 shades of grey, Sex and The City, EPL, etc. The difference is very few are foolish enough to assume that the boy only likes looking at naked pictures of beautiful women because the culture pushed him to.
Indeed. We’ve lost the idea that correction is loving except amongst men. Which is sad really.
@Cane,
To the “Women broke it, women should fix it” crowd: there’s one problem with leaving it to the women to fix. They can’t. DC said that the New Testament (mostly St. Paul) warns against allowing women to lead because they sinned first. That’s not quite right. St. Paul says that women mustn’t lead because Eve (the archetypical woman) was deceived. This is important.
Correct. Not even men can fix it as we are also fallen, but we can hold the line better as we’re further up in the order.
@GKC
To me:
And to Empath:
Empath is free to correct me, but I think we are both calling you out on the same thing. Bskillet quoted Glenn Stanton (you can see the larger quote here<.htma>), and you said Bskillet was wrong and Stanton right. I’m guessing you don’t know what Stanton really said, because it is absurd and goes against your more recent comments. This is where I challenged you to back up your assertion (and where I believe Empath did as well).
Edit: I see that you commented on the original post where the Stanton quote was explained in detail, so now I’m confused. Did you not recall what Stanton had written? Or are you really arguing that Stanton has this right?
” As you read through the qualities described below, please keep in mind that much of this is innate, but because our culture seems to fight so hard to suppress certain natural tendencies, it’s our privilege and responsibility as parents to watch out for opportunities to nurture and guide in these areas.”
I agree with Stanton that modern mainstream American culture does try to suppress good qualities in people at a very young age, both male and female. Turn on the TV. You don’t even need to suffer through a stupid TV show, just watch a few commercials.
“Stanton is of course simply regurgitating the tired old line of feminism that women are innately good, and therefore should not be constrained in anything.”
I’m of the opinion that humans are innately good. Observe babies and toddlers. They yearn to love and be loved and are happy and kind. Then they get to the age where media can impact them, as well as the stupid adult behavior they observe, often their parents, and its all down hill from there.
He’s right that parents need to nurture the goodness in their children as they grow. But for that to happen the parents themselves have to nurture goodness in themselves first.
“Take a young boy and a young girl (in separate unsupervised environments) and provide access to both male and female forms of porn. The boy will tend to pick up the Playboy and the girl 50 shades of grey, Sex and The City, EPL, etc.”
If porn were only as innocent as Playboy and SATC today! Really you have no idea what kids are exposed to on the internet, often for free, and frankly, you don’t want to know.
“The difference is very few are foolish enough to assume that the boy only likes looking at naked pictures of beautiful women because the culture pushed him to.”
While pubescent kids are naturally curious about and attracted to the sexually mature human form, the internet porn that is available to them today goes way beyond just naked bodies and regular sex. Its a competition who can portray the most vile, disgusting, violent and inhuman acts you can never imagine. Children who are going through puberty are exposed to this and it screws up their ideas about sex and relationships. Even a commenter here said “porn is what women should be”. Really? Screw you!
In my opinion this vile, violent, disgusting shit should be totally banned.
Strawberry:
What you are (indirectly perhaps) proving is the utter hypocrisy of the banning porn argument. The ‘form’ of hardcore pornography difference from the ‘form’ of erotic literature, and so-called ‘innocent’ sex and the city. What you are demonstrating is the tired old argument that women’s erotica (and therefore sexuality) is more ‘innocent’ more ‘pure’ while the mans preferred erotica (and therefore sexuality) is vile, disgusting shit that should be banned.
Whether this was your intention or not (I suspect it probably is) you a re one again following the female supremacist memes that prevail in the anglosphere .
The first thing a child learns is to lie. to get out of a spanking. Stealing from the cookie jar and writing on the funiture and walls. Stanton is full of shit if he thinks women are suppressed in any way.
YBM, not *hardcore* porn. Just the violent disgusting porn like BDSM, brown sports, etc. There is no redeeming quality to that shit (a pun, heh) whatsoever. I take it you haven’t seen that if you are not in agreement.
I’m actually in favor of instructional films that technically fall under the porn label and feel they should be a part of relationship counseling or relationship preparedness courses.
I’m not commenting on Stanton at all. I am commenting on bskillet saying that, “women are [not] innately good, and therefore should not be constrained in anything”. Women _are_ innately good. We have to be careful in what we say so we don’t say things that our opponents can make hay of. What he said was wrong, I don’t care to defend Stanton because I haven’t read the article in full; just what you quoted. It is better to say that women are made in the Image of God and that they are currently corrupted. That they have a natural and good proclivity (yes that is a great word) to breed and nurture that is currently corrupted and this corruption exhibits itself in behaviors like the “Carousel”. If women are just vile evil filth then why deal with them at all? Worse, if they are then the human race is doomed.
Pingback: The manosphere shouldn’t bash the few “marriage worthy” women left | A Guide for a Young Patriarch
@GKChesterton
I don’t know why you are arguing this. Your comment to Bskillet was refuting his refutation of Stanton. Here is what you wrote:
More importantly, you keep arguing that women are innately good when what I think you mean is they aren’t innately evil. There is an important difference. You keep lecturing the rest of us to be more precise, all the while using terms begging to be misconstrued. There is a strong movement under way to convince men and women that women are naturally good, and if they aren’t acting good something external (most likely a man) must be to blame. Stanton is a symptom of that movement as much as he is a leader. I’ve shown this in some detail, and you commented on the post where I showed this. This is also the point of the OP you were commenting on (this post). Yet knowing this you write things like:
However I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming you are merely being imprecise while lecturing the rest of us to be precise. It could be that you are making a sort of noble savage argument, the argument Stanton is making for women but for both sexes. If so, I’ll ask yet again that you back this up Scripturally or if you can’t back it up acknowledge that fact.
I thought that feminism seeks LESS constraints of female behaviour, allowing the sin nature to manifest, particularly in uncontrolled hypergamy.
Whereas, feminine liberation, voting and the mass entry of women to the workplace has measurably changed western society, for the worse. Mens behaviour is more controlled, has less opportunities and men are now societal cash cows, wealth generators to be plundered, used, and jailed for noncompliance.
Pingback: Father Knows Best: Live Bait Edition « Patriactionary
Dalrock, the Imago Dei assumes that all men (this includes women) are mirrors of God’s own handiwork and are therefore “Good” (cf. Gen 1:27-28; 5:1-3). They can be corrupted, but evil does not have nature and therefore the “natural good” of men and women remains. We know that this image persists as it forms the basis for the punishment of murder (cf. Gen 9:6).
This is in fact the basis for man’s authority (cf. 1 Cor 11:7). This authority is good because it is from God.
BSkillet’s comments indirectly posit that evil exists because he describes the nature of women as evil (or at least as not good which effectively the same thing). If evil exists _positively_ then one of two things must be true. Either God is partly evil or a secondary evil creation of equal or near equal power exists. Both are distinctly anti-Christian and are Manichean.
Your own comments reveal this problem. You say, “More importantly, you keep arguing that women are innately good when what I think you mean is they aren’t innately evil. There is an important difference. ” This is not sound Christian philosophy (outside of Calvinism and I’d argue not even there). As evil does not exist and is corruption it does not follow that women can be innately not evil and at the same time not innately good. If you remove the corruption what are you left with? More evil? No, you are left with their nature which is the Image of God and implies certain good behaviors. That is, by nature they are good, but by the Fall/Corruption they sin.
Now you could follow Calvin but in that case what your left with is totally evil men and women. I’m not a Calvinist and most of Christianity isn’t.
GKC, I think it is a matter of wording. I doubt that Dalrock is saying that women are innately evil in their souls, but that sin has corrupted all of creation, even from birth (Psalm 50 – in sin did my mother bear me). If we just follow the easiest course of things we will engage in evil. It takes work and effort for men and women to follow Christ’s example and overcome sin. Christ made it possible for people to realize their true nature – one of being in God’s image – but I do not believe that Christ made this the default state for all people. Narrow path vs wide path.
You’re not really arguing over Stanton, or women, but Original Sin versus Utter Depravity…the crux word in this argument being “innate”. It queues up GKC’s non-belief in Utter Depravity, as it should in any good non-Protestant.
It’s a glass half-full versus half-empty. You’re both seeing the same glass and contents.
@Cane Caldo
I suspect that is the case. However, GKC insists on using language which fits right into popular delusion while lecturing us not to use language which might be misconstrued. I’m all for clarity and precision, but saying women are innately good doesn’t meet that standard.
He would say that men are innately good, as well. You and Bskillet would say neither are innately good. (This is why I’m Anglican: I just have to know the arguments; not choose a side. Ha.)
It’s is true, GKC, that if you go around telling women that they’re innately good, they will continue in their error. They simply can’t differentiate the nuances of Orignial Sin. Nor, for that matter, can most men. Sooner (in women) or later (in men) it will be used as rationalization to sin.
GKC seems to be stuck in the center of a handful of Christian philosophies/dogmas/paradigms/systems….pick your term, as the nomenclature comes up in nearly every post he makes. The point can become so fine as to diminish beyond visible, hence beyond usable. Dalrock’s point stays in the realm of utility in a culture that has taken that ball and run with it.
To a certain degree its the nature of men to pontificate and drag things out in small piece meal debates about terms and such. In the MRM generally, and in the sort of Christian manosphere, we badly need to guard against that when it comes to something as basic as what Dalrock is saying here. The operative point is central to one of the chief over arching problems with the church. If we care, that should be enough, regardless how we label or describe it beyond adequate conveyance of what the hell it IS.
This may be slightly OT. But given the OP’s focus on young children, some may find this latest measurement of children and their varying family situations to be interesting:
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/
http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/acrossstates/NationalProfile.aspx
It’s from the Annie E. Casey Foundation in Baltimore, and covers most of the States in the US.
SFF,
“my question: is it possible that single dads are less likely to date while they are raising their children and thus not only are able to spend more time and invest all their emotional focus on their kids, but provide them with a chaste example as well, and that is one of the reasons they kids do better with them than with single moms?”
I have been a single dad, full custody, for almost eight years. I didn’t go on a date for the first four or five years because of my kids’ ages (1 and 4) at the time I was on my own with them, and because their mom was (literally) a sociopath, which came out in court and is why I got custody. And when I started looking, there wasn’t much to look at, so I didn’t even go on a date for another year, and then only a few after that. I also never told my children about that, or had any woman come to the home, the impact of having even a few women coming and going would have been too destabilizing,and especially so for my daughter.
I only told my daughter about my relationship to my (as of last week) wife.when we were some six months in and quite certain of our commitment to each other. She was shocked to find out I’d been dating at all, and I explained exactly why I had proceeded as I did. She got and appreciated that.
Oh, and I have gone a bit MGTOW, as my wife is not from around here, I went much farther afield after deciding (even before discovering the manosphere) the well is just too poisoned here. The advantage of being trilingual and well-travelled was that at some point I remembered that NAWALT, and recalled some of what I’d seen in my travels and living abroad. So I went looking abroad, and found what I was looking for and more. And as soon as the kids are old enough and on their own (if not sooner) I’m gone from NA and won’t be looking back.
He would say that men are innately good, as well. You and Bskillet would say neither are innately good. (This is why I’m Anglican: I just have to know the arguments; not choose a side. Ha.)
It’s is true, GKC, that if you go around telling women that they’re innately good, they will continue in their error. They simply can’t differentiate the nuances of Orignial Sin. Nor, for that matter, can most men. Sooner (in women) or later (in men) it will be used as rationalization to sin.
I’m deeply sorry that you are Anglican (insert feminine smiley face here), but yes that is the crux of the problem. Likewise because I am a man I find this sort of thing _extremely_ important as I think it drives how the discussion will continue. Empath’s willingness to blow it over as details is troubling.
I also don’t think it is necessarily hamster food if done correctly. If I said women were all fluff and light I’d be Pelagian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pelagianism). Both are made in the image of God and bear that mark. Both are consumed by the air of the world and are incapable of escaping sin that may manifest (as St. Aquinas points out) in different ways based on their physical sex. If made in the image of God then they have certain positive duties. They need to fight certain tendencies to reach certain goals. I think total depravity is a one way ticket to either evangelical princess syndrome (I’M SAVED!!!!) or carousel linked despair (I’M DOOMED SO BRING IT BABY!!!). In fact I’d note that those groups with the deepest problems right now _universally_ are Total Depravity friendly.
And for God’s sake this is a _CHRISTIAN_ site. I should feel free to expound within bounds of politeness on Christian theology. We should dig this in the same way we dig building things.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/01 « Free Northerner