One of the biggest misconceptions in the manosphere is that women aren’t interested in marrying anymore. It is an understandable misconception, because the actions of today’s young women send a very confusing message. Only 20% of white women 20-24 years old in the U.S. have married. This is a very recent development; just ten years ago 30% of U.S. white women that age had already married. You only have to go back to 1996 in the US to see a time when half of all first marriages (of all races) involved brides who were under 25 (source).
The other piece of data which creates confusion is whether women stay married once they get married. As with the age of marriage data, this doesn’t suggest that women want marriage. Women initiate the vast majority of divorces, and the divorce rate has been roughly constant for the last 20 years. Additionally, women consume divorce fantasies without shame. If you are targeting entertainment to women it is a given that a core part of your offering needs to be divorce fantasy or women won’t be interested. This is no less true if you are selling entertainment to Christian women.
But the fact remains that while they want to put off getting married and generally don’t want to feel an obligation to stay married, young women still want to get married, and they even still want to be married. If your reaction to this statement is That doesn’t make sense! It can’t possibly be! then you need to remember that logic and honor aren’t what is driving large numbers of modern women. They have been told they can have it all, and getting married is a minimum requirement for a woman to have it all.
Having it all means the woman gets her feminist merit badge and freely spends her sexual capital during her most attractive and marriageable years. After this having it all means she finds a beta provider to underwrite her new preferred lifestyle, that of a stay at home or works-for-fun wife and perhaps mother. This of course sets her up for the next round of adventure, where she divorces the boring loyal dude and makes him continue to underwrite her lifestyle while she seeks out the secret multimillionaire hunky handyman whom she was meant to be with all along.
For those having trouble keeping track of all of this, having it all means:
- Getting her feminist merit badge while:
- Having sex with the most attractive men who are willing to have sex with her. After a decade or so of this, she:
- Marries a nice reliable man who provides the financial support and social status of wife and perhaps mother. Once she has gotten out of this what she wants, she:
- Discovers that she is unhaaapy, and was somehow “trapped in marriage!” Many women prefer to savor this step for some period of time, perhaps even for many years. There is power and drama here and the next step contains risk.
- Is forced to divorce the bad man who made her unhaaapy by doing everything she demanded he do.
- Basks in the drama of a newly divorced woman, wronged by her ex husband and the society which forced her to marry the wrong man.
- Has sex with the most attractive men who are (still) willing to have sex with her. Since this misguided attempt at reliving the glory of her twenties is generally an immense disappointment, she then wants to quickly move on to:
- Finds her secret multimilionaire hunky handyman who insists that she marry him, thus returning her to the higher social status of wife.
Believe it or not, the having it all list ends here. A woman divorcing once and then marrying up says drama, rebirth, and empowerment. A woman divorcing twice says loser who couldn’t keep a man. Divorcing without remarrying says post marital spinster, also known as crazy cat lady her still married friends, colleagues, and relatives make fun of. Key to this process is to stick the landing so she winds up in the group making fun of the crazy cat ladies instead of becoming one of them.
But if you are a young woman looking to have it all sticking the landing isn’t something you need to worry about right now. You need to focus on your feminist merit badge while getting rogered by men who are very different than the kind of man you will eventually pressure to marry, the man to whom you will insist you “aren’t that kind of woman” so he needs to put a ring on it. And of course you need to make sure the pool of suckers potential husbands don’t notice what the larger script is.
This is where it is all starting to unravel. Game and the internet are conspiring to make it much more difficult to keep this open secret under wraps. Part of the problem is previous generations of women got married at such high rates the plan seems foolproof. Likewise, the fact that so many other women are doing the same thing provides a sense of safety in numbers. All of these factors are combining to create an environment where the men they are counting on manning up are instead at risk of catching on.
You remember the beta providers they are counting on, right? These are the men whose job it is to work extremely hard in their 20s to be prepared to support a wife and children in their 30s when their carousel queen is finally ready to “settle down”. In past generations the plan worked fairly well because most twenty something beta providers found themselves either on a track to marriage or at least with a periodic girlfriend. Now many of these men find themselves without any sexual interest from women through the bulk of their 20s. Most of these men will probably carry on as expected and “man up” once the tarts have been sufficiently popped. Now that she’s “found herself” (under a parade of men), I’m guessing large numbers of beta provider types will man up and do the right thing. However, some would be beta providers will drop out of the pool of eligible providers by either deciding to become the player the young women want, or by only working hard enough to get by. For those who don’t become a player or drop out however, there is the additional risk that they will get wise to the game; with the internet other women are all too freely spilling the beans. Professor Mentu recently shared this youtube video where a group of 30 something women are surprisingly candid about their own sexual choices (LSFW):
You sleep with the bad boy you do not marry him.
But it isn’t just these two women who are letting the cat out of the bag. Women around the internet are spoiling the narrative. CR at Gucci Little Piggy shared a brutally honest quote from an article on Wall Street Oasis:
“I like my current boyfriend but I am not attracted to him. I have been seeing a few other men on the side whom I find pretty attractive and excited to be with.” I knew a couple of banker chicks in NYC, who are doing exactly this. They feel that their current boyfriends are beta-males (good providers) while they look for fun with alpha-males.
In another (crass) post Mentu quotes a group of women discussing how it works on facebook:
Most guys could care less about our sex history (like they know anyway) as long as we don’t rub it in.
…How many women sleep with guys who know one another? The guys I date never knew one another!!! Sheeessshhh… They can never gauge my sex history unless I volunteer to tell them.
In the same post Mentu shares another woman’s candor about her sexual past on Yahoo Answers:
This is serious business. Not only does the internet make it more likely that a young man will randomly run into this kind of truth, but sites in the manosphere explain what is really going on. Making things worse, the women hoping to have it all are expecting their beta providers to remain unaware for well over a decade.
I’m sure this will work for many of them, but I can’t see it working for all of them.
We can do it poster from Wikipedia Commons
In other words, the manosphere is “speaking the truth to power.” I find this behavior unsurprising in the world at large; what distresses me is its acceptance and encouragement by “Christians” who inhabit the modern church. Too many preachers/pastors/evangelists have altogether given up teaching what is necessary for young women to do if they are to be successful wives (as opposed to divorced feminist harridan cat-ladies).
Recently I witnessed part of the problem in action. A young woman who was a senior in high school took to wearing immodest/shameful clothing to church services. Her clothing was bad enough that she had to change clothes after school (her school at the time has a dress code) and switch into her slut outfit to come to church (no, I am not making this up). The young woman and her parents were called aside by one of our elders after an especially egregious offense (she was wearing a t-shirt advertising that she was “dating” the swim team… just use another word). Predictably enough the (morbidly obese, short haircut, previously divorced, loud and rude) mother pitched a fit…. And her husband meekly followed the two womyn who run his life out the door and to another church. Of course, his little darling was knocked up before she finished her senior year, ran off with a bad-boy beau (although she was under aged) and now lives, unmarried, in a trailer park… But hey, at least they proved the church can’t tell them what to do.
Script doesn’t end there. The next pieces are affectionately called the doomed harlot maneuver:
1. Belittle secret handyman husband until his dick doesn’t work anymore (at least not for you).
2. Force him to accept adultery inside the ‘marriage’ by hanging his impotence over his head and threatening him with divorce.
3. Get fat.
4. Post about it on the internet.
Sometimes I come to the christian manosphere, depressed about the situation we have found ourselves in, and all that seems to be happening is just another slam against women – whom I really enjoy. BUT, the video itself is evidence that something is working. THAT is encouraging.
“……..”
I do not understand this statement at all. Could you elaborate, please?
Excuse me, English is not my native language. Is it a correct phrase to use, if I say that the ladies in the video are “spilling their guts” all over the world wide web?
I disagree with the first sentence. The 3rd, 4th and 5th sentences seem to support my view. My experience of Anglo-women is that they have no interest in wedlock or child-birth (though abortion is pretty popular) and in support of my view I learn the really dreadful fact that 25% of children born in the U.K. are born to women who were themselves born outside the U.K. Now, immigration, high though it is, is not sufficient on its own to account for such a high figure. I say, there is a marriage strike by women – and that as women are the gatekeepers of pregnancy that if they will not marry men cannot marry. I doubt I am an Alpha, but Betas are not required. Of course it may be different in Texas, or Louisiana, or NewYork City.
As I’ve written before, knew one that was “seriously looking” yet happened to delve into 16 men in the span of the 9 months that I kept up with her.
A good sum of women are not marriage material. They are quite repulsive actually. They lack character and integrity first off. And the have to hide their actions and lie their way through life. No better than the common street whore, just better at keeping it a secret. At least you know what you are getting with the whore and that can’t be said of women in general. And they know if the truth was to surface, they wouldn’t be able to land a husband.
As far as I can tell, a growing segment of Western men is realizing that women are, by and large, biologically unsuited for civilized life. In other words, fewer and fewer Western men actually expect their “fellow” women to act as responsible adults with moral integrity, capable of controlling their basest natural urges or even making rational decisions for their long-term interests. The evidence is all around us. Look at the “callous” ways young women are treated by more and more men – deservedly so, I should add. Or just look at they way young women are presented in popular media directed at men.
forgive my ignorance of quoting technology….
“…. the video itself is evidence that something is working. THAT is encouraging.
I do not understand this statement at all. Could you elaborate, please?”
My view is that these women are recognizing the futility of the their God-given carousel (right terminology?) and seeking to pass the wisdom they have learned on to their younger selves, younger women in general; If heeded, we could see a big change in one generation. Maybe I am extrapolating a bit much, but is this not a secular version of titus 2 in action?
Dalrock, I question though, as per your eight-part list, whether most young women are consciously, deliberately, deciding to do all this; I suspect not, that they simply go with whatever their desires are at a given moment, letting the media / friends / family members tell them what they think they should be doing, how they should be feeling, etc., and are simply not thinking much at all about the future, living one day at a time. Why ascribe to malicious forethought, after all, what can be explained by sheer mental laziness?
Pingback: Rubbernecking Past the Death of Masculinity « Zippy Catholic
to further the elaboration, I come to this whole thing wanting a path to a solution. I don’t want to just berate the carousel-riding-EAP-slut-hamsters-seeking-cash-prizes. These are my sisters. doesn’t change that they are wrong, but guess what, I am fallen too. And have demonstrated that in a lot of ways, perhaps riding my own carousel as much as I can in my beta-ness. Soooooo, I look to progress, not just wallowing in the crap that we see all the time.
” letting the media / friends / family members tell them what they think they should be doing,”
“And the serpent said to the woman, “Indeed, has God said, ‘You shall not eat from any tree of the garden’?””
@MV
‘“spilling their guts” all over the world wide web’
or
“spilling their guts” on the world wide web
both work, your version is stronger
@CC
In case you misheard the audio, or skipped Dalrock’s section of dialogue below the video:
“You sleep with the bad boy you do not marry him.”
The other two girls endorsed this. They don’t regret fucking bad boys. They regret fooling themselves with the idea that they were going to continue fucking particular bad boys over a longer period than they actually did.
Pingback: Boasting? | Dark Brightness
@Just1x
Thank you.
@Cane Caldo
“The other two girls endorsed this. They don’t regret fucking bad boys. They regret fooling themselves with the idea that they were going to continue fucking particular bad boys over a longer period than they actually did.”
Hamster Hope Springs Eternal.
Thanks for the linkage, Dalrock. As always, excellent article. I swear I’m going to write one someday that doesn’t get the “crass” warning!
But not today…
@CC…hehehehe
Yes, I admit I kind of overlooked that part, reading it as an incongruous footnote to what else they had to say. sometimes, my optimism confounds me.
Dalrock, you are assuming that women want to marry one particular man. But as we see from the growing number of babymommas – 40% of all births, 50% of births to women under 30 were to unmarried women – a growing number of women are quite happy to “marry” the state.
It is the next logical step in feminism. The 1960’s saw young women informing their fathers “You can’t tell me who I can’t sleep with”. The 1970’s saw those same young women demanding the right to an abortion in order to avoid being “tied down” and no-fault divorce for the same reason. The 1980’s saw famly court & Bradley which enabled women to get married-have children-push the beta out the door – keep on being supported by him. The 1990’s brought sex positive “don’t call me a slut, ever” and VAWA that further keeps hubbie in line.
Now we see the next step: split the task of “husband” into babymaking / tingles, and resource providing. Outsource the Beta job of “resource provider” to the state, keep the tingles/babies for her own choice. Who is this woman “married” to?
This is the next step. Women get the resources, harvested from many, many men via taxation, and are free to get sperm for babies from the bestest badboy thug of the moment. Again, this trend is clear, many women have thus succeeded in outsourcing the beta function to the government. And make no mistake, growing numbers of women like that arrangement, and see no major flaw in it. Why should they? They get their preferred form of promiscuity – serial “monogamy” – and they get resources from men whom they never have to meet.
And they are still “married”, for some definition of “marriage”. Win-win all around…
That video at UMan should be required viewing for every single “man up” tradcon/socon.
In fact, I think they should have to view it every day for a month before being allowed to post anywhere in the androsphere.
Because those women are everywhere. I can find at least one woman like that pair in almost any church I go to. Those women are what men are being told to “man up and marry”.
The narrative doesn’t matter. There will still be bad boys to fuck her at a young age, and there will still be betas to put a ring on her finger later. Them confidently admitting to their slutty past proves that the story isn’t changing for the better.
We are simply moving toward de facto harems where women rationalize that they continually select a few alpha types for sex, and betas are continually copacetic with marrying the “beautiful catch” in front of them.
Exactly!!! 🙂 But you are missing a key point. 🙂 You are right in this:
“This is the next step. Women get the resources, harvested from many, many men via taxation, and are free to get sperm for babies from the bestest badboy thug of the moment. Again, this trend is clear, many women have thus succeeded in outsourcing the beta function to the government. And make no mistake, growing numbers of women like that arrangement, and see no major flaw in it. Why should they? They get their preferred form of promiscuity – serial “monogamy” – and they get resources from men whom they never have to meet.”
But the key point is that this is the way the Bernankifiers want it, as the welfare state enriches Ben Bernanke et al.
One of the central planks of the Communist Manifesto was the abolition of the family.
Well, by preying on women and encoraging them to follow their gina n dbutt tinglezzlzozlz instead God and Man as Genesis demanded, they succeeded!
Rememebr that Ben Benrnakifiers/the governmnt act as the middle men to seize assets from men and deliver them unto women, and they take a huge cut!
Thanks for the interesting read Dalrock.
I suspect some of the ther commenters are fit about it not being a really conscious choice but just “going ht the flow” although I am guessing you don’t disagree with that and the best way to make women think and reheats let some avoid the fate they are setting themselves up for is to warn them out the outset.
It is quite disturbing the way the woman on Facebook wAs so happy to defraud her husband like that. Can you imagine if a car salesman did that? I am pretty sure that he would end up in all sorts of trouble. I guess “caveat emptor” is more important when buying woman.
Do you have any data on what percentage of women manage to remarry? I am guessing the data that is needed probably doesn’t exist but it would be interesting to see.
It is interesting watching omen at my old church complain about being older and single and how many of them were to busy to settle down when younger. I have no reason to think they were not chaste at the time (on the whole, there may have been exceptions but nothing obvious like pregnancies and I am willing to give them the beniit of the doubt), but it is a bit sad that they have gotten a bit older and can’t find anyone and reject the pool of guys left as “weird” (What are they expecting after waiting?). There is a certain “reap what you sow aspect” to it but it seems hard not to conclude that these women were told waiting would be ok and it would work out and now they have discovered they have beekeeper too and have to learn to be content with being single. Unfortunately they don’t seem to be warning the younger girls to avoid their mistakes.
” My experience of Anglo-women is that they have no interest in wedlock or child-birth.”
My view exactly, women as a collective are price makers and men are price takers, if the commodity is not being offered for sale shouldn’t assume that there are no price takers.
They have simply withdrawn the commodity (marriage) and are offering a substitute good (serial monogamy) to the highest bidders.
@Grit As a Black Male, in the American Black Community, I will be screaming from the high heavens to screen future wives. It is so obvious & simple to identify 95% of sl*ts. Thank GOD for the world wide web
I don’t have a problem with beta males marrying sluts. But he has to know full well how many, and in painful detail of what kind of s*x acts she was involved
For example: Women like this will be continued to be smoked out.
If they still want to marry these women after they been exposed & smoked out, that is there business. And should be honored & shamed simultaneously.
“And have demonstrated that in a lot of ways, perhaps riding my own carousel as much as I can in my beta-ness.”
“beta-ness” is not a sin. Sleeping around is a sin. There’s no moral equivalence.
I also noticed that the gal who said “you sleep with the bad boy, you do not marry” him has what looks to be a wedding ring on her left hand. You wonder what her husband thinks about this …
It is quite disturbing the way the woman on Facebook wAs so happy to defraud her husband like that. Can you imagine if a car salesman did that?
Rolling back the odometer on a car is a crime.
Doing the same on a woman’s sexual history? No big deal.
Which one has the more serious effects on a man’s life, buying a “lightly used” car that actually has 150,000 miles on it, or marrying an “almost virgin” woman whose been sexed by 20 other men?
The average apartment rental agreement, or auto loan, or cellular phone agreement, is more binding than any marriage license. Every young man needs to know this.
4. Discovers that she is unhaaapy, and was somehow “trapped in marriage!” Many women prefer to savor this step for some period of time, perhaps even for many years. There is power and drama here and the next step contains risk.
Don’t you think this is something of a mid-life crises, even if it happens in her 30s? Boredom is a real issue for human beings who do not have a rich inner life which is possible only through a mindful practice of some sort, like meditation, chanting, breathwork, etc. Again its back to the “science of mind” that I said is deeply lacking in Western culture.
Yes Anon! “Which one has the more serious effects on a man’s life, buying a “lightly used” car that actually has 150,000 miles on it, or marrying an “almost virgin” woman whose been sexed by 20 other men?”
I always have to laugh when I listen to Dave Ramsey giving financial advice, because he always neglects the “Elephant in the room.” 🙂
Even if you have a 401k, a nice interest rate on your house, and not that much credit card debt, if your wife has been buttcocked by 20+ dudes and will soon be suing you for your assets after cheating on you as they trained her to do, what’s the use?
@Opus
The marriage stats I’ve been able to find for the UK look surprisingly like the stats I’ve shared for the US. Check out Cohabitation and marriage in Britain since the 1970s (especially Appendix 1 at the end).
@Anomymous Reader,
It is madness isn’t it. Every man needs to know that marriage contracts are nothing of the sort. Actually everybody needs to know this but it seems many woman have already figured it out.
It is just madness that what would be a clear act of fraud Ike contract is considered “fair game” in another ostensibly more important contract.
I have had friends take me to task for calling marriage a “contract” and “suggesting a crassly economic approach to finding a spouse”, because marriage is a covenant and ordained by God. Of course I agree with this as a Christian, but today treating marriage as “merely a contract” would actually elevate it greatly.
In case anybody misunderstands, I mean economic in a very broad sense. Weighing pros and con’s and seeking to make the best trade possible when choosing a spouse, not just merely financial concerns.
One additional thought. We shouldn’t use the term “Serial Monogamy”. There is such a thing, it is what a widow/er does when they remarry.
What women want is “serial polygamy”. They want multiple “husbands” (perhaps I should just say providers) they just don’t generally want them all at once. That is clearly polygamy not monogamy. I think we devalue words when we use them like this.
I know the wider culture likes to speak of “serial monogamy” instead of calling a spade a spade and saying “serial polygamy” but isn’t part of the point of the manosphere to call a spade a spade?
Don’t forget, these womyn can have it all… If “all” includes HPV, Hep C, Herpes Simplex II, drug resistant syphilis and gonorrhea (both of which are on the rise) and maybe a nice sprinkling of HIV on top. And don’t forget, if she’s got it and you’ve got her……
Jason
One additional thought. We shouldn’t use the term “Serial Monogamy”. There is such a thing, it is what a widow/er does when they remarry.
What women want is “serial polygamy”. They want multiple “husbands” (perhaps I should just say providers) they just don’t generally want them all at once. That is clearly polygamy not monogamy. I think we devalue words when we use them like this.
This is a significant point. The default mode for men is “parallel polygamy”, in the PUA world it’s referred to as a soft harem, or “spinning plates”. “Serial polyandry” is in fact what many, many modern women want. They want as many men as they can get, in some kind of sequence.
We must bear in mind that the “sequence” can be pretty tightly timed; beddy-bye with the Twu Wuv on Friday night, a quickly with a FWB midafternoon on Saturday while Twu Wuv is at the gym lifting weights, some more sex with Twu Wuv on Saturday night…it’s polyandry, and it’s serial, but it’s not over the course of years as the Hussies claim “everyone does”.
And, in many cases she’s off to the First Mega Church of Happy Clappy midmorning Sunday in order to hear that Jesus loves her no matter what she does. And then she can go spend the afternoon with another FWB, secure in the knowledge that she’s a Good Girl, not one of those sluts. Because nobody at church would ever dream of shaming her…
Did anyone notice that one of the women in this video had the first name of “Stuart?” I’m not kidding, that’s her name.
This underscores a problem that’s been referenced in these comments but not hit head-on: what are parents thinking raising their daughters? Names matter. And if you give a girl a boy’s name — which is happening more and more — you’re probably raising her as you would a boy. That means championing the kind of sexually aggressive behavior seen in young men, which was one of the whole points of women’s lib, but proved to be not without consequences — as we see.
This is why we have that “narrative” of this post: it’s really the narrative of how boys grew up and lived their lives, not women. If you want to correct this problem, you need to look at parents who are raising their girls as boys.
@Days of Broken Arrows,
You might be right but be wary o fjumping to that conclusion. The name is only spoken I assume (couldnt get the vid to play only iPad) not printed on the screen?
After all there is Peter and Peta, both will likely be Pete, and William and Willomena both of which will likely be Willy or Billy. And many centuries ago Hillary was a boys name. Stewart might be a traditional feminine name where ever she is from.
It might not be, you may be spot on, and think there is a problem of girls being raised to value the characteristics of boys, I just am not sure you can get it from the name.
@Anonymous Reader,
That rapid serial polygamy is kind of horrifying. I am sure it goes on, but with women in a church? Is it really that bad in the US? In the conservative churches, the mainline liberal Protestants would celebrate this I am sure. Btw what is FWB? Context makes to clear it is some sort of alpha bad boy who gives her tingles but I don’t know the acronym. I am learning lots,of them but that one I don’t know yet. Heck I only learned AFC a few weeks ago 🙂
[D: FWB=”Friends With Benefits”.]
Dalrock wrote:
Yes, the narrative is being exposed, in part by the manosphere. I’m glad to see Christian men learning about these issues and hopefully withholding the support that will allow this narrative to continue to play out. I’ve noticed men seem to be doing a good job of telling other guys about the manosphere so they can learn and take control of their life choices.
And what about the women? Well, there is a corollary to the manosphere, which perhaps we should call the “spinstersphere” or the “hamstersphere”. There is a whole network of blogs written by childless, single women in their forties who are trying to rationalize their life choices and make peace with the consequences, and they are some of the post depressing things I have ever read (Interested readers could try The Bitter Babe or Living My Life if they want to see examples of these kinds of blogs). If you sit down a group of college girls and tell them to read such blogs every day for a month, I guarantee you they are going to turn real sweet on early marriage in a hurry. The thing is, women aren’t pointing each other toward these blogs and telling them to take control of their life choices. It seems like this fact should allow men to regain control of the narrative in a hurry.
@ Days of Broken Arrows
My mom knew a girl growing up who was named David (I think) because her parents wanted a boy. Hey, isn’t Obummer’s mom’s name Stanley? On the flip side, people are also giving boys “gender neutral” names.
What’s in a name?
You people keep using the word “game” here. Is this what you mean? Does this guy have game?
(the comments by both men and women below the video are um, interesting).
Pingback: Linkage Is Good For You – 8-12-12 | Society of Amateur Gentlemen
@sunshinemary
If you sit down a group of college girls and tell them to read such blogs every day for a month, I guarantee you they are going to turn real sweet on early marriage in a hurry.
If it were only that easy, ABC after school specials would be airing around the clock. This is where “game” comes in as actions will bellow louder than words and failure of compliance gets you Nexted.
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals:
Your video is the female equivalent of porn. Would you say porn actresses are seductive? Well, I guess, to a certain extent, but when you really think about it, it’s an artificial act that doesn’t really happen in real-life, and it doesn’t have the same implications. Same thing here: the guy is seductive to women, but only because he’s behind a camera and cannot offer anything else.
Game for men (and feminine seduction for women) is about more than building sexual tension, it’s about desire, achieved through interaction, with a certain goal. This is just a guy who’s been paid to get some girl panties wet.
@sunshinemary
It’s not enough to point girls at these blogs, because, like always, the cute little rationalization hamster rears its chubby head. The spinstersphere (I love this name) is about two things: finding a means to express frustration, and drawing sympathy. Now, you look at this and can see what went wrong, and what strategy to adopt to prevent something like this, but unless you spell it out, most people will just assume that either men are really bad, or that these women were just unlucky.
That’s why I hope the likes of you, elsperth, lgrobins, grerp and others will not shy away from telling these girls what is really going on, and how for every measure of misfortune, there’s probably an equal or greater measure of misdirection that placed these women where they are today.
“One of the biggest misconceptions in the manosphere is that women aren’t interested in marrying anymore.”
– YOUNG women are not interested in marriage anymore. Period! Doesn’t matter how perfect the guy is or whatever. Women seem to value freedom more than men do who just seem all too eager to sign up for slavery.
One of the blogs that SunshineMary links to, Living My Life, is by an Australian woman. She lives in Melbourne, where I was born. She seems a nice lady, but she says at one point that she couldn’t see herself moving to live in the capital of Australia, Canberra, because it is too cold. I know Canberra quite well, and yes the winters are cold, but they are mostly dry and sunny too. And Canberra is only cold by Australian standards.
If this lady cannot try to cope with Canberra winters to be with an otherwise suitable man, then she is not thinking straight, it seems to me. Also, she says she passed up on an opportunity with a very suitable man years ago, and now regrets it. Well, yes. She probably had a “reason” for that at the time.
Speaking of cold winters, these pretty little grasshoppers singing and dancing through their twenties may face a cold winter eventually, as in the famous fable.
Seems like the ladies in the video wear whoring around like a badge of honor or some sort of rite of passage.
If I was a carosel rider, I would keep it on the down low. Those are the smart ones. The ones that have a public image of ‘good girl’ yet get some alpha on the side. Say what you will but at least it shows some sign of intelligence.
As a young woman who does legitimately want to get married and stay married, I must say this is very depressing. Isn’t it lovely that feminists have managed to create a situation where *everyone* pays for the mistakes made by them?
Actually if you’re a young woman you have a lot of power to get a really good spouse. The woman that are complaining about not finding marriage material that they are referring to are the ones in their early 30s that have exhausted their bargaining chips.
If you’re in your early 20s that’s the height of power. It’s just that 30s spinsters wanted the perfect guy in their 20s or didn’t want to get married at all and have fun so they used up their market value punching above their weight.
Yes, to the last couple of remarks. A woman who wants to marry should aim to get her studies and career issues out of the way by 25 and marry a man of about 30. There is nothing wrong with looking around a bit and establishing a line of work, but her “market value” is probably at a maximum at about 25. Young enough to still be at her prettiest and most charming, but old enough to know her mind and have a bit of necessary maturity.
Sunshinemary
You make sure you get yourself some dick tonight. Those two links you posted up are bomb damage assessment photos for an MRA who’s goal it is to cause that kind of damage on an industrial scale. I want there to be a thread on suicides on those blogs. When we get there you preachers with game get ready for some motivated female church goers.
Any woman that is not married and with child (by her husband ) by 24 is a slut and should only be considered booty call material.
This is disaster for all of us who believe in G-d. I don’t care if you are a Jew, a Xtian or a Muslim. This situation is going to have terrible repercussions on us all. As a society, we have shown unbelievable arrogance and have sinned grievously against G-d. The last time the population of the world collectively did something like this, He wiped out the entire planet. Some people might point out that He promised not to do it again, such people would be very thick to say so, because He promised not to take out the WHOLE PLANET again, He never said anything about annihilating countries (Egypt), or cities (Sodom), or about taking out 2/3rds of the people.
We are in serious trouble.
The most disgusting horror of this situation is that a man can look at this and actually see how G-d taking out the entire population would be a form of mercy killing as opposed to cruelty. I’m saying again that this is dangerous business, we have to all collectively pray for mercy from Heaven for all of us, not just to spare our lives and the lives of our insane countrymen, but to save us from this nightmare of the soul. A sane human being is not going to be happy as a “Noah”, being the one righteous survivor out of wrecked generation. I don’t know about the rest of you, but that isn’t a “happy ending” in my book. And are any of us really that confident individually that we are that truly righteous “Noah”?
Dalrock, you are doing the work of G-d. You are speaking the truth and encouraging men to save their lives, and by saving their lives they will be saving the lives of the women as well.
Men of faith have to support one another in their faiths (within reason – no point supporting someone whose faith is to kill you).
If I recall correctly, zed once observed that the average woman does a better job of pushing average men towards the MRM, PUA or MGTOW than 100 MRAs and Game proponents ever could. I think the stuff mentioned in this post is a perfect example.
@Dalrock
I sometimes think that I should never type on the Internet in the evenings when I am more likely to be fatigued than early in the day (as now) when I am fresh, for had I taken my own advice I might have thought better of giving that 25% figure, without giving its provenance – which I cannot. A married friend of mine (who oddly enough himself has a son by a foreign mother) has mentioned it to me a few times and I am guessing that he acquired it from the Telegraph – but it does not seem to me to be intrinsically implausible – I wish I had a better source. Mea Culpa. I, of course, agree with Johnnycomelately as to the withdrawal of the commodity – who agreed with me.
On a more cheerful note, having a drink last night with another married friend who also has a son, I said to him, something to the effect that he was a married man, and he corrected me instantly and said ‘I am a HAPPILY married man – and the difference is very important’.
I recall a blog comment from a young collage aged woman on this very issue. Paraphrasing she admitted that 80% of young women she knows are like this. She said that their attitude was that the bad boys were for fun [right now] and that nice guys (betas) were “saved for later for when they want to settle down/get married.” She said she could understand why nice guys are not happy with this situation, but she said most of the women she knows are like this.
I do wonder if part of the appeal of “bad boys” could be in their being unlike boring old beta Dad.
I mean, if women have started marrying betas, maybe the betas make weak fathers and their daughters want to experience a more masculine model of manhood rather than a repeat of what they have seen at home.
@DC “I do wonder if part of the appeal of “bad boys” could be in their being unlike boring old beta Dad.”
Quite possibly. Although the young collage aged woman I paraphrased also admitted [paraphrased] that part of the appeal of bad boys was that they were not looking for anything serious/long term where as the perception is that nice guys are. The young women are just wanting to have their fun and are not looking to settle down yet, so the nice guys are viewed as not being suitable for this.
Off-topic: http://exiledonline.com/paul-ryans-guru-ayn-rand-worshipped-a-serial-killer-who-kidnapped-and-dismembered-little-girls/
the average woman does a better job of pushing average men towards the MRM, PUA or MGTOW than 100 MRAs and Game proponents ever could.
Indeed, if I hadn’t had all those bad experiences personally, i would NEVER have believed the red pill! If you’d told me all this stuff at 18 I would have dismissed it as wrong, insanely wrong.
Alas, it is not.
The next pieces are affectionately called the doomed harlot maneuver:
1. Belittle secret handyman husband until his dick doesn’t work anymore (at least not for you).
2. Force him to accept adultery inside the ‘marriage’ by hanging his impotence over his head and threatening him with divorce.
3. Get fat.
4. Post about it on the internet.
While I don’t approve of Doomed Harlot’s lifestyle, you have some facts wrong. DH did not “belittle” her husband into impotency — he suffered a serious injury BEFORE they ever met. It’s not his fault, and it’s not hers. Also….. we have no evidence DH is fat.
This all presumes that DH is being honest with us. I have no proof either way.
tickletit: “a Jew, a Xtian or a Muslim”
What compels you to refuse to type out Christ?
As for the article, we are approaching a critical phase in our culture in that as the truth comes out and feminist lies get exposed, the manginas in government and media will become more desperate in maintaining their hold on power. They aren’t too eager to give up their power, considering how much anger is building towards them.
But continue to expose we must. Let’s mock their latte shopaholic entitlement fickleness while at the same time promoting our own values: frugality, simplicity, humility and logic.
Final note: notice that, yet again, the babies are complaining that gaming sites are hurting widdle guwl feeeeelings and are calling for more censorship/control. Feminism/socialism will invade every single space they think doesn’t subscribe to their view.
Well, many pieces of Doomed Harlot’s story have changed over time. I seriously doubt they are who they portray themselves as (at any given time ;-))
@Anonymous Reader 8/11 5:53PM
The average apartment rental agreement, or auto loan, or cellular phone agreement, is more binding than any marriage license. Every young man needs to know this.
@Jason
marriage is a covenant and ordained by God. … today treating marriage as “merely a contract” would actually elevate it greatly
This is great stuff. Also, Jason, I’m with you on dumping “serial monogamy” as a term for the behavior it’s usually associated with. It makes it seem undeservedly respectable.
At the dirtyandthirty website, the woman in the video explains how her sex drive is higher than almost all the guys she’s been with. Later, she tells us she’s only ever had 2 boyfriends. What the…? So, when the guy has sex with someone else and she’s decided (at the time) that he’s her “boyfriend” that’s cheating. When she jumps from guy to guy and back again, but she’s decided that neither of them are her “boyfriend” that’s somehow OK?
All should know Dalrock made the article from research and from manosphere commenters. every concerned person has added to his knowledge base. i remember his early find the right woman days. ha ha ha. I remember teasing him about each time he peeled a layer back he was advocating MGTOW. Well now Dalrock you done it, you are an official MGTOW blogger.
Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood.
Dalrock, you give modern women more foresight and planning skills than they have. In fact, the script is simpler:
1a. Getting her feminist merit badge while:
2a. Having sex with the most attractive men who are willing to have sex with her. After a decade or so of this, she:
3a. Marries a handsome wealthy man with alpha characteristics but who is mad about her and is a good provider, husband and father.
4a. Gives up her career, stays at home watching Oprah, has two kids, gets fat. The end.
For young women, it’s evident that their Prince will one day appear and they will just know and everything will be perfect. After all, they are a special snowflake and deserve the best because they have been told this by media, parents, school and by the men who are hitting them on a regular basis. The mental state is similar to the brunette girl in this video:
The problem is that, in her mid-thirties, the young woman starts hearing her biological clock and gets desperate. She starts screaming (as in the previously mentioned video)
“There’s nobody else. I’m all alone”.
Of course, there is somebody else but he is not an alpha like the ones the thirty-year-old woman used to know during their twenties. The desperation increases and increases. Faced to a life of crazy cat lady, the woman starts lowering their standards (they throw up the shopping list) until he finds a willing beta who wants to get married.
I know it’s easy to bash women in the manosphere (I have done it plenty of times) but these women don’t get married thinking about the divorce. They think they will stay married. The hamster rationalizes the lack of attraction for the beta. Although the beta is not exciting, the whole marriage thing provides the excitement (preparing the wedding, telling all their friends). The woman imagines a fairy tale future with the white picket fence and two lovely kids, etc. So we have:
3b. She marries a nice reliable man who provides the financial support and social status of wife and perhaps mother.
4b. Gives up her career, stays at home watching Oprah, has two kids, gets fat. The end.
[This is the first change of script]
Some years inside the marriage, all the excitement is gone and the boredom and drudgery of marriage have set in. Then women start thinking that this is not the fairy tale they have imagined. The wannabe princess has become a woman who has to wash socks and bear with a beta with a belly. But these were not the dreams of youth. The woman picks up the shopping list she had when she was young (the one with the one hundred bullets) and finds her husband lacking. She settled too young. If she had waited for a while, she would have landed the handsome alpha wealthy prince but she married this beta guy she loathes. She made a tragic mistake. After some time of drama, she realizes that mistakes can be corrected, so she does her second change of script:
4c. Discovers that she is unhaaapy, and was somehow “trapped in marriage!” Many women prefer to savor this step for some period of time, perhaps even for many years. There is power and drama here and the next step contains risk.
5c. Is forced to divorce the bad man who made her unhaaapy by doing everything she demanded he do.
6c. Basks in the drama of a newly divorced woman, wronged by her ex husband and the society which forced her to marry the wrong man.
7c. Has sex with the most attractive men who are (still) willing to have sex with her. Since this misguided attempt at reliving the glory of her twenties is generally an immense disappointment, she then wants to quickly move on to:
8c. Finds her secret multimilionaire hunky handyman who insists that she marry him, thus returning her to the higher social status of wife.
But she has problems getting the secret multimillionaire she wants. So, when desperation sets in again, she makes their third change of script and marries the kind of guy she can get. So the script is now.
8d. Marries a loser who is far below her first husband and rationalizes this choice telling herself and the world, she is in love with him.
If she doesn’t get anybody to marry her or she is too hypergamous to deal with the loser, the result is
8d. She has some one-night stands and ends up as a lonely spinster.
In short, you see that it is not that the plan was conceived beforehand, it is that external circumstances forced her to change her plan. These external circumstances are:
– B. Her discovering that she is not able to land an alpha in their mid-thirties.
– C. Her discovering that marriage is not the fairy tale she had imagined.
– D. Her discovering that, after divorce, the alpha princes are uninterested in marrying her.
So there are three changes of script associated with these realizations.
@Anonymous Reader
This is certainly a part of what we see, but even here there is status which comes from being married to an actual man which doesn’t (and can’t) come from the welfare state. Black women are the least likely to marry in the U.S., but even Black women marry at very high rates. Per the latest Census data only 32.5% of Black women 40-44 have never married. I’ve also seen data showing the probability of divorce following separation by race. Black women are less likely to divorce following even an extended separation, and the reason given in the paper I saw was that they knew it would be harder for them to remarry. Being married has status for women. This doesn’t mean the rest of what we see isn’t happening, but this is an important piece of the puzzle. Yes women have commitment issues which they project onto men, that much is obvious. But there is a counterforce which is denied.
Consider the divorce fantasy. They always end with remarriage or the suggestion of remarriage. Miss EPL herself went on to marry a man nearly 20 years her senior (he needed a visa). The author of Stella married the gay man who also needed a visa. Even Loraine Berry felt the need to tell us she had found her “life partner” at the end of her story of divorce empowerment (I can only guess that he didn’t need a visa, since he didn’t marry her). If any of these stories had ended up with the woman not finding a replacement for the husband they had jettisoned, they would have seemed as pathetic as they actually were.
Don’t be fooled by the sheer implausibility of divorce resulting in the woman marrying up or even just slightly down from where she started. Just because it is laughable doesn’t mean it isn’t the motivation. Otherwise I could prove that bank robbers don’t do it for the money, since so few end up retired at a beach paradise and so many end up locked up or meeting a violent death.
As for out of wedlock births, there is a strong racial and class divide there. While the US total is just under 40%, for whites it is only 28% (table). This is still a disaster, but there is a different level of acceptance. For White women who went to college the number is much lower. Giving birth out of wedlock is a clear marker of low social status for Whites in the U.S., and that is something women do care about.
@NAS
There is some important nuance here. Young women don’t want to marry while still young, and they don’t express any concern about being able to do so later. However, the latter is a function of the assumption that when they are ready it will be a given. Similarly I could do a survey of airline passengers and prove to you that safety wasn’t a primary concern. This would be misleading, because the reason for this is safety is considered a given. Given the extremely high rates at which women before them have married they can be forgiven for assuming it will be theirs for the taking once they are ready. But this doesn’t mean they don’t very much want to marry later. Check out the Kate Bolick Atlantic story where she speaks with the HUSies at Susan’s house. They are horrified at the thought that they might not marry once they were done with the carousel:
Oh yes. This is very true. It is extremely enjoyable to mention one’s husband in front of other women. I do it myself Even in an anonymous setting, like on allrecipes.com, if you look through the review comments for a recipe, it’s a bunch of women saying, “I made this and my husband loved it; will definitely make again!” or “Tried it but hubby hated it; won’t try it again.”
Women want to brag (and they should, in my opinion) about even just getting engaged, which triggers jealousy in unmarried women. There’s not a woman alive who doesn’t want to flash her ring around. Here is a quote from a single, childless 40-something woman from her blog:
@ sunshinemary
I suppose that is true, but I find that sort of thing ostentatious and tasteless. It is, at base, immodest behaviour. I can’t help finding it demeaning to men too – as if his primary worth to these women is in relation to their status whoring amongst themselves.
As an aside, I strongly dislike the word “hubby” – what is he, a teddy bear? I still prefer “my Man”, like “Man and wife”.
Dalrock
I want what you are talking about done on purpose on a large enough scale to removed that assumed safety. I want lonely spinsterhood to be attatched to carousel riding to the point of nausia and fear. A woman will behave bibically with a heart of a self centered snake out for personal gain sparing some innocent christian beta. The whole purpose of MGTOW,PUA and peter pans etc was to remove the safety nt to the point of irrational fear. A male birth control pill would be like maxim’s machine gun in 1914 europe. One can make a lot of good christian women with something like that. I am so happy to see this finally being openly discussed as a whole and not just individual symptoms.
There is a whole network of blogs written by childless, single women in their forties who are trying to rationalize their life choices and make peace with the consequences, and they are some of the post depressing things I have ever read (Interested readers could try The Bitter Babe or Living My Life if they want to see examples of these kinds of blogs)
————————————————————————————————-
@SSM
Indeed. I have one Im holding back to dissect. I was in Mexico City all week w/ no way to read or write but now I can do it. The reason its so fascinating is the woman blogged, literally for two years about the process, the drama, the rationale, everything about her divorce. It begins when she crosses the line of decision that its irreparable and proceeds to the telling of the husband, the ensuing two years of separation then divorce, and a month or two after its final….she continues and will continue.
The amazing picture she paints is a better explanation of The Personal Jesus TM than I or anyone from the outside can muster. Its like real time play by play. Of course what she writes and what she feels is what she THINKS she is feeling and experiencing in order to get to where she wants to go. She doesnt know that. She finally states that she remains steadfastly pro marriage for life……ah……..BUT…………….
I posted on her blog telling her I was going to write about her. I hoped she would chime in with comments once I do as that could be even more illustrative. I assured her I was analyzing not simply judging. Judging it is simple,…its wrong. She replied asking that I please realize it was her husband who divorced her so she was A-OK Biblically etc. Yea I knew that, she forced a separation, told the dude she was certain it could never be fixed…..and let that languish…..well surprise! He filed. This happens alot
@SunshineMary
My wife mentioned the same thing about Halloween candy at Oriental Trading Company. I included quotes in this post.
@CL
I don’t see it as in bad taste at all. The women who married and stayed married in a culture cheering them on to do otherwise deserve the status which comes with having done so. I also don’t mind that my wife takes pride in the fact that she is married. Why would I?
Culturally this is a glimmer of light in a sea of darkness. Why would anyone be against this?
CL
The term hubby and the focus on the ring, or commitment is how a feminized women that marries is telling herself she is still single and in charge. It is checking off a list and recieving commitment without giving one yourself. The woman that speaks like that is still an unworthy slut.
Sunshine
A good way to elevate yourself and give yourself inner peace and emotional spirits is to think well of your man and brag about it to other women. Don’t leave out how well you treat him with physical effection and love just for being your husband. Make it known it is so becaue you are honoring your commitment to the marriage not because of “him.” When a couple in marriage honors the marriage the power of the marriage goes off of the charts.
@Empath
She wanted to keep the benefits of having a husband without the obligations of being a wife. The husband moves to a status of extreme beta orbiter if he allows this to remain in place. This is very common.
CL
Yes, it can be ostentatious; I don’t have TV, but I see ads online for those “Real Housewives of ___” shows, which I assume is some pretty tasteless husband-as-status-symbol stuff.
However, I think there is a way in which finding pleasure in the status of being a wife can be quite natural. I almost see it as a remnant of something good, in which the woman is acknowledging that she is pleased to belong to her husband. I think it’s okay for a woman to like mentioning her husband so long as she isn’t bragging overly much.
greyghost wrote:
I agree with you. Perhaps “brag” isn’t the right word for me to use. I think I reference my husband, more than brag. Well, no, actually sometimes I brag about him because I do think he’s pretty awesome. So maybe I’m wrong that way BUT I think it’s good for a woman to show other women that she values her status as a wife. Herd control and all that…
One of the side-effects from reading in the spinstersphere has been that not only do I love my husband and feel attracted to him, but I also have a greatly increased sense of gratitude toward him. Love, attraction, and gratitude – this is a winning combination. I recommend daily reading in spinstersphere for all married women. 🙂
@Empath
“Yea I knew that, she forced a separation, told the dude she was certain it could never be fixed…..and let that languish…..well surprise! He filed. This happens alot”
yes indeedy
Don’t know if this was already covered, my apologies if it has.
“A woman divorcing once and then marrying up says drama, rebirth, and empowerment.”
This strikes me as an allegory to Christianity, in that one must be “born again” to be saved. Or instance: to achieve feminist salvation, one must “die” from the drama of divorce, be reborn by “remarriage” (hitching another willing fellow to your baggage train), and the new creation in the God of Feminsim (empowerment) that flows from this act.
And who says Secular Humanism, of which Feminism is an descendant, isn’t a religion in and of itself? Heck, you have a sacrament / rite of salvation right here!
I would also add that she seemed remarkably surprised when I told her I’d be filing (or she could, but get the hell on with it). I don’t know if she preferred the victimhood of being divorced (having done everything required to force one)?
It was only on the point of the decree absolute that she told me she wished we’d had kids. Whether for her financial gain in seperation (she got very little), or as a tool to force servitude I will never know as I haven’t spoken to the dopey bitch in over a decade.
All I do know is that not having kids saved my life (in a quality sense). She should have read the script; kids THEN divorce. Maybe I’m being too harsh, maybe she wasn’t being calculating, just dumb.
Just1X
There is a woman that has a blog on my annoying husband or something like that. She was previously married without kids and started some drama and the guy was gone. Her next guy (the annoying one) was trapped in the child snare. Jay Cutler of the chicago bears left his girlfriend before marriage. She must have changed her tune and managed to get the guy back. Well she made sure to get knocked up this time and did it real fast and in a hurry.
@Greyghost
oh boy, did I miss a bullet… 🙂 I have never drunk as much as on the night she told me about wanting to have had kids (the divorce nearly final), but I still felt sober. Just what made me get married in the first place? (she asked me to do it) 40 year out of date societal expectations, pretty face, healthy libido and the lack of a red-pill, is my guess. Never again, don’t get married guys! I was lucky
Will S. says:
August 11, 2012 at 3:20 pm
“”Dalrock, I question though, as per your eight-part list, whether most young women are consciously, deliberately, deciding to do all this; I suspect not, that they simply go with whatever their desires are at a given moment, letting the media / friends / family members tell them what they think they should be doing, how they should be feeling, etc., and are simply not thinking much at all about the future, living one day at a time. Why ascribe to malicious forethought, after all, what can be explained by sheer mental laziness?
Yeah, they heard a lot of that at Nuremberg.
“He wiped out the entire planet. Some people might point out that He promised not to do it again, such people would be very thick to say so, because He promised not to take out the WHOLE PLANET again..”
Actually the promise was to not use water/flood again.Nothing is said about other methods.
Clearly stated in Revelation is the transference out of the physical body into the spiritual body of the entire population.The spiritual body is able to be free of sin,and hence the various parameters
of ‘heaven’ or the 4th world age.
It is clear the world itself it not destroyed,but the inhabitants are purified in *some* manner that equates to be equal or greater than the cleansing floods.
Note the horsemen of tribulations.
I believe this to be the current narrative, but with a class caveat.
That class caveat is that college educated woman are consciously/unconsciously feel themselves entitled to live within this narrative and that it is acceptable and responsible approach to mating and men.
As far as the underclass, I subscribe to the “state as provider” theory articulated by those above. Furthermore the State as provider is creeping up the class scale into the blue -collar class,
Concurrently both narratives are open and running among the western woman’s mind.
I fail to see how “I would sleep with the bad boy but not marry him,” is different than “I would sleep with the slut not marry her.” The only difference I can ascertain according to the dubious manosphere theory is that only the “bad boys” are getting sex and women therefore have an obligation to spread the sex around more.
DH lets not play dumb You are right there is no difference and the women that does say that and believe that is not one to be made a wife. Now if a woman thinks marrying a guy that has a harem going is fine then that is her business. Has nothing to do with the beta chumps not getting their fair share of the pussy.
Doomed.. Apples & Oranges are not equal. Women have an obligation to themselves and society to NOT sleep with the bad boy..both in their own long term self interest and societies. By feeling she can sew her oats, she only ends up ruining herself for long term commitment and trust. They call them developmental years for a reason. In all fairness the male should not be sleeping with the slut. But only a Alpha can ruin himself in the sense that he becomes so much a player that he ends up an adulterer…Its not like the Cock Carousal that’s to damn easy for woman and ends up developing bad character and making them loopy and perpetually dissatisfied in LTR.
Dalrock,
Thanks for your response.
You say: “There is some important nuance here. Young women don’t want to marry while still young, and they don’t express any concern about being able to do so later. However, the latter is a function of the assumption that when they are ready it will be a given. Similarly I could do a survey of airline passengers and prove to you that safety wasn’t a primary concern.”
– I also think the nuance is important. I am not convinced that they are putting off marriage thinking it will always be there for the taking. RATHER, I think they genuinely have no desire for that sort of thing at a young age and thus blowing off marriage thinking it to be “lame” or “outdated”. It is only as they get older do they start to think: “Hey this career thing kinda sucks” and “You know I wish I didn’t have to work or work as hard.” Then they see some of their smarter girlfriends that have a husband; get jealous and ONLY THEN think having a provider would be nice.
– Also, I still don’t buy into your theory that women will en mass start to settle for Betas as they get older. You claim that Betas themselves become more attractive as they get older and gain male respectability. But I still don’t see how women gain status from getting attached to a Beta. That will surely bring forth accusations of “settling” from her peers. Lets take the example of Kate Bolick for example. She contemplates becoming a nun and living in a monastery; which she finds favorable to settling for a Beta. I mean think about that; even at her age! Hahahaha.
You remember how in the comment section of theuniversityofman.com that one woman claimed Betas are slightly higher status than women. I think it was her that was humoring us and stroking our egos and not the other way around!
This is serious business. Not only does the internet make it more likely that a young man will randomly run into this kind of truth, but sites in the manosphere explain what is really going on.
The web is just awesome in this, both in developing the knowledge and getting it out. Printed media would have never let the red pill studies develop. I wish it all existed twenty years ago.
Dalrock
“This is serious business. Not only does the Internet make it more likely that a young man will randomly run into this kind of truth, but sites in the manosphere explain what is really going on.”
#1. Indeed..this is very serious business.
#2. A Soviet dissident once said “This machine is so revolutionary it will make totalitarianism impossible” – He was speaking of the fax machine. The concept is the same with the Internet only more so. We can now undermine this corrupt system driven by feminism in ways no-one could do before. If I had been raised on the Internet I would have discovered the manosphere long ago & my consciousness would have been more refined and better attuned to the dynamics at play.
Keep up the good fight…cracks are starting to appear.
Farm Boy – To funny that we both posted the same quote and were thinking the same thing at the same time!!!
I had not seen your post & was busy composing my own!
@NAS
The proof is in the stats. Kate Bolick is one of a very small remainder of white women her age who have never married. I don’t have exact stats for her specific age (39), but I would guess it is roughly 12%; only 14% of current 35-39 year old white women in the U.S. have never married. I’m not saying these women will find betas sexually attractive, I’m saying marrying a beta becomes very attractive due to the status it confers. This is why Professor Mentu keeps warning betas about the sluts exiting the carousel. He knows they are on the prowl for a beta provider to marry.
@Fitz
Maybe we are identical twins separated at birth. I will volunteer to be the “evil” one
David Collard (writes)
“I do wonder if part of the appeal of “bad boys” could be in their being unlike boring old beta Dad. I mean, if women have started marrying betas, maybe the betas make weak fathers and their daughters want to experience a more masculine model of manhood rather than a repeat of what they have seen at home.”
I think this is an important insight. Especially for upper class suburban girls who take the beta providing dad for granted as a eventual entitlement “some time later”. Then it becomes “How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they have seen gay Parie”.
Of coarse you then add the persistent presence of feminism encouraging it and the lack of a authentic Christian culture preventing it, or offering any real practical alternative, and bingo…you have the current state of affairs.
@Doomed Harlot
I fail to see how “I would sleep with the bad boy but not marry him,” is different than “I would sleep with the slut not marry her.” The only difference I can ascertain according to the dubious manosphere theory is that only the “bad boys” are getting sex and women therefore have an obligation to spread the sex around more.
That is because you are stuck on the false assumption of equality, specifically between the sexes, that is axiomatic to feminism. There is also no Biblical support for equality which, to tag from Vox’s post, was pointed out by St. Thomas Aquinas.
The roles roughly described, women are the gate keepers of sex, while men are the gate keepers of commitment.
Jason
That rapid serial polygamy is kind of horrifying. I am sure it goes on, but with women in a church?
Yes. Certainly such women are still statistical outliers – they are not the majority, nor a plurality, to be sure, so Not All Women Are Like That (NAWALT) applies. But they do exist.
Is it really that bad in the US? In the conservative churches, the mainline liberal Protestants would celebrate this I am sure.
“Celebrate” is a strong word, and I do not think it would apply, save in some of the deeply feminized groups that are basically Sunday morning NOW meetings. But tolerated? Yes. The American churches are rather feminized, in my admittedly limited experience, and always willing to give the benefit of the doubt to women. I’m sure that there are denominations where if behavior like that was known, some pastor or church leader would sit the young woman down and explain why her behavior can’t fit in with her church attendance. But IMO those are rare. Far more common would be if some man were to complain about one or more promiscuous women in church, and he’d be advised “Judge not, lest ye be judged”, “Are you without sin? Can you cast stones?” and so forth. Endless forgiveness despite no change in behavior is all too common.
Btw what is FWB? Context makes to clear it is some sort of alpha bad boy who gives her tingles but I don’t know the acronym. I am learning lots,of them but that one I don’t know yet. Heck I only learned AFC a few weeks ago 🙂
As Dalrock pointed out, it’s “Friends With Benefits”. Casual sex with minimal commitment or emotional investment. A logical outgrowth of the 1960’s – 70’s slogan, “If it feels good, do it”.
Again, these women are not a majority, not a plurality, not common (in one sense of the word) but they do exist. I’ve known of a couple, only because of the insane, soap-opera level of drama they created in the lives of some of my friends (One of the women in question didn’t’ go to a mega church, but she did attend Mass from time to time…). Most women are pretty good actresses when they need to be. Each of these party girls got up near 25 or so and suddenly cleaned up their act, enough so that if a man didn’t know of her past, and didn’t look for the signs, he’d have been fooled about what he was getting involved with.
To be specific, I knew a man who married one of these women. That marriage didn’t even last 5 years; and all together, now:
He Never Saw Divorce Coming.
To be honest, she did seem to have learned something because so far as I know she’s still married to her second husband, and she’s got to be in her upper 30’s now. But that doesn’t really mean much to the first husband. He’s never remarried. Probably never will.
Nas wrote:
This is absolutely confirmed in the spinstersphere. I have read blog posts by half a dozen women saying the same thing; they are exhausted and bored by the careers they worked so hard to get. They are bitterly jealous of acquaintances who have married and had children because these women have cut back to working part-time or not at all. Spend an hour or two reading such blogs and you will find this theme not infrequently. They usually then proceed to blaming society that they can’t take a year or two off work because in a caring society (Sweden!) they would have the “social safety net” to fall into.
David Collard
“I do wonder if part of the appeal of “bad boys” could be in their being unlike boring old beta Dad.
Who? The guy who lives in the crummy apartment, that they get to go see one weekend out of four? Who’s he, again?
50% of children in the US will at some point between birth and the age of 18 live in a “household” that doesn’t include a father or stepfather. So where do women learn what “man” looks like? In the movies, on TV, as part of a pack of girls in high school watching the other girls drooling over alphas, etc. What’s missing from this picture? Could it be…a real, live, male human being?
IMO the attraction of bad boys is simple: they are conspicuously, visibly, masculine. This stands out in the sea of beta boys most women are surrounded by. In the last year or so I’ve made a point to really watch the men I meet in churches, and it is interesting how many of them are clearly betaized. The really older ones, over 65, not so much, but men under 50? Very often. And the single men in their 20’s, who open doors for the young women and defer and cater to them in an obsequious fashion? Definitely. Some of the young men are almost feminine in their physical movements, speech patterns, etc. And guess what? The women often treat them like a piece of furniture.
As Deti, van Rooniek and others have made abundantly clear, from personal experience, most men are raised to be extremely beta by their mothers, their teachers, the mainstream culture, and last but very much not least, their church leaders. The last fact is of great importance.
This fact of betaization from all quarters, accounts for quite a lot of the anger – the smoking, white-hot-molten-metal, volcanic anger – that many men experience after learning some of the truth about men, women, and nature. Because it means that everyone they trusted as a young man told them something the exact opposite of truth.This constitutes a deep betrayal of trust, and it takes time for a man to work through it.
Come, beta boys, this nice lady has some goooood red candies for you:
(It’s funny, though. Feminist destroy whole society to prevent men from speaking the truth about female nature… and then they get whistle blown on them big time by one simple little naughty housewife. There’s no justice like poetic justice.)
Re: Anonymous Reader & Jason
The watering down of Christianity is something that has been going on for a while for a variety of reasons (re: below). Come feminism & the sexual revolution most Church’s simply retreated away from the whole subject of sin, sex, & male/female relationships. I know this is true of the RCC as a practical matter, outside the Catechism and official teachings.
“A God without wrath brought men without sin into a kingdom without judgment through the ministrations of a Christ without a cross.”
H. Richard Niebuhr
The Kingdom of God in America (1937)
@ Blogger: I don’t deny the all-too-common pattern Dalrock describes; I just am not sure it’s deliberate, on purpose. Evil is evil, either way; nothing is excused, if someone does ill out of forethought, or just on the spur of the moment. Wrong is wrong.
I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but I like most of Dalrock’s posts, and link many of them, even if I don’t comment on many these days. But people can disagree, once in a while, you know.
I pointed out the 40% and 50% rates of births to unmarried women and suggested that such women are “marrying” the state.
Dalrock
This is certainly a part of what we see, but even here there is status which comes from being married to an actual man which doesn’t (and can’t) come from the welfare state. Black women are the least likely to marry in the U.S., but even Black women marry at very high rates. Per the latest Census data only 32.5% of Black women 40-44 have never married.
I’ll grant that and once again point out that the 40+ cohort of women is from a foreign country – the past. You’re looking back to the 1980’s and 1990’s in that cohort, and the percentage of children born to unmarried women was much lower then. Therefore the ‘status’ of marriage was higher then, than now. Evidence? Easy. The “status” of being married clearly is not as important to women under 30 – if it were, then half of all births to that cohort would not be to unmarried women, right? We work hard to get what we value. Clearly a whole lot of women under 30 are not willing to put off having a child until they are married, so clearly they do not value marriage as highly as they value having a baby.
These women may well say they value marriage, but they do not act like it.
Co-sign on AR’s comment at 1459.
I befriended a young man back in 2005. He was literally 6’3″, 225 lb. of solid muscle, blond, blue eyes and “nice”. Utter marriage material, yet he couldn’t get laid in *rural Germany*, a place where farmers were all but begging for strapping young men to help them with their harvests (you’d think that some farmer’s/brewer’s/vintner’s daughter would have scooped him up…) For 18 months, his entire romantic history involved being placed in the LJBF/”save him for when I turn 30″ file. His inadvertent solution for making himself more Alpha, you might ask (and remember, this guy is a head taller than the average male height?) *Learning capoiera*. Yes, a handsome, “fit”, relatively intelligent and non-philandering young white man who was living in a section of Germany in which even the “sluts” found themselves married before turning 25, had to learn a martial art to become “sexy”. To reiterate: a guy who looked like and held the morals of the Aryan ubermensch (not the race supremacy ideals, but the fidelity/duty/family ideals, mind you), who was also *living in the birthplace of the idea of Aryan superiority*, who was also living in a town that held neo-Nazi idealists until almost 2004, didn’t begin to trigger “sexy” switches in the minds of the local women (never mind the women on the base), until the day he broke out a “roda” with his teacher during an open base day. Do I even need to mention that he was raised by a single mother with feminist ideals just short of McKinnon or Dworkin…?
@Lovekraft
Typing G-d is normally a Jewish thing, rather than writing out the name of God. Similar to the way they don’t pronounce the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) which is God’s revealed name.
Also Xian is actually a suitable contraction as the X is from the original Greek and comes from the Greek letter chi, which looks like a slightly stylized X and represents the “Ch” sound in the Greek “Christos”. For centuries one symbol of Christianity was the ChiRo which is the symbol Constantine saw in the sky and had his men paint in their shields before the battle of the Milvian bridge.
Anyway this is wandering off topic, but don’t worry about people writing Xmas or Xian. It pays respect to Christ even if they not mean too.
Will S,
I was being semi-facetious and I pretty much agree with you.
As you seem aware, what really passes for female decision making processes is some sort of emotional short hand, whereby decisions about taking courses of actions are put through the emotional processor at high speed and register either ‘feels good’ or ‘feels bad’, with, if necessary, a short spin through the rationalisation hamster to justify and put a respectable facade on the decision. When these courses of actions merely reinforce preconceived entitlements, this process is accelerated or by-passed.
Really the 8 step plan Dalrock outlines is suggested and reinforced by society from a variety of sources which are absorbed sub-consciously and when combined and weaved together result in the series of actions, observed continually in society. This patchwork quilt of expectations is continuously reinforced at every turn in society, until they seem, to the indocrinated mind, as natural and as reasonable as breathing.
@empathologicalism
That is funny she thinks she is a ok biblically because her husband filed?
Did nobody tell her that there are two biblical principles she missed?
1. The wronged party is the only one allowed to file, this one is inferred I admit, but I think a perfectly sound understanding when either party can file
2. Her husband is allowed to divorce the little shrew for abandonment. But that is also her fault not his.
@DH,
There is one difference between “you sleep Witt e bad boy not marry him” and “you sleep with the slut not marry her”.
I articulated this idea once before and got accused of saying men and women are the same, but will give it another go because I think the data supports it.
Being promiscuous destroys both men and womens ability/suitability to marry. It just destroys them in different ways.
Women lose the ability to commit and find satisfaction with a husband, but it seems the “player” loses the will/desire to commit and find satisfaction in a spouse.
The outward behaviour and manifestation is different but both have their potential for marital stability and health destroyed by their chosen actions. In many ways the results are far crueler to women because the ability is destroyed but the desire for marriage is not. No doubt in no small part because of the need for security and support in child rearing.
These days I would say that women are more interested in marriage then ever before – it’s just that they want it on their terms. They want to party till they are old, fat, and no longer desirable then want to find some idiot to marry them. As a successful male pushing 50, I spend most of my time enjoying the 18-25 year olds (who are still in the party stage) – I don’t do older since around 28 they start seeing me as a very desirable marriage candidate – at least from their perspective since they see cars, houses, successful business… But I’m not interested… As someone smarter than I once said, “A key that opens many locks is a valuable key, but a lock that opens to many keys is worthless.” Women are the locks… I like to get them before they’ve opened to many keys… It is as simple as that – they give me what I want when they are young and attractive – so why would I want to saddle myself with something of diminishing value?
Women after 25 are on the downward slide – now at some point I’ll be too old to enjoy those sweet young things, although they keep proving me wrong since I figured 40 was the peak ten years ago. So when I hit that point, I’ll probably go off-shore and shack-up with a couple of women whose job will be to keep me happy. South America is good – although the Asian countries are always in the back of my mind – but the language is a b**ch…
Now I credit feminism with the fact that I can still get those sweet young things. Mostly because they grew up in households without a father-figure to approve of them. So they crave that approval. They get it from me, but not by bringing home good grades. I tend to want a more personal touch and make them work for my approval. So I don’t blame feminists for this – I thank them. If they hadn’t destroyed the nuclear-family I wouldn’t have nearly the fun that I do. It’s just that they have created their worst nightmare – men who thrive on the carcass of what once worked. Sure it will collapse – but not till after I’m dead so I couldn’t care less…
@ blogger:
“As you seem aware, what really passes for female decision making processes is some sort of emotional short hand, whereby decisions about taking courses of actions are put through the emotional processor at high speed and register either ‘feels good’ or ‘feels bad’, with, if necessary, a short spin through the rationalisation hamster to justify and put a respectable facade on the decision. When these courses of actions merely reinforce preconceived entitlements, this process is accelerated or by-passed.”
Exactly my point.
“Really the 8 step plan Dalrock outlines is suggested and reinforced by society from a variety of sources which are absorbed sub-consciously and when combined and weaved together result in the series of actions, observed continually in society. This patchwork quilt of expectations is continuously reinforced at every turn in society, until they seem, to the indocrinated mind, as natural and as reasonable as breathing.”
I can agree with that, certainly.
@AnonymousReader and @Dalrock,
Thanks, I can clearly be thick at times as I do know the term Friends with Benefits and just didn’t put it together.
P.F.
RE: your entire post above
…..”The days of baby mama teens and early 20 something’s being shamed and relegated to only the lower classes, the ghetto, trailer parks, etc are over. Its quite mainstream for the suburban middle-middle class now.”….
I would say the trend is definitely in that direction but its premature to call it ” quite mainstream”.
It is definitely only being held up by remaining status & even a “Baby Mama” gets whatever status the Father has in the circles they travel in…both for catching his seed and being seen as one who has him in her life ..if not the full commitment of marriage… {that is tanking out}
blogster at 4:28pm
I concur – Its not what one would call rational thought. There susceptible to social cue’s but under our dictatorship of relativism no morality around sex is tolerated, so they only get what their peers consider O.K. – Its spiraling downward so fast that general statistics cannot give you a real snapshot of the multiple phenomina occuring. I really think the entire sexual revolution is now arriving at the stage of critical mass were it startas to wip-saw through society and implosion becomes impossible to stop (not that anyones trying)
Fitz, hmmmmmmm I don’t know. From where I stand, middle-middle class, while there’s not a baby mama in every other house, it is close to every other block. The other teen girls and young 20 somethings seem to think its “cool”. The parents, or the single parent these girls are living with, whatever the case may be, seem to be excited too.
A thought,
A number of people have commented on the lack of willingness to wait for marriage for women to become baby mamas. I don’t think this phenomena is quite what you think it is, and in part, may explain part of the “stanton’s heores” thing that Dalrock and others (rightly) think is so evil.
The getting pregnant out of marriage is an almost inevitable symptom of having sex outside of marriage. This probably seems obvious but I don’t think the intent is to get pregnant necessarily it is just a consequence of it.
Feminism tried to “solve” this problem with legalized abortion, but no matter how many times they want to say, “it aint no thang”, women know what they are doing when they abort, which is killing their unborn child. The data would bear that out, even (perhaps especially) among post abortive women who are some of the most rabid supporters of abortion. I suspect it is just a different manifestation of hamsterbatics.
Hence people like Glenn Stanton wanting to holdup women who choose not to kill their unborn children as “heroes”, for taking the hard path. Strangely he doesn’t think to hold up those who took a “harder path” (waiting until married) and did things properly as “heroes”. Although the language of the whole thing is just disgusting on the whole. Actually if any of these “baby mama’s” are heroic, it is the ones who carry to term and then see their child adopted by a loving couple who can provide a real nurturing environment for them. But that requires real sacrifice from the woman so is probably off script for many of them.
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals,
It shouldn’t surprise you that parents are accepting and encouraging. The ones you see will be self selected for it. The ones who strongly disapprove will have encouraged the mother to kill the kid off, or have sent the girl away (if that even still happens anymore) or even rarely adopt out, leaving only the accepting ones left standing as the visible examples. This then has the unintended consequence of reinforcing that it is all ok to do this because look all the parents of unwed mothers are approving. Even though some are likely just putting on a brave face and making the best of a bad situation because they dont want their grand children carved up in the womb.
The culture is insane on issues of sex. Actually the culture is insane on lots of things, but this is one particular area that is completely off the deep end.
Jason, I still can’t understand why young people don’t use contraceptives, every single time. I guess they think, “it can’t happen to me”.
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals,
Some of it is probably “heat of the moment”. Although in reality I think you will find that many of the pregnancies are a result of failed contraceptives not neglected ones. Contraceptives are not 100% effective, especially if misused. The only sure fire way to avoid one of the natural consequences of sex is to not have sex. But apparently that is to prudish for many people.
Another thing I noticed Jason is that this current generation (under 25) is just not as afraid of pregnancy, child birth and single parenting as my generation was. If they do get pregnant, its no big deal to them, they will survive, even thrive. Their families tell them so. They certainly are optimistic!
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals,
You might be right about some young people, but be wary of self selection there. With the ubiquity of abortion the reality is that only parents who would welcome bastard grand kids into the world are the ones you will see endorsing the idea. Possibly as part of “putting on a brave face” and just making the best of the bad situation they find their kids in.
As for the young thinking it is no big deal. Never put it past a young person to have a misguided view about reality.
Speaking of losing control of the narrative, is it just me, or does Permaculture seem off? To the Christians present, this person is inserting her heretical beliefs all over the place here as if to subvert the purpose of this blog. Her talk about the middle classes and baby mamas strikes me as fiction – it doesn’t have a ring of truth to it. It seems Dalrock has been getting one after the other of these types of commenters lately.
@Permaculture Farmaceuticals,
“I still can’t understand why young people don’t use contraceptives, every single time. I guess they think, ‘it can’t happen to me’.”
What total crap! There is no need for barriers between a married man and woman. Are you promoting hooking up? As a “counselor,” do you understand the physiological aspects of no-barrier sex? Are you advocating non-commitment-fucking? Skin-to-skin in a monogamous committed permanent man-woman relationship is what our hearts long for.
You are a quack and an infiltrator.
@Anonymous Reader.
This deserves repeating. You nailed it.
This fact of betaization from all quarters, accounts for quite a lot of the anger – the smoking, white-hot-molten-metal, volcanic anger – that many men experience after learning some of the truth about men, women, and nature. Because it means that everyone they trusted as a young man told them something the exact opposite of truth.This constitutes a deep betrayal of trust, and it takes time for a man to work through it.
The problem is not that women are hypergamous: nature or God made them that way. The problem is all the society lying to you and leading to broken-heart, loneliness, sadness and low self-esteem. What is worse: making you waste the best years of your life, which will never come back. And multiply this for millions of young men.
What is worse: making you waste the best years of your life, which will never come back. And multiply this for millions of young men.
It’s bad for women also. Feminism is a disaster for everybody. Though more so for men.
Because it means that everyone they trusted as a young man told them something the exact opposite of truth This constitutes a deep betrayal of trust, and it takes time for a man to work through it.
Indeed it is. I was lied to in the formative years, by people I trusted. I suppose they did not know any better. Still it happened. The red pill is the immediate answer. Long term answer: who knows?
It’s bad for women also. Feminism is a disaster for everybody. Though more so for men.
To be fair, feminism is far worse for young men than for young women, no doubt about it. But, when the entire life is considered, feminism is much worse for women than for men.
Once you get out from your 10-20 years of hell, if you have your sh*t together, you have most of your lifetime to enjoy a freedom and a mating power our parents couldn’t have dreamed of. Don’t cry for the patriarchy. I have lived it in my native country and men lived lives of quiet desperation.
@CL
I think something to remember is that women like to brag about their accomplishments. It can be their manolo blanicks, their new cars, clothes, jewelry specially if this things are given by other men. Is only natural that married ones brag about their husband and is actually good they do. Once the herd started badmouthing “marriage” and ‘kids” as oppressive and the life that men lived as “glamorous” is when this mess started. I would say that married women should brag as much as possible as a way to keep the status marriage have because you surely had seen that media is not doing that. The “fun, complex” females are the single ones. Married women are the boring, unglamorous, jaded ones that in spite of still looking good they have to “put up” with their boring, stupid husbands.
I wish someone made a series were he professional girl talk about being burned out and miserable in dating but it till take time for our culture to embrace those hard truths. As of now I mention my husband positively as much as I can and I do think men in general like to think their wives are proud of being married to them, I know mine does, YMMV.
@ Anacoana (and Dalrock and sunshinemary earlier)
I would put it this way: When I look at those spinster blogs, I feel bad for them and all their confusion. It must be a painful state to be in. I think “there but for the grace of God…” By the same token, if I refer to “my Man” I don’t do it to rub it in anyone’s face, yet is does feel good to be claimed and there is nothing wrong with that.
There are many women who use husband-as-status-symbol specifically to rub it in people’s faces, which is not the sign of a loving heart or a feminine disposition. No doubt my irritation at some of that is due to my own circumstances, I’ll admit that, but I have always found the way some women show off in that way rather distasteful.
It is a bit like the competition between moms to see who has the most crunchy points – also irritating even though I come out pretty high on the crunchy scale myself. It seems many women are engaged in a ridiculous contest with each other rather than being motivated by doing what they think is best for their kids or, likewise, by being good wives for their men.
This is difficult to articulate, so I hope my intent is clear here.
@Anonymous Reader
I hear what you are saying on marriage stats. We won’t know what percentage of this cohort ends up marrying for another 5-10 years. Even then, it will be difficult to know for sure what they really intended because the ones who tried and failed to marry are very likely to rationalize that they never wanted to marry. Only if today’s batch of 20 somethings end up marrying at very high rates will we have an indication of which model was right, and I would be surprised if they are able to marry at the same rates their predecessors did after delaying marriage so much longer. On the other hand I will read a drop in lifetime marriage rates for this cohort one way, and you will interpret it another way. I don’t know what further we can do here than respectfully disagree. The one thing we do agree on is that young women today as a group aren’t motivated to marry, we just disagree on their lifetime disposition on the issue. Ultimately what will be telling is what adjustments if any the following cohorts of young women make. If they see their older sisters and aunts failing to marry after making marriage last priority, will they change course (on the margins)?
On the birth stats though those are entirely current. In fact, given the distribution of fertility they would tend to be skewed towards younger women if young women were deciding give birth out of wedlock. We certainly see this for Black women but much less for White women, especially middle class and above. If this trend changes the percent of out of wedlock birth stats will show us in real time.
At any rate, I always enjoy reading your thoughts even when we disagree.
@CL
Agreed and problem solved.
One more wisdom on keys&locks:
“The mind that opens to a new idea never returns to its original size.”
(Albert Einstein)
“The beta woman that opens to an alpha man never returns to her original modesty.”(MyHumbleSelf)
@greyghost
I certainly have changed over time, and you are right that I have learned both from commenters and other bloggers. However, I still believe marriage is too important to give up on. I wish I had better advice to offer than to screen extremely carefully or go without, because realistically very large numbers of men must now go without or marry women who aren’t suitable for marriage. I see this as an incredible tragedy, and I marvel that so few who would seem to advocate marriage express any real concern for what is unfolding in front of us.
One more thought on 100playersVS100sluts shaming dilemma.
I talked to an older lady that grew up in a single mother household in now-not-existant-anymore country of Yugoslavia. She told her mother was a bitter celibate manhater… but she had a big portrait of “Comrade Glorious Leader” Tito hanged in her single-bed bedroom.
So it appears that even if we put all 100 players in jail, the 100 sluts will rather masturbate to alphas than have sex with regular betas. The “fifty shades of grey” phenomenon seems to confirm this. (Idea of investing into Obama-or-Putin-portrait-making-companies’ stocks is getting more attractive every day.)
To be fair, after I “found Game”*, I thought the problem could be solved with Game; for those already trapped with bad marriage material, or facing them.
Nobody wants to watch the generation die in the desert.
*Interesting phrase, isn’t that: Found Game; “Disocvered “Game”? I see it all over the manosphere. Where else do we hear “finding” or discovering” a philosophy…
Cane Caldo, why do you regard Game as a philosophy?
@AR
Because it is. The first definition of “philosophy”, from dictionary.com:
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
To the Game proponent, it seems ludicrous to say that Game is a philosophy. You might tell yourself that a philosophy is too big a thing–too encompassing–for Game to be a philosophy.
You’d be wrong.
It certainly appears this post has ruffled a lot of fem feathers.Several of them have posted that saying these things is “not fair” or “Just not right”
But they fail to articulate exactly what it isn’t fair or right.
The simple fact is they’ve enjoyed having the upper hand due to men’s general societal ignorance.
It must suck when the prey learns the actions of the predators,it makes for less productive hunting,and more effort from those who had everything handed to them effortlessly before..
Still not seeing women with courage enough to do approaches.Well,not real approaches,they just put themselves into my path and refuse to move,expecting me to approach.They have a very long wait ahead of them.Here’s a clue gals: When the first question out of your mouths is “What do you do for a living” we’re onto the fact that’s a price tag for renting not for buying.
We’re no longer interested in paying.The contract is broken,and it will be rightfully ignored by the younger generations.The wells have been poisoned,the seed ate instead of planted,the fields salted bitterly.Nothing is going to grow here for a very long time.It would take rain from heaven (return to doctrine) and a sound justice system (not going to happen)
Frankly special interest groups are still making big dollars off the pain and misery of break-ups and divorce.Women too self centered for introspection or long term self interest.Like a child,it wants the instant gratification over long term stability.This is the death-cult that kills tomorrow to drink and make merry today.
I don’t know about Game solving a difficult marriage. I think if you begin with bad material, Game may not be enough. As the saying goes, “you can’t make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear”.
MV, I like your new maxim.
On the bright side, different women do seem to be happy with different levels of Game. My daughter seems very happy with her boyfriend, who is a very nice lad, and not a “bad boy”. I know that single cases prove nothing, but maybe she has had enough of overbearing men from watching me.
An ex-fiancee who was too much for me eventually married another man who was probably more of a hardass than me. At the same time, my bad experience with her probably red-pilled me enough that the next girl that came along got a “sadder and wiser” man.
There seem to have been a series of trolls (or maybe the same troll several times) whose modus operandi has been to just generally lower morale. One of the tricks progressives have used to great effect in the last few decades has been to simply declare (often with little evidence) that the world has changed on some ethical point, and it is too late now to go back … can’t turn the clock back … blah, blah, blah.
@Cane Caldo
Looking forward to your guest submission regarding your thoughts on “game”. Though I think I disagree from your explanations so far, I’ll still appreciate your expanded interpretations on the subject.
I don’t see Game as a philosophy. I don’t see relations with women as that important. Game is applied sociology.
I read Fortean Times. In Fortean (Charles Fort’s) terms Game is “damned sociology”, that is sociology outside the mainstream, but true nonetheless.
I think the ‘ever married’ stat is a misnomer, the act of marrying and being married are two very different categories. All the currently married stats seem to give 5 years as the cut off point as being married (despite the infamous 7 year itch), a more appropriate stat would be the currently married category and given divorce rates I would assume it would be a lot lower than the 90% of ever married.
OT, but you might find this one interesting….
Katie Roiphe writes “In Defense of Single Motherhood”:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/12/opinion/sunday/in-defense-of-single-motherhood.html?_r=2
This might not be on topic for this post, but I think you might find this interesting Dalrock. Some guy over at the Good Dog Project has advised women that in order to get the man they “deserve” they shouldn’t objectively assess themselves and figure out what their actual value is, no, he suggests the better response is to double-down on the demands for male perfection or just “walk away”
It’s hilarious because 1. He assumes that man men aren’t interested in “chasing” the women of today’s world and 2. If you switch the genders, (as I did using regender.com) it sounds like beginner Game theory and PUA. Meanwhile all the ladies over there are hypocritically gushing at the articles “insightfulness” little realizing that all it takes is a pronoun switch for the same words to make them scream “Creep and asshole!”
Anyway, you should take a look http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/the-good-life-ladies-demand-what-you-want/
sorry, #1 should say “many men *still* interested.” I started one sentence and finished another altogether.
I review of this thread, the previous thread, and some very insightful comments. I came up with the this conclusion based on the following scriptures (will limit it to one – there are many more) and personal experience.
Proverbs 21:19
Better to live in the wilderness than with a wife being combative and talkative and prone to anger.
Not all women are combative, talkative, and prone to anger.
For the men who married a combative, talkative, and prone to anger woman – (professing Christian or not) – “game” is simply a short term “fix” despite ones masculinity. If she will not sincerely submit to Christ – there will come a day she will simply not submit to you despite the “arsenal” of game or masculinity.
The problem is in the area of delusion/deception and is spiritually based.
“Game” is no match for the strength of this spiritual forces- none. They have been around for “ages”.
Unless both parties are seriously disciples of Christ – does a man and family stand stand a chance.
Shalom
imnobody (writes)
August 12, 2012 at 7:44 pm
I dont want to start a fight or anything…I’m sure I’m misreading this: However; I believe the patriarchy is to important an entire concept to do anything but defend, no matter what your particular connotation… so I cant let this fly by.
I believe defending the word as both a socio/political and philisophical concept is crucial to reinstating a proper form of it in the 1st world west.
To do so, at a minimum, is to directly take on feminism as a beleif system & on its own terms. (if not a understanding) For instance even the demographer in (the much recomended) “demoghraphic winter” ended the entire movie with an express call for “a return to some kind of patriarchy.”
http://www.demographicwinter.com/index.ht
Indeed what we are defending (I do & will argue) is presicley a “patriarchy” (male rule).
This is far to important a point & I cant let it slip by.
If your point was different, I did not understand it, or mine is not clear: thats fine.
But its far to effective and important a specific concept to esentially bury under the cliche (no-less) of “and men lived lives of quiet desperation.”
In my estimation of the phrase, men & women have always and will always; this side of the second coming, “live lives of quiet desperation.”.
This is a deep philisophical & linguistic point and to important tacticly to ignore.
& Delrock – With the PF matter, good call..my alarm bells were going off from the begining.
The quote meant for above, starting at the top of the post was…….
“Don’t cry for the patriarchy. I have lived it in my native country and men lived lives of quiet desperation.”
Also: The demographic winter is availiable in its entirety on YouTube.
Fitz, yes, I am a believer in patriarchy. I tend to say “modified or Christianised patriarchy”, but definitely a patriarchy. I think it should have places for women who are truly exceptional, to become real professionals, or nuns, or remain single, or whatever. But I think patriarchy is essential. It is more productive, especially economically. It is better for children. For the average man and woman, it produces more contentment.
It is true that men of my father’s generation were often quite stressed, under the slightly more patriarchal arrangements then, but as you say, life will always be hard. The data we have seen recently seem to imply that men are as happy on average today as before, which supports imnobody’s point, and the general point, that some men are more relaxed and enjoying life more under the new dispensation. But women are reportedly less happy today on average.
DC – Yes & In hindsight, before you posted, I was going to mention that I preferred the more directly Theological “Male Headship” instead of “Male Rule” – (something that is de facto the case economically & politically at most levels) – But not in relations between the sexes domesticaly amoung the common man expressley even when it applies.
Also – Tacticly I think its important that it be recaptured and reverted from a pajoritve in the face of feminists direct manipulation and false propagada about its proper and benevelant form.
Re: Game is a Tautology
If the only thing that Game can tell a man that has a difficult/combative wife is that he married the wrong girl… then there pretty much is nothing to see here. Heck, even Shakespeare could “tame the shrew.” What a joke!
If y’all need anything, I’ll be busy brandishing my “Impenetrable Frame.”
You need to marry the best girl you can find, if you want to marry. Even she will give you some trouble. That is the nature of women. But good husband Game does help. It is also important to be tough enough to master your woman. Some women are just tougher nuts than others. A beautiful arrogant woman like Shakespeare’s Kate needed Petruchio, who had very “tight game”. Talk about nuclear negs! – the guy gave his intended wife a ring he had pulled out of a pig’s nose.
Historically, marriage has not been seen as essential for men. In the Catholic system, some men have a “vocation” to the single life. I know men like that. But if a man wants to marry, I would recommend a girl as close to virginal as possible, whom he can “master”.
….in which Dalrock moves further along the long and winding path to admitting that he was dead wrong about the marriage strike. Men refusing to marry these ladies when they get off the carousel is the epitome of a marriage strike. It need not be an organized movement, it need not even be a conscious choice of the individual men involved (ie they perhaps would marry, if the right woman came along, but all that is coming along are carousel veterans). Men are, more and more, refusing to follow the part of the script where the carousel veteran marries the beta. THAT’S the marriage strike. NOT men and women in their twenties not looking to marry until “later.”
Dalrock is correct that most women still want to marry. Indeed, at a certain point, almost all women are desperate to marry. Check the pop culture, check women’s magazines, check what women write on “real people,” not explicitly feminist boards, check what they say in real life. Women, when they hit thirty or so, are dying to marry. But men are saying no.
Equally important, men are saying no to being the second husband in the scenario too. Of course, the millionaire handyman thing was always BS. But even more plausible second husband candidates (ie men more or less from the same socio economic group as the first husbands and the women themselves) are saying no. Again, they don’t have to carry a sign saying “On Strike” for the strike to be real. They just have to say no, indivicually and en masse.
Marriage rates are at an all time low. NOT just among twenty somthing women, but among all women except the very, very old. And so are the rates of women ever having been married. Women in their thirties and forties are finding out that their choice of husbands or second husbands has been narrowed considerably. The betas are no longer lining up to “rescue” them. The alphas never intended to marry, or, at least not to older women. So all that’s left are omegas. And even some of them are not looking for Ms Divorce Theft or Miss Just Got off the Carousel.
For marriage to make a comeback, the terms of marriage have got to change. And they won’t change unitl women realize what a shit deal they have made it for men, legally, socially, and all around. Being denied the benefit of marriage is a first step in this process. After a while, simply berating men for being “Peter Pans” and refusing to “man up” will be seen as the useless, if not actually counterproductive, waste of breath that it is.Then, perhaps, women will begin to listen when they are told why men don’t want to marry.
@Fitz
What is good on a micro level is not always good on a macro level. You can see this in economics.
Society needs patriarchy. No doubt about it. A non-patriarchal society is doomed and will be replaced by patriarchal societies, which are more efficient. You see it in Europe who is slowly becoming a Muslim continent.
Having said that, patriarchy is built on men’s shoulders. People in the States (I mean in general not you) imagine the patriarchy like a “Father knows best” paradise. (This is one of the problems in America: people don’t have real experience so they live vicariously through media. I can’t count the number of articles and books made by women who speak about “Sex and the City” characters as if they were real and a source of information about relationships).
The patriarchy was slaving oneself to support an ungrateful wife who was always complaining and bitching for mediocre sex once in a blue moon with no means to escape. For me, this is not an abstract statement: when I write it, I think of tens of marriage in my small town, people who I know personally, my family, my friends…the people of the previous generation…
Of course, there were good marriages but they were the minority (I know a handful of them). Hypergamy made sure most women get married because of practical reasons (social pressure not to become a spinster) and not because they loved the man. Men were also pressured to get married.
Most men lived lives of quiet desperation. And no, I don’t buy your thesis that everybody is living lives of quiet desperation this side of eternity (of course, everybody has problems, and many people have BIG problems – this is a fallen world – but this is completely different from living lives of quiet desperation).
If you don’t believe me, read the classics (Greeks, Romans, all the way to the XX century). You will see how men regretted not being able to be free from marriage and have to bear with an ungrateful wife.
I don’t know you, but this is prevalent in the manosphere, where people who hasn’t lived the patriarchy imagined it as a paradise with a respected patriarch, a pleasant attractive woman and a couple of adorable kids. Too many TV shows.
As I wrote in The Threat:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2012/02/10/the-threat/
For a woman, to encounter a man with a healthy awareness of his own value to women, this constitutes a threat. Here is a man for whom’s attention women will demonstrably compete for, AND he knows this. This is the most basic affront to the feminine imperative; to be unplugged, of high SMP value and to derive confidence from it. Therefore, in order to actualize her own sexual strategy, his self-confidence MUST be put into self-doubt, because if such a man were to use this knowledge to his own benefit he may not select her from a pool of better prospective women. Thus she must ask “Are you really sure of yourself? You think you’re so great? Maybe you’re just egotist? Don’t tempt fate.”
In this example we can see the conflict inherent in women’s sexual strategy; she wants the Alpha dominance of a confident Man, but not so confident that he can exercise his options with other women well enough to make an accurate estimation of her own SMV.
Ambiguity and misdirection in men’s assessment of a woman’s true sexual market value is the primary tool of the feminine imperative.
Because of women’s relatively short window of peak sexual viability it is imperative that men be as unaware of their slower, but progressively increasing SMV for as long as possible in order for them to achieve the prime directive of female hypergamy; realize the best genetic options and the best provisioning options she has the capacity to attract in that peak window. If Men become aware of their SMV before a woman can consolidate on her options with monogamous commitment her sexual strategy is defeated.
Once women acknowledge that the they’ve overstayed their expiration date and realize a decline in their SMV, it’s at this point they devise social conventions to salve their SMV’s decay. Thus you get the ‘Dirty-at-Thirty’ You-Go-Girls. For as popular as divorce porn is for the once-marrieds, there’s an equally popular fantasy ready for the women unable or unwilling to consolidate on a committed monogamy. What’s ironic about the women in the video bemoaning their youthful bad boy flings is that they reminisce about, and condone fucking them so long as women don’t marry them in the same breath.
For a social convention to be such, it necessitates being repeated by society WITHOUT a formal conception – meaning we learn the convention from seeing it, internalizing it and repeating it ourselves without forethought. The best social conventions are inconspicuous and rarely questioned because they’ve been learned without having been formally taught. This is why I think encouraging men NOT to bother trying to understand women is in itself a social convention. Don’t look at that man behind the curtain, just accept it for what it is, enjoy the show, you’re better off that way, the Mighty Oz has spoken.
This is the Threat that Game represents to the feminine imperative. Widely shared, objective assessments of Men’s SMV and how it develops is the antithesis of the female sexual strategy. Women’s greatest fear is that they could become the ‘selected’ instead of the ‘selectors’.
I’ve commented elsewhere that this is kind of like what happened over the years with drunk drivers. As society became more aware of the damage they’ve done in terms of accidents and fatalities, that fed the push toward more punitive laws. So we are witnessing the same deal with the concerns of the manosphere: as more men take the red pill and act on it in various ways, the pushback that has taken place largely at the individual level is expanding to the point of awareness among the greater society. The big difference being that the pushback is being met with deep-seated resistance on the part of those whom Dalrock has chronicled as receiving the benefits of the current paradigm. How this is going to play out, no one is sure, but my feeling is we’ll have to descend some more, possibly see a reset moment before we see improvement on more than just individuals.
In the meantime, I’m with Dalrock in saying that marriage is too important as a bedrock institution for the maintenance of civilized conduct to be abandoned. While I never liked eHarmony, there was exactly one cogent thing its founder said: 75% of a good marriage is picking correctly in the first place. In other words, as posters have said above in manosphere terms, need to find the woman with a temperament that works in a marriage. If you didn’t screen well enough (raising my hand here), you’ll often find yourself with someone you’ll have to “game” hard just to stay married and in some instances even MMSL can only go so far with someone like that. We all know how much that sucks. So … screen the shit out of potential wives. Dalrock has performed an excellent service in providing the ‘sphere with his posts regarding vetting them. If you don’t marry, so be it. Accept that and get on with it.
Dalrock, Anon Reader:
Interesting discussion on the issue of the current under-30 cohort and proclivities toward marriage.
I read Dalrock’s argument as: These women are still interested in marriage but putting it off as long as possible after which they will search for husbands in earnest. A smaller number than their older counterparts will marry.
I read AnonReader’s argument as: The under-30 cohort shows no interest in marriage, choosing career and single motherhood. Even the status of being married, albeit to an unattractive beta, holds little sway.
It’s too early to tell who’s right but I think there’s more evidence supporting Dalrock’s view, at least as things stand now. I’m of the view that things are going to go on as they have been, with steady declines in marriages and increases in “never marrieds”. It will probably go on for decades, barring catastrophe or war or economic collapse.
There will be many factors affecting this:
1. Women “marrying down” to men with less education or earnings; then divorcing for unhaaaappiness
2. Women’s continued and increasing financial independence
3. Men’s continued decline in education and earning power
4. Men’s refusal to marry through either becoming players, wannabe players or GTOW
Cane Caldo, thank you for the reply and definition.
1. the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct.
The definition seems overly broad. I cannot put Aristotle’s Nicomachian Ethics in the same category as the service and repair manual for my truck, not without defining “principle of knowledge” so broadly as to render the term nearly meaningless. The “principle of knowledge” could be said to include “how to hit a golf ball 250 yards with a #2 iron” and epistemology. I know men who have a philosophy of golf, but even they likely would not call the game itself “a philosophy”. Nor would they conflate the practical knowledge of how to use irons on the fairway with “how do I know what I know as a general concept”. [*]
Game seems a lot closer to a shop manual to get a vehicle working again, or advice on how to play out of the rough on a blind dogleg when the green is known to have sand traps, than the Way of Life. Although I suppose starting very far out in abstraction, such that Myamoto Musashi’s “Book of Five Rings” and Harvey Penick’s “Little Red Book of Golf” are practically the same thing because each book teaches a man how to use a given set of tools successfully – well, then, at that point the whole of human existence is “one thing”, and that wanders down into KumBaYah, “I’d Like to Buy The World A Coke” brainlessness. IMO. YMMV.
I can agree that Game might be a component of a larger philosophy. But a philosophy itself? I have to disagree with that.
[*] In writing these sentences a whole host of words that could apply to both golf and Game rushed around in my head but I’m holding them at bay, for now.
>>Anonymous Reader says:
August 12, 2012 at 3:58 pm
>>I’ll grant that and once again point out that the 40+ cohort of women is from a foreign country – the past. You’re looking back to the 1980′s and 1990′s in that cohort, and the percentage of children born to unmarried women was much lower then.
Exactly. Dalrock is a brilliant man in most areas. But, his graphs are history charts.
It is not necessary to wait another 20 years to see what is going to happen. Several hundred years ago, calculus was invented. This allows you to examine any math function and tell where it is going in the future, and you can tell it now by looking at current trends.
Several men who do understand calculus have tried to explain this to Dalrock, and he dismisses us as angry men. Or, agrees to disagree, while insisting 1+1=3.
Other than his preposterous claim there is no marriage strike, Dalrock is a brilliant blogger who more than deserves the strong following of fans he has.
Dalrock, you’re the man doing the work on the whole topic of “what’s really happening to marriage in the US”, I’m just a man sitting in the cheap seats tossing popcorn shells around. Thanks for not only putting postings like this together, but hosting the comments.
Maybe you and I and others are looking at the same elephant from different perspectives when we contemplate these numbers. Heck, maybe I’m just channeling my inner Eeyore. But it does seem to me that women prefer serial polygamy / polyandry, and that “marriage” is less and less meaningful to younger women. They are their own Beta now, and “husband” is more of a fashion accessory than a lifetime commitment. The numbers seem to support this.
As Deti, van Rooniek and others have made abundantly clear, from personal experience, most men are raised to be extremely beta by their mothers, their teachers, the mainstream culture, and last but very much not least, their church leaders. The last fact is of great importance.
To dispel a misconception… I did not grow up in church; I became a Christian at 19. So I learned my old fashioned chivalrous manners, the old fashioned ways of dating and romance, from my Mom and — very importantly — from my DAD. (Both of whom were strongly conservative, morally and politically, despite not being churchgoers). I grew up in an intact home, my parents stayed together til death.
I contend that the oldfashioned rules work just fine on oldfashioned women. Because when I finally found one such throwback, all went well.
I’ve also noted before, that when I finallly figured out significant aspects of “game” on my own (long before the Manosphere), I realized that as a matter of ethics I couldn’t really take maximal advantage of it – so I had to make the hard choice of staying “nice” (in the ethical sense, not the sappy sense), even though I knew it was prime cause of my continuing rejection. (God will avenge me).
That said — a certain amount of DEFENSIVE understanding of game, is essential to preserve the sanity of a young man today, and I will be sure that my sons have a thorough scientific understanding of hypergamy. Because you know it has to be REALLY BAD out there, when a single Christian man feels a nudge in his spirit, saying, “Yes, it’s okay to listen to Tom Leykis”. Because if the church doesn’t tell the truth, the stones will cry out. (I’m waiting for Mick Jagger to convert…. lol).
This fact of betaization from all quarters, accounts for quite a lot of the anger – the smoking, white-hot-molten-metal, volcanic anger – that many men experience after learning some of the truth about men, women, and nature. Because it means that everyone they trusted as a young man told them something the exact opposite of truth.This constitutes a deep betrayal of trust,
My Dad and Mom taught me the old ways…. apparently not understanding how the culture had shifted. I bear their dear departed souls no ill will whatsoever. However… the Church leaders KNEW BETTER. All the “group dating”, the deemphasis on romance in singles ministries, “no dating polices”, the pathological overemphasis on “singleness unto the Lord” (from married leaders no less… )… ad infinitim, ad nauseum, and ad diabolum (“forbidding to marry…. doctrines of demons”), fills me with RAGE when I think back to it. Everything they taught, just about guaranteed that every Christian woman would LJBF every Christian man she knew, and stay single forever, even before “I Kissed Dating Goodbye” codified their madness into a single volume and made it a bestseller…. ugh…
Anon Reader:
“But it does seem to me that women prefer serial polygamy / polyandry, and that “marriage” is less and less meaningful to younger women.”
Agree. And I think it has always been like this because it’s part of human nature. We’re seeing this trend now because, as Brendan has pointed out, feminism allows women financial independence from men, while creating an alpha lottery that all women can play.
In other words, the laws and culture simply allow women what they have always wanted: economic and sexual independence from men. Women did n’t have these legal and cultural freedoms before; now they do, and so they live it up as long as they can.
@AR
Game seems a lot closer to a shop manual to get a vehicle working again, or advice on how to play out of the rough on a blind dogleg when the green is known to have sand traps, than the Way of Life.
This is why it is important to define what Game is–and it’s difficult! The delay in my guest post has been this definition.
Now, you say Game is closer to a shop manual, but the even a shop manual has some serious implications: There is, in fact, a motor. Someone designed the motor. They used a set of principles to do so. They wanted to communicate with the users of that motor.
There are many more implications.
Additionally, the metaphor of the motor is exhausted pretty quickly because the motors we’re speaking of are sentient.
A question – does anyone here actually know any younger women well enough to ask them what they and their friends think about marriage? From the Kate Bolick interview, it seemed the girls at least still pay lip service to valuing and wanting marriage. I don’t know any 20-25 year-old girls well enough to ask them. It seems they must feel very differently about marriage than women of my age (I’m 43). The 40-something spinsters all expected to get married eventually and still desperately want to do so. They want to do so because they are lonely, because it turns out working at a job sucks, and because they feel judged.
AR, you say that now women can be their own beta. But do they want to?
I think we are getting it wrong based on the present situation. Van Rooinek gave it away when he also mentioned his dad as a teacher of beta. Beta is normal for a man. What has changed is womens requirements and responsibilities. to remain beta is foolish. Game itself as a beta tool developed and quantified by beta males (PUA) was brought on by feminism and the failure of beta male in a feminised society. players and cads from the past practiced game instinctively due to the fact they are basicly defective men, they are without emotional guilt and has such they are fully confident. That is why crimminals (thugs) seem to get woman they display the same characteristics. Imagine a society of alpha males thugs and feral women as displayed in the 1 thru 8. That society wouldn’t last more than a couple of days. To be “beta” is normal and manly to be “beta” and supplicating to women is not manly (bill bennett socila conservative) and not gina tingling. One of the things feminism did is remove any and all ability of a beta male to not supplicate. laws of misandry
The way i see it if you need game to marry a woman she is unworthy for marriage but enjoy sticking your penis in all of her openings and creases. If you are married and love your kids game may help you past the I’m not happy stuff until she gets too fat and old to have delusions of remarry.
Just a few thoughts i have on the subject.
@sunshinemary
How can I, a mere male, even question what you have just written, but I can tell you that even if privately they cry into their pillow each night, the forty-something women I know, not only show no desire to marry, but make it as clear as can be that eating barbed-wire would be preferable, unless of course, the man in question was Mr Christian Grey himself.
…and on the subject of 50 Shades of Grey (this is my latest theory) such books with their swooning damsels and hunky, handsome, billionaire, young men are surely, merely a modern version of the Medieval Romance (such as Orland Paladino) so mocked – one thought so as to destroy the genre – by Cervantes in The Quixote. It seems to me that the Gothic Novel is merely a sort of Dystopian Romance – where everything – nearly – goes wrong. Are we thus to see the Novel – the bourgeoise art-form par excellence – as merely a temporary and sane interlude in female hypergamy now dashed upon the rocks of Harry Potter and Christain Grey?
Cane Caldo
Now, you say Game is closer to a shop manual, but the even a shop manual has some serious implications: There is, in fact, a motor. Someone designed the motor. They used a set of principles to do so. They wanted to communicate with the users of that motor.
This is true. However, the first time I needed to get a vehicle that was running rough to operate correctly, I did not decide to spend time learning the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, all of the heat-transfer equations, the physics of the Carnot engine, metallurgy of ferrous and nonferrous metals, elementary DC and AC circuit theory including inductive and capacitive reactance, etc. and etc. and so forth.As interesting, and potentially useful as a few years of college level instruction would have been to me, I needed to get the machine working right away so that I could get to work on time that day.So I did not undertake to study all those things in the 30 minutes that I had to fix the problem.
Instead, I got a basic manual out and worked through a check list. Once I removed, cleanedand regapped the spark plugs (it was an old machine) the engine ran smoothly. Problem solved.
Another time I found that I did not need to know the chemistry of hydrocarbons in order to solve an engine problem, it was sufficient to replace the totally clogged fuel filter. And note that the shop manual didn’t even try to teach the Laws of Thermodynamics, nor did it delve into Newtonian physics in the section on brakes. It told me what I needed to know to get the job done, and left all the higher level theory to other texts.
A lot of men need to know how to get the truck started. They don’t need a course in how to mine, refine, and smelt steel in order to fabricate a hammer mill in order to create copper wire in order to replace the broken wire from the coil to the distributor. They need to replace the wire, get the truck going, and get to work.
When a man asks me what time it is, usually I’ll look at a timepiece of some sort and then tell him what it says. I don’t hand him a manual on how to build, repair, and maintain clocks.
If you are on lunch break from work, and you ask a sushi chef for a particular roll, do you want the food, or a detailed history of rice growing in Japan and the implications thereof?
Yes, I’m aware all these analogies are flawed – that is the nature of the analogy.
And I’m still of the opinion that Game is much more of a body of applied psychology than a philosophy. I will agree that Game can be a part of a larger philosophy.
@sunshinemary
The 2011 State of Our Unions report shares trends from a long running survey done by the University of Michigan. See page 95 and the following pages for an explanation of the survey and charts. I don’t see a pattern of young women being less interested in marriage than their predecessors. High school girls in 2007-2010 answered that having a good marriage and family life is “extremely important” at the same rate high school girls did in 1976-1980 (see Fig 15 on P 97). The charts are interesting and probably worth a separate post.
sunshinemary
AR, you say that now women can be their own beta. But do they want to?
Interesting question, that is. I would say offhand that many women in their 20’s often are utterly convinced that they can be their own Beta, and do a better job of it than any man. That may or may not change later on, depending on where they go in life. I have known women in the 40’s who, due to their employment, certainly acted like they were their own beta and wanted it that way – to the detriment of their marriage, too. I suspect this is going to vary from woman to woman, and within any given woman it will vary across time as well.
I probably didn’t answer your question. So I should think about it some more.
@VR
IMO there is not enough research on DEFENSIVE game. Some articles along the lines of “how to survive in a feminist/whiteknight/mangina infested workplace without resorting to use of firearms” would be gold worthy these days. Tell more about defensive game, please.
DoomedHarlot: “I fail to see how “I would sleep with the bad boy but not marry him,” is different than “I would sleep with the slut not marry her.” The only difference I can ascertain according to the dubious manosphere theory is that only the “bad boys” are getting sex and women therefore have an obligation to spread the sex around more.”
@Doomed:
The reason is, that women really don’t care how many women their husband or bf has had, as long as he is the alpha and he is not cheating on her.
Men, on the other hand, DO care how much their woman got around.
You call it a double-standard, when really it is just measuring what the other sex cares about. We want women who are not sluts. You want men who are not betas. This is why all the talk of “equality” is bull$hit. An apple will never equal an orange. They have different functions.
“Defensive game” …. let me give you an example. Tom Leykis (pbuh) used to warn men on his show, that women were just taking them for free dinners and entertainment and that thereofore, quoth he, “Never spend more than 40 dollars on a date”… and “Three date rule — if you don’t score by date 3, drop her.”
Needless to say, a marriage minded Christian can’t do the 3 date rule. And “Christian” women aren’t supposed to put out on dates anyway (which gives GREAT cover for taking a man for free meals under false pretenses, brethern be warned.)
So… DEFENSIVE GAME in that context would be:
(a) simply being aware that women who date you, may be trying to take you for free meals/ entertainment/ attention/ etc, without sincere intent
(b) learning to detect IOIs (indicators of interest), with Roissyian precision, so as to screen out such women without actual sexual involvement.
As for the workplace… best survival method is to MINIMIZE interaction with workplace women. That’s not game, that’s just simple common sense.
DoomedHarlot: “I fail to see how “I would sleep with the bad boy but not marry him,” is different than “I would sleep with the slut not marry her.”
They’re both equally wrong, morally. But men are rightly condemned if they practice that double standard, whereas women get a free pass to “date” the badboys with little or no social shaming. And if the women are told they shouldn’t, they whine and cry about the “double standard”!!!!!
Also… A small core of Alpha males, services a large percentage of the women, while most men are ignored. In other words, there are many, many more women who would “sleep with the bad boy but not marry him,” than there are men who “would sleep with the slut not marry her.” Especially in church.
Pingback: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ « Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
VR,
Your experience is very interesting. I’ve never seen this happen, but I believe you that there are people who employ a double standard against men sleeping around while women get a free pass. That’s just as wrong as a double standard that goes the other way. The moral standard should be either chastity for all, or hedonism for all. Personal preferences (i.e. as to how much premarital experience is acceptable in a partner), of course, are another matter and each person’s own business.
Danger,
Hmmmm, I don’t know. I think a lot of men are going to wonder what’s wrong with a woman who has never had previous sexual experience. I’m not saying this is a fair or correct attitude, but a lot of people these days find it weird if someone remains inexperienced past a certain age.
@Dalrock,
Actually looking through this and other comments I can’t help but wonder if there should be an “all female watching list”. That is a video like the one you posted with maybe the “Hypoagency” one by GirlSaysWhat and a few others. Total run time not greater than two hours with a “watch this first”. The music video above is probably good too…
@Will,
whether most young women are consciously, deliberately, deciding to do all this; I suspect not, that they simply go with whatever their desires are at a given moment, letting the media / friends / family members tell them what they think they should be doing, how they should be feeling, etc., and are simply not thinking much at all about the future, living one day at a time. Why ascribe to malicious forethought, after all, what can be explained by sheer mental laziness?
I agree. In fact, in as much as they are followers, this is to be expected. If they are told they can have it all and that this is the script why not do it? It is after all an entertaining hedonistic script.
@Days of Broken Arrows,
probably raising her as you would a boy. That means championing the kind of sexually aggressive behavior seen in young men, which was one of the whole points of women’s lib, but proved to be not without consequences — as we see.
No, you are not. You are raising her to be a parody of a boy. This is something feminists don’t get. There’s a book on a lesbian who dressed up as a man and attempted to infiltrate male institutions and write about the results. She went to monasteries and such. I haven’t had a chance to read it but from what I’ve been told the men didn’t find out she was a woman, but always did consider her “not one of them” (is she gay? a woman? crazy?).
@greyghost,
Any woman that is not married and with child (by her husband ) by 24 is a slut and should only be considered booty call material.
Really? I mean really? Nuns for example? The fat introvert? Its this kind of tautological thinking that grates on me with Game?
Dalrock you done it, you are an official MGTOW blogger.
Involuntary Childless Spinsterhood.
I think you’ve missed a few posts then.
@Dalrock,
This doesn’t mean the rest of what we see isn’t happening, but this is an important piece of the puzzle. Yes women have commitment issues which they project onto men, that much is obvious. But there is a counterforce which is denied.
The counter force is “(N)ature”. This is one of those places where Game takes things off the rails. God made them to marry. Their hedonistic desire perverts that and makes them into rabbits. Christianity is paradox. Good women do exist and do the right thing but just like men they are exceedingly rare. The result is that some social prodding, that we no longer have, helps the whole machine function better.
@CL,
suppose that is true, but I find that sort of thing ostentatious and tasteless. It is, at base, immodest behaviour. I can’t help finding it demeaning to men too – as if his primary worth to these women is in relation to their status whoring amongst themselves.
Why? This is status whoring of the best kind. If I could trade this kind of status whoring for good divorce statistics I’d do it in a heart beat.
Also can’t some jealousy be good? That is either just/de jure or a motivator towards the good? Guilt for example is the “Law of God” motivating us to right action. Inspired jealousy over marriage could be the same. Also God is “jealous of his name”. Jealousy of the honor of marriage could likewise be good.
@,
All I do know is that not having kids saved my life (in a quality sense). She should have read the script; kids THEN divorce. Maybe I’m being too harsh, maybe she wasn’t being calculating, just dumb.
Or maybe she was trying to fill a Biblical imperative? Again, this is a problem where the diabolical system of things wears away at a natural good and makes us afraid of that good. As Christians we can’t be. Despair is a sin.
@Anonymous,
50% of children in the US will at some point between birth and the age of 18 live in a “household” that doesn’t include a father or stepfather. So where do women learn what “man” looks like? In the movies, on TV, as part of a pack of girls in high school watching the other girls drooling over alphas, etc. What’s missing from this picture? Could it be…a real, live, male human being?
Spot on. This is also why rigid adherence to game and MGTOW only perpetuates the cycle. Beta men can break into the problem but they have to be ruthlessly aggressive to do so. They have to be incredibly careful in choosing mates in a manner many in Churchian religions would find “not nice”. But, as I’m fond of saying to young men, “Aslan is not a tame lion.” Nice has crap all to do with it. Your duty is to be good, not nice.
IMO the attraction of bad boys is simple: they are conspicuously, visibly, masculine. This stands out in the sea of beta boys most women are surrounded by.
Again yes. I imagine most men can adjust “up” with very little incentive. They after all want to be good men. “Fireproof” and its ilk are popular because men are willing to try. They are just being pointed in the wrong directions.
The “status” of being married clearly is not as important to women under 30 – if it were, then half of all births to that cohort would not be to unmarried women, right? We work hard to get what we value.
I am currently working with a bunch of interns and new hires at a very large (60k+) size company. The young women do value marriage as status. I think the stats you cite are more complicated as Dalrock has pointed out before. Women are delaying too late (30’s) and hitting the wall hard. Men are likewise delaying as they “feel” that there is no push for marriage (Dalrock’s “Delayed Signal”). This leads to a generational gap as the men have no “status” to marry and the women are not attractive. Hopefully these cultural bloodlines burn themselves out in the next couple of decades.
@CL,
Speaking of losing control of the narrative, is it just me, or does Permaculture seem off? To the Christians present, this person is inserting her heretical beliefs all over the place here as if to subvert the purpose of this blog.
I’m getting strange vibes too.
@David Collard,
think it should have places for women who are truly exceptional, to become real professionals, or nuns, or remain single, or whatever.
Yep. And they shouldn’t be afraid of acting like nuns in that the pursuit will probably be amongst a majority female community. I think everyone benefits from that.
@Ruddy,
in which Dalrock moves further along the long and winding path to admitting that he was dead wrong about the marriage strike. Men refusing to marry these ladies when they get off the carousel is the epitome of a marriage strike.
That’s not a strike. That’s being selective. I admit to being a fairly new reader but his arguments on selectivity go waaaaaaaaaaaay back.
I can speak for one young woman, my daughter. She is 19. She wants to get married and have children. Among her peers, about 3/5 are not virgins. The virgins are under a bit of pressure to become non-virgins, and I wonder how long my daughter will last when it becomes apparent to her that the most desirable young men are not going to stick around for her.
Of my daughter’s non-virgin friends, only the most attractive (and she is very attractive indeed) has been able to euchre her way from the carousel to fianceehood. However, her fiance is in Afghanistan and she’s seeing other guys. The other girls are holding on to the have-fun-with-Mr-Right-Now while-waiting-for Mr.-Right scenario. They’re all on the pill but my daughter says they’re beginning to wonder why Official Girlfriend status keeps eluding them. It used to be when they were in high school they could enforce OG status before handing out the goodies, but lately they haven’t been able to do this.
One such girl complained to my daughter that her most recent “boyfriend” broke up with her because ‘he wanted to have sex with other girls’ and that other girls were offering it to him and she wasn’t satisfied with the #1 slot in his harem. My daughter thinks she’ll probably go back to him on his terms because the alternative is either celibacy or dating “cosplayers and losers”.
These girls are always trying to palm my daughter off on their beta orbiters.
Of my daughter’s virgin friends, two are married and one is engaged. They are more devout and prettier than my daughter (damn, I hope she doesn’t read this!) , and nailed down Christian “hotties” quickly. The other two aren’t really overly concerned yet, as they are still young and believe that they can still get what they want.
@Sunshine,
does anyone here actually know any younger women well enough to ask them what they and their friends think about marriage?
They value it but have no rules for the same. It is an “empty container” right now with no social responsibilities or visible goals (see: Gay Pseudogamy). This reduces it to a one night party. This is an old problem and goes back to those who are both in your cohort and older. Marriage has been on a decline since at least the 1950’s (since feminism was on the rise since the 1890’s). The trick is molding that God given interest back into something that will support the basic engine of society.
A question – does anyone here actually know any younger women well enough to ask them what they and their friends think about marriage?
I know three young ladies very well, all at different stages. One (niece) in nineteen and heading off to college for a History Ed major. Her notch count is at least three at this point. Her mother left her father for another guy about five years ago and gave him (my brother) full custody of the children. I have not asked my niece directly, but I’m thinking college/career is first and second, marriage is some place after.
My best friend’s sister (known for close to 15 years) is 25 and has three children to two dads, neither of which can visit the children, due to abuse allegation (first) and long term prison sentence (second). She is now married (a few months in) to a reformed drug dealer who has also served time. So, she married, but they got married to pull off a legal maneuver and not out of deep, soulful love. Her N count is actually low for women her age, but that may have more to do with having children younger and parents unwilling to allow her to dump the kids off for a party night.
The best friend’s fiance is 28 and desparately wants to marry him. He is deployed and proposed to her while away. Prior, she was engaged, but broke it off because she wasn’t ready. I do not know her history, but my inclination is that she’s pushing a count of 20+ (decent looking, party girl, plays fast and loose with moral codes).
When I say the Red Pill makes sense, I don’t mean just in my marriage. I see three young women in very close proximity that are stereotypes of what we discuss routinely.
I’m going to skip reading the comments, hoping that no one stated this earlier, to say that, when I saw the video, it became obvious these women were whores. Their physique and facial expressions certainly gave it away, but my slut detector overloaded as soon as I heard them speak. This is how sluts talk. It is unmistakable. Heck, the fact that they use “like” the way they do immediately highlights that these are not women anyone would want to marry.
I realize that there are a lot of sluts who don’t ooze slutdom on the surface, which is why I am deeply grateful for this and other blogs that point them out.
DH Your experience is very interesting. I’ve never seen this happen, but I believe you that there are people who employ a double standard against men sleeping around while women get a free pass
It’s not exactly a free pass.. but it’s ALMOST to the point of:
(a) man fornicates —> bad bad man
(b) woman fornicates —> some bad, bad man seduced and deceived that poor sweet innocent daughter of Jesus.
It’s always the man’s fault, or primarily the man’s fault. I once heard that from the mouth of a preacher who is otherwise one of the most solid, Bible-based guys I know. He said, re: premarital sex, that the Scripture primarily blames the man when it happens! WTF? WHERE????
Wow, VR. I’ve never come across that probably because I haven’t spent much time in religious communities. It actually sounds a bit to me like a throwback to the Victorian era, when “seduction” was a crime that men perpetrated on women. This is a point of view that is grossly unfair to both sexes: unfair to men because it places blame solely on the man for conduct that both the man and the woman engaged in, unfair to women because it deprives them of the dignity of being seen as moral agents who are responsible for their own conduct.
I will say that when I was in college and socializing in NYC, among hedonistic rather irreligious people, it was understood that it was okay for both sexes to mess around, and a man or woman who didn’t would be viewed as a bit odd. There was no double standard (at least none that was obvious to me), but there did seem to be an invisible line where suddenly a man or a woman could get a reputation as sleeping around too much. Where the line was drawn was wholly unclear to me.
There’s quite a lot of discussion here about marriage. But there’s little discussion about the post-divorce years where 30 and 40-something singles are quickly discovering the meat-grinder that is Dating 2.0. This dating is a particularly grim process for women because they immediately learn that they are no longer in their 20s and that they are actually competing for the same men with other women who are still in their 20s.
@Dalrock,
[i]The 2011 State of Our Unions report shares trends from a long running survey done by the University of Michigan. See page 95 and the following pages for an explanation of the survey and charts. I don’t see a pattern of young women being less interested in marriage than their predecessors. High school girls in 2007-2010 answered that having a good marriage and family life is “extremely important” at the same rate high school girls did in 1976-1980 (see Fig 15 on P 97). The charts are interesting and probably worth a separate post.[/i]
My answer to that is to look at what they do, not at what they say… they may tell themselves they are good girls, but many will not turn out that way. Have to judge them by their actions.
[D: Agreed.]
Privateman:
I’m not in that scene, but I would bet there are 30-something and 40-something women learning the hard way about pump & dumps; pressure to put out by the third or fourth “date”; and that a “date” is not $100 on a five-star dinner and a show; but instead is more like $10 on microwave popcorn and a DVD or $25 on drinks (each buys their own).
DH: grossly unfair to both sexes: unfair to men because it places blame solely on the man for conduct that both the man and the woman engaged in…
Especially when, as is often the case, the women are the instigators. The girl comes on strong to the guy, and yet the guy is “primarily” responsible if, in a moment of weakness, he gives in and something happens? Absurd. I was mostly rejected but the few times I wasn’t, I sometimes had to fend off seductions… from “Christian” girls.
unfair to women because it deprives them of the dignity of being seen as moral agents who are responsible for their own conduct.
Radfems say the same; indeed the whole “all-(hetero)sex-is-rape” meme, promoted by certain feminist academics, is derived from the belief that women, in a supposedly “powerless” social position, have NO true agency, and therefore can give NO true consent.
the privateman says:
Don’t worry privateman, that is soon turned into a movie that forms the appropriate script for searching for a new husband post divorce from boring hubby. The hamsters demand it. In reality the divorced woman eventually finds some poor foreign type who is 20 years older than her and in need of a green card; but in the movie version he magically turns into a hunky guy with dark curly hair and a six pack; who happens to be half her age and is mystified by her intoxicating beauty.
The modern hedonistic ideal though is to merely have an open relationship. Marriage then becomes merely a relationship for financial purposes with multiple partners on the side whenever either ‘spouse’ feels something for another person.
DH, being a perfect example of hedonistic riffraff, she equates what goes on at college campuses as what will happen a few years down the line when marriage is now on the cards for these women. She misses the entire point though. Most non-Christian men are fine with sleeping with women in college, in fact they can only marvel at how easy these girls drop their panties. Therefore any question about whether they find it acceptable is followed by a quick nod of the man’s head and then he’s off to find a ‘date’ for the evening.
When marriage becomes the question, then it’s a different story. Ask the same man if they would be willing to marry the girl down the hall, 10 years from now, knowing that at that exact moment she is screwing the captain of the sport team that happens to be popular.
It’s simple, if women only had sex with men with low partner counts, men would have low partner counts as a necessity for getting sex. But since women actually seem to be turned on by men with sexual success, it throws a spanner in the works. Men, being the gatekeepers to marriage commitment, have no real willingness to marry the college slut. So… Not only does it create a double standard upon the creation of marriage but it also cannot be solved by treating men and women the same as DH would like.
Women are free at anytime to start only marrying chaste men. As a Christian I welcome it with open arms. We all know that will never happen though. The double standard is caused by women sexing it up in their youth; and not by men who want to marry in future.
@VR
Thank you
I agree with minimizing contact with women at workplace. It was my best career move when I switched from cubicle office to work-from-home-over-the-wire. I have to tie myself to a chair with a rope to maintain work discipline, but at least I don’t have to serve as unpaid psychotherapist to all them office gals.
Another useful tip for submitting work projects to female superiors. If you send them just one version of the project, they will nag your brains out with suggestions of improvement. But if you send them 4 slightly-different versions of the project they will burn most of their energy choosing one of them (like when they buy shoes). An hour of copy-pasting and changing little details can save one a day of stress.
Most non-Christian men are fine with sleeping with women in college, in fact they can only marvel at how easy these girls drop their panties
Actually…. most men get little or no female attention. The dropping panties only happen for the Alphas, not for most men.
@shrineofvirtue
They just ooze that typical “I was sooooo stupid… and I liked it!” attitude, don’t they?
I have to tie myself to a chair with a rope to maintain work discipline,
50 Shades of Grey for the Workplace! Coming soon to a bookstore near you.. (Hey, it can’t be any worse than “Who Cut My Cheese”…
Another useful tip for submitting work projects to female superiors
At times I have to submit paperwork and laboratory samples to female department heads in different divisions. I think I’ll try that trick! Also… with physical samples, sometimes the mood of the day makes a lot of difference. “I don’t like it, try again”, can be responded to by doing NOTHING… and resubmitting the sample a couple days later with a new lab code. “Oh, this is perfect!!!!”
Anonymous Dad, the information you related is interesting. But this:
However, her fiance is in Afghanistan and she’s seeing other guys
is truly bizarre. Does she wear her engagement ring while she is “seeing” these other guys?
Random Angelo wrote:
The difficulty with looking at what they do is that this doesn’t necessarily tell you anything about what they had hoped to do. It may be that they thought they wanted to marry but no one was willing to have them. I asked my original question because someone, AR I think, said girls no longer want to get married. That is different from saying girls no longer succeed in getting married. Perhaps they do want to but are very mislead in understand how they must go about making that happen. Or, perhaps they really do want to be “their own beta”. I’m curious to know what they are thinking; if they want to marry, someone should clue them in about all the mistakes they are making. If they say they don’t want to marry, they should be left to enjoy the consequences of being a spinster.
@VR
Well, I’m a bit ADHD by nature, but I’m willing to constrain myself if I get paid for it. (I had problems in school because of being too jumpy. Luckily those were good old days when ADHD was being cured with good old “50SoG” spanking instead of drugging boys with Ritalin.)
Speaking of “mood of the day”, I wonder how keeping notes of my lady-boss’s menstrual cycles can improve my career options… Someone should really make an in-depth research on “workplace game” and publish a manual for it. It might save the global economy.
GKChesterton
Yes really it is a baseline. 24 is a good age to assume slut she will have to show otherwise when shopping for a wife. Also the primary motivation for a woman to avoid marriage young is hypergamy plain and simple. It also goes along with the social meme of not needing a man and having any duty to a man. I’m willing to bet early marriages are more from gina tingle than any moral honor beliefs now days. Once the ginder of day to day work of building a future for childen starts the reliable and long term plan able beta loses his tingle and the unhappy divorce I got my kids at 32 game begins.
Game and MGTOW is a tool to break the cycle. Pay attention or look at the big picture. The elephant in the room is the laws of misandry. The greatest sap of beta game are the laws of misandry. A man has no other legal option than supplication. And even “game’ is still a womans choice by law. By law. The laws of misandry are gone and you would never have heard of greyghost. Without the laws of misandry there is no manosphere blogs. My presents in the manosphere is the ending of the laws of misandry.
Marriage is the back bone of civilization. And christian based marriage is the best. All of this talk about a good women is just not possible for women are inherently not good and are socially and legally encouraged to not be good by laws of misandry. (see the list above 1-8) The christian church has become churchianity for todays women. Their is no wife by law. (the church had to back down) Sunshinemary has found and shared with us the spinsterblogs. very good tool for a man to see how to get the law changed. Women are selfish herd following status whores all don’t kid
yourself. Women will behave civily when it is in their best interest. And never gforget it is not natural for a woman to behave that way. The female motivations of hypergamy,status, resources and security most be structured in such a way the only way to realize these motivations is through wicked selfish (think about that one) civil behavior. ( will look a lot like a patriarchy in the end)
@ssmary
Yes, but this is a girl with major Daddy issues who looks like Peggy Lipton used to look in The Mod Squad. The fiance is a Navy SEAL instructor.
Someone should really make an in-depth research on “workplace game” and publish a manual for it. It might save the global economy.
Ha! As a chemist I was able to get hold of human mating pheromones from an industry source. We used them for a while, to sway things our way in needings… We’d dilute them in IPA and spray them around the room when the marketing folks were about to come over. We’d use male attractor and female attractor together, to put ALL of them in a good mood. Of course we couldn’t really do a controllled study but we think it helped.
I also wore the female attractor stuff home… not sure it realy helped, can’t rule out confounding variable of expectations. Need to get some more, and try again… LOL
FYI
IPA=rubbing alcohol
VR:
I SAID AND YOU QUOTED: ” . . . unfair to women because it deprives them of the dignity of being seen as moral agents who are responsible for their own conduct.”
YOU SAY: Radfems say the same; indeed the whole “all-(hetero)sex-is-rape” meme, promoted by certain feminist academics, is derived from the belief that women, in a supposedly “powerless” social position, have NO true agency, and therefore can give NO true consent.
I am not a radfem myself, more of a liberal feminist, but I don’t think it’s quite fair to say that there is a meme of “all sex is rape.” That comment was misattributed to radfem Andrea Dworkin, who is admittedly both provocative and a poor communicator. However, she has repeatedly explained that she was never trying to convey that “all sex is rape.” Rather, she was trying to criticize the prevailing sexual ideology of her era as promoting the idea of sex as rape, i.e. sex as conquest, something men do to women.
That said, the so-called “sex-positive” wing of feminism does a better job of making it clear that women are sexual agents in their own right.
But VR, you’re killing me here. I was starting to like you and think you were a fair-minded kind of guy, despite our opposing views on pretty much everything in life. Now I find out that you have some sort of knee jerk negativity towards women in the workplace!
Sunshinemary
Anonymous Dad, the information you related is interesting. But this:
However, her fiance is in Afghanistan and she’s seeing other guys
is truly bizarre.
Unfortunately it is not uncommon. Is Hestia’s blog still in existence? A lot of effort is made nowadays to keep mil-wives happy enough to not just run off of the rails, but if a woman is determined to revert to party girl status while her man is 1/3 of the way around the planet in some giant sandbox, there’s not much to stop her.
Does she wear her engagement ring while she is “seeing” these other guys?
Hestia would be able to answer this better than I, but my guess is “no, the ring went in a box as soon as he was deployed, and will come back out when he returns”. Just a guess, though.
I don’t think drugging wife with IPA (or alcohol) is a good idea. It can end in 2 bad ways:
a) She develops a chemical addiction and requires higher and higher doses to be haaaaapy until she death does her part.
b) After you put her off the dope, she suffers deprivatory crisis, becomes unhaaaapy… and we all know what hapens then. No need to use the evil D-word in vain.
Chemistry is a bytch. Must be used with caution.
The other girls are holding on to the have-fun-with-Mr-Right-Now while-waiting-for Mr.-Right scenario.
Foolish. While such a girl is “dating” Mr. Right-Now, quite possibly Mr. Right or a series of potential Mr. Rights have passed her by, precisely because she’s taken and *good* men don’t try to steal other guy’s girlfriends. The only guy who will try to steal her from a badboy, is another badboy! To get asked out by a good guy, you have to be willing to be… alone…
They’re all on the pill but my daughter says they’re beginning to wonder why Official Girlfriend status keeps eluding them
The pill is the reason. It inverts the genetic smell preferences of women (the MHC, major histocompatibility complex).. Normally we all prefer MHC-DISsimilar mates. But the girls on the pill go for genetically SIMILAR guys, who aren’t all that into them.
From the guy’s perspective, sure, any woman is better than none, but his “true love” (the genetically DISsimiliar girl) rejected him because she was on the pill. The only girlfriend he can get is the one that, at an instinctive level, is the one that doesn’t quite smell right to him. His biochemical discontent with her, is the root of his commitophobia.
don’t think drugging wife with IPA (or alcohol) is a good idea. It can end in 2 bad ways:
NO!!!! You don’t give it to her. IPA is just a CARRIER SOLVENT. You dissolve the pheromones in IPA, then you can spray a little bit of the solution into the air, or onto your clothes or skin. IPA evaporates, leaving a light coating of pheromone.
Don’t drink IPA, it’s poison. For seduction use Ethanol.. preferably in the form of wine.
@VR
Foolish. While such a girl is “dating” Mr. Right-Now, quite possibly Mr. Right or a series of potential Mr. Rights have passed her by
Nah – these girls are in an Alpha-peen-induced fog and genuinely believe that Mr Right is going to be like Mr. Right-Now except more so. Their internal dialog goes “If these are the guys I can get to fvck me, how awesome ought to be the guy I’ll marry?” My daughter tries to tell them that the men who will be looking to marry them will be several degrees more chumpified than ones who’ll sleep with them, but they aren’t really open to that piece of wisdom.
Remember, they’re 17-20
@MV
To be honest, I didn’t notice that about them. I’m afraid I found myself distracted by their absolute selfishness and lack of integrity. They do seem like they would mind doing it again, but didn’t mind having done it once.
@VR
Hehe, you just jumped between me and a Darwin Award. But don’t worry. I once had a mouthful of gasoline, because I accidentaly switched bottles in the workshop. Since then I look very carefully labels on the bottle, and smell it, and google it, before I drink anything.
I read that the Pill jams female radars because it gives their bodies illusion of pregnancy, so they seek beta provider types over alpha breeder types. Alas, when they get off the pill, their hypergamy strikes back with a vengeance (Unhaaaapy!).
http://www.dirtyandthirty.com/single-in-the-city/tales-of-a-newly-single-gal-when-you-get-married-you-think-you-have-it-all-planned-out/
Girl started dating a guy when she was 23, got married at 28, divorced at 30 after one day she “woke up and realized [she] was not happy.”
Says she’s not pessimistic about marriage (though claims asking the question of a newly divorced girl is “condescending and rude”).
“I believe in love. And shoes. And wine. And myself.”
HN VR, you’re killing me here. I was starting to like you and think you were a fair-minded kind of guy, despite our opposing views on pretty much everything in life.
Feeling was mutual.
Now I find out that you have some sort of knee jerk negativity towards women in the workplace!
Far from it. I work in an industry with a heavily female clientele, and with an unusually large % of female executives and business owners. (If i told you what I do, or worse yet, exactly which company I’m at, you’d recognize the name and you’d be shocked). I’ve NEVER had a problem getting along with, or working well with, women. But… I ONLY work with them. That’s all I do. Co-workers are not friends. I’ve seen bad things happen when women got mad at coworkers.
I make a couple of exceptions for a few that I’ve worked with on the order of 10-14 years. By that time you can pretty much know a female well enough to be sure that she won’t file a bogus harassment suit just because she covets your 401K. If that’s “negativity”, it’s feminism’s fault.
That comment was misattributed to radfem Andrea Dworkin
Catherine Mackinnon also spread this meme. And many lower-ranking radfems believe it with all their hearts and blog about it. Dworkin’s direct quote was actually:
“In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men’s contempt for women”
It’s hard to humanly imagine a more fundamentally WRONG statement. This sentence alone constitutes irrefutable proof that Dworkin was deeply, profoundly insane.
http://www.dirtyandthirty.com/single-in-the-city/prince-charming-its-not-really-so-much-to-ask-guest-blog-by-chiabella-james/
Haha, this 30 something slut page is a sure fire winner! It’s pure gold! Someone should do a movie deal, practically limitless romantic claptrap from which to draw.
GKChesterton:
“That’s not a strike. That’s being selective. I admit to being a fairly new reader but his arguments on selectivity go waaaaaaaaaaaay back.”
Bah! When men, en masse, are “selective” enough to reject women as wives such that we can track it in the statistics, that’s a strike or a boycott or whatever word best captures the collective,
cumulative impact of the individual decision making. Formerly, men were not being selective enough to reject the just got off the carousel never been married or the recently divorced because unhaaaaaapy women. But now they are. That change is what constitutes the strike. If you prefer to emphasize the individual determinations, the heightened personal “selectivity,” that’s fine. As I said, there is no organization (nor need there be one). But when one addes up those individual decisions, a clear trend emerges. And that is a strike. Still, if that word somehow implies organization and a formal movement, then fine, it isn’t. But the impact on women is the same, semantics aside.
Dalrock always ADVISED men to be selective (a prescription) but he CLAIMED that no marriage strike was going on (a description). Indeed, he argued with me and others in the comment section of this blog, claiming pretty much that a woman, any woman, could get married, if she wanted to, precisely because men were not selective. When he made this claim, the statistics were already showing drops in the percentage of currently and ever married among adult women of most age cohorts. At the time, he dismissed these drops (outside the twentysomehings) as miniscule. But now that more data has come out, what was once miniscule is now a clear trend.
Men are refusing to marry women as they currently exist. Call it a strkie, call it heightened selectivity, call it whatever you want. But women who just assumed they could ride the carousel until they, unilaterallly decided they wanted to marry, or who dumped their beta husbands under the same assumption viz a viz remarrieage, are finding out that their prospects aren’t so great.
VR, Hmmm, chemist, industry with high percentage of female participation. I’m totally intrigued! A perfume company? (Yeah, I know, I know, the feminist is making a sexist assumption! And I don’t even know if perfume company employ chemists.)
But anyway, I’m glad to hear you are okay with working with women. It sounds like you’re saying instead that you are just a bit stand-offish with them, except for the ones you know well, out of a fear of being sued for harassment. I think that keeping relationships with opposite sex co-workers on a completely professional, non-friend basis is certainly a legitimate choice, although I’m not sure I agree that it’s necessary. Everyone has lines that they draw, so it’s really matter of what you are most comfortable with. My husband’s policy (and yeah, I know, every time I mention my husband around here, it draws mockery, but here goes) is to be just as friendly with women co-workers as with men but to never ever engage in any kind of sex-related banter, even if a woman initiates it. (When a woman starts joking about sex, he just says something funny and deadpan like, “Pursuant to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, I’m not permitted to talk about that.”)
Catherine Mackinnon also spread this meme. And many lower-ranking radfems believe it with all their hearts and blog about it. Dworkin’s direct quote was actually:
“In capsule form, my thesis is that heterosexual intercourse is the pure, distilled expression of men’s contempt for women”
I don’t really have a strong interest in defending Dworkin, mainly because I’ve always found her incredibly confusing. But based on her other statements, I believe she may have been referring to heterosexual intercourse as it is understood within the dominant patriarchal narrative. We see that even a bit here, where people assume that a woman who sleeps with a man outside of marriage is “used” and despised by the player she sleeps with.
“The pill is the reason. It inverts the genetic smell preferences of women”
I heard about this from a physics turned constitutional law professor genius/gadfly – no shit…..verrry intersting….
Re: Pill & Genetics
Any Links?
DH
I don’t really have a strong interest in defending Dworkin, mainly because I’ve always found her incredibly confusing. But based on her other statements, I believe she may have been referring to heterosexual intercourse as it is understood within the dominant patriarchal narrative.
However, if one actually reads her writings on porn, or more to the point her 1980’s book Intercourse it becomes pretty obvious that Andrea Dworkin regarded penis-in-vagina as any number of bad things – rape, occupation, invasion, and so forth. In an interview sometime in the 1990’s, around the time VAWA became law, I recall Dworkin engaging in a remarkable amount of hairsplitting, quibbling, re-defining of terms, etc. in an attempt to walk back what she had spent a decade saying. I don’t accept any of that. The idea that all heterosexual p-in-v sex is rape, and therefore all men capable of intercourse are rapists, is one that can be seen in any number of fundamental feminist works, not just Dworkin. Susan Brownmiller’s “Men, Women and Rape” boils down to the notion that all men either are rapists, or benefit from rape. Katherine McKinnon has already been mentioned, she played her role as well.
And in the real world, the Department of Education directed all universities in the US that receive any Federal funds to start using the “preponderance of evidence” standard in any and all disciplinary cases having to do with sexual issues. If I understand the standard, it’s a “51%”rule that is far from “beyond a reasonable doubt” as used in courts of law. This is basically a standard that assumes the feminist slogan “Women never lie about rape” is a proven fact. It appears to me to assume also that rape is anything a woman says it is. And, of course, that all men are rapists (and that’s all they are). It also makes defending against a false accusation very, very difficult. But that’s never been an issue feminists have any interest in.
The debates against Dworkin / McKinnon / Brownmiller may have seemed just a lot of talk, but the dwindling number of men on college campuses are about to find out that debate was anything but “academic”.
“I believe she may have been referring to heterosexual intercourse as it is understood within the dominant patriarchal narrative.”
Andrea Dworkin can kiss my ass… nothing “is understood within the dominant patriarchal narrative.” because no such thing has ever existed or ever could.
If the objective is to get men & woman together and married with their own children,a under one roof for life; then lesbian sexual Marxists have only infamy to accrue from history: not an invitation to surrender to their dialectics.
A Soviet nail factory at least wanted to produce nails – the only thing feminism ever wanted to achieve is the destruction of relationships between men & woman.
I enjoyed reading a couple of chapters of Dworkin’s “Intercourse”, for all the wrong reasons.
BTW, just back from a visit to a supermarket in this Australian city. Four bins of copies of the sequel to FSoG for the housewives to pick up. $9.95 a copy.
“What will it be today, Mrs Jones? Half a kilo of pork mince, some healthy vegetables, and a generous serve of masochistic literary porn”.
Oh no, Fitz, there IS a dominant patriarchal narrative. It is the magic force that makes women buy copies of FS0G as they leave the supermarket.
Men are refusing to marry women as they currently exist. Call it a strkie, call it heightened selectivity, call it whatever you want
I know lots of guys who, in this were like the olden days, would be married. Including myself. However, these are not the olden days, so one has to be absolutely sure. It is hard to believe that there is not something akin to a strike going on. What to believe, stats or my own lying eyes?
“If these are the guys I can get to fvck me, how awesome ought to be the guy I’ll marry?”
Such delusions. They are on top of the world. They feel that they have the power.
With power comes responsibility. That part is not taught.
@farmboy,
I’d be inclined to trust the data over your “own eyes”. Not because they lie to you, but because the sample size is much smaller and also self-selecting in a way wider data isn’t.
Even if your peers are engaged in something akin to a marriage strike, it doesn’t mean the wider populace is. Plus like minded individuals tend to cluster together. Consider the statements from the early 80’s from leftists wondering how Regan got elected buttressed with the “data point”, “Nobody I know voted for him”.
@farmboy
Not to mention the the oddly misguided assumptions about mens nature and behavior.
Unless they have a moral code that prevents it, most guys will have sex with any woman on offer that meets whatever minimum threshold for desirability they have. Low investment sex is, at least for some men, a “dream” position to be in.
Why these women conclude the guys who wont invest in them, and who “get the milk free/cheap” would be of a lower quality than the guys who would invest in them is a mystery.
They just ooze that typical “I was sooooo stupid… and I liked it!” attitude, don’t they?
Separating behavior from consequences does that. But now we can afford it, until we can’t.
there IS a dominant patriarchal narrative. It is the magic force that makes women buy copies of FS0G as they leave the supermarket.
I wish Dworkin had lived long enough to see the FSoG craze../evil grin>
THat’s uncharitable though. In Dworkin’s defense (hmf…never thought I’d utter those words!!!), she was the victim of child molestation, rape, police sexual abuse, AND extreme spousal abuse. Most women experience none of these things and of those who do, it’s usually only one. So Dworkin’s anti-male rage has to be seen in light of her exceptionally unrepresentative experiences. Sort of like a white girl I knew — a Jewish leftist no less — who was very quietly and secretly, a raging antiblack racist… because several of her family members had been murdered by blacks. As with Dworkin, her conclusions are wrong but you understand the emotions.
Not to disparage those guys hard on their luck or who weren’t given opportunities, but for a man who holds down a job and keeps in shape, is wise to feminist emasculation trends (thus avoiding them), he pretty much can consider himself ‘a catch.’
All this talk about game just confuses a man’s true self and puts his raison d’etre in shallow ego-centric terms.
I believe things like romance and affection follow from the above. Without them, no amount of window dressing will suffice because of woman’s natural tendency to shit test.
@Jason,
Yes, it is anecdotal, but I have a large sample. It includes my white collar coworkers and the blue collar people I grew up with. It includes many guys who have explicitly stated why they are not married. I also understand the attitude of my parent’s generation, and saw the rate at which they were married. I am trusting my eyes on this one.
but for a man who holds down a job and keeps in shape, is wise to feminist emasculation trends (thus avoiding them), he pretty much can consider himself ‘a catch.’
Oh yes, he is a catch all right. Money might be enough to attract them, but it will not satisfy the modern anglo woman in the long run. Game is useful to both satisfy her, and for you to maintain enough control to keep the relationship from coming off the rails.
van Rooinek
As with Dworkin, her conclusions are wrong but you understand the emotions.
One of the flaws of inductive reasoning is the danger in drawing sweeping conclusions from a single data point. Dworkin certainly did personify the late 70’s to early 80’s feminist slogan, “The Personal Is Political”. However satisfying it may be to politicize one’s personal demons, it doesn’t help out the rest of us one bit. And it is especially unhelpful when that personal-to-political action ends up basically treating half the human race as criminals – all of them are guilty, but some just have not been caughtyet. That mindset leads to totalitarianism.
I’m afraid I had a very uncharitable, Mark Twain sort of moment when I read of her demise.
Somebody call my name?
van Rooinek, she claims those things happened to her. Have you read Camille Paglia on Dworkin? Utter contempt for her and Catherine MacKinnon.
Yes to the point about men having low standards for sex with a woman. I would have sex with about half the women I see, if morality and reality were not in play. And that includes all ages. Men are very non-selective. I don’t think women realise this.
Was life bad for “patriarchs” in the old days (1960s, for example)? I don’t know. I think it was more stressful to be the sole earner, and a lot of men then were pretty stressed, but then I mostly knew the striving professional middle class types. Women seemed happier and more relaxed then, in my boyhood, but maybe they were all secretly seething. Doubt it, really.
Men are like regimental soldiers. Give them a bit of pride and they will work and die for very little reward. What is missing now is the pride in being a husband. Although I know men who still seem to feel it, it is probably less common in general these days.
Was life bad for “patriarchs” in the old days (1960s, for example)? I don’t know. I think it was more stressful to be the sole earner,
Expectations were lower. One only had to survive and be happy doing so. Not so hard really.
Also, if a guy lost his job, a wife would not automatically leave him
@Jason
Why these women conclude the guys who wont invest in them, and who “get the milk free/cheap” would be of a lower quality than the guys who would invest in them is a mystery.,
Let me improve that for you, just replace “invest in” with “take a high risk gamble with”
@farm boy,
Good point. Although investment is always a risk. True the current situation is often Russian Roulette though, rather than something you can rationally speculate on. Especially given the social approval of,or at least casual acceptance of, women freely defrauding men about their current/future value as wives.
Yes, farm boy, but if he lost his job there could be real problems for the family. Many men were stuck in stressful jobs they really couldn’t leave. Having a woman as a back-up earner, as I have done in my marriage, has certain advantages, not the least of which is that a man can afford to be more flexible in the work he takes. My impression, from being a boy in the 1960s, was that fathers were stressed up the wazoo (and that was why they all seemed to drink and smoke too much), while women were a lot more relaxed. Whether you call the latter content or bored depends on your polemic intent.
I quite enjoy the TV series Mad Men, but it is a mystery to me why women envy the men portrayed. My intuition is that the feeling of the show is about right, even given my recollection of 1960s Australia. What strikes me about the men portrayed, to the extent that I have watched the show, is that they were mostly doing a pretty shitty, pointless job under a lot of stress.
Just anecdote, I know, but the three men closest to me in my family all died young, and stress was a fact0r in each case. I have retired relatively early, determined not to join them just yet.
@VR
If Andrea Dworkin was still alive to see 50SoG craze, she would challenge Erika Leonard James to a Sumo fight :evilgrin:
I would cheer for E.L.James. Choosing between two evils, I rather hang out with a self-humorous sincere sinner than with a self-righteous narcissistic pharisee.
Yes, farm boy, but if he lost his job there could be real problems for the family.
My dad and uncles had low paying jobs that were reasonably low stress. We all survived are were happy. Many other families were like us. Also, we saved prodigiously for a rainy day.
Speaking of Andrea Dworkin,
Assuming what happened to her did happen to her, at least for the sake of argument,
It isn’t surprising that she carried on like she did. It is unfortunate, but as others noted, quite understandable.
What is surprising to me, is why was/is the basket of obviously damaged goods held up as some sort of hero and leader? I think that speaks volumes about the sort of women and men involved in the movement that such a person would be held up as an icon and a role model.
Jason:
The data and farmboy’s “lying eyes” both say the same thing. It is NOT about a small group of likeminded men. The percentage of married women and women who have ever been married is down across the boards, in virtually every age cohort except the very elderly. Men, en masse, whether organized or not, are saying no.
I think that was part of Paglia’s point. As she wrote “Why are we letting snippy neurotics run our lives?”
Yes, farm boy, you may be right. But for the aspirational, security- and status-conscious middle class, the man’s job was terribly important in those days.
OT
http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/12/msnbcs-mitchell-ryan-not-a-pick-for-women/
The issue is really about less government spending. Which more or less means taking from men and giving to women, I can see why men are unmotivated. The deficit is big, and will get bigger as men are demotivated more.
@ruddyturnstone ,
I wasn’t saying his eyes were lying to him, or even that that data indicated otherwise.
Just that data is more trustworthy than your local observations in general (assuming the data is honest) because it will nearly always included larger samples.
You may be right about some sort of disorganized marriage strike taking shape. Time will tell. What will really make it clear that there is a marriage strike by men will be attempts by feminists to combat it.
What will really make it clear that there is a marriage strike by men will be attempts by feminists to combat it.
Like the various common law marriage laws being enforced for live-ins.
@farmboy,
We’ve had that for years in Oz. I think that is just the usual run of the mill, protect women from their own choices behavior.
Jason, at first it was when the relationship was ten yrs old. Now with some U.S. states having the minimum so low as to letting her have clothes and hygiene items constitutes a residence and relationship. Also, heaven help that man if she has kids, biologically his or not.
@Joshua,
Ok that would be doubling down on the lunacy. In Oz it is between 6 months and 2 years cohabitation that constitute a common law or “defacto” marriage. That gives both “partners” rights in the event of a split.
What do women think will actually be the result of setting the law up this way? Do they not see that guys have already adapted to them changing the rules and changing the rules again isn’t going to stop them continuing to adapt?
What will really make it clear that there is a marriage strike by men will be attempts by feminists to combat it.
I always wondered how effective an online dating profile for a lady would be if it subtly renounced feminism. If I were a women and wanted a quality guy, I would give it a try.
Before anybody says, “women lack foresight”, or “women are basically children” or any of a host of related things about women and a failure to plan and see predictable consequences.
This seems to go far beyond that. This is a deep suicidal nihilism, not just mere short sightedness.
What do women think will actually be the result of setting the law up this way? Do they not see that guys have already adapted to them changing the rules and changing the rules again isn’t going to stop them continuing to adapt?
One word — Hamsters
What will really make it clear that there is a marriage strike by men will be attempts by feminists to combat it.
Then there is the old fallback of taking more taxes from men and giving the money to baby mamas.
@farmboy,
I don’t think it is that simple. The laws as mentioned above go far beyond the mere counter productive lunacy that is the hallmark of feminism.
I guess the upside, the changes to the law described by Joshua as
“Now with some U.S. states having the minimum so low as to letting her have clothes and hygiene items constitutes a residence and relationship. Also, heaven help that man if she has kids, biologically his or not.”
Will make things interesting. It would end a guys willingness to cohabitate over night I suspect and make single mothers essentially kryptonite in terms of dating. Certainly as soon as word got out about such idiocy.
I wonder how many women would find themselves alone as soon as a hint of such laws coming into being got around.
@farmboy,,
You can try that again with the single mothers, but the truth about the results of single motherhood are reaching the point of being utterly undeniable. There will come a point in the not to distant future I suspect when people will refuse to continue to subsidise such behavior.
Additionally, people are already fed up with being over taxed. You can try for more, but the Laffer Curve is basically a law of physics when it comes to government revenue.
@Jason
I was being semi-silly. I think part of the female imperative is to get male resources anyway they can. Deceit, taxes, whatever. Religious morality used to have an effect. Not so much anymore. I think we are seeing the true nature of females.
These women are a plague on society and I feel sorry for the guy that is tricked into marrying any of them only to be wiped out of his assets and children taken a few years later because she’s suddenly became “unhappy” and misses the thrill of Gina tingle.
Team-Red
What these women do and how they think and feel is enforced by law
…but thinking again about Dworkin, perhaps I am really too harsh on her. I once saw a WW1 memorial monument with a latin sign “May the anger not reign over the ashes of the dead enemies”. I guess this basic human civility should also apply to dead feminists.
(Plus it is a pure sign of alpha aloofness, if one can pass a feminist grave and resist the urge to piss on it. It’s like succesfully passing her final shit-test she worked all her life to scheme.)
Offtopic:
http://churchformen.com/how-were-off-the-mark/does-a-lack-of-men-lead-to-liberalism/
Guys what do you think of this?
Well, yes, Dworkin definitely had “issues.”. I, frankly, find her writing boring and impenetrable; thus, my lack of interest in really parsing it or defending her. She may have been saying something sensible (per my discussion above) or maybe not. It’s hard to tell! In any case, I’m pretty sure that the alleged “all sex is rape” meme has no sway whatsoever in our culture these days and is just a cudgel with which to attack the notion of feminism.
The other thing to remember – and Paglia quite rightly points this out – is that the prudish McKinnon wing LOST the fight for feminism to the sex-positive wing. McKinnon and the porn wars of the late 80s/early 90s are irrelevant these days.
What is surprising to me, is why was/is the basket of obviously damaged goods held up as some sort of hero and leader? I think that speaks volumes about the sort of women and men involved in the movement that such a person would be held up as an icon and a role model.
Jason, I can think of another person who led a very popular movement recently, wrapped in “moral authority” who was absolutely, undeniably whacko. I’m being purposefully obtuse because it was a politically-themed movement and how easy it is to fill in that blank.
(Plus it is a pure sign of alpha aloofness, if one can pass a feminist grave and resist the urge to piss on it. It’s like succesfully passing her final shit-test she worked all her life to scheme.)
Dunno, MV, you can fill phone books with people I don’t give a flip about. Not sure if it’s “alpha” or just, “I have bigger things to deal with.” It’s the same reason I can pretty easily ignore Comment Trolls and internet personal attacks (really, the most pointless endeavor).
Jason:
“I wasn’t saying his eyes were lying to him, or even that that data indicated otherwise.
“Just that data is more trustworthy than your local observations in general (assuming the data is honest) because it will nearly always included larger samples”
Right. I get that. But it is an academic/moot statement, in this case. Because the data and the personal observations are in line..That being so,, the statement, while true, only clouds the water.
“You may be right about some sort of disorganized marriage strike taking shape. Time will tell. What will really make it clear that there is a marriage strike by men will be attempts by feminists to combat it.”
They already are. Along with the Trad Cons, feminists are behind the whole “Peter Pan” thing. And, as has been mentioned, feminists just love “palimony” laws. And laws dragooning men into paying child support even when the children are not biologically theirs. And resisting all efforts to provide men with any kind of “out” when the children are biologically theirs (ranging from cases in which the woman lied about birth control, to cases in which she literally raided the garbage pail to get semen out of a condom to inseminate herself with, to cases in which the woman was actually guilty of statutory rape by having sex with a young boy, including teacher/student relationships, to cases in which the man was explicitly desiginated as a mere “sperm donor” for a woman who wanted a child all to herself). As well as resisting the “male pill.” And feminists are also behind attempts to equate a single mom and her children with a traditional family, legally, socially, and econimically (the last through governemnt programs funded, for the most part, by taxpaying men).
G-Man,
Interesting that you posted it. I recently left my church over that issue for those exact reasons. I posted the email my pastor sent to me, in an effort to get me to stay. He wanted me to go against my belief in Scripture, against history of such decisions, and against better judgement.
Regarding the phenomenon, I think it more likely plays out like this. Women ask to be Sunday school teachers and such. Then, the women of the congregation see an opening on the board and make the argument that Sunday school teacher shows more activity (rather than making an argument about strict adherence to Scripture or, as one author recently noted, the fast-disappearing catechism of the church). Slowly, women gain a greater presence. It just seems to naturally flow toward female pastors getting ordained.
I’ve never been a member of a church that had this issue debated. I was unaware of my congregation’s position because it wasn’t in their handbook and only learned about it when they turned Mother’s Day over to women and, after, invited a female guest pastor. Prior to that, I attended Catholic mass with my family.
That’s getting Facebooked. Will be interesting to see if my former pastor responds.
vR”
“THat’s uncharitable though. In Dworkin’s defense (hmf…never thought I’d utter those words!!!), she was the victim of child molestation, rape, police sexual abuse, AND extreme spousal abuse. Most women experience none of these things and of those who do, it’s usually only one. So Dworkin’s anti-male rage has to be seen in light of her exceptionally unrepresentative experiences.”
She claimed that she was a victim of rape, child abuse, spousal abuse, and worked as a prostitute as well. But there are no facts to back up her claims, other than her say so. It is actually quite typical of prominent feminsts to claim that they were raped and/or abused as children. Usually, though, such claims are made long, long after the fact. There is no way to verify these claims, and, in many cases, they are simply fabrications. Feminsts wants to be “victims” for ideological reasons. If they aren’t, they simply make up stories. Who, in her little world, is going to call her out when, after having been a feminist for years and never mentioning it, a feminist claims her boyfriend “date raped” her when she was sixteen? Indeed, rather than face any scrutiny she will be lauded for their “courage” in finally revealing the “truth.”
Did Dworkin ever report her so called spousal abuse to the police? Is there any official record that she did so? None that I have ever seen produced. Same with her her claim of child molestation. As to her claim of rape, she made a similar claim, of a second rape, shortly before she died, but the claim was bizarre and the circumstances seemed to indicate that no such thing happened. The authorities in Holland (IIRC) offered her a chance to return and help catch her “rapist,” but she declined. In my opinion, the entire episode calls into question her supposed first rape as well. As for being a prostitute, she lived with a man in Holland but paid no rent. She claimed that she was a “prostitute for food” because the man she lived with had sex with her and paid for her upkeep. That hardly sounds like prostitution to me. More likely, she simply wanted to have sex with him, or, perhaps, at most, felt obliged to give him something in return for the kindness he was showing her. And that’s assuming the incident occured at all, which, again, there is no proof for other than her say so. For all we know, it was a mere fantasy on her part, much like her second “rape.”
Getting down to cases, Dworkin was as unattractive as a woman could possibly be. Grossly obese with a remarkably ugly face. Most likely, no man or boy ever paid her the slightest attention. God only knows why anyone would marry her. I think it is much more likely that she simply fabricated incidents of rape and molestation and prostitution to make up for the fact that no male, with the possible exeption of her husband, ever gave her the time of day.And that would explain her huge resentment and hatred of men too, as well as her anti sex stand. While it is not true that all feminsts are unattractive, or that such unattractiveness explains feminism as a social phenomenon, it does seem to fit in her case.
Yes, once women gain a toehold, the game will ultimately be lost. The Anglican Communion has seen this. It starts with altar girls and ends with Lesbian bishops.
The last pope stupidly reversed his policy and permitted altar girls. At least Rome has had the sense to refuse to purport to ordain women, even to the diaconate. I expect to go to my grave never having heard a sermon from a woman. Deo gratias.
“It starts with altar girls and ends with Lesbian bishops.”
Thats why alter girls need to be nipped in the bud. Their allowed but certainly not required. The percentage of preist’s who were once alter boys is sky high. And the percentage of boys (I predict) that will want to be & proud to be a alter “server”; will be miniscule within the first generation that it was instituted under.
Fitz, it was a serious error by JPII, who had strong pedestalising tendencies. Females shouldn’t be in the sanctuary at all. They never were before Vatican II and their presence there was not mandated by Vatican II.
I remember being an altar boy in about 1964. A girl was wandering around the sanctuary once, dusting statues I think. I was horrified. This was OK really, but it troubled my tiny patriarchal heart.
This is why I hope those Pussy Riot sluts who invaded the altar area at the Moscow cathedral get sent to jail. As you say, this feminist presumption has to be nipped in the bud.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“I’m pretty sure that the alleged “all sex is rape” meme has no sway whatsoever in our culture these days and is just a cudgel with which to attack the notion of feminism.”
I would argue thus.
#1. “all sex is rape” does have persistant sway in our culture…
Because…
#2. Feminism still has monoply control over our elites and is entrenched in our universities and as such has the “comanding hights of culture” – as the only legitimante paradigm under wich one can discuss male/female interaction.
#3. Feminism itself is unreformably rooted in a Hegalian/Marxist – “master/slave” dialectic…
Ergo
#4. “all sex is rape” is emblamatic of feminism because it is intrinsic to “all dynamics are power dynamics”….and the matirialsim at it root.
Fitz,
Yeah, except that feminism isn’t the same thing as believing that “all sex is rape.” Even Dworkin denied that she ever intended to convey any such thing, and in any case, the Dworkin-McKinnon wing of feminism LOST to the sex-positive wing. The “third wavers” aren’t exactly anti-sex.
Also, don’t forget that feminism is not purely a product of Marxism, or even necessarily a product of Marxism at all. Marx certainly had his influence on the feminist movement, particularly in the recognition that women comprise a “class” with interests that are not necessarily the same as their menfolk. However, feminism is also very much rooted in the same Enlightenment values that underlie so many western achievements, including the foundational documents and principles of the United States.
“but it troubled my tiny patriarchal heart.” that cute…I remember mine being troubled by the same circumstances in the late 70’s. Not only did the alter society women wander around the place nonchalantly I cant recall a single gesture of reverence toward the sanctuary.
It seems to be automatic default at my Parish that at least one reading is performed by a woman. At the very least I would like to encounter a single mass were (even by happenstance) a woman did not perform a reading. No doubt our suspicions would be confirmed about the wrongheaded/hearted spirit these allowances are being succumbed to under.
David Collard: My impression, from being a boy in the 1960s, was that fathers were stressed up the wazoo (and that was why they all seemed to drink and smoke too much), while women were a lot more relaxed.
Women’s sex drives are significantly reduced by stress. Men’s, not at all. Hence an overstressed old-fashioned man and a relaxed old-fashioned woman will have a MUCH better sex life, than a modern 2-career couple where both have equal levels of stress.
Doomed Harlot: I’m pretty sure that the alleged “all sex is rape” meme has no sway whatsoever in our culture these days and is just a cudgel with which to attack the notion of feminism.
First of all.. NO. The all-sex-is-rape meme is easy to find on the internet, there are plenty of radfems who advocate it. Some don’t go quite that far, and assert only that all “PIV” sex (ie, sex 1.0. the kind that makes children), because in PIV the woman’s body is “invaded”… blah blah blah. I know, it’s utterly silly, either God and/or Darwin is responsible for the biology, it’s not the fault of patriarchal men, or any men, that the plumbing is the way it is… but, that’s how the radfems think.
In a way the radfems remind me of certain activists who talk as if breast cancer and/or the supposed lack of funding to treat/cure breast cancer,* is a male chauvinist plot. The only answer one can give to such lunacy is, “Get real! What guy wants to destroy breasts???”
(*actually it’s better funded than prostate cancer research).
Secondly… the way “rape” is politicized on college campuses — where very little ACTUAL rape takes place but an awful lot of drunk hookups are recharacterized as rape the next morning to save face — seems to be influenced to a large degree by the radfem “allsexisrape” meme. There’s almost no way a college student can have sex now, without the risk of a false rape charge. I, of course, as a Christian, advocate NO premarital sex, but there is a clear moral difference between actual rape, and a drunk girl walking into a guys dorm and saying, “Somebody please f*** me”.
If alcohol invalidates consent, why did Jesus make wine at a wedding?
VR, I’m not a radfem, but I do think that they are assuming that sex = rape within the patriarchal paradigm they are criticizing. So there is an important nuance there. That said, I think that in our society as it stands today, women are generally free from coercion in deciding with whom to sleep, and radfems do indeed tend to gloss over that fact. So it is important to stress (as the sex-positive feminists, like me, do) that women do possess the agency to consent to sex, with enthusiasm no less!
On alcohol invalidating consent, I don’t think that’s ever quite the standard. If not, there’s a lot of raping going on in this country. In my state, alcohol only invalidates consent if it renders the victim physically unable to resist — which would mean a lot of alcohol — or if the perpetrator administers alcohol to the point that the victim is mentally unable to make a competent decision — again a lot of alcohol and it has to be administered by the perpetrator! Obviously, standards vary by state and by campus, but I think there generally has to be something more than mere alcohol consumption or even mere impairment. Something closer to incapacitation is generally more like it, or at least that should be the standard.
I remember being an altar boy in about 1964. A girl was wandering around the sanctuary once, dusting statues I think. I was horrified. This was OK really, but it troubled my tiny patriarchal heart.
Awwww. The priests should put up a big sign: “NO GIRLS ALLOWED.” Maybe with a backwards “s.”
I remember the bad old days too with the stressed-out fathers and the homemaker-mothers. It’s nice to see the stress the men went through recognized here, rather than the idealized portrait of the mid-20th century family that conservative types often present. It seems to me that men benefit when they are relieved of the sole burden of providing for a family; indeed, some men are able to pursue a real vocation that may not pay so much because they are no longer solely responsible for feeding a number of mouths.
Alcohol = rape no question if the woman is under 21, even if she got the alcohol herself. That is law in every state that uses 21 as the drinking age.
Alcohol = rape on every campus if the woman decides it is. There’s no proof of how much she imbibed, and the government has ‘recommended’ that colleges go with the preponderance of the evidence standard. This means that if she says so and if there was alcohol involved, than it is so. The man may or may not be prosecuted in criminal court, but he will be expelled from college and essentially blackballed at every similar institution.
Alcohol may not be rape outside of those two areas, but it depends a lot on the judge, jury and your lawyer (as well as the woman’s acting ability). At the minimum your job will be gone, your savings will be gone and your life will be hell. This is the best outcome, the worst is that you’ll spend years in prison and be labeled a felon.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
Fitz,
“Yeah, except that feminism isn’t the same thing as believing that “all sex is rape…………..Also, don’t forget that feminism is not purely a product of Marxism……………….However, feminism is also very much rooted in the same Enlightenment values…………….”
To take your last point first (at therefore dispense with it entireley, on my way to my more crucial point)
Whatever problems of male/female dynamics that exist under clasical enlightenment libralism & it values can and will be dealt with realitivley easily.
Rather (I would counter)
Feminism (as I understand it…and I believe I understand it properly)
#1. IS purley the product of Marxism.
#2. As such it is ” the same thing as believing that “all sex is rape.”
However:
As you say “Dworkin-McKinnon wing of feminism LOST to the sex-positive wing”
Now, while I believe this is a important point, it’s probably for different reasons than you seem to indicate…
Because…..
#3. “All sex is rape” is not mutualy exclusive of the sex positive wing of feminism, indeed each reinforce one another so as to encourage the maximum amount of misandry/misogany possible in order to encourage social decay.
All that may require considerable explanation …but regardless it happens to be the operating reality in my considered understanding.
Tweel,
A preponderance of the evidence standard still puts the burden of proof on whomever is prosecuting the rape allegation to prove that it is so. It’s just a lower standard of proof than in a criminal proceeding. However, the preponderance of the rape standard is used in virtually every kind of civil proceeding, not just campus rape prosecutions. For example, a police officer who is accused of assaulting someone with excessive force can be sued (and thus have his reputation and career severely damaged) under a preponderance of the evidence standard.
I would also note that merely having good acting ability is not enough for a malicious woman to successfully have a false rape claim prosecuted. Jurors are instructed to look at a number of different factors in judging the woman’s credibility, such as whether her claims are corroborated by any other evidence in the case, whether there are inconsistencies in her prior statements, and whether she has any motive to fabricate her claims. It’s not so easy to make up a story that actually matches other known facts and is consistent upon multiple retellings. In addition, unless the alleged rapist is rich (which is not true in the vast majority of cases), there is little motivation to fabricate a rape claim. The woman gets nothing out of it, other than possibly undergoing an invasive rape kit exam if she reports early enough, undergoing multiple interviews with police and prosecutors, and taking the stand and having her credibility put on trial and reputation tarnished.
VR, I’m not a radfem, but I do think that they are assuming that sex = rape within the patriarchal paradigm they are criticizing
And EVEN THAT was NOT TRUE. My great-grandmothers freely married my great-grandfathers, and at least one of them nuclear-rejected an unwanted suitor. Christian culture always pushed consent as fundamental to the marriage covenant. The Catholic Church, which even us Prots must concede is the oldest of the Christian churches, puts it this way:
The Church holds the exchange of consent between the spouses to be the indispensable element that “makes the marriage.” If consent is lacking there is no marriage.
After marriage, consent for sex was assumed. Hence there was no such thing as “marital rape” in the old days. BUT… you had to consent, to get married, and you were perfectly free to remain single if you wished. So… even in the patriarchal paradigm, the “sex=rape” equation was NOT TRUE. Not ever. Not in our culture anyway. (Islam is another story..)
tweell, to a foreigner it seems that part of this is the brutally repressive way American authorities generally treat men. It seems that American Government is suspicious of men and they are guilty almost by default.
Fitz, I’m a feminist and I don’t believe all sex is rape.
In Greece, about fifty miles outside of Salonika, there is a place where no woman has set foot for more than a thousand years. Mount Athos, also known as the “Holy Mountain”, is called the “Christian Tibet”. It is home to over 20 monasteries, and women are not allowed there.
The Holy Mountain is world-renowned as a place of peace, reflection, and meditation. It is considered a good place to find God.
What, no comments yet about the passing of Cosmopolitan magazine editor Helen Gurley Brown, who helped write much of the ‘narrative’ that women are following today, a few generations later?
@MV,
But if you send them 4 slightly-different versions of the project they will burn most of their energy choosing one of them (like when they buy shoes).
Oh golly. I am so going to have to try that at some stage. In the field I’m in most of managers are fortunately men. But I do get either the random bull dike (who tries desperately to act like a man) or the empowered woman.
@VR,
I don’t like it, try again”, can be responded to by doing NOTHING… and resubmitting the sample a couple days later with a new lab code. “Oh, this is perfect!!!!”
Now that I’ve done. I also used to, in my very young and stupid days, a publicly accessible calendar on a dry erase board that tracked mood for all the women in the office. Made life so much more simple and they were oblivious to it. Mind, I should thank my lucky stars they were oblivious to it.
The pill is the reason. It inverts the genetic smell preferences of women (the MHC, major histocompatibility complex).. Normally we all prefer MHC-DISsimilar mates. But the girls on the pill go for genetically SIMILAR guys, who aren’t all that into them.
And there is some indication these negative side effects can be permanent in some women. Which is why I’m not comfortable with some of the comments here. We may have an entire generation of hormonally imbalanced women.
@Rudy,
Men, en masse, whether organized or not, are saying no.
And if they are they are no better than the sluts. I like to think more of them. I don’t want to see civilization collapse. Be choosy, that’s a good thing, but rejecting marriage in toto is asking to sin.
@G-Man,
I think the article betrays that the author is protestant and misses Jesus’ point. When he writes, “Jesus fiercely opposed first century Judaism because it was obsessed with silly rules.” He tries to correct that later with the discussion of Jesus fulfilling the Law but by then it is too late. I’m also not comfortable with his bullet points. The men did withdraw, and that was very bad and very stupid. However, points (2) and (4) don’t follow as stated. It is arguable that women are more prone to heresy. Historically they made up a disproportionate bulk of the gnostics for example. And in (4) he fails to distinguish the very particular _type_ of leadership _Mother_ Theresa exercised. That is, there is a “feminine genius” but that it is bounded in the administration of mankind in a way that the masculine isn’t. He’s part way there, but not all the way there.
@RockThrowingPeasant,
they turned Mother’s Day over to women
So the lectionary didn’t take precedence? Or is this an evangelical church? Even then…sheesh…
@DavidCollard,
Yes, once women gain a toehold, the game will ultimately be lost.
No. It will only happen if men accede to the change. We’ve done this in the past because we wanted to be nice. Christianity isn’t nice. Push back.
The last pope stupidly reversed his policy and permitted altar girls.
I don’t think this is true. Altar girls were allowed as sort of global “emergency” exception. I believe all of the Roman (that is those at Vatican controlled sites) masses do not use altar girls. I also don’t believe that they were to be vested as acolytes…but give an inch…
Thats why alter girls need to be nipped in the bud. Their allowed but certainly not required. The percentage of preist’s who were once alter boys is sky high.
One of the primary reasons I’m not Catholic is “Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist”. THOSE are even worse than Alter (intentional) Boy-Girls. Every time I see one I want to go ballistic. I saw an older woman vested as an acolyte a while back in Reno and wanted to drag her out of the Church by her hair.
In fact…screw that. I’m writing the bishop who was there (it was the Cathedral).
Fitz, any Catholic who wants to attend a mass with no women in the sanctuary, doing readings or speaking can attend the Extraordinary Form of the mass, which uses the Latin liturgy of 1962. This is officially approved as a form on a par with the Ordinary (English) Form. I attend both.
The Extraordinary Form has many good points to it beside the absence of females in the sanctuary of course.
Dalrock, may you continue to have patience responding to Lydia McGrew over at Zippy’s.
“Fitz, I’m a feminist and I don’t believe all sex is rape.”
Hardly germane – my point is that feminism = materialism and under such all sex is rape. If your understanding is different its simply because you assert it to be not because feminism itself can plausibly be understood on the ground now (properly) as a philosophy that can or does avoid reducing sex to rape.
Doomed Harlot: Fitz, I’m a feminist and I don’t believe all sex is rape.
Of course you don’t. You actively seek it. But there is a significant school of feminist thought that takes the opposite view.
GKC, I always avoid female EMs when I attend an English mass. I once saw a wife give communion to her husband. Horrible symbolism. There are no official female acolytes in the Catholic Church. Rome said no. I am pleased that there are no altar girls in Rome itself. I forbade my daughter becoming an altar girl.
The worst thing I ever saw was a jean-clad teenage girl leading the entrance procession into mass at a country parish. She then hung around the sanctuary like it was a cafe. Bloody disgrace. Fifty years earlier, she would have been in a pew, in a dress and with her head covered. Where she belongs.
What, no comments yet about the passing of Cosmopolitan magazine editor Helen Gurley Brown, who helped write much of the ‘narrative’ that women are following today, a few generations later?
OMG! She is dead!
Dalrock, if you accept some advice, this passing deserves a post of yours. This women was the most influential female of our times. She is the responsible of the triumph of feminism, which would have died at the end of the 70s.
Women were not willing to give up their sexual power as the first second-wave feminists wanted. Helen Gurley Brown find a way to be feminist and, at the same time, preserve the sexual powers. Modern women are followers of her ideas, instead of Susan Friedman, Andrea Dworking and others.
GKChesterton (writes)
“One of the primary reasons I’m not Catholic is “Extraordinary Ministers of the Eucharist”. THOSE are even worse than Alter (intentional) Boy-Girls.”
Good point….agreed. This is the greater transgression.
What, no comments yet about the passing of Cosmopolitan magazine editor Helen Gurley Brown….
OMG! She is dead!
Yep. She’s screaming in the flames at this very moment.
Fitz, GKC, as I said, the female EM stupidity can be avoided by attending Latin Masses.
Doomed Harlet
{re: sorry misprint…this changed my whole point…insert CANNOT instead of can in the second sentance}
Doomed Harlet (writes)
{“Fitz, I’m a feminist and I don’t believe all sex is rape.”}
{answer; with correction emphasised}
Hardly germane – my point is that feminism = materialism and under such all sex is rape. If your understanding is different its simply because you assert it to be not because feminism itself CANNOT plausibly be understood on the ground now (properly) as a philosophy that can or does avoid reducing sex to rape.
Again, VR and Fitz, I suspect your reading of the radfems is missing the crucial nuance — i.e. that it is patriarchal culture that turns sex into rape — but for all intents and purposes that may be the same thing since, in the radfem view, patriarchal culture is still very much in play. At any rate, this is, as VR puts it, one strand of feminism, and hardly the only or most influential one.
What, no comments yet about the passing of Cosmopolitan magazine editor Helen Gurley Brown….
OMG! She is dead!
Yep. She’s screaming in the flames at this very moment.
More on HGB…
I’ve posted elsewhere, that the liberal screenwriters/ producers/ musicians/ actors that (due to an accident of personal history, I’m not in the industry) I happen to know….. do NOT live the libertine lifestyle they portray on screen or in their music. They live quiet monogamous traditional family lives in upscale suburbs. In other words they PREACH liberalism… but they personally LIVE like conservatives.
Charles Murray independently observed the same phenomenon and wrote about it in his latest book,”Coming Apart” — the elites live like oldfashioned conservatives, because they know it works, but for some odd reason refuse to advocate or defend that path in the public sphere: Publicly liberal — privately conservative.
Now, upon looking at Helen Gurley Brown’s wikipedia page, I discover that the same is true for her: “After more than 50 years of marriage, her husband, David Brown, died at age 93 on February 1, 2010”. WHOAH!!!!!!!! One man for 50 years! Not what Cosmo advocates at all!
A furrher google search kicks up this:
HELEN GURLEY BROWN…. SECRETS TO MARRIAGE
After 50 years of marriage, Helen Gurley Brown’s husband, David Brown, died in 2010. Despite the make-yourself populism Helen promoted to women each month in Cosmo, she credited much to her husband in 2008, saying, “I owe him everything. I wouldn’t be who I am or achieved what I did.” Of course, what made them each successful was not the other but their partnership. David convinced Helen to write Sex and the Single Girl; he published Cosmo for the first few years while she edited it. It was a marriage of collaboration and mutual respect, so let’s look at some of Helen’s secrets for making it work.
•Choose wisely: “Marry a decent, good, kind person who will cherish you.”
•Always say yes to sex: “If only one of you is in the mood, do it. Even if sex isn’t great every time, it’s a unique form of communication and togetherness that can help you stay together with a good degree of contentment.”
•Depend on each other: “Marriage is insurance for the worst years of your life. During your best years you don’t need a husband.”
•Communicate, maniacally: “If you listen to your mate maniacally well, you can’t go wrong.”
•Except when it comes to orgasms: “There’s enough trouble having a man in your life without saying, ‘Look, I didn’t have an orgasm last night.'”
http://www.tressugar.com/Helen-Gurley-Brown-Secrets-Marriage-7257989
What a colossal hypocrite! The reverse of nearly everything that Cosmo preached. She lived exactly the opposite of what she taught to others. And she had a happy marriage for 50 years, by NOT following her own advice!
Now she’s paying.
@VR,
We can hope that she isn’t but it does look grim. She’s probably one of the best examples of “praying for your enemies”. That being said her teachings need to be skewered in the public square.
As HGB famously said: “Good girls go to heaven. Bad girls go everywhere.”
I don’t really see the hypocrisy, VR. HGB’s book was called “Sex and the Single Girl,” not “Don’t ever get married or have a faithful and loving collaboration with your husband.” I don’t see any conflict between sexual liberalism and choosing to enter into a long-standing, monogamous marriage.
@VR
Your description of HGB’s hypocrisy made me feel like puking.
Doomed Harlot: I suspect your reading of the radfems is missing the crucial nuance — i.e. that it is patriarchal culture that turns sex into rape
No, I do not “miss” that nuance — I understand it perfectly, and I reject it because it is objectively, historically. factually FALSE. Back in the days of the patriarchy, my great-great-grandfathers did not “rape” my great-great-grandmothers; they loved them and married them. The women said “yes” at the altar, and that was lifetime consent — as Helen Gurley Brown said in her piece on marriage (quote in my prior post) — “Always say yes to sex!”
In fact, it was the COLLAPSE of patriarchy that let to a skyrocketing incidence of rape. I’ve yet to hear a feminist say “oops” about this.
Now she’s paying
We can hope that she isn’t but it does look grim.
They always pay one way or another: Screaming in the flames, or bitter reget before the altar. Obviously I hope she found her way to the altar… but we’ve no evience of that.
David Collard (writes)
“Fitz, GKC, as I said, the female EM stupidity can be avoided by attending Latin Masses.
David…Of coarse it can… I was just thinking about my local “protest” parish I sporadically attend and how little sense it makes that I prefer the Eucharist on the tongue while kneeling directly from the Priest juxtaposed to how often I receive it from a female EM during (what I call) the “cattle call” of my usual Parish.
GKC (writes)
“One of the primary reasons I’m not Catholic is……”
This makes me ask: Then what are you….?
van Rooinek & Doomed Harlot
{Re: van Rooinek remark}
“Of course you don’t. You actively seek it. But there is a significant school of feminist thought that takes the opposite view.
It is my point that these “separate schools” have (at their very least) a de facto alliance that allowed the sex positive school to predominate the culture as long as it held sway under the abuse of female’s newly acquired power ( sexual liberation) as a “corrective” to past patriarchal oppression.
[Helen Gurley Brown] credited much to her husband in 2008, saying, “I owe him everything. I wouldn’t be who I am or achieved what I did.”
You go, grrrl!
Female empowerment!
Strong independent woman!!!
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a.. oh.. wait… Helen Gurley Brown said WHAT????
Umm….never mind… what was the name of that nice guy I turned down for a date last week, I think I want to give him a chance after all…
don’t really see the hypocrisy, VR….I don’t see any conflict between sexual liberalism and choosing to enter into a long-standing, monogamous marriage.
Are you AT ALL familiar with the contents of Cosmo? It’s virtually guaranteed to PREVENT any of its faithful readers from EVER entering, or keeping, a long-standing, monogamous marriage.
Just waiting to see what Dalrock, Deti, Bskillet, and Sunshinemary have to say about the Helen Gurley Brown revelations in my last several posts…. hee hee. Back in a few hours…
VR, OK, you didn’t miss the nuance. And again, I should back off on this because I’m not a radfem and am probably not the best person to try to restate their beliefs. But I think the issue is less whether our great-grandfathers were actually raping our great-grandmothers, but rather how the culture viewed sex — i.e. as sort of an ownership or conquest of the woman.
DH, what you are saying is what the law reads. I am saying what actually happens. I both live in a college town and worked for the prison, with access to All the information in the system (and sadly very little way to mitigate the damage). Sorry, but here I’m an expert.
You are an excellent example of how an intelligent feminist woman thinks, thank you for that. I can see why deti wants you around. Your selective blindness makes his points for him and is rather educational.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“Again, VR and Fitz, I suspect your reading of the radfems is missing the crucial nuance — i.e. that it is patriarchal culture that turns sex into rape…”
We may just talking past each-other at this point.
ALL nuance aside – I subscribe to an approach that does not hyphenate feminism & takes it in total to be fatally flawed because it is irreducibly materialistic…and as such MUST view “all sex as rape”.
VR,
Ugh. I haven’t read a Cosmo since high school in the 80s. It struck me even then as incredibly vapid and repetitive. My recollection is that it was aimed at young, single women, assumed a lifestyle of lots of dating and sex, and consisted primarily of tips on how to look hot and how to please your man in bed.
I don’t see a conflict between living one way when you’re young and settling into monogamy later on. I also don’t see a conflict between advocating the rights of others to engage in more open sexual lifestyles and choosing long-standing monogamy for oneself. Different strokes for different folks,
Me:
“Men, en masse, whether organized or not, are saying no.”
GKC:
“And if they are they are no better than the sluts. I like to think more of them. I don’t want to see civilization collapse. Be choosy, that’s a good thing, but rejecting marriage in toto is asking to sin.”
Being choosy means saying no to the vast majority of Western woman. And not being a sap means saying no to marriage as it currently exists (legally and socially) for men in the Western world. As I mentioned, many of the men refusing to marry are not doing so because they think marriage is a bad thing, but because the women on offer are not worth it. And many of them still would marry anyway, but being a husband today is like playing Russian roulette. If you want marriage to survive, then it has to change. Women have to change and the laws and social practices that they have enacted and enforced have to change. And the only way to have that happen is to put pressure on women. Which is exactly what a marriage strike does.
I’m not a Christian or a believer of any kind. So “sin” does not concern me. I do believe that marriage is important to the continuance and improvement of our society. But marriage 2.0 is simply not viable for men. They need not reject marriage in toto to come to that conclusion.
Also, the equivalence you are drawing is pernicious, and typical of Trad Cons and feminists. Women want to be sluts, but then expect a “good man” to marry them. In response to that, men are saying no. As they should. But biology doesn’t go away simply because social conventions do. One can hardly expect a man to be celibate his whole life simply because there are few to none women worth marrying and because marriage has become a one way street.Whether you would “like to think more of them” (ie “man up”) or not. Women are entirely to blame for the current situation. Men who refuse to marry but also refuse to be life long celibates are entirely blameless.
Tweel,
Oy, at the risk of giving away too much identifying information and inviting a rain of opprobrium down on my head, I will share that I have prosecuted sexual assault cases in the past. So I’m an expert too!
I am the last person to claim that the system is perfect, as I am all too aware of the fallibility of judges, juries, prosecutors (including me), and defense attorneys. But I totally disagree with the notion that it’s easy or desirable for a woman to waltz into a courtroom and screw some guy with a false rape allegation.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“I don’t see any conflict between sexual liberalism and choosing to enter into a long-standing, monogamous marriage.”
This could explain multiple errors. I find the two to be fundamentally incapable of reconciliation on any system wide (read cultural) level that could ever be practically applied.
Sex outside of wedlock is simply verboten in this world view – It’s proper form incapable of being realized or actualized under such a philosophy.
VR SAYS: [Helen Gurley Brown] credited much to her husband in 2008, saying, “I owe him everything. I wouldn’t be who I am or achieved what I did.”
You go, grrrl!
Female empowerment!
Strong independent woman!!!
A woman needs a man like a fish needs a.. oh.. wait… Helen Gurley Brown said WHAT????
Umm….never mind… what was the name of that nice guy I turned down for a date last week, I think I want to give him a chance after all…
Again, I’m not seeing the conflict. First of all, there is no way that HGB ever subscribed to the tiny “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle” school. She was all about giving advice to women who love and want men.
Secondly, you can be a strong and powerful person and still rely on the support and collaboration of a spouse, and give that credit. Men do this all the time, i.e. “I wouldn’t be where I am today without the faithful support and help of my wife so-and-so.”
The point, DH, is that many feminists say that all hetero sex is rape. Whether you happen to believe it or not is of no moment. You are simply doing the same ole, same ole. “All women are not like that,” in your hands, becomes “All feminsts are not like that.” Maybe, but who cares? Generalizations are an essential part of any discussion. Snowflake theory aside, feminists take a dim view of male/female sex and are quick to see coercion and rape in circumstances where they don’t exist. And that is true no matter what you, personally,may think.
“I don’t see a conflict between living one way when you’re young and settling into monogamy later on.”
There is no “conflict.” But, the latter part of it, monogamy, depends on finding a partner willing to enter into a monogaqmous relationship.
Getting down to brass tacks. …A woman, unless hideously ugly, will have no problem finding sex partners in her twenties and even into her thirties. She can choose to “live” that “way” pretty much unilaterally, as there will be no shortage of takers among young hetero men. But her decision to “settle into monogamy later on” very much depends on a man agreeing to it.
Men, by and large, don’t want to enter into a longterm monogamous relationship with a woman who just got off the carousel. And, more and more, they are refusing to do just that. So, advising women to ride the carousel until they decided that they wanted to “settle” into monogamy is bad advice. Because there is a good chance that there will be either no man willing to take the deal, or that only men at the bottom of the barrel (from a woman’s perspective) will.
Fitz,
Right, you don’t think that sexual liberalism and monogamy can be reconciled on a system-wide level, but clearly the HGB’s of the world (and I too) think they can, so there is no hypocrisy. I see it as a matter of individuals choosing what works for them.
This is the biggest erroneous premise I have ever heard. DH, you’re not a Christian but a whore, go away. Women have always had sexual choice. They could choose to be sexually promiscuous at anytime. It just came with consequences such as, unwanted pregnancies, no marriage, no welfare, no getting by on the backs of others, no government checks, alimony or child support. What you are ‘advocating’ for is not sexual liberation, something women have always had by the way, but instead; you are advocating for liberation from responsibility. These women can go about fucking Alphas all day if they want to, however, we reserve the right to call them sluts, to shame them and to point out their acts to other men so that these men can make the informed decision.
What femcunts, such as yourself, have advocated for is freedom from the consequences surrounding your choices in life. Nothing stops a woman from sexing it up all her life. Her real problem comes when she wants marriage and can’t get it. Feminism is about stopping women from bearing the consequences and shame of their OWN ACTIONS. It’s nothing but Marxist ‘liberation’. They want their cake and they want to be able to eat it too.
For the umpteenth time, go peddle your hedonistic, femtastic, hasterbatory, bullcrap elsewhere.
For the record, I don’t care what non-Christians do, I do care about non-Christians becoming Christians and then expecting us to merely forgive them their bull. That’s what all these women do. They sex it up in their youth, then turn 30 and start preaching the gospel according to their vajayjays and then suddenly they are born again virgins ready for marriage with the stamp of approval from society at large and the Church. It’s a fucking disgrace.
But I think the issue is less whether our great-grandfathers were actually raping our great-grandmothers, but rather how the culture viewed sex — i.e. as sort of an ownership or conquest of the woman.
Welll… according to the Bible (1st Cor 7:4), BOTH spouses OWN each other. Yes, I own my wife’s body and sexuality. And she equally owns mine. Neither of us has the right to deprive the other.
I don’t see a conflict between living one way when you’re young and settling into monogamy later on.
Have you learned nothing from the Manosphere? Living one way when young, makes it very difficult or even impossible to achieve or maintain monogamy later. This is a well established fact.
I also don’t see a conflict between advocating the rights of others to engage in more open sexual lifestyles and choosing long-standing monogamy for oneself
Except that the “open lifestyles” will eventually bring the culture crashing down, and the barbarians thus bred, will eventually kick in your front door.
risk of giving away too much identifying information and inviting a rain of opprobrium down on my head, I will share that I have prosecuted sexual assault cases in the past. So I’m an expert too!
Then surely you are aware that the Innocence Project has discovered a sickeningly high percentage of false rape convictions through DNA testing. And surely you are familiar with the vile exploits of Mike Nifong, who tried to build his career by railroading the Duke Lacrosse players even after DNA definitively exonerated them.
That said… provided you personally made a good faith effort to jail only the guilty, and made every effort to avoid putting the wrong guy away, you will get no opprobrium from me.
Feminist Hater,
These women can go about fucking Alphas all day if they want to, however, we reserve the right to call them sluts, to shame them and to point out their acts to other men so that these men can make the informed decision.
Ha ha. Good luck with that!
you don’t think that sexual liberalism and monogamy can be reconciled on a system-wide level
Exactly. One breeds barbarians, one breeds citizens.
Shun the whore.
@Fitz,
This makes me ask: Then what are you….?
Orthodox. We may have bishops that randomly steal or do other stupid crap but the liturgy is at least safe. Everyone has their problems, I just prefer that the problems be left at the door of the Church.
@ALL,
Why you continue to engage with DH just baffles me. Her _premises_ are flawed. You can’t have a society that encourages monogamy AND promiscuity. You can’t become “magically” become monogamous. Her whole world view eschews discipline and this is her central problem with monogamy. Mind, I’m sad for her situation, but that’s what you get when you flaunt the purpose of sex and of marriage.
Have you learned nothing from the Manosphere? Living one way when young, makes it very difficult or even impossible to achieve or maintain monogamy later. This is a well established fact.
I have learned that the Manosphere believes this. But HGB’s life seems to be an example of the fact that it isn’t always thus. She lived out the premise of a fun-fileld youth followed by a stable, longlasting union.
Then surely you are aware that the Innocence Project has discovered a sickeningly high percentage of false rape convictions through DNA testing. And surely you are familiar with the vile exploits of Mike Nifong, who tried to build his career by railroading the Duke Lacrosse players even after DNA definitively exonerated them.
Indeed! Barry Scheck is one of my heroes, and I also recently attended an excellent presentation by one of the Duke lacrosse defense attorneys. Don’t forget, though, that many false rape convictions involve cases of mistaken identification, not fabricated charges prompted by regret at consensual sex. Indeed, if consensual sex were at play, the DNA evidence would not exonerate the defendant.
I also would never claim that there is no such thing as a false rape accusation, and no false convictions. The system is extremely human and therefore extremely fallible, despite all the checks and balances we have. What I’m saying is that it’s not as easy to pull off a false rape accusation as the Manosphere thinks. Indeed, most rape victims I’ve worked with are terrified to go forward because they know they are going to get crapped on by the defense attorneys and the community.
I will also say that there are false accusations in other kinds of crimes too. Often victims and perpetrators know each other. There are many male-on-male, female-on-female crimes, and female-on-male crimes (assaults and property crimes) where the alleged victim could be perpetrating a set-up.
That said… provided you personally made a good faith effort to jail only the guilty, and made every effort to avoid putting the wrong guy away, you will get no opprobrium from me.
THANK YOU for saying that. There are definitely prosecutors out there who don’t critically examine claims made by alleged victims (of any kind of crime), but I definitely did my best to screen out bad cases, whether rape or other offenses. It’s not easy and you do lie awake at night sometimes, wondering if you are doing the right thing. I have refused to prosecute rape cases that I thought were questionable. It’s not easy to sit down with an alleged victim’s angry father and explain that you aren’t prosecuting. On the other hand, it’s usually easy to break the news to the alleged victim. Very few women are eager to go forward with a rape prosecution and many do so only because it’s the State’s decision, not the victim’s.
@Dalrock,
This is very off topic, but one of the previous posters brought up an interesting topic you may want to look into. It has to do with young boys and ritalin. I am curious if there are any metrics we could find that would tell us whether ADHD is actually as prevalent in young boys today as is currently believed, or if it is actually women dropping the ball on something else in society. Do the boys have a real problem or are the women using privilege to drug them so they don’t have to deal with the hassle?
GK Chesterton,
You can’t become “magically” become monogamous.
It’s not magic. It’s called making a decision and sticking with it.
Her whole world view eschews discipline and this is her central problem with monogamy.
My world view does not eschew discipline. I believe in going to work every day, paying your bills, mowing your lawn, asking yourself hard ethical questions, keeping your promises, and practicing safe sex. It’s not that I’m opposed to discipline when it’s warranted.
I also don’t have a problem with monogamy.
Mind, I’m sad for her situation, but that’s what you get when you flaunt the purpose of sex and of marriage.
I appreciate your concern, but I don’t see any reason to be sad for me. Also, I think you may have a typo here. You mean “flout,” not “flaunt.”
Why you continue to engage with DH just baffles me.
Having a dissenting voice creates interest and also provides a foil for people to articulate their beliefs in contrast to the opposing point of view. People generally DON’T want to talk only with those who already agree with them. I could easily just talk to other feminists, but you all, are far more interesting to me. I am not going to change my mind about my ultimate right to social equality, but I do learn from the back-and-forth.
vR: Have you learned nothing from the Manosphere? Living one way when young, makes it very difficult or even impossible to achieve or maintain monogamy later. This is a well established fact.
DH: I have learned that the Manosphere believes this. But HGB’s life seems to be an example of the fact that it isn’t always thus. She lived out the premise of a fun-fileld youth followed by a stable, longlasting union.
Of course it isn’t ALWAYS thus. There are exceptions and outliers to every statistic. But the “fun-filled” youth FREQUENTLY makes it much more difficult to marry, settle down, stay married, and have children later. This has been supported by a lot of data posted here at Dalrock. Not to mention vast anectdotal support.
HGB never had children and claimed not to want them. Most women, however, eventually do. And following HGB’s path often makes that a lot more difficult. The reasons vary. For some women, as they get ollder and the good men get taken, they miss their marriage window. Others do marry, but too late to have kids. Still others may be rendered sterile by STDs or abortion scars, a legacy of their fun-filled youths. Whatever the reason, those who follow miss out on having the kids they wanted, invariably express inconsolable sorrow over it.
Being bitterly sorry from your 40s through your 90s, and dying alone surrounded only by regret, is high price to pay for a fun-filled youth.
I’d like to get back to Dalrock’s inital premise – I wrote a couple of long paragraphs two days back, but thought better of them, and so did not press ‘post comment’. The essence was this, I think: the longer women leave it to marry, the less likely they are going to find that they can do so, or perhaps for reasons of their own think better of it. In addition, as they age, the men most likely to be attracted to them are also likely to be older, but those older men are going to have the option (apart from going MGTOW) to marry yoinger women. Women are then going to be faced with the following possibilities: either marrying older men beneath them in status; or alternately marrying younger men who have little going for them. The women, thus, in finding themselves and persuing their careers and waiting for Mister Right, or just generally riding the carousel, have (like Clint Eastwood’s punk) to feel lucky – but people are not always the best judges of their own possibilities, especially when all their girl-friends are telling them how fabulous they are and they themselves are putting off potential-suitors with nuclear rejections, especially public ones.
Helen Gurly Brown, in my opinion, can rightly be considered the Patron Saint of the PUAs.
24 and older start looking at designer litter boxes
I admit I don’t know much about spirituality and religion stuff, but my guess is that Helen G. Brown is right now starting a new career of trying herself all her cosmo-sex-tips with a platoon of handsome black hairy horny johns in a flaming hot romantic environment (two floors down where heating is for free). If you talk the talk you must also walk the walk, dammit!
On a lighter note: She is dead. We are still alive. Summer is in the air. Life is good.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“Right, you don’t think that sexual liberalism and monogamy can be reconciled on a system-wide level, but clearly the HGB’s of the world (and I too) think they can, so there is no hypocrisy. I see it as a matter of individuals choosing what works for them.”
#1. Think again..they cannot.
#2. An interesting thought experiment is to imagine the denizens of our sexual liberties ethos’ positing in our culture, (in the name of monogamy) a six month period of getting to know the opposite sex before intercourse was permissible & within that 6 months “marriage” had to be brought into the express conversation at least once.
This moral minimalism I believe would lead to a complete breakdown in the legitimacy of the very concept of sexual liberationist/ sexual liberalism.
& that is why no such thought experiment will ever be allowed under feminism or sexual liberalism.
GKChesterton (writes)
“you continue to engage with DH just baffles me. Her _premises_ are flawed. You can’t have a society that encourages monogamy AND promiscuity……………Her whole world view eschews discipline and this is her central problem………..”
Agreed…….. she needs to understand this fundamental discord and clearly address its incompatibility before fuitfull dialogue is possible.
@sunshine mary
This reminds me of some old local Catholic joke:
“In Catholic civilization every thing has a saint-in-charge. Even players and sluts. The patron saint of players is St. ALIMONIUS of Alexandria. And the matron saint of sluts is St. MENOPAUSIA of Asia Minor.”
Fitz,
The purpose of your thought experiment, or what it would purport to show, escapes me. Also, I don’t think feminism or sexual liberalism has the power to prohibit thought experiments. Think away!
@Joseph asked about metrics for boys on Ritalin.
My background first: I married my wife when she was 19 and I was 20. Neither of us had been married before, and both of us were virgins. Since our marriage (and even before), both of us have been active Christians; attending worship assemblies several times per week and involved in many other church activities. We sought to raise both our boys to be Godly men. Both of us are big on appropriate discipline (including spanking when the boys were young). We tried very hard to be consistent in our discipline, but like most other parents, I know we failed from time to time. Last May, we celebrated our 34th anniversary. Our sons are both grown and on their own financially. I would describe us as (what used to be considered) a typical family. No dysfunction.
Our older son was compliant and what most folks would say “properly behaved.” Our younger son was off-the-charts hyper, even as a very young child. We tried every form of discipline we could think of short of putting him in a “Skinner box” and nothing worked. He was physically incapable of keeping himself under control. When he was in 2nd grade, his teacher asked if we’d had him tested for ADHD. We hadn’t, but, being near our wits end, we sought out a highly-recommended psychiatrist who specialized in hyperactivity.
After running several tests, the Doc said if he could put a picture next to the definition of ADHD in the dictionary, he’d use my son’s because he was the “worst case” the Doc had ever seen. I’d seen plenty of press about “drugging” kids into zombies to stifle hyperactivity. But the Doc said that the brain chemistry of kids with ADHD is 180 degrees off from everyone else’s brain chemistry. So, rather than use barbiturates to “slow them down,” amphetamines are the drugs of choice for ADHD.
I was skeptical with the diagnosis. But, after a few months on medication, the difference in my son’s behavior was little short of miraculous. Where before, he couldn’t sit still long enough to do homework, or converse without constant pacing and jumping from one subject to another, now he had genuine capacity to control his behavior and stay on task long enough to successfully accomplish what was expected of him. The Doc explained it this way: Imagine you’re driving a car through a residential neighborhood going 70 mph with no brakes. It takes all your energy to watch the road and swerve to avoid accidents so you have no attention left to focus on anything else. He said the medication gives ADHD kids brakes to use. The child is responsible for putting his foot on the brake at the appropriate time, but now the brakes actually work.
Even though I’m not a doctor – and don’t play one on TV – I am dubious when I hear folks claim that kids have been dosed with Ritalin (or other amphetamines) when they don’t need them so that they’ll be compliant. Contrary to what I understand is the public perception, giving ADHD drugs to kids who aren’t ADHD will cause them to become super-hyper, rather than lethargic.
Thoughts from the parent of an ADHD kid that may or may not be helpful, FWIW.
Oooh, I was never a big HGB fan (I loathed Cosmo with an undying passion), but Sunshine Mary found a pretty awesome HGB quote, which I think addresses nicely the prevailing manosphere attitude that “ZOMG!!!! You girls better be careful or you might never marry, oh the horror!!!!”
“You may marry or you may not. In today’s world that is no longer the big question for women. Those who glom on to men so that they can collapse with relief, spend the rest of their days shining up their status symbol and figure they never have to reach, stretch, learn, grow, face dragons or make a living again are the ones to be pitied…If you play your cards right, single ladies, life will be a good show … enjoy it from wherever you are, whether it’s two in the balcony or one on the aisle—don’t miss any of it.”
I suspect HGB was able to make a successful marriage herself precisely because of this advice. She was able to marry for love and compatibility rather than as an end in itself. And she was all about making the most of things either way.
Publicly liberal — privately conservative. I see no conflict there. It’s saying everybody else can do whatever and it’s not a reflection or offense to one personally. Stupid people are going to do stupid things , little stopping it. It is out in the open. Gay people should be who they are and not get married to straight people to fit in etc. It would solve a lot of problems if people would just be honest and open. What I do personally and what everyone else chooses to do are different things.
Society should encourage certain things but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. There are all different kinds of people and all different kinds of life. People need to concern themselves about the important people to them and not people in general. Instead of believing statistics (often bias, old etc) and the media all people have to do is get to know people as individuals. It’s not that hard. People are paranoid to avoid risk but it tends to lead to people having disproportional fears.
Some people regret not getting married but the most bitter are the ones who did get married to the wrong person and stayed out of obligation, guilt, and shame from my observation. Let’s face it some people are just miserable no matter what. I wish instead of people judging others they could have compassion and understand wisdom comes hard to some.
In my experience most young woman would like to get married but they have other goals too. As humans they’d like to have everything they want but realize they have to make sacrifices. Men tend to want children more then woman for obvious reasons which affects how much woman want to get married as though two things usually go together. If woman don’t want to marry it’s usually because they don’t want to have children yet. People who get married older at first marriage usually stay together and divorce less although I agree there is a huge class/race/education level bias in America.
@GKC –
“This makes me ask: Then what are you….?
Orthodox. We may have bishops that randomly steal or do other stupid crap but the liturgy is at least safe. Everyone has their problems, I just prefer that the problems be left at the door of the Church.”
With a username like that I had a suspicion. But this brings up yet another important question, is the Dormition tomorrow or the 28th?
@DH
HGB was able to marry because she did not follow her own advice. Her advice has been part of the cultural impetus that has led to what I call the “spinstersphere” – a large network of blogs written by very unhappy single women in their forties. Women are not as happy living life as “one on the aisle” instead of “two in the balcony”.
Sunshine Mary found a pretty awesome HGB quote, which I think addresses nicely the prevailing manosphere attitude that “ZOMG!!!! You girls better be careful or you might never marry, oh the horror!!!!”
The manosphere has nothing to say, to women who don’t want to marry. Women, just as men, are free to “go their own way” if they wish. The women we are addressing, are those who WANT TO MARRY… or so they say… but are going about it ALL WRONG, dooming themselves to a lousy marriage, a late marriage, or no marriage, due to foolish choices. Most women DO want to marry, it’s not a neutral issue as the HGB quote would seem to imply.
I suspect HGB was able to make a successful marriage herself precisely because of this advice.
But… too late to have kids. If you don’t care about kids, late marriage is not a problem. If you care about kids.. .and MOST women DO… then getting married younger is almost mandatory.
HGB looks like a real life witch. Reminds me of Nadine Gordimer. Looking at them brings about my gag reflex…
DH is very happy of course. She gets to fuck other men whilst telling her husband how much she enjoyed it. Must be a blast. DH, why don’t you write a book? Call it, “Cockolding Wife: Sexually Free and Inducing Impotence”. Sell it for a couple million to some Hollywood script write/producer.
Just up your alley… or is that ass?
I don’t think HGB was the female Hefner. I think Hefner actually wanted to change the culture. HGB just wanted to sell magazines. Funny thing, when Hef was running his interminable and soporific “Playboy Philosophy” columns in the sixties and seventies, the magazine started losing money, until daughter Christy took over and worked the formula; hot girls, cool gadgets, lifestyle advice, making it a lot more like a male Cosmopolitan.
HGB’s Cosmopolitan always seemed to me to be the embodiment of a particular shopgirl’s fantasy; outslut all the other sluts, grab your HB10-6-figure bad boy and keep him slavishly devoted to you with all those Naughty Sex Secrets, then pwn your sexual competition with the fashion and cosmetics tips.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“The purpose of your thought experiment, or what it would purport to show, escapes me. Also, I don’t think feminism or sexual liberalism has the power to prohibit thought experiments. Think away!”
The purpose of your thought experiment is to demonstrate how fast the house of cards known as sexual liberation ism would fall apart if the thought experiment I point to was APPLIED.
Lets say that, in the name of monogamy,(a.) a six month period of getting to know the opposite sex before intercourse was initiated & (b.) within that 6 months “marriage” had to be brought into the express conversation between the two at least once during that six months period.
This would demonstrate to the subjects involved and to the larger culture in mass.. just how ludicrous and unworkable a non-standard sexual liberation ism is.
Peoples consciousness would immediately collapse and the untenable nature of sexual liberation ism would become apparent.
They would begin to look at one another not as objects or totems but as complete human beings along a range of potentialities, with self sacrifice and realistic expectations.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“Also, I don’t think feminism or sexual liberalism has the power to prohibit thought experiments. Think away!”
In as much as it still holds “the commanding heights of culture” it will not allow such thought experiments to be posited to the general public or reach levels of critical mass in the public consciousness. Believe me, most feminists and sexual liberationists are aware of the fundamental flawed nature of contemporary sexual norms (or the lack there of) and simply want to maintain the status quo, or continue to inflict further damage. If they are not aware of this then they are, like perhaps yourself…what Lenin called a “use full idiot”.
Now I can never really tell the difference between a use full idiot & a true believer…but suffice to say (again) sexual liberation & monogamy are fundamentally incompatible.
Indeed…what were we liberated from in the sexual revolution if not X or Y aspect of a monogamous culture if not the entirety of it?
VR,
Eh, on the having kids thing, if you’ve put your energy into a career and have made some money, there is always the adoption option.
I just think the “ooogaaah booogaaaah, if you don’t live the way we want you to, you might not get marrrrrrieeeeeed,” is really overblown. Sure, most women ultimately want to marry and have kids, but I I don’t believe that it’s necessary to maintain one’s virginity and marry the first guy who comes along before the age of 24 is necessary. I have too many friends who didn’t walk down the aisle until their late 30s, and yet are reproducing at a healthy clip even now. I only have three unmarried friends: one’s a lesbian, one never wanted to get married and recently turned down a proposal for a man who has loved her for 20 years, and the third is a very devout Catholic who is surely virginal but has also suffered a lifelong, very serious, weight problem.
I also think it’s a cost benefit analysis. Yeah, you put it off or turn someone down, that means you risk marriage never happening. But the risk of staying single may, even if it’s not one’s preference, may be worthwhile.
VR,
Eh, on the having kids thing, if you’ve put your energy into a career and have made some money, there is always the adoption option.,
You clearly do NOT get us AT ALL. We want to continue OUR OWN legacy.
About DH
Wow, every topic from the manosphere displayed in live action. hamster,and all
They would begin to look at one another not as objects or totems but as complete human beings along a range of potentialities, with self sacrifice and realistic expectations.
I don’t think that sexual liberalism means that you don’t view other people as “complete human beings along a range of potentialities, with self sacrifice and realistic expectations.” I don’t see why that should be. Indeed, it seems that the conservo-sphere, which advocates traditional marriage, seems to view women in particular as objects or totems — the sweet virgin, the used up whore, the stupid slut, the evil feminist, the demanding and entitled modern woman, the pathetic spinster crying into her pillow. In reality, people are much more complicated than this.
Doomed Harlot
VR (writes)
“You clearly do NOT get us AT ALL. We want to continue OUR OWN legacy.”
He seems to be correct. Even a crude rule utilitarianism will get you there, a more sophisticated rule utilitarianism will get you there with greater sophistication.
FYI – “Sexual Liberation ism” = The idea that you can have a humane society within a framework of “consent & adults”alone, as the reigning sexual ethic.
P.S. – You may infact be “doomed”.
VR, that’s going to go over her head.
DH – With more and more women going for a career before marriage and the mass-acceptance of abortion, where, prey tell, are these adopted children going to come from? VR provides the most obvious answer as well as pointing out one of its many flaws, but no doubt you have much more to say on the subject.
Really though, any system that requires other societies actively not emulating you so that you can take their children is a system so obviously doomed to failure that it must never be allowed to get off the ground. Sadly, we are beyond this point.
VR,
Oh no, I perfectly understand the desire to have a child to whom you are genetically linked. I have that desire too, as well as the desire to experience pregnancy. I don’t really understand the reaction of being inconsolable if it doesn’t work out, but I understand wanting your own biological chidl. But sometimes those desires don’t trump other desires you have in your life (such as the desire not to be married to just anyone), and adoption is pretty wonderful for the people who go that route.
@VR
I think females don’t understand the concept of “one’s own legacy” very well. They just feel a biological need for a little human cuddling toy and emotional tampon. Considering that, adoption (i.e. emptying another woman’s cradle) is much more comfortable option than actual childbirth. Or she can simply get herself 20yrs younger boyfriend. Or a homosexual male best friend. Or a cat. Or two cats. Or three cats…
Alexander,
That’s a fair point. I would certainly never expect other women to be forced to bear children simply so that I can have the pleasure of adoption. But as things stand now, there are, in fact, children in need of homes both domestically and internationally. I am not saying either of these options are guarantees that you will get the healthy baby of your dreams, but you’ve got a shot at it, and if you’re willing to compromise on age and/or health, you are quite likely to have a chance to parent a chidl.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“I don’t think that sexual liberalism means that you don’t view other people as “complete human beings along a range of potentialities, with self sacrifice and realistic expectations.” I don’t see why that should be. Indeed, it seems that the conservo-sphere, which advocates traditional marriage, seems to view women in particular as objects or totems — the sweet virgin, the used up whore, the stupid slut, the evil feminist, the demanding and entitled modern woman, the pathetic spinster crying into her pillow. In reality, people are much more complicated than this.”
Sexual liberalism does nothing to resist and is incapable under its own legs of positing anymore than this much less being able to deliver the goods. Indeed those very “objects or totems” you point out that exist in the “conservo-sphere” are themselves a reaction to and shorthand for what occurs under the current environment of sexual liberalism.
Its simply a question of priorities.. If you want the greatest good for the greatest number of people (i.e. -lasting monogamy with the possibility of children for the majority of people) you NEED to prohibit sex outside marriage IF ONLY to get people thinking of one another as other than objects and thinking about monogamy to begin with..
Any less is & has been proved unworkable.
DH: I don’t really understand the reaction of being inconsolable if it doesn’t work out, but I understand wanting your own biological child
No. If you don’t understand being “inconsolable if it doesn’t work out”, then you really do NOT understand “wanting your own biological child”….
…..which sets you apart not only from the manosphere, but also from a great many otherwise liberal women whose misinformed choices cause them to miss their chance at motherhood…. and who could have been spared that heartbreak if they’d priorotized their lives more traditionally as this website advocates. Oooga booga…
That said, I know 3 families that had BOTH bio AND adopted children; I’m not against adoption, by any means. But for those who have ONLY adopted children, who could NOT have their own, behind the happy adoption story is always utter heartbreak first.
BTW, regarding my post above at 2:41 p.m. – I’m agnostic as to whether there’s some universe of parents who may have successfully talked a doctor into prescribing barbiturates for their children to better control them. But, if the kids aren’t hyperactive, giving them amphetamines will most certainly make them so rather than “zoned out.”
Hoping someone can point me to Deti’s comment a while back (on an older post) about reframing the idea of a knowledgable husband wooing his wife to the bedroom into a knowledgable wife sexing up her husband.
No, but you will expect other women to have children so that you can in your old age enjoy the material wealth of the nation – wealth that absolutely requires a new generation to produce. That was VR’s greater point – not some ‘biological need’ but another generation of humans who share and value the culture of the forefathers and thus have an incentive into keeping the whole thing going. You subscribe to a lifestyle that simply cannot be maintained if your philosophies are adopted by the population at large. What’s dangerous is that that is exactly where we are heading, if we take the optimistic approach and assume we’re not already there.
If DH’s premise were really true, there would be no calls from society expecting men to do anything. The onus would be on those willing to engage the current social dynamic. If the social dynamic was acceptable to both men and women, society would continue without a hitch as more people would engage and thus produce enough to sustain the current world economies. The fact that society endlessly needs to shame men into doing the work that supposedly comes naturally, that the United States needs constant immigration whilst having unemployment rates close to 10% and that the debt levels are through the roof, shows an extreme lack of knowledge on the part of modern day authority. Well, it’s that or a deliberate attempt to destroy old traditional society and replace it with Marxist Utopia or ‘Debt Slavery’.
Remember, there really is no room for those who disagree with the prevailing religion. Anything remotely against the prevailing thought that all are equal in ability will be met with swift Judgment.
Let those who willingly follow the new hedonistic religion go to their doom. They cannot be helped and nor do they want it. Let them slide into the abyss. DH is a waste of time. Debating a harridan about the merits of Christian beliefs only brings heretical thought. Be warned.
DH those [baby] desires don’t trump other desires you have in your life (such as the desire not to be married to just anyone),
To be clear… .the Manosphere does NOT and NEVER HAS advocated getting married to “just anyone”, whether to have babies or for any other reason. One of the major gripes of the Manosphere, which you seem to have missed, is that a lot of women reject good men, while in their 20s, and then wonder why they can’t find any good men in their 30s.
We are not advocating marrying losers or badboys AT ALL. We advocate marrying good men when you can find them most easily… NOT waiting till a decade and a half later, by which time they are likely gone.
No, but you will expect other women to have children so that you can in your old age enjoy the material wealth of the nation – wealth that absolutely requires a new generation to produce.
But I don’t expect any such thing. I don’t think anyone has any obligation to do anything simply because it’s good for the collective. The Marxists tried that tack and found that it wasn’t a good motivator. You aren’t going to get women to reproduce at replacement levels by simply appealing to a sense of duty to society as a whole, any more than the Soveits could get men to produce more widgets in the factory simply out of a sense of duty to society as a whole.
VR, No, but the manosphere does imply that it’s good enough if a man happens to be nice, and stable, with decent economic prospects, and decent looks. There is almost this sense that men are interchangeable and any decent man will do as a life partner.
Feminist Hater (writes)
“modern day authority. Well, it’s that or a deliberate attempt to destroy old traditional society and replace it with Marxist Utopia or ‘Debt Slavery’….Remember, there really is no room for those who disagree with the prevailing religion. Anything remotely against the prevailing thought that all are equal in ability will be met with swift Judgment.
Indeed…
I think I am in good stead correctly identifying & properly defining these two main premises that must be overcome in order for consciousness to be changed and risen.
1. “Sexual Liberation ism” = The idea that you can have a humane society within a framework of “consent & adults”alone, as the reigning sexual ethic.
2.”Feminism” = The idea that men have the power and woman need to capture that power in order to achieve “equality” before both men & woman can reach the “genderless utopia” necessary for peace & justice to reign.
I don’t think anyone has any obligation to do anything simply because it’s good for the collective. The Marxists tried that tack and found that it wasn’t a good motivator. You aren’t going to get MEN TO LIKE STD RIDDEN, CONTRACEPTIVE STEROIDED, WORN OUT, BITCHY, NAGGING, DISCHARGED SLUTS by simply appealing to a sense of duty to society as a whole, any more than the Soveits could get men to produce more widgets in the factory simply out of a sense of duty to society as a whole.
Here, fixed.
Actually, I grew up in Eastern block, and many men in factories were very motivated by their sense of duty to society as a whole. It was just that the factories were managed by party members and state bureaucrats and therefore produced “ten thousand forks when all that was needed was one knife”. That had very depressing effect onto workers’ motivation.
DH: but the manosphere does imply that it’s good enough if a man happens to be nice, and stable, with decent economic prospects, and decent looks. There is almost this sense that men are interchangeable and any decent man will do as a life partner.
Any decent man is better than any jerk, it’s true. But we don’t discount the factors of personal compatibility, attraction, etc. We merely assert that most women meet plenty of good men — at least some of whom are good matches — when young. And that — as some women have publicly confessed in newspaper or online lamentorials — passing by a good match because you’re “too young” or “not ready” is FOOLHARDY as you may never find another.
You got married at 26 as I recall. And you were very decisive about it. And you had a very low n before that. So you did a lot of things right, even by Manosphere standards, and so we are not surprised that you are happy. (despite our moral outrage/prurient curiosity/whatever at your recent unorthodox turn). But we wonder why would someone who found a good guy mid 20s, and decisively move toward marriage with him, object to us telling other women to do the same???
MV — otkuda vi priidyote? Gdye vi rodilas?
Interesting, MV!!! What country? I grew up abroad (not in the Eastern bloc) and went to my share of boring Soviet Embassy movies about wheat production in the Ukraine. Always a hoot. I am a pretty staunch capitalist and I do think that hard work, innovation, and smart planning fluorish best when people expect to be rewarded. SImilarly, I don’t think women will take on the hard work of motherhood of large numbers of children, absent coercion (which won’t lead to good parenting I don’t think) or some kind of system which makes this desirable to them.
Oh, and I don’t think men should required to do jack shit either. Somehow, though, I think the human race will go on. Men do still seem to enjoy reproducing with (and marrying!) all the used up sluts of the world, despite manosphere protestations to the contrary!
Jugoslavija, druze Van Rojnek. Alas it collapsed under my feet and I had to move to European Union. This one doesn’t look too healthy either. I will have to find a new country soon to squash it under my weight.
@Doomed Harlot
Many in the manosphere are advocates of women “settling”. I have argued passionately against the idea many times:
Why we need to stop telling women to settle.
Satire: Men, stop tricking women into loveless marriages!
My first bite at the apple: Women shouldn’t settle.
More recently: Are the vast majority of women truly incapable of experiencing reciprocal love and attraction?
Regarding the settling thing, I love this article.
http://ca.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_300/371_please-dont-settle-for-us.html
The problem Dalrock is that a woman is never happy and thus is always settling at some point. It’s a lose/lose proposition. What one really needs to tell women is to take a realistic approach to life and marriage and adjust accordingly and make do.
@vR –
Похоже, что вы говорите много языков. Вы также говорят на русском?
Re “settling”:
Brendan had a great comment on the “Why we need to stop telling women to settle” thread. Along those lines, there’s a difference between “settling” and “paring down your 463 bullet point checklist to a more manageable list”. There’s a difference between
“He’s not perfect but he’s great and I’m in love with him”
and
“Oh well, guess this one will haffta do.”
Sunshine: Da, Ya uchil Russki yazik v shkolye, kogda ya bil molodoy. No, ya mnogo zabil, potomu stho ya konchil tritatz lyet nazad. Mnye sorok devyat’ lyet seichas!
Russki (tol’ko nemnogo), un poco Espanol, agus ta beagan Gaeilge agam. Plus a handful of Afrikaans phrases I learned many years ago when in pursuit of a Boer chick…
VR says: “You got married at 26 as I recall. And you were very decisive about it. And you had a very low n before that. So you did a lot of things right, even by Manosphere standards, and so we are not surprised that you are happy. (despite our moral outrage/prurient curiosity/whatever at your recent unorthodox turn). But we wonder why would someone who found a good guy mid 20s, and decisively move toward marriage with him, object to us telling other women to do the same???”
Wow, good memory VR! Yep, married at 26. (Engaged at 23. Thus, monogamous for 18 years.) And yes, a very low partner count of one other man prior to my engagement. So yep, by accident, I seem to have lived up to manosphere standards. And I am, in fact, delighted to be married.
So why would I object to telling other women to do the same? Number one, I think it’s misleading. I was the youngest of my friends by a long shot to get married or engaged. Sure the sooner you get hitched and the less picky you are, the more likely it’s gonna happen and the more likely you’re gonna have kids, but it’s not as if you’re doomed to singledom if you haven’t found a man by your 27th birthday or your 30th. Also, I know lots of married women with much much higher partner counts than mine.
Number two, it ignores the cost-benefit analysis that goes into most decision-making. Sure, I can ensure that I’m married if I glom onto a decent guy who likes me when I’m 23, but is it worthwhile to me to give up the years of exploration and freedom in my 20s? I decided yes, but I can’t say that’s the right answer for another woman. Also, women have to balance out their professional and educational goals against their desire to marry. For example, I decided that I would remain single in law school so that I could have a chance to get established somewhere professionally before finding a mate. I went back on that decision when I met my husband, but doing so had professional costs to me, such as the fact that we wound up settling in his home state, which has a rather provincial and limited market. That cost might not have been worth it to me, but for having met someone really extraordinary. I think the Manosphere insists on one-size-fits-all advice and discounts other desires and interests and needs women have besides marriage and motherhood.
Number three, the advice is often framed in ways that are condescending and hostile. Much of the manosphere discussions of this topic are phrased in terms of schadenfreude, enjoyment of the presumed misery of the stupid bitches who dared to go against traditional norms. It also assumes that women have no idea that there is a fertility window, something that I can assure you is drummed into our heads constantly. I also think that much of the advice is geared towards getting women to abandon or discount educational and career goals, which I think is utterly unnecessary, especially given that very successful career women often have the most stable lives with husbands and children.
, it ignores the cost-benefit analysis that goes into most decision-making. Sure, I can ensure that I’m married if I glom onto a decent guy who likes me when I’m 23, but is it worthwhile to me to give up the years of exploration and freedom in my 20s?
The Manosphere is not about ignoring cost/benefit analysis — it is about CORRECTING it. As I said, most women want marriage and kids… eventually. Examples of people who got those things later in life are not hard to find…I myself was (unwillingly) single til 38,. However, your chances drop significantly as you get older, and a lot of young women are not told this… to their later hurt.
the advice is often framed in ways that are condescending and hostile. Much of the manosphere discussions of this topic are phrased in terms of schadenfreude, enjoyment of the presumed misery of the stupid bitches who dared to go against traditional norms.
No, it’s not like that. It’s because most of these men here were BADLY HURT by women doing in the wrong way, and they perceive the negative outcomes as… Justice.
It also assumes that women have no idea that there is a fertility window, something that I can assure you is drummed into our heads constantly
Yet many women ACT as if they are unaware of it… or, at best, they don’t realize that it can often close up faster than they expect.
DH… .tell us what is so great about your husband. Seriously. I won’t mock, although I can’t speak for the others. I think there is something to be learned here, since you met him at 23 and married him at 26 in unwitting obedience to manosphere dogma. What did he do/have/offer that was soooo right, that you trashed your career to be with him? Honest, nonhostile question… I really want to know.
VR, she divorced her first hubby and then married an impotent cockold later in life and now sexes up the dregs of society. Does that answer your question?
@All
I noticed that DH writes faster than I can read. I’m beginning to suspect she is a robot.
VR, she divorced her first hubby and then married an impotent cockold later in life and now sexes up the dregs of society. Does that answer your question
Again, you misremember her story (unless she’s telling multiple version). She had 1 boyfriend prior… met her husband at 23, married at 26, and is still with him…. despite her recent kinky detour. Disagree with her moral choices as you wish (and as I do) but I think you have your facts wrong.
Hm, you might be right. Perhaps I’m thinking of the other harridan. What was her name again? “Original Trouble”, something like that I believe.
MV, she’s either a professional troll or seriously been assfucked enough to not know her ass from her mouth.
i think Original Trouble is long gone.
DH… .tell us what is so great about your husband. Seriously. I won’t mock, although I can’t speak for the others. I think there is something to be learned here, since you met him at 23 and married him at 26 in unwitting obedience to manosphere dogma. What did he do/have/offer that was soooo right, that you trashed your career to be with him? Honest, nonhostile question… I really want to know.
I trust you, VR, and mockery on this forum doesn’t bother me in any case. First, I wouldn’t say I trashed my career, but I did accept some limitations on my career, whereas my first choice would have been to move to a more metropolitan market.
It’s hard to say what it was about my husband that really got me. These things aren’t always completely rational. I always think of him as “radiating kindness.” Naturally, good looks and intelligence were part of the mix, but mostly I was struck by this very calm, kind presence he projects. He is also very confident and secure, straightforward and honest. He was upfront about his medical issues but didn’t seem nervous about telling me about them. I admired the dignity with which he handled his problems. I enjoyed his dry sense of humor. I liked the fact that he had a lot of female friends and seemed to truly enjoy the company of women even outside a sexual or dating context. I liked the way he related to his mother and his sister. I liked the fact that he never pressured me, always gave me a lot of space, and was never in the least bit controlling. I like the fact that our values are in sync; although he would say that I’m over the top with the “feminazi” stuff, he is basically feminist in outlook. Overall, he is super-mellow, laidback yet confident and dignified. He’s been accused on the site of being “dominated” by me, but in fact, he doesn’t do anything he doesn’t want to do and he really isn’t overly concerned what others think. For example, if someone called him an impotent cuckold, he would laugh. I don’t know if, in manosphere terms, this makes him an alpha or a beta or a mix, but whatever it is, it worked for me.
By his own standards he’s an ‘impotent cockold’. He’s impotent per medical issues and allows you to sleep with other men. Talk about a delusion POS.
Of course being married and able to fuck other men ‘works’ for you.
Feminist hater,
Nope. No prior divorce. My story has been consistent.
Oy, I don’t want to derail this into being about me. I admit that I initially described my personal life in another thread where I believed it seemed relevant. But it’s you guys who keep bringing it up. I’m more than happy to explain it and respond, but I know that Dalrock has said that he doesn’t want his blog to become about me, so I’ve been trying to confine myself to talking about his posts and the comments.
Why don’t you take the cue and bugger off instead?
DH, if you post at any other blogs where that subject would be more appropriate, that would be the place to satisfy Feminist Hater’s curiosity… if any. (Somehow I don’t think he has any).
And this is why men’s rights won’t go anywhere in America. This is why feminism is so toxic in this country.
One woman posting and all the discussion end up revolving around her, even with MRAs, who should know better and ignore an attention whore (or female troll, which is the same).
It’s like American men cannot help it: they must engage with a woman, they must accept the frame the woman proposes, they must take her ramblings as if they have some value.
One woman speaking and tens of men dance to her tune. Depressing but true.
Well… as for me… I naively believe I can actually convince her of something.
VR, Right now, I’m only posting at Sunshine Mary’s place and Oz Conservative, and I doubt they have much interest in me rambling on about all my adventures. I suppose I could start a blog of my own about what it’s like to have an open marriage, but I’m not sure I want the responsibility of maintaining a blog.
Imanobody, Not an attention whore. Just trying to engage with the topics here like everyone else. Other people post about their personal experiences too.
VR, The things is we see the world through very different lenses and with very different priorities. So I doubt we can convince each other of much. But I will say that your writing and Dalrock’s have helped me to at least understand what leads people to adopt the point of view you have, and to remember the humanity of those who disagree with me about issues fundamental to my very ability to participate in society. So I wouldn’t say that these discussions are a waste of time.
Last time I checked, neither Dalrock or I were advocating any LAWS about “issues fundamental to your very ability to participate in society”.
We’re not advocating that you shouldn’t be able to have a career — only that you go into a career COUNTING THE COST. Which you, unlike most, apparently did. My mom was one of the original career women in the 40s/50s, after all. (And she went to her grave despising feminists.)
We’re not advocating that the law force you to marry young, or at all.. only, that young women need to be made aware that the current cultural paradigm that most of them follow, is HORRIBILY unsuited to bring them to the goal of marriage and children…, which most WOMEN share! Women who genuinely don’t want marriage or children, are of no interest to the manosphere.
In fact… we’re not even proposing laws against dating or marrying bad boys. We’re just pointing out that it’s a REALLY BAD IDEA… that ‘having fun when young”, besides breaking the hearts of nice guys now, will also end up breaking their own hearts later…
Women who genuinely don’t want marriage or children, are of no interest to the manosphere.
Correction… of no interest to the CHRISTIAN manosphere. The PUAs, on the other hand…..
Dalrock, I’m interested if you would follow up on your assertion that many men (betas) in their 20s are not getting any sex, at least compared to previous generations. That is contrary to the “assumed narrative”, which asserts that sex is easier/more prevalent now than in the 50s. (Certainly I faced this; I was a virgin until 31 — I’m now 44 — and could never reconcile that with the media’s assertions that sex was ubiquitous and easy to get.)
VR,
There is manosphere advocacy of controlling the culture such that women undergo social pressure and shaming to act in a particular way. And I think manosphere writers oppose laws prohibiting sex discrimination, and I don’t even want to get into abortion and contraception!
That said, I do try to look for common ground. I do think, for example, that the cultural acceptance of prison rape and the failure to protect prisoners is a hugely important men’s rights issue, as well as the necessity of vigorously prosecuting women who rape underage boys.
‘controlling the culture such that women undergo social pressure and shaming to act in a particular way’
I believe the term is ‘freedom of speech’.
If any group is in fact endeavouring to ‘control the culture such that women undergo social pressure and shaming to act in a particular way’, that would in fact be feminists, who constantly advocate against the concept of freedom of any dissenting speech.
Nice try though.
DH wrote
I don’t think those are necessarily manosphere issues, DH, I think they are Christian issues, and even then only a subset of Christians. For example I doubt if PUAs have any issue with contraception and abortion. I, however, obviously cannot be a manosphere blogger since I am a woman, but I would happily see abortion outlawed, along with the pill and IUDs, I vehemently oppose laws prohibiting sex discrimination, and I have no problem with the concept of slut-shaming (although I think it would difficult to execute it).
@SSM,
I would go slightly further than you it seems and I think all laws trying to prohibit “discrimination” are at least foolish if not completely unjust in principle.
Many in the manosphere are advocates of women “settling”. I have argued passionately against the idea many times:
Girls are raised with a princess mentality. They need to be educated that they are no such thing. Then they will no longer be settling, and rationality will come to the land. If only this fairy tale could come true
I did a bit of the “princess” thing with my daughter, when she was young, but not in more recent years. She is now 18 and pretty sensible for her age. You have to be a bit tough or you can create a monster. I wrote a notorious post on this, on handling wives and children, and copped a bit of heat, but I think I would stand by it still.
http://davidcollard.wordpress.com/2010/11/23/the-broken-window-theory-of-crime-and-dealing-with-women-and-children/
For what its worth I found my querry with DH to be a complete waste of time. It is a shame because this site has people who are keeyed into the truth. I dont think she is capable or willing to break free of the sexual liberationist framing. I also believe she simply likes to be contrarian & hear herself talk. I almost feel used.
Tspoon,
Well, the marketplace of ideas is a fairly key freedom of speech concept. So you all try to shift the culture one way and we try to shift it the other.
@DC
My brother in law has two princess daughters that are now 18+. He is one unhappy camper. He can see the princess problem with his nieces, but not his own girls. Guys can be blind sometimes
I’m sorry you feel used, Fitz. Would it help if I take you to dinner first next time?
I think I did respond to your comments, although honestly, I find you a bit hard to follow. I’ve never claimed that I’m likely to change my mind.
Sunshine Mary,
Right I was really thinking of MRAs and traditionalists like Mr. Collard.
The PUAs are just kind of silly, although they are promoting the same MRA and traditionalist ideas of women as foolish and gullible, and sex as a zero-sum game which women always lose.
You need to get more in touch with your feelings. Her name should be Groping Harlot.
Doomed Harlot (writes)
“I do think, for example, that the cultural acceptance of prison rape and the failure to protect prisoners is a hugely important men’s rights issue, as well as the necessity of vigorously prosecuting women who rape underage boys.”
Gosh…and I think men should not rape or beat woman… Perhaps I should skip over to a feminist site and pronounce my benevolent self while completely missing the substance of everyone’s arguments…
I believe your behavior is very trollish if not complete troll..
You need to read more and understand more on your own before asserting your opinion on these subject.
Sunshine Mary (writes)
“I don’t think those are necessarily manosphere issues, DH, I think they are Christian issues, and even then only a subset of Christians. For example I doubt if PUAs have any issue with contraception and abortion. I, however, obviously cannot be a manosphere blogger since I am a woman, but I would happily see abortion outlawed, along with the pill and IUDs, I vehemently oppose laws prohibiting sex discrimination, and I have no problem with the concept of slut-shaming”
Oh look…proof positive that woman understand perfectly what is going on in this world because of the sexual revolution and understand that birth control has facilitated a breakdown of our traditional sexual economy and brought with it the evil of abortion that underwrites “sexual libertarianism” in the blood of innocent children.
@DC
I enjoyed the post from your blog. It’s interesting what a foul mouth a woman with a handle like “quietdove” can have. Or perhaps she was just being ironic, or post-modern, or whatever…it seemed to bother her that your wife is sexually generous. Jealousy perhaps. Quietdove is probably a secret FSoG reader.
Fitz wrote:
Exactly so, Fitz.
DH…. abortion is OBVIOUSLY murder. Forget religion… science says it’s a human being. End of debate.
As to the rest…. why not slut-shaming? Sodomite abominations are engaged in Chick Fil A shaming, feminists are engaged in man-shaming….. But shaming only works if the target feels, deep down, that there is really something to be ashamed of. So Chick Fil A is not bothered, but sluts ARE bothered by slutshaming. ask yourself why.
I find Doomed Harlot to be disgusting.
#1, (This is interesting and worth a post) Dalrock & others
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2012/08/14/hanna-rosins-wildly-misleading-ted-talk/
VR (wrote)
“why not slut-shaming? Sodomite abominations are engaged in Chick Fil A shaming, feminists are engaged in man-shaming….. But shaming only works if the target feels, deep down, that there is really something to be ashamed of. So Chick Fil A is not bothered, but sluts ARE bothered by slutshaming. ask yourself why.”
I think this is why feminists support slut pride walks..as a effort (like gay pride) to specifically counter natural tendencies of shame. Slut-shaming individual women at this point would be hard to justify as truly productive in my view.
What is needed first is a reaplication of traditional sexual ethics that requires shame and social disapproval of promiscuousness in order to operate. At that point it is generally woman who shame the slut & men who shame men who would marry a slut. (& therefore keep their numbers low & such behavior at a minimum…ergo helping the would-be slut)
but sluts ARE bothered by slutshaming. ask yourself why.
Could it be that men of quality will never marry sluts. And that this fact will never ever change.
Yeah, quietdove was a hoot. I assume a female, but a male is possible. I haven’t reread all those comments in a long time. I almost forget it all now. They simply cannot believe that a man can hold such “appalling” opinions and still get sex with a non-plastic woman.
VR, Not all sluts feel deep down that they should be ashamed. That only works if the person was brought up in a family or religion that teaches slut shaming from the cradle.
It’s too late for me to get into the abortion issue. I tend not to want to get into it because everything that can possibly be said on the subject has already been said, on both sides,
farm boy, the problem is that a man loves his daughters so much that he wants to spoil them. A little of that is OK when they are little girls. But eventually they have to learn that the world does not revolve around them. And one day they will not be cute little girls who think Daddy is perfect but hormonal teenagers telling you to “fuck off”. The good thing is that we still have a good relationship and she listens to me. She is very sensible for an 18 y.o. and she has nice friends, whom I call “the good looking nerds”.
Even it some sluts are brainwashed enough to feel no SHAME, they are still prone to the sense of DISGUST. It is purely physical gut reaction to slutinizing. Trying to remove that would be akin to convincing empty stomach that it is, in fact, full. No-go.
MV (writes)
“Even it some sluts are brainwashed enough to feel no SHAME, they are still prone to the sense of DISGUST.”
Indeed.. these inclinations are “written on the human heart” and can never be fully displaced. We have to remember however that feminists (rooted in Marxism) are social constructionists and don’t believe in human nature.
It was Stalin who said famously: “Facts are stubborn things”
This was no ironic quip – rather it was a rallying cry to the faithful who understood that their collective endeavor would require society wide reconditioning.
On a lighter note: I find an amusing video that quite truthfully mimics the relationship between this blog community and a certain female individual. Enjoy.
@Fitz
Soviets used a special chemical weapon against natural sense of disgust. It was called “Vodka”. It seems many western feminists adopted this substance alongside with marxist ideology.
PS. Alas, Vodka has some nasty side effects, namely addiction, liver cyrosis and slow and gruesome death.
PSS. Feminists, please don’t read the PS. It’s nothing interesting, really :evilgrin:
MV
More true than you may realize, as well as the connection between the two. I went to law school in my thirties, so I got a birds eye veiw of the hook-up scene and female behavior. There was WAY more female drinking and to excess than I ever experienced in undergrad in the early ninties. (& that was in New Orleans)
It seemed to me a natural response to the hook-up culture. Lots of young girls first got blind drunk and then hurled themselves at the alpha’s of their desires.
Also: These girls would nightly dress like prostitutes, even in the dead of winter waiting in line outside the hip bars shivering in mini-skirts and mid-drifts exposed without coats. The whole thing was clearly dysfunctional and a breeding ground for dysfunction later in life.
MV (writes)
“On a lighter note: I find an amusing video that quite truthfully mimics the relationship between this blog community and a certain female individual. Enjoy.”
I did enjoy…very funny.
This certain girl has a pronounced inability to understand or appreciate the worlview of her opponents. Even the word “impenetrability” comes to mind.
Also: She cannot engage her husbands cuckold fantasies no matter how happy she thinks the marriage to be. This sexual fantasy is listed as a “paraphalia” in the manual of psychological disorders and requires treatment. More importantly the adultery it requires is a sin against the institution…Plus she’s a troll.
Fitz, is cuckold fetish really listed in the DSM? I would almost put money on it, that it will eventually be removed, after pressure from a society of cuckolds and hotwives.
@DC
Yes, yes, and there will also be Cuckold Pride Parades and Hotwife Walks in every major city, endorsed and sponsored by the most prestigious member of said sexual minority: Mrs Hillary Clinton.
DC (writes)
“Fitz, is cuckold fetish really listed in the DSM?”
Yes, as are most other fetishes and practices, including BDSM, transvestitism, foot fetishes, the whole raft is either covered directly or has a body of knowledge in its treatment.
So far only homosexuality has been removed formally. Also: transgenderism is renamed “gender identity disorder” in a ploy to treat it successfully without P.C. backlash. On that same front many Doctors who are traditional and also will treat homosexuals do so by treating it as a combination of sex addiction and “narcissistic personality disorder”.
That is what the fems fear most:loss of control of the narrative.It’s definitely at risk as a house built on lies and unnatural loathing for the family unit.
The fact is the narrative will not stand up to constant scrutiny and fair conversation.It only stands up by force of law via a Police State that stomps down men with misandrist policies and procedures.
As they double down on the repression of truth and oppression of men,expect more venting in anti-social manners.
Another name for justice outside the system.
Pingback: Lightning Round – 2012/08/14 « Free Northerner
But to qualify as a disorder (I believe the correct term is paraphilia) for DSM IV, the fetish must either cause significant distress to the individual or harm to others. So cuckoldry (if it’s even listed in DSM IV, and I don’t know that it is) only counts as a disorder if the people involved are bothered by it. Most paraphilias in DSM IV, I understand , involve either humiliation or no consensual behavior.
Also, the cuckold/hot wife community (something I’ve never heard of before you all enlightened me) seems to involve humiliation of the husband, and tends to be a one way street in which the husband remains monogamous while the wife plays around, or only participated in sex when given permission by the wife and her lover. While any man whose wife has sex with another might be considered a cuckold in 17th century terms, I think the term is a much narrower one today and does not apply to every open marriage, even if the husband gets a charge out of his wife’s activities.
MV, sadly, I don’t get turned on by you all hurling insults at me. If only. I do think it’s interesting though, and the “hurling stones at the whore” mentality here tells me a lot about your psychology.
I will say I’m not a troll. I don’t think that expressing a different view that one is highly unlikely to change makes a blog commenter a troll. I will say that if you came onto a feminist blog and were treated the way I am here, you would all be screeching about how irrational, hysterical, and nasty the feminists are, how they can’t cope with any dissent, how they can only argue by ad hominem attacks, etc. etc.
As a casual reader of this blog and its comment sections, I lose interest very quickly when the topic veers into discussions of Doomed Harlot’s personal background, especially when it’s not relevant to any of the points being made. Additionally, the sarcasm (“gosh…”) and name-calling (“troll”) is as annoying as standard-issue feminist snark.
The comments section on this blog is remarkable for its thoughtful, reasoned arguments and tendency to remain civil without pulling punches or sugar-coating. That’s why I read it. If it turns into predictable ad hominem and excessive hostility towards a few individual posters, even if those posters hold unpopular viewpoints, I’ll move on and I suspect I won’t be the only one.
If someone brings their own life details into a discussion, it’s fair game for criticism, and there’s always some tendency to “trade barbs” in a heated discussion, but it’s important to stay on track. Don’t let obsession with a particular commenter distract from broader points. Also, seriously, avoid snark and lame sarcasm when it’s not actually funny.
I agree. Be nice to Doomed Harlot and those like her. We’ll never win anyone over by being mean. Occasionally jokes are fine but outright bullying is inappropriate.
Lad
Fair enough
Doomed Harlot
I’m going to go ahead and simply ignore your posts. I really dont see you as capable of demonstrating an intellectual comand of your advesaries worldveiw.
You chaps can continue to be nice to the passing Jezebel. I’ll keep, keeping on.
Moenie bekommerd wees nie, sal die hoer gou weg.
Hey, VR, I heard that! But I’m still here for now.
I never said be nice. Say what must be said, write what must be written.
You see DH, you’ve argued the same point numerous times, Dalrock has allowed you to do so and at times you’ve derailed the threads, which I believe is firmly your intent. On feminists blogs they would merely ban you and shout you out the door. We’ve given you time and space and a chance to argue and debate your point. Now you are just taking the argument around in cirlces and quite frankly I am now rather tired of reading your inept rationalisations of feminism.
In simply English. I want you gone.
numnut (writes)
“That is what the fems fear most:loss of control of the narrative.It’s definitely at risk”
Yes it is. And they have an multiple institutions within our society helping them maintain control of the narrative. Many may even suspect or outright understand that the narrative is anti-social but they seem to be sticking with it.
These institutions where their narrative reign include the dominate media , the universities, the government, & Hollywood. This is what Marx called “the commanding heights of culture”.
Its almost impossibly frustrating. Even when something that counters this narrative is allowed to break through: {Example Sylvia Ann Hewlett’s “The Baby Bust” – about how woman are not fulfilling their dreams of Motherhood.} – It is carefully controlled and allowed only a brief moment and then is lost. Heaven forbid that actually carrying a child to term one day overshadow the dreaded “pay gap” or the tyranny or the “second shift” and the dreaded “housework gap”.
Controlling the narrative is everything… it often takes on comic proportions (better to laugh then to cry) and spends much energy in covering up & ignoring its attendant social breakdown.
Until this grip on the narrative is broken, we are left treading water…
@VR
Since you mentioned Chick-Fil-A “chicken rebellion”, I think this is another ominous sign for feminist narrative. I will try to explain it by comparision.
European socialism is built on the idea of “welfare state”. And it jumped the shark the moment it adopted the ultra-socialist Greece. They turned out to be super-fast learners and pushed the concept of welfare state to the point of national bankruptcy. Now the Germans are getting fed up with baling out those “wunderkinder”, and the whole socialist EU is falling apart.
American feminism is built on the idea of “proud victimhood” And it jumped the shark the moment it adopted the homosexual movement. They turned out to be super-fast learners and pushed the concept of proud victimhood to the point of national abomination. Now the conservative Americans are getting fed up with bending over to those “wunderkinder”, and the whole USofA is experiencing a collective feminist hissy fit of apocalyptic proportions.
Now, I can’t say how all this CharlieFoxtrot is going to end, but I have a bad gut feeling it won’t last very long now and it won’t be exactly a pretty sight when it collapses.
“Now, I can’t say how all this CharlieFoxtrot is going to end, but I have a bad gut feeling it won’t last very long now and it won’t be exactly a pretty sight when it collapses.”
Second that…
Reblogged this on Compilation Information and commented:
On marriage and modern women
Fitz says:
August 14, 2012 at 9:25 pm
“It was Stalin who said famously: “Facts are stubborn things””
Not even close, that quote is from John Adams.
Mojohn, my son was like yours. The diagnosis was made by my wife and I separately checking off a list of 42 items. Something like 20 or so would indicate ADHD. My wife checked 41, but I knew something she didn’t know, so I checked all 42. He was given dexedrine, not ritalin.
In his 30’s, in med school he accidentally learned that when he ate peanut butter, his brain sort of exploded on him, hard to describe.
As a kid, he almost lived on peanut butter.
IMO, a lot of so-called mental problems are food allergies, way beyond the ability of shrinks to diagnose.
My son discovered that in UK, the number of mental institutions followed very closely the quantity of cane sugar consumed by the public in UK. That is just one example.
DH, an interesting phenomenon. When I see your name again and again and again I get a strong pain, exactly in the middle of my chair. It would be excessively kind to call you a troll.
@Anonymous age 70:
We had our son tested for all sorts of allergies at around the same time as his ADHD diagnosis. He had some environmental allergies, but none to food. We didn’t notice any material difference in his activity level regardless of diet, but that doesn’t mean there wasn’t something else at work that we weren’t able to track down. He’s now 25 and he seems to be able to control his physical hyperactivity without medicine. But, he still has trouble concentrating for long periods of time if he’s unmedicated.
BTW, the Doc started him with Ritalin, then when he maxed out on dosage, he switched to Dexedrine. When that wasn’t successful, he prescribed Adderall, which has consistently worked for 10 years or so.
It is all rather simple. From time beyond record there has been an understanding that women are NOT held to the same standards and accountability as men. They were effectively treated like children, even under the law. This meant not having the same rights as men, but having more protection and having reduced culpability for their actions. The current problem? Women have gained all the rights of men, but still have all the protections, if not de jure then by unspoken understanding. Sure, there will be plenty of women who will decry this bald statement of fact. But the body of evidence in the room is more akin to the air we breathe, as it permeates every facet of our lives, than a simple elephant in the room. Anywhere you turn in life, if you are single and walk ten feet outside your door men are immediately exposed to laws that are imbalanced and weighted against them. If married or even living together, they don’t have that sanctuary.
DH
The other thing to remember – and Paglia quite rightly points this out – is that the prudish McKinnon wing LOST the fight for feminism to the sex-positive wing.
For some definition of “lost”, that is true. However, the underlying notion that all men are potential rapists, all men are oppressors, all men are potential attackers, all married men are “deadbeat dads” just waiting to strike, and all women are potential victims…that’s encoded in the law. The standards in VAWA regarding what is “domestic violence” are right out of the Dworkin-MacKinnon playbook. Mandatory arrest laws, ditto. So the sex-pozzies get good press. The Dworkin-MacKinnon-Brownmiler ideas got put into law. Who won, and who lost, again?
Ultimately, feminism won. Men lost.
DH
A preponderance of the evidence standard still puts the burden of proof on whomever is prosecuting the rape allegation to prove that it is so. It’s just a lower standard of proof than in a criminal proceeding. However, the preponderance of the rape standard is used in virtually every kind of civil proceeding, not just campus rape prosecutions. For example, a police officer who is accused of assaulting someone with excessive force can be sued (and thus have his reputation and career severely damaged) under a preponderance of the evidence standard.
An interesting point. I can see how an administrative disciplinary hearing on a college campus is just like a civil suit. Well, except for the fact that there’s no judge present. Or jury, for that matter. And the fact that the accused doesn’t have the right to an attorney; if he or his family hire one, the campus administrators can refuse to let the attorney be present. Oh, and the fact that the accused has no right to confront his accuser(s), in fact he may not even be allowed to know who she/they are. And also the fact that the proceedings can be held without his knowledge at all, and the only “appeal” available to him would be the university president.
So aside from all those little details – Constitutional rights, judge, jury, oh and no real rules of evidence, I almost forgot – these campus kangaroo courts are just like a civil court of law. Thanks for pointing that out.
DH
I would also note that merely having good acting ability is not enough for a malicious woman to successfully have a false rape claim prosecuted.
Why don’t you go tell that to William Hetherington? Unless you truly believe that his crime, whatever it was, truly deserved 24 years in a state prison?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Hetherington_case
More generally, you should direct this claim to the people over here:
http://www.cotwa.info/
DH
Don’t forget, though, that many false rape convictions involve cases of mistaken identification, not fabricated charges prompted by regret at consensual sex.
I’m sure that makes a man’s term in prison much more comfortable.
Indeed, if consensual sex were at play, the DNA evidence would not exonerate the defendant.
Ahem. DNA evidence can point many directions. There is no question that Crystal Mangum had sexual intercourse with more than one man on the night she made her false rape accusation, it just so happens that none of those men were on the Duke Lacrosse team. Not that Nifong was interested in telling anyone. He committed a felony, clearly, and went to jail for one whole night. Mangum clearly committed a misdemeanor, and never went to jail for it.
For a woman making a false rape charge, so long as she stays out of the witness chair & thus avoids perjury, the worst she faces is a misdemeanor that is all but certain to be suspended. The worst that her target faces is 5 or more years in prison. Thanks to the one-sided, feminist “shield” laws any woman can make a false charge of rape with total public anonymity, whereas her target gets his name in the news media immediately. Even if he’s acquitted, or for that matter even if the prosecutor no-bills the case, any Google search of his name will almost certainly turn up “RAPIST” for the rest of his life. Great thing for all future employers to see, and at no cost to the woman whatsoever.
AR,
. . . The hell???? Why would you imply that I am inured to the horror of an innocent man serving a life term due to mistaken identification???? Where are you getting that from? In fact, in real life, I have been an outspoken critic of relying too heavily on eyewitness stranger identification, whether in rape or other types of cases, because it is notoriously unreliable. The point is that those cases, i.e. most of the cases in which men are exonerated by DNA evidence, do not prove malice by the women involved. By the way, mistaken identification by both male and female witnesses has landed innocent people in jail on all sorts of other crimes, not just rape.
As for your other comments, the notion that all men are potential rapists, deadbeat dads, etc. is not encoded into law. That is simply false. You should thank a feminist, by the way, the next time a woman is prosecuted for sexually assault, which happens quite a bit, by the way. In past eras, rape and seduction were considered crimes only committed by men against women.
Mandatory arrests for domestic violence is something I happen to know a little bit about. All it means is that a cop who has probable cause to believe that someone has committed DV is not supposed to just walk away, chalking it up to a private family matter as in past eras. But you still can’t arrest someone without probable cause. If there is evidence of violence by both parties, then there is an analysis of who the primary aggressor is. Women are subject to such arrests and are, in fact, arrested under mandatory arrest laws, not infrequently either, I might add. And there is no real enforcement mechanism if the cop fails to make an arrest, unless his department chooses to discipline him. Now, it is true that probable cause can be based on someone’s word; personally, I don’t have a problem with that since the alternative is potentially leaving a violent person and victim together without the situation having been defused.
I can’t speak to the Heatherington case based on a Wikipedia entry whose neutrality is disputed and whose description at best raises doubts about his guilt but does not exonerate him. One thing I’ve learned from trying lots of criminal cases is that what is reported outside the courtroom is almost always a wholly misleading picture of the totality of the evidence actually presented. That’s why we invest our trust in juries that sit through the entire thing. That said, I do not dispute that false convictions occur, and even that some individuals fabricate false allegations, nor do i dispute that this is a horrifying thing when it occurs. However, I do not believe that this is unique to rape cases.
The practice of keeping rape victims’ names anonymous is not a matter of law, I don’t think, at least not in my state, but a rather journalistic convention instituted in response to the shame and scorn heaped on rape victims, even to this day. I would not object to extending this anonymity to those accused but not yet convicted, given the unique shame associated with being branded a sex offender.
More to follow in response to your other comments.
AR,
You complain that women can make false claims of rape and only be charged with a misdemeanor, unless she actually takes the stand and perjured herself. But that’s true across the board, not just in rape cases. You do realize there are lots of other cases that rest on eyewitness testimony, don’t you? And lots of other cases where a victim might have a reason to fabricate an assault or a property offense? And lots of other cases where the defense is consent? (“He loaned me the money, your Honor! I didn’t steal it!”)
On campus disciplinary proceedings, I’m somewhat agnostic in that I haven’t studied them or experienced them. You complain about he lack of a judge or denial of the right to an attorney. But you have to remember that these are often private institutions providing the degree of process contracted for. These procedures are also the same for other types of offenses.
What the woman in that video said didn’t really support your ‘having it all’ narrative whatsoever, did it? She just said that when you are younger, you care mostly about looks and when you get a bit older you want somebody with more substance (that’s called maturing). The other one said she would tell her younger self to stay away from bad boys because experience has taught her its naive to try to reform them.
Obviously they are attracted to certain kinds of guys when they are younger. But come on, its not like young men are trying to date ugly chicks! They pretty much want the hottest girl they can get too.
What was that video supposed to prove? Saying ‘you sleep with the bad boy, you don’t marry him’ doesn’t imply that you marry somebody you aren’t attracted to with the ultimate aim of leaving him. It just means some woman feel free to have casual sex.
Then you quote a woman who cheats on her boyfriends, as if there aren’t guys doing exactly the same thing.
Just because more woman initiate divorces doesn’t mean they don’t intend to stay married when they get married.
And btw it is perfectly logical that woman don’t want to marry so young (do men?) any more and they want the possibility of divorce (don’t men?), but they do want to get married.
Feminists sows are addicted to the thrill of knowing they can destroy men with lies and only get a slap on the wrist if by some unlikely chance they get caught.
It’s similar to the way they are ferociously in favor of abortion child murder, and immunity for infanticidal women like Casey Anthony.
We need to face up to what these creatures deserve, and start acting on it.
imnobody is correct. Why do so many posters respond to Doomed Harlot? When posters continue to respond to DH, she ends up controlling the entire comment section. DH is a feminist now and will continue to be a feminist for the future. Nothing that any of you write will change her beliefs. Some of you seem to think that you will write something so witty and insightful, that DH will then change her beliefs. Like a internet posting white knight-“I will be the one to save this feminist from her ideology!!!” It is not going to happen. Can’t some of you understand that?
Correct, Phil.
“Don’t feed the trolls.”
Pingback: How do prostitutes stay in business in an era of hook-up sex? « Wintery Knight
“The other thing to remember – and Paglia quite rightly points this out – is that the prudish McKinnon wing LOST the fight for feminism to the sex-positive wing.
Uh, sort of. Sex with certain males is still seen as positive, as is the eventual establishment of a legally binding arrangement to provide the women with support for children.
But don’t confuse “feminist” interest in alpha sex thrills and beta financial support with being “sex positive”. These are just the less honest women asserting practical, sex-based economic and social privileges they can exploit, while the more Jesuitical radicals are focused on theoretical harms that, if the harms exist at all, do not get in the way of the benefits sought.
You are all very, very sick.
I just found this blog by accident. I don’t even remember what I was searching for, but I ended up reading all of the interesting comments here.
I am a 21-year-old woman and I would love to get married within the next few years. I find all of it so confusing though. I’ve grown up being fed feminist beliefs. I feel cheated. I’m no longer a virgin and I regret it. I can count the number of men I’ve been with on one hand, but they are still too many to me. At least I know now before I do more damage.
How is a woman my age supposed to know what is the right thing to do? I don’t want to marry the wrong person, but I certainly don’t want to bounce from man to man or chase down thrills. Also, I am shy and look about 16 (though I am 21). I’ve been told I need confidence to get a man, and it’s something I’ve been working on but I can’t be someone I’m not… Do men really prefer significant social confidence, or is a shy woman just as desirable?
I wouldn’t even know who to ask about this in real life, since everyone around me is indoctrinated 😦
What if you desperately do not want to be that spinster, and don’t run around banging men? What if you just want a simple job and to meet a man you love and who loves you, and get married and be a good wife? Is that really possible anymore? 😦 And while you are dating a man, he wants to have sex. I’d rather wait, but what right do I have now that I’m no longer a virgin? I just don’t understand how this is all supposed to work…
Anyway, sorry for the long comment. I’ll continue reading here, maybe I’ll find some answers to my questions. It seems kind of hopeless though, even for a marriage-hopeful but shy woman like me.
Haley says:
September 5, 2012 at 5:13 pm
Sorry hun, give it up early and often and hold on for dear life. That ship has sailed for you. Put on your highest heels, lowest cut top and go to the nearest nightclub. Find a charming, confident, cocky, funny man and put your goddess gifts to work. Don’t be afraid to make him left a couple messages first, men like to pursue women after all. That’s a man’s job. You should always expect him to pay on your dates and always pick you up, after all he needs to feel like you don’t need him.
Always call him out when you think he is doing something wrong, a man has to know when he’s fucking up because men are stupid, (remember that funny shirt?). Sometimes just a knowing look and a smirk will be enough to know he’s gone wrong. He should always have a plan for a date, and don’t hesitate to cancel if he shows ANY lack of ability to plan everything. In fact, don’t feel bad about canceling the date once or twice since that will show him he’s got competition.
But the biggest, the absolute BIGGEST thing you need to remember is that YOU are the prize, and if he doesn’t court you, he ain’t worth it. But that doesn’t mean you can’t flirt a little bit with some other guys in the meantime, there might be a Mr.Big right next to you at the nightclub and you won’t even know until you get him home! Remember that a real man is the kind of guy whose cocky, funny, and gives your butterfly’s. Anyone else is a creep, or a loser. Not fit for life, let alone reproduction! Save it for those sexy guys who EARN it!
YOU ARE THE PRIZE
Regarding the confidence part: Your sisters didn’t fight oppression for 2 thousand years so you could feel self-conscious around some useless man. You need to be confident ALL the time, and make sure those guys know what a prize you are. If he can’t keep up, he can get out!
Haley:
On the serious side:
This is probably going to come as a shock to you. I’m going to give you some advice I think will help you get where you want to go.
1. Do not sleep with any more men until you are married.
2. Be nice. Be nice to all the men you meet. And be yourself.
3. Work on your physical appearance. Be pretty. Keep your weight down, your hair long and your makeup on.
4. Wear skirts and dresses. They are feminine.
5. Find something good about all the men you meet. Stop looking for reasons to reject men.
6. You do not need confidence when it comes to meeting men. When it comes to meeting men, you need kindness and approachability. Save your confidence for the workplace. What your friends think of as confidence is really bitchiness.
7. You can refuse to have sex with a man whom you have not slept with yet. Once you have sex with him before marriage he will expect it to continue.
8. If you are not a virgin, you will be limited to men who will be willing to wife up a nonvirgin.
9. If you are looking for a serious relationship leading to marriage, make that clear early in any dating relationship you get into. It will come up when the sex issue comes up. Any man worth his salt will escalate sexually early on.
10. Do not even consider for marriage any man whom you are not head over heels in love with and whom you cannot submit to.
11. Never, ever compare your man to any of your previous sex partners. Ever.
12. These things are not attractive in women: Confidence, dominance, bitchiness, sarcasm, vulgarity, use of profanity, pessimism, aloofness, coldness, masculinity.
13. These things are attractive in women: youth, good skin, long hair, feminine attire, cheerfulness, optimism, submissiveness, kindness, pleasantness, warmth, approachability, speaking in a soft voice, femininity.
14. If you are interested in a man, you need to make that very clear. Crystal clear, so there is no misunderstanding. Do not play hard to get. Do not play head games or shit test him. Do not ignore his phone calls or texts. Do not make him wait for anything. Do not cancel dates without a very good reason and without offering a makeup date. Do not be coy or oblique or speak in ambiguities. Instead, see him early and often. Be available. Be direct. Return his calls and texts promptly. If you must cancel a date, offer a makeup date right away.
Whatever Haley, you can expose yourself to a broken heart and a future full of cats or you can empower yourself and find a real man.
If he doesn’t make you pant, he is a loser.
I’d recommend you look you the book “The Rules” its a good ‘er.
@Haley
Listen to Deti. He gives good advice. You will not regret it. It might be work, and it might not pay off in the short run, but it will probably pay off in the long run.
@Haley
The book called “The rules” is not the way to get a quality man. Maybe if you want to get laid it is OK, but not for marriage.
Welcome Haley.
Deti offers some excellent advice above (as usual). I’ll add that it is a very positive thing that you are taking your past (and future) sexual history seriously. From a Christian perspective true repentance is what is crucial. It is from a practical perspective as well; while your history will likely reduce your ability to fully bond with your future husband, true repentance may lessen the impact some and hopefully help you manage the rest. I think the most toxic problems come from women who lost their ability to fully bond with and feel attraction to the man they ultimately marry, and then resent him for not providing the level of attraction and excitement they received from past encounters. As Deti stated above, don’t marry a man you can’t truly fall for and don’t compare your marriage with past encounters.
Also from a practical perspective, you have a leg up on most of your competition (your unmarried peers). As you mentioned virtually no one is seriously preaching chastity anymore. You have the advantage of figuring this out while still young.
I have some more thoughts on the topic in this post: How young should a woman marry?
Good luck.
Alternatively, listen to your gfs, who will tell you:
1. You’re far too young to settle down
2. You need a career to fall back on
3. He’s not good enough for you
4. Women can have many partners too!
5. You’d look cute with short hair
Your choice.
@ Haley:
“What if you just want a simple job and to meet a man you love and who loves you, and get married and be a good wife? Is that really possible anymore?”
Yes. Yes, it is. It is rare, and difficult to find, and hard work to find someone. But it can be done.
“And while you are dating a man, he wants to have sex. I’d rather wait, but what right do I have now that I’m no longer a virgin? I just don’t understand how this is all supposed to work… ”
Here are some strategies that will help a nonvirgin reclaim some of her lost ground.
1. Date with the purpose of finding a husband. You are not in this for just laughs, kicks and casual sex with hot alphas You’re not doing this to find a fun guy to “hang out” with. This is not to date “just for fun” to “see where it goes” and “have a good time”. The purpose of this exercise is to find, get to know, date, and enjoy marriageable men. Weed out and select for men who you think you could marry. Your attitude that there is a purpose and goal underpinning your dating will go a long way toward keeping you away from sexual conduct you don’t want.
2. This does not mean you will find your husband on your next date. You will still have to do some weeding out among the marriage candidates. This is because you need to find a man you can fall for, you will love, to whom you are physically attracted. This is no easy task, but your youth will help. Also, the man has to love you, fall for you, be attracted to you, and be willing and able to lead you.
3. Your sexual history will come up when you start getting serious and/or if you are dating Christian men. Be honest about it.
4. Despite your past, you aren’t required to have sex with a man just because you are interested in him, or he is interested, or to keep him interested, or you really like him, or you love him. You can do that if you want, but this is how chaste girls become sluts and reduce or destroy their pair bonding ability.
5. Do not make decisions based on your feelings.
6. IMPORTANT : One needs only about three months to figure out if the person he or she is dating is a marriage candidate. Once you’ve determined a man is not in the running, cut him loose right away. Yes, it will hurt or cause discomfort or awkwardness. Yes, you still have to do it. (NOTE: I am not saying you date for only this long and decide to get married. What I am saying is that you will be able to tell in about 3 months, or even less, that it’s going nowhere with a particular man. Conversely, you will be able to tell in about that time if you can keep going with this man.)
7. Once you have found a marriageable man who you love, who loves you, with whom you are fundamentally compatible, and to whom you are attracted and can submit, and you want to get married, then go ahead and get married. This is true if you are 19 and still in college, or 22 and just starting grad school. There will never be a good time to get married. You will never have enough money, or enough time. The time will never be perfect; it just has to be good enough. If you marry at, say, 23 or 24, you will still give your husband most of your very best years.
@ Haley.
What Deti said plus… consider age. Look, life is unfair. I did not make the rules. But men can and do marry younger. Double your age and subtract five. That is around the age where you will be considered a match.
Since I’m a male and will turn 52 this year… half that is 26. Add that and you get to 33. Yes, mid thirties if I am in good shape . It thus behooves me to be in the gym, and it behooves you. Besides, it is fun and helps with the waistline and blood sugar.
Now, if he has been a player, you can subtract about one year for every 10 notches. But you would have to add a year for every handicap you have. These include concurrent illnesses particularly psychiatric, feminism, number of kids, number of partners, substance abuse and being flakey. Postive things are being intelligent (in reality, not on your CV), skilled and nice. Do not discount nice. Most men my age have had to deal flakey prima donnas @ work. We do not want to live with them, or be friends with them, as there is a limit to how much diplomacy we can handle in any one day.
In short, look for decent men who will like you and you alone. As you get older. They get much older.
Thank you for all the replies guys, I appreciate it. Some of you wrote quite a lot and you certainly didn’t have to :p
I have to say though that I feel duped. I’m actually very angry I’ve been lied to. Obviously it was my choice to be sexual before marriage, but had I known this when I was still a virgin I certainly would have remained one. I used to pride myself on being a virgin back in high school when all my friends were already on their 3rd partner, and then I actually believed them when they told me I’d be alone forever or was a prude because I didn’t put out like they did. Now, I would give anything to go back and tell my 17-year-old self to wear that badge with pride and watch as the women around me became bitter about losing it too soon/for the wrong reasons. Unfortunately I can’t wear that badge anymore.
I am genuinely regretful of the experiences though. I don’t know if that counts for anything in the long term. As it stands now I just feel ashamed and doomed to live a life of unhappiness.
Well then you gotta seal it up and make them work for it girl. If he isn’t earning it, dont give him it, there’s always another guy that will.
I am genuinely regretful of the experiences though. I don’t know if that counts for anything in the long term. As it stands now I just feel ashamed and doomed to live a life of unhappiness.
To the woman caught in adultery, Jesus asked, “Woman where are those accusers of yours?” Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you, go and sin no more.”
History records she did, and became one of the most blessed women of all time.
Haley,
“I actually believed them when they told me I’d be alone forever or was a prude because I didn’t put out like they did.”
I have had a great many of my red pill moments occur as the result of being a father to a girl. As a full-time single father, my poor daughter has had to confide in me all of her girl stuff, which normally I assume would be said to the mom and dad would be very happy indeed not to have to deal with that crap. Because as insensitive males so much of that chicken-shit stuff that means so much to girls means diddly-squat to us. However, as her only outlet, I have had to be very patient and try to understand her concerns, and being privy to all of this inter-female dynamics really has been an eye-opener. She’s not even a teenager yet, but I now seen in the “professional, educated, independent, grrrrls” of all and every age at work the exact same dynamics I observed in my daughter’s inter-female relationships going back to when she was maybe 6 or 8.
As much as sometimes I really wish it wasn’t so, I have daily in front of me the evidence that while girls may ‘mature’ faster than boys, they essentially plateau early, and don’t tend to mature, as I think of the word, but rather refine and specialize in various forms of inter-female emotional warfare. I have also repeatedly learned and seen that no matter what women say about men, it never is really about us, it’s about other women somehow. Always.
Which is why, for example, as an observer notes, the ‘advice’ other girls give you is not actually meant to have your best interests in mind, but is a continuation of the emotional warfare females seem to engage in constantly, even with those that are ‘close friends’.
The number of females who have told me how hard it is to trust another woman is legion, that they much prefer the company of men in many respects because of this. Yet they can still be all grrrl power and down with the patriarchy at the same time, and see no contradiction in this at all. The repeated observation of women, intelligent, educated, that I think well of, etc., etc., women to be able to maintain logical contradictions indefinitely is also a continuous source of red pill moments.
Haley:
–don’t discount “older” men. Many of the men who will be interested in marriage and will have the attractive attributes you’re looking for will be older than you are, probably mid to late 20s. Most of these men will be around 24 to 28 years old. A 21 year old woman sincerely searching for a husband is a rarity these days. You ‘ll be considered a good catch among most marriage minded men. A lot of the men around your age (early 20s) will be just starting out in their own lives and careers or just not interested in marriage.
–don’t think you have to be “hot” to get a husband. You don’t. Most men think most women are attractive. If you keep your weight down, your hair long, your makeup on, and you dress in a feminine manner, you will be attractive enough for most men.
–you probably should not date more than one man at a time. One of the most important attributes of a wife is loyalty and trustworthiness. A woman who dates more than one man at a time does not present herself as a good marriage prospect, even if she is not sleeping with any of those men. This is a matter of male perception. Such a woman comes across as disloyal, dishonest, unfaithful, not trustworthy, self-centered, self-interested, and keeping her options open. This is so even if she does not intend to project that message, even if she is above-board about it, and even if she is chaste.
Haley:
Dalrock brought up that when women have sex before marriage it reduces their ability to fully bond to their husbands. Let me explain this a little more from my perspective. I am not saying Dalrock agrees with this. I am also not saying you are or were a slut. I’m just trying to explain what I think happens to women who have premarital sex. I am basing this on experience and observation.
Every time a woman has sex with a man, even if she has sex with him one time and never sees him again, she bonds to him. I believe this is multifaceted and has biochemical, emotional, psychological and even spiritual components.
Sex for a woman is penetration. She is taken. She is conquered. She surrenders and allows herself to be penetrated. pierced, impaled. She takes a part of the man’s body into hers and absorbs it. The man becomes part of her, physically and emotionally. That penetration reaches her all the way to the essence of her being. Nothing else in the female experience does this to her or for her.
If she repeats this experience too many times, she continues making bonds with men as she takes them into her and absorbs parts of different men’s bodies into hers. At the same time she tries to bond with men she no longer sees or dates or has any contact with (those bonds keep trying to “reconnect” to the men she’s bonded to), she is forging new bonds.
I believe that her body, soul and even spirit try to dull or blunt the pain and experience of constant bonding and breaking, bonding and breaking, by preventing the bonding or reducing its effectiveness each time she engages in sex with a new partner. Eventually she becomes unwilling or unable to sense, feel, connect or bond, because the body and soul do all they can to prevent and stunt and relieve the pain and frustration of bonds that are constantly attempting to connect and constantly failing to do so.
if the slut is to reform, these bonds that are constantly trying to connect with old partners have to be broken. Many times they are not. Some bonds are stronger than others, as with sex with a really attractive alpha. The stronger the bond, the more persistent it is and the more resistant it is to severance.
The bonds present in the form of persistent memories, sexual fantasies, flashbacks, acting out, trying to recreate intense and/or pleasurable sexual experiences with new partners, frustration when sex with a husband is not as pleasurable as it was with the alpha. For the slut to truly reform, her bonds to her previous sex partners have to be severed and left behind, and the wounds healed. That takes time — years, sometimes. It also takes much work. Usually, she needs help doing it, in the form of time, psychotherapy, avoidance of people, places and things that trigger her, dropping old friends, ending addictions.
Sometimes those bonds cannot be broken, usually because she simply cannot let them go. Or more often, she chooses not to release them, or chooses not to try doing the necessary work.
For whatever reason, women seem to have a much more difficult time with this than men do. Men seem much more suited to casual sex and don’t “bond” the way women do.
All this is why all the talk of a slut’s inability to “pair bond” with a husband. The end result of all this is a woman who is emotionally, physically and sexually unavailable to her husband. She might want to be. She may try with all her might. But her ability to connect with a man, to feel, to open herself to him, to truly allow herself to belong to him, has been so damaged or destroyed, that she simply cannot bond and has rendered herself incapable of bonding.
the ‘advice’ other girls give you is not actually meant to have your best interests in mind, but is a continuation of the emotional warfare females seem to engage in constantly,
—————————————————————————————————-
I add to this that the advice women give each other may be some extension of emotional warfare, but not warfare waged on each other, rather what is waged on men. Let me explain. If a woman goes to another woman saying she is unhappy in her marriage, they will mull until they can settle on a way to blame the man that they can both agree on. What that means is the one sought for advice has her own set of relational issues that she (thinks) she has experienced too, her drama how she was wronged. Her advice to the other women will not be designed to help, it will be designed for HER (the advice giver) to vicariously experience revenge on a man for doing something she may have only imagined was ever done to her. Heck a her BF may have never ever looked at porn, lets say….but she is lathered up about it because it seems a big issue and the church is on about it and women are generally lathered up so she is PISSED and it doesnt matter if she has been affected or not. So she wants to lash out about porn or something similar…..just because…..so she will advise the other woman and get her lathered up about it even if its not the primary topic….”well he may be using porn ya know”….and get some sort of girl power revenge thingy from it.
I think it is rare to non existent that women give relational advise to other women that has anything good in mind as outcome. A man that yesterday she would have said is wonderful, now she tells his wife he is a sex addict and needs institutionalized, and get the kids away from that monster….etc. I am exaggerating to illustrate the concept. He advice and the whole conversation is geared for….well……the conversation as an experience, as an empathy fest.
The bonding IS biological.
It’s pretty overwhelming to decide you want to be different from the majority of women in your culture. I can just imagine trying to talk to other females about this, the looks of incredulity I’ll get and the defensiveness (of course, what else can they do?).
I have another question, though. I don’t know if all of you here are Christians, but I’m guessing the majority are. I was raised in a Christian household. I left the faith 2 years ago or so. As of right now I’m agnostic. I’m not sure what I believe, really… My question is, do you think this approach only works for Christian men and women? I mean, if I am looking to get married, won’t the majority of men wanting to get married now be Christian? Obviously they won’t want a non-Christian wife.
I don’t hate Christianity but I find it hard to believe. I am not closed off to it completely though (not sure if I could come back to the faith though, but that is another matter). I just know that I find our culture empty and whether I’m religious or not, I don’t want to approach relationships the way my peers have. Is it worthwhile to adopt some of the basic tenets of a religion without being sure about it altogether?
I don’t know if that makes any sense but I don’t know how to word it better
Thank you again though for the advice 🙂
@Haley
Don’t worry about convincing them to change course. They won’t listen anyway, but if they did it would be to your immediate disadvantage. Always remember, those bitches are trying to steal your man!
@ Haley:
“It’s pretty overwhelming to decide you want to be different from the majority of women in your culture.”
Yes, it is.
“I can just imagine trying to talk to other females about this, the looks of incredulity I’ll get and the defensiveness (of course, what else can they do?).”
You should not give a flying rat’s ass what any other female thinks about the way you choose to live your life now, regardless of how you lived it in the past. I know it is difficult to step outside the pack, but it can be done. And you will have to anyway. Everyone at some point in his or her life, has to stand alone and say to herself “this is the right way to go for me”. 80Proof Oinomancy has a great post up that says, and I am paraphrasing, “the greatest source of women’s unhappiness has been women trying to please other women”.
Don’t try to please other women. Do what’s right for you. When you find your future husband, work to please him.
“I have another question, though. I don’t know if all of you here are Christians, but I’m guessing the majority are. I was raised in a Christian household. I left the faith 2 years ago or so. As of right now I’m agnostic. I’m not sure what I believe, really… My question is, do you think this approach only works for Christian men and women? I mean, if I am looking to get married, won’t the majority of men wanting to get married now be Christian? Obviously they won’t want a non-Christian wife.”
You’re overthinking this and getting ahead of yourself. The points raised here on a healthy sex life are Judeo-Christian in origin but anyone can and should use them to lead to a productive and happy sex life. It’s not necessarily so that the only men wanting marriage now are Christian. I can tell you that, from here on out, if you abstain from sex without “commitment” (whatever that means) or engagement or marriage, most men who aren’t marriage minded will eliminate themselves from your consideration. Stated another way, if sex is his ultimate goal, he’ll want to get there as fast as he can. When he sees he can’t get there fast with you, he’ll move on.
You have just made a momentous, important decision that the way you had been living your sex life is not for you, and you’ve decided to seek a husband. That’s to be congratulated. Now, you risk tying yourself up in knots thinking you’ll have to marry a Christian man or that he won’t want you because you’re not Christian. Don’t do that.
I will tell you this: If the man is truly Christian, he will look for a Christian woman. Or, he will exhort you to faith in God with him because of its importance to him. Christians are warned not to be “unequally yoked”. If he truly thinks you cannot come to faith, he probably will not propose marriage, and will thus eliminate himself.
Haley:
This should probably help keep some things in perspective.
Keep in mind that the men you had sex with were probably not the type of men who would be willing to marry you, even though you found them attractive and might have been willing to marry them if they asked.
Your marriage market value is probably lower than your sexual market value. Your SMV is higher because you can use your physical attractiveness to get sex from hotter men than would be willing to marry you.
Conversely, most men’s SMVs are lower than their MMVs. Men have a higher MMV because when searching for wives, they can command (if they wish) a higher caliber woman and can withhold commitment until they get what they want. But no men other than the highest caliber men can get sex anytime they want it.
I understand what you’re saying, Deti, thank you. This really helps a lot.
I’m so happy I found this blog, I’ll definitely keep reading.
What is a girl to do?
Suggestion: Change where you hang out. Go where the marriage-minded men of good character are..
Where they are will depend on where you live. It may be a church. It may be a meetup group.
The point is: There are men out there. Actually seeing them will be difficult. Women are programmed to be attracted to dark triad traits. Oh, you may protest. I like kindness, honesty and a sense of humour, you say. I say: how many of your former partners had these qualities?
You would benefit from a mentor. Preferably a much older, married woman who has lived out the qualities of a good wife. Not one who divorced her ex for cash and prizes. A mature, stable woman will help recognise the best potential husbands out there.
Good luck.
Hi Hayley,
I certainly can’t offer better advice when looking for a spouse than what Deti gave you. Also you are probably right about most of the men interested in marriage in your age bracket being Christians.
You said you were agnostic but formerly a christian, if you are interested in kicking around ideas about the truth of Christianity you can always email me. I host a podcast Christian Meets World, (The link in my name points to it) and you are welcome to email me with questions if you have any. You did comment you were still open to it, so perhaps it is as simple as finding some answers to questions. Anyway, the offer is there if you want.
Jason
Thank you Jason 🙂
Pingback: Harming your kids for attention and profit. | Dalrock
Pingback: Suzanne Venker on women’s rights, men’s responsibilities, and why she divorced her first husband. | Dalrock
I don’t get why so many are shocked that their churches would mislead them. The churches have always mislead people. The bible is a collection of fictional stories, that’s all it is unless you think snakes can talk and virgins are able to get pregnant.
Pingback: Custody Demographics | Dalrock
Pingback: Not Glad Tidings for Post Marital Spinsters. | Dalrock
Pingback: How the feminine imperative “just happens”. | Dalrock
Pingback: Psychoanalysis for me but not for thee | Dalrock
Pingback: How should the orthosphere engage the manosphere? « Zippy Catholic
Pingback: Young men are giving up on marriage - Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, Conservatives, Liberals, Third Parties, Left-Wing, Right-Wing, Congress, President - Page 28 - City-Data Forum
Pingback: What we need is more chivalry! | Dalrock
Pingback: Another crack in the narrative | Dalrock
Pingback: A depressingly, eerily accurate glimpse inside the average modern woman’s mind
Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock
Pingback: If the church doesn’t do it… | Roaming Lost
Pingback: Call for Heroes | M3
Pingback: Letter To A Young Churchian Woman | The Society of Phineas
Pingback: Better get out the spackle. | Dalrock
Just so you know, this post has been translated in french (just click on my name to redirect)
Pingback: How feminism self-perpetuates: today’s sluts, tomorrow’s frivorcees and spinsters. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: Trapped! | Dalrock
This is an excellent post. You need to take your best posts and turn them into an ebook.
Hey the first video is private now! (I so wanted to see it)!
@Haley, if you DO decide to go back to church, please don’t discount some of the quieter guys you’ll see behind sound desks, cameras etc… We’re generally ignored, but most of the time we try to be as inconspicuous as possible… if we’re not visible, it means we’re doing our jobs right in facilitating the delivery of the worship event.
for what it’s worth, I’ll echo Deti and Dalrock’s guidance. Be honest. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. It enables a guy (especially a shyer guy) to feel safe and open up.
Oh – and re the male view of romance, try looking up classic 70s and 80s bands like Chicago and Huey Lewis. Rock music being modern poetry – you’ll find stuff there that resonates in many guys’ hearts… to clue you in…
Pingback: Survey -- What Stage is Your Ex In?
Pingback: True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: Possibly the worst advice for young women in the whole history of the internet. | Sunshine Mary
Pingback: More from the Arch-Druid: Debunking Progressive Myths | Patriactionary
Pingback: Reclaiming biblical marriage | Dark Brightness
Pingback: Dalrock, feeling the Jealousy of Cain, disobeys God, Moses, and Jesus Christ, and tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes!!! | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner
Pingback: Dalrock tries to steal Game from the Great HEartistes by attempting to slide it into Jesus’s Bungholizlozzlzozozo. The Lying Dalrcok Bares False Witness Against the Great Heartiste, Lies, and Steals, while Accusing Heartiste of being a “Sinner
Pingback: Dalrock follow’s da GBFM’s & Heartiste’s Manly Headship, Stealing da GBFM’s Wisdom Without Reference: Prepare for the Dalrockian Chruchian Police State, where the One and Only Way to Game and Christianity (Chruchianity), is thr
Pingback: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words Man, and God. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4M
Pingback: Dalrock–Destroyer of Words, the Word, and Men’s Souls: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words Man, and God. | Great Books For M
Pingback: Dalrock–Destroyer of Words, the Word, and Men’s Souls: Dalrock’s inherent unmanliness and unBiblical, frankfarter tendencies playing gamey word games while exiling Jesus and disrespecting the Word, Words, Man, and God. | Great Books For
Pingback: 29. Pump and Dump | Radish
Pingback: Every Divorce is a Man’s Fault, According to Dalrock & Vox. Every Broken Family is a Man’s Fault. Every Child Without a Father is a a Man’s Fault, Because, According to Dalrock, they Didn’t Learn Game to Serve a Woman’s B
Pingback: Getting to the church on time (a second time). | Dalrock
Pingback: The Dalrock hypothesis [Quotage for any female readers: do not follow the narrative of this age.] | Dark Brightness
Pingback: A bridge too far. | Dalrock
Pingback: HALLAEJULLLAH!!!! DALROCK HAS SEEN THE LIGHT! WE HAVE SAVED DALROCK’S SOUL!!!!! WELCOME HOME PRODIGAL SON DALROCKAS!!!! LZOZOZOZOZOZ | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to. | Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Pingback: More remarriage rate charts. | Dalrock
Pingback: Put a ring on it! | Dalrock
Pingback: Hold her beer and watch this. | Dalrock
Pingback: Father’s Day doublethink. | Dalrock
Reblogged this on MGTOW 2.0.
Pingback: Feminist Atlantic waxes conservative. | Dalrock
Pingback: She didn’t stick the landing, and she won’t leave the floor. | Dalrock
Pingback: Not good for the narrative. | Dalrock
Pingback: Time and fantasy. | Dalrock
Necroposting, I know, but had to comment on this error, by someone who should know better:
“sunshinemary says:
August 12, 2012 at 10:16 am
“Being married has status for women
Oh yes. This is very true. It is extremely enjoyable to mention one’s husband in front of other women. I do it myself Even in an anonymous setting, like on allrecipes.com, if you look through the review comments for a recipe, it’s a bunch of women saying, “I made this and my husband loved it; will definitely make again!” or “Tried it but hubby hated it; won’t try it again.”
Women want to brag (and they should, in my opinion) about even just getting engaged, which triggers jealousy in unmarried women. There’s not a woman alive who doesn’t want to flash her ring around.”
My wife (of 6 1/2 years, contemptuously deadbedded me for last 2 years) has worn her ring only one time in the last 2 1/2 years, and that was at my father’s funeral 23 months ago. I know of other women who are married, but don’t wear their rings ever, having permanently lost all attraction to their beta schlub husbands.
Pingback: A very long season (part 1). | Dalrock
Pingback: She wants 2.3 more years of sex with other men before she settles for you. | Dalrock
At a minimum, if you are a “beta provider” willing to take the used goods along with the consequential threats and liabilities which come along with such women (including divorce), at a minimum you should have her see your doctor to find out what STD’s (and possibly HIV) viruses she may be carrying to give you on your wedding night. Especially with respect to the ones which are already resistant to antibiotics and trending toward being wholly resistant (such as gonorrhea). Enjoy.
Knowing what we know so far, it’s safe to say that ANYTHING a woman says is at least 50% hamsterfied. When women say they want to marry, a translation from hamsterspeak tells us that it means women want to indulge their dramatic fairytale fantasies, and at the cost of a beta provider, if possible.
Pingback: That’s gonna leave a mark on the narrative. | Dalrock
Pingback: A look at America’s future after marriage becomes rare - Fabius Maximus website
Pingback: Hysteria. | Dalrock
Pingback: 2017 Never Married Data | Dalrock
Pingback: Now we are haggling about the price. | Dalrock
Pingback: It was time to settle for a boring loyal dude. | Dalrock