Beth writes The Frisky’s Ask a Married Guy wondering what is wrong with men? Why are they afraid to commit?
I am an attractive writer, divorced for almost four years. For as long as I can remember, I have never been at a loss for male attention. Since my separation, I have dated plenty of guys. But, the only guys I seem to attract who are not paralyzed by the idea of even commitment-lite are already married to someone else!
Two obvious explanations for Beth’s experience come immediately to mind:
- The SMV fortunes for men and women reverse as they age; the older a woman gets the harder it becomes for her to get commitment from an attractive man. Based on the information provided I would guess Beth is at least 40 years old, and most likely 45 or older.
- As a divorcée Beth’s track record regarding commitment is at best suspect. She doesn’t say if she is the one who ended the marriage, but statistically this is very likely. She doesn’t help her case when she writes of her “15 year marriage of convenience — for timing and ‘appropriateness’ more than affection, sex, or love.”
Married guy doesn’t touch on either unpopular reality, and instead suggests that she think of her search for a man as a sort of strip mining operation:
Genuine commitment is like a diamond, or a good vintage shirt at a thrift store. For sure, it’s there to be found. And there is enough on the planet for everyone. But this wonderful thing happens to be buried under a giant mountain of worthless shit you don’t want.
…
You are going on a lot of dates, and the guys usually drift away from contact. Good. They are doing you a favor. They are ruling themselves out of contention. They are another shovelful of dirt, or handful of crappy sweaters, cleared from your path toward the perfect man/shirt/diamond.
Going with the false assumption that the romantic fortunes of men and women rise and fall in tandem, he explains that the man she is looking for not only exists, but that this man is “GOING THROUGH THE EXACT SAME THING”.
Married guy also reassures her that her decision to focus on being the perfect boyfriend is the right way to find the perfect boyfriend. Beth writes:
For my entire dating life, I have shied away from appearing needy, bitter, or desperate because those three qualities make my skin crawl.
Married guy responds:
Good. Great, in fact. If this is true, you are miles ahead of the emotional game. Any trace of these qualities is the death-knell for attraction. Stay the course.
One can hope she takes “married guy’s” advice. It will save soe if not many men from unhappiness.
“For my entire dating life, I have shied away from appearing needy, bitter, or desperate because those three qualities make my skin crawl.”
Yet what does she do that might make her attractive to a man?
Divorced? Marriage was not designed to be an iterative process where you keep trying until you get it right.
It is not so much the 7 year itch as the 7 year witch (rhymes with). Men will only put up with it so long. God is infinitely patient. Men can be with a wife who has had a stroke affecting her speech center. The rest requires much grace, sometimes in separation.
Yes, naturally the men who don’t fall all over themselves to commit to this Perfect (divorced, post-wall, dating everyone within arm’s reach) Princess are “dirt.” Nice.
Harsh truth #1: I don’t know how she’s doing it, but most post-wall women who are “dating plenty of guys” jump right into bed the first night, if they’re not crawling under the table to give their date a quick one during dinner. Playing hard-to-get, they ain’t. Why would guys dating in that atmosphere be in a hurry to commit? They can name their terms.
Harsh truth #2: once a woman is past fertility, what’s the point of hurrying to commit anyway? If she’s 19, you want to hurry up and commit because she’s hot and you can’t wait to bed her. If she’s 28, maybe you want to hurry up and commit so you can get busy baby-making before it’s too late. But at 40, those reasons don’t apply, and she’s not going to lose that much of her looks over the next couple years. If she’s still fit and hot enough for you at 40, she probably still will be at 42 — and more desperate — so why not play the field a while?
Check out the headline picture. Which arm is the man’s arm?
Where you see a bug, to him it’s a feature.
“Once a woman is past fertility, what’s the point of hurrying to commit anyway?”
What’s the point of commitment to these types whatsoever? To have children commitment is a necessity but past a certain age when both have homes, family, work commitments, friends and lifestyles what’s the point of merging two separate indivual lives?
Sure, companionship and exclusivity are nice but what advantages does a man really get from committing to an older woman, all those things can be had without commitment anyway.
Good question about which arm is the man’s arm/ I am, ahem, 71 years old, and I suspect I can kick his backside, based on that arm. I regularly bring in from the truck 110 pound bags of cement (50kg) and I doubt he can do it.
In fact, that arm looks like a boy’s arm, not a man’s arm. (Actually it looks like a girl’s arm.)
One man who was an illegal in the US to build a house here in Mexico said he never before saw any North American man who could move 110 pounds. I sure have, but I lived in the country. My “little brother” was reported to have lifted a cow. Seriously. I could only lift a hog.
I had a 15 year marriage of convenience — for timing and “appropriateness” more than affection, sex, or love.
Yet, at some point, same guy will shift to texts and phone calls, evading a second or maybe third meet.
It is a real mystery why a guy doesn’t want to make a commitment to a woman like this?
Sharrukin, Maybe I should tell you about my GTHO program, heh, heh.
I never understood just how sick the American culture was, until I ived for some time in another culture.
Don’t get me wrong. Not only are most American women messed up, but so are most men. You can not go swimming without getting wet, and you can’t live in a sick society and still be pure and holy, even if you try.
Read the advice on Frisky from “married guy”. Don’t believe the author of said advice is married or a guy. Just doesn’t sound like a guy’s voice.
Read the advice on Frisky from “married guy”. Don’t believe the author of said advice is married or a guy. Just doesn’t sound like a guy’s voice.
It’s funny you should say that. I did the semantic analysis on the post and it leans female (female feminist, actually).
Don’t get me wrong. Not only are most American women messed up, but so are most men.
No question about that but in the defense of men…“We make men without chests and expect from them virtue and enterprise.” – C.S. Lewis
This woman admits she used a man because it was convenient to her plans. She states the marriage lacked love, affection and sex. Quite the enticing little vixen! I suspect that rather ugly attitude is being clearly transmitted to her potential partners and they are making a run for it as fast as they can.
You would think an educated writer on social things would have some knowledge of the sex /mating market. She wants this prize “comitment” with high market value male. But what is she offering for it, even if she found her diamond? I am sure we here could give her usefull advice and equally sure she would NOT take it.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2010/08/12/the-difficulty-of-gaming-women-by-age-bracket/
this econ of sex video may answer some of her questions
http://www.nationalreview.com/campaign-spot/372022/another-round-obamacare-train-wrecks-jim-geraghty
Employment goes down; the marital prospects of men go down; women can’t find a high-SES husband and are unhappy. One day someone will declare that the ACA was the start of the Democrat war on women.
Men aren’t afraid to commit, never have been.
Men have an instinctual aversion to bad contracts.
Quick question, what does “SMV” mean? I can usually figure these things out, but this has stumped me.
Thanks.
sexual market value (SMV)
“Married Guy” refers to men as “them” and women as “us”.
“I do really want to be in a loving relationship” blah blah blah. “Where are all the men? I mean, not THOSE men. Where are the GOOD men?”
Ah, thank you, Sharrukin.
Anyone else notice the tat is on the arm of the gal in the photo that accompanies the article?
jf12 says:
“Married Guy” refers to men as “them” and women as “us”.
I noticed that as well and this…
I love Weebs. Just love her to death.
…isn’t coming from a man. Or at least not a straight one.
Men aren’t afraid to commit, never have been.
Well said. I’ve never been afraid of commitment. I proposed to my first girlfriend after less than six months after meeting her. I’m ready to marry and commit for life. I’m not afraid of it now, assuming I find a proper woman to marry. I thought I did- I was wrong, but I did, and I wasted little time. Right now I’d definitely be afraid to recommit to her, especially to a woman who plainly confesses that she had a marriage for fifteen years purely for convenience’s sake. I mean, talk about cold as ice. I don’t know a single man in my circles who have such a callous view of women or marriage as some women do.
I went and read the whole article. I hope that’s a woman masquerading as a man, because it’s sickening to imagine a straight man writing that. I was going to post a helpful reply about what Beth really needs to do, but their comment system doesn’t take any of my accounts. Oh well, guess she’ll have to keep doing what’s been failing for her, and this “guy” recommends.
who wants to commit to ride a used up geo metro with locks that dont work on the doors?? furthermore, who wants to pay the price of a bmw to own it?
Beth is obviously a P&D.
Well, or this:
http://policymic.com/mobile/articles/82899/this-animated-video-shows-the-wild-economics-of-sex
@Sharrukin
“”This woman admits she used a man because it was convenient to her plans. She states the marriage lacked love, affection and sex. Quite the enticing little vixen!””
This is what I got from the article also.
@Rollo
“”She will acquiesce easily and gratefully to sex with very little game, as long as you don’t look like a grandpa. Her expectations are so low, it will be a challenge to disappoint her.””
http://www.aphroditewomenshealth.com/news/20060407234916_health_news.shtml
“”If you are prone to guilt, you might feel it when you inevitably dump a woman in this age range. Don’t. “”
I never feel guilt in this situation……only relief!
Blake,
There is SMV (sexual market value) and MMV (marriage market value). A flat broke dreamy hunk might have a high SMV, being able to bed a lot of women. But when a woman is ready to settle down, she might prefer a rich but plain man who has lower SMV but higher MMV.
Digging around, looking for other studies, and I came across: McDaniel, Anita K. “Young women’s dating behavior: Why/why not date a nice guy?.” Sex Roles 53.5-6 (2005): 347-359.
Online: http://people.uncw.edu/mcdaniela/nice_guy.pdf
Interesting.
Yeah, “Married Guy” is neither. No question.
Also, just to actually be helpful, if “Beth” is also a real person (possible. Probable?), it would have been far more kind to point out that she answered her own question in describing herself. She sounds like a real champion human being. Mmmmm, nothing says ‘let’s get married’ like a failed marriage, impending middle age and an inability to attract quality men!
That economics of sex video doesn’t go into why women leave marriages after they’ve achieved their goal. Virtually all divorces that I’ve seen have involved the woman initiating it.
Personally, I don’t see any reason to marry a woman who can’t give you children (unless maybe she’s rich and you’re poor).
@Mark Re: sex and the single older woman. Since sex is also quite rare for the married older woman due almost entirely to her insistence, it is easy to know that the main cause of rare sex is lack of libido in the woman, which also causes her to be pickier.
It’s a mystery, Charlie Brown.
@MarcusD Re: nice guy study. And this was peer reviewed! The obvious conclusion from McDaniel’s data that she doesn’t state is that women are not to be believed concerning their own motivations. I wonder why she doesn’t draw that conclusion?
Marcus D:
From the study you linked:
The methodology of this study was administration of questionnaires asking about preferences and conduct. The questioning was essentially a series of “what would you do if in X scenario” or “would you be likely to date a guy with XYZ characteristics” kinds of inquiries. Such a methodology is next to useless when considering female dating/mating strategies and behaviors. Women rarely, if ever, talk honestly about why they date who they date or screw whom they screw or, really, why they do anything they do.
I actually thought the best parts of the study were at the conclusion, where the author seemed to recognize this fact:
“Experience is usually
the best teacher in social situations such as dating. ***
“In the end, young women may continue to claim that they find certain qualities in a “good guy” nice guy as highly desirable and that they want to be in a committed relationship with one man as their ultimate goal, but, at the same time,they seem content to spend “the meantime and inbetween-time” going out with fun/sexy guys who mayor may not turn into “jerks.””
In other words, don’t listen to what women say. Watch what they do. Always, always, always watch what they do.
Where are all the good men? They are with the good women. Can’t find a good man? Maybe you aren’t a good woman.
Alas! Tom C, bitter (there’s that word again) experience informs that “when a woman is ready to settle down, she might prefer a rich but plain man who has lower SMV but higher MMV”, and the half-dozen nights per year (it’s never in the day, that would be dirty) she’s laid there, pancaked on her back with trusting Barrington Betabuck III humping frantically away, she’s dreaming exclusively of hunky hobo and his cowboy boots. And she can’t make him go away. If only … if only …
… women don’t seem to get it, that there is such a thing as Too Much Information (for one’s own good).
lol @ married guy. He just sabotaged that post-wall woman’s chances… Oh wait, he wasn’t trying to?
Women have definitely been sold a terrible lie.
Quick, some one remind her to stay strong and independent. Have her tell men she needs them like a fish needs a bicycle. That way only her true soulmate will pursue her.
My apologies, even I just ruined my keyboard laughing.
Speaking of HUS (wasn’t someone?), Walsh egests this knee-slapper:
“She deceived him into thinking it would be worth his time to come up after the bar closed. Of course, she is suffering from the hopeful delusion that he would be pleased to get to know her better. Maybe make out, then snuggle and talk for hours. (That’s what girls really like best early on with guys they are into.)”
Actually, that’s what girls make their LTR hubbies suffer through.
One of the things that always strikes me about women, especially divorced women, in the SMP/MMP starting around age 38 on, is the deer in the headlights look/sound from their correspondence. They’re finally experiencing what it’s like to be a low value player in the SMP, like an 18 or 19 year old man. They’re finally finding out what it’s like to be sexually invisible. They’re discovering what it’s like to deal with repeated frustration and rejection. They’re finally finding out what it’s like to see everyone around you getting what they want while they have to settle for scraps and leftovers, or nothing at all.
And, as this article shows, they’re finally finding out what it’s like to get poor advice which will only worsen their prospects as time goes on.
I can’t get google images to find me the exact image I want. A picky-looking femomorphic fish flopping on the ground helplessly and wetly in what looks like riding gear: helmet, logo shirt, long shorts cleverly compensating for lack of legs, riding gloves cleverly compensating for lack of hands, but riding shoes untied and astray, closely surrounded by a herd of guyomorphic bicycles, who are obviously following her and maybe stalking her.
lzozozozozozoz hey da GBFM has a solutionz 2 da crises!!
Christians need to learn Game, apply Game, exalt Game, and live Game!!!
Do not wastez your timeesz following JEsus and Moses nor quoting da GBFM nor Homer nor Socrates nor Aristotlez, but just learn game and Game on! Engaging in such silly activitiesz will not gain you instalanches as Dr. Helen Smith never quotes JEsus nor Moses nor any of the Great Books for Men in her book about men, so duh, der is no need! lzolzozolzolzolzozl
Just as thirty-year old womenz wake up and ask “Where have all da good men gone and why is my butt sore?” Men often wake up and ask “Why do I get to respect as a man nor father, and why do I never read nor quote my own fatherz Great Books for MEnz?”
lzozozozozozo
What Christain men needz to do is:
1. LEarn game
2. Read up on MArcuse Hedieiiger Freud — the true Fathers of Christ says St. Boxer zlzozo
3. Do NOT quote MOses nor JEsus
4. Do NOT strive to exalt Homeric codes of honor nor biblical codesz of honor lzozzozzl
5. Sit and wait for your instalanches, for surely they shall come to those who honor MArcuse & forgetz JEsus zlzozoozoz.
da GBFM’s solutionz 2 da crises:
Christians need to learn Game, apply Game, exalt Game, and live Game!!!
zlzolzozoooz
Women going around bragging about their attractive/alpha status and all the married guys hitting on them are probably way too stupid to realize this is not exactly the best advertisement to men that women could come up with for how great commitment/marriage/entrapment is. What sort of dolt wants to wind up being that guy?
Like zed said, dating is the first stop on the train to Stupidville.
Let’s consider the options of a man who considers a LTR with Beth.
Option 1: Spend time tormented by a cold, bitchy, rebellious, frigid old woman. Infrequent sex, lots of quarrels and attitude.
Option 2: Have lots of hot sex with warm, fun, submissive, libidinous 20-30 year old women.
Hmm, tough decision.
Isn’t it funny how a LTR turns women cold, bitchy, rebellious, and frigid?
The “Ask a Married Guy” column says it is by “Tom Cowell.”
http://mrtomcowell.com/
The website links to the “Ask a Married Guy” column, so I assume it is the same person.
Though, his own website doesn’t mention who or what he is married to.
“They’re finally experiencing what it’s like to be a low value player in the SMP, like an 18 or 19 year old man.”
What’s this low value you’re talking about? Most of my experience before marriage was when I was a PUA from 15-18.
Tom Cowell’s site says that he’s a comedian. Maybe that explains why his advice looks like a joke.
From the tomcowell.com site: “and my advice column I write for The Frisky.com called “Ask a Married Guy”.”
Career consultants……
Wedding consultants……….
Fertility consultants…….
Divorce lawyers……
Therapists…….
Match.com……..
Plenty of FIsh…….
eHarmony……..
Misery, misery, misery………that’s what women have chosen.
Misery is BIG business! And boy oh boy……business is BOOMING!!
I am always amazed at how women are oblivious as to why men RUN AWAY from their terrible track record.
Totally clueless, they cannot put it together that a declining SMV + a horrific track record = No Commitment from a man.
I don’t think our lady’s complaints are all that different than the complaints we’ve been hearing from women over the last 40 or 50 years. It seems that women have always been saying (for my lifetime at least) that there are no good men out there, where are they? It’s a broken record. So this is nothing new…
…I think for the first time though, thanks to the MRM and the manosphere (and eating red pills) a certain percentage of men (albeit a small percentage) is indicating that her problems are her own and that she has no one to blame but herself.
I guess the best advice I could give her is learn to be a happy single person. She got divorced. So learn to live a happy divorced life. If that is not possible then maybe she could advice other women to NOT do what she did, to learn from her mistakes?
The question seems relatively simple. What is she offering in exchange for commitment? Apparently nothing of value.
You had a fifteen year marriage of convenience?
I offer a fifteen date pump of convenience.
Funny, I had the same thought but couldn’t figure out quite how to say it. A post-wall woman, from a man’s perspective, is like a young (non-alpha) man with no job from a woman’s perspective, in a way. Maybe he’s a good prospect, but she has little to lose by waiting a couple years to see how he progresses. By the same token, once a woman is past childbearing, a man who still finds her interesting has little to lose by keeping things “casual” as long as possible and not rushing into a commitment.
I hated the animated video of the Economics of Sex. The reason was that it starts from the wrong premises so all results are invalid. Their first erroneous premise is that women are dating for the purpose of acquiring long term commitment and are frustrated by men not wanting that. This is the trad-con myth. Young women (under say about 30) are absolutely terrified of any long term commitment. A long term commitment would interfere with their education and establishing their career. They are dating only for fun. This means they want exciting bad boys that will give them a thrill ride of emotions. Surprisingly enough those bad boys are usually narcissistic jerks. The nice guy is noted and pushed to the side until they decide to settle down in their 30s. Meanwhile that guy should just sit patiently and wait. Any needs he has are immaterial. All that counts is what princess wants right now. These nice guys are not nice long because they see what being nice gets them. So, when the girl hits 30 and decides she is ready to settle down all there are around her are jerks; many of which she had a hand in creating.
The second erroneous premise is that men, as a whole, are benefiting from the wide open sexual meat market made by “loose” women. If only women could firm up their cartel and force those men to provide greater resources before giving up the sex then all would be right with the world again. Note the complete absence of any consideration for men’s wellbeing in any MSM articles or products. The truth is there are plenty of guys more than willing to provide those resources. Young women don’t want that, and run from that as fast as they can from any guy offering commitment. They don’t want to be trapped into a relationship. They want to find themselves, have fun, and get their own mojo working before they have to settle into dull routine life. Boy, being the dull boring life support for their reproductive plans is what every young man is dying to be. Also, inherent in that dull routine boring married life they have planned is that as soon as their reproductive goals are met they will ditch Steady Eddie for more of that BadBoy McRockbanddrummer. And they wonder why guys in their 30s are not tripping over themselves to sign up for this duty. So, the sex market is actually young girls wanting the few exciting bad boys and sexing them up to the max. All the young girls are trying for the top 20% or less of men that fit this category. If they can’t get that guy then they are satisfied to sit and watch the ones that can; still hoping for their turn on the ride. The other 80% of the guys are left with nothing. Eventually they start to look outside the highly distorted sex market in the west and decide their options are better elsewhere, or they just take their toys and go home deciding that that the game is not worth the candle. The result is a marriage market in the women’s 30s and 40s that are pretty devoid of men because they have all left the market. Gee, who would have thought that the other side of the transaction might have some say in the market?
Mike,
I don’t think you are looking at the data correctly. I think it is far worse than what you are saying because you having looked at enough data.
I think it is more that they settled for Steady Eddie, but never really loved him. They didn’t love him because he was short, ugly, fat, or they once loved him but he BECAME fat and now they no longer love him. Or worse, they never loved him but loved that he had earning power to give them the life style they felt they were entitled So settle (for now.)
Fast forward a few years (or say, 15 years in this case.) Since Steady Eddie provides the beta bux to support the children that she had, now she can become happy and divorce him for the tall, thin, good-looking alpha male (who may not make any money) and ride his BadBoyMcRockbanddrummer cock. Now she’s happy.
Really what I think we have here with this 15 year marraige of convenience is that she hasn’t found her tall, thin, good looking alpha f-ck yet that is willing to commit to her. She can’t understand why because maybe it happened for that Cougar girlfriend of hers.
Some reasons she can’t find the commitment she so richly deserves:
1. Guys her age are dating women who are younger than her. It’s easy to do as a man. No, that doesn’t mean they are dating 19 year olds, but it’s no big deal to date a 30 year old woman if you are a 40-45 year old man. I prefer younger to get more bang for my buck, so to speak. To be crass, why would I want to date or commit to a pre-menopausal woman and all that garbage when I can get a sweeter younger thing? No reason.
2. Guys in her age bracket are likely to have been divorced once by the whim of a woman, and having gone through the court system, paid the emotional and financial costs, they are not too eager to put themselves under the thumb again. Especially if they get at all clued in to a modicum of red pill info. And double dog dare especially when considering a woman who has broken one lifelong commitment and admits that her first marriage was for convenience. Nice.
3. Guys who she should be dating (if she’s 40-45) are 50-60 years old. She might not want to date guys in that age range thinking it’s beneath her. I have found in my midlife dating misadventures that many women operate under the premise that they are just as desirable as they were at 20. Nope.
4. Guys in her dating age range likely don’t want kids. So what’s the rush? What’s the point of marriage? If they do want to have kids, it ain’t with her. Her fertile days are long gone. Though I do often run into women who are way past their prime child bearing years who are now emphatic about wanting to have a baby. Too late says I. You missed that boat 15 years ago toots.
5. Guys in the age bracket she should be dating, well, frankly find better things to do with their time than put up with a woman who in the least bit plays games like she was still in college. I know that for me personally, I immediately nix or downgrade mentally any woman who even gives a whiff of gamesmanship. Of course, regular shit tests, girl crap, is all part of the game, but I’m talking about something a bit more substantial. To be honest I’d rather go fishing, to the shooting club or just about anything else. Especially once you get a bit older and realize how replaceable and unremarkable most women are. A woman in her 40’s who has any kind of entitlement attitude will not necessarily be without male company, if she’s cute, but she will likely be without commitment. Behave or be gone. AKA, your level of annoying should not exceed your level of hot.
6. She suffers from the problem that many women do from about age 16 onwards. The guys that would commit are not the guys she wants. The guys she does want are not the guys who want her. “Oh bother!” said Pooh.
7. She’s a slut and dudes know it. As mentioned above by another commenter, these ex-married broads ain’t none to shy about giving up the goods right quick. While that is certainly entertaining for me, it’s also an LTR red flag for any guy with common sense. Of course, we also know that when a woman considers a guy relationship material, she’ll make that guy wait in order to put out the good girl vibe. So really, eh, you can’t win for losing at this stage of the game.
8. We’re used people. Me included. Meaning, we’ve been through marriage, having kids, buying that first house, that big promotion, dealing with in-laws, divorce and there is this unavoidable trail of baggage dragging behind each of us. Sometimes you look at it and think – “No thanks.”
9. She’s got nothing on offer except a vagina, and thinks it’s her ticket to ride. (chuckle) Well, if you’re a middle age guy like me, the novelty has worn off. It’s kind of funny, in that we say that women have these big lists, but I find for myself and some of my friends we’ve developed lists. They are mostly behavioral. For example, none of my friends say they are looking for a woman who is a doctor. Or who drives a certain car, or whatever. A lot of them do know exactly what behavior they desire out of a woman, and a lot of it entails a sweet disposition supplemented by solid home skills such as cooking and cleaning. A woman who brags that she can’t cook would be like a man saying he doesn’t know how to mow the lawn or make money. There are an awful lot of women out there who can’t cook and who are proud.
10. Finally, I think a reason is the word has spread among American men and others around the world, that American women on balance make pretty awful wives. Sure, sure there are good ones, and always exceptions, and what not, but if you just kind of look at it at as a whole, it’s a fools game for most men in this country. So guys are being smart, playing for themselves. Reaping the benefits of all this sex positive feminism and laughing about it.
I don’t hate women, I’m not angry at them. I just can’t really come up with a big list of reasons these days, and at this age, as to why I’d stick my neck out for one and offer her the golden ticket of my commitment. Especially if it involved a legal contract with the state. (marriage) Maybe that will change one day. Hard to say for certain. But this is the way I see it right now.
“You are merely an alpha agent of righteous karma.”
@jf12
Reminds me of the xkcd comic ridiculing men who draw an obvious conclusion from that study: http://xkcd.com/1325/
@Beth: “For as long as I can remember, I have never been at a loss for male attention.”
The operative word in that sentence is “remember” – which is past tense… Women have a very short shelf life – and it’s obvious Beth is beyond her expiry date. Simple when you look at it properly isn’t it?
lzozozozoz
dis is an awesomeelyz epic videosz as it makes no mention of JEsus nor Moses nor Homer nor Shakespearez and only just providesz a lot of dalrockain charty goodness:
St. Boxerz teaches us dat Jesus, Moses, Homer, and Shakepsearez and Virgil and Dante never had anything to teach us of human relationshipz, nor da soul, nor da spirit, nor marriage, but dat only Freud and MArcuse ever spoke righteously about such subject matterzzlzozol.
game on, as game is surely our slavation, not da tenets of jesus nor moses nor homer nor da GBFM as jesus and moses nor homer ever presented any charty goodness nor scientific eocnomicz and thus had nothing credibile to say about relationshsipzi zlzlzoozozoz
lzlozoolzolzolzoz
@deti
Yes, the methodology isn’t the greatest.
Anyhow, two studies that shed light on the situation (ovulation-induced decisions are not really conscious, thus the truth behind “women don’t know what they want”):
Why do some women pursue relationships with men who are attractive, dominant, and charming but who do not want to be in relationships—the prototypical sexy cad? Previous research shows that women have an increased desire for such men when they are ovulating, but it is unclear why ovulating women would think it is wise to pursue men who may be unfaithful and could desert them. Using both college-age and community-based samples, in 3 studies we show that ovulating women perceive charismatic and physically attractive men, but not reliable and nice men, as more committed partners and more devoted future fathers. Ovulating women perceive that sexy cads would be good fathers to their own children but not to the children of other women. This ovulatory-induced perceptual shift is driven by women who experienced early onset of puberty. Taken together, the current research identifies a novel proximate reason why ovulating women pursue relationships with sexy cads, complementing existing research that identifies the ultimate, evolutionary reasons for this behavior.
Durante, Kristina M., et al. “Ovulation leads women to perceive sexy cads as good dads.” Journal of personality and social psychology 103.2 (2012): 292.
We examined whether or not different behavioral expressions of dominance by a male affected how introverted and extraverted women rated his sexual attractiveness. We assessed 81 women on the extraversion scale of the Eysenck Personality Questionnaire–Revised Short Scale (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991), and they then watched a 1-minute silent video of a male confederate in 3 dominance conditions (closed body posture [low], open body posture , and open body posture with gesticulation [high]) and rated the male for sexual attractiveness. Results showed that higher dominance behavior significantly increased the confederate’s attractiveness, accounting for 10% of the variance in attractiveness ratings. However, the women’s personalities appeared to have no significant effect on these ratings. These results are discussed in relation to extant literature on the phenomenon that women do not select “nice guys” in preference to other men.
Ahmetoglu, Gorkan, and Viren Swami. “Do Women Prefer Nice Guys? The Effect of Male Dominance Behavior on Women’s Ratings of Sexual Attractiveness.” Social Behavior and Personality: an international journal 40.4 (2012): 667-672.
“A post-wall woman, from a man’s perspective, is like a young (non-alpha) man with no job from a woman’s perspective, in a way.”
What exacerbates it is the wrong education most men and women get on this; and the conditioning they get over time that makes the counterproductive conduct even more difficult to shake.
Most young men aren’t alpha. They’re just ordinary guys. They don’t understand their SMVs are on a long gradual increase and will peak out around 38, then gradually decline.
Most young women’s SMVs skyrocket from age 17 and then peak out around 22 or 23, then gradually decline to around age 30 or 32; then fall off the cliff.
But, most young men aren’t taught about this. They go into young adulthood low value and believe they are always low value; so supplication and pedestalization is the way to go, even when you’re 42 and earning six figures and established in your career.
And most women aren’t taught either. So they go into young adulthood as rock stars and believe they’re rock stars even when they’re 42 and divorced, post Wall, with sags and stretch marks and wrinkles and “laugh lines” and gray hairs and vaginal dryness.
So what an eye opener it is when newly frivorced 42 year old Betaboy finds out how easy it is to pump and dump 35 year old women throwing themselves at him.
And what an eye opener it is when newly divorced 40 year old Cougar Mcusedtabehawt thinks she’ll be able to get another guy real easy. She still sees herself as a 22 year old hottie out there living it up. She doesn’t see she hit The Wall 8 years ago. She can’t see she’s not that hottie anymore. So she just doesn’t get why none of the guys want to commit to her. She can’t accept that she just doesn’t have much to offer; and there’s not much to distinguish her from the many, many other women out there just like her.
Sexual invisibility (other than for pump and dump).
Rejection from top men.
Frustration because she can’t figure out why this is happening. “Everyone tells me I’m so hot and I have so much to offer! Why is this happening to me!”
Having to settle for scraps and leftovers.
Compare this to what the average young man goes through.
Sexual invisibility (except for buying drinks/dinner/entertainment).
Rejection from most women (not just the hottest ones).
Frustration because he can’t figure out why this is happening. “Everyone tells me I have so much to offer and I’m such a great guy! Why is this happening!”
Having to settle for scraps and leftovers.
@Mikediver
It’s worth noting that the video is based on research done over the past 25 years, and can’t exactly be dismissed out of hand.
I’ll co-sign PT’s post above.
Let me add that the only reason I would marry again is because I found the ability to control my lust too much. So, I would marry the woman to stop sinning.
Well, what if (at 40+), I can already control my lust? TOUGH at 20,30, or so. Not nearly as tough at 40,50. You feel the urge, but not like a rutting buck.
What happens is that you become less and less interested in what women fill their lives with. You no longer patiently sit through mindless recitations about office politics or how awful a (girl) friend is acting.
I still have a lot I want to accomplish. I need a helper. I’m not shutting women off, but I stopped pursuing on any active scale.
Frivorce, red pill, and reborn.
Talk about inoculation against AW.
Flip:
“That economics of sex video doesn’t go into why women leave marriages after they’ve achieved their goal.”
This article on investing might give you some food for thought (though I’m certain you won’t like what you read, I’m just telling you “how it is”):
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-business/9690599/Boys-will-be-boys-Why-women-make-better-traders-than-men.html
If you think about marriage in terms of investing in the stock market, you can see a direct parallel that applies here. Men’s and women’s economic behavior differs greatly. The investment strategy, the intended goal, the perceived value, and the level of risk they are willing to accept are worlds apart. Mountains of studies in the social sciences support this economic theory.
If you apply this theory to marriage, women are more cautious, and much quicker to admit defeat, making them more likely overall give up on a losing bet. Men stay in untenable marriages because men are, in almost every arena of life, more tenacious than women are. Marriages were less likely to be disposed of before women started thinking of them like a losing asset, rather than the foundation of their entire life.
The problem I have with the manosphere’s “feminine imperative” theory is the constant complaining about the “feminization” of everything. The problem isn’t feminization, it is that men WANT women to be feminine in the feminine realm, but women are now feeling much more comfortable with approaching the most feminine aspects of life with a masculine view, and it isn’t working for men at all, because men aren’t receiving the nurturing from women that they don’t get in the masculine world. Things were so much easier for you when men and women were separated. And maybe its not working for women either, though I’m going to have to contemplate that a bit more before postulating a theory about that.
Anyway, just a theory up for discussion! 🙂
MarcusD, here is a popsci article that points to a 2007 study on some interesting changes that occur within the female brain during the monthly hormonal cycle:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070210185849.htm
Excerpt:
Result: when men anticipate rewards, they mainly activate a region involved in motivation for obtaining rewards, the ventral striatum, whereas in women, it is a region dealing with emotions, the amygdalo-hippocampal region, which is the most highly activated.
MarcusD, also note this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3033889/
We used MR-volumetry to investigate short-term brain volume changes across the menstrual cycle in women or a parallel 4 week period in men, respectively. We found a significant grey matter volume peak and CSF loss at the time of ovulation in females. This volume peak did not correlate with estradiol or progesterone hormone levels. Men did not show any significant brain volume alterations.
Conclusions/Significance
These data give evidence of short-term hormone-dependent structural brain changes during the menstrual cycle, which need to be correlated with functional states and have to be considered in structure-associated functional brain research.
As a guy, I am not ashamed to say that I am one of the growing numbers of single or divorced males who have a dislike for the notion of marriage and kids. Children gives you a form of immortality? That is just bullshit! Whether you are married with 100 kids or single with 0 kids, you will still be dead someday, fertilizing your plot of burial dirt. Marriage and children are an emotional, legal and financial mine field just waiting to explode into your face. I don’t want a face full of baggage shrapnel. I really dislike drama. An increasing number of men and women are choosing not to hook up and breed, just sleep around for “tension reduction”.
The trad-con’s problem is that he thinks the sexual marketplace is still basically what it was when he was growing up in the 1970s and ’80s. It’s not. Yes, there was a time, post-sexual revolution, when girls had started putting out a lot more but they still wanted to get married, so they used sex to get to marriage. They were getting the cart before the horse, but they still wanted both cart and horse, so to speak.
Nowadays, as you say, they really don’t want to get married in their 20s — at least not realistically. She might have a fantasy about being swept up by a millionaire doctor/lawyer who looks like Brad Pitt and can lift her with one hand — sure, she’d marry that guy! — but as a practical matter she doesn’t want to marry any of the guys she meets, even the ones she really likes, because she’s afraid to close out her options.
Trad-cons have no clue about that, so they keep acting as though girls want marriage and have to be talked out of it. That leaves them taking exactly the wrong action in many cases, like encouraging girls to delay marriage to get a degree first.
Cail Corishev
The trad-con’s problem is that he thinks the sexual marketplace is still basically what it was when he was growing up in the 1970s and ’80s. It’s not. Yes, there was a time, post-sexual revolution, when girls had started putting out a lot more but they still wanted to get married, so they used sex to get to marriage. They were getting the cart before the horse, but they still wanted both cart and horse, so to speak.
There’s a dirty little secret lurking in the background, too. In more than a few of the oh-so-traditional upper middle aged marriages of 2014, a good crystal ball would reveal back in the 1980’s a whole lot of hot monkey-sex before the wedding, sometimes for a couple of years before the wedding. It just happened, as Cail notes, that in those cases the couple married. So there is an unconscious premise in the mind of these people that, well, yeah, it’s not a good idea (the word in the Bible is “fornicate”, is it not?), but really it’s just some wild oats, it’s just some women getting “experiences”, it can’t really be a problem. Can it?
False premise -> no meaningful conclusion. An argument based on a false premise is not even wrong…
That’s the problem.
livingtree2013,
Emphasis mine.
No. You didn’t take it far enough yet.
Largely, the manosphere doesn’t care if feminist women want to remain feminst women and want to contnue to behave in a feminst way. The manosphere only starts to “complain” about the feminist woman complaining that she can’t find any good men, while at the same time, rejecting the fact that it is her feminism that prevents men from being attracted to her.
That is what we have here in this case.
Feminist women made their bed with feminism. Now, they must lie in it. They can’t have it both ways. Professionally, men must continue to associate with feminists (to some degree.) However, if men collectively and rationally choose to NOT associate with feminist women in their personal lives (as is the case here) women aren’t allowed to bitch that men have freely chosen not to be a part of them.
Alas, when feminism does become part of our personal lives…..
….men in the manosphere do not want their WIVES to be feminized. That I will grant you. We don’t because we are already ALL-IN with our wives. We are committed. We’ve pushed all our life’s poker chips into the center of the table with her in marriage. We don’t want her to go and CHANGE THE RULES OF LIFE (and thus change the outcome of the poker hand) after we’ve pushed in our chips. That is deceit livingtree2013. We are men. We NEED women. We need them, but (in our personal lives, for our emotional vulnerablility) we need a wife to fulfill those needs. Feminism means that she will be incapable of fulfilling them. If she doesn’t fulfill them, then we wont marry her. If she does (or did) fulfill, and then changes her mind after we married her, then that is a big problem and why men are trying to give women red pills.
Cail Corishev
Trad-cons have no clue about that, so they keep acting as though girls want marriage and have to be talked out of it. That leaves them taking exactly the wrong action in many cases, like encouraging girls to delay marriage to get a degree first.
Dalrock has rightly labeled this the “Feminist Merit Badge” approach. In the last year I have met two or three 20-something couples who married while in college, in two cases the woman was 20 years old at the time of her wedding. Both those women without prompting related pretty much the same tale: “I wanted to get married, and my relatives tried to talk me out of it, saying I was too young, but my grandmother married even younger.”
I asked each one of them if they felt “countercultural” doing this, and got an enthusiastic “Yes! Yes, it was like I was doing something weird, as far as my relatives were concerned”.
So it is countercultural for a woman to marry before 25, for her to collect her “experiences” with one man she’s married to rather than a serially-polyandrous string of men. Something for those who are churchgoing to bear in mind – at the very least, young married women such as these should be encouraged and supported, seems to me.
@robert yates, that should be the “blue-pill economics of sex”. I especially liked the picture of the woman draped over the basement dwelling gamer as if to say that all males are equal, even the guy coming to the realization that his money is better spent on “Call of Duty” then in pursuing women. I got a sense that they missed a big item in that video and that is the 80/20 principle anyone with eyes can observe. Guys wanting to get married at 20 don’t have a line of girls as suggested, guys that have a line of girls generally don’t want to get married. Funny how that works.
@AR
Thanks for the links – I’ll be taking a closer look.
Cail,
No Cail. You really can’t say that because you are not a trad-con.
I AM a trad-con. And I know why trad-cons think they way they do about young girls (under 25) not getting married and why we (to a lesser extent) don’t have a problem with it and why you Cail DO have a problem with it. What it basically boils down to is this…
Trad-cons aren’t as concerned about the virginity or non-virginity of girls/women prior to their marriage.
That is basically it. Trad-cons males are not afraid/intimidated of their future wives having sexual experiences before them. That doesn’t bother them. And they can’t seem to understand why it would bother ANY men. It is not about any sexual marketplace bullsh-t. That means absolutely nothing to a trad-con.
The way the trad-con looks at marriage is simply this: I win. She married me. It doesn’t matter how many cocks she rode BEFORE she married me, I win. Now, mine will be the only cock she gets to ride.
After marriage, trad-cons are great allies to men int he manosphere. Yes they are. Trad-cons are against no-fault-divorce, against abortion, prefer wives that are NOT feminist, the whole works. They are just not going to get all pissy about girls waiting a few years before they get married because they don’t insist on being the one to break the hymen (the way so many men at Dalrock’s do/did.)
“I win. She married me. It doesn’t matter how many cocks she rode BEFORE she married me, I win. Now, mine will be the only cock she gets to ride.”
IBB, I can’t tell if you’re being obtuse or deliberately provocative, or both.
A few small problems with that.
1. You didn’t win. She did. She got to ride all the cocks she wanted and settled for you. She now owns half your property, even if she divorces you tomorrow.
2. It DOES matter how many cocks she rode before she married you. There’s a direct relationship between premarital N and divorce odds; and thus your marital happiness.
3. Sure she’s supposed to ride only your cock now. But that won’t stop her from thinking about, dreaming about, fantasizing about, and remembering wistfully all the cock she rode before you. It will also not stop her from comparing your cock to all the ones before. So she rides only your cock now. Question: How happy is she about that?
4. And none of this will stop her from going out and sampling more cock, without you knowing about it. Or simply divorcing you should she no longer be satisfied with your cock, the body it’s attached to; or the money that body generates.
Livingtree is the resident feminist at Rational Male, who has now found her way to Dalrocks blog. Just be warned.
Right. Boys are told that their attractiveness declines with age as their hairline recedes, they gain a bit of a paunch, they can’t go all night like they used to, etc. They’re taught that they’ll need to increase their wealth steadily just to stay level. On the other hand, girls are taught that they’ll just keep getting better and better, that education and life experience will make them steadily more attractive, that they won’t hit their sexual peak (as if that has much to do with attractiveness) until 40 or so. And they’re given as role models 40-year-old actresses who look 25 to prove it.
Then they push the cougar/boy-toy concept as if a 40-year-old woman and a 20-year-old man are both at their peak and thus highly compatible. It’s exactly backwards.
“I win. She married me. It doesn’t matter how many cocks she rode BEFORE she married me, I win. Now, mine will be the only cock she gets to ride.”
So, reformed prostitutes and former porn starlets are not to be dismissed out of hand? If the N is irrelevant does any aspect of how N was achieved matter? Or do we as men simply forgive by default because the inferior sex has neither self control nor agency?
I don’t believe you. I don’t know whether you’re lying to us, or lying to yourself because you have to. I do believe there are guys out there who don’t care about the previous experience of the women they have sex with, but I don’t believe those men marry those women. The idea of marrying a woman and making her yours is just incompatible with the idea that it doesn’t matter how many other men had her first.
You’re the one who keeps harping about virginity, more than the rest of us. If I marry again, it will very likely not be to a virgin. I can live with that, if the portents look right otherwise. That doesn’t mean I’m going to lie to myself and claim it doesn’t matter. It does matter, and it will have consequences that will have to be dealt with, even if one doesn’t make it a deal-breaker.
Deti:
I think he’s being sincere, only because I have heard this (almost verbatim, it’s like these guys who marry reformed sluts have a script) from more married dudes than I can count.
I wish IBB (and all these other guys who parrot this) luck. I certainly don’t wish them any ill. I just notice obvious patterns in their defensive tactics.
Best, Boxer
Trad-Con = the other Feminism. Trad-cons are the enemy of the manosphere and men in general. They put the women up on the pedestals and white knight to defend them while they fling their poo at all the men they see as being beneath them; which is almost all men.
IBB,
Your opinion on value of the virginity or non-virginity of brides is out of date. Lots of research has been done in the past 10 to 20 years proving the effects of high notch count on a woman’s ability to bond to a mate and to her propensity to divorce. This is simple survival knowledge not some breast beating gorilla macho posturing. Both you and I are long out of the trenches of the sexual market place. I have observed my sons while you have observed your daughters. I have daughters too (one just got married at age 29), but I see the plight of my sons much more than my daughters. I struggled to get them through school while the girls slid through without a hitch. The system is strongly rigged against our sons. The current sexual marketplace is also rigged against our young men.
MarcusD,
Your point just proves that much of the “research” done over the past 25 years is so biased in its conception as to be totally worthless. I have done research and I have looked into the methodology of many of these studies and found incredible bias to the point that I find it not credible that the bias is inadvertent.
…mysterious forces at work:
I hear the lord moves in mysterious ways too…
and that as I have faith and with my free I believe :
God is allowing this feminization of his church
as a way of perfecting his church…
the “burning away of the chaff”.
In ‘good faith’ I foretell, just as a faithful child of God prophesied to me; “God in doing this is perfecting his church. And burning away the chaff. We shall learn of the results in years to come as such churches that fall to this influence is destroyed.”
so….
Christian logic : [churches that fail / bad] – [churches that survive / good]
Feminist logic : [man/bad] – [woman/good]
hmmmm….
“For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?” (1Pe 4:17-18)
In ‘good faith’ I further foretell; the sinners will appear where they always have – as defined by the righteous and faithful believers in the surviving churches of God, just as they are now.
I believe IBB is sincere.
Deluded (as I was, when I was trad-con, pre-frivorce), but sincere.
My ex played all the right notes before the big day. 18 months was a long time to keep up the act, but she found the strength and got her reward.
Then, I learned she aborted a baby at 18…to stay in college (Jesuit college, no less).
Then her N count story got a wee bit inconsistent.
Then, about the time out last born reached 4, the legs snapped shut and the ultimatums began.
I did the churchman thing.
It bought me a few years.
In that time, she poisoned the mind of my oldest and got my child to file a false abuse charge against me. He recanted a month later. The system never accepts recants because it puts the whole system’s legitimacy in peril.
So, yeah, he’s sincere. Deluded, but sincere.
@MarcusD, Durante et al knock it out of the park: women’s brains fool the women into believing cads are dads!
Deti,
Your response was excellent. My points on your points.
The problem here is not all the cocks she rode. The problem is no-fault-divorce. You WIN if (and only if) they get rid of no-fault-divorce. That is why trad-cons want no-fault-divoce to go away because it doesn’t matter that she has half. She can take 100% so long as she stays married.
My wife has 100%. I don’t care, we are married. So I get the whole 100% as well.
This ties in with number one. The problem is not her N. The problem is “no-fault-divorce.” The fact that her N is 1 or 101 is irrelevant without “no-fault-divorce” since the divorce odds drop to ZERO without “no-fault-divorce.” The problem the manosphere has on this one is with man’s law, NOT with trad-cons. 🙂
So what? Doesn’t matter. Happiness or lack thereof, should not be a reson for divorce. There are millions and millions or unhappily married people who wistfully remember how happy they were when they were single f-cking all sorts of different people. That is both men and women. So? As long as your happiness is not a valid reason for an “at-fault” divorce (and it isn’t and never was) then this is not a problem. Once again, this is just cowardace and a lack of self-esteem on the part of the male that he wasn’t the one to break the hymen and man’s law regarding “no-fault-divorce.”
Change the law. Don’t try and change trad-cons.
So? She could have been a virgin when you married her and STILL wants to sample more cock. 7 year itch deti? But if she does that now the man HAS a “at-fault” divorce claim and there may be some Biblical reason for it. She does NOT have an “at-fault” divorce claim because she wants a different cock in her gina because yours just doesn’t do it for her. SHe needs a “no-fault-divorce” to make that happen.
Change the law. Don’t try and change trad-cons.
All of your problems here stem from no-fault-divorce NOT with a conflict with trad-cons, all of them. And all of these problems exist even with a man marrying marrying a virgin. Yes they do. She can still do all of that so long as that no-fault-divorce law exists. Basically, the manosphere’s secular argument for men marrying only young virgin girls goes something like this…
Good. No one but me ever f-cked her. I broke the hymen. In her mind my cock will ALWAYS be the best because she will have NO MEMORIES of any cock larger than mine to compare me to, so now she can better pair bond. Now she wont divorce me.
Fat chance guys. Even the virgin girl prior to marriage still has TREATPOINT. She can still “no-fault-divorce” you, and that does happen. As long as “no-fault-divorce” exists, there can be NO marriage 1.0. Can’t happen. You must remove that law first before you get marriage 1.0 back, it is that simple.
Your problems guys is not with trad-cons. It is with no-fault-divorce. You picked the wrong enemy.
@AR Re: “Result: when men anticipate rewards, they mainly activate a region involved in motivation for obtaining rewards, the ventral striatum, whereas in women, it is a region dealing with emotions, the amygdalo-hippocampal region, which is the most highly activated.” from which I abduce that what activate women’s reward center is when they anticipate emotions …
Women’s brains are just part of the conspiracy. It is the trad-con myth that women need to be tricked by cads. The first rule of military deception is that you need to find out what the enemy believes and then feed them information that confirms it. You can’t make someone believe something they don’t want to believe, but it is easy to make someone believe something that is unture if it is what they want to believe. The women are falling for cads because they want to. Any device necessary to make that happen is used and abused by women. Men use logic to solve problems and come to conclusions. Women come to conclusions and then use logic (kind of) to justify them (the almighty rationalisation hamster).
“I win. She married me. It doesn’t matter how many cocks she rode BEFORE she married me, I win. Now, mine will be the only cock she gets to ride.”
So all trad-cons are reverse Captain Kirks (men who timidly go where every man has gone before)?
Somehow I don’t quite buy that trad-cons have transcended 40 million years of evolution. There is a biological reason men prefer virginal wives to town bicycles — certainty of paternity being only one of them. Not being regarded as a pushover chump by the rest of his clan is another…
@ Deti, ever see the guys who bought an AMC Pacer trying to convince you and himself that he bought the best car on the market, that it was a great deal and how he is proud as a peacock over it’s bug eyed looks?
Look it even has the sport package paint job.
Or more like.
Lines only a schlub could bring himself to love.
Hawk,
Not an issue anymore with DNA testing. Boy that kids looks nothing like me, blood test time.
More to the point, even if she was virgin when you married her, she can still cuckold you with another man’s semen after the wedding day. SO marrying a virgin doesn’t stop this.
Clan? What “clan” is this? Is these some “clan” that gives a guy a hard time because he married the town pump? I’ve never heard of this “clan” nor was I (or anyone that I know) ever a part of it.
Re: Durante et al 2012. “in 3 studies we show that ovulating women perceive charismatic and
physically attractive men, but not reliable and nice men, as more committed partners and more devoted future fathers.”
Dalrock has emphasized this point before: women literally deceive themselves that the bad boys are The Truly Nice Guys and that nice guys are bad down deep where it’s hard to tell. And remember the halo effect: women deceive themselves that good-looking men are smarter and more moral etc. But the Durante paper drove it home for me; this is the reason that all attempts have failed and will forever fail to convince women about the men they ought to prefer: women’s brains deceive the women to misapply the “ought to” to the men they already prefer. “He IS a nice guy, he only hits me when I need it. He IS a hard-working guy, he’s just taking a long vacation these months. He IS a smart man, those IQ tests were misinterpreted. He IS a moral guy, he wouldn’t have shot that police officer if he could have avoided it.”
@livingtree2013
If you look at the study the author of the Telegraph piece cites, it doesn’t find that women are better investors for the reasons claimed. What the study found is that active trading consistently reduces returns*, and that men trade more actively than women. Both men and women in the study reduced their returns by trying to beat the market, but men tried harder and therefore paid a higher penalty (2.65% vs 1.72%). This isn’t about some mystical wisdom of women, it is a case where being risk averse (counter-intuitively) brings higher returns.
In summation:
1) Active trading is foolish, as it both increases risk and reduces returns.
2) Men who actively trade are more active in their active trading than women who actively trade.
3) Women make better active traders than men do.
The irony being that the smart money stops at item #1, but the author of the article made her bones as an active trader, so what really gets her juices flowing is item #3.
*See also: http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/index.php
IBB, I’ll bite. Even though I don’t go in for evolutionary psyche arguments why would the development of a modern day DNA test change the wiring my brain has inherited from hundreds of generations of successful fathers?
@livingtree2013 Re: “women are now feeling much more comfortable with approaching the most feminine aspects of life with a masculine view” apex fallacy masculine usually, because AWALT in in their apex fallacy. For example Beth, of our topic, seems confused that no matter how many men she chooses to date, she only chooses men who like to date a woman with many men. For some reason.
Re: trader article. Money quote “He told me that the less you do, the more likely you are as a trader to do well for a bunch of reasons.” Laziness as a virtue is even sillier than greed as a virtue.
Team IBB’s wrote:
I AM a trad-con. And I know why trad-cons think they way they do about young girls (under 25) not getting married and why we (to a lesser extent) don’t have a problem with it and why you Cail DO have a problem with it. What it basically boils down to is this…
Deti, I must disagree with you, IBB is indeed showing the preference for feminist merit badges that we saw a couple of years back in the Darwin Catholic team. By modern standards, IBB is indeed a “tradcon”. And this merely reinforces what I have observed before: “conservatism” is just liberalism + 20 to 25 years. The tradcon of today was involved in premarital sex in the 80’s, to the displeasure of their parents…and thus it becomes normalized. So now, a series of “boyfriends” for women in their 20’s is accepted by the tradcon, despite the known long-term damage (see below).
IBB’s hamster then got out on the loose:
Trad-cons aren’t as concerned about the virginity or non-virginity of girls/women prior to their marriage.
This merely demonstrates how the Traditionalists so deeply beta-ize their young men (and in turn it explains why Joseph of Jackson got in trouble in his previous church), and how deeply feminism has soaked into the churches. This is the “traditionalism” of 1970’s – 1980’s era feminism, it’s as “traditional” as any random estrogen-soaked comment thread on HUS.
IBB’s hamster continues:
That is basically it. Trad-cons males are not afraid/intimidated of their future wives having sexual experiences before them. That doesn’t bother them. And they can’t seem to understand why it would bother ANY men. It is not about any sexual marketplace bullsh-t. That means absolutely nothing to a trad-con.
Again, this demonstrates how pussy-whipped so many tradcons are, and how much feminism has become the norm within “traditionalist” thinking. Because this the mindset a man has in a matriarchy, where he tolerates being the “beta bux” half of the AF-BB pair.
A couple of paragraphs back I referred to damage in women due to promiscuity. In reality-world, as opposed to the girl-world IBB soaks in, the General Survey numbers (as analyzed by Slumlord/Social Pathologist) show clearly that the more different cocks she’s ridden prior to marriage, the greater the probability of divorce within the first 5 to 10 years of marriage.
Science, as Heartiste would write (although I do not have the little heart emoticons). So now tradcons like IBB must not only deny real traditional wisdom but their demigod Science as well – what’s left? Well, “It Makes The Girls Happy” pretty much and really nothing more. Team IBB claims on the one hand to oppose divorce and abortion, and on the other hand supports the serial polyandry for women in their 20’s that pretty much guarantees both.
IBB’s not very good at cause and effect…but, then, many self-labeled tradcons aren’t. That’s worth contemplating.
Team IBB demonstrates the Female Imperative is deeply embedded into tradcon emoting in a way that is clear and obvious.
@jf12
It is very strange, yet well documented academically in the field of finance. It is one of those things where everyone agrees that on average trying to beat the market (index) is a fool’s errand, but they also believe that they are the exception to the rule.
The beautiful thing is if you are someone who makes their living selling investment services and/or managed funds, you can use that very study to tell women they are smarter investors than men, which of course is why you know they will be smart enough to do business with you…
Dalrock
It is very strange, yet well documented academically in the field of finance. It is one of those things where everyone agrees that on average trying to beat the market (index) is a fool’s errand, but they also believe that they are the exception to the rule.
“It’s Different When I Do It” appears to be a near-universal form of human rationalization…
Gil,
It doesn’t.
Your brain is wired in whatever way it is wired. But the wiring here…
…is rooted in fear/cowardace (afraid your penis will be less than HIS penis and she will LEAVE YOU for HIS penis), immaturity and a lack of self-esteem (on your part), and pride. You have three supremely negative emotions/qualities (about you, the worst of which is PRIDE) colliding together at the exact moment to value something (in her) that trad-cons largely do not value. Basically, we are beyond you. And you are behind us.
I mean do whatever you want Bil, seriously. You know what makes you happy. And if marrying a non-virgin makes you sad, then don’t marry her. I don’t care, I want you to be happy. I want everyone at Dalrock’s to be happy. So go with your wiring. But not all men’s brains are wired that way even after we ate the red pill and learned to hate feminism.
Perhaps there are many different kinds of red pills? Perhaps the red pill does not affect the wiring of a brain?
@AR ““It’s Different When I Do It” appears to be a near-universal form of human rationalization”
How can we individually get women to thinking “It’s different when HE does it?”
“Clan? What “clan” is this? Is these some “clan” that gives a guy a hard time because he married the town pump? I’ve never heard of this “clan” nor was I (or anyone that I know) ever a part of it.”
Definitely being intentionally obtuse but I’ll play along…
“Clan” as used here refers to one’s immediate social/cultural group consisting of close and distant relatives and some of no relation — think tribe.
Most groups consisting of real flesh and blood humans having normal brains which are the product of millions of years of evolution would naturally look askance at ‘nice’ boy who wanted to wife up a notorious slut.
Your superior trad-con clan, on the other hand, would praise a man who married the town pump as a heroic manly man who refused to be “scared” or “intimidated” or “threatened” by his wife’s extensive sexual exploits with many, many other men. A “winner”! Ahahahaha
Got it. Next, tell me about how men’s preference for physically fit women over greasy fatties is nothing but a social construct of the corporate patriarchy.
@IBB
This has to be the most eloquent rendition of man up and marry those sluts that I’ve ever read. Marrying a slut is a sign of courage, while marrying a virgin is a sign of cowardice, not to mention a likely indicator that one has a small penis.
I give it a 9 out of 10, and only a 9 because there is no 10.
Team IBB responds to a man who desires a virgin bride:
…is rooted in fear/cowardace (afraid your penis will be less than HIS penis and she will LEAVE YOU for HIS penis), immaturity and a lack of self-esteem (on your part), and pride. You have three supremely negative emotions/qualities (about you, the worst of which is PRIDE) colliding together at the exact moment to value something (in her) that trad-cons largely do not value. Basically, we are beyond you. And you are behind us.
Note the femnist shaming language clearly produced by the rationalization hamster of the female half of Team IBB. So far as I can tell, the only thing that really arouses fury in the heart of IBB’s hamster is any whiff or suggestion of limiting young women’s access to Alpha cock.
Nothing else matters, in girlworld. It is interesting to me that none of the usual oh-so-traditional suspects have shown up to challenge IBB’s hamster. Silience is not assent, it is true, but it is not necessarily dissent, either.
In any event, once again IBB shows her/their clear fealty to the Female Imperative: AF-BB now, AF-BB tomorrow, AF-BB forever is IBB’s motto.
jf12
@AR ““It’s Different When I Do It” appears to be a near-universal form of human rationalization”
How can we individually get women to thinking “It’s different when HE does it?”
In concept that is easy: a woman who is on “Team Her Man” will think that way.
So all we gotta do is…
IBB, you’ve gone full retard. Sex outside of marriage is extremely damaging to women (and their future partners), regardless of how you’d like to rationalize away sluttiness. You sound utterly pathetic, like a man with no balls left. It’s sad how far you’ve slid into cheering on fornication.
The video ‘The Economics of Sex’ claims it is men who are delaying marriage/commitment, raising the age of first marriage higher and higher; as if there are all these young, nubile women out there seeking commitment from men who won’t give it to them; as if young men have higher SMV than their young women counterparts, and therefore have an ocean of choice. A precise reversal of the actual situation as detailed by Rollo, and expanded upon by Dalrock et al. I found the video to be rather feminist-oriented; surprise, surprise!
Hawk,
Okay so is that ALL OF US (to each other) on Dalrock’s blog? If so, you think anyone here ever giving me a hard time about anything would have any impact what-so-ever on my life?
No chance.
Welp, trad-cons love marriage. I hate MGTOW. I understand it, but I hate it. I’m not going to shame men for GTOW because I understand why they do it (because all marriage today is marriage 2.0). MGTOW are just men responding to the dis-incentives of marriage because of no-fault-divorce. So I don’t blame them. But I still love marriage.
I love marriage because I love stability. And I love civilized society. And I am a Christian. You really can’t have a stable civilized society without marriage. Not really. Remove marriage (or try to change it in anyway) and you rip apart the fabrics that hold together a stable, civilized society (which is what is happening today in the United States.) No-fault-divorce and same-sex-marraige have done more damage to the United States than the Soviet Union ever could have in 1000 years becaue those two things have perminantly desacrated marriage. And because I am Christian I believe that God wants me to have children and the best way for me to fulfill what God wants of me is through marriage. So, I try to be the best Christian I can.
So neither I (nor any one in my “trad-con clan”) are going to shame/belittle/tease any guy for marrying a slut. Because…. we like marriage.
No sir.
My superior trad-con clan praises men who get married. Period. We don’t pick and choose who we praise by the virtue of the woman who has become a man’s wife. We praise men who marry.
If a guy doesn’t want to marry a slut, I don’t care. I am not going to SHAME HIM for choosing NOT to marry or slut OR a virgin. I would only PRAISE HIM for marrying (slut or virgin.) And as far as I’m concerned I give much more PRAISE to men than women because I am of the opinion that marriage 2.0 is far more risky/dangerous to men than it is to women. I believe that because I have eaten so many red pills. So that man in question is taking a much bigger risk (every single time a man married) regardless of his wife’s virtue (or lack thereof.)
IBB’s hamsterbated:
Welp, trad-cons love marriage. I hate MGTOW. I understand it, but I hate it. I’m not going to shame men for GTOW because I understand why they do it (because all marriage today is marriage 2.0). MGTOW are just men responding to the dis-incentives of marriage because of no-fault-divorce. So I don’t blame them. But I still love marriage.
You’ve already screeched MAN UP AND MARRY THE SLUTS one time today, isn’t that sufficient?
Dalrock,
No.
For men marrying is a sign of courage. It is a sign of courage no matter her virtue.
“Your brain is wired in whatever way it is wired. But the wiring here…
I am only willing to marry what no man has f-cked before…
…is rooted in fear/cowardace (afraid your penis will be less than HIS penis and she will LEAVE YOU for HIS penis), immaturity and a lack of self-esteem (on your part), and pride.”
Nope. It’s rooted in the physical reality that a woman who has had sex with many different men previous to you: (1) has potentially been exposed to diseases which could render her infertile or any of your future offspring diseased; (2) will potentially be significantly less likely to pair bond with you and any offspring; (3) is potentially mentally deficient (lacking good judgement and/or easily duped and controlled) — all of which make her a very bad risk for successfully propagating your genes.
Intrepid trad-cons are apparently the new man — far ahead of the mere mortals who still reside in the physical-temporal world. Tell me more.
Stupidity is not a virtue. Rewarding unrepentant sluttiness and illegitimacy is not a virtue. Though I still don’t think IBB is a woman unless it has a whale’s vagina. The whole “you’ll never appreciate a smaller penis” tirade sounds like an ignorant man.
Sincere, but deluded.
@ IBB:
And I am a Christian.
Really? I never would’ve thought it. You seem so blase about fornication. Not that you believe that it can be forgiven, because any Christian knows that it can. But you seem to actively cheerlead for it on numerous threads.
Are you one of those Unitarians, or one of the few American Anglicans who thinks that love is all you need to validate sexual activity? Your comment baffles me.
Marissa,
We have no-fault-divorce. Threatpoint is reality (whether she was virgin or not on her wedding day.) Given those facts (and they are facts) is it smart or stupid for a man to marry AT ALL? Because all marriage is (in a way) marriage 2.0, is it smart for any man to be a part of that?
Think about that. Because people do a lot of stupid things.
As far as tirades go, yours telling me I had gone full-retard is the only real “tirade” here. And we both know you are not ignorant.
Elspeth,
And forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us….
To forgive is Divine, is it not? Isn’t that Christian? You tell me Elspeth.
Dalrock, I’M not the one that made the headline up for that trading behavior article, believe me. I had a bit of a laugh when I saw that. All I meant is that men and women have different behavioral patterns as far as risk and perseverance go, and nowhere is it more evident, and metaphorical, than in the realm of investment. Take that how you wish, but it was intended to respond to Flip’s question about why women are more likely to cash out early than men are. Its a risk-reward behavior that is innately different between the sexes. The prevalence of women divorcing men more often is because men are more tenacious, and less willing to admit to failure.
Is this a genetic predisposition, or a socialized attitude? I don’t know, and I don’t really care, I’m just saying that it is, and that the theory explains quite a lot about inter-gender dynamics, about a lot of things actually. I prefer it over the evo-psych theory, personally.
@AR 3:18 pm “So all we gotta do is…” Don’t leave me hangin, man! I can only bate my breath for so long.
Marissa,
I forgive you.
I don’t know about anyone else here but I’m becoming more and more convinced that IBB is a woman.
IBB, perhaps the red pill only succeeds in getting you out of the matrix. It doesn’t mean you all land in the same SELF-DEFINED reality when you get out of it. The red-pill dominion goes haywire when it starts pushing an agenda that there is only one right way to think, which is “the opposite of feminism.” Or whatever.
And forgive us our tresspasses, as we forgive those who tresspass against us….
To forgive is Divine, is it not? Isn’t that Christian? You tell me Elspeth.
That’s not going to work, IBB. I am on the record saying that fornication can be forgiven. I’m thankful for it too.
But that’s a wholly different issue from you saying that women should be free to have sexual experiences with other men before marriage, and you’ve said it on numerous occasions that I recall.
Don’t try to make this about Christian forgiveness.
jf12
@AR 3:18 pm “So all we gotta do is…” Don’t leave me hangin, man! I can only bate my breath for so long.
Eh? I explained it in the previous line, on “Team Her Man”. Ok, I’ll be more explicit: Move a woman out of “Team Woman”, and into “Team Her Man”, and she’s much more likely to opine “It’s Different When He Does It”.
“All you gotta do is…” is a figure of speech, on the order of “Well, all you gotta do is reverse entropy…”.
IBB, I don’t need to be forgiven for calling out your stupidity at cheering on fornication. That’s devilish in the extreme and ignores the severe physical and psychological devastation of this sin.
I know you are clearly ignorant of basic female anatomy too. No one here was calling me ignorant; I called you ignorant of the basic fact that most women are not physically “ruined” by the actual size of her sexual partners. That’s absurd considering how the vagina works. What IS ruined is the ability to bond. One can forgive a woman for those sins; one can’t change how it affects her as a wife and mother.
Similarly, I can forgive you for avoiding the very negative aspects of fornication, but I’ll never allow you around my children or consider you a good teacher of sexual values.
I will throw you a bone IBB because I do know a woman who was a virgin bride and later left her husband.
But I still say you should be ashamed of championing the idea that women should sample penises before they settle down. Yeah, you’ve said that right here at Dalrock’s if my memory serves.
Men with small penises.
Scared of a challenging marriage.
“I forgive you.”
Full on “shame” mode today.
If not a woman, a man who really feels the pressure of reality and reacts fearfully.
livingtree,
Pure hooey.
The prevalence of women divorcing men more often is because they can. They are allowed to do so and are rewarded with cash and prizes. Happines is all that is important, not putting the marriage first.
@innocentbystanderboston
Semantic analysis of your previous two posts puts you solidly into “female feminist” territory.
The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types — the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution. — G. K. Chesterton
Anchorman, that’s almost haiku. Let me work on it.
“Men with small penes,
Fearful of the strong bride,
Forgiveness is a virtue,
But marrying the sluts is better”
Well, ok, maybe it needs more work…
deti, that’s old news already. Run any comment that is more than a paragraph long by IBB through a genderanalyzer, and it always comes out 60%+ chance that it’s a woman writing.
Jf12, agreed. I went through a dilemma much like Beth’s myself when I was young and stupid. I got hit on weekly by married men, and most of the non-married men in my dating circle were, um, undesirable mate choices. I questioned them, their motives, their upbringing, I questioned myself, my mental health, and eventually stopped dating altogether because regardless of the reason it was wrong, it was so wrong. There was no good reason for me to continue a losing proposition.
And then I GOT IT. Wonderful things happened.
My advice to Beth, and to anyone who is faltering in the dating market, would be STOP. Just, consciously, stop, remove yourself from the situation for long enough that you can reset your priorities. Like a meditation retreat. When you return again, if you choose to, you can make better decisions with markedly better outcomes.
IBB:
“After marriage, trad-cons are great allies to men int he manosphere. Yes they are. Trad-cons are against no-fault-divorce, against abortion, prefer wives that are NOT feminist, the whole works”
No. Tradcons are diametrically opposed to most male and traditional interests. Tradcons are merely anti abortion feminists. I never once met a tradcon who was against no fault divorce. Most tradcons are “man bad, woman good” and “man wrong, woman right”. They are firmly in the camp that believes women are always right, good, pure, innocent, and moral, no matter what they do. Tradcons believe if a woman has premarital sex, it’s because she only wants to be a mom or because a bad man tricked her. They also believe that the male sex drive is evil, base, perverted and immoral; and mercilessly shame men for normal male interests and wants.
Tradcons believe in divorce if it will help a woman and her kids; and injure or “bring justice” to whom they believe is a bad man. A “bad man” in tradcons’ eyes is one who works too much and therefore isn’t home enough; or works too little and therefore doesn’t earn enough. A “bad man” is one who expects his wife to have sex with him because she’s his wife. A “bad man” is one who expects his wife to operate within traditional sex roles. A man who wants a physically attractive wife is petty, shallow, carnal, “fleshy”, and self-centered, and obviously doesn’t appreciate a woman’s “inner beauty”.
@IBB
Okay, I got a tag wrong on the last post. Second paragraph is the response.
As for haikus, the last two lines for one:
Someone will need to come up with a clever first line (5 syllables).
“Hark, basement dwellers!”
“Virgin fetishists”
You’ll have to make coward plural.
Jf12 – women already think “its different when HE does it.” Didn’t someone earlier just make a list of all the foolish rationalizations for their decisions that women make (ie him hitting her, his fledgling career, his being bad in bed…) which is great for the abusing douche, not so great for fool-ass woman, but it allows her to justify her bad decisions, which every weak-minded human needs, it seems.
What’d be great is if we could get EVERYONE to stop making rationalized excuses for their own bad decisions. Oh what a world…!
Todays tidbit from one of my personal fave forums: The Art of Manliness
http://www.mynewsletterbuilder.com/email/newsletter/1411996805
Pardon my ignorance, IBB – I’m not asking these questions because I’m being deliberately obtuse. I’m asking because I’m philosophically curious about the human obsession with marriage, and why we sacrifice so much to get into this state which seems to fly in the face of our own best interests. I’ve never been married, and I’ve never felt a need to, myself.
I’m sure that you have first-hand knowledge that I can only come by as an outside observer. SO if you’ll indulge me…
“We don’t want her to go and CHANGE THE RULES OF LIFE.” I’m going to confess that I have no idea what these rules are that you speak of. I don’t know how “the rules” could change, because I don’t know what these rules are, or even that there WERE rules. I don’t know how a relationship becomes untenable, or how that changes a person. Neither do I know of the trials and compromises that people go through when they find themselves locked in an untenable relationship that they’ve committed their life to. It sounds kind of demoralizing.
But I particularly don’t know how feminism means that women are now incapable of meeting men’s needs. This sentence makes no sense to me.
I wonder if what you mean is that feminism made women have a need that they didn’t have before, they expect their man will provide more in the relationship than mere provisioning, they expect mutual nurturing in return now, they find themselves disappointed when it doesn’t happen, because they feel that their husbands are not willing or able to provide it (maybe you heard this rail a few times when you were married?), so they withhold their own nurturing as punishment for not getting their needs met. Which would be viewed by their husbands as a “change of rules.” Is this what you mean?
Like this:
http://www.examiner.com/article/what-women-want-an-equal-and-nurturing-partnership
IBB,
I’m confused. On the hand you argue the previous sexual history is irrelevant, and on the other you argue women aren’t moral agents. If both are true then how is man to determine the possible future behavior of a woman? Lack of agency would seem to imply that established behaviors can’t be externally changed except perhaps through extreme aversion techniques, or by sequestering one from all forms of temptation. Or the reformed slut becomes the frigid wife by virtue of her primitive learning.
Either way it seems if both of your arguments are true then God really wants, desires, demands and expects men to be miserable as long as they live if those men want salvation. Either you live celibate in fear of damnation, or you share your life with a creature that cannot be trusted with anything of importance, and must be treated with great cruelty to ensure she minds her place.
Really it’s the best argument I’ve heard for joining a monastic order that doesn’t demand extreme amounts of piety.
Marissa,
I’m not cheering. I’m just not shaming. I’m just not disqualifying her for marriage (the way some here do.)
This is why I repeatedly say (over and over) that women are not moral agents.
If (as you said) fornication ruins a woman’s ability to pair bond, (your words Marissa, and they will stay right here for all to view and scrutinize) then what you are saying is exactly what I have been saying all along, that women aren’t able to make moral distinctions between right and wrong.
The right thing to do is for a woman to pair bond with her husband. That is right and good and moral. The fact that her hymen was broken by a man who was NOT her husband (and as a result, she can never properly pair bond with her husband, Your words Marissa) means that she (by the nature of her gender) is irresponsible. Men can CHOOSE to pair bond Marissa to women who were are not our first sexual partners. We are moral agents, responsible. You are saying that women CAN NOT (that she is physically ruined.)
Your words.
Fortunately, we have Christ. So she’s saved. And they can still make a marriae work. Unfortunately we have no-fault-divorce so the fact that she is “ruined” (your words) and isn’t a moral agent (my words) means there isn’t that much preventing her from chasing in on her cash and prizes. She needs Christ all the more!!!!!!!!
Okay on this, you are just plain wrong. You are saying that a woman with an N of 10 or 20 (or whatever) before she got married, is by virtue of her N going to be a lesser mother than a woman who was virgin when she was married but now a mother? Please tell me you don’t believe that.
As you said at the beginning to me, I do not need your forgiveness. In this instance, I’ve done nothing wrong and I am not the one who has shamed here…
..and I don’t know you but you seem to be a nice enough person who I probably wouldn’t mind around my children. But it is not because of your values. It is instead because I can’t always be there where my children are and they sometime associate with people whose values I do not share. Fortuantely, my children are smart enough to know right from wrong.
GIL, in answer is simple: the law of supply and demand.
The more you have, the less you want.
Deti,
Then you never met a trad-con.
@livingtree2013
But the one doesn’t explain the other. Women are better in finance because they stay the course where men jump around chasing ostensible greener pastures. On the other hand, women are worse in marriage because while men stay the course, women jump around chasing ostensible greener pastures.
Ya, Deti, except you forget that in the modern world, women are just about as likely to come into the marriage with property of their own, and with decently paid professions (if you as men make those sorts of choices). So, her husband is owner of half of her goods too, if she has some to bring. You maybe got short-changed in this trade?
@Marissa
Both work well, I think:
Re: women and finance:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/10/finance-and-gender.html
I’m actually leaning toward him being a very, very earnest, white-knighting, teenage boy. There’s almost too much pedestalization for him to be a woman. But I might have written some similar things when I was about 15, very much a white knight wannabe, and very concerned about making sure I had the properly respectful and sensitive attitudes towards women so they would like me.
(Ugh, writing that made me a little ill.)
livingtree,
It is not in our interests so much as it is in the total interests of the children.
Tell me, Badpainter, if virgins are all that, why is that the “stereotypical” male is so jazzed up about the prospect of being chosen by a stripper/porn star? Or is that just a stale cliche now? It certainly was alive and well when I was in high school. All the boys wanted that. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
That does nothing to undo temporal consequences of her actions.
Of course, you can always pull out the “No True Scotsman” and say a non-virgin woman who divorces her husband (or cheats on him, etc) wasn’t truly repentant, but the fact is that temporal consequences are sometimes impossible to correct for (and otherwise very often difficult to correct for).
Cail,
Yes its true. I’m sure you said over and over at the age of 15 that women are NOT moral agents to try and get women to like you.
(shaking head)
This “colored with off-registered printing dots like newspaper comics” gives me an idea.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/comic-riffs/wp/2014/02/26/bill-watterson-talks-for-documentary-cartoonist-offers-his-first-public-cartoon-since-ending-calvin-and-hobbes/
How about a new (I guess it’s new) visually badly registered dotted cartoon effects for Instagram filters? It would go well with the acoustically badly registered autotune effects for pop musice.
Marcus,
Agreed. And if a man can’t marry her because he must marry a virgin, as I said earlier, I’m not going to go out and give him a hard time. He knows himself. He knows his limitation, his pride, his self-esteem. And if she finds that she has less men willing to marry her, those are the consequences.
But that doesn’t disprove anything that I said and continue to say.
I don’t have the study on hand, but [extensive] exposure to pornography increases the chance a man will seek a non-virgin wife (or decide to not seek a virgin wife). One explanation is that some men become very attached to pornography such that they must have a woman just like the ones in pornography.
It’s best to just roll your eyes and move on when he throws out his “not moral agents” canard. It’s been pointed out to him repeatedly that it makes no sense, isn’t Christian, and contradicts his other claims, but he refuses to let it go. Don’t wrestle with the pig.
You forgot sanity and prudence.
Re: “All you gotta do is…”
1. reverse entropy
2. buy low, sell high
3. move a woman onto Team Her Man
all on the same degree of difficulty.
You are saying that a woman with an N of 10 or 20 (or whatever) before she got married, is by virtue of her N going to be a lesser mother than a woman who was virgin when she was married but now a mother?
She might be a fine mother, but without heaping doses of repentance and grace and a very strong husband, she’ll be a piss poor wife. Her children will ultimately pay dearly for it. The best gift one can give their children is a strong marriage.
I knew a woman once who was sleeping with another woman’s husband. She had the gall to say that the man was a “great father” even if he was a bad husband.
I was young and single then and even I had the good sense to know that the two cannot be separated. So you certainly ought to know better, IBB
I wasn’t talking about that particular goofy-ass claim; I was talking about your insistence that a woman’s previous sexual experience shouldn’t bother a man. That’s the kind of nonsense I would have parrotted when I was 15 to show how mature and understanding and non-possessive I was. It’s crap.
Somehow I don’t quite buy that trad-cons have transcended 40 million years of evolution.
Somehow I don’t buy that there has even been 40 million years of evolution.
Cail,
Why is that Cail? Marissa just said the exact same thing when women are ruined!
Oh that’s right. You are not going to call her out on it the way you would be because (what were your words, oh yes) the properly respectful and sensitive attitudes towards women so they would like you.
If (as you said) fornication ruins a woman’s ability to pair bond, (your words Marissa, and they will stay right here for all to view and scrutinize) then what you are saying is exactly what I have been saying all along, that women aren’t able to make moral distinctions between right and wrong.
Nonsense. If I eat so much that my stomach is permanently warped, that doesn’t mean I wasn’t able to choose to eat too much. It means I’ve made a choice that is nearly irreversible due to its damage. That I could choose it in the first place makes me a moral agent. Just because a woman’s moral agency is diminished compared to a man’s doesn’t mean she lacks it totally. Just a child doesn’t lack moral agency.
Okay on this, you are just plain wrong. You are saying that a woman with an N of 10 or 20 (or whatever) before she got married, is by virtue of her N going to be a lesser mother than a woman who was virgin when she was married but now a mother? Please tell me you don’t believe that.
Say it isn’t so, he cries! Yes, it’s a fact that a woman who sleeps around lacks certain qualities that make a woman a good mother. It’s a fact that being less psychologically and physically damaged makes one a better mother.
Fortuantely, my children are smart enough to know right from wrong.
But aren’t your children female? Supposedly they aren’t moral agents. How ever will they make the right choices if they are incapable of doing so?
IBB, there is nothing wrong with shaming someone who deserves it, like you deserve it now. Shame is a good way to instill a bad feeling in someone when they’ve done something wrong and they’re unrepentant. I don’t know why you think shaming someone is bad. And the fact that you’d allow some random internet stranger around your children when you’re not around shows your extreme lack of judgment.
I’d just like to bold a few things IBB said and which he’ll likely ignore:
women aren’t able to make moral distinctions between right and wrong.
my children are smart enough to know right from wrong
And you lose for lack of consistency, IBB, among many, many other losses.
And this merely reinforces what I have observed before: “conservatism” is just liberalism + 20 to 25 years.
Yep! This can’t be repeated enough.
Elspeth said “I do know a woman who was a virgin bride and later left her husband.” Me too: my first wife. I would guess a comparatively (to today) huge percentage of the 1970s (and 60s) no-fault divorcees were virgin brides. I’m too lazy and too greedy to self-motivate to find the statistics, though.
Here’s a better video for you, The Economics of Hypergamy:
IBB, of course the CAN divorce. But so CAN men. And men DO. Often. Just not as often as women.
So why are 70+% of divorces initiated by women? THAT was the question I was answering. Women initiate more not because they (as opposed to men) can, but because of the risk/reward operational differences between men and women.
LT,
Most men won’t chose a porn star for a serious committed relationship. What the average man would do for fun is entirely beside the point. Since most men will never get that choice it’s moot.
Further most men will evaluate a woman based on her history. Less is more so to speak. No one realistically expects a virgin bride. Conversely most women will run screaming from a man with little or no history. Which is why we get to desire a weekend with a pornstar and not be judged for it, and you do not.
Why is that Cail? Marissa just said the exact same thing when women are ruined!
Oh that’s right. You are not going to call her out on it the way you would be because (what were your words, oh yes) the properly respectful and sensitive attitudes towards women so they would like you.
Bullshit, you’ve never responded to my previous post many moons ago challenging this “no such moral agent” nonsense. A woman making an irresponsible choice is still a moral agent. Choosing wrongly (even choosing wrongly often) doesn’t make one bereft of moral agency. It’s the default of the fallen human being.
Here is your mindbending logic in all its Dali-esque glory:
If (as you said) fornication ruins a woman’s ability to pair bond, (your words Marissa, and they will stay right here for all to view and scrutinize) then what you are saying is exactly what I have been saying all along, that women aren’t able to make moral distinctions between right and wrong.
Apparently choosing sin that has permanent consequences = inability to make the right choice? You’re assuming that the woman doesn’t know she’s doing something wrong in the first place. She knows she’s doing something wrong and does it anyway. Everyone does this.
@Badpainter “God really wants, desires, demands and expects men to be miserable as long as they live if those men want salvation. Either you live celibate in fear of damnation, or you share your life with a creature that cannot be trusted with anything of importance, and must be treated with great cruelty to ensure she minds her place.” You’ve applied a garish-colored poorly-registered cartoon visual effect to my life. I especially enjoyed applying the dotted offset comic effect to my little thang, which is not “anything of importance” to her unless I drive her to it.
For men marrying is a sign of courage. It is a sign of courage no matter her virtue.
How so? Even suicidal soldiers running into machine gun fire at least know what is about to hit them. Most men getting married haven’t a clue. Courage has nothing to do with it. And how can a Christian make the suggestions concerning fornication that you do?
Sometimes you sound like someone else completely. Are you the real IBB? Cause I think you may be an IBB impersonator.
@Snowy, I quote Roosh:
“The only women complaining about men’s reluctancy to commit are over the age of 30. You never hear women in their early to mid 20’s complain about men being ‘commitment-phobes.”
Theory:
@livingtree2013 (emphasis mine)
Reality:
Elspeth,
Yes I agree. The bold part the most. You are very smart Elpseth.
This woman you knew was NOT a great mother OR a wife. She was bad at both. A great mother would not be committig adultry. She was a terrible mother. And any man who commits adultry is a terrible father.
But you CAN be a very good mother but not a great wife. And a man CAN be a very good father but not a great husband. This is why I have gone on the record to say what a horrible un-Christian movie “Mrs Doubtfire” was. Here we had Robin Williams playing a stupendous father who would do anything for his children, loved them dearly. But he was a lousy husband to the Flying Nun, a big child not a man. And Sally Fields frivorces him in the movie because she isn’t happy, because she doesn’t love him anymore (and everyone including the children are sipposed ot be okay with this.)
I’m not okay with it. And I’m not okay when other people do that. And I call them out on it (even if it means I lose a friendship and they shun me for my remarks.) I forgive their shunning of me because I am required to do so since I am a Christian.
Cail Corishev,
Good advice. I am surprised, for a “Christian” it seems IBB has never read the book of Ruth. That would be scriptural rebuttal to his moral agent non-sense.
@livingtree2013 You mention that high school boys stereotypically were excited at the prospect of sex with a stripper. Don’t you concede it likely they were merely excited at the prospect of sex. Period. Full stop.
@IBB: Well, it’s the internet so I can be anybody I want to be and put John Holmes to shame, but in fact I have never spent a moment with penis insecurities in my life. So on that measure I think that theory falls flat. I also don’t thing my partners N count is something like the number of buses I am willing to jump with a motorcycle.
And for his next stunt, IBB will demonstrate his manhood and game by marrying up Annabel Chong and satisfying her. I’m as impressed with that as I’m sure you are by guys bragging up there genitals.
(Please forgive the porn-star references)
But you CAN be a very good mother but not a great wife.
There’s a grain of truth there, but what you say is actually rather dangerous in the current climate. Look, I’ve always been better at being a wife than being a mother. I’ve always been inclined to value what my husband is going to think and feel first and foremost (after God of course).
If I were like most women I’d flirt with guilt over But the truth is that this has made me a better mother, not worse. Conversely, women are great mothers but not good wives are usually that way because they see themselves as mothers first, wives second. They actually think it is okay to be a great wife and a lackluster, mediocre wife.
They’re also more likely to leave so the children will have a happier, and thus a “better” mother.
I would guess a comparatively (to today) huge percentage of the 1970s (and 60s) no-fault divorcees were virgin brides.
Actually no. Partner counts were a little lower, but divorce and N>=1 at marriage had a very strong correlation (as they still do).
@IBB
In a sense, marriage and trading are kind of similar. From the point of view of a woman who’s riding the carousel, that is.
It’s impossible to call the peak when the market peak arrives. It can only be called in hindsight.
The whole point of why women delay marriage is hypergamy. They don’t want to miss on the bigger, better deal that _may_ be out there (and we’ve read examples on this very site of women destroying perfectly good marriages because they feeeeeeeel they may be missing out and they still have a chance to upgrade). Problem with this is that, while riding the carousel, they’ve come across men of higher value than the ones they can attract NOW. If they have a high N and are starting the decline on their SMV, then the peak is behind them.
So what does that have to do with the high N count and marriage anyway? A woman with high N is very likely unaware of her own unrestrained hypergamous tendencies, and is completely ruled by them (to a point all women are, a matter of degree really). A woman past her peak who settles for you HAS attracted men of higher value than you, back when her SMV was higher. They may or may not have wanted to marry her, but she doesn’t care, or can tell the difference anyway. You can chirp about insecurity all you want, but at the end of the day, unless you really are an attractive, self-made multibillionaire handyman, then you should be aware you’re not any more special than any of the myriad of men she’s been with before.
The first thing you should do is get a bit of humility and do an accurate assessment of your own SMV. No matter where you fall in the “grade”, there are other men in that grade, and if she’s deemed you attractive enough to entertain your company, he’s done so with other men in that same grade before.
And that’s a problem WITH A CAROUSEL RIDER. She settled. She lost. She didn’t cash her chips out at the peak. And will resent you for it. She’ll grow more and more contemtuous and rebellious, and will check out for cash and prices when the prospect of being with you is worse than the idea of being on the prowl for some other deal. She remembers the better days, when the exciting badboys rode her like a pony, the adventures were exciting, and her oxytocin circuitry hadn’t been fried by multiple cocks yet.
It’s not a matter of insecurity, me thinking that I won’t measure up to her past cocks or whatever. I won’t… IN HER MIND. Which is really all that matters, objective reality of me being a better man be damned.
It’s a rigged game. And I ain’t playing. Got fishing to do.
Gil,
The only porn-star I know what the one that was on Tyra Banks talk show back in 2006. And that porn star was not much more than a kid. So… I wouldn’t know a Miss Chong.
Elspeth,
I suppose but we do say a lot of dangerous stuff here. But if it is truthful, then say it.
Ok.
Any mother that is willing to leave her husband (particularly one that is a great father) because she thinks the children will be happier, is not a great mother. That is a lousy mother. She is just doing what makes herself happy.
@IBB, sounds like you wouldn’t mind “knowing” a Miss Chong.
I wish I could carry on here but alas, I have stuff to do. I will say in response to this, IBB:
Any mother that is willing to leave her husband (particularly one that is a great father) because she thinks the children will be happier, is not a great mother. That is a lousy mother. She is just doing what makes herself happy.
It’s objectively true. I agree with you, but the level of naivete you display here is breathtaking. It’s like you don’t see what has become of marriage, the separation of “great motherhood” from wifely duty, none of it.
A woman who is concerned with the kind of wife she is will want with everything in her to take excellent care and prayer consideration in the training of her husband’s children.
We have turned the thing on its head, so now we have women who think it’s perfectly acceptable to drive their children’s fathers out of their lives and retain the mantle of “great mother.”
I won’t be able to respond further before tomorrow, but I’m interested in your further thoughts.
JDG,
Actually, i think they do have a clue. They know exactly what they are risking but do it anyway. I find that to be couragous.
Statistically women are more likely to enter into marriage with a higher debt load from student debt and credit debt accrued during their college years – debt which becomes community debt in marriage and a shared liability during the marriage and after a divorce.
In other words, husbands are expected to carry in part or in whole the debt his wife incurred buying sexy swimsuits, lingerie and spring break alcohol to party with her Alpha lovers, as well as her communications degree.
http://pjmedia.com/drhelen/2014/02/27/the-person-who-was-allowed-to-ultimately-control-the-fathers-reproductive-freedom-was-the-mother/
jf12- “You’ve applied a garish-colored poorly-registered cartoon visual effect to my life.”
Well, I am a bad painter.
That aside, I think I figured out the answer a common problem we both seem to share. I have been trying to put it into words, but I write worse than I paint. You probably know the answer yourself, consider your comments regarding brutality and dread and look at them through the prism of your mission, and your focus upon your mission.
Exactly. The boy’s fantasy about dating a stripper/pornstar is that A) she will give it up easily, and B) she will do things other women won’t do. Odds are neither one is true. It’s quite easy for the woman who sluts around — even for a living — to insist on being a born-again virgin if she gets into relationship with a man, because that’s how she compartmentalizes the two parts of her life. But boys don’t know that; they just think, “Wow, wish she were doing that to me!”
From the Dr. Helen post MarcusD linked:
“Male victims of statutory rape, for example, in every case to consider the issue, have been ordered to pay child support for children that were a product of the rape.”
I have no words.
@Marcus PubMed to the rescue.
“Trends in Premarital Sex in the United States, 1954–2003”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1802108/
“The figure and table show a trend from the 1950s through the 1990s toward a higher proportion experiencing premarital sex: 48% of the cohort who turned 15 from 1954 to 1963 had done so by exact age 20, while 65% of the 1964–73 cohort, 72% of the 1974–83 cohort, and 76% of the 1984–93 cohort had done so. For the 1994–2003 cohort, 74% had had premarital sex by exact age 20”
Ok, so 52% compared to 26% isn’t all that huge a difference, but it’s pretty big.
Elspeth,
Yeah… um. I’m a traditional conservative posting in the manosphere. I support the MRM but I’m not much on blaming women (be they sluts or virgins) for everything. And I believe in marriage. Maybe that is because my own personal marriage has been such a good one, but its been a lot of work for both of us to get it there.
I see what has become of marriage and it devastates me. These thing are ruining it:
* no-fault-divorce
* same sex marriage
* open marriage
* starter marriage
* feminism
…all of it, its just Satan allowing man (through free will) to destroy that which Gad has made to be so sacred. And we wonder why this country is on its way to Hell in a handbasket. We shouldn’t wonder why. All of this puts us on the Road to Perdition.
Tomorrow or next week something. Work is busy.
@Badpainter “You probably know the answer yourself” We need to up the Fauvism of our own lives.
Deti
I never once met a tradcon who was against no fault divorce.
IBB’s hamster:
Then you never met a true trad-con.
FIFY.
“ Actually, i think [marrying men] do have a clue. They know exactly what they are risking but do it anyway. I find that to be couragous.”
No, they don’t know, when you consider how marriage is sold to men.
Marriage is universally sold to men as happiness, leadership of a wife, fatherhood, and – this is MOST important – Societally and biblically sanctioned sex with a regular partner who will give it up at reasonable intervals with a minimum of effort on his part. If it weren’t for the sex part, guys wouldn’t marry. Period. Full stop.
Marriage is sold as much less risky than the single life. We’re told married men live longer, are happier, make more money, and live better. We’re told they have lowered stress levels and less risk of heart attack. We’re told they eat better, feel better, and look better. Single life? You eat poorly, you’re lonely, you’re poorer, you don’t advance in your job, you’re less happy.
Cail Corishev on IBB
I’m actually leaning toward him being a very, very earnest, white-knighting, teenage boy. There’s almost too much pedestalization for him to be a woman.
I see a pair of middle aged “equalitarians” with an unmarried daughter approaching The Wall who share a login, or an aging White Knight beta. Actually, the two options are almost the same thing…
With assistance from more secular influences: Virgins, Good Girls with one or two ‘mistakes’, Bad Girls with many ‘partners’, then Sluts of All Variety and finally Women Getting Paid for Sex :
Prostitution – It ages women in ways they don’t notice. It’s not the act of sex so much as it’s the emotional stress of continual deception. After all, the customer is only kidding one person that there is any meaning at all in what he is doing – himself. But the girl has to keep up the pretence with one or more men each night. Such stress works the facial muscles, tightening them, producing that hard look prostitutes are famous for, but more importantly than that, a great dam of resentment builds up in her mind.
Any man willing to marry such a woman must know : The first thing a prostitute does when she finds a man willing to look after her is to give up the sex goddess role and probably the charm too. Invariably, she makes the mistake of assuming the customer wanted to marry the real her, not the fantasy, despite the fact that he is only familiar with the fantasy.
Then there is a dramatic change in appearance. Many of the girls use hormones to enhance their breasts, but doctors warn them not to continue for more than a year, because of the risk of cancer. Also, there’s not a whore in Bangkok who doesn’t walk around in six-inch platform shoes. The return to reality can come as quite a shock: from tall bosomy porn star to flat-chested dwarf.
No, prostitutes do not make great wives as a rule, but it has nothing to do with fidelity. Usually the last thing such a girl wants is an extramarital affair, in which they would probably be expected to play the sex goddess all over again. What they want is the right to be irritable and charmless, which they lost the moment they started in ‘the game’ – constantly manipulating men.
Extrapolate backwards by increments from prostitute to slut, from bad girl with a high partner count, to a good girl with a couple of mistakes and all have in common the manipulation of men for their own gain. Some might be easier to live with than others but almost all share ‘the game’ to one degree or another and they all seem to make the mistake of assuming their manipulated man wants to marry the real her, not the fantasy, despite the fact that he is only familiar with the fantasy. Except for maybe the Virgin, but she’s an entire other story.
jf12
Re: “All you gotta do is…”
Now you got it.
See? I’m telling you: 15.
Hmm, I cannot find what I want amongst the 1st or 2nd pg google of “percentage divorce virgins by year”. Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate 3rd pg.
jf12
Ok, so 52% compared to 26% isn’t all that huge a difference, but it’s pretty big.
It is a factor of two. Either a decrease of 50% or an increase of 100%. It is a huge difference.
jf12, are you thinking of Social Pathologist?
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2012/03/sexual-history-divorce-risk-ii.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/promiscuity-data-guest-post.html
http://socialpathology.blogspot.com.au/2010/09/virgin-bride.html
Not sure if any of that data shows by year.
Cail Corishev
I agree with you, but the level of naivete you display here is breathtaking. — Elspeth
See? I’m telling you: 15.
Or 45+ White Knight low N beta who caught a carousel rider and now has a daughter approaching The Wall…whose “better half” commandeers the comment account from time to time.
Either explanation has validity.
jf12
@Badpainter “You probably know the answer yourself” We need to up the Fauvism of our own lives.
Or just think in pointilist terms…
IBB’s hamster:
“ Actually, i think [marrying men] do have a clue. They know exactly what they are risking but do it anyway. I find that to be couragous.”
Deti
No, they don’t know, when you consider how marriage is sold to men.
IBB has utterly no clue how marriage is sold to men. Guess why that is…
“So what does that have to do with the high N count and marriage anyway? A woman with high N is very likely unaware of her own unrestrained hypergamous tendencies,”
Winner.
@Marissa, thanks. The SP virgin-bride post has a figure that seems to jibe with what I said, namely that the percentage of virgin brides who got divorced, DECREASED from 30% of those who got married from 1965-1969 to 14% of those who got married from 1980-1983.
Highwasp:
This is a very interesting take on things…
I would argue that every woman assumes that the man wants to marry the “real” her, and that all courtship/dating is a ruse. I’d also point out that there are plenty of “bad girls who made a few mistakes” who have an objective partner count much higher than those you call “sluts”, or, for that matter, the average street prostitute. All that aside, your whole response was both timely and salient.
Regards, Boxer
AR, deti, etc
I think you’re right.
I find it very difficult to believe someone could stay here as long as ibb has and still cling to “Man up and marry those bimbos.”
90% certainty ibb is a woman.
“Then you never met a true trad-con”
There are (still) more true tradcons than there redpillers. There are way more progs and churchians now than either one.
Redpillers have rediscovered the doctrine and nature of original sin that true tradcons (unlike churchians) never abandoned. They (we – I’m in both camps) are natural allies.
IBB is saying that marrying a non-bimbo can still be a productive choice – its the one I made and am satisfied with it, as is my wife. There are risks involved, but I’ve taken extensive and unconventional (not relying on the compromised legal system for one) measures to ameliorate them. Helps going in with one’s eyes open.
Sorry, don’t do hunger strikes.
is rooted in fear/cowardace (afraid your penis will be less than HIS penis and she will LEAVE YOU for HIS penis), immaturity and a lack of self-esteem (on your part), and pride. You have three supremely negative emotions/qualities (about you, the worst of which is PRIDE) colliding together at the exact moment to value something (in her) that trad-cons largely do not value. Basically, we are beyond you. And you are behind us.”
You beat me to it Dalrock. I couldn’t believe I was reading that.
Desiderius
There are (still) more true tradcons than there redpillers. There are way more progs and churchians now than either one.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman
Haikus!
Drilled through the core,
by more than fifteen men! But!,
Man up and marry!
Past of lotza cocks.
Ruined for decent all men.
Man up and marry!
Sloarish past behind,
Cash and prices are ahead,
Man up and marry!
I find IBBs posts hilarious…
“Yay. I get to pay a very high price for something she gave away for a smile in her prime, I WIN!!!! ”
Yeah, you win the participitation medal.
Congrats!
orion2
Yeah, you win the participitation medal.
A used one, by the way, from the recycle bin at the trophy shop. With someone else’s name on the back….
Actually, i think they do have a clue. They know exactly what they are risking but do it anyway. I find that to be couragous.
Blue pill = not a clue!
Put down your X-box!
Man up and marry those sl*ts,
you fearful coward.
Rescind all pride!
Man up and marry those sl*ts,
you fearful coward.
I’m 98% sure IBB is a man of Mormon extraction, probably active LDS. No disrespect to him, but this sort of nonsense must be in the priesthood manual. I have heard it countless times.
Hehe — Boxer would likely know that, I think — good call, probably.
As for IBB, I just see him as the garden variety trad con. Trad cons value marriage for social stability reasons, so they want to convince you to marry. If the women are acting like sluts, they still want you to marry, because it’s good for social stability. So of course they are going to be hostile to guys saying “I don’t want to marry the women available, because they are sluts”, because if enough men do that, marriage rates fall and that makes trad cons sad puppies.
The one thing about IBB’s stuff that stands out is that he is resigned to most girls doing cock size/girth testing in their 20s, regardless of background, and that this is important for her in terms of finding an appropriately sized cock to please her long term in marriage. That’s not a traditional view, but rather a pragmatic one — I think it’s motivated by the fact that he has daughters, and he doesn’t want them stuck with small-cocked men who are not pleasing to them sexually, because they will then be tempted to divorce, which he doesn’t want. That dovetails with his attitude toward virginity, which is also not traditional (traditionalists are big on chastity, generally speaking).
So I’d probably categorize him as a neo-traditionalist. Shares some values and ideas with traditionalists but has quite a few that are quite contemporary pragmatist as well.
Dalrock, but it does.
If you read again my original post to Flip, I said that women in the modern world have taken to a view of marriage more as an investment than a life foundation. I did not say that men view their relationships that way. Women do. Their most intimate relationship is viewed with the same view to risk/reward strategy that would normally be applied to an investment.
It doesn’t mean staying the course long-term, nor is it about trade frequency. That’s not at all what this article says. It is about reducing your risk exposure – a characteristically female trait. Consider this as a female-type trading strategy (as is explained in greater detail in the link):
– Don’t get sucked in to the hype of trends
– Research the fundamentals
– Don’t be overconfident. Everyone makes mistakes
– Diversify your investment mix
– Don’t panic. There are always going to be ups and downs in any market
– Know what you expect to get out of the investment
– Play according to a strategy
– If the investment doesn’t produce, don’t invest more into it unless you really believe it has unrealized potential
– Set a stop-loss trigger on the trade, so you don’t lose more than is reasonable
– If the investment produces, stay with it until something major changes. When it does change, reevaluate your strategy
– Don’t be afraid to admit you made a wrong decision, and take appropriate action.
Et cetera.
Can you not appreciate how each and every one of these points would play out in a marriage, especially if both parties aren’t viewing the marriage that way, and how women with this outlook would be “reluctant” to marry young? (I can explain further if you like 🙂 )
Cail – you can’t be serious about IBB “pedestalizing” women! Any man who steadfastly holds to the premise that “women lack agency” is neither a feminist, nor a woman, nor respectful. White knight, maybe, since chivalry is largely predicated on women lacking agency (and therefore needing protection of a husband, since being a mere woman, she is unable to independently conduct her own affairs with any decency).
But respectful? No.
No.
No.
8oxer
I’m 98% sure IBB is a man of Mormon extraction, probably active LDS. No disrespect to him, but this sort of nonsense must be in the priesthood manual. I have heard it countless times.
You might want to offer a thumbnail sketch of what “priesthood” means in the LDS, since it is rather different from what “priesthood” means in the Roman, Orthodox, Anglican, Copt, etc. churches. Just so people understand the significance of what you are getting at.
Interesting parallel, Marcus. You might be on to something there.
I often agree with IBB, but in this thread… yikes!
He’s right about forgiveness and redemption, but misses the point about temporal consequences, as others have noted. This is my take on it:
During Prohibition the consumption of alcohol was a crime, as since Christians are to obey the laws of man when they do not demand that we break the laws of God, it was also a sin. Also, habitual drunkenness is clearly categorized as sinful in multiple places in Scripture. So let us imagine a man who made many batches of “bathtub gin” during Prohibition. Let us further imagine that he screwed up his technique once and his gin had methanol in it (which was not uncommon). When he drank his “bathtub gin” on a three-day bender he consumed enough methanol to go permanently blind. (That happened to quite a few people.)
This man later realized the errors of his ways and became a Christian. He truly repented and was forgiven and redeemed. His sins are behind him.
According to IBB’s logic, it would be unchristian to decline to hire that guy as a chauffeur. After all, as Christians we know that God has the power to give sight to the blind – and that guy is forgiven. Toss him the keys and hop in!
That’s what “man up and marry that slut” means… that’s what a “born-again virgin” may well be: a blind chauffeur. The most important position a man will ever “hire” for is the position of “wife.” Part of the problem is that – unlike “Bathtub Gin Guy” whose blindness is obvious – you won’t be able to tell which “Born Again Virgin” has had her pair-bonding ability destroyed. But IBB thinks acts as if redemption denotes the nullification of temporal consequences. He’s wrong. “Bathtub Gin Guy” is now a Christian – a blind Christian. Likewise, even after repentance “Susie Slut” may well have lost her ability to pair-bond.
I’m still not going to hire “Bathtub Gin Guy” as a chauffeur, and I’m not going to assume that “Susie Slut” is wife material, either. It’s possible to be blind through no fault of your own, and it’s possible for God to miraculously make “Bathtub Gin Guy” see again, and it’s possible that “Susie Slut” didn’t destroy her pair-bonding ability, or it’s possible that God could miraculously re-instate her lost pair-bonding circuitry, and it’s also possible that “Virgin Veronica” will nuke her marriage, but the odds are steep and the risk is huge.
If blindness was not obvious (as lost pair-bonding ability is not obvious), and you were interviewing potential chauffeurs to drive you and your children around, would you screen for a history of drinking copious amounts of bathtub gin? I know I would. Likewise screen for sexual history is not “cowardly” – is it simply prudent.
IBB really stepped on his crank today. Who is this livingtree2013. Is she a stock trader or something coming to gloat on making money in the stock market?
I’m betting you’re right too, jf12. My mom was one. But honestly, knowing my dad, I don’t know what she was thinking, marrying him at 20 years old. Stupidest decision she EVER made, it only took her 6 months to realize it, but he guilted her into staying with him for another 8 years, having me, and being completely miserable sacrificing everything she needed… because that’s what married people do.
IBB?
So I went digging for information on divorce rates of virgins in the 1960s/1970s. I soon remembered that the Kahn & London study (1991) has those people included (and they first noticed the strong correlation between N>1 and divorce). So, that answer having been found, I’ll share some other amusing things I came across in searching (some never quoted on the Internet until now..):
The targets of defiance include most of the cherished bastions of orthodoxy from religion (no one is any longer a believer, though most had been raised with a faith) to sex (none of the single girls are virgins, and the divorced ones freely take lovers) to drugs (almost everyone has experimented with illegal drugs). I should add, however, that the people these women associate with now do not judge their behavior as deviant. Nevertheless, the women themselves are perfectly aware that their life styles do offend “general community standards.”
Micossi, Anita Lynn. “Conversion to women’s lib.” Society 8.1 (1970): 82-90.
—
Data about virginity at marriage indicate that the trend toward premarital sex experience is proceeding with extraordinary rapidity. Whereas virginity at marriage has decreased from 50% among husbands to 13.6%, the drop among wives was from 86.5 to 50.0%.
Lock, Frank R. “The challenge of change.” Obstetrics & Gynecology 24.3 (1964): 481-487.
—
Comparisons of the diagonals of items 1 and 2 (1.80-1.98 and 2.92-3.15) suggest that males wanted to marry a virgin as much as females wanted to be virgins. Conversely, females were as concerned about marrying a male who was a virgin as males were about remaining virginal.
Kaats, Gilbert R., and Keith E. Davis. “The dynamics of sexual behavior of college students.” Journal of Marriage and the Family (1970): 390-399.
—
The great change on the campus has been in more liberal attitudes toward sex and in more heavy petting. Because of their heavy petting, some college girls may be more demi-virgins than virgins. But as far as premarital sexual intercourse is concerned, most college girls are not promiscuous “community chests,” as some alarmists imply. Our modern age may have lost its head over sex but, so far, most American college girls have not lost theirs, despite their new honesty about sex on campus.
Footnote: “However, I cannot help but agree with a college student of my acquaintance, who recently stated that if all the papers and magazines keep saying all college girls are engaging in intercourse, they soon will be.
[…]
Women being as they are, I am constrained to believe these social customs will continue to offer the happiest way of life. The two articles from Sweden discussed in the current issue indicate that girls do run the risk, maybe more so than boys, of developing promiscuous sexual habits. They certainly run a greater risk of health damage from venereal disease and pregnancy. It is our duty to acquaint our patients with these facts and to counsel accordingly”
Hoyman, Howard S. “Sex and American college girls today.” Journal of School Health 37.2 (1967): 54-62.
—
Scholten would have been murdered nowadays for writing this article:
Scholten, Paul. “The premarital examination.” Journal of the American Medical Association 168.9 (1958): 1171-1177.
Right, Badpainter, men judge women for behavior that women don’t judge men for.
Personally, if I had a daughter, I’d be telling her to only date boys who were virgins, because I wouldn’t want her getting hooked up with a whore of a boyfriend who would always be on the lookout for something better.
How does that sound?
OT – some guys here have mentioned programs to run text through to estimate certain characteristics of the author. Any links? I’d like to run a sample of my own writing through to gauge how accurate they are for myself. I found one for “sex” and it correctly identified me as “male,” but I understand that other programs estimate intelligence, MBTI type, education, etc.
Thanks in advance.
Very very crass but makes the point all fathers and old men need to remind the sons and young bucks
Nice advice Livingtree2013, only problem little princess would see the guy and say EEEWWWWWW he’s creepy mom I can’t believe you did this. Don’t try and help me mom I can get my own dick.
I have to back Marissa up on this point, IBB – women make bad decisions, so do men. Both are responsible for their bad choices. Both can (and do) either take responsibility for them, or not. The rest of us can either hold them accountable for their actions, or not.
More of the not, lately, I think.
Women only lack agency when people (like you?) believe they lack agency, and treat them accordingly as less responsible citizens. What are the consequences of that, I wonder…?
greyghost, LivingTree2013 is a Canadian feminist who has been trolling for flames at Rollo’s RationalMale site for a while now.
Trad-cons aren’t as concerned about the virginity or non-virginity of girls/women prior to their marriage.
Yes. Because it’s now a tradition for girls to have sex with men before they settle down to marriage. Do you look forward to your daughters carrying on this tradition?
After marriage, trad-cons are great allies to men int he manosphere. Yes they are. Trad-cons are against no-fault-divorce, against abortion, prefer wives that are NOT feminist, the whole works.
“For I hate no-fault divorce”, the Lord God of Israel didn’t say.
I agree, trad-con phonies and manosphere “red pill” burnouts make great allies. They can talk nonsense to each another on this blog.
Lyn87, IBB has been peddling promiscuity for young women around here for a while now. Supporting the rights of young women to ride the cock carousel is arguably IBB’s #1 priority, going by the ferocity displayed whenever the topic crops up in a comment thread.
@Marissa, thanks. The SP virgin-bride post has a figure that seems to jibe with what I said, namely that the percentage of virgin brides who got divorced, DECREASED from 30% of those who got married from 1965-1969 to 14% of those who got married from 1980-1983.
Oh, interesting – I’ve been working on other things today that are quite separate field-wise from this topic, so I wasn’t reading your comments right.
That is an interesting phenomenon, and I think it’s accurate (e.g. few reporting inaccuracies) due to the fact that some recent papers have found that genetics plays upwards of a 50% part in promiscuity. In other words, people who are predisposed to divorce are also predisposed to promiscuity (novelty-seeking being the independent variable — remember the other correlates: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2013/07/tattoos-and-body-modifications-links.html).
Society, in the past, prevented those kinds of actions (no divorce, or difficult-to-get divorce) – now that those restrictions no longer exist, we can see much more fully the gene-behaviour connections.
JDG, how can a man possibly go into a marriage and NOT know what might possibly befall him? The evidence is everywhere!! Did you suffer under the naive delusion that “It won’t happen to me. Mine will turn out different”?
Marriage does not always, or even often, lead to happiness, that much is plain as day. To enter into that agreement with eyes closed is plain ignorance, and no-ones fault but your own. The rules and risk didn’t change, you just weren’t aware of what they were.
To find happiness, you go about it one of two ways:
1) gamble, and hope for the best, or
2) mitigate your risk.
@livingtree2013
“Personally, if I had a daughter, I’d be telling her to only date boys who were virgins, because I wouldn’t want her getting hooked up with a whore of a boyfriend who would always be on the lookout for something better.
How does that sound?”
Worthless, because he is a stud if he can whore around and she will see him as a stud. .
Now, if he was a beta provider and laid his provisioning at her feet without her even being interested you would also not have to tell her anything because she would be repulsed anyway.
I dont understand why women dont get that they have a) and easier time getting sex and b) that the male sex drive works different from that of women.
Of course that has consequences.
Hahah, really Rollo? I sure know a few.
MarcusD
… some recent papers have found that genetics plays upwards of a 50% part in promiscuity.
Careful with this, I suspect epigenetics is involved. That is, the gene is present in individuals, but is not expressed save in response to certain external stimuli.
But as far as premarital sexual intercourse is concerned, most college girls are not promiscuous “community chests,” as some alarmists imply.
Somehow I doubt study authors could even quote those things nowadays.
—
OT – some guys here have mentioned programs to run text through to estimate certain characteristics of the author. Any links?
I have my own software that I wrote myself for research purposes that I cannot release. If you can get me 500 words of your writing (post it here, or a link to pastebin, for e.g.) I can run some analyses for you.
lyingtree2013
“Personally, if I had a daughter, I’d be telling her to only date boys who were virgins, because I wouldn’t want her getting hooked up with a whore of a boyfriend who would always be on the lookout for something better.
Given that you are unable to bear children by your own choice, this hypothetical is merely another example of your habitual trolling for flames.
@AR, she has a tickle she’s hoping gets scratched, a hamster that needs to be baited? What is that terminology that is escaping me at the moment? Seems like a regular occurrence here, I’ve been gone. I wonder where they all are now.
LT,
Men and women have different criteria for judging mates. You aren’t required to like but you are better off if you accept it. Men don’t want LTRs with sluts, women don’t want LTRs with virgins. If women want that to change than woman have place a higher priority on male chastity.
AR
IBB told of his daughters and he fully supported and encouraged the empowered princess routine. They are physically attractive educated with degrees and UMC employed mid to late twenties too hot to find a man that can keep up girls.
I am a father and deep down inside it would just kill my soul to have steered my girls into a shit hole like that. All done with driven pride of a devoted father with a foundation of blue pill churchianship. This red pill stuff is too much to swallow for it would mean. Imagine seeing two late 30 plus daughters single trying to adopt or get artificially inseminated. With a father knowing the truth to late to change the story. Ignorance is true bliss. For now he is condemned to white knighting to get any consensus for blue pill girl power tract. I bet he would sell his soul to open a bedroom door and see his daughters 12 years old again with red pill eyes.
How does that sound?
It sounds like you’re swimming in it.
That’s what I used to think to, but my new theory is funnier, so I’m sticking with it.
Well, he’s thoroughly inconsistent, so it depends. But the “lack moral agency” thing lets them off the hook entirely. It’s the same place the feminists end up, though from different starting points. No, it’s not respectful, but pedestalization never really is, because it requires that you see the woman not as who she really is as a person, but as a caricature called “woman” on whom you’ve projected your fantasies.
He claims that women are basically trained monkeys able to mimic full human behavior, but other times he claims that marriage is wonderful. Why is it wonderful, if a wife is essentially a pet whose amoral behavior you must patrol? Must be that women are just that wonderful to have around, I guess.
It’s a weird, misshapen pedestal, with disturbing phallic symbols carved into the sides of it, but I maintain it’s a pedestal nonetheless.
MarcusD
… some recent papers have found that genetics plays upwards of a 50% part in promiscuity.
Well if that is the case that is one more reason to make sure sluts are involuntary childless spinsters. Don’t marry a slut and take your gandarusa and enjoy what the slut has to offer.
Dalrock, yes I’ve read that article before.
Salary is one thing, but I’m talking assets.
Also I should tell you, I live in Canada. Things look pretty different here than they do in the US.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-503-x/2010001/article/11388-eng.htm
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-estate/single-ladies-hooking-up-with-homes/article4243449/
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/4-in-10-1st-marriages-end-in-divorce-report-1.953894
Many women in Canada have solid financial portfolios. And we also have a pretty different outlook on relationships here than you do in the US. I feel a little bit bad for you guys in America, honestly. It sounds awful.
Also curously, in the wikipedia entry on hypergamy, there used to be a provocative little tidbit in there about “hypogamy”, the tendency of men to marry down, due to the customary belief that marrying down provides added security that the wife won’t leave if she thinks she’s got it good financially. I used to refer to that quite often in discussions, and it has mysteriously since disappeared, to my disappointment – maybe it appeared sexist!
JDG, how can a man possibly go into a marriage and NOT know what might possibly befall him? The evidence is everywhere!! Did you suffer under the naive delusion that “It won’t happen to me. Mine will turn out different”?
Marriage does not always, or even often, lead to happiness, that much is plain as day. To enter into that agreement with eyes closed is plain ignorance, and no-ones fault but your own. The rules and risk didn’t change, you just weren’t aware of what they were.
To find happiness, you go about it one of two ways:
1) gamble, and hope for the best, or
2) mitigate your risk.
You assume much.
Men do it all the time. They think women are naturally loving and faithful, forgetting that they are fallen and capable of evil with out any help from a man. They think that if a good man steps up, the woman will naturally fall in line. I’ve seen it so many times I’ve lost count. I’ts all I’ve seen with the exception of a gifted few and those who found out the truth after they were married.
When you try to explain the dangers either their eyes glaze over, or they assure you their intended “isn’t like that”. And this assurance is given with warning flags waving clearly about.
With your focus on happiness I’m guessing you are a woman. Only a fool makes happiness a top priority. It comes and it goes. There are much more important things to spend my time on.
Hypogamy is marrying down in physical appearance in keeping with the subject. Men don’t care about that other stuff women do that is why women project that on men. That is why we have the men’s blog so men can learn to see women for who they are.
a hamster that needs to be baited?
So far I’ve never met one that needed baiting. They always seem to be spinning even when there is nothing to spin about.
Must I say it again?
Very well…
A SAMMICH a day keeps the hamster at bay.
Marcus D,
Thanks. I don’t want to clutter Dalrock’s thread with a long writing sample, so I created a Pastebin account just now and I have a sample ready to put there. I’m not sure exactly how it works, so I made an account with this name – Lyn87. How do I send it you specifically?
Again though, that isn’t how the law works in Canada… your debt is your debt. What happened before the marriage is not transferable to the spouse. Is that actually how it works in the US?
Cail Corishev
It’s a weird, misshapen pedestal, with disturbing phallic symbols carved into the sides of it, but I maintain it’s a pedestal nonetheless.
Is H.R. Giger still around?
@Lyn87
Just post the link, a la http://pastebin.com/QCU4seZy
As for the rate of virgins initiating divorce declining over the past few decades: that’s easy. Given that the percentage of virgin brides has dropped considerably while the divorce rate has remained steadily around 50% for the past 40 years, it stands to reason that more of the women who file for divorce were virgin brides in the past. The take-away for me is that, when women got the ability to initiate no-fault divorce (I agree with IBB here – NFD is very close to the base of the problem), about a third of all wives will pull the ripcord. Since bridal virginity is less common now, the ones who are virgins are probably the ones least likely to do so, since the kind if women who would pull the ripcord in the past was more likely to have been a virgin bride simply because there was a stigma attached to fornication that has been greatly weakened. What the numbers say to me is that premarital sluttery was a lagging cultural indicator, and it took some time before the deleterious effects of widespread sluttery had on the divorce rate. But now that there is little societal pressure for women to abstain from either fornication or frivolous divorce, the numbers are finally lining up. And what do those numbers say? In the words of Snoop Dogg: “You can’t make a ho’ a housewife.”
Ya JF12, it isn’t all that big a difference, statistically, 48% of 15-20 year olds were sexually active prior to 1960. The difference was, if she got pregnant, one of two things would happen – if the boy responsible wasn’t a complete nitwit, he would be forced to marry her (which happened A LOT, a lot lot)… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teenage_pregnancy_in_the_United_States
Marcus D,
http://pastebin.com/heTJYFYw
Deti – who is it exactly that pitches men on this ridiculous bill of lies? Your fathers? Your church? It may be in some traditionalists’ wet dream, the happy fairy tale lie that keeps us tied to this illusion so we keep on procreating, keep on perpetuating to the world that its the “most important thing there is!”, but did you ever see any of that happy life occurring in your reality? I’ve rarely ever seen it. I’ve never been promised it. I certainly never had the means to achieve it.
Women only want it because we’re SUPPOSED TO want it… We do it because everyone else has done it, our ancestors did it, our parents pressure us to do it, our friends do it, but none of that guarantees we’ll succeed at it. It doesn’t even mean that its a legitimate want. Its a peer-pressure want. Like having a big TV set. Or a nice home. Its an achievement for the majority.
@Lyn87
I got : “This paste has been removed!”
My bad. This is new to me. This ought to work.
http://pastebin.com/i6HV9crR
Point is, AR, it has been happening since forever. Increase, yes, but its not like from 5% to 95%.
Again though, that isn’t how the law works in Canada… your debt is your debt. What happened before the marriage is not transferable to the spouse. Is that actually how it works in the US?
It depends on the state. The issue is that even if the pre-marital assets and liabilities are segregated, the family courts in most states are courts of equity, which means they look at things holistically and try to come up with a fair result. So they may not actually apportion the pre-marital debt, but they will take it into account when apportioning the value of the house in a lop-sided way (to take into account that they are not apportioning the pre-marital debt, because they think compensating in this way leads to a “fair result”).
Haha, you think so greyghost? I think its a matter of training.
Our daughters could easily (and will, if I have anything to say about it) learn to prefer men with dignity, if their parents taught them why it matters. And it wouldn’t hurt either if they would also teach their sons that not being promiscuous is something to be proud of, not ashamed. I think male virgin-shaming is extremely socially detrimental.
Wishful thinking, I know.
Yes, I get that, you’re totally correct Orion, but as I said – training can correct most things. The trouble is, all the good home-schooling in the world can’t totally overcome the effects of the outside world. Your kids are at the mercy of peer-pressure, no matter what you do. My sentiments on it – be thankful if you were one of the geeky guys in school who didn’t get any attention from the opposite sex, it may have spared you a trip that you can never come home from.
Results:
Gender: Female feminist (54%)
Age: 50-60 (80%)
Myers-Briggs: INTJ
—-
First result is borderline.
Have you been corrupted by reading http://www.reddit.com/r/ShitRedditSays/?
I’m betting you’re right too, jf12. My mom was one. But honestly, knowing my dad, I don’t know what she was thinking, marrying him at 20 years old. Stupidest decision she EVER made, it only took her 6 months to realize it, but he guilted her into staying with him for another 8 years, having me, and being completely miserable sacrificing everything she needed… because that’s what married people do.
Well, if she can rewrite it, it must be true. Eh?
Yeah. You are stupid.
Badpainter – agreed 100%. I’ll do my part, such as it is.
GIL, no AR is just hoping that he can turn you all on me, like he enjoys doing over at Rationalmale.
Exactly, thank you Cail, I couldn’t have put it better myself.
JDG – tragic commentary on life, that is.
Marcus D,
Thanks. The age is exactly correct and the MBTI-type is as close as I would expect. But female-feminist? Yikes. You probably need to adjust that particular algorithm! I’m going to guess that it looks for phrases commonly used by feminists and doesn’t realize that anti-feminists use the same phrases – but to argue against them. So when it saw those phrases it might have calculated “feminist” which strongly correlates with “female.” Just a thought.
I was just curious, because I’ve seen you and others make assumptions based on what people have written. I’m sure that was a lot of work and you’ve obviously worked out most of the bugs – well done.
@livingtree2013
“Yes, I get that, you’re totally correct Orion, but as I said – training can correct most things. The trouble is, all the good home-schooling in the world can’t totally overcome the effects of the outside world. Your kids are at the mercy of peer-pressure, no matter what you do. My sentiments on it – be thankful if you were one of the geeky guys in school who didn’t get any attention from the opposite sex, it may have spared you a trip that you can never come home from.”
Thats a trip you never come home from either.
Thats not quite what I was, but I was literally told that I might not be interesting´now. but if women wanted a RELATIONSHIP.
I remember my answer, it was the only answer a man with at least some self respect could give.
It has never changed.
AR,
Heh. I’m talking backwoods, fundie tradcons.
Agreed there are no shortage of bullshit tradcons around.
Doesn’t mean the Amish, say, don’t exist.
Orion – fill me in! What was your answer??
The gender results are usually interesting. It combines a vocabulary from a machine learning test with other research done on gender differences in language. The “feminist” result is actually just determined by a switch based on the difference between the counts of the two vocabularies in the sample. It’s imperfect, of course. Most of the time I’ve been training it on Jezebel.com and on various feminist blogs and subreddits.
@livingtree2013
“Warum würde ich mich für abgelegte Fickfetzen interessieren?”
Roughly translated as “Why would I care for discarded town bikes?”.
That was in my pre RedPill days, I did not even think about it, it just came out.
Boxer,
I am a non-denominational Protestant. I’m pretty much Dispensationalist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispensationalism
Nova,
Yes.
I have never ever in my life (not once) ever tried to encourage a Christian-Bachelor to marry a slut. Never once. And I never will. So I really don’t get where all this nonsense is coming from you all believing that I would say “Man up and marry a slut.” But at the same time, I’m not going to give any Christian male a hard time for marrying a slut. That is not my way. That is because I still do believe in marriage.
What I’ve found is that I can’t “sell” marriage to young men even if I wanted to, and it’s not because they wont marry sluts. They wont get married AT ALL. And that is largely because of her debt.
http://innocentbystandersblog.wordpress.com/2013/11/15/anti-dowry/
Lyn,
I went over this. No. I’m not going to say it is unChristian not to give a slut a chance at wifelyhood. If she can’t find a husband because her N is 100 or whatever (and every man in the world would hold that against her), then that is on her and she’ll have to get over it. I’m of the opinion that doesn’t matter as much as what her credit card rating is. It is not her N-count that discourages men from proposing, it is her debt-count.
gg,
Really? When and where did this happen? Got a linkie?
Ah, I see LT has found new fertile ground to troll with her obtuse butchering of reason. I guess we can expect Dalrock’s comment count to skyrocket for a few days before people recognize the attention whore.
Pingback: The Jenny Erikson Charity Spank-Off | Hipster Racist
Dear IBB:
That’s cool. Were either of your parents born Mormons (any flavor)? You might have fawned over Mitt Romney at some point, because my MoDar (like gaydar or jewdar, but ours) has had you in the redzone for quite a while.
In any event: It’s amazing, to me, how standardized that script you cut-n-pasted (from your psyche, or elsewhere) has become. I don’t agree with it, but I’m more in agreement with you generally than most, given that I think all women (be they the NAWALT virgin submissive princess, or the crack-addled street whore) are all too much trouble to marry, regardless of their good qualities.
I must give respect where due, you always keep an even temper and practice strict frame control, even when being dogpiled upon by everyone here.
Regards, Boxer
Boxer,
No.
Willard Mitt Romney is very Presidential. He gets it. He thinks outside the box and we really f-cked up (big time) not electing him. He was our generation’s Lincoln. I really believe that. I think he would have been 10 times the President Ronnie ever was.
Um…… (thinking very carefully)… in the manosphere, we really have to cultivate the good ones. There are so few, we have to hold those few out as examples for the feminists whom we feed the red pills. That is why I tend to be such a major beta-orbiter (for lack of a better word) of SSM’s, of Elspeth’s, of Jen’s, and yes even of Marissa. I adore them all, all four. I don’t agree with them on all things, but I’m sure all four make (and are) outstanding mothers and wives….
…and I’ve never met any of them and I never will. And I can still say that.
Thank you, very much. Yes I try to keep an even temper and frame control. When I give up on people (as I have with two posters in this thread) I just shun them. But it takes a long time for them to get to that level (lots of warnings from me which they choose NOT to heed.)
@ LT, just so long as you are not related to me. That would be weird.
“For my entire dating life, I have shied away from appearing needy, bitter, or desperate because those three qualities make my skin crawl.”
I-‘m wondering if she also actively looks to avoid these skin crawling attributes in men.
“needy” – A man who shows he needs her.
“bitter” – Learn from women via osmosis or experience
“desperate” – showing up with flowers
I wonder which one of these makes her skin crawl the most.
@livingtree2013 “be thankful if you were one of the geeky guys in school who didn’t get any attention from the opposite sex” Believe it or not we geeks heard that our whole lives. A LOT. Strictly from women. Which means either that those women
a. Are completely insensate, ignorant, and unsympathetic
b. Are actively evil and rubbing salt in the wound.
Interestingly a LOT of women pretend to claim to have BEEN a young geek boy “Why, I remember when I was 15 and it was hard to get the attention of girls, I mean boys” as if being a geek boy was somehow a more authentic existence than being a highly desired female (e.g. desired by geek boys). In contrast, desired men never wish to have been undesired men. And neither do undesired men.
@livingtree2013 “Our daughters could easily (and will, if I have anything to say about it) learn to prefer men with dignity)” Nope, it doesn’t work that way. Didn’t you see our discussion above about womyn’z brainz?
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/mysterious-forces-at-work/#comment-111362
Naturally I made the concept easier to shoot down by compressing it into clay pigeon form:
t”his is the reason that all attempts have failed and will forever fail to convince women about the men they ought to prefer: women’s brains deceive the women to misapply the “ought to” to the men they already prefer. “He IS a nice guy, he only hits me when I need it. He IS a hard-working guy, he’s just taking a long vacation these months. He IS a smart man, those IQ tests were misinterpreted. He IS a moral guy, he wouldn’t have shot that police officer if he could have avoided it.”
@Badpainter re:”woman have place a higher priority on male chastity.” Ok, but don’t get trapped into saying it’s a great idea for women to deny men sex. Especially in LTR.
Novaseeker,
If the pre-marital debt includes student loan debt accrued by one spouse and this becomes subject to equitable distribution and is apportioned (at least in part) to the spouse who did not originally assume the loan, does the debt become non-dischargeable through a bankruptcy?
In other words, if you marry a person with student loan debt and the judge awards you some of that debt when you divorce (by assigning lop-sided numbers to the house value, for example), does it become student loan debt for you too (immune to bankruptcy), or just regular debt?
@Tom C:
I’m pretty sure it could only if you wrap the debt up together. Leaving it separate is generally a good idea.
Posted this:
—-
As pointed out on Dalrock’s blog, “Tom” the “Married Guy” appears to be a woman:
“Married Guy” refers to men as “them” and women as “us”.
and
“I love Weebs. Just love her to death.” No self-respecting man would say that; at least not one masculine enough to be “Married.”
Don’t ask “Tom” the woman; ask a real “Married Guy”; ask Dalrock.
——
Let’s see if it will pass moderation.
Tom,
All student loan debt in the United States is entirely unbankruptable. I don’t know the laws about whether or not a spouse inherits the debt in marriage (and must make good on it when divorced) but it will be paid. I can not be welched on, it will be paid by someone.
That is why banks love to give out so much of it at such extremely low interest rates: there is no risk. None. They know they will get all their money eventually (plus interest) unless you die.
Out of interest, I ran the content (not the quoted parts, just the author’s text) through three gender analysis tools:
genderanalyzer.com says: written by a woman (64%).
stealthserver01.ece.stevens-tech.edu/gendercreatetext?count=59155 says: male 67.23%.
hackerfactor.com/GenderGuesser.php says: 50.36% male.
My analysis: 100% stupid.
Since bridal virginity is less common now, the ones who are virgins are probably the ones least likely to do so, since the kind if women who would pull the ripcord in the past was more likely to have been a virgin bride simply because there was a stigma attached to fornication that has been greatly weakened.
Yes. It’s the recurring gremlin of statistical comparisons – selection bias.
Jf12, just sayin’, as geek-boys, I’m sure it must have felt pretty sucky at the time, but you never had the convenient opportunity to demoralize yourselves that the man-whores took at every opportunity.
I used to work with a geeky guy, as an adult. I had thought he was like that because he was holding himself for someone worthy. When I said something of this to geek boy, he was like “what? Are you mad?! I’d give it up in a second to get laid.” I actually considered giving him one, out of pity, but it wasn’t the right thing to do. No woman wants to take that prize from the future mrs. geek boy.
My youngest brother, also a geek. His n-count when he met his beautiful and also geeky wife, was 1. I doubt sincerely she would have married him if it’d been any other way. And I hope you’ll believe me when I tell you that they have the best marriage and the healthiest family of anyone I’ve ever met.
Having said that, it is a bit strange to me that you can’t understand why people want to get married.
CAF and threatpoint in practice:
Marital problems overwhelming me
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=863227
Ah that was your comment! I made reference to it later when discussing rationalizing of bad choices.
As mentioned in my last comment, my virginal geek brother and his virginal geek wife have two daughters. Time will tell I guess if they’re
I’m just personally of the belief that girls learn how they should relate to men from how their fathers relate to women. Think about it: girl grows up with a dad (if he’s present) who’d had more women before she was born than she will in her entire life. Every boy she sees growing up with her in school is that same guy. Is dad involved enough to tell her that she shouldn’t date those guys? No. Her first sexual relationship is a date rape, and her schoolmates call her a slut for that. I’m not making excuses or blaming, but how’s any girl supposed to develop a healthy outlook on relationships with this as her background?
JF12,
If women don’t like the uncomfortable slut/stud comparison they must realize they have absolute control over that. I don’t think women really want to eliminate studs they just want betas to start approving of sluts for LTRs and marriage. I say screw ’em, but don’t marry ’em.
If women really wanted men with low N they would favor such men. However, women actually prefer men with reputations as players, they just can’t seem to get them to commit. I don’t think women care one way or the other about a man’s N except as a rhetorical shaming device to use against betas. Favored men get favors (sex) from women, in the bygone age such favors may have been things other than sex. Since modern women have little else to offer they create players which they then get to bitch about. Which I think is what they really want since they’re never content to begin with.
And this is my epiphany about dread, brutality, and game: a woman is never content for long. It’s necessary or the man to provide a constant supply of tension. He must create just enough uncertainty that she can’t ever be placed in the position where her natural anxiety creates the missing tension. This is the long game.
A man must have a mission or purpose external to himself. A woman can never be a man’s mission. A man’s mission, be it faith, or business, or some other pursuit can never be about women as the focus. A man must be indifferent to everything but his mission, and be ready to eject any person from his life that interferes with his mission. If a mission focused man takes a wife she is on his journey, his guest, his amusement, his assistant, not his purpose. Her happiness is solely her responsibility. He has more important things to worry about. This is where dread comes in; she must be aware she serves at his leisure. If she chooses to leave, he’s indifferent. If she interferes with the mission she’s ejected, fired, minimized, or replaced without passion only with cold brutal indifference. This brutal indifferent dread is the source of the necessary tension to prevent an over abundance of contentment. The mission focused man leaves the woman with a mild and never ending doubt about how important she is to him. She must be placed in position of having to compete for his attention with his mission.
Yes, that’s right.
It is not daughter’s business to know how many women daddy had before he married mommy, certainly not a subject of conversation when she is a child. He is dad and he loves and sleeps ONLY with mom, that is it. That is all daughter need know. If dad is in his late 50s or 60s and his daughter is now an adult and wants to have that conversation (for whatever reason), that might be different. He might be able to empart a different kind of fatherly wisdom to help his now adult daughter. Dads don’t usually talk to their daughters at age 25 the same way they did when they were 5. And there is good reason for that.
That said, what exactly is “date rape” to you? What does that mean and how does that differ from “rape?” Because I’ll be honest, rape is rape and that is it. I don’t add any adjectivies to it, don’t want to take away the seriousness of it.
Really IBB? You can’t imagine? Let me give you a smallish sampling of reasons. There are more… These are just the ones that won’t blow up the conversation. I’m kind of enjoying it.
1) My brothers marriage is one in a million. I prefer my investments to be a lot less risky.
2) Of the at least 100,000 males I’ve met in the course of the last 45 years, less than 0.01% of them I’d consider males that I think would be a good father (I have pretty high standards here) AND someone I’d want to spend every day of the rest of my life with.
3) Not one time ever in my life did I dream of having babies or a fantasy wedding, or envision what my husband would be like. Not. Once. It doesn’t feel natural. I just don’t think it’d be right to fake that. Do you?
It’s not daughters business, that’s true IBB, but you don’t think that kind of thing communicates without words or intent? It conveys in attitude, in subconscious behaviours.
After my parents divorced, as a teen, my dad was in a new relationship within months. He married/cohabitated with six different women after that, one of whom was a tramp who was barely out of high school.
Just satin’.
It’s not daughters business, that’s true IBB, but you don’t think that kind of thing communicates without intent? It conveys in attitude. In subconscious behaviours. In lifestyle choices. And it actually matters deeply to girls.
After my parents divorced, my dad was in a new relationship within months. He married/cohabitated with six different women after that, one of whom was a bimbo he met at the bar who was only a half dozen years out of high school. His divorces were all bitter, and he blamed them always. He blamed my grandma for the failure of his marriage to my mom. For interfering.
I got the message.
I’m just saying, a parent doesn’t have to use words to convey their beliefs. Actions speak far louder than words.
Oh, and date rape is where you’re on a date with a boy you like, and he starts getting fresh, you don’t mind at first because you like him, but he doesn’t stop there. You say no, push him away, whatever, but he pins you and rapes you, and tells his buddies that you had sex with him.
Date rape. Your word against his. You lose. Taadaaaa!
@livingtree2013
My brothers marriage is one in a million. I prefer my investments to be a lot less risky.
Which works out to 1 of 60 marriages. In a population of 315,000,000, that’s not bad. For scale, there are 440 billionaires in the US. If you prefer your investments to be “a lot less risky,” does that mean 1 of 30, 1 of 10, the only one?
Of the at least 100,000 males I’ve met in the course of the last 45 years
Which is doubtful. You’d have to meet ~6 new men every day for 45 years. That also ignores women, and given typical demographics (e.g. not a mining town), would mean meeting about 12 new people each day for 45 years (unless you’re purposely ignoring women).
less than 0.01% of them I’d consider males that I think would be a good father
Which works out to less than 10 men. Most women have to date/observe men for a while to determine whether they are likely to be good fathers or not – perhaps you should start a matchmaking service? But you’re right, you must have “pretty high” standards to exclude (literally) 99.99% of those men. Incidentally, the purest gold coins the US Mint produces are 99.99%.
It doesn’t feel natural.
How would you know?
—
The rest of your comment is ridiculous.
@livingtree2013
Oh, and date rape is where you’re on a date with a boy you like, and he starts getting fresh, you don’t mind at first because you like him, but he doesn’t stop there. You say no, push him away, whatever, but he pins you and rapes you, and tells his buddies that you had sex with him.
According to the 2010 National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey Report (and others) men are raped on dates, too.
Date rape. Your word against his. You lose. Taadaaaa!
Which is patently false. Out of curiosity, do you still stick to the 2% myth?
Pingback: Mysterious forces at work. | Dalrock | Truth an...
Although Dalrock has linked it before I was much interested in the chart of white persons earning over $75,000 a year.
Men whether married or not and as they become older are more likely than women to earn in excess of that sum. To concentrate firstly on the men: Married men are far more likely than single men to earn that amount. I conclude therefore that either, married men are more ambitious or have greater ability/motivation or alternatively that women put themselves around men who earn more and make themselves irresistible such that the wealthy men marry them. I suspect the latter idea is the more plausible although marriage can incentivize.
With regard to the women few exceed that $75,000 sum and there is little difference between married and unmarried women. I conclude that women are either less ambitious/motivated and have lesser ability (and this not withstanding female ability to manipulate men at work for their benefit) or that female success does not in any way attract men (no surprise). I suspect both are correct. The chart also suggests that marriage is no detriment to women doing worse than those who remain single which rather underlines the lack of ambition/ability point. It also, to slightly digress, suggests that there is no reason to suppose that in earlier centuries women were being held back by reason of marriage and children; few single women were remarkable: Austen may have been a spinster, but Radcliffe and Gaskill not to mention Mrs Beaton were married.
In an age when the media likes to tout women like Sandberg or Mrs Clinton as the shape of things to come I think the chart shows that cheerleading for the inevitability of women CEOs and the like does a considerable disservice to women for it misleads them as to their basic nature and abilities/motivation.
3) Not one time ever in my life did I dream of having babies or a fantasy wedding, or envision what my husband would be like. Not. Once. It doesn’t feel natural. I just don’t think it’d be right to fake that. Do you?
so you are here just trolling
@Desiderius
“Redpillers have rediscovered the doctrine and nature of original sin that true tradcons (unlike churchians) never abandoned.”
Idk. I think that tradcons are quite capable of White-Knighting–saying that men usually take advantage of women sexually (essentially saying that sluts aren’t really sluts) or that PUAs are sexual predators. However, women are very much seeking sexual interaction, but some want to whitewash it by claiming that they were taken advantage of. From my four-decades-ago experience, women I’ve played with have been heavily invested in the moment. They wanted validation from me, tingles, kisses, etc. There was no “taking advantage” of them. That was simply ASD hamsturbation or White-Knight-denial of the doctrine of original sin.
One of them was drunk, but was able to walk under her own power to be alone with me outside. When she got less drunk, she got out of the mood and then claimed that I took advantage of her (to her cousin in my fraternity). The chick had second thoughts once she was less drunk and was
trying to cover her ass in case her sorority sisters accused her of acting like a slut. ASD hamsturbation & White-Knighting.
“The chick…was trying to cover her ass….” Just realized that I made a joke.
@livingtree2013 re: “My brothers marriage is one in a million.” Maybe, but a geek being virginal is too common. Women are NOT lining up to choose the 30% (or so) of men who are incel. “I can’t get a woman” is NOT a selling point.
“For some reason the only men I find attractive are also found attractive by a lot of other women. Weird, huh? I guess that makes me special, since EVERY woman claims to prefer unpromiscuous men. Right?”
“After my parents divorced”
The rest is commentary.
Observe the wages of sin.
“There was no “taking advantage” of them. That was simply ASD hamsturbation or White-Knight-denial of the doctrine of original sin.”
You both sinned.
Fire and brimstoners are under no illusions as to base human nature, male or female. No bullet is left in the barrel when they take aim.
A date rape is where the girl could just get up and walk away but doesn’t know how to give a hj/bj so she sticks around to see how it turns out.
innocentbystanderboston says: February 27, 2014 at 3:29 pm
For men marrying is a sign of courage. It is a sign of courage no matter her virtue.
Marrying a young virgin in today’s Marriage 2.0 society is a sign of courage. Marrying a carousel rider who’se settling because she’s hit the “wall” is a sign of stupidity and/or delusions.
Tom —
As IBB says, student loan debt is not discharged by bankruptcy. If the liability is distributed to you by the court, it remains student loan debt, and doesn’t become other debt, if you are obligated to at the creditor.
@Badpainter “And this is my epiphany about dread, brutality, and game: a woman is never content for long. It’s necessary or the man to provide a constant supply of tension. He must create just enough uncertainty that she can’t ever be placed in the position where her natural anxiety creates the missing tension. This is the long game.” This is well said. There has to be a flux, since she doesn’t prefer constant levels of comfort (or constant danger, for that matter). She may actually prefer to be on the comfort side of the danger slope, i.e. with the negative gradient vector of the potential energy pointing down towards her. It can be fun to have a ball roll repeatedly down a steep slope twoards you, and then you or someone throws the ball away again up the slope.
But it being fun presupposes she is facing the hill of potential danger (physical harm, financial harm, relationship harm, etc) down which the relationship ball can USUALLY roll (and bounce!) towards her by moving towards comfort – bacon, flowers, backscratches – interspersed with short (*necessarily* violent, comparatively) episodes of pulling away towards estrangement and hurt. So far, my big mistakes have been, I think in making the pulling away too prolonged and too gentle.
IBB, in what sense can you be a “trad con” and actively promote fornication? Whatever the faults of actual “trad cons” at least the content of what they purport or are supposed to believe is very clear: no fornication, period, the end.
You might deny that you actively promote it, to which I would respond, at the very least you are completely blasé about it. Also, you preach for a SMP/MMP in which young women will be deliberately led into temptation. And then you say that only lesser men would care. So, basically, your message to young women is “go ahead and sin because we all know sins can be forgiven.” To say the least, that is NOT the Biblical teaching on the nature/propriety of repentance.
Your claim to be a trad con must then be completely false. Either it is a lie or it is based on self-delusion. I suppose it doesn’t matter which.
I’ve seen this very often, too. Divorces often follow a common script…
1. Wife is unhappy (unhaaaaapy ™ Dalrock lol) after umpteen years married to loyal, boring betaman.
2. Wife decides to teach husband a “lesson he won’t forget” via the divorce courts, kidnaps his kids and steals most/all his money.
3. After the initial shock/trauma of divorce, ex-husband finds himself in small but usable apartment with spartan life.
4. Being bored with little dough, ex-husband hits gym, starts hiking at national parks, studies a foreign language and/or literature and/or higher mathematics, and going on low-cost day trips to burn time. All this makes him a much more interesting and mobile person, especially to women, but also to people like employers.
5. Ex-husband finds his relationship with kids dramatically improves, as during visitation, ex-wife isn’t around to poison his relationship with kids, order him to beat them for (real or imagined) slights while he is not around, or humiliate him in front of them. Rather than only ever having the shitty time with kids, he starts having fun time.
6. On “non visitation” days, ex-husband starts being seduced by hot young chicks who see him as a great catch.
7. On her “non visitation” days, ex-wife gets randomly banged and slanged by playas, who see her as an easy target.
8. Suddenly, ex-husband has an epiphany, and sees wife as the saggy old reformed slut that she always was, as opposed to the queen of his castle, which was his delusion for years. He feels incredibly lucky to be rid of her.
9. Suddenly, ex-wife has an epiphany, and while she earlier thought, based upon ex-husband’s devotion, that she could easily extract committment from a better man, she now realizes that she burned the only man who was ever likely to show her the respect and love that she didn’t deserve. She doubles down on the drama and “eat pray love”ing.
10. ex-husband either marries again in a short time, to a much younger, hotter, tighter model, or he takes up the mantle of middle aged playa, gets a cat, and enjoys the single life. Ex-wife decides that she doesn’t need a man, becomes radical bitter feminist, and gets a cat in a lame attempt to make up for the children’s affection, which is now radically reduced.
So goes the life of Jenny Erikson, and those like her.
That is why I tend to be such a major beta-orbiter (for lack of a better word) of SSM’s, of Elspeth’s, of Jen’s, and yes even of Marissa. I adore them all, all four.
Your emotional sluttiness is abhorrent.
Are you going to answer my previous post, or just slobber on me? Again, how can you hold these contradictory opinions:
women aren’t able to make moral distinctions between right and wrong.
my children are smart enough to know right from wrong
I’ve been reading this blog for several months now and a number of things need to be said in regard to posts here and in other entries. So here are several facts which somehow relate to the ongoing discussion:
1) Matthew 19 grants an absolute right to divorce and remarriage in the case of sexual sin. This includes past sexual sins which were hidden at the time of marriage. It’s not limited to intercourse either.
No one has any business trying to browbeat or “encourage” a man to marry a woman with a past. Joseph is called just/righteous(depending on the version you’re reading) and he is going to divorce Mary for not being a virgin. This means a man who chooses not to marry a woman with a past has every right to do so and people have no business trying to browbeat him into doing otherwise.
2) It’s not possible for trad-cons to shame MGTOW because they have no respect for trad-cons. In fact, to a lot of them it’s a badge of honor. I’M NOT MGTOW.
3) A woman with a past who marries without sleeping with her husband-to-be before marriage is tacitly saying that whatever her previous partners paid to get into her pants is what her husband’s lifetime commitment is worth. This isn’t only a slap in the face to her husband, but it means the woman almost always benefits from doing this because her SMV is higher with her flings than when she marries. Since sex outside of marriage is a sin, a lot Christian men see no reason to invest in a woman with a past.
4) Women are without a doubt moral agents. There are so many parts of the Bible where this is made clear that I don’t need too quote them. Suffice to say a woman wouldn’t be put to death if she couldn’t commit sin. I don’t know if anyone here actually believes they aren’t, but some posts here and on other entries make it hard to tell. Under no circumstances should society or the church overlook or downplay young women’s participation in premarital sex. Parents and churches should exhaust all resources to prevent as many people from engaging in it as possible and own the consequences like I discussed in points 1 and 3.
Yes, Christ cleanses all sin for those who repent. But, we will often have earthly consequences for our sins. This may mean being rejected as a prospective wife for a lot of young women.
5) Marriage matters because of God and no other reason. Speaking of benefits like social stability, health, etc are just distractions from why it actually matters. We shouldn’t try to come up with secular justifications for institutions established by God.
6) There’s probably other stuff I should say which isn’t coming to mind right now. So don’t be surprised if I chime in again.
Lying Tree:
“who is it exactly that pitches men on this ridiculous bill of lies?”
Feminists like you. And tradcons. But then, I’m being redundant.
Feminists like you, and tradcons, are rwo sides of the same coin, really.
The only difference between tradcons and feminists is the tradcons aren’t marxists. However, tradcons are authoritarian statists so that sort of makes up for it.
Escoffer,
Ummm, no, it is not either of these. It is not that I actively promote fornication or discourage it. Obviously in church or for my kids, I would discourage it. But that is really not the point of my posts here. From our persepctive on this blog, I’m more of the opinion (if she already fornicated)…. what is done, is done. I can’t change it. It does no good to shame her for it. So, where does a woman go from there?
It appears on Dalrock’s blog (for some of the posters here) she goes straight to Hell, do not pass Go, do not collect any Christian marriage.
Its “..go out and sin no more.” That is what Christ said verbatim. Sex within marriage isn’t sin.
Yes Marcus, I’m aware that men get raped too – I’ve been the perpetrator.
Whats the 2% myth?
Opus, I think you’re correct in your assumption – there are more women who gravitate to men who are potential providers, than women who work on their own high-earning career, but the reasons are obvious. 1) Women generally stay home/work part time for several years after having kids. Someone needs to do the earning while they raise the children. Isn’t that one of the main advantages of getting married? and 2) gold digging is epidemic, isn’t it?
As for the earnings chart, you don’t need to be earning +$75k to have a positive net worth. I know enough women who’ve bought and paid for their own house (with kids!) on <$35k a year to make the point of the chart moot. My point for bringing it up was that… if debt load and financial security is an issue for men these days (and I am going to tell you I'm really glad to hear that it is!!), they CAN actually enter into a marriage with a woman who isn't a train wreck.
Non-train wrecks may be hard to find these days, especially in America, but they do exist, and I suspect they might be more likely to be the stable, level-headed types men say, SAY, that you want. Although I'm doubtful that men really do want that… google "why do men love crazy women" sometime. Please, please don't try to rationalize this with the old "crazy chicks are better in bed!" routine. Its no different than the alpha male fantasy for women.
Also, there's that dastardly problem with financially stable, high earning women being less dependent too, and we know that's unattractive. (eye roll)
The very phrasing—“actively promote” v. “discourage”—gives the game away. If you took Biblical teaching seriously, you would not “discourage” fornication. You would FORBID it for your children and oppose it in society at large.
Simply stating the obvious—that forbidding something to a being with free will is no guarantee that she will obey—does not get you out of this pickle. Your mere “discouragement” is both inconsistent with the religious beliefs you claim to hold and is, in practice, license to sin. It reminds me of Machiavelli’s “Exhortation to Penitence,” a subversive little ditty that he wrote to cover his atheism, and which “is not quite an exhortation, but it is an invitation, to do the things for the doing of which one must be exhorted to penitence.” In other words, it’s OK to sin because sins can be forgiven.
Beyond that, it is flatly false that “it does no good to shame her for it.” It does a world of good, both for her own soul, her own (genuine) repentance, for the example it sets for others, for the tone it sets for society.
You can’t possibly believe the Biblical injunction against fornication and write the things that you write.
Marissa,
Am I correct to assume you home school your kids? I certainly hope you do because that is pretty much the only way you can be sure that they have no contact with anyone that doesn’t share all of your moral and spiritual values. Because that is really what we are talking about here. Regardless of what you may think, there is no way you know everyone in your life as well as you think you do.
No, women are not moral agents.
Yes, my kids know right from wrong. They are not going to go in a stranger’s car. They are not going to let a stranger take them to the bathroom. They are not going to sip alcoho if offeredl. But that doesn’t mean that they are moral agents. And what do I mean by that?
Marissa, if I had things entirely my way (I don’t, but if I did) you would not have the right to vote. I don’t like the 19th Amendment. I don’t like it because your gender does not seem to give a damn that money doesn’t grow on tree (NAWALT.) Your gender (for the most part) tends to vote with your emotions, to vote for candidates to like to increase spending for entitlements. Your gender largely does not care that we don’t have the money. Your gender wants the entitlement, lack of money be damned. That is (partially) what I mean about women not being moral agents.
This does not mean that I hate women. I LOVE women. Love them. I can’t live without my wife. But men and women are different. We are not the same. We don’t look at the world the same. And we don’t have the same level of moral agency. As such, I don’t think we should have the same rights. I want women obeying men (in all things.) My Christian value system here puts me at odds with our form of government and its laws. There is nothing I can do about that other than complain HERE about it.
I’m really not interested in getting into a philosophical discussion on whether or not my terminology (about moral agency) is the correct one. It is the term I use. And if you don’t like it, I don’t care….
…but I still like you Marissa. Okay, I will now stop slobbering on you.
Trolling? Why would you extrapolate that from my comment, greyghost? I told you why I’m here – I’m interested in learning why people are so obsessed with marriage. And I’m here for the interesting conversation! Are you only interested in talking with people who are like-minded?
So goes the life of Jenny Erikson, and those like her.
Jenny Erikson is still young enough and “out there” enough to remarry and she will.
Escoffier,
I answered your questions. All of them. Sorry if you dont like the answer I gave you. But there is no inconsistancy. You have not answered my questions.
In church, in my family, anywhere (as a Christian) I would discourage fornication. It is sin. But that is not the issue here. The issue here is that it has already happened. Now, do you cast her off because she sinned? Do you cast him off because he sinned?
No, you don’t Escoffier.
If you want to shame, go ahead. I’m not going to. The only way they will know they screwed up is if they get right with Christ. And in this case, they will be shaming themselves. I needn’t do it.
IBB, if you took your “women do not have moral agency” stance seriously, then you would be all for keeping the tightest possible supervision over young women so that their lack of agency would have minimum opportunites to get them into trouble. Basically, the old arrangement in which a girl only leaves her father’s house when she moves in with her husband.
Instead, you want them out there in the wide world until 25 at a minimum. Now, what–given their supposed lack of “moral agency”–do you think is going to happen during those years? So how can you encourage these amoral being to go out and inevitably sin?
I am late to the party, admittedly, but I am starting to think that nothing you say has any internal coherence.
@theasdgamer, are you meaning to say that original sin means that men can’t “really” date rape?
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that not only am I a feminist, I am also an atheist. That said, what you call “original sin” is exactly the same as agency – everyone has the potential to make bad choices, and many of us do. Women should not be excused for them just because they are women. That is morally wrong.
That said, I’m not intending to suggest that every situation that is termed “date rape” actually is, I suspect more often than not it is a case of bad judgement and regret (always your word against theirs), but a 51% majority doesn’t negate the other 49%. In the case where person on the receiving end of the “rape” is crying and cowering through the act, pinned in a corner by a person at least 75lb heavier than her, would you not agree that this crosses the “non-consensual” threshold?
Your answers are non-responsive, evasive, and contradictory. You’ve not even tried to address the “discourage” v. “forbid” point.
So, I wonder, do you merely discourage your daughters to steal? Or do you forbid it?
Elspeth says:
“Jenny Erikson is still young enough and “out there” enough to remarry and she will.”
Jenny has two kids; that automatically disqualifies her to large portion of the MMP. She is young enough to qualify with the “for entertainment purposes only” crowd. I too suspect she’ll remarry, most likely to another desperate beta.
No, Jf12, I suspect that “I can’t get a woman” is about as successful a sales pitch as “All the guys who hit on me are just interested in casual sex or are already married.” However, I do think if “I can’t get a woman” is your rallying cry, you’re in a substantially better position in life than “All the guys who hit on me…”
You know why? Because you aren’t “ruined”. You don’t have multitudes of forums talking about what a horrible person you are.
In fact, there are tomes of writing written specifically about the merits of men like you. You are positively heroic! Does it get you a woman? Sometimes. Does that mean all your problems are solved? Of course not. Getting a woman might actually make your problems worse. I certainly know more than my share of men who fit this description.
There are few writings about the merits of dating the dejected women who are so depressed about their marriage prospects due to the incredibly bad selection pool out there – those people get articles written about them too, only those articles are of the “what a slut!” or “you poor dear, keep trying” variety.
Just sayin’.
Marcus
1) If it were an actual financial instrument, I wouldn’t invest in it unless it had a better than 60% chance of success (whatever the criteria of success is). 1/60 as you note, that is 0.016% chance of success. Not good enough.
2) I have lived in seven different cities, and worked on ski hills, in bars, and on construction sites all over the world. I And I am very gregarious (in case you hadn’t noticed already!). Not to seem conceited, but my men-meeting record is unparalleled! 100,000 isn’t a significant exaggeration. It may only be 85,000… but still. Yes, in many of those instances I formed a snap judgement, but after meeting so many, you start learning discernment. I am also an extremely observant person,
3) You left out the 2nd (and most critical!) part of my sentence – someone I could envision spending every day of the rest of my life with. The good father part is relatively easy! The life-mate part? Yes, ten. Probably less, truthfully. What can I say, I’m selective.
4) It doesn’t feel natural. I’ve been told that I have the makings of an excellent mother, but I’ve tried serious LTR’s. It just doesn’t fit. Not saying never, if I had met my current BF when I was 20 my life might have turned out very different, but I’m 45 now. The situation has changed.
Living tree, there have been in depth analyses of women who claim there are no marriage prospects. The problem is the Nice Guys, or betas, are essentially invisible to them. Men who would make good husbands, but be boring. Stable and hard working are boring characterisitics.
I find myself at least a tiny bit in agreement with IBB, as scary as that thought is to me. Not 100%, but a tiny bit in the area of no-fault divorce.
I have known for decades that if we get rid of no-fault divorce, the entire feminist disaster breaks down on the spot.
But, I go a step farther in the peeing contests so common here.
WHEN EVERY MAN IS A CUCKOLD, NO MAN IS A CUCKOLD.
The word cuckold is thrown about, usually as an insult. We have seen figures that the average bride in the US has had 11 lovers before her wedding.
Y’all have allowed the term cuckold to be changed. Though I did not live in past centuries, I have read books which were written then. The only way to avoid being a cuckold was to be the first; last; and only lover a woman ever had. Not just the only lover during a temporary marriage.
If you were divorced and she had sex with another man, cuckold. If she had sex while married to you, cuckold. If she were not a virgin when you married her, a cuckold.
So, when you marry a woman who is not a virgin, in the original definition, you were a cuckold when you married her. That means almost everybody, so why pick on another man you view as a cuckold?
There are very few married men today who are not cuckolds in the original sense. Allowing the term to be changed around to suit feminism is a cop-out for alleged MRA’s.
I have written before that it is time for men to move into the real world. The world in which almost all men are cuckolds, and if you don’t like it, leave the Anglosphere. Or, become celibate forever, I guess.
###
On New Republic, I read a review of an interesting book, COUNTRYMEN. It recounts how Denmark saved all but a few hundred of their Jews from Nazi murders. How?
Easy. The people of Denmark simply said you are not killing our fellow citizens. And, they all assisted the Jews to escape, and refused to help the Nazis take them away. And, did so rather openly.
Men today are being systematically destroyed in the US/UK, because other men cooperate or do nothing as they are being destroyed. If only MRA’s actually took action to help protect other men instead of engaging in personal vicious attacks for every trivia reason, the treatment of men could not continue. Just as 95% of Danish Jews escaped the pogrom because other Danes refused to cooperate with; the Nazis.
###
For those who don’t understand living tree’s mutual nurturing, that means after work a man is supposed to help his SAHM wife with the housework.
Yes, but the genders are closer to antisymmetric than symmetric. The woman’s point of view “all the guys who hit on me aren’t good enough” suffers from a number of psychological problems resulting from her hypergamy, notably erroneously inflated self worth and the paradox of choice (also in other guises the Loan Paradox. Groucho’s version was that he wouldn’t want to join any club that would accept him as a member. The Loan Paradox is that banks etc are more willing to give money to people who don’t need it or even want it.) The man’s point of view “none of the women I hit on think I’m good enough” suffers from effects of the SAME problems of the woman: her hypergamy causing her inflated self-worth etc.
There is SMV (sexual market value) and MMV (marriage market value). A flat broke dreamy hunk might have a high SMV, being able to bed a lot of women. But when a woman is ready to settle down, she might prefer a rich but plain man who has lower SMV but higher MMV.
This is what we in these parts have long referred to as “settling” by a woman. This is also the type of woman any self-respecting, eyes-wide-open “rich, but plain man [i.e., beta]” will avoid like the plague if he’s swallowed the red pill. Such a woman is nothing but a future frivorce waiting to happen.
Yes Marcus, I’m aware that men get raped too – I’ve been the perpetrator.
Either you are a rapist or are joking about rape – both are despicable.
Whats the 2% myth?
That 2% of rape accusations (made by women) are false.
If it were an actual financial instrument, I wouldn’t invest in it unless it had a better than 60% chance of success (whatever the criteria of success is). 1/60 as you note, that is 0.016% chance of success. Not good enough.
? That is painfully bad rationale (and math).
Not to seem conceited […]
No, not at all.
Escoffier,
Okay fine. This is the way is used to be (for the reason that women didn’t have moral agency.) It is NOT this way anymore. Are you suggesting that it should return to this way in 2014 in the United States?
If not, then why mention it? Is this type of society possible in today’s United States? Or is it not possible?
They are going to be. They are allowed. That’s the law (man’s law, maybe not God’s law.) That is the country we live in.
What can we do about that? Seem like all you want to do is complain to me about it and say I am being inconsistant.
WHy is that? Its because I’m trying to make sense of our secular laws, customs, and lifestyles, ( and how we live within them) and try to apply that life my spiritual side. More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that this cannot be done.
Having lost this latest culture war, the angry white males of the right can turn their attention to the tyranny of women-only gyms and trying to wrest the N word from blacks.
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2014/02/28/john-moore-a-strange-kind-of-freedom-in-arizona/
The inconsistent and hypocritical Left speaks again.
IBB”
What can we do about that? Seem like all you want to do is complain to me about it and say I am being inconsistant.”
MGTOW, enjoy the decline, and let it burn. Those are the only solutions. Along the way those that aren’t moral agents will get pumped and dumped, because they serve no other purpose. What arises from the ashes ? Who knows?
Those are solutions for MGTOW, for men with nothing to lose, for men who don’t have anyone that they care for….
…it cannot be MY solution. As was said earlier by des, I don’t do hunger strikes.
IBB claims And I am a Christian.
No, you are a TradCon, by your own admission. One cannot be both a Christian and a TradCon at the same time. By its very nature, TradCon’ism puts political ideology and sociological imperative above all else. Where there is a conflict between the message of the Christian Scriptures and right-wing political ideology, the ideology wins – every.single.time. Scripture is then perverted, if absolutely necessary, to add fuel to an argument (although most TradCons with even a little bit of intellectual sophistication know that it’s better to avoid references to Scripture or Christianity altogether if it’s not needed to gull rubes of that persuasion). Your own rantings on the subject of virgin marriage serve as a very clear demonstration of this.
You might fool the droids in the discussion threads over at The National Review online with your nonsense, but it does nothing for you here other than make you look like a hypocritical jackass.
Re: “it cannot be MY solution” mine neither. The nefariousness (? confused by own word choice) of chucking it all and e.g. moving to Costa Rica to do odd jobs for fun is not a serious option for me. But even if I were to consider going my own way, I certainly would not do it in situ. I would not could not, not in a house, not in a tree, not in a car.
Easy one. Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically. Hypergamy demands it.
http://therationalmale.com/category/love/
LOL, you should spend more time at Hooking Up Smart and ask Aunt Giggles about this.
IBB, that’s a cop out. Sure, it’s not the way it is society-wide any more. But you could make that the way it is in YOUR house for YOUR family. You wouldn’t have the legal ability to force a daughter to live with you after 18, but you could decline to support them. I.e., stay here rent free, we’ll help finance your education, etc., or move out but you’re on your own.
Instead, you not only choose to send them out of the house without a husband and (presumably) with parental financial support, but you also discourage them from marrying before 25. You “discourage” premarital sex, but in a very weak way, always falling back on “asking for forgiveness.” Hence you’ve all but guaranteed that they WILL have premarital sex, potentially a lot of it, and you’ve made clear that you won’t judge them for it during or after. So, you’re paying for it AND you’re encouraging it. And, to make matters worse, you’re exhorting all the rest of us to do the same thing.
At least you aren’t a hypocrite in this sense: you want to ensure that ALL our daughters become sluts.
IBB says:
“…for MGTOW, for men with nothing to lose, for men who don’t have anyone that they care for….”
Of course you’ll defend the system because you got yours. Good luck keeping it. Really what have you too lose? Your life? Your material possessions? A Christian doesn’t fear losing those things. A Christian doesn’t recruit others to face the lions in his place. Too keep what you have means conning others to join the circus.
Escoffier to IBB
At least you aren’t a hypocrite in this sense: you want to ensure that ALL our daughters become sluts.
Well, sure, then IBB’s daughter(s) can compete for husbands on a more or less level playing field. See, when all young women are slutwalkers, then there cannot be any slut shaming. Any similarity between IBB and, oh, 3rd-stage sex-positive feminists is surely just a coincidence…
And Escoffier, at least one IBB type person / couple can be found in most of the churches in North America nowadays, although they do seem a bit more common in the upper middle class. It’s people like this, in leadership positions, who were appalled at Joseph of Jackson teachings to young men. It is part and parcel of the feminization of the American church. I may have pointed this out to you before, but honestly cannot recall.
If there are people like this in my church, I don’t know about it. But then again, these topics simply never come up, at least not in anything I see firsthand.
Views which I think are probably more common than previously thought: http://theothermccain.com/2014/02/27/russell-brand-is-the-patriarchy-or-something-says-katy-perry/
Trad cons value marriage for social stability reasons, so they want to convince you to marry. If the women are acting like sluts, they still want you to marry, because it’s good for social stability. So of course they are going to be hostile to guys saying “I don’t want to marry the women available, because they are sluts”, because if enough men do that, marriage rates fall and that makes trad cons sad puppies.
I remember that being Alan Roebuck’s position over at the Orthosphere in his responses to Dalrock’s guest article Must a Traditional Man Accept Modern Marriage. He didn’t take very kindly to having this untenable position torn to shreds by red-pill logic and reacted in very much the same way IBB does on those occasions when his untenable nonsense is similarly shredded by logic in rather humiliating ways (“I’m done here! The argument’s settled. I’m packing up my toys and going home!”).
Escoffier
If there are people like this in my church, I don’t know about it. But then again, these topics simply never come up, at least not in anything I see firsthand.
Well…I don’t know about your situation, but these topics do come up, just in an indirect fashion, often wrapped in a bit of plausible deniability. Since most of us were raised wearing blinders when it comes to women, it’s easy to not see what is right in front of us, because we’ve been trained not to see it.
Just one example: The college-aged woman who decides to go, totally on her own, to South America on a month-long “mission trip” where she’ll be working with young men from other parts of the world. Hey, it’s just a little “experience”, what’s the harm in that? Suggesting it might put a lot of temptation on her plate will get a very chilly reception, if not outright hostility. She’s a Daughter of the King, raised in the church, of course she’ll preserve her chastity while thousands of miles away from Daddy, surrounded by interesting and exotic young men, in a place where no one knows her…
Now, when you put on the glasses, when you really understand women and the Female Imperative, the sudden desire of a young, unattached, fertile woman to go spend 28 days among strange, exotic men is quite easy to explain. However, that explanation is all but certain to make a man very unpopular in any church in the US, for obvious reasons.
She probably will if she wants to, and if she doesn’t wait too long. But will she find a man who provides as well and is as devoted to her as her first husband was? That’s more questionable. If she spends a few years sowing her wild oats, she could very easily find herself writing one of those, “What happened; all of a sudden the only guys willing to commit to me are over 50!” articles.
Jenny has two kids; that automatically disqualifies her to large portion of the MMP. She is young enough to qualify with the “for entertainment purposes only” crowd. I too suspect she’ll remarry, most likely to another desperate beta.
Well I didn’t say she would marry a top tier guy with his pick of women. I simply said she would remarry. Probably to a man who is also divorced but old enough to satisfy his need for a younger woman. He’ll probably be a “beta” (whatever that means exactly) but not necessarily a loser.
I’ve seen far too many divorced mothers remarry-most older than 31- to fully buy into the notion that a woman who is putting herself out there the way this woman is isn’t going to land a
suckerhusband.A part of the problem is improper terminology.
Moral agency does not mean “a tendency to choose things that I think are immoral”, but rather the inability to make moral choices period. My cat, for example, has no moral agency. If he desists from scratching the furniture because he has been punished enough times to associate it with being punished, he is avoiding consequences he wants to avoid, but not avoiding an act because he has come to see it as objectively wrong or immoral. He is not a moral agent, therefore – he cannot see things as abstractly morally right or wrong, so his volitional acts do not have a moral dimension to them.
To suggest that women are like my cat in this way is rather obviously wrong. Women do have the ability to reason morally and discern what is morally good from what is morally evil, and act accordingly (or not). What we see today is not a lack of moral agency in women, but an entire social order that is encouraging women to behave in self-indulgent ways and disregard any kind of moral thinking about certain kinds of actions (especially sexual actions, because this was a laser-beam-like focus of the cultural revolution in the 60s and 70s), while replacing this moral void with a new set of pseudo-moral rules based on feminism’s various theories (e.g., intolerance (however we define it) is “immoral”, inegalitarianism is “immoral”, restricting a woman’s right to have an abortion is “immoral”, and so on). As a result, many women are simply not acting in accordance with actual moral rules, but think they are acting morally because their moral thought has been indoctrinated with the new pseudo-moralities of feminism – essentially if someone is tolerant and egalitarian, then they are moral, regardless of personal decisions they make regarding, e.g., their sexuality.
=====
Its because I’m trying to make sense of our secular laws, customs, and lifestyles, ( and how we live within them) and try to apply that life my spiritual side. More and more, I am coming to the conclusion that this cannot be done.
This is true. But the NT already tells us this is so – choices need to be made. The choices were a bit less stark in the superficially Christian culture of the pre-revolutionary era, but only marginally so, for that was only a superfically Christian culture anyway. Today it is certainly the case that you can’t really please both God and Mammon, and it’s a very stark choice. The way most “Christians” seem to approach this is by sequencing – i.e., go through a period when young, sowing one’s wild oats/riding the cock carousel, then repent when a little older, come back and get married and raise children. With some this is followed by a second sequencing during divorce and its aftermath, which can lead to an interlude of extended immorality, followed by a return in a fourth sequence to a more moral life. And it seems most people accept the sequencing approach, in terms of acknowledging that there are periods in life that are accepted as set aside for focusing on sin.
The dilemma of the traditionalist is that they many of them are caught between (1) the fear that if they do not equip their own daughters for Plan B they have failed them in life from a pragmatic perspective and (2) the spectre of men not marrying their daughters after the carousel phase is over (or at least, of not sufficiently traditional and otherwise acceptable men doing so).
You can see how the two fears are intertwined – they relate to the future of the female child. On the one hand the traditionalist wants her to marry, but on the other he wants a Plan B in case she doesn’t, while at the same time he understands this Plan B path has other risks (i.e., extended carousel riding, cock size sampling, etc.) which could lower her ability to find a traditionally-minded man as a husband, so he must encourage such men to marry his daughters – or other young women like them – to counter this risk.
Hence “man up and marry the sluts” and “all women are doing this in their 20s, it doesn’t mean they will be bad wives and mothers” or “there is no alternative! It is not good for man to be alone!” or “If all of you guys are so judgmental about sluts and don’t marry them, we will have a cratering birth rate and a less traditional society, so you need to think of the big picture” and so on.
The reason why we hear these things is because traditionalists need to decrease the down-road risk that their daughters, who have been working on Plan B from 18-28 (at the encouragement and financial backing of their traditionalist fathers) will not be able to find a traditional man as a husband – so he needs to work on such men, and overcome their reluctance to do so. Of course, this is in part a problem of his own making – he created the situation in the first place by encouraging strongly an ace card as Plan B, knowing the risks that this entails. But he feels trapped between a Scylla and Charibdis – the choice of foregoing a liberal arts education and encouraging young marriage (he is afraid this won’t work out well, and the daughter will be left stranded) or encouraging a liberal arts education and accepting that marriage will come in the late 20s and early 30s, while either turning a blind eye to the cock-hopping in the interim or accepting it as “an inescapable reality”. So, where they usually end up is going with Plan B, and then hammering the kinds of men they are interested in their daughters marrying to marry their daughters in spite of the carousel and its effects.
I don’t think our church arranges such trips and if they do, I don’t know about it. Not that I have looked into it …
They are quite consistent about preaching various tradcon gospels, against abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I can’t recall any preaching about marriage or sex, though, since I started going there in 2005. Like many churches, they are annoyingly left wing on other matters, particularly immigration, but they never seem to talk about sex at all.
Snoop Dogg: “You can’t make a ho’ a housewife.”
Snoop Dog said that?
JDG – tragic commentary on life, that is.
From a secular humanist perspective perhaps. Especially of the female variety.
Agreed there are no shortage of bullshit tradcons around.
Doesn’t mean the Amish, say, don’t exist.
Sadly amongst the majority of society the term has been co opted by the previous generation’s leftist offspring.
I have never ever in my life (not once) ever tried to encourage a Christian-Bachelor to marry a slut. Never once. And I never will.
Well that’s a relief.
It is not her N-count that discourages men from proposing,
This is because they are clueless about the effects of N-count, don’t believe the facts surrounding the effects of N-count, or are convinced that their intended ‘isn’t like that’ (and her N-count won’t contribute to the nuking of their marriage). But I repeatedly repeat myself.
Because I’ll be honest, rape is rape and that is it. I don’t add any adjectives to it, don’t want to take away the seriousness of it.
Too late.
Feminists like you, and tradcons, are two sides of the same coin, really.
Today’s conservative woman = right wing feminists = previous generations left wing feminists. A feminist is a feminist is a feminist.
In the interest of full disclosure, I should tell you that not only am I a feminist, I am also an atheist.
Never would have guessed. /sarc
Easy one. Men love idealistically, women love opportunistically. Hypergamy demands it.
Yep! This is why the men’s eyes glaze over when you tell them about the dangers of marriage in Western society.
A Christian doesn’t recruit others to face the lions in his place. Too keep what you have means conning others to join the circus.
Well said.
@IBB
“That said, what exactly is “date rape” to you? What does that mean and how does that differ from “rape?””
Sometimes it’s: “I need to cover my ass from slut-shaming by my sistahs even though I was really into it at the time.”
Sometimes it’s simple hamsturbation: “He wasn’t that hot after all according to my sistahs–he must have forced me.” 
@LT
“are you meaning to say that original sin means that men can’t “really” date rape?”
I’m saying that “date rape” is a loaded term. “Rape” has meaning, but not “date rape,” except when women want to cover their asses from slut-shaming.
“everyone has the potential to make bad choices”
However “bad” is defined….
“In the case where person on the receiving end of the “rape” is crying and cowering through the act, pinned in a corner by a person at least 75lb heavier than her, would you not agree that this crosses the “non-consensual” threshold?”
Depends. Did she say “no” previously during escalation and acquiesce afterwards by nonverbal signals? Was her “no” merely a device to avoid slut-shaming? Did she ask to be taken home? I never had sex with anyone who wasn’t totally into it, but if a girl started crying in the middle of petting it was time to stop (I never used force and I never lied to girls/women). “Cowering” sounds very nebulous. Was the girl calling out for help? If not, why not?
“After my parents divorced, as a teen, my dad was in a new relationship within months. He married/cohabitated with six different women after that, one of whom was a tramp who was barely out of high school.”
Did your mother go on a sex strike while your parents were married? Do you even have a concept of what that means to a man? No, not really. Do you understand that going on a sex strike constitutes sexual immorality comparable to adultery and violates the marriage vows? And if your mother went on a sex strike, can you guarantee that she didn’t sleep around?
Oh, the barely-out-of-high-schooler was a tramp because she slept with one man–your father. Got it. Not very open-minded or feminist of you. Are many 20-30 year-old women also tramps since so many of them have slept with many guys? Does it only take sleeping with one divorced man for a woman to be a tramp?
I can’t speak for anyone else here, and it’s a bit off-topic, but: yes, actually. Opposing viewpoints are overrated. I don’t claim to be right at all times about everything, but I do think I’m right most of the time, or I’d keep my mouth shut. So why would I want to spend much time listening to people who are, by my reckoning, wrong most of the time?
It might be useful to do so occasionally to learn what the other side is doing and sharpen one’s arguments, but too much of it is just tiresome. I learn far more from people who are basically like-minded but come to the same truth from different perspectives, so they can help me understand the truth better, rather than trying to convince me that it’s really falsehood.
deti says:
February 27, 2014 at 5:13 pm
Men today are most certainly not warned of the colossal risks they undertake when marrying in today’s legal climate in the USA. This is a function of, at minimum, a profound if unintentional ignorance of the situation on the part of those who should be counseling them overlaid with an active campaign of disinformation of those who do know (or should know) what the deal is.
I am a pretty smart individual who has managed a modicum of professional success in this life who was raised by the most solid of parents and extended family for which a person could wish. Their ignorance could be excused because divorce was literally unheard of on either side of my family until my generation. I find it harder to excuse, for instance, the Church of my birth who has all but abdicated its role in upholding its own protections against attacks on marriage, and in fact, has taken an active, attacking role in some regards.
No sane person would ever intuit the inherent unfairness in the current system, either. No rational individual, even one with a rudimentary understanding of contract law, would ever correctly assume the illogical jurisprudence that couples the term ‘no fault’ with continued applicaiton of fault-based remedies such as alimony.
Escoffier
I don’t think our church arranges such trips and if they do, I don’t know about it. Not that I have looked into it …
“Short term mission trip” is one phrase to ask about. But I perhaps did not write clearly. Such a trip doesn’t have to be arranged, or supported, or approved of by the church. There are plenty of organizations that promote “missionary tourism” to college students. Suppose that some family in your church with a college-aged daughter, who went off out of town to college (Christian or secular), announces at the end of her sophomore year that she’ll be spending part of her summer this year in Peru or Argentina on a 1-month mission, and she needs to raise some money for her bit of God’s work. This is the scenario I described above, with more pretty wrapping on it. You’d only notice it if asked for a donation, or to support her in some other way. If her family bankrolled the trip, all you’d likely know about would be an announcement that “Susie will be giving a talk on her mission trip to South America Wednesday night”.
There are other examples, this is just one.
They are quite consistent about preaching various tradcon gospels, against abortion, homosexual marriage, etc. I can’t recall any preaching about marriage or sex, though, since I started going there in 2005. Like many churches, they are annoyingly left wing on other matters, particularly immigration, but they never seem to talk about sex at all.
Two observations:
First, what people say, and what they do, can be very different things. Actions taken, or not taken, can directly contradict the words on Sunday. Church discipline is a touchy subject…
Second, when was the last time that any preaching on, say, Ephesians 5 or 1 Peter 3 was heard?
In my experience, there are a lot of churchgoing men who basically just don’t want to know what their college-aged daughters are doing. It’s not unique to any denomination.
@Desiderius
“There was no “taking advantage” of them. That was simply ASD hamsturbation or White-Knight-denial of the doctrine of original sin.”
“You both sinned.
Fire and brimstoners are under no illusions as to base human nature, male or female. No bullet is left in the barrel when they take aim.”
Please stay on topic. The issue is whether tradcons White-Knight or not. If tradcons _do_ White-Knight, then they necessarily deny that women sin when they are supposedly “taken advantage of.” Hence, those tradcons in fact _do_ deny the doctrine of original sin in a specific application–where women’s sexual sin is concerned.
“In my experience, there are a lot of churchgoing men who basically just don’t want to know what their college-aged daughters are doing. It’s not unique to any denomination.”
I’m well aware of this and it’s a huge part of the problem. What I am about to say is not to let them off the hook, more by way of explanation. But “conservative” fathers have their thumbs in their ears about what their daughters are up to. They are too smart to actively deny, even to themselves, that their little girls are sleeping around. But thinking about it is also painful, so the whole subject is just lost in the back of the mental vault.
They cannot teach their daughters anything about sex because it’s too embarrassing. Their wives are useless on this score, for a number of reasons I bet we’d mostly agree on. So, the girls get no education on sexual morality at all. I think UMC parents mostly do a decent job of shielding their girls from overt slut culture. Plus, to remain in the UMC today requires getting into a “good college” which requires a lot of hard work, so I’d bet that a high % of UMC girls go to college virgins.
But after that, she’s been thrown to the wolves. Or, to her own devices, which are mostly not that great. The stats show that a lot of college girls still graduate virgins, and lots escape with N<3 (picking a random number that’s not too horrible). But that only takes them to age 22, and as we know, for a UMC girl, that means she has 6 unsupervised years left, at least, before marriage, and likely she’ll be making good money throughout. So the N will rise.
Daddy just blocks all this out of his heart and brain. He prays for two things: 1) She does nothing so overt that it forces him to acknowledge what is going on. 2) There is a happy ending, marriage to a suitable SES-peer and some grandchildren before she’s embarrassingly old.
I agree with everything Nova said above but would add the following crucial point. It’s not only, or even primarily, that UMC daddy wants his little girl to have a “plan B” in case there is no husband. No, it’s that he wants to be PROUD of her, and the only pride he is capable of feeling in any more is pride in her elite school, her elite career, her elite job, her good salary, her chic apartment in the city, etc. In other words, all the conventional status trappings which show her to be one of the “winners” of the “meritocracy”. (And one such trapping will be a husband, but only the right kind, and only at the right time, which is not 22 or even necessarily 25).
It was John Derbyshire, I think, who said that children have become “luxury consumption items” and that’s exactly right. Daddy gets the most out of his considerable spend on such an item when she makes him “proud” by following the UMC meritocratic script.
PS: And please note the difference between a group of people from a church, or a group of churches, going on a mission trip with a more or less defined schedule or agenda, and a single co-ed going off on her own for a month. The temptations may be similar, to a young woman, but in the latter case she’s essentially setting up a sex tour.
And any suggestions that this might not be appropriate for a 20 year old woman will get the double whammy we’ve seen in IBB’s postings: on the one hand, accusations from the pedestalizing White Knight brigade along the lines of “How dare you make such a foul, base suggestion about a pure Daughter of the King”, and blazing hot fury from the conservative feminists such as “How dare you try to tell a strong, independent young woman what she should or should not do! You’re just an evil-thinking man!”. The White Knights would be denying that a young woman has a sex drive at all (pedestalization) and the conservative feminists would be irate because interfering with Susie’s trip frankly thwarts the Female Imperative by reducing the amount of “experience” she gets to have prior to marriage.
Suggesting that Susie would be better off engaging in an active marriage search, rather than flitting around alone on month-long foreign country trips, would be met with a great deal of hostility from both the White Knights and the conservative feminists, for reasons Novaseeker very clearly explained just a few posts up.
“then hammering the kinds of men they are interested in their daughters marrying to marry their daughters in spite of the carousel and its effects.”
A very real part of the strategy, as well, has been keeping those “kinds of men” that traditionalists want to marry their cock hopping daughters, in the dark about all of this.
Keeping them in the dark about their daughters’ true natures, about the dualist Plan A/Plan B script, about the correlation between premarital N and frivorce, and the rest of it.
The strategy has been for the last 50 or so years to lull men into a false sense of security that nothing’s really changed; that a “traditional” marriage can still be had with a 30 year old career girl, that the SMP/MMP of 2014 looks much like the SMP/MMP of 1964, etc.
Elspeth says:
February 27, 2014 at 4:29 pm
Respectfully disagreeing with the idea that a women can be a fine mother and a poor wife. Your later comment suggests that you see some danger in this idea, but it did not seem as though you completely refuted the first post.
A married women who does not see her first role as wife (and from the outset) is going to cause her husband, and as you point out, the father of her children no end of grief. By being a bad wife she is sending the worst possible of messages to her children – that the one person she promised a lifetime of fealty is now not worthy of it. The ‘good mother/bad wife’ meme is a contradiction in terms used as cover by women who want to excuse their own poor behavior.
Boxer, if that diatribe was intended as a response to my comment about my parent’s divorce, there isn’t one point in it that you got correct.
Escoffier at 1:55 pm, pretty much agree with most of that comment, in fact it describes some friends of mine. Time was, probably pre-1968 or so, when universities operated in loco parentis – they had the authority to limit what college men and college women did, via single-sex dorms, student curfews, mandatory church attendance (at religious-based colleges), etc. but all that is gone. Nevertheless, modern parents, most especially Boomers, somehow engage in self delusion that none of that matters, because their precious snowflake is a “good girl”.
It’s difficult enough without entities like IBB encouraging the decline…
@ Hurting:
I actually said exactly what you just said about the notion of a woman being a fine mother but a bad wife.
I think you are conflating my comments with IBB’s, whom I was dialoguing with.
…that the SMP/MMP of 2014 looks much like the SMP/MMP of 1964, etc.
It takes a very special breed of self-deluded imbecile to not only say this with conviction, but to actually believe it. Sadly, as most of us here have seen, such imbeciles are by no means the rare exception.
Nova,
There is no guarantee that they will be married. And if no one wants to marry them (at 20 or 25 or 30 or whatever) what does she do? Largely, (and you can ask all the women that post here) women are not being asked. Their choices (for husbands) is nothing or nothing. Maybe that is their own fault, but it is what it is.
It’s not only, or even primarily, that UMC daddy wants his little girl to have a “plan B” in case there is no husband. No, it’s that he wants to be PROUD of her, and the only pride he is capable of feeling in any more is pride in her elite school, her elite career, her elite job, her good salary, her chic apartment in the city, etc. In other words, all the conventional status trappings which show her to be one of the “winners” of the “meritocracy”. (And one such trapping will be a husband, but only the right kind, and only at the right time, which is not 22 or even necessarily 25).
I agree with that. I was trying to limit myself to traditionalists rather than just UMC ones, but for people who are both UMC and traditionalist, I’d agree that the status-mongering motivation is equally present. And, for the same reason, he has to convince the kinds of men he wants her to end up marrying to overlook the carousel and its effects – otherwise, he ends up in the “well, his daughter never married, poor thing” camp at the cocktail party and coffee hour, and that just won’t do.
deti,
Who are these people deti? I havent said this. I know of no one who is saying this. In no church that I have entered has any Pastor said this. I think you pulled this out of your ass.
Here in the world of reality, marriage has absolutely changed. Men know this. And the parameters for what men and women look for in spouses has also changed. What I am finding now is that young men largely do not want to marry women not because of the N-count, but because of her debt-count. It is her debt that drives him away from making that commitment.
Now maybe that correction is good thing, who knows. But this is men responding to disincentives.
Let me ask you something, have you ever gone down on bended knee and proposed (with a ring) to a woman and heard her say no? Be honest.
There is no guarantee that they will be married.
That’s true, but marriage before “the appointe d time” is being actively discouraged because Plan B is prioritized over it. That’s the script. And there is a price for that script.
Nova,
Plan B is being prioritized because Plan A is not a guarantee. Plan B could be.
And, for the same reason, he has to convince the kinds of men he wants her to end up marrying to overlook the carousel and its effects – otherwise, he ends up in the “well, his daughter never married, poor thing” camp at the cocktail party and coffee hour, and that just won’t do.
And of course being clueless, self-deluded, and stuffed with blue pills as he is, UMCBetadad doesn’t see the glaringly obvious contradiction: that encouraging his daughter to postpone marriage by going to school, establishing a career, and becoming an EmpoweredWoman[TM], he is perpetuating the very thing that is preventing his PweciousWittlePwincess[TM] from attracting that mythical “right kind” of man to marry (i.e., stable Alpha-minus/Beta-plus Eddy Steady who will provide her with a proper home and treat her as a proper wife).
Somebody needs to fund and launch an intense public service ad campaign aimed at Carrie Carouselrider and her father, UMC Betadad, that Carrie being a 30-year-old corporate lawyer with a $300-plusK annual salary (and just as much student debt), a yougogrrrrllll attitude, and a proudly advertised N>10 are not magnetic attraction factors to the target “ideal husband” demographic (and that this is why men often marry below their social station and SMV/MMV).
Re: “none of that matters, because their precious snowflake is a “good girl”” definitionally, something is good if a young woman wants it. That’s why even on campuses where there are single-sex dorms or at least wings or at least halls, (and I’ve spent time at two this year) there are no actual limits on women wandering all over the men’s portions. At one campus, Texas A&M, there was a female RA of the male wing (floor, hall, whatever it was). I’m sure it was a great psychological experience for them to submit to a female their own age in control of their underwear drawers as though she were their mother. In the same way I’m sure it’s an excellent psychological experiment to force young men to share a dorm room with an unrelated girl and try to contain themselves.
livingtree:
Tell me, Badpainter, if virgins are all that, why is that the “stereotypical” male is so jazzed up about the prospect of being chosen by a stripper/porn star? Or is that just a stale cliche now? It certainly was alive and well when I was in high school. All the boys wanted that. Seems a bit hypocritical to me.
Because a high schooler wants a porn star for the same reason a college kid wants a cougar. He doesn’t imagine either to be BETTER than a a girl of his age…. he is simply not able to GET them.
I will say livingtree has achieved one thing. She doesn’t make up wild excuses for cads.
After my parents divorced, my dad was in a new relationship within months. He married/cohabitated with six different women after that, one of whom was a bimbo he met at the bar who was only a half dozen years out of high school. His divorces were all bitter, and he blamed them always. He blamed my grandma for the failure of his marriage to my mom. For interfering.
Granted, it’s because she personally suffered from it. But I’ve currently talked to one woman who is making up excuses why some cad who married a woman 16 years younger than him made “mistake”. Oh, he had kids when he chose to do this. And the woman turned out to be a gold-digger and insane. That’s real surprising isn’t it? No? That’s right, it’s not surprising at all.
That’s not saying that marriages with an age difference of 1 to 10 years plus on the man can’t work, they totally can, feminist hysterics to the contrary. But +11 years is clearly getting into the danger zone. 16 years is just stupid. But he is a cad. And what would early giggling scorn for a beta is overlooked with a cad.
Nova,
Remember Rush Limbaugh’s 24th undeniable truth:
Plan A (for daughter) is marriage. Don’t have an ugly daughter. If you are a woman and you want to be married, don’t be ugly. Ugly women will get (probably) no marriage offers in their lifetime. None. Now even the pretty ones don’t get offers, certainly not before they are 25.
So girls (even pretty ones) are forced to turn to Plan B to support themselves. That is reality. I am a realist. And traditional conservatives believe in reality.
Plan B is being prioritized because Plan A is not a guarantee. Plan B could be.
There never was a guarantee of being able to marry one’s daughter, IBB. But in any case, I never said it was not a dilemma. The issue is that Plan B has a price, and that is why folks need to control the down-road draft to encourage men who do not like the collateral effects of Plan B to marry the women anyway. It’s a way to try to minimize the impact of the impact of Plan B – i.e., break down the reluctance of traditional men to marry women who bear the impacts of carouseling until the late 20s following Plan B. That’s the point. I said it was a dilemma. I’m trying to explain, however, why the men who are in this position are often the hardest sellers of marriage to girls like this.
IBB’s hamster:
Plan B is being prioritized because Plan A is not a guarantee. Plan B could be.
Ah, this is interesting. IBB would rather have a daughter marry the state than marry a man. Because that’s what Plan B really entails – government preferences starting in kindergarten, carried on through post-graduate land into Human Resources, is more of a guarantee to Princes Snowflake than commiting to a man at 22 and working with him to build a family.
And the problem with Plan B is obvious (to me) and twofold:
First, it encourages carousel riding, thus endangering long term marriage stabilty.
Second, it pushes boys and men down via the preferences. Women who follow Plan B become their own beta, by taking the career path that could have belonged to their potential husband, and thanks to hypergamy thus decreasing the odds of them every finding Mr. Right.
IBB’s preferred path worked as long as it was only a few women taking it. Now that a plurality are on it, the failure is obvious to those who can see what is in front of them.
Re: “Let me ask you something, have you ever gone down on bended knee and proposed (with a ring) to a woman and heard her say no? Be honest.” Apex fallacy. If she refuses to even go out with him, he is ever-more disincentivized from buying her ice cream much less an engagement ring.
innocentbystanderboston says:
Now even the pretty ones don’t get offers, certainly not before they are 25.
Complete BS.
They don’t get ANY offers from the men they want because they all too often those men are out of their league. Those men have better options. As time goes on they begin to realize this and many women adjust their expectations accordingly.
feeriker,
Oh my goodness.
An attractive 30-year-old Carrie Carouselrider with an N>10 earning $300K a year will have marriage offers. She’ll be married if she wants to be. She won’t be breeding bastards supported by government. She is not part of the problem.
Now YOU might not be her target demographic for an “ideal husband” (because you are far below her social station) but that’s too bad for you. She will be married if she wants to be.
Where have all the good men gone? Why didn’t they wait for me to decide to be ready at some indefinite point in the future?
Deti…
WHAT??! When have I, or any feminist, EVER “pitched” the joys of marriage to anyone, here or anywhere else?? I suspect more like the truth is that you married a woman who claimed to be a feminist, yet she withheld sex, took your house and kids, and then screwed you for alimony.
That wasn’t a feminist, Deti. She was just using the word. (I’m using the “no true scotsman” fallacy here, but this time I think it works). So-called “3rd wave (aka liberal) feminists” try to force-fit their “ideology” into a traditional framework, so they can have it all, but the ideology fits BADLY in most cases. Here’s some examples of what feminists actually THINK about marriage:
http://www.feminist.com/askamy/feminism/503_fem8.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_marriage
http://www.xojane.com/issues/unpopular-opinion-marriage-will-never-be-a-feminist-choice
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Feminist-Theory.htm
http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/4416225?uid=3739400&uid=2&uid=3737720&uid=4&sid=21103615443653
http://www.brown.edu/…/Feminism,%20Liberalism%20and%20Marriage.doc
http://feministing.com/2012/10/15/young-feminist-and-married/
http://epubs.utah.edu/index.php/jlfs/article/viewArticle/88
I could go on…. but as I’m sure you can gather, it would be difficult to hold these views and actually marry someone without feeling like a complete fraud or brow-beating them constantly for violations.
I don’t oppose marriage for all women because it is an “outdated patriarchal institution that oppresses women”, like many feminists claim. I oppose it because I simply can’t fathom the idea of dedicating the rest of my life to someone just so I can have socially acceptable sex with them. Its especially preposterous when the relationship feels like you’re actually a replacement parent for your mate.
And one more thing: the White Knight / conservative feminist insistence on “Career first, marriage later” for their UMC daughters is barely workable with a lot of resources, that attitude has long since percolated down to the working people, where it is utterly toxic. So IBB’s roadmap does not just endanger the daughters of the UMC, it poisons middle class, working class and poor women.
IBB is a very good example of what American “leadership” in social policy looks like…
If you are a woman and you want to be married, don’t be ugly. Ugly women will get (probably) no marriage offers in their lifetime. None.
Hmm. Less than ten percent of women have never been married by age 40. The difference is that the homelier ones don’t get the great picks as husbands. They may think they are entitled to a great pick because they are a partner at Biglaw or in some advertising agency or what have you, but they still don’t get the best picks, so a certain number of them WGTOW. But leaving aside the hard cases, almost all women who really want to be married can get married. But only some of them to the kinds of guys they really want to marry.
IBB, that explanation for women not having moral agency is, by far, the most unequivocally ignorant thing I have read so far in the manosphere.
Vox links to Dalrymples’s “Tough Love” article that I just read for the first time.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/9_1_oh_to_be.html
He mourns that women’s brains cannot discern an abusive man, evidently because they do not want to discern him as abusive.
Where have all the good men gone? After I earlier told them to leave me alone, why did they think I meant what I said?
Nova,
Exactly. It is a dilemma. But having Plan B (career and meaningful education) gives her the security for herself that she can no longer get from a man/husband because he may never exist.
Largely, the women are willing to pay that price. The single men here are Dalrock’s are not. And the single men in church are not willing to man-up and marry the slut.
Yes, the manosphere is growing. And that’s good. And maybe it drives women crazy that they aren’t getting any offers, but it is what it is. Shame is not working (for her to control her hypergamy or gina tingle OR for him to man-up for the slut.) So what ends up happening is NO marriage.
.
Huh? You just lost me.
Nova, the 27 year old $38K a year corporate admin assist slut, wants to get married. She has no offers (probably because no man can justify taking on all her debt.) She is already sold on marriage. She just can’t sell herself to a man that wants to BUY her.
livingtree2013
IBB, that explanation for women not having moral agency is, by far, the most unequivocally ignorant thing I have read so far in the manosphere.
Oh, the irony!
Anonymous 71, I suspect you are quite right, but truth be told, most nice boring stable hard-working women are essentially invisible to men too.
Think about it. You guys complain here routinely about women settling for men they’d rather not have married. How many men have settled for women they feel are less than they think they’re worth? I’d guess it at like 90%. How many of you guys had crushes on girls who didn’t give you the time of day, and you asked the first woman who you thought would have you? Again, it works both ways. It irks me to see you all here taking this victim stance.
Maybe these 30+ single women who now want to get married could be a bit more proactive.
They might want to try:
Approaching men for dates
Expressing overt verbal interest
Buying the guy a drink
Paying for the first date
Being nice (unlikely I know)
After 10 years of rejection most of the invisible betas are still invisible but now they are edging toward bitter, or they’ve found their own value and are pursuing younger women. The 30+ women need to do more than just show up. Let them display value, or let them eat cheese cake.
Of course the 30+ women also need to realize the betas are usually wise to the old bait and switch so if these women are serious about marriage they need to realize that men want to marry their girlfriends not convert them into shrews. Of all the objections to marriage I can think of that is one that cautions me most, the idea that woman I marry will suddenly change into someone I wouldn’t date. I’ve seen it happen often enough to think it is as common a practice as frivorce.
IBB’s hamster
Nova, the 27 year old $38K a year corporate admin assist slut, wants to get married. She has no offers (probably because no man can justify taking on all her debt.) She is already sold on marriage. She just can’t sell herself to a man that wants to BUY her.
Lawsy, what a mystery! Who can possibly explain it? “Bubble gum for sale at retail price, only chewed by a few different mouths”…
I wonder if IBB is involved in the used-car sales industry? Or the time-share / condo resale industry?
lyingtree2013
How many of you guys had crushes on girls who didn’t give you the time of day, and you asked the first woman who you thought would have you? Again, it works both ways. It irks me to see you all here taking this victim stance.
Aaaand it’s the first strawman wrassling match of the day! Gosh, I wonder who will win?
(This is the sort of thing our visiting Canuck feminist routinely trolls with elsewhere, FYI).
@ IBB:
“Let me ask you something, have you ever gone down on bended knee and proposed (with a ring) to a woman and heard her say no? Be honest.”
Jf12: “Apex fallacy. If she refuses to even go out with him, he is ever-more disincentivized from buying her ice cream much less an engagement ring.”
IBB, you’re missing the point. Jf12 understood it. It’s not the rejected marriage proposals. It’s the ones that are never asked, for a myriad of reasons. She never gave him a chance; or because he was too socially uneducated and timid to ask her out. Or she gives off the “strongindependentwoman™ vibe. Or she sends clear signals of “I wanna get married someday but NOT YET”.
deti, it’s daytime, so the IBB account is fully in support of the FI. Later on after sunset you can try explaining things to IBB, after the shift change. For now you are interacting with someone who got proposed to, not someone who did the proposing, IMO.
“She just can’t sell herself to a man that wants to BUY her.”
“She just can’t sell herself to the men she wants to buy her.”
There, that makes more sense.
Exactly, JSR. IBB’s rationalization hamster can not, or will not, come to grips with hypergamy.
OK JF12, I don’t disagree with you, it isn’t a fair balance in inter-gender relations (although I’m hoping by now that you get that I think it could be a lot more fair). I totally get that.
I’m going to come out and ask you straight – I apologize to everyone here for derailing the conversation like this – what is it that makes you believe that you ARE good enough to marry? Are YOU the man you’d like your daughter to use as a character model when selecting a husband?
I’ve asked many men this question before, about themselves, and about their closest friends, and I’m regularly depressed by their frank answers.
I’m not trying to be condescending, in case it came off like that. I’m asking for real, I’m curious. You seem like a nice enough man, JF12, and I want you to find what you want. So pitch me. Work on your marketing. Tell me what makes you someone a woman would want to commit her life to. I may have a really nice lady to send your way.
“Of all the objections to marriage I can think of that is one that cautions me most, the idea that woman I marry will suddenly change into someone I wouldn’t date. I’ve seen it happen often enough to think it is as common a practice as frivorce.” It is about twice as common, if only half of marriages get frivorced. I do not know any woman who hasn’t changed into a shrew after the honeymoon period; the only thing that seems somewhat variable is the extent of the shrewishness.
@ Lying Tree:
“most nice boring stable hard-working women are essentially invisible to men too.
“Think about it. You guys complain here routinely about women settling for men they’d rather not have married. How many men have settled for women they feel are less than they think they’re worth? I’d guess it at like 90%. How many of you guys had crushes on girls who didn’t give you the time of day, and you asked the first woman who you thought would have you? Again, it works both ways. It irks me to see you all here taking this victim stance.”
Projection. You’re projecting the way women view the SMP onto men, and presuming men view it precisely the same way, with the same limitations and incentives.
They’re not the same.
Every guy has crushed on a girl out of his league. Every girl has crushed on a guy out of hers. But the responses are different. The guy who’s crushing gets NOTHING from the girl. The girl who’s crushing can probably get sex out of the guy, so she’s able to get something – just not commitment, which she would eventually someday want, maybe.
The second error you make is that most women are attractive to most men. At least half the women he sees are acceptable to him and physically attractive enough to build something on. For a man, accepting a slightly less physically attractive girl or something less than ideal is no great loss. For a woman, accepting a less attractive man or a man of lower SMV than she was able to pull for sex is a real blow to her ego and psyche. She really believes that she ought to be able to get Alpha McGorgeous to wife her up; and when she can’t, she takes it out on Eddie Steadyman.
Huh? You just lost me.
It’s the fathers, IBB. The fathers. They are the ones in the churches saying the stuff I wrote above. It’s to minimize the risk that the downsides of carouseling will lead to the daughters not being able to find a suitable man (suitably traditionalist, suitably UMC, etc.).
Largely, the women are willing to pay that price. The single men here are Dalrock’s are not. And the single men in church are not willing to man-up and marry the slut.
But that IS the price, IBB. That’s the price. The downside of the carousel. It’s the price of Plan B, because Plan B = Carousel. So if the kinds of men he wants her to marry aren’t willing to do so, that’s a big price – for her and her dad. Again, she can marry, but maybe not a great catch, maybe not a Christian, maybe not traditional and so on.
I would prefer to discuss ideas rather than personalities, but here we go with another diversion from a feminist.
Here is an example of the kind of condescending arrogance that LyingTree2013 has displayed at other sites. Rather than make any sort of effort to find out anything about jf12, she just assumes she knows it all, even after interacting with him at RationalMale.
I know how many times jf12 has been married, because I have a pair of eyeballs and a memory, and I’m not an arrogant feminist…
PS: The threadjacking is not an accident IMO. LyingTree2013 really, really does not like for men to discuss serious topics, most especially women and marriage, for very long.
Following up, the reason why she is so crestfallen in having to settle for Eddie Steadyman is because Eddie isn’t really attractive to her. Or at least he is not nearly as attractive as Alpha McGorgeous was. This is simply because most men are just not appealing to most women. Stated another way, most women find only a small number of men attractive. To them, most men are sexual blanks.
Now YOU might not be her target demographic for an “ideal husband” (because you are far below her social station) but that’s too bad for you. She will be married if she wants to be.
Look closely at what I wrote (it’s painful, I know, but you’ll live) and you’ll notice that I never even suggested that she couldn’t marry if she wanted to (and it would be “too bad for” me not being able to marry such a woman only if I ever desired an empowered UMC pseudo-Christian feminista as a wife, which I most certainly do not, never have, and never will). I’m merely saying –and my apologies for perhaps not having made it clear in my last post– that no ordinary man who aspires to be part of a Christian marriage to a chaste woman in which he is the undisputed head of his own household, no matter what theoretical Greek letter category he might fall into, is going be excited at the prospect of marrying such a woman. Doing so would be just begging for eventual trouble/frivorce. Sure, a fair number of gullible morons (i.e., the type you seem to want to induce to marry your daughter[s]) still do this, but I predict that these will become increasingly rare in the near future as the consequences of the modern SMP become impossible to avoid.
First of all, “could be a guarantee” is a nonsense statement. Something is guaranteed or it isn’t. And Plan B certainly isn’t a guarantee, as evidenced by all the “Where are all the good men now that I’m ready to settle down at 37?” articles coming out these days. You’re really just saying Plan A is scarier (for you) than Plan B.
This is one of those cases where people consider the cost of taking action without equally considering the cost of not acting. Getting married early may have consequences, and people take those very seriously. But NOT marrying young has consequences too, and those are mostly ignored.
Plan B, quite simply, is a recipe for a woman’s unhappiness. Even if she gets married someday, the more education and income she amasses the harder she will find it to be happy with the man who marries her. The longer she spends working on her List, the harder it will be for her to find a man who fits it. The more years she spends being “independent,” the more stress and personality dysfunction she will develop, and the harder it will be for her to form real bonds — not just with a husband, but with friends. (Hang out with some cougars sometime and then ask yourself how strong those friendships are.) The longer she waits before beginning to have children, the more chance she has of birth defects — and add to that the harm done by years of hormonal birth control and possible abortions. And note that all these problems (except the last half of that last sentence) apply even if she isn’t sleeping around for all those years.
To say that the Plan B girl is simply the Plan A girl a few years older and with more memories of cocks-gone-by that she’ll need to forget about is ridiculously naive. To read here and claim to understand these topics and still claim that is to be willfully obtuse on top of being naive, even for a 15-year-old.
No, Plan A doesn’t come with a guarantee, but good grief, since when are we supposed to be guaranteed a life without any risk or pain? It’s worked for an awful lot of people over the centuries. Plan B, on the other hand, is a pretty new invention which could only work in a society with a lot of extra wealth to throw around. It seems to be working worse all the time, and even when it “works” it doesn’t work very well.
“The fathers. They are the ones in the churches saying the stuff I wrote above. It’s to minimize the risk that the downsides of carouseling”
The fathers are the ones saying things like “you young men gotta get married” and “I’ve got a great gal you’d LOVE to meet” and “you can’t have proper sex until you get married” and “a loaded truck drives straighter, meaning a guy who’s not properly “loaded” with a wife and kids will drive all over the place and not settle down”.
“But that IS the price, IBB. That’s the price. The downside of the carousel. It’s the price of Plan B, because Plan B = Carousel.”
Yeah, but I am not sure that many fathers really understand what the carousel really is. I think some do, but not most. To most fathers, Plan B is “she gets a job and works a job until she retires”. It’s not “she goes to school and gets a job and in her spare time looks for fun and maybe a husband by sampling cock and doing cock size comparisons and sleeping with hot guys and buys cats”.
Cail,
Plan B was not about avoiding risk or pain. Plan B was to give women (even ugly women) a source of financial support.
Well, if we accept Buss & Co.’s theory that women are looking for resources, and men for sex, then the example here breaks down. Basically, are you projecting your own male desire for sex on to women (which is a short-term want for women, but a short- and long-term want for men)? Both the crushing girl and guy are giving up the primary mating rewards for LTRs (without getting a LTR). Is getting sex from a higher SMP/MMP male that much of a benefit for a female if it means she’ll never be happy with something less?
feeriker,
Doesn’t matter. None of what you wrote about your Plan B example, matters.
The 30 year old girl earnign $300K a year is not a problem for society. Neither you nor I (nor any of us, Christian or not) will ever have to pay taxes to government to make her “whole” if she doesn’t marry.
Why do feminists always think it’s a two way street between the sexes with everything flowing the same way in opposite directions. The world doesn’t work that way because men and women are very different. We don’t think same way. We don’t act the same way. We don’t even see the world the same way.
“ Both the crushing girl and guy are giving up the primary mating rewards for LTRs (without getting a LTR). Is getting sex from a higher SMP/MMP male that much of a benefit for a female if it means she’ll never be happy with something less?”
Might be projection, but so what? The point is that the responses of the man and woman are different. Also, the crushing guy neither gives up nor gets anything. He’s just frozen out completely. In answer to the last question, the obvious answer is no, it’s not much of a benefit. But I think she is doing it primarily for the sex. If she can’t get an LTR from the higher status male, she’ll take what she can get, which is sex and the longshot at a commitment (where the odds are so long as to be outside the realm of all rationality).
But, I’m told by the female commentariat that her intentions are good and pure as the driven snow because despite all facts to the contrary, the typical carousel rider just wants a commitment. So she hopes against hope that THIS time it’ll be different. THIS guy is different. THIS time it’ll work. I call bullshit, I don’t think she wants commitment. She wants fun yummy hot sex with Alpha and Harley and F*ckbuddy now; because Eddie will still be there when she’s ready to come back to reality.
Nova,
So you are saying the dads need to be sold on girls marrying younger. Okay, I see what you are saying. Thank you for elaborating.
You aren’t going to sell them. They were younger and they knew that they didn’t know anything when they were younger. The only thing they are thinking (is what I’m thinking) that any 21 year old kid who wants to marry my 21 year old daughter isn’t responsible enough to make that kind of a commitment and any 35 year old man (or older) who wants to marry my 21 year old daughter is a sexual deviant and a pervert (because he is) and is not worthy of my daughter.
That’s a tough sell. You haven’t sold me.
They pay that.
IBB – “The 30 year old girl earnign $300K a year is not a problem for society.”
No problem at all other than her leadership by example when she tells ALL of the younger woman “it could happen to you!” Which it could, but with odds similar to winning the lottery. MOST people won’t end up in the 1%. It is wrong to use such a person as an example to others. It’s misleading. It’s part of the orchestrated lie which says avoid early marriage, pursue your selfish dreams, never settle and you can have it all. 99 out of a 100 won’t make the cut. Society will pay for at least 50 of them.
And consider at that income level her political interests, activism and contributions aren’t going to be toward organizations described as fiscally conservative. She’s gonna be ball cutter par excellance. If anything she will work hard to make sure men pay more taxes to mitigate the failures of the 99 who couldn’t be her.
Don’t worry I’ve already added her to the proscription list.
This is simply false. Now, maybe it should be true: maybe a 27-year-old slut — presumably with a double-digit N by that point — shouldn’t get any offers from men. But she will, if she gives them any encouragement at all, and she’s not hideous (say, no more than 30 pounds overweight and has her own hair and most of her teeth). With a little effort (again, not being obese or hideous, and still being on the good side of 30) she can be one of the most attractive women most places she goes unless she works at a modeling agency, and that’s all it takes. She will get hit on by men, who will start dating her long before they find out about her college debt or whatever scary thing you want to claim is keeping them away, and they (like you suggest they do) will tell themselves that her past carouseling isn’t that important because she’s “changed” and is ready for the real thing now. She will have no problem getting marriage offers if she wants them.
She doesn’t get them because she doesn’t want them — at least not from the men likely to make them. The guys around her see or hear about her dates with cool motorcycle studs, and realize they can’t compete. They hear her talk about how she’s not ready to settle down yet, how she doesn’t know whether she ever wants to have kids. They pick up the strong vibe she’s giving off — the same one they get from most girls under 30, so it’s easy to recognize — that says, “Marriage is for old women who are done living; I’m still having fun!” In all sorts of subtle ways, she keeps the offers away.
Here’s an experiment for anyone who knows a creature like IBB is describing here: next time she complains that she can’t find a man who wants to marry her, suggest that she do a couple small things to improve her chances. Suggest that she try to look more “motherly” or “wife-like” than “girlfriend-like” by growing her hair longer and wearing dresses and modest clothing. Suggest that she ask a few of the older married ladies at church to guide her in picking a good man. Suggest that she pray daily for her future husband, that he be filled with Christian virtue.
Do that, and watch as she digs in her heels and maybe gets downright indignant at the idea that she might have to put in some effort, give up her “come get me stud” clothes, and take advice from boring old women to get this life-changing event that she supposedly yearns for. You’ll know pretty quickly whether she really means it when she says she wants marriage.
IBB really is disgusting. His pro-slut views, I suppose, are due to the situation with his daughters. After a certain point, why do people here still respond to him?
Nova: “But that IS the price, IBB. That’s the price. The downside of the carousel. It’s the price of Plan B, because Plan B = Carousel. So if the kinds of men he wants her to marry aren’t willing to do so, that’s a big price – for her and her dad. Again, she can marry, but maybe not a great catch, maybe not a Christian, maybe not traditional and so on.”
IBB: “They pay that.”
No, they don’t pay it. The women don’t pay the price because most of them get exactly what they wanted: Hot yummy fun sex until age 30 then marriage to Eddie Steadyman.
Dad doesn’t pay the price because he gets what he wants: Plan B for Princess; then marriage to a boring beta niceguy.
You know who pays? Eddie does. NiceGuy does. The guy who gets saddled with her pays.
@LT
“How many of you guys had crushes on girls who didn’t give you the time of day,”
If all girls with an SMV of 4 or more are banging (or hoping to bang) the hot guys, probably all such girls will ignore guys who aren’t hot. So, what options do the non-hot guys have?
Maybe the problem is a lack of confidence–at least it was in my case. I’d had a crush on a girl from 4th grade thru high school (where she became a cheerleader–SMV 9+) who was a year older. I went away to boarding school during soph & jr years and returned home my senior year after she had already graduated and gone away to college. I found out later (from my mother of all people!) that she would have gone out with me if I’d asked (but she hardly ever lacked a bf from what I could see and I wasn’t up on her availability in a timely way anyway and distance was a problem). I was a geek and felt invisible, but clearly wasn’t. (I obviously underrated my SMV and likely still do, since I’m always surprised when women show an interest in me. My crush was a minor sort of “one-itis” problem, but I was operating under the “love the one you’re with” philosophy, so it wasn’t a romance killer for me.) However, my big problem in high school was not attracting women, but being able to be in a relationship with a woman. I was very socially immature–not uncommon for autists.
I would guess that lots of geeks in high school don’t even consider picking up girls; probably they are focused on LTRs for which they lack maturity. Maybe lots of geeks are autistic–ya think?
Elspeth says:
February 28, 2014 at 2:23 pm
That’s what I thought (hoping:)), but I was having a hard time deciphering the dialog.
@livingtree2013 “Are YOU the man you’d like your daughter to use as a character model when selecting a husband?” Yes, but I’m trying not to be.
I’m not going to bother to DHV (other than with my usual brilliance), and I’m still in my last marriage so I’m not actually interested but thanks anyway. I will tell you something of my personal history. I grew up extremely extraverted, energetic and hardworking, almost hyperactive, a sort of pale (Cumberbatch’s Sherlock pale, e.g.) and religious Steve Urkel, and became a professional chemical engineer/scientist/business owner/bureaucrat/corporate stooge/investor/slave/mentor. I have two brilliant and beautiful daughters from my first wife, a literary critic, one 43, the other 38. The nicer older one did the carousel when younger then decided that men weren’t worth it about ten years ago and became a young cat lady. Although the ferocious younger one hates me because she blames me for ruining her mother for all other men, or something, she married a man remarkably like me who unaccountably adores her like I unaccountably adored her mother. Somewhere during the year she was conceived, I read aloud in silly voices much of the sillier dialogue in Gravity’s Rainbow on our kingsized bed to her mother, who had pretended to read it and to enjoy it the prior year, and to her older sister who jumped on the bed and chanted words like “Brennschluss point” that she understood about as well as her mother did.
Also, the crushing guy neither gives up nor gets anything.
Well, I was thinking of him being a beta orbiter, which is to say giving up material goods for attention. If he’s not giving anything, then I would (personally) see that as less of a loss than the girl who’s having sex (one has given up the bargaining chip, the other hasn’t).
That said, I’ve cited research in the past that has plainly stated that women will ignore men they perceive as having lower SES (which is generally why men are found showing off wealth while single).
That’s even worse! You’d have a daughter waste (or worse) her years of peak fertility and beauty, put her through all the pains I described, just to make sure she can — if the economy stays good enough and the jobs plentiful enough — afford to support herself? Is the prospect of a daughter moving back in and living with her parents really that horrid?
Re: “You know who pays? Eddie does. NiceGuy does. The guy who gets saddled with her pays.” Yes, if anyone pays then Eddie pays. So when the Eddies stop paying, the whole scheme collapses.
@LT
“Are YOU the man you’d like your daughter to use as a character model when selecting a husband?”
I’ve not so much as lip-locked a woman other than my wife during our decades of marriage. I’m autistic and it’s not a character issue as to why I’d recommend to my hypothetical daughter against marrying an autist unless my daughter couldn’t live without him. No addictive behaviors in my case. My daughter could do a lot worse than a man like me. Could I improve? Sure. But is my character sufficient for marriage–that is your question. Sure.
Cail, Feb 28, 4:00 PM
Exactly right. I am really getting damn tired of hearing people tell me that 27 year old carousel rider wants to get married but just can’t find a guy who wants her. BULLSHIT.
What’s going on is that the men she wants, the men she finds attractive, the men she was fucking a couple of years ago and who she would be interested in maybe a marriage proposal from, don’t want her.
If that woman wanted to get married, she could have any one of 10 average thirsty guys who would walk that down the aisle and wife it up TOMORROW.
A 27 year old carousel careergirl who is decently attractive despite her double digit N is STILL going to get interest from men. The catch is that they just aren’t the men she was interested in or hoping for.
“Here’s an experiment for anyone who knows a creature like IBB is describing here: next time she complains that she can’t find a man who wants to marry her, suggest that she do a couple small things to improve her chances.”
In addition to the things you suggested, tell her these things:
1. Lower your standards.
2. The men who used to f*ck you are never, ever going to marry you. Sorry. That’s just how it is.
3. You are going to have to ask out men you are interested in. You are going to have to spend some of your money to help foot the searching costs. You must make finding a husband a priority.
Then watch the entitlement mentality kick into high gear as she sputters with rage about how she is entitled to a husband, how she’s entitled to her fun, she’s entitled to what she wants when she wants it.
@deti
“For a man, accepting a slightly less physically attractive girl or something less than ideal is no great loss.” Yes, for the majority of men, essentially any thing (including any woman …) is better than nothing, which is what he always gets otherwise.
” For a woman, accepting a less attractive man or a man of lower SMV than she was able to pull for sex is a real blow to her ego and psyche.” Yes, we may never know exactly how much of a blow. But going by the way the MAJORITY of women treat their husbands, i.e. as NOT better than nothing, i.e. as literally negative, it’s easy to guess that all those women felt they deserved an alpha.
True. First, today’s dad doesn’t realize the carousel spins a lot faster than it did back in his day (and he’d really rather not know). Second, he probably wasn’t one of the stallions on the ride anyway, so he doesn’t even understand how it works in the first place.
All your goalpost-moving is making me dizzy. We weren’t talking about “society.” You were saying that men should expect to marry 30-year-old carousel veterans, and that it’s really no big deal that they’ve been around the block a few times. In fact, you’ve tried to argue that such women may actually be a better bet because they have that out of their system, whether you remember that now or not.
We’re not saying that’s bad for society (though it is). We’re saying it’s bad for the man that you talk into marrying her, because he’s probably not getting the deal he thinks he’s getting. We’re also saying it’s bad for her, because she reduces her chance of marriage, the quality of man she could get, and her chance at happiness. Whether she can afford to buy Fancy Feast or has to settle for the dry kibble is kind of beside the point.
Some wimminz writes:
Just like a wimminz, imagining that every little thing is all about her… the world is a dramatic interlude centered around her life… etc.
You’re new here, so I’ll clue you in on something. I don’t waste more than a passing moment talking to wimminz here. (Women, in contrast, I’ll converse with, and the women know who they are, unlike the wimminz.) Dalrock blog is a great resource to me, and my time is too valuable to waste it here on you.
On the upside, I see you have met Innocent Bystander, Marcus D, Cail Corishev, JF12, and the other heavy hitters. They’re working you over nicely, and I’m enjoying the show, learning new things from them as they tag team you, back and forth. I trust you’re getting your masochistic fix from all the unearned attention, and I’ll leave you to enjoy it.
Regards, Boxer
Here is the exact advice you might give her:
http://returnofqueens.com/a-dating-site-profile-what-if/
And if she can’t manage that, she’s just not marriage material at all.
It’s like someone saying, “I’ve been walking up and down the street trying to give away these $100 bills for hours, and no one will take them!” Then you start asking questions and you realize that he went out walking at 3am when no one else was out, in a bad part of town where people don’t approach each other. Also, he dressed like a hobo and rolled himself in cow manure first, so people could smell him a block away. Then, whenever he did spot someone, he’d pull out a wadded up bill and start waving it, running toward them, yelling, “Hey you, I’ve got something special for you here; come and get it!!”
And no one would take his money. Go figure.
@IBB An attractive 30-year-old Carrie Carouselrider with an N>;10 earning $300K a year will have marriage offers. She’ll be married if she wants to be. She won’t be breeding bastards supported by government. She is not part of the problem.
As long as she gets marriage offers everything is a-okay? How does earning $300k guarantee that her children won’t be bastards at her own unhappily frivorced loins? Seems like yet another iteration of “if mommies happy everyone is happy” including the children of this train wreck of narcissism. I will also bet money that this woman will vote for government support for all the other women in a similar marital disposition. We see that all the time. I’m wondering in what way this woman isn’t precisely the problem? Daughter goggles?
Dear Fellow Travelers…
@Elspeth
@Badpainter
If she were a regular wimminz, I might hold out some hope that Jenny would lower her standards in a year or two, tying the knot with a fat illegal alien looking for permission to work. In this case, I will take the bet you’re offering and raise you.
This chuckleheaded woman has deluded herself into believing that she is some sort of media celebrity. I am not kidding. She actually goes, uninvited, to Hollywood hotels and stalks celebrities for photo ops to put on her idiotic blog. Look up these moronic, self-congratulatory portraits if you’re ever bored and in need of a free laugh.
There is no way such a princess will settle for anything less than exactly what she deserves (which is a poorly trained housecoat, who pisses on the floor).
Of course, I could be wrong, and there will be a free dinner at a nice restaurant for either or both of you, if you’re ever in my neighborhood, should Queen Jenny somehow see the error of her ways and attempt to mend her life in suitable wifedom, *and* finds someone willing to offer her such a position (which is also pretty farfetched).
Regards, Boxer
“It’s like someone saying, “I’ve been walking up and down the street trying to give away these $100 bills for hours, and no one will take them!””
Yes. And to make the analogy crystal clear, here’s what’s really going on with 27 year old carousel rider: She is literally SCREAMING that she wants to get married;
But not yet. And not to you. Or him.
Or this guy, or that guy, or the other guy.
And not if she has to do icky stuff.
And not if she has to compromise in any way, shape, manner or form.
She is open to marriage, if, AND ONLY IF:
1. The man willing to marry her meets every single one of her 463 bullet points, and is absolutely PERFECT in every way.
2. The time is precisely right. It’s not too soon, and it’s not too late.
3. She can continue having her fun.
4. She gets to do everything she wants to do and nothing she does not want to do.
5. She can have all the trappings and advantages of marriage, but none of the obligations or burdens.
6. Marriage will not be “hard”. She will not have to struggle, or compromise, or give up anything.
Nah Rollo, Susan is scared to be reflective, a weakness many people in the blogosphere suffer from.
Sunshine Mary, that’s perfect. I’d marry that girl tomorrow, based on that picture and profile. (I’m sure my priest would make us wait a few weeks, but I’d be ready.) Why not? She looks good and she has the right attitudes. Why wait — assuming a guy wants to marry at all — to make sure our taste in food is compatible, or some nonsense like that that people spend years “getting to know each other” over? My point is, a girl like that would get tons of offers, and not just from old codgers like me. (And for every proposal she gets, there would be a dozen other guys who want to but figure she’s out of their league.)
Now, of course, it’s possible she wouldn’t be interested in me, for perfectly good reasons, and that’d be fine. But she wouldn’t be able to say no guys offered, which is the silly claim we keep seeing here.
Now, to forestall IBB’s inevitable objection: take the same picture, the same desire to get married, and the same promises, but have her say, “When I was younger, I was pretty wild and did a lot of things I’m not proud of. To be honest, I was kind of a slut. I’ve repented, and I’m trying to put that part of my life behind me, but I will be honest about it to any prospective husband because I understand that actions have consequences.” That would scare away a few guys who want a virgin, but not that many. Most guys would see that as refreshing, actually, and she would still get plenty of offers.
Haha, you guys are hilarious with your christian dogma. You complain as much as those online feminists arguing with each other over what they need to do to be a proper feminist. “You’re not a real Christian unless you think X” “No you’re not a real Christian” “No you’re not”…
Ridiculous.
a beta’s lament apropos of nothing…
I think it’s just awesome! how much equality we have now. I have to compete with women for work, and at work. I have to adhere to their codes of behavior. I have to make them comfortable. I have to help them with their work. Because teamwork.
When I get off work I have to fight them on the roads, or give up my seat on the bus/train/subway (or suffer the glare), when I get to the club there they are making life hell. When it was Dad’s club it was filled with smoke, and dirty jokes and men engaged in manly conversation, now women are admitted and the smoke is gone but so are the dirty jokes and manly conversations. Sadly, the taxidermy disappeared also, but now there are flowers.
My gym now offers yoga, pilates, spinning classes and some other faux hindu based nonsense and to make room some of the weight equipment is gone. The steam room is half the size it used to be. It’s now a health club. I have to fight women for decent parking.
And when I go out on the weekend if I meet one of them at a bar I’ll be the one making approaches paying for drinks, deciphering IOIs, running the offense while trying not offend. If I date one I’ll pay the tab, maybe I’ll even get lucky! If it looks good in the long run it’s gonna be half a year’s wages for the Wedding, a one caret ring to prove my love, and a vacation she chooses to celebrate my impending long term celibacy, and I get to give up porn forever! so much to look forward to I love being equal. I just wish they could enjoy it too.
Don’t look at me; I try not to feed trolls. Didn’t recognize this one immediately, but….yeah.
IBB is different; he’s wrong, but I don’t get the feeling he’s dishonestly trying to derail us. And at his young age, he may still be educable.
Oh. No Marcus, my comment about being a perpetrator was somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I was the aggressor with my first boyfriend. According to rape mythology, he was a willing participant, but I should have respected his boundaries, and I still feel bad about it nearly three decades later. He didn’t complain though. Most don’t.
Have you ever asked any guys about their first time? A surprisingly high percentage of them were, by legal definition, sexually assaulted by a girl.
Anyway, I don’t know where the 2% thing comes from, I suspect the number of patently false accusations (like out of revenge, or some other crap) is probably in the neighborhood of 2%. I do know there’s a world of difference between false accusations, suspect accusations, and unprovable accusations though. The number of “difficult to prove” cases that don’t get investigated are much, much higher than 2% – less than 25% of reported allegations result in charges being filed in most jurisdictions, so, I think you can rest assured that between the average 60% that don’t get reported, and the 75% of reported cases that don’t get investigated, the VAST majority of possibly false accusations get weeded out, right alongside the ones that aren’t false but are “unfounded”.
The ones that do make it through the filters of reporting, investigating, trial, and conviction need to be pretty much air-tight. There are odd false convictions which slip through, but it is so slim a chance that it is considered to be a statistical outlier.
Shammahworm, IBB already confessed – its not that he thinks women are not moral agents, its that he doesn’t agree with the decisions that women make, so he thinks their rights should be taken away so men can exclusively make decisions without having to take into account what women want.
@deti Following up, the reason why she is so crestfallen in having to settle for Eddie Steadyman is because Eddie isn’t really attractive to her. Or at least he is not nearly as attractive as Alpha McGorgeous was. This is simply because most men are just not appealing to most women. Stated another way, most women find only a small number of men attractive. To them, most men are sexual blanks.
Straight up truth. For shits and grins, I will every so often spend some time window shopping through the girl catalog(online dating sites), and the number of women who have impressive travel portfolios is legion. I’ve often wondered how many of them are good bets to marry and settle down in a second tier metropolitan area like St. Louis or Tucson and raise a family? I’m guessing close to zero. She’s got to marry a hot, hunky, millionaire otherwise, her lifestyle is going to take a big hit.
@Badpainter, It’s worse than all that. They are turning everywhere into a liberal college campus/Sweden. We’re going to start having conversations about the propriety of men standing up to urinate and the masculine triumphalism of urinals. It would be funny if it weren’t true. Men. must. not. be. allowed.
Bottom line.
Any woman a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex pretty much when she wants it.
Any decently attractive woman could find a reasonably suitable man for marriage when she wants, provided she is truly looking for a husband. Might not be the most attractive guy, the richest guy, the wealthiest guy, or the most perfect guy. He might not be as nice looking as she might want. He might not be the highest status guy. And the time might not be exactly right.
But she can find one, if she is truly looking for a husband.
he thinks their rights should be taken away so men can exclusively make decisions without having to take into account what women want.
To the online feminist/atheist commenting online on this thread: Men have had to take what women want into account since the dawn of time.
@Cail: Is the prospect of a daughter moving back in and living with her parents really that horrid?
Yeah, I don’t get that one either. I love my kids and having my daughter move back home would not be so awful.
@livingtree2013 “A surprisingly high percentage of them were, by legal definition, sexually assaulted by a girl.” it would definitely be surprising if it were at all high, yes.
One easy compliance test I request you to perform is to comment here about your reactions to the Husband Store joke.
http://funny2.com/husbandstore.htm
Of some interest is that my wife thinks the Husband Store is hilarious but the Wife Store is awful.
Novaseeker, I like the way you phrased that about the moral agency.
Is there really something terribly wrong with the framing of a new morality though? I can see that it makes the old morality quite uncomfortable, but just because the words in the bible aren’t being followed to the letter doesn’t mean its immoral. It just means its a different morality than yours.
People who don’t believe in religion don’t think that pre-marital sex is a sin. Thus, they can’t be sinning, because they don’t believe it is immoral. It only is a sin to people who believe it is. Same like any moral violation, no matter what variety.
8oxer writes of Jenny Erickson:
This chuckleheaded woman has deluded herself into believing that she is some sort of media celebrity. I am not kidding. She actually goes, uninvited, to Hollywood hotels and stalks celebrities for photo ops to put on her idiotic blog. Look up these moronic, self-congratulatory portraits if you’re ever bored and in need of a free laugh.
K001!! So she’s a kind of female Yehya? Has she met him yet? Will we be seeing her soon in a segment on late night TV, I wonder?
Got to feel a bit of pity for her sprogs, to be sure. But not only has she made her bed, she’s installed “bedcams” around it while she lies in it…
No, theadsgamer, now that I’m an adult, my dad simply loves telling me about their spectacular sex life (as I cower). And yes, I’m 100% certain that she didn’t cheat. She doesn’t have it in her. She is the most faithful human I have ever met. He’s a typical “good guy,” the kind of guy that makes a really good impression, but he is simply not a nurturing husband, and that is, in a nutshell, why most of his LTR’s have failed.
His relationships with women, myself included, have been… lacking in concern. Is that an important need for a person to have met by their spouse? I think so. I think its the most important need there is.
And no, she was a tramp because… well, you kinda had to see it.
@Elspeth re: “a “beta” (whatever that means exactly)” I think you’ve seen my definition before. A beta male is a male that services females (banana, grooming) in a vain hope at achieving some kind of reciprocal behavior from the females. In contrast, females gladly service an alpha male regardless of whether he does anything or not.
livingtree, you may be unaware of this, but Christian dogma is rather easy to check, you see, it’s all written down in this book, I forget the title offhand, but if you Google it, I’m sure it will come up …
Is there really something terribly wrong with the framing of a new morality though? I can see that it makes the old morality quite uncomfortable, but just because the words in the bible aren’t being followed to the letter doesn’t mean its immoral. It just means its a different morality than yours.
People who don’t believe in religion don’t think that pre-marital sex is a sin. Thus, they can’t be sinning, because they don’t believe it is immoral. It only is a sin to people who believe it is. Same like any moral violation, no matter what variety.
Sin has to do with God — not human ethics. Secular folks therefore normally speak of ethics, because ethics are essentially rules someone has chosen for themselves. When a secular person violates her own ethics, she is seen as being hypocritical, which is the cardinal “sin” of post-modern secularism (by contrast, Christians for example fully expect everyone to fall short of God’s morality, because sin is ubiquitous, and we are all sinners — it isn’t a question of hypocrisy, but a question of sin, and something that we all share in common). Hypocrisy seems to merit secular people being burned at the virtual stake, whereas for Christians even a mortal sin can be repented from and, rather more importantly, we fully expect everyone to sin a lot, all the time. The key is getting up and trying again, not that you are a hypocrite for committing something you objectively see as being sinful.
When your moral rules come from God, they are not “opt-in” in nature. They are binding on all, in an objective sense. Even if you don’t believe in God, from the perspective of someone who does, God’s rules are still binding on you — if not in a legal sense, then still in a moral one. That’s the conflict — Christian morals are not like secular ethics, due to the source. Yes, in a pluralistic country where there are believers and unbelievers living together it can be hard to memorialize all of these norms in the form of civil law, but from a moral perspective for Christians they are binding on everyone, because they come from God, who is the God of all — whether you believe in him or not.
That was nice
See? THats what you get for listening to your parents. 🙂
Thank you Marcus, I was about to write him the same thing, but you beat me to it.
IBB, among the many points I could raise:
1) Why are you so fatalistic? Your main point seems to be, we all must live in our time, the times are dismal, so our daughters are inevitably going to become sluts.
But this is just defeatism—or it would be, if you actually considered a slutty daughter a defeat, and I’m not sure you would. In any event, you profess to be a Christian and a conservative. Hence you should be against fornication. So why aren’t you (and your wife) actively, forcefully instilling in them the amoral, sinful, harmful character of fornication? Why aren’t you both exhorting them to virtue and scaring them with the consequences of vice?
I know it’s an uncomfortable conversation to have. But that’s the price of fatherhood, no? Why don’t you man up and try to teach them the right thing and insist that they do the right thing? I can think of a few reasons: you’re too scared/embarrassed; you prioritize their worldly career success; you think it’s futile and the attempt would only damage the father-daughter relationship; or you just don’t believe the content of the teaching.
None of these are very good reasons, except the last, that is, you don’t really believe any of it anyway. In which case, no wonder.
Even if you are right that it’s a terrible mistake for a woman to get married before 25, it’s quite within all your daughters’ power to do that as virgins. (As an aside, I must say that I agree with all those who simply do not believe your daughters cannot find husbands owing to the failures of men to approach them. I can elaborate on this point at further length if you like, but the key arguments have already been made.) You have tried to make a great deal of hay over the difficulty of living as a Christian in these corrupt times, but this decision is absolutely within the scope of the free will of each living individual. You either don’t care whether they live up to this standard or not, or else you expect that they won’t and so have built in some ready-made excuse for when they don’t so that you can carry on the father-daughter relationship as if nothing has happened.
2) “any 21 year old kid who wants to marry my 21 year old daughter isn’t responsible enough to make that kind of a commitment”
But you’re completely OK with them having sex outside of marriage, even with multiple partners, until the magic age 25 when it’s suddenly OK to marry? Too immature for marriage, but quite mature enough for the carousel?
@ jf12:
I think you’ve seen my definition before. A beta male is a male that services females (banana, grooming) in a vain hope at achieving some kind of reciprocal behavior from the females. In contrast, females gladly service an alpha male regardless of whether he does anything or not.
Yeah, I’m familiar. I just find that this over simplifies human nature and human sexuality which isn’t as complex as the experts try to make it, but it’s more complicated than alpha, beta, delta. etc.
Any woman a 4 or above in attractiveness can get sex pretty much when she wants it.
Of zero relevance to a chaste, Christian, marriage minded woman. Zero.
“any 21 year old kid who wants to marry my 21 year old daughter isn’t responsible enough to make that kind of a commitment”
My husband was 20 when we married, and he’s done better than good as a husband. It’s true we had nothing when we started out, but that’s served to strengthen our marriage rather than weaken it.
Maybe we’re snowflakes. *shakes head at how entrenched this notion of waiting until the boxes are checked is in some people*.
THERE ARE NO GUARANTEES IN LIFE, IBB. You can check all the boxes and still crash and burn.
Once again I must (gently) chide Nova’s unwitting concessions to left-wing modernity.
Everything you say about God in your reply to that relativistic nonsense is correct but you give far too much ground to the enemy.
“Secular ethics” are not ipso facto made up. There IS a morality that derives from the nature of man. This morality would be true even if atheism were true. It is discernable through reason without recourse to scripture. But it is also fully compatible with the reality of God since God created the natural world.
The natural morality exists independent of man’s creation or will. It derives from the nature of man, which is not a creation of man—whether one views the world as created or uncreated. We do not choose this morality for ourselves. It exists whether or not we recognize or follow it. There is no “opting out.” One can reject or fail to recognize or abide by this morality, but that leads to misery. See, e.g., the strange discussions in the Republic and the Gorgias in which Socrates shows the ultimate unprofitability of vice.
There is no “new morality.” There is just morality. Either it exists, or it doesn’t. Everything else is, in the final analysis, nihilism.
That’s fine — I think you have a much better grasp of philosophical ethics than I do. What I was reacting against was the obvious post-modern ethics in the comment.
Hmm, theadsgamer, you make some solid points in there. I was actually going to reply something similar to you. I’ve marveled at how often I see a girl leaving the door wide open for geeky-boy to ask her out, he completely whiffs.
The unfairness in our society is that, in spite of all the awesome equality crap, because of the male=pursuer paradigm, girls still wait for boys to initiate interest. I had lots of interest in the less flashy boys, in school, in fact I loathed the flashy ones, but the less-flashy were so awkward and lacking in confidence that they just stood at the sidelines while the douches cleaned up because they were the only ones doing the asking. I wish now that I’d done it differently, there were a few that I’d definitely ask out if I had to do it all over again.
Autistic? I’m not sure. But socially immature? Definitely a problem for young men. What makes older men, even ones that were total geeks and outcasts in school, so much more attractive to (mature) women is that they seem to have worked out a lot of their issues. The playing field actually equals out quite a lot after school years.
And stay out of nightclubs. Nice guys can never win in a night club, its against the rules. Just sayin’.
Jf12, sounds like you are the type of person who treats people with more respect than they maybe deserve, and I don’t doubt you are a wonderful dad, but the things I’m wondering about are what makes you someone that your daughter would admire and respect. What are the things you value in a woman? In yourself? Why did you adore their mom? Did she deserve it, or did you do it out of idealism/duty? If this is too personal, you don’t need to respond.
What a son would look up to in his dad is a completely different question, obviously, I understand how different the sexes view the world, but conveniently you don’t have one so we don’t have to have that discussion.
Escoffier,
How do you know that I haven’t?
If you have, you seem to have no confidence in your power to impress your daughters, or in their willingness to follow your exhortations.
Um, Boxer, the comment you made that I asked about, it was a reply to mine, so, um, its not a far stretch that you might have been directing it TO me, even though it was full of make-believe. So I guess it was more directed TOWARD me, like a fart.
And i’m enjoying the conversation with guys you list, primarily because they each of them are good at conversation.
@livingtree
What in the world gave you that idea? Women pursue men all the time.
@all
IBB is just protecting the “alpha f*cks, beta bucks” strategy, and like any feminist, blaming the “problem” on men – too worried about virginity, perverts for wanting a young wife, afraid their penis is too small, etc.
The irony is, he thinks a 35 year old man is a “pervert” for wanting sex with a 21 year old woman – but 21 year old women chase after 35 year old men all the time. Are they perverts? Of course not. The problem is men want youth (fertility) and beauty instead of what they *should* want, a hard charging post-wall careerist with a high N count. Like his daughter (or really, “her” as the case likely is.)
Female Imperative + Feminism = IBB. Ten bucks says it’s not a male.
Living tree2013 states:
People who don’t believe in religion don’t think that pre-marital sex is a sin. Thus, they can’t be sinning, because they don’t believe it is immoral. It only is a sin to people who believe it is. Same like any moral violation, no matter what variety.
People who don’t believe in religion don’t think that killing six million Jews is a sin. Thus, they cant be sinning, because they don’t believe it is immoral. It only is a sin to people who believe it is. Same like any moral violation, no matter what variety.
Living tree, you do not realize the evil with which you are espousing. Turn to God and seek his wisdom.
Actually jf12, I think they’re both hysterical!
I just wish it were accurate.
Actually jf12, I think they’re both hysterical!
I just wish it was accurate.
IBB is slowly but surely making this thread the link to back up my comment.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/mysterious-forces-at-work/#comment-111583
I can’t find the article but he was proudly describing his daughters on as written here on “plan B”
Oh? For a book that has been the foundation of a major world religion and the backbone of billions of people’s moral code for 20 centuries, shouldn’t it’s interpretation be well-understood by now…wouldn’t you agree, Escoffier?
Feminism at least has an excuse for contradiction – its new, and there is no “book”.
Hmm, well stated, Novaseeker. Good explanation.
But still didn’t answer my question. Where is the harm in a new morality for those that don’t follow the word of God? Not saying I think this new morality (or ethic) is fully-formed, or even that I agree with it in its entirety, I’m just asking, where is the harm in developing a functional moral code for atheists that isn’t based on scripture? One that is based on principles of living, like dignity etc.
The interpretation is well understood. The confusion arises from people following the false god of modernity and trying to reconcile that with scripture, which can’t be done.
@LT
Thanks for your interesting discussion.
“Autistic? I’m not sure.” Autists comprise about 10% of the population, if you are questioning whether geeks are autistic. A shrink diagnosed me with ASD. I’m very high functioning, but I have problems discerning conversation breaks and sometimes talk at length about an obsession (not so much anymore). I generally don’t get turned on physically except by my wife, which is a characteristic of autists. Sure, I see women as attractive and I can go into hunting mode, but there’s a physical disconnect and my inhibitions are formidable. I have holes in my social understanding and I have to process social questions analytically instead of “just getting it” like neurotypicals (non-autists) do. Sometimes I have trouble reading facial expressions, but if I’m looking for it, I have high empathy for how women are feeling and can read body language pretty well.
Since you’ve brought up the topic of my ability on the playing field–I was a pickup artist from 15-18 and was fairly successful–which is exceptional for an autist. I mostly focused on parties. Night clubs have a very similar atmosphere and I can dance fairly well nowadays. Assuming I were single, if a night club had a dance floor, I could clean up. I’ve almost never been a nice guy–geek, sure, but almost never a nice guy. And women flirt with me (some actually proposition me) and show IOIs all the time probably because of my confident frame and because I engage them (smiling, I hold their gaze and talk with them). [Aside: Some are married and don’t even seem to realize their own interest. There’s some chemistry on their end which they may think is platonic but I can sense isn’t. Lately I have sensed jealousy from a couple of husbands and am trying to figure out how to behave; I’ll probably minimize interaction with their wives, but one of the wives approaches me and initiates convos with me. I may have to excuse myself after talking briefly. Run away, run away!]
I’m not on the playing field now. I married a SMV 10 “new in the box,” so I won the lottery. 🙂 It’s true, for my wife when dating, I was a nice guy. A lot of times I go into pickup artist mode with my wife and she loves it. She’s even talked about going into a bar and letting me pick her up there. 🙂
And i’m enjoying the conversation with guys you list
Cause that’s what really matters.
I’m just asking, where is the harm in developing a functional moral code for atheists that isn’t based on scripture? One that is based on principles of living, like dignity etc.
On what could you build your non-scripture based moral code? Dignity according to whom? Who would be the arbitrator of right and wrong for this new morality? Why should anyone follow such a dogma if it’s just another opinion of human origin?
Isn’t this what secular humanists have been trying to do for the last several decades? Only I believe that in Western societies they have been working at it in reverse by removing the basis of scripture little by little. The more that basis is removed, the more society drifts a long with each prevailing current.
The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.
@livingtree2013 “Actually jf12, I think they’re both hysterical!” k thx “I just wish it was accurate.” I think they’re cartoonish but accurate enough.
“but conveniently you don’t have one” I have one son, who is 23, and seems intent upon becoming a yuppie mgtow because he can no interest from any woman. He is, of course, a nice guy, well raised, with a good job and many male friends in the same boat. Literally, many of them will be in the same boat fishing for crappie tomorrow.
“Why did you adore their mom? Did she deserve it, or did you do it out of idealism/duty?” We married right after our junior year in college. I had sort of begun to fall in love with her from minor interactions with her in previous years (I fall in love easily), and was overjoyed when she finally agreed to go out with me. She was the smartest woman I knew, which helped me believe her interest in me. That last phrase cannot be parsed, btw; you either grok it entirely or you don’t. After about halfway through our third date I was smitten – my infatuation switch was flipped on and broken off in the on position.
“what makes you someone that your daughter would admire and respect. What are the things you value in a woman? In yourself?” My older daughter admires my choice in second wife and respects my peripatetic patrolling. She’s amazed at how many people I know from walking around everywhere; I know more of her neighbors by sight and name than she does. My younger daughter unadmires and disrespects me whenever possible, and especially despises my second wife. She was 15 when I remarried and I suspect until then she had harbored hopes that I would get back with their mother. Concerning our relationship, the thing I would most value in a women is her respect towards me; and the same thing I would most value in myself would be getting her respect.
>>Feminism at least has an excuse for contradiction – its new, and there is no “book”.
Feminism is not new at all. It has destroyed all great civilizations in history, almost always by the same mechanism. It is inevitable that as a civilization grows stronger that stupid men will give the vote to women. Check.
And, when women get the right to vote, it is inevitable that women will eventually dominate the political system. Check.
And, when women dominate the political system, it is inevitable that their incessant demands for more benefits to be paid by men, and more protections, including being protected against their own immoralities, such as adultery and violence, will destroy the society. Check.
In 1934, Unwin wrote a scholarly book, SEX AND CULTURE. He found out that you can tell much about a society including its religious practices by how much sexual liberty the women (not the men) have. And, when women have virtually unlimited sexual freedom, the society will end in that generation. This one is no exception.
In fact, the book you deny tells all about feminists. But, it refers to them in a technically correct manner. Harlots.
In that book, when it reports vile, immoral civilizations which collapse, it always involves putting women higher than God, which is how you view yourself. There are no surprises. Except to the harlots. They have no clue what is about to happen to them.
As Jimmy Durante used to say on his TV show many years ago, “Stop Da Music.”
It turns out the MRA’s and the manosphere are all evil, vile psychopaths with not a single redeeming point. And, no valid complaints of any kind. Men have no problems. Are not discriminated against in employment in favor of less qualified women.
Don’t commit suicide a lot. Don’t die much younger than women.
They are not tossed in jail because of being unemployed. No men are victims of false sex abuse. Duke never happened, obviously.
No good husbands are tossed out so adulterous wives can chase hypergamy. No men are forced to pay child support for kids they never see.
We have been misled by our own hatred for dear, sweet dearies.
http://jezebel.com/no-i-will-not-take-the-mens-rights-movement-seriously-1532799085
@livingtree2013
“most nice boring stable hard-working women are essentially invisible to men too”
I’m currently looking for such a creature, and believe me they are rare.
The “boring” middle seems to have been squeezed out of existence, at least for 50-something women. The choice is between careerists who became the men they wanted to marry, and clinically obese couch potatoes whose children have problems with drug abuse, ADHD, or impulse control.
Anyway, you have taken the discussion off-topic.
The original letter can be summarised in the immortal words:
Where have all the good men gone?
Why is my butt sore?
Deti, You are being irrational. Of course a woman can get sex. Newsflash..what they can get easily is not what they want.
Yes, probably a woman can get married with relative ease. A man can also get married with relative ease. For some reason, you give men an out when they seek a woman who is attractive to them, but when women have the same filter, they are horrible people who are totally unreasonable. You say that women should only marry men that they burn for, but when they reject men that they do not burn for..they are hypocrites?
This is not logical. What you are really saying is that women should burn for men that they do not burn for because these men are good men? And yet, you do not say that men should burn for women for whom they do not burn because?? Why? Because men are more visual? That sounds like you are holding women to a higher standard, which you simultaneously reject, because women are not capable of perceiving a good man. Color me confused.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/10642338/Esther-McVey-Marriage-never-came-my-way.-I-dont-know-why.html
livingtree2013..I really don’t believe that you are a woman of 45. What grown woman over 40 refers to her male “friend” as a “boyfriend”. It smacks of infantilism. And you cannot get from “ought” to “is”. Scripture is not required here, as any rational person should know. You seem to be trying to sound really educated and wealthy, when you are probably not either. Using big words is not actually impressive. If you are happy with your life and lack of faith, then good for you. You know full well that the author of this blog is a happily married, Christian, father. Why would you care WHY? What difference can it possibly make to you? Keep your eyes on your own paper, so to speak. Do what you want to do..and leave others to do what they do. Seems like an easy fix.
As an English jurist once said from the bench, “Young man, I am not sentencing you to hang because you did steal a sheep. I am sentencing you to hang because another boy might be tempted to steal a sheep.”
I suppose a Christian’s fellow congregants are a bit unwilling to hang the fallen woman. Or stone her. Or publicly humiliate her in any way. OK, I understand. But a Christian surely can find a way to hate the sin while loving the sinner and warning those of ones acquaint not to date her. That’s not shaming. That is doing a spiritual work of mercy for ones fellow man, helping him (and indirectly her!) avoid the near occasion of sin.
@theadsgamer, sounds like you’ve got it made! What the heck are you doing hanging with the hyper-critical religious-conservative PUA set??
Goodkid, maybe you want to take a philosophy class or something.
JDG, that’s the difficult part about conversing with religious people, they can’t imagine how anyone could reach a moral decision using reasoning instead of the prescribed rules.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/
http://stanford.library.usyd.edu.au/entries/ethics-virtue/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/
Living tree,
I majored in philosophy and graduated cum laude from a prestigious liberal arts university. I have over one thousand books dealing with philosophy, history, literature and….religion. My best friend has a doctorate in mathematics from MIT and we meet weekly to discuss topics such as particle physics and Dr. Penrose’s assertion on pseudoscience (We have just recently sent an inquiry to him to resolve a disagreement we have pertaining to his statement on mumbo-jumbo mathematics).
You have committed the common error of attacking the messenger instead of the message. And your new morality is actually quite old. Those who espoused your old morality were called Sophists in ancient Greece and attacked by the great philosophers, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle about 2500 years ago. Modern adherents to your old morality are quite well known and some still admired i.e. Stalin, Hitler and Mao.
hyper-critical religious-conservative PUA set??
ROFL
Wow so impressive goodkid. You have definitely got the hang of fallacies used in rhetoric, you just equated non-Christians with Hitler. Twice. Nice work.
@margaret59
The difference is that men don’t generally “settle” when marrying a women less than completely attractive and later frivorce them because they are not haaaapy.
The idea that people ought to laze around, banging random strangers and indulging in various other gluttonies (alcohol, marijuana, fast food) until they are in their thirties, is a very new idea. I’ve written about this before. In my genealogy, most of the men and women got married between 17 and 22, and some were married when they were 15 or 16 (I suspect these people were caught banging each other, and were rushed off to the local bishop lest the families have to support a bunch of their bastards.)
One thing that’s woefully undertheorized, even here on Dalrock, is the effect that moving to the nuclear family model had on weakening the concept of fatherhood. My pet theory is that an 18-year old new husband had a sort of buffer period, where he was still partly under the authority of his father and father-in-law. In the old days, the couple would live close by both families, the husband would work in the fields with them, etc. This probably provided a sort of apprenticeship in exercising the authority of the paterfamilias, which allowed a man to gradually ease into the position while giving him a support system if his teenage bride got rebellious (few things will strike fear into a grown woman like bringing her father into a dispute, as he’s the guy who knows her best, and none of her crying or sexual appeals will work on him, unlike other men).
livingtree2013..please get over the idea that you are the smartest person ever. Goodkid said nothing like you said he did. Please just try to debate rationally. He was not conflating non-Christians with Hitler. Try reading. The point that he tried to make was that the pagan philosophy was used by Hitler, etc. Not that non-Christians are equated with Hitler. Buy a vowel.
God Is Laughing: You actually have a good point. I know that women are more likely to frivorce. I cannot disagree with this.
Re: Throughout her 30s, 15, 10, and 7 years ago, rich and famous men were proposing to Ms. McVey “every two weeks”. Now at 46 “Men must be queuing up to step into the role of Mr McVey. “Yes?” She looks momentarily surprised. “Well, line them up then!””
Where have all the good men gone? Why didn’t they keep waiting and waiting? Why?
JDG, that’s the difficult part about conversing with religious people, they can’t imagine how anyone could reach a moral decision using reasoning instead of the prescribed rules.
Your linked examples of ‘reasoning’ are based on human assertions, assumptions, and opinions. After your ‘anyone’ reaches his moral decision using reasoning, what happens when the next ‘anyone’ decides (also using reasoning) that the decision of the first ‘anyone’ was not in fact moral? Who arbitrates which ‘anyone’ was in fact correct?
To put it another way, what happens when consequentialist #1 disagrees with consequentialist #2 over which poor soul was to be sacrificed for the greater good? Who decides which consequentialist gets to play god? Is it the one with more guns?
@margaret59, thanks.
Margaret, I beg to differ. Read again:
“People who don’t believe in religion don’t think that killing six million Jews is a sin.”
And
“Modern adherents to your old morality are quite well known and some still admired i.e. Stalin, Hitler and Mao.”
I don’t know how you could have missed that.
As well, he claimed that any modern version of morality is comparable to sophistry which any student of classical history would instantly recognize as a petty insult.
JDG, why would anyone NEED to determine if anothers action is right or wrong if it were determined by way of reason, not rule?
And how does rule make those decisions any easier or adherents of rule any less contradictory? Just look at the arguments over how to live on this forum alone!
“Where have all the good men gone? Why didn’t they keep waiting and waiting? Why?”
On first read that seems like a shit test. I think, however, it’s the horrifying realization that such tests are only effective on those men that give a damn. In response I’m going to make popcorn and host a party of invisible men so we can all share a good laugh as the special snowflakes melt to tears.
Oh. No Marcus, my comment about being a perpetrator was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.
As I was saying, you’re joking about it. If you switched the genders around, you’d be a sexist.
.
Regarding the 2% discussion, you are lacking a source to back up your claims. Nothing you said has any real basis. To back up my claim that the 2% statistic is completely bogus (it was in fact a fabrication – the real statistic is closer to 25%), please refer to: Greer, Edward. “The Truth behind Legal Dominance Feminism’s Two Percent False Rape Claim Figure” Loy. LAL Rev. 33 (1999): 947.
@livingtree2013
And yes, I’m 100% certain that she didn’t cheat.
Rather, you’re 100% certain that you’d be shocked if you found out that she had.
Quite an interesting book: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Fraud_of_Feminism
—
An excerpt:
— ‘The Fraud of Feminism’ (1913)
well, you are missing the point livingitree2013..without religion, there is no reason why killing 6MM Jews is objectively wrong. After all, some 40 or 50MM people were killed..who cares about the Jews? Hiroshima, Nagasaki? Who cares about the people killed if other, more numerous people were saved? African slaves? Who cares if more people were fed? Get the point? You can not get “ought” from “is” without metaphysical reasoning.
For instance, if “we” decided that there were too many people on the planet. And, do, perhaps 2 billion have to be eradicated for the betterment of the planet. If we chose them with no regard for age, ethnicity, or race or whatever..would it be right? Why or why not? No appeal to emotion..just why, using logic alone. This is not purely hypothetical..it is something that has been considered.
LT2013, morality is not proscription or rules it is a reflection of a value placed in us as bearers of God’s image. We don’t kill, steal from, or violate one another because it is an affront to the Creator. The person that suggests that we are the result of an accident and are doomed to short violent temporal lives has a steep mountain to climb to suggest that the minutely proximal decisions/meaning are of any significance whatsoever are laughable. They are like egotistical ant’s convinced that they might change the course of the sun by waving their antennae in it’s direction. I have yet to see any plausible “reason” for morality whatsoever short of a Creator and eternal (rather than proximal) consequences for our behavior.
If you can see past temporal negative short term consequences (such as murder or rape) to the inevitable void I don’t think you can use “reason” as your excuse. “Reason” inexorably marches to nihilism whether you hold your breath and insist that it doesn’t or not.
That is, if you CAN’T see. I read it twice and still fumbled it.
Exactly, God Is Laughing! Another way of saying that pure reason is not actually rational. You do seem to have a good philosophical basis for debate! I would say, as I have, when you try to argue “ought” from “is” you wind up hoist on your own petard. lol
dalrock you have to share this with everyone. the consequences of marrying the wrong women
start at 59:44
Seemingly rational men still keep debating IBB? Dafuck? Whatever. I can picture a compromise between Plan A and Plan B.
Girl keeps her legs shut until she goes to college. There she meets a reliable, morally sound beta guy a few years her senior. They get married after a few months of courtship and move into a rented apartment. Both of them remain monogamous and continue their studies, and afterwards they find jobs in the same town. They keep their shared expenses low and save money. They delay parenthood until they are financially set. That is, the husband is roughly 30-32 and the wife is 27-28. Voilá! Everybody gets what they want. Women, of course, want to hear none of that.
Re: Anon 71
Such diatribes against the MRM are expected. And immaterial. It’s not like anyone expected feminists to listen to the MRM or agree with it on anything. Sane and thinking men know that feminists are vermin. The MRM isn’t talking to feminist women, it’s talking to men. In fact, trying to have rational discussion with any woman about these issues is pointless.
Yep. You can still see it working that way in some traditional rural families. I know one where the 17-year-old daughter got pregnant by her 18-year-old boyfriend, so a marriage was hurried up. They wouldn’t have gotten married that young if not for the pregnancy, but they did what you do. His family gave them a place to live for a while and her family hired him for some extra work so they could save up for some things. Both families helped babysit. Now they’re about 21, they have two kids, he’s got a better job, and they’re working on their own home. They’re getting a good start on life while they’re still young and full of energy, and they have an extra decade ahead of them compared to most people!
In a way, that pregnancy might have been a blessing. She’s smart enough that, had it not happened, she probably would have gone off to college, as you do. She might have forgotten her back-home boyfriend and starting hooking up, as you do. So maybe at 27 she gets around to finding a husband and starting a family — but now she’s lost a whole decade, in exchange for what? A degree that she doesn’t need to be a good wife and mother? Several years worth of relationship dysfunction to deal with?
Margaret, it’s a troll; it has no interest in debate. This is classic trolling behavior (especially atheist trolling): come in and claim to have questions and be really interested in what we have to say, despite being opposed to our beliefs in every way; gradually become more combative and dismissive until descending to outright insults; try to drag the conversation off into the weeds away from the dangerous topic.
If it can get you arguing about the Holocaust, it can sit back and have a good laugh at a job well done. The other trolls back in the cave might even give it a gold star.
“It’s the fathers, IBB. The fathers. They are the ones in the churches saying the stuff I wrote above.”
Well, duh. Husbands who have daughters are a pretty nasty and useless bunch when it comes to single men. They are hopeless suckers, willfully ignorant about the alpha-chasing promiscuity of their little princesses. It’s advised to stay away from them, have nothing to do with them, never give into them and don’t listen to their nonsense.
Anonymous age 71 says: February 28, 2014 at 8:49 pm
In 1934, Unwin wrote a scholarly book, SEX AND CULTURE. He found out that you can tell much about a society including its religious practices by how much sexual liberty the women (not the men) have. And, when women have virtually unlimited sexual freedom, the society will end in that generation.
The book is out of print, fortunately there are e-versions. You can get a copy here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/206382911/Sex-and-Culture-Searchable
On principle I never consider it worth persisting with a thread when Godwin’s Law is invoked and on this thread Goodkid 43, (who seems to have some rather odd ideas) has done just that.
The Pope seems to be joining the re-framing marriage crowd.
“When love fails, and it fails many times, we have to feel the pain of that failure, accompany the people who have felt the failure of their love,” the pope said during the daily mass he holds in the Vatican.
http://news.yahoo.com/pope-urges-sympathy-failed-love-divorce-debate-001928557.html
Pope Francis seems to be a very compassionate man. Unfortunately, in today’s atmosphere, compassion has been equated with liberalism and acceptance in the minds of most people. So he shows compassion for homosexuals, and people assume he’s about to declare a 180-degree turn on gay marriage. He says something about caring for the poor, and that’s taken as support for full-blown socialism. And he shows compassion for people in difficult marriages, and that means he wants to approve of divorce and make annulment easier.
The truth is, aside from the compassion, he rarely actually says anything about policy. What does “accompany the people who have felt the failure of their love” actually mean? If you’re immersed in the no-fault divorce culture, you probably assume it means he wants to help you end your painful marriage as quickly and painlessly as possible. But you could also “accompany” such a couple by reminding them that their marriage is a holy sacrament and helping them to fix it. When he says they shouldn’t be “condemned,” that doesn’t mean they should be patted on the back and encouraged in their sin. We aren’t ever supposed to “condemn” anyone, but we are called to give “fraternal correction” out of love. Hate the sin, love the sinner, all that.
I’m not trying to let him off the hook, because he causes a lot of this by using vague happy-talk and not making it clear what the Church’s position is, and then his underlings have to come out and do damage control, like one did in this article: “German Cardinal Ludwig Mueller, head of the Church’s doctrinal watchdog, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, has said the current rules are ‘impossible to change’ and that people should stop thinking of marriage as ‘a party in a church.'” This has been a problem from day one, especially with these short homilies at daily Mass, which he really needs to stop giving. Too often they end up giving aid and comfort to the enemy, whether or not that was his intention.
@Cail
Maybe you are right about the Pope’s intentions but the main problem is his substitution of the word love for marriage thus making the two synonymous. That is how we ended up with gay marriage and rampant divorce.
@Opus “On principle I never consider it worth persisting with a thread when Godwin’s Law is invoked ” the metaGodwin.
@jf12
Alright, I lied. Pope Francis is an Argie – so off to a bad start there, I’d say.
margaret59 says: ‘This is not logical. What you are really saying is that women should burn for men that they do not burn for because these men are good men? And yet, you do not say that men should burn for women for whom they do not burn because?? Why? …’
Because men don’t think the same way as women. A man is fueled primarily by respect (manifested as admiration, loyalty, and availability), while a woman is fueled primarily by love (manifested as attraction, adoration, and service). The problem here is that a man giving a woman love does not induce her to respect him (quite the opposite), while a woman giving respect to a man does induce him to love her. A man will genuinely adore a homely wife, ‘forsaking all others’, who regularly shows him love in the kitchen and the bedroom; a woman will despise an ordinary man who works hard to keep her secure and comfortable, while pining for ‘the one that got away’. Hypergamy.
jf12
@Opus “On principle I never consider it worth persisting with a thread when Godwin’s Law is invoked ” the metaGodwin.
Hah! You are discussing a metaGodwin, therefore I invoke abstract-metaGodwin!
Actually, Mike Godwin is a fairly pleasant sort. He just kept talking about artichokes, and we all know who used to like artichokes…voila, Godwin’s Law was born.
(Some of the above is even true.)
@craig, I agree. My curiousity has been aroused as to why women do not see that. Women refuse to agree that men respond to respect with love, and women also refuse to acknowledge knowing that a man’s loving behavior induces disrespect in women.
@AR, the usual tower of metas has always been ludicrous to me. A categorization approach to discourse could chop it off at the third story. At the ground level are fundamental objects of discourse; these are the analogues of elements of a set. The second story is typical discourse about typical objects; these are sets containing only non-sets. The third story is the meta level with discourse about discourse; these are sets which contain sets. The fourth story is definitionally identical to the third story, thereby chopping it off.
hoellen,
You have no idea what you are talking about….
Yes, well, jf12, what then should be done when someone keeps changing the story, eh?
Consider as an example the current feminist troller hereabouts…
Question for Dalrock or Cail,
I was thinking about setting up a manosphere March-madness college basketball pool. We don’t have to have any money at stake but I think it might be interesting for us to have our own little bracket pool to “keep score” so to speak. I can host it or you can or Cail can or anyone of us with a blog. Do you want to host it?
Marcus, how one gets to the result is likely a matter of interpretation, it’s why there’s so much discrepancy between the numbers. There’s no source that claims to have the truth, not even the very excellent study you linked to me (good reading though, thank you).
What I’ve done for you in return is some math. Using the stats from RAINN (https://www.rainn.org/get-information/statistics/reporting-rates) which includes male rape (not 100% sure yet if it includes prison rape too), and an estimated “false” variable of 0.25 as you suggested, I plugged all the numbers into a spreadsheet, calculated the percentage at each level, and…
Voila! 0.02 of “false” rapes are charged with an offence. Feel free to try the exercise yourself if you doubt it, I don’t have the computer savvy to be able to post the spreadsheet for you here.
I’ll just leave this pointer here and now:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Lie_with_Statistics
Marcus, that much is certain. 😉
Are you calling my mother a liar?? (throws down gauntlet)
Seriously though, you have to know the woman. It’s actually ludicrous. Mathematically incongruous. Even my DAD himself would say that. His third, fourth and fifth choices, not so certain.
No YOURE missing the point Margaret, there are plenty of ways to reason your way to concluding that killing even one person is wrong without reliance on a book of rules. And that IS MY POINT. Religious people are religious because they don’t understand the very premise of ethical reasoning. You really, genuinely believe that without the book, everyone on the planet would turn into anarchists. I’ll admit that the sad majority of individual humans on this little rock aren’t prepared to invest the time required to develop their ethical framework, so for this reason alone I’m grateful that religion exists. But it takes the thinking out of living, and that, to me, is shameful.
If religion didn’t fill the place of reason, people might actually have learned how to do it by now.
Yes Margaret, it has been considered. Its still being considered, I’m sure, and if you really think about it, it’s not only being considered -it’s being implemented!
It’s been considered (and implemented!) by more than just atheists nazis and fascists though.
Cail, it wasn’t me that brought up the holocaust, nor is it me that wants to keep talking about it. It’s not relevant.
My point was that atheists are not equivalent to nazis, as was suggested. Three times now…
livingtree2013 says:
there are plenty of ways to reason your way to concluding that killing even one person is wrong without reliance on a book of rules.
And yet, oddly…you still haven’t provided one of them.
Sharrukin, I provided four, actually. Scroll back and read… There are more, too, I only told you of the most commonly utilized four (not that they’re all that commonly used…)
Ethical reasoning is an invested thought process, a very internalized one which requires a commitment to self-discipline. Like a study of martial arts. I could tell you how to put someone into a hold, but I could never explain what it means to understand why you’re doing it, when it’s appropriate to do it, the consequences of doing it, and the alternatives to it. That would require commitment, study, training, and discipline. All things which are lacking in this modern society. As the saying goes, “ain’t nobody got time for that!” “Quick fix” and “immediate gratification” rule this land now.
That’s one thing hitler, Stalin, and Mao all understood, all too well, and used it to further their own subversive causes – people want someone else to do the heavy lifting for them, they are easy to manipulate.
If that’s what you’d like to call it…
The statistics aren’t from RAINN. RAINN shops around for the best statistics for each point they’d like to make.
Anyway, you’ve done a number of incorrect things. You’ve conflated female with male rape – ignoring the fact that we were only discussing female rape above (the 2% myth is for females reporting rape, if you recall). You’ve ignored the fact that men report sexual victimization at far lower rates than women:
Only 16% of men with documented histories of sexual abuse (by social service agencies, which means it was very serious) considered themselves to have been sexually abused, compared to 64% of women with documented histories in the same study.
Widom, Cathy Spatz, and Suzanne Morris. “Accuracy of adult recollections of childhood victimization, part 2: childhood sexual abuse.” Psychological assessment 9.1 (1997): 34.
You’ve made a number of grievous errors in terms of statistics – I’ll identify one, (the others I’ll let you figure out): organizations such as NOW and RAINN rely on the U.S Department of Justice’s National Crime Victimization Survey to insist that rape is mostly underreported. What those organizations do not publicize is that this survey defines rape as follows:
“Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means vaginal, anal or oral penetration by the offender(s). This category also includes incidents where the penetration is from a foreign object such as a bottle. Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.”
You’ve ignored the fact that five year reporting periods aren’t good for determining what actually happened:
Prior research has determined that longer survey reference periods are associated with increases in memory lapses associated with both remembering the occurrence of events as well as accurately recalling the details of events including when they actually occurred.
Rand, M. (2009, November). Redesigning the National Crime Victimization Survey. Paper presented at the Federal Committee on Statistical Methodology Research Conference, Washington, DC.
And another similar: Loftus, Elizabeth F., Nancy L. Korf, and Jonathan W. Schooler. “Misguided memories: Sincere distortions of reality.” Credibility assessment. Springer Netherlands, 1989. 155-173.
…and that’s not what we were talking about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring
Use http://www.editgrid.com/
You never said that it was a claim that she made. It was only a claim that you made regarding her. Remember?
Hmmmm.
I can picture a compromise between Plan A and Plan B.
The Western female mind will never see your suggestion as a compromise, but as an imposition or a burden. It involves sacrifice, delayed gratification, and consideration of someone other than herself. An absolute non-starter, especially for any North American millennial woman.
That may not have been what you meant when you brought up the 2% myth, Marcus, but it illustrates that the “facts”, such as they are, are very open to interpretation. Just as you said, only 16% of men believe themselves to have been sexually assaulted (even some who were), 64% of women believe it (even some who weren’t). There’s a truth in there somewhere, but it can’t accurately be determined. Stats on data which have no fixed reference points, such as this, are very easy to inaccurately report.
I’m just going to add a personal note, I can probably list in minutes about 50 women and at least 15 men that i know personally who have been (really) sexually assaulted. None of them have been reported. I only know two people who have filed a legal complaint about a sexual offence, and they were for some pretty serious offences. And I know LOTS who’ve made very bad decisions and live with them. Maybe that’s just how we are in Canada, we don’t go to the police and lawyers to solve our problems, we accept the responsibility for them.
“Religious people are religious because they don’t understand the very premise of ethical reasoning.”
The idiocy is getting close to nostril level. Everyone, get out while you can still breathe.
Ethical reasoning, is the hedonist and the nihilist declaring that their philosophies are reason while denying that they are hedonistic or nihilistic. The true power of this type is not in their ability to reason but in their ability to deceive themselves and redefine words. Running away from the rational course of understanding that the void is waiting for us and not wanting to be called nihilists they cling to “proximal meaning”, living for today and yet this is somehow not hedonism…….
Living Tree seems to know a lot about other people (not withstanding not being there at the time). I thought Atheists were supposed to be more critically disposed leaving faith-based reasoning to Christians and other believers? Hmmm.
*reaches for his Hedonic Calculator with Utilitarian pack.
Here is a thought experiment, is it moral to club baby seals? What “reason” makes this a moral or amoral act? Are we primarily concerned with human “good” or are animals also considered? Why? Is it better to have baby seal-skin slippers or to know that those baby seals lived good lives until they were eaten by a polar bear? How do we determine “good” and who gets to make that determination? If a majority of people feel that clubbing baby seals is “good” is it? If we can’t even determine whether or not to kill an animal based on reason, who gets to determine the morality of a whole society and on what basis?
For absolutely no reason whatsoever this term has come to mind:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=attention%20whore
This person appears to have been posting almost constantly for the past 24h. I’m guessing that she’s a shut-in, and possibly on a disability pension for being mentally ill. She certainly didn’t have anything better to do on a friday evening than seek negative attention here.
To be clear, I like arguing with intelligent people and don’t expect everyone (anyone really) to agree with me; but, this isn’t arguing. It’s just feeding into an unfortunate person’s delusions of persecution.
With all this in mind, not responding to this person is an act of compassion. There’s really nothing you can do for her, and she doesn’t have anything interesting to teach anyone.
What’s with the scare quotes around the word ‘facts’?
I didn’t say it, I quoted it.
Please re-read the quote. Carefully.
Could you expand on these two sentences? (It looks a lot like an epistemological nuke.)
Only 15?
Something interesting:
http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/03/the-fraud-of-feminism-1913.html
Several people in my church youth group have gone nuts over the “Economics of Sex” video that someone posted on Facebook. The primary concern of both men and women, towards the video, is that women are being objectified for sex (“What about men providing resources?” – “Women can make their own money”).
Many of them could be described as trad-con crypto-feminists, so their reaction is not surprising at all. I wonder what this denialism and opposition is going to cost the Church (e.g. there’s a cause for the marriage decline, and we’re getting closer to an event horizon every day).
Yes, it’s exactly the problem Dalrock has talked about: treating romantic love as the context in which marriage should happen, instead of the other way around.
(By the way, my church’s youth group has changed their age range to 12-40, from 13-36.)
GIL, does religion make it easier to resolve those questions? I can’t see it from where I sit, but that may be from lack of intimate knowledge.
I mean, as a person who has a non-biblical ethical framework, I can conclude that cheating on ones partner is unethical, not because it is against gods law, but because it interferes with someone else’s liberty. For the same reason, I think it’s unethical to pull the wings off live chickens for fun. I have dominion in the animal kingdom due to superior hunting skills, but just because I have domain that doesn’t mean I have the right to be a tyrant in it. Just an example.
Ethics becomes a burden for people when it stands in the way of doing things they want to do, and I guess without fear/respect for god it’s too easy to just say “oops, I messed up, I’ll try harder next time”, or they find a way to rationalize their actions by modifying their ethics to suit it, so there’s no consequence to faltering.
But then again, there’s not really any consequence to faltering in scripture either, through history the rules have been shaped to suit our beliefs, and most sins are forgiven. Religion doesn’t stop people from making bad decisions, does it? What’s the difference exactly?
“I can conclude that cheating on ones partner is unethical, not because it is against gods law, but because it interferes with someone else’s liberty”
This makes no logical sense whatsoever.
Cheating is wrong–secularly, morally wrong–but not because it “interferes with someone else’s liberty,” which it doesn’t.
livingtree2013 says: March 1, 2014 at 8:15 pm
I mean, as a person who has a non-biblical ethical framework, I can conclude that cheating on ones partner is unethical, not because it is against gods law, but because it interferes with someone else’s liberty.
I’d expect that to be used as the excuse to cheat…
Cheating is breach of trust, a violation of an oath, and potentially compromises the cheated-on party’s health.
Of course, for someone coming from a non-biblical framework, none of that makes any difference compared to one’s “happiness”.
LT2013, I can see your antennae flicking wildly about. I have already clearly stated why something is good or evil. Any of us that believe in a creator have a sense of what the creation was made for (which would be good) as opposed to what goes against the design of the creation (which is evil). That is the case for the Muslim, the Hindu, the Jain or the Christian. Barring a purpose and replacing that with a series of accidents leading to the nullification of all meaning through the entropy that lies before us rationally means something? Why not rip the wings off of a live chicken? Why not sleep around. What difference does any of it make? It will all end in entropy, even a fifth grader can put that together. None of the decisions we make “good” or “bad” matter in light of entropy, it’s just so much ego stroking to think that anything at all matters at that point.
livingtree2013 says:
I think it’s unethical to pull the wings off live chickens for fun. I have dominion in the animal kingdom due to superior hunting skills, but just because I have domain that doesn’t mean I have the right to be a tyrant in it. Just an example.
An example of what?
Do you eat chicken dinners? Are you a vegetarian? Is someone who does eat chicken dinner immoral?
What is wrong with being a tyrant? Why is that wrong? Why is brutality and cruelty wrong?
What moral difference exists if any between taking the life of a chicken and that of a man?
MarcusD
(By the way, my church’s youth group has changed their age range to 12-40, from 13-36.)
This is a joke, right?
I believe that–claims of joking aside–she is a perpetrator of rape, just as she wrote. She doesn’t suddenly become a sexist if the sexes are switched around, rather a switcheroo makes her existing sexism more obvious.
The infamous Koss study (aka the “Ms. Magazine study”) from which feminists (what a sexist name they have!) confabulated their 1-in-4 coeds are raped claim was replicated, only with Koss’s questions posed to men. Whaddaya know, the percentage of men raped by females is even higher than that of females as claimed by Koss, using the feminist’s own criteria to judge whether the respondent’s answer indicated “rape!” or not.
My recollection is that this sex-reversed replication of Koss’s study was reported by Christine Hoff Sommers in her book Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed Women I don’t have the Sommers’s book handy or I’d have named the study itself. By the way, my searches with Bing and Google (Bingle?) produced link after link of Rebuilding The Mound efforts. Feminists are frantic to drive off all criticism of the Koss study.
Rooting around in the search results and with the help of Archive.org I found this article by Carrie Lukas, the one that apparently upset so many excuse-makers for the feminist 2% and 1-in-4 dogmas. Lukas wrote at the time Crystal Gail Mangum’s accusations of “rape!” were hot headlines. We now see “the answer in the back of the book” as they say at Duke University.
As for the feminist claim that only 2% of accusations of “rape!” by females are false, I believe that was disposed of over 20 years ago by Dr. Warren Farrell in his classic book The Myth of Male Power. There is also useful information in the appendix of the late Cathleen Crowell Webb’s 1985 book Forgive Me, her story of her false rape accusation and, after she became a Christian, her recantation and efforts to free the man she had falsely accused.
livingtree2013 says:
February 28, 2014 at 11:06 pm
>>Goodkid, maybe you want to take a philosophy class or something.
Note the feminist assumption that only in a university can anyone learn anything. But, of course, that is where Bill Gates learned computers, correct? Hee, hee.
>>I’m just going to add a personal note, I can probably list in minutes about 50 women and at least 15 men that i know personally who have been (really) sexually assaulted.
Just a standard run-of-mill citizen, right?
Our personal experiences do make us biased at times. I’d say she works in some sort of function where she deals with DV and sex abuse victims, and it causes you to be biased.
For example, for ten years, I supplied no-fee counseling for divorced men and a few divorced women, from my home. In a small rural city, my daughter did some sampling and an estimated 1,600+ men called for help, over 10 years. Actually, more than any individual attorney or judge had contact with over that period of time, though numbers may be different in bigger communities.
I came away with total lack of confidence for any female born in the USA, and I admit it. Except of course my own hand-raised daughter, who was most definitely NOT a princess, thank God. She is a submissive Christian wife, one of maybe 3 or 4 that I personally know. She has been married 17 years, and her husband and she agree they have never had an angry quarrel. If they disagree, she says, “We do it your way.” And his way is almost always better than hers. That is what submission is like when a woman marries a good man.
I had no idea how bad American women really were until I got to know Mexican women. They are not all perfect, but there are many more good ones.
I once figured out that in the USA, after 55 years, I could only name 6 women I considered to be totally sane. That did not include my sisters nor my mother, because they aren’t totally sane. That included working in a large factory with many women employees. Where I live in Mexico, of the 40 women who live the closest to me, at least 3 are totally sane. For mathematically challenged dearies, that is 7.5%, right?
The other 37 neighbor women may not be totally sane, but they clean house; cook (from scratch); care for the kids; wash clothes usually by hand; and either give their husbands sex, or look the other way while he bangs a willing neighbor.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10657673/Why-are-British-women-flocking-to-marry-Syrian-jihadis.html
i noticed this while reading news pages. An analysis of why so many Brit women are flocking after some of the most dangerous men on the planet. I think few men in the manosphere will learn much in the linked article.
I mean, as a person who has a non-biblical ethical framework, I can conclude that cheating on ones partner is unethical, not because it is against gods law, but because it interferes with someone else’s liberty.
Why is interfering with someone else’ liberty wrong? Who says so that I or anyone else should listen to them? If I am bigger and stronger than you, why shouldn’t I take what I want from you?
Religion doesn’t stop people from making bad decisions, does it?
Yes it absolutely does. It doesn’t stop everyone, but it does stop many people from making bad decisions. This is why you see more and more bad decisions being made as we become more and more secular in our thinking.
She doesn’t suddenly become a sexist if the sexes are switched around, rather a switcheroo makes her existing sexism more obvious.
Right, I was thinking in terms of how feminists would see it (for her own understanding) – that is, feminists would call it sexist to joke about rape (since in their mind only women can be raped). While I don’t know if she’s just trolling about actually raping someone, I do know that she’s joking about it (which is despicable). I deal with her comments here as well: https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/02/26/mysterious-forces-at-work/#comment-112020
My recollection is that this sex-reversed replication of Koss’s study was reported by Christine Hoff Sommers in her book Who Stole Feminism? : How Women Have Betrayed Women I don’t have the Sommers’s book handy or I’d have named the study itself.
It might be this one: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02695305?LI=true
By the way, my searches with Bing and Google (Bingle?) produced link after link of Rebuilding The Mound efforts. Feminists are frantic to drive off all criticism of the Koss study.
The number of women who identify as feminists is declining. It’s also reflected in books published (second graph of: http://simulacral-legendarium.blogspot.ca/2014/02/what-can-google-ngrams-tell-us-about.html)
@AR
This is a joke, right?
Sadly, no. There is precedent set elsewhere for that age range, such as World Youth Day (14-35, though the upper limit seems to be ignored).
@A71
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/10657673/Why-are-British-women-flocking-to-marry-Syrian-jihadis.html
Yes, this seems to be part of a trend. British women are also converting to Islam in large numbers:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/islam-converts-british-women-prejudice
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women–islam-the-rise-and-rise-of-the-convert-6258015.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324039/Like-Lauren-Booth-ARE-modern-British-career-women-converting-Islam.html
@A71
Yes, that seems to be part of a trend. British women are also converting to Islam in large numbers:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/11/islam-converts-british-women-prejudice
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women–islam-the-rise-and-rise-of-the-convert-6258015.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1324039/Like-Lauren-Booth-ARE-modern-British-career-women-converting-Islam.html
What do women like and dislike in a man and how do you tell if a girl is interested in you?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=863722
I can’t figure out why anyone bothers to reply to IBB, LyingTree & Kate.
They’re exactly the type of women described in the article. Washed up and then coming online to stir up attention.
These are the type men wouldn’t take a 2nd look at in real life.
@Boxer
re: mentally ill
These women are not mentally ill. They’re tooling men.
The article is about old women not being given attention by men. These old women come into articles’ comments section, then predictably manages to get attention.
Nah, I don’t see it. “British” women “flocking” (nice bit o’ DailyMail-speak there) to jump unemployable muslims’ soon-to-be-bones.
All our Hannah is giving us by way of evidence is “So why are so many women, according to recent press reports, looking to the jihadi ranks for potential husband material? “ and instantly segues into a cut&paste about studies from the ever-dependable Institute of Studies no doubt, a justification for the real luncheonmeat lurking in her soul, a humblebrag about how she gets the badboys.
(a) who are these women, and (b) exactly how “British” are they?
Woad, Welsh and chariots, or NuBrits, who still spend half their year back in Mirpur, and would sooner marry a dead man walking than the cross-eyed goatherd chosen by the tribe.
Stay away from the Daily Mail, Hannah.
It’s yet another of these myths like “Sharia is the law of the land in England now! Beware, Fella’Merkins, lest it swallow ye too!”.
No it bloody well ain’t, nobody gives a toss about it, and would say so. If asked. And that’s the problem. Nobody ever asks, do they? Our stinky wet little island is just a beaded screen onto which faraway ideologues of all persuasions project their child-frighteners. Most people here don’t even know what Sharia is, and would probably ask for jug of Stella and extra poppadums, if faced with a choice.
tl;dr
British women unlikely to be british, unlikely to be flocking (hard numbers only, please, Han) and for pete’s sake stop looking at the Daily Mail and then recycling it as fact in the Hitlergraph. The DM is the National Enquirer with more tits and less journalism. Even the Daily Star is less hypocritical.
I know a female Britain of Soviet extraction who has now converted to Christianity from Islam – via, Buddhism and The Secret – so do not despair that Sharia has any more efficacy in Britain than Canon Law.
I would have thought that (amongst other things) cheating on ones wife was simple bad manners. Round here though I would have thought that cuckolding was the more likely scenario.
Only met two white british female converts (if that is indeed what they were, and weren’t just dressing up to Mau-Mau the flak-catchers at the dole office) in my entire life.
One lived across the stairhead, over 30 years ago. An almost spherical and astoundingly Welsh midget who had a couple of weird kids with a broken old wretch of an Iraqi refugee (who eventually ended up wandering the streets, pissed up, until quite recently. Poor old sod, God knows what he’d left behind) and did the whole dressup. I think she was a bit subnormal, the apartment was foul in the extreme (I was in there because she’d had some potentially dangerous (to me!) problem with the gas main and was freaking out. Uh oh, what have you been up to, Mr Too-Clever-By-Half, trying to jump the meter? Better get me spanners).
The other was again a pie-faced schemie (project-dweller), local this time, who’d hooked into a relatively wealthy local legitimate businessman for a few kids, at age 16 or something, and did the dressup. None of the actual black and asian muslim mummies in the kids’ school could stand her, she was a psychotic cow. They were in the main solid gold, nice people to chat with, very honest, have them and their kids round to our kids’ birthdays, help with kicking local bureaucrats/medical services (disgracefully slack), whatever. ‘Er Indoors was a devil for that, on account of being quite posh and well in with some local politicians, took sadistic pleasure in it.
And my Iranian mate (and his Iranian mates) dropped dark hints about hubby’s lifestyle while we were out assaying the town’s lager and cigs (mutual interest in Celtic FC).
For balance, I have also only ever met two white male brit converts, again separated by decades. One was a Spergy little Yorkshire engineer on an infrastructure job on some remote island, basically an annoying twat, with a number of abnormal interests, the other again at the kids’ elementary school, some sort of unemployable ex-hippy gone mad, with the whole nighty and ‘Ghan hat rigout, and a ForeignBride of some description (hard to tell under all the laundry) he made walk behind him (much to the twittering disapproval of the nice authentic foreign-born muslim parents, who (a) thought it was a bloody cheek, and (b) were slightly embarrassed about it making them look like hillbillies, on account of them being dressed likewise, but in no way to the same pantomime extent. Just headscarfs, a propensity for long coats and (normal, M&S) dresses in blacks and grays for the laydees, and monkstrap shoes with the heels broken down for the fellas. If you want fairground finery, check out the Hindu mums. Aaagh, my eyes, my precious eyes! Those colors do not even exist, outside a Frauenhofer spectrum of the Sun, taken at approx. 1000 km.
tl;dr
Billions of white british women being suborned by the wicked mahometans?
Made-up, second-hand shit, from the usual suspects among dead-tree media.
What does it take with you lot? I despair.
For the eleventeenth time.
Stay away from the Daily Mail!
Will you please stop repeating this crap to each other, or are you all on a wind-up? Well done.
You can try to reason with a feminist, but you find that, regardless of the subject, she wants to turn it into a discussion about rape.
It’s not as if we don’t have threads that relate to DV or rape; but she will make every thread into a discussion of rape. When discussing any aspect of male/female relations, she is most comfortable if she can do so from the context of the worst possible male transgression.
Best of all, if she can change the subject completely, you will forget what it was you were originally trying to say.
MarcusD responds to my question about a “youth group”
Sadly, no. There is precedent set elsewhere for that age range, such as World Youth Day (14-35, though the upper limit seems to be ignored).
Frankly, it’s ridiculous. “I accompanied a group of youth down Michigan Avenue in Chicago” has one implied meaning if “youth” == “people aged 13 through 17 inclusive” and something else for this definition you have shared. Walking down the street with a middle aged man and his wife and their son who recently graduated from college is not accompanying “youth”. It’s like classifying 25 year old adults as “children” for insurance purposes…
James K
You can try to reason with a feminist, but you find that, regardless of the subject, she wants to turn it into a discussion about raaaaaaaaaayype.
FIFY
Women do seem to change their religion as they change their underwear. I knew one woman who went Catholic – Roman variety – for the simple reason that she felt the local Priest was more friendly to her than the Rev’d at the local CofE. Of course that head-body separator from Woolwich started as Xtian but went Muslim – rather useful if head-chopping is your thing, I’d say.
My pal Jenny used to look after the head-body separator and matching block in the Tower. Still in excellent working order, and just a raven’s-flap the Barracks.
It’s just what they wanted, after all.
Full-life term is better though, if they actually bother to go through with it and don’t top themselves. An infinitely cruel process, to the ineducably stupid and the barking mad if condemned to it. I’ll not be holding my breath for a jihadi version of Boethius, or Solzhenitsyn.
Even Imperial China had no torture more exquisite and refined than the jolly old British Way.
@AR
It’s a silly definition, yes. But, it reflects the low numbers of participants.
There are parishes in the diocese with 1800 registered families that have no youth groups.
I can see this going very badly: http://www.news.va/en/news/pope-issues-letter-to-families
Has a bit of a Marxist feel to it (what a surprise):
Will Hollywood fix its pay bias against women?
http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/28/opinion/judge-hollywood-pay-disparity/index.html
Alrighty, I’m back on topic again, and I can’t make head nor tail of Miz Beth’s plaintive
” the only guys I seem to attract who are not paralyzed by the idea of even commitment-lite “.
Commitment-lite. What is that? Like a card on your birthday? Or leaving his car outside your house while he’s on the job? Stealing your underwear?
Honestly flummoxed as to what she’s (very carefully) not explicitly stating.
If any of you modern young people could be so kind .. thanks awfully.
@Tam the Bam
I’m not part of the group you asked, but my own take from reading a good number of middle aged divorcées complaining is that what she is carefully not saying is the men only want to pump and dump her, and they will bail from even that at the slightest hint of difficulty from her. One very common complaint from these women is how brutally open the men are about all of this. It is one thing to be pumped and dumped, but the men aren’t even willing to make a show of it. It shows how little pull these women really have, that they can’t even get a proper pump and dump.
Speaking of commitment phobia, Elizabeth Gilbert, a favorite of ours and author of Eat Pray Love, has this to say about “soul mates”:
“People think a soul mate is your perfect fit, and that’s what everyone wants. But a true soul mate is a mirror, the person who shows you everything that is holding you back, the person who brings you to your own attention so you can change your life.
A true soul mate is probably the most important person you’ll ever meet, because they tear down your walls and smack you awake. But to live with a soul mate forever? Nah. Too painful. Soul mates, they come into your life just to reveal another layer of yourself to you, and then leave.
A soul mates purpose is to shake you up, tear apart your ego a little bit, show you your obstacles and addictions, break your heart open so new light can get in, make you so desperate and out of control that you have to transform your life, then introduce you to your spiritual master.”
And this about “falling in love”:
“I have always fallen in love fast and without measuring risks. I have a tendency not only to see the best in everyone, but to assume that everyone is emotionally capable of reaching his highest potential. I have fallen in love more times than I care to count with the highest potential of a man, rather than with the man himself, and I have hung on to the relationship for a long time (sometimes far too long) waiting for the man to ascend to his own greatness. Many times in romance I have been a victim of my own optimism.”
Dalrock- “….they will bail from even that at the slightest hint of difficulty from her.”
Truth.
Why? Because life is finite, and we have other things we could be doing: other women, golf, fishing, working overtime, exercising, reading, etc. Putting up with difficulty is something necessary that comes with an investment, with a building process. The post 35 divorcee needs to be pretty much plug and play as far as a relationship is concerned. The potential payoff is lower, the risks are higher. What these women fail to understand is that most single men, by their mid 30s, have become quite adept at being alone. We have learned our own feminist lesson; the bicycle doesn’t need the fish either.
they will bail from even that at the slightest hint of difficulty from her.”
That comment brought a tear to my eyes. Men are finally figuring it out. Let a ho be a ho and the slightest hint of crap means step off. Nothing restores politeness better than PUA. See how it is done churchians. I bet that comment being a part of pop culture and true dread will do more to make wives than all of the man up bull shit the churchians are pushing in the name of God.
What these women fail to understand is that most single men, by their mid 30s, have become quite adept at being alone. We have learned our own feminist lesson; the bicycle doesn’t need the fish either.
This.
Men and women’s attitudes about marrying for the first time are not different among young adults. But among never-married adults ages 30 to 50, men (27%) are more likely than women (8%) to say they do not want to marry.
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/02/13/love-and-marriage/
@Tam the Bam
“Commitment-lite” You don’t acknowledge her on fb. Or you flake every third date. Or you flake after making a booty call. XD
Chickwatch Update: So, a chick apparently manoeuvred me into a dutch date–was supposed to be a group event but the third guy never showed up after accepting late. She offered to split the cost of the appetizers and I happily accepted. XD She managed to “accidentally” say “intercourse” and talk about a guy she is coasting with (happily uncommitted) and imply that she has f__kbuddies. Well-preserved, slim, B-cups. Professionally, she is a feminist–but who cares, she was submissive to me. I’ll enjoy the chase and the tension and flake when necessary. 🙂
Thanks everyone, particularly The Proprietor. I am beginning to get a handle on the strange, bleak Martian landscape they have colonized.
gg “That comment brought a tear to my eyes. “ and me.
I’m a soppy old Hector at base, and feel, well, almost guilty. Almost. To have invested your entire somatic and spiritual capital in a protracted series of exciting high-risk ventures and have them run into the sand, and no other string to your bow. Unlike the nearly-men, betas? like me, who’ve diversified our portfolios in the face of a rigged market. If it wasn’t a sin, I’d likely do meself in if I got that desperate, and with at least half my life still ahead (of course, being a workingclass scotsman, I’m just about all done in and actuarially not long for this world greased or ungreased, unlike women).
asdg: Ouch. You’re right of course, it’s what they say they want, and the fact that they do the same thing over and over again without learning anything is none of our responsibility. That would be .. patronizing.
tasdg nailed it here, what is meant by not living up to “commitment-lite”: “You don’t acknowledge her on fb. Or you flake every third date. Or you flake after making a booty call.”
Agreed completely. Well said.
A woman’s dreams are precious. How many times, among their girlfriends, have they, together, joyfully anticipated the coming of their prince on a pale horse? Who is the muck covered, clumsy stable boy to dare think himself capable of her?
Men shall obediently submit to womens judgment of their worth, and be capable of a woman’s precious dream, or be found wanting and cast aside as they deserve.
http://www.khou.com/news/local/Crosby-student-scores-date-with-Texans-cheerleader-for-prom-247974451.html
Of course it has to be misogyny: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Students+quit+board+after+making+comments+about+student+federation+president/9569152/story.html
I’ve never understood why liberals claim victim categories as root causes (in the above case, comments directed towards a women are indicative of sexism). I wonder if they’ve ever thought that such conclusions could ever backfire on them.
MarcusD
It’s a silly definition, yes. But, it reflects the low numbers of participants.
There are parishes in the diocese with 1800 registered families that have no youth groups.
So? Relabeling 30-year old working people as “youth” doesn’t actually do anything about the real issue, so far as I can see. Frankly I cannot see this helping in the longer term or even the shorter term. Why is this done?
” .. when they reject men that they do not burn for..they are hypocrites?”
have you actually bothered to read anything on this site first? No,that’s alright, save yourself the unaccustomed effort, I already know the answer.
Reject away, ‘s cool. Won’t find me complaining. Refreshing and possibly inconvenient honesty is always coin of the realm my world.
It’s retrospective rejection, after the big payoff, that grips my shite. Like morning-after “raaaaaaypppe!”. Buyer’s remorse, and all its equally diseased cousins.
Oh ffffffuuuuuuuu … did I actually get inveigled into responding to Autistic Tree, thru a mere tag fail? [slaps self with stale haddock]
Yeah, sorry about the tag fail.
Anyway, what’s wrong with retroactive rejection? Do you feel entitled to women, you beast? :p I get it…you like to take women for granted. Silly boy.
[D: Fixed, but not before the damage was done.]
If anyone plans to go over there and have some fun, be warned: they’re quick with the ban-hammer. At least when it comes to traditionalist Catholics, anyway, so I assume they’d be at least as quick to ban anyone offering a red-pill perspective about women. Just check out that thread, and all the women claiming they picked their husbands for “intelligence,” and one person even claiming that women are “loyal” and won’t leave a relationship unless basically forced to. They’re blue-pill “conservative feminist” through and through.
MarcusD
Those guys should have never apologized to her and told her it was a private conversation period. They should have taken legal action instead of rolling over also.
So? Relabeling 30-year old working people as “youth” doesn’t actually do anything about the real issue, so far as I can see. Frankly I cannot see this helping in the longer term or even the shorter term. Why is this done?
I’m not saying that it makes any sense.
Basically, from what I understand, the logic was that the parishes sent groups to WYD with age range of 16-35, and they decided to essentially turn that group into a “youth” group, because they didn’t have one, and because people expressed interest in the idea (though, they probably thought of “youth” being something like 14-20, not 14-40). The average ages of parishes in my diocese are quite high (some upwards of 70 years) – this is probably another reason for the wide range. (In a parish that I visit while on vacation, there are no ‘youth’ who attend Mass from between ages ~14 to ~25 [at least, none that I’ve ever seen] – they probably start coming back when they marry, if they marry.)
@Cail Corishev
I just PM the OP nowadays. The forum has become a hivemind like I’ve never seen before. I mean, it’s unsurprising given the fact that they are so aggressive with banning people – it’s a feedback loop where the mob gets people banned who disagree, which simply reinforces the bias.
@greyghost
The whole situation is ridiculous. The version of the story that I read stated that their conversations were (essentially) intercepted. Some people are calling it an “online attack,” which usually requires it being public (unless it’s a women, then it’s sexist, vicious, automatically public, etc). Those men already resigned, so I don’t know if they’re still up to sue.
Off topic warning: Unattractive whining follows.
Roissy banned me, the douchebag. P Goes double for Gay Buttf__ks For Males (TM).
Roissy chose the stupid cotw, “One of your breasts has a lump.” I had a better off the cuff comment, “Do you think that your breasts are symmetrical?” Roissy’s choice got the hamster thinking medically, while mine got the hamster wondering if her breasts were attractive to men. So Roissy banned me, the d__kwad.
Ok, done whining. 🙂
#9; ” I get it…you like to take women for granted. Silly boy.”
No no my dear, au contraire, I’d just like an opportunity to exempt at least some of them from the category “inveterate, unthinking, compulsive liar; probable psychopath”. Old romantic that I am.
Why, when I finks ov me own sainted muvver, well it would bring a tear to a glass eye, to find out she were no better … [sobs extravagantly, blows nose horribly]
AsdG: I wouldn’t pay it any mind. I get the impression he’s terminally bored with the whole thing, and is looking for an excuse to nuke the site (and its slightly “awkward” commentariat) but can’t rationally afford to pass up the clickies. But constantly tweaks the tiger’s tail by acting all Caligula, just because if he does it enough, it might relieve him of the responsibility by pissing a critical mass of readers off. Hey ho. He/they’ve already done more than enough heavy lifting for one lifetime, merits a rest.
MarcusD
I’m not saying that it makes any sense.
I understand that. I’m just astounded.
Basically, from what I understand, the logic was that the parishes sent groups to WYD with age range of 16-35, and they decided to essentially turn that group into a “youth” group, because they didn’t have one, and because people expressed interest in the idea (though, they probably thought of “youth” being something like 14-20, not 14-40).
Well…that all puts me in mind of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potemkin_village
So, in a roundabout way, my chickwatch update was on topic. It addresses the issue of whether women can get sex with whomever they want, which at least one woman cannot in my case, so the idea that men have no say in who gets to watch the sex gate is simply ludicrous. The notion that women can get sex with whomever they want is therefore controversial. I think that the notion of men having a say in the control of the sex gate is important; it undermines the FI in an important way. If women don’t have exclusive control of the sex gate, then the feminist strategy has serious problems. Men can also deny sex and undercut population maintenance; this is part of the MGTOW strategy implicitly. However, it need not be exclusive to MGTOW to have an important impact on the FI.
As dannyFrom504 said to women in his workplace, “”none of you bitches is worthy of this dick.” http://dannyfrom504.com/2014/03/01/ass-grab/
Off topic: a post I’d like to see
How many times have the married guys been hit on over the years by women and have resisted? How many times by attractive women, who are more difficult to resist? (I can think of several in my case.) I’d like to see a post about those questions.
I’d include extreme IOI’s in my definition of “hit on” as well as overt propositions.
@Marcus D
Do you know of any articles studying how many times per month that men get hit on, say, in the work place or at social gatherings?
@dalrock
@Tam the Bam
What was all that about tags and Autistic Tree?
@all
I have a question about body language that relates to autism and the need for autists to understand body language. When I was at the bar with a gal, her body language seemed conflicted. I was facing the bar with my feet with my head turned to face the gal and not leaning in. Her legs were crossed away from me, but her upper body was facing me and leaning in. Over all, I got the impression that she was heavily invested, but I don’t understand why her legs were crossed away from me. Can someone help, please?
@Maggie
“Of course a woman can get sex [with whomever they want].”
See my previous comment. I can get sex with lots of attractive women, too. Big deal. With my wife, when she’s being an ice witch, not so much.
Lurker No. 9:
And thereby dodge a bullet. No man wants to live with a princess for long, regardless of his station.
@Lurker9
“Men shall obediently submit to womens judgment of their worth, and be capable of a woman’s precious dream, or be found wanting and cast aside as they deserve.”
Sounds deliberately absurd.
@Boxer
“No man wants to live with a princess for long”
Great comment, Boxer! I’m married to a princess and she’s married to an autist. Bittersweet, even loving each other. Yeah, I guess I have to look at the bitter times making the sweet times that much sweeter. Only way to make it through.
@theasd
Do you know of any articles studying how many times per month that men get hit on, say, in the work place or at social gatherings?
A lot of that kind of research is biased towards women. The vast majority of research done on workplace harassment (for example) focuses on women (as the victims). As for exact statistics, I don’t have any on hand.
—
A bit of activist research:
“Not only does the likelihood of sexual harassment differ for men and women, but the determinants of harassment differ as well. Women are more likely to indicate receipt of unwanted sexual attention as their ratio of male coworkers increases, and men are more likely to indicate its receipt as their ratio of female coworkers increases. We also find differential effects for sex of supervisor, age, education, and job type, among other variables. Our analyses highlight that gender conditions the influences on sexual harassment.”
“As the contact hypothesis and sex-role-spillover theory suggest, women who work primarily with men are more likely to receive unwanted sexual attention, and women who work primarily with other women are less likely to receive unwanted sexual attention. Our results also demonstrate that men who work primarily with women are more likely to receive unwanted sexual attention, and men who work primarily with other men are less likely to receive unwanted sexual attention.”
“Although researchers should exercise caution in reaching conclusions about life-cycle phenomena from cross-sectional data, our results are consistent with some interesting patterns. Based on these data, female workers who are older and either married or widowed are much less likely than female workers who are young and either single or divorced to receive unwanted sexual attention. The results suggest that women’s harassment risk plunges over the course of their working life. However, older men are not markedly less likely than young men to receive unwanted sexual attention, all other things being equal. Similar to the results for women, single or divorced men are more likely than married men to be sexually harassed; however, unlike widowed women, widowed men, if anything, are more likely than married men to indicate receipt of unwanted sexual attention. In summary, these results suggest a flatter and less predictable pattern of harassment probability over the course of a man’s working life.”
“Our results also indicate that educated women are markedly more likely to indicate receipt of unwanted sexual attention in the workplace, controlling for other factors. Education does not operate in a similar fashion for men. Educated women appear to be especially aware of and sensitive to inappropriate sexual behavior in the workplace.”
“Although easy solutions to the problem do not exist, it is high time to deny sexual harassment a future, bringing Gutek’s (1985) prediction to fruition. It is our hope that this study will move us one step closer toward attaining this seemingly elusive goal.
Jackson, Robert A., and Meredith A. Newman. “Sexual harassment in the federal workplace revisited: Influences on sexual harassment by gender.” Public Administration Review 64.6 (2004): 705-717.
—
Title says it all:
Selmi, Michael L. “Sex discrimination in the nineties, seventies style: Case studies in the preservation of male workplace norms.” bepress Legal Series (2003): 53.
—
There is plenty of workplace harassment advocacy that has explicitly stated that even if male and female employes are treated in the same manner, if the female employes are more distressed by equal treatment then they are experiencing sexual harassment.
Marriage: Who Benefits More?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=863869
Speaking of HR’s. Its finally dawning on me now that they are the equivalent of the liberal agenda I saw taking over college campuses when I attended back in the 90’s. Our workplaces, public or private will be subjected to feminism and Marxism and the cost of dissent will be our jobs and a one way ticket to the gutter. Owning your own business will do you no good since if you don’t hire and obey your HR (like a Soviet political officer) you will be sued and lose your business faster than Hank Reardon.
Re: male harassment. The easiest statistic is number of complaints. In 2011 there were 11,364 complaints of sexual harassment filed, and 16% filed by men. 41% of the men were harassed by a man, and exactly 0 women filed complaints against other women.
“Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997 – FY 2011,” The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 19 December 2012, http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm.
Cail Corishev says:
March 1, 2014 at 9:49 am
I’ll believe it when I see it. Sympathy, compassion and the like translate into further abdication of the Church’s role as defender of marriage. Annulment as pastoralism. At least JPII and BXVI paid lip service to them.
How can love fail? As in 1 Corinhians 13?
Just check out that [CAF] thread, and all the women claiming they picked their husbands for “intelligence,” and one person even claiming that women are “loyal” and won’t leave a relationship unless basically forced to. They’re blue-pill “conservative feminist” through and through.
Flipped through Catholic Radio this morning and heard a segment on men promoting ‘rape culture’ and how horrible that was. Zed’s dead, baby. Zed’s dead.
GiL,
HR’s purpose is not to push forward any workplace agenda towards marxism or feminism. HR’s purpose is to protect the company from employees (and former employees) who intend to sue it. They try to get you to sign stuff you shouldn’t sign and say things you should say. Their sole purpose is damage control.
Now, since the purpose is damage control, it is well documented (by lawyers) what HR must do to control the damage. HR jobs are well formed jobs that do not require a whole lot of thinking. Thus, they are perfect for women who are trained enough to be administrative assistants and what-not. You do not have to think outside the box in HR. You just have to be nice and sweet (and feminine) to future employees to try and sell them on your company when times are good and calm and rational when the company is trying to get through a difficult time.
I much enjoy representing employees dismissed from their humble position by those empowered to do so, for sackings inevitably take place when those in power lose their cool, and fail to comply with the complicated regulations that have been prepared by learned Counsel to ensure that the company are indeed acting fairly. The bigger or more prestigious the company the worse it gets.
HR depts. are necessary to dehumanize the workforce and create pliable, docile workers. This is accomplished through the careful application of fear, and bureaucratic process. HR is the NKVD of business. If HR is successful the wage slaves will beg for the lash to show their loyalty and keep their jobs.
IBB, I knew that. Some relish their work more than others. Many, if not most, are ideologues and the threat of a law suit gives them their teeth that they are more than willing to use, The problem is that EVERYONE has to be sweet and feminine and non-offensive or the get sent to re-education camps. Mind you I have been smart enough to dodge this while remaining an outlaw since 1st grade but a can feel the noose tightening.
Well, off to pack my bags for the Brooks Range.
And clearly it is the legal environment.
Opus? Could I sue for a hostile work environment causing work related stress? I don’t want to be a woman.
GiL,
No you do not. You don’t given your next comment.
The company does not threaten employees with a lawsuit. HR does not sue employees. The company does not sue employees. The company FIRES employees who do stuff that HR deems might get the company sued by OTHER employees. If they send you to the re-education camps, they are doing that so they don’t have to fire you. They are doing that to help you (believe it or not.) They are doing that mostly because they need you but partially to protect themselves to show a paper trail that they have re-educated you so (in the event that an employee sues the company because you said something TO HER that made her feel uncomfortable) HR can show a judge/jury that they took her initial run to HR seriously. They did something. Doing something minimizes her damages (perhaps to zero.)
“They are doing that to help you (believe it or not.) They are doing that mostly because they need you but partially to protect themselves to show a paper trail that they have re-educated you so (in the event that an employee sues the company because you said something TO HER that made her feel uncomfortable) HR can show a judge,jury that they took her initial run to HR seriously. They did something. Doing something minimizes her damages (perhaps to zero.)”
This is not for the benefit of the accused or the accuser. This is for the benefit of the company. The accused, if lucky, retains employment, but that career is all but over. The accuser gets no satisfaction. HR gets more power for defending the company. The company gets to use these situations to further repress the workforce. Of course legal gets to bill by the hour.
The possibility and fear of lawsuits are real for the business, but there is the added benefit in that any Stalinist HR policy is justified under the rubric of protecting the company from lawsuits or more subtly, and importantly, from negative publicity. The workers can do no right under these regimes and the fact that the possible list of offenses is never codified in a way as to allow the employee to be sure he/she is acting within the confines of the policy. When it comes to disputes between employees the aggrieved party defines the offense and the scope of the harm. If the aggrieved employee is defining harm based on feelings about actions rather than actual actions there is no real defense. The accused is left to plead for mercy, and had better be a sympathetic sort, hopefully handsome and attractive.
The courts are only necessary to ascertain the amount of damages for the alleged harm. Because going to the courts is expensive and the company only cares for its profits, it’s easier to use policy to terrify, and repress the employees than it is to let the issue be decided in a clearly defined, and on the record trial. The company then uses the cloak of confidentiality to inoculate itself form further legal attacks and unleashes HR to crush any dissent. The company, and HR by proxy, give not a damn about the employee but only the image of the company. A properly run HR department, like any bureaucratic law enforcement agency, is going to tailor policies that allow for a steady and manageable stream of offenders and violators just serious enough for the dept. to justify its own existence. The threat of genuine legal action is thus mitigated, and used simultaneously to increase HR power. Actual lawsuits are bad for HR, but the threat of them are necessary.
In a just system a person is held to the letter of the law or policy. In the unjust system we currently live under a person is also held to the spirit of the law/policy. HR works as much to enforce the spirit of the policy as the letter because to codify the spirit would reveal exactly how unjust the regime actually is. The reality is chattel slavery has been replaced with wage slavery.
When I stopped to fill up my gas tank the other day, there was a sign that said “Your license plate is being video recorded for your protection.”
Guess what? They’re lying.
Cail,
HR could have just fired you. Instead, they “brainwashed” you. They did that because you make money for them and are harder to replace (the work you do is vital.)
So yeah, you made a coworker uncomfortable because you looked at her underwearless crotch through the glass wall, she caught you looking at her with her legs spread, and she ran to HR to complain about you. But they didn’t fire you the way they could. In that sense they “protected” you. The worst they can do, is fire you. They can’t sue you for looking at her gina.
IBB – ” But they didn’t fire you the way they could. In that sense they ‘protected’ you.”
It takes a village to raise a child.
This is for your own good.
This hurts me as much as it does you.
The beatings will continue until morale improves.
The good of the many outweighs the good of the few.
We had to destroy the village in order to save it.
Kill them all, God will know his own.
In the long run we’re all dead.
Okay, so do you want HR to issue a commandment to fire all employees that make any other employee uncomfortable?
How about firm does of stop whining and get back to work?
ummm dose not does. Slysdexia ya know.
IBB, if I want to marry a 21 year old at 40 I am a deviant and a pervert?
Really?
Anbitious maybe, but a pervert?
Oh noez!
I might have been banned!
Shocking!
I bet it was the Haikus that did it!
WE MUST DRAW A LINE SOMEWHERE!!!
BUmmer…
Orion 2
[D: You aren’t on the blacklist. Your comments were held in moderation because you didn’t have a previously approved comment.]
@Dalrock
But I could not post under my usual handle?
So I did what any reasonable person would do and rerouted my Ip adress through a proxy to ask if I was banned?
Oh well, IBB, a 40 man that “lusts” after a 20 year old so much that he wants to marry her is a pervert…..
Please elaborate…
A deviant even…
I would like to know what that man would deviate from, other than the feminine imperative.
Virgins in college?
You don’t find many virgins in high school any more, even middle school has non virgins and this was many years ago. Unless they are inspecting the hymen I’d be skeptical of “statistics” on virginity because it has a very broad definition these days.
When I was in college in the ’90s there were perhaps 3 virgins in my dorm and a few in other places and they were actively looking for guys to take it.
The religious girls were trying to wait for marriage but a couple I knew had “just the tip” on more than one occasion but still considered themselves virgins. Education was part of the problem, since they came from a conservative household they had no idea what was and was not sex. Therefore you could get them to do things.
Yes, that was a long time ago but what are the odds things got better? Likely they are worse.
The usual reason for a virgin in college is extremely religious or shy, usually both.
These girls will not have boyfriends in college because demographically it doesn’t work. When she holds out another girl will give it to him.
Think about it – these days you know marriage is not in the cards for another 10 years. Why on earth would a guy wait? For what???
If a girl is a virgin she is probably not dating – which would be great btw. Young ladies have no business dating unless they are looking for a husband and this is why.
IBB, tongue in cheek, maybe you’ve heard of it.
I don’t think there are any innocent bystanders in Boston, just perpetrators and willing/ignorant victims.
GiL ..and any amount of media voyeurs.
Oops wrong nym
Agreed CP.
I once married an “all the cocks you can handle” gal (her number was 27, clearly identifiable, from the list she kept). It was a big mistake. Not because my cock ISN’T awesome or huge, but because the reality is, in the marketplace of poontang, even a decent looking gal like her, with a grad degree, that spread for that many men, lowered her perceived value (which in turn lowered her actual value), and telegraphed what she thought of herself. Test the reverse. Prime Brook Shields would sleep with either super hot guys (very selective), super rich guys, or both. A woman who diminishes her selectivity, diminishes the perception of her value. We divorced and she was a nutjob.
I once parroted that same line about not caring, although I didn’t preach it actively to other guys. The truth hit me when buddy did the math “Why that’s like an entire football field of cock, if you assume an average of 6 inches, etc”. While I generally don’t care about women being sexually liberated myself (my # is around 100 probably, as I am in my early 40s), they aren’t the kind you should marry. Any guy who likes to go around preaching about how no OTHER guy should care about a woman’s number, is lying to himself. Numbers and past don’t matter? Really Mr. Limpwrist…so if it was the entire NBA Lakers the night before you met her, how is that any different then than one guy 10 years ago? It’s all the same right?
OF COURSE IT’S NOT ALL THE SAME. A woman who is more selective, is more valuable, and every guy knows it, and just about every gal knows it (thus the hiding of the true number).
Btw, new to the site, been literally laughing my ass off at some of the comments. Not exactly the semi-preachy DadsDivorce.com I was used to (where we get beat up for not “stepping up” to spend ANOTHER 100k to get every other weekend with our kids).
This site is great. I will have more comments as I read, because I grew up with a Friedanian type mother (that era) and a Fonda-esque feminist sister…complete with the marrying up, then dumping him after he put her through Ivy League law school, etc.
I’m fully powered up to engage.
Hello my name is Sarah.
I am 39 single, never married, no kids.
What you need to understand is that my generation was the first to be completely sold out by Feminism. There were no older women to learn from. We were under enormous pressure to not marry young and were lead to believe that we had all the time in the world. Our life was for living, not being oppressed as some mans slave was what we were brainwashed with.
its very hard to know that you re brain washed. Most women don’t even have the Insight that I have now. Its very depressing. Its times like this when you realise that girl power is false.
This woman is deluded. The educated ones are worse. They believe their education, income, culture etc makes them attractive to men of equal or higher social status. Wrong. These men do not date middle aged divorcees for ltr. Even if she wanted to go lower down the ranks she wouldn’t be able to. A lower status man would reject her. Education, income etc. Serves s a negative for women. Still, women are brainwashed into believing it ramps up smv and mmv.
another reason that it devalues her is that these women are grade A feminists,aggressive, challenging, assertive, harsh, masculine etc… men are not arroused by corperate buzzwords and fierce political debate.
She isn’t ‘needy or desperate’ because it isn’t in her DNA. She is demanding, assertive, aggressive, liberated,independent, high esteem, entitlement princess. She doesn’t date men, she interview them. Hands out businesses cards with her name and number on. Arranges dates by looking through her filofac. Uses more corperate buzzwords. He walks tall. High heels, massive shoulder pads. Gives her date firm handshake and direct eye contact. She always pays the bill.
she divorced her husband because he didn’t get the top job at the company. She doesn’t new a man. His feeling don’t count. In her eyes he is a douche. She relayed every intimate detail about him to her media friends. She outgrew him but took all his money.
he doesn’t deserve a man. She not. Woman. Married obviously hates her. Giving her detrimental advice.
if she had any sense he would quit wasting time with men her age and go for 10 to 15 years older
But she’s too good for an old guy she looks 25 and is excellent at debate.
[D: Welcome Sarah]