The Dalrock research department* brought the latest divorce empowerment movie to my attention:
My first thought was that we are due for another epic divorce fantasy (courtesy of Oprah of course), with Eat Pray Love showing its age. On the surface, this movie has modern women written all over it:
- ROCD? Check
- Divorce Empowerment? Check!
- Moxie? Check!
- Having it all? Check!
It even stars Reese Witherspoon. Even so, and even though divorce fantasy is normally a foolproof formula for attracting a female audience, I don’t think this movie will do well. The creators have forgotten a key rationalization modern women still require with their divorce fantasies, the rationalization of spiritual morality. This rationalization is absolutely essential to avoid raising the audience’s slut shield.
Seeing the divorcée as a slut inhibits a woman’s ability to truly fantasize about breaking up her family. For most modern women the specific kind of spiritual cover for the empowered divorcée’s sluttiness is mostly unimportant, or at the most a matter of taste. What matters is that the cover is there and that the woman breaking up her family is seen as moral. For most modern women the Hindu aspect of Eat Pray Love was sufficient, with the very title assuring them of Elizabeth’s spiritual purity. However, at least some modern Christian women would have been put off by the fact that the moral cover for Elizabeth’s sluttery was something other than Christianity. In this case Fireproof is the natural alternative. Some of my longtime readers may recall when Sheila Gregoire commented on this site strongly objecting to my characterization of the wife in Fireproof as “whorish”. Thinking of the wife as whorish would prevent the women in the audience from identifying with the wife and thereby ruin the whole divorce fantasy.
This is where the Wild movie trailer falls down in a serious way, because even modern women have their limits on what level of sluttiness they will accept. Not only does the trailer fail to provide sufficient moral cover for the intrepid divorcée, it portrays her as having been both a hard drug addict and a slut:
You’re using heroin, and you are having sex with anyone who asks.
*Mrs Dalrock
It also has a herd component, I think. The idea that the woman in question is better than those women- you know, the ones who are gutter trash. Since women want to self-identify with the female protagonist, they want her to be a high-status-in-the-eyes-of-the-herd woman. “Spiritual morality” is one means of separating themselves from those women.
I guess the herd is just whatever happens to be “average”, except average is just a feeling and not a concrete.
So we get the famous statistic that 90% of women think they’re above average looking, so only 10% are below “average” looking.
And now we learn that 90% of women are above “average” with their sexual purity. So that means that they only have to beat out the lowest 10% filthiest sluts to be considered “average”. That means if they’re in the ACTUAL middle (50%), then they should see themselves as pure as snow.
When I watched the trailer I came to a similar conclusion. While this film will not be overtly selling the idea of divorce, it will do a good job in “defining deviancy down”, allowing Jane Everywoman the cover to feel like she’s not too terrible, despite banging the poolboy while neglecting her kid, and having that drinking problem that landed her in jail last month, etc. She’ll be able to see Reese “The Chin” Witherspoon on screen, as a humanized but still pathetic addict, and feel like she’s better than other women.
I know this is going to fall on deaf ears here, but hey, I have a moment: From what I understand of this woman’s story, she was married before 22, which in the modern world is simply too young. A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility. This may have been possible before 22 years ago, but it isn’t now. Delayed marriage is about more than the “cock carousel.” It is also about people wanting more out of life than acting out simple roles. Sometimes you shoot your own agenda (lasting marriages) in the foot by being so out of touch.
“I wouldn’t change a single thing because everything I did made me what I am today.”
Behold the nauseating egocentricity of modern man. This is what is widely held to be a ‘healthy’ outlook in enlightened society.
I’ve made decisions in my life that have hurt others. I regret them deeply and if it were possible I most certainly would change those decisions and actions. Isn’t saying things like “I don’t regret a single choice etc…” equivalent to saying “I am more important than any other person I may have hurt to become what I am today.” In other words, any means — no matter how selfish, cruel, vicious or vile — are justified by the magnificent YOU who stands before us all at this moment.
It’s a truly sick and childish worldview, in my opinion.
Before Earl.
Dalrock, somebody (who doesn’t care about leading people astray) could piece together your advice and write the ultimate divorce fantasy movie / paperback.
Or perhaps there’s a way to twist it into a self-parody /comedy so obvious that it makes the opposite point.
I don’t get the point of this movie. So she divorces the dude, leaves her kids to go on some backpack trip in the woods where along the way she does drugs and has sex with anybody. And that is somehow “empowering”.
Is it trying to highlight the hippy lifestyle or point out how dumb it looks?
HawkAndRock,
The line stood out to me too. I would change many things if I could. I can’t, so I don’t worry about them, but it is arrogant and narcissistic to think the way she voices.
A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility.
Yes, doing heroin and fucking everything that moves -> testing your own limits and finding your personal center. Who could resist a woman like this? An outstanding example of marriage material. Thanks, but no thanks.
@HawkAndRock,
Exactly. But the modern woman cannot process regret nor responsibility so this philosophy suits her well.
myrealitie @ 11:56 am:
“A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility.”
No, a successful relationship hinges on meeting your responsibilities to the other party. Nothing about “personal mastery” or “testing your own limits” takes the place of keeping a vow or honoring a contract.
“From what I understand of this woman’s story, she was married before 22, which in the modern world is simply too young.”
Why too young? That’s a good age to start a family. Biology isn’t going to wait for a woman to “find her personal center” and it certainly isn’t going to wait 6-10 years for her to get a career moving. She should have kids first and then do the career thing when they grow up. The kids will be healthier, the husband will get to enjoy her youth and she won’t have a ten-year gap between getting her degree and starting full-time work. What’s wrong with this plan?
@myrealitie: “Deaf ears” is simply your way of rationalizing why no one with more than two brain cells to rub together will agree with you. Your prescription is destructive, period.
“A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility.”
Actually, no. A successful relationship depends on one thing only, to truly understand a simple line – “Love is an act of will”
I get that in a society, where the thread and needle cost more then a six pack of new socks, that this tiny concept is hard to “grok”. But if you truly want to be successful in a relationship, those six words are all you need.
It seems to me that nowadays, apologies are typically regarded as an admission of weakness rather than as an indication of uprightness.
It’s a destructive attitude. It undermines society by eroding trust and fellowship. Further, if nobody will ever admit that they were wrong, how, ……indeed, WHY would they ever take the trouble to improve their behavior? One can’t be forgiven for sin if they never ask forgiveness for it or even recognize it as a sin.
The protagonist is female. Therefore, we can all safely assume that the point of the movie is to admire and celebrate her choices while denigrating anyone (especially men) she has used and discarded along the way.
For the vast majority of chicks, having children is their hardwired career, and their personal centre too. Thousands of raging, bitter, barren old feminists will attest to that better than Boxer can.
@HawkandRock
“It’s a truly sick and childish worldview, in my opinion.”
I could not agree more. Short of being God or Jesus himself, every adult should have things they regret doing. Why…because we are all flawed, have all betrayed God, and have wronged a fellow human at some point in our lives.
I think the key with regret is to not let you crumble you and to carry on. I think it is healthy to have regrets and tends to be more commensurate with humility and a humble nature.
Okay, here you go — the outline of a plot for “The Hamster Apparition.”
* Woman has brain tumor. Her Catholic boyfriend sees her through it. They get married and become a model Catholic family.
* He is a good husband, she’s not keeping up her end (messy house, etc.)
* She starts to get “the whispers” that something is wrong
* She starts going to a prayer group and meets the attractive young seminarian who is the leader
* He doesn’t want her to go, which makes the whispers even worse.
* Women in her prayer affirm her doubts and say he’s trying to control her, etc.
* She starts seeing visions of Mary and becomes the star of the prayer group
* He’s skeptical, which only makes the whispers worse
* The leader of the prayer group is fawning all over her
* Husband insists she see a doctor. She takes it as proof that he doesn’t believe her.
* Seminarian tells her about the trials of visionaries, how they’re not accepted in their own home, etc.
* She talks to the parish priest about divorce for “spiritual incompatibility.” Priest tells her no way but seminarian encourages her.
* She gets her own apartment, supported by the women in the prayer group.
* She is unfaithful with the seminarian, who decides he really doesn’t want to be a priest.
* She files for divorce.
“Why too young? That’s a good age to start a family. Biology isn’t going to wait for a woman to “find her personal center” and it certainly isn’t going to wait 6-10 years for her to get a career moving. She should have kids first and then do the career thing when they grow up. The kids will be healthier, the husband will get to enjoy her youth and she won’t have a ten-year gap between getting her degree and starting full-time work. What’s wrong with this plan?”
Age discrimination in the workforce.
As any reasonable person will admit, there is an element of truth in the notion of “everything I have gone through has led to where I am today.” We can make use of our experiences, no matter how awful; for instance, someone who was a drug addict can become a drug counselor. But it’s a huge leap into arrogant & selfish irrationality to say, “I wouldn’t change a thing.” Really? All those people you hurt along the way — you wouldn’t change that? Barf. How enlightened of you.
re: “This rationalization is absolutely essential to avoid raising the audience’s slut shield.”
It used to be, but the times they are achanging more rapidly that you might imagine. Oprah’s Army 2.0 is plenty ready for Eat Pray Love 2.0, of which the empowerment theme is Moar Moar Moar Like Apex Alpha Males Are Imagined to be. Doing heroin (just like a man! literally the nadir Boy drug) and enjoying sleeping around (just like a man!) and hiking in the mountains (just like a man!) and losing toenails (just like a stupid man!). If there are fart jokes and scratchings of where testicles would be, then I’m right, of course.
Addict of drugs and sex = victim. The spiritual superiority shield is an excellent observation. Might the weakness of under-developing that in this story be shored-up in part by the victimology of addiction? I mean the whole fill me up ‘down there’ because I’m empty in here (heart/spirit whatever) thing is a prevailing sentiment, particularly when already accepted as merely one of the those decisions (things that ‘happened’) that get whitewashed by “got me to where I am is today.”
I’m thinking that line is, in fact, is the new spirituality. Why bother with even complicating it with the associated preconceptions or exclusionary potential or confines of some spiritual foundation when in the end it is all about her Experience, her journey.
With the EPL thing I always felt that a big part of the spirituality element was really just tapping into the obsession with exoticism and how one must “experience” it as opposed to tenets of a particular faith. After all, she had to leave her home to check the spirit box as opposed to merely studying it or attending the local temple. For the UMC/SIW target audience, spirituality no longer needs to be anchored in anything but the self.
Incisive as usual Mr. D.
@Gaza
I think this was the intent. But I don’t think they rose up to the standard here. Free form spirituality (Experience) can only go so far. It lacks an official stamp of moral approval. This is especially important because what the divorcée needs moral cover for is shockingly ugly and low status. Women won’t want to identify with it, and their slut shields will be snapping into place. This is my prediction at least. It could be as jf12 has argued that even this isn’t too far now.
@Crowhill
Brilliant! You would clean up with that.
The only change I would suggest would be changing:
to
@Dalrock, I remember that thread and will incorporate appropriate elements. Thanks. When I have a rough draft I’ll let you know. 🙂
I’m all in favour of toothgrindingly obnoxious people “choosing” to do heroin in the woods. Near bears. And cliffs.
Nothing to clean up. It’s Mother Nature’s way.
* She is unfaithful with the seminarian, who decides he really doesn’t want to be a priest.
Another Revision:
The seminarian is torn, he really wants to be a priest. But he decides that he will give up that dream because she is a truly rare and beautiful woman and he can’t live without her.
@Imnobodyoo – Well, somebody wanted her. She is currently remarried.
And @Gunnder Q she has kids.
Furthermore, my issue with this sometimes-insightful site is that it is often just a bunch of complaining about the weak character of modern women who eschew duty and responsibility for personal whim.
Complaining and character assassination are not going to make men or women stay in situations that do not foster their ongoing personal growth and development (of which childrearing is only a relatively small part, in this modern world). This is why it is ideal to have life significant experience prior to picking a partner and having children. Some people take longer to develop the required personal maturity than others. Some people make lots of mistakes because they themselves came from dysfunctional homes. Duty is never going to make such people good parents and spouses. And are we really still talking about the issues of having babies in a woman’s late 20’s or early 30’s? It is now the norm, and it is simply not problematic.
I know you like the comfort of rules or strict guidelines. I’m sorry, it’s just not how the world works. Be the kind of man that a quality woman doesn’t want to run away from. That is your only path to a pleasant life.
“a quality woman”. What in the world is that?
lol if that is how you feel, what is the point of complaining about it? What does that do for you? Just give women up and go get a hobby.
“Free form spirituality (Experience) can only go so far. It lacks an official stamp of moral approval.”
If she’s out in the mountains, doing drugs, peyote isn’t out of the question which leads to native American spirit guide (might I suggest coyote, although some noble bird would probably be used for the imagery) and wham problem solved. Make the mountain trek a “walk about” and its even better.
If the husband she divorces is portrayed as a controlling weasel, then you have some cover for the downward spiral she goes into because oppression.
And there is always the “she was horrible and ended up with a happily ever after think of the happily ever after I deserve and will get if I divorce!
stay in situations that do not foster their ongoing personal growth and development
This reframing of marriage — as a forum for personal growth and development (aka self-actualization) *is* the problem. For one thing, it means that once a marriage fails to do that, it gets canned, as you say. It’s only very seldom that any human relationship over the long term will constantly contribute to one’s personal growth and development in a consistent way. But more fundamentally, marriage isn’t designed for this — it wasn’t made for that. It was made for families and children, and the baseline for that is stability and commitment, and not the constant quest for personal growth and development which is a fundamentally narcissistic quest. This reframe is the problem, full stop. All of the other problems in marriage today stem from this reframing of it.
And are we really still talking about the issues of having babies in a woman’s late 20’s or early 30’s? It is now the norm, and it is simply not problematic.
Of course it’s problematic from the perspective of the time that comes before and the “settling” that goes on inevitably when a marriage partner is sought after the party — ahem, “self-discovery” — phase comes to an end. Bluntly, women marry men when they are done having sex with men who are sexier and turn them on more than men who are good candidates to marry, and then marry men who are less sexy and turn them on less but who are stable and good candidates for husbands. The problem is that this leads to marital dissatisfaction, precisely because they are not as attracted to their spouse as they were to numerous of their exes, especially once they are past the small child years and the husbanding phase is less “needed”. This contributes to a feeling that the marriage is no longer serving its purpose as a forum for personal growth and development (aka, I need a hotter man than my husband), and so along comes divorce. This is a core reason for the kinds of divorces we see today — most of them are not due to abuse or addiction, but boredom of the wife with the marriage and the husband precisely because he isn’t exciting enough in comparison to her pre-marriage BFs.
I know you like the comfort of rules or strict guidelines. I’m sorry, it’s just not how the world works.
Moral rules are, well, moral rules. The fornication parade that is the current 20s is simply immoral. Yes, most people turn a blind eye — but that’s been the case throughout human history. The moral path is always the narrow one, the one that others are not taking “because that’s not how the world works”. The ways of the world are generally not moral.
Nice Nova.
Here is Zippy’s take on the path less travelled –
http://zippycatholic.wordpress.com/2014/07/10/evil-always-has-more-utilitarian-options-than-good/
myrealitie,
You should stop before you further embarrass yourself. Your way – what you describe as being “now the norm” is both dysfunctional and unsustainable. If you don’t understand that by now you should spend the next few weeks reading before you comment again.
I’ll tell you something – giving a bunch of hormone-addled people a few years on either side of 22 societal carte blanche to “find their centers” and “test their limits” or whatever New-Age crap you’re peddling is a recipe for single mothers, bastard children, harassed fathers, rampant divorce, juvenile delinquency, and an expensive welfare state that we can no longer afford. Sure, the UMC might be okay for the most part, since little Tanner and little Chelsea have financially stable grandparents, but even then the prognosis is grimmer than it would be if their parents acted like adults used to act before Marriage 2.0… and for the rest of the populace that does not have the UMC safety net under them, things are not likely to work out well at all.
At the age of 22, which you imply is still part of childhood, I had a degree from a military academy and I was flying jets. At 22 my wife had already been married to me for two years. By my late 20’s/ early 30’s – which is what you have designated as the start of adulthood – I was a Captain and stationed overseas. My wife is five years younger than I am, so she was still a child in your estimation: despite having lived on her own before we met, then being an officer’s wife for half a decade and moving to a foreign country.
If 22 is too young to get serious about being an adult, then 22 is too young to vote, or drink, or sign contracts, or drive a motor vehicle as well. I don’t think it is.
Oh crikey. Another one.
“lol if that is how you feel, what is the point of complaining “
I “feel” nothing. And I don’t complain. I just don’t like conveniently loose ends and undefined handwaving terms. I’m infinitely curious about all sorts of stuff. It was a proper question.
Go on then. What is a “quality woman”?
I suspect it’s a meaningless term intended to distinguish the user from “those other women”. An assertion of higher value.
I’ll be the jedge o’ thon, thankee kindly.
(Contrary to popular rumour, I do have Standards, you chaps)
… a-a-and another thing. Is that Woodenspoon film set in the 1980s or something? Would explain the smack attack, I guess. Very trendy at the time.
Her kit is just weird, even my old crap isn’t as retro as that (and I had my Dad’s old wooden skis as a kid lol). It was the aluminium frame on the bergen that set me off, then I noticed she was wearing a , a, wristwatch? So I had a shufti at the (hilariously portentous) trailer. The kagoul/anorak thingy and check shirt were pure Outward Bound/Hunt 1953 expedition schmutter, and as for the ‘phones … ivory/beige? .. with wires?? and what looks like an old BT cordless. But it can’t be, on account of it bein’ ‘Murka ‘n’ all.
Then again the carbon frame popup tent thingy and the Alu waterbottle seem to have leaked in from The Future, via a wormhole no doubt. Or were they invented by then?
I am mightily disorientated. Then again, that may have been the intention. Sort of PoMo unease.
.. or is the “watch” a GPS? Oh nooooo, I’m going to have to view the blasted thing now. #fixated
A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility.
All of which can be developed through marriage & family. If you wait until attaining this magical level of perfection, you will never experience either.
1991 appears to be the time frame. I recall having alu water bottles before that date, but carbon frames for tents are more recent like the 2000s, then again after all these years everything starts to blend together . . . .
I remember there was a period in television and movies (about the same time as the time this books supposedly occurred) that “elsewhen” was kind of a thing. Intentionally putting things from different time periods into the show or movie so it didn’t “fit” with the world we live in. Back when “magical realism” which kind of translated into acid dream/deux ex machine in books and movies was hip.
While this can simply be sloppiness by the director/set developer. . . Oprah has been fooled before by false memoir/autobiographies and my gut tells me this might be one of them.
This preview isn’t made to speak to women of flyover country (or even women in general) about themselves. It teaches exactly what MyRealitie is pushing above. The intent is to identify her with your skanky daughter, sister, whohaveyou; to train the audience to sacrifice discernment and wisdom on the altar of self-worship, and reject discipline and expectation as the ultimate evil you could possibly inflict on another person.
And it bears mentioning there is another type of spiritual status markers that sets a person apart, I’ve heard from enough preachers to know. Its the “I was so horrible, more horrible than you but I was saved/transformed and rose above it.”
1) The miracle of my transformation or redemption is greater (then yours)because of my prior wretchedness.
2) Your faith/wisdom/spirituality isn’t as strong as mine because of it (you have to experience life in order to find enlightenment)
3) there’s implied insults that “you think you are better but are worse because I’m saved/enlightened and you’re not”
I’ve seen it used to guilt and shame people because of their “lack of strong faith.”
@Dalrock
*Mrs Dalrock
…..a new pseudonym?….L*…….(Hello to Mrs “D”)
Cane:
“to train the audience to sacrifice discernment”
When you deal with human evil all the time it often becomes difficult to see the shades of grey. Kind of the other side of all sin being abhorrent to God. Like equating viewing porn as grievous as adultery. Making all sin or all evil acts equivalent makes all sin trivial. Husband looks at porn is a equal sin to wife divorcing him (or what she did isn’t even a sin) or husband isn’t loving is equal to wife having an affair.
So you are correct, the intention is to make all sin equal which minimizes truly evil acts versus the minor sins people engage in day to day.
It is a sociopathic way of looking at the world. Sociopaths will often magnify the slights in their partners and family and react in wholly unacceptable ways toward them with outrage and shaming language, while engaging in a level of depravity that is shocking while lying the whole time about it or minimizing it.
You are a very astute literary critic, my man. I think that’s the best (and most succinct) explanation I’ve heard.
Has anyone read the book that inspired the film? I might give it a crack unless it has been reviewed. I generally like these sorts of things (off the top of my head, the story is reminiscent of something like *Into Thin Air* by Krakauer).
@Cane
I agree, but I still think they are making a strategic error. It will be easy enough to tell if I’m right or not. If after this releases it goes on to be a hit then clearly I am wrong on my guess as to where the current slut shield line is. If on the other hand it launches to much fanfare and then fizzles like “Mom’s Night Out” did, then we will have a good indicator that yes, this far is actually too far (today at least).
I mention Mom’s Night Out because in retrospect I think that was a similar miscalculation. They were clearly trying to flirt with the line (which is “edgy”), but I would say they crossed over. When hard core feminist women are shocked that the matriarch of the movie sports a tramp stamp and brags about her wild years attending Woodstock, that is taking it too far for even the modern Christian woman to rationalize. Since the slut shield isn’t to be mentioned, a suitable rationalization for not liking the movie must be created, but this of course is trivial.
Yes. Her unhaaaappiness is what makes her want to leave, but the typical woman won’t until she can convince herself (and be prepared to tell others) that divorce is the right thing to do. That’s why vague accusations of abuse, the conflation of porn and glances with adultery, and the claim that the kids are taking emotional shrapnel are so common — she needs a reason, so she can convince herself divorce isn’t just necessary but Good. That way she can tell herself and others that she didn’t really want to divorce at all, but she had to for her and the kids’ sake. She has to be able to see divorce as a moral imperative — in fact, staying in the marriage would be immoral!
D.R.D.: Priceless
[b] “ROCD? Check
Divorce Empowerment? Check!
Moxie? Check!
Having it all? Check!” [/b]
You forgot “Post-event, retroactive rationalization”
“What if all the consequences from my selfish, sinful choices in life were really God’s way of making me a better, tougher woman? How could I regret this opportunity to prove to myself and others what a strong, independent woman I am? Who needs men anyway? Who cares about how those choices have hurt others? They don’t really matter anyway! Only my pain is really important in life, and men better recognize that.”
[b] “Not only does the trailer fail to provide sufficient moral cover for the intrepid divorcée, it portrays her as having been both a hard drug addict and a slut” [/b]
The morality stems from her own choices. She is her only standard, and she can be moral one minute and immoral the next, simply by re-defining who she wants to be to please herself. Not here is no outside standard of morality except for whatever sense of “normal” that she chooses to live by.
Her sin is “moral” while she enjoys it, then “immoral” if she doesn’t want to deal with those consequences anymore. But the only thing she regrets is feeling bad about how her consequences have affected her, and so she rationalizes those bad feelings by convincing herself that she would have made all those same choices all over again to become the strong, independent woman she wants to believe she is (or can be).
I would be very surprised if the men leaving her in various scenes weren’t portrayed as selfish jerks, so that we hate them for “leaving her,” and feel sorry for her for “being left.” That is the only moral-superiority needed to make the audience side with her and support her philosophies in life. That can all be accomplished in a single 3 minute scene without any dialogue.
No, in most cases we aren’t. We’re talking about women who wait until that point to start shifting their focus to marriage. This would be a typical timeline:
18-28: A series of boyfriends, one or two long-term, some short-term, some one-night stands. None is a millionaire doctor who stars in Hollywood movies as a hobby, so whenever one starts to smell like marriage, she pushes him away or finds a way to sabotage it. She’s strong and independent, and is damn sure not going to settle for less than the best. By 28, she’s gone all the way with a dozen men, and given oral or other “it doesn’t count” favors to another dozen or so; she can’t remember an exact count.
29 : She’s been noticing babies and married friends more, and at the same time she isn’t getting hit on as much as she once was. She starts thinking it’s time to get married, and tells herself she won’t turn down the next studly doctor who wants to get serious. The time has come to accept a big rock from Mr. Right.
32: Something’s wrong. The readier she gets to accept, the less guys seem interested in proposing. She’s still getting dates with hot guys and showing them her skills, but she’s not having to push them away with her independence anymore. The process seems to be accelerating: now instead of sex on the third date and a 3-month relationship that fizzles, she gives the guy head on the way home from their first meeting, and after sex that night and the next two nights, he tells her she’s getting clingy and needs to back off. Now her N is getting distressing, even to her hamster.
35: She’s been steadily reducing her expectations. She’s looked up guys she rejected when she was younger because they were boring. She even put a profile on some dating sites, which she used to think was only for desperate fatties and nerds. Now she’s got a boyfriend she thinks might be a keeper, whom she met a month ago. After sex that first night, he said she was the best he’d ever had and used the L word. She’s not about to tell him how much practice she’s had to get that good, but she knows her experience is far beyond his. He’s balding, too heavy, and doesn’t smell the best; but he has a job, a house, and a car; so she grits her teeth and acts like she can’t get enough of his cock because he’s the best prospect she’s had in a year. Last week he called her a bitch and she broke up with him in a huff, but the next day she took him back with a quickness after the mildest of apologies, and giggled about “our first fight.”
37: She’s just about finished guiding Baldy to the altar. Assuming they’re both fertile and things go well, she might have her first kid by 38.
Ahh, the irony, it sears the eyes!
http://news.ca.msn.com/local/edmonton/teen-mother-launch-complaint-against-abstinence-based-sex-ed-2
“So she joined her daughter in the classroom. A single mother, Dawson said she was shocked what students were told about families like hers.
“Well, that our children are prone to depression, suicide, juvenile delinquency,” she said.
The remarks also surprised her daughter.
“It’s not something that you hear every day where you’re getting bashed for being in a single-parent home.”
Kathy Dawson was also upset the class appeared to focus on values instead of science.
“I don’t want them in the secular school,” she said. “They may have a spot in the Catholic school … because they are faith-based.
“My issue isn’t with them … because it’s such a wide variety of families going to these (public) schools, let’s leave the science to the school and the values to the parents.” ”
Uh Honey, these statements ARE based on science.
I fugging give up!
Hold on, of course, the school board has already folded!
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/edmonton-school-board-drops-abstinence-workshop-after-complaint
“The Calgary Pregnancy Care Centre, with is part of the same network as the Edmonton organization, says the group’s workshops are based on scientific principles and statistics from Statistics Canada and Alberta Health Services. ”
Well there you have it, right from the federal government and the province as well! But you know, that can’t be science, because, well you know…….
You’re trolling, myrealitie, but so far you’re a fun one and it’s Friday. Let me try my hand at translating your hamsterese into Mantalk:
In: “my issue with this sometimes-insightful site is that it is often just a bunch of complaining about the weak character of modern women who eschew duty and responsibility for personal whim.”
Out: “my issue with this sometimes-insightful site is that it often makes me feel guilty about my past decisions.”
***
In: “Delayed marriage is about more than the “cock carousel.” It is also about people wanting more out of life than acting out simple roles.”
Out: “I delayed marriage and now feel anxious about my diminishing opportunities.”
***
In: “I know you like the comfort of rules or strict guidelines.”
Out: “Just because you follow the rules doesn’t mean I have to.”
***
In: “This is why it is ideal to have life significant experience prior to picking a partner and having children. Some people take longer to develop the required personal maturity than others. Some people make lots of mistakes because they themselves came from dysfunctional homes. Duty is never going to make such people good parents and spouses.”
Out: “I’ve had a very rough life. Keeping my promises is so hard that I shouldn’t be held responsible if I quit. It’s the fault of the people who hurt me, really. Besides, I can be a good parent even if I do break my marriage vow.”
***
In: “Be the kind of man that a quality woman doesn’t want to run away from. That is your only path to a pleasant life.”
(Ugh… must… control… tongue…)
Out: “Be the kind of man who accepts me without judgment or I’ll make your life Hell.”
(Hmm, tongue control was about 80% there.)
How’d I do, guys?
@Novaseeker – consider this reframing to be an improvement, albeit with growing pains, not unlike the pains for globalization on individual economies, for example. Sure, breaking away from tradition and duty (which used to be essential to survive) and moving into voluntary arrangements and individualism does have it’s own risks and challenges, but I personally would rather live in a world where I can create a rich, personally meaningful life. I also don’t mind facing the consequences of any missteps I may take. Unfortunately our society has little stomach for allowing people to endure real consequences, and this is the core problem in my view.
Also @Novaseeker – women with little or no prior experience leave men all the time. The phenomenon you are describing might happen, but sexual history has nothing to do with it. A woman is going to be unhappy with a weak, supplicating partner. Period. However, almost any man who goes on a sufficient quest of self discovery and mastery won’t have a difficult time behaving in a relationship with healthy personal boundaries, thereby maintaining the interest of his wife over time, irrespective of his or her sexual history.
@Lyn87 – First, I really don’t care about your irrelevant personal anecdote. N=1 proves nothing.
Second, your view of human nature is greatly at odds with mine and depressing as hell. You believe that 22 year olds taking on personal challenges and getting to know themselves before partnering up will invariably lead to bastard children and society’s demise? There are many reasons that people choose to have children without a life partner and in dysfunctional circumstances (mostly government enabling), but developing themselves first is most surely not one of them.
You see, the problem with a remake (especially a feminized version) is that it’s never quite as good as the original…
Watch both trailers. Now, compare and contrast the male reasonings with the female reasonings for the same, timeless, ‘great journey of self-discovery’ story plot. Notice anything different?
7 years separate these movies. I’ve seen Into the Wild, but just from the trailers’ synopsis, there’s a big difference between what motivates a woman and what motivates a man to this ‘journey’.
“Sociopaths will often magnify the slights in their partners and family and react in wholly unacceptable ways toward them with outrage and shaming language, while engaging in a level of depravity that is shocking while lying the whole time about it or minimizing it.”
This!
@Gunner Q – nice try but, I’m happily married to my top choice mate. I am simply interested in societal dynamics, just like all of you. I don’t like to see the chaos of divorce around our society any more than the next person. I just don’t think that returning to times past and glorifying them is the answer. I think that as a rich, ever technologically advancing society that we can do better than that.
“myrealite” busy
REBUILDING THE MOUND
Hey, hey, hey,…she’s ‘spiritual’ not religious.
Nice shred with the old in and out gunnerq.
I rate 10 out of 10 on the hamster killer scale, although we do know the nuclear zombie hamster NEVER dies…
The troll’s handle tells us all we need to know about the utility of arguing with him.
I mention Mom’s Night Out because in retrospect I think that was a similar miscalculation. They were clearly trying to flirt with the line (which is “edgy”), but I would say they crossed over. When hard core feminist women are shocked that the matriarch of the movie sports a tramp stamp and brags about her wild years attending Woodstock, that is taking it too far for even the modern Christian woman to rationalize. Since the slut shield isn’t to be mentioned, a suitable rationalization for not liking the movie must be created, but this of course is trivial.
I’m more inclined to believe that this is the Hollywood Culture Drivers trying to see how much farther they can influence (i.e., stretch) the acceptable boundaries for sluttiness and narcissistic solipsism. Given the susceptibilty of the ewe herd to the influence of this particular power center, it’s not difficult to believe that such incrementalism, accomplished film-by-mediocre-film, will ultimately succeed.
I think that as a rich, ever technologically advancing society that we can do better than that.
And what would your “better” look like/consist of?
consider this reframing to be an improvement
Of course you do. I do not.
The phenomenon you are describing might happen, but sexual history has nothing to do with it. A woman is going to be unhappy with a weak, supplicating partner. Period. However, almost any man who goes on a sufficient quest of self discovery and mastery won’t have a difficult time behaving in a relationship with healthy personal boundaries, thereby maintaining the interest of his wife over time, irrespective of his or her sexual history.
Of course it has to do with sexual history. It’s very simple: women are attracted to men differentially. If they can get sexy plus reliable in the same man, jackpot. Almost no women can manage that, however. But … in the years before they marry, they get the sexy, which tends to not correlate with the reliable, but then later choose the reliable over the sexy, for obvious reasons. The problem is that the sexy is, well, more attractive than the reliable. Boundaries and weak, supplicating have nothing much to do with it — it has to do with overall attractiveness. A man who is less sexy but has personal boundaries and is not a supplicator will have problems all the same due to his comparative lack of sexiness compared to numerous prior non-husband material yet sexy men.
Sure, there are women with little experience who will still leave their husbands, but it is a MUCH lower risk factor. See the studies linked here: http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html
I can’t wait for my wife to go out and watch it with her gay friends, wondering why I refuse….
Dear DeNihilist:
As a dude who spent much of his childhood in Calgary, I’d argue that this is par for the course. Canadians of today have NO balls, and are completely emasculated, even compared to Americans and Brits (it’s why I hope to stay away from Canada for the rest of my life, if possible).
If princess gets her feelings hurt, then we simply must abandon those horrible, abusive facts, and construct some new feel-good fairy tales in their place.
Boxer
It’s not that complicated, myrealitie, you seem to believe the old hippy-dippy nonsense that “Everything is relative.” That fits with your New-Age mumbo-jumbo about exploring boundaries, finding centers, and testing limits. It is the go-to sewage that slops around in the minds of the weak-minded and insufficiently introspective. There is no such thing as my reality or your reality, or his reality, or her reality… there is only reality. You might try to become acquainted with it.
I advised you to read more and comment less rather than embarrassing yourself more than you already have. You should have taken my advice, because you have since written things that are demonstrably false, as you would have known had you taken my advice and educated yourself. For example, you said. “N=1 proves nothing.” But that is nonsense, as the link by Novaseeker demonstrates. One the greatest risk factors for divorce is the number of previous sexual partners of the bride. You may not like it, and that may not fit comfortably into yourrealitie… but it is true. The marriage of a virgin bride has an 80.47% to chance to last until one spouse dies. For non-virgin brides the odds drop to 53.63% with one previous partner, and the odds get worse with each additional. “N=1 proves nothing,” you say? Objectively false: N=1 means a lot. Millions of men and their children has suffered horrible pain and privation because “mommy” didn’t keep her legs together before marriage, and was unable to permanently pair-bond with her husband because of it.
You also foolishly wrote this, “You believe that 22 year olds taking on personal challenges and getting to know themselves before partnering up will invariably lead to bastard children and society’s demise?” Why yes… Yes, I do believe that. I believe it because it is demonstrably true. The rate of bastardy has skyrocket since 20-somethings en masse have decided to “find their centers” and “press their limits” rather than just growing up. You have noticed that, right? The rise in every one of the social pathologies I listed has skyrocketed since yourrealitie became the norm. That sad fact is not my reality – that is plain old reality.
If what you believe is directly contradicted by the overwhelming weight of the data out there (hint: it is), perhaps you ought to reconsider whether what you believe (and choose not to believe) is worthy of such emotional allegiance on your part. The truth is that adult life is a lot more about duty and responsibility than it is about New Age voyages of self-discovery – and the self-serving and self-deception that helps people rationalize the wreckage they cause when they don’t grow up. It’s bad enough when men do it, but at least it’s not irrational for men to avoid marriage as a marker of growing-up. When women do it it is generally far more destructive because women have the full armed might of the state to back them up in any interaction with a man, or even her own children.
In a sense I feel sorry for your husband – when you tire of him (and the odds are high that some day you will), at least have the integrity to not rob him in divorce court – his “voyage” will require capital, too. Tickets to Thailand aren’t cheap, you know.
You believe that 22 year olds taking on personal challenges and getting to know themselves before partnering up will invariably lead to bastard children and society’s demise?
The good or badness of various life pathways aside, 22 is a college graduate. A full quarter of their expected life is done. If female, half of her biologically plausible childbearing years are gone. A 22 year old is not a kid.
You make getting plastered at fraternity parties and waking up sticky next to guys whose names you don’t know, while you rack up student loan debt and spend your parents’ money, sound almost noble.
in other words “you got game this pussy is yours.” What she fails to realize a man with game has no need to tolerate a snotty bitch and that includes her husband. A stupid thing to expect to build a family with a woman these days.
Dear Rollo:
I’m a big Krakauer fan, and I compared the film to another of his works above. It’s interesting to see the contrast, to be sure. It’s apropos to point out that Chris McCandless never ran out on his wife and family to run around in the wilderness. He also was (in my estimation) legitimately driven to escape by a touch of craziness (i.e. a medical problem with his brain) that eventually ended his life. The slutty heroin junkie in the contemporary work has no such excuse. She just seems to come off as a bored American chick seeking novelty (and a lucrative book/film deal).
Of course, I could be wrong. I have yet to read Cheryl Strayed’s book.
Best, Boxer
@myrealitie,
You also failed to realize that you can never have all the experiences you will want. The grass is ALWAYS greener elsewhere, no matter how green it is here. Putting off life for experiences will end up making you one frustrated individual in the long run and annoy many others along the way.
BradA
Don’t tell her that, there are some guys coming out of the joint that need a place to put their penises. Women like that are like manginas and whiteknights. They have a roll to play that is to the benefit of red pill men. They are the ones that occupy the beast.
have yet to read Cheryl Strayed’s book.
I can’t be the only one who finds the authoress’s last name to be hilariously appropriate.
Lyn87 –
I know about the Heritage study whose numbers you’re quoting (80% marriage stability for a virgin bride, 50% for N=1), and I thought it meant the same thing that you’re quoting — risk of divorce for that marriage. But I just looked at the study itself:
http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf
and I was surprised to find out I’d been misreading that graph. If you look at the back of that PDF on the last two pages (“Technical Notes for Specific Charts”), it lists how they’re getting those percentages. They’re defining a stable marriage as one that has lasted at least 5 years, and the percentage is the number of women in that N cohort who are in stable marriages, divided by the total number of women in that N cohort who are sexually active.
In other words, those numbers don’t represent divorce risk at all; they represent divorce risk PLUS the chances of never getting married. The N=1 column, where about 47% of women are not currently in a stable marriage, would include those who had an affair and got divorced, but it would also include those who had one boyfriend, and are currently living with him but not married to him.
Now, the Teachman data quoted at http://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2010/09/sexual-partner-divorce-risk.html still holds, because he was measuring divorce rates. But the Heritage numbers (80.47% stability for N=0, 53.63% stability for N=1) aren’t measuring divorce rates (or rather, non-divorce rates) per marriage, but marriage rates per woman. Not the same thing at all, since it also lumps in the never-married. To prove the point you’re making, the Teachman numbers are more relevant.
@Boxer
“”As a dude who spent much of his childhood in Calgary, I’d argue that this is par for the course. Canadians of today have NO balls, and are completely emasculated, even compared to Americans and Brits (it’s why I hope to stay away from Canada for the rest of my life, if possible).””
I thought you might be a Canuck…L* I agree!…and I consider Alberta to be the most Conservative Province in the country! Ontario is becoming a joke.Emasculated is an understatement! Canadians have lost their balls quite a while ago.Next to Sweden Canada is Femi-Nazi paradise! Look at our Premier…a gay womyn?…that tells the whole story.Where do you live now?..if not in Alberta.
Dalrock: I just re-watched the promo and had a chance to listen to it. Just as well I hadn’t heard it while eating breakfast in the cafe where the background noise was too high.
That ANY Christian woman can go and see this movie after seeing this clip – which made me, like others here, want to throw up in disgust, would be a measure of that woman’s commitment to Christ.
Isaiah 14: 14’s list of proud “I wills…’ is attributed to Satan. Here we have the same religion presented in movie form.
Rollo . Your comment struck the nail on the head . In the movie “Into the wild ” the main character realized a gruesome death because of his ignorance of the realities of savage survival in Gods wilderness . It is not any different than the realities of human family sexual dynamics in relation to man and wife . I have seen this first hand going on two decades . Women are destroying their testament to the future for a handful of baubles and emotional garbage . In the mean time , everyone is suffering due to the weakness of women to be easily deceived . And yet men are so willing to prey upon the weakness of our society and covet their neighbours wife. I hope and pray that this ends well , eventually , for all of us. First time that I have commented , and I really enjoy your posts Dalrock . Very refreshing to know that there are others that understand.
@Cail
“”This would be a typical timeline””
Awesome post my friend.You pretty much nailed it! How about doing an “Over 40”.
Robin Munn says:
July 11, 2014 at 10:18 pm
Thanks for the clarification. I need to parse the numbers further. In the meantime, do you know if the data are available to quantify divorce risk for former sluts? I’m certain it must be substantial.
myrealitie says:
July 11, 2014 at 11:56 am
“A successful relationship hinges on having found your personal center, tested your own limits, and cultivating personal mastery as well as humility.”
myrealitie says:
July 11, 2014 at 3:01 pm
“Complaining and character assassination are not going to make men or women stay in situations that do not foster their ongoing personal growth and development”
This is a perfect example of why I shy away from giving marriage advice to non-believers. How does one bridge the gap between a philosophy that teaches that marriage is a sacred covenant established by God in which He commands husbands to love their wives as Christ loves the church and wives to respect and submit to their husbands, and a philosophy in which marriage is just another step in a self-centered, narcissistic journey of self-actualization?
I doubt it’s possible. I think THAT is “a bridge too far”. I may be wrong. But that’s why I think it best to leave that work to people better qualified than I, like Dalrock.
Alright, ladies and gents, I’m not willing to read through all the comments, so if someone already provided this info, I apologize.
Here’s the Wikipedia description of the book on which this movie is based.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild:_From_Lost_to_Found_on_the_Pacific_Crest_Trail
“Strayed [the protagonist] had been devastated by her mother’s death, when Strayed was 22 years old. Her stepfather disengaged from Strayed’s family, and her brother and sister remained distant. Strayed became involved in heroin use, and eventually she and her husband divorced. Seeking self-discovery and resolution of her enduring grief and personal challenges, at age 26, Strayed set out alone, on her 1,100-mile journey, having no prior backpacking experience. Wild intertwines the stories of Strayed’s life before and during the journey, describing her physical challenges and spiritual realizations while on the trail.”
See? It was a spiritual journey. That’s her moral cover.
“@Imnobodyoo – Well, somebody wanted her. She is currently remarried.”
A sucker is born every day. Some guys do any thing for a p*ssy. But men are awakening and marriage rates are dropping.
But hey, if you think that testing your limits and finding yourself – aka “slutting around” – makes you an astounding candidate for marriage, please be my guest. When the time comes that you decide that your marriage is not supporting your growth anymore -aka “you are bored, miss the carousel and wants some new d_ck-, the sucker you are going to divorce won’t be me
Okay… I looked at the heritage chart and as much of the Teachman stuff as is accessible to the general public. Although you are certainly correct that the 26.84% reduction I (mis)quoted is somewhat overstated, I see little reason to change my initial statement overmuch… especially since the portion of the Teachman paper that is generally available does not cite stats for marital disruption for marriages in which the bride is a virgin. Although the Heritage numbers don’t either, it seems likely that the real number – while short of 80.47%, is still significantly higher for former sluts.
In both studies one fact stands out: marrying a woman who has had sex with even one other man increases a man’s divorce risk past the 50% mark. Whatever the actual differential is: if a man marries a women who is not a virgin (or only slept with him) his marriage will probably end in divorce. We’ve all met guys who say they don’t want a virgin – they want a girl who knows what she’s doing…
…Veeeeeeery foolish of them. She may come into the relationship knowing a few more tricks, but one of those tricks is likely to be the old, “Take his kids, most of his stuff, and half his income” trick.
Caveat emptor!
When the tipping point is reached a true misogynist will be the mangina or preacher blue pill feminist. Will say and do all of the FI approved behaviors.
myrealitie concludes “I think that as a rich, ever technologically advancing society that we can do better than that.”
Who’s we? And what’s better about the current situation than the arrangement, though imperfect, that was called marriage and family of 4 decades ago? I expect single young men in the secular world riding the trend of female sexual liberation think things are much better now! The PUA phenomenon is spread with “ever technologically advancing” and now more young men than ever have opportunities to use women, of various attractiveness levels, like condoms with legs.
You look at the modern hook-up culture as an improvement for women? Because I promise you, young men who can participate love the hell out of it. You’re aware of the generation called ‘girls gone wild’ now being replaced with a generation of ‘girls gone completely insane’ and approve?
I think as the younger generations of young men slowly replace the older ones you’re going to see armies of young men disinterested in marriage and family because they know the courts can’t be trusted to protect men’s right regarding their children and women aren’t for trusting, they’re masturbation sleeves. “better than that”? Feminism did this, women did this. We all lose but women will lose the most.
Lyn87 –
I don’t know where to find the data specifically about divorce risk for non-virgins; if you find any, I’d love to know. Heritage did a lot with the NSFG data (which I can’t help but read as “Not Safe For… something-starting-with-G” — maybe “Not Safe For Grooms” or “Not Safe For Guys”), but instead of tracking “did she get divorced”, they tracked “is she in a marriage that has lasted 5+ years”. Did the NSFG data not include the question “Have you ever been divorced?” I don’t know. I’d have to comb through the NSFG data in depth myself to be sure, and so far I haven’t had the time for that. (Or to be more accurate, it’s been lower priority for me than the many other irons I have in the fire right now.) But if you, or anyone else, wants to take a crack at it, the most current (2006-2010) NSFG data is here:
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nsfg/nsfg_2006_2010_puf.htm
As I said, I haven’t made the time to comb through it in depth — but I did look through the questions asked of both men and women, and there’s enough data there that one could calculate actual divorce risk. For example, both men and women get asked their number of lifetime sexual partners, their current marital status, and (most importantly for the question we’re interested in) how many times they’ve been married before. That last question would allow differentiating the two cases the Heritage numbers conflate: women (or men) who’ve never been married vs. women (or men) whose marriage has ended. And the survey also asks how the person’s previous marriage(s) ended, so one could also differentiate widows from divorcées.
I don’t know if anyone has crunched those particular numbers there, but I think the NSFG data would make that analysis possible.
… Well, I guess I just falsified my opening statement that “I don’t know where to find the data specifically about divorce risk for non-virgins.” Guess I do know where to find the data after all; problem is, getting that data out will cost more time than I can currently afford to spend. But hopefully someone else will be interested enough to crunch those numbers.
@Ras and Boxer
Thanks!
@Dalrock
I do think you’re analysis is correct on where the current slut shield line is. That’s not my point.
As propaganda warfare this movie is a SpecOps maneuver. SpecOps themselves do not win wars. The weaken the enemy, and confuse them, stun them, redirect them, waste their resources, and all sorts of very helpful things that support a war effort, but they do not occupy and control. They do not win the war.
Likewise; this film is not trying to win the war either. Attempts at hit movies are usually rated PG-13. Even if they are rated R, hit film efforts will feature either explosions of matter, or explosions of laughter. They are more generally appealing to flyover sensibilities (even if there are subversive payloads among the script).
As you’ve reconnoitered: This is a behind-the-socon/slut-lines action. It’s meant to suck resources away from the front; to distract from the fact that EPL women are sluts by saying, “EPL’s aren’t sluts. This is a slut. And anyways: Look how much she went through and progressed? Have some pity! Sluts are people, too. So Don’t judge. Anyway, do you really have time to worry about a one-night-stand here or there, or an “experimental phase” in college when there are real lost souls like this woman running around?”
Fox Searchlight Pictures and other big-name distributors of independent (or independent-like) films exist for this very reason. They are the SpecOps of the Hollywood; training insurgents (not the populace, i.e., the hit movie crowd), fomenting chaos, and harassing the enemy.
Writers, directors, and actors will risk a loss to make a movie like this. They will personally take large pay-cuts to play and direct “complex and edgy” characters. Such roles will pay huge dividends in the future by showing themselves to be loyal members of the church of Hollywood. It gets them future gigs; it gets them invited to the right parties; it gets their next script reviewed; it gets them invited to the Today Show to talk about playing a loser; it generates buzz even if it’s conservative critics going nuts about Hollywood’s morals; etc.
Anyways, in film budget terms this movie is cheap. I’ll let someone else look up the cost, but as there are probably no pyrotechnics; no CG; no extravagant sets…the cost is probably under $50M.
While both “Mom’s Night Out” (MNO) and “Wild” are similar in the fact that they will bomb, they are different in the fact that “Wild” is a tactical effort that will ultimately succeed because the cost and benefits were carefully weighed. “Wild” is an investment in a supporting action. MNO not only was a wasteful expenditure of Christian cultural capital, but it also blew up the capital cities of Biblical marriage and sexual relations.
The difference is that “Wild” was made by clear-minded operatives. MNO was made by a handful of culturally illiterate jihadis who can’t differentiate their own headquarters from a a legitimate target.
>> It is also about people wanting more out of life than acting out simple roles. Sometimes you shoot your own agenda (lasting marriages) in the foot by being so out of touch.
It is you who is “out of touch”
Life ===is=== really very simple. It is only the narcissism of moderns (and mechanized agriculture) which enables the “first world problem” of dreaming up ways for life to be “complicated”.
You’re stupid. And you have a women’s sensibilities.
More irony eh Boxer? The country seems left, yet the prime minister is the most right wing of any leaders in the liberal democratic world.
Huh?
@embracing reality
“”The PUA phenomenon is spread with “ever technologically advancing” and now more young men than ever have opportunities to use women, of various attractiveness levels, like condoms with legs.””
No kidding! I have been paying special attention to young men at work between the ages of 25 & 30.I have coffee with them etc. The thing that I have noticed is what a ‘lack of respect’ that they have for women in general.I generally don’t have much respect for women myself….but,not like these guys! I mean they prey on them to use them without mercy.They treat them like garbage and use them at every opportunity.And the c**** are stupid enough to let them.The other thing that I have also noticed in the last few years is the number of men that “HATE” women……and I do mean “HATE”.I myself am into “sport sex”.Not these guys,they are into “grudge f*****g”.It is only going to get worse and women have no one to blame except themselves.
Pingback: A bridge too far. | Truth and contradictions | ...
Will just say for myrealitie’s benefit that it’s possible to marry young and work it out because love is an action. That is the lession from my extended family. Love is an action, not a “feewing”. Women used to be raised with that tenet ingrained in them. As were their men. Hence the long lasting marriages so common to the generations preceding the boomers. Now? Have to check out Dalrock’s Interviewing a prospective wife post where he states that the force holding a woman to her vows is between her ears and a man must discern for that. (if paraphrased poorly, my apologies to Dalrock.)
Those modern day couples that practice love as an action, not a a feeling, are the ones who are making it last. Not just the man, but the woman as much as the man. Where women don’t do the love as an action thing, she’ll fall out of love and want to get out. Like that. Like EPL. Whereas men are more likely to remain committed, because we understand love as an action. That’s why fathers go to work at jobs they dislike if not hate, that’s why fathers go so far to get some custody of their kids during divorce proceedings, because they are about the action.
Now got to wondering if women can be shamed back into the marriage with the slut label if they’re contemplating the frivorce exit. Sounds like scorched earth to me, but could be a what has one got to lose aspect to this.
Too depressing. The dating sites are constantly pushing women my age (mid-40s) at me, even though I set my filters for a lower age range. So there’s this large crowd of 40-ish women out there, who reek of desperation, while trying to hide their desperation by amping up the attitude. It’s an ugly scene.
More dull “facts”. I suppose the thrift-shop assemblage of gear plus odd bits of modern tackle is about right for a junkie deciding to waltz off into the hills in about 1994 (b1968 + 26 y.o.).
Seems “Strayed” is an alias, only to be expected since she’s a “long-time feminist activist, Strayed served on the first board of directors for VIDA: Women in Literary Arts”.[Sketchypedia]
The movie budget hasn’t been disclosed yet, but the page placeholder was created.
http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=wild2014.htm
You’ll have to wait until closer to the release date to see if they share their budgeting/marketing expenses and how wide the distribution for this was for this picture.
have been paying special attention to young men at work between the ages of 25 & 30.I have coffee with them etc. The thing that I have noticed is what a ‘lack of respect’ that they have for women in general.
If this is the “new normal”, how will it play out in the long run?
I think that as a rich, ever technologically advancing society that we can do better than that.
“Rich” is part of the problem. We can now afford to indulge people in behaviors that are detrimental to themselves and society. But these behaviors do however, “feel good” in the short run; so there’s that.
As for the “ever technologically advancing” part, it is now a race between productivity improvements that come from that and other sources, and the increasing economic cost of feral behaviors. Which side will win?
@Oscar
True. This is built in to the genre. As I have written about Fireproof and EPL, the core message of the divorce fantasy is:
But EPL was careful to include the word “Pray” right in the title, and Fireproof had everyone’s local church providing an enthusiastic stamp of approval (very often on the marquee). Plus, Elizabeth and Katherine were learning a formal, recognized religion, and their need for moral cover was less. The problem I see with Wild isn’t that it entirely lacks spiritual rationalization, but that it offers too little spiritual rationalization while having too much that requires rationalizing. Seeing her as moral for turning into a heroin whore and divorcing her husband (in that order as I understand it) is a tough pill to swallow, even for modern women. The intended audience may of course surprise me, but this is my sense.
Thank you for the kind words. I see that Novaseeker and others have already done as well or better than I could responding to myrealitie, so I’ll just point out what she is doing. The fundamental problem in the discussion isn’t that she isn’t arguing from a Christian frame, but that she isn’t arguing from any logically consistent frame. Her argument is essentially that marriage vows have little or no moral force, and therefore women who aren’t happy aren’t doing anything terrible when they divorce. Not true, but so far it is logically consistent. The inconsistency is the argument for marriage at all under these circumstances. Her view of marriage isn’t just lacking Christian sexual morality, but any meaningful sense of morality. Why in the world should any man marry under such conditions? A man who can keep a woman sufficiently happy such that she won’t collect her cash and prizes could just as easily keep a string of women, perhaps a soft harem, happy enough to be pleasant and have sex with him. Moreover, if there is no problem with the large dose of sex outside marriage she says is required to make marriage work, there can’t be a moral problem with sex outside of marriage. She also can’t be arguing that marriage has moral force because children need a stable two parent home, or she wouldn’t be arguing the merits of frivolous divorce. There is no point in discussing marriage with myrealitie not because she doesn’t believe in Christian marriage, but because she doesn’t believe in marriage at all.
The problem occurs however because she doesn’t want to admit this. At an emotional level she is highly invested in the status she gains vs other women from having a husband instead of a boyfriend. And why wouldn’t she like the promise of cash and prizes, since she is the receiver and not the payer? She deserves that, doesn’t she? In all likelihood she has never even considered this from a rational perspective. She feels a certain way, and you, I and others are challenging her feelings (something deeply personal). Either way, since she lacks any possible logical argument her only approach is to focus on relentlessly reframing the discussion to suggest that men who won’t accept her illogical and toxic view of marriage are weak, unattractive, uncaring, creepy, etc. This is exactly what she does (and does somewhat well), and is what someone above was referring to when they said she was rebuilding the mound.
The problem we have as Christians isn’t that non Christians don’t believe in Christian marriage. The problem we have is that the vast majority of Christians have a very similar view of marriage as myrealitie does. As I wrote about the other week, ask a modern Christian why marriage isn’t just a piece of paper and they will almost always flounder in vain looking for a reason. This is because in their mind it really is just a piece of paper, boyfriend and girlfriend with a promise of cash and prizes should the girlfriend become unhappy. This is betrayed by their whole approach to the problem of divorce, which is secular marriage counseling in a Christian wrapper focused on making the husband do whatever it takes to make his wife happy (I hope you’ll forgive me for mentioning Fireproof again). This isn’t from the Bible, but from the Book of Oprah. Yet try to find a well known Christian leader who takes a biblical approach to divorce, and not the “relationship counseling” one.
“No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.” –H. L. Mencken
“No one in this world, so far as I know – and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me – has ever lost money by overestimating the sluttiness of the great masses of the churchian womenz lzozozozo.” –da GBFM
“No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people.” (The Yale Book of Quotations, 2006, p. 512)
“No one ever went broke underestimating the morality of the American womenz zlzolzolzolzo.” (Da GBFM Book of Quotations, 2006, p. 512) lzozozlzlo
rufus,
It reminds me of the guy who tried to live with the grizzlies in Alaska. He didn’t make it too long from what I heard.
Who’s we? And what’s better about the current situation than the arrangement, though imperfect, that was called marriage and family of 4 decades ago?
I asked her that same question upthread and she has yet to respond (not that she’d give an honest answer anyway, so the question is purely rhetorical).
I think the kitchen has gotten too hot for Mizz alternaterealitie and strongly suspect we won’t be hearing from her again.
Exactly. If marriage isn’t until death, it has no more meaning than getting “pinned” in high school and wearing each other’s class rings. At the time, you’re desperately in love and feel like you want to be with that person forever; but realistically, you know that very few people end up buried next to their childhood sweethearts. You know that someday your corsage that you saved from prom will be the only thing left from the relationship, a bit of nostalgia that you save in a scrapbook, but you go through the motions of professing your undying love anyway, because that’s how relationships work.
That’s how modernists want marriage to work: you pledge your undying love to someone in the moment, and you stay in the relationship as long as it works for you, and then you get out as painlessly as possible. Some of the more honest ones think marriage licenses should be temporary: you sign up for a 5-year or 10-year, and then decide whether to renew at the end of the period (science fiction stories about the future are full of that). Or they want to get rid of marriage altogether, so they don’t feel the social pressure to make their serial relationships official. But the result is the same: making marriage no different from an exclusive dating relationship, except that everyone gets you a gift.
One should not dismiss too lightly the movie of a book that even now is placed at #41 in the Amazon.com hit list (though only at 2,288 in amazon.uk so you can see it appeals somewhat less in Britain); the screen play is by none other than Nick Hornby so it has some talent behind it. The fact that she set out on the trail with a packet of condoms and sexy lingerie in her back-pack, seems to have spent a lot of time hitching, indeed seems to have been largely oblivious to the natural wonders of the trail makes one suspect that she is being somewhat less than truthful as to the reality of her adventure; she is after all a writer of the Journalist type and this is not her first published memoir either. The book is not really about her sex life, but about her unhappiness, largely self-inflicted, as the pack is simply too much for her; in short this is Miz Lit: the pain of the hiking standing in as a metaphor for her greater pain. Of course having then come to terms with the loss of her mother she is then ready to move on and remarry which is indeed what she did. Oprah empathised ‘back in 95 there were not even Ipods’ conveniently forgetting Walkmans, but why let facts get in the way of a story of a woman overcoming self-inflicted troubles.
I now realise that when Tolstoy arranged for Anna to have an encounter with a steam locomotive he badly miscalculated: clearly a walk to Siberia was required; in the sequel Resurrection he almost gets it right as the heroine does go to Siberia but takes the train. What hope is there for a writer who so misjudges the mood of the public.
An Xmas release date for the movie seems odd.
I do not think I am worthy of remarriage. Even though it was my husband who cheated and cheated..sigh. I honestly don’t understand why anyone would want to remarry? I don’t get it?
At an emotional level she is highly invested in the status she gains vs other women from having a husband
How much status does she get, and where does it come from?
Isn’t Reese Witherspoon a bit long in the tooth to play a 26 year old?
Sorry, I still don’t get it.. you failed once, for whatever reason? Why, why why do it again? Are you all convinced it is all your spouse’s fault?
By the way, it’s kind of disturbing how easy it would be to form a harem these days. Not necessarily of 22-year-old hotties — though that’s probably doable too, with enough game — but as I said in another thread, the dating sites are loaded with decent-looking 40-ish women who are desperate for attention. I’m no super-alpha, but I know from experience how easy they are and what they’ll accept. Any 50-year-old guy with a house, a car, a bit of Game, and enough cash to buy the occasional bag of Skittles could easily form a harem of women who all accept the situation and compete for his affections — even bring friends into the harem.
And as you say, if sin is not an issue, why not? Why settle down with one woman and give her a legal hold on you, when you can have a variety and let them keep each other on their best behavior? No reason except social pressure and inertia, which won’t last forever.
Not these guys,they are into “grudge f*****g”.It is only going to get worse and women have no one to blame except themselves.
I work with a late 20-something guy who takes this philosophy to the extreme. He even told me once while we were on business travel together that his “dick and [his] mouth are weapons.” I got him to relate some of his backstory to me, and he apparently grew up in a broken home, raised by a mother and maternal grandmother who were the epitome of selfish, man-hating feminist bitchdom. I both feel sorry for and yet am fascinated by the guy. He should have probably grown up to be another Ted Bundy. I wonder if he isn’t one, practicing a more deeply sadistic form of destruction. He seems to take particular pleasure in the hurt he causes women after he strings them along with faux commitment promises (and “animalistic” sex, as he puts it), then makes a big production of kicking them to the curb in the most degrading way possible. Sad indeed, but, as Mark said, this sort of sociopathy is a natural and expected consequence of the collective choices western women have made over the last half century.
I now realise that when Tolstoy arranged for Anna to have an encounter with a steam locomotive
Tolstoy did always treat characters he did not like (e.g. unfaithful) badly. So Victorian.
My ex was like Anna except for the steam locomotive part.
Farm Boy @ 10:37 am:
“I have been paying special attention to young men at work between the ages of 25 & 30.I have coffee with them etc. The thing that I have noticed is what a ‘lack of respect’ that they have for women in general.
If this is the “new normal”, how will it play out in the long run?”
I live in earthquake country (coastal California). Part of my disaster preparation is being ready for the sudden collapse of government… I actually have uniforms in my quake kit so I can replace the government, at least for the street I live on. But what are these feral California girls going to do when Uncle Sam vanishes for a couple weeks, the ones who shunned me until I went MGTOW? Will the hardships of going through the Big One alone teach them “I need a real husband to protect me, not just a thug-lover” or “I can’t survive without gubbermint”? (Don’t tell me they have quake kits of their own.) And how will single men react to divorced mothers turning up and demanding food & protection?
Disasters like this and other hardships from our declining society will have strong polarizing effects on American sex dynamics. This is how feminism will play out in the next generation: consequences will no longer be delayed, sides will be openly taken and all the pretty lies will perish.
I’d be optimistic about it– consequences and honesty are good things– except our Church leadership is pre-fragged. What comes next will probably not be Christianity.
Am I the only ex who thinks I may have made some mistakes? Not that there is anything that gives a spouse the right to cheat. And, no, I wasn’t fat. I did have some issues with sexual stuff..but he was cheating..as I found out..even before and after we were engaged.
@Cail
“”Too depressing.””
I hear you!…….but,remember that is all our(men’s) fault!…..L*
A little more detail on the end of her marriage:
http://thesunmagazine.org/archives/2192
@Farm Boy
“”If this is the “new normal”, how will it play out in the long run?””
Not good!!!…..The antithesis of this is the women between the ages of 25 & 30. They are becoming VERY jaded…as well as ratcheting up a high “N” count. I try and explain to these “Romeos” that the trick to the “game” is to keep them coming back for more.If you “F*** & Chuck” them?…what good is that?….keep them coming back for more.BUT…….”Do Not Get Involved with them”…..That is the key! And you will have them calling and texting you……”What are you doing tonight?…wanna get together”?……That is success with the “modern wimminz” of today!
@Cail
“”Any 50-year-old guy with a house, a car, a bit of Game, and enough cash to buy the occasional bag of Skittles could easily form a harem of women who all accept the situation and compete for his affections — even bring friends into the harem.””
Truer words have never been spoken! As I 49(just turned)year old guy,house,several cars,game,looks….and MONEY! I assure you the Harem will build itself,with very little work or input from the conductor! This is what wimminz wanted?…correct?…..so give it to them! What wimminz do not realize,and probably never will,(from an economic point of view)….”When you give away something for FREE,it’s value eventually declines to zero”
@Farm Boy
You are Alexei Karenin: I claim my one hundred Rubles. Anna was twenty years younger than her husband and thus had no choice but to find her own centre, test her personal limits and cultivate her own mastery (now where have I read that before). Naturally in doing so she threw herself at handsome dashing cavalry-officer and all-round Alpha-dude Alexei Vronsky. Sadly he too was testing his personal limits, cultivating his mastery and finding his own centre i.e. pumping and dumping Anna.
On the next thread we will move west and try and understand what Nora Helmer who thinks she is living in A Doll’s House is going to do to find her centre, test her limits and cultivate her own mastery. Thereafter we will move up-market (and still further west) to ascertain how Lady Constance Chatterley intends to find her centre, test her limits (aye lass!) and cultivate her own mastery (surely that should be mistressy).
Clearly raising the age of marriage to say thirty-five is what is now needed to ensure mastery, testing of limits and centre-finding, or is that still a trifle young.
@feeriker
“”I work with a late 20-something guy who takes this philosophy to the extreme. He even told me once while we were on business travel together that his “dick and [his] mouth are weapons.””
Yes!…..these guys!….you know some also!
“”He seems to take particular pleasure in the hurt he causes women after he strings them along with faux commitment promises (and “animalistic” sex, as he puts it), then makes a big production of kicking them to the curb in the most degrading way possible.””
Thank you!……you just summed up what I wanted to say in my previous post.Like I stated in my above post…..”This is not a good thing!….but,women have brought this on all by themselves”. This is “EXACTLY” what these “Romeos” do. Again,I try to explain to them…..”the real success comes when they are calling you back and are begging to see you”…..The way these guys are doing it has a certain “viciousness”….which is not good!
@Dalrock
A link I came across….good stats! Thought you might like it. Great comments!
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-05-08/guest-post-economics-marriage
Another one……A Christain MGTOW?………..Great article! Even impressed a Jewish guy like myself!
http://selfdefensiveman.wordpress.com/2014/05/08/christian-mgtow-some-of-my-reactions/
“I got him to relate some of his backstory to me, and he apparently grew up in a broken home, raised by a mother and maternal grandmother who were the epitome of selfish, man-hating feminist bitchdom. I both feel sorry for and yet am fascinated by the guy.”
As they say in diet pill ads, results may vary.
My ex-best friend was partially raised by a haughty, domineering post-Feminist mother to whom saying “No” to probably wasn’t the best option. As a result, he turned into a gold-plated, dyed-in-the-wool White Knight who would rarely contradict whatever female he was lying down in front of at the time. Subsequently, the only time I and his family hear from him is when he’s in between girlfriends.
As I mentioned, ex-best friend.
A few different reasons:
1. The sex is never as good as you think it will be.
2. The sex often doesn’t make up for the chaos a wimminz brings into your life. (And even when it does make up for it, it isn’t by much).
3. After you’ve pulled a few (dozen, hundred, thousand… the realization comes eventually) wimminz, you realize that they are all largely interchangeable. With this in mind, why invest the time in getting a new one, when you can go all monogamous (or nearly so, with a series of medium term flings) and maximize the return on investment?
4. Having a harem is a dehumanizing experience. It’s morally questionable in the best of circumstances, and youthful psychopathy (driven by hormones) usually wears away after a year or three, leaving the playa wondering just what kind of life he’s leading.
Even godless, secular unbelievers eventually see the wisdom in the old Jewish/Christian/Muslim teachings.
Mark:
One of the greatest stories ever told. It used to be a staple of North American high school lit classes, and now it’s not. Part of the great dumbing down of the herd, I suppose. Anyone who likes this blog will get a lot out of it.
“Happy families are the same everywhere, but each dysfunctional family is unique in its dysfunction” (paraphrasing here).
Boxer
“Happy families are the same everywhere, but each dysfunctional family is unique in its dysfunction”
How does feminism fit in?
Boxer, I don’t disagree with you about the likely dehumanizing effect of a harem. That’s probably the main reason I never quite went that far, more so than sin: just a vague sense that it might be a hard cliff to step back from. Or to put it the way Jerry Seinfeld did: “I can’t be an orgy guy! I’d have to get robes and lotions….”
What’s interesting is that most people would recognize that with men, but don’t when women do the equivalent. Imagine a 30-year-old couple, Bob and Betty, who have been dating for a year and come to their pastor to begin pre-marriage counseling. Bob says that he used to have a harem of 3-4 women at a time, for a total of 15 over a stretch of 3 years. He gave them all up when he met Betty (not through the harem) and realized she was the girl for him. Betty knows about this, and is confident that he really did give it up, hasn’t cheated, and doesn’t want to go back. The counselor would freak out. At best, he’d tell Betty that it’s too soon, and she needs to put off the marriage for a few years to test Bob and make sure he’s serious about sticking with one woman. At worst, he’d tell Betty to run for the hills and never speak to that filthy scum again.
On the other hand, say Betty reveals that she’s had 15 sexual relationships since she was 18, some serious enough that she lived with them and marriage was discussed. She broke up with the last one soon before meeting Bob. The counselor would see this as completely normal. If Bob raised any concerns about this, the counselor would tell him to stop being so insecure, and that he has no right to hold Betty’s past against her. If he’s a real man, he’ll accept her for who she is. If counseling Betty alone, he’d probably tell her not to inform Bob of the truth in the first place — her past is irrelevant, and he has no need to know.
But the truth is that Betty’s experience was at least as dehumanizing as Bob’s. So we have millions of dehumanized girls running around out there thinking they’re completely normal, and men are being told by everyone that these girls are great marriage material.
To comment on the new breed of men using women as masturbation receptacles,that is the natural outcome of the loss of natural affection spoke about in The Good Book.
On another topic,there is something more evil to the subject of the cell phone use than the affront of being ignored in person whilst she prevues multiple other men.
There is something even more darker and insidious going on there,something I cannot quite affix a label upon or describe properly.
I think this is all tied in with the massive increase in tattoos.
That is to say, something dehumanizing about the whole process,dehumanizing by way of rampant hypergamy and the behaviors it illicits from men.
Grudge fucking indeed.
Interested in comments about what YOU find most offensive about the wimmin face up into facebook,placing the machine above your humanity.
Damn cail,you wrote about dehumanizing at the exact same moment as I.
Synergy,synchronicity!
Dalrock says:
July 12, 2014 at 11:50 am
“The problem I see with Wild isn’t that it entirely lacks spiritual rationalization, but that it offers too little spiritual rationalization while having too much that requires rationalizing. Seeing her as moral for turning into a heroin whore and divorcing her husband (in that order as I understand it) is a tough pill to swallow, even for modern women.”
Oh, I wasn’t arguing that point. I’m inclined to think you’re right. I just found the book summary and thought it was enlightening. I mean, heck, it’s even a “true story”! I’m actually eager to see if the intended audience receives the movie poorly – as you predict – of if they’ll set the bar even lower.
“The fundamental problem in the discussion isn’t that she isn’t arguing from a Christian frame, but that she isn’t arguing from any logically consistent frame.”
That explains why I had such a hard time even pinning down the argument. If marriage vows have no moral weight, why get married at all? What’s the point in “making marriage work”, regardless of the methodology? Why not enjoy ones narcissistic journey of self-actualization alone (plus the occasional booty call) and roast marshmallows while Rome burns?
“The problem we have as Christians isn’t that non Christians don’t believe in Christian marriage. The problem we have is that the vast majority of Christians have a very similar view of marriage as myrealitie does.”
Yes, that’s the real problem in society in general, I think. If the Church won’t lead in this arena, who will?
Having read a somewhat extensive excerpt of the book (she’s a decent writer, btw) I think the kids are a screenplay invention to heighten the pathos of her decision to undertake this quest.
FWIW, in the book, she seems to have an extraordinarily strong reaction to the untimely death of her mother a month or so after an initial diagnosis of lung cancer. That, rather than the standard waaambulance, was the precipitating event of her emotional
I could be wrong, but I think they tweaked the narrative for their intended audience.
mb says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:18 pm
“A little more detail on the end of her marriage:
http://thesunmagazine.org/archives/2192”
Cheryl Strayed is one messed up person. Also, someone should explain to myreality that Strayed’s descent into depravity (by her own words) had nothing to do with missing out on some journey of self-actualization when she was young.
I disagree. It’s normal for human beings to be deeply traumatized by the death of a parent. What’s unusual is the luxury people have, these days, to go off the rails. A couple of generations ago, she’d have been forced to occupy herself with lots of hard work to keep from starving. Today she’s free to let her idle hands do the walking into extramarital affairs and hardcore drugs.
She’s a pretty good writer. If I were to fault her for anything specifically personal, it’d be her lack of humility. That is not as uncommon as it should be, either, but it’s not ubiquitous yet. In the old days, if people didn’t have the good sense not to bang strangers in back alleys, they at least had a lot of social checks against boasting about it — especially in print media.
Boxer
Having not read the book, but knowing the type, it wouldn’t surprise me a bit if it turns out the author faked portions of her “journey.” Like, perhaps, all of it.
“wild” by Cheryl Strayed, sold by Random House LLC, published by Random House’ Vintage Books. Random House’ Vintage Books also published “Fifty Shades of Grey” which set the record as the fastest-selling paperback of all time. Random House is widely trusted.
A national news personality recommends “Matt Walsh” on her Facebook post
Specifically, she recommends the post “Dear single dudes: it’s time to man up.
She writes:
It explains some of my dating experiences in NY. If a man can really be a man, in career, treating others and financially, no matter in 20s, 30s, 40s, our world would be so much better! Everyone should read!”
Random House is widely trusted.
Not by its authors, it’s not:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2011/08/31/he-beats-me-but-he%E2%80%99s-my-publisher/
Sarah Hoyt, the author of that article, used to be published by Random House (among others — and all her publishers acted just like that, with the sole, shining exception of Baen Books, the only publisher to actually treat its authors decently). So go on, please: keep telling me how much I can trust Random House. It tells me exactly how much I can trust you.
Boxer says:
July 12, 2014 at 7:59 pm
“I disagree. It’s normal for human beings to be deeply traumatized by the death of a parent. What’s unusual is the luxury people have, these days, to go off the rails. A couple of generations ago, she’d have been forced to occupy herself with lots of hard work to keep from starving. Today she’s free to let her idle hands do the walking into extramarital affairs and hardcore drugs.”
When I stated that Strayed is “messed up” (I was being charitable), I was referring to her reaction to her grief, not the grief itself. Grief is a normal part of life. Transforming oneself into a lying, betraying, drug-addicted, diseased super-slut is not.
By the way, her ex-husband was far too nice to her.
@mb re: link. “He loved me. Which was mysteriously, unfortunately, precisely the problem.”
Thanks for that,
And how will single men react to divorced mothers turning up and demanding food & protection?
More than a few will respond with loaded guns. This married man will too.
By the way, it’s kind of disturbing how easy it would be to form a harem these days. Not necessarily of 22-year-old hotties — though that’s probably doable too, with enough game — but as I said in another thread, the dating sites are loaded with decent-looking 40-ish women who are desperate for attention.
Yes, it is horrifyingly easy –as in, it would take almost no effort on a man’s part at all– to do this. Any middle-aged man of even modest means who is not hideously ugly or massively overweight and with even a bare minimum of Game could have as many of these women at his beck and call as he wanted.
But very few men, if any, are that desparate.
NO sane, self-respecting man in midlife is sexually famished enough to want a harem of angry, drama-laden, needy, bat-shit crazy. That is EXACTLY what he’ll get with multiples of aged (over 40) estrogen vessels. This is one of those “fantasies that sound tantalizing, but that no man ever really wants to live out.”
@Boxer
I only read AK once and hated it – even then. The famous motto with which it begins and which you quote is pure assertion; the converse might equally be true. Personally, I regard AK as a rather long memo to the long-suffering Sonia to do the decent thing and release Leo from the bonds of matrimony – then he really could indulge in being miserable. I have (amazing as it may sound for a man born in 1828) a letter from his daughter Sasha (who lived in Connecticut).
“22 year olds taking on personal challenges and getting to know themselves”
Pretty impressive euphemisms, those. Reminds me of descriptions of young people “experimenting” with drugs. Memory is a bit hazy on this, but I don’t recall that many notes were taken, let alone “apparatus/method/results/conclusion” ones.
Interesting – never thought about the “moral cover” aspect before.
margaret59 says:
July 12, 2014 at 3:10 pm
>>I did have some issues with sexual stuff..
Of course you did.
Wait… you found out that he was cheating before you got engaged… and you agreed to get engaged to him anyway. Then you found out that he was cheating on you – again – WHILE you were engaged and you married him anyway… Then you act surprised that he cheated on you after you were married.
Seriously, Margaret: what did you think was going to happen?
Clearly you didn’t mind sharing him with other women very much, and you made that crystal clear to him when you continued to escalate the relationship despite his sexing-up other women. You also cryptically mention your own “issues with sexual stuff” but leave the details wide open. The degree of your culpability might hinge on just what your “issues” were. I’m not asking you to divulge the details of your sex life, but denial of things he had come to expect can increase the temptation to get what he was expecting from another woman who was willing to give it to him. You are right that it does not excuse his cheating, but it may be contributory.
Anyway… yeah… you definitely made some mistakes. My brother did a version of what you did, but although he knew about his girlfriend’s colorful past he proposed anyway. She didn’t cheat on him until they had been married for years (as far as we know), and his ex-wife didn’t wave nearly as many red flags as your husband did, but he knows that he made mistakes – the biggest one being that he married a slut.
“Robin Munn says:
July 12, 2014 at 8:53 pm
Random House is widely trusted.
Not by its authors, it’s not:
http://accordingtohoyt.com/2011/08/31/he-beats-me-but-he%E2%80%99s-my-publisher/
Sarah Hoyt, the author of that article, used to be published by Random House (among others — and all her publishers acted just like that, with the sole, shining exception of Baen Books, the only publisher to actually treat its authors decently). So go on, please: keep telling me how much I can trust Random House. It tells me exactly how much I can trust you.”
From what I’ve seen, most publishers stink. They don’t seem interested in actually making money by, for example, promoting their authors’ books so potential readers can find out about them and buy them. I’m not sure what they actually ARE interested in, but that obviously isn’t it.
…but only under extreme and rare circumstances (serious physical danger), she would still be married to her husband in the eyes of God and His Church, and she’d first need the permission of her bishop to pursue that civil divorce–which ain’t gonna happen.
End of 14-minute movie. Buh-dump.
“men at work between 25 and 30 have no respect for women, etc…..”
“men” would be indifferent to the situation and to those women.
It is little boy minds who have this active disrespect just because they are of a category.
Lyn87
She didn’t say she knew AT THE TIME…she said she found out LATER it was before and after.
reading comprehension.
Margaret59
Everyone has “issues” with something, some sexual “issues” are no reason for a spouse cheating.
Gunner Q,
> What comes next will probably not be Christianity.
It will be, it just won’t be what we see now. The true Church has survived worse and will continue until He returns. (Note I am talking of the Body of True Believers in Jesus, not the RCC.)
margaret59,
We live in a fallen world and you need to realize that. My mother now things I have “sainted” my dad because I hold her accountable for their divorce many years ago. (He and I would be arguing all the time if he were alive now, so that charge is empty.)
The big problem is that he could never fill the void in her since her father never accepted her (she was the oldest and he wanted a son). My noting reality makes her feel I am attacking her. My father was not faithful, though I suspect some of it was due to her attitude and actions.
That does not justify what he did at the time, but it certainly explains some of it. I can relate more to him as I age as my wife is quite similar to my mother in many ways. I just handle things a bit more directly than my father and things ended up differently.
I don’t know if this gives you any insight, but I would encourage you to really evaluate yourself and see what your inner drives and motivations are. You may not like some of the answers, but you will be better off knowing where you are rather than pushing the blame outward, even if the latter seems fully justified.
Lyn87,
Margaret will have to answer for herself, but my mother did not know my father was teaching until he admitted such years later as part of his Christian testimony. She now claims that she suspected it all along, but I am dubious on that claim.
I doubt Margaret is as guiltless as it may seem, but it is quite possible she is asking genuine questions. I wish my own mother would ask some of those instead of remaining in fantasyland.
(I just went to see her and found my wife flip-flopping between agreeing that my mother has serious issues and thinking that I was too hard. Ah the wonderful aspect of walking this life out.)
Pingback: Too ugly to empower | Dalrock
Pingback: Young Men Have Only Gotten More Fed Up With Women » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology
Pingback: A review of “Tully”: it’s an antidote to marriage