Several of the commenters on Don’t play hard to get argued that Robert Stacy McCain and I aren’t really in disagreement regarding the post that I responded to. While we are in agreement on many points*, there is an important difference in our perspective.
I’ll start with our agreement. McCain quotes the Vanity Fair article Tinder and the Dawn of the “Dating Apocalypse” where a player named Marty describes his own hookup strategy:
Marty, who prefers Hinge to Tinder (“Hinge is my thing”), is no slouch at “racking up girls.” He says he’s slept with 30 to 40 women in the last year: “I sort of play that I could be a boyfriend kind of guy,” in order to win them over, “but then they start wanting me to care more … and I just don’t.”
McCain points out that Marty is playing the promiscuity game to his own best advantage, and that women are foolish to play this man’s game:
See? Marty understands the game he’s playing. Pretend that you’re emotionally available — “a boyfriend kind of guy” — and “racking up girls” via online hook-up sites is not difficult nowadays for any reasonably attractive young man. The more a guy succeeds at that cynical game, however, the lower his estimation of women in general, because each “win” for him just proves how easily girls can be deceived. No amount of feminist “consciousness raising” can change the fundamental reality of human nature. Casual sex is a game in which guys have a decisive advantage, and therefore any girl who plays that game is a fool.
McCain is absolutely right; men and women have different preferred strategies for promiscuity. Marty is doing what he can to tilt the outcome in his own favor, and feminists are foolish when they teach women to be promiscuous according to men’s rules.
Women are much better suited to a different form of promiscuity, which is serial monogamy. With serial monogamy women retain the freedom which comes from sex without commitment, but gain the status which comes from a man publicly declaring his investment in her. This missing status is the part of the modern dating environment the women in the Vanity Fair article are complaining about the most:
“New York guys, from our experience, they’re not really looking for girlfriends,” says the blonde named Reese. “They’re just looking for hit-it-and-quit-it on Tinder.”…
“There is no dating. There’s no relationships,” says Amanda, the tall elegant one. “They’re rare. You can have a fling that could last like seven, eight months and you could never actually call someone your ‘boyfriend.’
The women complain that they feel pressured by feminists to approach promiscuity from the perspective which favors the man, instead of the perspective that favors women:
“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy, and it’s the opposite with us right now, and I think it really is kind of destroying females’ self-images,” says Fallon.
“It’s body first, personality second,” says Stephanie.
“Honestly, I feel like the body doesn’t even matter to them as long as you’re willing,” says Reese. “It’s that bad.”
“But if you say any of this out loud, it’s like you’re weak, you’re not independent, you somehow missed the whole memo about third-wave feminism,” says Amanda.
McCain points out that following feminists in this regard is foolish:
No, ma’am. You got the memo. It’s just that you seem to be smart enough to realize that the memo was completely wrong. What feminist ideology tells young women they should do — being sexually “empowered” and expecting this empowerment to lead to “equality” in their relationships — is the exact opposite of what common sense based on an actual knowledge of human nature would advise them to do.
The accumulated wisdom of centuries still holds true. If you want to be loved, be lovable, and if you want to be respected, be respectable. As I tell young women, don’t just “play hard to get,” be hard to get. A girl who acts like trash thereby forfeits the right to complain that guys treat her like trash.
But the very next sentence is where McCain gets it wrong. He frames women’s preferred form of promiscuity as more moral than men’s preferred form of promiscuity, confusing serial monogamy with commitment:
One of the worst things feminism has done is to attack the sexual “double standard” by encouraging women to lower their standards, to screw around heedlessly and to view short-term “relationships” as an acceptable substitute for actual commitment.
Serial monogamy has no moral advantage over “hit it and quit it”. There is also no commitment involved, only public displays of investment and perhaps romantic love. There is an inescapable logic to the idea that when playing a destructive game, one where someone is going to get hurt, playing by rules which maximize your own chances of coming out on top makes sense. But this doesn’t confer morality, it is purely practical advice on how to behave immorally. Yet very few in our society understand this.
Mixed in with this is the lie that women are wired to “commit”. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our divorce revolution is driven almost exclusively by women feeling “trapped in marriage”. Likewise, the push to delay marriage is coming from young women far more than young men. Young women are the rock-stars of the sexual marketplace, and as such they are the ones who (collectively) determine the rules of the road. McCain understands this, which is why he is coaching them to not listen to the feminists who want them to play the promiscuity game in a way that puts them in a disadvantage.
The problem is the lie that McCain is telling women (the same lie our society at large is telling them) is even more harmful than the one feminists are telling women. Women are extremely vulnerable to believing that promiscuity on their terms is inherently moral. Reinforcing this delusion is cruel, and we have an obligation to speak the truth here. Sexual morality requires true lifetime commitment. Everything else is (pick your word) fornication or promiscuity. Misusing sex and love is not more moral than misusing sex alone.
In McCain’s defense, this is the lie we have all been told, and very few would question it. But this is also why it needs to be called out.
See Also: Women’s sacred path to marriage is in danger.
*Robert Stacy McCain is a thoughtful writer on the topic of feminism, and I enjoy reading his blog. I encourage my readers to click on the link to his blog from my blogroll to see for themselves.
Commitment…
“… The women complain that they feel pressured by feminists to approach promiscuity from the perspective which favors the man, instead of the perspective that favors women.”
It has been said that Feminism is the philosophy that trains women to become second-rate men rather than first-rate women.
His preference for emotional investment relationships does no more to encourage marriage minded men and women than does the ‘hit it and quit it’ model. The only model that promotes marriage is to actually wait for it. Too hard though.
Pingback: Broken Premisses | Neoreactive
Dalrock: “But the very next sentence is where McCain gets it wrong. He frames women’s preferred form of promiscuity as more moral than men’s preferred form of promiscuity, confusing serial monogamy with commitment:”
[RSM]: “One of the worst things feminism has done is to attack the sexual “double standard” by encouraging women to lower their standards, to screw around heedlessly and to view short-term “relationships” as an acceptable substitute for actual commitment.”
Dalrock: “Serial monogamy has no moral advantage over “hit it and quit it”.”
____________
Dalrock, I’ve read all of your pieces on this, and RSM’s piece, all the way through. I am still not seeing what you’re seeing. I’m not seeing where RSM says serial monogamy is more moral, or is better than, than men’s preferred “sexual variety/spread the seed far and wide”.
At most what RSM is saying is “don’t have sex with lots of men” and “you’re playing the game the way the hot men want you to play it; don’t do that”. He’s not ascribing any moral judgments on either sexual strategy other than to say they are both deficient; in fact he doesn’t ascribe moral judgments on them at all.
If the problem is with the phrase “actual commitment”, the only way to get to your conclusion is to presume RSM is talking about “we’re boyfriend and girlfriend and we’re sexually exclusive and that’s morally ‘superior’ to hooking up” instead of “marriage”. But that’s not what RSM said. I think it has to be ASSUMED that’s what he said. Now, it might be safe to assume that because RSM didn’t say “marriage” in there; but I think you have to assume it because he didn’t say it.
If anything, these posts and your dissections of others’ posts show all of us how exceedingly subtle all this really is.
Young women are driving these changes. Old writers listing the complaints of some tiny minority of complaining females is absurd.
The whining females just want the best of both worlds – to sleep around when they want, AND to get the status and money hit from getting a public commitment from a Mr. Big.
Young women are the rock stars, indeed, and what they want is to sleep around with exciting men. Women in the West now have significantly more partners than the average man. They are sharing the top men. No one is forcing them. They’ve never been less pressured nor had more choice in all of history. Feminism is an easy target, but that’s not the cause. It’s the true nature of women unleashed… into the wild!
“Serial monogamy has no moral advantage”
We aren’t talking about morality here, but women’s general emotional state (“Sex should stem from emotional intimacy). It is better for a woman emotionally to be in a relationship with a man than a no relationship booty call. Whether it is called a “commitment” is something else.
“Sexual morality requires true lifetime commitment.”
Yes, but you already said women are not necessarily wired to commit (marriage). Therefore, the lie is actually women can get sexual promiscuity on their emotional terms regardless of their morality, which doesn’t exist. Are women explicitly told this? No, it is inherently in women’s makeup.
Relationships can take many forms like short term cohabitating or friends with benefits, and not marriage. Eventually, women will be alone. Men are alone too. The numbers just add up.
Deti, it’s kind of obvious. The women RSM is writing about are not looking for marriage, they are looking for emotional investment from these men who won’t give it to them. They are looking for serial emotional long term investments with these men which would often include the boyfriend/girlfriend variety. Since he is telling these girls how to go about getting such investment, he obviously agrees with their viewpoint on relationships. If he didn’t and agreed with the marriage first, sex and emotional investment afterwards, he would simply tell them to look for marriage suitors and to skip the rest.
@Deti
He does. It is as you write in your comment subtle, but it is there. For example:
The first sentence is practical, the second is a value/moral judgment. This is embedded in the entire frame. He presents the female desire to have an emotional tether on the man she doesn’t commit to as morally good:
McCain reinforces this claim made by the women by responding with:
When men use women, they are “treating them like trash”. When women use men, they are demonstrating high standards, and insisting on “commitment”. This is the frame of the entire post, starting with the title.
It’s important to note that even conservative women who disagree with misandry do not want it rolled back because they don’t want to give up the ability to use it and the security it provides.
Similar to liberals who want guns banned, except the ones that protect them.
Feministhater:
It’s not usually my role to be the contrarian, but:
You have to assume all those conclusions. RSM isn’t talking about marriage or about getting these dickbags to be boyfriends for the sluts he’s writing about. He’s just saying “don’t hook up on Tinder or Hinge because that’s bad for you”.
@TomP
Who is “we”? Do you mean McCain? Because he makes it clear that he is:
As far as emotional intimacy being called “commitment”, it matters immensely. This is the lie of our age. He uses the word commitment when telling women to eschew short term relationships. He doesn’t say “only marriage has commitment”, he says the women who want boyfriends should hold out for boyfriends, because this involves “commitment”.
Dalrock:
Your electron microscope seems to be far, far more sensitive than my Q36B Space Hamsterlator. I think you may be using a particle accelerator/collider. You are really picking this apart at the subatomic level.
Again: I’ll say it and leave it at that. I think you have to presume RSM is saying that women’s preferred serial monogamy is “better” than men’s preferred sexual variety. And I think the only way you can presume it is when you go at it from a thoroughly red-pill perspective, as you have done here. I get that you’ve zeroed in on the “sex should stem from emotional intimacy” statement, and that supports your thesis. But, we don’t know whether he’s talking about telling these dickbags they should be boyfriends for these women; or telling the women they should be looking for husbands, or what he’s saying. We don’t even know he’s talking about serial monogamy as you and I and the rest of the manosphere understand it.
Can I borrow that electron microscope sometime?
@TomP
Yes, they can. This is what serial monogamy is. The woman makes sure the man is in love with her before having sex with him. This way she can retain the option to terminate the relationship at will, but have the security of knowing that he won’t terminate it first. This is the strategy, and women are very good at it. See marriage 2.0. The man is fooled into committing, but the woman retains the ability to eject any time she feels “trapped”.
@Deti
I’ve given several specific quotes already, so now I’ll turn this the other way. Your argument is that I’m assuming he is speaking from the frame everyone speaks from, and you are assuming he is speaking from a frame which is radically different than the conservative group McCain is from. I’ve offered the evidence for my assessment. What is the evidence for yours? Your argument is that we don’t know what he is talking about, because he is using the vague terms of of the modern SMP. Why would using the vague terms of the modern SMP (and not stressing marriage), lead you to believe that he is speaking about marriage vs promiscuity?
I picked up what you put down, but I believe it would be easier for others to pick up if this bit
Was in the original post; along with a statement that marriage is the only sexual commitment, and any form of commitment that isn’t marriage is a pretense and a fraud.
It’s possible that your readers don’t understand because they don’t actually agree with you; that they do believe in parsed-out quasi-commitments, and because they are uncomfortable with marriage.
@ Dalrock:
“Why would using the vague terms of the modern SMP (and not stressing marriage), lead you to believe that he is speaking about marriage vs promiscuity?”
I don’t know that RSM IS speaking about marriage. I don’t know that he ISN’T, either. I’m looking more at the absence of anything concrete; rather than at the presence of RSM’s vague statements of “emotional intimacy” and “sex should stem from emotional intimacy”. He’s not talking about marriage. He’s not talking about shaming the guys into offering commitment. He’s really just telling these girls not to slut it up for the guys; telling them not to have sex with men they swiped right on some hookup app.
IF RSM came out and said “these guys should man up and offer up girlfriend status” to the women he’s writing about, it would be clearer.
@Deti
This leaves us with two possibilities. RSM is a poor written communicator*, or RSM knows his audience and doesn’t bother spelling out what he is confident they already understand. I mentioned that RSM is a conservative, but so is his audience. You can argue that we can’t know what RSM thinks on the subject (because he is vague in exactly the same way he would be if he equated serial monogamy with morality), but can you argue that it isn’t possible to guess how 95% of his audience would receive his post? Read it again from the perspective of his conservative audience. Is it a toss up, or would they overwhelmingly come to the conclusion that “these guys should man up and offer up girlfriend status”?
*Which I am confident that we both agree that he is not.
While it’s true that he doesn’t exactly spell out that he is talking about BF/GF relationships rather than marriages, it’s a pretty good bet that this is the case both because (1) he doesn’t explicitly use the word marriage and (2) the general Zeitgeist is that these BF/GF relationships are “committed relationships” all the same. So although he is careful not to spell this out (or perhaps careless, I don’t know), it’s more than a fair surmise that he was talking about BF/GF “committed relationships” and not marriages when he is talking about “commitment”. And if I am right that this is the case, then Dalrock’s point stands, it seems to me.
It’s subtle in the sense that I think he probably chose to duck the issue, because the point of his story was to debunk the use of Tinder by women, rather than making an article about how sex is reserved for marriage. So he demurs on the latter issue, focuses on the former issue, and uses language about “commitment” that is just vague enough that in the minds of some readers it could mean that he was referring to marriage, while in the minds of other readers it could mean that he was referring to BF/GF “committed relationships”. It’s likely, given his general level of skill, that he was deliberately vague so as to avoid alienating readers who would otherwise agree with his main point on what was, for this story, a side issue, but even if that is the case it seems that Dalrock’s critique still stands, because it’s totally wrong to see that as a side issue — it *is* the issue.
RSM is encouraging men to “commit” to women, but not the reverse. He’s tacitly endorsed the Sheryl Sandbergian AF-BB mating strategy, where women get to be as promiscuous as they want in their 20’s then turn around and demand that men “commit” as they approach 30. I’m not saying he does this explicitly – in fact, I doubt he’s ever given much thought to female mating strategies, most trad-cons are oblivious to them, as they pedestalize Wonderful Women shamelessly. But he’s going along with the dominant culture, just saying “Whoa! Not THAT fast!”, which makes him a “sea-anchor” conservative. He’s conserving the world of Clinton’s first term…
tl;dr?
Note carefully how often RSM uses the word “marriage” or some variant thereof in his text. His soccer mommy readers, who also enjoyed at least part of ther 20’s, are surely pleased.
Interestingly, if you do a “find” for the word “marriage” at that article’s site, you find that it is used once in the main text, in a very long quote from the VF article where the idea is that real or perceived female surpluses lead to unstable marriages. I did a search to confirm my recollection of not seeing the word in the article.
However, there is the following interesting interchange in the comments between a commenter and the author.
The commenter writes:
interesting quote: ““Young women complain that young men still have the power to decide when something is going to be serious and when something is not…”
Their main complaint seems to be that men have any kind of power in a relationship. I guess they’re too used to being the ones with the power over sex, so that makes them think they get to make all the decisions.
It’s been said before: ” Women are the gatekeepers of sex and Men are the gatekeepers of commitment.”
McCain responds interestingly:
Let me say that, whatever the game may be, the smart players always win, and if the game is rigged against you, the only way to win is not to play.
Whatever the game, winners win and losers lose. What a young guy has to think about is, “What does ‘victory’ look like in this game?” Love, marriage and fatherhood — this is success, this is victory. Therefore, even if he’s not in a position to get married and raise a family now, he must alway play the game with that victory scenario in mind.
This muddies the waters a bit, I think. He clearly endorses marriage and fatherhood as being the legitimate goal — as being what “winning the game” is. At the same time, though, it doesn’t address what comes between the “meeting someone” and “marrying someone” events, given that these are typically serial in nature since most people do not marry their first relationship partner. McCain must know that almost all of these “committed relationships” are sexual, even the ones that do not lead to marriage. That makes it very unclear what his perspective is on them, although I do think the most likely way of reading that comment together with the article itself is that he, at least tacitly, endorses the current system of de facto extra-marital fornicative serial monogamy as the “only road to marriage and fatherhood”. In other words, my guess would be that even if he wouldn’t come out and endorse these relationships or at least the sexual nature of them (although he very well may — many conservatives don’t have an issue with that, as we know), he doesn’t see any other “realistic” way to get to what he sees as the “victory” or “goal” of the dating/mating game. In that sense, it seems likely that he suffers from the conservative disease of being too pragmatic, when the actual answers as to the “how” are obvious, if difficult.
“he doesn’t see any other “realistic” way to get to what he sees as the “victory” or “goal” of the dating/mating game. In that sense, it seems likely that he suffers from the conservative disease of being too pragmatic, when the actual answers as to the “how” are obvious, if difficult.”
More support for cuckservatism, it would seem.
I agree that it is more subtle than it could be, but it isn’t that subtle. The title is “Hit It and Quit It on Tinder”. Hit it and quit it is a criticism of a specific form of fornication, not a criticism of fornication in general. Moreover, the first sentence is a complaint that something is upsetting the status quo of the SMP:
I don’t think anyone here would argue that Vanity Fair is worried about a loss of traditional marriage. They are concerned with fornication being done in ways they disapprove of (women aren’t getting “emotional intimacy” or girlfriend status). McCain agrees with this frame, with the exception that he points out that the women are bringing this on themselves by listening to feminists.
McCain also uses Vanity Fair’s terms. The Vanity Fair article says (emphasis mine):
McCain’s post is in response to the Vanity Fair article, and he writes:
They are both talking about the same thing, they just disagree on which is good for women. Vanity Fair is arguing that women can (or at least might) be empowered by short term relationships when they are young. They just are trying to figure out how the evil patriarchy is using Tinder and similar apps to thwart that empowerment. McCain is saying women need to hold out for “actual commitment” (code word for serial monogamy) and stay away from the short term relationships the feminists at Vanity Fair want women to embrace in their 20s.
I concur with my learned friend Novaseeker: McCain distinguishes between screwing around and short term relationships (i.e. bf/gf), and thus I would award judgement to the plaintiff Mr Dalrock but unfortunately I cannot do so because (IMHO) McCain’s essay is built throughout on faulty Blue Pill assertions: Those assertions include
1. an initial and irrelevant diversion into epidemiology which seeks to scare men away from promiscuity;
2. the assertion that the game Alex plays is cynical (a word which by its nature is a bad word): with respect it is nothing of the sort for what Alex is doing is giving the girls gina tingles they crave*;
3. it is then asserted that this cynical game will make Alex less likely to ‘respect’ women whereas it might be argued that it will give Alex a much clearer view of females and their true nature – alphas males tend after all to marry and to marry chaste women at least HB7 and above;
4. he asserts that the game harms women – his unwritten assumption is that they are seeking matrimony when quite clearly they are not and;
5. he asserts that men have an advantage in the game of casual sex – this is nonsense on stilts – when scoring is for women fairly effortless and so often it is men who go home disappointed that the girl they thought might be a wife has cast them aside with no concern.
In short McCain has swallowed the entire packet of Blue Pills.
* I don’t by the way believe for one moment that Alex slept with five girls in eight days but if he did that was his good period.
These men are not looking for marriage and fatherhood. That dream was killed quite a bit earlier. They’re looking for sex, plain and simple, and don’t care about the rest.
The women don’t want marriage or motherhood either, not yet at least. However, they do care about the rest, they want the emotional and financial investment that would come from marriage to a man, they don’t want to wait for it, they want it now but don’t want to have to be married to find it.
McCain is saying women need to hold out for “actual commitment” (code word for serial monogamy) and stay away from the short term relationships the feminists at Vanity Fair want women to embrace in their 20s.
I think that this is most likely his perspective, especially in light of what he said in the comments, because if extra/pre-marital sexual morality were an issue for him, it would have come up between the main post and that comment, and it didn’t. So, yes, I think you’re right that this is what he was talking about.
The poor young women are being victimized by young men. The issue is that young men realize that women’s commitment isn’t worth anything. Their dad and uncle joe sat them down and explained how the game works. This is just another article about how ” feminism would work if those stupid men would stop screwing it up”
Both explanations from above does not give women the moral advantage in Serial Monogamy. Lies the women told is no different than the lies men tells a women to gain entry into her pants. It’s just that women these days don’t need much sexual persuasion so getting emotionally satiation is secondary. She is just making up her emotional needs and creating drama to get the guy to respond. All this is bullshit of course. Serial monogamy in general is not at issue here. When both are emotionally involved, it becomes another article.
“IF RSM came out and said “these guys should man up and offer up girlfriend status” to the women he’s writing about, it would be clearer.”
He is responding to the Tinder article. I doubt he is offering advice to slutty women. He said something to the effect of “Leave those trashy women alone.” near the end of his article.
I mean I think most conservatives, including those like McCain who still have the balls to actually criticize feminism in any way, see three possibilities here:
1. Hooking up (which they dislike for different reasons, some moral some emotional some pragmatic)
2. Serial monogamy/sexualized “committed” dating (which they see as the mainstream and therefore normal path to marriage)
3. Courtship/non-sexual pre-marital evaluation (which they see as antiquated, invasive on the part of parents (offends the individualism which has seeped to the core of most conservatives), and unrealistic).
Most don’t even take 3 into account, really, because of the reasons stated. So it comes down to 1 and 2, and most of them get behind 2, while Hanna Rosin and Vanity Fair are getting behind 1.
What they fail to realize is that feminists like Sandberg are also in camp 2 (well, at least in part — I think her now infamous-in-the-manosphere advice is a hybrid of 1 and 2). But they always seem to fail to notice when they are sleeping in the same bed as the left/feminists, or, rather, after a while don’t care.
… and
6. McCain asserts that there is a sexual double standard (this is standard Feminist Boilerplate) when in fact there are two standards one for men and one for women. The previous post at Hawaiian Libertarian (Keoni Galt) explains the difference better than I can and in some detail and so for those who want they can easily read his essay as Dalrock has him in his Blogroll.
Opus
1. an initial and irrelevant diversion into epidemiology which seeks to scare men away from promiscuity;
Thanks for reminding me. It’s hilarious to see a Heap Big Conservative resorting to such a utilitarian argument from the start. “Don’t screw around (too much) or you might catch VD” is something I might have heard from a high school coach. But a Heap Big Conservative who supposedly is all worried about the long term effects of promiscuity should have better arguments than that – if McCain ever bothered to actually read the androsphere he would learn about oxytocin, pair bonding, Alpha widows and a whole lot more, such as who really files for divorce.
One would expect McCain to explain why Tinderellas are setting themselves up for much future grief, but one would be wrong, because he implicitly accepts the Female Imperative and thus the AF-BB mating strategy. McCain doesn’t want women to get off of the cock carousel, he just wants each rider to get a committed ride.
This is what trad cons call “moral”.
McCain asserts that there is a sexual double standard (this is standard Feminist Boilerplate) when in fact there are two standards one for men and one for women.
True this would be.
Explained here it is
https://spawnyspace.wordpress.com/2015/03/03/red-pill-classroom-the-double-standard/
Why “girlfriend status” important to women it is?
Is not SIW status the thing strive for they should?
Political conservatism can always be counted on to promote, not the good/true/beautiful, but whatever is perceived by current fashion to be the lesser evil.
Dalrock is spot on in pointing out that serial fornication with emotional drama and “girlfriend status” is pervasively viewed as a more healthy “diet coke” compared to the regular coke of “uncommitted” — which really means unemotional, since neither kind of relationship is actually committed — parallel fornication with no emotional drama and no “girlfriend status”.
The notion of actually opposing wickedness isn’t even on the table, and Dalrock deserves the unequivocal support of men of good will in his efforts to put it back on the table. Conservatism is liberalism’s Mini Me to leftism’s Dr. Evil: bravely facing the applause by supporting political freedom and equal rights (and thus feminism), while claiming to take out the stuff that is bad for you.
Political conservatism: the diet coke of evil.
Christians really need to ask themselves why it is that adding emotional drama and social status to grave wickedness makes them perceive that grave wickedness as somehow less wicked.
The woman makes sure the man is in love with her before having sex with him.
I don’t think that this is what’s going on. Rather, the woman has sex to get the oxytocin bonding, then threatens to withdraw sex unless the man complies with her demands.
Good to see you around Zippy.
Brilliant!
Nova,
“It’s subtle in the sense that I think he probably chose to duck the issue, because the point of his story was to debunk the use of Tinder by women, rather than making an article about how sex is reserved for marriage. So he demurs on the latter issue, focuses on the former issue, and uses language about “commitment” that is just vague enough that in the minds of some readers it could mean that he was referring to marriage, while in the minds of other readers it could mean that he was referring to BF/GF “committed relationships”. It’s likely, given his general level of skill, that he was deliberately vague so as to avoid alienating readers who would otherwise agree with his main point on what was, for this story, a side issue, but even if that is the case it seems that Dalrock’s critique still stands, because it’s totally wrong to see that as a side issue — it *is* the issue.”
Yes, that seems to be the case. As usual, Dal was right, although its been useful to spell things out.This strategy of focusing on the most egregious errors of feminism while eliding the dicier issues in hopes I suppose of piecing together a wider coalition to combat it seems to be prudent, but as always where the “middle way” still flies in the face of biblical teaching, it’s proven to be disastrous.
Zippy,
“Less wicked” would be a great improvement on how it is fact perceived as the picture of righteousness.
Nova,
“1. Hooking up (which they dislike for different reasons, some moral some emotional some pragmatic)
2. Serial monogamy/sexualized “committed” dating (which they see as the mainstream and therefore normal path to marriage)
3. Courtship/non-sexual pre-marital evaluation (which they see as antiquated, invasive on the part of parents (offends the individualism which has seeped to the core of most conservatives), and unrealistic).”
The hook-up culture itself is a reaction to the serial monogamy norm, as serial monogamy itself is in fact a raw deal for the the most attractive (and thus most influential) women at the height of their sexual power, whether their goal is promiscuity or finding and developing a suitable partner for marriage. This is why traditionally securing the commitment of a young woman required a ring (at least an engagement ring). This holds whether that commitment is sexual or otherwise.
Further confusion is caused by the fact that traditional premarital courtship often included a limited phase of (non-sexual) serial monogamy at an age when marriage would be premature to allow the young to practice the difficult art of relating well to the opposite sex in the first stages of intimacy. The problem coming when that limit was removed.
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/robyn-urback-can-we-please-put-this-garbage-debate-about-sex-ed-to-bed
desiderian:
Good point. I was recently cornered into the deeply cringeworthy experience of watching the (very protestant) movie “God Isn’t Dead”; a movie which is probably best viewed as an unintentional documentary of the mindset, interior attitudes, and cultural prejudices of contemporary American evangelicals — the sort who see a Christian rock concert as some sort of liturgical apex of worship.
Anyway, one of the major female characters was serially fornicating (there was status and emotional drama, so that made it completely unworthy of even being noticed in the script) with an atheist professor; the central thing wrong with the picture (goes the narrative) was that she was “unequally yoked” to an atheist, not that she was living with and sleeping with a man to whom she was not married. Furthermore even being “unequally yoked” wasn’t really her fault: it was just that she had made a mistake (the poor dear) in deriving her self worth from the atheist’s approval instead of from God’s approval.
Christians really need to ask themselves if Marriage 2.0 is marriage as God sees it or just a more expensive bf/gf LTR with a fancy name.
Desiderian
The hook-up culture itself is a reaction to the serial monogamy norm, as serial monogamy itself is in fact a raw deal for the the most attractive (and thus most influential) women at the height of their sexual power, whether their goal is promiscuity or finding and developing a suitable partner for marriage.
Uh. What? The most attractive women at the height of their sexual power are, along with alpha men, the primary beneficiaries of the hookup culture. Maybe you could spell out your sentence in greater detail?
Pingback: Broken Premisses | Reaction Times
theadsgamer:
That depends on the particulars. Most people who use the label “marriage” these days don’t actually mean marriage.
I’ve known guys who have seduced 100+ women. All of them lied and all of them targeted unattractive or emotionally-damaged women. One told me, “I told them what they wanted to here.”
“[W]orst thing feminism has done [is] encourage women to lower their standards.”
You do not have lower ones standards if they are equal. The writer has chosen to elevate female standards (serial menogomy) over men’s standards (hit it and quit it). This elevation is a moral assumption that one is better than the other.
I ask any woman who breaks out the “commitment-phobic male” chestnut if she is opposed to No-Fault Divorce. Invariably, she is for the latter. You then get a long rationalization as to why they’re different. She’s actually right: the latter divorce post children, is far more damaging.
“Uh. What? The most attractive women at the height of their sexual power are, along with alpha men, the primary beneficiaries of the hookup culture. Maybe you could spell out your sentence in greater detail?”
Yeah, that’s why they created it. It was the path of least resistance to destroy serial monogamy. Ultimately it was only partially successful there, as serial monogamy is now only seen as somewhat déclassé, not as it truly is (immature at best).
All of them lied and all of them targeted unattractive or emotionally-damaged women.
Those “emotionally damaged” women all want a man to declare love and commitment before they will have sex. So those women filter out men who won’t lie and have sex with men who will lie.
Does that simplify things for you?
Let’s tie what I just wrote to Bonecrckrs Rule 94. Those “emotionally damaged” women want to have sex with evil men who will lie. At some level, those women know it.
feminists are foolish when they teach women to be promiscuous according to men’s rules.
Yes, they are – but while I’ll come out here and say that – I enjoy the fruits of that teaching every weekend. But I mix it up – I have several that I am with during the week, from their perspective serially monogamous – at least on their part, and I enjoy the “hit it and quit it” on the weekends. I’ve found that works for me since I enjoy female company on almost everything that I do and having some to pull from for a trip that I want to do is always pleasant, and they get a free trip for the cost of doing what they would be doing anyway.
A lot of guys think women have changed – but I have a different perspective having been introduced to sex by older women (30+ years older) when I was but a wee-teen. Then they used marriage as their shield – today they use the simpering boyfriend. There is no difference – that is why I started on my “century of sex” to see if I can bang women every decade over a 100 year span before I croak. The key is to not care and don’t get involved – as long as they are providing you with what you want, who cares about anything else? Sure you have to listen to their non-sense, but you can shut them up, and the nice thing about having more than one, is the whining changes and to a certain extent is much, much less than guys that are in “relationships” have to deal with. And having more than one, changes the dynamics of what you’ll put up with from any woman – and I think they like it that way, keeps them on their toes.
Now I’m no poster-child for today’s hook-up culture – I’ve been playing this game for more than 40 years – this year is the 40th year that I’ve been banging women and they haven’t changed. Sure Feminism has made it so they are more blatant about it – which is why my weekends are often a blur – but the women are the same. They are whores – as long as they can pretend not to be. And really – what does it cost you to let them have their little fantasy? Just enjoy. Let them call it love, and blame you – they will anyway, so what does it cost you? You get what you want, and they get what they want, let them justify it as they will.
Usually, at some point I get the “what are you looking for in a woman” and I give the expected answer to dangle the long-term relationship, but it’s just a game. That is why it’s called, “Game”. Casanova knew it several centuries ago, and it’s the same today. Nothing is new – all women always come to the same conclusion of slutting it up – just today they are taught it younger and there are less ramifications. But my point is none of this is new – it’s just out in the open these days…. As are most things…
If you’re Christian, you draw a line in the sand and say “no sex before marriage and that’s that.” But without that hard and fast rule, nobody knows where to draw the line. Trad-cons want to say, “well we don’t need to go THAT far, you can sleep around a little and still settle down, just don’t go too crazy.” But if you give it time, things will just progress more and more toward the natural conclusion of AF/BB, hypergamy, etc. And now it’s speeding up with new technology springing up to give people what they want.
It’s like the guy who wants to be an outlaw, but he wants everyone to play by rules. There are no rules.
“Uh. What? The most attractive women at the height of their sexual power are, along with alpha men, the primary beneficiaries of the hookup culture. Maybe you could spell out your sentence in greater detail?”
Yeah, that’s why they created it. It was the path of least resistance to destroy serial monogamy.
Again, what? This makes no sense at all.
Essentilly you are saying that attrative women created serial monogamy to destroy serial monogamy. Or maybe you are confused about the form serial monogamy takes for women in their 20’s (Tinderella hookups) with the form it takes for women in their 30’s, 40’s and beyond (serial frivorce). Either way you aren’t making any clear statement.
AR,
Hooking-up DNE monogamy, serial or otherwise.
The norm in the 80s and 90s for the top “good girls” was always having a boyfriend. In contrast to that, my grandmother was “seeing” three different suitors by that age until my grandfather distinguished himself by producing a ring and securing her commitment. When she was younger, she “went steady”, but that was seen (accurately) as no longer appropriate for women of a marriageable age.
By the 00s, the top young women were noticing that a lot of their older female counterparts were ending up married to schlubs, and lacking the societal norms my grandmother enjoyed, they gravitated to “hanging out” in groups to avoid what was perceived as “premature” commitment. That inevitably led to “hooking-up” so they could preserve their much-treasured modernist progressive sex-pos status card. What I’m contending is they in fact accurately sensed that serial monogamy was the wrong sort of commitment for their stage in life.
Of course, in choosing hooking-up, they went from the frying pan into the fire. The bottom line is that those advocating a return to serial monogamy are barking up exactly the wrong tree.
This is the main reason why i don’t do online dating, guys are just looking for a hookup nothing serious
Hooking-up DNE monogamy, serial or otherwise.
Oh. Reallly?
“I will love you for the next 15 years, then I’ll find someone else”.
Serial monogamy, right?
“I will love you for the next 15 months, then I’ll find someone else”.
Serial monogamy, right?
“I will love you for the next 15 days, then I’ll find someone else”.
Serial monogamy, right?
“I will love you for the next 15 hours…”, what’s that?
You’re arguing that a sine wave isn’t a sine wave anymore when the frequency is
“too fast”.
I’m pointing out that women’s innate mating strategies may have sped up in time, but they are still the same in form of operation – don’t let go of one branch until the next one is grasped. Tinder makes that possible.
I don’t see McCain advocating a return to serial monogamy, I see him as not understanding either the SMP or the MMP, because he’s operating from false premises, so he writes stuff that’s just not in touch with reality.
So now, young women now have saturated the market with free samples (aka quickies) and the market price has collapsed. Now the once valuable Piece O.A. cant even buy girlfriend status.
Sorry but I cant feel any sympathy, I am trying but but but I cant find it. ………
While you are consistent about it, I think you may not be spelling theothermccain’s middle name the way he does.
[D: Thank you.]
AR,
Love?
You can’t be serious.
I found it pretty easy to screen for hook up types in online dating, the point is if you are looking for a “relationship” (i.e female version of hooking up) as opposed to marriage you will attract the “hook up” types. Screened for marriage, met not one hook up type.
Desiderian
Love?
You can’t be serious.
“I love you, but I’m not in love with you (any more)” – surely this isn’t new or news?
But substitute “commit” if you want. The point is, women’s serial monogamy is not defined by the length of time they spend with each man, but with the one after the other after the other sequence.
That’s one of Dalrock’s points – female promiscuity looks different from male promiscuity, but it is still promiscuity.
It’s still the same process, just turbocharged by apps like Tinder. And women being group oriented, if it even slightly seems like every other woman is using the app to gain an advantage in accessing the top men, then all the other sisters will fall in line to use it as well. It’s not that wascally feminists are tricking women into this stuff, either, no matter what McCain may believe.
Young women want sex. Thats how they are. Either they marry early and get a lot of it with a husband, or they ride the carousel (now Tinderized), or they are deeply embedded in a cultural group that gives them something else to do. They are just as horny as young men, but not in the same way because (surprise!) women are not men who can have babies, they are women.
Now someone go get the smelling salts to revive all the trad cons who have fainted.
AR,
Most of the young women – good, bad, chaste, promiscuous – I know are not practicing monogamy of any sort, serial or otherwise. Many would like to be, and I’d contend that given a manly enough prospect for marriage, they wouldn’t mind if that monogamy took the form of Christian headship in faithful marriage, despite their protestations for public consumption.
Thanks to the schlub factory that is the modern(ist, cf. Escoffier) church, both prog and evangelical branches, there is little risk of that theory being put to the test just yet, although the young men I know are a lot closer to it than those of 10-15 years ago, despite the church’s best efforts, and that of the society to which it plays the cheap whore.
The funny thing is Tinder is ‘specifically’ an app designed to advantage women, it is a proverbial candy store for women, a great sexy man sifter.
Dating Apocalypse was pure bait and switch with the added plausible slut deniability, poor prurty women being used by big bad sexy men, with money to boot.
“I gave a rich big bad sexy man my pure heart and he ravished and abused it.”
Seriously? Are romance novels passing as journalism nowadays, I can’t believe anyone bought into that claptrap.
I guess all those educated independent women gallivanting around the globe and sampling foreign delights are being led on as well? Poor dears constantly slipping and falling onto sexy cocks, it must be a nightmare.
The real Dating Apocalypse for women is that they are being denied the unilateral right to choose which sexy man will stick around. They’re not worried about promiscuity, one night stands and pump and dumps with sexy men, that’s just part of ‘experiencing life’ and experiencing the smorgasbord of choice.
No, their concern is that if they want number 67 to stick around (for however long she sees fit) he should act with integrity and honour her choice.
The problem is these women are overplaying their hand at the game of the ‘Secretary Problem’ (variation of optimal stopping theory) except it is a two party game. And the party with longer time horizons and larger potential dating pool (sexy men) will win out.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secretary_problem
It’s a mathematical proof that the more cocks are sampled the bigger the odds of losing out. Interestingly it reinforces Rollo’s AFBB theory, except it gives it a different spin, suboptimal choice by playing too long.
Brief easy to read overview of the problem.
http://www.medicaldaily.com/marriage-advice-how-find-one-age-40-using-mathematical-formula-279416
Excellent article, Dalrock you’ll love this one.
Monogamy as a Prisoners Dilemma:
http://www.changesurfer.com/Acad/Monogamy/Mono.html
I’ve heard of the Secretary problem explained like this:
If you expect to date 100 eligible suitors during your lifetime, date the first 37 and then marry the next one that is better than all the previous ones. This will mathematically maximize your chances of finding the best spouse.
I feel sorry that you think of women this way
Perhaps we should be grateful to feminism, for allowing us to finally, fully take a look at the heart of woman. Without such a clear view, many of us would have remained in darkness.
Which is better? The bitter pill of truth, or the comforting lie? I suppose if I could have lived the lie, from dating until death do us part, it may have been okay. However, what is known cannot be unknown. The greatest disappointment is not that one cannot truly win a woman’s heart – it is knowing that the prize of doing so is completely empty.
My estimation is that less than 5% of women can provide a net benefit to a man. Most are overgrown children, for the most part, full of selfish passions and foolishness.
Apostle Paul knew what he was talking about:
“It is better to marry than to burn with lust”.
Translation:
“If not getting laid is too great a distraction, then marry and bust your nut once in while, so that you are able to get beyond that into spiritual matters”.
There may have been a time when women were as a whole (heh) a net benefit to a man’s life. Now, they are probably a net liability.
Almost forgot:
No Rings for Sluts!!!!
Entirely correct. This is because they conflate the feelings of emotional investment with actual commitment – which is a marriage covenant and fulfillment of which has nothing to do with feelings.
Women assume that if they feel “properly” about something – like actually liking the person they are having sex with – it is inherently more honorable than someone who is merely “using you to get sex” and doesn’t “love who you are instead of what you look like.” Using a person for emotional fulfilment is no less selfish and morally bereft than using a person for physical fulfillment. They have different consequences, but one is not more virtuous than the other.
Johnycomelately,
The articles you linked illustrate a real issue/problem. The digital age – and specifically dating sites and apps – give the impression of endless choice. For all practical purposes, when people do the math for the “Secretary Problem” it appears as if n is, for all practical purposes, infinite. The fallout from that is that (for a while) they never reach the point where it becomes rational to say, “Okay, from this point forward I will marry the next person I meet who is better than all the previous ones.” So they keep looking, and looking, and looking… (more on that in a minute).
Needless to say, that causes problems by itself, since although “n” is effectively infinite in theory, the time a person has available to do all that screening is not. For women, that means a couple of things: her personal “N” goes up because – as Dalrock noted in this very post – whether a woman gets hook-ups or boyfriends, the expectation is that she’s having sex with a substantial portion of the men in her “sample” group. But nature has a way of saying, “You’ve hit your quota on throw-aways – now is the time to pick the next acceptable one.” That indication is when she notices her biological clock ticking for the first time around age 30 (see note below). So when she finally has to stop sampling and start choosing, it’s a paradigm shift for her. Some manage that better than others, but her high personal “N” makes that a lot more difficult than it needs to be. She also ends up feeling like she settled, and another Future Ex-Husband sets course for a bleak future in the Family Court Meat Grinder.
The flip side of that technological increase in the “n” variable of the “Secretary Problem” is that men are also presented with the illusion of infinite choice. And since men can wait a lot longer than women can, they also encounter two problems,- although they are different than the two that face women. The first is that the women they get will be high-N sluts at or near “the Wall.” The second is that they end up on the other side of the “she settled for him” equation. Eventually the woman gets a divorce… so does he, but he also gets obliterated in the process.
Something that faces both sexes is that most of the people in their theoretical “n” are not actually available to them. Sure, women can get all the sex they want, but not commitment. Most of them do just that – they get sex when they want it in their 20’s, but they find that when they want commitment it’s not readily available (because they themselves are still part of the best men’s “pre-choice sample group” since those men get to play the game far longer than they do). And although most women will gladly accept the trappings of commitment (gifts and favors), most of the men can’t even get sex (even “alphas” have a very high hit-to-miss ratio in absolute terms – in their more honest moments the PUA gurus all acknowledge that it’s a numbers game). Meanwhile, the men certainly are not seeing an abundance of women worthy of their commitment.
To borrow an astute observation by AR: the same old sine wave is oscillating at a much higher frequency. But now it is to the point that it is no longer just different in degree – it is different in kind.
Note: the second article you linked illustrates the problem with women playing this game while under the delusion that “the Wall” is a lot farther away than it is. The assumption the writer made is that marriage to a pretty good man by 40 is a “win.” And for that she essentially recommends considering all men before 30 to be in the “pre-selection sample group” she uses to gauge the men after that. Hardly. Marriage by 21 to a good man is a win. Marriage by 30 to a good men is still pretty good. Marriage in her 30’s – which is what her advice amounts to – is a consolation prize. And being 40 and unmarried is a loss. But a woman’s sample size before 21 is small, which is why she needs her parent’s (particularly her father’s) involvement.
Dear Dalrock,
Alright. I posted this over at Rational Male, but Rollo didn’t have time for it. Whatever.
That Vanity Fair article is a perfect example of Guttentag-Secord theory. It’s playing out exactly the way sociologists described skewed mating markets over 30 years ago. For those unaware, Guttentag-Secord Theory states:
The sex with lower numbers in the mating market gets to call the shots. If there are 100 men and 90 women in a group, the women call the shots because the men have to compete for them.
Exhibit A: in the 1950s, males made up 60% of all college students. This meant they had to compete to win females, and they competed by outdoing each other in giving girls what they wanted. The girls wanted lots of commitment investment in exchange for relatively little sex, and they got it.
Exhibit B: in 2015, females make up 60% of all college students. This means they have to compete to win males, and they compete by outdoing each other in giving guys what they want. The guys want lots of sex and very little relationship commitment. And they’re getting it.
(The real question is, why are 60% of all college students now female.)
Mark Regnerus, conservative sociologist loathed by liberals and feminists everywhere, had a great article on this phenomenon as it’s playing out among millennials: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2011/02/sex_is_cheap.html
Now, each side has a way of getting its own back in exchange for giving the other side what they want.
Exhibit C: 1950s marriages. Marriage law forbids women from divorcing their husbands (or makes it very difficult), and men don’t allow their wives to work outside the home. This is common when there are fewer women on the market. The message is: “Fine, if you want commitment, I’m going to give you all the commitment you can handle, bitch.”
Exhibit D: 2015 marriages. Women can and will divorce their husbands willy-nilly. Women work outside the home and are as financially independent before marriage as possible. This is common when there are fewer men on the market. The message is: “Fine, if you want to get laid and not be committed, I’m going to give you all the independence you can handle, asshole.”
Exhibit E: This Vanity Fair article. Where are the people living who were interviewed in it? A) Manhattan, some neighborhoods of which have a 70:30 female:male ratio, and B) College campuses, which have a 60:40 female:male ratio.
Guttentag-Secord scenario + Tinder = Lots of unhappy women.
Now here’s the part that that article didn’t bother covering, because being a feminist the author couldn’t care less: why are the gender ratios so skewed? Why are there so much fewer men on college campuses than women, and so much fewer twentysomething men in affluent Manhattan neighborhoods than twentysomething women? The author is crying because affluent sluts can’t get the relationships they are seemingly too retarded to land, while completely missing the fact that men are dropping out of society in droves.
The author is crying because affluent sluts can’t get the relationships they are seemingly too retarded to land, while completely missing the fact that men are dropping out of society in droves.
Yep. Because no matter how much they stack the deck to favor women over men, all the women still want to marry up at some point. But the market is so skewed that the top is overwhelmingly female now, which is a direct result of feminism: women thought they could have all the good stuff men had without taking on any of the bad stuff that went with it – all the while expecting men to keep doing what they had always done. “I’m not going to be Harriet, but you still have to be Ozzy.” Sure… we’ll get right on that.
So they ended up creating a really screwed up “Lake Wobegon Effect” in their minds where “All the women are above average,” and a parallel-but-reverse “Lake Wobegon Effect” where “All the men are below average.”
Feminists were so successful in their quest to tilt the table in the favor of UMC white women that young women now significantly outnumber young men in acquiring what used to be the markers of success. Poor dears… they wanted a shot at Mr. Big, but instead all they got was Mr Big’s job, compete with 60-hour work week. And the guys? Oops, the guys who would have been Messrs. Big are now banging their kid sisters on Tinder instead.
“Poor dears… they wanted a shot at Mr. Big, but instead all they got was Mr Big’s job, compete with 60-hour work week.”
I know, and who can help laughing at their tears? God bless ’em.
Here’s a story that an old tyme feminist (one I actually like) by the name of Rebecca West once told. She wrote an amazing book, ‘Black Lamb and Grey Falcon,’ a travelogue of the Balkans, just prior to the start of World War II.
She was traveling through a part of Old Serbia (IIRC) and she came across this region where the women worked all day and the men lay around drinking, laughing, pretty much screwing around. As a good feminist, she was mortified. She asked her tour guide for an explanation.
He said, A couple of decades ago, the women of this region were flush with all the new ideas about female equality coming in from western Europe. They went up to the men and demanded that they show them how to do all the work that they (the men) did, so that the women could be equals and independent. Well, the men thought about it and decided to train them.
So they did. And everything was fine at first, but then something happened. Gradually, the men noticed that if they called in sick one day, the women wouldn’t mind and would keep on working. Then they noticed that if they called in sick a couple of days a week, the women would grumble but they’d keep on working. Then they noticed that if they called in sick several days in a row, the women would get really upset but they’d keep on working. Then they found that if they just stopped working altogether, the women would call them good-for-nothing but keep on doing all that work.
And now the women were trapped.
They had to work because their men wouldn’t help them support their families. They demanded independence and wound up even more enslaved than before.
West was appalled and she said something that’s always struck me as profoundly true: “It’s a sad fact of human nature that when a man sees that a woman can do his job, he loses heart and gives up.”
This is what’s happening in America today. It’s what’s already happened in the black community. Note which gender is holding down two jobs to raise the kids and which gender is hanging out on street corners shooting dice and drinking malt liquor.
That’s also what’s happening in white America. As women become more independent and take on more responsibility, men are increasingly going to give them so much responsibility that they become enslaved to their jobs like they once complained they were enslaved to their families. As women become more independent, men drop out of society by the bucketload.
So there you have it. The irony of feminism is that greater female independence leads to fewer eligible men, leading to the skewed gender disparity that is making the dating market so miserable for women.
One cannot but agree with The Tingler (and what a great movie from 1959 – which I have never seen – that was) and when one draws the attention of the elite to the excellent and undeniable point that The Tingler makes as I did a couple of years ago when I wrote to my local Council’s Chief Executive Officer concerning the inherent destructiveness for men as well as women of a you-go-girl exhibition (aimed at children – of both sexes) in the Council’s art gallery, I was firstly ignored but when I could not be ignored any longer I was accused of being offensive – as if both history and biology have a personal vendetta against the Chief Executive. I particularly like The Tingler’s observation that when women compete with men they give up; I assume men do this for the same reason that they refuse to hit a girl: competing with women makes one look as if one is either a bully (men will then come and attack you) or acknowledging ones lower status. Both are unacceptable outcomes for a man. I am particularly aware of the woeful standard of modern popular music (produced by white people) and assume that this is partly because now that the seam appears to be running dry, women (with their guitars and make-up), are entering the field in droves. When I look (as I did on Monday) on You Tube at a video entitled Top Ten Rock Bands ever I could not help but notice that all ten bands were 100% male (and 100% white) as well as being entirely either Anglo or American. There has never been a decent female writer of popular songs (Carole King is surely overrated) though in fairness I have to observe that Happy Birthday to you (not the Stevie Wonder song) was written by three ladies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkCv_nTY8bI
How to treat your wife. No comment
system of de facto extra-marital fornicative serial monogamy
that made me LOL
West was appalled and she said something that’s always struck me as profoundly true: “It’s a sad fact of human nature that when a man sees that a woman can do his job, he loses heart and gives up.”
Lol. Or to put in a pro-male light:
“It’s a win-win until you don’t like it anymore, but by then it’ll be too late!”
“men are dropping out of society in droves”
About like the Cherokee dropped out of the Appalachians.
The Tingler says:
September 3, 2015 at 2:38 am
“This is what’s happening in America today. It’s what’s already happened in the black community. Note which gender is holding down two jobs to raise the kids and which gender is hanging out on street corners shooting dice and drinking malt liquor.
That’s also what’s happening in white America. As women become more independent and take on more responsibility, men are increasingly going to give them so much responsibility that they become enslaved to their jobs like they once complained they were enslaved to their families. As women become more independent, men drop out of society by the bucketload.”
You’re missing the forest for (some) trees.
Those black women with bastards get WIC, TANF, etc., etc.
The men get soup kitchens, Salvation Army shelters (some), and jail.
The men have to scramble to get food; those women, not really.
Oh, and the welfare is still predominantly funded by taxes paid by working men.
The Tingler says:
September 3, 2015 at 1:37 am
“The sex with lower numbers in the mating market gets to call the shots. If there are 100 men and 90 women in a group, the women call the shots because the men have to compete for them.
Exhibit A: in the 1950s, males made up 60% of all college students. This meant they had to compete to win females, and they competed by outdoing each other in giving girls what they wanted. The girls wanted lots of commitment investment in exchange for relatively little sex, and they got it.
Exhibit B: in 2015, females make up 60% of all college students. This means they have to compete to win males, and they compete by outdoing each other in giving guys what they want. The guys want lots of sex and very little relationship commitment. And they’re getting it.”
You sound completely unfamiliar with female hypergamy. Those 60% of women are still all pursuing the same top 1/10th of men, largely ignoring the rest except when they temporarily want something (nonsexual). This results in college men overall STILL predominantly being sex-starved, more so than college women (most of whom can get sex by crooking a finger).
jack says:
September 2, 2015 at 11:28 pm
“Perhaps we should be grateful to feminism, for allowing us to finally, fully take a look at the heart of woman. Without such a clear view, many of us would have remained in darkness.
Which is better? The bitter pill of truth, or the comforting lie? I suppose if I could have lived the lie, from dating until death do us part, it may have been okay. However, what is known cannot be unknown. The greatest disappointment is not that one cannot truly win a woman’s heart – it is knowing that the prize of doing so is completely empty.
My estimation is that less than 5% of women can provide a net benefit to a man. Most are overgrown children, for the most part, full of selfish passions and foolishness.
Apostle Paul knew what he was talking about:
“It is better to marry than to burn with lust”.”
Well-thought out and agreed, with one caveat.
I believe that marriage is de facto no longer available in the U.S. (for nonAmish at least).
That transmogrifies Paul’s proclamation that everyone essentially nonsexual (e.g., by far most people) are “to burn”. Could that really be Jesus’ intended message? I don’t think so.
It comes down not to whether/when to marry, but what TF to do with marriage no longer existing in our time. Like the red pill in general, this realization is frightening, saddening, horrifying — but ultimately somewhat liberating, at least for competent men with some mastery over themselves.
The fallout from that is that (for a while) they never reach the point where it becomes rational to say, “Okay, from this point forward I will marry the next person I meet who is better than all the previous ones.” So they keep looking, and looking, and looking…
Sounds about like the compulsive gambler, who always says, “I’m going to play just one more time, and then take my winnings and go home,” but somehow never does.
Secretary Problem + Buyer’s Remorse = Hypergamy
@ Opus
I noticed that McCain’s judgmental language was aimed exclusively at cads and “trashy girls”. This plays right into the Blue Pill pedestalization of women as sexually-moral beings, since female readers can see themselves as sexually moral beings who were taken advantage of by cads. Likely he does it to keep a high female readership. Since more and more women don’t care about sexual morality, I see his strategy losing over the next few years. It begins with young women, but older women quickly follow the same way of thinking.
PokeSalad-
Have you ever watched someone try to sell a house start with a price well above market, then chase bidders downward over three or four months while fall approaches and the buying season dwindles?
It’s really unfortunate. They often end up taking less than they could have made had they priced realistically when they first listed the house. An acquaintance of mine started about $30K above market, stubbornly held on to that until the buying season was basically over, then kept dropping until they sold $80K below their original ask. Their pricing strategy cost them $50K.
At each point they rejected offers that were closer to market, hoping that they could at least get and offer that was only as bad as the previous.
Women are selling a depreciating asset into a market that becomes gradually less motivated.
For instance, find me a girl who was a smoking hot 10 when her and I were 25, and then introduce me to her when we are both 85. Hit the road!
At each point, the girl wishes she could get the almost-alpha betas that were once interested, and are now married, while she rejects solid betas. Then she can no longer get the solid beta, abd is being courted by lower betas. And so on.
It is hilarious to watch them try to fight their way out of the gambler’s curse. Coulda shoulda woulda.
In the spirit of MarcusD, though the bubble-gummy overtones are obviously not as subtle as some of the stuff on CAF:
http://epicpew.com/10-reasons-to-date-a-good-catholic-boy/
From another conservative Catholic website
From what I remember about the early history of the Church, the Church fluctuated every few centuries between allowing couples to shack up before marriage and forbidding it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication#Christianity_and_premarital_sex
I know this is a Wiki write-up, but it does go along with what I read from other sources.
buckyinky,
Hilarious. I immediately thought of this, which, in my experience, is a good deal closer to the mark:
Frank Zappa
This is an APB to the christian blogging community. Spread the word:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3221190/Hundreds-protesters-picket-gay-marriage-hearing-Kentucky-county-clerk-defied-court-orders-hand-sex-marriage-licenses.html
Get in the comments section on this article (or at least click on the red/green arrows) and show her your support!
*Christian*
@desiderian
“I’d contend that given a manly enough prospect for marriage,”
Boy oh boy. Man up you peter pan faggots. Desiderian is here to show us all what a Real Man looks like. Only Real Man can tame a woman. If Real Man was around women wouldn’t be sluts.
Wow, thanks Desiderian, if it wasn’t for you and telling us about Real Man there would be an epidemic of sluts.
@Lyn
Zappa was actually very red pill and miles ahead of his time. But I doubt his opinions on organized religion (which were wrong) would go over very well here.
eism,
“Boy oh boy. Man up you peter pan faggots. Desiderian is here to show us all what a Real Man looks like. Only Real Man can tame a woman.”
So are you saying that women are attracted to unmanliness or that they should be? I’ve little doubt that your own experiences will refute the former if soberly considered, and the latter is likely to meet with as much success as the fat acceptance movement for women.
“If Real Man was around women wouldn’t be sluts.”
A can’t imagine it would hurt.
By manliness I mean more or less a willingess to practice Christian headship with some degree of boldness, courage, and charm*. If you don’t accept that, this blog may not be for you; if you do, I’m not sure what your beef is.
* – from the Greek χάρισμα, a gift of (divine, in the biblical context) grace.
@Bob: “I’ve known guys who have seduced 100+ women. All of them lied and all of them targeted unattractive or emotionally-damaged women”
You lie. I have never heard of a PUA targeting emotionally-damaged women. This is simply not a strategy that PUA’s use or very rarely use; they avoid Jezzies and Daughters of Lucifer like the plague and the suggestion that PUA’s go for “unattractive” women shows your complete ignorance. Lying trolls gonna troll I guess.
@child: “I feel sorry that you think of women this way”
Please don’t. Feel sorry for the people who don’t realize yet that this is the way of women. Feel sorry for us if you must- that it took us so long and usually a personal tragedy to figure it out that we should ignore bullshit feelz like you are trying to spew.
@Hermillion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkCv_nTY8bI
“How to treat your wife. No comment”
You chicken. I was amused and even a bit horrified at the casual brutality until the cleric’s explanation at the very end- which suddenly made it make a lot of sense.
Basically, Sharia says a man can beat his wife from the shoulders to stomach, but cannot injure, or disfigure her and he can’t even leave a mark. First he has to talk with her, then her kin. Second he has to ignore her (aka remove from the marital bed…aka DREAD GAME) then he can “beat” her.
But he can only do this if she refuses to sleep with him.
Apparently in Islam, if the wife offers the pang pang she doesn’t have to do anything else which makes some perverted sense. Husbands should have SOME power, right?
Nah, forget it….
There is a great discussion of this post on The Red Pill:
https://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/3jecaj/hit_it_and_quit_it_on_tinder_the_other/
Can someone clarify why the FI makes the comments that girls are promiscuous because their fathers did not pour enough attention into/on them therefore they looked for it in other men/boys? Also the comments that boys become gay because of the same?
I had first heard of serial monogamy on this blog and I have seen this since H.S. in the 80s, nothing new.
Great stuff between all commenters regarding “what RSM meant by commitment.”
Only thing I would add is–I wish the courtship pledge hadn’t gone down and lost every bit of the content.
Not because I did a better job of teasing this out, but there was bunch there. From my perspective it is difficult to see how he could have meant it any other way BF/GFs having “committed” sex.
Its just another article suggesting we go back and be “old-fashioned,” you know, like in the 1980s.
@DESI
“So are you saying that women are attracted to unmanliness or that they should be? ”
Not at all to either one.
Are you saying that if men were “REAL MEN” then women wouldn’t sin?
“A can’t imagine it would hurt.”
YEP.. Sure are. I want to see how much of a REAL MAN you are when a SWAT team goes into your house at 2:30 AM, using a flash bang and takes your kids while they handcuff you. All on the whim of some woman.
Come on tuff guy tell us how you real men handle that.
“Come on tuff guy tell us how you real men handle that.”
Duh, trick question, real men kill their women before they can call the SWAT team.
Johnny,
From your link, “The Rowan County Clerk, who has been divorced three times, has turned away same-sex couples seeking marriage licenses since June.” [Emphasis added.]
So… a three-time divorcee is the newest poster-child for Christians standing up for the sanctity of marriage?
Please tell me that’s a joke.
@PuffyJacket
“Zappa was actually very red pill and miles ahead of his time.”
Explain.
Lyn,
Supposedly she is a relatively recent convert, and her divorces predate her conversion.
I agree that it’s cringe-worthy.
“So… a three-time divorcee is the newest poster-child for Christians standing up for the sanctity of marriage?”
Which is exactly the tack the social justice warriors want you to take.
The caricature is that of a backwater, hayseed, inbred redneck hick who is also an immoral hypocrite, because she has three divorces. Take her, and hang her like an albatross around Christians’ necks.
“he asserts that men have an advantage in the game of casual sex – this is nonsense on stilts”
Thank you.
Gregoire is beating her porn drum again; she finds a way to shoehorn that into everything, don’t she?
http://hotholyhumorous.com/2015/09/how-do-you-feel-beautiful-with-sheila-wray-gregoire/
“Zappa was actually very red pill and miles ahead of his time.”
Explain.
That would involve too much Oil of Afrodytee, and we’re right out of Grand Wazoo dust. If she were my daughter I’d .. I’d .. make that Dyna Moe Humm.
Frustrated modernist composer/arranger, big fan of Alban Berg, I believe.
“Are you saying that if men were “REAL MEN” then women wouldn’t sin?”
It would certainly help matters; likewise vice versa with women and femininity bringing out, if not the best, at least the better, in men. As you note, women haven’t been doing a bang-up job at that either.
“YEP.. Sure are. I want to see how much of a REAL MAN you are when a SWAT team goes into your house at 2:30 AM, using a flash bang and takes your kids while they handcuff you. All on the whim of some woman.”
I live in the same conquered country you do, bub. Are you saying that the fact we’ve allowed ourselves to be conquered by a band of fools and charlatans speaks to our exemplary masculinity? I’d say compared to our forefathers we’ve fallen embarrassingly short.
“Come on tuff guy tell us how you real men handle that.”
Not easily, I’ll grant you that. That’s what makes masculinity valuable, and sorely missed. Not just by women. Wasn’t easy for the Christians in Rome, either, but their manly courage won souls to Christ.
I’ve found some feral wimminz — specifically frivolous divorcée types — to be uniquely and bitterly critical of gay marriage. It’s as though, subconsciously, they know that this is the logical consequence of the sham they profited off of. Reduced to a state contracted coercion agreement, why shouldn’t we let homos “get married”?
Many wimminz know that marriage doesn’t mean much any more, thanks to them, but they depend upon the façade holding up, that a new generation of suckers can be conned into the racket.
Boxer
Dalrock, your assessment that wholly different strategies are optimal when looked at from the POV of gender, versus a strategy that is optimal when viewed from the POV of the human race as a whole, is calculus when everyone else is doing arithmetic. I think it will win out in a closed community or a society that keeps some kind of aristocracy, but in democracy slouching towards monopolistic nouveau riche oligarchy and all the classlessness that inevitably follows, yours will be a long, uphill road.
Deti,
The SJWs (and the left in general) does a very good job or creating caricatures of their enemies. To listen to them one would not know that extremely rich people, large corporations, and big banks donate enormous sums of money to the Democrats, yet Republicans are somehow “the party of the rich.” But I don’t need any of their help in coming to the conclusion that Kim Davis (the jailed clerk) isn’t helping the cause. With allies like that, who needs enemies?
Frankly, I don’t see that the issue is all that important. Gay people will never be able to marry, because marriage is between a man and a woman, and it is that way because God decreed it to be so. The state can recognize anything it likes, but it can no more rescind the Laws of God than it can rescind the Laws of Thermodynamics. Ms Davis, however, was already part of the problem before the recent USSC ruling. She was part of the state apparatus that made marriage the business of the state rather than the business of the church. When you take the King’s shilling you agree to do what you’re told. She takes a paycheck to perform certain functions as prescribed by the laws in her state and county. If she does not wish to perform those functions she is free to seek employment elsewhere. Since she refused to do her job and also refused to resign in protest, she should not have been jailed: she should have been fired, or at least demoted. Mistakes all around, and some of them were her own.
Buts since she makes her living subordinating the church to the state with regard to marriage, and doesn’t like what her employers want her to do, she decided to make a “martyr” of herself. But a three-time divorcee is hardly an example of someone with a history of support for the sanctity of marriage. In her case it probably would have been best to quietly resign if she felt that strongly about it. Her “martyrdom” rings hollow, it serves no purpose, and it gives ammunition to the enemy.
I think Ayn Rand had it right when it comes to the marketplace, be it economic or sexual: John Galt.
Atlas is shrugging.
“Doesn’t like what her employers want her to do.”
It’s my understanding that she’s an elected official, and in that case I’d say she’s very much doing what her employers want her to do. It’s the busybodies in the higher (sic) courts sticking their noses where they don’t belong causing the trouble.
Something else, that really needs to be pointed out to the men, and it cannot be stressed enough:
“Marty” is not just a “guy”. He is in the top 10% of attractive men between the ages of 18-30.
Most men, especially betas and nerds who jump on the feminist bandwagon do not seem to grasp this. At best they average one or maybe two hookups a year, less if a nerd with any standards. That does not mean the women are also not having sex or only having sex “in their league”. They are having regular sex, ONLY NOT WITH YOU. You, beta nerd, are plan B, in case the alpha high-beta doesn’t commit. And there are going to be many, many such alphas and high betas which she will work through.
And when she does final settle for you, sex is not going to be something she actively wants, but a chore she must perform.
Guys, please grasp this, the biggest losers in the hookup culture are not even the women, it is the nice dorky guys.
@mrteebs
Ayn Rand was a woman, and her strategy, however well intentioned was a foolish one. Because it is the strategy only a woman imagining herself a man could come up with.
Women are passive, they are reactive. They have no real concept of the desperate violent meciless struggle of men. There is no such thing as a “wounded bird” among men. If we men want something then WE MUST MAKE IT HAPPEN. To John Galt is nothing more than a fancy way of sulking like a little bitch.
To paraphrase the Joker- Betas, nerds, what happened? Did your balls drop off?
We don’t have to go through any of this. You are men. Aside from the inherent advantages of strength and aggression, we also have the power of validation. Women by nature are OBSESSED with male validation. Male disapproval is like a sledgehammer to the soul of woman. Male approval is sunshine itself.
We are looking at female rebellion as though it has any power. It actually onky gets its power with our foolishness. When we cringe, or supplicate, we are telling them how to act. Feminism cannot exist without men saying it is correct.
Desi,
Even if her position in the county clerk’s office is an elected position (which is possible), she’s not off the hook. She’s a public employee and she has to follow the law. The law says that homosexual couples can get a marriage license from the office of the County Clerk. So unless Rowan County, Kentucky is withdrawing from the Union, she has a job to do, for which she volunteered and for which she is being paid. When she took her job she agreed to issue licenses according to the law. Her convictions are utterly irrelevant. In short, she’s not being paid to sit in judgement: she’s being paid to shuffle papers in the manner prescribed by her job description and by law. If she cannot do so in good conscience, she should have resigned. If she refuses and won’t resign, she should be demoted or fired.
Again, she “took the King’s shilling” when she took the job. By doing so she acknowledges that the state has authority to define marriage (her job is to issue the licenses), and she continues to do so every day she goes to work. She doesn’t get to pick and choose which taxpayers are deserving of her doing her job for them.
For this, there’s a simple and elegant solution: she can resign. But even if she does, she should probably just keep it to herself, because as a three-time divorcee she has spent her life making a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. If she was going to make a stand, she ought to have done so three marriages ago… it’s too late to do so now without being seen as a hypocrite and giving ammunition to the enemy.
Lyn87 said:
It’s like I scripted it.
I believe I read that Kim Davis became a Christian as recently as 2011; which probably puts those divorces in her pre-Christian days.
In other news: So what? She’s standing up for what is right, and has literally been jailed for
1) Refusing to be party to sin and mockery of God’s institution
2) Refusing to resign because four fags threw a fit.
Sounds like a big damn heroine to me.
Let’s not forget that you took the king’s gold as a member of the US military to “defend” KY and the other 49 states’ rights; among those rights is the right to regulate marriage. Poor Davis just works in an office. You actually bore weapons and thereby made threats against people’s lives.
Unless I miss my guess: You served as an officer in the don’t-ask-don’t-tell era, correct? Was that convenient for you?
Cane Caldo
That is how God does things. That woman has a history but she is actually going to jail for her faith. Outstanding.
I remember the story of the Christians being persecuted and some people were studying the bible in a private home and some soldiers came. The usual “what is that” and the soldiers were so impressed with their faith they sat down to worship with them. Contrast that with the supplication of the church to the feminine imperative today. Good on her.
Yes, Cane, I was a military officer, and I took an oath to support and defend the US Constitution… no the personal convictions of every clerk in every county. The government did things that I didn’t like, including DADT. Nothing made by man is perfect, but living as a hermit isn’t the answer, so you take the world as it is and do what you can. Of course I retained the ability to resign if I was ever told to do something that violated my conscience. At one point the government directed the military to adopt a policy I found offensive. Although it did not require me to do anything, I actually typed out the letter declining a renewal of my commission and mailed it. But the people I sent it too said that they agreed with my sentiment and asked me to stay and do what I could within the system. After much soul-searching I did. My call, for good or ill. (If I had been required to carry out the policy I would have resigned.)
But this woman doesn’t have that to stand on. She has already acknowledged the authority of the state to define marriage by agreeing to be the person who issues the licenses on the state’s behalf. She has almost certainly used the apparatus of the state in an unrighteous manner to get out of legitimate marriages for her personal benefit. Anyway, there are all sorts of laws governing who may and may not get such a license. Her job – for which she volunteered and for which she is paid – is to distribute those licenses to anyone who meets the legal requirements. End of.
If a SJW clerk decides that marriage is legalized rape (and many of them believe that), should she be allowed to close down her office to avoid issuing marriage licenses to normal couples… while still drawing her pay? I don’t think so.
So Ms Davis (the thrice-divorced… let’s not forget that), has recently decided that marriage is sacred (at least for other people), and all-of-a-sudden does not accept that the state has the right to define marriage after all. Too late – she was fine with the state taking over marriage from the church as long as the state agreed with her… and agreed to pay her to put state above church.
You say that the state is wrong to issue those licenses. It just so happens that I agree. But unlike Ms Davis, I don’t think the government has any legitimate say in Holy Matrimony. But let’s take it the next logical step: I also think we both agree that the state is wrong to allow women to unilaterally divorce their husbands without cause. That’s no less wrong than issuing a license to a homosexual couple. What if Ms Davis’s first (or second… or third…) husband decides that the state had no right to dissolve his marriage? He would be correct to do so. Does he have the right to have the state enforce his conjugal rights against Ms Davis? After all, if the state is in the marriage business, then the state has an obligation to protect and enforce his rights within marriage. Right? That’s Contract Law 101.
You have to choose. Either the state has the right to govern marriage or it does not. I say that it doesn’t, but then again I’m not paid by the taxpayers to issue the licenses. Someone who does take the pay needs to either do her job or resign. It’s really that simple.
Lyn87,
“Someone who does take the pay needs to either do her job or resign.”
Although all you say is correct, there is still a third option – the one she took – that is the more manly and Christlike. Had the “people you sent it to” and their legion of quisling, “keep our head down,” compatriots done their manly duty over this past generation or two, things would not have come to such a head.
It was left to a lowly woman with many husbands, little better than a prostitute, to recognize Christ. Not for the first time.
@DESI
“although all you say is correct, there is still a third option – the one she took – that is the more manly and Christlike.”
Look you can’t have it both ways. One of the below must be true.
Option 1. The verses in the bible that say to obey the authority are correct, and therefore she should have given out the gay marriage license and is wrong to not do this. Be careful, now. This also means that the Nazi enlisted and NCO’s that burned Jews were literally doing God’s commandments though as well and were in no way war criminals. Going by the verse in Romans, this woman has literally damned herself for not giving this gay marriage license. This also means that all revolutions are ungodly, and wrong, and are a cause of damnation, including the AMERICAN revolution….. HMMM
1 PETER 2:13
13 Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; 14 Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well.
Romans 13;1
13:1 Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God.
13:2 Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
Option 2:
Can’t find a single verse that ever promotes insurrection or revolution anywhere. There are several stories of acquiescing to punishment through civil disobedience though, and usually facing death as a reward,
If this option is the case then what you suggest is true, but she needs to respectfully accept whatever punishment comes her way for her refusal to give the homosexual marriage license. This could be something as simple as being fired, could she should also gladly accept prison and even death.
I was a commissioned officer in the Navy in the 70s and early 80s. I served in submarines. Under that disgrace of a president, Jimmy Carter, there was a push to have women serve on submarines. The heads of the submarine forces, COMSUBPAC and COMSUBLANT, went to the CNO and the joint chiefs and said they would have women serve on their submarines over their dead bodies, and would resign if they had to. The joint chiefs backed them fully, and went to the president and told him they would also resign. The issue died, and it wasn’t until fairly recently, under Jimmy Carter II (i.e. Obama) that we have had women serving on submarines. The difference between the two events is the weakening of the resolve of the officer class high in the command structure. I am sorry to say that the degradation of the officer class took place under the watch of my generation. The strong leaders in the 1970s were the WWII generation of my father and those that came up under them. I recently read a Notable and Quotable in the WSJ that quoted a statement made by one of my classmates that is now an admiral high in the command structure. I was ashamed that I was of that generation. He stated PC BS and the party line without exception; he could have been quoting from a NOW statement.
So, Lyn87, I am sorry to say that we did not pass on a better command structure for you to serve under. Back in the day your resignation would have been forwarded with the resignations of your higher ups that agreed with the issue for which you were resigning. If enough men had stood up they could have raised such a stink that the policy would have died then and there. Moral courage has always been hard to come by, but more so under the relentless PC deluge of the past 50 years.
Acts 4:18 So they called them and charged them not to speak or teach at all in the name of Jesus. 19 But Peter and John answered them, “Whether it is right in the sight of God to listen to you rather than to God, you must judge, 20 for we cannot but speak of what we have seen and heard.”
Acts 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council. And the high priest questioned them, 28 saying, “We strictly charged you not to teach in this name, yet here you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this man’s blood upon us.” 29 But Peter and the apostles answered, “We must obey God rather than men.
Frustrated modernist composer/arranger, big fan of Alban Berg, I believe.
Yes but influenced more so by Stravinsky. Good to see a few fans here.
@Lyn87
“Again, she “took the King’s shilling” when she took the job.”
I thought it was a Republic. So who is the king?
No9.
It’s just an expression that hails back to England – it just means that if you accept employment and receive wages you agree to follow the orders.
md5:
I was a lowly Captain (0-3) at the time, and the directive I found so onerous came from Slick Willey himself and applied to the entire military. There was no way my little objection was going to change anything, so my response was to decline to renew my commission. The people who read it were in no position to affect national policy either, and the flag officers who should have told the Prez to stuff it did not do so. Not even a Republican Congress or the USSC had anything to say. The guys who read my letter and responded came back with something along the lines of, “We agree with what you say… its a mess, and that is precisely why our young soldiers need officers like you. Stay in for their sake.” I had a great respect for them as individuals and as soldiers, and I was eventually persuaded by their appeal to duty. I ended up a training pretty large number of people who ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan a few years later. I only know of one who did not come home alive.
desi,
We’re going to have to agree to disagree. Ms Davis is not being forced to do anything: she is being ordered to do something in order to keep her job, which is entirely voluntary. Her job itself subordinates the Law of God to the Law of Man, so I hardly see that she has anything to fall back on, especially since she has undoubtedly issued licenses to couples who were “unequally yoked” without closing down her department. She has also certainly issued such licenses to divorcees whose subsequent marriages are actually adulterous unions per Matthew 19:9. Her drawing of the line at “Gay Marriage” seems, frankly, fairly arbitrary. But since she’s a three-time divorcee and thus wide open to a charge of hypocrisy, she might gain some ground IF she publicly owns up to her faults vis-a-vis her former husbands, and returns every penny of alimony and item of property she ever took from them, plus their lawyer’s fees if she initiated any of those divorces, along with making good every loss and expense they incurred as a result of her actions. Zaccheus understood that repentance required restitution to those one has wronged. If Ms Davis wishes to be portrayed as a martyr, let her at least settle her own accounts first.
Lyn87, I agree that it was not you. I believe that it is my generation currently in the flag ranks that have dropped the ball. That is where we are lacking in moral courage. With authority comes responsibility. They have been placed in positions of great authority and have the responsibility to exercise that moral courage required to stand up to transitory political pressure for the good of the service and the country. Nothing in the oath requires blind obedience to superiors. There comes a time where resignation or noncompliance is a moral necessity. A case in point also from my ancient period was the move by Carter to evacuate the US troops from S. Korea. The commander of the US forces in S. Korea publically stated that this was foolish in the extreme. Carter then told him that as a serving officer he had no right to publically oppose the positions of the commander and chief. So he retired and continued to campaign against this stupid policy. Of course he won as even an idiot could see it was fatally short sighted. Of course Carter could not see this as he was worse than an idiot, and had surrounded himself with sycophants that told him he was infallible.
@Lyn87
“It’s just an expression that hails back to England – it just means that if you accept employment and receive wages you agree to follow the orders.”
Well is it not true that no action can arise out of an immoral consideration? And is that which is against Divine Law not repugnant to society and void?
@Tingler,
Incorrect.
http://therationalmale.com/2011/08/19/the-cardinal-rule-of-relationships/
Cardinal Rule of Relationships
In any relationship, the person with the most power is the one who needs the other the least.
Your presumption that intergender relations is a numbers game is a common mistake, but it’s the result of an equalist mindset. Intergender relations are a qualitative equation, not a quantitative one. On a root biological level men will always have the greater need since women are the necessary element to breed. Sexual impulse in men as well as reproduction prospects will always put women as the prime sexual selectors irrespective of population.
In an equalist frame where all are equally qualified for sexual selection and both sexes have a neutral value to the other, then yes, your model works. However, human beings didn’t evolve for homogeny and both sexes possess intrinsic ‘quality controls’. So if 100 college educated men don’t meet the evolved criteria for 1 woman’s sexual acceptability (or vice versa) the size of that pool is irrelevant.
I should also add that you presume marriage / commitment / monogamy should necessarily be the end-goal of human sexual selection; and thus the ‘solve for’ outcome to your equation. Women’s sexual strategy is dualistic, short term sexual breeding (Alpha Fucks) and long term provisional (Beta Bucks). Depending on which phase of maturity a woman is in, and depending upon the necessities of that phase, if there are 100 men and only 2 of them meet 90 women’s Hypergamous criteria for the short or long term prospects the pool of men is irrelevant.
And finally, if you’re posting here at Dalrock’s then I presume you’re familiar with the steadily declining rate of marriage since the 1950’s (your illustration). Conditionally, if the incentives for marriage are so few and the benefits are so minimal, or those benefits can be had outside that contract, the necessary qualifications for that contract change.
Again, since your end-goal state is monogamous commitment, and less men are willing to participate in the terms of that contract, the pool of acceptable participants is again irrelevant.
Lyn87,
“if you accept employment and receive wages you agree to follow the orders”
She is following the orders of the people who elected her to office, who are, in fact, the ones paying those wages. That is unless you believe the fine people of Kentucky see nothing wrong with taking children from their mothers and entrusting them to the tender mercies of sodomites, which is what gay marriage amounts to. No man familiar with the ways of the world can call himself anything other than a coward who sits idly by as his society goes the way of Jephthah and Rotherham.
Some action must be taken. If one’s choice of action is to condemn those willing to take a stand against it, one places one’s own courage and/or corruptibility in question, whatever the theoretical rectitude of that condemnation.
Entropy,
It has ever been a sign of evil times when the worst men are anxious to have those verses preached from every pulpit and strictly enforced in spirit and letter by every magistrate. Take care what Spirit it is that leads you there and there alone and know that other men are not unaware of the general character of those who take heart there in times of misrule.
If put to the question, like my namesake I cannot speak against them, but I would be reticent to condemn another acting in good faith and courage and willing to bear the consequences in such times as these. I have no reason to believe she is doing otherwise.
@Tam and @Puffyjacket
Frank Zappa was hardly “frustrated” (though he sometimes butted heads and lost). He had two bona fide hits (“Dancin’ Fool”, about a disco Beta) and “Valley Girl” (based on Zappa’s daughter imitating the valley-girlspeak she’d heard in L.A. shopping malls). He was a superfan of king avant garde noisemaker Edgard Varese. Also Spike Jones, with whom he shared a penchant for silly noises perfectly placed.
Most of Zappa’s music, comedic and otherwise, would melt the ears of the denizens here, but he was red pill in two ways: he had no use for feminism, and, even though a professed atheist, he ran his business and his family as a Sicilian Catholic patriarch would, just like his Sicilian Catholic father ran his family.
ron:- “To paraphrase the Joker- Betas, nerds, what happened? Did your balls drop off? “
Atlas shriveled.
The scripture provided by JDG at 9:11 am above strikes at the heart of the issue. Lyn87, I understand where you are coming from, but it’s time for Belivers to start pushing back. The faith and courage of this apparently, relatively new Christian woman shames me. We will all have to get out of our “comfort zones” in the coming times and take a real stand, a stand that may be costly.
Should Christian county clerks refuse to grant marriage licenses to divorcees? There’s scripture against that. Should they refuse to grant marriage licenses to couples who are unequally yoked? There’s scripture against that as well. Should Ms Davis consider that her own current marital status is itself not valid, because she’s a three-time divorcee? Why does she issue marriage licenses at all, given that by doing so she is acknowledging the supremacy of the state over an institution ordained and defined by God alone?
Nobody is saying that that she should issue the licenses, any more than a Quaker county clerk should be forced to issue gun permits – but if they take the pay, they have to do the job. The residents of Rowan County, Kentucky do not get to arbitrarily choose which rulings of the US Supreme Court they’re going to abide by. If they don’t like the law of the land, they are free to try their luck at declaring themselves an independent nation – then they can make whatever laws they like for as long as they can defend their borders, just like any other sovereign nation.
The point none of my critics is willing to answer is stated above. I’ll state it again: either the state defines marriage or it does not. If the state does , then public employees have no choice but to do their jobs or resign if they choose not to. If God does, then they have no business issuing state marriage licenses at all, because to do so is to grant power to the state that belongs to God.
Lyn87,
She is doing her job.
@Desi
This is it. That theoretical rectitude is what Lyn87 loves. It’s also what the Pharisees loved.
@Lyn87
You can state it as many times as you like, but it won’t make it relevant. Your whole argument is that Davis deserves to be punished for failing to hold the line for evil; that this one act of repentance deserves punishment.
In addition to the option of supporting Davis, you also had the option of not saying anything. Instead you chose the option to arm the sodomites with arguments to take down anyone who breaks character and does right for a change.
To top it off: Your argument is that the state of KY has wrongfully usurped control over marriage, but anyone who chips away at that right should be jailed. Davis wrongly supported the state’s right to regulate marriage because she was paid, but Lyn87 supports that same state’s right to enforce that regulation…and you do it for free! She may be an ideological whore, but you’re an ideological cuckold.
@Lyn87
“The point none of my critics is willing to answer is stated above. I’ll state it again: either the state defines marriage or it does not.”
“In the sense of the constitutional guarantee of a republican form of government, the term ‘state’ is used to express the idea of people or political community, as distinguished from the government. And the people…constitute the state” Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700. Bouviers’Law Dictionary, 1914, State, page 3124.
Well are you sure you know the definition of ‘state’?
@no9,
Well are you sure you know the definition of ‘state’?
As used by Lyn87 and for the purposes of discussion on the site, I think ‘the state’ ought to be understood as the government.
I tire of this nipping and sniping. I’ve grown to expect such nonsense from Cane, who makes a point of arguing with nearly everything I say for some reason (obsession, I guess). I’ll explain one more time for the slow:
First, “the state” means a sovereign or semi-sovereign political entity. The US is a “state,” and so is Kentucky. In the case of semi-sovereign states like Kentucky, they can do what they like within the terms of their subordination to their sovereign, which in this case is the US federal government. The laws of the US are the laws of Kentucky, whether the residents of a particular county like them or not, so although Ms Davis was not breaking the law (she has not been charged with a crime), she is refusing to do her job as required by law. Once again, I disagree with the decision to jail her for contempt – the proper response (if she refuses to resign) is to fire her. So when Cane says, “Your whole argument is that Davis deserves to be punished for failing to hold the line for evil; that this one act of repentance deserves punishment,” he is deliberately twisting my words into a straw-man he can attack. I explicitly stated at 11:47 PM yesterday that Ms Davis should not have been jailed, but simply fired. Not being paid to do a job you’re not doing is not punishment. Let’s be clear here: Cane said I called for Ms Davis to be punished when I very clearly said the exact opposite – Cane is straight-up lying when he says otherwise. Let’s see if Cane has the integrity to withdraw his false accusation, since the proof is right there in black-and-white.
And Ms Davis has a long history of drawing a paycheck from the state to enforce it’s sovereignty over marriage, and to do so in ungodly ways (allowing divorcees to re-marry, as one example she took advantage of herself), and she continued to do so even after her conversion. Her stand now is, as I noted, fairly arbitrary, given that she fully supported the right of the state to define marriage in an ungodly manner before – and continues to do so now except for this particular ungodly manner. Ms Davis’ supporters seem to have no problem with her issuing licenses to other people who are not Biblically-eligible for marriage – in fact, she is perfectly willing to continue doing so in the cases of those who are unequally-yoked and divorcees… a group that, conveniently, includes herself.
And AGAIN: I do not think the state ought to issue marriage licenses to gays (nor do I recognize their perversions as “marriage” no matter what they or the state does). I have been very consistent in saying that I don’t think the state ought to issue marriage licenses to anybody, because marriage is defined by God alone… not the State of Kentucky or the US Federal Government.
So… AGAIN, the state is wrong to recognize “Gay Marriage” – just as it is wrong to issue licenses to divorcees and couples who are unequally yoked. I’ve even gone on record as saying the state has no business defining marriage and issuing licenses at all. But I stand by my statement that if one’s conscience will not allow a person to perform their duties in a corrupt system (such as one that requires issuing marriage licenses to homosexual couples), the correct action is to resign in protest. But if you’re going to accept pay for performing duties in a corrupt system (which Ms Davis has done and wishes to continue doing), then you have no cause to complain of persecution when you are willing to perform some corrupt actions but not others.
And for Heaven’s sake, if you have a long history of spitting on the sanctity of marriage (as Ms Davis does), don’t make a spectacle of yourself when you finally decide that this time they’ve gone too far.
“I tire of this nipping and sniping.”
Was wondering when you would. Perhaps you should stop.
>If a SJW clerk decides that marriage is legalized rape (and many of them believe that), should she be allowed to close down her office to avoid issuing marriage licenses to normal couples
No, but jailing her would still be an act of tyranny. The judge could have ordered the county to appoint another clerk. The judge could have ordered that the county documents could be signed by a clerk of the court. The judge could have ordered the county to come up with a solution within 30 days.
Ordering her to jail immediately has only one interpretation. They want to bully Christians. You WILL accept the party line. It does not matter this has NEVER been law in the history of the world since a 5-4 Supreme Court decision a few months ago. It doesn’t matter this was a crime punishable by death not long ago. In fact, it has ALWAYS been opposed and was not even considered rational or reasonable or possible until about 3 years ago. We have always been at war with Eastasia…..
@Dave
“As used by Lyn87 and for the purposes of discussion on the site, I think ‘the state’ ought to be understood as the government.”
The discussion is about law and legality and an error not resisted is approved. Am I under any obligation to accept such an incorrect legal definition?
“If you know not the name of things, the knowledge of things themselves perishes; and if you lose the name, the distinction of things is certainly lost.”
@Lyn87
You claimed
“The point none of my critics is willing to answer is stated above. I’ll state it again: either the state defines marriage or it does not.”
Then you go on to say
“First, “the state” means a sovereign or semi-sovereign political entity. The US is a “state,” and so is Kentucky.”
Well seeing as our discussion involves law and legalese I gave the accepted legal definition for state as would be used in a court. Yet you gave none to support any of yours.
You are yet to prove that ‘state’ and ‘government’ are one and the same.
Nor have you answered my questions of
Well is it not true that no action can arise out of an immoral consideration?
And is that which is against Divine Law not repugnant to society and thus void?
It seems you merely want to make unilateral statements of what law is and is not and accuse others of “arguing” your erroneous points.
“Was wondering when you would. Perhaps you should stop.”
Quippy, but I have been far too busy defending against accusations of making statements I didn’t make and holding positions I explicit rejected to do any of that – not that I do it anyway.
I might as well just say it: it’s nonsense like this that caused me to disengage from the man-o-sphere for the past several months… because apparently using precise language and standing on principle are not to be expected even among men who claim Christianity. Just in the past 24 hours I have seen such men soft-pedal and excuse serial adultery, cold-blooded murder, and now blatant hypocrisy in three separate threads, and I have been attacked for pointing it out in each case. Your comment is merely one more drip of the faucet.
My job as a Christian – the job of all Christians – is to speak the truth. That does not entail forcing anyone to believe it, nor continue when the listener explicitly rejects it. Ive held up my end – “Vox clamantis in deserto.”
I don’t know whether or not my recent re-engagement was a mistake or not, but either way it is not something I intend to repeat. I can take the heat, but I no longer see any point in doing so. I’m sure you and the others will find some way to continue without me as you have before. (I made a comment on another thread that went into moderation because I mis-typed my e-mail address, so when it pops up with a later time stamp than this one it doesn’t mean I came back for one last shot.)
Feel free to write a response to this if it makes you feel better, but I assure you I will never see it.
The disagreement Lyn87 -v- allcomers seems to me to miss the bigger picture, which is that the imprisoning of the court clerk is to be seen as a warning to others not to oppose the power of the Gay Mafia (and the other pre-designated victim groups) who once again flex their muscles and have doubtless been out on-the-town celebrating their latest victory. This is not about sexual behaviour but about power. It is up to every one of us to decide the point beyond which he or she cannot and will not go and the court clerk reached hers: she however as she rots in her cell will be able to reflect that she has both Nature (natural law) and God (God’s Law) on her side and no power on earth can claim precedence to those: no breach of those Laws can have legitimacy. How ironic therefore that one of the heroes of the SJW’s is John Locke, but Locke never intended that tolerance should extend even as far as Roman Catholics let alone the worship of Pederasty. He would surely have been appalled by the war presently being engaged in by the Homophiles against Christians (by which I mean all right-thinking Americans).
How curious that Homophiles once perhaps legitimately seeing themselves as victims (I am not entirely convinced about that however) should have become oppressors (in alliance with Feminazis).
@Lyn87
“because apparently using precise language and standing on principle are not to be expected even among men who claim Christianity.”
Lyn, by what I have read so far you seem to be a man who has the ability to discern things. That is what I have been trying to show you. The importance of using precise language is even more so when you use or talk about the legal system. A deceiver deals in generals and that is why Christians get drag into things that they can get out of if only they trust the Word of God.
Luke 11:45 -46 One of the lawyers said to Him in reply, “Teacher, when You say this, You insult us too.”46But He said, “Woe to you lawyers as well! For you weigh men down with burdens hard to bear, while you yourselves will not even touch the burdens with one of your fingers.
Hosea 4:6
My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge. Because you have rejected knowledge, I also will reject you from being My priest. Since you have forgotten the law of your God, I also will forget your children.
Christians have no Idea what they are dealing with. They reject the truth and accept the lie.
“My job as a Christian – the job of all Christians – is to speak the truth.”
And as a Christian man I have spoken the truth, you have neither refuted what I said secularly or more important Biblically. For some or other reason you just didn’t want to discuss it to is conclusion for understanding of its implementation.
Lyn87 said:
Nonsense. I haven’t argued with a 1/10th of what he’s written on this site; much less a majority of it so as to approach “nearly everything”. This is where–if I were like he–I would sputter a demand for retraction. I won’t because am I not him, and I won’t pretend that I don’t take his meaning. And I confess that I have enjoyed beating on Lyn87 because he is a poser who habitually boasts of non-accomplishments.
The rest of what he said is, to my mind, indefensible. She’s an elected official. Hence she can’t be merely fired, but must be impeached. She has discretion in her job as to who qualifies for state recognition of their marriage, and who does not. She exercised it. This is a firing offense to Lyn87, and if couldn’t be done with the pink slip, then the iron bars will do for him. After all: She has sinned before, he said.
Good riddance.
@Opus
You are correct, but I certainly did not miss it.
@no9
Superb.
@Cane Caldo
“Superb”
Yes Christ is that and more. He is our understanding of all things yet we don’t listen to Him when He tells us what to do nor do we follow His example. Christians should pray for more of His understanding and wisdom. That way we can live with the honour that He expects from us.
Oh Cane, you’ve run Lyn87 off again!
What say does government even have in the marriage business? Why are they even there in the first place? Other “conservatives” have argued for the state in this matter: they deserve whatever state they get.
@Zippy
I actually thought that God’s not Dead was the best Christian movie I have seen recently. Most others have blatant feminism or horrible acting.
I may have missed a part about the girlfriend of the professor. I understood her to be dating him, but did not catch that she was portrayed as living / sleeping with him. I’ll have to pay attention to that part next time I watch it.
@theasdgamer
>Christians really need to ask themselves if Marriage 2.0 is marriage as God sees it or just a more expensive bf/gf LTR with a fancy name.
+1
@Jack
>Now, they are probably a net liability.
Agreed, except for the “probably”. Risk is a product of:
– chance of an event occurring, and
– cost of the event, if it occurs.
Chance of divorce, with a wife with only one prior sex partner, according to a prior Dalrock article, is about 50%. And that’s assuming she is not lying about the “only one” part.
If a man has a net worth of 500k, and alimony and child support for 15 years would be 2.5k per month, then the cost of divorce is 700k.
So, 50% x 700k = $350,000.
Show me the woman for whom you would gladly pay $350,000, then we’ll talk further 🙂
Of course, if you have a woman who lives out strict obedience to God’s commands, then you have a far better situation.
And I like your tagline.
@Lyn87
Sorry to see Lyn go. While we variously have disagreements, these are not, in themselves, problems. Perhaps a willingness to let things drop after saying your piece would be valuable.
“My job as a Christian – the job of all Christians – is to speak the truth.”
Oh really Lyn? How does that match up with you idiotically stating that all Police Officers lie when testifying like you did in your anti-police rhetoric on the other post? All Officers lie when testifying? That’s speaking the Truth?
http://christiannews.net/2015/09/04/judge-who-jailed-kim-davis-ordered-students-who-opposed-homosexuality-to-be-re-educated/
Pingback: This Week in Reaction (2015/09/06) | The Reactivity Place
Pingback: Moral progress | Dalrock
“The problem is the lie that McCain is telling women (the same lie our society at large is telling them) is even more harmful than the one feminists are telling women. Women are extremely vulnerable to believing that promiscuity on their terms is inherently moral. ”
How is it even more harmful? The other form is also considered inherently moral, “as long as its two consenting adults.”
@KWS
I believe Dalrock’s point is that both versions are equally immoral (pump and dump and serial monogamy) and it is harmful to give the impression that serial monogamy is somehow more moral (or less immoral) than a pump and dump/ONS. Also, consent does not make the act moral. It just means both parties agree to be immoral.
“it is harmful to give the impression that serial monogamy is somehow more moral (or less immoral) than a pump and dump/ONS. ”
No one has given that impression since at least the 1980s. The new morality lies in the two consenting adults.
@KWS how has that “new” morality worked out for you ?
Pingback: Conserving Grammatical Orphans | Things that We have Heard and Known