The Other McCain has a post up titled Insta-Whores, about social media prostitution. As McCain notes, the lines here can be blurry, and either way this is likely to corrode social trust:
Much of the behavior enabled by this emerging online market isn’t exactly prostitution — not a straightforward fee-for-service arrangement — but in general, social media is a mechanism by which good-looking young women may discover the cash value of their youth and beauty…
One result of this phenomenon — so-called “sugar babies” vending themselves to “sugar daddies” — is widespread cynicism and distrust. College girls who become accustomed to jetting off to Miami, Palm Springs or the French Rivera for “vacations” with well-heeled clients are not likely to be impressed with their male classmates, who can’t afford to spoil them in this manner. And a young man never knows whether the attractive woman with whom he’s trying to strike up a conversation is secretly engaging in such commercial activity. Recall the experience of Anthony Johnson (“Hypergamy Doesn’t Care,” April 23) who says he discovered his ex-wife had been engaged in prostitution for years. Once you become aware that this hidden sexual marketplace exists, the awareness changes your perception of women’s behavior.
But this also raises the question of what we expect young (and not so young) women to do while they delay marriage. Nearly all people are troubled by the idea of a woman marrying at 18, 19, or even in her early 20s, and most would be troubled to learn that she did so without having sex with other men first. How can she be ready to marry if she lacks “life experience”? Once married, we fear she will stay married if she no longer is happy honoring her vows.
Collectively, our biggest fear isn’t that our daughters will become whores, but that they won’t become whores. We just tell ourselves whoring is good so long as no money changes hands.
But again, what do we really expect young women to do in the interim, as the median age of first marriage continues to advance? In theory they are supposed to be looking for their soulmate, but while busily sampling their options are also not supposed to find him too soon. We expect young women to engage in the sexual marketplace, and we tell ourselves this is good so long as they don’t marry, and don’t accept cash or excessive gifts. They must whore for the joy of whoring, or it would be immoral and possibly illegal.
A few years back AXA Equitable ran a hilarious commercial about a woman who was too busy planning for retirement to notice her soulmate:
If anything, conservative Christians are even worse in this regard. The 700 Club’s Wendy Griffith is in her mid 50s and has yet to find a husband. Instead of a cautionary tale, this makes her a role model young Christian women want to follow. What was Griffith’s epiphany after failing for decades to find a husband? She wasn’t picky enough!
In Griffith’s case she claims to have retained her virginity as she drew out her husband hunt well into her 50s. I have no reason to doubt this, but I do doubt that this is common for Christian women, including the very women who read her book.
The reality is that both Christians and non Christians are deeply uncomfortable with Christian sexual morality, and we have reordered our society accordingly. With this in mind, our sudden fear that our young women are turning into whores would be comical if it weren’t so tragic.
Related: Losing control of the narrative.
Update: See The Other McCain’s response here.
I don’t know about Wendy Griffith’s purported story, but it does seem odd. But I do suspect that the mistakes women make tend to have a snowball effect.
I’ve run into multiple women in their 30s who have told me “I expected I’d be in a stable relationship by now.” ie, their 20s were for having fun, but at 28-29 they expected to find a man who was marriage material, get married in their early 30s, and have a family immediately.
Except, they can relate all this, and never, ever say they made a mistake, or treat their approach as wrong. All that talk of disappointment and regret stops well short of saying “I should have done things differently”. Instead they act like the effect was unpredictable and unavoidable, or someone else’s fault. She did her part of the plan: why didn’t some guy show up and play the role she had written for him?
The result is you get bitter 30- and 40-something women who made mistakes, are disappointed, have regrets… but then go and tell women, of COURSE you don’t want to get married at 18, or 20. Live first! How do you know what you really want until you see all your options?
The alternative would be to tell young women to do something they never did, which would be tantamount to admitting they made irreversible mistakes.
We don’t have to doubt.
You nailed it. We (collectively) do NOT want our daughters to be virtuous. We want them to be sluts, though we really don’t know why. We mumble things like “happiness” and “experience” to ourselves, though we know it’s a lie, but we also dare not speak up, lest we be tarred and feathered. Sometimes I feel like Orwell’s Winston Smith, being asked how many fingers I see, and sometimes, like when your employment is on the line, you feel the pressure to say what they want to hear.
Or as the moms who defend their daughter’s debauchery will say: You have to kiss a few frogs to find your prince. Of course by this they mean ride the carousel.
And when you tell them that they’ve painted themselves into a corner and made a huge mistake they will stamp their feet and say “that’s not fair!”
I think that’s because they’re incapable of actively opposing their own mating strategy, even if it’s not working.
Two thousand years ago these women wouldn’t be worthy of the Temple of Aphrodite. They would only be suitable as harlots to the Roman pig farmer or maintenance man at the Cloaca Maxima!
Prohibitions against harlotry had to do with pollution. These are polluted women. It is why there was a restriction of a Temple priest marrying a non-virgin or prostitute in the OT. There is no “hooker with the heart of gold.” These women are garbage women. Read the Wisdom books that mention you shouldn’t waste your money on these gold-digging bitches (Jesus says the same thing in his parable of the Prodigal Son).
It is also why St. Paul in Corinthians told those Christians you can’t go down to the Pagan Temple and eat sacrificed meats and bang the priestesses there. You belonged to Christ, not Isis.
But, we’ve elevated the harlot to the level of Mary. And, we expect our daughters to act differently.
The “prostitution lite” thing is ubiquitous among attractive young women. It isn’t uncommon, it’s common now, and often it doesn’t actually involve any sex (hence “lite”) but just arm candy for some older beta using his cash as a buffer because he’s never even touched a woman who was HB7+. Between instagram and sugar babies to tinder to bumble is really just a continuum for young women .. each flavor or channel provides a different kind of payoff for the attractive young woman, whether it’s pure attention, or money for pictures, or money for companionship, or herself “for free” for a hot guy on tinder/bumble. It really is one continuum, and it’s very common for attractive young women to have a pole in every fire and not think twice about it, because they don’t actually “have sex for money” like the women on hooker sites do.
Older tradcons have no clue about this world, because it is a world that simply did not exist even 10 years ago.
We are so foolish.
Never. Ever. Wife. A. Whore.
I think a good step towards fixing this would be to bring back the old Roman meretrix laws. You want to be a whore? Sign here, initial there, here’s your meretrix license. Read the fine print, choices have consequences, have a nice day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_ancient_Rome#The_prostitutes
I grew up in a very conservative fundamentalist environment (Bill Gothard’s ATI/IBLP), and I can’t say that there was a lot of friendliness there towards marriage, either. I’m not sure what young women were supposed to do there, either, except that they were big on promoting Elizabeth Elliot and the “single women serving God” lifestyle. Single men, from what I could tell, were supposed to be asexual, spiritual, and understand that they were totally unworthy of Christian women, to the point that even courtship from a man was contaminating on some level.
As far as sex and marriage went, well, they had one pamphlet that talked about the benefits of abstinence in marriage.
I’ve kicked off that load of crap, but I still have no idea what a Christian man is supposed to do. Don’t masturbate, don’t look at porn, lust/sexual attraction to a woman not your wife is wrong, etc. Ok. But there’s no way out, either: you almost cannot find a virtuous woman today (remember, if you marry an adulterous woman, you are an adulterer), you won’t get to keep having sex in marriage, there’s a very high chance that you will lose both your kids and your wife in divorce, and all of this by demand of the governing powers that we are bound to obey (Romans 13). And sex outside marriage is also a sin.
I understand that there were Christians in the later Roman Empire that responded to these sorts of problems by just lopping their balls off, but that’s only for those whom it is given, and it didn’t seem to keep those who did it out of heresy or mistakes anyway (e.g., Origen).
The only thing I can think is some sort of intentional community living, like the Amish.
@Gunty
This is a terrible idea, as the Romans discovered. They abandoned it because–far from discouraging women–they signed up to be whores to prevent a man from controlling their property. It had the reverse affect than intended.
What young man in his right mind would WANT one of these ex-sugar babies? Someone who has sold herself to yucky old men for sex?
Once a whore, always a whore. Isn’t that what they say? Probably because it’s true!
First of all, I’m surprised to see R.S. McCain discovering this (it’s only been going on for 5 to 10 years) and sort of examining it. Perhaps he is capable of learning after all.
Second, speaking of learning:
Gunty
Never. Ever. Wife. A. Whore.
Traveler
What young man in his right mind would WANT one of these ex-sugar babies?
Huh. Did you read the OP carefully? Did you read Nova’s comment? Did you follow the link about Anthony Johnson and read his story?
You two are rather dense. Perhaps you are examples of the “older tradcons” Novaseeker just commented about?
Question: what does a “sugar baby” or a “camgirl” look like in real life? How a about a former SB / camgirl? Would you recognize one in the coffee shop, at the supermarket, in the business meeting?
Would you recognize one in church?
The Glasses enable a man to see many things, but no man can see with his eyes willfully closed. Step one: Open the eyes, even if it hurts.
Dalrock:
Wondering why Anonymous Reader feels it necessary to insult those with whom he disagrees. I think we should leave the piusonous Ad Hominem to the opposition.
Gunty
I think a good step towards fixing this would be to bring back the old Roman meretrix laws.
LOL. Are you high? Or just naturally out of touch with reality?
What day is it? What did you have for breakfast? Who’s the President?
Traveler
I think we should leave the piusonous Ad Hominem to the opposition.
Define ad Hominem and demonstrate where it is used in this thread.
PS: Stop whining.
@Eric
Have you read Deep Strength’s book yet? It is available for Kindle and is quite readable. He offers very practical, actionable advice, although there is probably something in his book to offend, or annoy, or convict everyone.
I do not know if he has found a way to distribute it outside of Amazon, if that matters.
To see many stories of young women following the modern life script to a bad end, read “Cheap Sex: The Transformation of Men, Marriage, and Monogamy” by sociologist Mark Regnerus (Oxford University Press, 2017). Lots of casualties from the Left’s latest social engineering project.
Here is an excerpt with one woman’s story:
https://fabiusmaximus.com/2018/01/17/misadventures-of-a-modern-america-woman/
@AR
Ad hominem: appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
Requested examples:
“You two are rather dense.”
“Are you high? Or just naturally out of touch with reality?”
“Stop whining.”
Or is that considered rational discourse, given that you are infallible?
As near as I can tell, your contributions at this site are limited mainly to commenting about other people’s posts. Quite often, you take a raging rhetorical axe to them.
As for “whining”: I can’t email the blogger and I can’t ban you, so my only recourse is to call you out.
Why can’t they admit they made a mistake?
The idolatry of fornication has blinded their eyes and corrupted their imaginations.
They must forsake their idols in order to repent, and that is not a preferred option.
@Dalrock
Thot leaders! lmao nice one
Why should they? The entire society tells them that the approach is right. In addition, it worked for their mothers and elder sisters. This is the first generation after the sexual revolution for which it’s somewhat hard for women to land the beta husband after “finding themselves” (you know what I mean).
Older tradcons have no clue about this world, because it is a world that simply did not exist even 10 years ago.
Exactly right. Even some younger sheltered tradcons are the same way. The trad-moms encourage this naivete as it serves the feminine imperative.
@Gunty –
From your Wiki article:
“A girl (puella, a term used in poetry as a synonym for “girlfriend” or meretrix [prostitute] and not necessarily an age designation) might live with a procuress or madame (lena) or even go into business under the management of her mother, though mater might sometimes be a mere euphemism for lena.”
Ha! You’re girlfriend by definition is a whore.
TheTraveler
As near as I can tell, your contributions at this site are limited mainly to commenting about other people’s posts.
How many years have you been reading here?
As for “whining”: I can’t email the blogger and I can’t ban you, so my only recourse is to call you out.
You could also start your own blog.
I still have no idea what a Christian man is supposed to do. Don’t masturbate, don’t look at porn, lust/sexual attraction to a woman not your wife is wrong, etc. Ok. But there’s no way out, either: you almost cannot find a virtuous woman today (remember, if you marry an adulterous woman, you are an adulterer), you won’t get to keep having sex in marriage, there’s a very high chance that you will lose both your kids and your wife in divorce, and all of this by demand of the governing powers that we are bound to obey (Romans 13). And sex outside marriage is also a sin.
Man i wrestled with this too. It really looks hopeless there for a while after finding the truth. Except for Christ I would be a nihilist, because this world is broken. God is the only hope we’ve got.
What I had to do is to stop trying to live up to the standards of church culture. It’s difficult, but I had to understand that church culture does not automatically equal right living. Basically I had to reevaluate everything I thought I knew about what was right or wrong that I previously based on church culture.
I would tentatively point someone in the direction of Vox Day for an example of looking at first principles and common sense instead of modern church culture. Your mileage may vary.
It’s not a short process, and you’ll be a different person when you get through wrestling with these issues.
TheTraveler
Ad hominem: appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason.
Very sloppy, you will not pass the Rhetoric exam this way. However, I will assist you:
https://infogalactic.com/info/Ad_hominem
You’r welcome.
“Church culture” is screwing things up. I know of a Church that literally said “if you are here for the women WE WILL FIND YOU”.
Heck, that’s why I started going to Church. I thought I was doing fine just reading that Bible I found in my sock drawer when I was 21. I read that and followed that. But I wanted a family. So I researched Churches, looking at how closely they followed the Bible. I found one with fantastic teaching. Took me 2.5 years to find the one I was to marry, (or for her to find me, as it happened). We got married 18 months after meeting. LOL that Church I referenced above would have kicked me out for looking for a wife. Sheesh.
What took so long? Vetting. Watching her closely to make sure she was the real deal. She was. Still is.
By the way, Bruce Bryans book “what women want when they test men” is pretty spot on.
I’m just thankful I don’t have to swim in that sewer.
Have you ever seen a group of girls [on Instagram] sporting skimpy bikinis on a gorgeous yacht? Or that “model” who continually posts thong and hand-bra pics and is ALWAYS traveling to the most exotic (and expensive) places? I always used to wonder, “how does she have
so much money?”
The Other McCain apparently has never heard of “Photoshop” and believes the photos on Instagram and other sites are real and accurate representations of the girl he believes posted the photos. Hint – They may not have even been posted by a girl.
So called dating sites have profiles and photos that are largely fake and scams designed to get a response from the desperate and separate them from their money (Think Ashley Maddison).
Sure there are attractive girls sporting skimpy bikinis. Most likely they will be found on beaches during Spring Break with a bunch of other college students.
@ AR
“Open the eyes, even if it hurts.”
Yes, it hurts, a lot. And the older you are the more it hurts.
Maybe Christians are worried that their daughters will marry “deadbeats” and be locked into a miserable marriage with a loser. And then she will be forced to divorce him for a better life for her and the children.
Parents know too well that the probability of a single mother to re-marry are virtually non-existent and only getting worse by the year.
So perhaps on some subconscious level, parents want their daughters to “experience the world”(travel, meet many men, sow their royal oats) to experience some measure of happiness, because they know marriage can be miserable and hopeless – for both husbands and wives. Daughters should experience some freedom and joy before become their husband’s slave and concubine.
7817
Even some younger sheltered tradcons are the same way. The trad-moms encourage this naivete as it serves the feminine imperative.
The same with former carousel riders over 30. The men over 40 are typically clueless, their wives burlble about “what a nice girl, she’s a catch for some man!”. Female in-group preference has been measured at 4:1 by one small study, and that maybe understated. Single men need The Glasses so that they can really assess the women around them. Not to judge or criticize necessarily, but certainly for self-protection. The same for narcissists and others of Cluster B.
It’s not a secret, really. One doesn’t have to go wading through the porny side of the net to know about the existence of camgirls, but outside the manosphere nobody talks about such stuff. On the other hand, stuff like Ashley Madison (affairs for married people) and Seeking Arrangements (Sugar babies) are not exactly deep dark secrets hidden away and only reachable via Tor.
It’s strange, 100 years ago in parts of the US brothels were pretty common. Adults knew about them, and young people were taught to stay away from them. But one had to go to “that part of town” to find them. Now strange things are all around us, yet the only focus of church leaders is “porn! Watch out for porn!”, as if Penthouse magazine at the local convenience store is the biggest danger.
Except, they can relate all this, and never, ever say they made a mistake, or treat their approach as wrong. All that talk of disappointment and regret stops well short of saying “I should have done things differently”. Instead they act like the effect was unpredictable and unavoidable, or someone else’s fault. She did her part of the plan: why didn’t some guy show up and play the role she had written for him?
You mean to tell me that there are STILL long -time denizens here to whom it is just now an earth-shattering revelation that women:
1. Have ZE-RO understanding of cause and effect, and, directly related
2. Are genetically incapable of holding themselves accountable for their actions or accepting responsibility for anything they do?
I mean, SERIOUSLY?
First of all, I’m surprised to see R.S. McCain discovering this (it’s only been going on for 5 to 10 years) and sort of examining it. Perhaps he is capable of learning after all.
That you’re surprised tells me that you’re completely unfamiliar with R.S. McCain. He’s a typical tradcuck who couldn’t get a clue about women and feminism even if it were handed to him as a gift and who throws them away in disgust on the rare occasions when he is given them unwrapped and undisguised.
This article is just another typical example of his willful ignorance of the blindingly obvious.
Joe
First: Congrats on your vetting.
Secon:
By the way, Bruce Bryans book “what women want when they test men” is pretty spot on.
This is the first time I’ve ever heard of this man. He has several books that look interesting. Here is the result of a search of booksellers:
https://www.bookfinder.com/search/?author=bruce+bryans&title=&lang=en&isbn=&new_used=*&destination=us¤cy=USD&mode=basic&st=sr&ac=qr
Here are some Bryans quotes at Goodreads.
https://www.goodreads.com/author/quotes/6580916.Bruce_Bryans
Example:
Good stuff. Very good stuff. Thanks for pointing Bryans out to all of us.
wodensthane
Yes, it hurts, a lot. And the older you are the more it hurts.
That is true. Very painfully true.
@Joe
Re: church culture — you are SO right!
Given society in general, Christianity in particular, are hostile to young men, in my denomination, their (very sensible) response is not to show up. Because why should they?
Some of us less-Churchian older folk decided a Young Adults group might help. I did what I could to invite people, young men in particular. The church elite who knew young men actively worked against us; the church elders, obsessed with their precious rice bowls (men’s Bible Study, “Men of Service,” etc.) varied from vaguely hostile to hateful.
While supportive, my pastor was annoyingly obsessed about “not creating a meat market.” (Same dude complained about young people not t getting married, and there’s nobody in marriage prep. Duh.) HIS big plans for a mature group involved standard-issue virtue-signaling Churchian/Social Justice “service,” because apparently it’s not pleasing to the Almighty (or something) if you’re not virtue-signaling full-time.
A multi-church group, our lead minister was from a younger parish, a stickler for academic Churchianity. In the name of such “rigor,” as he called it, he destroyed the group by unilaterally merging it with a Christian “Eat/Work/Pray”-type lifestyles study group (one guess about the overwhelming gender of THAT group).
It’s as though young people meeting in and (possibly) marrying from a wholesome church environment is somehow wicked. The elders, clergy, and older church members, who weren’t indifferent mostly, actively tried to knock us down. Then they complain, privately and (where applicable) from the pulpit, “our young people are marrying outside the church.”
Once again: Duh. Duh to the millionth power. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Wanted to note that McCain would totally be on board with Dalrock here. He has written often about marrying young and starting a family early. And this is evidenced in his own children, where the 3 eldest of 6 are all married in their early 20’s.
Although I don’t think he always fully appreciates some of the manosphere’s understandings, he is more aware of them than most. He has quoted and recommended Dalrock in the past, and he has referenced others such as Roosh, Roissy, and Rollo.
Most importantly he often criticizes women as well as men when they make poor life choices regarding relationships. And instead of telling guys to “man up,” he tells them to avoid such women.
My very best and warmest greetings to a fellow sojourner!
Alas, TheTraveler has fallen foul of the curse of the moniker, perhaps?
When I noticed your recent complaints in the last two threads of a certain someone, TheTraveler, I couldn’t help but wonder if the suffix ‘Traveler’ (2 Ls in my case, LOL, I am British, thank you Sir!) may be the common denominator in our common demise vis-a.vis Le Lecteur anonyme.
I consider myself a friend of this blog (I have little time to comment so I mostly lurk these days).
More precisely, I am a ‘pupil’ of this blog. Well before I got married, I learned so much about marriage from the elders and brothers here.*
So I have to say, I was quite shocked by what I thought was rather scathing criticism of and needless pointing out of my ‘navel gazing’, whatever that refers to, in what I believed at the time to be a rather uncalled for series of caustic Insults that I don’t really think I deserved.
I wasn’t particularly making any inflammtory comments, I don’t think. Just sharing in the banter of the blog as per usual. Of course one is used to having disagreements wth other commenters from time to time. But this…was slightly different in that there was no specific dogma or statement of mine in question, just plain old attacking of the person for its own sake.
But, anyhow, lest you read into this as ‘complaining’, not so. I ‘took it on the chin’ and hope you will too. No need for squabbles among friends.
You win some, you lose some. Such, as they say, is life.
*To give an example of the gratitude I feel towards the kindred here, I tell you a funny story.
Today is actually my birthday 🙂
But in a role reversal situation, I am stuck in my husband’s country with the family whilst he is holed up in my own country of origin. I just KNEW he would forget my birthday (bless his cotton socks, the fella even forgets his own birthday unless I remind him, or in some cases when the guests start arriving to his surprise party. And for sure his own siblings’ birthdays…just don’t get me started on that! LOL)
I decided to play him a practical joke and texted him (bear in mind a 1 hour time zone such that I awoke much earlier than him): ‘Hey, mister, quick, wish your wife a happy birthday before she realises you forgot!’
In fine form, he texted me the following about 5 hours later (and I roughly translate):
‘Hey, wife, Happy Birthday! Some bitch in Switzerland was pressurizing me earlier to wish you a Happy Birthday. What she didn’t know of course is that I woke up thinking of you and thinking how much I love you.’
What bliss! That truly made my day. I know his reply is full of negs/Reframing/all kinds of Game principles, but honestly, I haven’t stopped smiling all day. What wife wouldn’t want such a birthday message! That surely has to take the proverbial crown!
I appreciate all I have learned from the many wise men here (and also women!) since I clapped eyes on this blog many moons ago. Funny, that I think I became a better wife… interacting with men on a blog. Go figure…
So a little insult here and there is no pain at all. All the more to appreciate!
My niece just turned 16 today. Told her happy birthday, but she better get pregnant next year
She Agreed and Amplified, saying she is getting married right after she matriculates lol
I truly hope she doesn’t go down this Party-Hard-Then-Settle path.
On the other end though, her mom (my sister) was a bible-bashing church nut.
She had my niece THEN hitched the guy, only for him to divorce her when niece turned 6.
They met in church, FYI.
“That you’re surprised tells me that you’re completely unfamiliar with R.S. McCain. He’s a typical tradcuck who couldn’t get a clue about women and feminism even if it were handed to him as a gift and who throws them away in disgust on the rare occasions when he is given them unwrapped and undisguised.”
Uh, I think you are the one who is unfamiliar. He regularly writes thousands of words criticizing feminists and their ideology. Regarding relationships, yes he does he have some affinity for the Christian chivalry view. But he agrees that Dalrock makes true points regarding Wendy Griffith’s and about the unbiblical and impractical advice she and others are offering.
See: https://theothermccain.com/2018/01/19/you-should-be-reading-dalrock/
I had no idea. Such things of course have always gone on in greater and smaller ways, but just how common is it? The Geisha is NOT a prostitute but would you really want you daughter to be one – were you Japanese that is. All Hail to the new Emperor. In the days when I attended Covent Garden about once a month I was struck by how many beautiful women were to be seen in the boxes usually accompanying some older man. I deduced they were some form of escort but if I were paying for sex Covent Garden would not be my chosen location.
If anything, conservative Christians are even worse in this regard.
Yes. I have mentioned before that churches celebrate sending off their young women to “serve God” as missionaries. Despite what it explicitly said in 1 Tim 2:15.
And even if they do keep their virginity, they become full of themselves, compounding the Genesis curse.
@ Opus:
Apparently, a lot of FL colleges are at the top of the heap when it comes to the numbers of female students to be found offering arrangements of some site called Sugar Babies something or other. Only a NY university has more female students on the site. Of course, it’s burning up the news cycle down here, implying that the numbers are astronomical. For a bit of perspective:
FSU has roughly 18,500 female students, and according to the news stats, they have 873 female students listed as members of the website.
One disheartening thing I have noted in recent years is Christians who find it weird or strange that a never-married woman who is a practicing Christian has never had sex. One expects the world to be so screwed up, but other Christians? Christians indeed seem to have a real problem with single people who live in line with Christian sexual mores.
Great comment DrTorcg.
The inability to link cause to effect and think abstractly affects the single female missionary, and her modern day apologist as well.
Here’s some typical complementarian reasoning reminiscent of the Winchester Mystery House.
https://www.desiringgod.org/interviews/why-are-women-more-eager-missionaries
In other words, the very things that keep a man single in his late 20s and 30s are probably the same kind of things that would keep him from pursuing a life in missions. On the other hand, single women may not feel any of those hindrances. They would happily marry a godly, mature, purposeful, mission-directed man if he came along. But they can’t make that happen without men doing their part.
The usual. He also mentions Elisabeth Elliot’s with Gladys Aylward. You know, God called the hunky Christian handyman to drop from the sky in China and marry her. God called him but he never went.
Elisabeth Elliot’s **interview** with Gladys Aylward
Apologies DrTorch for the typo.
First of all, I’m surprised to see R.S. McCain discovering this (it’s only been going on for 5 to 10 years) and sort of examining it. Perhaps he is capable of learning after all.
Don’t bet on it.
Every time he gets to a point where a real red-pill truth is obvious, he backs away with great haste, and runs interference by heavily bashing some fat bluehaired lefty feminist (in order to obscure any doubts about his cred).
He is too committed to the narrative that :
i) Republican women are tirelessly fighting feminism.
ii) Voting Republican is sufficient action towards repealing feminism.
iii) It is the fault of men that women don’t marry at 21.
iv) Nothing about current divorce laws and child custody laws is inherently unfair (I challenge anyone to find an article of his that has any problem with these laws).
v) There is no difference between the marriage market of the 1970s, vs. today.
@Spacetraveller
Thank you for the kind words.
Alas, I’m afraid I don’t quite see things as you do. There are some here who abuse the “among friends” idea. Sarcastic, snarky attacks by lurkers whose main (in some case, almost entire) contribution is the savage deconstruction of other people’s thoughtful contributions is not my idea of brotherhood.
You seem like a gentleman. Let us agree to disagree. Cheers.
What should we expect them to do instead of lowering themselves to marry?
https://www.alifeoverseas.com/dear-single-missionary/
Play Pin the Tail on the Stereotype by reading her blog, be sure view her photo. This stuff often writes its own RP blog post.
A question for you: Why haven’t feminists responded with moral outrage against the “Sugar daddy – Sugar baby” contract?
My guess is that while it benefits women financially and they ”are using their sexuality on their terms”, feminists don’t have a problem with it. Cuckservatives including churchians have a problem with it, but they will simply pretend it doesn’t exist. Ditto whoredom during the party years.
It’s still immoral, and it still ruins women for marriage.
What has to be called out is what mothers tell their daughters. Very often it is mothers who drive their daughters to whoredom because they start projecting their own embitterment onto their daughters via manipulative mind-control:
“Don’t get married early. Play the field. You only live once. Then you’re stuck with the one man [like your father]”
”Get a career. Never relay on a man or trust him with your future…”
I have heard deeply conservative Catholic Christian women say this and endorse this type of reasoning, and it is wrong. it is wrong because it sets up daughters to look upon marriage as the end of freedom, to see the husband as ”the best they could manage” and that they ”settled for second (or third or fourth or twenty-third) best”.
Dalrock once said here that conservatives in general and Christians in particular have responded to the various excesses of the Sexual revolution with a highly selective sense of moral outrage – outrage directed at men. It may not be easy to collectively call women out, but it might be that bit easier to call out the married Christian women who cuts her husband off at the knees and sets her daughter up for vicarious whoredom.
Older tradcons have no clue about this world, because it is a world that simply did not exist even 10 years ago.
Don’t have a clue, don’t want one. I’ve made several angry by pointing out the incongruities Dalrock regularly brings to light, and this while working overtime on my delivery to ensure I did not cause offense.
It’s extra weird for me because I am an “older tradcon” myself in many ways. The category itself is nebulous, and I am always amused when my 80 year old father points out the foibles of some “old timer”; which he acknowledges he is, but not to the same extent as the man in question even if that man is slightly younger. And so I view older tradcons that still live in the matrix from which I was delivered, thanks be to God. Though I harbor a certain sympathy for them as well, remembering who I was and what it was like.
Some of them can’t get out, it is too late. Some of them will not leave, even if you show them a clear path to daylight. They do not want to know. They will not.
Yes, 7817 and thetraveler are correct. modern Churchians are so obsessed with status that they will drive away their young people in droves, with one of two paths: right into the carousel or into the arms of homosexuality/feminism.
I don’t care to unpack all the reasons why Christians make it hard to mate, but Paul is involved in there quite a bit.
Culture used to “throw young people at one another at every chance” to drive marriage and family. If you want to do anything, then you have to help.
1. Start while young explaining that her best path for happiness in life is marriage and children while young.
2. Keep explaining and expand that you expect her to marry an older guy with trade/career and have children when she’s 19-21. If kids out of wedlock, then she’s gone. Carrot and stick.
3. Don’t pay for or send her to college. A little community college, maybe. A job while she’s at home.
4. Bring those younger guys over to at least to introduce them to your daughter. If she’s over 18, make every opportunity. Make sure he has a decent trade started, and has some game.
5. Do not virtue signal over your daughters “innocence”. Half of the shit attitude girls have toward sex these days is rebellion against their father’s virtue signalling. All praise and dowry for the married daughter with legit kids, and ashes and tears for those that don’t. Tell her that, and mean it.
6. Remember, you want your daughter to have sex. With her husband. Don’t make her wait, and make sure she knows not to wait.
7. Roosh has a good book on this very topic.
See the attitude here? If churches had this attitude they’d be hugely growing and littered with happily married young people punching out kids. But they’d rather inspect the leaves on the trees than notice the forest being cut down.
I have a co-worker who’s daughter IS a Sugar Baby. When he found out, he wasn’t totally devastated by that knowledge. He was actually okay with it. I’ll have more information about this when I have time to write details later.
See the attitude here? If churches had this attitude they’d be hugely growing and littered with happily married young people punching out kids. But they’d rather inspect the leaves on the trees than notice the forest being cut down.
It’s because almost none of the fathers actually want that for their daughters.
@elspeth
Always good to see you.
FSU has roughly 18,500 female students, and according to the news stats, they have 873 female students listed as members of the website.
Ah, numbers. Thank you very much!
Let’s see, 4.7% of the female students of Florida State are listed as members of the website (but not all members necessarily participate). That is useful and clarifying. I wonder what the numbers are like at the Enormous State U’s in flyover country vs. the coasts?
Data breaches at these sites, like the ones at Ashley Madison, might just persuade some people at the margins to stay away from them. One can hope.
TheTraveler
@Spacetraveller
Thank you for the kind words.
You seem like a gentleman. Let us agree to disagree. Cheers.
Heh.
Perhaps you should have read her comment all the way through?
Novaseeker
It’s because almost none of the fathers actually want that for their daughters.
Yes, and not just the Upper Class / Upper Middle Class either. I’ve heard very earnest middle-class men in technical fields explaining why it is very important for their daughters to go out and learn a trade / get a degree / start a career. It’s because of the horrible risk that they might marry a man who turns out to be no good, and leaves them / beats them / cheats on them / can’t hold a job. In other words, the standard track for girls, leading them to marry sometime over the age of 27…
Now, that line is to be expected from a conservative feminist, especially a 2nd wave Boomer / GenX feminist. But hearing it from a Traditional, Conservative churchgoing man who is a Bible literalist, a 6-24-hour-day creationist..still is jarring to me. There’s a disconnect between his theory and practice. Although at least one of his college-grad daughters has gotten married in the last few years.
It’s been said many times, but I’ll echo Novaseeker: some of the biggest feminists in the US are fathers who have only daughters. They will fight bitterly against any attempt to reduce women’s choices, and are ready to sacrifice all other men’s sons to their special snowflake princesses.
A note in the conversation: The pastor’s wife who told my to stay away from me after she filed for divorce also claimed months earlier that she did encourage early marriage.
Just supporting that doesn’t mean a woman supports staying married.
Spike
A question for you: Why haven’t feminists responded with moral outrage against the “Sugar daddy – Sugar baby” contract?
My guess is that while it benefits women financially and they ”are using their sexuality on their terms”, feminists don’t have a problem with it.
Well, the 3rd wave feminist is “sex positive” so long as it’s on women’s terms. Sugarbabies extract resources from men by their own choice, but without all that messy stuff like “marriage” and “divorce court”. One might get a conservative churchwoman 2nd wave Boomer feminist to grudgingly say that this is wrong, but considering how many Boomer women have collected ca$h and prize$ from divorce, I doubt that many would go too far.
I hope you weren’t seriously expecting feminists of any “wave” to engage in logic, or to live by their own rules.
While it wouldn’t have helped my marriage much, I wish my exwife had some career motivations. We would both be better off now if she ever thought someone other than me was responsible for supplying her with everything for life.
We expect young women to engage in the sexual marketplace, and we tell ourselves this is good so long as they don’t marry, and don’t accept cash or excessive gifts. They must whore for the joy of whoring, or it would be immoral and possibly illegal.
We don’t want them to be whores. We want them to be sluts.
Whores are bad because they sell sex.
Sluts are good because they give it away.
That’s the new morality.
@ Novaseeker
It’s because almost none of the fathers actually want that for their daughters.
You may be tired of explaining this here and elsewhere, but it plays out like clockwork and could be worth explaining again. Millions, literally millions, of fathers will not allow a change to the current go-girl life pattern.
Anonymous Reader says:
April 30, 2019 at 7:41 pm
Spike
A question for you: Why haven’t feminists responded with moral outrage against the “Sugar daddy – Sugar baby” contract?
My guess is that while it benefits women financially and they ”are using their sexuality on their terms”, feminists don’t have a problem with it.
Well, the 3rd wave feminist is “sex positive” so long as it’s on women’s terms. Sugarbabies extract resources from men by their own choice, but without all that messy stuff like “marriage” and “divorce court”. One might get a conservative churchwoman 2nd wave Boomer feminist to grudgingly say that this is wrong, but considering how many Boomer women have collected ca$h and prize$ from divorce, I doubt that many would go too far.
I hope you weren’t seriously expecting feminists of any “wave” to engage in logic, or to live by their own rules.
Thanks AR. Silly me – expecting feminists of any stripe to use logic! Yet, logic – which they refer to as ”judgement” – is the devastating weapon that can be used against them and what they fear most.
You may be tired of explaining this here and elsewhere, but it plays out like clockwork and could be worth explaining again. Millions, literally millions, of fathers will not allow a change to the current go-girl life pattern.
@Lost Patrol —
I think the place where I explained some of the factors that seem relevant to me to understand why this is the case is something I wrote earlier this month in a comment to a guest post by Okrahead at Cane’s blog — the post is here: https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2019/04/01/foolish-and-worldly-talk-by-okrahead/#comments
The basic thrust of the comment, which you can read there, is that there are a few motivations mutually reinforcing this behavior among Christian fathers. One is the well known “need for Plan B” — the idea that he needs to make sure his daughter has a gold plated divorce insurance policy before she starts looking for a husband. That is certainly a thing and it is also almost always the thing that the fathers themselves will say if you ask them about it,
However there is another factor as well — expectations of social class in “how one lives”. Prior to the sex rev/60s changes, it was quite possible to follow the standard American middle class life script (or upper middle class one .. the upper middle was tiny then anyway) while not contradicting conventional Christian sexual morality. The two meshed. After the sex rev/60s, that meshing came apart. The middle class and above started to prioritize education for their daughters — again, in part as divorce insurance but in part also because it became a middle class norm for parents, especially fathers, to take pride in their daughters’ achievements educationally and professionally. The sexual revolution, the advent of cheap and reliable contraception and abortion, the changed social mores about women pursuing careers and so on … all of this basically changed the middle class life script. Christians who were in the middle class were theoretically faced with a conflict — which script to follow, the Christian one (which also previously was compatible with the middle class one) or the new middle class one which conflicted with the Christian one because it implied lots of fornication?
Well, we know how *that* turned out, don’t we? What we learned was that most American Christians, of all stripes, were more committed middle class strivers than they were committed Christians. So when the life scripts diverged, they followed the (new) middle class life script en masse … basically kept on following the prevailing middle class life script and left the Christian one by the wayside, observed with the lips but not with the actions. This was almost universally taking place at the time, and it became quickly entrenched. The churches didn’t fight it too much — there was some fighting in the 60s and 70s about it, but at the same time most of the “conservatives” in the churches were also adopting, de facto, the new middle class life script for their own daughters, and so the active opposition to this from the churches became weak relatively quickly, and then in the later 80s and into the 90s became virtually unheard of apart from radical separatist elements.
Do you like videos, guys?
I’m going to try something, see if you have fun ☺️
And that one also. Too good not to share with you.
This woman has a list, what do I say, she has a registery of demands.
and all of this by demand of the governing powers that we are bound to obey (Romans 13).
I’ve had numerous conversations with a pastor friend of mine about the law and I was amazed at how much he respected the law. The problem is that Christians also respect unjust laws, and respecting unjust laws is immoral in my opinion. If you are forced to comply with them, that’s a different story, but must you respect them? Laws are man-made, so why should we hold them sacred? Only the 10 commandments are sacred in my view.
I’ve been around Christians my whole life and I really respect them, and I hate to break this to you but the meek will NOT inherit the earth.
most of the “conservatives” in the churches were also adopting, de facto, the new middle class life script for their own daughters, and so the active opposition to this from the churches became weak relatively quickly, and then in the later 80s and into the 90s became virtually unheard of
One brief follow on.
The question arises — how could these people think of themselves as conservatives when they basically adopted all of feminism for their own daughters?
Well, the answer is one word: abortion. Roe v. Wade gave conservatives cover and a rallying point around which they could focus in a consensus way while basically caving into the rest of second wave feminism full stop. One’s social conservative bona fides was secured by being strongly anti-abortion, even though one supported the rest of the feminist program for girls and young women. Feminism came to be broadly accepted, de facto, in conservative circles, including in Christian one, by a rhetorical sleight-of-hand among conservatives — they basically redefined “feminism” to mean only the angry, man-hating, bra-burning, bulldyke pro-abortion wing. The rest of what feminism was actually fighting for — education and careers as priorities for women, set asides like Title IX to help this process, social support, etc. — was fine with conservatives as long as the young women involved looked feminine in appearance (long(ish) hair, feminine(ish) dress, feminine(ish) deportment — all in comparison to the radfems), didn’t hate men, and were anti-abortion. As long as they didn’t look and act like the radfems, conservatives were fine with “conservative young women” pursuing education and career and delaying marriage and all of it (while turning a very blind eye to the carousel) because they redefined feminism to be something else. The de facto narrowing of the definition of feminism and feminist by conservatives in the 1980s and into the 1990s reflected what conservatives were already doing in their own families, and it is why we have the phenomenon of the woman who is obviously feminist but doesn’t use the label feminist because she considers herself conservative because she is feminine in appearance and dislikes abortion … and all of the conservative men around her nod enthusiastically in approval.
This happened in the millions across the US in the 80s and 90s and was a done deal by the new millenium — Christians being the leaders of the charge, so to speak. Roe essentially handed social conservatives a rallying point around which they could organize and maintain their personal identity as conservatives while quietly accepting the rest of feminism de facto in their own families.
Off topic: men are better than women at being women.
https://pjmedia.com/trending/trans-woman-sets-world-records-olympian-decries-pointless-unfair-playing-field/
Early marriage is important, but not TOO early. Human synapses for judgement are not complete until age 25. In the 1980s and 90s, I read several studies that found, all else being equal, roughly age 25 was ideal for marriage.
From what I’ve read (and seen), it takes a year (roughly 10 to 14 months) for the 100% real “no defenses” person to show themselves. Add going steady for awhile, and if all goes well, get engaged for about a half year.
Matchmaking and fast marriage sounds nice in theory, but there was a LOT of alcoholism (thus the temperance movement) and spousal abuse (by both sexes) when people married young and quickly 100+ years ago. Not all the strife was among people in miserable living/working conditions.
Ideally, the young woman lives at home (NOT in some coed dorm), with enough freedom that she doesn’t rebel, going to community college till age 20 to pick up a useful quasi-career. (That’s in case she gets widowed or screws up in her choice–there ARE bad guys out there, too–so she wouldn’t be reliant on charity.) Working from 20 till marriage, hopefully meeting her spouse at age 22 to 23.
Result: young folks old enough to marry smart, young enough to “grow” together, and have 3-5 kids in school at an age when the carousel hags are struggling to conceive their first.
@Nova, you just blew my mind man. F***ing oath.
Christians indeed seem to have a real problem with single people who live in line with Christian sexual mores.
I would say that that’s more than sufficient justification to call into question the authenticity of their Christian faith.
Cary,
He regularly writes thousands of words criticizing feminists and their ideology.
Utterly false. He only criticizes fat bluehaired freaks, and expends a huge amount of energy saying that Republican women are actively fighting feminism, and that voting Republican is a potent way to repeal feminism. He certainly does not think divorce and custody laws are unfair to men.
See my comment at 6:14 PM for a summary of his views. He is really no different than National Review on the subject of feminism.
Your statement reveals you to be just as much as a blue-pill Tradcon as RS McCain.
“Your statement reveals you to be just as much as a blue-pill Tradcon as RS McCain.”
Yup. That´s why I didn´t even bother rebutting his ridiculous statements. The tradcon “proletariat” holds what amounts to an almost cult-like idolatry for that ideology´s pundit class (Exhibit A: IBB´s almost sexual infatuation with tradcon feminist Ann Coulter. Exhibit B: the millions of Americans who mainline FauxNews). No matter how stale, trite, and laughably ridiculous that class´s editorial excrement is on its face, the tradcon proles lap it up as if it was a new version of the Gospel. You can´t reason with people so willfully blind and ignorant, so I don´t waste any time and effort trying.
I would love to be able to say “to be fair, libprogs are the same way with the media sewage feeds of the Left.” I really can´t, though, because while libprogs don´t even pretend to be objective or stand for the truth (or even pretend to recognize that there IS truth), tradcons are forever chest thumping in the opposite direction, even though they still buy into the same sort of lies, and from the same brand of liars, only flavored differently.
Novaseeker
Roe essentially handed social conservatives a rallying point around which they could organize and maintain their personal identity as conservatives while quietly accepting the rest of feminism de facto in their own families.
Certainly I can’t find any real fault with this analysis. In fact it is testable both via personal experience and various forms of polling. It also explains the very common “conservative feminist” phenomenon that can be seen both in and out of churches: totally on board with Title IX, VAWA, Affirmative Action for women, special educational treatment for women, special governmental treatment of women, etc. while claiming “”Not A Feminist!”. Because for a lot of people “feminist” is defined solely in terms of abortion and lesbian “marriage”. Maybe with green and pink hair and a lot of tats.
Perhaps this is why so many churchgoing people are uneasy about actually overturning Roe? It would force them to find another way to define their “anti feminism”. No one likes to be accused of hypocrisy. We don’t mind being hypocrites, we just don’t like having it pointed out that we are.
OT but did you see this video from The Transformed Wife?
My wife posted this on FB and got some heat.
Certainly I can’t find any real fault with this analysis. In fact it is testable both via personal experience and various forms of polling. It also explains the very common “conservative feminist” phenomenon that can be seen both in and out of churches: totally on board with Title IX, VAWA, Affirmative Action for women, special educational treatment for women, special governmental treatment of women, etc. while claiming “”Not A Feminist!”. Because for a lot of people “feminist” is defined solely in terms of abortion and lesbian “marriage”. Maybe with green and pink hair and a lot of tats.
Perhaps this is why so many churchgoing people are uneasy about actually overturning Roe? It would force them to find another way to define their “anti feminism”. No one likes to be accused of hypocrisy. We don’t mind being hypocrites, we just don’t like having it pointed out that we are.
Imagine a red-pill pastor (yeah, yeah, I know, I know … I might as well be imagining a vegetarian dog, or fried ice. I can always dream, can’t I?) preaching a sermon on this very theme, especially in some suburban megachurch. It would be a great experiment in order to measure how fast his church emptied out and/or how quickly he would get fired.
It also explains the very common “conservative feminist” phenomenon that can be seen both in and out of churches: totally on board with Title IX, VAWA, Affirmative Action for women, special educational treatment for women, special governmental treatment of women, etc. while claiming “”Not A Feminist!”.
A week ago, Mrs. IBB (commenting from her husband’s handle) came out trying to loudly assert that most women are not feminists, and conservative women are advancing civilization by not being feminists. She doubled down with an extra heap of flamboyant virtue signalling until others came to run her off.
@TheTraveler
When Dalrock wrote:
and when Novaseeker wrote:
They were talking about exactly the sort of person who would say:
The kind of person who would say that is remarkably and willfully blind to what is going on around him. What was the rate of alcoholism and abuse in the 1920s; almost 100%? No it wasn’t. But very nearly 100% of women today whore around. This includes Christian women who go to church every week.
While you’re calculating the just-so timings of brain development and personality shields, normal, sensible young women are screaming out–body and soul–,“I really want a guy I like to fuck me! I want to throw off modesty! I want to feel his power respond to me! The center of my very being is a dick-shaped void and I want it filled!”
Troubles will come whatever. In the meantime: Let them have some righteousness, dignity, sanity, and even pleasure too. Marry them off young.
For the insight into true nature of “modern young women” please check out
http://tagthesponsor.com
Biology trumps religion any time.
As a fourteen year old I was taken into my parents dining-room one overcast day by my Father who was not a Boomer but of the Greatest Generation and he standing before me said – and I quote – “you will be leaving school soon [i.e. at fifteen] what are you going to do for a living?”. In the event things worked out slightly differently but even so….. When it came to my female sibling he had a very different attitude. His reasoning then was as follows: that she would marry but it was possible that her husband would fall on hard times. ergo: she needed to attend a University and acquire a degree. As it happened my sister was (and remains) a very good Tennis player and clearly could and should have become a Professional but my Father was not having that as in his view such an approach was neither safe nor secure and she needed a Plan B (which of course then by default became Plan A). My sister did marry – in her early thirties – and to an excellent man and good Christian and her degree has proved not merely been pointless but arguably caused her unnecessary and serious troubles before her marriage.
Later, my Father was complaining that he did not have enough grandchildren – he was, frankly, in the circumstances – lucky to have any at all.
Someone earlier said to never, ever wife a whore. Good advice. But how are you to know? She won’t think twice about lying to you if you ask, so to be safe, the better option is to never, ever wife any women – at least in western cultures.
There is a difference between a Prostitute and a Common Prostitute. A Common Prostitute is a woman who will for a fee sleep with any man who is able to pay the required sum; a Prostitute is any woman who introduces a financial element into her sexual arrangements. A woman who requires no financial recompence is a whore. A woman who marries is by default introducing a financial element into her sexual arrangement but limits her sexual partners to just one. The Common Prostitute is thus wiser than the whore and yet is shamed the more greatly. Women see the Common Prostitute as scab labour lowering the price of women yet somehow the woman who gives it away is not do regarded. I think the explanation is that in their minds the woman who gives it away for free either is banking on a financially beneficial arrangement (providing free samples) or would have done but has not thought better of the man in question as she has better options. The moral for men is to realise that there is no such thing as free sex.
john03063 says:
“Someone earlier said to never, ever wife a whore. Good advice. But how are you to know? She won’t think twice about lying to you if you ask, so to be safe, the better option is to never, ever wife any women – at least in western cultures.”
Screen her friends, her sister, her mother. Her father, her character. Her approach to work. Let’s take some woman I know and encountered in recent years, while I was doing tourism in her state, I went in her church: she is career oriented, is like her mother, uncooperative, and her friends are single mothers or sluts.
You know you can’t wife such a woman.
Someone earlier said to never, ever wife a whore. Good advice. But how are you to know? She won’t think twice about lying to you if you ask, so to be safe, the better option is to never, ever wife any women – at least in western cultures.
Theoretically, private investigators should be doing a booming business delving into the backgrounds of women on behalf of men interested in wifeing them up. However, most sensible men realize that 1) there is negative ROI in blowing hard-earned money on an expensive investigation of any given woman, and that 2) having to do such a thing in the first place proves beyond doubt that the risks and costs of committing to the target of the investigation far, FAR outweigh any potential reward.
You know you can’t wife such a woman.
Most of them really might just as well be wearing t-shirts that read UNMARRIAGEABLE AND PROUD OF IT!
re Bants. It’s the internet. Personal attacks are pretty much a given these days. I do pay more attention to people who attack my arguments, that’s what I consider to be hot bants.
>Someone earlier said to never, ever wife a whore. Good advice. But how are you to know? She won’t think twice about lying to you if you ask, so to be safe, the better option is to never, ever wife any women – at least in western cultures.
That was me. And you are right, it is a thorny problem, how do you validate her character and morals? In the old days, bad actresses were quickly weeded out because their reputation would fall quickly once word got around and it only took an example of one or two bad actresses getting shunned by the community to keep the rest in line. But those small communities are mostly gone these days. More or less all that’s left is what to avoid, not what to look for.
That’s mainly what I was arguing with the old meretrix system, it codified and standardized that loss of reputation, so you knew exactly what kind of woman you were dealing with.
I think you can start with any woman who lives in a big city, she’s going to be over 90% lacking character and morals. Don’t bother, especially if she lives in a big city, is still single and over 30. And if she has children and is a single mother, run. Don’t even talk to her, just run.
Really any place that encourages or allows anonymity is probably a very bad place to meet women in general. Online dating is waste of time because of that. Don’t even bother, at least for anything beyond pump and dump. I’d argue megachurches fall in that category too. Too much anonymity. Smaller churches where everyone knows everyone else may be OK. Looking for ways to validate her character.
I think Aaron Clarey said something like 1% of the women he dated were worth marriage? And he’s probably a hopeless romantic at that. I know Dalrock talked about searching costs. And that’s a lot of searching for what reward there might be, which is never guaranteed, at least not for the man anyway.
I know I’ve made the same arguments here more than once already, but, from women’s point of view, seeking a long-term relationship isn’t necessarily incompatible with seeking economic self-sufficiency. I’m sure this is the case, because I know a bunch of women who have done exactly this. They entered long-term monogamous relationships before graduating from high school, started cohabiting with their partners while attending college, learned a foreign language or two, graduated, got office jobs and worked for a couple of years before having children. It can be done, but it requires a high level of self-control, future time orientation, and a lot of compromise.
It can be done, but it requires a high level of self-control, future time orientation, and a lot of compromise.
In other words, they would have to turn themselves into men.
Höllenhund,
Your scenario is remarkably similar to England’s Princess Kate. I wonder if this is common for the upper middle class, and maybe even the “conservative” middle class. It seems to fit well with Novaseeker’s contention that the rules are different for the UMC.
There is a saying in Spanish: Dime con quien andas y te dire quien eres. Tell me who you hang out with and I’ll tell you who you are.
“Off topic: men are better than women at being women.”
Feminists demanded androgyny, now they have it.
Wouldn’t it be nice to see Chanty Binx step into an MMA cage with one of those “xirs”?
@Redpill Latecomer -“We don’t want them to be whores. We want them to be sluts.
Whores are bad because they sell sex.
Sluts are good because they give it away.
That’s the new morality.”
Yup. It’s ok because the Bible says nothing about sluts, only whores!
Also Christians, you’re doing dating wrong:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/sun-men/8973401/sex-first-date-relationship-questions/
@ Novaseeker
Thanks for that explanation. Dalrock wrote:
The reality is that both Christians and non Christians are deeply uncomfortable with Christian sexual morality, and we have reordered our society accordingly.
You have described the mechanics of the reordering as I’ve seen it, but couldn’t tell it so well.
In church circles, “deeply uncomfortable” may be to understate the case. What young women are doing in their free time during the college/career phase is a subject to be avoided like one would a radiation hazard. Let it all play out unremarked appears to be the universal policy.
TheTraveler
…there was a LOT of alcoholism (thus the temperance movement) and spousal abuse (by both sexes) when people married young and quickly 100+ years ago. Not all the strife was among people in miserable living/working conditions.
Pretty lurid stuff, rather like a pamphlet from the WCTU or the Anti-Saloon League circal 1900. You left out “Father, dear father, come home with me now!” though.
The actual history of prohibition of alcohol in the US is more complex, and it is deeply intertwined with first wave feminism. It is not an accident that the 18th Amendment / Volstead Act (prohibition) and the 19th Amendment (privilege of voting extended to women) were passed within a year or two of each other. The same people and groups pushed both issues from the 1870’s onward. Both were high priorities of the Progressives.
Prohibition was so popular that it was enacted over the veto of President Wilson.
https://infogalactic.com/info/Prohibition_in_the_United_States
https://infogalactic.com/info/Woman's_Christian_Temperance_Union
It is an irony of history that the modern hipster male is a too often a combination of sensitive feminist and craft-beer fanatic.
Opus
My sister did marry – in her early thirties – and to an excellent man and good Christian and her degree has proved not merely been pointless but arguably caused her unnecessary and serious troubles before her marriage.
Did that college degree lead to any troubles after she married?
I do not have the links to hand anymore, but about 10 years ago I spent time researching cholesterol and that led to the famous Framingham study of heart attacks. I actually found what was purported to be a file of raw data, listing off “things” that correlated with increased risk of heart attack. Smoking was on the list. So was elevated cholesterol. So were other things that clearly could have no causation; the researchers found all manner of correlations because they were doing meticulous, painstaking work to try to find the cause of all the heart attacks that were way too common in the 1950’s.
Then there was “Married to woman with college degree”. Yep, that was listed as a risk factor. In fact, on one table the increase in risk for a cardiovascular event was pretty close to the same as the increase in risk for “elevated cholesterol”. Pretty interesting. Yet not one doctor or med school prof has ever said “Don’t smoke, watch cholesterol and don’t marry a girl with a college degree“.
I wonder how many married men over 40 in the US are taking blood pressure medication due to stress… unending, unceasing, unrelieved stress? A stress that is really the Problem with No Name?
Gunty
That’s mainly what I was arguing with the old meretrix system, it codified and standardized that loss of reputation, so you knew exactly what kind of woman you were dealing with.
What does “hidden estrus” imply to you about women?
Dual mating strategy (“Alpha plays, Beta pays”)?
These are important concepts for men to learn about. Only the manosphere really discusses them.
Anyway, such a system would have to be imposed by force, as it was in the ancient world. Therefore it’s just ridiculous to even discuss now.
I think you can start with any woman who lives in a big city, she’s going to be over 90% lacking
character and morals. Don’t bother, especially if she lives in a big city, is still single and over 30.
So you are not married, is that right? Have you read Dalrock’s articles on vetting a potential wife? Have you read Deep Strength’s book yet?
And if she has children and is a single mother, run. Don’t even talk to her, just run.
Avoiding babymommas is a good idea. There are exceptions, but they are rare.
Really any place that encourages or allows anonymity is probably a very bad place to meet women in general. Online dating is waste of time because of that.
Even Christian sites?
Smaller churches where everyone knows everyone else may be OK. Looking for ways to validate her character.
You left off the easiest of all ways to screen people. Online presence. Perhaps showing your age?
What young women are doing in their free time during the college/career phase is a subject to be avoided like one would a radiation hazard. Let it all play out unremarked appears to be the universal policy.
Yes, it’s the topic that must not be discussed. If you do try to broach it, the responses are generally some variation of one of the following: (1) why aren’t you asking about what the young men are doing, they are worthless these days, and if they weren’t so worthless maybe the girls would be marrying them younger!!, (2) nobody’s perfect! are you perfect? why are you focused on what other people are doing, worry about your own sins! or (3) I raised my daughter(s) to walk with Christ, and I have no doubt that they aren’t doing what you think they are .. in fact I deeply resent you suggesting otherwise, buddy!!.
Never mind that these fathers are essentially placing their daughters in a scenario where avoiding sin is nigh-on impossible for all but the most undesirable of them.
Lost Patrol
What young women are doing in their free time during the college/career phase is a subject to be avoided like one would a radiation hazard. Let it all play out unremarked appears to be the universal policy.
In other words, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell”. Yup. Can confirm. Probably been standard since the 80’s, maybe the 70’s. Although with Instagram / Snap / Tumblr the impulsive moments can be kept somewhere for a long time. That foam cannon on spring break in Mexico? Still visible somewhere.
From time to time in various parts of the androsphere a man will surface with a tale of woe; some kind of video has appeared featuring his Wonderful Wife before they were married. 10 to 15 years ago it would be the “old VHS tape that was found cleaning out some boxes in the garage”. “Whuht? She did that? And it was recorded? Who were those guys?” etc. It is always a sad thing to see a man getting The Glasses shoved onto his face in such a brutal fashion.
Nowadays it’s probably more likely to be vid on an amateur website. Anything that gets put up on the web is pretty much “forever”, and phone imagers are rather high quality now…
The digital fingerprints are harder to erase. Camgirls in particular will have a difficult time doing that, but SB’s might face their own problem.
Just saying.
@Gunty
That’s mainly what I was arguing with the old meretrix system, it codified and standardized that loss of reputation, so you knew exactly what kind of woman you were dealing with.
Even before Christianity, there were “good girls” and “bad girls.” Men knew one were for your future family and one was for fun.
Because of feminism the “Madonna/Whore” duality was shattered. Thus, every woman is both to be revered like Mary and behave like a temple prostitute.
Some may applaud their industriousness because some of these ladies are 5’s and 6’s and pulling down serious coin.
But it will be near impossible for them to clean up the digital footprints later on, when they seek out Tommy, Jimmy or Henry to marry. These women will not make good wives and mothers.
In fact, any man in an LTR right now with a woman age 18-45 should take a long, hard look at her digital footprint first and find out the truth. It’s worth investigating this. In addition to her FICO score, consumer debt and student loan debt, etc.
I wonder how easy it actually is to find out if someone has been a sugar or a camgirl. I am pretty sure that the sugar sites shield their contents from search engines. If you were to sign up for one and search perhaps you could find her if she was still there … probably much harder to do if, in 10 years, some guy is thinking of marrying her at around 34 when she was a sugar at 24 and so her tracks there are ten years old. Same for cams. Keep in mind most of these girls are not posting their sugar and cam exploits on their facebook and personal insta or twitter accounts … if they have those they are dedicated/pseudonymous and presumably she would have deep-sixed them when she got out of sugaring/camming and wanted to husband hunt. I honestly don’t think it’s all that easy to find this unless it is *currently* taking place, even if you hire a cyber detective type.
Christians don’t offer anything to younger men. The church wants guys like me when I’m younger but I’m supposed to be indoctrinated with religion but get none of the benefits of a wife when it comes to sex or emotional support. If women get married at 20 it’s great but for men you can go screw yourself. It’s a one sided deal for males.
Well, maybe not their sugar or cam exploits, but from what I have seen they will expose their inner whore with regularity on social media, not to mention their friends. Of course the smart ones will delete their fakebook accounts and maybe start new ones where they will portray themselves as wife material, but even that should be easy to sniff out as they will have no friends posting on their walls, because that would blow their cover.
Really? I thought the sex was free and I would be paying her to go away, or so I heard.
@Anonymous Reader
No
Well, maybe not their sugar or cam exploits, but from what I have seen they will expose their inner whore with regularity on social media, not to mention their friends.
Oh I agree with that. I was just responding to constrained, who was talking about the ones who are making “serious coin”. That isn’t slutting around, it’s ths stuff that involves cash.
The mainstream Christian Church is never going to get anywhere unless and until it, and its members, and pastoral staff, and the auxiliary “family ministries” start acknowledging the truth about men, women, sex, and intersexual relationships. They need to swallow the Red Pill, put on The Glasses, whatever metaphor we want to use.
The truth is that women crave attention. Women absolutely love having sex with attractive men. Women do not have to have “a connection” or be “in love” or even really like an attractive man before they will want sex with him. Women don’t even have to know much about him before they will want sex with him. All they need to know is that he tingles them, that she feels some kind of.. je ne sais quoi, with him. That’s all she needs before she’ll have sex with him.
Women really like casual sex. They like the power it gives them. They like sex without entanglements. (We know this because women are having so much of it. ) Even if they’re not actually having casual sex, they really, really want to.
Women can be even more sexually depraved than men, and will revel in sexual depravity like pigs wallow in mud.
Women tend not to think things through as carefully or as thoroughly as men do. They tend to be ruled by their emotions.
If allowed to do so, women will use men for whatever suits them in the moment. Women are extremely good liars. Candidly, their senses of morality and ethics aren’t as well developed as men’s are. Men’s senses of morality/ethics tend toward “what is best for everyone?” Women’s senses of morality/ethics tend toward “what is best for me” and “what can I get out of this situation for me?”
But they will not, because they lack the courage to face the truth. More to the point, the men of modern church culture lack the courage to tell women the truth about them. They lack the courage to hold women accountable.
Women can’t even face the truth about themselves. They can’t even accurately describe their party years.
“I was a wild child. I liked partying.”
“I dated around a lot.”
“The guys I dated in college, I never really saw myself with any of them long term.”
“I had lots of fun in college and grad school.”
“But I always just wanted to be a wife and a mommy!”
All translate to:
I had a lot of sex with a lot of different men. I loved a couple of those men. I wanted to marry a couple of them. I might have been engaged to one. One of those men is “the one that got away”, I still pine away for him, and I still miss him. I still think about him a lot. If I could have the chance to have sex with him again, I would. He’s Facebook friends with me and I still talk to him from time to time.
I knew most of those men pretty well. Some of them I hardly knew at all. I had some really exciting sex with men hotter than you are. I had a lot of “meh” sex with guys like you. I had some bad sex I don’t really remember all that well.
I’m really hoping you don’t ask me about this, because I’ll have to lie and obfuscate. If you press me on this I’ll call you insecure and mean and small dicked, because it’s easier to do that than it is for me to face the truth about my past.
Novaseeker
I wonder how easy it actually is to find out if someone has been a sugar or a camgirl. I am pretty sure that the sugar sites shield their contents from search engines.
Well, first of all, some of the Tumblerellas apparently put up very intimate details of their lives, although that may be changing. I don’t know what kind of rules Instagram has, or how they are enforced, but it’s possible people are putting such things up there as well. There’s a lot of foolish faith in “online security” among ordinary people who don’t know what “security” means.
There are other threats than search engines. Ashley Madison got hacked, suffered a data breach, with a lot of membership names spilled. I don’t know if such a thing has happened to sugarbaby sites or not. People are careless with data in the modern world.
As for camgirls / camcouples, at the basic level I assume they are monetizing their bedrooms via livestreaming. A media stream is a stream, it can be displayed on a monitor and saved to a terabyte disk as the same time. This isn’t a Digital Rights Management (DRM) issue, either. Ivan Incel in his mother’s basement throwing online tokens to Suzy Sorority Slutcheeks in her dorm room for her “performance” might just also be saving the experience for future playback.
For example, he might have found this page and downloaded some of these tools:
https://www.wikihow.com/Save-Streaming-Video
He also might decide to share the experience with friends in any number of ways, including uploading to some ‘private’ website.
Plus I’m sure that there are camgirls who provide downloadable vidja for a fee. Downloaded once it’s out in the wild…
Amateur porn where couples vid themselves then post it for others is apparently common enough that it’s making a dent in the profits of commercial porn. Once it’s on the net, it’s forever. It is all but certain that video from 10 years ago may still be resident somewhere now.
As an aside, “it’s forever” goes for all those cute pictures that parents put on Facebook so that grandma can see them…
deti
Women can’t even face the truth about themselves. They can’t even accurately describe their party years.
“I was a wild child. I liked partying.”
“I dated around a lot.”
“I was searching sooo long for the right guy! I remember a couple of years ago my dad said to me ‘I think this one might be good for you’ and now I’m married!” — I heard this back in January from a woman who had just turned 31.
The churchgoing equivalent is in Dalrock’s next essay, “Season of singleness”. Yeah, that “season” lasted about 10 years, pretty long for a “season”, did the daisies come up yet?
At least the cliche’ about “kissing a lot of frogs to find a prince” seems to be fading out. We should be grateful for that.
People here should watch Anthony “Dream” Johnson’s video, “Married to Medusa”. It is chilling, it really is.
At least the cliche’ about “kissing a lot of frogs to find a prince” seems to be fading out. We should be grateful for that.
Honesty, if that were a virtue anyone valued when it comes to intersexual relationships, would require that the verb “kissing” be replaced with another one with a slightly more … “intimate” connotation.
TheTraveler,
“going to community college till age 20 to pick up a useful quasi-career. (That’s in case she gets widowed or screws up in her choice–there ARE bad guys out there, too–so she wouldn’t be reliant on charity.)”
Term life insurance is very affordable for a young man in his 20’s. Bypass the community college spending and gift that to help them put a downpayment on a house. Insist that the man marrying your daughter young buy Term Life before the Wedding.
No, I do not sell insurance. And never have.
john03063,
When vettiing you should use every tool that you can. In addition to the above suggestions, Do Compliance Testing. Gradually increase the difficulty of the things you are asking her to do. How quickly does she respond?
Does she ever ask you for advice? Does she ever follow any of your suggestions?
Does she volunteer at church or does she just show up as a spectator?
Your scenario is remarkably similar to England’s Princess Kate. I wonder if this is common for the upper middle class, and maybe even the “conservative” middle class.
Probably not, because, again, it implies a high level of self-discipline and future planning, mainly on the part of the woman.
@DC
I’ve read multiple comments that Israelite priests were not allowed to marry non-virgins.
That’s not true, that rule was for the high-priest only (Lev 21):
“[priests] must not marry women defiled by prostitution or divorced from their husbands, because priests are holy to their God.”
“The woman [the high-priest] marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his own people, so that he will not defile his offspring among his people. I am the Lord, who makes him holy.’”
The difference was that regular priest could marry a non-virgin, namely a widow, whereas a high-priest could not.
Notice how divorced women are put in the same category as women defiled by prostitution; off limits for priests. A strong case showing that divorce is not simply to be regarded as the ending of a marriage, because widows are NOT put in that category.
In summary, there is absolutely nothing a husband can give his wife that she has not already received or experienced at the expense of other men.
Pingback: How much is Virginity worth? | Σ Frame