Greasing the marriage rope.

Professor Hale wrote a post a while back titled Saving Marriage: Grease the Rope.  In that post he makes a compelling case for withdrawing support from an addict:

I once heard a lecture about how to save an addict who was at the bottom of his rope. The answer was to grease the rope. So long as the addict still had a rope to cling to, he believed he was in control and that he could pull himself back up. It wasn’t until he fell off the rope (metaphorically) that he would seek real life-changing solutions to his problems.

He uses this as an analogy of how we need to act if we are going to save marriage:

The same could be said of marriage. The state of marriage today has shifted from the traditional forms. Some people lament that while others are pushing for more shifts. Few people want to take on the church and the state at the same time since both are involved in marriage. So modern marriage continues to limp along under the momentum of thousands of years of tradition despite the damage done to it recently.

I think his analysis so far is spot on, and I generally agree with his list of what is wrong with marriage and how the typical solutions offered won’t improve the situation.  However, I part ways with him on exactly what greasing the rope should look like.  He wants to make marriage a private contract, removing the church and the state.  I think his idea would work in a different context, but in practice neither the church nor the state are likely to be willing to allow this to happen.  In the case of the state, we already see instances where it will deem people to be married where they have never brought the state into the mix.

But as I said I agree with how he has framed the question.  What we need to do is stop comforting the addict.  In this case the primary culprit isn’t a drug addict, but a choice addict.  What we need to do is remove the current support system and rewards for choice addicts, so that women can make fully informed choices.  I’m focusing on women here because the counterpart to the hypergamous female is the alpha male.  While alphas are at the core of the problem right alongside a far larger number of choice addicts, marriage isn’t a motivating factor for them.  Even if this weren’t the case, alphas aren’t fit for marriage.  If you disagree, take it up with Roissy.

In a world where we have greased the marriage rope, we would see a different set of expected outcomes for choice addicts:

Many of the outcomes in the “greased rope” column either already represent current reality, or fit with current trends.  Often the issue is that the actual likely outcomes are wildly different than the expectations choice addicts have (and are encouraged to have).

The fundamental problem we face however is the problem one always confronts when attempting to stop coddling an addict;  there are a group of vocal (and often well meaning) people who are highly invested in enabling the destructive behavior.  In the case of our choice addict, the key enablers are feminists and social conservatives.  I don’t expect to influence feminists, so I’ll take them out of consideration for the moment.  This leaves us with social conservatives, and if we are honest, primarily social conservative women.

If you doubt this, consider the fact that many of the outcomes one would expect for a greased rope are already becoming more likely.  Now consider the reaction of social conservative women to these outcomes.  Take for example the first item on the list, uncommitted sex.  One of my readers posted a link to Women are the ones who want to avoid commitment on a prominent Roman Catholic forum.  One woman in particular was outraged that I suggested men shouldn’t assume they had commitment where no such commitment existed.  She claimed this went against the teachings of the Catholic church.  I asked her if she could point out in scripture where it suggested that men should assume commitment without marriage.  Not surprisingly, she didn’t have an answer and lost interest in the topic*.  We have seen similar arguments from Catholic women in the comments section of this blog.  Paige argued passionately that women who chased alphas for uncommitted sex were actually good marriage material, and that the alphas who obliged them were ruining them for marriage.  Likewise Kathy expressed outrage that Greenlander was harming marriage worthy women when he pumped and dumped them.  Similarly, there was much hand wringing by traditional conservative women on the topic of Marcos allowing former carouselers to mistake him for a beta provider.  These attitudes are what is enabling the bulk of the choice addict’s behaviors listed in the table above.

But while traditional conservative women are enabling the choice addicts, traditional conservative men are enabling the Trad Con women in their coddling.  I mentioned before that I don’t think that feminists can be influenced;  I don’t think this is the case for traditional conservative women.  If enough traditional conservative men call them out on what they are doing, eventually this will have an impact.  We already see a significant minority of traditional conservative women who aren’t willing to enable the choice addicts;  these women deserve more than men staying on the sidelines in silent approval.

*A few weeks later the same woman declared to the forum that she was planning on divorcing her husband because he worked more hours than she wanted him to, and he had once scolded their children for being loud when he was working in his home office.  One might think that this woman was outside the mainstream of Catholic thought, but I disagree.  While those responding to her post on wanting to frivolously divorce her husband did work to discourage her from divorce, there wasn’t much of a sense of judgment for taking her vows (and the wellbeing of her children) so lightly.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Church Apathy About Divorce, Feminists, Marriage, Post Marital Spinsterhood, Remarriage Strike. Bookmark the permalink.

50 Responses to Greasing the marriage rope.

  1. Paige says:

    I don’t think promiscuous women are good marriage material. I don’t know where I ever implied that.

  2. Basil Ransom says:

    Along the lines of women wanting commitment: it’s said no one dates in college, and that girls would *love* to be asked out on dates. That’s false. I asked girls out on dates frequently, primarily because it makes getting sex easier. And there were those who appreciated the gesture, and I respected them for it. But among the attractive girls with an active social life*, I sensed my value declined a bit after asking. And these dates mostly consisted of a glass of wine in my bedroom, no sycophantic affair. I’m confident if you had asked them, they’d say “I’d love it if a guy asked me out!”

    As always, women want the man who’d never commit, to commit.

    *Sorority girls principally. Sororities have a uniquely corrosive effect on women. Once inundated with dozens of party invitations, the sister attains the abundance mentality of men, and it shows: callousness, indifference, detachment, brusqueness is the order of the day. The constant availability of men is more destructive than feminism, and no one seems to notice.

    PS All women are hypergamous, so a hypergamous woman is not the counterpart to the alpha male. The strict dichotomy of alpha and beta is less applicable to women, as their reproductive success varies much less.

  3. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    I don’t think promiscuous women are good marriage material. I don’t know where I ever implied that.

    The quote which comes most readily is the one I used for The Ethics Of pump-n-dump:

    I have more respect for a man who Goes His Own Way than a man who pumps-and-dumps. The man-ho’s sexual exploits lowers the SMV of women and creates more bitter feminists. He pollutes the water that all men have to drink from.

    I think in another comment you specifically mentioned making these women less marriageable, which implies that they would be marriageable if the alpha refused the uncommitted sex on offer. I can look for more quotes for context, but maybe it is better to let you answer directly. Do you believe that alpha’s harm marriage minded women by pumping and dumping them?

  4. Paige says:

    When I was much younger and vary naive I slept with a man who I was very infatuated with because in my youthful naivety I thought it would encourage him to like me back. Stupid…yes…but I wasn’t religious at the time and was led easily astray by the culture. Now I don’t totally blame the guy for my mistake but he was certainly aware of my naivety and infatuation and it would have been kinder to not have indulged my foolishness. Knowing how stupid I was it obviously annoys me when another womans stupidity is treated as though they DESERVE to be used and discarded. I don’t subscribe to that point of view …I don’t believe that every single naive/foolish/stupid action deserves the highest negative consequences.

    Now I am not saying that I have never taken advantage of another persons stupidity myself…I certainly have…but I would not expect to be praised by it because to do such a thing isn’t charitable. I happen to value charity as a positive attribute in an individual.

    Men and women can be terribly foolish. I know we all have lessons to learn so we can grow and change but I don’t think it is “enabling” for me to desire that foolishness be remedied in the least severe way necessary. I don’t want promiscuous people to get AIDS…I don’t want naive women to be pump-n-dumped…but that doesn’t mean that I support their choices.

  5. Paige says:

    Likewise- I don’t believe that men who don’t have good game should be treated cruelly by women. Nor do I think that men who have made serious marital mistakes should be divorced without a chance of redemption. So my sympathetic temperament doesn’t just apply to women.

  6. ElectricAngel says:

    I think marriage in a state-run world is finished. However, there is the idea of community, which you’ve hinted at before, Dalrock. If slutting around causes you to be expelled from your social group, then you won’t do it, and if you do, you must be expelled. I think shunning works like this among the Amish.

    The point being, there is no way to save marriage in the corrupt legal system we see today. Marriage will survive, and thrive, where strong (usually) patriarchal religions enforce conformity by excommunication and shunning (I do not believe that the state will ever FORCE a religion to accept a member, but then we’re on a road to absurdity anyway, so who knows?). The future belongs to those who show up for it: Trad Catholics, Mormons, Amish, religious Muslims and Jews. (See the statistics that negatively correlate number of partners and number of children.) The only way to do that? Well, I’ll have an article soon over at InMalaFide on that topic.

  7. Paige says:

    Our culture tells women that sex will get you love….sometimes even boys themselves insist that sex is required for them to love in return. I have known parents who told their daughters that sex with a boy is a way of proving your love. Its hardly surprising that some girls believe it.

    Our culture also tells boys that to get women to like them they should pander and pedestalize them. That, of course, is untrue because women value confidence and a back-bone. I can’t blame men for believing the lie if that is all they are ever told. I also don’t want them to learn the error of their ways by having women cruelly reject them or by going through a brutal divorce.

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    Our culture tells women that sex will get you love

    This is exactly the kind of coddling of promiscuous women that I’m referring to. Whenever women make bad choices, the white knights gallop in to tell them it wasn’t their fault. Want to help girls avoid this pain? Stop telling them the alpha did them wrong when he accepted their uncommitted sex. Stop acting like they should be surprised when he accepts their uncommitted sex and doesn’t spontaneously offer commitment or love in exchange.

  9. Paige says:

    You call it coddling. I call it showing a modicum of sympathy. I think it is quite possible to give good advice without being cruel.

  10. Country Lawyer says:

    This is not greasing the rope. Neither you nor the social pathologist recognize that changing the rope is not greasing it. Creating penalties is not greasing it either.

    I have known lots of addicts. Lots of bad consequences hapopen and they keep going on.

    What you are advocating is the equivalent of interventions and boot camps, or threatening to leave. Everyone likes the ideas but no one ever shows that they change the patterns of people (other than ancedotally, ie there are no actually statisitics showing that it makes a difference percentagewise)

    The metaphor is about removing the rope. The rope is marriage, in whatever form.

    Marriage is going to have to be removed completely before it can be restored.

    THAT is bottom for women.

    Women are going to have to live with its absence (like an addict has to live with losing everything) before they can get it back.

    Anything less is not going to succeed and the state and the church are never going to go for any of these measures because they belong to women not men.

    I understand that you are wedded (pun intended) to the institution of marriage, but it is clouding your judgment and your ability to see solutions objectively.

  11. SOBL says:

    The link in my comment ‘website’ is an article about Massachusetts potentially ending lifetime alimony. The scary thing to note is that there is always a judge setting the amount. These judges are the problem, as anyone with a lick of common sense could act justly as an arbiter of the law.

    I agree with the sentiment of “Country Lawyer” women will not get it until marriage is gone. By then, they will have whined for polygamy to be made legal to they can hitch their ride to the few remaining men who will marry and want to have children… and make ‘enough’ money. If I can’t have him all the time, at least I can have him Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

  12. Basil Ransom says:

    Paige,
    “Knowing how stupid I was it obviously annoys me when another womans stupidity is treated as though they DESERVE to be used and discarded.”

    For every time a woman is in the situation you describe, there are a dozen or a hundred times she has shown interest in a man, only to flit away shortly after. A man is a fool to develop any feeling for a typical girl, prior to sex. Tawdry, perhaps, but she is apt to cease contact at the slightest whim. When she lacks integrity, I feel no duty to show her any. Worse, having any aim more serious than sex initially diminishes the man’s appeal, to an attractive young woman. He hasn’t any incentive to want anything except sex.

  13. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Dalrock,@Kai,@al,

    Apply this as a way for Amira to deal with her husband and you’ll see my point.
    Activity – spending money, Expected outcome – better mediation techniques, Greased Rope outcome – bankruptcy, perhaps a little time living under a bridge.

    @Paige,

    I don’t think you know how your commentary reads, what your readers take from it. When I was young, I was Fair – as you try to be – evenhanded. I grew up. Now I am Loyal, faithful. Those are opposites in marriages.

  14. Ecclesiastes says:

    Off Topic

    I hear myself suggesting ‘living under a bridge’ more and more often, and why not? I lived under one for a time.

    One might think me cruel or out of touch, especially since I knew a young mother who got her throat slit under one. I think her demise was more about her whoring for her drug habit though.

    In any case, I think myself moderate and benign. When I brought up bridge living with a friend, Leroy AKA AlphaGeek, he replied “I’m not so sure I like the idea of my tax money going for bridges that (my step son) can live under. There ought to be a law requiring ten feet of steel grating at each end.”

    I was then and forever reassured that I am a kind and compassionate man.

  15. Gorbachev says:

    I agree with basil ransom.

    Showing interest in a girl just inflates her sense of self-importance; she gets what she wanted (affirmation; “I’m great”); and can then proceed to judging the male (which is what women want).

    Best thing to treat women with the respect they deserve: as in, when they behave in this fashion, treat them with suspicion and reserve.

    Women like this more in men, anyway. So it works out nicely.

    And you cant argue that women have moral agency and argue at the same time that alphas who tool women (though it’s usually women who set themselves up for this) are the cause for the declining quality of women.

    The singular, most overriding quality of women is this: They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions individually or collectively. Throughout history, literature and the words of men have damned women for this. There’s a reason.

    In every single culture, no matter what happens, from a woman’s perspective, a man is always at fault. A man, or men, or made-up organizations (“The Patriarchy”). The soldiers weren’t man enough: so the war was lost (thus justifying the usually immediate surrender to the opposing males, and the gleeful breeding that goes on). The Men weren’t strong enough to resist our relentless feminist assault: So it’s still the men’s fault, even though it was other women who stormed the barricades.

    Drunk revelers: Only the man goes to jail.

    Etc.

    Never, ever is a woman at fault.

  16. Sweet As says:

    I think that I have no idea what this post is about.

    I dont’ think that churches or states are necessary to have commitments (and to hold to them) or ethics by which to define one’s actions. I don’t think that social ostracism is the key, either — because I’ve never really feared that.

    That is likely because I have never “fit in” really, and was socially ostracized as a tween and teen, that it really became something that didn’t have impact. Instead, I developed an interior consistency in ethical behavior (drawn from catholic and buddhist influences).

    So, the influence of social ostracism only goes so far. Ultimately, a person will do what s/he feels compelled to do — even if it means ostracism. I, personally, have chosen my authentic expression over socially accepted norms for many years, and it’s a much better way to live in my experience. I did try, between ages 9 and 14 to be what others demanded of me (peers, at school) and it was far greater suffering to try and fit in, being inauthentic, than to simply be myself and face the ostracism that came from it.

    In regards to marriage, I never felt that a church’s or state’s sanction of it was necessary in order for it to be a real, life long commitment. Though, I am pragmatic and see the benefits of marriage for tax benefits and other rights/responsibilities, and to help cover all of the bases, I also am pragmatic enough to want a prenuptual agreement (considering the environment as it was when I married, and I suppose, is now). Of course, my husband disagreed. he didn’t find it to be romantic. I don’t really care about romance — nor do I think it is real or necessary, again, my pragmatic way of being playing out.

    I think that we would still be just as committed if there’d been no ceremony about it.

    In regards to alphas/whores (to use the common terms here), I believe that both are human beings with equal agency. Both are, in general, using each other for some purpose, and I — personally — feel that it’s wrong to use people. I find it particularly disgusting, too, but again, this comes from my own understanding around using people.

    I have serious qualms with using people. Enlisting people on your team, leading responsibly for group success, etc — yeah, good stuff. But using people? No.

    I can’t way what created this particularly staunch way of seeing things, but I’m rather hard core about my own behavior. I don’t police others, though. It’s their responsibility. I only provide what information I can — largely my opinion if they ask for it.

  17. jen says:

    from Gorb

    The singular, most overriding quality of women is this: They refuse to take responsibility for their own actions individually or collectively.

    I am a woman and I have to agree. A woman cannot blame anyone else for her bad choices but herself!… why anyone lets her get away with that is beyond me. Young does not equal stupid. Even young women can make good choices.

  18. jen says:

    ooops didn’t finsh….

    Men should not have to watch out for women’s stupidity.

  19. Lavazza says:

    Gorbachev: “In every single culture, no matter what happens, from a woman’s perspective, a man is always at fault. A man, or men, or made-up organizations (“The Patriarchy”). The soldiers weren’t man enough: so the war was lost (thus justifying the usually immediate surrender to the opposing males, and the gleeful breeding that goes on). The Men weren’t strong enough to resist our relentless feminist assault: So it’s still the men’s fault, even though it was other women who stormed the barricades.”

    True words.

    If women want to be treated as equal to men, women must, at least from time to time, acknowledge one, some or most women (preferably themselves) as being at fault for something. Is it that so hard? Does it hurt so much?

  20. Lavazza says:

    Even the whiniest men admit responsibility of not having being able to find necesseray knowledge and/or point to other men as responsible of not having or not giving them this knowledge.

  21. Stephenie Rowling says:

    I think women are capable of admitting responsibility when society socialize them to, as off feminism goal is that society should follow their feelings and support them regardless of the facts. “I felt used by an Alpha” society must side with me and shame him and so far it has worked…why would they ever let go of a sweet deal like that? They can wake up and feel whatever they want to and their girlfriends will support them regardless of who is on the way. So obviously they should be forced to see things beyond their feelings and try and see logic and facts, though job I know but this will only stop with women’s feelings start to make them against each other and for that men will have to go extinct or live on special men reservations and they won’t allow that.

    I proposed a long time ago on HUS that men should use feminist laws against women, they are written gender neutral for a reason they know you wouldn’t dare to use them against them, a fattie is looking at you too much? call her a creeper and shame her for that, a woman is insisting on being around too much? Restriction order. Your wife is nagging/bitching too much? Accuse her of psychological abuse and so on…of course the guys on the manosphere told me that this won’t happen because a) men will throw each other under a bus the moment women wave a bit of punani at them, thus they won’t be loyal, b) men don’t like whiners and that sounds like whining which is a women’s thing not manly at all.
    So yeah this concept could work with women working it, like it does, but with men? Not so much, so in other words it will take a critical point or a huge tragedy for things to change, sad but true.

  22. greyghost says:

    Well this greasing the rope looks alot like MGTOW. Dalrock as you seem to me you understand a good marriage between a man and woman is the best and most powerful thing for a strong civilization and society. I remember when you first commented on the spearhead. Most of the men there were and are, myself included against any marriage at all to spare and save a young man. You were still and are to me a believer in marriage. I do believe in marriage also just not what it has become. MGTOW will repair marriage and the christian church. And it looks like you do too just a different attitude on the subject.
    Paige is a familiar name on the blogs here and damn if she wasn’t text book example of what you were talking about. And by her post she was not being malicious. It is just
    the way it is ansd is why I have chosen the warrior tract of MGTOW. I have learned to truely appreciate game and the pump and dump that grows to MGTOW when men tire of women.
    And Dalrock I do like your blog and approach and I truely believe you are a valueable player in the mens community. I say this because you give a place for the females to turn besides feminism. With indifference and the horror of seeing a
    generation of never married and childless femminist women. Young women may choose to not climb aboard the carousel. They will need somewhere to go. And maybe my son (5 years old now) can have something no man has had in 50 years, a wife that is not an adversary. Very impressed with this article Dalrock

  23. Anonymous says:

    Recently, I told an Alpha-chasing biddy my age (40s) “don’t call me unless you grow up and can accept a man who enjoys commitment AND can knock your G-spot and cervix into next week then have you unconsciously touch your lower stomach when you think about it later. Until that time, don’t bug me… enjoy being alone feeding cats, instead having a man who’s like one.”

  24. Dalrock says:

    @Country Lawyer
    The metaphor is about removing the rope. The rope is marriage, in whatever form.

    I’m obviously focused on marriage with this post, but I would say marriage is a subset of “the rope”, which I would say is commitment and (more-so) investment from men. Consider the case of the unwed mother and the state extracting financial investment from the father, etc. Likewise the women the trad cons worry so much about, the alpha chasers who aren’t rewarded with a LTR for their promiscuity.

    Marriage is going to have to be removed completely before it can be restored.

    THAT is bottom for women.

    Women are going to have to live with its absence (like an addict has to live with losing everything) before they can get it back.

    Not all women are choice addicts. There is no need to punish those who aren’t. Moreover, it isn’t realistic to expect all men to refuse to marry. What we need to do is influence decisions on the margins. This is much easier, and over time shapes culture.

    What you are advocating is the equivalent of interventions and boot camps, or threatening to leave.

    Not at all. I’m advocating that men not set themselves up for the outcomes on column 1. One way for example would be to not marry a carouseler. This is to his own benefit. The result to the carouseler is “no soup for you”, not a threat or a second chance. I don’t see where she is better off if she remains unmarried because a man accurately saw her as a bad marriage risk vs she remains unmarried because the man chose MGTOW. Either way she is unmarried. The fact that other women she knows married doesn’t make her any happier. In fact I would say the opposite.

    Not all men will heed this advice (very few will even hear it). But each man who adjusts his course to his own advantage is clearly better off. If enough men start acting more rationally this will make a difference in the larger culture.

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    Not at all. I’m advocating that men not set themselves up for the outcomes on column 1. One way for example would be to not marry a carouseler. This is to his own benefit. The result to the carouseler is “no soup for you”, not a threat or a second chance.

    “No Rings For Sluts, EVER” – NRFSE – simple and easy to understand.

  26. Anonymous Reader says:

    Stephanie Rowling
    I proposed a long time ago on HUS that men should use feminist laws against women, they are written gender neutral for a reason they know you wouldn’t dare to use them against them, a fattie is looking at you too much? call her a creeper and shame her for that, a woman is insisting on being around too much? Restriction order. Your wife is nagging/bitching too much? Accuse her of psychological abuse and so on…

    I’m very skeptical of this approach, because of the precedent set by _Grutter_. Basically, as I understand it, any man has a much, much higher bar to clear to bring any action against a women. I strongly suspect that all of the above would be tossed out of court in a heartbeat, regardless of whether the judge was a White Knight, a feminista, or any other ambulance chaser in a black robe. The dogma of “All Men Are Like That” is just too embedded into the legal system after 40 years of feminism plus trad-con white-knighting.

    And furthermore, on the off chance that such a suit would not be laughed out of court, or dismissed with prejudice, or even give rise to a countersuit, the man/men filing would have to pay all their own costs. At the state level that’s thousands. Take a suit into Federal court and you are talking $5,000 to $10,000 just for openers, with more costs to come.

    Unlike teh wimmenz, who can rely upon NOW, ACLU, and even Uncle Sam thanks to VAWA, men have to pay their own way in such things. So there’s little opportunity for such suits, and they would be pricey.

  27. Ecclesiastes says:

    If choice addiction is -in fact- an addiction, then the Greased Rope of Professor Hale, the Tough Love of AA, the Shun of the Amish, is the preferred and effective response, both personally and en masse. Don’t buy a drink for a drunk, nor a ring for a slut, ever.

    State sanctioned marriage is Contract Marriage, Marriage 2.0. What we yearn for is the return of the Christian Union but it can never again be the law.

  28. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “The dogma of “All Men Are Like That” is just too embedded into the legal system after 40 years of feminism plus trad-con white-knighting. ”

    That is why men need to gather together, is true that the first ones will be the ones sacrificing the most and risking public humiliation, but that is the way this things start (look at how the population took women’s rights or race right’s), when enough men start to do it and men’s right organizations back them up, then they will have to take a good hard luck at the laws and see how awful they are. But someone has to start and no men seen to be willing. If no one is willing then nothing will change…ever.

  29. Gorbachev says:

    @Jen,

    Most of the women I know, when confronted on a daily basis by men who take the time to explain why, will agree that women are singularly bad at taking personal responsibility for anything, especially things they’ve done themselves. And they’ll also admit, after some careful exposition, that they’re powerfully able to excuse not only their faults, not taking account of their faults, but then also the ability to rationalize their faults.

    Men are never given this option, even by other men. It’s why you get the “yes, dear” effect: Men who have any experience dealing with actual women (especially in the world) quickly realize that while they don’t monopolize this behavior by any means, they master it in spades: bureaucratic distribution of responsibility but concentration of authority; dodging hard-core decision-making in favor of consensus, not to make better decisions, but for arcane and byzantine social reasons (mostly social grooming); and the refusal to take positions on anything when stake a career or identity on it.

    The few who do these things are legitimately regarded as honest, direct women – if also penalized, largely by other women, for being bitches.

    Men, on the other hand, will flock to such women. They’re so rare they’re like gold.

  30. Z. Moore says:

    The best way to deal with choice addicts is to take away their choices. If the laws were made to be in accordance with the Holy Gospels, that is if divorce were categorically forbidden, the situation that exists today would never have arisen. The people’s ever increasing depravity will necessitate an ever increasing use of armed force to keep them under control. They will not leave off doing something because it is wrong, the only way to get them to stop is to give them a thorough-going beating or to put a gun to their head, A perfect example of this is the level of force needed to keep violent convicts in prison under control. The whole society is going in the same direction. One sees it in the lack of common courtesy, or for that matter even common decency. Many modern people desire nothing more than to live as beasts. If they can’t eat it, drink it, smoke it &c. they haven’t any use for it. The conditioning they received in state schools taught them that they are no more than trousered apes, & so they act the part. This of course plays right into the hands of the state which can always claim that its ever worsening tyranny is the only thing preventing anarchy. Allowing divorce is a very great evil which invariably results in the destruction of families & the eventual wrecking of society, which we are all witnessing now. Pope Leo XIII predicted this result over 125 years ago in his encyclical Humanum Genus. The Holy Father was not a prophet, but simply a wise, intelligent & holy man who well understood the fact that human nature is bent towards evil by Original Sin. It seems that things will only get worse & worse & worse, until Hobbes’s vision of the primeval state of mankind is realized, “every man’s hand raised against the other, & the life of man poor, nasty, solitary, brutish & short”. Such is the result of the masses adopting as their rule of life the dictum of Aliester Crowley, the infamous devil-worshipper, “do as thou wilt”. Pride goeth before a fall & the fall of modern man into an abyss of tyranny, ignorance & unimaginable suffering will be quite precipitous indeed.

  31. Chris says:

    Dalrock.

    In NZ, we are starting to get outcomes in column three. — eg. 50% of child custody cases that make it to court are won by fathers. The rope is already Greased.

  32. jso says:

    considering the fate of marriage nowadays, I would say the rope is all greased up

    disgusting sexual metaphor involving words like “baby vent” to follow

  33. Brendan says:

    Men are never given this option, even by other men. It’s why you get the “yes, dear” effect: Men who have any experience dealing with actual women (especially in the world) quickly realize that while they don’t monopolize this behavior by any means, they master it in spades: bureaucratic distribution of responsibility but concentration of authority; dodging hard-core decision-making in favor of consensus, not to make better decisions, but for arcane and byzantine social reasons (mostly social grooming); and the refusal to take positions on anything when stake a career or identity on it.

    The few who do these things are legitimately regarded as honest, direct women – if also penalized, largely by other women, for being bitches.

    This is very true.

    In my own experience, women in the workplace tend to dislike strongly other women who “break ranks” — that is, women who do not play by “women’s rules” regarding things like consensus decision-making, pussy-footing around difficult decisions, a seeming love for byzantine bureaucracy and process almost as ends in themselves, employee-feelings-based management styles and so on. These women tend to get*very* harshly viewed by the “mass” of female employees, something which often shows up on employee satisfaction surveys and similar things. Men, on the other hand, tend not to mind working with women like this as superiors.

    When you have women as superiors who manage in a way that is preferred by the female underlings, the men tend, generally, to be very frustrated with this approach and are often quietly quite alienated by it — which also shows up on employee satisfaction surveys. Men in management tend to not get penalized by women to the same degree for behavior that is not according to the “women’s rules” (but peer females typically resent the heck out of this) and also are more liked by men because men are less alienated by their management style(s).

  34. jz says:

    The comments above, esp. Brendan’s re: female acceptance of responsibility and boss styles inspires me to toast my female boss. She’s respected by both the men and women in our department. I’ve had three prior male bosses whom I could not respect due to 1) philandering in their personal lives, and 2) their pathetic outsized egos. My boss is the consummate leader. She leads by the heart, technical proficiency, personal humility, and commitment to the mission. So, HERE’S TO YOU, SUE. !!

  35. Dalrock,
    Thanks for noticing.

    I have to agree with Country Lawyer on this one that his analogy of greasing the rope is a better analogy. For the analogy to be useful we need elements that show a dramatic end tot eh way things used to be with no way back. We are certainly seeing elements of both of your expected outcomes columns today when we seem to still have plenty of rope left. Even with marriage in decline, it seems obvious that LTR is not in decline. The numbers of people living together and having children without marriage is certainly enough to cover for the statistically fewer number of marriages.

    In the absence of private individuals defining the terms of their marriage, the state will certainly step in and define it for them after the fact. Thus a LTR can become a common law marriage. Domestic partnership laws passed to placate homosexuals created marriage-like benefits for a whole range of relationships, thus granting legitimacy to relationships that were never intended to be LTR, let alone marriages.

  36. Eric says:

    Dalrock:
    There is quite a bit of psychobabble involved in much of this ‘choice addiction’ and these so-called ‘alpha/beta archetypes’. In the past, both churches and governments understood that civilization depended upon strong, monogamous, nuclear familial units in order to survive. They did everything within their power to promote strong families—most people married within their own religious communities and divorces were difficult to obtain. There is the solution for traditionalists: rebuild the institutions that originated the traditions.

    The problem with marriage today, and gender relations in general are entirely cultural. Women are educated to believe that men are inferiors, and they behave accordingly. ‘Alpha’ and ‘Beta’ are meaningless terms, since women are encouraged to compete with and dominate men, they will gravitate towards weaklings 99% of the time. Men are hamstrung by anti-male laws that make any type of commitment a suicide pact (for the men at least, and a murder pact where children are involved).

    So, this has nothing to do with ‘choice addiction’ either, since the realtionship choices, especially for men, are extremely limited. If marriage is to be saved, we have to face the reality that we can’t ‘have our cake and eat it too’. We have to recognize, as our ancestors did, that a social gender polarity exists in reality; whether the feminists like it or not; and the attitudes towards gender worked in the past whereas the new ones have been complete failures.

    This is why in non-Anglo dominated cultures, the standard of living is low, but the quality of familial life is much higher than in the US, for example. The importance of familial relationships and gender-polarity is still their cultural norms. I remember while visiting Latin America, reading about a referendum about another Latin American country (I don’t remember which one) where legalized abortion was on the ballot. The women turned out in record numbers and voted it down. Surprise: that story wasn’t even covered by the US press!

  37. Kai says:

    “Ecclesiastes says:
    @Dalrock,@Kai,@al,
    Apply this as a way for Amira to deal with her husband and you’ll see my point.
    Activity – spending money, Expected outcome – better mediation techniques, Greased Rope outcome – bankruptcy, perhaps a little time living under a bridge”

    I think she’s at that point now. I thank back before, she thought he was able to change, and tried to help him do so – reasonably. I think it’s only now, after the sneaking around and promise-breaking, that he has exposed himself as an out-of-control addict, and she has decided to stop enabling him.
    The issue with the money, is that a married couple is equally responsible for their finances. I think she may need to let him fail and claw his way back up now, but I don’t think it’s necessary for her to go with him.

  38. Paige says:

    You guys can be so obnoxious.

    Let me put it another way. This time with an analogy.

    Lets say someone foolishly leaves their keys in the ignition of their car. The car gets stolen. Whose at fault? 2 people…the one who left the keys in the car and the one who stole it. Do people deserve to get their cars stolen because they foolishly leave them in the ignition? Maybe to some people but that just isn’t how I roll.

    A woman who foolishly gives it up before a solid commitment is sorta like leaving the keys in the ignition of her car. Its invitation to get it stolen but she is foolishly hoping the person who steals it is her One True Love. She was foolish/stupid/etc…the guy? If he didn’t make it clear the sex was casual or if he saw obvious hints that she was naive/foolish then he was wrong for taking her car for a spin with no intention to buy. There are more than enough girls out there who only want to be driven and aren’t looking for a buyer that it doesn’t seem necessary that a guy sleep with the ones that are just too stupid to get what they want the right way.

    The person who steals the car and the person who makes it easy to steal the car are both guilty when the car gets stolen.

  39. Dalrock says:

    @Paige
    There are more than enough girls out there who only want to be driven and aren’t looking for a buyer that it doesn’t seem necessary that a guy sleep with the ones that are just too stupid to get what they want the right way.

    How are men supposed to know which is which? The ones you assume want commitment for some reason aren’t requiring it. The ones who just want to get rogered aren’t likely to come out and say so (Roissy has covered this territory in great depth). PUAs know the only way to tell if a woman “doesn’t do that sort of thing” is to try her.

  40. Paige says:

    A good hint is if she doesn’t put out for at least 2 weeks and then starts spouting “I love you’s” and sending you mix cd’s.

  41. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Paige
    When women are talking amongst themselves about another woman, your analogy would apply.

    However, a woman can walk naked into a bar, rub herself up and down any man, make all manner of suggestive and leading statements, and if the guy has sex with her without an explicit ‘yes’ then it is rape. If she passes out and he takes her home and her life savings are in an open top box … if he takes the money he’s a thief. There is nothing a woman does that justifies a man taking advantage of her.

    Sorry, your ‘keys in the ignition’ analogy doesn’t work for men. In fact, it sounds much like entrapment, encouraging a crime from the sidelines, but the man would be going to jail anyway.

    We men already know the truth. Women use guilt to control us. They invite violation, sexually, socially, or otherwise, for the power it gives them. Try spreading that ‘keys in the ignition’ line amongst teenagers where it will still fool people.

  42. Herbal Essence says:

    Paige- “A woman who foolishly gives it up before a solid commitment is sorta like leaving the keys in the ignition of her car. Its invitation to get it stolen but she is foolishly hoping the person who steals it is her One True Love. She was foolish/stupid/etc…the guy?”

    The car example doesn’t work, because the woman was not consenting/offering to have her car stolen. In the case of consensual sex, the man did not do anything wrong, because he was consenting to the sex the woman (a consenting adult) was offering. The only way the man should be blamed in this situation is if he tells the woman he is ready to commit to her. If he makes no verbal utterance of commitment, he didn’t do anything other than agree to have intercourse with the woman, which is what she was offering. He cannot control what the woman thinks. It’s not his fault if she is “hoping for the best,” or trying to get him to fall in love. Nor it is his job to protect her from her own naivete.

  43. Pingback: Cruelty and kindness. | Dalrock

  44. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paige
    You guys can be so obnoxious.

    Uh….

    Let me put it another way. This time with an analogy.
    Lets say someone foolishly leaves their keys in the ignition of their car. The car gets stolen.

    Poor analogy. Let’s modify it a bit. Let’s say someone walks around a bar, with the keys to their car dangling from the end of a finger, saying “Who wants to go for a ride? You wanna go for a ride, tall, muscular and handsome? Get away shorty….who wants to go for a ride? I just love to take big, strong men for a ride. C’mon, guys, anyone want a ride?”.

    Question:
    If someone takes those car keys, and starts the engine and goes for a drive, is that theft? Or is it someone taking what has been clearly, obviously and plainly offered … for free?

    That’s the proper analogy. Feel free to have at it, Paige.

  45. tspoon says:

    We could follow the analogy a little way… tell us Paige, can you find an insurance company that will cover you if you deliberately leave the keys in the ignition?

    It’s a dumb analogy for a foolish attitude. Who loses their car? Who lowers their own ability to attract a worthy partner, and to experience happiness in a family? And with that in mind, who even cares who is right or wrong, or whose principle is more correct?

    Myself, I take close care of the things I value, especially those that cannot be replaced. Against a tide of stupidity, I’m hoping to be able to impart that habit to my daughters.

  46. Paige says:

    The analogy isn’t perfect but analogies rarely are.

    It is possible to acknowledge another persons wrong doing while simultaneously recognizing your own foolishness.

    Leading a person along through deception or omission is wrong. It is wrong regardless of what gender does it. When someone clearly hopes to get more out of the relationship than you intend to provide then the RIGHT thing to do is to end the relationship rather than take advantage of their foolishness.

    If you disagree with that then you have a sense of morality that I disagree with. The virtue of charity requires that we show compassion even towards people who make poor choices.

    Now if a woman strongly suggests she wants casual sex then a man is not wrong in having casual sex. Its when there are obvious signs that the woman (or man) is hoping for more out of the transaction that it is wrong to gleefully take advantage of their foolishness.

    In the case of beta orbiters I think most men would agree that the women are not clueless to the fact that their orbiters just want in their pants. Some women consider this desire on the part of the male to be corrupt and therefore makes them worthy of being taken advantage of. Its considered fair play in the gender war. Now this is also something I strongly disagree with. If you suspect that a man is running around doing you favors and inflating your ego non-stop because he wants sex/relationship from you and you have no intention to ever provide it then you are a callous bitch for using him to your own advantage.

    I don’t really think most men are as obtuse as they are pretending to be here. Most women give off obvious signs when then are wanting a relationship with a man (rather than just sex). Saying “I love you” is one such sign.

  47. imnobody says:

    It’s incredible how a woman can twist analogies to fit their non-logical conceptions. I don’t mean to be rude, Paige, but if the car analogy is similar to a woman offering sex and not getting commitment, fishes are similar to bicycles. And I am Arnold Schwarzenegger.

    A better analogy is the following one: A woman meets a man. Although she doesn’t know him very well, she offers him to give him a ride. But she is SECRETLY hoping that he is going to be so impressed with the car, that he is going to buy it, although the purchasing is never discussed. Well, the man enjoys the ride, thanks the woman and goes away without buying the car and without wanting to have a ride again. Is a man a bastard because he has not bought the car? Does the woman’s hope entitle her to a purchasing of the car?

    I think that, where nothing has been said, no deal has been made. A woman’s hope does not entitle her to commitment.

    “Leading a person along through deception or omission is wrong.”

    There’s no deception. Commitment has not been promised. There’s no omission. A hook-up does not imply a commitment so there is no omission of commitment.

  48. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Paige,

    As stated, I can’t see any problems with your description. There is this little itty-bitty teeny tiny problem with what is and is not suggestive behavior or words and who makes that determination.

    Well, setting aside the he said/she said social friction that is without serious consequences, according to the people who issue restraining orders, incarcerate people, and remove child custody ( the courts ), *nothing* a woman does or says is ‘suggestive’ as you put it. Either she explicitly and soberly says yes or the guy does not pass Go, does not get $200, and goes directly to jail.

    You get points – at least from me – for having pretty thoughts, but the people who actually decide such things think you’re full of 5h1t.

    Yes, I am and know that I am an a55h01e for saying that. I hear it all the time. “G, just because you’re right doesn’t mean anyone is going to like you.”

  49. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: _______ Edition

  50. Pingback: Conservatives enabling feminism | Dalrock

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s