Marriage lite: mistaking “No sex before monogamy” for a moral statement

One of the more dangerous concepts of our time is the conflation of serial monogamy with actual marriage.  Once this fatal mistake is made, the foundation is set to presume that serial monogamy is therefore more moral than other forms of promiscuity.  The idea is both seductive and nearly universal, and we see it from Christians and secular people alike.  The problem is if you are thinking this way you are miles away from understanding what marriage really is, and are almost certainly providing moral cover and even moral encouragement for immorality.

I think the basic mistake comes from looking at serial monogamy from a snapshot in time.  Look, there are two people who love each other and are having sex only with each other, just like marriage!  This same error would cause one to falsely conclude that this man is levitating while relaxing with a beer.  Only a fool would think this.

The Christian sanctioning of serial monogamy tends to favor serial marriage over pronouncements of “No sex before monogamy”.  Sheila Gregoire is an excellent example of this frame, although if you note the lack of controversy about her statements outside of the manosphere you can see that she isn’t outside of mainstream Christian thought:

The wife had decided to leave, and was interested in another doctor for a second marriage (not just an affair, and she certainly was not going to sleep with him until they were divorced. She also considered her marriage over). So I don’t think it’s that she was “whoring”, as much as it was that he had broken the vows and was completely unrepentant (at the beginning of the movie) and pushing her away.

Key to the Christian implementation of morally sanctioned serial monogamy is to find some pretense for divorce.  This pays cursory respect to the Scripture so you can still claim you are talking about Christian marriage.  Fortunately as Sheila explains “emotional abuse”* or a husband viewing pornography (which she categorizes as an affair) qualifies as a woman’s ticket to ride the serial marriage train:

Yes, she’d taken off her wedding ring, but I would argue that he had already had an affair (with porn)

In the secular world the moral elevation of women’s preferred form of promiscuity is most often phrased as I described in the title.  No sex before monogamy is actually good practical advice for women who are pursuing promiscuity.  It fits with their natural urges and all else being equal sets them up for a more pleasurable experience.  It also slows the rate of damage they are doing to their own marriage value, should they want that as an option once they tire of the carousel.

The fundamental problem comes when this practical advice for getting the most out of hookups is mistaken for a moral path.  It has to be seen within the proper context.  If you are going to hookup, you should do so smartly.  Morality aside, this is sound practical advice.  Roissy and Roosh advise men on how to navigate the promiscuous SMP on their own terms.  Susan Walsh and Patti Stanger do the same for women.  In Susan’s case to her credit she is often very open about this being a purely pragmatic issue.  For example, in her post last month Tough Call: Sex Before Commitment? she advises women to be true to themselves, choose monogamy if they want it, and to only have sex with men they really like:

Be Authentic

There’s a difference between employing sound strategy by not showing your hand too soon, and being an impostor in your own life. If you’re not a casual kind of girl, don’t have casual sex. The odds of feeling regret are extremely high, and it complicates any subsequent communication as you try to sort out what it means.

Have Sex Only If You Really, Really Like Each Other

Hopefully, you know if you like him. If he’s not the only guy you like, don’t go there. If you’re dating multiple people, as in online dating, and you’ve gotten intimate with someone else recently, don’t go there. If he’s great but probably not right for you, don’t go there. If he’s great for you, but you’re still getting over your ex, don’t go there. Don’t have sex with a man unless you are emotionally available and know what you want.

Again, this is all sound practical advice for the woman who has decided to be promiscuous.  If you are going to hookup, hookup smart. Find out if you like him first. Get him to invest in you emotionally first.  This is the same kind of practical advice Roissy and Roosh offer men.  The problem is noone mistakes Roissy and Roosh for offering (traditional) moral advice.  As a result we have many people who without really considering it are presuming that Roissy and Roosh are offering advice to men on how to be immoral, while Susan is countering them with her own moral advice.   Susan herself may be partly to blame here, because at times she seems to frame her practical advice to women on how to hookup as moral in nature.  For example, earlier this month Susan explained her mission for Hooking Up Smart:

That is all filtered, however, through the mission of this blog. I am biased. I want people to be in relationships. I want them to get married. I want them to be loyal, faithful spouses who stay together through the rough times. I believe that is what most people want in life. I also believe marriage is good for society, good for civilization, and even good for the economy.

If you don’t believe in monogamy, fine. If you want to advise men to never marry, that is your right. If you believe I’ve climbed onto a deck chair on the Titanic, you’re entitled to your opinion. You may even be right. But I don’t want to hear about it. It’s not my thing, and it’s counter to the mission of what I’m trying to accomplish here.

This is a blog to help people figure out how to navigate the hostile terrain of the contemporary SMP to get a relationship.

Note how “relationship” “marriage”, and “monogamy” are all offered on the same plane of thought.  I don’t doubt that Susan sees marriage as the most moral of the three, but it does seem that she attaches significant moral weight to the other two terms outside of the context of marriage.  She also has a tendency to use the word commitment to refer not to a couple committing to stay with one another, but to describe a man becoming emotionally invested in a woman and/or promising (for the moment) monogamy.  From her Tough Call post:

Some men happily commit to women they have first night sex with. Even if the odds are against it, there’s a potential opportunity cost to rejecting those men.

This terribly muddies the waters, because when most people read commitment they are thinking of the word in the context of marriage for life.  This is something else entirely.

As I’ve written before, there is much which I agree with Susan about.  For example, I agree with her assertion in her post Manwhores: For Casual Sex Only that women shouldn’t marry alphas.  Likewise I advise men not to marry sluts.  This isn’t moral advice, since it isn’t even addressing the question of repentance.  The advice is practical;  don’t marry someone who is likely to struggle to keep their commitment.  I take this a step further and tell men they have a moral obligation to not marry a woman who isn’t extremely likely to be able to keep her vows, but this is a moral imperative to be practical when choosing a wife, not a conflation of the moral and the practical.

Part of what makes this confusing is the practical advice to promiscuous women is at direct odds with the practical advice to promiscuous men.  This creates an apparent contradiction, which many take as a sign that one set of advice is practical and the other must therefore be moral.  We can see this clearly though when we look at the advice men like Roissy and Roosh offer to women.  Roosh’s practical advice to his own sister is an excellent example:

Understand that before sex, you have all the power, but afterwards you have very little. A guy who was jumping over himself to hang out with you will be more nonchalant after sex, like he doesn’t even care.

The only way a man will value you is if you made him put in a lot of investment before sex. The more work he puts in, the less he can rationalize that you were meaningless to him, and the more likely he will continue to pursue because he considers you above the rest. Each man you have sex with that doesn’t call you back will kill a part of your soul, and it’s your job to guard against that. Only have sex with men who earn it.

He is telling her how to keep the power position as a woman in the sexual marketplace.  Not surprisingly Susan agreed with this.  Almost two years ago Roissy offered his own advice on when women should put out to get the most from men:

Coy is good, but don’t be a cocktease. A greater beta, (if all things go in your favor, the best I believe you can shoot for), will quickly tire of you if your goodies aren’t parceled out on a fairly brisk timetable. So pace your makeouts. Aim for closing the deal around date #5 or 6. Any earlier than that and your dreamboat may decide you were under his maximum potential since you gave it up without much work on his part. Any later than that and he may decide you are too much work for the deal you are giving him.

Note how similar this is to Susan’s recent Tough Call post.  It is not a moral argument, even though many mistake this kind of advice for one.  The reality is that someone is going to be in the power position in the SMP, and someone is going to be getting the short end of the stick.  Depending on who you are talking to (man or woman), the tactics of how to avoid being the chump in the bargain are very different.  But the goal is still the same;  utilize the strategy which is to your own advantage.  No sex before monogamy is sound practical advice to women, just as advising men to avoid all investment in women they haven’t already had sex with (outside of a narrow and very rare case where the woman is truly following the old rules for courtship and marriage) is sound practical advice for men.

Unfortunately this moral confusion is so deeply ingrained in our culture that even men who are accomplished at game find themselves feeling that they are being immoral not for being promiscuous, but for failing to volunteer to be the chump in the arrangement.  Blogger Rivelino recently wrote about his own conscience nagging him for keeping himself in the casual sex power position:

i think i just feel guilty — again! — that i am having blondie come over to cook me dinner when i would much rather be alone.

although that’s not true.

i want to F*** blondie but i don’t want to spend any time with her.

see the dilemma?

but when i AM f***ing her, i do feel emotionally attached to her — i feel grateful.

Commenter Sinjun puts it in perspective:

You’re over analyzing. A perfectly f***able girl wants to come over and make you dinner. Let her.

A perfectly f***able girl is bringing her work clothes with her for the next day, telegraphing that she wants a good rogering. Don’t disappoint, and f*** her!

She KNOWS where she stands with you. Women are extremely intuitive, don’t think she can’t FEEL the vibes you subconsciously emu mating. THAT’S why she’s trying so hard. The ironic part is, if you were to start exhibiting beta like behaviors and being needy, the relationship dynamics would change; and I don’t mean in your favor.

I think your letting your conscience get the best of you here. Think back to your beta days and how the chicks were merciless. Do you want to go back to that? Remember the pain?

Sinjun is absolutely right.  There is no moral reason men should offer to play the chump in the freewheeling SMP.  It would be good advice to tell Blondie to be smarter about the way she hooks up, but it would be wrong to tell Rivelino that he has an obligation to offer this woman (temporary) exclusivity and emotional investment.  Sinjun reminds Rivelino that this woman is an active participant in all of this:

I’m NOT advocating bitter revenge, far from it. But don’t let yourself go soft. Live with integrity. Do what pleases YOU, and let her do what pleases her. If she doesn’t like something, she’s an adult and can disengage herself from the situation. This girl’s been with at least 20 guys right? Well guess what? She knows the deal. This isn’t her first lap around the track.

Do you, and let her do her.

*Note:  I quoted Sheila’s statement on “emotional abuse” from the comments section of one of her youtube videos on this post. I now see that she has disabled comments for the video and all previous comments are removed.

This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Serial Monogamy. Bookmark the permalink.

517 Responses to Marriage lite: mistaking “No sex before monogamy” for a moral statement

  1. Rivelino says:

    i need to read this again.

  2. YOHAMI says:

    “No sex before monogamy” only means the guy submitted to the woman´s frame. It doesnt say anything about the woman submitting to the man´s frame. Its not commitment nor love, just playing it safe for the woman, and its the equivalent to the male “sex before monogamy”.

    As a card to be played / a strategy, why not. I do think girls benefit from it. As a moral “must be” proposition though, I call bullshit.

  3. Rivelino says:

    “The reality is that someone is going to be in the power position in the SMP, and someone is going to be getting the short end of the stick.”

    this part i love.

  4. Elspeth says:

    One of the more dangerous concepts of our time is the conflation of serial monogamy with actual marriage. Once this fatal mistake is made, the foundation is set to presume that serial monogamy is therefore more moral than other forms of promiscuity. The idea is both seductive and nearly universal, and we see it from Christians and secular people alike. The problem is if you are thinking this way you are miles away from understanding what marriage really is, and are almost certainly providing moral cover and even moral encouragement for immorality.

    This really about says it all, Dalrock. It’s the “money quote” in your post, if you will. Well stated.

  5. Rivelino says:

    “The reality is that someone is going to be in the power position in the SMP, and someone is going to be getting the short end of the stick. Depending on who you are talking to (man or woman), the tactics of how to avoid being the chump in the bargain are very different. But the goal is still the same; utilize the strategy which is to your own advantage. No sex before monogamy is sound practical advice to women, just as advising men to avoid all investment in women they haven’t already had sex with [fucking first, then deciding if you actually like her and want to open yourself up emotionally] is sound practical advice for men.”

    okay, i am getting it now.

    neither one is more moral than the other, they are just two different strategies for getting the most out of the SMP — one strategy geared towards women, one strategy geared towards men.

    so basically what you are saying is that women and men are *at odds* in the SMP. not to say that it’s “war”, but that we are antagonists, because one is trying to delay, delay, delay and get emotional investment, and the other is trying to fuck, fuck, fuck *without* any emotional investment — or even better, *faking* emotional commitment, what mystery would call A3 + C.

    i completely agree with all of this.

    what women want — marriage, kids, blah blah — isn’t any more moral than what men want — tits, ass, threesomes, anal — it is just seen that way by our current society.

    actually, wait, that’s not entirely true — or true at all. i *do* believe that endless hedonism — tits, ass, threesomes — probably does get pretty warped and weird after a while, and what i mean is, if this hedonism is experienced *without* the foundation of love, admiration, and a deep spiritual connection.

    i mean, yeah i want to fuck 50 girls — or 100 girls — but after a while, i think i do want to fall in love — maybe like juggler — and then of course i would *still* want to have threesomes and external variety — like doug1 — but it would be nice to have a long term partner. just random fucking for years and decades, that sounds like it could get pretty lonely — and when i say lonely, i mean, it would feel empty.

    so what i was going to say was that i *do* think that love, family, and “being there” for each other, that *is* the foundation of society — but kids, engagement rings, fancy weddings, private school education, blah blah — that is NOT. and *that* is what a lot of american women think of when they think of marriage.

    so while love is great, and truly moral, i don’t think marriage = love by any means. marriage is just the goal that women think they want.

    plus, men need to fuck a lot. moral or immoral, i don’t care. men have a much greater need for sex — and especially, for sexual *variety* — and that is something i know that most women don’t understand.

    i am a huge advocate of occasional threesomes to keep the man happy in an LTR. i know most people don’t agree, but fuck, it really works.

    at least in this current SMP, if a girl is not giving her man an occasional threesome, she is really risking her relationship with him.

    at least if she is with a real man.

    alright, i am getting off topic, will finish reading your post.

    i

  6. YOHAMI says:

    Rivelino,

    “what women want — marriage”

    Thats the thing. Thats not what “women” want. Relationships, or temporary monogamy are not “marriage”. Like I say all the time, women want relationships? only if you also include all kind of fucked up stuff in that word.

    Marriage is total and absolute commitment. In a way is has nothing to do with having sex.

    “no sex before monogamy” is just a strategy. And valid. And they should follow it, just like I follow the total opposite strategy.

    But marriage? such a different field.

    [D: Spot on.]

  7. Rmaxd says:

    “No sex before monogamy is sound practical advice to women, just as advising men to avoid all investment in women they haven’t already had sex with ”

    This is a major problem with walsh, she just doesnt get why men dont value women, they havent banged

    Not being in a relationship before you sleep with someone, is just as moral as women wanting a relationship before sex

    Walsh will never understand the basics of the above …

  8. Dalrock says:

    @Rivelino

    what women want — marriage, kids, blah blah — isn’t any more moral than what men want — tits, ass, threesomes, anal — it is just seen that way by our current society.

    This is something different. Those women who truly want marriage and act accordingly are acting morally. Those who practice serial monogamy in any of its many incarnations are not. This is the trick. The moral question comes much sooner than most people are thinking. The moral question is lifelong exclusive marriage (or celibacy) or not. While it is possible for people to repent after choosing “not”, the sleight of hand is to have women marry (after riding the carousel or not) and only stay married so long as she wants to retain the relationship, all while declaring this as having moral value. More moral would be for her to never marry at all if she wasn’t going to honor the commitment. I’m not saying you are being moral for being promiscuous. I’m arguing that it wouldn’t make you more moral if you did so under women’s preferred terms, nor would it make the women themselves more moral.

  9. Rmaxd says:

    should’ve added,

    Also walsh doesnt understand why men dont want relationships with women they havent slept with yet …

  10. YOHAMI says:

    Rmaxd, I´d rather see more criticism about the posture than criticism about Susan as a person. Chances are she´s going to take criticisms made to her posture as personal, but that would be on her.

    [D: Agreed.]

  11. johnnymilfquest says:

    As I understand it, its the “…for as long as you both shall live?” part that.distinguishes real marriage from serial monogamy.

    If divorce were made illegal, I suspect that men would be much more keen to marry and women much less so!

  12. YOHAMI says:

    “If divorce were made illegal, I suspect that men would be much more keen to marry and women much less so!”

    LOOOOL but true. And screening women would be so easy. I´d probably be married. To several women but married ;-)

  13. Rivelino says:

    “The ironic part is, if you were to start exhibiting beta like behaviors and being needy, the relationship dynamics would change; and I don’t mean in your favor.”

    i agree, this part was brilliant. nice work, sinjun.

    but this part *does* still make me sad:

    “This girl’s been with at least 20 guys right? Well guess what? She knows the deal. This isn’t her first lap around the track. Do you, and let her do her.”

    basically, that means “it’s every man for himself!” — and i do find that to be kind of immoral. wasn’t the idea that we should treat other people as ends in themselves, not as a means to an end?

    i mean, i am still doing it. i am still stringing blondie along. i am not lying to her, or telling her that i love her or anything, but i am still taking her calls, still telling her she should come visit me (she moved back to barcelona), and still not “helping her” realize that although she thinks that i am her soul mate, i just see her as a fuck buddy.

    now, i *know* she is a big girl and that she can take care of herself, but isn’t the whole point of society to help others when they are weak and vulnerable? i mean, i know game is powerful and all, but damn, i really worked this girl over — she says that i am her drug, that she is crazy about me, that i am her soul mate, that she can’t stop thinking about me, blah blah — shit, i just feel bad.

    this girl has lost it.

    love is blind, as they say.

    they were right.

    i mean, i know she was vulnerable already, when i met her — in a new city, just turned 31, parents recently divorced, attempting to switch careers — and i knew that when i “targeted her” for sex — i just never thought that it would work out so well.

    and again, i know that a lot of her “love” for me is just purely physiological — to say, sexual — cause i fuck her brains out etc — but shit, combine my alpha rough sex moves — which i do have down, if i say so myself — with her emotional vulnerable state, and my game and frame control, and this girl didn’t stand a chance!

    admittedly, blondie was not at all “my type”, so it was easy for me to be indifferent and unreactive and to dominate her without being nervous about losing her — unlike CC, for example, who is really beginning to get to me, to the point that i am afraid that i am acting smitten towards her, and that people in the office can see (!) — so i just want to clarify, by no means am i an alpha or anywhere near an alpha, i am very much a beta, only with flashes of alpha — flashes of alpha, and usually only around 6s and 7s.

    anyway, all i am saying is that i feel that i am taking advantage of this girl, and that i should stop. i think i have crossed the line, from moral to immoral. i am being an utter and complete asshole to her — but here is the catch — SHE FUCKING LOVES IT.

    the more of an asshole i am to her, the more i ignore her, and tease her, and treat her like shit — THE MORE SHE WANTS ME.

    and *that* is the part that totally throws me for a loop — STILL.

    i mean, wtf.

    how the fuck can i respect women as a whole WHEN THEY ARE SO FUCKED UP — *especially*, like sinjun said, especially since i have been on the other end of the stick so many times — pining after a girl who i want to shower with love and kindness blah blah — but instead, she goes out and fucks the bad boy who treats her like shit.

    i have suffered that a lot. SO MANY MEN have suffered that a lot, especially because of the current SMP and its radical changes since feminism took over.

    so now *I* am the bad boy. the tables have turned! and i should enjoy it.

    but i don’t.

    and yet i still do string her along — cause she fucks really good, and cause i don’t have anyone better to fuck, and cause i am being completely and utterly selfish, putting my insatiable sexual needs before her emotional well being.

    well, fuck it. if there is one thing i have learned in my almost two years in the community, it’s ME FIRST. nice guys don’t get nothing. they don’t get pussy, they don’t get good girls, they don’t get bad girls, they don’t get slut — NICE GUYS DON’T GET SHIT.

    so yeah, i am way over being a nice guy. my new love mantra stated that pretty emphatically.

    sorry, blondie.

    it’s you or me — and i choose me.

    ps. so wait, to bring it back home, what i think i am saying is that i fundamentally disagree with your post.

    “There is no moral reason men should offer to play the chump in the freewheeling SMP.”

    yeah, maybe, to a point. but maybe once a girl starts saying that you are her soul mate — maybe that is when it’s time to cut the cord — maybe that’s when the man *does* have the “moral obligation” to pinch her, tell her to stop dreaming, and to stop falling for bad boys, and to wake up and search for a real life beta husband — basically what doug1 advised.

    dalrock, what do you think, is that a decent compromise?

  14. Joe Blow says:

    It’s hard to convey this to a kid though. No daughters here, thankfully. What lesson for boys? In a couple years I will have to go with something along these lines.
    1) It’s wrong to sleep around before you get married. In addition to disease, pregnancy risk and horrible emotional complications, it is just wrong; the morals line up with the pragmatic considerations here.
    2) Being in a committed relationship doesn’t make it right, it just makes it a little less wrong than abject promiscuity. It’s in the nature of Paul’s cutting off his left hand – you’re not supposed to mutilate yourself, right, but if your problem is that bad, and yeah, if you’re spending 45 minutes a day in the bathroom it’s gotten that bad.
    3) The more you sleep around, the less likely you will be happy with sleeping with your wife when you do eventually get married, and you’ll need to find other compelling reasons to keep you engaged, and that may be hard. You do not want to be looking at her after three years of marriage and thinking, “OMG… I am not sure I can do this again…” Nor do you want to be explaining to your lovely bride what that huge blister on your johnson is…
    4) The same is true for her; the more she’s ridden the carousel, the less likely that she will stay satisfied with you, not because you are bad but variety is the spice of life and our age is a sexual Mexican restaurant, where they just can’t make the salsa hot enough, and quite frankly we will try things with anonymous strangers that we wouldn’t dare do with anybody we have to live with. We humans are weird like that. And you know the more she’s been on the carousel, the less likely she will be able (physiologically) to emotionally bond to you, your kids, and the more likely she will be barren as a result of age, disease, or abortion side-effects?
    5) Try to find a good young woman who is really marriage minded and serious and hot looking too, and do it early and have kids early ‘cuz a woman who is a sexual climber with baby rabies will be the bane of your life because physically and emotionally she’s learned to be a hypergamous mercenary. Learn a little game but not too much, it’ll help here – keep fit, work hard in school and at work, have some passions and do interesting stuff, and stay away from that girl who has skin around her eyes that makes her look 5 years older than she is. And learn the mild neg.
    6) Don’t fuck around, but if you decide you absolutely must, then don’t fuck around. Go read Roissy and try to (a) understand that it’s a discussion of how humans stripped of morals function in the sexual arena; and, (b) don’t pick up on the misogyny and think you’re special hot shit just ‘cuz you got a dick, men are just as screwed up only in different ways; and (c) wear a condom because you shouldn’t inflict your diseases or inability to land a wife on some poor little kid; nor should you pay for the woman’s indiscretions. Yeah, birth control is wrong but here you are trying to figure out how to use mildly abusive tactics to bed girls… there’s wrong and there’s less wrong. Remember what I said in #1 and #2?
    7) Remember, this is about reproductive strategy. If you’re not looking for somebody to settle down with, reproduce and raise good moral little ankle biters, in a suitably strong, moral church, then you shouldn’t be doing it, and if you’re really not interested in marriage, here’s my friends the MGTOWs, what do you think about their choices? There’s also the priesthood, which is a perfectly honorable and altruistic way to live, providing you can keep your hands off the little kids and women’s auxiliary vice president…

    That there is some painful honesty. I don’t see another way to navigate the Other Discussion, the tougher one that comes after the discussion about the physiology… I wish it were otherwise, that I could give him the Prince Charming side of the fairy tale story but society just doesn’t permit it any longer, it’d be parental malpractice on my part. Shit, nobody told me any of this… They just didn’t know back then but man, I wish I had.

  15. Sasha says:

    @Yohami

    “No sex before monogamy” only means the guy submitted to the woman´s frame.

    Not if that was part of guy’s frame to start with.

    Marriage is total and absolute commitment. In a way is has nothing to do with having sex.

    I don’t see absolute as necessary quality of marriage. While qualities of a good mother and a good wife overlap, a man gotta prioritize and sometimes it could mean dissolution of the marriage after children are independent and entering a different kind of union. By design – not because the first marriage “failed”.

    [D: What you are describing isn’t marriage.]

  16. YOHAMI says:

    Sasha,

    Not if that was part of guy’s frame to start with.

    Ah, for sure. It can be her committing to his too. Plenty of guys who only want one woman and commit to her only. I´d say most of us in the early years.

    dissolution of the marriage after children are independent

    I think that counts as serial monogamy?

    The way I see it, serial monogamy is how nature designed this thing. On par with cuckholdry and harems. Pair bond have offspring and then do it again with someone else. I see the “union for life” as a fairy tale, or as a spiritual connection and bonding that goes beyond nature drives. As a nature thing, few animals do it. An the human species, as a whole, has proven to fail at it, otherwise it wouldnt have to be enforced and normalized.

  17. Dalrock says:

    @Rivelino

    “There is no moral reason men should offer to play the chump in the freewheeling SMP.”

    yeah, maybe, to a point. but maybe once a girl starts saying that you are her soul mate — maybe that is when it’s time to cut the cord — maybe that’s when the man *does* have the “moral obligation” to pinch her, tell her to stop dreaming, and to stop falling for bad boys, and to wake up and search for a real life beta husband — basically what doug1 advised.

    dalrock, what do you think, is that a decent compromise?

    If I agree, every promiscuous woman will understandably take this as my stating that they are owed this. It is a statement that they have a right to be promiscuous and enter into deliberately ambiguous relationships, and deserve to expect that this ambiguity won’t work out against them. I would be telling them that if by keeping things ambiguous, keeping their options open, and not pursuing true commitment they ended up getting burned a man must have failed them. Hamsters don’t need more encouragement. Moreover, I would be telling you there is a moral way to be promiscuous. In that case my message to both of you would be wrong.

  18. Elspeth says:

    Moreover, I would be telling you that there is a moral way to be promiscuous. In that case my message to both of you would be wrong.

    Again, well said.

  19. Rivelino says:

    ” I would be telling them that if by keeping things ambiguous, keeping their options open, and not pursuing true commitment, they ended up getting burned, then a man must have failed them.”

    that was incredibly insightful and brilliant.

    wow.

  20. Sasha says:

    [D: What you are describing isn’t marriage.]

    – Is remarrying after your wife dies still “marriage”? Is divorce never a possibility in a marriage? What is your definition of marriage?

    I see marriage as coming together for mainly two purposes – spiritual union and/or physical union – over a significant time-period. I don’t see why “until death parts us” is a necessary quantifier.

  21. Rmaxd says:

    @Yohami

    “Rmaxd, I´d rather see more criticism about the posture than criticism about Susan as a person.”

    Yea, thats why I’m not attacking her as a person …

    I stated quite clearly …

    “She just doesnt get why men dont value women, they havent banged

    Not being in a relationship before you sleep with someone, is just as moral as women wanting a relationship before sex”

    as well as

    “walsh doesnt understand why men dont want relationships with women they havent slept with yet …”

    I’m not sure how you can construe the above as attacks on walsh as a person, theyre simply comments on her posture

    If she construes those as personal, im not bothered, as im not attacking her person

  22. deti says:

    Joe Blow:

    Your soliloquy is good, especially since I have a son who will have to be sat down and ibued with hard truths one day. But I don’t necessarily agree with this:

    “The more you sleep around, the less likely you will be happy with sleeping with your wife when you do eventually get married, and you’ll need to find other compelling reasons to keep you engaged, and that may be hard.”

    That’s true of female former carousel riders — the higher their partner counts, the more trouble they have bonding to their husbands. In more crass terms, the more di*k they’ve had in their pasts, the tougher it is for them to settle for just one di*k for the rest of their lives.

    But I don’t think this is true of men writ large. Once a man decides to commit, he commits — unless he’s a total alpha cad whose options continue into his marriage and he willfully disregards his commitment. I would submit that description is true of only about 5% of men, if that.

  23. Sasha says:

    Riv,

    You needed some money, wanted to play gansta, so you fed some crack to a teenage girl. She got hooked fast and is in withdrawal now. You can help her come down from the bender.

    I was in a very similar situation recently – down to the exact wording you are putting down. What really helped her (and freed me to a great extent) was to be very clear about where two of you stand and spend some loving, non-sexual time with her. Think of it as a gift to her – not yourself. Hold her if needed, be her friend – not her lover – but don’t get lost and don’t fuck her again.

  24. Rmaxd says:

    @Sasha

    – “Is remarrying after your wife dies still “marriage”? Is divorce never a possibility in a marriage? What is your definition of marriage?”

    Men & women should NEVER divorce if :

    1. They have kids

    2. They’re religion forbids it

    3. If the law threatens to steal the mans home, value etc if they divorce.

    If there’s monetary rewards for divorcing, it is no longer a commitment, but a massive risk

    It’s ok to divorce if :

    1. You dont have kids

    2. Obviously if there are no rewards & cash prizes for divorcing a male

    But this thread isnt about divorce, its about misappropriation of promiscuity

  25. Anonymous Reader says:

    Yohami
    The way I see it, serial monogamy is how nature designed this thing. On par with cuckholdry and harems. Pair bond have offspring and then do it again with someone else. I see the “union for life” as a fairy tale, or as a spiritual connection and bonding that goes beyond nature drives. As a nature thing, few animals do it. An the human species, as a whole, has proven to fail at it, otherwise it wouldnt have to be enforced and normalized.

    So? If you are arguing for a more “natural” way of life, consider what goes with that: the way humans lived for most of the last 100,000 years or so, in small bands foraging over a territorial range, walking in big circles over the course of a year. Grass huts and so forth. Seems to me that keeping the existing civilization going, by rewarding betas for “doing right”, is a better plan.

    Perhaps monogamy is not “natural”, but it makes possible a lot of other non-“natural” things, like this here internet, clean water on demand, living longer than 50 years, and so forth. We toss it away at a cost, and the bill is still not fully obvious to us.

  26. The reason that commitment wins the moral argument is because the female imperative owns the narrative. As I posted in “The Feminine Reality” https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/the-feminine-reality/
    Men’s function is to facilitate a feminine reality. The feminine imperative owns the definition of morality. If an action, thought or even an idea conflicts with the feminine primary sexual strategy it is by default immoral. Even actions and ideas that women themselves engage in which are contradictory to this imperative are still excusable thanks to the feminine prerogative and a cultivate socialization of female victimhood status.

  27. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    I feel this whole serial long-term relationship idea is just women convincing themselves that they can have sex before marriage and still be viable concerns for marriage once they need it. They want to have their cake and eat it too. Susan promoting it is what turned me off her completely. You are either for marriage or not.

    I feel the biggest problem is that society treats these women as normal while it treats the men who are promiscuous as the problem. Once it starts treating these women the same as it does the players, marriage might have meaning again.

  28. Rmaxd says:

    @Sasha

    “What really helped her (and freed me to a great extent) was to be very clear about where two of you stand and spend some loving, non-sexual time with her. Think of it as a gift to her – not yourself. ”

    This is why women should never give advice on relationships … if he followed your advice & thought of it as a gift to her, he’d be on his way to beta ville …

    Make no doubt, blondie thinks of herself a gift to Riv, ie submission to Riv, this is what keeps her attracted to him …

    Men dominate, women submit, reverse the roles & you kill the relationship & gina tingles …

  29. Sasha says:

    @Rdmax,

    Men & women should NEVER divorce if :

    1. They have kids

    That’s a little too much. They shouldn’t divorce only if the kids are small or divorce would negatively impact children. I wouldn’t be affected by my parents divorcing today – or anytime after I turned 20 or so. I would even support that decision.
    ****
    This thread might not be about divorce but definition of promiscuity is tied to definition of marriage (in this context) and divorce is an inherent part of marriage concept.

  30. Rmaxd –
    We all know and have stated how we feel about Susan as individuals. Instead of doing so again, talk about the actual ideas here that belong to Dalrock. It will produce a better discussion of these ideas rather than a cyclical loop of topics already discussed.

    Riv,
    Right now it seems that you and Blondie are both in a rare overlap of having mutually enjoyable interactions. Maybe not ALL of the time, but those that the two of you have issues with individually seem to be worth putting up with for the things you’re both enjoying.

    With this kind of relationship, you’re not going to necessarily be enjoying the same items.

    Stop getting torn up about it. You each enjoy it, You’re each being honest. Its rare to get that. Don’t knock the small overlap men and women have in the way they enjoy things. Its not your job to police her thoughts, feelings, and actions. Doing so stretches yourself thin on resources, lowers yourself in her eyes, and also takes away any holding her accountable for her actions and acknowledging she’s an individual who can make her own choices.

    Feminists and white knights will do enough of that without you helping them.

  31. YOHAMI says:

    Anonymous,

    Perhaps monogamy is not “natural”, but it makes possible a lot of other non-”natural” things

    For sure. And we have / need a lot of not-natural stuff right now. Like this computer. And cancer. And spaceships. And poisoned food. And amusement parks, literature and teleportation (do we have that one yet?)

    My point is just about whats natural. I guess morality is our attempt to fix and conquer our own nature for the benefit of the group. Im not a fan of civilization or how it evolved though. I dont see its inner value nor have an attachment to it.

  32. Rivelino says:

    @rmaxd

    “Men dominate, women submit, reverse the roles & you kill the relationship & gina tingles …”

    completely agree.

    wait, let me restate that, COMPLETELY AGREE.

    still though, my question is, when is domination *too much* domination? when does psychosexual dominance turn into psychosexualABUSIVE dominance?

    i mean, there has to be a line somewhere. we all have to admit that, otherwise we are simply cruel.

  33. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    This thread might not be about divorce but definition of promiscuity is tied to definition of marriage (in this context) and divorce is an inherent part of marriage concept.

    No it isn’t. Divorce is wholly against the concept of marriage. Even the Catholics had annulment. They couldn’t stand the idea of a ‘divorce’. Marriage is a life-long commitment if you are not prepared to do that, you shouldn’t be getting married. Call it something else, but it’s not marriage.

  34. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Rivelino, would you not think it equally cruel to tell such a woman, with more than 20 partners, to seek a beta husband? Not for her but for the man? Quite frankly, she isn’t fit for marriage anymore, maybe it would be kind to let her know that.

  35. Pingback: When does psychosexual dominance turn into psychosexualABUSIVE dominance? « Rivelino in Spain

  36. Rivelino says:

    @rollo

    “Even actions and ideas that women themselves engage in which are contradictory to this imperative are still excusable thanks to the feminine prerogative and a cultivate socialization of female victimhood status.”

    this sounds about right. gonna check out that link.

  37. Rivelino says:

    @leap

    “Riv,
    Right now it seems that you and Blondie are both in a rare overlap of having mutually enjoyable interactions.”

    no. i kinda hate her guts.

    except when i’m horny, in which case i want to fuck her, and then have her leave the premises.

    i hate her and i hate myself for needing her pussy — i want to have higher value so i can get better pussy, and not have to “settle” for her pussy, and her annoying clinginess, and her 6 face.

    i want a girl with a 9 face.

    so for that i need to become much higher value.

    i need to work on developing my talents. like what rollo was writing about in his last post.

  38. Rivelino says:

    @FH

    “Quite frankly, she isn’t fit for marriage anymore”

    i think that’s a good point.

    i almost wanted to tell her that. she said a bunch of times, “i finally found you! after waiting so many years” — you know, the whole soul mate thing — and i wanted to reply, darling you were “waiting around”, you were fucking several guys a year, randomly too, so *you* have devalued your pussy, and you have AGED, and now — fuck, i don’t want your 31 year old pussy that has had 20 other cocks inside it.

    i mean, i want it short term, but definitely not long term.

  39. “My point is just about whats natural. I guess morality is our attempt to fix and conquer our own nature for the benefit of the group. Im not a fan of civilization or how it evolved though. I dont see its inner value nor have an attachment to it.”

    Curious, both with this, your previous quote about serial monogamy, and children’s independence; when would you consider divorce or separation ok then? In today’s culture people can be dependent on parents until their mid 20’s if not later with grad schools. Or do you think they’re independent enough when they move out to go to college?

    Ugh, I wish there were better studies on this. Ones that related to how it affected children at different ages to live with a single parent, divorced parents, ect. I haven’t been able to find anything besides blanket studies about divorced statistics on how it affects kids or being raised by single parents – all vague both in how they gathered the data and what the pool was they gathered from

  40. Rivelino says:

    you *weren’t “waiting around”

  41. Rmaxd says:

    @Sasha
    “I wouldn’t be affected by my parents divorcing today – or anytime after I turned 20 or so. I would even support that decision.”

    The whole point of marriage is to create a COMMUNITY, marriage in the long run has very LITTLE to do with love or commitment

    Love & commitment might be important at the beginning, but the WHOLE PURPOSE of marriage is to CREATE A COMMUNITY & nuclear family for your kids AND their kids

    Which is WHY you should NEVER divorce if you have kids

    As you’re destroying not just a relationship, but a whole community & nuclear family of support & nurture for TWO generations of people, YOUR KIDS & YOUR KIDS FAMILIES

    This is WHY UNSWERVING Commitment is so important to marriage

    Marriage has NOTHING to do, or very little with the relationship of the two people getting married

    Marriage is about committing to BUILD a community, NOT just for the children, but also a community for the society around you

    Marriage is ALL ABOUT building social networks of morality & tradition & culture, marriage has nothing to do with a relationship between two people

    Marriage is ABOUT building & securing a SOCIAL FUTURE

    This is WHY DIVORCE IS AN ABOMINATION

  42. Riv.
    “No, I kinda hate her guts.”

    Hmmm. I’ll still stand by my statement at the end that its her own choice. Take whatever you can gain from that.

    I don’t know then actually. I’ve had angry sex, but never sex with someone I’ve hated AT THAT TIME. So I got nothing for you there. Though honestly, I just don’t take time to even talk with people I hate. The idea of sticking my penis in something I hate is just…. foreign, to me? But you have to be a cold hearted, hypocritical bitch to earn that kind of ire.

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Rivelino

    still though, my question is, when is domination *too much* domination? when does psychosexual dominance turn into psychosexualABUSIVE dominance?

    i mean, there has to be a line somewhere. we all have to admit that, otherwise we are simply cruel.

    There is a line in Apocalypse Now about issuing speeding tickets at the Indy 500. This feels about the same to me. This path leads to trying to create elaborate rules of the road for hookups. One can argue the minutia, but the whole exercise is futile. She wants to be dominated and she doesn’t want to find a man worthy of committing to whom she can trust to always have her best interests at heart. She wants to be dominated by whichever man makes her tingle at the moment. And she wants that to end well. I don’t know how to make that end well for her. Do you?

  44. Rivelino says:

    @leap

    “But you have to be a cold hearted, hypocritical bitch to earn that kind of ire.”

    not that kind of hate. i mean, she is actually a warm, loving person. yeah, she is needy and clingy and deluded and she rode the cock carousel too long, etc — but she doesn’t deserve to be hated for that.

    she is not a “rotten to the core, vapid, egotistical” type of person, is what i mean.

    the reason i “hate” her is because when i look at her, it’s like looking into a mirror, and seeing *my* reflection of greed and horniness and seeing all my SMP shortcomings.

    so really, i hate her for how she makes me feel about *myself*.

    i would love to fall in love — i know i shouldn’t write that, or even feel that — i am my own salvation after all — but it’s true, i would love to meet a really cool, really beautiful girl, and fall for her, and be with her for a LONG time — as much as i want to change my core, that’s who i am. i was with a girl for 10 years. i like being in a relationship, i am realizing.

    of course, i gotta kill off my beta side, and i am working on that, but it does turn out that i like the companionship of a special person.

    so when i see a hot, cool, beautiful, warm girl like CC, my heart kinda jumps. would LOVE to date her. and then i see what i *can* currently get in the SMP — that is blondie — and i feel like, blah.

    so blondie just reminds me of my shortcomings.

    i am repeating myself.

  45. Rivelino says:

    @dalrock

    “She wants to be dominated by whichever man makes her tingle at the moment. And she wants that to end well. I don’t know how to make that end well for her. Do you?”

    again, very wise.

    so i guess i will continue to fuck her until she wises up to my shenanigans.

  46. Buckaroo Banzai says:

    I have lurked on the manosphere for about a year, but I have never commented on any boards. The reason I am posting my first comment here is to reply to this question posed by Johnnymilfquest, as it reaally struck a nerve:

    “If divorce were made illegal, I suspect that men would be much more keen to marry and women much less so!”

    Yes. I would ceertainly be more willing to marry if that were the case, or even if the American church would follow the Bible on this matter. But they don’t. As of now I fear that I probably won’t ever get married, barring direct Godly intervention. Please allow me to tell you a little about myself, what the church women I’ve been exposed to have been like, and a funny experience at a “Christian Singles” event.

    I am a 30 year old never married male. I went to a private Christian grade school and attended church with my parents at least once a week. I am a Christian, but unlike the majority of professing Christians I am very serious about following the Bible’s instructions, even the hard parts. I have a very decent career, and would be the perfect catch for a “Nice Christian Girl”. I am the answer to the question “Where are all the good men?” I’ve yet to get an answer to my question though.

    Where are all the truly Christian woman who will submit to a husband? (This is not a bad thing. The happiest marriages I’ve seen in my life were the ones in which the roles were clearly defined with the husband as the head of his household.) I haven’t met a single one near my age. What I’ve met instead are lots and lots of church girls. Whores in sheeps clothing .SWPL churchians. Frauds.

    I went to a “singles” event at one church where the only potential match for me had a 4 year old daughter, and her divorce was not yet technically finalized. What was the reason for her divorce? I shouldn’t even have to type this but emotional abuse, of course! Oh, and they were too young when they got married.

    Until the church changes drastically, or the women visibly improve their actions and attitudes, this good man is going to continue to go his own way.

    [D: Welcome.]

  47. Dalrock says:

    @Rivelino

    the reason i “hate” her is because when i look at her, it’s like looking into a mirror, and seeing *my* reflection of greed and horniness and seeing all my SMP shortcomings.

    so really, i hate her for how she makes me feel about *myself*.

    Interesting. This strikes me as very similar to how women often feel about their overly beta husband/boyfriend. Except I don’t think you have the unqualified contempt for her that women typically do in that situation. You still see her as a person and care about her feelings. Along the same note, I recall a post Roissy did a while back about how women in love are like beta men.

    so i guess i will continue to fuck her until she wises up to my shenanigans.

    Just to clarify, I’m not giving you a moral stamp of approval; I’m saying the moral question happened several exits back.

  48. Joe Blow says:

    @ Deti:

    I would submit that description is true of only about 5% of men, if that.

    YMMV. I’ve been a faithful husband since Day 1, committed for nearly a couple decades now, but occasionally – rarely but now and again – still feel a slight pang for a couple remarkable women I dated, both of whom were definitely keepers, a couple nines with low partner counts and a lot of great assets (probably coulda gone full beta and kept either, they were both fools for me) but I threw ‘em back because I was doing catch & release fishing at that time. When there’s a one trout limit and you fancy yourself a tournament angler, you may unwisely throw back a couple hard won trophy fish early on in the day, and later on you will still be grateful for the fine catch you landed that put you on the podium, it’s a great fish; but it doesn’t mean you can wish away the periodic wistful thoughts about having blown a chance to win the tournament and be in Boone & Crockett… Not that I’d tell that to my rainbow, she’s a fine catch and there’s no guarantee those others would have measured up on the official tournament scale as well as I imagined… but even as a fairly bush league player in the AA bedhopping leagues, fooling around sort of screwed me up a bit. I’m capable of a sort of deep & slow burning love, which I certainly have for my wife, or having some logic-bending hot tempered lust (there’s a reason I keep my door mostly shut at work an it involves young female attorneys who work out and who are happy to wander around and look for a mentor) but being head-over-heels for my wife? I never did have that couple years of honeymoon that people talk about, I burned through that phase of amazing excitement pretty fast because I was jaded and cynical and frankly insecure in all my relationships, having been a player and before that having been played pretty hard, easy to develop close trusted male friends or females not on the market (e.g. lesbian friends) but not really down with wholehearted trusting of females operating in the same sexual marketplace; and knowledge of female hypergamy (as it’s now called) sorta keeps me at a slight distance from my wife, keeping her on her toes frankly by being kind and a good partner but not dancing to her (often nutty) tune. Commited, yes; unmarked by the earlier bedhopping, no. Maybe I’m in your 5%. I suspect the number of the Born Again Monogamous Men who feel similarly marked by youthful promiscuity is a little higher than 5%.

  49. Rmaxd says:

    @Riv

    “still though, my question is, when is domination *too much* domination? when does psychosexual dominance turn into psychosexualABUSIVE dominance?

    i mean, there has to be a line somewhere. we all have to admit that, otherwise we are simply cruel.”

    This is a point I’ve made here on Dalrocks blog

    Women simply have NO limit on cruelty, apart from physical abuse

    The more cruel & mentally abusive you are to a woman, the more clingy & desperate she gets for you

    Her gina tingle, is directly linked to your ability to dominate her as exquisitely & painfully as possible

    To a woman cruelty & mental abuse, are factors of status, the more status you have the more you can afford to screw people over as viciously & brutally as possible

    To a woman cruelty & mental abuse, are tools of expertise & finesse, the more they can destroy a person, the greater their ability & expertise in being in a relationship

    To a woman cruelty & mental abuse, are the tools of being able to manage a relationship, the more expertly you can destroy or screw over a person, the more control you have in the relationship

    To a woman cruelty & mental abuse, are the tools of tribal leaders & alpha males, as they destroy & mentally abuse in order to raise their status

    There are ZERO limits on dominance, as long as you throw in a handful of alpha couldnt give a shit tokens of trinkets

    ie., surprise her with a crappy packet of skittles out of the blue, for giving you a good lay

    Or grab her ass & roughhouse as you objectify her ass, chest anything in reach … again done rarely …

    The whole point is to get her to please you, YOU ARE THE PRIZE, she is the objectification & a secondary to your role of as dominance as a man

    Put yourself first in every relationship

    If you put her first over you, she will literally destroy you, as women think in SOCIAL LOGIC

    She will automatically use you to raise her own status, as that is the socially logical thing to do, if someone gives you power in a social circle

    Give her bursts of oxcytocine, through assholish tokens of trinkets, as oxcytocine is a far more powerful & addictive drug then dopamine

    Because oxcytocine is so much more powerful, greater displays of affection radically lowers a womans ability to use oxcytocin to bond to you

    Basically displays of affection increases her immunity & resistance to oxcytocin, just like a drug addict, she needs greater displays of emasculation & supplication, in order to bond using oxcytocin

    Dopamine has very little resistance or immunity, as its linked to your flight & flee response, dopamine is a basic survival mechanism

    Dopamine, basically being a tribal leader, ie asshole triggers her survival mechanism …

  50. imnobody says:

    My point is just about whats natural. I guess morality is our attempt to fix and conquer our own nature for the benefit of the group. Im not a fan of civilization or how it evolved though. I dont see its inner value nor have an attachment to it.

    Come on! I have lived for eleven years in the Third World and I cringe when I see that. You wouldn’t survive a year without civilization. Go to an isolate place and try to live for a month without civilization (no communications, no food that you don’t hunt, no electricity, cell phones, only the clothes you can sew with trees). I bet you will discover “its inner value” and you will find yourself more “attached” to it than you think.

    You can despise it as much as you can while, at the same time, reaping all its fruits. It costs you nothing while there are million of people who would give an arm to have this civilization that you despise.

  51. flyfreshandyoung says:

    Good stuff Dalrock.

    A lot of it comes down to the “what works” vs “what doesn’t” and “what is good” vs. “what is bad”.

    They often do not go together. The problem Walsh et. al. have is conflating the practical and moral, and using them interchangeably as the situation merits.

    I think there would be a lot less problems with her stuff from these parts if she would lose the highmindedness, and deal either only with practicality or morality.

  52. Buckaroo,
    Curious, do you have any other way to meet women that meet the quality standards you’re looking for? Can you find them in your field, in a local coffee shop, or somewhere else?

    Also, maybe its different in your area, but have you tried attending different churches solely to go to the singles groups and find a good Christian woman? It will give you a freedom of a new start that usually lets men open up more. Also, you’ll be the exciting ‘new guy’ and have a good start at catching the eye of any potentials. If you’re lucky several, which will help you find a quality one hopefully.

    Good luck. I mean it. The beta Christian role is a tough one to fill and find someone to be your co-pilot (wife).

  53. imnobody says:

    The problem Walsh et. al. have is conflating the practical and moral, and using them interchangeably as the situation merits.

    Most women does not distinguish between them or, to be accurate, they use rationalization to convince themselves and other people that what they want (practical) is the moral. This is the rationalization hamster. Walsh is only an example.

  54. Serial monogamy, one-night stands, FWBs . . . it’s all fornication.

  55. Pingback: Women simply have NO limit on cruelty « Rivelino in Spain

  56. deti says:

    Joe Blow:

    I didn’t express the 5% guesstimate well.

    I submit that 5% of married men are guys who got screwed up with promiscuity to the point that it seriously messes up their married lives; they’re alpha cads, cheating on their wives. I submit that the other 95% of men who weren’t virgins when they married, or were even lesser alphas or greater betas playing the field before you married, their “checkered pasts” don’t threaten their marriages because they aren’t going after other women and their past lifestyles aren’t the defining events of their lives. Sounds like you’re in the 95%, not the 5%.

    Sure we remember our pasts. Some of them we regret; some we might even remember fondly. In twelve years of dating before I married I knew exactly three– THREE — who were worth anything. The first I met at 17, the next at 20, the last at 26. I married that last one. For men, our pasts don’t define us, because we aren’t missing the lifestyle, and we aren’t out there fantasizing constantly about chasing strange tail.

  57. deti says:

    Plus: I have no practical or pragmatic problem at all with any man who doesn’t want to marry because he doesn’t want to commit to one woman, he wants to date around, or he thinks marriage is currently too risky. By all means, have at it. But hey, if you don’t want to commit and the player lifestyle is for you, don’t get married.

  58. imnobody says:

    @Joe Blow

    I can’t speak on behalf of other men but I feel the same as you. The past cannot be erased completely. Studies about brain chemistry have found that you don’t bond the same way with your first lovers than with your following lovers.

    If I can get personal, I don’t think I will ever be over my first girlfriend. My current girlfriend is MUCH better than the first one but it came too late. I love my current gf with a slow & burning love (and quite possibly I’ll marry her), but not the love I had for my first one. Nothing tastes as good as the first kisses. Repetition decreases pleasure.

  59. deti says:

    Buckaroo:

    “Where are all the good Christian women who will submit to a husband? …. What I’ve met instead are lots and lots of church girls. Whores in sheeps clothing .SWPL churchians. Frauds.”

    I’m afraid you’ve run smack into what I have shamelessly dubbed deti’s law. I didn’t discover it, I just had the audacity to name it. To-wit:

    “There is no practical difference between a Christian woman and a nonChristian woman in today’s SMP. A Chrisitan woman is just as hypergamous and fickle as her secular sisters.”

    Good luck. Church is not the best place to meet a Christian woman, I fear. There are several kinds of Christian single women:

    1. The “reformed slut”. She has a past that would curl your toes if she were honest about it.
    2. The single mom (divorced or never married, not widowed). Avoid these like the plague. You’ll have to deal with the ex husband or the baby daddy.
    3. The never married superreligious girl. Her hamster is stronger than Hercules. She is almost always an entitled princess who is holding out for that “one special man, my soulmate” that “God has chosen” for her. The slightest imperfection in any man means “he is not the one”. She is as hypergamous as they come.

    You’ll probably do better meeting someone at work (careful there) or meeting women through friends, or friends of friends.

  60. Rmaxd says:

    @Leap of a Beta

    “We all know and have stated how we feel about Susan as individuals. Instead of doing so again, talk about the actual ideas here that belong to Dalrock. It will produce a better discussion of these ideas rather than a cyclical loop of topics already discussed.”

    I have no intention of bitch slapping walsh lol … as I mentioned before I have no intention of bringing her up unless its relevant to the thread

    Unlike walsh i try to be as relevant as possible …as opposed to irrelevant … lol

  61. Rmaxd says:

    “Find out if you like him first. Get him to invest in you emotionally first. ”

    This is the exact problem, behind why women get into ridiculously poor relationships

    They have no reference point for a good relationship, as emotional investment implies valuing long term integrity, over instant gratification

    Women simply dont value men enough, to get men to invest in them emotionally in the first place

    They place their tingle, over a relationship

    Materialism & gratification are never satisfied without delayed gratification

  62. Thanks Rmaxd, I enjoyed your later comments. Not sure if I agree with them, but not really anything to say with them either.

  63. Suz says:

    Rmaxd “Marriage has NOTHING to do, or very little with the relationship of the two people getting married.”

    Most people don’t even comprehend that fact, let alone state it so emphatically.

    I do believe that love is an important part of the “community ” you build, but that’s a kind of love you never imagined when you got married. If you have it, you know it’s worth the sacrifice and work.

    We are so short sighted, most of us, men and women.

  64. 7man says:

    Buckaroo:

    It is better to find a woman that can be led than a “Christian” woman. If she can be led and you lead her morally with confidence and integrity, she will likely become a better Christian than the “Christian” women you have encountered. Another way of saying this is a woman that cannot be led is a frivolous “Christian,” so why limit your search to within churches.

    This advice is not equally applicable to a woman seeking a man. She should not attempt to lead him, since that only works with guys willing to supplicate to her.

  65. flyfreshandyoung says:

    deti:

    4. The otherwise same-as-every-other-girl who goes to church because she feels like she has to. Goes just because it’s a duty she hasn’t shed yet. Will speak often about her beliefs, but her actions reveal other priorities. She is a “Christian” for the name tag.

  66. buckaroo bonzai says:

    Leap of Beta,

    Regarding your question I do exactly that. I must say I prefer the company of non church girls, but I’m not sure how good my odds are of finding someone that takes their faith as seriously as me. And I am now stepping out of the church entirely in my search for a wife. I’m sure there will be comments to respond to after this but I’m not near a pc and won’t be till much later on. The misunderstanding that my post meant church is my only venue is one reason why I don’t post on blogs.

  67. deti says:

    Marriage is total and absolute commitment. In a way is has nothing to do with having sex.

    “no sex before monogamy” is just a strategy. And valid. And they should follow it, just like I follow the total opposite strategy.

    But marriage? such a different field.

    [D: Spot on.]

    As between Sasha and Yohami, Yohami has the better argument, I think.

    Marriage is complete and total commitment, and you don’t get released from it absent very narrow set of factual circumstances — adultery, abuse (real, physical abuse), abandonment, addiction.

    The mistake many make in marriage is that your commitment will always be easy to honor. It isn’t. Another misunderstanding we often have is that the very fact of being married to each other and making that commitment means that our lives will be made easier or more enhanced. That isn’t always true.

    My experience has been that you have to go into marriage with the distinct attitude that you’re in this until one of you dies, and you’re going to do what it takes to make this work. Unless she cheats on me, leaves me or becomes addicted to something and it’s totally ruining both of us, I’m in this and I’m not leaving. We both want to have kids, and we need to stick together for them, not just for us.

    I have been married 15 years. It has not always been easy. There have been some times when it has been damn difficult. I have been with Mrs. deti through serious medical problems (hers and mine), financial problems, me hating my job for about 2 years and a job change, her job changes, her hating her job for about 2 years, having two children, moving twice, and my taking a job with increased responsibilities. That’s to say nothing of me going lesser beta, working too hard, failing fitness tests, Mrs. deti complaining about being unhaaaaaappy, and me having to swallow a big red pill and telling her that her unhaaaaaappiness was not an excuse to treat me horribly, and she had better straighten herself out and that right soon.

    The point is if I did not have that level of commitment, and Mrs. deti also did not, we probably would be divorced by now. You have to have that level of commitment, or your marriage probably isn’t going to make it. There are times your marriage is going to be great. There are also times when your marriage will suck big time. It isn’t all fun and validation and 2 weeks in Florida every year for her. It isn’t all hot sweaty sex for me.

    [D: Outstanding Deti.]

  68. buckaroo bonzai says:

    7man,

    I am certainly not going to date a coworker, but I do date outside of church. As I just posted in reply to Leap of Beta, I’m now exclusively looking outside church.

  69. deti says:

    7Man:

    That’s brilliant. Why can’t I put it like that in one paragraph?

    Even if she’s an unbeliever, if she can be led, Buckaroo can lead her in marriage … and to Christ.

  70. Buckaroo Banzai says:

    7Man:

    That’s an intriguing idea about finding a good woman who can be led. I’m in a middle of a crossroads, and have recently stopped attending a church building altogether. I guess if they hadn’t attend a church they wouldn’t be poisoned by the toxic feminism/religion. Now to find someone who hasn’t been poisoned by the general feminist thought in our society, that would be the next challenge. I know NAWALT, I just need to find one of the 42 left in this country.

  71. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    “I do believe that love is an important part of the “community ” you build, but that’s a kind of love you never imagined when you got married. If you have it, you know it’s worth the sacrifice and work.

    We are so short sighted, most of us, men and women.”

    This is an important crossroads, most women need to cross in order to teach their children & upcoming generations

    The need for a social structure in order to create stability for the female gender, & a stable future for their children, as well as allowing men to escape the social structure long enough for their benefit

    What we are seeing is the devaluation of the social structure, necessary for men & women to function

    Marriage is a starting point, but the goal is always the greater good of society

    It is the devaluation of the concept of the greater good of society, we see the rise of the devaluation of marriage

    Without the greater good of a society to aspire to, there is no real need to emotionally invest in anyone, let alone your future wife, or a marriage

    But in order to do that, men have to be given time to grow into those roles

    Men also need their own communities free of women, in order to realise those roles in the masculine greater good

  72. Rmaxd
    “It is the devaluation of the concept of the greater good of society, we see the rise of the devaluation of marriage”

    Hmm, I had never considered this as part of the devaluation of marriage from societal influences. I always have thought about it in terms of Feminists goals and ideals for women to be completely independent.

    I’m not sure I agree with you though, especially with the statement right after that. I think its more that people have always acted for their own individual reasons rather than those of a nebulous ‘greater good of society.’ I think that recently people have just been lied to by different parts of society (media, feminists, politicians, ect) about what exactly is for their own good and how to ensure they are able to get it.

    For example, women have been told that marriage is less important for them to have, or that they can go career girl first before it and then have the kids they so desire. That this would actually be BETTER for the kids by amassing more wealth/stability (had feminists argue that to me despite fertility and horrible SMP as they age). They’re finding out, to their detriment, too late that they can’t get all the selfish desires they were lied to about being able to get. Feminists and old spinsters continue to spin their wheels, spin out lies, and act selfishly by deluding others on what they should think is important instead of building a family.

  73. greyghost says:

    Sasha what you are pushing is what murder suicides are made of. Marriage is not a temporary thing you do for now while it feels good in this stage in life. Divorce is not a part of marriage, it is a part of hypergamy and selfish dishonor.

  74. Pingback: On the unanswered prayer. | Dark Brightness

  75. 7man says:

    @ Buckaroo,

    It is good that you are thinking about this. I have spent a long time thinking too and slowly I figured out what works for me based on solid moral principles (no moral relativism). I posted this a while ago: Exploring Deep Desires (Note: this one is controversial and not at all PC)

    My goal is to help others think, and maybe other posts CL & I by might interest you over the weekend while you relax with a beer. Figuring out how to establish the relationship you believe is possible is a worthy endeavor.

  76. Eric says:

    I recently heard a debate between an advocate of ‘no sex before marriage’ and one of the so-called ‘third-date rule’ (no sex until the third date). I couldn’t help but wonder—who other than American women need schedules for sex?

    The more I think about it, the more I’m inclined to believe that, not only do women in our culture never really feel love for men; they never feel any real sexual attraction towards us either. When one sees the types of degenerated males women are constantly throwing themselves at, the idea that ‘sexual chemistry’ exists between them is laughable.

    Women in our culture can only relate to men as inferiors; which is why dysfunctional thugs, limp-wristed metrosexuals, and meatheaded jockstraps are types of losers that cause women to salivate— not with lust as these jerks suppose, but with the stimulation of the female superiority complex. There is no possibility that intimacy is ever shared when one party considers the other a subhuman; which is how women universally see men here.

    If women viewed men as anything other than ‘male pigs’ these debates over ‘appropriate’ times for sex would be meaningless. There would be such a mutualism between the two parties that one would respect the other’s wishes. But women in our culture are too self-centered for that kind of sharing. They want their ‘girl power’ and their ‘independence’ and then complain that men only want them for sex. But they won’t offer men anything else of any value; hence, the only males that they can appeal to are the types who can’t think above the sexual level themselves.

  77. YaBoymatt says:

    Rmaxd are you bonecrker? I feel like I’ve read everything you’ve posted before but I couldn’t remember where. Bonecrker! The man himself!

  78. Rmaxd says:

    @YaBoy

    No im not bonecrker .. lol

  79. Suz says:

    Rmaxd,
    I think I agree with you but I’m a little fuzzy on your exact meaning.
    Are you saying that the breakdown of marriage is causing the breakdown of society, or that the breakdown of society is causing the breakdown of marriage? I believe the latter is the primary case, since marriages are strongest in communities that are isolated from the influence of the rest of society. I believe that it has become a vicious circle, because broken marriages are pouring broken people back into society at an alarming rate. I also believe that the only hope is to rebuild smaller communities, where personal accountability exists. Can that be done with marriage as a starting point? Wouldn’t marriage be strengthened if we go one step smaller and put the interests of children first – and start by vehemently refuting the myth that the greater community (even a small-town government) can raise them better than two parents can?

    I think we’re in agreement, but perhaps approaching the conclusion from different directions?

  80. Rmaxd says:

    Interestingly Suz, I was about to address the need for children …

    & I was just finishing off a post on the ripple effect you mention …

    I’m a Universal Absolutist, where universal absolutes are the key to morality

    I firmly believe the universal solution is the children, they are the biological imperative

    But there is no insular need for children, children are not an introversion of society, they are extra-versions

    Marriage is not the key, as marriage is simply a smaller part of society as a whole

    Marriage is not a universal, it’s an artificial construct … society doesnt need marriage, society needs community …

    Marriage is a response to scarcity, nothing more … imo …

  81. Rmaxd
    “I’m a Universal Absolutist, where universal absolutes are the key to morality”

    Wow. I actually wish I had known this sooner. Now more of your comments make sense and I can read them in that light. Good to know!

  82. Suz says:

    “Universal Absolutist”
    Thanks for the term. Sounds like what I call “rational morality.” Slammed into it in my quest to learn to think more logically; I had to question every assumption I could dig up, wandering around like a toddler – “But why?”

    Dear Heavens! Are we Kindred Spirits?

  83. Legion says:

    Rivelino says:
    December 30, 2011 at 1:54 pm

    Soulmate? Just a made up Princess word. Don’t let it worry you when a women tries to abuse you with it.

    Note: I am an atheist and I don’t have a soul. So naturally, no soulmate.

  84. deti says:

    Dalrock is quickly showing himself as one of the manosphere’s preeminent thinkers and theoreticians.

  85. Ceer says:

    @Rivelino
    “i would love to fall in love — i know i shouldn’t write that, or even feel that — i am my own salvation after all — but it’s true, i would love to meet a really cool, really beautiful girl, and fall for her, and be with her for a LONG time — as much as i want to change my core, that’s who i am. i was with a girl for 10 years. i like being in a relationship, i am realizing.”

    According to Dalrock and Athol Kay, there’s nothing inherently *wrong* with wanting a lifelong relationship. But the kicker is that it HAS to be with a woman with either a pre-existing high value for:
    1) beta tolerance
    2) social circle and family supportive of marriage
    3) devout religion
    4) introspection

    Based on your other statements, I’m assuming she’s medium for 1, low-medium for 2, low for 3, and low for 4. But you would know better.

    As far as killing the caring part of yourself. You’re not the only one who’s realized that women simply punish you for displaying it. Unless they’re in love, in which case, you’ve displayed enough alpha to get away with it.

    What you’ve described is indeed an issue between you two. Nothing lasting can come of it unless you can talk about these issues. She would benefit greatly from understanding just how much damage she’s done to herself. IMO, she’s not equipped to be a proper life partner without it. But you have probably guessed that this involves risking the pussy access. It’s a question of values. What do you value more: maintaining temporary pussy now? or potential for long term relationship? I wish you luck in your choice.

  86. Rivelino says:

    @deti

    “Dalrock is quickly showing himself as one of the manosphere’s preeminent thinkers and theoreticians.”

    yeah, definitely

    even with the whole christian angle thrown in
    :-)

  87. Rivelino says:

    @ceer

    “As far as killing the caring part of yourself. You’re not the only one who’s realized that women simply punish you for displaying it. Unless they’re in love, in which case, you’ve displayed enough alpha to get away with it.”

    but even when a girl is in love — and like a beta, like roissy and dalrock pointed out — even though, act like a beta long enough — and she will dump you.

  88. Rivelino says:

    @ceer

    ” It’s a question of values. What do you value more: maintaining temporary pussy now? or potential for long term relationship? I wish you luck in your choice.”

    thanks.

    with blondie, i don’t care for anything long term — she is just not pretty enough, or interesting enough for me — so i guess i am going to just go for the short term pussy.

  89. Rivelino says:

    @ceer

    “According to Dalrock and Athol Kay, there’s nothing inherently *wrong* with wanting a lifelong relationship. But the kicker is that it HAS to be with a woman with either a pre-existing high value for:
    1) beta tolerance
    2) social circle and family supportive of marriage
    3) devout religion
    4) introspection”

    interesting list.

    #1 isn’t athol’s idea that you can be married but stay alpha? that would be my goal. i think it is very doable. at least, in theory. haven’t tried it recently.

    #2 makes sense

    #3 hmm, maybe. religion, as much as i am against it — i can see its usefulness more and more each day. sort of.

    #4 i think is key, someone like hope or olive who can see how easily she can turn into a psycho robot, and who can fight that urge.

  90. Kai says:

    “Rivelino says:
    #3 hmm, maybe. religion, as much as i am against it — i can see its usefulness more and more each day. sort of.”

    Devout religious belief can provide a moral framework for a woman to abide by that overrides a natural desire towards all sorts of problems. But that doesn’t mean that one can’t have a similar moral system outside of religious belief. And given the lack of genuine adherence to religious commandments seen in the average self-proclaimed religious modern american, an espoused belief means nothing.
    So while true religious belief can help, looking among self-professed religious doesn’t actually do any good for weeding out the less-marriageable.
    If you’re not religious, I don’t think you have much to gain in looking to religion to find a marriageable woman.

  91. imnobody says:

    Devout religious belief can provide a moral framework for a woman to abide by that overrides a natural desire towards all sorts of problems.

    You have to distinguish between traditional/patriarchal religions and the current matriarchal/kumbaya churches that currently exist in America. You know: the ones populated by sluts and born-again “virgins”, that sing “Jesus is my boyfriend” and throw themselves to the first alpha they met.

    When a society stops worshiping a patriarchal God, it starts worshiping the Mighty Pussy. American people, whether religious or secular, are in the second category.

  92. imnobody says:

    Sorry, bad markup:

    @Kai

    Devout religious belief can provide a moral framework for a woman to abide by that overrides a natural desire towards all sorts of problems.

    You have to distinguish between traditional/patriarchal religions and the current matriarchal/kumbaya churches that currently exist in America. You know: the ones populated by sluts and born-again “virgins”, that sing “Jesus is my boyfriend” and throw themselves to the first alpha they met.

    When a society stops worshiping a patriarchal God, it starts worshiping the Mighty Pussy. American people, whether religious or secular, are in the second category.

  93. Louis says:

    The permanent feeling of disconfort and vague disgust with the SMP that is so common today, even in the MSM becomes cristal clear seen through the lenses of this article.

    Romantics and femists alike tend to wax indignant about or to be dismissive of the contractual nature of marriage. However it is only when it is a real contract with equal obligations that marriage is different from a LTR. Not a convinience for a woman waiting to climb a step up in the ladder but a safe harbor for a man, a woman and their children.

    That’s why a moral life feels all but beyond reach. The contractual basis of marriage is broken by laws that promote easy divorces that shift most of the costs to men and morality is left flailing about alone and unsupported. Since there is no security behind it, commitment is a trap. The family is turned into a trap instead of a support for individuals and for society.

    Is a choice between solitude and alienation vs. risk of heartbreak and financial ruin (aka continued heartbreak) a choice at all, or a dare to throw it all up in the air?

    That’s it. Only the real deal is worth it for men. Only women might gain from playing at it. For a while.

    What a society might gain from it escapes me completly, unless the leadership is determined to create the most isolated and dependent individuals it can.

  94. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    When a society stops worshiping a patriarchal God, it starts worshiping the Mighty Pussy. American people, whether religious or secular, are in the second category.

    I think a fair assumption would be to say that the Church as been pussy whipped.

  95. greyghost says:

    from Deti
    “Dalrock is quickly showing himself as one of the manosphere’s preeminent thinkers and theoreticians.”
    Dalrock is a thinker that allows himself to learn from others to find a logical solution to a human dynamic. Most in his position like Susan for example have a social popular agenda and support it regaurdless of the logic or results. Dalrock seems to me to be a guy that looks for why things happen and verifies his finding with conversations with his commenters and commenters from other blogs to make very acurate and logical judgements and ideas. He is doing to me what used to be known as sharing wisdom. That guy at this time with what he has learned probably has his wife mentally and emotionally so on fire every women on this blog should be jealous. Dalrock you “mother fucker”

  96. Crossed Dalrock road yesterday at 5PMish! Maybe Dalrock, you live nearby…..I tuned for the vibe…..got nuthin.

  97. Pingback: Lovable: An Optimistic View « Complementarian Loners

  98. 7Man
    Yessir, the woman who can be led, not necessarily the Christian. I’m glad to see folks waking to this, and men looking intentionally outside the church for mates. One of the worst women you can marry is the newly minted mega church Christian gal. All she is is someone who has an imagined personal Jesus that -gets-her, listens to her and even is willing to bend Hid standards to her because he just finally understands her life. He is her BF in that way.
    More, she will have taken on the role of holy spirit for her man, she must keep him from sin, “help” him be good, covering that controlling nature by saying she is encouraging him.
    She will also have some daytimer image of what a Christian husband looks like. he will draw Bible crafts with kids daily, read devotionals and pray…..often weeping while praying…..with the wife and the family, he will read the Bible to her, and they will talk and be EMPATHETIC about scripture. These behaviors give her a huge relational rush, she she buys the mega church image of the spiritual leader.
    While he is doing all this she MAY just stay monogamous for a long time. However, these women are just secular women but with a huge amount of additional hoops for the man that she has learned about from the sistas at church (and the preacher who has his wife proof his sermons of course)

  99. Opus says:

    No sex before marriage, I have always thought, was merely a device to keep ones MMV high. In other words it is a marketing scam, which relies on the assumption that the man will not grow indifferent to the woman’s charms, whilst waiting. It is not always a game that pay’s off however, indeed sex before marriage – even without falling pregnant – can, for the right woman, only increase her desirability, sometimes. Pity that poor girl I knew of whose fiancee called off the wedding. Distraught, her parents, with whom she lived, took her on an ocean cruise to assist her in overcoming her grief so as to face life as a spinster. I heard that the problem was the parents who molly-coddled their daughter by keeping her at home – she did not work. Perhaps some pre-marital sex would have produced a different outcome.

    I am suspecting that outside this blog, Dalrock is actually The Rev’d Dalrock. :)

  100. Suz says:

    “3) devout religion”
    “Devout religious belief can provide a moral framework for a woman to abide by that overrides a natural desire towards all sorts of problems.”

    Yeah, I’m gonna challenge #3. Depending on the “rules” of the religion, and on the community and personal interpretations of those rules, religion can disrupt the marital relationship by becoming a competing alpha. “Jesus is my boyfriend” is one of many manifestations of this. Religion came after biology, and even though early religious law “reinforces” biology, modern religion adds too many variables. Unswerving loyalty between spouses is necessary for a successful marriage, under God or not. A 21st century religious woman has far too many “godly” alternatives to loyalty. Actually, so does a 21st century man…

  101. Suz says:

    Rmaxd:
    “To a woman cruelty & mental abuse, are the tools of tribal leaders & alpha males, as they destroy & mentally abuse in order to raise their status.”

    This is true, but cruelty and mental abuse are not the only expressions of dominance. In fact they can be detrimental to an alpha’s efforts to preserve and maintain a prized possession. If you are in a relationship with a (damaged/ mentally unbalanced) woman who thrives on cruelty because she cannot respond to intimacy, then yes, cruelty is key to maintaining the relationship. This must necessarily be a shallow relationship with a low-value possession, because it reinforces and/or increases the damage that drives the “possession.”

    It’s fortunate that Riv recognizes the extreme limitations on Blondie’s potential. With that understanding, it’s ultimately up to him to decide if the relationship degrades him as well as her, or if there’s no reason not to take what she’s offering (and will doubtless offer to the next guy, and the one after that.) Totally dominating a masochist may be gratifying, and it’s certainly natural, but it’s hardly a great accomplishment. Riv may eventually find himself bored with a relationship that doesn’t drive him toward reaching his greater alpha potential. Sure it’s fun, but that’s all it is. If he decides he wants more, he’ll go looking for more, and he’ll very likely incorporate a broader variety of dominance tools to get it and maintain it.

  102. Anonymous Reader says:

    Let me reinforce Dalrock’s primary point in this article: serial monogamy is the preferred mating / reproductive pattern for women (with a little Alpha-riding cuckolding on the side, of course). It is, as Dalrock states flatly, women’s preferred form of promiscuity and thus is no more moral than men’s preferred form of promiscuity, polygyny (soft harem, overt harem, makes no diff).

    The only reason that there is any confusion over this is because of the larger “men’s sexuality bad, women’s sexuality good” trope that has been embedded into at least the Anglosphere for well over a century. That trope leads to the notion that men’s sexuality , being all bestial and nasty, must be controlled while women’s sexuality, naturally innocent, good, pure and a bit winsome (rather like Hello Kitty in a pegnoir) should be freed from the horrid constraints of the evil patriarchy.

    Church people all too often, having been brought up with “men’s sexuality animalistic, women’s sexuality pure (or nonexistent…) and thus good”, see no reason why women’s sexuality should be controlled at all – after all, women are “naturally” monogamous, so what could possibly go wrong? I spent some time on Gregoire’s site and found this to be a premise underlying even practical discussions of sexual behavior within marriage.

    THerefore, I predict this wil be a long term conflict. Because women’s preferred form of promiscuity is serial monogamy (with some on the side, sometimes) and because by definition women’s sexuality is regarded as inherently superior to that of men in a moral sense, getting moralizers to admit that they are in fact simply promoting promiscuity in the preferred female mode will not be easy. But it is necessary. Because until moralizers, churchians and other such opinion leaders come to grips with the facts of female hypergamy, and serial monogamy as the preferred female reproductive pattern, and what these two documented features of the female sexual system have done once they were effectively unleashed – not only can they not offer any useful advie, in fact they are going to take position shat are bad and harmful for the marriage institution they claim to revere.

    It comes back to the glasses. Until one puts them on, all sorts of things make no sense. Wear the glasses, and much becomes clear. Especially the blindness of many other people.

  103. straightright says:

    I could be buckaroo’s blood brother. A few years older, grad school, then a post-doc. Finding a good woman does seem like a crap shoot. It’s very difficult to find someone who is faithful, and will remain so. Since there’s not much faithfulness, there’s not much of a chance of finding someone who hasn’t been around the block. The problem is that the religious constraints on sexual activity reflect biological reality. I don’t think that “no sex before marriage” is just a scam. Having multiple partners means consistent breaking of the bonding process that is enabled through oxytocin. This is strong in women, and even a 20 second hug can raise these levels (yes, someone did do this experiment). This is probably why the number of sexual partners is a good proxy for likelihood of divorce (though this also likely reflects moral outlook too). And this is another reason why, for Christians, there can’t be any moral difference between serial monogamy and what Roissy shoots for: the number is not the important variable, it’s the biological and moral factors that are decisive. This is another reason why the term HUS is practically an oxymoron.

  104. Sasha says:

    Deti, et al

    Marriage as a “total and complete commitment” “until death” is incompatible with its dissolution “in a narrow case of circumstances”.

    Different unions have different purposes and hence different “contracts”. It is a VERY small percentage of people who are to be in a life-long spiritual union – marriage of “the highest grade” so to say. Some people get together to bring up children as their main objective- but that doesn’t require a life-long union.

    Judaism allows divorce. Islam allows divorce. Backwards Roman Catholic Church (emphasis on Church rather than faith) allows annulment but not a divorce. Talk about legalese tricks.

    I view marriage as a long-term (15+ years) union which is a combination of spirit and flesh. I don’t see why “until death parts us” is an essential part of this equation. Unless we are discussing semantics only.

  105. Sasha says:

    Yohami,

    Indeed “union for life” is a fairy-tale – but for some people it’s the best way of living. Emphasis on the FORM of love (monogamy, “for life”, etc) rather than content is misplaced. Surely some containers of love are better for deeper unions than others, but small perturbations can only optimize the outcome.

    I see two components to marriage – spiritual and physical. Spiritual can last a lifetime – hell, it can last many lifetimes – but it doesn’t even require physical proximity. The physical part is children and it does require physical proximity but as I already stated, not necessarily for life.

  106. YOHAMI says:

    Sasha,

    Marrying some girl – having children – staying loyal with her for about 15-20 years – divorcing – enjoying casual sex or other forms of sexuality – is that your view on this issue?

  107. Sasha says:

    Generally, I am arguing for paying more attention to the content of marriage (love, growth, union of two spirits, children, etc) rather than the container for such – monogamy, lifelong timeline, etc. I want people to concentrate on the spirit rather than the letter of marriage. As I said, some containers are better than others.

    Personally, I have a strong sense that after marriage/children (20-25 years) something else will come, some other form of the union with a woman that would be more spiritually slanted as opposed to more children-oriented marriage. I have no idea today what form it will take and whether it will even involve sexuality, but my primary partner won’t be the mother of my children.

  108. Suz says:

    AR:
    Yep. This modern feminist-inspired Christian view of female sexuality as pure, is the absolute opposite of the earlier “patriarchally” (Oh nooooes!) -inspired view of female sexuality as highly subject to temptation (personified by Eve.) Eve may or may not have existed, but early religious leaders had a firm grasp on the mechanics of human behavior.

    Once again, Churchianity betrays humanity and slaps God in the face. (But that’s another soapbox…)

  109. Kai says:

    “imnobody says:
    You have to distinguish between traditional/patriarchal religions and the current matriarchal/kumbaya churches that currently exist in America. You know: the ones populated by sluts and born-again “virgins”, that sing “Jesus is my boyfriend” and throw themselves to the first alpha they met.”

    That’s what I was aiming for with ‘devout’. People who really believe and live by a predefined moral code of conduct. Not the ‘I’m a Christian’. My point was also that although true belief can make a difference, a modern American church does not include only such believers, and is thus no better a place to find true believers than the mall is.

    “Suz says:
    Depending on the “rules” of the religion, and on the community and personal interpretations of those rules, religion can disrupt the marital relationship by becoming a competing alpha. “Jesus is my boyfriend” is one of many manifestations of this. Religion came after biology, and even though early religious law “reinforces” biology, modern religion adds too many variables. Unswerving loyalty between spouses is necessary for a successful marriage, under God or not. A 21st century religious woman has far too many “godly” alternatives to loyalty. Actually, so does a 21st century man…”

    I agree that the loyalty is necessary. But I think following a moral framework (which can be self-determined, but can also come from the church) that does not allow for divorce can help to reinforce the message when it’s difficult. I did intend to distinguish that it is only really devout belief in actual texts that give useful guidelines for self-control – not the moder ‘anything goes’ religion.
    I do believe there are a number of couples out there who really believe, for whom God is the third party in their marriage, and not breaking the bond to God is additional motivation through the hard times. I strongly suspect my parents would be divorced if secular.
    It would be interesting to know the comparative divorce rate in genuine Christians, but it’s impossible to study that based on self-reported religiosity.

  110. greyghost says:

    Sasha what you have discribed is what got us here. That is living for the tingle. Marriage is for civilized men and women. Commitment is for civilized men and women honor duty and service to spouse and family are for civilized men and women. Spiritual awareness love and the wonderful joy of children are the emotional byproducts of the above not the goal. Happiness at a deep emotional level comes from real service and commitment to others and high moral standards..
    I sure hope you explain your view on marriage to the sap the tells you he loves you and wants to make a family with you. It would be a joy to see or read the transcipts from that conversation.

  111. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    “It’s fortunate that Riv recognizes the extreme limitations on Blondie’s potential. With that understanding, it’s ultimately up to him to decide if the relationship degrades him”

    Riv doesnt realise it, but he doesnt know the definition of a relationship just yet

    Riv has to Screen for chemistry & standards … without standards he will feel guilty for giving sluts great sex …

    Riv’s choice of blondie is a common rookie mistake, experienced players & gamers, never bang chicks they dont have chemistry with …

    I never feel guilty for having sex with sluts, or stringing them along, as I screen for redeeming psychological qualities, to ensure the sub-communication of the relationship is correct

    It isnt what you say or do in a relationship, as what you say & do can never really harm a woman in a relationship, as her hamster is oblivious to cause & effect …

    It is what you sub-communicate in a relationship, which hurts a woman, words & actions dont hurt women, it’s the biochemical’s generated through the sub-communication of a relationship, which hurts a woman

    The only reason Riv is with blondie, is because he hasnt defined the rules of a successful relationship

    That is he doesnt have a strategy to ensure a successful relationship

    This is perfectly fine

    Riv has to realise why players & gamers really hurt women

    It has nothing to do with manipulation

    Riv in the short term, can be happy with a slut, but the morality of any relationship is defined by the chemical make up of a relationship

    Get the chemical makeup right & even a slut used for a pump & dump can walk out of a relationship happy, without feeling used

    The ONLY reason Riv feels guilty, is because his none- relationship with blondie lacks the secret of a master PUA or Gamer

    Sub-communication is a key component of game, you have to screen for sub-communication before the relationship starts

    The most advanced form of sub-communication is chemistry

    It is because Riv didnt screen for enough redeeming qualities, before hooking up with blondie, the sub-communication of the relationship is negatively affecting the two

    Basically one of the secrets in game is to ONLY screen for Hot Babes, you have chemistry with

    The deciding factors in building a successful sub-communication, even for a SNL, or a pump & dump, is she supportive of you & your worldview, does she find you fascinating (very important), is she interesting, does she have enough redeeming qualities, to allow you to enjoy the relationship?

    I can understand Riv, not being familiar with game, but having standards of chemistry are the KEY to a successful relationship & game

    If Riv, would’ve screened Blondie for standards of chemistry, he would not be with blondie, he would be with a girl with looks & chemistry, as hotter chicks know how to create chemistry with men, which is why theyre hot in the first place

    A womans hamster is a womans first line of defence, but the efficiency of the hamster is based on the context of the sub-communication in a relationship

    Get the sub-communication right, & you generate chemistry, get the chemistry right & you create the correct balance of dopamine, attraction, & oxcytocin, bonding,

    The ONLY way to get the chemistry right & generate the correct sub-communcation, is to screen ONLY for chicks you LOVE being around, ie have great chemistry with

    After a while, you will actually start to find the girls who dont have chemistry less attractive, even if theyre hot …

    If you dont screen for great chemistry & standards, the sub-communication of the relationship will harm you & the chicks hamster

    If you screen for great chemistry & standards, you can pump & dump, SNL, & string along women, guilt free & without harming the hamster unscathed, as the hamster is too busy being fed, to notice her state of affairs

    Feed the hamster, not her sense of reality, through great biochemistry & standards, this is the secret to great game

  112. PT Barnum says:

    Rivelino, who needs to PAY MORE ATTENTION, said:

    what women want — marriage, kids, blah blah — isn’t any more moral than what men want — tits, ass, threesomes, anal — it is just seen that way by our current society.

    Indeed, it is very sad that Blondie, who is looking ONLY for MARRIAGE and KIDS has SOMEHOW managed to rack up twenty partners. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?

    Perhaps that is because Blondie is not focused ONLY on getting married and having kids. Which she could do very quickly if she was willing to settle a little lower than “edgy alpha”. Even if she was ONLY looking for marriage with alphas….. why does so much sex happen during her looking?

    Oh yeah. Because she is NOT NOT NOT only looking for Marriage and Kids. At least when she was 22.

  113. greyghost says:

    “Indeed, it is very sad that Blondie, who is looking ONLY for MARRIAGE and KIDS has SOMEHOW managed to rack up twenty partners. HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?”
    Blondie’s claim to be looking for marriage and kids on the way to fucking 20 guys is a sluts way of passing herself off as virtuous.

  114. Rum says:

    Riveleno is not as trapped as he seems to fear he is. All he needs to do to break free of the viscous grip of this “Blondi”: is to find a way of fucking her that is strong enough to break-the-spell she is suffering under.
    If he has enough size, an unexpected, un-announced, and unlubed .anal entry can put ideas in her head.that will give him a decent change of getting away free and clear.

  115. Kai says:

    Obviously the logical answer to a girl willing to have sex with no further way to make demands on him (regardless of any desires she might have) is to try for bodily injury…

    The only sort of trapped he is is in his own mind. It’s not like he’s living with her for fathered her children. He can walk away any time he decides the sex is no longer desirable for him, and leave her to work out her own reality.

  116. Sweet As says:

    What perpetually confuses me is why this all seems so difficult for people.

    On the one hand, you have the situation of the SMP, and then you can learn how to navigate it if that’s the realm in which you are working.

    Problem is, if you aren’t working in this realm at all, your pool gets tiny. As in, nearly non-existant as far as I can tell. At least, as a woman.

    Let me voice my fear. My husband, in his infinite cuteness is, in fact, a mortal being who may be subject to the physics of cars moving in the wrong lane at a high speed due. Himself, always sober, the other driver, maybe not. So, let us say that what my friend is living, is — there but for the grace of God go I. She has one daughter, aged 4.

    If she is at all like me, she believes in marriage. Perhaps not in a contractual sense, but at the very lease in the sense of lifetime commitment for the sake of community — for herself, her partner, her children, and the extended community therein.

    If she is like me, she has had one partner. She loves and is devoted to him. She wanted a lifetime with him. His lifetime was shorter than either would have hoped.

    And here she is, in her grief, and 35 years old. Young, still, no?

    But too old now, I suppose to be of value to a man (based on many a manosphere blog). And, she has a child. You know, Some other man’s child. It’s another strike against her.

    Sure, she still has community — grandparents, siblings, cousins. But she doesn’t have what women also want. It is said over and over how much of a need it is for a man to have sex. Can I be honest? it is a need for me also. I enjoy sex. A lot. I want to have sex every day (yes, every one of them — even when I have the flu and when I was in labor and the day after I was in labor after I woke up and ate yogurt and looked at my baby and looked at my husband and felt the most immense feelings of whatever one might call it, and in it was a desire to be entirely unified with him. You see? do you see?).

    So, here is my friend. 35. When the grief fades enough, maybe she is 36. Maybe she is 40.

    She may live — by grace — to be 80 or 100.

    Are we now banished to 40 or 60 years of celibacy?

    I don’t want to be in the SMP. It’s not smart, no matter how you slice it. It’s a mess. And it would be a mess for my son to observe me in that space. And it would be a mess for her daughter.

    So, who would marry us? How would we be at all marry-able?

    Our options are so slim. So tiny. Where is our unicorn-snowflake man? Who is the man who would commit to 40 or 60 years with us — devoted women who can raise the children we have, but are unlikely — due to age — to be able to have children for him (even if we would like to).

    Not because of a need for money — I earn my own and can support myself and my husband.

    And yes, for sex, because it is enjoyable.

    But more so . . . for community. To grow old. To raise up those children who are here. To raise up the grandchildren, and to be raised up by them in our golden years.

    I fear this, you see. I fear the loss of this man too soon. Just as my friend is in it now, you see? I fear for her — a life of celibacy and no options, or the SMP.

    I don’t fancy either. I grieve for my friend’s loss tonight, and this always makes me. . . fearful and introspective about it. Many apologies. But I often wonder.

    And, those “moral” woman — we do exist. Even if we are rare or weird or strange. I suspect that Dalrock knows one. And Athol too. So maybe we aren’t so rare. But it seems so. And the men who want us? Are you rare too?

  117. Bluefire says:

    Sweet As :

    At 35 you are not “too old” to be of value to any man. Only to those men with young options. Even the “plankton” blog woman writes about her rejecting the too nice “SFAR”-guys.

    The 35:ish woman who didn’t reject them would have all chances to get a man.

  118. imnobody says:

    @Sweet as.

    Of course, there are moral and good women. Lots of them. In America there are fewer and fewer but there are still numerous. In the rest of the world, they are a fair percentage of the female population. The problem with America is that being a b*tch is promoted by the society. But I digress.

    I don’t know whether your post was a question, besides an expression of your feelings. I completely understand your fears and your point of view. We all have fears. Hell can break loose in a moment. A year ago, a routine visit to the doctor ended up becoming two surgeries for me during this last year and I still don’t know what the long-term effects will be. We are not guaranteed anything in this life. Tomorrow we all could be dead and there is better not to worry and to fear, but to seize the moment and, if you are believer, to trust God.

    Having said that, a woman ALWAYS has options. ALWAYS. This is one of the advantages of being a woman. Two weeks ago, a Central American female friend of mine was proposed by a German guy. She is fat, homely, about 35 y.o. and has a 10 y.o. kid from a married man (but she is really nice). He is willing to marry her, adopt her child and bring her to Germany. For my friend, it is a great improvement to live in Germany (she lives in extreme poverty).

    If your husband died, would you have options after grieving for him? Absolutely! Would you be able to have a man to be your partner and have sex with every day? Of course! But you would have to be flexible. You would have to relax your standards. And this is the thing that is so difficult for women, because of hypergamy.

    When people in the manosphere speak about these older women that rejected good guys when they were young (or divorced frivolously) and now they are spinsters and so on and so forth, anybody could imagine a woman shunned by men because of their age and fading looks (and this is how this situation is framed in the manosphere). But nothing could be farther for the truth.

    What happens with these women is that they DO have prospects (a woman always has prospects) but they don’t like these prospects but THEY WANT A BIGGER, BETTER DEAL. They are women with a hypergamy instinct gone crazy (this is why they rejected so many men before or divorced their beta husbands). This does not change with age. To be accurate, they decrease their standards but not enough to mate.

    So, for example, let’s say a woman is a 7 in their twenties and rejects lost of men who are 7 too, because she is throwing herself to men who are 9 and 10. When she is in her late thirties, she becomes aware that she has to be more flexible. So she starts to look for men who are 7, but, after this age, she is only 5. She could get lots of men who are 5 but she is looking for 7s.

    When she says: “Where have all the good men gone?”, she means “Where have all the 7 men gone, the men who used to go after me, now that I am willing to consider them?”. She says: “No men is interested in me” but this means “No men who is a 7 or more is interested in me”. Everybody in the manosphere knows that when women talk about “men” in a mating sense, they mean “men I am attracted to”. The blinders do not let them see other men.

    So yes, if you became widow, you would be able to get a man to be your partner and to be good for you. But don’t expect to get a man like your husband, the same way I am not able to get the girls I could have got when I was 20. You can choose between having a men who loves you and has a lowest caliber than your husband’s or being alone. My experience is that many women prefer to be alone and then bitch about life being unfair, about men being unfair and so on.

  119. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Sweet as said:

    Me me me me me me me me me me me me.

    Now forgive me for saying that. Everyone takes the risk that their spouse will die, it’s even clarified in a marriage ceremony, ’till death do us part’. Do you think men don’t take the risk of 40 to 60 years of celibacy if their wife dies? What makes women so important that they should have some special snowflake man ready to marry them, if their husband dies? Nothing.

    If your spouse dies, you will be lucky if you can find another spouse to marry again, man or woman. There is simply no guarantee, but that said, you are either committed to the marriage contract or not. You shouldn’t be aiming for serial long-term relationships before marriage and you shouldn’t be aiming for them afterwards in the case of your spouse dying. In my opinion, it is wrong on both accounts. imnobody is right, if your spouse dies and you’re still relatively young, there will probably be quite a few men in similar positions who will be willing to become your husband, they just won’t be on the upper scale of women’s hypergamy charts and thus overlooked.

    If marriage is not for you and you prefer long-term relationships, no problem, if the other half of your long-term relationship dies, you can move on to the next one as easily as if you just broke up with them. Marriage is entirely different, it is not easy and it shouldn’t be. For if it is easy, then what’s the point?!

  120. Dalrock says:

    Very touching story Sweet As. Thanks for sharing it. The first thing I would observe is the situation you are describing doesn’t pose the moral challenge this post was focused on. You are asking practical questions, which are certainly fair questions but different. I only mention this because the distinction is so often lost.

    I grieve for my friend’s loss tonight, and this always makes me. . . fearful and introspective about it. Many apologies. But I often wonder.

    My first thought is the fear is healthy. It is as I wrote in a recent post something which we (as a society) worked to eradicate without understanding the harm the eradication of fear would cause. It is healthy because the problems you raise would be real, and I suspect it is also healthy because many women seem to need a bit of drama to keep from getting bored with a good marriage and going off the rails. I’m not putting you in the latter camp, just mentioning it.

    And, those “moral” woman — we do exist. Even if we are rare or weird or strange. I suspect that Dalrock knows one. And Athol too. So maybe we aren’t so rare. But it seems so. And the men who want us? Are you rare too?

    Yes, I do in fact know one. I think you are right; the right man is quite rare. It would likely be much more difficult to find another one at an older age than it was the first time around. One strange thing women seem to do is forget how hard the first man was to find, and this was when she was younger and more attractive. This is important to be honest about for the reason I mention in my previous paragraph. Your friend has experienced an unimaginable tragedy, and it will be extremely painful and difficult for her. But this isn’t to say that there isn’t hope. Other commenters have mentioned on previous threads that they perceive widows with children differently than divorced women with children. This makes sense to me. Your friend didn’t get bored one day, or decide that “he was controlling”, she wasn’t haaaapy, etc. My expectation would be that if she is reasonable about her expectations and sets about in a smart way she would eventually find another very good man.

  121. Suz says:

    Imnobody said it beautifully. If you lose your husband, you will encounter many fine men who appreciate moral, loving women. Just be aware – they won’t be packaged in shiny, pretty wrapping paper. You’re not in the habit of noticing them, but I can guarantee that you already know a few.

    To see this phenomenon in action, take a look at the prettiest women you know who are 10-20 years your junior. Observe how they react to the man you love. Unless he is extraordinarily handsome for his age, those women probably feel a bit of pity for you, if not contempt. To you he may be a 9 or a 10, objectively he may even be a 6 or a 7, but to 6-9 young women who have their sights set on 9-10 men, he’s probably a 4. You’d be a fool to believe you don’t share this sort of bias, as it’s natural to seek higher status, but western culture has developed a very twisted, shallow definition of “higher.”

  122. Dalrock says:

    By the way Sweet As, welcome back.

  123. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Sweet As is missing a logical part of the problem here. Marriage is a life contract, if one party dies, the contract is technically fulfilled. I don’t see what her problem is? Sweet As, do you feel entitled to a husband should the one you ‘love’ pass away?

  124. Dalrock says:

    I don’t think that is her point at all. She deeply loves her husband, and fears losing him. She is also grieving a friend’s loss of her husband.

  125. greyghost says:

    She doesn’t seem entitled at all to me. But she damn sure does seem to appreciate what she has to the point of fear of losing it. That sounds like my kind of girl there.
    Suz
    you are right about imnobody and his comment to sweet ass. That would be something every father,preacher, or best friend should tell every women he knows. .

  126. Ecclesiastes says:

    God, forgive me as I hold forth on your Word.

    Biblical marriage is NOT A CONTRACT, the habits of Christians aside.

    It is not an agreement. It is not a commitment. It is not a relationship.

    Biblical marriage is a UNION. The two become one. The groom’s body becomes the bride’s and the bride’s becomes the groom’s. The UNION is to address the single issue of sexual desire. It is not about some ‘higher’ spiritual love. Once made, there aren’t two people to agree or disagree. There is just one being schizophrenic.

    1st Corinthians, Chapter 7, read it all. Read what it says, not what you think it ought to say. It’s not that long. You can do it.

    Civil marriage is a contract. Marriage 2.0 is a contract.

    There was a Three Stooges skit where Curly cuts a telephone cord. The thug with the gun tells him to fix it. Curly ties the two ends in a knot and spits on it. “Fixed!”

    Wrong! You can’t go from Marriage 2.0 to Biblical marriage. Forget it.

  127. Ecclesiastes says:

    BTW, Fireproof, as I have seen it described, is OBVIOUSLY not about biblical marriage.

    It’s about something … weird … that Christians ought not involve themselves in.

  128. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    I don’t think that is her point at all. She deeply loves her husband, and fears losing him. She is also grieving a friend’s loss of her husband.

    I fail to see where she is afraid of losing her husband, as in the person, she’s afraid of losing her husband and then being left with a life a celibacy, she’s afraid of losing the option of having sex. The problem of course is that she can’t have sex outside of marriage without breaking the core of the ideal of marriage. Therefore, if her husband was to die, she would need to get remarried to someone else in order to keep having sex and to have someone raise her children. She says it, not me making it up.

    Our options are so slim. So tiny. Where is our unicorn-snowflake man? Who is the man who would commit to 40 or 60 years with us — devoted women who can raise the children we have, but are unlikely — due to age — to be able to have children for him (even if we would like to).

    Not because of a need for money — I earn my own and can support myself and my husband.

    And yes, for sex, because it is enjoyable.

    But more so . . . for community. To grow old. To raise up those children who are here. To raise up the grandchildren, and to be raised up by them in our golden years.

    That’s perfectly normal, I’m just stating that it the exact same fear any man has as well. Your wife might die, are you entitled to another women, just because of that. A woman who is the same or perhaps even better than your wife, who perhaps wants to have her own children and not raise yours? No, you would probably have to re-adjust your expectations and find a woman who is more compatible with you, one who probably has children of her own.

  129. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Ecclesiastes

    Sure, marriage is a life union, you feel better now? What exactly makes that SO different from a life contract? Is it the word ‘contract’? There are still both obligations and rights placed on the man and the woman. Your word(union) just sounds nicer, tis all.

  130. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    She also fails to mention why any man should commit to her if they have better options. What happens if the man she wants to remarry wants to have children? Why should there just be someone to commit to her? Therefore, if she truly wanted to remarry after her husband’s death for sex and companionship, she would by default have to settle for a man nowhere near her perceived SMP value.

    Her issue is something else entirely, it has got nothing to do with the problem being discussed in this thread, namely, serial long-term relationships.

  131. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Sweet As, you know what they do here where I come from. If you lose your husband, if he has a brother, the brother must marry you and you must service him. He of course is allowed to take as many wives as he likes. If your husband does not have a brother, either his father, if he’s still alive, or an uncle or some other male in the family must marry you. As long as your fertile of course. If not…

  132. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Feminist Hater

    I’m having a hard time believing you can’t understand the difference. I’m sure if you ordered a tire for your car and it arrived in two pieces you’d recognize that something was fundamentally different.

    I’m not saying that you have to buy into the biblical description. I’m just summarizing it.

  133. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Sweet,

    Spiritually, morally, yadda yadda, whatever is going on in your head and your heart is beyond my perception. I’m out here, in the physical world. I can’t read your mind.

    Women have been imbued with certain abilities, through our wonderful legislative and legal system. They can’t give those abilities up.

    Your friend can pledge that she’ll never frivolously divorce, but there’s nothing to secure that pledge. She can promise, but it’s only words. They travel away from her at about 700 MPH ( at sea level ) and are gone.

    Now, I’m real sorry that her reputation isn’t worth what she’s asking, and that there isn’t any way for it to be. She’s asking for more than a house and can’t offer as much as a signature, legally. She can’t demonstrate that she can follow through on one lifetime commitment and then use it as a reference in her next life. Women have been given power and I can only hope that it keeps them warm at night, and comforts them when they’re sick.

    I favor making civil marriage legal for any agreed period without regard to gender, number, or consanguinity. I hope it would replace Limited Liability Companies and insurance pools. At the very least it should be be made a part of the Uniform Commercial Code where all parties have equal legal standing.

    Since marriage is a contract, let’s stop being coy and treat it like one.

  134. OffTheCuff says:

    One of your best posts, D. Thank you for clearly separating out the moral versus the practical, and the conflation that results. I need to re-read this one a few times for it to sink in.

  135. Suz says:

    Ecclesiastes, perhaps you misread Sweet As’ comment. The friend she mentioned is 35 years old and recently widowed. She already DID follow through on a “lifetime commitment;” though it was fulfilled much sooner than she had planned. Sweet As was expressing her own fear of finding herself in the same situation. It’s your prerogative to contradict or support her opinions as you see fit, but personal (and invalid) insults directed at her friend are unwarranted.

  136. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Suz

    Her husband fulfilled his end. She didn’t get a chance. The proposition that his death is to be counted to her honor is the proposal of the Black Widow. You’ve just insulted her far worse than I.

    Now she wants someone to trust her enough to marry her. Why is it so hard? It’s hard because women have been given so much power.

    What is there to assure trust? Well, there are contracted consequences for it’s failure and there is an established pattern of fulfillment. Never bought anything on eBay, have you?

    And it’s not about insulting her friend. The point I’m trying to make is that it isn’t possible to demonstrate such a thing, to develop a pattern of delivering. No one gets two lives. Further women have such legal power that contracted consequences are effectively worthless.

  137. Suz says:

    You insulted her by presuming to know “…that her reputation isn’t worth what she’s asking…” and by presuming to know what she’s asking for and what she’s offering in return (house, signature.)

    “The proposition that his death is to be counted to her honor is the proposal of the Black Widow.”

    For starters, that’s quite a stretch because it presumes long-term intention, of which you imply she is incapable. The voiding of the contract through his death can really not be counted for OR against her, as it was out of her control. If you’re going to play one side, you probably shouldn’t get defensive when someone plays the other.

    “You’ve just insulted her far worse than I.”

    That statement (based on a logical fallacy that you don’t even believe, i.e: her inability to commit to a plan) was a nice example of blame-shifting, dodging, and the use of shaming language.

    Your personal attack on her character was not appropriate. Since “it’s not about insulting her friend,” perhaps you should have left that part out. Your other points were perfectly logical; the insults were not.

  138. Interested says:

    I come and go from these forums and most of it has to do with the fact that it can be depressing to reread all the sadness regarding the reality that we live in.

    But I have to comment on this post from the following perspective.

    When I was in my twenties I burned with desire for women. I walked around with a white hot appreciation for the female form. When I didn’t have my hands on my girlfriend I dreamt about when I would.

    So I got married. And I accepted the fact that she would age and that bearing children would have a negative physical impact on the woman I loved. We welcomed three wonderful kids into this world.

    But then she was unhappy. Nothing made her happy. She was unfulfilled. And we got divorced.

    How does this fit into the narrative of this discussion? When I married my former wife she was young, hot, and eminently desirable. Even after the kids and age I still desired her despite the fact that her body changed. The commitment was there and as she aged I still felt the need and want for her. So all this talk about marriage 1.0 where a woman trades her youth for a man’s future potential rang true.

    Here is where most women seem to get lost regarding divorce. In my twenties I was absolutely driven to women and that lust blinded me to some of their deficiencies. Now I am my mid forties and two changes are now in play. First, I don’t walk around with a hard on half the time anymore. Secondly, the women I meet have aged. The have brought children into this world. Or even worse they have failed to take care of themselves and they are now overweight and flabby. I am not. I work out religiously and am fit.

    So when you couple these changes together divorced and single women lose. I am not blinded by lust anymore. I have a clearer view of the infected mindset that seem to haunt a lot of women these days. I have been hardened by the fire of divorce.

    Do I still love women? You bet. But I will not be blinded by lust anymore. That is where many women screw up. They believe that the unbridled lust that men delivered in their twenties still exists in their forties and beyond. The lust that drove men to chase them and overlook their faults.

    I cannot tell you how many women I run into who still think they are hot. They all shoot out of their league. It’s sad in a way. They all fit perfectly into imnobody’s description of women who sit around bitching about where have all the good men gone.

    I have waded through this mess to find a small group of women I date and engage on a daily basis. But I will not commit to any one of them. Ever. Not out of bitterness. But because that white hot crucible of desire that forges commitment is long gone. I’ll still have sex, but all the supporting acts of marriage, the commitment, the kids, the building of a life together, are long gone. There are no more self fulfilling prophecies. Just the fact that for most women who are divorced and in their forties all you have left is an inflated sense of entitlement. And this is an entitlement without the attraction of a youthful body and the sense of a boundary free future.

    For fun? Yes. For a future? No thanks.

  139. Rmaxd says:

    Wth is up with these women, using death as some sort of justification for divorce …

    When your husband dies you can no longer divorce him … as he’s dead …

    Death is no justification for allowing women to divorce

    It’s hilarious seeing two women now, trying to use death as an excuse for divorce

    You cant divorce a dead husband ladies … give it up … there is ZERO justification for divorce

    It’s hilarious seeing women, using hypothetical extremes, to try & satisfy their hamsters need for divorce

    The fact women are so irrational about divorce, proves Dalrocks point, women are serially promiscous

    Personally i find it infuriating, women try & use the opposite of NAWALT, as a hypothetical extreme, to try & justify their irrational hamster-like drivel …

    Sorry ladies, we know why you’re pro-divorce, you want serial promiscuity

    Breaking a commitment, is immoral AND it is biblically a sin, so yes the bible strongly condemns divorce, regardless of how many verses you pull out of your ass …

    “Our options are so slim. So tiny. Where is our unicorn-snowflake man? Who is the man who would commit to 40 or 60 years with us — devoted women who can raise the children we have, but are unlikely — due to age — to be able to have children for him (even if we would like to).”

    Sweet As, & why do you think men should want to be with women who cant give them children, you’re just depriving him of raising a family with a woman who can …

    The whole point of marriage is for two reasons :

    1. To satisfy the biological imperative – which satisfy by you getting married as early as possible

    2. To create an unswerving commitment of monogamy, a binding lifetime commitment, with NO ability to leave the marriage, unless through a lack of children, or death

    When you marry an old, infertile woman, you are no longer in a marriage, & it is no longer a lifetime commitment

    The whole point of marriage is to have children & create a community, ie a social future for their children & their childrens children

    You dont marry just because you’re lonely … marriage is a SOCIAL contract, part of that contract is children for the sake of the greater good, & building a social network of grandparents & grandfathers for their children

    Marriage outside of children, is no longer a marriage, it is a relationship

    Marriage is a social contract, with social obligations to build a community of doting grandfathers & grandparents, the only way to fulfil that social obligation is with children

    If you marry as young as possible, you are no longer a wife, you are in a relationship with a man, as you no longer have any way of fulfilling the social obligation & contract of a marriage

    It is WRONG for women to expect men to marry them past their window of fertility, as men are able to have children up to the age of 80

    As the old hag, is simply monopolising & preventing the mans ability to have children, for own selfish im not haaapy, woe is me crap …

    Marriage isnt something you do because you’re lonely, or unhaaapy OR infertle OR past the age of 35…. women ARE NOT entitled to men

    Women are NOT ENTITLED to marriage past the age of 35, nor is it a real marriage, it is a relationship, also you’re preventing & monopolising the man from being with a fertile woman & starting a family with doting grandfathers & grandparents…

    Infertile women & old hags marrying a fertile man, has the exact SAME effect as cuckolding, as the woman is preventing him from raising a family, in cuckolding a mans resources get tied up, preventing him from using the resources for raising his own children,
    effect is the same, he can no longer raise his own family

    Infertile women & old hags, are NOT ENTITLED to men OR marriage, if they want to be with a man, they should be used ONLY as mistresses or spinsters, or prostitutes

    If you want to marry & a relationship with a man, who is fertile upto the age of 80, marry upto the age of 30, past that point you are no longer able to fulfill the social contract of marriage

    Also if you marry as an infertile, or old woman, you are also no longer legible for monogamy ultimatums, as monogamy is only necessary for children

  140. Rmaxd says:

    I seem to be on a long post marathon for some reason … apologies ….

  141. I don’t know where people got the idea that Sweet As was promoting the idea of divorce. She was looking at the SMP in a realistic way and being depressed and worried about a friend who had a husband die. How is that related to divorce?

    As for her friend, she’ll have options but they’ll be limited. There are men that will look past her having a child. Because it WAS NOT a divorce but was a death, there are more men who are likely to look past the child than if it was due to divorce.

    Not all of them will, but some.

    That being said, she should get back out into the dating market as quickly as possible to try and see where she is in the SMP and what kind of men she’ll attract. Then she’ll have to make sure she doesn’t discount men she can now find based on what she USED to be able to or THINKS she can find. She won’t be entitled to a man of her dreams, but I imagine she can find one that would make her happy that she can also make happy.

    She will just need to make sure she is able to skillfully show the values she’ll be able to provide for a man and do it quickly before her value plummets with infertility and age. She DOES NOT have all the time in the world to get over her past husband’s death if she wants to try and find another.

  142. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Suz
    It was clearly said that she was looking for a husband. A man who would commit to her for the rest of either his or her life. I’m not presuming anything.

    Yes, I believe what she is asking for is worth far more than a house, which a bank won’t loan you money for without a lien, and she offers less to secure it than a signature, for signature loans are secured by a reputation for fulfillment that it is physically impossible for her to establish.

    I’m not making any comment on her character. I am illuminating the impossible circumstances she, and any woman like her, finds herself. What I, or anyone else, believe of her doesn’t matter at all. We can’t co-sign on her marriage. Her character is *legally* irrelevant. That’s the whole point. You’ve confused my dismay at her helplessness for an insult.

    Obviously, you are looking for an insult. You’re already aflame, so now you need a spark to have set you. You won’t be satisfied until you find one. Fine. Let’s make an error into something malevolent.

    How bloodthirsty is a woman who thinks the death of a husband is a mark of honor for the widow? It follows that two is better than one, and three better than two … Suz’s friend would probably never have thought of this, having a friend like Suz would indicate not. Suz’s friend grieved.

    But you? Since you’re looking for insult, a flash of drama to distract from the execution of your escape, here you go: You’ve cleared the matter of *your* thoughts up explicitly. Suz’s friend grieved, but you didn’t. You spare no thought for the dead. He serves his purpose by dying, testifying to his wife’s perfection. Thank the Goddess that *some* value could be wrung from his otherwise forgettable life. You are capable of following through on a plan, eh? You’re bloody thirsty enough. You’re smart too, for figuring out how to avoid that nasty unnecessary stain that divorce leaves. It even gets you past those frowning Catholics. You’ve rediscovered extreme hypergamy.

    If you needed a more vulgar insult to blame your explosion on, you’ll have to look elsewhere. This is all I’ve got tonight

  143. Ecclesiastes says:

    I have confused Suz with Sweet as.

    I sincerely apologize to Sweet As.

    I’m tired.

  144. Rmaxd says:

    @Leapofbeta

    I was referring to this by SweetAss

    “So, who would marry us? How would we be at all marry-able?

    Our options are so slim. So tiny. Where is our unicorn-snowflake man? Who is the man who would commit to 40 or 60 years with us — devoted women who can raise the children we have, but are unlikely — due to age — to be able to have children for him (even if we would like to).”

    The fact is if she’s 35 she has no time left, she is no longer entitled to a man, or marriage, or a relationship with a man, as she would be …

    “Women are NOT ENTITLED to marriage past the age of 35, nor is it a real marriage, it is a relationship, also you’re preventing & monopolising the man from being with a fertile woman & starting a family …

    Infertile women & old hags marrying a fertile man, has the exact SAME effect as cuckolding, as the woman is preventing him from raising a family, in cuckolding a mans resources get tied up, preventing him from using the resources for raising his own children,
    effect is the same, he can no longer raise his own family”

  145. Rmaxd says:

    Basically I dont think women past the age of 35 should be allowed to marry or have a relationship with men, as theyre preventing the man who’s able to be fertile upto the age of 80, to raise a family

    Also if she does have a relationship with a man, she is no longer entitled to monogamy, as monogamy is only necessary for having children & stability, she is actually a FWB, friends with benefit status past the age of 35

    Women past the age of 35 should only be used as mistresses, or caregivers, or prostitutes, as they used to be in the victorian & medieval age

  146. Rmaxd,
    I agree with you completely that they’re not entitled to a marriage. I know I certainly wouldn’t marry them. As her friend is 35, I would say that she still has a slim shot at a fertility window. But as I said in my comment, its slim and she doesn’t have much time to mourn if she wants another husband.

    It’s cold, but its the truth.

    As for your statements about it being illegal for them to marry – I’d disagree on the legality part. If a man decides to do that, fine. I’d advise him against it, but maybe he believes he can ‘lock her down’ with that marriage ‘for life’ and sees value in that. I wouldn’t. And as much as I’d advise someone not to do that, its their choice of what they see as the higher value and to take that risk. I’ll just try and educate them on exactly how high of a risk they’re taking.

  147. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Rmaxd
    I was trying to figure on this issue myself. I get that from a civil contract marriage 2.0 kind of view that to marry young was to exchange two vows:

    I will remain and support her as she raises our children, because it is a task too heavy for one person. I was a single father of one, and then three as my daughters came to live with me as well. I testify that there is NO SUCH THING AS A GOOD SINGLE PARENT. There is only lowering the bar.

    In exchange for that, she promises that she will stay with me until I die, so that I won’t be alone.

    I figured that if I stuck by her I was due something for it. If I didn’t, I wasn’t.

    Well, I ended up divorced. I didn’t trust her to hold up her end of that deal. The downside is that I’ve not enough life left to have a second family. Having children after one is 40 is just selfish. It’s all about what the ‘parent’ wants and not what the child needs. I’m in my 50’s.

    So now I am faced with women who want to get married after they’re fifty, and I’m wondering ‘what for?’ It’s not like I can count on them to stay when things get tough. If they did, they wouldn’t be divorced.

    I ask why they’re divorced and the answer is all about what the ex-husband did. They’re lying or they’re delusional. Nobody is that innocent. Strike two, why marry a liar or the insane?

    What do I do next? If I make the third pitch into the strike zone then she’s gone. Do I start lobbing it so she at least gets to first base on a walk?

    Pump and dump just doesn’t work for me. I refuse to have a one night stand. I want just one more woman. I don’t want a second woman unless it’s the first one’s daughter. Then again I’m nearly as horny as I was when I was 40. Whatever the antidote is for Viagra, I need it.

    As nice as it would be to meet a woman like Sweet’s friend, women like her have got 20 more years of hypergamy they refuse to do without. And widows? Google “Brian Sullivan widow” and use the first link.

    I know I’m screwed, but if you have some idea on how to make the best of it, I’d like to hear.

  148. Rmaxd says:

    @Ecclesiastes

    If you want to have a relationship with a woman great, just dont get married

    If you dont want to have kids, as you think theyd miss out as grandparents, note you’re still able to have kids upto the age of 80, & they still have tons of uncles & aunts & relatives & nephews, that side is fulfilled

    The point is you’re still fertile, & if you want to have kids you should, as you’ve already fulfilled the part of providing your later kids with enough relatives etc., necessary for building a future for their children

    If you dont want kids, thats fine, as you’re not depriving any women from having a family …

    Essentially its upto the male to decide if women deserve to be with a man, as they have a larger window of fertility

    A woman past the age of fertility, ie 35 only prevents men from raising a family

    Ecclesiaste, short of expatting, actually expatting would be a great idea …

    But if you cant, then aim for multiple LTR’s

    MLTR’s are the next best thing to a monogamous stable relationship

    Also MLTR’s have several advantages over monogamous relationships, especially in old age

    If something happens in the relationship, ie dying etc., you have plenty of women to help you out

    Also women are a lot less bitchy & more submissive, if they know you’re seeing other women

    Also you have a major advantage, these women are past the baby biological clock stage, so alot less clinginess & expectations of marriage

    Also MLTR’s are alot safer & satisfying then pump & dump

    & nothing kills a womans hypergamy faster then knowing you’re seeing multiple women

    Basically if you dont want kids, you should be in MLTR’s, as they reduce alot of the disadvantages of a single relationship with a monogamous woman, not to mention destroying the financial & legal problems

    Two to three women, you obviously have a favourite, while the other two keep her in chekc, & theyll naturally play off each other, while vying for competition, allows them to have better sex & better orgasms, then they would in a committed single relationship

    Basically mind blowing sex for you on tap, & a safety net so women cant force you to invest in them emotionally

    Nothing kills hypergamy & entitlement faster then competing for cock … lol

  149. Rmaxd says:

    Should’ve added ….

    If you dont want to have kids, as you think theyd miss out as grandparents, note you’re still able to have kids upto the age of 80, & they still have tons of uncles & aunts & relatives & nephews, that side is fulfilled

    So no you’re not being selfish, they have plenty of relatives now, thanks to your previous kids

  150. Suz says:

    Yes, Ecclesiastes, your dismay at her helplessness in that initial comment was obvious.

    Speaking of explosions, that was quite an emotional rant you produced, over a polite reprimand and a reasonable explanation.

  151. Anonymous says:

    “Live with integrity. Do what pleases YOU”

    Give me a break, the PUAs aren’t our saviors. If you want to live with integrity, drop out or find a foreign wife.

  152. Sweet As says:

    I suppose there is no convincing anyone that I love my husband, so there’s no point in trying. Likewise, my friend cannot keep food down she’s in such distress over the loss, and her daughter is wilting like a flower without water. I can’t imagine that I would be any different.

    The most I can offer is to cook, clean up, and walk and listen with her. We have gone to the beach and the gardens, and we weep together. My husband mowed the lawn and did some fixes around the house left by her husband. We are on a rotation with our other friends to make sure that they are taken care of while she decides what to do next. We even got the landlord to donate the housing for the next 3 months — which is very generous indeed. Thank goodness for small miracles.

    So it goes. Life carries on, and grief with it.

    But we think, both of us — my husband and I — in the night, what it would be. Yes, there is the loss itself, but then there is the carrying on part. What would that be for each of us?

    My husband is young looking and attractive. He may not be a 10, but he has a good rank (if the way young women throw themselves at him is any indication). I think that he would have no trouble finding another marriage — though he asserts he couldn’t go younger than 28 at this point, as he finds the younger ones “silly.”

    For me, what I read here is that my options are “prostitute or celibacy.” The first is debasing. The second is just depressing. How many of us — men or women — are seeking lives of celibacy?

    I don’t think it’s about “entitlement” — I don’t feel entitled to any given thing, and I certainly wouldn’t give up my values (and become a prostitute or slut). But, I would find it sad to think that I would live another 40-60 years without sex — something that I enjoy and that I think is a natural human thing to enjoy. And, of course, is one of the benefits of marriage.

    That being said, I think it would be possible to remarry and find a good, solid man. I know that they exist. I just fear — as I did at 19 — the whole “hooking up smart” expectations. By that I mean, what I perceive men expect of me. . . such as sex on the third date. Which makes my skin crawl with discomfort.

    Perhaps those “expectations” are overstated? not reality?

    Anyway, my friend isn’t thinking about this at all right now. I think she’ll be fine, but this will go for a while. We gathered around her in these last weeks, and will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. She may decide to return to her homeland, where her parents are, rather than staying here. But no matter what. . .she’ll find a way. If nothing else, she’ll find a way for her daughter’s sake.

  153. Anonymous says:

    Susan’s advice is useless because its vague and arbitrary. “only have sex with a guy if you really like him”. Worthless. Women only have sex with men they “really” like anyway! Ask any 14-year old what she thinks about her scumbag boyfriend – not only does she “really” like him, she probably thinks he’s her immortal lovemate. Average 30-something woman thinks the same thing of the guy she just picked up in a bar! Young girls, reading Susan’s advice, will behave just as recklessly as they would otherwise.

  154. Anonymous says:

    If it is true that most women base their decisions on emotions, then trying to give them objective advice is ultimately useless anyway.

  155. Dalrock says:

    @Sweet As

    I suppose there is no convincing anyone that I love my husband, so there’s no point in trying.

    Not true. I think what you mean is there is no convincing everyone. I wouldn’t worry about it though.

    I’m very sorry to hear about your friend.

  156. Rmaxd says:

    @Sweetas

    Just marry a man who doesnt want to have children, or already has some

    The points I stated were from a purely biological point of view

    Of course if the man doesnt want to have children, or already has some, those biological points no longer apply

    It’s only when women are entitled to rich bachelors at 35+, & try & monopolise the bachelor, or beta, it becomes a problem

    Just be honest about your expectations & past, find somebody who wants the same thing you do, instead of trying to monopolise somebody who doesnt, which is basically what most women do …

    Also it’s to your advantage to get married, as i’m not sure most beta’s would understand a permanent LTR, but that would be the ideal

    While marriage may be bad for men, I would advise women to marry, as long as he doesnt want kids, or already has some

    Mainly because the men she’ll be settling for will be beta’s & they will be expecting marriage in their old age …

  157. Sweet As says:

    Thanks, Dalrock.

    Our whole little community is pretty shaken. Our friend was a kind, shy and smart man with a wry sense of humor, and he will be greatly missed.

    Rmaxd:

    That’s always the advice that I give women of any age — we have to be honest with ourselves and with the men whom we are dating. We also have to have realistic expectations. I think many women behave very . . . stupidly . . . regarding this stuff.

  158. Rmaxd says:

    @Sweetas

    Nobody questioned your love for your husband … I think your post made it clear you did love him … alot

    Also I know women grieve in different ways, but its important to keep her strong & keep her distracted from missing her husband, if you indulge her you’ll just reinforce her husband

    Basically keep her strong, as she needs to learn how to grieve without becoming emotionally distressed

  159. Sweet As says:

    I think it’s been 10 days. I think distress at this point falls within the realms of normal.

  160. Höllenhund says:

    “Susan’s advice is useless because its vague and arbitrary. “only have sex with a guy if you really like him”. Worthless. Women only have sex with men they “really” like anyway! Ask any 14-year old what she thinks about her scumbag boyfriend – not only does she “really” like him, she probably thinks he’s her immortal lovemate.”

    Spot on.

  161. Ecclesiastes says:

    @Suz

    I did nothing to need a reprimand for and I still haven’t. Anything I owed for being unclear, I paid twice to a weaseling harridan. I am fluent in English, so you may want to look both of those words up – just in case I’m being “unclear”.

    You started on me with venom, were uninterested in clarification, and demanded insult to excuse yourself. Now that you’ve forced me to give you satisfaction ( accusing you of being a serial murderess ), is this last supposed to be a peace offering? Excuse me for wearing armor when dealing with a demonstrated snake.

    You’ve established a reputation with me. I don’t see a peace offering. I see a feminine ploy to reassure you of your supremacy in social conflict. If you were a Lady, I’d be obligated to accept it, but you’re not a Lady. You have shown *no* quality thereof, neither poise, nor charity, nor gentility, nor grace, nor civility. Thank God I’m using the short list and there was no way for your lack of piety and chastity to be revealed.

    Well, maybe just a minimum of civility, enough to make “polite” and “reasonable” arguable. I would so love to argue those too.

    How about that, Suz? There really *is* a definition for a Lady, and you don’t qualify. So, there’s no obligation upon me to be a Gentleman.

    In your Christmas post on Shining Pearls of Something, you understood that you are no longer granted deference by default, that you had to earn it. I’ve been trying to be … measured with you because you wrote that. Now is your moment to make what you said true.

    Name your error. Apologize for it. Do those two things without excuse or explanation. You started this, so you go first. Then it’s my turn.

  162. CL says:

    @Sweet As

    There are many good men around (look at the manosphere!) who would love to find a decent woman in her 30s (or even 40s, depending on the age of the men). Your friends for instance can recover and find someone in time. There is still hope for a good woman – and she has an immediate advantage off the bat because she is a rarity these days.

    As Dalrock said to me a year or so ago when I was feeling discouraged (over pretty much the same options – sluttery or celibacy, neither of which is appealing I agree), you don’t have to beat the bear, just the other runners.

    I understand how the anger you see in the manosphere can be difficult but if you steel yourself against it and don’t get defensive or go all Team Woman, a decent man will seek you out. There are many decent, moral men here who have been shafted big time and if you listen, you’ll see that their anger and frustration is justified. No need to take it personally if it doesn’t apply to you.

  163. Suz says:

    Here is the basis of my reprimand:
    Your opening statement, “Spiritually, morally, yadda yadda, whatever is going on in your head and your heart is beyond my perception. I’m out here, in the physical world. I can’t read your mind,” set a sarcastic tone.
    “Women have been imbued with certain abilities, through our wonderful legislative and legal system. They can’t give those abilities up…Your friend can pledge that she’ll never frivolously divorce, but there’s nothing to secure that pledge. She can promise, but it’s only words. They travel away from her at about 700 MPH ( at sea level ) and are gone.”
    This statement, immediately following your initial sarcasm, strongly implies you hold the opinion that the friend’s promises are likely to be worthless, since “our wonderful” system makes promises easy to break, and in spite of the implication that she hasn’t broken her promises in the past.

    I was mistaken in my statement that “she did follow through…” She didn’t because she couldn’t (you were right.) It would have been far more accurate of me to say that she was well into the process of following through.

    “Now, I’m real sorry that her reputation isn’t worth what she’s asking, and that there isn’t any way for it to be.” You claimed you can’t read minds. How is it you know what her reputation is worth, and how do you know what she (the friend, not Sweet as) is asking for?

    Every point you addressed was a fear of Sweet As,’ not her friend’s. Sweet As was essentially asking, ” Where would I be if this happened to ME?” If you had said to Sweet As, “YOUR promise is only words,” I would not have said anything at all. My comment was intended as a reasonable, unemotional correction of your use of “your friend,” instead of “you.” It did not contradict the principles you laid out. It was a mild caution regarding a peripheral issue; it was not an attack.
    “It’s your prerogative to contradict or support her opinions as you see fit, but personal (and invalid) insults directed at her friend are unwarranted.”

    I apologize if my words were harsh, personal or aggressive, as they may have been in order to garner such a vehement response from you. At the risk of “deflecting,” I’m sorry if you took it personally. I was not looking for a fight. Everything I said after that was in direct response to specific points you made, points that contradicted my statements. I disagreed with your contradictions, and you, instead of clarifying or supporting your contradictory statements with logic, made unsubstantiated assumptions about my character and my motives, and you resorted to personal attacks.

    When I am wrong, and have been shown to be wrong, I admit it. I live by the precept that the only way to cure my ignorance is to acknowledge it.

    In this case I stand by my initial comment; I believe it was rational and correct, albeit parenthetical and trivial. You might want to re-read what I actually said, what you actually said, and what Sweet As actually said. If you can point out to me the error in my reasoning, I will gladly acknowledge that I was dead wrong. If you can’t, please don’t try to influence me with emotion.

    I will admit to (but not apologize for) being presumptuous in the first place, by contradicting you at all. If that, as opposed to my logic, is what you object to, we are having two entirely different conversations.

  164. Suz says:

    Apparently I am too oblivious to understand my error. Please name it for me.

  165. Joshua says:

    Post is four days old and not a peep from Susan Walsh. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

    For those who don’t know Google is your friend.

  166. Sweet As says:

    CL,

    I completely agree that many men have been shafted — I watch how many women behave. It makes me *very* angry and frustrated, too.

    I would love for women to behave more morally. They often defraud men first, then fleece them later, and never take responsibility for their actions. And, they hurt their children in the process too. It’s tragic for everyone.

    I think that, at times, the extreme language takes over — as if there is not space in this world for women who do behave morally, ethically, and lovingly towards men and children.

  167. tweell says:

    Sweet As: Your friend has a much higher marriage value than a divorcee of the same age. Her being single is not of her doing, and she upheld the marriage contract. Yes, she’s in her 30’s and has a child, but many men pay more attention to fidelity. She has demonstrated value. There has always been a big difference between a widow and a ‘grass widow’. Recently a woman misrepresented herself as widowed instead of divorced to a family member, so that difference still exists and may even have grown. As a widower, I also have a higher value, although I’m older and don’t really care to hop back in the market. There are no sure things in life except that we don’t have much of it, but to me at least a widow is a good woman until proven otherwise. Divorcee’s do not get the benefit of the doubt.

  168. Sweet As says:

    rmaxd:

    thanks. she is a very busy lady herself — doing a lot of charitable work — so she’s back at it as well. it is true that much of the work of grief goes on subconsciously. and, there have been a lot of little things for her to manage over these weeks as well. and, we keep making sure she has play dates for her little one and socialization with us. she’s also of a rather stoic ilk, so she isn’t expressing much with most others. she has a few very close friends, and she relies on them when need be to expose her emotion.

    tweell:

    i am glad to hear it (as well as when it was said before).

    i do not consider myself religious at all, so it is certainly not the origin of my actions or beliefs in this matter. it is, simply, what makes sense. it is most ethical to not be a fraud. Right? obvious.

  169. Twenty says:

    @Sweet As

    I think what you’re seeing is the simple reality that life is harsh, and that, through mere misfortune, any of us can find himself in an unhappy position. The truth is that a woman in the waning years of her fertility, with children in tow, will be less attractive to marriage-minded (and especially family-minded) men than she was when she was younger and unencumbered. It is also true that our hyper-sexualized culture makes dating difficult for anyone who wishes to postpone sexual relations. Neither truth affects widows any less harshly than divorcees, though widows are, at least, spared the stigma that rightly attaches to women who failed to honor their vows (or couldn’t be bothered to make them in the first place).

    So, if you’re afraid, well, you’re wise to be. Hopefully fortune will smile upon you.

    On the upside, a widow who can legitimately enhance a man’s life will probably be able to scare up a new mate, although she will almost certainly have to find that rare combination of a man who (a.) doesn’t want (more) of his own kids, and (b.) doesn’t mind supporting hers. (Actually, that may not be so rare; there are probably lots of involuntarily divorced fathers out there who don’t feel like having more children, but aren’t opposed to the idea of being around them.)

    Anyway: Life’s hard, then you die. Good luck to you. And spare a thought for the men born into this society, who, if they choose to marry, must bear all the risk of doing so in a society that actively works against them, and if they choose not to, must travel alone. Women can at least dabble in marriage without being destroyed by it.

  170. Anacaona says:

    @Sasha
    My parents had been married for 34 years if they were to divorce now it will devastate me and question every single thing they had taught me about relationships and love. So I heartedly disagree with redefining marriage as a temporary thing that past 15 years is good enough. I don’t like this idea to use PC definition if you divorced your marriage failed, cheating is adultery and so on. People is so afraid of harsh words this days but it will be good to bring the “ugly” words back if they are so offensive if might be because they are so true, YMMV.

  171. Rmaxd says:

    The post Sweet As is referring to got deleted because of a mispost …

    @Joshua
    “Post is four days old and not a peep from Susan Walsh. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

    For those who don’t know Google is your friend.”

    Josh what are you referring to …

    @Suz

    lol Suz dont take ecclesiastes too seriously, I have no idea what he’s referring too, but yea the black widow bit, was a bit weird … lol

    I thought Sweet As’s post was genuine, i’m not sure where that idea came from …

    @SweetAs

    Thanks for your post btw sweet as, your post is a gentle reminder on how genuine, traditional women can be, your post reminds me of a lot of laura grace robins, of fullofgrace

    I didnt realise the event was that recent, but it is still important to keep her distracted & keep her mind off the event as much as possible, so she can grieve as subconciously as much as possible, it’s alot easier to handle if she’s distracted & kept busy, so her subconcious can handle the worst of the grieving process, without her being aware of it

  172. Rmaxd says:

    @Sweet As

    I wasnt implying you were religious, just that your values are similar to traditionalists such as laura grace & highly instructive to women, similar to traditionalism

    Anyway I hope youself & your friend well & safe recovery

  173. Escoffier says:

    I dunno, Dalrock.

    This claim of yours that rampant ONSs and a series of LTRs are merely superficially different, but morally identical, forms of promiscuity is certainly “original.” I generally love attempts to overturn conventional wisdom, especially PC conventional wisdom. And I can see that you have logic, narowly construed, on your side. But consider two points, one theoretical the other practical.

    First, simple logic may be too simple in this case. Bernie Madoff and a shoplifter are both thieves. And theft is theft, whether a one-off event or a life of crime, whether what is stolen is a penny or tens of billions. Yet religion, moral philosophy, the laws, and nearly all people make distinctions between “more” and “less” and generally consider less sinning to be better, or less bad, than more sinning. They also recognize differences in purpose and intent. E.g., stealing bread to eat is less bad than stealing money to live lavishly.

    Which leads to the practical point. You say that there is no difference in intent, just difference in preference. Male promiscuity in its purest form seeks as many ONSs as it can get. Female promiscuity seeks a series of men of (hopefully) increasing status. No difference. Except “the market” sees a difference. That is, men judge genuine sluts way more harshly than they judge the serially monogamous. Your point (I gather) is that they shouldn’t. Yet despite decades of feminist propaganda that they should not care AT ALL about a woman’s sexual history, they still do. They care less or differently but they still care.

    Before the SR, a woman not a virgin had a difficult time finding a “good” husband. That is not true any more. Men have had to adjust to the market and there aren’t that many virigns any more, especially at the age at which men today tend to get married. But the hard-wired concern still exists. It’s just been changed. Men avoid marriage to sluts who’ve had lots of partners and/or a history of casual sex. They are willing to marry women with a handful of LTRs that included sex. Somehow they believe that ONSs are very harmful to a woman’s marriage value but a few LTRs are not, or at least are less harmful. They don’t want to be with a woman who was ever willing to be someone’s same night lay. But a woman who took sex seriously enough to save it for an LTR is OK, or at least good enough. I gather you think this distinction is a delusion but it is nonetheless the way mating is actually handled by a huge swath of men in this country.

    The point is, men care about 1) how many; and 2) under what circumstances. Your view that >1=slut is logically coherent only if one cares not at all about #2 and re: #1, if one thinks that 2 is as bad as 20 or 200. That is, lots of sin is no worse than a little sin, less sin is no better than more sin because it’s all sin.

  174. empathologicalism says:

    Rmax

    What drives you to post something that then is followed with “if you don’t know google is your friend”
    What difference is there in that and someone who is fluent in Slovak posting a little cliche in their language and then referring others to google to decipher it? Basically…..WHY? Why not just say no comment is agreement, or similar, and yes I had to look it up. Are you an attorney? If so maybe make your screen name say so, when we can start reading with that important knowledge.
    What gives with this notion that Latin, or quotes from historians, or snippets from classics authors somehow buttress what is 99% of the time an extremely mundane point? Just askin…

    Escoffier

    Hair splitting, none of that really matters to his overall point, which was from the high view, where the rubber and road join up.

  175. Rmaxd says:

    @Empath

    “Joshua
    “Post is four days old and not a peep from Susan Walsh. Qui tacet consentire videtur.

    For those who don’t know Google is your friend.”

    Josh what are you referring to …”

    I was referring to Josh’s statement “Post is four days old and not a peep from Susan Walsh”

    Namely what post is he referring to?

    As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you’re blathering on about

  176. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    This claim of yours that rampant ONSs and a series of LTRs are merely superficially different, but morally identical, forms of promiscuity is certainly “original.”…

    First, simple logic may be too simple in this case. Bernie Madoff and a shoplifter are both thieves. And theft is theft, whether a one-off event or a life of crime, whether what is stolen is a penny or tens of billions. Yet religion, moral philosophy, the laws, and nearly all people make distinctions between “more” and “less” and generally consider less sinning to be better, or less bad, than more sinning. They also recognize differences in purpose and intent. E.g., stealing bread to eat is less bad than stealing money to live lavishly.

    You haven’t made the case even with this framework. Who is Madoff and who is the shoplifter? The most serious damage done to society and innocents comes from the abuse of marriage and the expelling of fathers from their children’s lives. The first case by definition is the result of serial monogamy and not a series of ONSs. The second is arguably more the result of serial monogamy in practice, but at the very least the threshold for this is once you leave strictly defined (once and done) marriage. Would you disagree that women like this (or Katie Price) are Madoff and that Rivelino is the shoplifter?

    Which leads to the practical point. You say that there is no difference in intent, just difference in preference. Male promiscuity in its purest form seeks as many ONSs as it can get. Female promiscuity seeks a series of men of (hopefully) increasing status. No difference. Except “the market” sees a difference. That is, men judge genuine sluts way more harshly than they judge the serially monogamous. Your point (I gather) is that they shouldn’t. Yet despite decades of feminist propaganda that they should not care AT ALL about a woman’s sexual history, they still do. They care less or differently but they still care.

    No one is doubting the practical advantage of slowing the burn of the woman’s marriage or LTR value. It is good advice to encourage her to slow this destruction if she won’t stop it altogether. But you are missing a much bigger practical point. Telling her serial monogamy is moral is giving her the cover to practice the destruction in the first place. Furthermore, as I have explained, it primes her hamster with a ready made explanation that if she isn’t offered a relationship after engaging in no strings sex she has been let down by a man. You have never addressed this. You want to blame the men these women have no strings sex with for not offering a relationship once the woman has decided she wants one without considering that women hear this message loud and clear. There is a sort of moral Heisenberg effect in place here. Once you make the claim that serial monogamy isn’t irresponsible immoral, women feel moral cover to leave a trail of wreckage in their wakes. This is the point where the very concept of lifetime marriage becomes destroyed. There simply is no way around this.

    The practical results of your strategy are all around us in the form of fatherless children. Look at the barrage of media celebrating the empowerment of frivolous divorce (movies, fiction, newspapers, etc). Re read the Christian woman’s blasé stance on remarriage. Note how comfortable she is morally with serial marriage so long as she can point to the first husband viewing porn and the woman officially divorcing one man and marrying the other before continuing on her serial monogamous way. Click on the link and read the full comment on her own site to see that I’m not taking her out of context. This is what your way has lead us to.

  177. CL says:

    @Escoffier

    Yet religion, moral philosophy, the laws, and nearly all people make distinctions between “more” and “less” and generally consider less sinning to be better, or less bad, than more sinning.

    Very true, but what about taking into account that the person who goes the LTR route is quite likely to be fornicating more than the person who takes the ONS route? Things are not always as they appear.

    It is also true that “men judge genuine sluts way more harshly than they judge the serially monogamous” but that doesn’t necessarily make one morally better than the other, which was the question this post posed. This market valuation is the whole basis of the idea that there’s such a thing as “hooking up smart” and the point here is, it’s still hooking up, just with fewer people over the long term.

  178. Escoffier says:

    D, first, I agree entirely about divorce. But not all serial monogamy results in divorce. I doubt anyone has studied this but common sense would suggest that the vast majority of serially monogamous relationships take place outside marriage. That’s what I took you to be talking about. If you are saying that being serially monogamous BEFORE marriage makes one more likely to divorce later, then I agree, that’s probably true. All we have to do is look at the divorce rates before the SR made serial monogamy socially “OK” and after. The rate went up. Correlation is not causation but it’s logical to assume there was a connection.

    However, it’s still a fact that lots and lots of people can be serially monogamous in their 20s, later get married, and then not get divorced. That is the norm in the UMC, the demographic with the lowest divorce rate in the US. Lots of women have been able to separate “breaking up” from divorce. That is, they have done the former a few times but they still take an actual wedding vow seriously. As you note, the culture in many respects actively works against them on this so the fact that they can do it says something about their commitment to their vows and families.

    I’m not saying serial monogamy is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than lots of ONSs. Less sin is less bad than more sin. You deny that. I understand the ground of your denial–sin is sin, whether a little or a lot–but I think it arises from a refusal to make distinctions, either about numbers or circumstances. I also think most people don’t and won’t see it that way. Or maybe they could be persuaded but there is a long way to go.

    I don’t have a “strategy.” I don’t have a “way.” To the extent that I do, my way is your way. Virgins at the altar, married for life. That you always have to project on to me views I don’t hold is tiresome and decreases my interest in your blog (which may be your “strategy.”)

    I’m just pointing out some reasons why lots and lots of people don’t see the world the way you do. >1=slut, 2 LTRs are no different than 200 ONSs–these are not propositions that you are going to find most people agreeing with.

  179. ybm says:

    You aren’t getting it Escoffier.

    “I’m not saying serial monogamy is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than lots of ONSs. ”

    Is your fundamental misunderstanding. A woman engaging in 10 sex acts with the same man is equally immoral to a man having 1 sex act with 10 women.

  180. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    ybm, I don’t think he will ever get it. He will come up with some other ‘moral’ implication that grants immunity to his UMC little princesses.

  181. ybm says:

    Well you cannot change someones beliefs. Beliefs can’t be externally imposed (lol Inception). However the belief the upper-middle class white women are somehow more virtuous is so laughably absurd that I had to comment. The hideous, dirty, disgusting things I’ve gotten good little white girls with daddy paying for university to do in the context of a short-term relationship might be too much for Escoffier to admit. After all, sometimes ignorance really is bliss.

  182. CL says:

    Escoffier, you are saying that less mortal sin is better than more mortal sin, but this isn’t true. The distinction between lesser and greater sin is by the seriousness of the sin (i.e. venial or mortal), not by the number of times the sin is committed. Of course, the more you commit any sin, the more numbed you get to it, so in that sense “more times” is worse than “fewer times”, but the seriousness of the sin is not lessened by committing it fewer times.

    As Dalrock has pointed out, this attempt at shades of black fails, because it does not take into account children, the product of sexual union. Impermanent relationships are not a foundation for the family or for society. Serial LTRs may be worse for society than ONSs because of the semblance of marriage but lack of permanence for children. At least an ONS includes no pretence of commitment that mimics marriage. In this way an ONS may be more honest, but I would say it does more damage to the soul.

    And this:
    They also recognize differences in purpose and intent. E.g., stealing bread to eat is less bad than stealing money to live lavishly.

    How is this analogous to ONS vs LTR? What is the difference in purpose and intent in an ONS vs an LTR? Is the intent real or rationalisation? Does the intent matter when the results speak for themselves? Do you really think that fornication is less of a sin if the participants say “I did it for love” rather than “I wanted to get my rocks off”?

    Again, this analogy is dependent on the assumption that an LTR is somehow more moral but this contradicts your earlier statement that less sinning is better than more sinning, because people in LTRs generally fornicate more often than those having ONSs – you and your UMC compatriots do believe that fornication is a sin, don’t you?

    Less sin does not equate to more moral, and in this case one must ask what the sin is, because it’s not “sex with multiple partners” that’s the underlying moral problem here (not that that isn’t a problem, understand) but rationalising “sex outside of marriage” (a.k.a. fornication) and the damage this does to society as a whole.

  183. deti says:

    Escoffier:

    “I’m not saying serial monogamy is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than lots of ONSs.”

    I completely understand the argument you’re making here. And if you changed it to

    “I’m not saying serial monogamy is responsible. I am saying that it’s less irresponsible than lots of ONSs.”

    then I would agree wholeheartedly.

    Second point: The Big D makes an important point of the unspoken quid pro quo in most hookup situations. The implicit query in a woman’s offering sex is “I’ve given up the booty. Now you have to give up the investment and commitment.” And if he doesn’t, then she’s been WRONGED.

  184. deti says:

    CL:

    “*** what about taking into account that the person who goes the LTR route is quite likely to be fornicating more than the person who takes the ONS route? Things are not always as they appear.”

    Yes. They act like married people; may even believe themselves to be quasi-married and confer on themselves all the benefits of marriage. He or she expects the other to exhibit fidelity, loyalty and stability with none of the commitment or investment that tethers and binds them each to the other. They act like married couples, but there’s nothing to prevent the other from one day coming home and saying “It’s over. I’m done. You’ve got 24 hours to get your stuff out of here.” There’s always an escape hatch, and it’s easier to hit the eject button when the moral force of marriage is absent.

    The Big D is right that if we consider marriage to be just a legally enforceable LTR, it gives women moral cover to seek that escape hatch from marriage. In fact, that escape hatch is present for women, but not for men — which is a fact not lost on most men, or women for that matter.

  185. Escoffier says:

    “A woman engaging in 10 sex acts with the same man is equally immoral to a man having 1 sex act with 10 women.”

    Even if we grant this, that’s not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue here is whether, for women 20 is worse than 2 and ONSs are worse than sex within a LTR. The conventional wisdom–common opinion–is that 20 is indeed worse than 2 and that ONS sex is indeed worse than LTR sex. I love to question conventional wisdom but in this case, it seems to me that conventional wisdom makes more sense than 2 LTRS = 20 ONSs. The former person has kept more of her soul. The latter has really dulled hers to the point of insensibility. Nearly all men will see it the same way when

    CL, we’re specifically talking about circumstances WITHOUT children, i.e., pre-marital LTRs that don’t result in kids. There is no question that having kids outside marriage is flatly immoral as is leaving a marriage with children for any but the most serious reason. Having sex within a LTR before marriage is not comparably immoral to that.

    deti: “The implicit query in a woman’s offering sex is ‘Ive given up the booty. Now you have to give up the investment and commitment.’ And if he doesn’t, then she’s been WRONGED.”

    Lucky me, I guess, that I don’t know any women who believe this (or who will admit to it) but I will take your word for it that they are out there. However, it’s a patently idiotic thing to believe.

  186. Escoffier says:

    meant to say “… when considering whether a woman is marriage material.”

  187. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    CL, we’re specifically talking about circumstances WITHOUT children, i.e., pre-marital LTRs that don’t result in kids. There is no question that having kids outside marriage is flatly immoral as is leaving a marriage with children for any but the most serious reason. Having sex within a LTR before marriage is not comparably immoral to that.

    Nope. We are talking about reality. And in reality, 40% of children in the US are born out of wedlock. Very large numbers of those who are lucky enough to be born in wedlock later have their father expelled from their lives. This is directly related to the moral normalization of serial monogamy. It opened the floodgates for women to act on their animal instincts while claiming they were still being moral.

    Even if we grant this, that’s not what’s at issue here. What’s at issue here is whether, for women 20 is worse than 2 and ONSs are worse than sex within a LTR.

    I don’t think you have read anything the three of us have written in response to you. No one is disputing that it is to a woman’s advantage to limit her number of partners. As I have said repeatedly including in the original post advising a woman to do this is sound practical advice. Feel free to continue ignoring this however.

  188. Dalrock says:

    @Deti

    Second point: The Big D makes an important point of the unspoken quid pro quo in most hookup situations. The implicit query in a woman’s offering sex is “I’ve given up the booty. Now you have to give up the investment and commitment.” And if he doesn’t, then she’s been WRONGED.

    Thanks Deti. I would add one more bit to that. The woman reserves the right to decide if she wants the hookup to result in a relationship after the fact. Only then is there this mysterious moral requirement that the man to suddenly offer one. If after casual sex he were to profess his undying love and beg her to marry him or even be his girlfriend, no one would claim she had a moral obligation to do so. The ambiguity is there for a reason, and the moral obligations people are assuming only go one direction.

  189. ybm says:

    @Escoffier

    As they say the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, thus I am going to show respect for my host and the good work he is doing on this site by ending our exchange at this time.

  190. @Rmax

    “”As for the rest of your post, I have no idea what you’re blathering on about””

    check google

  191. TFH says:

    Very large numbers of those who are lucky enough to be born in wedlock later have their father expelled from their lives.

    Less than half of all children will see both of their biological parents married until one dies.

    Odd that what was supposed to be normal is now the minority.

  192. TFH says:

    Dalrock,

    I don’t think you have read anything the three of us have written in response to you.

    As you say, So Con denial is pathological.

    Escoffier,

    Do you believe that women are more moral than men?

  193. TFH says:

    Escoffier’s posts, as usual, indicate a disturbing lack of concern for the well-being of the man…

  194. Escoffier says:

    Right, we agree on the practicality, we disagree on the morality. Or at least you have not convinced me.

    Your position is, numbers and circumstances don’t matter. 2 =20=200, it’s all the same. And a ONS and sex within a LTR are the same. Less is better from a practical perspective but identical from a moral perspective.

    This is a radical position to take. That doesn’t make it false but you haven’t addressed the issues that I raised. CL did, from a religious perspective, though I don’t think even that argument is correct, but I am talking about secular reasoning. Less of something bad is less bad than more of something bad. Also, sex on day-one and then never see him again is worse than sex in the course of a mutli -year relationship. Those are conventional opinions but they are not wrong ipso facto.

    Assume a father somewhere has two daughters. One becomes an incorrigible hook-up slut. The other has a five-year boyfried, breaks up with him, six months later gets another one, stays with him for two years, breaks up with him, a year later marries another guy and they live happily ever after. Now, which daughter do you think that father is more worried about? Ashamed of? In your view, he’s just deluded because they are equally immoral.

    As to what you said about SM upping the divorce rate, I already said that myself. We don’t disagree there. But I also said, because it is a fact, that lots and lots of women are capable of having boyfriends and then getting and staying married. The divorce rate in the UMC is under 10% I believe. For women with children it’s even lower. Those women are not marrying as virgins. This is evidence that serial monogamy is not as damaging as you seem to think it is. That doesn’t make it good. But clearly it’s a lot less bad than being a hook-up slut.

  195. deti says:

    “The woman reserves the right to decide if she wants the hookup to result in a relationship after the fact.”

    Hmmm. reminds me of people wanting hookups to be “fair”. Dalrock posted on that a while ago.

  196. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    Why do you continue to craft your argument around contrived examples based on an exception rather than a generality? Try tapping into your masculine side and use solid logic rather than basing your point of view on feminine emotions and how you think things “should be.”

    Your examples are not what is generally true. But since you insist on clinging to the secular shades of black framing, please address this question using your form of logic.

    What if the less of something “bad” a woman is inclined to do has greater societal consequences than the more of something “bad” that a man is inclined to do?

  197. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    Assume a father somewhere has two daughters. One becomes an incorrigible hook-up slut. The other has a five-year boyfried, breaks up with him, six months later gets another one, stays with him for two years, breaks up with him, a year later marries another guy and they live happily ever after. Now, which daughter do you think that father is more worried about? Ashamed of? In your view, he’s just deluded because they are equally immoral.

    You haven’t answered my question on who is Madoff and who is the shoplifter, and instead offer a counter example for me to evaluate. Given the outcomes, the woman who married and stayed married is arguably acting more moral, but to truly understand the morality we would need to understand her intent. Did she repent and change her ways? Or did she stay married simply because a better option never came along? Or, did she (despite what you would argue her father should think) see a very clear moral line between sex outside of wedlock and marriage?

    Change the outcomes and the weakness of your argument is even clearer. The first daughter sticks to her few years and quit when not happy pattern, has a child or two in wedlock and then discovers that she isn’t haaaaapy, he is controlling, “emotionally abusive”, caught him looking at internet porn, etc. She devorces him and puts him and the kids through the meat grinder. The other daughter isn’t sexually moral but doesn’t pretend to be, and doesn’t make a promise she can’t keep, so she never marries (or no man she is interested is willing to marry her for being slutty). Which one is more moral now?

    We could work out an intricate of the hierarchy of sexual immorality, and spend great time and effort on it. In the end, we would still end up sending the message to women that serial monogamy isn’t really a bad thing, and that they are morally superior to the man they hooked up with who didn’t offer them what SW calls “commitment” after the fact. We would still have Christian leaders feeling that so long as all sex is inside of marriage and the woman only marries one man at a time, that still counted as marriage. Once you blur the distinctions the hamster does the rest.

    As to what you said about SM upping the divorce rate, I already said that myself. We don’t disagree there. But I also said, because it is a fact, that lots and lots of women are capable of having boyfriends and then getting and staying married. The divorce rate in the UMC is under 10% I believe. For women with children it’s even lower. Those women are not marrying as virgins. This is evidence that serial monogamy is not as damaging as you seem to think it is. That doesn’t make it good. But clearly it’s a lot less bad than being a hook-up slut.

    I don’t get your argument here. You acknowledge that SM is upping the divorce rate, then point to something unrelated. Yes UMC women have lower divorce rates than middle class and lower middle class women. The authors of The Bell Curve did some very convincing work showing that higher IQ is strongly correlated with lower rates of divorce independent of factors like SES and education. Pretty much any trait correlated with higher IQ will show lower divorce rates, even down to religious denomination (with less morally strict high IQ liberal denominations having lower divorce rates than more morally strict lower IQ conservative denominations).

  198. TFH says:

    Escoffier,

    we disagree on the morality.

    Only because you hold women to a different standard of morality than you hold men.

    Dalrock,

    Your page-length replies are great reading for the rest of us, and worthy of articles in their own right, but against Escoffier, it is analogous to trying to kill a mosquito with a chainsaw.

  199. TFH says:

    7man,

    ather than basing your point of view on feminine emotions and how you think things “should be.”

    Things work out ‘in his head’.

    The similarities between Chels and Escoffier means the duo should simply be referred to as ‘Chelscoffier’.

    They might as well be one unified entity under the ‘Chelscoffier’ name.

  200. Escoffier says:

    On the woman who had some LTRs and then stayed married (to a different man), I already said this but I’ll repeat. I think she stays married because she sees a huge qualatative difference between a wedding vow and a LTR. I think that is the norm in the UMC today. They think they have a sovereign right to “break up” with a mere BF but no such right to divorce absent genuine abuse (hitting, not hurt feelings), drugs, or adultery. There is also a massive stigma against divorce in a way there was not in these communities in the ’70s and ’80s.

    Serial monogamy seems to have driven up the overall divorce rate over the last 50 years (though that rate peaked in 1980 and has been in decline ever since). But I recall reading that in the UMC the divorce rate is actually lower today than it was in 1960. This is another example of liberals sensibly ignoring liberal pieties in their own lives even as they preach them for others.

    If you “change the outcomes” of my example you change the whole point. No one–not even a sexually libertine SoCon like you image me to be–would deny for a second that the woman who leaves her husband for frivilous reasons or subjects her kids to divorce is anything but immoral. That’s not what I take issue with. I simply believe that the lady with 2-3 LTRs–assuming she never does the things you mention–is, on the basis of sexual morality, a better person than the hook-up slut. Less immoral. Less damaged in her soul.

    “Did she repent and change her ways?” This is interesting. Here I am just describing what I see, to be clear; no advocacy. No, she did not repent and change her ways. Women today (and men, but that aside) believe they have a “right” to some boyfriends before they “settle down.” They don’t get married at 22 because they believe they are “not ready.” But they do think themselves ready for sex and a LTR and so they pursue that. Then when they want a husband they feel that they have done nothing that should disqualify them. However, they do think that sluts have been disqualified and the sluts themselves rail the loudest at being so judged because deep down they know it’s true.

    I have, at HUS, attacked this logic several times to women who think and live this way. What makes you ready for sex and marriage lite but not marriage itself? The answer, the only answer, whether they admit it or not, is “I’m not sure he’s the one.” Then why are you sleeping with him? They don’t have a good answer to that beyond “I want to.”

  201. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    It would be false to apply an imagined degree of damage to the soul on to a moral scale. Claiming the temporal (societal) consequences as synonymous with imagined soul damage is shallow thinking. This is the Rationalization Hamster at work.

  202. Rmaxd says:

    Escoffier, have you ever actually met a real woman? … Your mother doesnt count …

  203. deti says:

    “The woman reserves the right to decide if she wants the hookup to result in a relationship after the fact. Only then is there this mysterious moral requirement that the man to suddenly offer one.”

    Hookups always seem to be viewed through their utility to the woman. Vis a vis the man, the default view is that he must be using the woman for sex.

    Post-hookup, if she wanted a relationship and gets one, it’s all good.

    If she wanted the relationship and doesn’t get one, the man is a jerk/cad/PUA..

    If she didn’t want a relationship and the man is offering one, he’s a chump, or “creepy”.

    If she didn’t want a relationship and the man isn’t offering one, it’s all good.

    [D: Exactly.]

  204. 7man says:

    “The woman reserves the right to decide if she wants the hookup to result in a relationship after the fact. Only then is there this mysterious moral requirement that the man to suddenly offer one.”

    The woman also reserves the right to decide if she wants the hookup to result in a rape after the fact.

  205. Escoffier says:

    7, I have no idea what you were trying to say. If you are denying that promiscuity is bad for the female soul, OK, but then I have to ask, what are all you guys so damned upset about?

  206. CL says:

    I have to ask, what are all you guys so damned upset about?

    In the words of the great Louis Armstrong when asked “What is jazz?”, if you have to ask, you ain’t never gonna know.

  207. Escoffier says:

    So there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with promiscuity (i.e., damaging to the individual person and yet promiscuous women are nonetheless somehow very terrible?

    You all appear not to have thought any of this through.

  208. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    The damage to the soul is real although nonquantifiable, therefore it is the degree that is imagined and not whether the damage exists. I have not ever denied that “promiscuity is bad for the female soul.” You really don’t know how logic is used in an argument.

  209. Escoffier says:

    Non-quantifiable does not equal imagined. Lots of things can’t be measured in numbers but we can still make distinctions. For instance, a shoe obsession is bad for the soul (frivilous emphasis on consumption) but much less bad than promiscuity. We don’t need numbers to see that.

    This point is directly relevant to the “2 may as well be 200″ claim. 99.99% of men would run like hell from a girl with a 200 count and I bet 95% of men would run from a girl with a 20 count. But 2?

    They won’t. If you all’s point is “They should,” that’s one thing but you haven’t made the case to me, much less to them. The reason is that 20 or 200 = massive damage to the soul, an inability to connect and bond, a frivolity about sex, an unhealthy obsession with newness and bad boys, and much more. 2 may have had bad consequences for the soul but nothing on the order of 20 or 200.

    Dalrock earlier conceded that 20-200 is a practical problem to a woman’s MMV, but why is that? It’s because of how men judge those women. And what are they basing that judgement on? Not social science, though the social science supports their conclusion. No, they base it on morality. There is no separating the practical from the moral here. The slut does practical damage to her MMV because of the adverse moral judgement she incurs from men.

    Most men simply don’t make the same moral judgement about 2 (or about the low single digits). Moreover, they judge one night stands much more harshly than LTRs. I guess you would say that they are all brainwashed by feminism. But, again, feminism tells them that they should not care AT ALL about a woman’s count, either in degree (numbers) or kind (circumstance). Yet despite 50 years of such relentless conditioning, they still do. They only way that men’s opinion has changed, it seems to me, is to give up the insistence on a virgin and to be willing to settle for low single digits, incurred in LTRs, not because they want to but because they feel they have no choice, given what’s available on the market.

    If the insistence here is 2 LTRs = 200 ONSs, then I have seen only two arguments in support. The first is “sin = sin, number and circumstances don’t matter.” That’s really more of a tautology than an argument.

    The second is more intelligent, and holds that the legitimation of serial monogamy has undermined marriage by removing the stigma from sex outside marriage. I think this is partly right but too simplistic in that many, many things have undermined marriage, this being only one and not even the most important.

    I can say with some confidence that insisting that >1=slut does, at least in the near term, nothing to strengthen marriage because all it does is alienate in droves everyone who has not slurped every drop of MRA Kool-Aid. The idea that you all find me to be some great enemy is hilarious. You guys remind me of the Bolsheviks after the death of Lenin, or the New Left circa 1969. So many near enemies! Get him! He’s a feminist because he believes that a girl with a two count is not a slut!

    That, and it is … not true. If you can’t make a moral distinction between 2 and 200 then you can’t make any moral distinctions at all and all your talk of morality is really just moralism, or worse, fanaticism.

  210. Rum says:

    Sex nearly always come with complicated emotions, especially afterwards. So does killing an animal. Do the occurance of those kind of feelings mean that a sin has been committed? I cannot think so. Strong or deep “feelings” inform us that something important is happening and we should respect the good and bad potential outcomes. But killing things and being sexual are way too central to our nature that we should label them bad just because of the ambivalence.
    Protein wasting starvation and sexual starvation induced insanity are NOT things about which healthy humans should have mixed feelings. Those things really suck and allowances must be made for doing what needs to be done.

  211. Rum says:

    I have seen vast numbers of cases of sexual starvation leading to various forms of insanity. I did not mean this as any kind of a joke.

  212. TFH says:

    deti,

    Your comment at 4:33 PM is yet another avenue to arrive at the unpleasant but inescapable conclusion :

    Democracy has a life-cycle, after which it will inevitably devolve into a feminist police state. This is because men vote for what benefits all people, but women only vote for what appears to benefit women (itself exacerbated by an inability to judge long-term cause and effect).

    No other outcome is possible from women having the right to vote for 3-4 generations…

  213. TFH says:

    A perfect example of another TFH maxim : When someone makes a waaaaaay off-base accusation, it is eveidence of projection from the accuser.

    Chelscoffier wrote :

    You all appear not to have thought any of this through.

    This from the person who ignores comments from the 4-5 people simultaneously correcting and educating him.

    Now, in terms almost anyone except Chelscoffier can understand :

    Promiscuous women do not harm anyone UNLESS they trap a man into a Marriage 2.0 contract, OR they divorce after having a child.

    Other than that, a promiscuous women who neither marries nor has a child, has not harmed anyone else per se. She has damaged her ability to bond with a man, but has not harmed other people.

    Everything Chelscoffier writes indicates that harming 10 men to protect one woman is an acceptable way to organize society.

  214. Eincrou says:

    TFH: “Democracy has a life-cycle…”

    Remember when I asked you to post your democracy stump speech over at MWM’s place? It seems that he has taken my and your arguments to heart and has changed his mind on this issue.

    Ron Paul and Women

  215. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    This point is directly relevant to the “2 may as well be 200″ claim.

    Made by who?

  216. Dalrock says:

    @Rum

    Sex nearly always come with complicated emotions, especially afterwards. So does killing an animal.

    I seldom see the latter recognized. Having taken and helped take big game I can say that the feeling is quite unique, and quite stirring.

  217. TFH says:

    Eincrou,

    Yes, I did write a few comments at MWM about this.

    Women voting can have positive (or at least neutral) effects at first. But by the 3rd and 4th generation, they have rigged so many things in their favor that society falls apart.

    Also, manginas/whiteknights emerge much more in societies where women have the right to vote. There are far few in non-democratic societies except at the individual micro-level.

    So part of the negative of women voting is that it also creates a mangina voting block. Thus, 70% of the electorate is actively seeking to rig things against men.

  218. Escoffier says:

    D: by you, over and over. It’s the whole point of this post and of your other writings on serial monogamy. There is no moral difference between SM and ONSs. The former is just what women prefer, that latter is what (some) men prefer. It is a feminst-influenced culture that insists that the former is better than the latter.

    Is that not your position? It seems to me to be what you have written, over and over.

    My first comment in this thread raised this issue, and you replied that yes, as a practical matter for their own long term self-interest, it’s good for women not to rack up too many partners, but you reiterated that as a moral matter, numbers don’t matter.

    If you don’t believe that, fine, but I would be interested to read a clarification.

  219. 7man says:

    :: facepalm ::

  220. Escoffier says:

    So, everyone piles on me as some Emanuel Goldstein for objecting to the notion that 2 may as well be 200 but in the next breath denies that anyone believes that 2 = 200. OK, great, we are making progress, we all agree that 200 is worse than 2.

  221. Rmaxd says:

    Why are we debating with escoffier again …. ?

    Escoffier, Dalrocks stating its just as immoral for a woman to serially date men, as it is for her to sleep with hundreds of men

    It’s not rocket science …

    Then again, Escoffiers a mangina, his ability to understand a basic debate’s, hampered by his pedestalising of women …

    HUS doesnt share mangina’s escoffier … lol

  222. Escoffier says:

    Ok, so are we or are we not affirming/denying that 2 = 200? You guys change your story with every post.

  223. Legion says:

    Escoffier says:
    January 3, 2012 at 5:34 pm
    “7, I have no idea what you were trying to say.”

    That’s cause you’re dumber than a bag of fucking hammers.

    Any point that gets made and you don’t understand it. You create strawmen all over the place. When asked to follow up on what you wrote, you start a new subjectt.

    Are youu ADHD or 5 years old?

  224. Escoffier says:

    Same subject. Is 200 worse than 2? Is 20? Or is any number higher than one the mark of a slut? Are one night stands worse than sex within LTRs? Or are random hook-ups morally the same as repeated sex with the same partner, even outside marriage.

    In other words, do differences of degree and kind matter materially or do they not?

    Very simple concept.

  225. Mr.A is Mr.A says:

    Escoffier appears to have mastered the Art of the Tangential Non-Sequitur on a Moebius Strip

  226. Escoffier says:

    What is the subject of this post? That serial monogamy is held by feminist culture to be more moral than rampant promiscuity but is in fact morally the same. That’s the argument, right?

    My point is, no, actually, serial monogamy is less bad that rampant promiscuity. For two reasons. 1) Fewer partners is less bad than more partners. 2) Circumstances matter. Sex within a LTR is less bad than a ONS.

    No one exactly denies either of those two points directly but still I am the Great Enemy of Dalrock’s. OK.

  227. TFH says:

    Escoffier,

    Do you believe that women are more moral than men?

    Avoidance of this question also answers it, btw.

  228. TFH says:

    Legion,

    Are youu ADHD or 5 years old?

    Worse, he is a pedestalizing SoCon.

    The well-being of men is vastly, vastly less important to him than the well-being of women.

  229. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    You are making up arguments which I never made. I’ve repeated many times that lower partner counts are beneficial for the woman. Please read the actual post, and quote the part(s) you disagree with. This will save us a great deal of time and frustration.

  230. tspoon says:

    Actually I exactly deny those two points.
    Fewer partners is less bad than more partners? Really? To that females children, I’d say it likely wouldn’t make a difference what exact number of men they walked into the bedroom and saw in the bed, if any of them at all were not their father. Which, strangely enough, concurs exactly with the precise number of men readily agreed upon by the average commenter at this blog, for various other reasons.
    Sex within a LTR is less bad than a ONS? For who? The fact is, after the numeral one, there’s really no objective difference to any of the other numbers. An LTR neither confers nor implies any given amount of commitment, so, for all intents, is effectively a repeating one night stand. As often noted here, marriage in the modern age is effectively no different for 50% of those undertaking it.

  231. imnobody says:

    @Escoffier
    1) Fewer partners is less bad than more partners.

    2) Circumstances matter. Sex within a LTR is less bad than a ONS.

    You have to define your ethical framework before comparing the evilness of two actions. If you are Christian, the only thing allowed is monogamy (that is, one sexual partner for all your lifetime, except widowing). So as vitabenedicta said “ONS, FWB, serial monogamy: it’s only fornication”. Both actions are equally bad.

    If you approach ethics from a non-religious vantage point, you have to take an utilitarian approach. That is, good actions are the ones who maximize pleasure/happiness and minimize suffering for all parts involved.

    So, let’s suppose two examples.

    Example A. A woman who was virgin when she married. After 10 years of marriage and 2 kids, she leaves her husband because “she has fallen in love with another man”. Number of partners: Two in her lifetime. She leaves with kids, the house, half of the assets, alimony and child support.

    Example B. A bad boy who has had three one-night stands.

    Who produces more suffering? I don’t excuse the behavior of the bad boy. Women can feel used after a one-night stand, but they consented and they will get over it.

    A husband who was divorced from their wife gets a lot of more suffering than a girl who agreed to a ONS and then she is disappointed because she wanted more.

    It seems to me that you have swallowed the blue pill. Society makes you think that women’s preferred form of promiscuity is better than men’s preferred form of promiscuity. But this has no grounds.

  232. Suz says:

    I’m with Dalrock.
    “Dalrock: And in reality, 40% of children in the US are born out of wedlock. Very large numbers of those who are lucky enough to be born in wedlock later have their father expelled from their lives. This is directly related to the moral normalization of serial monogamy. It opened the floodgates for women to act on their animal instincts while claiming they were still being moral.”

    “Escoffier: My point is, no, actually, serial monogamy is less bad that rampant promiscuity. For two reasons. 1) Fewer partners is less bad than more partners. 2) Circumstances matter. Sex within a LTR is less bad than a ONS.”

    “…the normalization of serial monogamy…” is the money quote, IMO. Justifying a couple of LTRs as “less immoral,” is where the real moral danger lies. An LTR seems less immoral because it has most of the trappings of a committed relationship; this reinforces the notion that it’s “not as bad,” which in turn justifies more LTRs. A slut KNOWS her behavior is immoral, but a serial monogamist doesn’t – she thinks LTRs are a legitimate route to marriage.

    I think serial monogamy far causes more damage that blatant promiscuity because it feeds the hamster. A serial monogamist, unlike a slut, is “practicing” marriage, only without the deep commitment. She feels virtuous, and if it doesn’t work out, well, these things happen. A woman in an LTR (with either no commitment or unilateral commitment) is learning how to maintain a weak relationship, and in many cases she’s getting very good at it. This leads to more serial monogamy, with more collateral damage. The level of “sin” may seem less on the surface because “Hey, she’s being faithful.” but the subtle damage done is probably worse than the damage done by sluts. A slut doesn’t blur the lines between LTRs and marriage; she doesn’t delude herself (and everybody else) that “this could be the one” every time she has sex. Being faithful to one guy at a time does not make a woman more virtuous than a slut.

  233. Escoffier says:

    D, I’m not trying to make up arguments you’ve never made. All you’ve said re: lower partner counts for women is that, as a practical matter, that it’s beneficial to the woman because a lower count preserves more of her MMV. You’ve asserted repeatedly, in this post and in many others, that serial monogamy is morally the same as rampant promiscuity. I.e., both are equally bad but society approves of one but condemns the other because of feminism. My point is, the logic of that leads to 2 may as well be 200. If you don’t believe that, fine, but you haven’t said so and that would also call into question the equation of the two forms of non-marital sex.

    imnobody, obviously the woman who leaves her family is a lot worse than the bad boy in your example. But let’s stick with apples to apples. When you introduce other bad acts into the equation, the values change radically.

    [D: I wasn’t claiming you had malicious intent. But the problem remains, and so does my request. Please quote the section(s) you disagree with along with your argument against them.]

  234. The greatest achievement of modern feminism was to deprive men of a virgin bride.

  235. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    Some of the most articulate and intelligent people in the manosphere have tried to engage you in a rational debate. Dalrock, TFH, Rmaxd, CL, imnobody, Suz, tspoon, Legion, Mr. A is Mr. A, Deti, ybm & Feminist Hater; including me (7man), that makes (12) twelve.

    You are a moral relativist. It would give me pause to totally disregard what these people say, although I will disagree with each occasionally. We all debate each other, but show deference as well, since each has valid points and approach issues from different viewpoints. Most intelligent people find it is instructive to look at a subject from another person’s point of view.

    This brings to mind the saying: “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”

  236. Dalrock says:

    @Suz

    I think serial monogamy far causes more damage that blatant promiscuity because it feeds the hamster. A serial monogamist, unlike a slut, is “practicing” marriage, only without the deep commitment. She feels virtuous, and if it doesn’t work out, well, these things happen.

    Nailed it.

    Part of what I think muddies the waters is the first generation(s) of women experiencing the sexual revolution still probably felt in the back of their minds like any sex outside of a once and done marriage was immoral. They held the sense of shades of grey that I think Escoffier expects women to hold about this. So they dabbled a bit (or a lot), but their conscience nagged them and held them back. But each generation of women since then has become more and more comfortable with the idea that it isn’t marriage which determines sexual propriety, but “love”, “monogamy”, and Susan’s (non commitment) “commitment”. Each generation has become more emboldened by the immorality of the last, since the feared lightning strike still hasn’t occured.

    They have even created new arbitrary trappings of what a “good girl” does. I remember many women I knew in college placing great importance on the fact that they lost their virginity to their “College Boyfriend”. These weren’t deep and serious relationships. These were nice enough guys picked from central casting to play the role, and once the virginity was lost so were they.

    It always struck me as quite odd, but now I’m convinced they heard from older female relatives that sluts lost their virginity willy nilly, while good girls lost it with their “College Boyfriend”. But after that LTRs and hookups seemed to blur together, because when the boundaries aren’t clearly defined this is what tends to happen. I suspect that young women today are much less obsessed with the losing virginity to a college boyfriend concept. Maybe they do the same thing, but with a “High School Boyfriend”, or perhaps “Middle School Boyfriend”. The benchmark is arbitrary and movable but comforting in its seeming solidity. Likewise my wife was telling me about a woman she knows who makes it a point to stay with a man she has sex with for 6 months afterwards before unceremoniously dumping him, because in her mind (I’m serious) this makes her not a slut.

  237. CL says:

    Likewise my wife was telling me about a woman she knows who makes it a point to stay with a man she has sex with for 6 months afterwards before unceremoniously dumping him, because in her mind (I’m serious) this makes her not a slut.

    By Escoffier logic, if I “date” like this and dump them after a year, I am more moral than this woman! Likewise, it hurts less to walk slowly in front of a bus going 30 kph than to walk quickly in front of a bus going 90 kph.

    As Suz said, “Justifying a couple of LTRs as “less immoral,” is where the real moral danger lies.” This muddied thinking results in the slut who thinks she’s not a slut and the pedestalizing mangina who justifies immoral behaviour in women, as has been demonstrated on this thread.

  238. imnobody says:

    @Escoffier.

    imnobody, obviously the woman who leaves her family is a lot worse than the bad boy in your example. But let’s stick with apples to apples.

    You can’t stick with apples to apples when you have different behaviors. But let me give it a try.

    Example A. A woman leaving her LTR without reason.

    Example B. A man leaving his ONS without reason.

    Both are bad. What is worse? Based on utilitarian, A is worse, based on utilitarian ethics. Based on contractual ethics, A is worse (breach of agreement, while in B nothing was promised). Based on Christian ethics, A is worse, because A is betraying a divine bond (marriage).

    OK. But enough of justifying my position. What about justifying yours? I don’t see what is your justification why ONS are worse than serial LTR.

    Is it because “you said so” (“proof by assertion”)? I justified that you are wrong based on the most common ethical frameworks (Christian and secular). But you still repeat the same thing without justification.

    What are your criteria from distinguishing good from evil? How do you justify ONS being worse than serial LTRs based on these criteria?

    Until you don’t answer both questions, it is impossible to discuss anything with you.

  239. imnobody says:

    Correction. The former post had an error.

    Based on Christian ethics, A is worse, because A is betraying a divine bond (marriage).

    But LTR is not a marriage. So it is included in the category of “fornication”. So it is as bad as ONS but not worse, according to Christian ethics.

  240. Legion says:

    ChelsEscoffier says:
    January 4, 2012 at 6:08 am

    You do have malicious intent. You will twist anything to demonize men and pedalize women. Men are then held responsible for women’s actions by you. We all know your a liar and an idiot – go away.

  241. deti says:

    Escoffier:

    “Same subject. Is 200 worse than 2? Is 20? Or is any number higher than one the mark of a slut? Are one night stands worse than sex within LTRs? Or are random hook-ups morally the same as repeated sex with the same partner, even outside marriage.

    In other words, do differences of degree and kind matter materially or do they not?

    Very simple concept.”

    Esco, I mean this really sincerely and with no disrespect. Any snark is sincerely unintended.

    The very simple answer to this question:

    “In other words, do differences of degree and kind matter materially or do they not?”

    Is this:

    From a Judeo-Christian ethics perspective, no, they do not matter one iota. From a pragmatic/current SMV perspective, yes, it matters very much and often makes all the difference in the world.

    It really cannot get any simpler than that.

  242. Pingback: Newspeak: scrubbing the English language. | Dalrock

  243. Escoffier says:

    imnobody: I’ve said over and over why I think ONS are worse than LTRs. Here goes again. ONSs are more frivolous by a long shot. ONSs almost never include anything resembling love, whereas LTRs typically do. ONSs are far more soul killing. ONSs tend to accumulate and rack up a person’s count, which is also soul-killing. ONSs cheapen the value and importance of sex far more than LTRs do.

    Again, the opinion (and practice) of ordinary men is to look down on women who engage in ONSs far more than they look down on women who have LTRs. They also look down on women with high counts far more than they look down on women with low counts. Combine the two–high count, lots of ONSs–and the vast majority of men will think that girl is a slut and will have nothing to do with her beyond a P&D if that. I take it you all believe that all these men are deluded.

    D, I think your post at 8:29 is right on. That is exactly how women today think. The “problem” that remains is that you say in the post at the top of this page, and have said in other posts, that serial monogamy is morally indistinguishable from ONS promiscuity. That leads logically to the following: two serially monogamous boyfriends = 20 (or 200) ONSs. Suz has stated this as flatly true. He’s also said that SM is worse than ONSs and you’ve agreed. Yet you still imply (but won’t say) that you don’t actually believe that 2 may as well be 200.

    7: The idea that I am a moral relativist is just LOL. I am the one (the ONLY one, so far as I can see) who defends the idea that there is a natural basis for morality that is knowable through rational examination. AKA “natural right.” Dalrock has explicitly denied that in the past.

  244. Escoffier says:

    deti: I will look this up in the Catechism when I can. My sense is that it does matter but I’ll let the book tell me.

    However, I am not arguing from a religious perspective. In my opinion, based on what I understand rational, natural, secular morality to be, differences of degree and kind DO matter. Killing two people is worse than killing one person. Killing in a premeditated way is worse than killing in flash of uncontrolled anger. And so on. Degree and kind also apply to sex, in the ways that I have been saying.

  245. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    You claim to be a Christian but argue from a secular point of view. You claim to not be a moral relativist, yet you claim that 200 is worse than 2, by ignoring the equally destructive consequences of both LTRs and ONSs. Is a person more dead with “death by 200 cuts” or with two bullets to the head?

    Often LTRs result in unwed mothers and then when the LTR is over, there are fatherless children. The “pretend marriages” and feigned morality of LTRs are doing at least as much damage to our civilization as ONSs.

    I believe in “natural law,” inalienable rights and that absolute truth exists, whether I choose to believe it or not. If you are a practicing Christian how do you resolve your beliefs with Romans Chapter 6? Are not the wages of sin death? Either be a Christian or not, it is your choice!

    You are the ONLY one here that has entirely invented your own basis for morality and you truly are lacking in rational examination skills. You conflate morality with temporal consequences.

  246. Escoffier says:

    7, I have not said anything about my religion.

    I don’t see how saying that 200 is worse than 2 is an example of relativism. Seems to me to be the oppposite, an attempt to make a moral distinction.

    Unwed mothers and fatherless children are terrible but separable from LTRs. Most LTRs do not result in such. There is no necessity that they do. There is probably a correlation between the rise of LTRs and fatherless children, which is (one reason) why the separation of sex from marriage has been morally bad. All I am saying is that one can accept the fact that that separation has been bad and yet still make distinctions about degrees of badness.

    An LTR that does not result in fatherless children is less bad than one that does. An LTR that does not result in fatherless children is also less bad than a huge string of one night stands.

  247. imnobody says:

    imnobody: I’ve said over and over why I think ONS are worse than LTRs. Here goes again. ONSs are more frivolous by a long shot.

    Sorry, frivolous is not a moral category. This is a non-sequitur. Some things are frivolous and are evil. Some things are frivolous and are not evil. If something is evil, it is evil because it is evil, not because it is frivolous.

    ONSs almost never include anything resembling love, whereas LTRs typically do.

    Sorry, (sexual) love (“eros” in Greek) is not a moral category. (Love towards God – “agape” -is). Love is not a supreme good. There are people who kill in name of love.

    I see that you adopt a female point of view. For women, if “love” is involved, everything is OK. How convenient, because it is the same that women would do anyway, so you have a morality that it is the same than your instincts.

    “Love” is the ultimate weasel word. It means anything: from the devotion of an old man for his old wife, to the gina tingle of a woman to her bad boy. Love excuses everything. Anything a woman does something morally objectionable, she says: “I did it for love”, as if this was a moral reason.

    ONSs are far more soul killing.

    It depends. They are more soul killing for the woman. For a man (and for a woman in love), a LTR which ends is far more soul killing than an ONS which ends. And soul killing is not a moral category. It is a subjective feeling.

    ONSs tend to accumulate and rack up a person’s count, which is also soul-killing.

    Hahahaha. Typical female point of view. Is your morality outside your vagina? I doubt it. Long live the hamster.

    A woman’s count is a practical reason, not a moral reason.

    ONSs cheapen the value and importance of sex far more than LTRs do.

    Sorry, the price of sex is not a moral category. It is in the best interest of women than price of sex remains high, but this is a practical reason, not a moral reason.

    Again, the opinion (and practice) of ordinary men is to look down on women who engage in ONSs far more than they look down on women who have LTRs.

    Yes. You have said it three times: a woman’s count, price of sex, men look down on sluts. We get it. It is all about your SMV. “Thou shalt not do anything that decreases your SMV” is your only commandment.

    We know: ONS decrease women’s SMV. So it is better for women not to have ONS. Agreed. But this is a practical reason, not a moral reason.

    You are trying to pass practical reasons as if they were moral reasons. Dalrock is right on target.

    In addition, you didn’t argue against a LTR ending being worse than an ONS ending. Thank you for agreeing with me.

  248. CL says:

    A typical LTR is just repeated ONSs with the same person. Much beyond that is rationalisation.

  249. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    ”The point is, men care about 1) how many; and 2) under what circumstances. Your view that >1=slut is logically coherent only if one cares not at all about #2 and re: #1, if one thinks that 2 is as bad as 20 or 200. That is, lots of sin is no worse than a little sin, less sin is no better than more sin because it’s all sin.”

    ”I’m not saying serial monogamy is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than lots of ONSs. Less sin is less bad than more sin. You deny that. I understand the ground of your denial–sin is sin, whether a little or a lot–but I think it arises from a refusal to make distinctions, either about numbers or circumstances.”

    I apologize; I thought you were Christian since commented about sin and have talked about damage to the soul. I see now that you have invented your own brand of morality which is heretical to Christian morality. Since Christian morality is not the foundation of your beliefs and your logic makes no sense to me (and several others) it is fruitless to continue this debate unless you can provide me with some context for your belief structure. The “less sin is less bad than more sin” is not a moral argument and only pertains to the temporal consequences of sin and not the eternal consequences or the societal implications.

  250. Escoffier says:

    Well, gee, if we deny that everything is a moral category, then sure, you “win.” Congratulations.

    And, no, I’m approaching this from a male point of view. From the female POV, racking up her partner count is a practical problem because it limits the number of men who are interested. From a male POV, her count is not a practical problem. It’s a moral problem. He doesn’t care about her strategy. He cares about her value to himself, which he judges based on morality.

    Men don’t want sluts. They make this moral judgement which you deny is in any way about morality. The position here, apparently, is that the vast majority of men are deluded into thinking that.

    On the question of love, again, I am taking the male POV. The typical male will say to himself about the hook-up slut “She’s cheap and easy, doesn’t take sex seriously, and has sex without love. No depth, no soul.” Of a girl who had a LTR or two, they will say “At least she loved him, which demonstrates that she is not cheap or easy and at least takes it seriously enough to wait for love.” Of course the latter is not marriage but it is nonetheless a real distinction and one that real men in the real world apply.

  251. Escoffier says:

    CL now seems to be affirming what everyone says I am wrong to affirm, viz., that the position here is “2 may as well be 200.” I am glad we finally have that cleared up. >1=slut, numbers and circumstances don’t matter, period.

  252. CL says:

    Escoffier,

    I also assumed you were a Christian because I mistook the acronym UMC (Upper Middle Class) for United Methodist Church. That explains a lot – this is all about pedestalizing a bunch of wealthy slut princesses! LOL

    This is the problem with trying to construct your own morality based on justifying something immoral, the reality of which you don’t want to face – it’s shaky ground at best. Stop torturing yourself in order to defend sluts.

  253. Escoffier says:

    So saying 200 is worse than 2 = “pedestalizing” the girl with the 2 count? You guys are a gas.

  254. CL says:

    200 acts of fornication in an LTR is still 200 acts of fornication. Are you ready to drop this contrived straw man yet?

  255. Dalrock says:

    @CL

    This is the problem with trying to construct your own morality based on justifying something immoral, the reality of which you don’t want to face – it’s shaky ground at best. Stop torturing yourself in order to defend sluts.

    Are you suggesting this should be his new avatar? :)

  256. Escoffier says:

    200 acts of fornication with one man is less bad than 200 acts of fornication with 200 different men. The vast majority of men will see it the same way and act accordingly.

    You guys are certainly intellectually courageous and willing to take unpopular, tenuous stands, I’ll give you that.

  257. Escoffier says:

    7: “sin” is just an easier word to use. Replace “sin” with “immoral acts” and the point stands.

    This idea that there is some huge chasm between Christian ethics and natural right is just not true. Certainly there are many differences between Christian and classical ethics but (say) Aquinas found huge continents of common ground. The extent to which rational and Christian ethics agree about morality is far, far greater than the extent that they disagree.

  258. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    200 acts of fornication with one man is less bad than 200 acts of fornication with 200 different men.

    I agree, but its not about the fornication itself. 200 men means the girl is not *screening*. A woman who doesnt screen is *worse* than a woman who does.

    A woman without screening is like a man without drive. This is undesired, so I guess it enters the morality realm somewhere. Since morals are just an rational schema trying to control the irrational.

    Men have an irrational disgust for non screening women. And then we have the moral of fornication. Different things.

  259. Escoffier says:

    Dalrock, you have both denied and affirmed that you believe that 2 is just as immoral is 200. Which is it?

    You have absolutely affirmed that a LTR is just as immoral as a ONS, or are you now going to deny that too?

    [D: I’ve asked several times. Quote what I said and state your disagreement then. Throw out all of the claims you say I made but I won’t reply to them if you can’t do this simple thing. Ask yourself, why is it so hard to find the quote where Dalrock says what I’m sure he is saying?]

  260. Escoffier says:

    Y, I agree with what you say but your points speak only to practicality and not morality, it seems to me.

    Oh, and I don’t think men’s disgust for non-screening women is the least bit irrational. I think it’s highly rational.

  261. 7man says:

    @ Escoffier
    There are biological consequences to a woman having multiple partners. Her body reacts to each individual man’s semen initially as a foreign substance and this affects her immune system. Her ability to bond also declines with the number of partners. These are temporal consequences.

    The woman that has had a few LTRs is just as immoral as the ONS slut, but it is likely that the consequences she will bear will be lesser. She probably would be a better choice for a wife, but don’t claim she is more moral.

    You continue to conflate morality with temporal consequences.

  262. Escoffier says:

    OK, here goes.

    “One of the more dangerous concepts of our time is the conflation of serial monogamy with actual marriage. Once this fatal mistake is made, the foundation is set to presume that serial monogamy is therefore more moral than other forms of promiscuity.”

    In other words, this is a false presumption. Serial monogamy, in your view, is not more moral than other forms of promiscuity. I changed that formulation from “more moral” to “less immoral” but you still disagreed. Serial monogamy to you is equally immoral as all other forms of promiscuity.

    “The fundamental problem comes when this practical advice for getting the most out of hookups is mistaken for a moral path. It has to be seen within the proper context. If you are going to hookup, you should do so smartly. Morality aside, this is sound practical advice.” Again, there is a denial here of any moral distinction between degree and kind of promiscuity. Morally, it’s all the same. Practically, some are different.

    “[Susan] attaches significant moral weight to the other two terms outside of the context of marriage.” And you don’t. Not in the sense that one is more moral or even that one might be less immoral.

    I objected that in fact certain kinds of premarital sex are less immoral than others. First, it’s less immoral to do a bad thing less than it is to do it more. Second, it’s less immoral to have fewer partners rather than more partner. Third, LTRs are less immoral than ONSs. Furthermore, I noted that the vast majority of men see it the same way and judge women accordingly.

    You replied: “The most serious damage done to society and innocents comes from the abuse of marriage and the expelling of fathers from their children’s lives. The first case by definition is the result of serial monogamy and not a series of ONSs.” In other words, SM is actually WORSE than ONSs. You continued: “No one is doubting the practical advantage of slowing the burn of the woman’s marriage or LTR value. It is good advice to encourage her to slow this destruction if she won’t stop it altogether. But you are missing a much bigger practical point. Telling her serial monogamy is moral is giving her the cover to practice the destruction in the first place.” Another repetition of the practical difference and a denial of any moral difference.

    Of course, I never said that SM is moral. I said it is in my view less immoral than ONSs.

    Then I said the following: “What’s at issue here is whether, for women 20 is worse than 2 and ONSs are worse than sex within a LTR.” You then changed the subject to a 40% illegitimacy rate and frivolous divorce, which I agree are horrible but not the issue. The issue is whether, in women who haven’t left their husbands or had bastards, fewer partners is less immoral than more, and LTRs are less immoral than ONSs. In other words, do differences of degree and kind matter or do they not? Several other commenters flatly said no, they do not.

    “We could work out an intricate of the hierarchy of sexual immorality, and spend great time and effort on it.” This is as close as I can find to concession from you that, yeah, maybe these differences do matter. But you immediately dropped it in favor of more talk about frivolous divorce.

    Now let’s take a look back at another post:

    “One of the more bizarre beliefs of our time is that there is some moral value to the statement:
    No sex before monogamy!
    I see this everywhere, including from Christians. What this statement is really saying is that promiscuity is good so long as it is happening on the woman’s own terms.”

    In other words, this is a false distinction. All forms of promiscuity are the same. Feminism has convinced people to believe otherwise but that belief is false.

    “There is no moral basis for serial monogamy, otherwise known as monogamy without a lifetime commitment. All there is are male and female preferred forms of promiscuity.”

    Pretty clear.

    “Whatever term you use, it is essential not to mistake these women as being any more moral than players or pickup artists. They are acting on animal instinct just like the players are. The only difference is their instincts are different and therefore their expression of promiscuity is as well.”

    Also very clear.

    Promiscuity is morally identical no matter what form it takes, no matter the result. Differences in degree and kind don’t matter.

  263. Escoffier says:

    7, I certainly agree with your point about temporal consequences. But I don’t think you can divorce morality from that.

    Here’s an analogy. Suppose you have a small business and have to hire a cashier. Owing to a labor shortage, you only have two candidates. The first has three shoplifting convictions, two when he was a juvenile, but a clean record for the last several years and has shown that he can hold down a job. The second has 11 priors, lives in a halfway house, and was fired from his last job for stealing.

    Now, as a practical matter, we know whom you are going to hire. Would you also say that morally the two men are identical?

  264. Dalrock says:

    Escoffier, it seems I can get you to tell me what you disagree with, or quote me, but never quote me and tell me why you disagree. Yet I’ll optimistically ask once again, please provide a specific quote and then tell me why you think that quote is wrong.

  265. Escoffier says:

    I just provided pages and pages of quotes. Are you serious?

    The disagreement is, you seem to think all forms of promiscuity are equally immoral, there are no relevant differences of degree (how many) or kind (circumstance). I disagree and believe that such differences exist and are relevant.

    Furthermore what you diagnose as a purely practical issue (no man wants the 200 ONS slut) I diagnose as also a moral issue (no man wants her because she is tremendously immoral). The flipside to that is, as a practical issue you will admit that the girl with only two partners both within LTRs is a far better marriage bet than the slut, but you deny that this has any moral implications about her character. I think it does and that nearly all men will also so judge.

    Even Roosh, in the post that you quote, says as much about his sister. He is “proud” that her count is so low, especially in this day and age. Roissy often writes longingly about love and “quality” “worthy” women deserving of his love and says that one criteria is her moral character as judged by her sexual past.

  266. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier, can you address my comment? I think I hit on the issue

  267. YOHAMI says:

    And Rush issue isnt about morality but sex market value, femininity and some other things. Not religious principles but pragmatism

  268. YOHAMI says:

    *Roosh´s issue

  269. Escoffier says:

    Y, I did address it.

  270. 7man says:

    @Escoffier

    I don’t jump when you snap your fingers. You have ignored the question that I asked of you in my January 3, 2012 at 3:37 pm comment.

    Answer my question first and stop expecting others to cater to your whimsical “what if” straw man contrivances.

  271. YOHAMI says:

    From my understanding, whether I agree or not, the points on debate are:

    1) Sex is only moral when is done under marriage.
    2) Thus, any kind of sex happening outside of marriage is immoral.
    3) Casual sex is male´s preferred form of immoral sexuality.
    4) Serial monogamy is female´s preferred form of immoral sexuality.
    5) We can call each strategy each gender´s preferred form of “promiscuity”, from a pastoral point of view.

    Then we look at the already immoral sex marketplace and find that male virgins and female sluts are at the bottom. A woman who´s a serial monogamist has higher value (for relationships that last more than a few nights) than a serial slut.

    Dalrock points that the sex marketplace values are being sold as morality, when they shouldnt.

    And he´s right. But not that I give a fuck about christian morality.

  272. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier, ah you did, cool. I dont think its *rational*, its rather felt on your guts. Then of course rationality jumps in to explain it.

  273. Escoffier says:

    Y, not quite.

    “Dalrock points that the sex marketplace values are being sold as morality, when they shouldnt.”

    I completely agree with that. However, what’s at issue is a finer distinction. Are there degrees of immorality, at least with regard to sex? Is some stuff less immoral than others? I say yes. D says no. I say that the female serial monogamist is less immoral than the female slut, and that the a female with a low count is less immoral than a female with a high count. He says they are equally immoral, the only difference is in their practical value.

  274. Escoffier says:

    Yeah, fine that makes sense. It may start a a gut feeling, my point was, it’ts a gut feeling with a rationally defensible basis. The same way that reflexively ducking when a bowling ball is coming at your head is a gut reflex, it’s also the smart thing to do.

  275. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Lets say I practice torture. What makes me more immoral, torturing one people during 20 years, or torturing 20 people, one year each?

    Let says I rob houses. What makes me more immoral, robbing from the same house 100 times, or robbing from 100 different houses?

    Lets say Im a liar. What makes me more immoral, lying to one person 10 times, or lying to 10 people?

    The thing with sex, is that we´re not only measuring morality but also character, we´re screening, we´re involved. Its not just a moral question restricted to sex but also what else do the actions tell us about the person. In the case of sluts, the girl having sex with 2000 people obviously has some other issues than the girl having sex 2000 times with the same guy. You´ll picture the first as a worst person than the second. It tells about behavior. It reveals her.

    But thats not the point at all. Dalrock point is that having one boyfriend after another doesnt make it “right”, nor moral, when “moral” would be to marry one guy and avoid any kind of non-marital sex. Or thats how I understand his posture.

    But then, whats moral? fuck moral. Change countries and cultures and religions and time periods and you´ll see a male adult sodomizing a child and thats perfectly moral. Fuck morals.

    If you live in a world that values monogamy and demonizes casual sex, then of course monogamy is moral. Duh. But you´re wrong too.

    So you and Dalrock are just arguing about whats moral. Dalrock argues serial monogamy isnt moral. You seem to argue it is. And then the sex marketplace´s own values (reality, folks) jump in.

  276. Escoffier says:

    No, once again, I am not saying SM is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than ONS. A girl with a low digit count all in LTRs is not merely a better practical bet than the slut with 50 ONS. She is also a better person, morally. That’s not to say that her behavior was all moral.

    Look at it this way. According to Christian ethics, we are all sinners. Every single one of us. Yet we make distinctions between those who sin a lot and those who sin less, and in what circumstances they sin, and what they do after they sin. The hard core recidivist is way less moral than the ordinary sinner, even though in Christian terms they are both “sinners.” D seems to want to leave it at the latter and deny all further distinctions.

  277. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    So which one of these is more moral than the other?

    Lets say I practice torture. What makes me more immoral, torturing one people during 20 years, or torturing 20 people, one year each?

    Let says I rob houses. What makes me more immoral, robbing from the same house 100 times, or robbing from 100 different houses?

    Lets say Im a liar. What makes me more immoral, lying to one person 10 times, or lying to 10 people?

  278. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    D seems to want to leave it at the latter and deny all further distinctions.

    According to christian morality, they are all sinners. No shades of gray when you have the absolute unquestionable moral truth on your side.

    So there are of course shades of gray, but none of them are “moral”. You know, stuff can be worse and better without it being about morality. But I want to understand you:

    I am saying that it’s less immoral than ONS. A girl with a low digit count all in LTRs is not merely a better practical bet than the slut with 50 ONS. She is also a better person, morally.

    On which moral basis are you sustaining that? where´s the book, set of principles or whatever, stating that serial monogamy is more moral than serially slutting?

  279. ybm says:

    Escoffier could you tell me what denomination you are (I give you my word that I have no alterior motive for asking this)?
    From my Catholic social teaching I’ve always thought that from the biblical perspective all forms of extramarital sex are equal in sinfulness. This could possibly explain our difference in views and why there will likely be no common ground to find.

  280. Escoffier says:

    Y: as to which one is more immoral.

    I think torturing more people is worse.

    Robbery, not sure. Tough one.

    Lying, would have to know context, who is being lied to by whom about what.

    As to what is morality, morality is the sum total of obligatory human behavior derived from a rational anaylsis of human nature. Often it jibes with the common opinion, sometimes it does not.

  281. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    I think torturing more people is worse.
    Robbery, not sure. Tough one.
    Lying, would have to know context, who is being lied to by whom about what.

    Yeah, thats the thing. On each case we put ourselves in the others position and try to evaluate it with that lense. Manipulating the numbers makes that clearer:

    Torturing one person 2000 times vs torturing 2000 people?
    Lying to one person 2000 times vs lying to 2000 people?
    Stealing from someone 2000 times vs stealing from 2000 people?

    The more people involved, the more damage you cause on society, also the less you can justify or rationalize the actions of this person, and the more the undesired behavior seems to be part of this person´s personality, instead of a single, maybe case specific, thing.

    Morals are about normalization and whats good for society. If a person is an outlier in the bad sense, with personalty traits that endanger society, that person is immoral.

    Current world western society values monogamy but doesnt value marriage. Monogamy causes less damage to society than indiscriminate casual sex does. Thus, moral says serial monogamy is ok.

    But a christian society cannot coexist with serial monogamy. Serial monogamy is a threat, thus, immoral. Less immoral than casual sex? hardly, because both kill the spirit of christianity ( or should I say catholicism)

    Dalrock points that serial monogamy is being preached as morality INSIDE OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH, so he´s fighting that. Reclaiming the morality to where he feels / rationalizes it belongs. Cleaning the house so to speak.

  282. Escoffier says:

    I don’t disagree with any of that except this: “Morals are about normalization and whats good for society.” Morality is not purely instrumental. It is above all about the perfection of the individual person to produce genuine happiness (as opposed to mere pleasure). Happiness is “the virtuous activity of the soul in accordance with reason.”

  283. CL says:

    Torturing one person 2000 times vs torturing 2000 people?
    Lying to one person 2000 times vs lying to 2000 people?
    Stealing from someone 2000 times vs stealing from 2000 people?

    The more people involved, the more damage you cause on society

    This could be an argument for legalising prostitution. That way, the damage is limited to a few women and lessened on society as a whole. Then the UMC princesses are saved from acting as de facto prostitutes since it’s easier and cheaper (in the long run) for a man to just to to an actual prostitute. Then we wouldn’t even have to have this discussion and Escoffier wouldn’t need to run his gf’s rationalisation hamster all over the place. Everyone’s a winner!

  284. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    No, once again, I am not saying SM is moral. I am saying that it’s less immoral than ONS. A girl with a low digit count all in LTRs is not merely a better practical bet than the slut with 50 ONS. She is also a better person, morally. That’s not to say that her behavior was all moral.

    Why? Because she loved him? Because he loved her? Because she delayed dumping him until she found another man?

    Look at it this way. According to Christian ethics, we are all sinners. Every single one of us. Yet we make distinctions between those who sin a lot and those who sin less, and in what circumstances they sin, and what they do after they sin. The hard core recidivist is way less moral than the ordinary sinner, even though in Christian terms they are both “sinners.” D seems to want to leave it at the latter and deny all further distinctions.

    I do, but not for strictly theological reasons. The more you start splitting moral hairs, the more vague you make the concept. This is exactly how we got where we are. Men and women said “well, I guess it isn’t really slutty if she has sex with her College Boyfriend”. Fast forward to the current hookup culture, it just took some time to fully develop. I’ve shown you the smoking hole and how it happened, and all you can say is Yeah, but wouldn’t it be fun to press the button? I swear I’ve deactivated the nuke. Have at it my friend. Create the worlds most complex catalog of what kind of out of wedlock sex is more moral than each other type of out of wedlock sex. In the end, all a young woman reading the paragraph I quoted at the beginning of this comment will walk away with is:

    A girl with a low digit count all in LTRs is not merely a better practical bet than the slut with 50 ONS. She is also a better person, morally.

    Which in short order will be:

    I’m a good girl, unlike those sluts.

    Tart it up all you like. It is what it is.

  285. Legion says:

    ybm says:
    January 4, 2012 at 3:26 pm
    “Escoffier could you tell me what denomination you are (I give you my word that I have no alterior motive for asking this)?”

    ChelsEscoffier is obviously from the church of lying assholes. They don’t write down their moral rules so they can always change them.

    Can’t tell if it’s part of ChelsEscoffier religion or not, but also obvious is that answering a question isn’t allowed.

  286. Yes, it is a classic case of ” defining deviance down “. Until very recently, most women wore white to their weddings because they could. Now it is just an ironic joke, mostly at the groom’s expense.

  287. Lily says:

    David, as far as I know the white dress thing is actually some Victorian malarkey. Traditionally, it was the veil that symbolised virginity.

    But not sure what the obsession of wearing white is. Just reminded me as I was just chatting about Princess Alice (Duchess of Gloucester) with someone. She married Prince Henry in her 30s in the 1930s and married in pale pink as she thought it was inappropriate to wear white at that age (though no talk of any pre marriage shenanigans, though of course who knows).

  288. ybm says:

    Princess Fetishism Lily, simple as that.

  289. Lily says:

    Princesses have responsibilities.

  290. ybm says:

    Do they? Look good, be respectful, and not say much, seems to be the only thing Ms.Cambridge seems to be asked to do. And it has been criticized for being “old fashioned” more than once in the tabloids.

    This is too much to ask of modern woman.

  291. Lily says:

    This is a picture of Princess Alice during the war. She didn’t slack though she was in her 40s with young children.

    The now Queen of course was a ‘mechanic’.

  292. Escoffier says:

    Well, D, I disagree with your analysis of where we are somewhat.

    The fact that the category “slut” still exists after 50 years of denial counts as a triumph of nature and morality over ideology and propaganda. Feminism wants to erase the word and the concept out of existence but it has failed. It has however managed to CHANGE the definition into what you describe. I.e., a low count, LTR girl is not a slut but a ONSs and/or high count girl is. Even Roissy and Roosh use the term that way. In other words, men are still making moral judgements about women, they’ve just had to adjust their categories to market reality.

    While the fact of the change is bad, the fact that “slut” is still around, that women are stung by being called (or thought) one, and men are willing to dismiss women if they think she is one — that’s good. It’s also been persistent. I don’t think we are on some continuing slide downward in which the definition of slut rises by (say) one partner per year. Ask just about anybody and they will say “slut” is double digits, and most men will say it starts lower. That hasn’t really changed in years. That indicates that there is some irreducible essense to the idea of “slut” that won’t ever go away. That has also lead to a measure of stabilization, which is indeed a lot worse than the pre-SR culture, but it’s also a lot better than the ’60s-early ’80s free love and divorce culture.

  293. You may be right, Lily. I heard the veil symbolises submission.
    Symbols shorn of their original meaning and used as props in a fantasy tend to annoy me.

  294. Suz says:

    First of all, let’s take 200 off the table. Any woman and most men who’ve had that many sexual relationships of any length, are likely incapable if bonding intimately with anyone. Let’s go with 10 or 20.

    “I am saying that it’s less immoral than ONS. A girl with a low digit count all in LTRs is not merely a better practical bet than the slut with 50 ONS. She is also a better person, morally. That’s not to say that her behavior was all moral.”

    I vehemently disagree, based on observation and personal experience. More than one LTR is worse in every way except appearances. One failed LTR is deemed excusable among naive young women, because some of us need to learn the hard way in this screwed up society. A woman who has had more than one, didn’t learn much the first time around. Either she’s not very bright, or she GAINED something valueable from her LTR’s. (And she will want more of it.) It shouldn’t take more than a couple of months of dating for a woman to know whether or not her man is “the one.” If the feeling is mutual, he will wait for sex. If he pressures her too much, he probably doesn’t have much respect for her and has no intention of marrying her. There really is no reason except sex itself, for a couple to be having sex if they’re not all but engaged. By engaged I mean deeply committed for life, ring or no ring. By default, if a woman enters a sexual relationship with little or no commitment, it’s nothing more than sex pretending to be devotion. Pretending like this requires a lot of interpersonal habits that would be flat-out destructive in a marriage. It takes time to learn them, and it takes even more time to unlearn them. These habits include deceiving herself and everyone she knows, manipulating her man toward a commitment, or conversely, leading him on if she doesn’t want to commit.

    The only real damage a slut does is to her ability to bond and to her reputation. (If she hides her promiscuity, her reputation is just fine.) A somewhat compromised ability to link emotional intimacy with physical intimacy CAN BE OVERCOME.

    However here’s what society sees: A serial monogamist may be a little misguided, naive, or immature, but she is progressing. She’s “trying.” But a slut has low self esteem. She has no standards, and she’ll sleep with anyone. Plus, she’s defiant and rebellious, flouting our values right in our faces. Shame on her. Ironically, I don’t see society giving the slut credit for her honesty.

    This is a complete denial of reality, of the REAL harm caused by women’s “immorality.” It is especially hypocritical within the church. (My biggest beef with religion is that Church Morality is frequently arbitrary, and only rarely objective or rational.)

    Every person reading this has observed this phenomenon, but I lived it. During high school and college I had two monogamous relationships that had some potential to lead to marriage; one lasted a year, one lasted about 7 months. That’s 18 months I spent living a lie. Don’t kid yourself – it required an amazing amount of mental gymnastics. I spent the next three years analyzing my behavior and working hard to not repeat my mistakes. During that three years I had three brief flings, with with well known players whom I would NEVER have married. They were sexy and exciting. Period. The only bad habit I needed to learn to have those flings, was to distance sex from intimacy. When I married, it wasn’t at all difficult to unlearn that “slut” behavior, but overcoming the occasional urge to manipulate my husband when I wanted something, took a conscious effort over a period of years. And I was lucky! He wasn’t manipulative either, and we actively fostered a “safe” emotional environment with each other.

    Trust me. I have seen it in others and I have lived through it. Serial monogamy is much more sinful (harmful) than blatant promiscuity. It’s merely prettier on the surface. Yes, 2 might as well be 20. An LTR girl is only a “better practical bet” if you’re looking for a short marriage or an LTR.

  295. YBM says:

    @Suz
    “I vehemently disagree, based on observation and personal experience. More than one LTR is worse in every way except appearances. ”

    “Yes, 2 might as well be 20. An LTR girl is only a “better practical bet” if you’re looking for a short marriage or an LTR.”

    Honestly, this is what we have been trying to get through to Escouff, maybe now that it is coming from a woman he might actually listen…..

  296. Rmaxd says:

    Essentially Escoiffer is hypergamy immoral or not

    Is it immoral for a woman to leave a man for a higher status man, after that man’s invested say 2 to 3 months into a relationship, & do that repeatedly for say the next 5 years with different men?

    Basically dumping men for the sake of hypergamy

    Is it more immoral then ONS or a high a partner count?

    Dalrock has pointed out it is alot worse, as LTR’s, or long term relationships have more assets & emotions vested in them, then ONS, or high partner counts

    While a high partner count damages the woman, it does not damage the man, while serial promiscuity damages the male & essentially ties up his assets & emotions for months, before dumping him leaving him devestated

    Which she then repeats with another guy, precisely because of hypergamy or status …

  297. Rmaxd says:

    The damage incurred in a high partner count is virtually negligible, for the male involved, while the damage incurred by repeatedly stringing men along for mens at a time & dumping them leaving them devestated & heart broken is hundreds of times worse then a mere high partner count

    The odds & values at risk are much greater in a long term relationship, then they are with a ONS or a high partner counts

  298. Rmaxd says:

    Serial Promiscuity, is essentially a matter of betrayal

    A woman with multiple relationships of 2 or years, betrays the emotions & time invested in the relationship by the man, for a higher status alpha or thug, & does this repeatedly, leaving a trail of devestated lives & broken promises …

  299. Legion says:

    Rmaxd says:
    January 4, 2012 at 10:10 pm

    You asked ChelsEscoffier a question. That means it will come back with a new strawman to argue about nothing with you.

    When will we all learn not to feed the troll?

  300. Escoffier says:

    Rmaxed, as I understand it, hypergamy is just a natural impulse and therefore in itself neither moral nor immoral, the same way hunger is neither moral nor immoral. How people act on that impulse can be moral or immoral. The “good” way for a woman to act on her hypergamous impulse is to take care that she doesn’t marry a loser but picks a quality man. The “bad” way is to break a vow in an effort to “trade up.”

    So a woman leaving her husband to indulge a hypergamous impulse is certainly immoral. An unmarried woman leaving her boyfriend based on a hypergamous impulse is also immoral, but less so than breaking a wedding vow.

    The rest of your post assumes that all serially monogamous relationships are ended by women acting hypergamously, which of course can’t be true. The end of a non-marital relationship does not always mean betrayal by the woman, or by anyone.

    Look at it this way. Suppose you meet two women. You are a married man or for whatever other reason, you are totally uninterested in them as mating prospects. Therefore their SMV and MMV are matters of complete indifference to you personally. Both of this women are unmarried. Somehow you learn realiable information that “Jane” is a notorious slut who’s in local bars every night and has a staggering partner count. “Jill” is on only her second boyfried in her entire life, though presumably she has had sex with both despite being married to neither. Now, which one do you think more highly of? Or, if you prefer, which one do you disapprove of more?

  301. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    The rest of your post assumes that all serially monogamous relationships are ended by women acting hypergamously, which of course can’t be true. The end of a non-marital relationship does not always mean betrayal by the woman, or by anyone.

    Yet the argument that choosing LTRs (vs something shorter) is a moral choice by a woman would seem to assume that the term of the relationship is within her control. How do you square this?

  302. Rmaxd says:

    @Legion

    “When will we all learn not to feed the troll?”

    lol … i’m trying to use the troll as an example, to prove dalrocks point … his trollery is icing on the cake …

    No surprise … escoffier gives women a complete & utter pussy pass …. grats escoffier, walsh would be proud … you are now a certified mangina troll …

    Lets put it this way Escoffier, if the girl was in two long term relationships, say a year each, & dumped each guy for a newer model, that’s a year’s worth of commitment & emotional investment, theyve destroyed

    The emotional damage & trauma, is hundreds of times worse, then the slut who sleeps with 20+ men, as the men the slut sleeps with have no emotional or commitment invested

    So, yes if the girl told me she had two LONG TERM relationships over a year each, & dumped each of them, destroying the mens lives in the process, & leaving them emotionally devestated, I would quite naturally see the woman as more immoral & dangerous then the slutty whore

    Basically immorality is measured by the damage incurred, the slut does very little damage, while the serial promiscous woman has wasted two years of two men & left them emotionally devestated

    Cash prizes await you, as some chick takes walsh’s advice & screws you over, by settling for your beta ass, after years of stringing men along …. & then dumps you, as you tell the slutty princess, its not immoral to dump your mangina ass … for another guy

    Also hypergamy isnt a natural impulse, its an abnormality, resulting from the lack of a traditional social society

    Anyway I hope you enjoyed the mangina educational broadcast … keep giving those hoe’s a pussy pass … they’ll never sleep with your mangina ass … lol

  303. Rmaxd says:

    My question to ALL women is, if you could stay with a man for a year of his life, why couldnt you stay with him for the rest of his life?

    How long does it take to realise to he’s not right for you? A month, two months, does it really take a woman a year to decide if a guy is right for her ?

    If you’re happy enough to stay with a guy for over a year, you’re happy enough to stay with him for the rest of his life …

    You dont need a year to test drive a guy … stop abusing men

  304. deti says:

    “”Jane” is a notorious slut who’s in local bars every night and has a staggering partner count. “Jill” is on only her second boyfried in her entire life, though presumably she has had sex with both despite being married to neither. Now, which one do you think more highly of? Or, if you prefer, which one do you disapprove of more?”

    Escoffier apparently advocates a sliding scale of morality. Some conduct is “more” moral and virtuous, and other conduct is less moral and virtuous. The problems with this is, as I see it, are:

    1. Adopting sliding scales and assigning more value and worth to what we think is “better” conduct had a big hand in creating the mess of an SMP we have today. I hereby invoke the “slippery slope” argument.

    A “marriage” isn’t really for life if she’s not haaaappy, or if he looked at porn, or if he “emotionally abuses” her. So she gets a divorce. Now she can have an LTR without marriage. That’s only a little “less moral”, right? It’s good enough, though — we live together, we have sex, we share expenses, we might even have kids together. Hey, if it looks, talks, acts and quacks like a duck, it’s a duck, right? Well, not really, because now it’s over. So my LTR became an STR. But I’m still “more moral” that those bar sluts out there sleeping around!

    I’ll try for another. Oh, that became another STR! But it wasn’t her fault because she INTENDED for it to be an LTR; it just didn’t work out. That was HIS fault, not hers. Now she’s out with her friends, looking to be as “moral” as she can be. She’s found a really attractive guy. After the second date they go to her place for sex. He’s about to find out she wants a relationship because, after all, she’s “moral” and she wants to be as moral as she can be. Huh? What’s this? He’s mumbling something about “I had a great time” and “I gotta go. I’ll call you.” Well, it’s been two weeks and he hasn’t returned her phone call or her three texts. She does this again, trying and failing for relationships with her hookups.

    Now she’s become the “bar slut” she specifically said she didn’t want to be, and she specifically set out not to be.

    2. What is our basis for deciding what is “more moral” and what is “less moral”? Who decides what is “more moral” and “less moral”? Escoffier? Dalrock? Susan Walsh? The National Organization for Women? The Tea Party? President Obama? Michelle Bachmann? Rev. Billy Graham?

    Well, all of the above and none of the above. “Morality” will be whatever you, or I, or anyone else, decide it is. Or, more likely, “morality” will be whatever the majority at the time decides it is. Right now that majority is comprised of feminists and their willing accomplices (corporations, manginas, white knights, the mainstream media, politicians, and a huge cabal of vocal and powerful special interest groups). Any opposition is brutally suppressed.

    That’s why adopting a sliding scale for morality is doomed to fail. We’ve tried it, and it hasn’t worked.

  305. Escoffier says:

    D, an LTR can be ended by either party unilaterally. So it’s equally in women’s and men’s control to end it when they want for any reason.

    The argument isn’t that choosing LTRs is more moral, it’s that it’s less immoral. This is an important distinction. You guys don’t want to make any distinctions. Everything is binary. Moral v. immoral, no gradations. Common opinion holds that the gradations matter and I think reason supports that.

    To simplify greatly, consider morality on the three terms we have been discussing here: 1) impact of actions on society; 2) impact on directly affected others; 2) impact on the individual soul. As to 1) I know you believe that the normalization of LTRs has had a horrible impact on society and I agree with your reasoning. But you seem to deny that as a general matter, people (and especially women) who engage in LTRs as opposed to casual sex lead far more stable and productive lives, which is better for society.

    As to 2), I think you have the strongest case, viz., that women who leave men for no good reason are hurting those individual men whereas sluts mostly can’t and don’t hurt PUAs. You of course deny the reverse, that PUAs hurt sluts, but leave that aside. The problem I see here is that it’s just not true that all LTRs hurt all these individual men. Women aren’t the only ones who break up. Not all breakups are painful. Some are mutual. Etc.

    On 3) it seems to me self-evident that the slut does far more damage to her own soul than the LTR girl. Since I believe that morality is not purely instrumental but is about how we live our own lives and perfect to the extent that we can our own natures, this is a very important consideration. It’s not simply a matter of her lowering her SMV, which you seem to pose as a basically economic choice lacking in any moral significance. She is degrading herself in a way and to a degree that is much worse than the LTR girl.

  306. Escoffier says:

    Deti, of course morality is a sliding scale as you put it. Murder is worse than assualt, which is worse than petty theft, and so on.

    Morality simply is (or is not). I believe there is a rational ground for what is moral that exists independent of man’s will and which may or may not be dependent on religion but does not require recourse to God to understand. Murder is not wrong merely because God said or merely because man made law. The reason God said and the reason man made the law is because murder is wrong. Its wrongness is prior in nature to those two acts.

  307. ybm says:

    False equivocation Escoffier. The difference between extramarital sex in an LTR and not in an LTR is not an equivalent difference between murder and assault. You are lying.

  308. Escoffier says:

    The point is not that there is a direct equivalence, it’s that moral actions are rankable on a scale of more or less moral or immoral.

    You guys want to deny that there is any such ranking for female non-marital sex: it’s all equally immoral, no matter what the circumstances. (You decline to make any similar judgement about male non-marital sex, but that aside.) I say there is such a ranking.

    You also seem to want to admit that moral ranking is valid in other spheres, just not with regard to female non-marital sex. I think that’s inconsistent and mistaken.

    “Lying” lol.

  309. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    D, an LTR can be ended by either party unilaterally. So it’s equally in women’s and men’s control to end it when they want for any reason.

    But if the term is beyond her control, how can you judge her morally based on the outcome? This isn’t like a marriage where both parties make an upfront commitment. This is an arrangement where neither party makes a commitment (although the word is often used for cover). I’ve never heard of a LTR where both the man and woman promised to remain together and sexually exclusive for a set period of time, for example. If it happens to work out as a LTR despite her not actually ever making a commitment, why do you call this less immoral, especially if you don’t attribute her has having more than a 50/50 chance of being the one who decides when the relationship will end? Would she be more immoral for betting on a coin toss and losing, and less immoral for betting on a coin toss and winning? Or, perhaps, if there is a moral issue at all, does that issue come in to play once she begins to gamble?

    The argument isn’t that choosing LTRs is more moral, it’s that it’s less immoral. This is an important distinction.

    Ah, now I understand. It all makes perfect sense.

    Seriously? WTF?

  310. Escoffier says:

    Because I agree with you that all non-marital sex is immoral. So one form cannot be “more moral” than another. However it can be “less immoral.” All theft is immoral. Stealing a candy bar from a national chain store is nonetheless less immoral than stealing a widow’s IRA.

    I would ask you the same question I asked above. You are married and honorable and so have no interest whatsoever, as a personal matter, in the SMV or MMV of other women. So “practicality” in the following judgment plays no part because you are not considering them for involvement in your own life. You meet two new women, say through work. You are reliably informed that Jane is a serious slut who has had sex with 50% of the guys at your firm and is still going strong. Jill OTOH is on her second boyfriend of her entire life. Do you judge them equally? Do you not look down more on Jane than Jill? Is that not in some decisive respect a moral judgment?

    As to your other question, I have said many times the reasons why I judge the LTR girl to be less immoral than the slut. Here’s another reason. I think most women get into LTRs hoping that it will lead to marriage. Sluts are entirely another matter. Of course you will say that these women delude themselves insofar as they leave themselves an escape hatch, and even later, if they do marry, they may still bolt. All that is true. Which is why I agree with nearly all of your analysis of marriage. However, none of that in my view obviates the distinction between the incorrigible slut and the low count LTR girl.

  311. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    I think you have the strongest case, viz., that women who leave men for no good reason are hurting those individual men whereas sluts mostly can’t and don’t hurt PUAs. You of course deny the reverse, that PUAs hurt sluts, but leave that aside.

    I don’t deny that sluts can be hurt. Men tend to be hurt when they invest in a woman emotionally and she dumps them. Women tend to be hurt when they give themselves sexually to a man and he fails to offer investment. When you are playing with something as emotionally powerful as sex, someone is extremely likely to end up hurt when it ends. You want to say that PUAs are being more immoral if they fail to volunteer to be the one who is most likely to get hurt, and that women are less immoral if they refuse to volunteer to be the one most likely to get hurt. Do you notice a pattern there? Men hurt more, women hurt less, is more moral. Men hurt less, women hurt more, less moral.

    Behold your inner Gilligan.

    The problem I see here is that it’s just not true that all LTRs hurt all these individual men. Women aren’t the only ones who break up. Not all breakups are painful. Some are mutual. Etc.

    Some, but not many. Likewise, some pump n dumps are mutual as well. The very fact that you are trying to minimize the likelihood that casual sex will result in heartbreak suggests to me that you are grasping at straws. Simply put, this isn’t a credible argument.

  312. deti says:

    WIthout getting too much into theology, Esco, I think what you are talking about is Old Testament law, specifically the Mosaic Law given to Moses and which was written in the Biblical books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy. That Law recognized lesser offenses having lesser penalties and ever increasing punishments for more severe offenses. Any student of history knows the Mosaic Law is the foundation for all Western legal systems.

    Respectfully, in this particular context with sexual conduct, I think you’re trying to imbue law and legal concepts with moral components. It doesn’t work. The law regulates human conduct but neither draws moral distinctions nor seeks to explain the human condition. The law decides what is permissible and what is not; what is “fair” and what is “unfair”. The law is not designed to determine, and cannot determine, what is profitable, or beneficial, or detrimental, or beautiful, or “good”, or “moral”. The law merely applies the concepts to the facts before it and metes out rewards or penalties.

    If we assign moral concepts to the law, and we decide that some things are “more” moral and other conduct is “less moral”, then morality and legality are coextensive. Representatives, politicians, and ultimately, nine lawyers in black robes, will decide what is “good”, or “moral”, or beneficial, or detrimental.or profitable, or beautiful. Morality shape-shifts on the whim of the person reading and applying the law. What is “good” and “right” and “just” is now whatever you, or the barfly, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, say it is.

  313. deti says:

    “If we assign moral concepts to the law, and we decide that some things are “more” moral and other conduct is “less moral”, then morality and legality are coextensive. Representatives, politicians, and ultimately, nine lawyers in black robes, will decide what is “good”, or “moral”, or beneficial, or detrimental, or profitable, or beautiful. Morality shape-shifts on the whim of the person reading and applying the law. What is “good” and “right” and “just” is now whatever you, or the barfly, or Congress, or the Supreme Court, say it is.”

    Actually, the more I mull this over, the more I have to conclude that we’re already there. Our society’s attitude toward morality is set out and summed up in the paragraph above.

  314. ybm says:

    And now you understand the entire post-modernist movement.

  315. Anonymous Reader says:

    It baffles me that some supporters of “caousel – lite” continue to focus exclusively on the upper middle class.That’s a minority of the population, and frankly rather a small one to boot. You can describe the UMC any way you wish, it’s probably on the order of 10% to 15% of the populace. Yet we have pronouncements that, well, a shorter term carousel for college women isn’t so bad because after all the divorce rate for people with college degrees is not that nasty 40% to 50%, it’s more like 10% to 15%. Or we have sonorous announcements that short-term carousel riding by UMC women is No Big Deal because they get married later on and remain faithful, more or less.

    So what? So what? Fewer than 30% of adults in the US have a college degree of any kind, and the UMC is 10% or so of the population. None of that helps out the guy I know who bought his own welding truck in order to be able to take his welding business mobile so that he could try to get more welding jobs in a town 60 miles away, because that’s where his ex wife moved with their daughter. The carousel-lite SMP that some advocate may “work” for the UMC, although I would wonder how much more likely affairs are among such women, but it sure as heck is not “working” for the middle class and it is a disaster for the people with high school or trade school degrees.

    The 40% bastardy rate didn’t just spring up overnight like a toadstool after a hard rainstorm, it’s been growing steadily since the 1970’s. And that rate of bastardy can be directly connected to the whole notion of carousel riding as normative for women in their early 20’s – carousel, carousel lite, it does not matter. The probability of cheating / divorce goes up with every turn around the carousel.

    So it is absurd to claim on the one hand “Oh, I support marriage” and on the other hand “But carousel riding is not so bad for women, provided the don’t do it too much”. The two are mutually contradictory. It’s like saying “I oppose theft, but it’s really not that bad if schoolboys steal candy from the local store a few times, since most of them won’t go on to a life of crime”.

  316. 7man says:

    The argument isn’t that choosing LTRs is more moral, it’s that it’s less immoral.

    Applying some basic logic
    LTR = A
    ONS = B

    Dalrock and everyone else believes:
    A is not greater than B

    Escoffier believes that:
    B is therefore greater than A

    A rational person would assume that:
    It could be true that if A is not greater than B, then A and B could be equal, rather than B necessarily being lesser than A.

    Because I agree with you that all non-marital sex is immoral. So one form cannot be “more moral” than another. However it can be “less immoral.”

    But Escoffier logic dictates that neither A or B can be greater but B can still be less than A.

    WTF? Basic math and basic logic has been negated in the Escoffier universe. I wonder if gravity works the same way in his mind?

    One more example of Escoffier logic:
    A dollar bill cannot be greater than 4 quarters and 4 quarters cannot be greater than a dollar bill, but 4 quarters can still be less than a dollar bill.

    Escoffier, you should not expect others to accept your unique definition of morality just so you can feel good about being in an LTR with your “less immoral” low multi-count-LTR girlfriend. Take your hamster and spin elsewhere.

  317. Rmaxd says:

    “On 3) it seems to me self-evident that the slut does far more damage to her own soul than the LTR girl. ”

    omfg …

    It’s this kind of asshattery which makes baiting escoiffer so entertaining …

    Ok escoiffer How can you state””On 3) it seems to me self-evident that the slut does far more damage to her own soul than the LTR girl. ”

    After I pointed out …

    “The emotional damage & trauma, is hundreds of times worse, then the slut who sleeps with 20+ men, as the men the slut sleeps with have no emotional or commitment invested”

    Notice we’re talking about LONG TERM relationships, not short term, long term as in 6 to one year

    So are you denying the breakup of a long term 6 to one year relationship, is less traumatic & emotionally destroying then the chick who sleeps with a few none-emotionally vested men?

    Are you trying to say flings & ONS are more traumatising then the break up of a six month relationship, for women? lol

  318. Anonymous Reader says:

    In fact, there is a much deeper issue involved here. Both SW and groupie Escoffier focus exclusively on the college educated, upper income bracket. This is a common error that I have seen among people with higher-than-median IQ who have little to no experience with the rest of the population: they assume that “well, this worked/ works for me and people like me, so it will work for anyone/everyone”. If we’ve learned anything since 1968, surely we should have learned by now that this is simply not at all true?

    It’s rather arrogant, frankly. It indicates a certain snobbish mentality. It reminds me more than a little of some of the very rich people I’ve known from Latin America – people who made sure to send their sons and daughters to appropriate colleges in El Norte, in order to facilitate social networks, but who also made sure to arrange appropriate marriages for them as well. People who regarded anyone below their social station as a peasant, one cut above a farm animal.

    A high bastardy rate goes hand in hand with all manner of social instability. We have been seeing this among our black brothers and sisters since the 1970’s, remember? Certain members of the UMC may believe that they can live in a society where there is no middle class – and they can, provided they have enough cash flow to pay for the increased security that requires. Go look at posh suburbs of Sao Paolo, and note how much that security costs. It’s not cheap. And if that’s not enough, consider Argentina.

    Focusing exclusively on the rather small minority of people who are in the upper income brackets & have the “right’ degree from the “right” school seems rather elitist to me. It’s all very well to focus on that group for some discussions, this is not one of them.

  319. 7man says:

    For Escoffier, maybe the morality scale and the immorality scale are different things. Immorality is not the absence of morality because it is something else that is not vary directly with the morality.

    Therefore, Escoffier believes that being “less immoral” has no correlation with morality.

  320. deti says:

    “And now you understand the entire post-modernist movement.”

    Still more problems with making morality and legality coextensive:

    1. The law sometimes plays favorites. Some groups are more favored than others.

    2. The law selects who wins and who loses. We’re seeing this now, with feminists and their accomplices getting to pick the winners (women writ large, players, attractive men, female pump & dump “victims”, divorced women getting alimony and chilimony, women practicing serial monogamy). They also get to pick the losers (men writ large, unattractive men, divorced upper class men, middle class and working class men, undereducated men, unemployed or underemployed men).

    With the sliding scale of morality, the winners are “more moral” , and therefore they “win”. The losers are “less moral” and they “lose”.

  321. Paul says:

    Lemme give this a try.

    If something is wrong/immoral, i.e. murder (to change the subject), every single instance of it is equally wrong. The number of murders is irrelevant to the degree of immorality. In other words more wrongs does not equal more wrong. If I murder one person, and you murder ten, we are both murderers. Now you will have ten crimes to answer for vs. my one, but morally we are one and the same. That is the numbers issue, a greater number of the same crime means you have committed the crime more often, but in each instance the act is equally wrong. From the point of view of the greater society, you have done more harm than I, and will be seen as more immoral, having killed ten times as many people as me and affected ten times as many sets of family, friends, etc., but as individuals you and I have both committed the act of murder and morally are equivalent as murderers.

    However, if we assume that your murders were simply that and involved no other crimes or immoral acts, I could certainly be a greater monster than you. Suppose you were a professional hitman, and your ten murders were shots to the head and murder was your only crime. Now suppose I was some sort of monster, who inflicted many evils on my one victim. You are still just a murderer, while i am a murderer and much else besides. At the individual level I am much more immoral than you, and quite likely at the societal level as well.

    This is the point many are trying to make. The slut is committing essentially one act of immorality repeatedly, and in that context you can look at numbers and call one slut greater and another lesser. The serial monagamist is far more likely to be compounding her iniquity by committing additional acts of immorality and harm, and many examples of this have been given. Thus a serial monogamist who has harmed the men by demanding commitments from them yet not meeting them herself, taking their children from them, the harm this does to the children themselves, etc., is a far more immoral person than a slut, regardless of relative partner count.

  322. Escoffier says:

    D, I’m not saying anything (in this thread) about the morality of PUAs. I’m comparing the relative immorality of two archetypes of women. I fine one (the slut) to be worse on average than the other (the LTR girl). All else being equal.

    When you introduce other factors, the picture gets more complicated. Take, for instance, a girl who breaks 10 guys’ hearts but serially and monogamously v. a slut who sleeps with 10 guys who don’t care about her and therefore can’t be hurt. Yeah, the heartbreaker is worse. But it seems to me to be a stretch to assume that all or most LTRs that end are ended by women blindsiding men. Life is just more complicaetd than that. Guys do dump their GFs. Some relationships end with a whimper rather than a bang.

    Beyond this, we have to put some responsibility on the men for choosing poorly. After all, none of us has any sympathy for a woman who ignores all the signs that her man is an asshole and then cries when he treats her like one. Works for men too. They should apply your criteria and stay away from flakes. If they pick a flake and get flaked on, that doesn’t exonerate the flake but it also doesn’t absolve them of all responsibility.

  323. Escoffier says:

    Deti, you are basically stating the tenets of legal positivism.

    What the law actually is, or aspires to be, is a humanly-created (and therefore necessarily imperfect) reflection of what morality is. Morality pre-exists the law both in nature and in time. In addition, because the law is man-made, it can never be perfectly written nor perfectly applied. It is subject to error and abuse.

  324. Escoffier says:

    Rmaxd: personal observation, reading (including blogs like this), and common sense tell me that a real slut is far more traumatized and damaged goods than a girl with a few LTRs. The former are wrecks, emotionally and in many other ways. They are miserable people who can’t control themselves, lurch from crisis to crisis, tend to react poorly to events, and are just incapable of leading stable lives. None of the actual ones that I read about or have known have anything in common with the Sex and City characters who can be sluts while maintaining perfect equanimity.

    OTOH, I obeserve the opposite about LTR girls.

  325. Rmaxd says:

    @Escoiffier

    What’s with all the vague moral legalism ?

    Why arent you answering my simple question escoiffier?

    “So are you denying the breakup of a long term 6 to one year relationship, is less traumatic & emotionally destroying for a woman THEN the chick who sleeps with a few none-emotionally vested men?”

    Not morally vague enough?

  326. Rmaxd says:

    It’s a simple basically yes or no question …

    “So are you denying the breakup of a long term 6 to one year relationship, is less traumatic & emotionally destroying then the chick who sleeps with a few none-emotionally vested men?”

    Yes or no? … lol

  327. Aunt Haley says:

    Dalrock, thank you for so clearly and thoroughly explaining what is wrong with this M.O. It’s something that I have felt for a long time but couldn’t quite articulate satisfactorily.

  328. deti says:

    “What the law actually is, or aspires to be, is a humanly-created (and therefore necessarily imperfect) reflection of what morality is. Morality pre-exists the law both in nature and in time. In addition, because the law is man-made, it can never be perfectly written nor perfectly applied. It is subject to error and abuse.”

    Esco, that’s exactly my point. You’re trying to persuade us to mix the legal and the moral to decide one type of conduct is “more moral” (and therefore more deserving of societal sanction and approval) and still other conduct is “less moral” (and therefore less deserving of sanction and approval). I’m saying it’s unworkable and has produced the chaotic SMP we now have.

  329. Escoffier says:

    I’m not mixing the legal and the moral. I’m saying that various acts can be ranked morally. Good law recognizes that. But law doesn’t establish or change that underlying fact.

    Also, sometimes the law is silent on certain moral issues. But they nonetheless remain moral issues. Through most of human history, the law has regulated sex. The “advanced” countries over the past half century or so have decided to make sex purely “private” and repeal all such laws. The act of withdrawing legal sanction from immoral sex has not made those acts any less immoral.

    I really don’t want society to sanction or approve non-marital sex at all. I don’t think it necessarily should be made illegal either. At a minimum I’d love to see the return of widespread stigma.

    But I am saying that it is a fact — a moral fact — that certain types of non-maritial sex are worse than others. Basically, you guys are saying that even if that’s true, it’s counter-productive to say so. We may recognize that stealing a little is less bad than stealing a lot but still have to condemn all stealing lest we open the floodgates. I understand that and I sympathize. Which is why I think the stigma needs to apply to all. However, as a practical matter, even if we are able to revive the stigma, we will still be faced with a world in which 99% of people judge the 20 count slut more harshly than they judge the 2 count LTR girl. If you read old novels about pre-SR society, even then most people at the same time condemned all girls who had sex outside marriage but reserved their serious loathing for real sluts. (Check out, for instance, some Mary McCarthy books, and she was trying to be pro-slut!)

    I am reminded of the following passage in Xenophon’s Cyropadeia. Cyrus is having a conversation with his father the king that goes something like this. Cyrus is about to go on campaign and has been trying to instruct his men in certain false flag and ambush tactics but they are resisting because of the rigid Persian education which taught them that deception is always, always, always wrong. Cyrus asks why they teach that when even his own father recognizes the value of deception in certain circumstances and encourages Cyrus to use it. The father replies that in the past they had tried to teach these distinctions to the young but it was a disaster. What happened in practice was that the cleverest youth took the teaching as license to use their cleverness to cheat and deceive the dumber ones and get away with it. They found it much more effective to simply drill everyone with the teaching that deception is always bad and punish transgression very harshly. It wasn’t strictly true but it certainly was socially beneficial (at least domestically).

  330. slwerner says:

    Paul – “Lemme give this a try.”

    Excellent post, sir!

  331. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – ”personal observation, reading (including blogs like this), and common sense tell me that a real slut is far more traumatized and damaged goods than a girl with a few LTRs.”

    I’ve arrived late, and haven’t read through everything, but…

    From what you’ve posted here, I gather that your primary, if not sole focus is on the harm done to women by their own bad acts. It’s as if you prefer not to consider that any given immoral sex act can cause harm beyond what is done to the women who commits it.

    Read Paul’s comment above (January 5, 2012 at 12:30 pm), in which he very articulately examines the level of perceived immorality from both the perspective of those observing and/vs those committing the immoral acts (and the surrounding circumstanced thereof).

    I especially liked this part:

    ”The slut is committing essentially one act of immorality repeatedly, and in that context you can look at numbers and call one slut greater and another lesser. The serial monagamist is far more likely to be compounding her iniquity by committing additional acts of immorality and harm”

    I personally believe that you are in error in considering only the harm the immoral actor is doing to herself. As Paul suggests, in the case of serial monagamists, the harms their immoral sex acts produce affect not only themselves, but can even be worse for those involved with them in those acts.

  332. deti says:

    “But I am saying that it is a fact — a moral fact — that certain types of non-maritial sex are worse than others.”

    If we are talking about Judeo-Christian moral precepts, then no. It is not a moral fact that certain kinds of nonmarital sex are worse than others.

    Rather, it is a pragmatic and realistic fact in this particular sexual marketplace that certain kinds of nonmarital sex might or might not have worse temporal and natural consequences than others.

  333. Escoffier says:

    Not so, I have considered the harm done to society, to individuals directly affected, and to the women themselves.

    As I said to Dalrock, the strongest case that the LTR girl is worse than the slut arises from category 2, to the extent that she blindsides men by breaking up without cause. Girls who do that are indeed acting immorally and on that basis they are worse than sluts, who don’t hurt PUAs feelings (but only because PUAs have none, at least not for them). However, LTRs can end for any number of reasons, the end can be initiated by the woman or the man or both, and it can be painful or blase or something in between. So, in the range of possibilities in category 2, one type is really bad (the heartbreaker) but lots of others aren’t as bad.

    By the other two criteria, the slut is clearly worse.

  334. Escoffier says:

    Deti, in ANY SMP “certain kinds of nonmarital sex might or might not have worse temporal and natural consequences than others.” Before the SR, there was a lot less pre-marital sex but it did still happen. And even then a slut with a high count was worth less on the MM than a girl with one past BF.

    And, those practical considerations arise from moral criteria. They are inseperable.

  335. deti says:

    Esco, thanks for an interesting discussion. I’ll agree to disagree and take my leave of it.

  336. slwerner says:

    Deti – ”Rather, it is a pragmatic and realistic fact in this particular sexual marketplace that certain kinds of nonmarital sex might or might not have worse temporal and natural consequences than others.”

    This, to me, is more a matter of ethics rather than of sexual morality (which, to me, is a clearly defined – by God – to include ALL acts of sexuality outside of marriage as being sin/immorality. The unmarried LTR girl who has sex 100 time with her partner is dead-equal to the slut who has sex with 100 different men on that basis).

    By the same token, it is more unethical for someone to cheat on their partner than it is for the person who has sex with them, but is not also in a relationship. They are both acting immorally, but the one who is (supposedly) in a relationship is being more unethical in engaging the act.

    In my view, there are moral, legal, and ethical aspects to the behaviors being considered. And, while there may be some overlap between them, each is distinct, and they are not inter-changeable. I believe Escoffier has been recklessly trying to mix ethics and morals.

  337. Escoffier says:

    What, either in this context or generally, is the difference between “ethics” and “morals”?

    The only obvious answer I can think of is that “ethics” cover certain non-legal professional obligations but clearly that can’t apply in this case.

  338. slwerner says:

    Morals are based on a uniform code (for Christians, for example, as laid out in the Bible). Ethics would go more to the intent involved in the commission of immoral acts. It may be more unethical for the slut to sleep with multiple men than for a woman in an LTR to sleep with her one partner – but both remain immoral – and involve the exact same immorality (sex outside of marriage). Ethics, in this current discussion, would take into account all the potential harms that one may be doing to others via their choice to engage in immoral acts. The playa or slut who has sex with multiple partners is more unethical than the couple in an LTR, irrespective of the equal immorality, because they are increasing the potential for both physical (STD’s) and emotional harms done to others. People who chose to be in “open relationships” and who like to “swing” would not be considered unethical, because they have mutually agreed to it. The ethical aspect herein ultimately comes down to a consideration of each and every situation; but what you seem to have been attempting to do has been to try to parse-out degrees of immorality within the collections of acts which God holds to be immoral (and, without distinction), and you seem to be trying to do this based on what I would consider ethical considerations (i.e. partner counts as determination of level of “immorality”).

    I see it as all being immoral, with some things being more ethical than others.

    Outside of prostitution, the legal aspects would have little to do with consensual sexual activities. Under Sharia Law, that would not always be the case, of course, and infidelity and adultery would not only be immoral and unethical, but illegal as well.

  339. Escoffier says:

    This distinction is new to me. Prior to “ethics” being used in professional contexts in the 20th century, as far as I know, the two words always meant the same thing. The only difference is one has a Greek root (ethics) and the other a Latin root (morals).

    Aristotle’s Ethics certainly covers morality as you describe it, as does Spinoza’s Ethics (though the conclusions are far different).

  340. slwerner says:

    Escoffier,

    I may be wrong, but I’m getting the impression that you’re one of those Churchian types who embraces a sort of “situational ethics” views of morality.

    One form of this which I have personally witnessed, and been greatly offended by, has been the effort to try to “excuse” women of their immoral behaviors (infidelity, especially) by shifting the blame onto the men (husbands and lovers) involved. The goal was to make it seem that the women who were “forced” into their immoral infidelities by the husbands who didn’t satisfy them where somehow less immoral than men who committed the very same immoral acts.

    Therein the differentiation of “degrees” of immorality came down to the innate (for Churchians) idea that women are morally superior to men.

    In your attempts to parse out degrees of immorality, it seems you apply the standards of LTR’s being morally superior to ONS’s, and you work backwards from that basic position, not unlike the contortions of Churchians to try to shield women from having to recognize/admit the immorality of their own chosen actions.

  341. Escoffier says:

    This comes up a lot from people here, that I am blaming the men. I really don’t know where you get it from. I also don’t know what a “churchian” is but I will repeat for the zillionth time that my arguments stem from natural right, a rational morality that is compatible with both religion and atheism.

    I do not, FTR, believe that women are innately morally superior to men. I also don’t believe that they are morally inferior to men. Men and women have different natural inclinations which incline them to be immoral in different ways.

  342. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    As I said to Dalrock, the strongest case that the LTR girl is worse than the slut arises from category 2, to the extent that she blindsides men by breaking up without cause. Girls who do that are indeed acting immorally and on that basis they are worse than sluts, who don’t hurt PUAs feelings (but only because PUAs have none, at least not for them). However, LTRs can end for any number of reasons, the end can be initiated by the woman or the man or both, and it can be painful or blase or something in between.

    I think in cases like this the best we can often hope for is to understand why we disagree. If your assumption is that LTRs typically end without hurt feelings and ONSs typically involve heartbreak, then I think I understand your logic. I very much do not make this assumption, but at least I can understand how you arrived where you did. My assumption is that all casual sex tends to end in hurt feelings, and within the deliberately ambiguous hookup culture it is mostly a matter of whose feelings will be hurt.

    Players aren’t limiting themselves to ONSs, they are limiting their investment in women they have sex with both to protect themselves emotionally and to retain their alpha attractiveness to these same women. Most players prefer to keep the woman around unless she proves to be more trouble than she is worth to them. See Rivelino and Blondie in the OP for an example.

    Women insisting on having a man demonstrate investment (sometimes distractingly called commitment) before having sex with him are also protecting themselves from heartbreak. The ambiguity of hookup culture is not an accident in my opinion, because both parties would have to feel the ambiguity is likely to work in their favor to be willing to operate under those terms.

    As an example, consider the advice that Susan and Fly Fresh and Young gave to Richard. Susan advised Richard to take an emotional risk on a woman who according to Richard has a naturally flirty personality. She advised him to essentially lay himself out there, and see what her response was. She said to “Meet her halfway”, but then closed with this statement:

    How you proceed depends on the depth of your feelings. If this is someone you might see yourself with for a very long time, maybe even a lifetime, then the cost of staying silent is much higher than the cost of risking rejection. If you tell her you are attracted to her and want to date her, with confidence and dignity, she will respect you for it, even if she doesn’t feel the same way. You need not be an object of pity, nor feel humiliated.

    While it was mixed with some sort of good sounding game advice, ultimately it was classic Team Woman advice; it even included a quote about how men can create an investment in future romantic relationships by keeping women as friends! It was especially bad advice given the way Richard had described this woman’s personality.

    Fly Fresh and Young advised Richard to play it aloof, and allow her to be the one who took the risk (by having sex with her without offering investment first). Susan was furious. How dare FFY advise Richard not to assume the risk, but to allow the woman to do so instead? That would make him a player! The advice FFY gave to Richard was solid from a pragmatic perspective. It was tuned to both maximize his attractiveness to the woman and minimize Richard’s probability of being hurt emotionally. However, it wasn’t moral advice, and neither was Susan’s.

  343. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier, evidently you missed Suz’s posting on the effects of multiple LTR’s on her as a woman. Perhaps you could read it and ponder it. It seems likely that she might know more about being a woman than you do?

  344. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock, that entire fiasco involving advice to Richard boils down to very simple truth: men should never, ever, never, no way, no how, no time, not ever take any advice about women from a woman. Speaking from my own personal experience, from the sad experience of others, in my opinion it is impossible for a woman to give any advice to a man regarding “women” that won’t harm him to some degree. it’s not deliberate, necessarily (although I’ve seen some cases where it clearly was), it’s that the nature of women is such they can’t bring themselves to not play for Team Woman.

    If there’s any two things to tell a man, especially young, it is: watch what women do much more than hearing what they say, and ignore any “helpful” advice they may give you about “what women want/like/need/etc.”.

    One of the properties of WhiteKnights is a strong tendency to not only take advice from women, but insist on doling it out to other men. Men who submit themselves to women are unlikely to ever have another man’s best interests at heart.

  345. Escoffier says:

    “If your assumption is that LTRs typically end without hurt feelings and ONSs typically involve heartbreak”

    That is definitely not my assumption. But it seems like your assumption is that LTRs typically end with hurt feelings for the guy because most are ended by women for shallow reasons. That may be true, I don’t know. All I can say for sure is that they don’t all end that way and there is nothing that must make them necessarily end that way.

    I do think ONSs typically involve heartbreak, but a special kind, a self-inflicted heartbreak that any woman should be able to see coming and in fact most of them do but go ahead anyaway. That’s heartbreak of a different order than a girl dumping a guy after a year because … well, just because.

  346. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – ”This comes up a lot from people here, that I am blaming the men.”

    Given that many get the same impression of you, perhaps it would be prudent for you to examine why this would be, and to do so with an mind open enough to consider that, perhaps, you are indeed creating that impression yourself.

    I disagree that (in modern terms) morality and ethics are one-and-the-same.

    Let me give you a hypothetical, and perhaps you can provide the terminology that allows reasonable people to judge individuals based on the circumstance surrounding their actions.

    Bob, Dave, and Fred are like three “peas in a pod”. They are of similar looks (SMP value), they are the same age, and all have been married similar lengths of time, to women of roughly equal looks (SMP value).

    Bob’s wife is loving and completely faithful to him, and eagerly engages in sex with him. Dave’s wife has become increasingly frigid towards him, and it’s now been over three months since she’s been willing to allow him to have sex with her.

    But, Fred has it worse. He’s just found out that his wife has been having a long-term (sexual) affair with an ex-boyfriend with whom she reconnected via FaceBook.

    Upon learning of Fred’s devastating dilemma, Bob and Dave take him to a local bar for some commiseration.

    As luck would have it, after several drinks (each), they encounter three attractive sluts, and each ends up going off with one of them and having sex.

    All three have just cheated on their wives. All three have committed the same immoral act. All three have committee the same sin against their wives (and against God).

    By what abstract means do most rational and reasonable people conclude that Bob’s cheating on his faithful and sexually giving wife is worse than Dave cheating on his frigid wife, and that Fred cheating on his unfaithful wife seems downright justifiable?

    Can you put a name to that abstract reasoning by which we judge the comparable acts in light of the extenuating circumstances in which each was committed.

    Clearly, they are all immoral, but not illegal.

    Personally, I find that the term ethics fits perfectly, as we applying what are ethical considerations to judge the relative merit vs. lack thereof of each man’s chosen action.

    Morality, however established, in not fluid and situational. Ethics, as the term is used to describe questionable behaviors which are not necessarily illegal (and/or immoral), seems to easily and naturally extend into considerations of “degrees” of the harms done in various circumstances by various sinful acts.

  347. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    That is definitely not my assumption. But it seems like your assumption is that LTRs typically end with hurt feelings for the guy because most are ended by women for shallow reasons. That may be true, I don’t know. All I can say for sure is that they don’t all end that way and there is nothing that must make them necessarily end that way.

    You keep changing what I write. I didn’t write that. I wrote:

    My assumption is that all casual sex tends to end in hurt feelings, and within the deliberately ambiguous hookup culture it is mostly a matter of whose feelings will be hurt.

    I took the time to be precise. Why do you disregard this? It isn’t because the reasons for the breakup are shallow. Heartbreak isn’t averted if the other person can make a really good logical (or ethical) case for breaking up with you. What determines the heartbreak is more about who broke up with whom, and that is often determined by who was less invested. I do think that women tend to be the ones to first push for and later break off LTRs, just like we see with marriages. But I don’t think they would avoid heartbreak for the man if they just worked on their “It’s not you, it’s me” speech. We are talking about powerful emotions here. Likewise if the man breaks up with the woman chances are her heart will be broken, even if he did so for “not shallow” reasons.

  348. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier
    That’s heartbreak of a different order than a girl dumping a guy after a year because … well, just because.

    Gold. Just pure gold. Why is it pure gold? That’s easy. It’s gold because….well, just because.

  349. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – “I do think ONSs typically involve heartbreak, but a special kind, a self-inflicted heartbreak that any woman should be able to see coming and in fact most of them do but go ahead anyaway. That’s heartbreak of a different order than a girl dumping a guy after a year because … well, just because.”

    ????

    Didn’t you recently claim that you were not looking at the issue(s) based primarily on th effects they might have on women (exclusively)?

  350. Escoffier says:

    AR, you clearly misunderstood the point.

    If it helps, what I was saying was the the heartbreak a woman causes on a man over a frivilous breakup is far worse morally (if not necessarily in depth of pain) than the heartbreak a woman causes on herself for engaging in a ONS.

  351. Escoffier says:

    D, I thought we were both using “shallow” the same way, as in “It’s just time for me to move on,” or “I realize you’re not the one” or “I found someone else.” As opposed to non-shallow reasons, which would be “You’ve become a drunk” or “I can’t stand you hitting me any more” or “Really, after two years you still haven’t even looked at the want ads once” or “You cheated.”

  352. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – “If it helps, what I was saying was the the heartbreak a woman causes on a man over a frivilous breakup is far worse morally (if not necessarily in depth of pain) than the heartbreak a woman causes on herself for engaging in a ONS.”

    I though you had been trying to make the case that LTR’s were morally superior to ONS’s?

    Now you go and make a compelling argument that ONS’s are more moral than LTR’s.

    Do pick a side.

  353. Legion says:

    ChelsEscoffierGilligan says:
    January 5, 2012 at 2:54 pm

    (First off, we have to stop pointing out the uselessness of the ChelsEscoffierGilligan entity. It is getting too hard to remember its name.)

    All I got out of your post is that you saved the biggest lies for last. You contradict nearly everything you have said with that comment. While doing this you neither answered any questions directed at you nor admitted of error in anything you have written.

    You are consistantly useless to the end.

  354. deti says:

    @ Dalrock:

    “My assumption is that all casual sex tends to end in hurt feelings, and within the deliberately ambiguous hookup culture it is mostly a matter of whose feelings will be hurt.”

    This.

    My experience, first hand and talking with others, is that this is true across the board. If the sex doesn’t end in marriage, somebody’s getting hurt. Realistically, that will usually be the female.

    No one sets out to hurt the other, whether it’s a SNL, an ONS, or an STR or a LTR that lasts 5 years or more. But unless that ends in marriage, somebody’s getting hurt one way or another because one of the participants no longer wants to participate. Any way you slice it, it’s going to end badly. Either he gets hurt because his investment was wasted; or she gets hurt because she’s inched another step closer to ruining her SMV and her MMV. And consider that in the case of STDs or inability to bond, it’s the hurt that keeps on hurting. Sometimes no amount of counseling, talking, time, distance or intervention will heal the wound.

  355. Escoffier says:

    There is no contradiction. For there to be a contradiction, first, you would have to assume that all LTRs end when women frivilously dump the men but we know that’s not true. Second, you’d have to ignore the other ways that ONSs are more immoral than LTRs. Which I understand most of you do, but I don’t.

    So, yes, the way certain LTRs end causes one kind of immorality that is worse than a certain kind of immorality than ONSs. That does not mean that, accros the board, LTRs are always worse than ONSs.

  356. Escoffier says:

    “Realistically, that will usually be the female.” Careful, deti. You don’t want to be called a White Knight.

  357. YOHAMI says:

    Tipically it IS the female, and tipically because she found someone else.

  358. YOHAMI says:

    While the ONS is typically the male going for it, and also the male ending it after one or two fucks

  359. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier, can you lay down your set of moral rules? you keep arguing about moral with christians but without addressing any of the core points. Please lay down your stuff.

    WHY is LTR better *morally* than casual sex. Where´s that moral. What book are you using.

  360. Anonymous Reader says:

    Of course serial monogamy is “less immoral” than ONS’s to Escoffier – it is the form of promiscuity that women prefer. If women preferred ONS’s, then he’d declare that to be “less immoral”.

    Escoffier’s “ethics” and “morals” all boil down to this: whatever women prefer, that is what he regards as “moral”, “ethical” or if nothing else, “less immoral”. It has nothing to do with objective standards. It’s all about what women want, when they want it – and when they want something else, why, that’s “ethical” or “moral” or “less immoral” as well.

    That’s it. Clear away all the dribble, and goo, and appeal to authority, and quotations from ancient history, that’s what is left. “Do women want it? It must be good”. That’s the oh-so-deep “philosophy” we are presented with.

  361. Escoffier says:

    Y, I’ve said over and over in this thread why I believe LTRs are less immoral than ONSs. In very brief compass: all other things being equal, they damage society less, they damage individual souls less, and they cheapen sex less.

  362. Paul says:

    Quite frankly, any hurt a woman feels (or a man, hey, it’s possible we’re not all jaded PUAs) as a result of a ONS is largely, or almost entirely, self-inflicted. In this case the hurt is caused by the party’s dashed hopes and dreams, i.e. that the ONS will lead to a relationship or more. In other words, nobody did anything to hurt them actively, like hitting or abusing, they just didn’t fulfil the hopes and dreams of the other who feels hurt (and probably shame, and other bad emotions) because things didn’t work out like they’d hoped.

    Now let’s back the truck up.

    What kind of insipid, entitled moron thinks that putting out for a night creates such a huge obligation on the other party? That the best way to get someone to buy the cow is to give out the milk for free? Was it because ‘their heart was in the right place’ so that explains putting their private parts in the wrong place?

    I consider gross stupidity and credulity a capital crime, not an excuse. The fact that someone wasn’t actually hurt (hit, abused, etc.) but feels hurt (i.e. because they made a bone-headed decision and don’t like the consequences), and that this distinction doesn’t matter, if there is hurt to one party (i.e. the woman) then the fault must lie with the other party (invariably the man), is feminist logic, which is to say, not logical at all.

  363. Rmaxd says:

    lol Now you guys know what an average thread looks like at HUS …

    Multiply Escoffier by 10 & you have a 1,000 comment section, filled with inane drivel for hours on end …

    Btw this is why so many women hit the wall, all that psychological damage, spent looking for love & the magic vagina loving alpha, relationship after failed relationship, turning them into trainwrecks by the time they hit 30 …

    Not only does the woman string the men along, they string theyre own warped sense of betrayal along

    Essentially how many relationships can a woman handle to fail? How many guys can a woman see screwed over by her own actions, before it starts to effect her mentally?

    These women are essentially relationship black widows, where the years get displaced by imagined drama & a count down of all the shit tests the guy never passed …

    The wall hits sluts eventually, but the wall hits relationship backstabbing chicks the most …

    Sluts in stark comparison dont do anywhere near the damage, as the serial relationship back stabbing machine, minus the abortion scars & caesarian stretch marks, is minor to the back stabbing relationship conveyer belt …

    Ladies stop using relationships as a shit test …

    Basically if you want a decent relationship, it’s quite simple …

    If after 2 months, you cant see him in your future for the next two years, you are no longer in a relationship, you’re setting yourself up to betray him

    & you’re acts of betrayal will haunt you, all those awkward silences & disbeliefs, will always haunt the silent recesses of your mind, when you least expect them …

    If you cant see a future with a guy after two months, the relationship is already over … no guy deserves a what if relationship … stop abusing men …

  364. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    they damage society less [BECAUSE] they damage individual souls less, and they cheapen sex less.

    1) Whose souls? ie. My soul has been more damaged in broken LTRs than in casual hookups.

    2) Why is it immoral to cheapen sex?

  365. Escoffier says:

    Y, I totally agree that womens’ souls get way more damanged from ONSs than men’s. I don’t think men are immume, though some outliers probably are. The majority still get damaged, but less and at a slower rate, or at least it takes a lot more encounters to produce the same level of damage.

    On 2, because 1) sex is results in children, or at least nature designed it that way before tech-savvy man figured out a way around that, hence it’s inherently about the most important and morally serious thing people can do, the creation of new life for which they are responsible (to take care of physically and to develop character) and to perpetuate civilization. 2) Sex is the core basis of the pair bond that forms the nucleus of the family, which is the fundamental unit of civilization and without which you can’t have civilization. And 3) because after possibly hunger, sex is man’s most powerful biological urge but one that ONLY in man (not in the animals which also feel the urge) sex is capable of being sublimated into something higher, i.e., love, which is enobling to the soul (which animals don’t have).

  366. Feminist Hater aka freaking, clueless, feminist fembot says:

    Btw this is why so many women hit the wall, all that psychological damage, spent looking for love & the magic vagina loving alpha, relationship after failed relationship, turning them into trainwrecks by the time they hit 30 …

    This is pure gold for women, they should read it, take note and restrain that damn hamster of theirs. Seriously, those few lines contain more simple truth than all the hogwash that comes from Cosmo, Susan Walsh and Escoffier put together. Follow Susan’s Hooking Up Smart blog and this is what a woman can expect. Being a burnt out, 30 year old with no prospects of marriage that will last a life time.

    Also note that that is only what it does to the women, never mind what it does to the men in these relationships.

    If you cant see a future with a guy after two months, the relationship is already over … no guy deserves a what if relationship … stop abusing men …

    Women don’t see it this way but you know that already. They still ‘think’ they love him and thus will keep stringing him along until they find someone better. So…they would just rationalise to themselves that they in fact do love him and ‘morally’ defy your advice that way. Of course if the relationship fails down the line, it was obviously the guys fault, no doubt about it. Abuse, abuse, abuse!

    I don’t like sluts but at least they are honest enough to admit what they are and if you sleep with them, you have accepted the risk yourself, you have not be deceived by them. Women who partake in the hook-up long-term monogamous route of relationships are not only deceiving themselves but the men as well. There’s no such thing as Marriage Lite.

  367. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Y, I totally agree that womens’ souls get way more damanged from ONSs than men’s.

    1) I didnt say that. I said that my own soul got more damaged in broken LTRs than it got damaged in ONSs and the like. Address that.

    2) You say a lot of things about sex, but didnt answer the question. Here it goes again: Why is it immoral to cheapen sex?

  368. TFH says:

    Why is everyone expending their energy debating Chelscoffier?

    He believes that a) women are more moral than men, and b) harming 10 men to protect 1 woman is an acceptably sort of model for society.

    Would you expend energy debating such a person? Well, such a person is Chelscoffier.

    Now, he is not a troll, as he is polite. Rather, he is so convinced of the two points I mentioned that no amount of real-world examples can convince him otherwise. He would sooner lose his life savings than abandon these blind beliefs. You might as well try to get a religious fanatic to convert to a rival religion.

    So debating him with logical points is like trying to kill mosquitos with a chainsaw.

  369. TFH says:

    Rmaxd,

    That AlekNovy thread at PMAFT’s has heated up with major new participants and explosive new info. Check it out.

  370. TFH says:

    Yohami,

    Why is it immoral to cheapen sex?

    The real reason a SoCon would say this is because they have decided to trade their lifetime output for sex with one woman, that too probably after her best years have already passed.

    Hence, they want other men to do the same. No one wants a massive price drop in something they paid full price for.

    Chelscoffier will never admit this, but that is the real reason.

    Now, the REAL way to avoid cheapening sex is to place greater restrictions on the woman than the man (as I described in the Indian system, as well as the pre-1950 Western system). But this cannot happen in a society where women have the right to vote, 60-90 years of which causes the lopsided feminist logic that SoCons hide behind.

  371. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier, there exists a rather small part of the feminist world that is quite radical, the Mary Daly / Valerie Solanas wing if you will. These are the radfems whose ideal world would contain very few men – they would, if they could, live in a world where the population was 80% or more female and 20% or fewer men. This would be achieved via selective abortion, infantcide, reduction of testosterone in the bloodstream of those men allowed to continue to live, and so forth.

    My question: do you have any problem with this position? Is there anything you would find immoral, unjust, unethical or flat out wrong with the gendercide position? I’m genuinely curious.

  372. YOHAMI says:

    THF, that might be the case

  373. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    D, I thought we were both using “shallow” the same way, as in “It’s just time for me to move on,” or “I realize you’re not the one” or “I found someone else.” As opposed to non-shallow reasons, which would be “You’ve become a drunk” or “I can’t stand you hitting me any more” or “Really, after two years you still haven’t even looked at the want ads once” or “You cheated.”

    You are trying to apply the rules of marriage to LTRs. This is exactly what I’m saying we can’t do. The two are fundamentally different. The woman (or man) has every right to end a LTR at will, with or without a stated reason. A woman has every right to break up with her boyfriend because she feels that it is time to move on, she realizes he isn’t the one, or because she found someone else. This is the nature of the agreement. If you don’t understand this, you can’t understand what marriage is either, and this is one of my fundamental points.

    What you are saying to (mostly young) men is they are wronged if their girlfriend doesn’t act like a wife. This is both unfair to the woman and extremely cruel to the man. The kind thing to say to the man is don’t expect your girlfriend to act like a wife. Don’t mistake time together, love, sex, etc as commitment from her. It isn’t commitment.

    Likewise, the kind thing to say to women is don’t expect your hookup (or boyfriend) to act like a husband. He isn’t. Telling her that he has an obligation after casual sex to offer her investment, love, etc. is insane, and outright cruel to her.

  374. Suz says:

    If you believe that extra-marital sex is sinful, then ALL extra-marital sex is equally so. As long as it’s consensual, there is no rational justification for it to be otherwise. If you want to judge the morality of the extra-marital sexual RELATIONSHIP (the whole thing) then LTRs are by far more sinful than ONS’.

    The harm in an LTR is its reinforcement of destructive habits, not in whose heart gets broken, or how badly. Frankly, it’s not even about sex, except peripherally. It’s the emotional relationship that is sinful/harmful. Spending months or years in a weakly committed relationship is how you perfect the art of not committing! If you live a lie for months or years, you forget (or never learn) how to be honest. If you devote months or years to creating a false intimacy, you will forget (or never learn) real intimacy.

    This DOES damage society more in the long run, it damages the individual more, and it doesn’t just cheapen sex, it obscures or obliterates the purer purposes of sex. Not just for women, but for men as well. In an LTR, sex is primarily a tool of manipulation, not an expression of true intimacy. In fact, there’s not much real emotional intimacy at all in LTRs, just the illusion of it. Intimacy is a product of the kind of mutual trust that induces both parties to commit for life. (If you have that kind of trust,you aren’t in an LTR.)

    In an LTR, you live every facet of your life knowing that if it gets rough, you. can. walk. You are trying or pretending to have deep trust, but without it you are being dishonest, and you are choosing to perpetuate this dishonesty every minute of every day.

    I cannot stress how deeply this destructive behavior infiltrates your entire life. LTRs create bad habits. These handicaps MUST be overcome in order to have a successful marriage. And I’m not just talking about my personal experience – I did most of my “overcoming” before I met my husband. God know what would have happened to HIM if I had dumped my LTR habits on him! Look around you. How many marriages fail after a few years, under the influence of behaviors learned in LTRs? To have a successful marriage after a few years in one or more LTRs, you have to unlearn many bad habits and learn good habits. And if there are already children involved, what have you been teaching them? How do you think their marriages will fare? Plus, your parents, your children, your siblings, your friends…nobody has much faith in you because you make self destructive decisions and you keep changing your mind. Everybody pats you on the head and “supports” you because you’re “trying your best” to make a relationship work, and privately their all shaking their heads and thinking, “Oh God, here we go again…” LTRs are precursors to bad marriages.

    LTR behavior feeds on itself and often becomes permanent. LTRs damage everyone they touch, but they do it very insidiously.

    This knee-jerk tendency to judge sluts more harshly is based purely in traditional cultural distaste. We recoil from their blatant immorality, but if a gal can hand us an excuse or two for her “sin,” we will swallow it whole. If she can convince us (and herself) that it’s OK because it “looks kind of like marriage,” nobody looks any deeper. Mistake. She acts like a “nice girl,” maybe she even goes to church, so we shouldn’t judge her too harshly. Bigger mistake. We encourage her and have hope for her future because she’s one of us, whereas the slut is just a lost cause, a “Them.” BIG. FAT LIE. Stop kidding yourself, Escoffier. LTRs talk the talk, but they don’t walk the walk. How can you possibly believe that LTRs are less destructive than ONS’? By every objective measure they are infinitely more devastating. But the sure are inoffensive-looking on the surface, aren’t they?

  375. Anonymous Reader says:

    Suz
    Spending months or years in a weakly committed relationship is how you perfect the art of not committing!

    In an LTR, you live every facet of your life knowing that if it gets rough, you. can. walk. You are trying or pretending to have deep trust, but without it you are being dishonest, and you are choosing to perpetuate this dishonesty every minute of every day.

    It used to be claimed that cohabiting, aka shacking up, was a “trial marriage” to see if the couple was really compatible or not. And yet, the record of cohabiting couples in the longer term (more than 7 years) is as bad or worse than marriage 2.0, not just in North America but in Europe as well. This never made sense to me, and partly because I knew some people who shacked up for a while then got married later on. On reflection, the people who made that work were mostly above average IQ types, religious people whose conscience was bothered by not being married, combination of both, and so forth. So I was guilty of the same cherry-picked data that others (cough) have displayed here recently.

    There is a whole lot that I could write about mental habits, and how we constantly train and retrain ourselves. Won’t do it. Might actually publish it some time. But Suz’s comments above hit right to the heart of the matter. Teaching oneself to live without commitment but with someone who is much more than a roomie or a FWB will induce cognitive dissonance. That induces all sorts of stress, and can lead to lying to yourself. So the “trial marriage” model of cohabitation is incorrect, it is wrong, because there is a world of difference between “let’s live together until one of us gets tired of it” and “we’re in this together, for the duration”. Suz’s second paragraph, by the way, is a description of marriage 2.0 as well as cohabitation, and I doubt I’m the first man to notice that by making marriage look more and more like shacking up only more dangerous, feminists and their SoCon marionettes have devalued marriage hugely.

    Hey, Escoffier, are you not required to pay attention to Suz? She’s a woman and therefore every word is the truth, right? Yet you don’t put her on a pedestal – is it because she’s saying something that your current LTR might not like?

  376. Legion says:

    TFH says:
    January 5, 2012 at 7:53 pm

    Ehem…

    The proper name is ChelsEscoffierGilligan. I also hope that it is not noticed what a ALying IdiotTroll he is or I might never get it’s name right.

  377. Escoffier says:

    Y, I did answer it. I gather you don’t like the answer or disagree.

    Let me approach it from a slightly different angle. Reading through some of the early Roissy archives I came across some very startling, almost poetic paens to love. No sneer quotes, he really was talking about love in the same sense that a great poet or novelist or philosopher would. It reminded me of Plato or Rousseau a little. I was quite impressed because my earlier sense from what I had read was that he was a rather base hedonist, a calculating higher animal, an ape with a big brain. Now, he is a nihilist and a hedonist (he says so himself) but his appreciation of what love is shows that his own nihilism is not absolute, it unciously bows to something higher, perhaps against his will. He would deny that and say, no, it’s simply of a piece with his hedonism, love affords the greatest pleasure. This is the same mistake the Epicureans make when they equate philosophy with the highest pleasure (which it is) and accord it the highest rank because of its pleasantness. In fact, Plato and Aristotle make the stronger, opposite case that the extent of the pleasure derives from the inherent value of the activity, not the reverse.

    So, to cheapen sex is to cheapen or cast aside love, which is to stunt or extinguish one of the truly noble parts of the human soul, to deliberately reduce ourselves to the level of the animals, giving up something unique to us and getting nothing in return.

    If your response to that is “but even so, I’m not hurting anyone but myself,” first, I don’t think you can maintain that consistently except if you very narrowly define hurt to phyiscal harm and even then there are complications, but second, even if you could, that would just be an orthodox libertarian/JS Mill style position to take. Which I gather you do take. OK. I don’t expect you, who from what I have read are something of a lothario, to agree with my position on morality one iota. At least with you I know exactly where, how and why we disagree.

  378. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    This is the same mistake the Epicureans make when they equate philosophy with the highest pleasure (which it is) and accord it the highest rank because of its pleasantness. In fact, Plato and Aristotle make the stronger, opposite case that the extent of the pleasure derives from the inherent value of the activity, not the reverse.

    Instead of Gilligan, that quote made me think more of a character from Cheers. I can’t decide on Cliff or Frasier though.

    As for your discovery that Roissy believes in love, I thought that was common knowledge. PUAs or (insert preferred term here) generally do feel love, especially for the women they have at the top of the harem. From what I can tell they actually feel it quite deeply, if only for relatively short times (months or years, not decades). I had a room-mate in college who was a natural, and he fell deeply in love quite often. Sometimes more than once in the same week. What separates alphas from betas isn’t the ability to feel love, it is the ability to master their own feelings of love. They can both deeply experience it and then shut it off once they no longer have a need for it. In this sense, they resemble many women.

    Love isn’t what makes sex moral, or as you say you would have to include Roissy in your definition of moral. This is just another sleight of hand used by those who can’t or don’t wish to distinguish between marriage and not marriage.

  379. Escoffier says:

    Dalrock, earlier you said that LTRs are worse than ONSs because the latter result in more heartbreak, especially for men, whereas the sluts are at least more honest and hurt only themselves.

    I agreed to a point: a girl who breaks a guy’s heart is in one respect more immoral than a slut. She’s actually hurt someone other than herself. (Though, from a certain perspective, I think sluts hurt PUAs, but leave that aside for now.)

    However you are of course right that absent a vow he has no claim to keep her if she wants out. So what are you saying here?

  380. Escoffier says:

    Love is one of the things that makes sex moral. It is not however sufficient. Roissy certainly is not moral. And of course I distinguish between moral and not moral.

  381. Escoffier says:

    Meant to say “marriage and not marriage.”

  382. Suz says:

    “Escoffier: I’ve said over and over in this thread why I believe LTRs are less immoral than ONSs. In very brief compass: all other things being equal, they damage society less, they damage individual souls less, and they cheapen sex less.”

    This is a nice comfortable theory, and it cloaks your sin of complicity in the justification of LTRs. (How convenient for you, as you get plenty of sex out of it.) However, I still haven’t seen your evidence of it, although I am choking on straw and picking it out of my hair. You can start by leaving the soul out of it. Neither you nor anybody else on this earth is equipped to judge the status of anyone’s soul. If by “soul” you mean “psychological well-being,” then say so; stop hiding behind the implied authority in religious terminology.

    ONSs cheapen sex by using it only for pleasure and short-term validation. LTRs cheapen sex by using it for pleasure AND by using it it the sneaky dishonest process of damaging the participants’ potential ability to have, AND TO GIVE, long-term validation.

    Please explain exactly how LTRs are less damaging than ONSs.

  383. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Im not even disagreeing with you, Im asking you to make sense of your own assertions. The question is where is the moral code – what are the sets of rules – where is the book – what is the reasoning – the bases, for your assertion than LTR are less immoral than ONS.

    For that you have to explain your morality. Your points:

    1) LTR produces less damage than ONS – I´d say it is true for women and false for men. Address that and we continue.

    2) You say that cheapen sex is immoral. Why? where´s the code. Now you said that separating sex from love cheapens it, and I agree. But why is it immoral?

    Present your morality.

    Thanks.

  384. YOHAMI says:

    By the way to make any statement the four extremes have to be in. Throw in the lifelong loving marriage, and the lifelong celibacy in the mix.

    Celibacy – ONS – LTR – Marriage

    Define moral.

  385. Escoffier says:

    “I say that if you want really to know what justice is, you should not only ask but answer, and you should not seek honour to yourself from the refutation of an opponent, but have your own answer; for there is many a one who can ask and cannot answer. And now I will not have you say that justice is duty or advantage or profit or gain or interest, for this sort of nonsense will not do for me; I must have clearness and accuracy.”

    “You are a philosopher, Thrasymachus,” I replied, “and well know that if you ask a person what numbers make up twelve, taking care to prohibit him whom you ask from answering twice six, or three times four, or six times two, or four times three, `for this sort of nonsense will not do for me,’–then obviously, that is your way of putting the question, no one can answer you.”

  386. Escoffier says:

    Y, at this point I can only repeat myself. If you think there is a point, maybe I will, but I have answered your questions. I never expected you to accept any of the answers. I fully expected you to find all my reasons to be hogwash.

  387. ybm says:

    all my reasons[…]hogwash.

    Ahh, sweet illumination.

  388. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Define your moral please.

    1) ONS being more damaging than LTR – debatable but in principle I agree, ONS being less damaging for men and LTR being less damaging for women. Address it.

    2) Cheapening sex ( separating it from affection, just so we dont use the LOVE word) as immoral. WHY is it immoral?

    Thanks.

  389. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    You can also address the subject by defining whats sacred. Morality is usually -if not exclusively – about following the sacred and avoided the non sacred. Christianity marriage is sacred. So any sex outside marriage = non sacred = immoral.

    To say LTR are less immoral than ONS means you have your sacred focal point somewhere else. Where is it?

  390. slwerner says:

    Yohami – “Define your moral please.”

    It doesn’t seem that he (or she – I’m still not clear on which) doesn’t actually subscribe to any particular set of hard-and-fast rules that most people would recognize as forming a moral code. He/She doesn’t try to explain his/her defined moral code, because the code he/she prefers cannot be defined.

    Like many people today, he/she prefers a more fluid approach to deciding between right and wrong. This is, from a technical perspective, not a moral code. The term “situational ethics” (which has been around for many years now) is what is typically used to describe the decision-making process by which Escoffier and his/her ilk prefer to operate.

    Observe the “love makes sex moral” meme recently introduced by said pseudo-philosopher. The concept of what is “love” is quite nebulous on it own, thus, simply invoking “love” as a substitute for a real moral boundary is but one example of “ethics” (not “morals”) being guided by/determined by a given situation.

    And, since situations vary and are subject to change, the ethics-filling-in-for-morals will change as well. There are simply far too many possibilities to even try to define in any meaningful way.

  391. Escoffier says:

    “Sacred” may overlap with the concepts I am talking about but there is no necessary connection. You can be an atheist and believe in natural right.

  392. Escoffier says:

    “Define your moral code and if you can’t then you don’t have one” is not serious. It would take many thousands of words to define it fully and others have already done so at a level that I cannot equal. I emphatically point everyone to those authors.

    One thing you will learn from them is that, yes, defining it can be quite hard if what you are looking for are hard and fast rules that work in every situation.

  393. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Natural right is fine, thought if you´re an atheist talking about *souls*. Ehm. Lets not go there.

    Where is your *natural right* focal point? lay down your morality code.

  394. Escoffier says:

    “Soul” is not necessarily a religious concept. Aristotle writes at length about the soul in a non-religious context.

  395. Brendan says:

    In Christian moral thought there is no distinction here: both are fornication and sinful.

    Sexually active LTRs are more socially accepted than ONSs (still) because they are pseudo-marriages, in effect. They can “look the part”, which is enough to claim respectability. And, of course, it’s the preferred course for women due to the female preference for serial monogamy, which is essentially what LTRs *are*. Therefore, from the social acceptability perspective, the current “mores” accept sexual LTRs as “kinda sorta” like marriages, and therefore give them a significant degree of respectability (more than they give the cad who is open about his caddishness, for example). It looks enough like marriage, especially in an age where marriage is easily terminated, to get some degree of respectability socially.

  396. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    You are already making “hard and fast rules”. What is missing is the basis behind them. You dont have to explain it. Just state it. What is your moral code. Make it in bullet points.

  397. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    “Soul” is not necessarily a religious concept. Aristotle writes at length about the soul in a non-religious context.”

    I would love to talk about it, and it goes to the whatever is behind of religion. But lets focus on your hammurabi code first.

  398. slwerner says:

    Yohami – to Escoffier “What is your moral code. Make it in bullet points.”

    Seems he/she has already laid down his/her first bullet point –
    * “Love is what makes sex moral”

    Not exactly hard-and-fast, but it is the only direct declaration from this philosophical wannabe thus far.

  399. Escoffier says:

    Brendan:

    I tried finding something on this in Christian moral thought and could not. However, said thought makes all kinds of distinctions of degrees of immorality about all kinds of things. It just does not speak directly to the issue we are discussing (or if it does, I could not find it.)

    In any event, I am not making a Christian argument.

    Y:

    The basis is human nature, which I understand to be teleological, and which obligates man generally and individually to practice virtue (or the virtues), the purpose of which is to live well in accordance with nature and reason and, to the exten possible, to perfect his soul.

  400. YOHAMI says:

    slwerner,

    Yeah, in the absence of more principles, that hints that *love* is sacred, but then that would render sex in a loveless marriage immoral. It would render most LTRs immoral too. Unless we redefine love. Without his hammurabi code we cant know.

  401. Escoffier says:

    Love is ONE OF the things that makes sex moral. It is also, I believe, a mitigating factor against immorality.

    Let’s try another hypothetical. This is a rather common scenario from literature and weepy war movies. Girl falls madly in love with young man. He loves her too. Since we’ve already all stipulated that love exists and we have some idea of what it is, let’s stipulate that these two were genuinely in love. They have sex in the course of a LTR but are not married. He ships out and is killed on the battlefield.

    So, morally, she is just as bad as the incorrigible slut? You’d judge her just as harshly?

  402. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    practice virtue, the purpose of which is to live well in accordance with nature and reason and, to the exten possible, to perfect his soul.

    Practice virtue, live well, in accordance with nature, reason, perfecting your soul.

    Im IN.

    So what does it have to do with

    1) ONS being more damaging than LTR
    2) Separating sex from affection being immoral.

    THANK YOU.

  403. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Stop proposing scenarios, lay down your morals. What you just listed is so abstract it can be used to support Muslims too.

  404. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – ”The basis is human nature…”

    Which tends to direct individuals in ways that range primarily from “amoral” to “immoral”. Human Nature is (necessarily) selfish and self-preserving. Only if ones own needs happen to coincide with betterment of society will human nature direct the individual in what could be viewed as moral/ethical paths.

    It’s hard to follow the mis-mash of various philosophical elements you brought up (or, more accurately, the names you dropped). If we stick to one at a time, maybe it would help.

    I noticed you’ve made inferences to “Natural Rights”. But, under a strict interpretation of Natural Right, the slut having consensual sex with many men is but her pursuit of her natural right of liberty to do what she wishes so long as others (the mane who willingly agree to engage with her) are not harmed (except by their own choice); whereas being involved in a LTR with fraudulent intent (which is often the case) does include harm to others (those being actively defrauded). Thus, the concept of Natural Rights seems to be diametrically opposed to your stated view that LTR’s are more moral than ONS’s.

    Maybe you should try to explain how any given philosophical construct who’s name you can type actually fits with your pre-determined position (which actually seems to be that the needs/concerns of women are superior to those of men, thus what ever tend to harm women more than men is the more immoral).

  405. YOHAMI says:

    practice virtue, the purpose of which is to live well in accordance with nature and reason and, to the exten possible, to perfect his soul.

    That is valid, it supports every religion, every moral schema, it supports the crusades, the greeks sodomizing little kids, the muslims, the bombing terrorists, it supports left and right. In short yes, that what morals are about, but you still didnt list the rules of your own morality.

  406. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – “So, morally, she is just as bad as the incorrigible slut? You’d judge her just as harshly?”

    Close, but no cigar…

    Under the Judea-Christian moral code (the only one I personally recognize) both are adulterous in nature, and thus equally immoral. The rampant slut not only does it more often, without any hint of good intention, and may well pose a greater threat of harm to others (STD’s more so than broken hearts), thus she can be seen as being a worse personal actor over-all, and the one posing a greater threat to social norms, as well as to physical health.

    This is where I draw the distinction between morals (immutable and immovable absolutes) and ethics (a framework for judging actions against the backdrop of moral code). Ethics allows for two moral violations to be judged in terms of their relative merits vs harms.

    But, a hard-and-fast moral code needs to be in place first, otherwise anything and everything is wide open.

  407. Escoffier says:

    slwerner, you are conflating one specific and very modern conception of “natural rights” with the classical idea of “natural right”, which is what I believe in.

  408. Escoffier says:

    Y, it may be theoretically true that anyone can use any doctrine to justify anything but as a practical matter its seems not to be true. I am not aware of a single tyrant or great criminal being inspired to terrible deeds by Aristotle as opposed to (say) Robspierre taking inspiration from Rousseau, Lenin from Marx or Hitler from Nietzsche.

  409. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – “you are conflating one specific and very modern conception of “natural rights” with the classical idea of “natural right”, which is what I believe in.”

    Okay, I’ll bite…

    Go ahead and explain, using the natural rights you believe in, how LTR’s are better than ONS’s.

    Be sure and show your work for full points. that is, state what the natural rights are (specially) and demonstrate their application to the issue at hand. Hint – “Aristotle wrote about it.” is not going to be sufficient

  410. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Who in philosophy inspired who is very cool but not what we´re debating. Lay down your moral code.

  411. slwerner says:

    Yohami states – ” That is valid, it supports every religion, every moral schema, it supports the crusades, the greeks sodomizing little kids, the muslims, the bombing terrorists, it supports left and right. In short yes, that what morals are about, but you still didnt list the rules of your own morality.”

    Escoffier replies – ”I am not aware of a single tyrant or great criminal being inspired to terrible deeds by Aristotle as opposed to (say) Robspierre taking inspiration from Rousseau, Lenin from Marx or Hitler from Nietzsche.”

    So, Escoffier, did you actually intend to make Yohami’s point for him, or did you just do it on accident?

  412. Escoffier says:

    Not natural “rights” as in “I have the right to this and that” but “natural right” is in “this is right and this is wrong.”

    I have already answered the question several times. I get it that no one agrees. However, most of you nonetheless implicitly believe in natural right. The only ones who could credibly claim they don’t would be Yohami (hedonist/nihilist/libertarian) and the really religious folks who believe in right and wrong but only in a revealed right and wrong that are dependent on divine will.

  413. Suz says:

    “So, morally, she is just as bad as the incorrigible slut? You’d judge her just as harshly?”

    That depends. Was she deeply, unequivocally committed to spend the rest of her life with him? Did she delay sex until she was ready to commit? Love can be capricious. Commitment, by definition, is not.

    “Love” is not a valid excuse for extramarital sex, if you believe that extra-marital sex is a sin.

    You, Escoffier, condemn the slut because she is incorrigible, not because she has extra-marital sex. You clearly don’t have a moral objection to extra-marital sex.

  414. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Yohami (hedonist/nihilist/libertarian)

    Im none of that, read my blog.

    http://yohami.com/blog/2012/01/01/2012-shameless-resolutions/

    http://yohami.com/blog/2012/01/03/be-yourself-do-what-matters/

    Lay down your moral code.

  415. Escoffier says:

    Yohami, I don’t know what you mean by “lay down your moral code.” I have said, and will repeat, that any maxim one tries to state will be underminable on some ground or other. This is why the concept of “natural law” is problematic. It’s very hard and maybe impossible to lay down a moral law that is binding in any imaginable circumstance.

    Plato kicks off the Republic with this point. The question arises, What is justice? The first to answer is the old man, Cephalus, who says “Justice is paying one’s debts.” Now, surely, it is by and large just to pay one’s debts and unjust not to. But Socrates poses the following: is it just to return a weapon (that you have in fact borrowed) to mad man when you know he is going to rush off and use it to commit murder? Scratch that as a universal rule.

    The more you dig, the more you find that every universal rule has some problem. Justice points to something beyond itself.

  416. slwerner says:

    E – “Plato kicks off the Republic with this point. The question arises, What is justice? “

    Nothing But Obfuscation (NBO)!

  417. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    any maxim one tries to state will be underminable on some ground or other.

    Dude, you´re saying LTR are less immoral than ONS. That is a maxim. Now present the set of rules that give validity to that maxim.

    It’s very hard and maybe impossible to lay down a moral law that is binding in any imaginable circumstance.

    On the contrary. Its very easy. If I set a moral code where stealing is bad, then any kind of stealing is bad. Then ethics will jump in to evaluate the conditions of each specific case. What you havent done, so far, is present the moral code that supports your judgement. Thus your judgement has no point. So far. Present the basis for the judgement and even if we disagree on the premises, at least we´re talking.

  418. Escoffier says:

    Y, I have read your blog though not extensively. I have also read lots of your comments at Susan’s. Here’s what I have found, and if I am wrong, I would be happy to be corrected.

    You are a PUA, definitely one of the kinder ones and possibly THE kindest, but still a PUA. You see no moral problem at all with your lifestyle because you don’t believe in sexual morality for yourself. You are respectful of those who do and try to give them helpful advice on how to get what they want out of the SMP. However, you completely reject the idea that their desire for a certain kind of sex life (whether restrained, committed, monogamous, married, whatever) is anything but a personal preference. People can choose to be what they think of as moral but really the only decisive factor is choice. If one’s choices don’t directly hurt someone else in a tangible, especially physical way, then that choice is value neutral and no one has any right to judge, and certainly no right to coerce.

  419. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    You are a PUA, definitely one of the kinder ones and possibly THE kindest, but still a PUA.

    No, I despise PUA.

    However, you completely reject the idea that their desire for a certain kind of sex life (whether restrained, committed, monogamous, married, whatever) is anything but a personal preference.

    Everything is personal preference, and the basis are on biology, energy (spirituality) and nurturing.

    Now address the issue.

  420. Escoffier says:

    No, the maxim would be “non-marital sex is bad” the same way that “justice = paying one’s debts.” But then you investigate. Does that hold in every single case? In every imaginable case? Also, are their degrees of badness? And it gets complicated.

    Stealing is bad except that stealing to survive is excusable or even justifiable. To be consistent on your terms you have to deny the latter. To be consistent on my terms you have to see that the maxim is imperfect and points to something higher. What is bad and what is good and what makes this act bad or good?

    This is why the Republic (and really all of Plato) culminate in the discussion of the good.

  421. slwerner says:

    E – “If one’s choices don’t directly hurt someone else in a tangible, especially physical way, then that choice is value neutral and no one has any right to judge, and certainly no right to coerce.”

    Then, again, you contradict your earlier position that LTR’s (wherein fraud is the norm, and someone is bound to get hurt) are more moral than ONS’s (in which both parties willingly agree to any and all risks).

  422. Escoffier says:

    Well, if you don’t want to call yourself a PUA, fine, but you seek–and get–a lot of chicks. Fair?

  423. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    To be consistent on my terms you have to see that the maxim is imperfect and points to something higher.

    What is the something higher? lay it down.

  424. Escoffier says:

    slwerner, that was an attempt to summarize Yohami’s views, not my own.

  425. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Well, if you don’t want to call yourself a PUA, fine, but you seek–and get–a lot of chicks. Fair?

    Dude, will you address the issue?

  426. Escoffier says:

    I laid it down. Ulimately, it’s the good, or as Plato says (though I don’t know if he really believes this) the “form” or eidos of the good.

  427. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    I laid it down.

    Nope you havent.

  428. slwerner says:

    E – “But then you investigate.”

    If there is no moral code to use as a standard, then how do you investigate?

    When there is a moral code in place, then ethical considerations can be applied to determine if a given violation is justified under the circumstances, and can thus be excused, or punished less harshly (stealing food to survive, killing when one truly believed they were at risk them-self, etc.).

  429. Escoffier says:

    Reason is the standard, reason discovers the moral code, the moral code is not a frame of reference for the investigation.

    Y, I did state it, you just don’t accept it.

  430. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Reason is the standard, reason discovers the moral code

    Lay down the moral CODE.

    Not what the abstract basis for morality are. The CODE. Lay down the MAXIMS. You already filtered one. Give us the rest. And the WHYs.

  431. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Y, I did state it, you just don’t accept it.

    I would love to not accept it, but you would have to write it first.

  432. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier:
    The more you dig, the more you find that every universal rule has some problem.

    Except this one, of course:

    LTRs are less immoral than ONSs.

  433. Escoffier says:

    No, that one has a problem too. It’s a general rule, “all other things being equal.” All other things being equal, it’s just to pay one’s debts and unjust not to. But introduce complications that make things unequal and suddently it’s not so clear.

    Same with LTRs and ONSa. Way up in the thread, people came back with “So a LTR that breaks a guy’s heart and leaves kids fatherless is less immoral than a ONS?” Of course not. Introduce those factors, and it changes. There is no maxim that reliably applies to every possible case.

    Y, you asked to what above itself does justice point. The answer is the good. Everything ultimately points to the good, or the primacy of the good. Good v. bad is the basis of all moral judgement (and many other judgements beside). Defining the essense of good is the ultimate task of philosophy. Because if you don’t know what the good is, they you can’t know whether this or that is good or bad. Then you can’t really know anything, certainly not about morality.

  434. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Defining the essense of good is the ultimate task of philosophy. Because if you don’t know what the good is, they you can’t know whether this or that is good or bad. Then you can’t really know anything, certainly not about morality.

    You are applying undetermination of what good is, yet you get to get to state maxims about whats good and whats not.

    If you can lay down what good is and what good isnt, then you can construct a moral code on top of that. Christians did it. You are passing moral maxims without passing what good is. So lay down what good is before you can pass moral maxims.

  435. slwerner says:

    E – ”Reason is the standard, reason discovers the moral code”

    Nope. You’ve just described “situational ethics”

    Better to start from a moral code, and judge how the offense fits against the code.

    Let me give you a brief background on my first introduction to the concept of “situational ethics”

    My youngest brother got sexually involved with a young women who was engaged to another man at the time. This woman was real big on invoking this concept of “situational ethics”.

    Her “justification” was that, as the situation had developed, she “loved” my brother more, so it was only natural that she would want to be with him (she did, to her partial credit, break off her engagement when challenged about it). She and my brother ended up getting married (he converted to Catholicism (took the classes, etc) so that she could have HER big fancy and expensive wedding in the Basilica – it was what she wanted then, so she was justified in demanding everyone else change and pay for her to get her wishes). After only a bit over a year later, she decided that she didn’t really want to be married (it wasn’t what she wanted, so she was again justified), and she informed him that she planned to start seeing other men as she wished (to his credit, he threw her out of HIS house on the spot).

    She was a very selfish and immoral (Judea-Christian) woman, but “reason” could always be used to justify whatever she wanted, as it was her Natural Right to be happy, and everyone else had the chance to either agree or disagree. “Reason” provided that as an individual, she had every right to do as she pleased, and no one else had the right to coerce her against her will. Sure, what was best for her did harm others, but, ultimately, it would have been even more wrong to have tried to force her to conform and stay committed to those she did not love. The situation kept changing, but “Reason” came along for the ride. It wasn’t a principal, but simply an excuse.

    I have had, as a result of her, a very dim view of “reason as guide” and “situational ethics” ever since. Applied to real-life situations, they fail time and time again.

    “Reason” would tell us that the slut has every right to have sex with anyone willing to accept the risks, so her doing so would be right. How can “Reason” find promiscuity immoral?

  436. Anonymous Reader says:

    No, that one has a problem too.

    Really? I’m amazed.

    It’s a general rule, “all other things being equal.”

    Suz disagrees. Do you know more about being a woman in an LTR than she does?

  437. Brendan says:

    Let’s try another hypothetical. This is a rather common scenario from literature and weepy war movies. Girl falls madly in love with young man. He loves her too. Since we’ve already all stipulated that love exists and we have some idea of what it is, let’s stipulate that these two were genuinely in love. They have sex in the course of a LTR but are not married. He ships out and is killed on the battlefield.

    So, morally, she is just as bad as the incorrigible slut? You’d judge her just as harshly?

    Of course, because sex outside of marriage is fornication, period. One’s emotional state of “being in love” is thoroughly irrelevant as to whether the act itself is objectively sinful. The emotional state of the parties is not relevant. Someone who is married can fall in love with someone else and have sex with them. Is this less sinful than someone who has sex with someone other than their spouse “for fun”? Nope. Both adultery.

  438. Escoffier says:

    Y, it’s relatively easy to make distinctions about better and worse with respect to specific things. Health is better than sickness, for instance. Where it gets hard is when you try to figure out what “good” is stripped to its essense.

    In the Republic, Socrates says that there is a form or eidos of good that is goodness incarnate, goodness in and of itself, goodness pure and uncut and unmixed with anything else. There are scholars who argue that this is a rhetorical device on Plato’s part. I don’t know. What I do know is that he does not there, or anywhere, adequately define this “eidos” of good and I, personally, do not know what it is.

    Still, I believe that I can classify lots of things as better and worse and I can see that my doing so points to some standard of “good” that is independent of and that transcends any of the things I am considering. Socrates would say, if you don’t know what the good truly is, then you don’t really know if your judgements about better and worse are correct. But he would also say, that doesn’t mean that the investigation is a waste of time. It merely means that you need to be humble about what you think you know and never stop asking the right questions.

  439. Escoffier says:

    B, according to religious law, sure, but according to reason? You would judge both equally harshly?

    S, in order to start from a moral code you have to have the code, and there are only a few possible sources. Revealed by God (or by someone who claims to have gotten it from God), posited by man, or discovered (purportedly) by reasoned investigation. In other words, you either have to accept someone else’s code or create your own. In either case you can try to ensure it’s reasonable by looking into it or you can decline to do so and just accept it for what it is. I’m saying it make more sense to look into it.

    Everything the woman in your example did was immoral by my standard of natural right discoverable by reason.

  440. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Y, it’s relatively easy to make distinctions about better and worse with respect to specific things.

    What are the specific things? So far you mentioned soul-damaging and cheapening-sex / without explaining how either fit in morality.

    It merely means that you need to be humble about what you think you know and never stop asking the right questions.

    Asking the questions is fine. So what are the moral principles you have found?

  441. slwerner says:

    E – “I can see that my doing so points to some standard of “good” that is independent of and that transcends any of the things I am considering.”

    And, here we are, full circle, back to your original underlying (denied, but hardly hidden) philosophical position that the interests and concerns of women are superior to those of men, thus, in the analysis of LTR vs ONS, ONS’s which cause more harm to women on average are held to be worse than LTR’s which tend to harm men more on average.

    And, since you’re so fond of name dropping, here’s another: Father William of Ockham (of lex parsimoniae – Occam’s Razor – fame).

    The simplest explanation (especially in light of your repeated failure to provide any other) is that you view ONS’s as being worse than LTR’s because ONS’s can be seen to harm women more than men, unlike LTR’s.

  442. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    It merely means that you need to be humble about what you think you know and never stop asking the right questions.

    Thing is you´re not making a question but a statement. LTR more moral than ONS. So the question goes to you. Why. To explain why, you could stop citing philosophers ans history and just say why.

    You´ll see that the christians here have a fixed moral that says sex outside of marriage is immoral. Period. You need a moral code before you can talk about things being more or less moral than others. What is your moral CODE that supports your assertion.

    Without a moral CODE you cant talk about morality. You can still talk about things being worse or better within changing contexts. But morality is not about context. Moral is about rules.

  443. slwerner says:

    Yohami – “You need a moral code before you can talk about things being more or less moral than others.”

    Ah, the ultimate undoing of Escoffier’s arguements.

    He/She doesn’t believe in a moral code, only a code driven by “Reason”.

  444. Brendan says:

    B, according to religious law, sure, but according to reason? You would judge both equally harshly?

    I don’t make moral judgments according to reason — it’s not suited to the task.

  445. Escoffier says:

    Well, there is a clear statement I can disagree with and fully understand why. I believe reason is quite capable of apprehening morality.

  446. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    I believe reason is quite capable of apprehening morality.

    Prove it by using your reason and laying down your moral code.

  447. Escoffier says:

    Y, I already made a statement of better. Health is better that sickness. Here is a (moral) statement of worse. Murder is worse than theft. That holds true most of the time. But all of the time? Is murdering a mass murderer worse than stealing from a starving family? Not so easy now.

    I’ve said why, at least a half a dozen times, I think as a general matter ONSs are morally worse than LTRs. You don’t have to accept the reasons but if you are going to keep denying that I have stated them, then continuing this discussion is pointless.

    I will repeat one more time one other point I made, since you have both brought it up again. To start from a moral code you have to have one. Where did you get it? How do you know it’s right?

    Brendan is consistent on this point: his is revealed and not amenable to rational examination.

  448. Escoffier says:

    One point I would add for Brendan, lots of theologians disagree with you and in fact do believe that revealed morality is consistent with rational morality.

  449. Brendan says:

    Prove it by using your reason and laying down your moral code.

    I believe he would say that he has already responded to this:

    Socrates would say, if you don’t know what the good truly is, then you don’t really know if your judgements about better and worse are correct. But he would also say, that doesn’t mean that the investigation is a waste of time. It merely means that you need to be humble about what you think you know and never stop asking the right questions.

    In effect, what this means is that there is some ultimate “good” which exists and which may, to some degree, be discerned by reason but you won’t really know if your judgments about what is good and not good using reason are really true — so what really matters is thinking hard about it and asking the right questions. In other words, you don’t really get a moral code, you get an approach to moral reasoning. This is why it’s very much like “situational ethics”, because you are about investigating the “good” in this circumstance by asking the right questions (and hoping your judgments are right, but even if they’re not you have what you consider to be an integral process) and not coming up with a moral code a priori.

    To me, this is not a moral system. It’s rather a way of trying to use reason to make ethical judgments. But E, being a devotee of secular reason, of course would disagree.

  450. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    To start from a moral code you have to have one. Where did you get it? How do you know it’s right? Brendan is consistent on this point: his is revealed and not amenable to rational examination.

    While yours is hidden and isnt amenable to rational examination either?

    Murder is worse than theft.

    Depends on the context, but I take your point. However to make it about morality you need a set of moral rules, that you are failing to provide. Without it you can make assertions of whats worse and whats better withing any given contexts, using reason and your common sense. But you wouldnt be making *moral* statements.

  451. Brendan says:

    One point I would add for Brendan, lots of theologians disagree with you and in fact do believe that revealed morality is consistent with rational morality.

    Mostly Catholic ones, I’d expect.

  452. YOHAMI says:

    Brendan, re situational ethics:

    so what really matters is thinking hard about it and asking the right questions.

    Which is fine. Yet, the moment one starts coming up with statements (not questions) and maxims, there has to be reasoning behind them. So far there is none.

  453. Brendan says:

    Which is fine. Yet, the moment one starts coming up with statements (not questions) and maxims, there has to be reasoning behind them. So far there is none.

    I think E’s reasoning is that if you are “in love”, this mitigates whatever “immorality” which may apply to extra-marital sex. The reasoning is that love is a “good” and is therefore a mitigating factor to the “bad” of extra-marital sex. Therefore, he reasons that some LTRs, which involve the couple really being “in love” with each other, have a lower degree of “badness” to them than ONSs, which do not generally have the “in love” element to them. As far as I can tell, this is the reasoning — based almost entirely on (1) the subjective emotional states of the parties (or, presumably, even only one of them) and (2) the assertion that this emotional state is a “good” which is relevant morally.

  454. YOHAMI says:

    Brendan,

    I think thats the reasoning. Subjective emotional states passed as morality.

  455. Escoffier says:

    B, where the argument leads is that what is most needful is knowledge of the highest things. However, that knowledge seems to be beyond our reach. Man cannot achieve final wisdom, or at least he hasn’t yet.

    So does that mean we should despair? Does it mean we must fundamentally doubt all that we thought we knew before we reached the final stage in which we come to accept that final wisdom is impossible? No, because in fact in the quest of getting to that stage we have in fact learned many things. Understanding our limits does not cast into radical doubt everything we thought we knew.

    To stick just with morality, it does appear that at the extreme cases the general rules break down and don’t seem to apply. It’s also true that it can be very difficult to judge finely nuanced shades of gray in very close cases. Maxims and rules don’t help.

    But the “easier” calls still apply are still true. We take our moral bearings from the orindary case, not the extreme case. The moral code works very well in the ordinary case. It only breaks down at the margins. That it breaks down suggests that the code is not fully and finally true, that it does not cover and explain everything. It does show that the code is simply false. Hence, this is not situational ethics.

    I posted that story about Cyrus above. As a general matter, the code works: deceiving people bad. But Cyrus shows that out there on the margins, it can be acceptable. You don’t want to universalize the exception; that’s a disaster (everyone’s a cheater). But it’s also problematic to universalize the norm (no one ever cheats even when cheating is necessary). But more important than the practical question is the question of truth: the maxim, as stated, is not true in final analysis because there are exceptions. Maxims can’t take into account when and where exceptions are acceptable. You need first principles for that. You need the good.

  456. slwerner says:

    E – “One point I would add for Brendan, lots of theologians disagree with you and in fact do believe that revealed morality is consistent with rational morality.”

    Well, Duh!

    Of course God’s revealed morality makes rational sense to most people.

    And, most people see good reason to accept God’s as the best of the available choices. Even most atheists seem to have much more of an issue with the authorship rather than the content.

  457. Escoffier says:

    “… does NOT show that the code is simply false.” Merely that it is incomplete.

  458. YOHAMI says:

    You know, pretty much every girl I have banged since I turned Alpha, felt that our chemistry was so *right* and *meant to be* and I had *so freaking much fun* and *all kind of floury feelings emerged*

    Does it make it MORAL?

    Please.

  459. Brendan says:

    E —

    This is the distinction between sin, which is morally objective, and guilt, which is subjective. The objective sinfulness of an act *always* applies, even in “marginal cases”. The “subjective guilt” for one’s moral transgression can and does vary based on the situation, but that is something between oneself and God — mainly, it’s up to God to judge. When an Eastern Orthodox like me goes to confession, we confess the acts — not the scenarios, the mindsets, the context, but the acts. We are there asking for forgiveness for objectively sinful acts we have committed — all of which are, to some degree, sinful, regardless of the circumstances or contexts, mindsets or scenarios. Similarly, if someone dies “in sin”, it is up to God to determine the subjective guilt for that objective sin — not up to the individual(s) to reason away the very sinfulness of the act based on the subjective context.

    Acts which are immoral are *always* immoral, even in marginal cases. The individual’s subjective guilt is up to God, and cannot be mitigated by self-justification (or justification “reasoned” by others) based on contextualizing.

  460. Escoffier says:

    B, I can’t argue with religious teaching on its own terms. All I can do is make a case that certain religious teachings are not reasonable or at least turn out to be questionable when investigated rationally. To which you will say, “Reason is a wholly inapt tool for investigating and judging religious teaching.” And then we are back to square one.

    But at least you and I know exactly where the other stands.

  461. Suz says:

    “I’ve said why, at least a half a dozen times, I think as a general matter ONSs are morally worse than LTRs.”
    You keep saying it, but you have yet to back it up with anything but vague theories and philosophy. Please show how the harm done by ONSs is greater than the harm done by LTRs. Find objective measures of both, and compare them. You won’t, because if you do, you will discover that you are mistaken.

  462. Paul says:

    “B, according to religious law, sure, but according to reason? You would judge both equally harshly?”

    “One point I would add for Brendan, lots of theologians disagree with you and in fact do believe that revealed morality is consistent with rational morality.”

    There is a very big difference judging according to reason (first quote) and creating a moral code based on reason that is a system on par with a moral system based on revealed religion.

    If you use your reason to develop a rational morality, you will in effect be developing a consistent set of moral laws. I’m going to assume that a rational morality would also have to follow logic, and one point of logic is that a logical argument cannot have contradictory outcomes, i.e. the argument A therefore B cannot lead to both C and not C using logical arguments, and if it can then your argument is illogical. All this to say is that once you have used reason to arrive at your moral code, you will still have your 10 commandments, and given that reason and logic should not vary, i.e. if A therefore B leads to C, it should always lead to C, and if someone decides it doesn’t anymore, then you have just tossed logic into the dustbin, along with the pretense that your morality is in any way rational.

    By constantly trying to look at each individual instance (you basically argue by example), and ‘reason’ your way to an answer separately each time, you are basically creating a system of morality based on each situation, not fitting each situation to a coherent system of rational morality. The first is basically situational ethics by definition, the latter is a moral code. Escoffier, you are constantly equivocating between the two, in particular every time you simply give an example. This is why you keep getting called on it.

  463. Escoffier says:

    I’ve made several concrete, practical points Suz. I understand that in your own experience, you found LTRs to be far more painful, but my own observations and reading suggests the opposite. You appear to be an outlier.

    What I observe from sluts is that they are wrecks, they are often horrible and cruel to their friends and families, drains on resources (of families and the state), lead unstable lives, produce little or nothing, and hurt lots of people (if not necessarily the guys who nail them). LTR women OTOH are more stable, more productive, more moral in other ways (i.e., less likely to commit other immoral, socially destructive acts, unlike sluts, who tend not to let their immorality stop at sluttiness). In short, they are more moderate overall. Sluts OTOH end up being immoderate in ways beyond sluttiness because it’s difficult, once one of the low human passions is allowed to completely slip its leash, to control all the others.

    Those are some practical reasons why I judge LTR girls less harshly than sluts.

  464. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    LTR women OTOH are more stable, more productive, more moral in other ways

    We go back at how I addressed this when the thread started. A slut has other qualities and whe´re screening people as a whole all the time. This says nothing about the morality of the act though. You just pointed at it: more moral in OTHER WAYS. How about the specific way.

  465. Escoffier says:

    Admitting that any maxim will break down in certain circumstances is not “situational ethics.” It’s just common sense.

    Unless you are basing it all on religion, in which case, the maxin (law) applies all the time, no exceptions.

  466. YOHAMI says:

    Escoffier,

    Admitting that any maxim will break down in certain circumstances is not “situational ethics.” It’s just common sense.

    Common sense is not morality. Dude. You understand the position here right? its based on religion.

    So where are basing yours? whats your code. No code? its not morality then. You can make assertions based on context, but you cant make moral assertions.

  467. Escoffier says:

    Y, the whole argument started from my questioning of Dalrock’s equation of the girl who has a few LTRs with the girl who has lots of ONSs. I said that the former is morally worse than the latter. He said the she is merely practically worse, in that she damages her SMV, but not morally worse. Morally, they are the same.

    I find moral differences where he does not. I find those differences from practical and theoretical considerations, I find that they arise from these acts’ effect on society, on other people, and on the women themselves. Suz ruled out a whole bunch of stuff and said “Tell me only about the practical stuff.” So I did. This time. It wasn’t meant to be exhaustive.

  468. Escoffier says:

    I’m not basing my position on religion. We are just going in circles now. I believe in a rational morality. Apparently I am the only one. I believe that (for instance) murder is wrong by nature. God could not repeal the sixth commandment tomorrow and make it right, or neutral.

    However, even once one recognizes that murder is wrong by nature, when one investigates extreme cases and tries to make fine distinctions, the maxim becomes questionable. The questions lead to higher considerations, the nature of right and wrong and ultimately of good. One then tries to figure out what “good” is in its essence, one necessarily fails but learns much in the process. One then descends down from that height, presumably wiser and humbler. One recognizes the limitations of any moral maxim but does not discarded the idea of morality. It’s still wrong, in most every circumstance, to kill and it’s useful to proclaim that as a maxim.

    The alternatives are few and simple: get a revealed code from God and follow it to the letter; get a revealed code allegedly from God and follow it to the letter; make up your own code and tell everyone it comes from God and convince them to obey and force the ones you can’t convince; make up your own code and be honest that you made it up and force people to obey it; conclude that since there is no true code, everyone is free to do what he wants.

  469. Suz says:

    Escoffier, my experience is almost a non-issue. I recognized the harm in serial monogamy long before I ever noticed it in myself. What I am describing is goes far beyond my history. I’m sure that like me, you have know many LTR women. You call them more “stable,” but I now question your understanding of “stable.” They APPEAR stable, but are they really? Are they developing the kind of stability that leads to strong marriages? No. They don’t look or act like emotional wrecks, but they are learning how to become emotional wrecks. They are learning how to destroy their own happiness. (I’ll grant that some of the smarter ones manage to succeed in spite of this.)

    LTR damage is SUBTLE. It doesn’t show itself immediately, and it combines with other issues, so by the time it is visible its root causes are forgotten. LTR damage is a high divorce rate. It’s children who know their moms’ boyfriends better than they know their own fathers. It’s the families and friends waiting for the other shoe to drop. LTRs undermine the future marriages of the participants, by reinforcing a lack of commitment, and by normalizing subtle dishonesty. And nobody condemns the participants for it because “they’re in love.” Society in general and the church in particular, refuse to acknowledge the connection between something that LOOKS so harmless, and a world full of “stable” people who don’t take commitment seriously.

    You seem to know a lot about the consequences of sluthood, perhaps because they’re so obvious. (Of course there’s also the fact that a lot of sluts were emotional wrecks long before they became sluts, but that another can of worms.) However I don’t think you’ve looked very closely at the consequences of serial LTRs, and why would you? Everyone you know is so busy pointing at those awful sluts, who notices any harm in those “nice girls” who really love their boyfriends?

    To emphasize what I said earlier, one LTR is a way to learn what not to do in a marriage. More that one LTR is practicing what not to do in a marriage, and getting good at it. It damages the families that are at the core of society, whereas sluts are closer to the fringes.

    Sluts have been a part of every society in history, and their behavior has done very little damage to humanity. In 50 years, serial LTRs have played o huge part in completely redefining the

  470. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier, it is a fact that 40% of newborn children in the US are birthed by women who are not married to the father. The social cost of children raised without fathers is huge by any metric one cares to apply.

    Question for Escoffier:

    Are those children more likely to be born to sluts, or to women in “marriage lite” LTR’s?

  471. Legion says:

    YOHAMI says:
    January 6, 2012 at 2:20 pm
    “Yet, the moment one starts coming up with statements (not questions) and maxims, there has to be reasoning behind them. So far there is none.”

    That is it (In the most appropriate term for the ChelsEscoffierGilligan,Cliff Or,Frasier entity.) in a nutshell. That thing is all smoke and mirrors.

  472. slwerner says:

    Anonymous Reader – ”Are those children more likely to be born to sluts, or to women in “marriage lite” LTR’s?”

    I realize you are intending this as a serious question, but forgive me for a stab at some jocularity based on it.

    PM/AFT has a new post up about a show entitled Secretly Pregnant Sluts in which he describes 7 women who, for one reason or another, tried to hide their pregnancies [by the sound of them, the scenario postulated in the movie Idiocracy is coming to fruition soon than anticipated].

    A brief recap of the relationship status indicates to me:

    1) Single mom, admits that she used first husband for sperm and childimony; married her boyfriend after becoming pregnant again. (LTR, at time of conception)
    2) Divorced husband after becoming pregnant (is the child not his?) (Married, at time of conception)
    3) ONS cougar, tried, but failed, to have LTR after the ONS left her pregnant (ONS, at time of conception)
    4) College girl with boyfriend (LTR)
    5) Single mother, pregnant again by boyfriend (LTR)
    6) Mistress, pregnant for 2nd time by married man. (LT Affair = 1/2 LTR)
    7) Single mom, pregnant by boyfriend (LTR)

    By my count, final score, based on status at time of conception – LTR 4.5, ONS 1, Married 1

  473. Rum says:

    Escofir
    It is time for a judgment: An ought cannot be constructed out of an is. The gap between knowing the effect of ones actions will have on others and feeling the need to refrain from harm is huge an unbridge-able. Rationalism will not get you anywhere if their is no conscience active to prefer a “nice” outcome to a cruel one. I have known people who started relationships precisely because they saw in advance how they could emotionally harm their new “lover”.
    Why did they do that? It seemed to help them from feeling bored, mostly.
    There are cultures that prefer to kill animals as slowly as possible. That is “rational” if one is wired the way they are. It makes them smile and it feels good to them.
    Funny thing is, un-religious folk often have the strongest need to avert their eyes from the reality of this kind of Evil.
    Good and Evil are embodied in the real world. To use another word, these things are Incarnate. Morality/righteousness/etc. is a matter of choosing, not thinking.

  474. slwerner says:

    Escoffier – ”conclude that since there is no true code, everyone is free to do what he wants.”

    Which, ultimately seems to be your position.

    Then, I wonder, why did you even bother trying to judge between the morality of LTR’s vs ONS’s? By your (non-)standards, there isn’t even a way to rationally conclude that either is even immoral to begin with.

    Unless of course, you are working from the starting point of what is (generally) best for women specifically.

  475. Suz says:

    …Western concept of “family.” (sheesh)

  476. Anonymous Reader says:

    Just to stir the pot further:

    It’s still wrong, in most every circumstance, to kill and it’s useful to proclaim that as a maxim.

    Ghengis Khan disagreed with you. Given the number of living humans on Earth right now, whose genes indicate they are descended from him, in pure, raw, evolutionary terms Ghengis had a powerful argument on his side. Furthermore, in pure utilitarian terms, life within the Mongol Empire was quite safe and peaceful for those people who obeyed Mongol law – it was said that a virgin woman could carry a purse of gold unescorted and in utter, unmolested, safety along the Silk Road at the height of the Mongol rule, for example. The means used to obtain that level of safety were bloodily, and even brutally, effective…unquestionably effective.

    Given your rational, rather utilitarian bent, how could you gainsay the Great Khan’s killing of entire cities, since it did bring many good things to those who obeyed him, and left a genetic legacy that lasts to this day? In rational terms, a strong man with unquestioning followers can do a lot of needed work in the world…right?

  477. Escoffier says:

    “An ought cannot be constructed out of an is”

    180 degrees wrong, all oughts are derived from “is”. Not constructed, though, derived, or learned, or discovered.

    Whatever, guys. I think that natural right is not merely compatible with but necessary for what you are trying to accomplish. Discard the ONS v. LTR point if you want, it’s third order at best. To throw out natural right along with it is to discard the baby with the bath water.

    To revive the stigma, turn back the SR, reform marriage laws, and do all that you want to do, you will need a coherent appeal to justice that does not depend on any particular religion, or religion in general, on positivism, on will to power, or anything arbitrary. You have the truth on your side on all the big things but you (hilariously, in my view) keep attacking the soundest basis for that truth. You spend tons of time here making moral judgements that this is good and that is bad, and someone comes along and says “These things are actually good and bad by nature, by human nature, by a standard that trancends any of us, that exists independent of our will, that we did not invent and cannot change,” and you response is ENEMY!!!!!!!!!! FEMINIST!!!!!!!! MAN-HATER!!!!! ATTACK!!!!!!

    Yeah, makes perfect sense.

  478. Escoffier says:

    In no way, shape or form am I a utilitarian, nor has anything I have said been the least bit utilitarian. My philosophy, if you want to put a label on it, is classical natural right adjusted to the circumstances of the modern world.

  479. Rum says:

    The country of Iceland is by all accounts “Post Christian”. Hardly anyone goes to Church. But about 80% of the people there admit to believing in “bog fairies” and sea spirits.
    Your “natural right” formulation is indistinguishable from a theistic worldview.
    Whatever, indeed.

  480. Dalrock says:

    Would it be ungracious of me to point out that I throw the best hamster hunts in the manosphere?

  481. Escoffier says:

    Really, Rum? Have you ever read the Declaration of Independence? Consider it a fairy tale?

    Dalrock, so is your position Brendan’s? There is religious morality but no natural morality? If so, how do you address the problem I identified above re: the 6th commandment (or any commandment)? Could God make murder right, or at least strip it of it’s wrongness, simply by rewriting the code?

  482. Escoffier says:

    Here’s another simple way to put this.

    To all you Christians who believe in Christian morality because it has been revealed by God, but deny that it has any natural grounding: what about non-Christians? Their revealed law differs from yours. For instance, you would have to say the bigamy is immoral. It certainly is according to Christianity. However, Islam says a man can have four wives. They can’t both be right, can they?

    Maybe Islam can be right in the ummah, and Christianity can be right in Christendom. Did God really divide up the world this way with seperate moralities? If so, how do you handle it when populations mingle? Whose law should apply? What should pluralistic, secular societies do about this?

    Certain communities in India long practiced suttee. Certainly not Christian. Can you say it’s wrong, however, if they don’t follow the Christian code? What about human sacrifice? Slavery? Is there no natural, independent basis for saying that any of this is morally wrong?

  483. Dalrock says:

    @Escoffier

    Dalrock, so is your position Brendan’s? There is religious morality but no natural morality? If so, how do you address the problem I identified above re: the 6th commandment (or any commandment)? Could God make murder right, or at least strip it of it’s wrongness, simply by rewriting the code?

    I haven’t followed everything in the discussion today, but my sense is that Brendan has thought much of this through much more thoroughly than I have. I have been considering the issues I write about on the blog mostly logically, and find that this takes me toward a rather orthodox position. Many assume it was the other way around. This is ironically quite illogical, because I don’t think one should reason one’s way to faith. If so, it isn’t really faith. I’m still struggling with the paradox. Perhaps the mitigating factor is that I had faith previously (simply due to a leap of faith). Yet previously I would not have been so clear in my moral thinking. Along those lines slwerner’s statement resonates with me:

    Of course God’s revealed morality makes rational sense to most people.

    But to answer your specific question, if God says it is moral then it must be so. It wouldn’t be rational to believe that God is who He is and believe otherwise.

  484. Anonymous Reader says:

    Escoffier, your Clliff’s Notes version of “natural law” does not seem to convince anyone here. Why do you believe it will be more effective in the larger world, when it has to go up against the Feministing crowd? I mean, really, you can’t make headway with it in a forum where you claim to be in agreement with 90% of the positions of the host. How will your debate model fare against a truly hostile, and anti-rational, opponent?

    Turning to the issue at hand, you are from time to time taking a utilitarian position, whether you realize it or care to admit it or not. Other times you take a purely emotional one. In between there’s name dropping. But one thing is consistent: your sole concern is the haaaapiness of women. You arrived here demanding that all present should denounce PUA’s on your command, because of what they “do to women”. Now you’ve taken the position that LTR’s are less immoral than ONS’s, and once again it’s no coincidence that you favor that which women prefer. The pattern is obvious.

    As are the topics you ignore: such as the fact that promiscuous women having affairs and ONS’s are much, much less likely to give birth to children than women in marriage-lite LTR’s – and fatherless children are not just correlated to social problems, they cause social problems. So much for any claim you may have to any concern for the greater good, right there.

    It’s all about the haaapiness of women, for you. Looks like slwerner’s on to something.

    Dalrock, the answer is unquestionably “yep”…does this mean I hafta buy me some dawgs?

  485. Anonymous Reader says:

    And of course, Escoffier, you are totally culturally biased. You cite the Greeks over and over again, which means you are ignoring many other philosophical traditions, such as Native American, Mongol, African and many others. Rationally you have no basis for this prejudice and you should be spending your entire life studying all human philosophical systems in order to synthesize the “true” one. But you won’t. Because you are right, and everyone else is wrong.

    Why? Obviously “because”…just, because.

  486. Rum says:

    Escofir
    Let me help you out.
    God is an English-Man; and very upper class. He has zero tolerance for any sort of womanish whinning. The stiff upper lip thing may not be in the Bible but it is still absolutely true.
    Yur sort?
    Just hope He is in a good mood on the Day of Judgement.

  487. Anonymous Reader says:

    Slavery, Escoffier? Seriously? I declare, every time it seems that the depths of your ignorance have been plumbed, a new chasm opens up.

    Ok, I’ll bite. You outline the rational, classical Greek argument against slavery. Use all the space you need. Cite all the ancient Greeks you can find on the topic. For bonus points, add in the ancient Persian position, the Assyrian position, the pre-Hellenistic Egyptian position, the Sumerian position, the Babylonian position, the Phonecian position, the Roman position, the ancient Chinese position, the Aztec and Toltec and Mayan position, the Moslem position, the Constantine Greek Empire position. Oh, and tell me what the root word of “Slavic” means while you are at it.

    From an economists point of view, it was coal-fired steam machines that ended slavery. From a moral standpoint, it was English-speaking Christians such as William Wilberforce that ended it. From a realistic standpoint, it was the cannon-laden frigates of the English Royal Navy that did the job – you know, violence, killing, all that stuff? Although the job was not uniform – Saudi Arabia didn’t officially abolish slavery until 1963 or so (not a misprint, the US space program was under way before Saudi Arabia officially shut down slave markets). It’s still going on in garden spots like Sudan, Mauritania and arguably Arabia as well as some Persian gulf emirates. Go and argue your logic in the slave market of Khartoum, and see how far you get.

    Rational argumentation had very little to do with ending slavery over most of the planet. Economics, and gunpowder, and a particular form of Christianity did. The ancient greeks philosophers had no problem with slavery, because every one of the Greek city states would have been uninhabitable without slavery, as every school child ought to know.

  488. Escoffier says:

    The greek philosophers opposed slavery. Greek society was another matter. There is a gap between philosophy and society. They executed Socrates, for instance.

  489. Escoffier says:

    D, so you think through this things logically, that takes you to an orthodox position, and yet you resist or oppose the conclusion that the orthodox position and the natural position coincide? Seems to me that the logical conclusion is the opposite.

  490. Anonymous Reader says:

    The greek philosophers opposed slavery.

    Please be so kind as to provide appropriate citations.

    Greek society was another matter. There is a gap between philosophy and society. They executed Socrates, for instance.

    Are you implying that Socrates was executed over the issue of slavery?

  491. Andrew says:

    The Expat Test

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2011/12/17/the-expat-test/

    quote: “…
    revver
    This post says what I’ve been thinking for a ling time. There is no value of tradtional marriage in churches today, if the divorce rates are any indication.
    Imagine if a church were to organize some kind of trip abroad to churches/outreaches in other (2nd/3rd world) couuntries for men to meet foreign christian (godly/chaste) women. The home females would go berserk. …

    AndrewV
    @revver,
    I suspect that the term “berserk” would be considered mild and understated to what would actually happen. ..

    gender foreigner
    Amen for suis to say, the precursor to Feminist Marriage (Matriarchal Marriage).
    Particular points from the book, The Garbage Generation must be mentioned with yes/no COMMITMENTS from such ideologues. Let’s test the objectors to MRAs. … Let’s insist that the only valuable and civilized option of a Patriarchal Society must be supported … The “Defence of Marriage” must pass explicit tests of Patriarchal Marriage, the only REAL marriage. If such persons do not subscribe to such, they are not defending stable civilization but either unstable civilization …”

    The Above needs nothing added…but for:

    http://www.the-spearhead.com/2012/01/04/comment-of-the-week-lebanese-woman-speaks-truth/

    Lebanese Woman Speaks Truth – Intuitive’s lengthy analysis.. the 5th comment down

  492. Pingback: Mark Driscoll’s feminist foolishness posing as Christian wisdom. | Dalrock

  493. Scott MacDougall says:

    Hi there,
    I’m a producer for the TLC channel, and we’re currently casting for a show that deals with this very topic! People who have decided to save themselves for marriage, with an emphasis on engaged couples waiting to share their first kiss at the altar. If anyone sees this and knows someone who’d like to be involved or participate, I’d love to have a chance to talk with them! Participants will be reimbursed for their time with us, and you’ll get to share your unique story with the world! Email me personally if you have any questions or concerns! We’re really looking forward to meeting people who want to share their personal story!
    Scott MacDougall
    scott@psgfilms.com

  494. Joe Sheehy says:

    @Andrew:

    Yes, if you’ve ever talked a lot to Muslim women raised in Muslim countries, the difference between them and western or westernized women, be they church-going or not, is simply extraordinary. They have the personality of the help-mate, what a man naturally expects a woman to be like.

  495. Pingback: From cornerstone to stepping stone; the mainstream Christian view of marriage. | Dalrock

  496. Pingback: Christians washing their hands of sexual morality. | Dalrock

  497. Pingback: Dating Stanton’s Heroes | Dalrock

  498. Pingback: The boyfriend invention | Dalrock

  499. Pingback: “The one” vs “my one and only” | Dalrock

  500. Pingback: Manufacturing Singleness Part 2 | The Society of Phineas

  501. Pingback: Feral love | Dalrock

  502. Pingback: The Feminine Imperative Revisited | Dalrock

  503. Chris Nystrom says:

    “Yes, she’d taken off her wedding ring, but I would argue that he had already had an affair (with porn)”

    In Christian marriage do women have a right to divorce their husbands for marital unfaithfulness? It seems to me that Matt 5:32 and Matt 19:9 specifies this for the husband only?

  504. Pingback: Manosphere: The Importance of Marriage (And Why Substitutes Don’t Work!) (Part 1) | 3rd Millenium Men

  505. Pingback: Approaching the Super-Norm: Identifying Perspectives

  506. Pingback: Man-Up and Marry Level 2: Re-Education | The Society of Phineas

  507. Pingback: Modern Civil Marriage (TLDR Warning) | Something Fishy

  508. Pingback: Neutered Piety: The Socially Conservative Abortifacient | Things that We have Heard and Known

  509. Pingback: The Futility of Moralising Promiscuity; A Truly No Strings Attached Relationship | The Rationality of Faith

  510. Pingback: Do Women Pursue Sex With Alphas For Commitment Or For The Sex? | Just Four Guys

  511. Pingback: Links and Comments #16 | The Society of Phineas

  512. alcockell says:

    Over here in the UK, ITV2 airs Millionaire Matchmaker – where I heard the “No sex before monogamy” trope. One episode was rather prescient though – where Patti Stanger was leading the “reminder” – “And remember – no sex before – ” “Marriage!” yelled one of the men (it was gaggle of women for 2 men) – they had to repeat the call to get Stanger’s rule in.

    Was interesting that the guy (a Christian) wanted to hold them to a higher standard than the women wanted to…

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