Trad Con Tourette’s

Definition
Trad Con Tourette’s Syndrome (TCTS) is a mental disorder suffered by many Traditional Conservatives, characterized by involuntarily blurting out feminist slogans and/or pedestalizing women.

Causes and symptoms
The cause of TCTS is unknown.  Those suffering from TCTS can be readily identified by their compulsive need to write or speak feminist slogans and pedestalize women while simultaniously claiming to be a Traditional Conservative.  Note the claim of being Traditional Conservative is crucial for the accurate diagnosis of TCTS, as this is what separates it from Deranged Feminist Syndrome (DFS) and Proud Mangina Syndrome (PMS, See also Manboobz).   Consider the following compulsive feminist slogans (H/T Ferdinand):

[Men in the manosphere] talk about how women aren’t worthy of their greatness but are (insert crude term here) who need to be forced back into their place as serving wench, with our obviously inferior minds and anatomy.

and

[good men are] kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.  They would never think of using the crude terms flung around the manosphere.

While the use of hyperbole in mocking traditional sex roles and demands that sluts and ladies receive equal respect would be signs of DFS when stated in the context of a Women’s Studies class or a slutwalk, in this case they are symptoms of advanced TCTS.  These statements differ from symptoms of Deranged Feminist Syndrome because they were written by a woman who by all outward appearances is traditional and submissive.  TCTS can be positively diagnosed in this case by the contradiction between her words and how she presents herself to the world.

As much as those unable to restrain their spontaneous feminist slogans suffer, TCTS is even more devastating to those Traditional Conservatives who compulsively pedestalize women.  This can manifest in claims that women are innately good, uncontrollable man up rants, or in an irresistible need to worship women:

I was taught that real men fall to their knees in adoration and humility before God,mothers and children.

Treatment
The only known cures for TCTS are the use of corrective lenses and a TCTS inhibiting prescription commonly called the red pill. If either one of these treatments are followed the condition is 100% curable.  However, those suffering from TCTS are notoriously unwilling to admit they have a problem and often resist treatment.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Feminists, Foolishness, Satire, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

92 Responses to Trad Con Tourette’s

  1. bskillet81 says:

    “Proud Mangina Syndrome (PMS, See also Manboobz).”

    Hahahaha! Instant classic.

  2. Will S. says:

    Ah, so God, mothers and children are the Trinity of churchianity. Got it.

  3. I offer the flip side

    L.E.F.T

    Leftists Embrace Feminist Theory

    New peeve, the free pass militant leftists get in the manosphere is at least equally counterproductive as tradcom white knights

  4. Dalrock says:

    Empath,

    Leftists are supposed to embrace the destruction of traditional roles. It’s their job.

  5. lgrobins says:

    Funny!! Yes, they won’t admit to having a problem because there is no problem until it happens to them. This is a telling quote from Cam “They’re kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.” IOW, the real men are those that don’t hold
    women accountable, who treat her like a lady even if she is acting or is a slut or some other unladylike activity.

  6. Pirran says:

    “I was taught that real men fall to their knees in adoration and humility before God,mothers and children.”

    Here’s the mother-worshiping mangina in all his glory:

    http://venite-missa-est.blogspot.co.uk/

    He seems to come from a rather small and obsessive alternate liturgical reality where mothers and children are assumed to be commensurate with the original mother and child. Mary worship has always been a more or less tolerated alternate religion within Catholicism and here we see its logical consequence.

  7. Brendan says:

    It’s really a kind of Victorianism run amok, to be honest.

  8. Prof. Woland says:

    Actually, a really nasty divorce and custody battle also does wonders to help men overcome their reverence of the opposite sex.

  9. slwerner says:

    ““I was taught that real men fall to their knees in adoration and humility before God,mothers and children.”
    I must admit that I’m a bit confused here. Are we men supposed to fall on our knees before any women who might be a mother, or only those that we know to be mothers? And, do the children need to be with their mothers to require our falling on our knees beofre them?

    And, I suppose I should ask, with all the falling on our knees that we should be doing, is it unmanly to go around wearing knee pads?

    And, in this progression of raising mother and children to psudo-deities, is there a projected point in time when mothers and children will assend to be above God?

    These weird Female Fertility Goddess-cult Catholics have me confused.

  10. Dalrock says:

    Good questions slwerner. I was wondering something similar. Are we to fall down on our knees in adoration of the mothers of the 40% of children born out of wedlock? I have to confess that I’ve been getting this wrong if we are supposed to. Does this genuflecting adoration also include the millions of mothers who took the formality of marrying prior to birth but then kicked the father out of the home? Does it change the answer if she wasn’t haaaaapy?

    Edit: For example, should I drop to my knees in adoration of Loraine Berry and Cherie Bowser?

  11. Dalrock says:

    @Brendan

    It’s really a kind of Victorianism run amok, to be honest.

    I have it on good authority that there is a long and complicated explanation for why this isn’t what it seems like it is. It has something to do with Thomas Aquinas and Joan of Arc.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, they’re like a parrot: Man up, man up, kiss her ass, brack!

  13. TheMan says:

    HAHAHAHAHA…

    I can’t stop laughing. Traditional Conservatives could do themselves good by reading this.

  14. jbaee says:

    Because her crappy spam-catching system didn’t let me post, I will simply point out something simple:

    “in my experience, the most masculine men that I know. . . (are) kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.”

    Would you also take the converse stance, that the most feminine women are kindly respectful of men, regardless of whether or not the man is acting like a gentleman?

    “adolescent screech of the manosphere.”

    “my first reaction to a man acting in that manner is that there must be something fragile and threatened that causes them to shout”

    So, where is the kind respect?

  15. GKChesterton says:

    Dalrock I actually like the comment you mention. But you are right that the above comments by the gal evidence an extreme ignorance of what is going on. But _look at the picutres_. As you note she’s withdrawn from society and is trying to live out the right role. The problem is the Devil is in the air we breath. His latest trick is feminism. He will have more after feminism is put to rest (and like socialism it will rear its head ever couple of decades after it is “dead”). I’m not sure we gain by ridiculing the misguided and otherwise good guys. I understand the impulse, because it is madening, but I was awefully proud of the majority of comments over at Darwin Catholic. They were spot on and ruthlessly un-insulting.

  16. dragnet says:

    “It’s really a kind of Victorianism run amok, to be honest.”

    The particularly virulent strain of Anglo-American feminism that’s held sway the last few decades is definitely just that. You simply don’t find this degree of pussy worship or pedestalization in any other culture at all on the planet.

  17. These kind of posts are my favorite to share with friends & family. I believe Proverbs has something to say about beautiful women who show no discretion. PS. if Jack that was banned from boundless reads this I’d like to thank you sir, for being a voice of reason in an unreasonable forum. I actually believed what those silly bints said would work in being attractive to women(definition of insanity?) With the red pill fully absorbed into my system I’m actually doing good in the romance dept. Dalrock, your site was the healing balm my soul needed to get the bitterness of the red pill out of my mouth. God bless you

    [D: Thank you, and welcome!]

  18. TFH says:

    You simply don’t find this degree of pussy worship or pedestalization in any other culture at all on the planet.

    It would be quaint and funny, if not for being the the basis around which many laws are being re-written.

  19. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    But _look at the picutres_. As you note she’s withdrawn from society and is trying to live out the right role. The problem is the Devil is in the air we breath.

    We each see different things (which will happen). You see a woman who is traditional in her thoughts and actions but who somehow finds surprisingly feminist slogans come out of her mouth (or keyboard). I see a woman who is wearing the uniform of a traditional woman but in many ways is a feminist in her mind. The truth may well lie somewhere in between.

    I’m not sure we gain by ridiculing the misguided and otherwise good guys. I understand the impulse, because it is madening, but I was awefully proud of the majority of comments over at Darwin Catholic. They were spot on and ruthlessly un-insulting.

    I didn’t notice the comments aside from your exchange with DC. I do recall clearly that you pretty patiently engaged all comers both on my “Do not be alarmed” post and at DC’s “Unmanly” post pretty much simultaniously. You hung in there and calmly made your case. There should be an award for performances like that, whether one agrees with your take on any given issue or not.

    I took the tack that I did with this post for two reasons. The first is that as you wrote it is in the air we breath. This makes it very difficult to address using normal discussion. Consider the denial about DC’s feminist “no accomplishment but long hair no makeup and prarie skirt” disparagement. It isn’t just that this is common, but that they do it so often they don’t even know when they are doing it, and when you point it out they are sure you are making it up. Getting past this kind of denial takes something more than just calm rational discussion with charts and data. In this case I used satire, and I think it was the right fit. Few who read it are likely to forget the lesson, and as an added bonus we have a handy term for this kind of absurdity in the future. It makes it easier to spot and call out in the future.

    The other reason I chose to take this route is this is the third Catholic blogger who has falsely claimed to have studied the manosphere and reported out on our evil ways. I simply don’t believe her when she claims to have read actual manosphere posts when she writes:

    After reading a few “manosphere” posts I began to see a trend, could unfortunately understand the manosphere lingo, and could almost stop shaking my head after clicking away from the posts. It was more difficult however, to stop the constant stream of blog-post worthy thought that began in response to the adolescent screech of the manosphere.

    The only link she includes is to DC’s response to one of my posts. Assuming she found the manosphere from DC, she would have started off on my site, specifically my rules of the road for fornication. It doesn’t fit with what she is complaining about, but the discussion on DC’s post does fit somewhat. She strikes me as pretending that comments made on on DC’s site and/or comments DC made about manosphere posts are actually manosphere blog posts. They aren’t. The woman appears to have difficulty with the truth.

  20. Mark says:

    The sarcastic truth! Shout it from the rooftops Dalrock!

  21. I love Dalrock’s tongue in cheek posts! They’re my favorite to share with friends & family. Dalrock, I have to commend you for your continuing battle against the forces of satan. And if Jack who was banned from commenting on boundless reads this, I thank you for being one of the only voices of reason on that site. I think you posted something about feminist shaming language that directed me to the manosphere. God bless you both sirs!

  22. ukfred says:

    @Dalrock
    For example, should I drop to my knees in adoration of Loraine Berry and Cherie Bowser?
    I’d say that would be less bad than dropping to your knees in adoration of Cherie Blair.

  23. Opus says:

    A Doctor Writes: I am often consulted by people who are afflicted with TCTS: Only today I received a letter from a Mr Romney of Utah who tells me that ‘women have suffered more than men in the
    last recession’. Unfortunately he refuses to allow me to prescribe red-pills as he thinks this may affect his career prospects.
    ————————————————————————-
    I think this is off-topic, but as Dalrock mentions Lorraine Berry, I set out below verbatim (but the square bracketed interjections are mine) a post on a certain blog. Is this woman strong and empowered and should we worship her I wonder? – or should we send a White-Knight to her aid?:

    “I’m 42 . I used to have it together [i.e. married with children] I should have it together [I divorced my husband] . I was at the top of my game, the peek of my success and happiness in the last year of my marriage[?]. Don’t get me wrong I’ve done great things since then [Alpha pump and Dump??] and I NEVER want him back [Tr: I need him] but I just can’t seem to get my life together and on track for more than a few months at a time. I’m not depressed [I am depressed] . I know this because I used to be. Circumstances are just plain difficult. [well well - what a surprise].

  24. Ballista_GTOW says:

    Written more as a direct response to a response to this post, but since Blogger is rejecting this post, I thought I’d post it here:

    I should start out by saying that you should be looking at people’s individual posts for what they are and not representative of the group as a whole. People, as a rule, stand by themselves with what they write. I don’t have to agree with everybody else in order to participate and no one else has to agree with me. We are not lockstep as a group, and there is no social order enforcing people to hold to a particular line. The only thing I ask is that people give what I write a fair hearing and understand what I’m trying to say. Doing this doesn’t require agreement, but I do this with others, I expect it done with me. Diversity of opinion is a good thing when it can be expressed and there is much diversity of opinion.

    The default attitude within the traditional conservative community, which you are part of as well as the Darwin Catholics (DCs for brevity later) since you identify yourself in a religious way, is that women are noble, upstanding, sinless and blameless. The default attitude regarding men is that they are base, vile, reprehensible, and responsible when women sin because they are drawn into it by the men’s failures (they believe if not for men, women would be sinless). This attitude plays into the feminists’ hands, who are man haters anyway. The attitude you take towards this plays into their hands. Criticizing women in any way is seen as “oppressive and disrespectful to women”. In your case, the statements:

    “They’re kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.”

    “talk about how women aren’t worthy of their greatness but are (insert crude term here) who need to be forced back into their place as serving wench, with our obviously inferior minds and anatomy.”

    as well as others in the blog post is upholding these attitudes. Sin needs to be called out and dealt with whether it is from women or men, and the sins of women have been ignored and celebrated for far too long. For some reason, you tradcoms have made this your 11th commandment. Part of the manosphere message is a requirement that this be pointed out. Men are as valuable as women. Women are as valuable as men. But in the tradcom culture, as well as the wider culture this is not so. In the current environment, women need to be brought down and men need to rediscover what it means to be a true man. Not by your feminist definition, but the real world version of it that has been lost. Masculinity needs to be celebrated, not denigrated as it is in so many places, including your posts.

    Then, marriage is redefined from what God defined it to be. The tradcom community, as well as base religious teaching has adopted the feminist model of marriage. This in effect makes the woman the head and the man the tail, countermanding the Word of God. The women receive all the benefits of marriage, and the men bear all the responsibilities. This redefinition makes men and the definition of masculinity to be a “well-behaved slave” as the quote puts it.

    As for what is going on with both the Darwin Catholics and you, I pointed out in those posts that there seems to be a distinct blindness and strong deception going on in your midst. By your comments and their comments, all of you identify yourselves as feminists, whether you believe yourselves to be or not. If you don’t hold to all the lines of feminism, you as well as other tradcoms give aid, comfort, and support to the feminists. This is what Dalrock is pointing out. Seeing no problem with the quote in the post is just one pointer towards it.

    To that end, the DCs, you, and all the other tradcoms, end up doing the devil’s work when you are speaking out in favor of “traditional marriage”, “upholding the sanctity of marriage”, celebrating femininity, denigrating masculinity, ignoring the sins of women while chewing into the men constantly over their sins, telling men to “man up and marry all the women of ill-repute” (I would use that s word there normally, what term would be more tasteful for you that would get the message across in society at large? You would be much more constructive in saying that than complaining as you do.).

    Ironically from a Christian moral standpoint, you and the DCs are in much more agreement with the manosphere than you believe when it comes to these issues. For some reason or another, you are blind to the realities of what is going on. As I wrote to DC, if you saw these realities and had any conviction, you would be sounding much more like the manosphere than the feminists. You would be assaulting the denigration of masculinity, calling out the sins of women, and upholding marriage as defined by God, not as defined by Caesar. You would be writing to openly take marriage from Caesar and return it to God.

  25. Pingback: This life is not all that there is. | Dark Brightness

  26. lavazza1891 says:

    I don’t get it. The saint Ramakrishna apparently acheived liberation using all attitudes of worship in all major religions, but one at a time.

    “The Vaishnava Bhakti traditions speak of five different moods,[47] referred to as bhāvas—different attitudes that a devotee can take up to express his love for God. They are: śānta, the “peaceful attitude”; dāsya, the attitude of a servant; sakhya, the attitude of a friend; vātsalya, the attitude of a mother toward her child; and madhura, the attitude of a woman towards her lover.”

    I don’t find worship of a trinity of God, women and children.

  27. The Continental Op says:

    I filter everything I hear a woman say through this: It was Eve who was deceived, not Adam. (That’s in the Bible for all you Christians out there.)

    When a woman speaks, listener beware! If she’s telling you she needs to buy clothes for the children it’s one thing. If she’s explaining how the world works, look out!

    This goes for women bloggers and commenters. The TradCon women shouldn’t be worrying their pretty little heads over this stuff, they should be freeing up their husbands to worry about this stuff. But NO! they have to have an authoritative opinion on it, and lecture men with it! They post blog entries and come over here and make comments.

  28. canecaldo says:

    @Dalrock

    I have it on good authority that there is a long and complicated explanation for why this isn’t what it seems like it is. It has something to do with Thomas Aquinas and Joan of Arc.

    Where can I find this?

    [D: The exchange starts here and continues through the thread.]

    I took the tack that I did with this post for two reasons. The first is that as you wrote it is in the air we breath. This makes it very difficult to address using normal discussion. Consider the denial about DC’s feminist “no accomplishment but long hair no makeup and prarie skirt” disparagement. It isn’t just that this is common, but that they do it so often they don’t even know when they are doing it, and when you point it out they are sure you are making it up.

    First, this post was great. Enablers are fair targets for thoughtful provocation.

    Second, there’s another social force at work here besides traditional conservatism. DC and his crowd really want people to think–know–they’re smart. You can see this in the blog title; in the latest post about who believes in evolution and who doesn’t; in their strong defence of career girls; in the off-the-cuff disparagement of prairie skirt girls… That it was off-the-cuff is important. Most of DC’s writing is pretty thoughtful, as you’ve pointed it out, and fairly curteous–even in the face of some mean-spirited remarks. It never dawns on him that you, too, wouldn’t look down on the non-university prairie skirt crowd.

    I have a friend who attended University of Dallas (a conservative Roman Catholic school in DFW) for awhile, and I often hung out with his friends there. They were the most charmingly arrogant people I’ve ever met; like hanging out with Willam Buckley’s children.

    Have you ever seen Metropolitan*?

    There they are; though the Metropolitan kids are a bit wealthier. This is the point where someone says I’m projecting my experience with the U of D folks with DC’s crowd. All I can say is that I didn’t immediately think of the kids at my friend’s school until I had read several of DC’s posts, and the comments below.

    What this all means is that they’re not burying their heads in the sand and merely pretendng they can’t be bothered–they genuinely believe they’re beyond all this proletarian rutting that goes on out in the rest of the world. It would never occur to them to be anywhere but where they are now. To quote myself, they’re like the person who says, “If you don’t want to be poor, then you shouldn’t live in the ghetto!”

    *Whit Stillman’s movies are great; at least Metropolitan and Barcelona. In Metropolitan there’s a Roissy-esque fellow; there’s a beta-male hater; the defensive harlot; the socialist; discussions of the divorce rates among their upper-middle class group…it’s all there.

  29. Joe Sheehy says:

    Catholics believe that natural laws govern sexual morality. This is where the inconsistency becomes most apparent. Someone pointed out that a lot of these feminist trads are like “gnostics.” That comparison is often overused but he made a good point. If the sexual immorality of women distresses a man, he is arrogantly told to forgive in advance, to forget about chastity or honesty, since he’s obliged to forgive and “lead.” (ie, follow) He is peremptorily shame for daring to have standards of sexual morality in a bride. It is hard to see how such attitudes can really be reconciled with a natural law theory of sexual morality. That is, these women can’t really believe that sexual immorality is wrong for natural reasons if they disregard the natural consequences of the sin. What they consider to be supernatural “grace” is cheap, and sexual sin is no big deal in the natural order. In such people the religion is dead.

  30. Joe Sheehy says:

    “they genuinely believe”

    I doubt there’s anything genuine about it. It’s a kind of social pose, half-believed.

  31. an observer says:

    Trad con tourettes. . . I love the description! And the comment about these falsehoods being so ubiquitious is spot on. Witness the uk columnist who could not understand women expressed so much hatred at her for the crime of being mildly attractive.

    I tend to think much of the fog around clear thinking is perpetuated by that which is not seen. As in, we wrestle with forces we cannot see. Secularists may disagree, but given the degenerat trend of civilisation, i think it makes perfect sens

    Whilst economic collapse and social change will not be teotwawki, i expect the next 20-40 years to be a time of great change and much discomfort. Alas. In the meantime, thanks for the insight Dalrock. This blog has been of much help in clarifying my thinking.

  32. Dalrock says:

    I just noticed from my stats that I’m getting traffic from her blog, and that she replied. It is overall a good response, and she is fairly open to discussion. She does however keep claiming that there is a string of profanity. At first I thought she was only referring to Ferd’s site (either the post or the comments), but she makes it clear at one point that she is referring to my post (not comments):

    I would quote more but then the profanity and derogatory terms start.

    What profanity? What derogatory terms? Women’s Studies? Slutwalk? Slut?

    She mentions in a comment that:

    Unfortunately I have seen feminism up close and person before I converted. I actually worked for a non-profit in Berkley and before that, when I was a poli sci student in college, the modern feminist agenda was pretty blatant. I was super liberal at the time, but even then I found many of the ideas proposed to be unacceptable at the best. Even then I was too bothered by the treatment of men to accept it as a possible ideology.

    I can only assume that she witnessed things which would have made the residents of Sodom and Gomorrah cringe. Yet she is profoundly troubled by terms which imply judgment of sexual immorality by women. If we can’t name it, we can’t address it. In the end this hurts the sluts themselves as much as anyone else.

  33. tm says:

    ““They’re kindly respectful of women, regardless of whether or not the woman is acting like a lady.”

    Some guys never learn: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-humber-17675025

  34. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @Dalrock
    What profanity? What derogatory terms? Women’s Studies? Slutwalk? Slut?


    I believe “slut” is one of the words she’s objecting to referring to women.

    But maybe you can tell me whether or not degrading women is a theme across the manosphere, or did I just run across the worst of the worst? Are women always referred to as S@#$, B*&^%$ and worse? That was my main problem with all the posts I saw…

  35. canecaldo says:

    Dalrock, where can I find your email address?

    [D: I just sent you an email.]

  36. Ballista_GTOW says:

    Tried to post this over there, but it came back with a posting error (again). She may see it or not, but here it is:

    “I think that really does hit the nail on the head. Because in the comments section I notice people keep saying that I think the behavior should be respected, which I absolutely don’t.”

    I initially made a post on Dalrock’s site answering this, but I thought I’d ask this here to make sure you see it.

    You seem profoundly troubled by the generally accepted normative terms (i.e. understood by all who read) that imply the judgment of sexual immorality on the part of women. Since you seem troubled by the simple naming of this sin, how can it be adequately addressed? Do you believe this is even a problem at all? This is another one of the things that is labeling you a feminist in this discussion.

    I would love to see an answer from this, though I’m not holding my breath.

  37. Brendan says:

    Cane —

    Except that I’ve known more than a few FUS graduates in the past and many of them had didn’t have the coin to rub between two fingers, yet were married with a few kids (and more on the way), and the superior attitude you describe so well. It isn’t based on not being “proles” in an economic sense. It’s based on not being “proles” in a spiritual/faithful sense — yet they present has humble in some ways and arrogant in others.

    ——

    And not to Cane, but in general ….

    When I wrote in the other thread about them being similar to the Amish, I used the wrong metaphor. I knew I was using the wrong metaphor, but I used it anyway because I had a meeting to get to and could not think of a better one in a the space of a minute or two. And DC predictably attacked that by saying the FUS (and related) subsculturians are not like the Amish in numerous ways. Fair enough. The better description is that they are a subculture within the Catholic Church that is not “mainstream” in terms of the “average Catholic in the pew”. They attend the same churches, more or less (prefer more “faithful” ones, of course, but most contemporary US Catholic parishes are very large), but they are a subculture within them. The Darwii spent most of that post critiquing my comment by justifying how hard they are to identify, but in reality they are not hard at all as long as you know what you are looking for. How do I know what that is? My ex-wife’s HS best friend went to FUS and came from a family of 8 kids, many of whom went to FUS. I got to know quite a few of them, and their friends, during the earlier years of our marriage (before my then wife severed connections on her own accord). If you know what you are looking for, you can pick them out easily enough in a church setting, and they are without doubt a subculture and see themselves as such (which was my main point, and which I think the Darwii admitted themselves in their critique post).

    Sorry to put that here, but I won’t post at the Darwii blog because of his past censorship. I have a general policy of not posting on blogs that censor for content (rather than simple abuse and cussing), and his is not the first in the traditional christianity sphere that I have opted to avoid posting on for that reason.

  38. canecaldo says:

    @Brendan

    many of them had didn’t have the coin to rub between two fingers, yet were married with a few kids (and more on the way), and the superior attitude you describe so well. It isn’t based on not being “proles” in an economic sense. It’s based on not being “proles” in a spiritual/faithful sense — yet they present has humble in some ways and arrogant in others.

    Exactly so.

    Sorry to put that here, but I won’t post at the Darwii blog because of his past censorship. I have a general policy of not posting on blogs that censor for content (rather than simple abuse and cussing), and his is not the first in the traditional christianity sphere that I have opted to avoid posting on for that reason.

    Then say good-bye to Complementarian Loners, because they just deleted my comment after demanding that I put up or shut up. They don’t put up with the up that I put. And that’s the last I’ll say of it on Dalrock’s blog. I wouldn’t have have mentioned it if you hadn’t made that statement.

  39. Brendan says:

    Interesting. I will have to see what that is about. Thanks for bringing that to my attention, Cane.

  40. jso says:

    “What profanity? What derogatory terms? Women’s Studies? Slutwalk? Slut?”

    this is not the place for adult language. you are talking to a woman, not an adult.

    oh…. oh wait.

  41. I have to wonder at the folks who constantly crack down on any differentiation between a chaste virginal woman (or young lady) and a slut? Are we supposed to value them in the same way? Are they of equal value as far as marriageability? Why the devaluation of chastity, of modesty? It’s almost as if someone want’s to destroy the institution of marriage isn’t it? Leave it to the used up sluts of past generations to pull all of womankind into the gutter with them. Way to go Gloria and Betty, the only feminine mystique left is how a female in the West can achieve majority status with her chastity and her self-respect.

    It’s long past time someone called bullshit on the slut lifestyle of “ms”ery, and properly defenestrated it for the consumption of the dog’s.

  42. A big amen to I art laughing. A very apt observation. Dalrock, I would love to send you.an email. I’ve been a lurker around the manosphere for a while, and I have some very useful knowledge from experience that I believe you would find interesting to say the least. I have a career that puts my name & face in the community quite a bit, hence the lack of comments. I can’t afford to expose my identity at this point. If you’re comfortable with it can I also have your email address

  43. Joe Sheehy says:

    “Are they of equal value as far as marriageability? Why the devaluation of chastity, of modesty? ”

    Yes, I get the feeling these people are exactly the sort to say there are wicked virgins and holy reformed sluts. It really makes you wonder what’s going on in their minds when they poor vitriol on men who want to marry an innocent girl. The same sort of logic applies when they call it “perverted” to want to marry a teenage girl. There’s NOTHING Christian about it.

  44. P Ray says:

    @Joe
    It’s actually the sluts knowing they can’t get married to the Alphas, but desperately wanting to do so, so sucker in the Betas, by destroying the Betas prospects (you ever wonder why it happens that a married woman has an affair with the biker thug? The guy she was married makes it possible, and he pays for everything in the end – clearer now why a provider is necessary, softens the blow of bad choices on her part).
    Feminism has only ever had 2 real goals:
    1. Granting license to females for free sex so that in the final analysis they choose what makes a man desirable so that
    2. It is easier for them to shame the men they didn’t want previously from having/building relationships with younger women so that the sluts of Step 1 have a cohort of sex-starved men to choose from when they get off the carousel.
    And women call this liberation and a sisterhood? Simply means that the younger women are paying for the older womens’ ride. After all, “sisterhood is powerful” :)

  45. A Lady says:

    Harlot works better than slut, because it covers the full range of sexual immorality on the female front. Also, it has a longer church-related history of use. However, somehow I don’t think that is the usual objection to use of the term ‘slut’. To me, slut is misleadingly narrow, or can be taken as such, while there are many kinds of harlotry and it can be easier to come at things from that angle.

  46. Bwana Simba says:

    “I was taught that real men fall to their knees in adoration and humility before God, mothers and children.”

    Admittedly I haven’t opened my Bible lately, but I seem to recall a commandment against false idols. Also, didn’t an angel tell John he was only supposed to kneel before the Lord in Revelations? Some will call me proud, some will call me dignified, some will even call me narcissistic, but I care not what they call me. I will kneel before no man, woman or child.

  47. IAL
    Realize that devaluing chaste women isnt the half of it. Did anyone see the news piece about the high school where a girl painted a mural called something like “life of a man”…showing a boy in various states of aging and ending with him and a woman and child and wedding rings over their heads. The mural was deemed OFFENSIVE because it was too traditional! Of course the people were all white too and that may have had something to do with it, but it had only 3 people, the boy at stages of life, then his wife and kid.
    This is where and why leftism is incompatible with MRM

  48. Cammie says:

    Hi Dalrock-

    I have to say I was definitely to hasty in my initial over-reaching condemnation of the manosphere and I’m sorry for that (and yes the profanity I was thinking of were the terms you’d use for a fallen woman… although I guess a lot of people don’t count that as profanity… I will admit in a sheltered little world at this point!). I’d actually read posts linked to from another blog (and I’d rather not send a ton of traffic her way) about how to tell if a wife was cheating, that had been applied, in her case, rather cruelly, considering she was a devout and loving wife and that was actually what first started my initial post (and then the back and for with the D.C’s).

    You and the commenters on my blog have definitely given me a lot to think about in how we label sins. I have no problem calling a sin by it’s name, I guess I do have a harder time labeling a person, by their sin, if that makes sense? Like how in Catholic circles we often don’t use the term “gay” but say someone suffers from “same sex attraction” (or SSA for short). I’d probably wince at calling someone a drunk too, and say they had a problem with alcohol. Maybe I’m just perpetually hopeful that they’ll be able to leave behind the behavior and truly repent (I have seen it happen, and while I know that statement may be viewed with extreme skepticism in my experience the women I’ve seen who do repent are often the most sincere and grateful for what they have in the aftermath, in that they truly know that they have a good thing and feel genuine shame for their pasts).

    I am curious enough to read more now though, and try to get past the differences we have in language.

    Anyways… thanks for helping me see the world a bit differently.

    -Cam

    [D: Thanks Cammie. I'm not familiar with the married woman blogger you reference, but I'll leave it at that since you don't want to reference it. You are certainly welcome here, although I will warn you that it can at times be very harsh.

    Feel free of course to read as you wish, but you might enjoy Rejoice in the wife of your youth as a starting point. Christians washing their hands of sexual morality will give you an idea of where I'm coming from. If you want to know why the manosphere is angry (maybe after a manosphere break), you can read A case for anger.]

  49. Opus says:

    I think one of the problems with having designated victim categories (of which one is Woman) is that by default one cannot then even name (a HateFact) never mind criticise (Discrimination – which when I was younger was regarded as a good thing as one discriminated in favour of the better and against the worse). It is of course desparately unfair on chaste women, to make the word Slut unusable and only acts to persude women that acting in a promiscuous manner is normal and without consequence, under the very mistaken belief that men cannot tell the difference and that even if they could, do not care about Partner count (Oh yes they do – and nothing upsets a woman more than to tell her to her face than to draw attention to a woman’s promiscuity). One of the many troubles with Democracy and Equality is that it reduces everyone to a lowest common denominator and as women are to be pedestalled, ergo: no women are sluts. Women can be strange, however, for I once recall a client of mine refusing to use a four letter word out of modesty. What could that word be?: I can hardly tell you, but it began with B and ended with P.

  50. Opus says:

    There is something else I want to say, indeed I have been meaning to write this for a while, and the discussion of the concept of slut is an ideal time for me to do so. It stems from my disagreement with Dalrock over the question of a woman’s favoured method of Promiscuity. I need not go into that,
    but:

    It seems to me that a the term Slut is on a sliding scale between ultra – promiscuous (100) and just slightly – promiscuous (1). A woman who sleeps with one man (without being in some sort of relationship) is to that extent promiscuous (1). At the other end a woman who sleeps with a different man every day must be regarded as highly promiscuous (100). There is a broad range in between. Slut is just another word for Promiscuous and therefore there are greater and lesser degrees of Slut and it does not follow that just because a woman was once (or more often) Promiscuous that she is still a Slut.

    It might be useful to add that I regard a Female Prostitute as being in a very different category even though her Partner count may be say twenty a day, for her Promiscuity is one of Utility and closer to some sort of Medical Service. It is not about her pleasure. The same however does not apply to a Male Prostitute or Gigolo. He has to (unlike his female counterpart) feign or persuade himself of attraction and indeed become sexually aroused. Women, even when paying for sex, remain the bottle-neck (or limiting factor) of sexuality. A man, thus, cannot be a Slut and no matter which way the money is moving it is the woman who is the Whore (and that is how frequenters of Gigolos see themselves I regret to say).

  51. Opus says:

    Finally, on the question of the Gigolo [I was having problems with the software: I can only see two or three lines at a time] I want to add (though it may be obvious) that unlike the female Prostitute the Gigolo can only service one or maybe two women a day; whereas the Female Prostitute will satisfy her client no matter how short their time together, the client of the Gigolo, wants to be romanced, ‘as if’ she and he were lovers, and thus the session will last a number of hours. The man needxs time to recover, and being human Gigolos have a propensity to fall for their client; sometyhing which does not happen with female Prostitutes.

  52. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    The Beast is Feminist. The Woman always has been and always will be the target of the Serpent. The problem with Tradcons is what Brendan noticed; Victorianism gone rancid. The extravagant Victorian attitudes towards women in the Anglosphere are a direct result of the relative scarcity of women on the American frontier and in the outposts of the British Empire, where many young middle-class men spent their most marriageable years attempting to extort a wage-stake out of the native populations in order to afford a measure of domestic stability when they returned.

    The Tradcons want desperately to believe that the beneficiaries of feminism are the chaste and modest matrons and maidens of the Victorian hagiography. Inasmuch as the primary beneficiaries of feminism have been liberal upper- and upper-middle-class woman (Whit Stilman’s tribe and the spiritual descendants of Victorian evangelicalism), this is pretty much true. Most Tradcons are pretty much from that ethné, whatever may be their contrarian ethos, so it goes without saying that they would have a stake in core feminist doctrines. Abolition of the laws based on them would place their daughters at the mercy of, uh, guys like Rmaxd.

    Any opposition to the Beast at this point seems futile. The DC-Amish separatist communities are parasitical on the Beast and will have to compromise or go off grid when the bar codes go onto the hand and forehead. The Mens’ Rights path, perhaps the most virtuous, is so countercultural at this point that I expect it to set off the Beast’s immune system Any Day Now and its proponents huddled into to that ideological Bergen-Belsen currently inhabited by White Nationalists, Neo-Confederates, Christian Dominionists, and whoever else gets Chip Berlet’s panties in a twist.

    Whatever else people may think about Vladimir Putin, he has curbed the oligarchs and mafiosi (mostly by being a bigger badass than they), and thereby slowed or reversed Russia’s integration into the usury-sodomy-and-gynephilia Web of the West. He has also shown an admirable backbone in standing up to our own oligarchs when they have tried to use client states to enforce their edicts. Maybe emigration will play in my future.

  53. imnobody says:

    I was taught that real men fall to their knees in adoration and humility before God,mothers and children.

    This made me puke. With guys like this, who needs feminists?

  54. GKChesterton says:

    @Cammie,

    Thanks for stopping by. I second Dalrock’s warning that the area can be rough. This is, in effect,
    a men’s club (which contrary to pop opinion put in place by Heffner is not a bad place). Male behavior applies and as a sex we are rather up front in nature about calling out mistakes. Be aware of that. We are after all the sex of St. Phinehas (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Numbers+25:6-8&version=ESV). Unfortunately Phineas isn’t a popular figure in most Christian circles these days even if he is by far my favorite. If Dalrock is up to patron saints I’d actually suggest him for this blog (1).

    (1) Though there is evidently a lame supremacy movement named after him…which misses the point as the Middianites were the same “race”.

    @Dalrock

    Complement accepted. I come from the old school where “argument” is a means to learn something not “spoiling for a fight”; which is why I like your blog. Probably the only real harm feminism has done me is it has made it more difficult to argue properly. Women tend to want to subvert an argument into a discussion of feelings and themselves. This is natural to women but wholely unnatural to argument and leads to all sorts of broken feelings. It also leads men into white-knighting. For example, Mr. Darwin only really brought the hammer down when his wife got involved. He couldn’t let her lose. If it had been just him I expect there would have been a different outcome.

  55. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    It seems to me that a the term Slut is on a sliding scale between ultra – promiscuous (100) and just slightly – promiscuous (1). A woman who sleeps with one man (without being in some sort of relationship) is to that extent promiscuous (1). At the other end a woman who sleeps with a different man every day must be regarded as highly promiscuous (100). There is a broad range in between. Slut is just another word for Promiscuous and therefore there are greater and lesser degrees of Slut and it does not follow that just because a woman was once (or more often) Promiscuous that she is still a Slut.

    (Emphasis mine) I generally agree with the whole quote, and was thinking about the part I bolded before you mentioned it. Where I think the difference of opinion will get really sticky not just between you and I but commenters at large is how they would apply that. A woman who is promiscuous but then truly turns her life around isn’t still a slut in my view. But this is extremely difficult to identify in the present; it is easiest to identify in retrospect. This also doesn’t mean I would deny the risk her past presents when considering if she is a good fit for a man to marry. Still, I’m inclined to give a broad pass to women who by all outward appearances are doing right by their husbands and children. The question of should he marry her or not is in the past since they are already married. I don’t really care to know about the past of the average woman anyway.

    The cruelty of those who would pretend the concept of slut doesn’t exist though is that it not only harms a large number of unsuspecting husbands and their children, but it also harms women in general. The term has immense punch, and continues to do so despite desperate efforts to “reeducate” us all that the concept is manufactured by sexist men and cruel women. This is a lie, but a very seductive lie to young women in the thrall of the power of their sexuality. Even mildly attractive young women have a sexual currency which for men is reserved for millionaires and rock stars. The temptation is massive, especially given the strong social push for and approval of delaying marriage. What we aren’t telling young women is they are by the nature of their situation the guardians of something of great value. Anyone put in that position will of course be flattered by the special attention this brings with it. However, what goes with the position is also immense responsibility, and this comes whether we deny it or not.

    Making things worse is the fact that the social definition of slut is somewhat maleable. This can as I discussed in The College Boyfriend provide a false sense of security to promiscuous women and leaves them with uncertain exposure.

  56. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @Cammie
    I have no problem calling a sin by it’s name, I guess I do have a harder time labeling a person, by their sin, if that makes sense?

    Welcome here. Anyway, perhaps this is a reflection of new-age theology that you are holding onto. The one that says “we’re all sinners anyway and equal before God through grace despite our sins so you don’t have to repent and the blood of Christ takes care of your sins”. There is a great resistance in a number of the churches for naming and conviction of any sins. This attitude is not an uncommon one for that reason. Referring to someone with a term that reflects they are a partaker in a certain sin is as old as the hills. We find it in the Bible even. One example, albeit it out of the liberal NIV, which possesses the same attitude as the quote:

    Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. – 1 Cor 6:9-11 (bold emphasis mine just to point out that sin needs to be dealt with)

    Note it doesn’t stick with the same word styles all the way through to identify the sins. The liberal NIV replaces “fornicator” with “sexually immoral”, “effeminiate and homosexual” with “men who have sex with men” (as if “women who have sex with women” doesn’t count, and effeminate doesn’t count at all), and “covetous” with “greedy”. Note these are common sins now that would make the churches unpopular to call out since they are so prevalent and accepted. If a liberal translation of Scripture that got so popular is whitewashing sins to be acceptable, how much more so those against women since society, both in the churches and without, is making them an object of idolatry.

    @Bwana Simba
    Some will call me proud, some will call me dignified, some will even call me narcissistic, but I care not what they call me. I will kneel before no man, woman or child.

    Amen. This is truly the standard given across the Bible and the way it should be. Unfortunately, society has always been this way from the beginning of time. Only God deserves such devotion.

  57. Paul says:

    Hi Dalrock, OT to this thread but a number of folks have mentioned that you really ought to write a book, and I concur, and I have a suggestion on how to help make this a practicable proposition for you, or anyone else with such an ambition.

    There’s a site called kickstarter.com, that’s an interesting way to fund creative projects. Basically you register your project (i.e. Dalrock’s new book), set a fundraising target (let’s say $2,000 for the sake of argument), and contribution levels and what you get per level (i.e. $5 gets you a free copy of the book on Kindle, $50 also gets you a Dalrock t-shirt). There’s a certain time period, and if you reach your goal all your contributors pay up and off you go, and if you don’t reach your goal nobody pays anything, no harm no foul.

  58. Opus says:

    @Dalrock

    I cannot disagree with anything you wrote. The problem as you identify it, is how a man is not merely to recognise a reformed slut, but how he can be sure she will not slip-back – like an alcoholic. Once again I draw attention to La Traviata, for a fictional view – although one can also consider Lara in Zhivago. People tend to be judged on their past, and all the positive thinking you can muster will not change character. As my Mother used to say to me ‘If she’s done it once Dear, she will do it again’.

    No woman (as I indicated wishes to be considered a slut (which is why they go to immense lengths to cover their promiscuity), which shows they know that they are not worthy. Consider poor Monica Lewinsky – how can any man Man-Up and take her on? She may never even have had sex with you President (I’ll take his word on that) but her reputation (not his – he only went up in my estimation) is shot to pieces.

  59. GKChesterton says:

    @Ballista

    The first time I heard that “men who lie with men” is better rendered effeminiate was actually on “The Social Pathologist”. I’ve been unable to find anyone that reads koine greek dispute it. This really should be pointed out more.

  60. Anonymous age 70 says:

    I don’t get it. I keep reading on various MRA blogs about the evil of the traditional conservative. Sure, I know people like that. My blowhard SIL is like that. He is also a deacon of his church. Most people I know who are like that are in leadership positions. Pastors; community leaders; deacons; cops; judges; etc.

    But, at the same time most traditional conservatives I knew were more like me. Which is why they were not leaders of anything. Which is why you do not know them.

    I am a rather militant anti-feminist. You don’t find men more militant than me who do not have illegal weapons or related substances. I chose in the early 90’s to stay 100% within the law. I cannot be more militant than I am and still live within the law, but I know where the boundary is and I stay firmly on the legal side of it. I have never even had a moving violation in my car.

    Most traditional conservatives I have known tended to agree with me on misandry and feminism, even if they are not militant activists. And, as I said, that is why they do not have any important position to be visible. The mangina tradcons make sure we don’t have any power in any organization they run.

  61. canecaldo says:

    Too many chicks over there. As I told Elspeth: I don’t belong in the powder-room.

  62. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @GKChesterton
    The first time I heard that “men who lie with men” is better rendered effeminiate was actually on “The Social Pathologist”. I’ve been unable to find anyone that reads koine greek dispute it. This really should be pointed out more.

    I think the importance of checking out a particular translation for accuracy (via Strongs or other reference or just reading for consistency) is an important thing which isn’t pointed out. There are no wholly accurate translations from the Greek, for reasons of tradition or a desire for “flowsy language”, or whatever reason that motivates people. But there are some that are better than others. For example, I charitably referred to the NIV translation as liberal, but in actuality it is more feminist. There has been a noted campaign for quite some time to purge all the gender specific terms and negative references to women. Then many use The Message, which if one will research it will find out that it’s just what Eugene Peterson thinks the Bible says and has issues, too.

    While I’m not a specific KJV-only advocate, I do believe it, along with the NASB are much better translations than the NIV or many others and are probably the best ones to use, verifying as appropriate with Strongs or some other Greek/Hebrew references. For the verse I quoted above, both include terms which indicate both “effeminate” and “homosexual”. Best, though, would be a translation that fully preserves all the original Greek and Hebrew. While this would produce awkward English, it would be much better than the problematic texts we have in popular use now.

  63. Ballista_GTOW says:

    (reposting, the original had a number of website links, but it didn’t post. I don’t know if it just went into moderation for the number of links, or it just got spam filtered. I’m still trying to learn what you can and can’t do)

    @GKChesterton
    The first time I heard that “men who lie with men” is better rendered effeminiate was actually on “The Social Pathologist”. I’ve been unable to find anyone that reads koine greek dispute it. This really should be pointed out more.

    I think the importance of checking out a particular translation for accuracy (via Strongs or other reference or just reading for consistency) is an important thing which isn’t pointed out. There are no wholly accurate translations from the Greek, for reasons of tradition or a desire for “flowsy language”, or whatever reason that motivates people. But there are some that are better than others. For example, I charitably referred to the NIV translation as liberal, but in actuality it is more feminist. There has been a noted campaign for quite some time to purge all the gender specific terms and negative references to women. Then many use The Message, which if one will research it will find out that it’s just what Eugene Peterson thinks the Bible says and has issues, too.

    While I’m not a specific KJV-only advocate, I do believe it, along with the NASB are much better translations than the NIV or many others and are probably the best ones to use, verifying as appropriate with Strongs or some other Greek/Hebrew references. For the verse I quoted above, both include terms which indicate both “effeminate” and “homosexual”. Best, though, would be a translation that fully preserves all the original Greek and Hebrew. While this would produce awkward English when it comes to reading and speaking it, it would be much better than the problematic texts we have in popular use now.

  64. bskillet81 says:

    NIV = “Nearly Inspired Version”

    NASB is a favorite for scholars. NKJV is decent. I like HCSB, but it isn’t perfect.

  65. Dalrock says:

    @Anon age 70

    I don’t get it. I keep reading on various MRA blogs about the evil of the traditional conservative. Sure, I know people like that. My blowhard SIL is like that. He is also a deacon of his church. Most people I know who are like that are in leadership positions. Pastors; community leaders; deacons; cops; judges; etc.

    Its been a while; good to see you back. As you say not all Trad Cons are like that. The problem is, those who are like that tend to be in deep denial. In the middle are those who are sort of like that, but haven’t really considered it. The last group is the one I’m mostly speaking to, pointing out how much feminism has illicitly seeped into traditional conservativism.

  66. 7man says:

    @bskillet
    You also might want to check out the RSV Bible translation.

  67. bskillet81 says:

    @Dalrock

    Its been a while; good to see you back. As you say not all Trad Cons are like that. The problem is, those who are like that tend to be in deep denial. In the middle are those who are sort of like that, but haven’t really considered it. The last group is the one I’m mostly speaking to, pointing out how much feminism has illicitly seeped into traditional conservativism.

    I think so much of the discussion on TradCons and why they do what they do and why they are so willfully blind and so on… So much of the discussion entirely misses the boat on what motivates TradCons/SoCons.

    They are not motivated by actually advancing a policy and cultural agenda and making incremental gains and so on. Look at the history of the TradCon/SoCon movement. Let’s list its successes:

    1) Ending partial-birth abortion.
    2)……

    That’s it.

    TradCons are not motivated to advance any policies. This is why they vote for candidates who give lip service to their aims, and then vote the opposite way every time, and the TradCons keep supporting these politicians with money and campaign volunteering and so on.

    TradCons are the Pharisees of Luke 18:

    The Pharisee stood and was praying this to himself: “God, I thank You that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.”

    The point of TradCon/SoCons is, they want to be able to look at the destruction of society, and say, “Look at all those debauched evil people! I’m so glad I’m not like them. Look at how much better I am!” This gives TradCons a great deal of satisfaction and personal pride. As such, they want society to go to hell in a handbasket, because the worse it gets, the easier it is for them to point to society and feel good about themselves.

    When it comes to MRM, it is easier for TradCons to point at evil men and say, “Look at how much better I am than that evil deadbeat divorced dad!” than it is to point at a woman. No one is impressed if you scapegoat a woman so as to glorify your own perceived righteousness. Doing that outs you as a total pussy. So you have to shame a man so you can still look tough while you’re being a Pharisee.

    It’s that simple. The last thing TradCons want is to save our culture.

  68. 7man says:

    @bskillit81
    I enjoy reading a good truthful rant. But your insight and admonishment will not be accepted or understood by TradCons (Pharisees).

  69. Elspeth says:

    Too many chicks over there. As I told Elspeth: I don’t belong in the powder-room.

    LOL, Cane. Indeed you have told me that and I respect it. Powder rooms can sometimes get too
    toodusty, and you can’t even breathe or see through all the junk.

  70. Pingback: What Really Motivates Tradcons » Pro-Male/Anti-Feminist Technology

  71. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cammie
    I have no problem calling a sin by it’s name, I guess I do have a harder time labeling a person, by their sin, if that makes sense? … I’d probably wince at calling someone a drunk too, and say they had a problem with alcohol.

    “Drunkard” is a useful word. I’m pretty sure it is in the Bible. It applies to people who habitually drink to excess, and who will not stop that behavior. That’s a key element, whether someone is willing to stop or not. Another key element in that behavior is when people reach the stage where they finally admit they are hurting not only themselves, but other people. I’ve never been to any 12-step meeting, but I have known some that benefited, and some that failed to benefit. One thing that any alcoholic at a 12-step meeting has to do is admit the truth. And those that try to lie about their condition are called out right away by others – because nobody in one of those meetings is any better than anyone else.

    Maybe I’m just perpetually hopeful that they’ll be able to leave behind the behavior and truly repent

    Nothing wrong with that. It is just that, from the outside of the churches, it seems to many men that women can behave as badly as they wish, and yet someone is always willing to “accept” them, and give them yet another chance. It’s not about second chances, it’s about an unlimited supply of second chances, and no one ever saying in public “This behavior is bad, and those who engage in it should stop. Now. “It is about enabling bad behavior. Look, often there is someone in an alcoholics life who keeps cleaning up after them. Friends, family, etc. who fish the empty booze bottles out from under the bed, clean up the broken glass, maybe pay for any damages, and so forth. Because these well meaning people protect the alcoholic from the consequences of their condition, they actually are acting as a crutch – and they are called enablers because they keep the alcoholic from falling all the way down to rock bottom.

    Imagine a church that handed out free shots of whisky to alcoholics every Sunday. Despicable, yes? Imagine a church that absolves promiscuous women of their sexual behavior over and over again, while squelching any criticism of that behavior. Essentially, enabling that behavior to continue at minimal social cost. Despicable as well? Or just standard, normal business?

    (I have seen it happen, and while I know that statement may be viewed with extreme skepticism in my experience the women I’ve seen who do repent are often the most sincere and grateful for what they have in the aftermath, in that they truly know that they have a good thing and feel genuine shame for their pasts).

    I have to wonder if you have any idea what a huge risk it is for a man to marry any woman at all in the US at this time, and therefore what an even greater risk it is to marry a woman with a high partner count. I would suggest you read the articles at the Social Pathologist blog (written by a Roman Catholic medical doctor in Australia) on the topic of “probability of divorce”. The correlation between the number of sexual partners a woman has, and the likelihood of her divorcing within a given period of time, is quite remarkable.

    PS: What would you suggest we call women who have sex with men they aren’t married to as a habit, and who refuse to stop?Pick a word.

  72. A Lady says:

    Unrepentant harlot works just fine.

  73. Will S. says:

    Whores only do it for the money; slut is a better word.

  74. A Lady says:

    Harlot doesn’t refer only to whores, but to the whole range of female sexual impropriety (harlotry). Slut started out with and really even now only refers to a narrow band of particularly, well, sloppy and slatternly sexual impropriety. The older word is really more accurate in its broadness of range.

  75. Will S. says:

    True enough; but it is an archaic term, not well understood today.

  76. deti says:

    Dalrock, Opus:

    As we all know, the manosphere is of two minds on “reformed sluts”. The prevailing view seems to be “Once a slut, always a slut”. This view holds that a slut can never change and is never suitable for marriage. The minority view (to which I hold due to my faith) is that a slut can reform, but it’s rare and very difficult. My view is that it’s something like quitting drinking or smoking, or giving up an addiction. This can be done, but it is very difficult to stop and leave the behavior behind because sluthood is integrated into the woman’s lifestyle. The only way to leave that life is to do a 180-degree turnaround. Many (if not most) are unable to do this or don’t want to do the hard work required, and all are in danger of relapsing and returning to the lifestyle.

    The biggest risks with a reformed slut:

    1. Her pair bonding ability is severely damaged if not totally destroyed. She might want to pair bond — she is just unable to do it. She’s pair bonded so much to so many guys, and she’s had to sever those pair bonds or never let them fully form, that she either cannot bond or doing so is so painful and foreign that she won’t do it. She has baggage — fears, insecurities, flashback alpha memories, hypersexual fantasies. Reformation doesn’t always get rid of all of this. She invariably compares her post-slut dates to the freaky hot monkey sex with the alpha studs, and finds the former wanting. This needs to be repaired — assuming that that can be done — before she can date again.

    2. She either cannot or will not accept the damage she has done to her SMV and her MMV. Her high partner count CANNOT be undone. It’s very bracing for a woman who formerly was able to pull just about any man she wanted for sex and a few LTRs here and there to accept that those men are never going to marry her. It’s a difficult prospect for her to accept that if she wants marriage, it’s not going to be Alpha McGorgeous or Harley McBadboy. No, her possible husband pool will be drawn from Tim Teacher or Stan the STEM guy or Louie Lawyer or Tom Tradesman — assuming these men want to take a flyer on her. She will have to accept that no one might want her as a wife.

    How do you tell the difference between a “reformed slut” and a true reformed slut?

    1. “Reformed slut” says the prayer, but nothing changes.
    Reformed slut says the prayer and works to change.

    2. “Reformed slut” is out there looking for a beta provider.
    Reformed slut walks it out for a year then humbly and gratefully accepts her fate — whatever it is.

    3. “Reformed slut”: Flashy, loud, attention whore, status whore.
    Reformed slut: austere, taciturn, modest, humble.

    4. “reformed slut”: Speaks Christianese.
    Reformed slut: Walks the walk.

    5. “Reformed slut”: Defensive, evasive, and shames those who ask about her past.
    Reformed slut: Doesn’t discuss her past until it’s time; and is then honest, straightforward and humble about it.

    6. “Reformed slut”: Entitled, demanding, crass, says “what can you give me?”
    Reformed slut: Giving, graceful, dignified, says “what can I offer you?”

  77. MaMu1977 says:

    @deti

    2 quibbles

    1) a “former” slut *will* be able to bond with a “super” Alpha male (think Warren Beatty and Annette Bening). Even the most rigorous carousel rider will at least make the attempt to settle down if the “last ride” is with an “alpha enough” male who’s willing to reach out a hand. The problem, obviously, is the fact that even in the best of times, super alphas settle down years later than most women would like! My sample couple is a perfect example, as Beatty is literally old enough to be Bening’s father (21 years difference in age.) When your average 30-something decides to relinquish her spot on the carousel, she’s thinking that a man in her own age group is going to take a knee, not someone who was able to vote for Kennedy (or, in modern times, ugh… Mondale.) So, she picks the best of the rings offered, then (unless she has a *lot* of guidance) proceeds to pick him apart.

    2) Louie Lawyer and Tom Tradesman are often pretty alpha (barristers aren’t known for being *nice*, its a trait that’s quickly beaten out of even the most beta of practitioners. Likewise, the “sexy” part of the secret millionaire hunky handyman isn’t the “millionaire”, its the “hunky handyman”. Women will trade up from a blue-collar worker (if the white-collar guy is available), but they can’t help but find it attractive (from a sexual standpoint) when they’re in the presence of a man who’s good with his hands.

  78. deti says:

    MaMu:

    1. Good point. If he’s hot enough, she can bond to him. The question is whether she can get one of these guys for marriage. He’ll bang her, sure. But no way no how is a superalpha going to wife up a slut, even a truly reformed one.

    Is our common, ordinary, run of the mill, garden variety reformed slut with 15+ partners under her belt going to be able to lock down a superalpha? It isn’t going to matter how demure, respectful and hot she is. The fact is she’s played host to too many men — and superalphas can spot sluts (even reformed ones) a mile away. Superalpha long ago moved on to greener, less traveled pastures.

    2. Lawyers are many times known for being badasses at work but nebbishes at home. My point in mentioning tradesmen is that in society their social value and status is usually considered lower and working-class.

  79. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, I believe that kind of reforming is possible, but I just do not know how probable it is.
    One of the alcoholics I knew who succeeded in getting off the booze had to move to a different
    town, sever contact with all his old friends and limit contact with some of his family, in order to
    stay sober. You could say he had to literally become a different person – different clothes, different
    job, different social life, etc.

    Women are more social. How many are willing to totally, cold-turkey, cut off their past associations, especially with all the men they have ever known, and many of the women as well?

    Seems to me that a reformed slut (or harlot, if you want to use a word from the Bible) would look different, and her behavior would be very different, from before. In the American West of the 19th and even early 20th century, women were scarce. There were cases of women who had worked as prostitutes getting reformed, married and so forth. The term used by some was, and is, “soiled doves”. But I’m pretty sure that a woman who left the cat house to go live on a farm, or a ranch, or out near a mine headframe had some idea what she was doing, and what would happen if she backslid. There wouldn’t be any second chances. And really, temptations would be fewer than now; a woman on a working ranch had to prepare three meals a day, clean clothes in a tub of soapy water (step one: build a big fire in the yard to heat water), keep house with no machines at all, preserve food, treat illness, etc. Contrast that life with a modern woman in a modern house with a fast connection to Facebook…

    Yes, I believe it can be done, but for that to work a woman would have to re-invent herself. That means severing social connections with some people pretty much permanently. As for the churches, I’m guessing that women in the 19th and early 20th centuries tended to keep each other on the straight and narrow, because slut-shaming was a vital way to differentiate themselves from harlots. And in a day when cuckoldry would mean a trip to the curb, that mattered.

    Nowadays, how many churches not only refuse to shame promiscuous women, but willingly accept single mothers into the church – even as they keep on getting pregnant by different men?

  80. Anonymous Reader says:

    Or to put it another way: how many churches are so willing to accept the sluts that refuse to change, that they don’t really offer any support to those that are trying to change? Hmm?

  81. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Week of April 15, 2012

  82. Opus says:

    @Deti

    I like what you wrote in response to myself and Dalrock. You quite correctly – in my view – set out the difficulties for a promiscuous woman who decides that she wants to put her past behind her and marry. She is, – as you say – rather like an alcoholic, trying to go sober.Whether the slutting causes the difficulty or whether her personality caused the slutting in the first place – it matters not – it is difficult to reform. Personality – which is heritable – does not tend to change, indeed caharcteristics seem only to become more entrenched through time.

    Once a woman crosses over – like Eve in Genesis – she can never unknow what she knows. Once you have crossed that line, whether it is serial slutting or Prostitution you can never really come back. In the Gospels Mary Magdeleine merely seeks forgiveness – not a Husband! Her interaction with Jesus is thus very interesting! He does not man-up and marry her – and neither do any of the Apostles!

  83. MaMu1977 says:

    @deti, AR

    Got it in one. It’s like I tell my niece: anything is *possible*, but probability is a *b!tch*. And the lower the odds, the less possible anything becomes. Even in my given example, that marriage doesn’t exist if both parties hadn’t been given roles in the same movie (“Bugsy”, 1989). And if Bening had walked away when the rumor mill was swirling around Beatty and Madonna…

  84. deti says:

    Anonymous Reader:

    “I believe that kind of reforming is possible, but I just do not know how probable it is. One of the alcoholics I knew who succeeded in getting off the booze had to move to a different
    town, sever contact with all his old friends and limit contact with some of his family, in order to
    stay sober. You could say he had to literally become a different person – different clothes, different job, different social life, etc”

    Yep, pretty much. That’s what a reformed slut has to do. She has to stay away from her old playmates and her old playgrounds.

  85. GKChesterton says:

    Annoymous asks a good question and the answer is one the Darwinii (specifically Mrs. Darwin) brought up: St. Mary of the Desert (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_of_Egypt)

    This is what a reformed slut should look like. The iconography of Mary is always very stark and _always_ purposefully includes her wasted breasts. In order to break her previous behavior she preforms a hard core remodel of herself. That’s why Mrs. Darwin’s mentioning of her as an example of remarriage after slut hood was so mind blowingly lame.

  86. Anonymous Reader says:

    Ok, if that is your standard for a reformed slut, then there’s effectively none in the US. Sure, there could be one here, another there, but by this standard no man on this list is likely to ever encounter one. Ok, “once a slut, always a slut”, is that what you meant?

  87. Pingback: Why Christians need game. | Dalrock

  88. Pingback: Christian denial and institutional resistance to change. | Dalrock

  89. Pingback: What we need is more chivalry! | Dalrock

  90. Pingback: Responsibilities Don’t Exist | The Society of Phineas

  91. Pingback: Links and Comments #9 | The Society of Phineas

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