Dating Stanton’s Heroes

Call them what you will, grass widows, marriage challenged mamas, or Stanton’s heroes, the men at University of Man have dating them covered.  Keep in mind that I use the term dating, um, loosely.  If you aren’t interested in this topic or are easily offended, you might want to pass on the rest of this post.

A friend of the faculty who is a single mother herself kicks off the series with her guest lecture You Have to Realize That My Kids Come First!!!

Obviously, there is a huge difference between dating a single mom seriously versus just going for the “pump and dump” or any variation of a short-term lay.  If you are only looking for something short-term, there is no shortage of lonely single mothers looking for a ‘sponsorship” and/or male validation and companionship.  Many women (myself included) go through a period where their self-esteem is at an all-time low and they need male companionship (read: sex) to feel desirable again.

Professor Hale from rival school Rebellion University jumps in and steals the class’ attention with his post My Kids Come First

If you as a single mom are putting your kids first… what are you doing dating? Unless you are specifically looking for a breadwinner/mealticket to provide for your kids financial security, you have no business being out there dating. Doing so and claiming that your kids come first is just demonstrating that you know you are not doing what is right for your kids, but you want other people to think you are a good mom. You aren’t. You are just looking for someone to help fill your empty place… between your legs. Why is that bad? Specifically that is bad because of the number of child molesters and grifters who prey on women just like you. You are putting your kids at greater risk than if you just stay home and watch a movie… with them. If you are looking for a meal ticket, honor demands that you tell your new boyfriend that that is your goal. That is not an evil thing. Many satisfying long term relationships have started on a much smaller foundation.

Now that the prerequisites are out of the way, you are ready for Professor Mentu’s advanced baby mama dating course titled Single Moms are like Motorcycles

My response is basically “No I don’t.” I don’t have to realize anything, do anything, remember anything, respect anything, or acknowledge anything that I don’t want to. Congrats on popping out some other man’s womb turd, but that’s none of my concern unless I choose to make it so.

A bit further down Professor Mentu explains the proper way to ride:

Hot single moms are like motorcycles: exciting, sleek, high-performance and fun to ride, but they can’t stand up on their own. As even the most expensive Harley-Davidson needs a rider or a kickstand to remain upright, so does the single mom need either a rider or a dickstand to keep her from falling over. Without a rider, she may be using your dick, baby daddy’s dick, Uncle Sam’s dick, or a combination of the three – but rest assured she’s not standing on her own. There’s a dickstand somewhere.

Dickstand: A man who props up a single mom while she’s waiting for an Alpha to ride her hard.

Keep in mind that the professor isn’t offering moral advice, he is offering practical advice.  However, offering to play the role of dickstand (the most recent stepping stone on her path of serial monogamy) isn’t any more moral than what the professor advises.  There is no good reason to be a dickstand.

Mentu offers another bit of insight to consider.  While the classic path to unwed motherhood (marry, kids, then divorce) is arguably less moral than the more modern approach, the first category is a safer bet for the alpha rider:

Most divorced single moms do not want to get pregnant again outside of marriage. I will not spend time with a single mom unless she was married when she became pregnant. The ones ok with popping out a bastard child are too risky to be worthy of my time or attention.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Choice Addiction, Stantons Heroes, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

162 Responses to Dating Stanton’s Heroes

  1. Professor Mentu says:

    Thanks for the linkage and for furthering the discussion!

  2. Pingback: Single Moms are like Motorcycles | THE UNIVERSITY OF MAN

  3. Anonymous Reader says:

    An obvious question for 60% or more of divorced Heroines: how is your life better for your children than it was before you got divorced? How is it really, truly, better? You chose this life, explain how it is helping “your kids” (who come first…sure.).

    An obvious question for the tradition/social/whatever conservatives: while I understand how you can blame all divorced women’s travails on some bad man or other, whose fault is it when babymomma plops out her third bastard by yet another different father?

    Question for the assembly: What are the long term implications of a culture in which a plurality of boys are raised by babymommas with minimal interaction with adult men?

  4. deti says:

    Don’t be a dick(stand).

  5. aaronclarey says:

    I’m picturing the Hogan’s Heroes theme song, with Stanton’s Heroes, but with players and alpha males all running around, scamming on girls at bars with a smug Bob Crane look on their faces.

  6. GKChesterton says:

    Anonymous keeps on assuming social conservatives want baby momma to pop out a third and that we think this is a good thing. We don’t. We never will. She is a slut and obviously unreformed and should be avoided.

    That being said I’m disappointed with Deti’s comment (as quoted in the article) and with Dalrock’s assumption that moral and practical are necessarily philosophically divorced. Having sex with HSM is in no way practical. You expose yourself to threat of several forms of harm. Your gain is entirely temporary and largely useless. That is, even a materialist utilitarian should see a problem with the advice. The best advice is to avoid her like the plague she is.

    Move on and never look back. Let her suck some other poor sap down the rabbit hole (though feel free to warn him by labeling her).

  7. Keoni Galt says:

    Anonymous keeps on assuming social conservatives want baby momma to pop out a third and that we think this is a good thing. We don’t. We never will.

    Come now, that’s disingenuous GK. AR’s point is that MANY So-Con’s blame the current state of babies born out of wedlock on men. There are not many who will say what you just wrote
    when describing such a woman: She is a slut and obviously unreformed and should be avoided.

    So-Con’s have seriously dropped the ball when it comes to slut-shaming. Hell, half of Dalrock’s blog hits are based on calling them to the carpet for it!

  8. Matthew says:

    pseudoGKC: How many social conservatives do you know who would be willing to refer to call their daughters sluts?

  9. Matthew says:

    Hit “Post” too soon.

    How many social conservatives do you know who would be willing to call their daughters sluts? That’s a litmus test. If a man’s daughter sleeps around, and he can’t refer to her as a slut, let alone take meaningful action, he and his morality are useless.

  10. GKChesterton says:

    I get tired of, as a socn, being called on the carpet in a way that Anonymous is unwilling to do to himself. See our first discussion on NAWALT. He’s being lame. Call out specific instances, fight those instances, don’t name call for effect.

    I’m willing to accept that SoCon’s have dropped the ball, I’m also willing to propose that the ball dropping is slowing to a halt. We have heard “round healed woman” and “slut” in several major news stories. The young (conservative) men I talk to are recognizing the larger game and adjusting to it (see Price’s posts @ The Spearhead). While the ball _has_ been dropped, and will continue to be for a while, I think a many people think this cycle of the pendelum is drawing to a halt and has been for nearly twenty years (see Madona’s 80’s lament on the AIDS crisis and how it force general modfications in behavior).

    Failed “‘isims” have a shelf life. You can only wreck the social fabric for so long without one of two results:
    1.) Everyone dies
    2.) Most everyone wises up

    We’re smart that way.

  11. Matthew says:

    I note that PMAFT’s post about how he nailed “Molly” in her traditional Catholic parents’ home has gone down the memory hole.

  12. Matthew says:

    I’m willing to accept that SoCon’s have dropped the ball, I’m also willing to propose that the ball dropping is slowing to a halt.

    Excellent. Now how about y’all try to actually gain some yards, instead of cheering yourselves for managing to fumble less while still standing motionless with your pants around your ankles?

  13. Keoni Galt says:

    The problem with SoCons, is that they really aren’t fighting to “conserve” traditional, Christian based Patriarchy.

    No, they fight to conserve the new normal, the psuedo-Patriarchy of 21st Century Churchianity.

  14. Been laughing all day about the term “dickstand.”

  15. Johnycomelately says:

    You’ve got to travel on public transport to see the real world, two stories about single moms from the nefarium and warnings to beta provisioners;

    At the last bus stop a single mom (22? SMV 6) propositioned a 60 year old bus driver with a ‘naughty weekend’ but the bus driver refused and the woman wouldn’t leave, so the driver called the police and she stayed until she was escorted off the bus.

    A second 65 year old bus driver had sex with a 27 year old single mom in the bus on his lunch break (he found out later she had 4 children each with different fathers). Two months later she searched out the driver (didn’t know his name and his route had changed) because she was pregnant and apparently he was the father of th 5th child. When the other drivers refused to tell her his name and his whereabouts she filed a rape accusation and the police did her dirty work.

    Turns out he wasn’t the father after all but is currently in trial for rape and was sacked.

    Don’t be a dick stand.

  16. Jehu says:

    I suspect that a lot of people would be less unhappy if we were honest with teenagers and ourselves about the SMP/MMP. For instance, you, girl, in the US, might be able to attract and keep and 80th percentile man given your fairly average looks but ideal weight (usually @21 BMI for most women).
    Now if you go and marry, have one or more of his children, and divorce him, you WILL be marked down by the market, even if you miraculously look exactly the same as before you were first married.
    Instead of getting men around the 80th percentile of status, you’re going to be lucky if you can get 50th.
    If we were honest with our youngsters about these markets, we’d see less obesity and less divorce. EVERY woman I’ve known who has divorced has gotten a significant downgrade on their ‘replacement model’.

  17. Pechorin says:

    @GKChesterton: can you give us some examples of prominent young socons challenging their elders on these issues and pointing out their failure and its causes? I hope you’re right about young socons but I haven’t seen much sign of it.

  18. Matthew says:

    Jehu: “If we were honest with our youngsters about these markets…”

    What would that entail? How do we express these economic parameters to the young women? Especially the non-neurotypicals?

  19. Matthew says:

    For young men, perhaps an analogy to the market value of automobiles: new, used, salvage title.

  20. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    Anonymous keeps on assuming social conservatives want baby momma to pop out a third and that we think this is a good thing. We don’t. We never will. She is a slut and obviously unreformed and should be avoided.

    Here’s the classic disconnect. I’m supposed to ignore things that I’ve seen and heard, and things that I’ve been told in confidence by people I trust, but I’m supposed to take the word of someone who routinely engages in namecallling in lieu of adult discussion. This is hardly the first time.

    It’s a behavior pattern common to both traditional/social conservatives and feminists: “Stop believing your lying eyes, and let us tell you what your reality is!”. Y’know, it wasn’t convincing 20-odd years ago when feminists pulled this game, and the vintage…it has not improved with the passage of time.

    I don’t claim to have been in any thing like a statistically significant sample of churches. But I’ve been in a variety, and since learning Game it has become easy to spot the former carousel riders hitting the wall. And trivial to spot the single mothers.

    It’s axiomatic that if one wants more of something, subsidize it..if one wants less, criticize it.
    Based on my flawed, limited, cross section of churches, there is varying degree of subsidy for babymommas, and not any criticism. So the words of so/tradcons and the actions are opposed.

    I know what to pay attention to, and words are low on the list.

  21. greyghost says:

    No, they fight to conserve the new normal, the psuedo-Patriarchy of 21st Century Churchianity.

    Well actually the moral status associated with being called christian. They are not doing real faith based reading and living of scripture.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    That being said I’m disappointed with Deti’s comment (as quoted in the article) and with Dalrock’s assumption that moral and practical are necessarily philosophically divorced. Having sex with HSM is in no way practical. You expose yourself to threat of several forms of harm. Your gain is entirely temporary and largely useless. That is, even a materialist utilitarian should see a problem with the advice. The best advice is to avoid her like the plague she is.

    Move on and never look back. Let her suck some other poor sap down the rabbit hole (though feel free to warn him by labeling her).

    No arguments here. Yours is the best practical advice. Mentu’s advice is I would say assuming that the decision has been made to go down the rabbit hole. Assuming one decides to go, some ways are more foolish than others. My point was (and has been for several posts) not to mistake playing the sucker for being more moral. The moral question is several exits back.

  23. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Here’s the classic disconnect. I’m supposed to ignore things that I’ve seen and heard, and things that I’ve been told in confidence by people I trust, but I’m supposed to take the word of someone who routinely engages in namecallling in lieu of adult discussion. This is hardly the first time.

    I’ve been known to be a bit harsh on Trad Cons/So Cons, but GKC strikes me as the real deal. Challenge him where you think he is wrong. I’m not saying you or even I will necessarily agree with him on all issues, but from what I’ve seen he will engage in good faith discussion.

  24. Jehu says:

    Matthew,
    With women show them lots of examples of women with their first vs second husbands. Explain this to them in terms of ‘leagues’—i.e. you’re not or are in his league. Women aren’t all that stupid about these things if you express it in terms they can parse and follow up with lots of examples. Being honest about what guys want in the MMP is essential too (basically, be attractive and have very low mileage, other traits desireable but not determinative of your ‘league’).

  25. tweell says:

    As a traditional Catholic, I’ve tried my best to educate my children correctly, but always always with the real world in mind. This does not mean that I have succeeded, but I do try.

    My oldest daughter fell into sin, doing great harm to her husband and children. My wife and I confronted her and had her leave, giving custody of the children to her then husband. He and the grandkids live close by and visit often. (Yes, we did use much harsher words than slut, btw.)
    She has since cleaned up her act and is trying to fix things with her children; she knows that’s impossible with her ex.

    My son is autistic and not social at all, so I have explained basic female behavior to him. He’s in college and isn’t in any relationship, nor does he plan to be as long as the rules are what they are. He simply cannot handle game, so going his own way is the best possible path for him.

    Taking up another man’s child as one’s own is a heavy burden and high calling. I do not recommend it unless it is fully understood that there will be no parenting games played. Marrying a single mother should have as a minimum an agreement that you are THE dad, dealing with children is difficult enough without being handicapped.

  26. sestamibi says:

    “I note that PMAFT’s post about how he nailed “Molly” in her traditional Catholic parents’ home has gone down the memory hole.”

    Yes, I noticed that too. I had added a comment on that post and was looking to see if anyone had responded to it.

  27. Sheera says:

    Okay i have to ask the question why are you so insistent on “slut-shaming” ? Like I don’t get it. I think I’m like most woman who don’t really care if sluts are being slutty. The guys I’m with don’t date sluts, aren’t attracted to them etc. etc. And besides in our culture everyone’s a slut. Now for their own sake I wish sluts would be a lot less slutty. And I try to ignore the sluttier aspects of some of my friends behavior. But I don’t hate people who do things I don’t approve of. I just am like oh brother and try to ignore it and not encourage it. I only point this out is that sometimes I feel like this slut hating, or single mother hating or whatever is almost, dare I say it? Woman hating. Yeah I know you don’t good woman hate, but that seems to me to be cancelled out by the fact that you don’t bad man hate.

  28. TFH says:

    Yes, I noticed that too. I had added a comment on that post and was looking to see if anyone had responded to it.

    I advised him to take it down as soon as I read that post, because it was giving away far too many details. He could have risked his anonymity, which is not a good idea, what with the SPLC lurking around the androsphere.

    It would be a big blow to lose him as a contributor against misandry, which is what could happen if his identity got out. Look at Alcuin restricting his blog (effectively making sure no new people find it, defeating the purpose of a blog seeking to shape opinion or expose new people to this information).

  29. TFH says:

    Okay i have to ask the question why are you so insistent on “slut-shaming” ?

    A pickup artist or more casual practitioner of single-man Game, loves sluts. They are the training ground that helps a man learn Game.

    But a slut is simply not suitable for marriage. So slut-shaming is done by those who refuse to lower their standards on what type of women is suitable for marriage.

    So slut-shaming is logical and necessary from anyone who believes children should be born in two-parent families.

    Oh, and if you dislike pickup-artists, slut shaming is one of the only ways to reduce pickup-artist activities.

  30. TFH says:

    Anonymous Reader,

    Question for the assembly: What are the long term implications of a culture in which a plurality of boys are raised by babymommas with minimal interaction with adult men?

    See : African-American community
    See Also : The fact that almost no boy raised without a father ever goes into the hard sciences.

  31. Ballista_GTOW says:

    @Sheera
    Yeah I know you don’t good woman hate, but that seems to me to be cancelled out by the fact that you don’t bad man hate.

    There’s enough hate to go around with the feminists and the MSM. Good man hate, bad man hate, they just plain hate all men. As men, we don’t need anymore hate, so we aren’t going to partake in it. Now, there is no standards whatsoever put upon women by the feminists or MSM. In fact, putting any standards on a woman is considered hatred and misogyny. Now granted, there are “bad men” by the same standards we are judging women, but us “good men” have had enough of people bringing down hate on us simply for being men. Simply put, addressing the “all women are good no matter what, all men are bad no matter what” narrative for the female-supremacist hatred it represents goes a long way in bringing noble and proper standards upon everyone.

  32. Professor Mentu says:

    Dalrock said “Mentu’s advice is I would say assuming that the decision has been made to go down the rabbit hole. Assuming one decides to go, some ways are more foolish than others.”

    Bingo. Men in their late 30’s and older who are unmarried will have a hard time finding a woman who doesn’t have children. When you engage a single mom, there are complications. Where there are complications, there are best practices. Where there are best practices, there is The University of Man to share those best practices.

    The best practices I shared are for men who want to engage physically with a single mom at a level equal to or greater than the required level of emotional and financial engagement.

    For those of you who want to interact with single moms by embracing social mores designed to limit or eliminate physical engagement while boosting emotional and financial engagement (hallmark of feminism and modern Christianity), I commend your righteousness and encourage you to be the godliest and/or most pro-feminist dickstand you can possibly be.

  33. Matthew says:

    Okay i have to ask the question why are you so insistent on “slut-shaming”?

    Excellent question, grasshopper. To understand this, you must first find the answer to this ancient riddle: If a man has a hammer, and he wishes to drive a nail, what should he do?

    Like I don’t get it. I think I’m like most woman who don’t really care if sluts are being slutty.

    With similitude, I do get it. I am similar to a man who does really care that sluts are filthy beasts who must be hunted down in massive, televised game shows, where the contestants may only carry longbows and swords that weigh no more than their ex-wives.

    The guys I’m with don’t date sluts, aren’t attracted to them

    “The guys I’m with”. Plural. “aren’t attracted to [girls who have been with many guys]“. Full stop.

    Now for their own sake I wish sluts would be a lot less slutty. And I try to ignore the sluttier aspects of some of my friends behavior.

    Youu desire a zero-sum cock: we get that.

    But I don’t hate people who do things I don’t approve of.

    What? Why? What the hell is wrong with you?

    I just am like oh brother

    There you go again, blaming a man.

    and try to ignore it and not encourage it.

    I saw a mongoloid, once, raping a storm drain, and I thought to myself, “I sure feel bad for that storm drain. I’m sure that if I look away and pretend not to notice, that poor mongoloid will get the point, and in no way will she feel encouraged by my behavior.”

    I only point this out is that sometimes I feel like this slut hating, or single mother hating or whatever is almost, dare I say it? Woman hating.

    To the extent that every woman is a slut and a single mother: YES. You NAILED that. I Do Not Have Words. How can you be so wise, and yet so discerning, and yet so feminine, and yet so desirable, and yet so worthy of a highly remunerative job? Goddess only knows.

    Yeah I know you don’t good woman hate, but that seems to me to be cancelled out by the fact that you don’t bad man hate.

    Hate plus Hate equals Sex Team

  34. krakonos says:

    @TFH
    See : African-American community
    Sub-Saharan Africans, with several exceptions, are product of long term promiscuity, polygyny and lack of paternal investment.
    Bringing those rules to a very different population (whites, east Asians) cannot result into immediate transformation of their nature. Due to factual polygyny reversion to savage will be significantly faster than breeding civilized people in monogamous family formation. But in short and mid term you can expect men dropping out of society (alcoholism, indifference, isolation) rather than outright violence. And very low birth rates.
    If you look at Mosuo (mongoloid), men are not violent but barely work and Mosuo are dying out due to lack of offspring.

    See Also : The fact that almost no boy raised without a father ever goes into the hard sciences.
    Maybe it is because such women do not have any relationships [leading to precreation :)] with those men in the first place. And when technical thinking and IQ are mostly inherited consequences are obvious.

  35. greyghost says:

    I watched a very interesting but slow movie from 2002 called Tully. A good reason to avoid a slut. And as snoop dogg said you can’t wife a ho, just let a ho do what she does best,ho.

  36. Paul says:

    AR

    “An obvious question for 60% or more of divorced Heroines: how is your life better for your children than it was before you got divorced? How is it really, truly, better? You chose this life, explain how it is helping “your kids” (who come first…sure.).”

    The other obvious question I have, and the one which probably hits closer to home, is “how is your life better than it was before you were divorced? Really and truly better, financially, emotionally, sexually?”

    Betcha it’d be much harder to get an honest answer for this one. Engage rationalization hamster drive, warp factor 7, on my mark, GO!

  37. Pingback: Father Knows Best: Orthodox Edition « Patriactionary

  38. Anonymous Reader says:

    Paul, your question probably would hit home in a different way. I framed mine with one of Prof. Mentu’s correspondents in mind, the one who insisted “my kids come first”. Of course we know the results. If there was a disease that did to children what growing up without a father does, there’d be a national campaign to stamp it out.

    I will speculate that babymommas are in possession of rationalization hamsters on amphetamines…and each new child is the result of yet another ride on their own version of the carousel.

  39. imnobody says:

    Anonymous keeps on assuming social conservatives want baby momma to pop out a third and that we think this is a good thing. We don’t. We never will. She is a slut and obviously unreformed and should be avoided.

    But she only needs to walk into a church, say: “I repent” and everybody is forgotten. She was only a victim of bad men and she is forgotten by God’s grace. She is no longer a slut. She is now entitled to get married to a godly man (usually a beta who has always been despised by women and is willing to put up with anything to get some).

    First: Slut around
    Second: Collect alimony and child support
    Third: Say you are born again.
    Fourth: Everybody is forgotten. You can keep on collecting child support and alimony. Get outraged when somebody questions your morality :”I’m a born-again virgin. I was only the victim of bad men. I am a victim”.

    We have heard “round healed woman” and “slut” in several major news stories.

    Yes, when Sandra Fluke was called a slut, I saw Socons taking a stand and defending the rigth to call a slut a slut.

    When the Slutwalk, I saw Socons standing against this and saying slut is nothing to be proud of.

    TV news were full of conservatives talking against sluts.

    And pigs fly.

  40. Legion says:

    GKChesterton

    Hey little buddy. Glad you’re back.

  41. Sheera says:

    “How can you be so wise, and yet so discerning, and yet so feminine, and yet so desirable, and yet so worthy of a highly remunerative job? Goddess only knows.”

    Matthew I wonder that about myself all the time. OBTW I’m not a “slut”. But I’ve been raised conservative church/family so being a slut was never an option/temptation.

  42. Dalrock says:

    @Legion

    GKChesterton

    Hey little buddy. Glad you’re back.

    GKC is no Gilligan. He was the one arguing with Darwin Catholic that the manosphere has a point that men should be hesitant to marry non virgin women. This resulted in GKC being banned from DC’s blog (since revoked) and the thread being locked.

  43. Dalrock says:

    @Sheera

    Matthew I wonder that about myself all the time. OBTW I’m not a “slut”. But I’ve been raised conservative church/family so being a slut was never an option/temptation.

    Why are non sluts so concerned that men might prefer them over sluts? After all, you are the one keeping your virginity until you find your husband. Don’t you want your husband to prefer you over the sluts?

  44. GKChesterton says:

    @Anonymous,

    I’m hardly name calling. You are morphing “SoCon” into a name. I’m owning it and claiming you aren’t right. If you don’t believe some anonymous posting I can hardly fault you for it. It however doesn’t change it’s veracity.

    @Mentu

    Being a dickstand requires engaging in the behavior you describe. But you are just as much of a “dickstand” if you engage in the behavior you describe. You are a place holder in an endless game. A game that could, per the story above, land you in jail because your having sex with a sociopath. Therefore, I don’t see your solution as a solution. The right solution is to walk away. Strike that _run_ away.

    @I forgot who asked…

    A count of men that would call their daughters “sluts”? That’s hard, there is a natural and good affection for daughters that overcomes rationality. Those that would call it sinful behavior and demand changed behavior and _warn others_ about them? At least eleven. Bare minimum. Off the top of my head:
    Myself (I don’t think I could call her a slut but she’s young right now and I love her dearly)
    Greg
    David
    David
    Tim
    Josiah (youngest at 20 something)
    Gregory (I seem to know a lot of Greg’s and David’s…)
    Bruce (most likely to describe his daughters behavior as slutty warned the man who married her not to…for reasons other than slutiness and did the same with others)
    Ray
    Dave
    Christopher

    People that have given sermon’s on the same (looks at self; though at the time I was less aggressive than I would be now). Look I’m sorry to hear of the general condition, and I’ve seen it so I know it is true. However, it isn’t universal anymore than all men are alpha CEO’s. I’ve also seen otherwise good girls completely destroy otherwise good but completely socially inept guys. This is bad, but understandable given the biology. I’m also pretty sure it is more dominant in the evangelical world where you have authors like Rachel Evens:

    http://rachelheldevans.com/faith-parenting-leaving-church-finding-faith-kim-van-brunt

    http://rachelheldevans.com/women-of-the-passion-anoint-oil (if you can force yourself read through the whole thing…evidently women funded the entire ministry, too many men go to church, and women are the shiz)

    …who have adopted the popular culture. The closer you are to the culture the more likely you are to pick up its worst personality ticks. Evangelicalism has done that in spades. That’s why Orthodoxy is marginally better off right now, it is still essentially slavic in character (in the US) rather than American. Catholocism where it has tried to fit in has faired poorly. I’m willing to bet the Amish overall do well with slut shaming.

  45. slwerner says:

    Sheera – ”Okay i have to ask the question why are you so insistent on “slut-shaming” ? Like I don’t get it.”

    Why is it that you care if men (and women too, BTW) call sluts for what they are? You tell us that you were raised in a conservative and religious family, so I would have to wonder why you would object to sin and immoral behaviors be called out for what they are?

    Now, it’s fairly well understood why feminists (on the liberal left) hate slut shaming -they recognize that it lowers their value as prospective marital partners in men’s eyes, and thus acts to “disempower” the women they are trying to seduce in sin by selling female promiscuity as “empowerment”. They decry the supposed double-standard of promiscuous women being seen as devalued sluts, while promiscuous men are supposedly revered as studs (mostly by women, BTW, who are attracted to such men primarily because they are sexually successful as evidenced by their promiscuity).

    The feminists wish to tear down this supposed double-standard by removing the shame and devaluation that accompanies the term slut. But this will never be particularly successful as men will continue to understand that promiscuous women make bad choices for wives, owing to the observable higher rates of their infidelity and cuckoldry.

    Thus, the better way to address what they believe to be a double standard would be adapt the male response to promiscuous women and apply it accordingly and in equal measure to promiscuous men. Promiscuous men make for bad choices as potential husbands, also owing to their continued propensity to continue on in their promiscuous behavior irrespective of their marital vows. Thus, women ought to reject them the same way men wisely reject sluts.

    That women refuse to do this, and instead demand that men stop shaming sluts, and accept them as no worse that chaste women, speaks to their inability to chose wisely as it regards the dynamics of human sexuality.

    So, I think a better question to ask would be, “Why don’t you socially conservative religious women insist on (male) “slut-shaming”?

    The simplest answer would seem to be that many of you actually prefer male sluts, and would rather either remove the stigma associated with female promiscuity, or else to hide a woman’s promiscuity behind a veil of silence so that men will not be able to recognize her as a bad marital bet.

    If you are the sort of person you identify yourself as, you should be actually discouraging your friends from promiscuous behaviors rather than just wishing they wouldn’t do so, explaining to them that men don’t want to marry sluts. A little slut shame from women, both towards women, and promiscuous men as well, would do wonders for the overall sad state of sexual liberation run amok, and it’s devastating consequences for the institution of marriage.

    Anyway, that’s my opinion.

  46. Anonymous "Mad Dog" Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    I’m hardly name calling.

    Fun fact: the rabies virus appears to spread itself in part by affecting parts of the brain associated with aggressiveness, while at the same time stoking up the salivary glands. Thus in the extreme case a rabid animal is seen to be drooling or even foaming while biting without discrimination at any other animal in sight.

    An animal that only bites other animals that have attacked it, or that only bares its fangs at threats, therefore cannot be called rabid without further examination. Carelessly referring to a barking guard dog as “rabid” would be just ignorant, or maybe even stupid.

  47. deti says:

    GK Chesterton:

    Move on and never look back. Let her suck some other poor sap down the rabbit hole (though feel free to warn him by labeling her).

    I agree. I’m no player (I’m 16 years married and gaming my wife – thanks Athol), but I understand the player life. I totally grok what they do and why. In today’s day and age, if you’re going to play with single moms, you need to do it with open eyes and a clear head. Mentu’s advice is practical for single mom dating. Is it based in Christian morality? No, but it doesn’t claim to be.

    I don’t for a minute begrudge players playing, particularly when we live in a culture of sluts slutting. More than one player has said he’d give up being a player for the right girl.

  48. GKChesterton says:

    @slum

    An amazingly good post BTW. It reveals that feminists are keen on bringing the overall moral status _down_ while in general the Christian side of the androsphere is trying to bring it _up_.

    @deti

    I do fault players. Every Christian should. They engage in a game that directly reduces the ability of good men to function with good wives. I’m all Old Testement in believing that a player should be chained to the first woman the community catches him with. It is an amazingly poetic piece of justice in that it takes out two individuals in one act that are making the pool murky for everybody (and potentially gives life long protection to a “ruined” virgin). I’m also keen on the distention curse for women (strikes their vanity, sexual attractiveness, and any hope of future children…I just don’t know how to make it work).

    While I don’t believe male promiscuity is as harmful overall as female promiscuity I don’t think it is in anyway a net social or moral good. It should be stopped. Dalrock is right in pointing out that the _easiest_ way of stopping male promiscuity is stopping female promiscuity however that doesn’t mean we don’t, “begrudge players playing”. We do. Strongly. Otherwise we fall into an opposite trap as Christians. The easy bets aren’t Roisy making it through the pearly gates even if like others before him he has some interesting and important things to say (see: Machiavelli).

    @Dalrock

    On my Giligan nature. To be fair to those who would label me as such I’m not sure I’m “part of the tribe” here. I have after all not been directly hit by the lightening bolt. I’ve just seen what it can do to other people and am not keen on handling ferric materials.

    I will share a dad story though:
    My daughter, who is home schooled, was watching some cartoon (“Country and City Mouse”).

    Her: “Oh daddy I don’t think you’d like this I should change it”
    Me: “Why?”
    H: “They’re talking about letting girls vote and that’s stupid”
    M:
    H: “Why are you laughing?”

    I had to explain to her it had already happened…a long time ago. She was flabbergasted that women would even want to involve themselves in the enterprise.

  49. slwerner says:

    GKChesterton – ”While I don’t believe male promiscuity is as harmful overall as female promiscuity I don’t think it is in anyway a net social or moral good. It should be stopped. Dalrock is right in pointing out that the _easiest_ way of stopping male promiscuity is stopping female promiscuity however that doesn’t mean we don’t, “begrudge players playing”. We do. Strongly. Otherwise we fall into an opposite trap as Christians.”

    While I largely agree with what you posited herein, I think you might be missing the fact that most of modern American Churchianity has already fallen into a trap – the trap of attempting to control promiscuity by selectively targeting only the natural sexuality of boys and young men.

    I lived through it first-hand as a teenager back in the late 70’s. We young men were selectively admonished about our sexuality, our sex drives, and our need to NOT pressure the young women into sexual sin. Meanwhile, the girls were given a complete pass, treated as if there were no need what so ever to address their sexuality, their sexual drives, and the need to not comp licitly fall into sexual sin.

    The observable results were not only completely predictable, but verified by multiple others who observed the exact same as did I – the young men became “nice guys”, who could generate little or no interest amongst the girls, who, in turn, tended to go outside the church to find guys (who weren’t nice guys) to date/f*ck.

    The stop one-sided attempt to control promiscuity overall by focusing exclusively on the subset of young men under their influence was, and continues to be, and abject failure.

    Yet, no discernable attempts have ever been made to “correct” the approach. There appears to be great fear in being honest about the realities of female sexuality and female sexual desires amongst Churchians. As you might note above, a female Churchian even now asks why do we (on this forum) insist on slut shaming. She’s obviously not used to it within her Churchian environment, where it appears that female promiscuity makes people uncomfortable – but not enough so to cause theme to want to step outside their comfort-zones and acknowledge and address it directly.

  50. slwerner says:

    Deti – ”I don’t for a minute begrudge players playing, particularly when we live in a culture of sluts slutting. More than one player has said he’d give up being a player for the right girl.”

    I, myself, am quite dubious of the idea of players settling down for the “right girl”. To me, it comes off as a parallel to the aging carousel-rider looking to settle down with the “right guy” (aka “chump”).

    Promiscuity, once imbibed in, isn’t likely something that anyone, regardless of gender, can simply (willingly and happily) give up. It becomes a part of the character of the person. Thus, to such people “settling down” has too high an emphasis on the “settling” part, leading to a feeling that they’ve given up too much.

    I’ve known a number of promiscuous people, both men and women, who did try to settle down and marry. Not one of the situations I know of has ever been successful, with most ending up cheating on their spouses in relatively short order. It’s not that a promiscuous person absolutely cannot change, but rather that, as you quite accurately note of promiscuous women, it is very difficult. I happen to believe that it is no easier for a promiscuous man to do so.

  51. Sheera says:

    Interesting points. I guess I have so many family members (unfortunately) and friends who have chosen the slut path. I don’t see these girls as competition, but I wouldn’t want anyone to hurt their feelings. And once a girl is i my church, I couldn’t care less if she slutted herself out before. I just want to make the person feel loved.
    That being said you are probably right about slut-shaming. Sluts have wrecked the mainstream dating market and downright sluttiness is threatening to destroy marriage. Sluts virtually make it impossible for good girls to compete for guys in the immediate and so they multiply themselves.
    i remember at work once, a gorgeous young girl (who was probably a slut) had a tear in her pants around the bum line. She went around the office (I work mainly with woman) showing the tear in her pants. Like literally pulling on the tear. At that point I had to make fun of her, I just had too. I didn’t want to be mean, but I wanted her never to do that again.
    But how do you define slut?

  52. slwerner says:

    Sheera – ”But how do you define slut?”

    A lot of people try to narrow it down to s specific number of sexual partners (typically note as 10), which I would agree does serve as a useful proxy for sluttiness; yet I feel if fails to encompass a rather important aspect of “sluttiness”, which is attitudinal.

    If a girl is inclined to engage in premarital sex (especially with no expectation of that sex leading to a relationship) just because “she can”, and assumes/declares that she will later become monogamous, then she has adopted a slut attitude. She may well be a slut even before her she looses her virginity by mere virtue of the fact that she intends to fully “explore” her sexuality (prior to “settling down”).

  53. deti says:

    A slut is a woman who exhibits a pattern of providing access to her sexuality to men without first securing some modicum of commitment or investment from men.

    The problem is that women very quickly learn that if it’s sex they want, they can get that pretty easily from hot, sexy men.

    A woman who does this a couple of times? Probably not a slut.

    A woman who does this 15 times? Probably a slut.

  54. Anonymous Reader says:

    Seems to me that the set of “single mothers” can be divided into four groups: widows, divorcees, single by choice, and babymommas.

    A man dating a widow IMO ought to put his cards on the table early on. Unless she became a widow by killing her husband, it should not be assumed she’s one of the parasites. A man who wants to marry should be willing to consider a widow with children. A cad might well go for a pump and dump, so widows would be wise to see what his cards are early on.

    Divorcees are more complex: she dumped him, he dumped her, they could not stand each other, etc. All cases show poor judgement in the past one way or another. There is a party-grrl variant that’s basically just another form of carousel riding, and the petri-dish aspects of that cannot be overstated. I’d tread with care here regardless of the intent, because of the judgement issue. A man who wants an LTR of any sort would be prudent to find out if she’s learned anything useful from the experience, or not. A player / PUA looking for a quick short term run can refer to the linked posting.

    Single by choice IMO is likely to be very headstrong, used to having her own way in everything, and not so much raising a child as living with a little roommate. Maybe a professional woman who solved her baby rabies (figure of speech, GK) at the clinic via sperm donor, maybe the same only with a ONS, maybe a party grrl who had an “oops” moment & decided against an abortion, there are other variants. These women can be good employees, but I wouldn’t want to live with one or even socialize too much with one. IIRC Roissy ran into one of these…

    Babymommas are just parasites IMO. They can be pleasant enough people, but really the game of serial short term monogamy they play makes them just carousel riders in a different form. Poor impulse control, maybe low intelligence (but often surprisingly cunning) and an ability to play the legal / governmental system – just bad news all the way around.

    Maybe if there were not so many short-term rewards for the above categories (excluding widows) there would not be so many women in those categories? Nah. Got to be teh menz fault, somehow…

  55. slwerner says:

    ”A lot of people try to narrow it down to s specific number of sexual partners (typically note as 10)”

    Well, that seems to have been a very poorly typed, not to mention worded sentence.

    Them me try that again:

    A lot of people suggest that it can be delineated based on the number of sexual partners a women has had, with the number of ten being given as the number after which a typical woman becomes completely unable to properly pair-bond with a man – no matter how much she might wish to do so.

  56. lavazza1891 says:

    slwerner: I agree. It is hard to give an exact number. Attitude and overall behaviour/motivations are more important. I would add that every woman who’s had an abortion or an STD is a slut.

  57. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    While I don’t believe male promiscuity is as harmful overall as female promiscuity I don’t think it is in anyway a net social or moral good. It should be stopped. Dalrock is right in pointing out that the _easiest_ way of stopping male promiscuity is stopping female promiscuity however that doesn’t mean we don’t, “begrudge players playing”. We do. Strongly. Otherwise we fall into an opposite trap as Christians. The easy bets aren’t Roisy making it through the pearly gates even if like others before him he has some interesting and important things to say (see: Machiavelli).

    I’m not really motivated to reform the players. As slwerner touched on, many of them were never a good fit for marriage. Many others were either married once and had what Darwin Catholic doesn’t care about/believe in happen to them, or looked at the reality of marriage for men today and decided not to take their chances. I’m much more interested in making marriage a viable option than shoving men into marriages which are extremely likely to not be honored. From a practical point of view, I’m much more concerned about fatherless children and the institution of marriage which is tetering on the brink. I don’t question that you share my passion in this regard, but 99% of the people wringing their hands about players can’t be bothered to take marriage seriously and work to rescue it. As I recall Brendan is as you are Orthodox, and even he is afraid to marry.

    I don’t like not having an option for these men. I detest it. However, this doesn’t change the question of sin. Just because Christians as a whole have turned their back on sexual morality (because it simply doesn’t exist once you move away from lifetime marriage) doesn’t mean fornication isn’t a sin. I won’t challenge you for pointing this out, and I doubt many of the players themselves would (even if they don’t share your view). I will however strongly challenge those who suddenly take Christian sexual morality seriously when it comes to players. They are the worst sort of hypocrite, abandoning innocent men and children to take their turns through the meat grinder while tisk tisking the men who refuse to stand in line for their chance at the same fate.

    I also look at where we can have an impact. We could cut the number of players in half and not change the end result with respect to sluts and unwed mothers at all. Additionally, this is the group which is least likely to yield to social dissaproval. Even worse, going after players fits into the rationalization of the would be slut. She feels a sense of moral cover, since two are engaged in the act. From what I can tell most would rather feed young girls to the machinery of sluthood than risk the dreaded double standard. I’ve even seen mothers write this about their own daughters.

    I’m highly confident that the betas who read this post walked away with far less interest in getting involved with single mothers, especially the vast majority of single mothers who aren’t marriage worthy. For the most part they don’t read posts like Mentu’s and think “Wow, I really want to be that alpha guy!”, they read it and think “I don’t want to be the sucker beta propping her up while the alpha rogers her”.

    For single mothers there is the message to actually put your kids first, which means either not dating or doing so with great intention and straightforwardness, as well as an understanding of why she should appreciate those few men of quality who are willing to step in and take on her “ready made” family. For married mothers and other women in general it is a cautionary tale, of why they shouldn’t take the latest divorce fantasy they are ingesting on TV, the movies, magazines, etc. to heart. It also is a cautionary tale to women tempted to marry the bad boy; just because you were married to the unsuitable father when you had kids with him doesn’t mean others won’t judge you, or that there won’t be a price paid by all involved.

  58. Ballista_GTOW says:

    “A slut is a woman who exhibits a pattern of providing access to her sexuality to men without first securing some modicum of commitment or investment from men.”

    I would probably hasten to add that “providing access to her sexuality” doesn’t have to involve the act of sex. Just dressing provocatively, flirting, or participating in a “Girls Gone Wild” environment can qualify a woman for that label. Though most women are apt to have the rationalization hamster run on 1000 to twist away from this, just habitually doing this will qualify. I’ve even seen these things personally in Churchian environments, where I could walk down the aisle and see no shortage of outfits that leave nothing to the imagination.

    Much more so some of the things I’ve read about some celebrities that are professing Churchians that a friend of mine shared with me. To say you are for Jesus and God one minute and then appear in a national magazine with nothing covering you but a bikini bottom and your forearm sends a different message entirely in practice. This woman can be completely virginal when it comes to allowing sex, but still a slut for displaying her body like this.

    Of course, to the average feminist, Churchian or not, this is “empowering and liberating”, not wicked and sinful as it should be.

  59. deti says:

    At least the players are (usually) honest about what they are doing and why. Players see women for what they are, not what they think they are or would like them to be. Players are upfront and straightforward that they are about carousing, coin, Courvoisier and cooch. What you see is what you get with a player. Take “TheSituation” and Pauly D from Jersey Shore. They’re players. You get washboard abs, gorillahead muscles, good times, snappy one-liners, a barrel of laughs, and them “getting it in”. No pretension, no putting on airs. Just havin’ a good time.

    I can’t say the same for the modern church. The church says it’s all about families, marriage, kids, and morality. But that’s only surface. At its bottom it has been coopted by feminism either because it stood by and did nothing or allowed itself to become a feminist organ. The modern church is about divorce for women if they want it, punishing men, granting rights and privileges to women, imposing duties and obligations upon men, coddling women, lecturing men.

    The church winks and nudges about women having sex and slutting it up; while sternly admonishing men against fornication.

    The church condemns men for sleeping around; but lets women repent and claim a new life after a weepy altar call, after which she is proclaimed “reformed” and marriage-ready. The men are then told to line up and vie for her affections. They are told to put a ring on a finger that’s been wrapped around who-knows-how-many penises.

    All the while the church has the gall to say it is the last vestige, the last bulwark, the last defense against the evils of promiscuity, divorce, disease, and death.

    So who’s really being honest here? Who’s really being straightforward? Who’s really telling it like it is?

  60. mortarmanmike says:

    Testify Brother

  61. mortarmanmike says:

    The players are wrong. They are committing sin against the Lord. For the most part, the consequences of their sin will fall on them only. The consequences of sluts and apostate churches falls on everybody. Thus more focus should be placed on slut shaming and calling the church to account.

    God’s judgement will be applied to both players and sluts.
    My anger is at churchianity.

  62. MaMu1977 says:

    I’ll co-sign slwerner’s comment. The problem with sluttiness is its essence (the inferred confirmation that its perpetrator has no self-control.) The reason for the “double standard” is based on the ramifications of a lack of self control (as in, a woman who rarely or solely grants her favors will always be able to ally herself with a specific family, whereas a woman who profligately favors any man finds herself set adrift. Men, otoh, don’t have to deal with the burden of their byblows, but the receivers of their favours can and often will make use of his assets whenever possible.)

    Case in point, Antonio Cromartie, a man who has managed to create 10 children with 8 separate women. At this time, the mothers of his illegitimate children are attempting to create a *reality TV show* based around their sluttishness (an act that harkens back to Roissy’s maxim: 5 minutes of alpha is better, for women, than 5 years of beta.) Cromartie’s 2 legitimate children receive the lion’s share of his attention (supposedly, his wife was actually virgin at their engagement), while his assorted babymamas are barely able to “keep” a greater beta mate (never mind finding a “real” alpha to help them take care of their children.) Yet, noone is active shaming any of the babymamas (despite the fact that at least half of them actually knew each other prior to their liaisons with the prolific inseminator), but Cromartie receives all sorts of scorn from the NY media (and not a little admiration. It should be noted that the news story which noted that the Jets administration had to pay him an advance on his salary to make up for shortfalls on child support barely made waves here.)

  63. GKChesterton says:

    @Anon

    “figure of speech”

    I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean but you really mess up you posts by being a smart-ass. I get the picture of the smart kid who wasn’t beat up _enough_.

    @Dalrock

    There’s nothing there I disagree with. I just worry that the opposite reaction can happen. The ignoring of the very real case of male promiscuity. Its clear from comments like Deti’s that happens.

    @Deti

    Your comment reads like this, “Yes Stalin was a torturer of souls and a mass killer but at least he was an _honest_ mass killer.” I’m sorry promiscuity erodes marriages and kills children. I don’t care if alpha cads are “honest” about it. They are still slime. I have just found out a neighbor (62 years old) is an alpha cad. Left behind is a wife…who I’m dodgy about because I think she was a second run and a grandson who’s mother is dying of cancer and has serious attachment issues. The guy is (most likely from the info I have) slime. So no, just because they are honest doesn’t make them anything other than honest in my eyes.

    As to the counts:
    Any woman who engaged in consensual sex with someone other than her husband is a slut. Partner count greater than two but sometimes one therefore qualifies. Add to this women who dress provocatively in the hopes of becoming the above defined woman.

    Any man who did likewise is a probable cad but differences in our biology’s make this less than symmetrical.

  64. feministhater says:

    GK, I think what deti is getting at is that Cads and Sluts who are honest about themselves to both their prospective victims and society are indeed better than those who entertain the thoughts of marriage whilst engaging in slut/cad behaviour, getting married and then divorcing because they are not good marriage material. True cads know they won’t be good marriage partners and thus don’t entertain the notion when interacting with their current partner. Sluts on the other hand seem incapable of being honest with themselves and admitting that they should not ever get married and that they don’t deserve a ring at all, ever. There’s the difference.

    The man you described above was not honest at all. He got married as a cad, probably lied to his wife and then divorced her. Feel free to shame him and all the other cads in the world as much as you like. Be as flamboyant as you want. Shame, shame, shame away, it won’t do a thing though, a cad will be a cad and any would be cad who doesn’t become one, just frees up more sluts for the cads left over. FYI, they will LOVE you for that!

    Shaming sluts works because any would be slut who is saved, means another good man has a wife and their children are raised in a stable home. It cannot be explained more simply than that I’m afraid.

  65. mortarmanmike says:

    @GK
    I don’t think your analogy holds water. The previous discussion was about players. The assumed definition of that (at least how I read it) is that a player is a promiscuous single man. The man you discribe is not a player. He is simply an adulterer. The players of the world do not cause the mayhem and destruction of a Stalin. Yes they are doing evil. Yes they will be judged. I don’t believe Deti is describing their behavior as good or even neutral. Regardless, whatever damage the players are causing to society is a pittance compared to the damage of sluts and apostate socons. They are literally tearing the fabric of society apart. If you reduced the players to 5% of the population, the number of sluts would be largely unaffected – and the damage would be the same. Put the focus on the real problem and don’t default to a ‘well guys are promiscuous too’ argument.

    “I’m sorry promiscuity erodes marriages and kills children.”
    Be more specific. Female promiscuity erodes marriages and kills children. Male promiscuity causes damage to be sure but it is orders of magnitudes less damaging to society.

  66. mortarmanmike says:

    One more related comment.
    GK, I think the disconnect is mostly in terminology. Not to speak for everybody, but I think most here would agree that promiscuity is an equal sin regardless of sex. Yes, male promisciuty is bad, we get it, we really do. However I think there is a dynamic you are missing:

    1) Sluts create players
    2) Players don’t create sluts.

    Players (promiscuous single men) operate within the population of sluts, they do not make them sluts. In almost every case, they were already slutty before the players got to them. The players are the suppliers not the consumers. If the number of player (suppliers) dropped, demand would simply increase as the same number of sluts (consumers) chase a smaller group of players. Sluts on the other hand DO create players. If an otherwise decent young man with a hard-on looks around and the only outlet available to him in the modern marriage market is a slut, he will become a player. His two choices are forced lifetime celibacy or becoming a player. Most players are simply a reaction to the market. Sluttiness is internal. The sluts have a literal cornucopia of beta men available to them but they choose to slut for the alphas.

    As Fiministhater said, you wanna shame guys, go ahead, join the chorus. But you are barking up the wrong tree.

  67. deti says:

    1. A player lifestyle is completely inconsistent with a Christian lifestyle. It isn’t a moral lifestyle as Christians define it. Players engage in fornication, which is sin. Players also seduce and sex up women who might otherwise save themselves for marriage. Some players also sex up married women.

    Be that as it may, the player is at least upfront about his intentions and what he wants. If he wasn’t sexing these women in this SMP, someone else would be. If he sexes up married women, well, it takes two; and the married woman is even more culpable. The player sins against God and himself. The married adulteress sins against God, herself, AND her husband AND her children AND her family. The player was honest. The adulteress was dishonest.

    2. There’s a difference between a player and a cad. A player is honest that he’s about hedonism and casual sex, and that marriage is not in the cards for him. The player accepts the consequences of his lifestyle and doesn’t rationalize. A cad lies about his intentions, is not above cheating on a spouse, and seeks to avoid consequences. With a cad, it’s always someone else’s fault.

    3. There are even differences between sluts and players. If there were no sluts, there would be no players.

    Players are honest. They are upfront about their desire for casual sex and really don’t care how many women they have slept with. They don’t put on an act of “respectability”. Sluts work to conceal their partner counts and their experience, and will lie about their counts if it is to their advantage. Some are experts at acting like “nice girls”.

    Players accept the consequences of their actions. Sluts actively work to avoid consequences or push them onto someone else.

    Players know the score and the risks. Sluts want the danger, but want it sanitized and with guardrails and rollbars, and a guarantee that it will all end well and no one will get hurt.

    Players take the good with the bad. Sluts want all the good and expect someone else to handle the bad.

    Players know theirs will be a life of singledom, and they accept this. Sluts’ greatest fear is ending up alone. Sluts want to sportf**k alpha men until just before they hit The Wall; then they seek to parachute into a marriage with a wealthy alpha (or a nebbish beta will do) who can pay for their herpes medications and shoes for the bratty snot nosed kids who may or may not be theirs, until she’s not haaaaaappy and then she can divorce for cash and prizes, and go out in a blaze of glory for one last ride on the carousel.

  68. deti says:

    Players understand that sometimes, somebody gets hurt and somebody else got away with it. Sometimes there’s winners and losers in hookups; and sometimes you don’t get the upper hand. That’s how the game is played. A slut is always surprised, bewildered, creeped out, or outraged when she didn’t get exactly what she wanted from her hookup.

  69. GKChesterton says:

    @Mortar

    It is less damaging but I would not go so far as to say orders of magnitude less. And yes, unfortunately reducing cads doesn’t have a significant long term effect. Hopefully though it saves the individuals soul. That at least is worth something.

    As to specifics, cads are much more likely to harm children (and the slut mothers allow them). This _is_ an orders of magnitude problem. See the UCR for more information.

  70. canecaldo says:

    GKC is right.

    We should hate the sin more when we see it within the church, but we should hate the sin outside the church, as well. We shouldn’t equivocate.

    @Deti
    So who’s really being honest here? Who’s really being straightforward? Who’s really telling it like it is?

    That’s the question isn’t it? You’re making two grave mistakes here.

    1) That speaking what one feels or experiences is necessarily speaking the truth.
    2) That omission of facts and context is not lying.

    You don’t see it because you’re too used to qualifying your statements with “well, for the Christian…” Stop qualifying. This ain’t Buddhism. Narrow is the way. THE way. There is no other truth. The truth is not that you can sin against God and yourself and, hey man, it’s just different strokes for different folks. For those that don’t think that: Get out of Christianity.

    Players are honest in the sense that we might call an over-zealous prosecutor honest. He manufactures evidence, and entraps people he believes to be guilty. Are the offending parties guilty of a crime? Yes. Would we call the prosecutor honest? No! Satan means ‘adversary’, and it has a legal connotation. He is the prosecutor. “Truth-telling” PUAs are his paralegals.

    Shaming cads doesn’t work, but that’s not the end of the matter. I love this story about British Commander Charles James Napier (from Wikipedia):

    A story for which Napier is often noted involved Hindu priests complaining to him about the prohibition of Sati by British authorities. This was the custom of burning a widow alive on the funeral pyre of her husband. As first recounted by his brother William, he replied:

    “Be it so. This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs.”

    Just because customs are prevalent, that don’t make ‘em right.

  71. Anonymous "Mad Dog" Reader says:

    @Anon

    “figure of speech”
    GKChesterton:
    I’m not sure what that’s supposed to mean but you really mess up you posts by being a smart-ass.

    It means what it says, oh deep thinker.

    I get the picture of the smart kid who wasn’t beat up _enough_.

    First the name calling, now the keyboard kommando approach.
    A one-man cliche factory…

    Meanwhile, in the real world, churches that brag about their he-manliness are still actually dickstands for babymommas. Perhaps that is what GK is busy avoiding?

  72. Anonymous Reader says:

    Example of a church that is dickstanding for a babymomma:
    church I was invited to that is conservative Protestant. No women preachers, no women in the church leadership, period. Women can sing & play instruments during services, make an announcement and nothing else. Marriage is supposed to be one and done. Maybe there’s divorcees there, I dunno. The younger marrieds all have at least one child. Nobody can recall a divorce in the last 10 years. Don’t know if that meets GK’s standards for “traditional” and/or “conservative” at this particular nanosecond or not, doesn’t matter. By most standards, it’s a traditionalist, conservative church.

    It’s also got a babymomma with three children. She sits in the pews with the families, she’s part of all the social events. She’s had baby showers given. There’s some kind of school associated with the church, her kids go there – she doesn’t pay for that. She doesn’t work. Some kind of government check comes in. People in the church give her and her kids rides and other help. At least two of them were born, by different men, after she joined. I can’t tell if she was ever married, but my host grimly informed me she sure wasn’t married for the last two births.

    I’m sure that the various church leaders tell their young teenagers “Don’t Do IT Until Marriage”. But their actions say what? That if you Do IT without bothering to marry and get pregnant, you can have baby shower, a free apartment, free babysitting, and your bastard child gets to go to a private school at no charge. Actions and words not in accordance with each other. Since supposedly got knocked up twice after joining, words and actions are very much at odds with each other. That church is her dickstand, or has been in the past. Sure, not on purpose – in fact, likely with the whole “let him without sin cast the first stone” good intentions. But the facts are plain to see.

    And again, this is what most would consider a trad-con church. I’m certain I can find more such situations in the less traditional, less conservative ones. Lots of talkin’, but where’s the walkin’?

  73. Johnycomelately says:

    “I just worry the opposite will happen.”

    Operant conditioning dictates that female behavior will only change if there is sufficient punishment for undesirable actions. The church (guilt free recission of sin), the state (free money and preferential treatment) and society (normalizing aberrant behavior) reward female promiscuity, the only group on the planet punishing the behavior are PUAs and MGTOW.

    Roissy only tongue in cheek says that PUAs are doing ‘God’s work’ but how far off the truth is he really? Wasn’t the tyrant Nebuchadnezzar doing God’s work?

  74. Anonymous Reader says:

    Babymommas really present a tough problem to a church. On the one hand, the ladies will surely take her side – those bad men that done her wrong – and want to help her out. It would be very difficult to publicly shame her, because some of the women would surely object. In any church where the preacher is a woman, likely all a babymomma will get is sympathy. Besides, what about her children? Surely they can’t be punished for her wrongs?Gotta try to save them, right? What if she leaves?

    (There’s reason to believe that women in any group will side with a babymomma unless leaned on hard not to do so. I cannot recall if I posted this here or not:
    Abstract: Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/15491274/

    Disclaimer: I have not read the study yet, and therefore cannot comment on the methodology. But the abstract is thoguth provoking, and IIRC Suz offered an evo-gio path for this to occur in the last 3 months.)

    Back to the churchian babymomma:
    Her very presence is a refutation of any preaching about sexual morality, and most especially so if she gets knocked up again after joining. And in any case, the more support she gets, the more the message is sent out :”Getting knocked up brings you prizes and free stuff whether you are married or not”.

    It’s a difficult challenge: who would stand in the church door and say “Nope, you can’t come in here”, but once she’s joined, her presence is all but certain to be a refutation of preaching, and if others join in her wake, what then?

    It is not an easy problem. I can dream up some solutions, but that’s for another time. I’d rather hear what the He-man Patriarch has to say…

  75. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    It is less damaging but I would not go so far as to say orders of magnitude less. And yes, unfortunately reducing cads doesn’t have a significant long term effect. Hopefully though it saves the individuals soul. That at least is worth something.

    Wanting to save their soul and speaking the truth are one thing, and as I said I don’t take any issue with you doing so. I make it a point to state where I stand morally every time I bring this issue up. Yet, there is always a chorus wanting me to poke the pickup artist in the eye. You mentioned in a previous thread that you see discussions as an opportunity to learn. I think it is fair to say that is why you are here. The reason there is something to learn is in no small part because of those on the pickup side of game who are sharing their knowledge either in the comments section here, on their own blogs (like Mentu), or in the comments sections of other blogs. They are a part of the conversation here and in the larger manosphere. I have repeated many times that there is no orthodoxy required to participate in this discussion.

    Up until sometime late last year there was a woman with the moniker Doomed Harlot commenting here with the sex positive feminist perspective. I poked a bit of fun at her for lacking ambition as a slut (for all of her internet advocacy of sex positive feminism, she married the second man she ever kissed and remains married). Likewise, I disagree with Susan Walsh’s point of view on serial monogamy. I made that point in one of the links in the OP (link). Susan and I had a blogging dustup back in December, but I don’t need to poke her in the eye to disagree with her advice to women. There is a woman who periodically comments here who is open about the fact that she recently had twins out of wedlock, and doesn’t feel compelled to marry. I disagree with her but don’t make it a point to poke her in the eye about it.

    For some reason which I can’t place my finger on, I am always interrogated on why I don’t poke pickup artists in the eye but no one has ever questioned why I don’t go after the aforementioned women personally. I did however have one commenter go after one of the men who comments here who is a player quite personally, only to defend Doomed Harlot as a good person later on. I didn’t object when she went after the player, but pointed out the inconsistency of her passionate defense of the woman who wants to make women feel more comfortable being sluts.

    The men on the pickup side of game have been very courteous to me and have been very willing to help me understand any concepts I struggle with and send traffic my way. It would be better if Christendom hadn’t abandoned the biblical view of men, women, and marriage, but it has. There is a reason this discussion started where and how it did. I started this blog after I found myself derailing Roissy’s comment threads on a regular basis. Given my profoundly different take on the world from his, he was a gracious host. The other commenters there were also generally very gracious to me and they have taught me a great deal.

    From Roissy’s point of view I’m an absolute fool for marrying and I believe in an imaginary man in the sky. Yet even he sees the insanity in our current sexual marketplace. He has no problem with sluts; they are in fact a boon to him. Even so, he sees the damage that is occurring to society at large and children in specific due to those who call themselves conservatives mostly looking the other way. He doesn’t mind servicing the sluts, but he is baffled as to why we keep sending our daughters to him. I have to say he makes an excellent point.

  76. TFH says:

    Roissy only tongue in cheek says that PUAs are doing ‘God’s work’ but how far off the truth is he really?

    I often say that PUAs picking up church sluts are doing God’s work, by shielding innocent beta males from the predatory church sluts.

  77. TFH says:

    From Roissy’s point of view I’m an absolute fool for marrying and I believe in an imaginary man in the sky.

    I don’t think he would say that about you personally. He, like you, recognizes that only 20-30% of fewer of young men today will be well served by risking entry into Marriage 2.0, and it is thus too risky to contemplate.

    That 20-30% of men luck out and avoid the disaster of Family Court is not something he denies.

    To say “most men should not risk it” is not incompatible with admitting that “a minority of men get lucky against the odds”.

  78. deti says:

    My whole point was this:

    PUAs and players aren’t acting morally. But, they don’t CLAIM to be acting morally.

    Sluts sometimes pretend to act morally, and believe they are with “serial monogamy” and LTRs, but they are not.

    Churchians pretend to act morally, and believe they are; but they are not.

  79. mortarmanmike says:

    @ cancaldo
    ‘We should hate the sin more when we see it within the church, but we should hate the sin outside the church, as well. We shouldn’t equivocate.’
    I don’t believe that Deti, Dalrock, or myself have said anything disputing that. Yes we agree. Sluts and players are both sinning equally in the eyes of God. Everybody happy? No equivocation.
    —————————–
    There are only so many hours available in a day, and only so much mental energy that people can devote to a problem. The topic of this article was about sluts. And whether we should marry them. And the damage they do. And how long did it take before the ‘well guys sin too’ argument popped up? Everytime. Every single time a chain of comments alights on the slut-topic, a gilligan steps in to derail it. Gotta mention those evil he-whores. Those horrible cads.

    I think its a christian socon by-law or something.
    1. Admit you’re a sinner and deserve God’s righteous punishment.
    2. Believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God.
    3. Believe that Jesus Christ died and rose again for your salvation.
    4. Repent of your sins.
    5. Defend your slut sisters by always mentioning one of the following:
    a. It take two to tango.
    b. Well what about the players?
    c. NAWALT!
    d. It’s really the gays that are destroying marriage.
    e. It’s really the guys fault their sluts,
    f. If you men lead better, there wouldn’t be this problem.
    g. Porn
    h. Double-standard
    6. Promise to lead your wife where she want’s to be led.

    I haven’t seen one poster here defending the players. The closest thing to a defense would be Deti’s comment that at least they’re honest. Compared to slut-dom, he is right. They are generally very open about their sin – as opposed to the sluts, churchians, and socons. The players know the truth- they choose to rebel against it. It’s the worldly church that is delusional. So where should we cast our light?

    @GK
    I will agree to disagree. Between the data I’ve seen and my own personal life experience, the damage caused by sluts to themselves, men, children, marriage, the Church body, and society as a whole far exceeds that cause by the players. Your opinion differs. At least we agree that culling the players would have little effect on the slut population.

    Go in Peace All.

  80. simbuilder says:

    Everyone here seems to have an opinion on what the church is doing wrong WRT sexual morality in general and I agree with most of it. So what do you think a church operating “correctly” would look like? Would the babymama in Anon’s example above be allowed in the church at all? Would every woman have to submit to Deti’s purity list? What’s the penalty for non-compliance?

    I ask because I seriously doubt any enforcement action by the church would be taken seriously in this day and age. We’re not in the middle ages, or even 30 years ago, when church life was central to society and excommunication was feared. There’s no inquisition or tribunal with teeth. Nobody’s putting hot pokers in orifices as punishment for immoral behavior today.

    If a church doesn’t accept past or present or reformed sluts, they’ll just move on and find fellowship elsewhere. Plenty of people find community and spiritual fulfilment outside the church today, away from what they perceive as judgement from others.

    So what should a church actually do?

  81. I note that PMAFT’s post about how he nailed “Molly” in her traditional Catholic parents’ home has gone down the memory hole.

    Unfortunately, those posts had the potential to reveal my identity, so I had to take them down.

  82. van Rooinek says:

    Off topic but too good not to share:

    Worst organizational acronym EVER:

    http://failblogafterdark.org/2012/04/05/give-them-a-helping-hand/

    http://feministactionproject.blogspot.com/

  83. mortarmanmike says:

    Simbuilder, you are right. I don’t think anybody is calling for a return to the inquisition. The problem is that churches have gone soft to the point that they are actually promoting the immoral behavior. There is a world of difference between not excommunicating and giving baby showers for sluts. The problem is that the church is saying nothing. Nothing except how wicked and broken all those porn addicted lustful men are.

    The modern church should be closer to first century churches then the later churches. It should be a place that testifies to the truth. That is all. If the people aren’t willing to hear the truth, they can go across the street to that feel-good church. Most would do so. Just as in the first century, if you didn’t like the message of the apostles you could move on over to the temple of aphrodite. It is not the Church’s mission to save everybody, only to spread the gospel and witness. How people react to that witness is out of our hands. Modern churches are too concerned with advertising and programs to keep the rolls (and tithes) up.

    There is also a difference in fellowship and attendance. If a church took a hard biblical stance on the gospel, those that accept are welcomed into fellowship. That doesn’t mean that unbelievers or wayward Christians should be barred entrance but they should not be offered the same fellowship as the elect. Paul is pretty straightforward that we ARE to judge each other. And he’s pretty clear about what we should do if a brother falls into sin. Unfortunately that would require unity and strong leadership. Both traits are sorely missing amongst modern Christians.

    It’s heartbreaking. I’d give anything but my soul to find a church that lived up to the ideal. Realistically, that church doesn’t exist and won’t exist this side Jesus’ reign. We are forced to try and build up imperfect churches into less imperfect churches.

  84. greyghost says:

    Johnycomelately
    “….the only group on the planet punishing the behavior are PUAs and MGTOW.”
    This is where the line “the PUA is doing the lords work” comes from. It is also why I have no critisism for players and cads.

  85. Legion says:

    Dalrock says:
    April 18, 2012 at 10:26 am

    So, my apologies GKChesterton. When a good man holds you in good esteem, I know i have to reconsider my opinion too. I will read your comments more thoughtfully too.

  86. Legion says:

    slwerner says:
    April 18, 2012 at 12:21 pm
    “If a girl is inclined to engage in premarital sex (especially with no expectation of that sex leading to a relationship) just because “she can”, and assumes/declares that she will later become monogamous, then she has adopted a slut attitude. She may well be a slut even before her she looses her virginity by mere virtue of the fact that she intends to fully “explore” her sexuality (prior to “settling down”).”

    That is a good defination. it is the attitude that mekes the slut. The high cock number count becomes a natural byproduct of the attitude.

    With men, some promiscuity is genetically imprinted into us. Yet I know of many men who are happy to settle down after ‘sowing their wild oats’ when young. This works for them and they have good monogamus relationships. On the other hand, when you go down the PUA path after being burned by women, and you become successful at it. Then I think a man is not going to be worth marrying, but they do not want to marry when they know they base nature of women so well.

  87. Great issue to explore, over and again, the situation with churches and sluts, churches and women generally regarding relationships with men , and simply the evil that women DO do. The “men do it too” is pathetic as a response, flat pathetic, because though the written words say “men do it too”, that is not at all what is meant by…..men do it too. If it were a simple statement of fact (MDIT)….men do it to, OK fine MDIT. But,………and?
    It is an emotional off-loader, an assuage, a foist, a duck, bob and a weave. It does something emotionally to the one saying it, man or woman. The statement MDIT may as well be The Vorvg is Flarb, if it would achieve the same emotional effect. Its nearly like a biological drive, these reflexes to feel these certain mitigating emotions or whatever, women in particular worship at the alter of {perceived} balance….not real balance, as in 3 grams here and 3 over there and she is level, but FEELS like balance, when if it were two water pails with a pipe connecting them one would be nearly empty and the other full, and it would feel balanced.
    The MDIT is the NAWALT is the fill in blank with the plethora of these inane reflexive reactions people speak like amoebas approached with the stick pin under the microscope, the mindlessly wriggle away.
    Another one is “the problem isnt divorce, the problem is the sin that leads to divorce, if we can address that that is a worthy goal”….same crap, different shovel.
    The church is steeped in these goofy gospel via cliche statements. The vast majority of what passes for expositional teaching in the church is the preacher finding cutesy ways to create new cliches that can be used to accomplish, emotionally, what MDIT does.
    We somehow need to get it to look as idiotic as it really is. In fact it is as lame as the white guy who says “Im not racist I have 2 black friends”….it really is THAT lame. Most of us would now cringe hen we hear that silliness, we need to get these MDIT outbursts to look that way too.

    The church needn’t start excommunicating people or doling out harsh punishments, they simply need to not equivocate, and to bring good old fashioned stigma back, by expecting as a group some effort to adhere to the groups morality, which should be spoken plainly, and backed scripturally by the pastor

  88. Bwana Simba says:

    Dickstand? Learn something new everyday.

  89. The “my kids come first” stuff is classic. I love the personals ads that scream that from the headlines, add the cyber chastity belt and you have a real keeper! “Friends first”….blah blah. Its not a problem if or that she really may be virtuous of intent (cough), the problem is the assumptions she is making about her audience, and how stupid she looks for , in her mind, rushing into a dog pound with her legs covered in bacon grease and telling all carnivores they need to stay away, only veg….pure veg for that lady.

  90. lavazza1891 says:

    Legion: “With men, some promiscuity is genetically imprinted into us. Yet I know of many men who are happy to settle down after ‘sowing their wild oats’ when young. This works for them and they have good monogamus relationships. On the other hand, when you go down the PUA path after being burned by women, and you become successful at it. Then I think a man is not going to be worth marrying, but they do not want to marry when they know they base nature of women so well.”

    Yeah, the sweet spot for commitment seeking women is when the man has become successful enough to be attractive to her, but not successful/cynical/realistic/burned enough to avoid commitment. That point varies between men (depending on their earlier partners and their overall input from other men and women), but normally lies somewhere in the 23-28 YO and 5-10 partners area, at least for mid to greater betas. Alphas might never have such a sweet spot.

  91. Johnycomelately says:

    Simbuilder
    “What do you think a church operating correctly look like.”

    I know this may offend Protestant ears but the historical church was a church of penance, for example the council of Ancyra in 314 instituted a 20 year penance period for fornication, imagine ramming that down the throat of a modern Western Christian.

  92. The moral godless says:

    AnonReader on the churchian babymomma:
    “It’s a difficult challenge: who would stand in the church door and say “Nope, you can’t come in here”, but once she’s joined, her presence is all but certain to be a refutation of preaching, and if others join in her wake, what then?”

    I don’t think you have to bar the church doors. That would seem to run counter to the church’s mission. Just don’t give her or her kids any financial support. And the elders should keep an eye on the young men and women, lest they want to follow her example or become a Captain Save A Ho.

    I will tell any man who will listen, to their face, “Don’t date single moms” as well as the reasons why. And I wouldn’t recommend that anyone give them any financial support either. But that doesn’t mean they have to be tarred and feathered.

  93. deti says:

    I’m not really even defending players. I’m just comparing their conduct to that of sluts and churchians, and declaring who I think is more up front and straightforward on what they’re all about.

  94. deti says:

    I don’t dispute for one minute that players are sinning. Of course they are. That’s not the point. The point is that they don’t deny they’re sinning. Their attitude seems to be “as long as I’m going to hell in a bucket, might as well enjoy the ride”. They don’t demand societal approval. Are they hurting society? Maybe, but not as much as sluts are. Players at least see what the problems are and are simply devising rational responses to the world in which they live.

    Sluts see no problem with their behavior because they are enabled and encouraged by media, entertainment, educational and political institutions, and culture. They also have an entire church apparatus which looks the other way and then eagerly sets about finding beta provider dupe-husbands for them when they finally stub their toes and get a disease, an unplanned pregnancy, are still cougaring away at 40, “hit a bottom” or just decide it’s time to step off the carousel (for now). The church complies by demanding that the men ask no questions, and simply line up to marry the sluts.

    Sluts engage in all sorts of sinful, lustful behavior and rationalize it away, or deny that it happened, or lie about it, or call it a “long term” relationship, and demand that society stamp it with an imprimatur of “morality”. I mean hey, at least it’s not a ONS or a same night lay. They use all this to insist that their sluthood is not wrong or sinful. Some among their number demand not just lack of judgment, but embrace and celebration of their conduct.

    Then when they tire of the carousel, they demand a ready made husband who fits their every checklist bulletpoint. They have the gall to demand not to be judged for their conduct. They stamp their feet when even beta men decline the chance to be the 15th, 20th or 40th man to take them for a ride. They can’t understand it when even beta men say “uh, you’ve had 20 sex partners, you’ve never made a relationship work, you’re 31, and now you want a husband? Too risky. NEXT!”

  95. canecaldo says:

    @MMM

    1) You mistake me: I’m not a gilligan. I was the storm.
    2) I believe we’re on the same side now, but I approach it with the storm’s perspective.

    You and Deti did make a defense of the players. (Dalrock did not, so you can’t take cover behind his words just by saying you’re lumped in with him.) Deti wrote that players indeed are more ethical than sluts because they’re honest, and I confronted that idea of honesty. I like Deti, and his arguments (and his lists), but on this particular point he is wrong. Players and PUA are not honest. You seconded his idea with “testify brother”. The truth is that the rules of picking up are not inviolable to the players. They’re honest when they need to be, and lie when it suits their desires. A case of that was demonstrated in these very comments. Obfuscation is dishonesty, and honesty without integrity with worthless.

    However, this was a good point:


    “There are only so many hours available in a day, and only so much mental energy that people can devote to a problem. The topic of this article was about sluts. And whether we should marry them. And the damage they do.”

    I have a bad habit of too often engaging comments instead the post. Duly noted.

  96. lavazza1891 says:

    I found this gold nugget from a “spiritual woman”. I don’t want to give her link hits, so I just quote the text before her awful poem. Google if you want a puke fest.

    “When a fairly spiritual male friend of mine who had finally found and was deepening into committed relationship with his soul mate confided in me he was thinking of being single again, and in the next breath expressed his latest idea for raising consciousness worldwide, I wrote this poem.”

    “… If you want to change the world… love a woman-one woman
    beyond yourself, beyond desire and reason,
    beyond your male preferences for youth, beauty and variety
    and all your superficial concepts of freedom.
    We have given ourselves so many choices
    we have forgotten that true liberation
    comes from standing in the middle of the soul’s fire
    and burning through our resistance to Love.
    There is only one Goddess. …”

    And so on

  97. deti says:

    The SMP would right itself literally overnight if sluts stopped having promiscuous sex and if those in long term relationships married and stayed married. Sluts are the problem. If there were no sluts, there would be no players and no pickup artists.

    The MMP would self-correct almost instantaneously if marriage laws were overhauled and made more equitable for men and if women were not given divorce windfalls in the form of alimony and chilimony.

  98. Dalrock says:

    @GKC

    I do fault players. Every Christian should. They engage in a game that directly reduces the ability of good men to function with good wives.

    The bolded (emphasis mine) sentiment strikes me as not only common but much more harmful than the players themselves could ever be. In the past 2+ years I’ve never seen a player describe using promises of marriage or engagement to ply their trade. It goes against the grain of what they are trying to achieve. To the extent that players are finding young virgins and seducing them with promises of marriage, then I would agree with the statement. The closest to this which I’ve seen is Marcos, who doesn’t promise anything but plays the part of the unsuspecting beta mark and is sought out by sluts wishing to exit the carousel and be supported by a beta.

    The real danger in the bolded sentence is it plays right into what a young woman reading it has already been told by the likes of Driscoll, Stanton, etc. She already is primed to believe that her sexual urges are only moral, because they are all about love and commitment. It aides her in pretending that she and the player aren’t playing a game of mutual using in this stepping stone on her path of serial monogamy. This not only makes it far less likely that she will resist the temptation, it also makes it much less likely that she will be able to truly repent later. I beg you; stop doing this to young women.

    As for saving the souls of sluts and players (see my comment above), this is a worthy goal. What I would ask everyone interested in doing this is how will you go about it? Step one would seem to be to take them to a group of Christians who are right with sexual morality, so they can grow in fellowship and learn the error of their ways. If you take them to a church which is corrupt in this area you will do them no good. I shouldn’t have to explain what such a church would look like, but I realize I probably do since they are as rare as hen’s teeth. Such a church would have a very low divorce rate (in God we trust, all others bring data) and wives would openly accept and follow the command to submit to their husbands. Husbands and wives both would openly accept and follow the command to not withhold sex from their spouse. We also wouldn’t see any of the “your wife cheated because you were controlling or not emotionally available” Oprah nonsense which has thoroughly corrupted modern Christianity.

    I suppose you can see the problem here. I would have proposed that your Orthodox Church was the exception here, yet Brendon who is also Orthodox is very hesitant to marry because of fear of divorce and the need to game a wife for her not to withhold sex. If the Orthodox Church really had this squared away, I think he would know.

  99. mortarmanmike says:

    @ Canecaldo

    Maybe you should go back and re-read Deti’s comment @ 1:58 before my ‘Testify Brother’ comment. I see absolutely no defense of players other then a comment on their honesty. Did you stop reading it at that point? Three quarters of the comment was an indictment against soft broken churches that try to claim moral superiority. That, as I read it, was the point of the comment – measuring the damage of players vs the damage of a hypocritical slut enabling church.

    I followed up with this: “The players are wrong. They are committing sin against the Lord. For the most part, the consequences of their sin will fall on them only. The consequences of sluts and apostate churches falls on everybody. Thus more focus should be placed on slut shaming and calling the church to account. God’s judgement will be applied to both players and sluts.
    My anger is at churchianity.”

    How exactly are you still thinking that we’re defending players? I think you’re choosing to see a defense where none exist.

    I included my name along with Deti and Dalrock because I agree with both of them. It is a matter of priorities. If a patient comes in with a boil (the playas) and cancer (the broken church) and arterial bleeding (the sluts), which should we concern ourselves with more? Nice implication that I feel the need to seek cover by the way. I’ve seen nothing here threatening enough to cause me to seek cover.

    Peace to you all.

  100. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    @Lavazza1891

    That is just unbelievable. I googled, found and retched.

    I’m not surprised her husband bailed on her. She has elevated the pump-and-dump to Vedic levels. I wonder how she’d feel about her 17 year old daughter “riding the dragon”?

    I predict an increasingly turbulent fifth decade as her wiry, bicycle-cable looks start to desiccate and the dragon arrives less and less often to offer her transportation.

    What a nut-case. I hope dear daughter finds a good Catholic youth group.

  101. deti says:

    Dalrock

    GKC: “They engage in a game that directly reduces the ability of good men to function with good wives.”

    Dalrock: “The bolded (emphasis mine) sentiment strikes me as not only common but much more harmful than the players themselves could ever be.

    “She already is primed to believe that her sexual urges are only moral, because they are all about love and commitment. It aides her in pretending that she and the player aren’t playing a game of mutual using in this stepping stone on her path of serial monogamy.”

    Yep. GKC’s sentiment paints the interaction between player and woman as something the player does to her. She is merely an inanimate object to be acted upon, rather than an individual with moral agency and free will who acts on her own. This way of thinking gives her an out — “It was his fault!” “He used me!” “I thought he loved me!” But he can do nothing to her that she is not willing to receive or do herself.

  102. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    @Dalrock –
    The problems Brendan has with the Orthodox Church are not endogenic to the Church, that is to say, any feminism does not arise from currents internal to the church. The Orthodox Church has a masculine ethic, attracts men in great numbers, and does not participate in gender foolishness officially in any capacity.

    But you have to understand that Orthodoxy is ascetic to a degree unheard of in modern Western Christian circles. That means anti-sex. The consummate Orthodox is monastic, and we have never apologized for that. Even legal, married sex between a husband and wife is frowned upon to a degree that would curl the average Catholic’s toenails. For example, even though the practice is widely ignored, sexual relations between husbands and wives are proscribed during our extensive fasting seasons (about 40% of the year). This is the reason why we’ve never felt the need to make a dogmatic statement about artificial birth control.

    The problem with Orthodoxy is that it is not a sufficient bulwark against venomous currents in the larger society. It is a Constantinian church, meaning that everyone in the society is a member, so you don’t have the option of creating pure little “born-again” communities whose boundaries you can police rigorously. American Orthodoxy these days is still quite ethnic, so the wider society hasn’t penetrated it to the degree that it has penetrated Catholicism, which is kind of like the world’s largest liberal Protestant church here in the US.

    The reason I joined the Orthodox Church is because it has an enormous amount of experience maintaining the standards of the Faith when they are universally ignored, not just by the heterodox, but even by their own parishioners. If you can say anything with certainty in this sad world, I can say that the Orthodox church will never have priestesses or homosexual clergy. Nevertheless, this doesn’t keep individual Orthodox believers from having the same stupid ideas as are current in the wider society and still having access to the chalice believing everything is all right.

  103. GKChesterton says:

    @Simbuilder,

    There’s no inquisition or tribunal with teeth.

    Oh cursed Venice! This is a historical accident that’s not that old and is the faul (mainly) of the failed interdict against Venice and then the Thirty Years War/Wars of Religion. Quite frankly being publicly shamed by a church is brutal and works very well. I know. And once a Church has established that it will take heavy action then lighter action is much easier since, “you know what we could do.”

    To that end I’m not sure about anonymous case. If the Church does have some sort of diciplinary group then it is possible babymomma got a private consultation. The mere fact of the status of her children as basturds was advertised (somber tones) means that it wasn’t accepted carte blanche by the group. There _may_ have been disciplinary action you are not aware of. I don’t know since I don’t know the church.

    @grayghost
    This is where the line “the PUA is doing the lords work” comes from. It is also why I have no critisism for players and cads.

    I’m really trying to _not_ derail the conversation, but comments like these are the problem. Cads are evil. Full stop. If they are not then you have to explain how the sluts aren’t doing the lords work keeping cads busy. Again, I don’t even view the sins as equivalent (to the Darwinii this placed me in a heretical place) but don’t give out _passes_.

    @Legion

    So, my apologies GKChesterton.

    I’m the newbie and have to prove my street cred so its really no big deal.

    @Lavazza

    That point varies between men (depending on their earlier partners and their overall input from other men and women), but normally lies somewhere in the 23-28 YO and 5-10 partners area, at least for mid to greater betas. Alphas might never have such a sweet spot.

    I think cultural conditioning is speaking here. The fact is, and I am one of them with a single partner count, is the current culture has a strong association with status/count. If that was largely broken, which Christianity at one time was good at doing, women would look to other status symbols and betas would be better off.

    @Dalrock

    She already is primed to believe that her sexual urges are only moral, because they are all about love and commitment.

    I get your drift but just to be totally clear. Those sexual urges in both men and women _are_ moral. That is they are a path to a natural good. It is the direction those urges take that make the immoral. We want reasonably adjusted sexually active men and women who are directed towards their marriage partners. Evil doesn’t create; it only twists.

    Now pedantic mode is off and everything else I agree with.

  104. GKChesterton says:

    Grammar and spelling was aweful…sorry

    [D: I'll overlook yours if you overlook mine. If you like, repost with your fixes and I'll zap this comment and the original.]

  105. Mule Chewing Briars says:

    @deti

    When believing a man because you want to have sex with him is seen as being as culpable as lying to a woman for the same reason, we will have made progress.

  106. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    To that end I’m not sure about anonymous case. If the Church does have some sort of diciplinary group then it is possible babymomma got a private consultation.

    No idea about this.

    The mere fact of the status of her children as basturds was advertised (somber tones)

    No, this does not appear to be the case. Babymomma’s status is not discussed. Nobody mentions it in public. It’s only a few people who would talk with me about it at all — and then, only in a quiet and secluded corner. With gritted teeth and a grim expression, in one case. There is no, none, not any sense that she did wrong in the past but has changed. It’s more a sense of “Well, that’s how she is, and it’s all in God’s hands anyway, so…who’s going to the potluck?”.

    means that it wasn’t accepted carte blanche by the group. There _may_ have been disciplinary action you are not aware of. I don’t know since I don’t know the church.

    The fact remains that a babymomma having children more than once with no husband, and being supported by a church in the process, is a living, breathing refutation of any preaching about sex. Teenaged girls, chafing under any parental discipline at all, cannot help but see that babymomma has her own place, gets babysitting from the church (just like married women), sends her children to a private school at no cost to her self (unlike most, maybe all, of the intact families) and so forth.

    She gets material benefits of being married, but pays none of the costs. And teaches the married folks children in sunday school from time to time, to boot. It is a micro version of the much larger social problem of the babymomma – a free rider who takes resources from other families, and in return creates more potential babymommas. I suppose that one or two such in a church is not too much of a financial burden, but I don’t get how they miss the disconnect between action and word.

    But, hey, what do I know, I’m just a “mad dog” who clearly needs a lot of beatings in order to really understand what Christian charity is really all about, right?

  107. deti says:

    MCB:

    Someone wrote this over at Christian Men’s Defense Network (I’m paraphrasing)

    Here’s how a man views sin and its consequences:

    “I know this is wrong and sinful, but I want to do this. So I will do it and live with the consequences.”

    Here’s how a woman views sin and its consequences:

    “I want to do this; therefore, it is not wrong or sinful.”

  108. lavazza1891 says:

    Deti: “The SMP would right itself literally overnight if sluts stopped having promiscuous sex and if those in long term relationships married and stayed married. Sluts are the problem. If there were no sluts, there would be no players and no pickup artists.”

    An early film by Lasse Hallström is about how an awkward beta working as an inspector at a factory with only female employees during WWII is made into a player/alpha by the women in lack of other men. Not totally inplausible.

  109. Anonymous Reader says:

    In fact, the babymomma could represent a transition back to the family of matriarchy: a woman and her children. By having children with multiple fathers, a woman could be assured of some degree of support from multiple men, thereby hedging her bets on resources. (That makes it “traditional” in some Neolithic sense of the word, by the way.)

    In the modern context, toleration of a babymomma is indicative of some degree of feminism. “Her body, her choice”, for example. And the whole neo-Victorian “men are brutes or crafty cads who ravish poor, helpless, women against their will!” view of sexuality which just happens to dovetail neatly with the 2nd stage feminist view of sex all is a factor here. Because this neo-Victorian / 2nd stage feminist view of sexuality just requires babymomma to be considered a victim who must be helped, rather than a free rider who is a parasite on intact families.

    Therefore, since any institution that is not explicitly anti-feminist must become at least tacitly pro-feminist, even the most “traditional” and “conservative” of churches cannot help itself – when a babymomma shows up, she’ll be not only accepted, but supported. No matter what. Between the neo-Victorian White Knights and the tacit feminists, the deal is sealed from the start.

    The ironic part to me is that I have actually known people who were born in the late 1880’s
    and the 1890’s, and none of them had the rose-colored view of women that the modern neo-Victorians do. None. Not one. They (both men and women) were adamant that bad men and bad women should not be tolerated in decent society. Such people could go live in the bad part of town, if they would not shape up and be decent folk. The solution of those people who were actually born into Victorian culture would probably have been brutally simple: take the children away from their obviously unfit mother, & place them into good, stable families as orphans. Then buy babymomma a one-way ticket out of town on the next stagecoach or train with the understanding clear that if she came back, she’d be put in jail. Those people lived in a time where the margin for error was much slimmer than it is now, and they had a clear definition of “deserving poor” and “bums/tramps/harlots/whores” in their minds. They were always ready to help a man down on his luck or a woman who needed assistance, but equally ready to give the bum’s rush to a grifter, tramp, scammer, or whore. The neo-Victorians, in their romantic view, don’t seem to be able to make that distinction. Feminists are just gyno-supremacists, and that’s that.

  110. jso says:

    http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/10/12/is-marcos-evil-for-conning-women-looking-to-trade-sex-for-financial-security/

    sounds like a cool guy to me, it was a little shocking to see all the women in the comments pour so much vitriol all over him just for trying to protect hapless betas from getting suckered and gutted, like it was a personal assault on their character. it was especially interesting to see them try to come up with synonyms for “evil” once you took the word off the table. “he’s not evil per se, BUT…”

    him and PMAFT are more than just clever playas cashing in on an easy opportunity, they really are heroes. they are saving normal innocent men from a future hell divorce court cash out.

  111. Anonymous Reader says:

    GKChesterton
    I get your drift but just to be totally clear. Those sexual urges in both men and women _are_ moral. That is they are a path to a natural good. It is the direction those urges take that make the immoral. We want reasonably adjusted sexually active men and women who are directed towards their marriage partners.

    Hmmm…but we know now that the natural inclination of women is towards serial monogamy, just as the natural inclination of men in towards polygamy. So both men and women have a natural inclination to cheating, it is just that men’s is pretty obvious (“Me want harem! Now!”), while women’s is covered up with a thin gauze of “monogamy”. It’s “monogamy for now, until you aren’t alpha enough for me”, of course. Which is simply serial monogamy, the preferred form of a “harem” for women. So I would suggest that the current SMP and MMP are simply returning to the more natural state – it is monogamy that is not natural Of course, industrial civilization is not “natural” in that sense, either. It is an open question whether advanced civilization can survive the demolition of monogamy or not.

    As an aside for you and other theology types to hash out: you appear to be saying that men and women are naturally inclined to be good, but led to badness by external forces. That’s the view of Rousseau among others. Is that what you meant to write? Or did I miss something?

  112. deti says:

    GKC:

    “Those sexual urges in both men and women _are_ moral. That is they are a path to a natural good.”

    I don’t think I agree with this. As Anon Reader says, men are naturally inclined to polygamy, while women are naturally inclined toward serial monogamy. That’s nature.

    Morality is different from nature. Morality exists within nature, but above it. The New Testament sexual morality (marriage between one man and one woman for life) was not considered natural. Many men were polygamous (Job, Abraham). There were players (Samson, King David) and sluts (Delilah, Mary Magdalene, the Samaritan woman at the well) and churchians (the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin).

    Christ’s public rebuke of Mary Magdalene and the woman at the well; and Paul’s letters telling men to be husbands to one wife only; were intended to get men and women to rise above their natures for the good of themselves, their children, their families and their societies. These are clearly natural goods. But, there’s nothing about natural sexual urges that is moral, or that naturally leads to those goods. If anything, those urges must be harnessed, tamed and controlled so as to allow those natural goods to germinate, grow and flourish.

  113. Brendan says:

    As an aside for you and other theology types to hash out: you appear to be saying that men and women are naturally inclined to be good, but led to badness by external forces. That’s the view of Rousseau among others. Is that what you meant to write? Or did I miss something?

    No, it’s actually the opposite of Rousseau, which is why some people are critiquing GKC.

    Christianity holds that mankind fell from his originally created state by means of the sin in the Garden of Eden. That is, mankind pre-Fall was more like what Rousseau had in mind, albeit the possibility for man to sin was still present (otherwise there had been no fall). After the fall, mankind fell from that original state of grace/communion with God, and human nature became corrupted (Original Sin). Different kinds of Christians hold different theologies about the nature of this corruption, its actual effects, and its removal through Christ. But all Christians believe that mankind, in his “born” nature, has a fallen nature that does not really reflect what the intended nature of mankind was prior to the fall.

    Rousseau didn’t believe in Original Sin. This was really one of the main differences between Rousseau and the earlier “contract” type theorists like Hobbes. Rousseau had a very optimistic view of intrinsic human nature that was at odds with Christian teaching, and that has served as one of the fundamental bedrocks of secular humanist thought since the time of the Enlightenment. Very influential, even today (“it’s natural” is considered synonymous with “it’s good”, or at the very least with “it must be okay” — a terribly simple-minded and downright stupid, a-historical thing to say, yet said without compunction by almost everyone all the time — thank Rousseau for that nonsense). Instead of Original Sin, Rousseau believed that mankind was naturally good, but that society corrupted him, and that therefore the key was to fix society, and then we’ll be all free to be our naturally good selves again (sound familiar?). But even if one is not religious, there are good arguments to debunk Rousseau – Stephen Pinker does a pretty good job of it in his book “The Blank Slate”.

  114. LadySadie says:

    Articles like this:

    http://news.yahoo.com/baby-mama-seeks-father-craigslist-motorhead-concert-hookup-155402633.html

    clearly illustrate the reason why this discussion is so very important!

    As for the church-going baby makin’ machine, people need to stop encouraging, rewarding and enabling that type of behavior! It sets a very poor example for other young women in the church. What is that congregation thinking? Tsk. Tsk. Tsk.

  115. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deti, thanks for reminding me .

    David and Bathsheba is a perfect example of the natural human desires at work. Bathsheba is tired of her beta. She loves him, but she’s not in love with him anymore. She’s not haaaapy. She wants to trade him in on another man. So, splish, splash, she’s takin’ a bath in the time of day when she can be seen, but she has some plausible deniability if caught.

    Now, does she do this where any man can see her? No way. Her hypergamous nature demands that she trade up, not sideways and for sure not down. So she’s showing off her goodies in her bath – but in such a way that only some man up at the palace can see her. Classic hypergamy at work. David comes strolling along, sees her, and decides “Hmm, I do believe I want to have a piece of that action!” and the rest of the story rolls on from there, including setting up the beta to get killed.

    Now, the modern traditional, social, conservative people appear to read this story as an example of “How Men Sin!”, full stop. For sure, if David had looked down and said, “Nice piece, but she’s married” and moved on, things might have turned out different for all concerned. He clearly owns his bad behavior. But what the trad/socons apparently just cannot see is that Bathsheba set him up to behave badly with her own behavior – her hypergamous, serially monogamous nature.

    Tradcons and socons bellow a lot about men who can’t keep their pants zipped, can’t keep their eyeballs off of women they aren’t married to, can’t stop looking at teh pr0n – but seem to miss the boat over and over again when it comes to women who won’t keep their skirt down, who dress to deliberately cause sexual arousal (on the street, at work, even at church) and who consume emotional porn voraciously (“romance” fiction is a sizeable market).

    Traditional, and/or social, conservatives will tell any young man that he’s a potential David.
    What they won’t admit, even in secret to themselves, is that every woman is a potential Bathsheba.
    This is true because every woman has her hypergamous side, therefore every woman is potentially a serial monogamist. Every single one – AWALT. Just as men have to be taught how to behave to avoid doing what David did, women have to be taught how not to be a Bathsheba.

    Every woman -even the nice church lady who was a virgin when she married – is a potential Bathsheba. And that is the huge blind spot of the neo-Victorian “traditionalist”. Ironically, those old people I knew were perfectly aware of Bathsheba, and Jezebel, and Delilah. They were not deluded into believing that women are naturally “good”.

  116. Anonymous Reader says:

    Brendan
    But all Christians believe that mankind, in his “born” nature, has a fallen nature that does not really reflect what the intended nature of mankind was prior to the fall.

    That is not what GKChesterton wrote. In fact, is is the opposite of what he wrote: he wrote that men and women’s natural sexual inclinations are good, but they are led astray. Thus humans are naturally good, but some part of the larger world makes them bad. And that is exactly what Rousseau went on about, tediously, in his “noble savage” bloviation.

    I stand by my question to GKChesterton: is that what he meant?

  117. Joe Sheehy says:

    The natural desire for a spouse and to continue the human race is good. But such desires are contaminated by concupiscence. Catholics differ from Protestants about man’s original nature.

    “The Reformers of the sixteenth century, especially Luther, proposed new views respecting concupiscence. They adopted as fundamental to their theology the following propositions:

    Original justice with all its gifts and graces was due to man as an integral part of his nature;
    concupiscence is of itself sinful, and being the sinful corruption of human nature caused by Adam’s transgression and inherited by all his descendants, is the very essence of original sin;
    baptism, since it does not extinguish concupiscence, does not really remit the guilt of original sin, but only effects that it is no longer imputed to man and no longer draws down condemnation on him. This position is held also by the Anglican Church in its Thirty-nine Articles and its Book of Common Prayer.
    The Catholic Church condemns these doctrines as erroneous or heretical. The Council of Trent (Sess. V, e.v.) defines that by the grace of baptism the guilt of original sin is completely remitted and does not merely cease to be imputed to man. As to concupiscence the council declares that it remains in those that are baptized in order that they may struggle for the victory, but does no harm to those who resist it by the grace of God, and that it is called sin by St. Paul, not because it is sin formally and in the proper sense, but because it sprang from sin and incites to sin. Later on Pius V, by the Bull “Ex omnibus affictionibus” (1 Oct., 1567), Gregory XIII, by the Bull “Provisions Nostrae” (29 Jan., 15798), Urban VIII, by the Bull “In eminenti” (6 March, 1641), condemned the propositions of Bajus (21, 23, 24, 26), Clement XI, by the Constitution “Unigenitus”, those of Quesnel (34, 35); and finally Pius VI, by the Bull “Auctorem fidei” (28 Aug., 1794), those of the Synod of Pistoja (16), which maintained that the gifts and graces bestowed on Adam and constituting his original justice were not supernatural but due to human nature. (See GRACE; JUSTIFICATION; SIN.)”

    http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04208a.htm

  118. Brendan says:

    OK, I agree that he should clarify what he wrote.

    The problems Brendan has with the Orthodox Church are not endogenic to the Church, that is to say, any feminism does not arise from currents internal to the church. …

    American Orthodoxy these days is still quite ethnic, so the wider society hasn’t penetrated it to the degree that it has penetrated Catholicism, which is kind of like the world’s largest liberal Protestant church here in the US.

    I would agree that feminism is generally not endogenic to the Orthodox Church, but I do think that the ethnic nature of much of American Orthodoxy is kind of a double-edged sword in that it both insulates Orthodoxy here from the non-ethnic mainstream while, at the same time, bringing into the Church a lot of mainstream anyway, because the Slav and Greek heritage people are pretty mainstream in many cases, culturally. The fundamental nature of the church itself is still very conservative and traditional, but the congregation isn’t always — it’s a bit mixed, really.

  119. canecaldo says:

    @MMM

    Maybe you should go back and re-read Deti’s comment @ 1:58 before my ‘Testify Brother’ comment. I see absolutely no defense of players other then a comment on their honesty.

    It’s you who are not understanding what I write. You’re focused on my arguing rather than on my argument. Case in point:


    Nice implication that I feel the need to seek cover by the way. I’ve seen nothing here threatening enough to cause me to seek cover.

    I didn’t imply it–I accused you straight out.

    Is it your position and men and women are of equal ability in moral matters, restraint, discernment, etc.; and therefore are of equal culpability? Is there only one strength of moral agency?

  120. 7man says:

    @canecaldo
    Quod enim recipitur in aliquo recipitur in eo secundum modum recipientis
    Whatever is received is received according to the mode of the receiver.

  121. ukfred says:

    @AR 11:57 am

    “As an aside for you and other theology types to hash out: you appear to be saying that men and women are naturally inclined to be good, but led to badness by external forces. That’s the view of Rousseau among others. Is that what you meant to write? Or did I miss something?”

    What about the economics of it too? Comments have been made that babymomnmas are freeloaders getting transfers of benefit from intact families. I don’t know about the States but in the UK, a teenager getting pregnant can find herself getting a social housing (often called council housing over here because local authorities owned the social housing stock) appartment when she otherwise had no chance of getting out from her mother’s or parents’ home under her own economic steam for years to come,and getting benefits from the public purse to keep her. I know that the housing was pretty dire but it was better having her own appartment than a bedroom in her mother’s appartment. Do we also need to agitate to change the social security system and the rules for allocating social housing to incentivise those who might be thinking about becoming a babymomma to change their ways. I can understand that there will be a delay while the first few years of sexually active young women learn that they will not be able to use a baby to jump the queue, sorry, obtain the necessary qualifications to reach the top of the queue ahead of those who do want to live more responsible lives?

  122. GKChesterton says:

    @Anon,

    It’s only a few people who would talk with me about it at all — and then, only in a quiet and secluded corner.

    Then you are correct that it is a problem. That’s just really pathetic.

    just as the natural inclination of men in towards polygamy. So both men and women have a natural inclination to cheating, it is just that men’s is pretty obvious (“Me want harem! Now!”), while women’s is covered up with a thin gauze of “monogamy”.

    I think the natural proclivity of both is towards hedonism. That is, corrupted pleasure. The safe bet for both due to biological factors affecting the hedonism is polygamy/serial monogamy. However, those are side effects and not the goal.

    As an aside for you and other theology types to hash out: you appear to be saying that men and women are naturally inclined to be good, but led to badness by external forces. That’s the view of Rousseau among others. Is that what you meant to write? Or did I miss something?

    It depends on the person talking:
    1.) Calvinist: No <- See TULIP
    2.) Catholic: Not quite <- Free will and its corruption
    3.) Orthodox: Not quite but really close <- Original sin as the "air of the world"

    But Brenden's answer is much better so I'll leave it with him. Christianity sees humans as being in God's image but corrupted and rejects Manicheanism. So evil spontaneously existing is impossible. Lust is misdirected sexual desire. Rage is misdirected opposition to evil. Evil is only a shadow of the good. Think the orcs/goblins in Tolkien who are only twisted elves (Tolkien did this on purpose).

    David and Bathsheba is a perfect example of the natural human desires at work

    I actually used to join with you…pre-androsphere even. After having read the Jewish traditional explanations of the story I’m not as inclined to believe. Bathsheba comes off remarkably unharmed in the whole mash-up and displayed admirable behavior after David’s death.

    @Deti,
    Morality is different from nature. Morality exists within nature, but above it. The New Testament sexual morality (marriage between one man and one woman for life) was not considered natural. Many men were polygamous (Job, Abraham). There were players (Samson, King David) and sluts (Delilah, Mary Magdalene, the Samaritan woman at the well) and churchians (the Pharisees, the Sanhedrin).

    I am not inclined to agree. Man is, as Chesterton and Lewis pointed out, a paradox of dark and light post fall. I think it is the nature of man to be a Commander and the nature of woman to be a Helper. A Helper must be the servant of one and therefore when the female corrupts into hedonism she drifts to serial monogamy. Hedonism is the root cause and the behavior is the side effect of the corrupted nature. Man as Commander seeks to increase his holdings and runs to polygamy when he fails.

    That being said serial monogamy has been by far the historical norm. Julius Caesar has a series of wives (lovers too) but feels constrained to make that a series. True harems are quite rare and were generally limited to the wealthy. Even in Arabia where it is still legal its the playground of the top earners. Men in general, despite all of the upper class Western rhetoric about it, really don’t want to deal with multiple women. They are tiring. While I’d be a liar to say my mind doesn’t wander the idea of actually _having_ a second woman on staff is nothing short of an absolute horror. I don’t need that kind of stress.

    Enough for now…meeting time…
    I know this isn’t the Game position. I think the Game techniques work but I don’t agree with all of the philosophical underpinnings (which is essentially materialist utilitarianism). I can learn from the Devil, I’m just picky about the worldview his workable techniques provide. I assume by the comment above that you don’t believe in Natural Law?

  123. mortarmanmike says:

    @ Canecaldo
    “It’s you who are not understanding what I write. You’re focused on my arguing rather than on my argument. Case in point:”…

    Possibly, but you are focused only only one part of my argument. You gotta just keep going back that I am defending players even though I’ve repeatedly stated that their actions are sin and will be judged. You either miss or choose to ignore the larger part of the comments that the damage caused by sluts and a complicit church is greater (here on earth, today, in the real world) then the damage of the players. Maybe it’s my fault that I’ve not been clear enough in this ever growing thread. I think that GK understands where I’m coming from now.

    Well, there’s a long line of people waiting to accuse me of one thing or the other. Excuse me while I get my knickers in a bunch…
    ————–
    “Is it your position and men and women are of equal ability in moral matters, restraint, discernment, etc.; and therefore are of equal culpability?”
    No, In their natural state, I don’t believe men and women are equal in that regard. I would say men have a greater capacity for discernement and restrain. But that is not an issue that I spend much time pondering because at the time of judgement, my position on the matter will be pointless. God will judge each sex righteously. Their culpability to me is irrelevent.

    “Is there only one strength of moral agency?”
    I don’t know. I’m not claiming to know. Perhaps not. I guess I view it as a binary answer. A person either has moral agency or they don’t. An adult does, and an infant does not. A man does, so does a woman. If the degree differs I have no clue.
    ————-
    Now, three questions for you:
    1) Please rate in decending order which group has the greatest negative affect on western society:
    a) a large population of sluts
    b) a smaller population of players
    c) a weak church that only targets the sin de jour and enables one of the previous groups.

    2) Would reforming 90% of the players have any appreciable effect on the problem of broken marriages and promiscuity?

    3) If your house was on fire and your car needed cleaning, where would you point the hose?

    I feel that we’re going round-and-a-round the barn on this.

  124. Ballista_GTOW says:

    Anonymous Reader wrote:
    But what the trad/socons apparently just cannot see is that Bathsheba set him up to behave badly with her own behavior – her hypergamous, serially monogamous nature.

    Scripture is often interpreted through a specific lens. This means, that what is read is a direct result of the personal convictions and environment of the one who reads it. This is tradition. In other words, if I wear blue-tinted glasses, everything is going to be blue in some way. Jesus illustrates this lesson perfectly in Matthew 15:1-9 well and speaks to the proctors of Churchianity well and many others that actively participate in it. An exposition of this Scripture is outside of the topic, but the formula can be distilled into “The word of God says this, but you say something else. Jesus says it well that the word of God gets destroyed for the sake of the tradition of men. It’s happened since the time the Scriptures were written.

    One of the effects of a feminism-infested church is that Scriptures are reinterpreted so women are rendered to be sinless or only acting out of consequence of what the men did and are turned into heroines. For example, their teachings will sound like: Jezebel wasn’t THAT BAD. Athaliah wasn’t THAT BAD. Bathsheba wasn’t bad for acting like a total slut (Scripture doesn’t tell us how many OTHER men she screwed around with, and that’s irrelevant to David’s story anyway), it was David with his mean vile sexual desires that drew her into the sin. They say that Deborah was a strong leader of Israel, but nevermind that Barak declined to be a strong masculine man and leader and made himself into a complete mangina (a certain p word comes to mind that’s better there, but probably too vulgar even for here), hiding behind Deborah’s skirt.

    It really becomes incumbent in all cases to see what the Scriptures have to say and follow that despite what others do, if you really intend to follow Christ.

  125. Johnycomelately says:

    I think the notion of players roaming the plains sullying virginesque maidens and wreaking societal havock is a complete myth.

    I work in a very transitory occupation that attracts men across the spectrum in religion, age and social status and over the years I have talked to and acquainted literally thousands of men. You name it, lawyers, engineers, scientists, failed millionaire business’s men, policemen, farmers, soldiers, students, commercial musicians, psychologists, bums, IT guys, bouncers, teachers, professional critics, movie producers, pilots, athletes, pimps etc.

    I’ve heard all the stories first hand, divorces, dates, orgies, gang bangs, cheating, wife swapping, sexless omegas, foreign brides, false rape accusations etc.

    In all my time I can honestly say I have never met a genuine ‘player’, for sure their were adulterers and guys that played the field but they were simply playing to a script dictated by women, all of these guys would have settled (and virtually all did) if the women desired it.

    To women in their twenties a desirable man is a hunk, to women in their thirties a desirable man who hasn’t settled is a player. All the so called players on the net are almost uninamously educated post 30 men who are financially sound and haven’t settled, either because they learned about game after being sexless in their twenties or were put through the divorce ringer in their twenties. They are simply availing themselves to the opportunities that were not present to them in their twenties.

    All alphas who played the field in their twenties settle, so attacking ‘players’ is a futile exercise in tilting at windmills.

  126. 7man says:

    @Johnycomelately

    That is a very good point. There are very few true players while many are mythological. It might be 1 in 100 men that is a true player, but another 5 or 6 have significant skills but don’t choose the player lifestyle. Also some men try it for a time and learn how to be successful and then lose interest in making a career out of it.

  127. mortarmanmike says:

    Yes, so much hand wringing about players. Excellent comment Johny. The players that do exist are simply taking advantage of the current sexual marketplace. They are not creating the marketplace. The sluts are the driving force. It would be bad enough if the churches were just failing to warn the men. Who can phrase it better then the Word of God?
    ————————
    Proverbs 23:27-28
    A prostitute is a dangerous trap; a promiscuous woman is as dangerous as falling into a narrow well. She hides and waits like a robber, eager to make more men unfaithful. – NLV

    For a whore is a deep ditch; and a strange woman is a narrow pit. She also lieth in wait as for a prey, and increaseth the transgressors among men. – King James

    For a whore is a deep ditch and an estranged woman is a disturbed well. She destroys suddenly and many evil men multiply. – Aramaic Bible in Plain English
    ———————-
    Of course then there is Proverbs 7. Whichever translation you prefer, they all offer a pretty graphic account of what the ‘players’ will face.

  128. Brendan says:

    3.) Orthodox: Not quite but really close <- Original sin as the "air of the world"

    But Brenden's answer is much better so I'll leave it with him. Christianity sees humans as being in God's image but corrupted and rejects Manicheanism. So evil spontaneously existing is impossible. Lust is misdirected sexual desire. Rage is misdirected opposition to evil. Evil is only a shadow of the good. Think the orcs/goblins in Tolkien who are only twisted elves (Tolkien did this on purpose).

    Well said.

    As another Orthodox (it’s not common to have so many of us commenting on one non-Orthodox blog, really), I would say that my own understanding is that Original Sin is the web of corruption we are born into and live in, which itself is due to the fall, and which we, also due to the fall, are susceptible to fall into (so susceptible that such a falling into actual corruption is a foregone conclusion unless superseded by grace). Another common view I have come across in Orthodoxy is that Original Sin is the sickness unto death, in that it is a nature we inherit from our corrupted parents (all the way down the line from the Fall), and that therefore it is in our bones, in our blood — again, not as “guilt”, but as an inbred tendency to corruption which is not voluntary but “given” (which doesn’t remove its moral agency character of individual choice, because sin is objective, but instead simply acknowledges that the born state is subject to great tendency to become corrupted). The salvific movement of Christ, in sacramental terms, removes this “given-ness” to some degree (again, different versions of Christians disagree about how that works and what it does), and makes the weakness for corruption less intense, and the movement towards corruption less “given” (but, of course, not less possible — moral agency plays a big role here, as does the heightened availability of grace). That’s from an Orthodox perspective, of course. a TULIP Calvinist would say it rather differently, I think.

  129. Anacaona says:

    I don’t want to interrupt this interesting discussion but I have an important question. My filter tells me that The-Spearhead is labeled as a dangerous site that downloads unwanted programs without the consent of the lurker. Has anyone being having a similar message or has become infected after perusing on the The-Spearhead?
    Thanks for the answer.:)

  130. ray says:

    TFH – Look at Alcuin restricting his blog (effectively making sure no new people find it, defeating the purpose of a blog seeking to shape opinion or expose new people to this information).

    v perceptive, agree Alcuin was the real deal w a God-given blessing for packing a boatload of unpopular truth into 400-word essays that were shit-free, reliably antifeminist, and Christian in the best practical sense

    his work was v accessible to newbies while simultaneously delightful for vets

    others will take his place, if perhaps not with quite such facility

    glad to see this hat-tip to Alcuin

  131. ratdogblog says:

    I’m Orthodox– so I’ll give you the good and bad having had conversations with many many priests on these issues.

    First, as for church doctrine, it is extremely conservative. The monastic / ascetic part of it is exponentially so. You will not find any female clergy though some churches are starting to let women do the epistle readings during the liturgy (mass) and there are always a few feminist M.Div. graduates from Holy Cross seminary every year agitating for female ordination.

    But church doctrine does not exist in a vacuum. Just as the church influences the dominant culture, the dominant culture influences the church culture (as opposed to doctrine), at least outside of the monasteries. So you are likely to find just as many promiscuous women there as anywhere else in America. Just attend a YAL conference (Youth Adult League) and you’ll see plenty of it to go around.

    Those who become priests are about the same type of guy attracted to becoming clergy in any other religion. Most of them have the same white knighting tendencies and Victorian beliefs as any average white American. They believe it is good for women to have careers, run for political office, equal rights, yada yada yada. I’ve only seen a sharp distinction between orthodox clergy and the average American in two areas: (1) They will not support abortion and (2) They will not propagate any ideas that the Protestants or Catholics have the full truth in Christianity and will not consider it an equally valid path to Orthodoxy. You have to look from the outside in and see how filthy the dominant culture has become to understand just how striking those two differences are.

    Regarding sexuality, I’ve asked many priests about ‘girls with a past.’ About half of took the expected line of “It doesn’t matter if she had a few partners and it is unchristian to reject her because of it.” About 1/4 said simply that they didn’t know any girls who remained virgins until marriage and are a traditional stay at home wife. The remainder said that looking for a traditional virgin is a good thing. Those who said that were almost always foreign born priests.

    There is a another sharp distinction between the foreign born priests and the American priests. A large and growing portion of the modern seminarians in America are American converts. A foreign born priest on the other hand is likely to be older and from traditional orthodox countries like Serbia, Romania, Russia, etc. Talking to a priest who lived under Ceaucescu’s communist regime in Romania is an eye-opening experience. We talk about Christians being persecuted– he likely had dead family members from it.

    You will also find differences between the type of Orthodox parish by way of ethnicity. Many of the Greek parishes have a large portion of families who have been here for two or three generations. Their kids and grandkids are all fully Americanized, except they may speak Greek as well as English. The Antiochian parishes (Arab Christians) tend to be majority convert parishes outside of places like Dearborn, MI with large Arab ethnicities. The Arab women tend to be more traditional than the Greeks though their kids are now Americanized too. The Orthodox Church of America (OCA) I’ve found to be socially liberal while doctrinally sound. I haven’t been to Slavic parishes enough to comment (Russian, Serbian, Ukrainian) enough to comment.

    As for single women at the church, the traditional ones tend to marry earlier than the average American. Excluding divorced women, the 30-something singles at church tended to be career-oriented. There does seem to be a dearth of Orthodox church-attending singles between 18-28 though there are other social venues where they congregate. If you didn’t snag one of the traditional girls right after college, there were far less pickins– though this would be consistent with expectation.

    There always seemed to be more single young men than young women. In Eastern European and Arab cultures it is consistent with masculinity to proclaim your Orthodoxy and attend church– provided you don’t get too holy. You will find that a lot of these men use church as a dual function of staying close to their culture, language, and patria. Nothing wrong with that. The young men who were born overseas or first generation Americans tended to have far more masculinity than the American converts. This also is not unexpected.

    If I had to sum up the Orthodox Church in general, I’d say that it is probably the most traditional of the churches in the States in many respects but with regard to male-female relations, it is on par with the dominant American culture. There are no public testimonies, altar calls, Jesus love songs, or other innovations. Priests can be married as long as they marry prior to ordination and most of them are. There is no “lavender mafia” like exists in the Catholic Church but there have been instances of unmarried homosexual priests. Those of my friends who are Orthodox and have stayed Orthodox who crises of faith tended to do so either from a personal experience with God or research of systematic theology and church history.

    With regard to attending an Orthodox parish to find a wife, short of ingratiating yourself with a recently immigrated family who is very traditional in outlook, you are unlikely to find women very different than those found everywhere else. So, probably better to invest your time in an Orthodox parish because you want that faith rather than the women. As for the women, the advice is the same anywhere else: get in shape, learn some game, seek out traditional families, and strengthen your faith in God through prayer.

    [D: Welcome, and thanks for sharing your insight.]

  132. dorsey47 says:

    I am interested in the term “grass widow” used in this piece. I know the definition is a discarded wife or mistress. Does anyone know the origin of the term? I am sure there is a logical explanation of how we got the term. It could be a teachable moment from the past.

    [D: Welcome to the blog. I shared a definition and brief history I found for the term in this post.]

  133. deti says:

    ana: Welmer explained there were some errors. He’s fixing it. It’s OK.

  134. Paul says:

    @UKFred

    “What about the economics of it too?”

    That’s a problem, as TFH points out all the time the rate of divorce depends on the availability of cash and prizes, and is true of babymommas or any other bad behaviour that receives public approbation (or lionization, right Mr. Stanton?) and subsidization.

    As much as the behaviour is reprehensible, when you provide incentives for that behaviour, it’s not surprising that it occurs. People are acting in what they believe is their own best interest, and I have a harder time condemning people for following what they perceive to be in their own best interest than I do those that provided the incentives in the first place. Thanks to our governments of various levels, if you pay taxes, sales, municipal, federal, are anything but a hermit in the woods basically, you’re a dickstand, like it or not. Until the incentives are removed, until we can no longer be forced to be unwilling dickstands, nothing is going to change.

    @GKC

    “the idea of actually _having_ a second woman on staff is nothing short of an absolute horror”

    Quoth Andy Capp – A polygamist is my idea of a complete idiot.

  135. Opus says:

    As a self-admitted Player – I did not say I was a very good or successful one – I would like to say that no one has ever tried to shame me or attempted to cajol me into marriage. My motto is One woman: One day. No one can say that I mislead as to my intentions. I merely respond to whatever parades itself in front of me – which as often as not is rejection on my part caused by lack of interest . What else can I do? for I am human and some women – usually the seemingly more modest and less sexually experienced – have succeeded in drawing the veil of love over me but then simply messed me around. Were they secret sluts? Probably not. Most likely, women who relished power more than love, or perhaps I am merely attracted to the challenge of a hard-to-tame female.

    My catalogue would not be as extensive as that kept by Leporello for his Master Giovanni, – though there are certainly some from Germany and France ‘ma in Espana’ – well not quite ‘Mille e Tre’ but a few – and they have been tall ones, short ones (but not La Picina), fat ones (not too many) , thin ones, frigid ones, promiscuous ones, married ones, single ones, pretty ones and plain ones. I wouldn’t necessarily rule out the uber-slutty – I said I like a challenge – but slutdom is a major obstacle to being reasonably persuaded of future commitment.

    Perhaps it all has something to do with – as I now see it – a rather difficult time in my late adoescence, or perhaps it comes from having divorced too many bad-tempered women, but it is hard to see that those are overcomable reasons for my singledon. Women may be interested in me, but none seem to want- whatever their age – to settle down. I think it must just be different over here where the only people desirous of marriage are Royals and those wanting to marry a member of their own sex. Marriage, I would say, is (I don’t mean amongst the lower orders) defunct.

  136. Anonymous age 70 says:

    @Anacaona says:
    April 20, 2012 at 2:25 am

    Yes, I got the Spearhead danger warning. But, since I use Linux, I plunged on ahead, and there was a message the URL was being worked on to fix it. So, I suggest the manginas invaded in an attempt to shut it down.

  137. canecaldo says:

    @MMM

    [Y]ou are focused only only one part of my argument.

    Yes. I explicitly ignored the rest because we agree. I was clear in that. We agree that sluts are the main problem. My desire was to refocus for a bit and recognize that players are not honest, and that thinking they are can lead one from believing such a path is slightly more ethical, to morally equivalent. Perhaps this isn’t true for you, but we’re not writing private emails.

    “Is it your position and men and women are of equal ability in moral matters, restraint, discernment, etc.; and therefore are of equal culpability?”

    No, In their natural state, I don’t believe men and women are equal in that regard. I would say men have a greater capacity for discernement and restrain.

    This matters in determining whether a woman makes evil decisions, or whether she’s misled. As is stated not too far above this, there aren,t that many dedicated players. However; there are a lot of wanna-bes who transgress the (meager) player’s ethics.

    Now, three questions for you:
    1) Please rate in decending order which group has the greatest negative affect on western society:
    a) a large population of sluts
    b) a smaller population of players
    c) a weak church that only targets the sin de jour and enables one of the previous groups.

    I’ve already agreed with you. Many times over, on this blog alone. I think a search of my comments that dealt with sluts and players would reveal a +80% bias for reigning in the sluts. For the record: c, a, b.

    2) Would reforming 90% of the players have any appreciable effect on the problem of broken marriages and promiscuity?

    Of the Roissy-type? No. Of the garden-variety frat-boy type? Yes. Women do follow men; whether they like it, or know it. Regardless, I’m not interested reforming either type of player. As a father, I see my job is to protect my daughters by keeping cads at a good distance; especially mentally and emotionally. Thus, my interest in removing any moral equivalency–even hints of it–between the Christian way, and the player way. This is where the moral agency question comes in: sometimes women are just clueless. How many times has it been said on this very blog that they don’t even know the hamster is at the wheel. When they’re still girls it’s worse because they’re ignorant, to boot.

    I feel that we’re going round-and-a-round the barn on this.

    Again, I think it’s because you argued with my arguing, instead of my argument. I wanted to have a conversation about what we call ‘honesty’. You wanted me to say–once more with feeling–that sluts are the problem. I don’t see the point. We’ve never not been in agreement about it.

  138. GKChesterton says:

    @canecaldo,

    As a father, I see my job is to protect my daughters by keeping cads at a good distance; especially mentally and emotionally. Thus, my interest in removing any moral equivalency–even hints of it–between the Christian way, and the player way. This is where the moral agency question comes in: sometimes women are just clueless.

    That.

    Look believing there is an optimum solution is not the same as believing that there is only one path to success. I share Cane’s fear. I have a bevy of sisters and daughter. My youngest sister was the flighty type and without the restraints of a very strong church, which we did have, she would have blithely wandered off into all sorts of trouble. She had a father, brothers, church elders, and now a husband that are not keen on that sort of behavior and she does well for it (1).

    My daughter who hasn’t breached nine is a wonderful little girl. However I see all sorts of behavior in her now that will make her a deer in headlights at her first bar. I’ll do my darndest to remove “ignorant”. I’ll also do my darndest to make sure, in this order, that:
    1.) Sluts are not set up as role models in the local church community
    2.) Frat boy type players are not rated as attractive

  139. GKChesterton says:

    @Cane,

    And cheers on the honesty thing. Being honest that you are working on what seems like a moral monster just doesn’t do anything for me. Honesty is only a virtue when it is employed for (T)ruth.

  140. GKChesterton says:

    One last thing…somewhere up thread there was a comment about soviet era eastern priests. These are about the ballsiest men I’ve met in clerical garb. Those guys are keen on forgiveness but they _walk_ like men and _talk_ like them in a way few in the west do even if they became priests after the fall of the curtain. I love ‘em.

  141. Dalrock says:

    @canecaldo

    Thus, my interest in removing any moral equivalency–even hints of it–between the Christian way, and the player way. This is where the moral agency question comes in: sometimes women are just clueless. How many times has it been said on this very blog that they don’t even know the hamster is at the wheel. When they’re still girls it’s worse because they’re ignorant, to boot.

    I see it quite differently. As you say women are prone to rationalize what they want to do. This is the danger in focusing the condemnation on the player. This becomes even worse when we go along with the idea that women don’t know the difference between good and bad men. This combination is a recipe for failure. We need to do the opposite. We need to be very clear that we know they are subject to lusting after the wrong type of men, and that any action on that part will be seen not as her being “taken advantage of”. Take away the rationalization instead of pre-rationalizing it for them. My mother in law did this for my own wife, and we will do this for our daughter.

    @GKC

    Look believing there is an optimum solution is not the same as believing that there is only one path to success. I share Cane’s fear. I have a bevy of sisters and daughter. My youngest sister was the flighty type and without the restraints of a very strong church, which we did have, she would have blithely wandered off into all sorts of trouble. She had a father, brothers, church elders, and now a husband that are not keen on that sort of behavior and she does well for it (1).

    My daughter who hasn’t breached nine is a wonderful little girl. However I see all sorts of behavior in her now that will make her a deer in headlights at her first bar. I’ll do my darndest to remove “ignorant”. I’ll also do my darndest to make sure, in this order, that:
    1.) Sluts are not set up as role models in the local church community
    2.) Frat boy type players are not rated as attractive

    The problem is that women (in general) will* find frat boy types and players attractive. We need to take away the naive rationalization and make it clear we understand the temptation. Cads have always been attractive, but in the past it was scandalous for a woman to go for one. We need to bring back the scandal, not waste our energy in a vain (and counter productive) attempt to shame the player.

    *The only other thing I think we can do is teach our daughters self control, which may to some degree cause them to see cads as less attractive and dads more attractive.

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    I point to a forest, and GKChesterton says “tsk, tsk, shame about that one tree”.
    The issue is female promiscuity, and I offered up yet another variation, the serial unmarried babymomma. I pointed to a church that by the standards of almost anyone would be “traditional” and “conservative” , said church has been a dickstand for a babymomma. It should be obvious that if the tradcon church is doing this, so are others. There surely are babymommas in megachurches, in the main line protestant churches, in plenty of catholic ones. They are there because churchianity teaches false things about female sexuality.

    The players dating single mothers are not debauching delicate flower-like virgins, they are rogering lustful, willing women who want to be sexed by an alpha man. Once again, that’s the issue. Once again, our traditional convervative posters just do not get it.

    They don’t get hypergamy. They don’t believe women are naturally prone to serial monogamy – bed hopping, in other words – and worse.

    Suppose, as GKC proposes, women naturally are monogamous. Then giving them the authority to unilaterally end marrlage would not result in much of a change in the divorce rate, because their natural desire for monogamy would prevent most divorces. Yet in the real world, we don’t see that, we see exactly the opposite.

    The evo-bio view that women are naturally as promiscuous as men, just doing it serially, fits reality. The trad-con view that women are just natural helpers who want to be monogamous does not fit reality.

    I live in reality. But, then, I’m just a “mad dog”, right GKChesterton?

  143. Anonymous Reader says:

    My daughter who hasn’t breached nine is a wonderful little girl. However I see all sorts of behavior in her now that will make her a deer in headlights at her first bar. I’ll do my darndest to remove “ignorant”. I’ll also do my darndest to make sure, in this order, that:
    1.) Sluts are not set up as role models in the local church community
    2.) Frat boy type players are not rated as attractive

    Here is a question: what will you teach her to make her less of a threat to the men in her life?

  144. Anacaona says:

    Thanks deti and Anonymous 70.:) I will keep logging in till it gets fixed.

  145. Joe Sheehy says:

    The traditional Catholic view is that of St. Thomas Aquinas. That women have a harder time resisting concupiscence, but that their responsibility for chastity is greater, because of the greater harm they cause in marriage by introducing children not of the husband into the marriage. While it’s true a cad is more evil than a truly innocent, naive girl who falls for him, that isn’t an excuse for the behavior of modern women – behavior that is a great deal worse than before – behavior enabled and constantly excused by pseudo-conservative males who promote feminist ideas about the education of women, and who pedestalize young women and deny the power of concupiscence in women and the necessity of a strong support for traditional marriage and protection of young women from modern society to control that concupiscence.

  146. Matthew says:

    Here is a question: what will you teach her to make her less of a threat to the men in her life?

    With respect to Anonymous Reader, I’ve a better one: What penalties are you willing to impose on your daughter for sexual misbehavior?

  147. Ballista_GTOW says:

    With respect to Anonymous Reader, I’ve a better one: What penalties are you willing to impose on your daughter for sexual misbehavior?

    2 Samuel 11 through 2 Samuel 19 (and to a lesser extent to the end) is actually a good study on this. It would require more text that I would be willing to type here to describe it all, but the basic idea of it involves the end result of what David did to Bathsheba (actions have consequences). 2 Samuel 12:11-12 is a good synopsis for it. We ultimately find this fulfilled out in David’s children. We see Amnon rape his sister Tamar, Absalom kill Amnon in revenge (2 Samuel 13). Then we see Joab bring Absalom back into Jerusalem by deception before the king (2 Samuel 14). Then we see Absalom rebelling against David (2 Samuel 15), ultimately sleeping with one of David’s concubines in full sight of Israel (2 Samuel 16:21-22, fulfilling 2 Samuel 12:11-12 literally).

    In the end, for whatever reason (maybe latent guilt?), David was unwilling to bring due penalties on his own family in honoring God before them, so all the pain involved came down on him. Ultimately the rest of Israel even saw it as an opening to rebel against him.

    So many problems, both then and today, are caused by people in positions of justice not doing their tasks, for guilt or whatever reason. If David were to put an end of Amnon when the rape was discovered (as the Law dictates should be done), the rest would have not had occasion to occur.

  148. Anonymous Reader says:

    Extending my question above regarding a daughter:

    * Is she learning that the primary function or purpose of any man in her life, from father to brother to classmates, is to make her happy (or keep her happy)?

    * Is she learning that her bad behavior sometimes, but not often, results in some kind of punishment?

    * Is she learning that bad behavior by adult women is not their fault?

    * Is she learning that she’s just as smart, and just as tough, and just as good as any boy – if not better?

    *Is she learning that men and women are different in that women can have babies, but also that women can do any job a man can do, and do it just as well…or better?

    * Is she learning that when something bad happens to her, Daddy will fix it up even if she caused the problem?

    All of the above lessons and more are common in modern women. They often lead to many of the problems discussed here.

  149. Anonymous Reader says:

    Matthew, that is a difficult question. In the modern world, when teenaged girls have to get parental permission to have their ears pierced, but can have an abortion without telling them – when 15 year olds have “rights” to an amazing degree – it is hard to know how to draw a line.
    But from watching some real train wrecks in my life, the kind of situations where a woman’s parents have to take custody of her children, drawing the line pretty close in bounds, and early on, seems to be the place to start. Lower the boom on any misbehavior in certain categories, without question or exception. A young woman should be a bit afraid of what her father might do in the case of certain infractions. But again, it is not easy to contemplate.

    Women over the age of 18 are legal adults. Can’t touch ‘em. All a man can do there is remove or withhold resources – “If you live in my house, you live by my rules”, etc.

    Final unpleasant thought: some people are just born to trouble. I know of families with 3, 4 children where one has just been a defiant head case from the age of 2. I’m thinking of one 20-something never married mother who has been having a hard time for the last few years, but since she was the only child who snuck out of the house at age 13 for various purposes, it is sadly not a surprise. Her siblings and parents help her out, but not too much, because they frankly want her to learn from her mistakes. They don’t want to enable her bad decisions any more.

  150. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Extending my question above regarding a daughter:

    I think those are good questions, and I personally prefer the more general phrasing to the original discussion about GKC’s daughter in specific. I know he brought her up, but this kind of thing can easily cross the line to very personal.

  151. Anonymous Reader says:

    Is it as personal as calling me a “mad dog”, i.e. nothing more than an animal with rabies?

  152. Matthew says:

    Anonymous Reader, here’s my current attempt at the answer: my daughters will live in my home, under my authority as long as they wish. The penalty for defying my authority is expulsion and ostracism.

    When a daughter wishes to leave my home, the transition will be to one of two states:

    * submission to the legitimate authority of another man (usually a husband, but possibly a brother)
    * harlotry

    The penalty for harlotry is ostracism.

  153. canecaldo says:


    I think those are good questions, and I personally prefer the more general phrasing to the original discussion about GKC’s daughter in specific. I know he brought her up, but this kind of thing can easily cross the line to very personal.

    One one hand, that’s sage advice. There is absolutely no reason to get personal on a blog (I say this to the ones offering personal anecdotes, not those who would get “personal” in the offensive sense you used.) because there is no accountability; no follow-through. These are serious matters.

    Besides, a good many of these comments are made, I think, by people with no dog in the hunt.
    See, this is where a church would come in handy, but doesn’t, actually.

  154. canecaldo says:


    I see it quite differently. As you say women are prone to rationalize what they want to do. This is the danger in focusing the condemnation on the player. This becomes even worse when we go along with the idea that women don’t know the difference between good and bad men. This combination is a recipe for failure. We need to do the opposite. We need to be very clear that we know they are subject to lusting after the wrong type of men, and that any action on that part will be seen not as her being “taken advantage of”. Take away the rationalization instead of pre-rationalizing it for them. My mother in law did this for my own wife, and we will do this for our daughter.

    Well…balls. I wrote out a big argument using auto theft in place of fornication. When I had finished, I re-read it–making sure I had worked it out clearly; which I had. Sadly, it led me to the realization that you’re totally right. As I said: Balls.

    I just don’t believe this can work at an acceptable enough rate (minimum, say, over 80%) outside of the context of a society that explicitly reinforces such teachings, and explicitly rejects the rationalizations. This leads me to the conclusion that the Darwins are right! Withdrawal from society and formation of our own subcultures–intranets within a wider Internet–is the only path to success. That’s a damnable problem for me because I’m not becoming Roman Catholic; I’m not going Amish, and Mormonism is not even something to contemplate.

    My impulse to punish players is my emotional resolution–If I can both protect and destroy, then I don’t have to worry. Obviously, this is a strategy destined for failure. I don’t know what to do, but saying both that I was wrong, and the the Darwin’s are right is more than enough heartbreak for one evening.

  155. podethelesser says:

    Encountered this on Texts From Last Night (a fabulous if biased window into the mindset of young adults, do avoid the site if you want to maintain any illusions about their virtue). This seemed the least inappropriate thread to post a link on. At least one young man sees through Stanton’s slut whitewash and reacts with appropriate shaming.

    http://textsfromlastnight.com/Text-Replies-37574.html

    (817): Now that I’m born again, I’m preserving my gift.
    (972): Your vagina isn’t a White Elephant gift. You can’t re-wrap it after it’s already been given several times. That’s white trash thinking.

  156. Alshia says:

    [b]“Most divorced single moms do not want to get pregnant again outside of marriage.”[/b]

    Why?

  157. Mark says:

    “”Hot single moms are like motorcycles: exciting, sleek, high-performance and fun to ride, but they can’t stand up on their own. As even the most expensive Harley-Davidson needs a rider or a kickstand to remain upright, so does the single mom need either a rider or a dickstand to keep her from falling over.””

    The only difference between a Harley_Davidson and a vacuum cleaner is the location of the dirtbag!

  158. Pingback: LifeWay Drops Rachel Held Evans’ ‘A Year of Biblical Womanhood’ | Happolati's Miscellany

  159. Casu Marzu says:

    Anyone who claims Mary Magdalene was a slut/whore is repeating a tradition of the Roman Catholic Church which has NO basis in the Bible, and thus unqualified to exegete the Bible on women’s roles or anything else.

  160. Pingback: What is the manosphere? | Dalrock

  161. Luke says:

    When a man is talking with and considering dating a woman who has, say, 2 children and is not married, he is certain to get the “you’ll never be more than 3rd most important person in my life” speech. IMO, the proper response is to tell her that to keep it even, she’ll never be more than 3rd most important person in your life. Watch the fireworks…

    Remember the Unavailability Formula for women:

    3 cats = 2 children = 1 husband.
    A woman with kids is taken, keep going, even if there’s no hubby in the picture.

  162. RJ says:

    “there is no shortage of lonely single mothers looking for a ‘sponsorship” and/or male validation and companionship”

    I wonder if “these” single mothers will eventually have unconscious & mounting contempt and resentment towards her children each time she wants validation (pumped) from a man, but can never keep the man (dumped).

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