The cost of sluthood.

Paige commented on the Doomed Harlot is a slut! post that sex positive feminists harm less attractive women by pointing out that the prettiest women don’t pay a price for promiscuity:

Alte has mentioend several times here and at her blog a very important truth when it comes to feminists and the sex-positive.

Not all women are as genetically privileged as other women. Woman A. maybe very pretty, very smart, very charming, and very accomplished. She can 1. be relatively content as a single woman and 2. probably get a man regardless of her behavior.

Woman B. is not very attractive, not very smart, and not very accomplished. Her only hope of a life outside of poverty (because she can only get a job in the service industry) is having a man to help take care of her. If she makes many poor choices it will take her out of the marriage market for all but the lowest quality men.

This is an interesting point, but I think it is even worse.  Even a very pretty woman is likely to pay a price for being known as promiscuous.  Commenter J mentioned how she met her husband on Susan Walsh’s post The Importance of Location in Relationship Strategy:

I was introduced to my husband in a bar at the b’day party of a friend of a friend.  It was really kismet as I had never been in the bar before and hadn’t really wanted to go to the party. My husband checked out my previous history at the bar (or rather my lack thereof)  with some of the regulars BEFORE he manuevered an introduction to me.

I mentioned to J on that same thread that had her husband received a different answer, she could well be posting as an unmarried woman fully convinced that her promiscuity had nothing to do with her life’s outcome:

My point was you never know who you might turn away.  Had your husband received a different answer, from what he told you you wouldn’t have ever met him.  Instead of a happily married mother of two wonderful sons, you could theoretically be another single woman on this board telling young women that men don’t care about your number so they may as well slut while the slutting is good.  And if we hooked this alternate universe you up to a lie detector she would pass because she would have no idea that the man of her dreams had joined into another conversation instead of approaching her that otherwise uneventful day all of those years ago.

This is a point that I think nearly all sex positive feminists miss.  This same topic came up in another post by Susan Walsh titled I Earned a Denunciation from NOW.  Sex positive feminist commenter switchintoglide declared that her promiscuity hadn’t factored in her relationships with men (emphasis mine):

I’ve been with the same man for four years now in a mostly monogamous relationship, and I can tell you that our relationship was built on a negotiation of dreams, goals, lifestyles, cohabiting, non-monogamy/monogamy, sexual orientation/bisexuality, and all sorts of other things that arise in a long term relationship between equals. I don’t however, remember haggling over the price of my sluthood.

To explain the issue to her, I offered the following analogy:

When we bought our house it had really tacky wallpaper in the kitchen and master bath. It had been on the market for a year despite being reduced to a very attractive price compared to similar homes. My wife wouldn’t consider it at first until I explained that we could do what we wanted with those two rooms. Finally she imagined the home how we would change it and she started to really like the house. We got a great deal on the house, but we never haggled on the price of the tacky wallpaper. That would have been unkind of us. A year on the market with no offers forced the seller to first come down on the price all on their own and then accept our offer of a somewhat lower price than asking.

Women who pay a price for being perceived as promiscuous are highly unlikely to recognize that this is even happening.  Furthermore, the idea that really beautiful women can get away with taking a hit to their marriage and/or relationship value only makes sense from the point of view of a less attractive woman.  No matter how pretty a woman is, she is going to want the most attractive man she can get.  A man who a really pretty woman finds attractive is by definition a man with options.  And men with options can afford to be choosy.  As we have seen across the manosphere, alpha men are some of the most reluctant to commit to a promiscuous woman.  They won’t turn down a pump and dump, but they typically don’t see promiscuous women as marriage material.  The problem will seem to her that men are “afraid to commit” and need to man up.  Whatever her perceived reason, a pretty woman who can’t attract the kind of man she yearns for is no less unhappy than a woman of average attractiveness in the same boat.

Clouding the issue further is the widespread misunderstanding of what drives attraction for women.  The promiscuous pretty woman may ultimately settle for a guy who on paper looks perfect.  He might be tall, handsome, have a great job…  and be very beta.  The fact that her mother and aunts all think she found a great catch doesn’t make the fact that she isn’t attracted to him any less painful.  Even worse, by riding the alpha carousel she raised her required threshold for alpha much higher than it would have been.  Where greater beta might have been sufficient for a woman of her beauty, she now has developed a taste for full alpha.

I thought about the phenomenon of the perfect on paper only man when reading the WSJ piece My Perfect Honeymoon (That I Spent Alone) (H/T Welmer).  In that article author and feminist Jennifer Belle smugly brags about leaving her husband behind on their honeymoon:

But my passport wasn’t missing. I had wedding money and an airplane ticket. So while he stayed home and called his mother to see if she had his birth certificate and made desperate plans to join me as soon as possible, I flew to Venice.

Doing just a bit of research, I found that Ms. Belle was writing about an event which occurred nine years ago when she was 34.  On paper her husband would have seemed to be a perfect catch.  He had a high status job as an entertainment lawyer.  Their combined status as a couple lead to the New York Times writing a two page article about their wedding.  Her mother and aunts must have been proud!  However, Mr. Kent’s faults from an attractiveness point of view are featured prominently in that same wedding announcement.  They open the piece by poking fun at his height.  He’s 5-foot-4, even when he’s claiming to be an inch taller, which he sometimes does.  Even Aunt Edna must have cringed at that one.  But still, a short man can do quite well if he has good enough game.

This is where it gets worse;  the wedding announcement goes into detail about how he failed her shit testing on their very first date:

But when a playwright came by and offered ”money” for her to kiss his ear, she negotiated for less money to kiss the writer’s neck — and did. ”To make Andy jealous,” she said.

Mr. Krents, who friends say has always acted 20 years older than his age, became slightly unglued. ”Here we were just getting to know each other,” he said, ”and you don’t know if you’re even going to get to a second date, and here are people doing unspeakable things that you do on the fourth or fifth dates.”

That can’t have done anything good for her tingle, but it would seem she didn’t have any better options.  They continued dating and then she brought him into her world:

A year later, Mr. Krents moved into Ms. Belle’s Greenwich Village apartment, where she freed the child within him, the boy who always wanted his own bulldog. They bought Sammy, a French bulldog.

I’m sure if you asked Ms. Belle, she would swear neither her sluthood nor her bitchy feminism had cost her anything when it came time to marry.

I’m also guessing she would change the subject and plug her new novel, The Seven Year Bitch

This entry was posted in Ageing Feminists, Choice Addiction, Feminists, Finding a Spouse, Marriage, New York Times, Slut. Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to The cost of sluthood.

  1. dream puppy says:

    We can’t know what we don’t know.

  2. Country Lawyer says:

    “And men with options can afford to be choosy. As we have seen across the manosphere, alpha men are some of the most reluctant to commit to a promiscuous woman.”

    There’s been some disagreement about this by a blogger named Thursday, although I agree, Alpha men, promiscuous or not are going to be choosier because they can.

    Vox had a very good way to describe the intersection of beauty and chastity when men select a spouse by categorizing women as Hot, babes, Average Janes, and Uglys on one axis, and chaste, average, randy and finally slut. The top women were chaste and average Hot chicks and chaste babes, the second tier were Randy hot chicks, average babes, chaste plain Janes, third tier are slutty hot chicks, randy babes, average janes and so on.

    Realistically, in our socirty there is some room for the top of all women for riding the carousal” but women always overestimate their position in the market.

    converserely, an average woman in looks does better being chaste in marriage.

    The wiggle room isn’t as much as women would like to believe though

  3. Paige says:

    I can’t fathom wanting to go on a vacation without my new husband. I don’t particularly like going to the grocery store without my old husband.

  4. Dan in Philly says:

    Choosing sluthood has a lot of harmful effect even if the slut ends up with an Alpha or greater beta (in other words, even if her past does not affect her marriage ability).
    1) She knows from experience how easy it is to get a man into her bed, and likely knows how easy it is to get a married alpha to cheat, and that knowledge leads to her constant insecurity with her husband if he is an alpha, particularly as she ages and realizes that sooner or later, no matter what she started out as, the young things will blow her away, as she once did the aging wifes whose husbands she once played with.
    2) Naturally there is a chance she caught a disease. Try to explain to hubby why you have genetal warts and why he likely does now, too.
    3) There’s a chance she’ll have gotten pregnant. If she had the child, her chances of marrying well are much reduced. If she killed it, she will have the physical and emotional scars of that decision as well, particularly if she has trouble getting pregnant when she “chooses” to do so, and she seen other boys and girls who are about the age of her child had she allowed it to live.
    4) As you pointed out, she has aquired a taste for alphas, and will compare her current spouse with her prior lovers, and find him lacking. This is not a health way to engage in marriage.
    5) Even beyond they physical, she will have aquired a taste for and habit of living a certain lifestyle, which she will no longer be able to do once married and particularly once the kids come. She’s much more likely to resent the life she now has as boring and herself trapped, and much more likely to bolt in an “eat pray love” kind of thing, not realizing that at 35 and older, her chances of marrying up are slim and none.

  5. Opus says:

    Attraction’s a bitch ain’t it!

    Yet… Even if I am not conciously deciding, when I hear (as I have done) from a woman I seem to be reasonably interested in that ‘as a liberated woman why shouldn’t I drink to excess if I please, dress as I like, act as I like, and what is so wrong with me having 300 plus one-night stand in the last two years’ some unconscious part of me is screaming ‘Nooooooo’ and ‘is that the time, why I must be going’.

    Ayn Rand puts it rather well I think,

    ‘You can evade reality, but you cannot evade the consequences of reality’.

    Reality here is that whereas a man may not be expecting Virginity, people do not tend to change in character, so why should I want to run all the risks of marriage when the product appears to be inherently (by reason of Super-Slutdom) shop-soiled.

    The problem for women with promiscuity is this, that even for the average woman pulling a guy and having sex requires no effort, so promiscuity appears to be synonymous with self-centeredness. It says ‘me me me’. It implies lack of control, and also a lack of empathy for any of her ‘conquests’, who she clearly treated as non-pecuniary Gigolos. Furthermore the more slutting there is, the more likely there is to have been an STD and/or an Abortion. As I said, attraction is a bitch – but beyond that if there are two women of equal age, attractiveness, character etc and one is relatively chaste and the other a slut which one would you choose?

  6. Doug1 says:

    But my passport wasn’t missing. I had wedding money and an airplane ticket. So while he stayed home and called his mother to see if she had his birth certificate and made desperate plans to join me as soon as possible, I flew to Venice.

    I would have told her that if she went without me she’d come home to divorce papers. Period. No further discussion.

    Hell just her thinking about doing it would have me thinking about doing that. Costs little when you do it right away.

  7. Mike C says:

    Bastiat wrote:

    There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.1

    Many of the “costs” of sluthood are unseen which is why the typical sex-pozzie feminist doesn’t get it.

  8. Doug1 says:

    I do think there are SOME alphas that don’t care too much. There is after all a whole lot of misinformation in the media. Most guys don’t read in the Roissyshere. The feminist pervasively infiltrated mass media doesn’t exactly encourage slut shaming, or writing about the greater dangers of cheating, lack of deep and lasting pair bonding, or divorce, when marry a supposedly reformed slut.

    Also lots of guys aren’t good at figuring out if she’s been a slut and don’t realize how pervasively females lie about their numbers / sexual history. There are ways though.

  9. Eric says:

    It’s really time to examine this topic. First of all, this ‘alpha/beta’ scheme is interesting theory, but doesn’t work in actual practice. Relationship issues are culturally driven, and women have been educated to prefer the weak, stupid, and dysfunctional ‘beta’ to the strong, intelligent, or successful ‘alpha’.

    The reason this ‘Game Theory’ cannot work is because our feminist culture educates women to believe three fundamental things:
    1. That all men are inferior to all women;

    2. That women are the exclusive ‘owners’ of sex and reproduction;

    3. That women have all the power in relationships.

    It’s obvious that women with these fundamental attitudes cannot be anything but repelled by so-called ‘alpha’ masculinity. This is why Game Theory cannot work: because men are in constant competition—not against superior males, but against inferior ones. The whole US dating scene is a race to the bottom where the worst men are rewarded and the best are disenfranchised and shunned.

    With these attitudes, women see strong or good men as competitors, never as partners. And because these same attitudes foster a sense of entitlement in women, their entire relationship outlook is based on selfishness and using sex and ‘love’ as a means of extracting from the relationship whatever short-term objectives and expediencies benefit herself. Nobody but a so-called ‘beta’ male could survive in such a construct.

    You’ll notice how especially these points play out, referring to sluts. A committed relationship means that the woman shares her power and ‘ownership’ of sex and reproduction with a man she regards as an equal (the man does the same, incidentally). But women are too selfish and self-entitled for this kind of sharing. You notice that women have no problem with slutting around with lowlifes (to prove that she owns sex by giving it to whomsoever she pleases) are the fastest to cry rape and make false accusations (because a man taking her power by force terrifies them more than anything else). They’re also eager to run to abortion mills or become single mothers (to prove that she owns reproduction). The fact that these actions are all calculated to humilate committed men go back to point #1.

    Anybody who’s even casually observed the men whom women prefer in relationships cannot help but see that it’s hardly the ‘Alpha’ male whom American women desire. It’s no argument to plead, as most women and manginas do, that there aren’t enough ‘good men’ available, or that beautiful women have them all to themselves (a variation of a shaming tactic). The most attractive women go for loser-men just as readily as the less attractive ones do. Until women change their own attitudes, they will never be suited for any other kind of man; and men need to realize that pursing the ‘alpha’ course with them is getting them nowhere. Better that alpha go outside the Anglosphere for suitable mates than try to do anything positive what they have to work with here.

  10. Stephenie Rowling says:

    “Hell just her thinking about doing it would have me thinking about doing that. Costs little when you do it right away.”

    I think he could had gotten an annulment.
    Really who the hell gets married to go alone to the honeymoon?! Its like she doesn’t even care about the company just the travel. That guy shouldn’t had tolerated this behavior from his “wife” if she can even be called that.

  11. Bike Bubba says:

    What Dan says. Even a “10” who sleeps around cannot avoid STDs, possible pregnancy, and the mental habit of accepting new lovers, all of which are NASTY in the case that you want to get married.

    Add to that what Dr. Miriam Grossman found; that a high proportion of her psychiatry patients were young ladies who had become promiscious in college. In other words, from STDs to mental illness like depression, the apostle Paul had it right; the promiscious sin against their own bodies.

    Besides, I know some fairly creepy looking middle aged women who can get somebody between their legs at a moment’s notice, and it’s not always guys that I’d quarantine before throwing them on the burn pile, either. I’m not quite sure that the penalty for promiscuity is that much different for attractive women than it is for the less attractive, to be blunt.

  12. Opus says:

    Some interesting comments.

    I just wanted to add that from my personal observation, Women who sleep around, although they may appear, particularily to their girlfriends, to be wildly successful with guys, – the envy of their girlfriends – are actually, usually – if not always, deeply disturbed individuals, unable to form proper relationships with or relate to men as more than (my earlier expression) unpaid (and then not always) Gigolos. My further observation is that when a woman gains a reputation for Promiscuity men tend to avoid her. In like manner, guys like to score, and are happy to let it be known amongst other men that they have done so, but no kudos attaches to having sex with, e.g. Prostitutes, Gypsies or Skanks – in fact the reverse; one is laughed at.

    The fact that Promiscuous Women seem to hide their promiscuity from men reveals, I think, that they are not entirely happy that their reputation will sink rapidly on being outed as such.

  13. Aurini says:

    I was going to write a comment. But then I accidentally a whole blog post: http://www.staresattheworld.com/2011/04/chastity-or-whoredom/

    Cheers.

  14. Tarl says:

    beyond that if there are two women of equal age, attractiveness, character etc and one is relatively chaste and the other a slut which one would you choose?

    If the issue is a wife,

    less good looking but chaste > more good looking but slutty

  15. Dalrock says:

    @Tarl
    If the issue is a wife,

    less good looking but chaste > more good looking but slutty

    Spot on. I think this is true even if the man isn’t really thinking about her reputation. The chaste one is much more likely to truly fall in love with and bond with him, while the slutty one will go through the motions to snag her beta provider. Only a very inexperienced man won’t notice the difference.

  16. Steve says:

    There is another angle on this too. Even if a Woman B is pretty virtuous, guys will still be suspicious of her because there is so much anonymity and promiscuity. Sort of like debasement of a currency if there is a lot fake currency in circulation with real. Everyone has been dragged down by the situation. Then on the male side, you see a lot betas just dropping out over the harsh treatment they get from D-riders.

  17. dream puppy says:

    “I can’t fathom wanting to go on a vacation without my new husband. I don’t particularly like going to the grocery store without my old husband.”

    @Paige,

    Yes. Seems a lot of this female empowerment nonsense is just free reign to be an asshole.

  18. Sweet As says:

    I agree that going on your honeymoon without your partner is ridiculous.

    I always thought, and it could be my ridiculous ignorance, that “sex positive” was about women seeing a sex as a positive act (not something to endure, or be ashamed of), but not promiscuity per se. But, that could just be the way my brain contextualized it somewhere around age 12 because it made sense that way. Like, it’s better to be with people whom you love and respect than be with people randomly. That just makes sense to me — for men and women, btw.

    I still question, too, what a man is “supposed” to do. I mean, women are supposed to be in single digits or chaste (i did read your blog, too, Aurini), but what about men?

    There’s a lot of talk about how women are supposed to behave. How are men supposed to behave?

    We’ve caught onto this tool that’s working for our son “behaving like a gentleman!” which is how we’ve taught him to eat properly with a fork and use a napkin, to sit still for longish durations, and to wait for mommy and daddy, as well as open doors, saying please/thank you (which he learned because we use it all the time anyway), and how to treat elders (this is a new area for him — he tries so hard to open doors for them!).

    So, women should be ladies — I agree. What should men look like? What does a gentleman look like?

  19. dream puppy says:

    @Sweet As.

    Watch Jean Luc Picard on Star Trek TNG. Do everything he does. He is the very definition of a man.

  20. Anonymous Protestant says:

    What does a gentleman look like

    Elusive Wapiti has some suggestions

  21. dream puppy says:

    @Doug et al

    I actually had a similar experience as this man. I had bought tickets to Peru on a whim for my husband and I, taken time off work, etc. On the night before our flight I realized my passport was gone. We looked everywhere for two hours and found nothing. I don’t think it ever entered our minds that he would go without me. How ridiculous!

    Thankfully, I found the passport later that night after we had already made peace with not going. Husband had to go on a long walk to calm him nerves. I am awesome.

  22. Dalrock says:

    @dream puppy
    Yes. Seems a lot of this female empowerment nonsense is just free reign to be an asshole.

    Very much so. The irony though is that she is bragging about marrying a man she isn’t attracted to. I’ll bet every time he touches her her skin crawls. She made her own hell. You go girl!

    Ladies, follow her example at your own risk.

  23. Eric says:

    Dalrock:

    What risk? She’ll just divorce him, stick him for alimony, and find another guy to whom she’s not attracted. Which pretty much defines most American marriages and relationships anyway. It’s not about ‘female empowerment’ it’s about male dis-empowerment.

  24. Anonymous Protestant says:

    Looks like the link did not get posted to Elusive Wapiti. I’ll try again.

    http://elusivewapiti.blogspot.com/2011/03/preparing-to-be-husband-and-father.html

  25. Dalrock says:

    @Eric
    What risk? She’ll just divorce him, stick him for alimony, and find another guy to whom she’s not attracted. Which pretty much defines most American marriages and relationships anyway. It’s not about ‘female empowerment’ it’s about male dis-empowerment.

    Her problem is he was the best man she could find, and that was when she was 34 instead of 43. She can pull the EPL ripcord, but she knows the only men interested in her will be even lower SMV (probably far lower). Who wants to put up with a 43 year old shrew? She is so hard up for attention from men that she is still thinking about how a man in Italy hit on her 10 years ago.

  26. Alte says:

    less good looking but chaste > more good looking but slutty

    But the question is:

    less pretty but virgin > more pretty but not a virgin and not promiscuous

  27. less pretty but virgin > more pretty but not a virgin and not promiscuous

    Usually, I’d throw out some pro-porn star aesthetic, but in this case, I’d argue that it really depends on one’s level of game and their attractiveness threshold. If you’re a low ranking male with no game that likes 5s, then the virgin may be a better choice, but if one has basic game skills and needs more attractiveness (or sexual appeal) to feel arousal, then maybe the non-virgin may be a better choice. If one is a paranoid lover, then, maybe the less attractive virgin may be better even the if the prettier non-virgin is available.

  28. A Lady says:

    Sex positivity was entirely a rationalization hamster vehicle to allow promiscuous women to feel less crappy about the promiscuity. Witness the way sex positive people treat anyone who enjoys monogamy or celibacy (of the religious or the asexual sorts)– generally with contempt, airy handwaving that ‘yeah yeah monogamy is all right too’, and so forth.

  29. Pingback: Linkage is Good for You: Fun in the Sun Edition

  30. ElectricAngel says:

    less pretty but virgin > more pretty but not a virgin and not promiscuous

    Definitely. The numbers don’t lie

    Or Read Athol’s take on it: http://www.marriedmansexlife.com/2010/09/virginity-and-big-bad-wolf.html

  31. Dalrock says:

    @Alte
    But the question is:

    less pretty but virgin > more pretty but not a virgin and not promiscuous

    From a practical point of view, so long as neither strikes him as promiscuous I suspect the answer is which one he falls for. More often than not this will of course be the prettier one. But every man will have their own way of coming to the promiscuous or not conclusion.

    But I think this is still the wrong question. The question the woman should be asking is what is best for her, not just what men are willing to overlook in a future wife. The data shared by Social Pathologist (linked above) shows that she will statistically take a big hit in marital happiness if she has even one partner before marriage. How many young women today have any idea this is the case? I’d bet it is in the single digit percentage range.

  32. Susan Walsh says:

    Dalrock, great post, and thanks for the link love. I recall your analogy about the wallpaper very well – it was so effective! Re Ms. Belle, it’s the smugness I find most offensive, though it’s only a symptom of her entire mindset. The photo really tells the story – pure narcissism on display.

    @Opus

    no kudos attaches to having sex with, e.g. Prostitutes, Gypsies or Skanks – in fact the reverse; one is laughed at.

    I’m glad to hear it, we need more slut shaming. If a guy gets no validation from his peers for hooking up with a slut, then he is more likely to become selective, and value self-restraint in women.

    The fact that Promiscuous Women seem to hide their promiscuity from men reveals, I think, that they are not entirely happy that their reputation will sink rapidly on being outed as such.

    Exactly. I wrote a post about a comment I found at feministing – a woman was stating openly that it would be good if they could talk all women into being sex-positive, because she had just been left by a man who learned of her promiscuous past. Lying works for some, but there is always the risk of discovery. Better to convince all women to embrace the disadvantage. Of course, this means that the sex poz’s will never, ever back down.

    @A Lady

    Witness the way sex positive people treat anyone who enjoys monogamy or celibacy (of the religious or the asexual sorts)– generally with contempt, airy handwaving that ‘yeah yeah monogamy is all right too’, and so forth.

    Feminists despise abstinence, and not just as an approach to sex ed. I recall reading the story of a woman virgin who asked Jessica Valenti a question at a speech, and Valenti ridiculed her until she cried. Lena Chen, who has made a career out of sluttiness since her days at Harvard, had a lot of explaining to do when she defended abstinence as a legitimate sexual choice women may make.

  33. Clarence says:

    I’m not interested in pushing unrealistic “abstinence” only crap on women, esp. when they are no longer assured a mate at age 23.

    Also, while I consider many of you allies, the fact is I think you are misreading both Teachman’s study and the Heritage paper. While both seem to show a link between the number of partners women and men have and the stability of their relationships , these links are not absolute -(because even though it’s a minority its a substantial minority) since some women and men had great amounts of partners and yet were still able to pair bond.

    The total amount of evidence we have for ALL of this consists of data from the National Survey of Family growth as expressed in ONE paper from the Heritage Foundation and one independent paper by a guy named Teachman. I have no doubt there’s something HERE, but what it is, I don’t know.

    I’d like to know the mechanism and why some girls can have a football team worth of guys and still marry happily while other girls are damaged with 2 freaking sex partners before the age of 25. That’s a mystery that needs to be solved, if you plan on getting married. Virgins aren’t growing in vast fields out there.

  34. Susan Walsh says:

    @Clarence

    I’d like to know the mechanism and why some girls can have a football team worth of guys and still marry happily while other girls are damaged with 2 freaking sex partners before the age of 25.

    I recall reading about the study of resilience in people, not sure if this could be related. Basically, psychologists have found that some people who are sexually abused by a loved one throughout their childhoods are able to marry, parent and sustain emotionally intimate relationships successfully. Other people may have been touched inappropriately one time and become completely derailed by it, unable to trust another human being or have a healthy sexual relationship again.

    My guess is that, like most questions we’re asking about individual differences, the answer will turn out to be genetic. Some people are probably more pre-disposed to bond successfully no matter what, while others’ ability to bond is fragile in even the best circumstances.

  35. Opus says:

    I would like to thank Susan Walsh for the positive comments.

    Perhaps therefore I might add, that I have no objection to Promiscuity as such. It is just that if a woman sleeps around then one instantly realises that it is unlikely that she is going to be good marriage material. People do not tend to change in character! – and as I have often noticed a wedding-band seems to have little effect on behaviour.

    A woman who sleeps around reveals either poor choice, or no impulse control and these are not qualities one might look for in a Wife, I am afraid. Of course if the woman has no intention of marriage let alone a stable, monogamous relationship then there is no problem. Otherwise she should perhaps acquire a Cat.

    This is just my observation. I speak as a White Middle-Class Englishman, and thus it may be different in the U.S.A.

  36. Gorbachev says:

    She went without her husband. On their honeymoon. And laughed about it – and at him.

    I’m sorry, but am I the only person who noticed that she’s a cast-iron, nasty iron bitch?

    I’d be massively insulted by anyone – male or female – who pulled shit like this on me. And after a wedding? And to be snarky and dismissive about it? What a fuck.

    Anyone who put up with this crap would have to be a seriously meek pansy.

    Imagine if a guy laughed about doing this to his new wife. Holy shit.

    Someone I was marrying?

    Divorce baby, you disgusting, misanthropic cow.

    Seriously.

  37. Gorbachev says:

    Is this what feminism has done – elevate sociopathic and obscenely self-indulgent or thoughtless behavior to normalcy?

    Do women like this know what pathetic excuses for human beings they are?

    Is there any sense of social obligation or decency left?

    It disgusts me.

    This kind of behavior is disgraceful in men or women. But I guess these little bitch princesses think they’re immune to criticism. Or they like it.

  38. Gorbachev says:

    And on promiscuity:

    Any woman who believes it has no effects on her marriage options is deluding herself.

    She just doesn’t know it, and so therefore assumes the options she has are the same she’d have otherwise.

    Self-fulfilling prophecy.

  39. svar says:

    @ Doug

    “Also lots of guys aren’t good at figuring out if she’s been a slut and don’t realize how pervasively females lie about their numbers / sexual history. There are ways though.”

    I’ve been wondering about that. How can you tell? From guys like Roissy or Tucker Max I’ve learned that a lot of sluts know how to act like good girls. No one has really explained how to tell fakes from the real thing.

  40. Clarence says:

    Susan:

    There may be something to that, but I’d hate to think of all types of sex as “damaging” in either psychological or physiological ways. After all, humans and the primates we’ve evolved from have been doing sex for a very very very long time. I suppose it’s more the TYPE of the sex the woman is having, but really, y our guess is as good as mine. Thanks for adding your thoughts. Very few do when I ask this question.

  41. Susan Walsh says:

    @Clarence

    I’d hate to think of all types of sex as “damaging” in either psychological or physiological ways.

    Heavens no! I specifically talked about the abuse study because it addressed the variability in human responses to similar situations. I think there is some variability among women in the way they experience sex emotionally. My own theory is that women who can have sex with little or no emotional investment have different chemistry. Whether it’s the dopamine system, higher testosterone or something else hasn’t been determined.

  42. Pingback: Newsflash: My marriage still doesn’t suck! | Dalrock

  43. Doomed Harlot says:

    This is actually very funny. So slutty women are doomed to marry short guys? Oh the humanity!

    The other funny part is the idea that a slutty woman would WANT to be with a man who looks down on slutty women. I’m not even slutty (according to the consensus here) and a man’s so-called “market value” immediately plunges for me the moment he expresses support for a sexual double-standard. From the point of view of the sex-positive feminist, it’s not exactly a huge loss to miss out on being with a man who thinks in terms of “sluts” and “nice girls.”

  44. Pingback: Stares at the World » Chastity or Whoredom

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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