It’s hard on her, but not on her kids.

YourTango has a post titled 11 Things Single Parents Don’t Want To Hear.  Note the euphemism “single parent” when what they really mean is “single mother”.  The stigma against single mothers is clearly creeping back, and this will only accelerate.

Number one on the list is not to refer to single mothers as a “baby mama” and their child’s father as “baby daddy”.  No surprise here.  These terms make unwed motherhood sound trashy, low status, and low class.  Again, the stigma is creeping back in, and it will only get worse.

But what really stands out is how not having the father in the household is a great hardship for the mother, but somehow not for her kids.  When the hardship of a broken home is experienced by mom it is all too real:

10. How do you afford it? By working my butt off every day of the week!

11. Oh, come on. Being a single parent isn’t that hard. Really? Would you like to try it?

But any suggestion that her kids suffer as a result of growing up in the chaos of a broken home is dismissed outright:

4. Your poor kids have to grow up without a positive male role model. Between their grandfathers, uncles, teachers, and their father, I think they’ll be ok.

5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

The only time she recognizes the harm this does to her kids is from the context of how their misery impacts her:

6. It must be nice to get a break from the kids every now and then. You’re right. It’s so nice to hear my kids cry because they’re sick of being shuttled between houses every week.

This entry was posted in Denial, Motherhood, Solipsism, Stantons Heroes, Status of marriage. Bookmark the permalink.

391 Responses to It’s hard on her, but not on her kids.

  1. Splashman says:

    Definitely an 11 on the “Conveniently Clueless” meter. It’s a side effect of suckling on the teat of Vaginal Victimhood all one’s life.

  2. Pingback: It’s hard on her, but not on her kids. | Manosphere.com

  3. greyghost says:

    I have no respect for baby mammas That stigma you are sensing Dalrock must be coming from me

  4. Farm Boy says:

    Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

    Your daughter is probably going to be a slut.

  5. Aservant says:

    5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    Absolutely.

  6. Curia Regis says:

    Single mothers are a toxic cancer on society, public finances and general lawlessness. Not to mention the feeling of prisons and crime.

  7. Bee says:

    Single moms usually beget more single moms. Seen in this documentary:

  8. Bee says:

    Bad link.

    Try again:

  9. BradA says:

    I wonder how many of them got to grow up in such a home. Though probably at least a few, though they are ignorant of the cause of their own problems. Ignoring the impact on the children is reprehensible!

  10. honeycomb says:

    @ BradA .. (re: how many grew up that way; in single parent homes)

    A lot of them (re: women). I have unofficial numbers from 20+ years of aviation. I ask these types of questions with all my crew-mates. I don’t fly for a living anymore but from what I can recall it should be high on your priority list of things to evaluate. If I ask a woman if she comes from a broken home .. and she did .. I soft next her immediately.

    None of this is important to me now. But it should be a question any man should ask. Another is about their relationship with their dad. And if he had the proper framework of biblical headship. If yes to both then she probably is a keeper. But, since I didn’t find that unicorn .. I can’t say.

    As for this woman .. the data is in and she doesn’t want to listen to it. Even if she did hear it .. she would substitute her hamster and its rational’lies to avoid looking at the real problem. Her (and her ilk).

    Just one man and his opinion

  11. donalgraeme says:

    A society that goes out of its way to divert all resources towards the creation of single mothers is a society that well and truly wants to die.

    Societal decline is never inevitable. It is a choice. America has chosen decline.

    Quote of the day material here TFH.

  12. feeriker says:

    Your poor kids have to grow up without a positive male role model. Between their grandfathers, uncles, teachers, and their father, I think they’ll be ok.

    Of course she only allows the kids any contact at sll with the male relatives when she needs something from them (very often in the form of dumping her sons on them when they grow up to be too “male” for her to discipline or control). Otherwise she won’t let the kids anywhere near them – especially their father, his brothers, or the paternal grandfather.

  13. Days of Broken Arrows says:

    “Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.” You don’t need a crystal ball. Just pull some statistics. Most people base decisions on statistics — including where to buy a house (crime stats), how to travel (traffic stats), and what car to buy (breakdown stats). It’s willfully naive to ignore the stats on kids who grow up in single-mother homes…they’ve been well-known since the early 1990s. And I’d guess they’re more accurate than a crystal ball.

  14. patriarchal landmine says:

    women are the worst child abusers in history.

  15. CasparReyes says:

    Crystal ball: your daughters will be sluts, lesbians, or ruthless career women, and your sons will be fags, thugs, in prison, or some combination of the above.

  16. Boxer says:

    Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    One of the few people who despises single mothers more than I is a single mother “whose partner passed away”. (He was a career marine who was a bit older than she, and ended up rapidly dying of a terminal disease, right after he rotated back to North America — that was suspiciously similar to something that chemical warfare agents might cause… end tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.)

    I’ll cop to the fact that I’ve banged her, but our social time was restricted to times the kid was at grandmas. That only happened a few times, in my wilder days. She probably has another dude at this time (she’s hot) but one wouldn’t know it. She doesn’t let other men around her kids, and by all outward appearances she’s totally celibate.

    This chick absolutely despises single moms, and will realtalk to their faces when she’s annoyed, with predictable results. I’m waiting for her to become unemployable (she works at a community college and not on tenure track, and has been close to termination before, for exactly this). The skank-ho single moms who chose to raise their kids without dad around (who clog her classrooms) annoy her, and they lose their shit in predictable ways when she holds up a mirror to their dysfunction. I’ve never seen it, but have heard about it, and it’s even funny second-hand.

    Boxer

  17. Yoda says:

    Their job is only made more difficult when they are forced to endure a series of somewhat stupid comments from strangers and peers.

    Large difficulty increment it is not.
    Reminders of her stupidity she not desires.

  18. Yoda says:

    women are the worst child abusers in history.

    War by Women this is.

  19. Boxer says:

    Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

    Of course it’s possible that Ms. Skanky’s kids will grow up to be healthy, well-rounded, and totally normal; but, like winning large at the lottery, it’s not very likely.

    https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/

    Next time I get lectured by one of these trouts, I know what my own response will be. Short and sweet:

    “Hitler was raised by a single mom”

    Boxer

  20. greyghost says:

    TFH

    I consistently notice that it is the father who puts the children’s interest ahead of his own, while the mother does not.

    Check this out. Women will always waste a child for themselves and always have even when they were wonderful before feminism. http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html

  21. KMan says:

    4. Your poor kids have to grow up without a positive male role model. Between their grandfathers, uncles, teachers, and their father, I think they’ll be ok.

    I’m sorry, I didn’t realise all these men lived in your house and saw the children for extended periods of time every day.

    5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    Yes, of course. Because it’s true.

    8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

    Okay, let’s see here… According to my crystal ball, I mean NCHS statistics ( http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/series/sr_10/sr10_178.pdf ) here are just some of the areas in which children raised without their father have more difficulties:
    – health vulnerabilities
    – having to repeat grades at school
    – suspension or expulsion from school, or other school discipline
    – emotional and behavioural problems
    – antisocial behaviour
    – anxiety and depression
    – hyperactivity
    – indicators of dependency
    – peer conflict and social withdrawal

    I just can’t wait to see how your children fare in relationships.

  22. Lyn87 says:

    Single Mothers (by choice – not widows) cause so much damage to society, that, if the U.S. Constitution did not specifically outlaw Bills of Attainder, there would be a bounty on them.

  23. feeriker says:

    Single Mothers (by choice – not widows) cause so much damage to society, that, if the U.S. Constitution did not specifically outlaw Bills of Attainder, there would be a bounty on them.

    The Constitution being dead-letter anyway (we’re already seeing ex posto facto laws being rubberstamped by the courts, among other legal travesties), I don’t see there being any practical obstacle to such a bounty being declared. A silver lining to an otherwise tragic situation.

  24. Lyn87 says:

    As for this one:

    5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    The big difference is that a single mother who is a widow already knows it. And while rubbing her nose in it would be cruel… the same words can also convey deep sympathy. The context and the tone change everything. Also, kids raised by widowed mothers do far better than kids raised by women who are divorced or were never married.

    But society pretty much has to say it to “choice mommies” because they obviously don’t know it, or if they know it at some level, they didn’t think it was as important as whatever bad decisions got her and her kids into that mess.

  25. BC says:

    5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    Yes, but with one major difference…

    Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

    Your kids are more likely to engage in risky and less healthy behavior, and die an earlier death.
    http://www.bakadesuyo.com/2012/08/whats-the-single-strongest-predictor-you-will-38240/

  26. BC says:

    As an addendum to my above comment, there are a total of eight families on both sides of my mother and father’s families in their generation (i.e., my mother and father plus seven sets of aunts and uncles), of which five have been divorced, three of those multiple times. Although anecdotal, there is a clear correlation between the divorce behavior of the parents and the health and welfare (including career/financial success) of the children, including two early deaths (one suicide, one OD) in the kids-or-dicorved-parents category, as opposed to none from the intact-family category.

  27. Spike says:

    Re the “crystal ball” comment others have accurately touched on, another statistic is the prison population.
    The prison population comes disproportionately from single parent (mother-led) families to the tune of 80%.
    Academic underachievement runs at 75% for single parent families
    Other mentions: teen runaways, teen pregnancies, teen alcoholism and drug use, prostitution, obesity, homosexuality.
    All of these have been researched and there are figures available. All are due to the father being expelled by divorce.

  28. Dave says:

    [D: Interesting quotes, but I had to delete the extensive quoting due to copyright. I’ll leave the references though so that others can look them up.]

    Coulter, Ann (2008-12-24). Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America (pp. 37-38). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

    —————————————————–

    Coulter, Ann (2008-12-24). Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America (p. 35). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

    ———————————————————–

    Coulter, Ann (2008-12-24). Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and Their Assault on America (pp. 40-41). Random House, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

  29. Boxer says:

    Single Mothers (by choice – not widows) cause so much damage to society, that, if the U.S. Constitution did not specifically outlaw Bills of Attainder, there would be a bounty on them.

    I think TFH’s theories are excellent, but I disagree with the magnitude of his predictions. I have some hope that in the years to come, poverty will gently encourage people to quit behaving quite so badly. There’s nothing like disease and starvation, raging through an overcrowded society, to get people thinking big picture. I’d even argue that this is more effective than bounty hunters with license.

    One can already start to see subtle trends in this direction in places like Greece and Portugal. When the welfare payments start drying up, the women are forced to quit catting around and appreciate a decent dude, which makes said dude work harder. His kids grow up a bit better than they would have, and the advantages are passed down.

    But, what do I know? Maybe we are on the verge of a virtual reality porn and sexbot revolution? It’s a tough thing to predict the future, and I ain’t Brigham Young.

    The pendulum swings on…

  30. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    I can’t find the link easily, but some time last week somebody posted a link with regard to a breakthrough in haptic technology that puts VR sex into the very near future. If what they’re saying is even close to correct, the jump in perceived realism – and thus the potential for addiction – is likely to take a quantum leap beyond what is out there currently. It looks like sexbots won’t be part of that any time soon – Cherry 2000 is still very far away technologically – but with the haptic interfaces coming on line now the point may soon be moot: it doesn’t matter what the hardware looks like as long as the brain “sees” the “correct” image. This cannot possibly end well.

    There are indeed things that could bring women back to the table, and most of them are very, very bad. Greece and Portugal are canaries in the coalmine. When the main shaft collapses (the U.S. economy), it’s likely to get real in a hurry. Whether that happens slowly or rapidly may determine whether we survive as a political entity or not. One thing that is true is that no major nation has survived a hyper-inflationary depression without a major change to its government. Frightened people do counterproductive things, and frightened people in groups are dangerous to themselves and everyone around them. Buckle up.

  31. MarcusD says:

    http://witchwind.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/utopia-what-would-a-womens-society-look-like/


    Men’s position in society
    Before we do anything, the very first measure to adopt is to take all men out of all positions of decision-making immediately, and actually out of any kind of social, professional position whatsoever.

    What I find entertaining is the fact that someone like her, whom most people regard as insane, sounds so much like the typical feminist (and Christian crypto-feminist). (Well, with a little bit of reading between the lines for the other stuff.)

    I’m willing to bet that the current Christian crypto-feminists will be like her in 20-30 years.

  32. MarcusD says:

    http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02732173.2014.947451

    Horowitz, Mark, William Yaworsky, and Kenneth Kickham. “Whither the Blank Slate? A Report on the Reception of Evolutionary Biological Ideas among Sociological Theorists.” Sociological Spectrum 34.6 (2014): 489-509.

  33. ZeroHour says:

    Hey Dal, thought I’d throw out this infograph from the Barna Group, if you look carefully, you’ll see how low the modern American woman thinks of marriage and family.
    http://tinypic.com/r/bf2b6f/8

  34. Tom Water says:

    Great. As per the post above by MarcusD re: Girlscouts: Our social (-ist?) “betters” (*sarc*) want to turn them into female Hitler Jungen – or Bund Deutscher Mädel – but instead of national socialism, they will adopt “correct” views of political female role models – but fear not! No republicans or zionists will make the list – – Gleichschaltung!

  35. earl says:

    “5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?”

    No because there is a distinct difference between death of a spouse and a person creating a single parent situation.

  36. Hermit says:

    5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?
    8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues.

    Yes I would say that also in case of a deceased parent. My father passed away when I was a kid, I had grandfathers, uncles and everything but this didn’t change the fact that I grow up as a gamma with relationship issues.
    The only difference I see is that in case of death it’s not the fault of the parents.

    One grow up without a male model; when you start to suck with girls or to lack determination you need your father as a male model to relate to. Asking your grandfather who lived in a small village in an age where relationship were not fucked up can only help a little.

  37. Charlotte says:

    As for #5, there’s a huge difference between a woman who chose to become a single mom through fornication and a window. One bears full responsibility for her children’s suffering and the other bears none. It really irks me when single mothers try to use the “widow card” to dodge criticism of their choices.

  38. Bee says:

    “8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.”

    Liberals are engaged in a “War against statistics.”

  39. earl says:

    “6. It must be nice to get a break from the kids every now and then. You’re right. It’s so nice to hear my kids cry because they’re sick of being shuttled between houses every week.”

    Because of a situation YOU created.

  40. I don’t think you can include all single moms in the same bag of hate. Talking in terms of a potential relationship; athough they most likely will be looking for some ‘comfort’, be it emotional, financial or sexual, their value depends also on the conditions these circumstances occurred.

    For example, you may have:

    •the typical girl/young woman, who had unprotected sex, gets pregnant, relationship with the guy is non-existent, lives off the state and fucks around until a provider comes along.

    •the woman who’s approaching ‘the wall’ and does “everything” to get pregnant, succeeds and dumps the guy, seeks a provider later in life or raises the child alone.

    •the woman who was married, had a child and then got divorced for valid reasons (i.e. not because she “didn’t love him anymore”), continues life as normal.

    •the woman who was married, had the child and then the husband died, continues life as normal

    In my opinion, the latest 2, should be put into a different category.

    Most of these women, I would say, are aware of their SMV, which has obviously decreased due to the child. The divorced ones are in the same situation as many men (particularly after mid-30’s). However, I think these can even be considered for a LTR. Of course many other factors have to be taken into account, but as a general rule, I think you cannot include a woman who had a child during her marriage and then got divorced/widowed years later in the same bunch as the first 2 examples.

  41. 5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?

    Gently, but yes. Everyone used to understand that kids need a father (and mother) in their lives, and a widow (or widower) would make an effort to find a new one for them — perhaps even making some concessions in the process! Heck, that awareness was common as recently as the Brady Bunch.

    By the way, using “partner” instead of “spouse” is a dead giveaway of where you’re coming from.

  42. In my opinion, the latest 2, should be put into a different category.

    Well, not really. You treat them all the same, they wanted daddy government to take care of them, let him. Once women realise marriage really is for life, they will start to make choices consistent with that belief. Once they realise that government takes from one to give to another, that another being their future husband, they might think differently and make choices consistent with the realisation that a husband is a blessing.

    Till that time, couldn’t give much of a crap about single mothers. Only a young, fertile virgin is for consideration. Since that ain’t going to happen..

  43. Hehe, I meant that they take from her future husband and give to others…. why oh why can I never get a rant right?!

  44. greyghost says:

    Feministhater has it right. I had this conversation with the wife and she actually understands it. Women now days marry for gina tingle and not for a good father for the children. This is where the divorce for good reason crap comes from. Women have no incentive to marry a man of solid values because their first and true husband is the government.
    So the approach is all single mothers are just baby mommas and take it from there. Save you a lot of drama.

  45. earl says:

    “Women now days marry for gina tingle and not for a good father for the children.”

    I think women have kids because of gina tingle and then marry any man that comes sniffing around so that they don’t have to work as hard to raise the bastard spawn. Government is always the safety net.

  46. random says:

    Brave New Man, people excuse frivolous divorce and single motherhood with number 3 on your list. That’s why women’s stories are almost always overblown.

    There might be a reason to divorce once you have children, but I can’t think of an example that doesn’t involve very poor choices before.

  47. In my opinion, the latest 2, should be put into a different category.

    In theory, sure; but we live in reality, not in theory.

    Yes, there are some mothers without husbands through no fault of their own: women who were abandoned by bad men (though in that case they bear some responsibility for choosing that man), women who were raped, and of course widows. It’d be nice to treat them differently from the much more common frivorcee, but it’s hard enough to do that on a personal level, when you know the circumstances. It’s impossible to do it on a societal level, or on the level of government policies.

    So in practice, you either shame single motherhood, or you….don’t. That’s why churches now praise all single mothers, and even ridiculously hold the Mother of God up as their representative. The exception soon becomes the rule.

    On a personal level, if you know a single mother who was genuinely dealt a bad hand, by all means treat her kindly and help her out — while encouraging her to provide a father for her kids (their own father or a new one if he’s dead). But don’t try to extend that beyond the personal level.

  48. ecojosh1 says:

    4. Your poor kids have to grow up without a positive male role model. Between their grandfathers, uncles, teachers, and their father, I think they’ll be ok.

    She doesn’t mention that these men have no authority. Whenever they disagree about something, she’ll say, “Don’t tell me how to raise my kids.” And when these men aren’t around, she’ll insult them.

  49. Pingback: Single mothering  It’s hard on her but not… | Honor Dads

  50. @Cail Corishev

    I don’t believe demonising single mothers will bring any real political change. As pointed previously, stats are real, but a government cannot operate from a “all muslims are terrorists” frame of mind, that’s just how politics work. Like anything else, some will pay for the actions of others. I would support an effort in changing mentalities as I think this is more of a social phenomenon, rather than political. Women need to educate themselves. Will this ever going to happen though? I very much doubt it.

    And yes, you are right – my comment was made from a personal perspective and solely related to single moms’ value in terms of relationships…which I think affect us all men, in one way or another.

  51. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    While I understand your point about treating all single mothers the same regardless of how they got that way, there’s no reason to apply that thinking to widows. Differentiating between one group of baby-mommas and a slightly different group of baby-mommas may be impractical on a societal level, but it is no trouble at all to identify which women are widows… they’re the ones with the dead husbands. Such women are worthy of aid, and God demands it. Baby-mommas? Not so much, although their children are not to blame and deserve help and pity rather than neglect and scorn. I have a bastard niece, and I wouldn’t trade her for all her legitimate siblings (and most of her legitimate cousins) put together. Bastardy is as stain on the parents; not the child.

    The key is to not throw people away (Jesus died for baby-mommas as much as for any of us), and to help those who deserve it – while not incentivizing fornication by insulating baby-mommas from the consequences of their choices (like we do now).

  52. justsomeguy says:

    Dee: Liberals are engaged in a “War against statistics.”

    Funny, ’cause I’m always told it’s conservatives who Deny Science.

  53. Honeycomb says:

    As a point of reference … this is a slippery slope.

    http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/19896/

    TRENDING: More college students support post-birth abortion

    “We encounter people who think it is morally acceptable to kill babies after birth on a regular basis at almost every campus we visit,” said Mark Harrington, director of Created Equal. “While this viewpoint is still seen as shocking by most people, it is becoming increasingly popular.”

    If she feels so burdened .. and a husband is expendable .. why not children next?

    Sad thought on my part .. but .. women have been moving this direction for some time.

  54. greyghost says:

    Honeycomb
    women were aleady there. It was civilized society that has changed that will allow a woman to say wasting a live child is ok. A woman will do that in a heart beat if it doesn’t make her look bad or bring on negative consequences. Women have no problem with others dying or suffering in their place. (some will even see it as the duty of society)

  55. greyghost says:

    Check out the survival rates
    http://www.icyousee.org/titanic.html
    Women don’t give a shit and never have unless somebody or something forced the issue

  56. Boxer says:

    Morally speaking, there is very little difference between an abortion at 6 months (which is legal and available in North America) and whacking one’s kid, six weeks after birth. I’d guess that a goodly chunk of second-trimester abortions could be born alive at the time of chopping up the baby and sucking it into the garbage disposal.

    Even men who don’t care about religion and have no notion of God (like me) are disgusted by these ho’s. Too irresponsible to use birth control, and too selfish to possibly face any consequences for their poor decisions.

  57. Lyn87, fair enough, it should be possible to provide official support for widows without it extending to others. I’d prefer that be done at the church or local level, but regardless, it should be doable.

    Also, I’m not talking about throwing anyone away or demonizing anyone. As I said in my comment, if you personally know an unmarried woman who needs help and would make good use of it, by all means help her. But when we make that a society-wide policy, we can’t help but put a stamp of approval on single motherhood — eventually treating unmarried mothers as heroic and superior to married moms, as we do now.

    I realize it can be tricky to shame single motherhood without seeming to pick on the women who didn’t ask for it, but it’s necessary. The word I used was “shame.” A widow used to feel a certain amount of shame that she didn’t have a husband by her side, and that she wasn’t able to care for her kids as well as married women. Was that fair to her? Of course not. But it was the result of an overall attitude — that children should have two parents — that was healthy for society. And ultimately, it was good for her if it encouraged her to find a good new husband.

    Again, let’s be clear: I’m not saying anyone should get in a widow’s face and tell her she should be ashamed that her kids don’t have a father. That’s ridiculous. For that matter, I wouldn’t recommend telling any unmarried mother that, unless it’s the only way to get her attention. There are usually better ways to provide healthy guidance. But a healthy society needs to have a general attitude that fatherless children are missing something important, and you can’t have that without a certain amount of feelbad for some innocent people.

  58. Honeycomb says:

    @ greyghost …

    I guess I was hinting at the (indoctrinated / forced) acceptance of men / society towards what women are pushing as acceptable … defining deviance down … again.

  59. Dalrock says:

    On the topic of social attitudes about single mothers. Part of this is moot, because the stigma is returning whether you want it or not. Single motherhood (distinct from widowed mothers) is chaotic, as the statistics referenced by others describe. For a short period of time social tinkerers have been able to somewhat change societal attitudes, but this won’t last. Reality is too difficult to argue with over the long term.

    But the other part of this is what will you say to young women? If we sing our daughters to sleep each night with a Glenn Stanton twist on Willie’s classic song: My heroes have always been single mothers… this will lead to tremendous pain and misery. If we are clear to young women that having children out of wedlock is shameful, as is a woman divorcing the father of her children, we are being kind, loving, and telling the truth. But you can’t speak the truth to young women without undoing the lies we tell to single mothers. And you can’t lie to single mothers without harming young women (not to mention their future children).

    What this boils down to is a trade-off. Do you sell out the innocent to protect the feelings of those who aren’t innocent (but are more vocal)? Or do you protect the innocent and stand by the truth? And even here, lying to the single mothers by pretending single motherhood is noble and heroic is cruel to them as well, just in more insidious ways. Hopefully everyone reading can see the terrible harm CBN did to Janine Turner by giving her book selling unrepentance a stamp of moral approval.

    The choice is being truthful and loving, or embracing evil because it feels better. Everything else is just rationalization.

  60. Tam the Bam says:

    ” .. you cannot include a woman who had a child during her marriage and then got divorced/widowed years later in the same bunch”
    Oooh, nice putt, but it horseshoed out.
    Agency, agency, agency. Lack it they must … no, no, of course I didn’t notice your careful re-equivalencing of divorce==death there. Unless you’re saying the divvies were all turned off the ladder by wicked cads, despite their best efforts, inna Sharia stylee. When does that happen?

    “bag of hate” Oh just get a grip, will you?
    Please stop pretending to be male, it just doesn’t work.
    Your brain is different, and it shows.

  61. earl says:

    ” .. you cannot include a woman who had a child during her marriage and then got divorced/widowed years later in the same bunch”

    I’d include the divorced ones too. A marriage that ended because of an act of God and another that ended because an act of men are two different things.

  62. sunshinemary says:

    In a way, this article is (very, very slightly) better than most others of such nature because at least the authoress admits that single motherhood is bad for women even though she totally ignores the devastating effects on the children. Most articles actually talk about how much better being a single mother is, almost as if the authoresses are trying to sell divorce and single motherhood to other women; here is one example but there are tons of articles just like this one:

    5 Reasons it’s better to be a single parent:

    Married couples may have more sex, but it isn’t nearly as much fun. While they constantly have to “spice it up” in the bedroom, the nature of being single and switching partners does all the cooking for us. We tease, experiment and explore the bawdy awareness of every new lover.

    Translation: No more boring married sex! Pump-and-dump land, here I come!

    And also:

    My favorite part of becoming single again was the choice to have, or not to have, a mate in my bed. The National Sleep Foundation reported that sleeping two to a bed could cause you to lose 49 minutes of sleep per night. That’s a lot!

    Apparently the authoress’ children were not available to comment on what their favorite part of her becoming single again was.

    So at least the YourTango article makes single mothering look like a drag instead of a delight; if that persuades a few women to stay, even if for selfish reasons, it’s much better for the kiddos.

  63. Soon, if you piss your mother off too much, she will be able to get an ‘extreme post term abortion’ and feel every bit as holy about it..

  64. Lyn87 says:

    Cail,

    Fair enough as well. I’m a libertarian, so I don’t think it is a proper role of government to engage in income redistribution anyway – especially to insulate people from the consequences of their own bad decisions. I think all charity should be handled by individuals and private groups (including churches). I have to turn to what the Bible says about widows and orphans, though – it is the duty of the church and of Christians to aid them if their families cannot.

    I would just hate to see us doing the same thing as the feminists: namely, lumping widows in with baby-mommas. Just because they do it to elicit the sympathy and support that we rightly give to widows does not mean we should withdraw our support from widows so as to avoid benefiting baby-mommas, especially when it so easy to tell them apart.

    The harder part is figuring out how to do our Christian duty to bastard children (who are innocent and deserving of sympathy and support) without giving incentives to sluts.

  65. “You’re right. It’s so nice to hear my kids cry because they’re sick of being shuttled between houses every week.”

    Whoops! She accidentally spoke some truth.

  66. PokeSalad says:

    What’s the actual ratio of babymammas to widows? 10:1? 250:1? 25,000:1? Seems like there’s a lot of time being spent on the exception, rather than the rule. Apex fallacy…

  67. Joshua says:

    Its not about how we, or feminist classify widows. Its how they classify themselves. If they self associate with single mothers, no dice. If they claim they’re widows and separate, then its a green light.

  68. Dalrock says:

    PokeSalad

    What’s the actual ratio of babymammas to widows? 10:1? 250:1? 25,000:1? Seems like there’s a lot of time being spent on the exception, rather than the rule. Apex fallacy…

    It is about 23 to 1 (data).

  69. Gunner Q says:

    Lyn87 @ 9:57 pm:

    “Single Mothers (by choice – not widows) cause so much damage to society, that, if the U.S. Constitution did not specifically outlaw Bills of Attainder, there would be a bounty on them.”

    Letters of Marque and Reprisal are still allowed. That means privateering, basically, authorizing mercenaries to attack the enemies of a nation and paying them by allowing safe harbor for trading the spoils of conquest. Congress could authorize intact Christian families to kill single mothers on condition they adopt the now-parentless kids.

    Eh, no, the baby mommas are still citizens. Due process and all that.

  70. greyghost says:

    This is pretty good Sunshine

    So at least the YourTango article makes single mothering look like a drag instead of a delight; if that persuades a few women to stay, even if for selfish reasons, it’s much better for the kiddos.

    It will nearly always be for selfish reasons. This is what being a thriving civilized society is all about. Imagine the power of actual faith in the teachings of Christianity rather than the “niceness” of churchianship. As Dalrock as stated the kindness of the truth will spare us the “hood” and the violence and social decay. Half of the problems of the manosphere go away and maybe just maybe an honest hard working man committed to wife and family will be seen as a source of gina tingle and status and women can be who they are with the grace of being seen and known as will behaved and virtuous.

  71. Boxer says:

    •the woman who was married, had a child and then got divorced for valid reasons (i.e. not because she “didn’t love him anymore”), continues life as normal.

    These “valid reasons” are usually a smokescreen. I’d argue that unless the husband gets sent to a long prison term, it’s just a game of he-said/she-said.

    It’s true that there are many men who are lazy and unmotivated; but, who chose that man? More importantly, why should some little kids pay the price for some ho’ choosing to marry up with him?

    Boxer

  72. SSM,

    In a way, this article is (very, very slightly) better than most others of such nature because at least the authoress admits that single motherhood is bad for women even though she totally ignores the devastating effects on the children.

    On another blog that I used to post on (about ten+ years ago) the majority of the blog participants were unmarried women who so desperately wanted to be married (but couldn’t find a husband for whatever reason.) The focus of the blog was based on this book:

    http://www.amazon.com/All-Rules-Time-tested-Secrets-Capturing/dp/0446618799

    When getting around to the concept of single motherhood (since quite a few of those posters WERE single mothers) they REFUSED to discriminate themselves based on never-married-mom vs divorced-mom vs widowed-mom (of which there were none.) They regarded that as all the same, all equal. Moreover, they were never willing to acknowledge the importance of a strong father figure in the home being married to the mother (mostly because so many of them were married and they claim, abused by their ex-husbands whom they divorced.) As the lone sane voice on that blog for men (in an effort to get these women to stop being so divorce first or breed children before marrying focused), I showed them the data that calmly explained how children in intact homes (mother and father married to one another) had much more promising lives. The brightest and most educated among them rejected the data with the following stipulation….

    Your numbers and statistics on illegitimate children failing in adulthood are only accurate because of money. Single moms do not have enough money in the household because they are struggling compared to married couples. Basically your data all-the-more only deminstrates why government must step in and make single mom’s financially whole. Wealthy single moms of Hollywood are not the least bit concerned of the future welfarte of their children not being properly adjusted, because they have enough money without financial support from the father.

    Basically, the only thing these intelligent and educated women on that board saw in men (that added any value in the raising of children) is being a wallet. That was pretty much the entire focus on that book and the blog, catch a man to get access to his earning power. You need him for nothing else.

    Until we get past think kind of thinking towards men (and this thinking pretty much exists everywhere) it will be impossible to properly shame single-motherhood for what it is, the creation of bastards who (if male) will (most likely) be filling our prison system in their adult years or (if female) continue to breed more bastards.

  73. greyghost says:

    I have actually met and do know of know two widows. One a traditional family type with a less than year old. The other a baby momma type that married a gang banger that got himself killed doing his thing. Two different types of women. The former gagster’s wife has kids that are no different than any other baby mommas children.

  74. Lyn87 says:

    SSM,

    That article you linked is stunning. The woman who wrote it is so delusional it’s hard to know where to start. Every single thing she wrote is wrong… and not just “regular wrong” but absolutely 180 degrees off with a double twist.

    One could look at each of those five from the perspective of the non-custodial parent and see how “wonderful” single parenting isn’t. One could look at from the perspective of the divorce orphans who have to live with mommy’s choice. One could look at it from societies perspective that has to deal with the aftermath of normalizing destructive behavior. In fact: I think I’ll do just that.

    5 Reasons It’s NOT Better For A Woman To Be A Single Mother

    1. No Negotiations Allowed. She gets to make all the decisions regarding the children and he gets no say. And let’s face it, if she was good at making big decisions she wouldn’t be a single parent, anyway.

    2. Terrible Role Model. She may think she’s providing a “Strong, Independent, Woman” [TM] role model, but you can bet the rent that she’s hiding the fact that she has a support network (funded by the father and/or the government) making it possible behind the scenes. Also, she’s depriving the children of a steady male role model.

    3. All Of Her Relationship Options Are Worse Than Marriage. The best environment in which to raise children is within marriage. Whatever she does will be bad, and almost certainly worse than being married to the father of the children.

    4. Bed Sharing Leads To Bad Outcomes. She’s whoring around and doing it in front of the kids, in the bed he paid for, yet. A parade of men with no attachment to the kids will be in-and-out of their lives until they leave the house, and the kids will learn that humans are disposable, even those with whom their mother is most intimate. Also, once she’s no longer young and hot, she’s likely to be a washed-up, banged out baby-momma with kids she can’t handle who won’t be able to find a decent man, because no decent man would want her.

    5. You’re All Likely to Die Younger. Forget about the so-called stats of single people being thinner – statistically, divorce and single motherhood results in shorter average lifespans – that is THE definitive measure of health, after all – since it doesn’t matter how thin your corpse is.

  75. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    I realize it can be tricky to shame single motherhood without seeming to pick on the women who didn’t ask for it, but it’s necessary.

    I don’t think you should frame it that way.

    It’s not “picking on” widows to observe and report that a home without a father is a substandard home for children. There’s a lot of hand-wringing here about making sure that widows don’t feel bad. Newsflash: They’re widows. They probably have them already, and the feelings were dearly bought. They know how hard life is now, and how much children need a father.

    What begins as the impetus to protect widows from feeling inadequate (the idea that children of widows don’t suffer despite missing a father) soon becomes the argument that single motherhood is not so bad for children because mothers are somehow magical; especially under hardship.

    Paul prescribes widows to remarry; that is to get a man in the house. It’s worth noting that he prescribes it for the preservation of the widow herself because otherwise she will be tempted to slut around.

  76. Dalrock says:

    @GunnerQ

    Letters of Marque and Reprisal are still allowed. That means privateering, basically, authorizing mercenaries to attack the enemies of a nation and paying them by allowing safe harbor for trading the spoils of conquest. Congress could authorize intact Christian families to kill single mothers on condition they adopt the now-parentless kids.

    Eh, no, the baby mommas are still citizens. Due process and all that.

    FYI, there are a significant number of people who disagree with this blog but after months or even years of trying can’t find any legitimate/logical ways to refute my arguments. As such, they are reduced to trolling the comments section looking for comments made by others to then falsely attribute to me. Look at what Dalrock secretly believes, because someone on the internet wrote it and he didn’t ban them. With this in mind, your comment is nearly guaranteed to be taken out of context, with the last line omitted, at one of the places which can’t refute what I write but have their panties in a bunch nevertheless.

  77. Lyn87 says:

    Greyghost writes,

    “I have actually met and do know of know two widows. One a traditional family type with a less than year old. The other a baby momma type that married a gang banger that got himself killed doing his thing. Two different types of women. The former gangster’s wife has kids that are no different than any other baby mommas children.”

    Like the Lyla character from Sons of Anarchy? You’re correct, of course. Having spend nearly my entire adult life affiliated with the military in one fashion or another (most of it in uniform either on Active Duty or in the Reserve Component), I can say that widows are a fact of life in this business. But the kinds of men who die on the battlefield aren’t the same kinds of guys who get whacked and then tossed into a back-alley dumpster… and the women they marry aren’t cut from the same cloth, either.

    To all,

    I think the commenters have reached a consensus that righteous widows are not to be tarred with the brush we use on baby-mommas (either divorced or never-married). Just as we don’t feel the need to say “Men Do It Too!” all the time, is it time to just recognize that when we’re talking about single mothers we do NOT mean good women whose husbands died? I’m ambivalent about it, since inserting “(except widows)” is easy enough when talking about the damage done by single motherhood. Anyway, the children of widows are not bastards if they were products of the marriage.

  78. Dalrock says:

    @Cane

    Paul prescribes widows to remarry; that is to get a man in the house. It’s worth noting that he prescribes it for the preservation of the widow herself because otherwise she will be tempted to slut around.

    It is interesting how much of what the Apostle Paul instructed in 1 Tim 5 3-16 is either forgotten or glossed over. Paul said to exclude widows under 60* from the roles of church support, and for those over 60 they were to be supported only if they were of exemplary character and their own families couldn’t take care of them.

    But it gets worse than this of course, because now unwed mothers and divorcées are quite routinely lumped in with widows when discussing Christian teaching.

    *Who was it who was arguing the other day that people in the ancient world died around age 30, so lifetime marriage really only meant until 30?

  79. Dalrock says:

    @Lyn87

    Just as we don’t feel the need to say “Men Do It Too!” all the time, is it time to just recognize that when we’re talking about single mothers we do NOT mean good women whose husbands died? I’m ambivalent about it, since inserting “(except widows)” is easy enough when talking about the damage done by single motherhood.

    I generally do note the distinction when writing on the topic. I didn’t see the need to make the distinction in this specific post since the author I was responding to made it clear that she wasn’t talking about widows.

  80. infobravenewman says:

    @Tam the Bam

    ahah really? we can take this outside and see who can piss further🙂

    @Boxer

    “These “valid reasons” are usually a smokescreen. I’d argue that unless the husband gets sent to a long prison term, it’s just a game of he-said/she-said.”

    You are right. But when I say valid reasons I mean things such as violence or adultery for example, which in my view, are valid reasons to terminate a marriage. Obviously each case is a case, but in the end, as you rightly point out, the kids are the ones who suffer with their mom’s choices – being these poor choices or not, despite having a valid reason, or not.

  81. Boxer says:

    Lyn87 & Grey Ghost:

    You brothers make really good points.

    Anyway, the children of widows are not bastards if they were products of the marriage.

    As I peruse history, I become convinced that one of the greatest political injustices was committed in the 1960s (we likely have brothers here who were alive then), when the US and Canada both removed the “illegitimacy” concept, and made everyone a de jure bastard in the process. I’m sure that most of the people responsible for this had good intentions. The road to Hell, and all that.

    Dalrock insists that the stigma is coming back, but the stigma is unfocused and thus unhelpful. Promiscuous women can defeat it now, merely by serially shacking up with one bozo after another, and this really doesn’t help the child much.

    One of the most effective things we could do is re-implant the notion of bastardy. If you have never been married to the *biological father* of your child, then you are not entitled to a penny of his money, and should rely on your parents for support (not only financial, but moral and emotional too). A minimum baseline should not only be widowhood, but verified marriage and fidelity to the man who died.

    Boxer

  82. By the way, infobravenewman is me. mistakenly logged in with another account.

  83. Boxer says:

    Dear infobravenewman:

    You are right. But when I say valid reasons I mean things such as violence or adultery for example, which in my view, are valid reasons to terminate a marriage.

    Long before I found the manosphere, I started asking divorcees about their ex-husbands. I learned this from my mother, in childhood, who would invent lots of fanciful tales about my dad in order to garner sympathy and attention.

    Lying about “violence” is so common among divorcées as to be almost universal. “He beat me up so I left him” should always be met by questions like “Oh? How long is his prison sentence?” A good 100 percent of the wimminz I have asked this to start hemming and hawing at this point, and so can be safely ruled out as a flake and possibly someone who will falsely accuse you to the next dude.

    Actual “violence” is always a crime, and carries a strong legal deterrent. If a wimminz has got her husband put away for beating the stuffing out of her, then sure, she has my sympathy. No one should stay with someone who is breaking her bones and shit. In my experience, though, this is almost never the case. Nearly all the divorces for “abuse” that I hear about are actually based on convenient lies and total fabrications.

    Boxer

  84. Bee says:

    @ Justsomeguy,

    “Funny, ’cause I’m always told it’s conservatives who Deny Science.”

    Yes, you can also see it in the women make 77% of men meme (they compare secretaries to engineers, part time doctors to full timers, etc.), in climate gate (cold data thrown out), and in IQ studies.

  85. Farm Boy says:

    Wealthy single moms of Hollywood are not the least bit concerned of the future welfarte of their children not being properly adjusted

    I would not be so sure about that. Growing up with a single mom in Hollywood would probably not be a while some way to grow up.

    Basically your data all-the-more only deminstrates why government must step in and make single mom’s financially whole.

    To fund baby mamas to the level of Hollywood actresses would lead to….

  86. Farm Boy says:

    Basically, the only thing these intelligent and educated women on that board saw in men (that added any value in the raising of children) is being a wallet

    I wonder if any of them have ever considered if this approach would lead to a sustainable society…

    Is it too much for them to consider this?

  87. FarmBoy,

    To fund baby mamas to the level of Hollywood actresses would lead to….

    It is virtually impossible for society to begin again at shaming single-motherhood UNTIL society willingly embraces the concept that a father and husband adds any more value to a household beyond a paycheck. At the present time, society see no further value in fathers than resource accumulation and sperm production. And the latter is of far les value given the availability of a sperm bank.

    Given that above, then of course, the only logical deicision society can make to fix the problem of bastard children filling our prison system is to just have government give single mom’s more money and provisioning. Whether it is her husband or Uncle Sam, it makes no difference in the overall outcome of the child who needs provisioning, a check is just a check no matter where it comes from….

  88. Basically, the only thing these intelligent and educated women on that board saw in men (that added any value in the raising of children) is being a wallet

    I wonder if any of them have ever considered if this approach would lead to a sustainable society…

    No, of course not. You are thinking like a man. Stop doing that. You are never going to help fix the problem until you understand how they think.

    Is it too much for them to consider this?

    Yes, you are most certainly asking too much of them. You are expecting them to be moral agents. Don’t do that.

  89. Single motherhood (distinct from widowed mothers) is chaotic, as the statistics referenced by others describe.

    To continue in my role as resident widow-basher: I suspect that single motherhood is chaotic in general, whether the mothers are unmarried, divorced, or widows. In other words, if a society had a lot of fatherless homes because a huge war killed off half the men, that would be a mess too if women were allowed to run feral as they are today, maybe not that unlike a society where half the homes are fatherless by the mother’s choice.

    Again, that’s not to criticize widows for something they didn’t cause. It just means that fatherless families are a Bad Thing, however they came to be fatherless. Our policies, both personal and political, should be to discourage that, by encouraging widows to remarry (as Cane points out, that’s a scriptural directive), married women to stay that way, and unmarried girls to keep their legs together.

  90. Farm Boy says:

    UNTIL society willingly embraces the concept that a father and husband adds any more value to a household beyond a paycheck

    Let it start with sitcoms.

  91. Boxer says:

    Cail:

    To continue in my role as resident widow-basher

    The widow I mentioned above (who is, admittedly, the only widow I know personally) shares your sentiments so precisely that she could have written exactly what you wrote, verbatim, with no deviation.

    The truth is brutal, but it’s still the truth. Probably why so many undisciplined losers wail so loudly when confronted with it.

    Boxer

  92. Tam the Bam says:

    “*Who was it who was arguing the other day that people in the ancient world died around age 30, so lifetime marriage really only meant until 30?”
    Presumably the same people who believe that everybody in say, South Africa, or Nigeria has croaked by the time they’re 50.
    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25043454

  93. BartManson says:

    8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues. Oh, I’m sorry. I didn’t see the crystal ball in your hands. Please, tell me more about my children’s futures.

    You don’t need a crystal ball. Statistics have been compiled for years on the issues children raised by single mothers face.

    Lower education, lower income, more of them on poverty, more of them unmarried with children of their own, more of them abused and in abusive relationships, higher incidents of teen pregnancy, higher incidents of drug use, higher incidents of alcoholism, high incidents of incarceration, etc. Every risk there is children of single mom’s face a worse situation than children of stable households…including issues related to relationships. No crystal ball needed.

    Children of stable households face a much better chance at a much better future than their counterparts who are raised by a single mother, and compounded over multiple generations the day is coming when “Child of single mother household?” becomes another affirmative action question right next to “Minority?”

  94. greyghost says:

    IBB
    Slowly butt surely it is getting out about fathers being the way to go. With more and more single fathers. Local police and government may start to see less problems. Pop culture and the feminine imperative will always tout the mothers are “god” stuff regardless of evidence. No woman will ever say fathers are important. But privately individual women will get a husband for herself just as UMC types are married while preaching you go girl to the little people . (see nearest trailer park and police blotter for what that looks like)

  95. UNTIL society willingly embraces the concept that a father and husband adds any more value to a household beyond a paycheck

    Let it start with sitcoms.

    The closest we have today to what we had with “Father Knows Best” is (of course) “The Middle.” We can all thank Patricia Heaton for insisting on producers to create a TV show that makes her proud of her Patriarical husband, not at all like what she had when she was married to limp writsted, disrespected, bumbling beta bux in “Everyone Loves Raymond.”

  96. Cane Caldo says:

    @Dalrock

    *Who was it who was arguing the other day that people in the ancient world died around age 30, so lifetime marriage really only meant until 30?

    One of the many self-proclaimed lords of science, if I recall.

    But it gets worse than this of course, because now unwed mothers and divorcées are quite routinely lumped in with widows when discussing Christian teaching.

    Exactly. The sin nature of men is such that–once the bar was slid to 59 and dead (self-indulgent)–then it could not be stopped from sliding all the way to where we are now. At best it is misdirected heroism on the part of men. It’s not actually merciful, even as the “heroes” will insist of themselves. It’s about men using widows to make themselves look good.

    The proclivity of women is (obvious to us here) to not put the damper on any opportunities of which they may one day want to avail themselves.

    [D: Spot on.]

  97. Boxer,

    If you have never been married to the *biological father* of your child, then you are not entitled to a penny of his money, and should rely on your parents for support (not only financial, but moral and emotional too). A minimum baseline should not only be widowhood, but verified marriage and fidelity to the man who died.

    How do you verify a husband is not just a live in boyfriend? Oh I KNOW!!!!!

    This is the stongest possible argument for government sanctioned marriage that there is. I hear so much of this manosphere groaning at that. Too f-cking bad guys. Get over it. You want to properly define bastards, you need government to properly sanction marriage. You can not have one without the other.

  98. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Dal hits another one out of the park. It is even worse than most people acknowledge. Women not only hamsterbate about single momhood, they justify it. They truly believe that the only thing a man contributes to a child is his money. They don’t just ignore the obvious statistics about single moms and crime, single moms and welfare, single moms and promiscuity, single moms etc etc. They actively celebrate it.

    Several of my kids friends are the product of single moms. All of the mothers are post-wall fuglies who brought man after man after man into their homes after kicking out their husband. All of them have sons with serious problems. All of the sons are taciturn and quiet around women, having been well trained through their entire lives. All of them are doing badly in school. NONE of them have any motivation to succeed, study, get a job, or go to college. All of them just want to leave their mother’s home.

    None of the mothers can acknowledge the irreparable harm they are doing to those boys.

  99. Boxer says:

    IBB:

    Nice try, but no dice.

    How do you verify a husband is not just a live in boyfriend? Oh I KNOW!!!!!

    Pretty simple, actually. Do this woman’s family and friends refer to the dead guy as her husband? That’s what a marriage always has been, and always will be: a declaration in front of witnesses.

    Boxer

  100. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    It is virtually impossible for society to begin again at shaming single-motherhood UNTIL society willingly embraces the concept that a father and husband adds any more value to a household beyond a paycheck. At the present time, society see no further value in fathers than resource accumulation and sperm production. And the latter is of far les value given the availability of a sperm bank.

    Not true. Much of this is already happening, as married mothers note how different they are than single mothers, and as they note the difference in outcomes. While it would be very good to have a societal push to honor husbands, what we need most urgently is to stop conservative Christians from lionizing never wed and divorced mothers. Imagine a world where Focus On The Family, CBN/700 Club and the conservative church down the road didn’t sing the praises of single mothers. It would be a huge first step.

  101. gg,

    Slowly butt surely it is getting out about fathers being the way to go. With more and more single fathers. Local police and government may start to see less problems.

    Where do you see that? Not ONCE have I seen anyone in the media say anything even remotely close to the fact that the majority of the rioters in Ferguson MO are bastards, maybe people should start getting married again and stop breeding illegitimate kids? I’ll bet there are similar parallels to the Occupy Wall Street crowd (the majority of them bastards, just government-paid-for-educated ones) but I have seen no data to support my hypothesis.

  102. Dalrock,

    While it would be very good to have a societal push to honor husbands, what we need most urgently is to stop conservative Christians from lionizing never wed and divorced mothers. Imagine a world where Focus On The Family, CBN/700 Club and the conservative church down the road didn’t sing the praises of single mothers. It would be a huge first step.

    Thats not going to happen. Those guys at FOTF and 700 Club need paychecks Dalrock.

  103. Dalrock

    Not true. Much of this is already happening, as married mothers note how different they are than single mothers, and as they note the difference in outcomes.

    I already covered this. As I noted to SSM earlier up thread, women (be they single moms, married, divorced, or childless) already believe the main difference in childhood outcome is access to money. Its not actions the father or the husband does inside the house that adds value to the outcome of his children. It is what he does OUTSIDE the house. It is just his paycheck for 18 years that keeps junior out of prison. And if that is all women think they need (and more and more, that is the case) then, just have government cut them a check/pay for things to help the kids. Afterall, we are doing it “for the children.”

  104. Boxer says:

    Dear TFH:

    Indeed. Matt Forney recently wrote an article that presented the brutal truth to a particularly damaged group of people. That article has 34,000 comments to date, which is by far the highest I have ever seen in any previous androsphere article.

    Yeah, Forney is pretty good at trolling writ large, and it illustrates some really funny things about the people who respond.

    You claim to be a Christian? Maybe you should get the gang’s “property of” tattoo lasered off your ass, quit banging random guys, marry a nice Christian dude, and settle down into a normal life…

    How dare you judge me, you fucking shitlord bigot! Your self-discipline is a code for misogynistic oppression. Jesus loves me as I am! Rape Culture! Oh fuck this world! Wow, Just wow! I need time for self-care before I implode

    Blah, blah, blah.

    Boxer

  105. Boxer,

    Pretty simple, actually. Do this woman’s family and friends refer to the dead guy as her husband?

    How can we predict the future as to what moms will get money from Uncle Sam if we change the law stipulating that only widows get it? Pretty simple actually. Does this women have friends and family that want her to help her game the system by claiming she was married to this dead guy, even though there is no actual government record stipulating that ever happened?

  106. HeligKo says:

    We are talking about a society that has created courts that outsource their fact finding, so they don’t have to rule on the facts, but they rule on the fact finders opinion. In my case the logic used was simply that my relationship with my oldest makes the other kids afraid I will abandon them, so I should have less time with them. In no way does this make sense, unless you view it from the position that the everyone involved wants to assign the kids to the mother. Single motherhood is profitable to the government in the ways that matter, power and control.

  107. Dalrock says:

    @IBB

    Thats not going to happen. Those guys at FOTF and 700 Club need paychecks Dalrock.

    They do. I think it would be very difficult to get them to actually hold anywhere near the biblical line on marriage. However, I think it is entirely possible to get them to stop shamelessly pandering to single mothers. Silence would be a huge improvement here, as it would be better than lionizing and rationalizing sin.

    Part of why we got to where we are is those who would call this kind of thing out were silenced one way or another. When Stanton made his outrageous claims about women in his book on parenting and on his podcast, I’m convinced that he didn’t even consider that someone would point out how outrageous they are. He was just repeating what everyone around him says. But this very space (the larger sphere) is changing that, albeit slowly and at the margins.

  108. Farm Boy says:

    All of the mothers are post-wall fuglies who brought man after man after man into their homes after kicking out their husband. All of them have sons with serious problems.

    Modern women have much to answer for. Why they are not called on it is a wonder.

  109. Boxer says:

    How can we predict the future as to what moms will get money from Uncle Sam if we change the law stipulating that only widows get it?

    In a saner society, the wife and children of a dead dude would be supported by the dead dude’s family. Would the dead dude’s dad consider her his daughter-in-law? If so, then she should get the money (I don’t judge such things).

    Does this women have friends and family that want her to help her game the system by claiming she was married to this dead guy, even though there is no actual government record stipulating that ever happened?

    Before your magical “actual government records” existed (and they’re a very recent invention) how do you think this played out?

    What I’m writing isn’t that opaque, so I have to assume you’re just using me as a springboard to promote one of your pet causes here. If I’m wrong, please ask me a specific question.

    Best, Boxer

  110. Before your magical “actual government records” existed (and they’re a very recent invention) how do you think this played out?

    If the widow wanted benefits from the state (if benefits were even available), the state could contact the church she was married in to verify the records.

  111. “the sons are taciturn and quiet around women, having been well trained through their entire lives”

    That hits close to home.

  112. Boxer says:

    Dear IBB:

    If the widow wanted benefits from the state (if benefits were even available), the state could contact the church she was married in to verify the records.

    You don’t know what you’re talking about, but that’s OK. I’m here to help.

    As late as the 1950s, getting on welfare was a municipal procedure in North America. The woman would usually go down to the police station, and provide references. The references involved would be questioned, and she’d be admitted to some temporary help, with her references potentially responsible for any abuse.

    That program started, in most places, between 189- and 193- (New York City was the epicenter of the change, around the time of the various wall street busts, and their program was encouraged nationwide as part of the National Recovery Act).

    Talking about churches is silly, in a secular country like the USA. What would Jews do? How about people who worship at home? Aspie types should be asking how we would know women wouldn’t start banging random ministers for forged references, etc. ad infinitum.

    Ultimately, the say-so of the dead dude’s family remains a pretty good barometer in my view, as it always has been. It’s simple, and I can’t believe you’re objecting to it in good faith.

    Boxer

  113. Cane Caldo says:

    @TRP

    “the sons are taciturn and quiet around women, having been well trained through their entire lives”

    That hits close to home.

    Just one of the many “blessings” of “socialization” that occurs in our 13-year public and coed day-cares!

  114. Dave says:

    Thats not going to happen. Those guys at FOTF and 700 Club need paychecks

    Apostle Paul had a better arrangement for preachers: pay your way!

  115. feeriker says:

    innocentbystanderboston says:October 29, 2014 at 12:50 pm

    Regrettably, I’m compelled to agree with you on this. As proof, watch the behavior of the typical married “Christian” mom whose husband suddenly becomes unemployed. I guarantee you that the longer he stays unemployed (and no matter how dedicated he is in his search for new work), the more overtly contemptuous of him she will become – no matter how strong his headship is otherwise within the home in other areas.

    Simply stated, the wife’s “faith” ain’t gonna overcome her biological hardwiring that makes her view her husband as a provider first and foremost (exceptions? Sure. After all, Christy Brinkley was married to Billy Joel, right? Oh wait a minute; that was all about the money too. Never mind).

    So no, the odds of any wives ever seeing any value in their husbands as anything other than wallets with penises is about the same as those of dying from a rattlesnake bite: it happens, but is such a rare event as to be statistically meaningless.

  116. Escoffier says:

    “people in the ancient world died around age 30”

    This is sort of true, but misleading.

    The Bible famously says “three score and ten.” As best as demographers can determine, overall life expentancy for classical Greece and Rome was 25-30. But that’s because of the spectacularly high infant mortality rate and deaths from childhood diseases which they had no idea how to treat. If you made it to age ten, your life expectancy was about 50. Part of that low rate was the very high chance of being killed in war (either because you got drafted, or you happened to be one of the unlucky ones working your farm when the raiding parties came). If you could avoid that, and not get really sick, you could make it to 70.

  117. Boxer says:

    The single-mother explosion is created a two-tier male population that makes AF/BB easier, as the male children of single mothers will either be thugs/criminals (AF) or manginas (eager BB). Thus, splitting the man into two specialized subspecies is the goal here.

    This leads me to wonder if, as AF men are easily enslaved by BB men, in prisons or work camps, it won’t be a beneficial strategy for a chosen few over the long term.

  118. Larry J says:

    At least here in the US, society does treat widows with minor children differently from other single mothers. For one thing, the qualify for Social Security survivor benefits until the last child turns 18. The children also get SS checks each month. If they go to college, they continue to get the checks until they’re 22. Divorcees and baby mommas don’t get those benefits. Perhaps I should shut up to avoid giving them the idea of demanding equal treatment.

  119. Tam the Bam says:

    Cail “a lot of fatherless homes because a huge war killed off half the men, that would be a mess too if women were allowed to run feral”
    Did happen once, in the Northern towns of England the rate was pretty steep during WW1, and one of my greatgrandmas, having five kids, wasn’t about to lose her war widow’s pension over a bit of ‘ow’s yer father (near on fourteen bob a week, with maybe five bob extra per kid I think, not means-tested). Lose pension>workhouse or nearest equivalent>kids in a Barnardo’s or Quarrier’s. Horrible.
    Too damn’ busy anyroad, and mercifully in those days you could be earning at least something by the time you were 12 or 14. Off t’mill with yer, along with mam and the aunties, or it’s bread and dripping for breakfast, dinner and tea. Half the town was in the same state, and every place round about.

    Can’t even begin to imagine what it was like in France or Germany or Russia. “We” got off fairly lightly.

    Like Lyn87 says, incentives ..
    .. including hordes of spiteful or drink-loosened workmates and neighbours living under, around and over you, and always someone only too eager to grass you up to the Army Council board.
    So not too much of the feral. There was literally nowhere to go and screw in secret, not even the coal ‘ole, not even if they went as far as .. Morecambe, or Blackpool. Landladies were forever on the qui vive? for hanky-panky. Anyway what would you do with the kids? Cost a fortune it would.

    http://sure.sunderland.ac.uk/3327/
    “One widow is representative of the sizeable group of women who had their pensions stopped because of ‘improper’ behaviour, the correspondence in her file revealing how discourses of morality, social welfare and national identity are employed interdiscursively to deny her State funds.”
    (Yes, dredged in pomospeak, it’s Mackem Uni)

  120. Lyn87 says:

    Boxer,

    I think you’re arguing with MRS IBB, or (if he’s really only one person as he claims to be) the female persona IBB occasionally adopts. The fact is that, whether it’s the wife or the female persona, the argument is coming from a hostile female perspective, so when you question whether he/she is arguing from good faith, the answer is no.

    We’ve been over this plenty of times: IBB simply wishes to subordinate the sacrament of marriage to the secular state. There’s just no other way to put it. Of course you’re correct that determining bastardy for purposes of charity doesn’t require state licensure, because charity doesn’t require state licensure. It is properly the responsibility of individuals and private organizations (like churches), who can perform whatever level of investigation they deem appropriate to satisfy themselves that the intended recipient meets their standards for aid.

    IBB wants to put the secular state in charge of both marriage and alms-giving. The former has led to abominations like “Gay Marriage” and “No-Fault Divorce,” and the latter has resulted in trillions of tax dollars spent on social programs that have made things immeasurably worse.

    Government is supposed to work for us, and I’ve never had to ask permission from a subordinate to do something within the scope of my authority. Most men understand that if you give power and resources to a subordinate who screws up royally all the time, the solution is to fire him or at least retrain him, not give him even more power and resources.

    Most people only “throw good money after bad” for family (and even then it may have a limit). But if government is your husband, then the government is your family. And as long as the money being thrown at government is coming from taxpayers, IBB seems willing to keep feeding it. I wonder what that means…(?)

  121. Anonymous Reader says:

    Cail, Lyn87, help me out on an issue of reality. A man I know, some time co-worker, is an officer in a church. One or two times a year he leads a group of men and some of the high school students on a work project: handyman / weatherizing type work on the dwellings of certain people. Usually it’s the “widows”. Yeah, scare quotes, because the group includes at least one genuine widow (I went to the funeral, I”m sure), several women who never married (spinster nurses, schoolteachers, etc.) and “women who never married but have one or more children”, i.e. single mothers. Also a divorcee but her children have long since left. Most of these women are over 55, some over 60. A couple are not.

    This is what his leadership has told him: “Treat all the unmarried women as widows”. Full stop. The denomination would be considered conservative, there are no women preachers, and any young women that go on the fixit day are clearly under supervision of men. So it isn’t a squishy outfit.

    What should he do? His work crew does seasonal yard work, cleans screens and gutters, patches roofs, has done light plumbing, a little light electrical, repaired fences, replaced doors, and so forth. It isn’t busy work. It’s a real help to the women with no man in the house, for whatever reason. But it gripes him to treat the woman with the bastard child the same as the woman whose husband died after a couple of years of cancer, for the obvious reason that one chose and one did not, as well as the way he reads the Bible. But he’s been told what to do, and he does it without grumbling to his leadership, or his work crew (saves that for me sometimes).

    What should he do? By his actions he is approving of babymomma-life, elevating a choice mommy or three to the same level as a woman who still grieves for the father of her children. But he doesn’t see any way to differentiate between the unmarried women he’s sent to help without being cruel to some, and disobeying what he’s been instructed to do.

    Concrete example time. A man is in a conservative denomination, has some authority and responsibility, is told to do something that on the one hand is merciful but on the other hand is a de facto reward for bad behavior or in Bible terms, sin.

    Discuss.

  122. Boxer says:

    Dear Lyn87:

    That’s a really good point. The problem I have with IBB’s solution is that it only gives the secular state half the power it needs, to really regulate the social sphere for which it is responsible.

    I wonder if IBB has an opinion of life in other secular countries? In the USSR, for example, multiple babymamas were regularly arrested. Often the police would come down to the hospital and round up unwed skank-ho mama after she had recovered from the birth, and send her immediately to trial for wasting social welfare funds. She generally got all her kids (not just the latest one) taken away from her, to be adopted out by families with better values, and she got a few months thinking about social responsibility in the jailhouse.

    China is another good example. Single mothers there are taxed today, to make up for the public monies that are squandered trying to raise up their bastards. I haven’t heard of them going to jail, but it is common to have the police round up Chinese skank-ho babymamas and take them to a clinic, where they are sterilized without any consent, so they can’t keep burning through welfare monies with their irresponsible behavior.

    If the state is expected to fund welfare, then it really needs the power to correct the worst abusers of it. Wouldn’t you say, IBB?

    Boxer

  123. Tam the Bam says:

    AR, your pal has reinvented the Welfare State, out of the same altruistic and charitable impulses.
    One size fits all. Don’t worry, it’s on the house/treasury.

  124. Anonymous Reader says:

    Tam ye Bam
    Did happen once, in the Northern towns of England the rate was pretty steep during WW1,

    A friend of mine did a bit of touring in England back 10 or so years ago. He has some images taken in a few smaller town churches of stained glass windows and such. A few of them are really stunning, the images of war memorial plaques in some churches. Close ups show the names; some families lost every single male between 16 and 50, some towns seem to have lost 80% or more of the 18 – 30 year old men. How much more? Maybe 100%, in some cases where a lot of mates signed up at the same time, went to the same unit, got sent forward against the same machineguns.

    There was a term in the 1920’s, I”m told, “Haig widow”. Rather a bitter one, that, but accurate.

  125. Anonymous Reader says:

    Forgot this bit:
    Tam ye Bam
    Can’t even begin to imagine what it was like in France or Germany or Russia.

    Germany encouraged soldiers, not just officers but enlisted men too, to spend a month at home once in a while, for most of the war. So German birth rates appear to have not dropped as much as those of France and England during WW I. The French being the French, I suspect that without much work one could uncover evidence of soft polygamy in the 1920’s in parts of the country affected by La Guerre, and not just Paris.

    Russia’s situation can’t even be guessed at. Between incredible blunders in 1914 and 1915, and the subsequent civil war(s) there’s not much of a way to guess what it was like but after 7 or so years of war, there was a shortage of people and not just men, surely.

  126. John Nesteutes says:

    @Anonymous Reader

    The problem is that your friend’s church is not scriptural, and not really “conservative” either, unless we redefine conservative to mean “whatever was liberal and feminist 20 years ago”.

    Advise him to seek a church which excommunicates any woman (or person) who files for divorce. Advise him to seek a church which adjudicates very carefully any woman who physically separates from her husband. (Acceptable: husband is under church discipline and has displayed no repentance for behaviours of adultery, wife/child beating, drug/alcohol use. Not acceptable: virtually anything else.)

    Incidentally, we often build houses for women whose husbands run off with a younger, prettier model. Since we don’t believe in filing civil suits at law, our abandoned wives often don’t get much help for child support or alimony. We, as the church, step in to provide instead.

  127. James K says:

    (Off Topic)

    Q: What kind of public disclosure most upsets the social order?

    A: In some countries, the truth about the extent of bribery and corruption. In others, the fact that young single women of good reputation have sex. A lot of sex, with multiple partners. This truth is so dangerous that it must be suppressed at all costs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2812844/Facebook-page-details-sexual-exploits-young-women-Prague-sparks-outrage.html

  128. Lyn87 says:

    AR,

    If I were that guy I would quietly tell the leadership that they’re violating scripture. Christians are not called to throw themselves at every problem willy-nilly, and there are times when the Bible tells us that the church is to NOT interfere (see below). God understands “enabling behavior” just fine. This isn’t even a particularly ambiguous area – even actual widows had to qualify for assistance from the church, and the list of qualifications was pretty strict.

    I would point him to this link for starters, as it lists and explains pretty much everything the New Testament says about this topic from a theologically conservative viewpoint, with reference to the underlying themes from the Old Testament. Especially significant is the section about “The Honorable Widow.” (Remind him that much of the NT scripture deals with the ministry of assisting widows, as opposed to individual acts. I think it is worthwhile and valid to differentiate between the two.)

    But since the Biblical qualifications are in place, it seems unlikely that any “choice mommy” could ever met them. That’s not to say that individuals within the church could not assist a young woman who had screwed up her life as they are led by the Spirit – but that an organized ministry of the church to help women without husbands should follow the model that is laid out in detail in scripture. There are reasons why there were restrictions on such ministries in the Bible, and including baby-mommas seems to undermine the purpose for which such ministries are commanded to exist.

    If I found myself in such a situation I would probably assist in the ministry to help real widows with the requisite qualifications, and decline to participate in organized events for the other women, although I would offer assistance on an individual basis if I felt that God was leading me to do so. These women and their children are not to be shunned – we all come the cross with our sin and they are to be edified like any other believer – but the church should be vary wary of extending the widow’s ministry to women who are single mothers because of their own choices.

  129. Boxer,

    If the state is expected to fund welfare, then it really needs the power to correct the worst abusers of it. Wouldn’t you say, IBB?

    Of course. But I would argue that the worst abusers of it are smarter than you at abusing the system (because that is THEIR world, not yours) and they will find ways to “game it” were it not for government sanctioning the marriage. And even then, they might still find a way. This is ripe with corruption and fraud. And we all pay for it.

  130. How many of these girls are being raised by a single mother? (NSFW, language):

  131. The shit women have to put up with….. lol.

  132. TFH,

    As the thug/AF guys and manginas become the only two types of men, society grinds to a halt, as neither type does the useful work that keeps society running (most manginas are not private-sector successes).

    If there is one common theme amongst all this, it is that women really want to eradicate the men who do the useful, productive work that keeps civilization running.

    Not quite. Close but not quite.

    Women (that can get laid) that do not respect male headship really want to turn the beta male men who do the useful, productive work that keeps civilization running into genderless mules. They don’t want to f-ck them and most certainly do NOT want those men to try and f-ck them or anyone (hence all the law changes about sex and “consent”), they just want them to do all the real work and be mules. And then die quickly when they are of no further use.

    They want to f-ck the alpha thug because of butt and gina tingle. That is important. But the alpha thug is not as smart as the mule, can’t produce that much in resources (certainly not as much as the beta mule does.) So they want the alpha thug to sire all her children while at the same time, keep the beta-bux mules around to provide the wallet necessary to either keep her and her offsprign sired by the alpha thug in the married lifestyle that she thinks she is entitled (without having sex with him) OR she just wants all the productivity of the beta-male mule to be confiscted by government in the way of bachelor taxes (such as the Affordable Care Act) to be redistributed to her and other women like her (possible single moms who very much enjoy alpha thug dick.)

    Remember the prime directive here is provisioning for her and her thug offspring. Who best to do that? Whom shall we tax? Can’t tax the alpha male, he produces nothing. So they need mules. Which is why mules that become MGTOW who refuse to do ANY taxable work is the worst possible outcome. She would just as soon as have them lined up against a wall and shot in the head.

  133. Boxer says:

    Of course. But I would argue that the worst abusers of it are smarter than you at abusing the system (because that is THEIR world, not yours) and they will find ways to “game it” were it not for government sanctioning the marriage.

    This is typical CONservative defeatist stuff that I don’t have much sympathy for. You sound like George Will, arguing that banning airline flights from Ebolaland is a bad idea because “they’ll just find another way to sneak in”. (Yes, of course, West Africans are people of unlimited time, money and resources, I’m sure they’ll hijack a space shuttle or something. Singe moms? Same, same. They’ll find some way to get on the welfare rolls, so we’d best not even try to weed out the bad apples.)

    And even then, they might still find a way. This is ripe with corruption and fraud. And we all pay for it.

    I would argue that a healthy society has a positive duty to enact reasonable checks against corruption and fraud, even if they aren’t perfectly effective. I guess we’re talking past each other, at this point, though.

    Best, Boxer

  134. Boxer says:

    How many of these girls are being raised by a single mother? (NSFW, language)

    Sadly, I don’t think your typical single mom on welfare has the money or discipline to send these kids to lessons, much less keep them on track for even a minimal production like this one.

    I know married SWPL couples who are just as likely to brainwarp their kids with nonsense like this. My guess is that the little black chickie has been adopted by a couple of White liberal college professors who are doing their utmost to turn her into the feminist skanks they celebrate on campus. The others are probably being raised by a mixture of lesbians, cuckold fetishists, SWPL goofballs, and single moms with corporate jobs, who have the money to send their kids on nonsensical “acting gigs” like this one.

    The rot runs deep.

    Boxer

  135. Tam the Bam says:

    Eh? Excessively plain provincial jewish “actress” complains about being chi-iked by Enormously Fat Old Black Doleys? Including at least one obvious jakey (alloy walking-cane/untied newish timberland boots/can of brew). Hell, those guys even proposition me. And mailboxes too, and pigeons …
    Cool sample, sis.

  136. craig says:

    AR writes: “What should he do? By his actions he is approving of babymomma-life, elevating a choice mommy or three to the same level as a woman who still grieves for the father of her children. But he doesn’t see any way to differentiate between the unmarried women he’s sent to help without being cruel to some, and disobeying what he’s been instructed to do.”

    He should resign from this effort, cite the reason, and tell anyone who berates him that it is his decision as to what charitable causes best deserve his time, talent, and treasure.

  137. Tam the Bam says:

    I was banging on about the Wail link from FH upstairs there.

  138. John Nesteutes says:

    I would like to see IBB propose, just once, a solution that doesn’t involve significant change to the state.

    The church started under Nero. IBB would throw up his/her hands and state, “Well, no point trying – we’ll just get martyred anyway. I’m not sure being a pagan is that bad, is it? Besides, The State says to do so and we have to obey whatever The State says!!”

  139. Boxer says:

    The church started under Nero. IBB would throw up his/her hands and state, “Well, no point trying – we’ll just get martyred anyway. I’m not sure being a pagan is that bad, is it? Besides, The State says to do so and we have to obey whatever The State says!!”

    That’s a lot of people these days, not just IBB. Many that should know better have this attitude. I suspect it’s a mask for moral laziness, the refusal to take a stand or make a decision is less dangerous than simply retreating into apathy, and moving on to watch the football game.

  140. TFH,

    You are attributing far too much cause-and-effect awareness to the average woman. Most of them have no grasp of, or curiosity regarding, what keeps a civilization running.

    Hmmmmmm….. (thinking) …. well…… no I think women are keenly aware of this thing, this ONE THING as to where the money comes from, and they base their decision making on that. Remember hypergamy is a woman’s morality.

    I’ve known entirely too many women who had alpha-fux boyfriends on the side who refused to divorce their beta-bux husband because he brought in the real money and she was afraid the judge would not give her the amount of alimony she wanted in family court. By the same token I have known about as many divorced women (a former wife of my brother-in-law being one of them) who had beta-bux alimony and child support payments who refused (under any circumstances) to re-marry the alpha-fux they now lived with as that would void their existing beta bux alimony checks. I tend to think that women’s sole awareness on cause-and-effect are specifically driven by outcomes to their access to money. I think the gender has that one part down cold.

  141. Pingback: Charity or Approval? | Cail Corishev

  142. John,

    I would like to see IBB propose, just once, a solution that doesn’t involve significant change to the state.

    Sadly, it is “the state” that has gotten us all into the terrible “state” we are now all in, that MUST change because it doesn’t work. And everything is getting worse. I would say the majority of the change that I would propose would be to UNDO much of what “the state” did.

  143. Boxer says:

    Sadly, it is “the state” that has gotten us all into the terrible “state” we are now all in, that MUST change because it doesn’t work. And everything is getting worse. I would say the majority of the change that I would propose would be to UNDO much of what “the state” did.

    I have my own state. I guess I haven’t ever thought to name it. People’s Republic of Boxer will do. It’s an absolute dictatorship, which starts at my front door. Very few people get tourist visas here, and they’re heavily screened up front.

    Of course, there are things I have to do: Patrol the border (a/k/a keep the outside of it in good condition) and pay some taxes. Otherwise, I have total freedom. If that’s ever too much for me, I guess I’ll go live in the forest someplace, but I’m pretty happy with the current arrangement.

    Most normal people should quit worrying about the state, and start concentrating on themselves and their families. Free your mind, your ass will follow.

  144. Joey says:

    Many of the baby mammas I know are objectionable, unpleasant drama queens and nuttier than a fruitcake. There are exceptions; God bless ’em, they’ve taken a wrong turn somewhere and they’re trying to pilot the ship alone now. As for most of the rest of them…

    I do not need to stigmatize them. Their crazy unpleasant stink wafts all about them. They warp the political scene and social policy and our religious faiths, and they tend to warp the little social scenes they are part of with the gravity of whining dramatics and butthurt over the missing boyfriend / husband / one night stand (always an “asshole”, you know… never knew there were so many bad bad dudes out there).

    For me to try to stigmatize them would only be piling on.

  145. Farm Boy says:

    I tend to think that women’s sole awareness on cause-and-effect are specifically driven by outcomes to their access to money.

    That is only semi-true. When they get mad, things may change. My BIL’s ex figured that she’d divorce him, get the kids, and a big monthly check from him. His lawyer suggested that he go for custody. This was unexpected by his wife and she went nuts. She acted so fruity that the judge had little choice but to give him custody. And she had to pay him child support from her small salary.

    After the divorce, she uses her half of the considerable assets to hire lawyers to challenge every thing that my BIL does. She blows through all of her money and starts to represent herself in court. A couple of contempt of court charges slowed her down some. Eventually all of the kids turned 18 and it was over.

    So for some women, revenge is more important than money.

  146. stringtheory says:

    Seems as this is the perfect forum and topic to solicit advice-

    A few months ago our family was on the subway. We were sitting down and a pregnant woman got on. Attorney, based on her attire and logo on her bag. She was obviously miffed that I refused to give up my seat despite my wife asking me to do so, so my wife made a big deal about being an example “for our boys” and gave up her seat to the woman and then apologized for my behavior. The woman sat down, glared at me, and I just gave her a slight smile and kept quiet. This caused a pretty big argument with my spouse later.

    This has come up again because my wife has asked that I help the next door neighbor with getting her storm doors on. She’s a young woman with a toddler who just frivorced her husband and he used to do the work…he was a carpenter or some other artisan. My wife wants me to set a good example for our kids.

    I’ve pretty much told our littles to treat our family members with “chivalry” for lack of a better term. I’m not sure my kids can really grasp my reasoning and struggle with how to set an example. Ideas?

  147. FarmBoy,

    So for some women, revenge is more important than money.

    Yes. YES!

    Absent any moral agency, you start to create your own morals. Irrational revenge towards all those whom they feel unjustly betrayed what they believed to be a moral certainty, becomes a moral imperative! Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned.

  148. Boxer says:

    String Theory:

    Your wife sounds like just the “strong, empowered, confident” woman to put those storm doors on herself. Remind her that feminism is about women helping women. The neighbour obviously doesn’t need a man, and neither should your wife.

    Let me know how this goes.

    Boxer

  149. Divorced women should be placed in mandatory DIY seminars till they’re 80.

  150. mikediver5 says:

    Larry J says:
    October 29, 2014 at 1:38 pm

    Let me set the record straight. I was the widower father of 4, all were16 and under, the youngest 3, when their mother died. As the single parent of minor children I got nothing from Social security myself. I was working and able bodied. I have heard that it is different for women, as social security was set up with the full intent of keeping mothers at home with their children. This is just another case of the patriarchy acting to give extra privilege to women. The children got survivor benefits until 18; those benefits continuing to 22, if the kids when to college, stopped being true more than 3 decades ago. I know it used to be true because when I went to college there were several women I knew that were only going to school to get their mother’s the benefit. Those days are long gone. My youngest two are 22 and 20 and in college. They, and I, are paying 100% of the way. Social Security is out of the picture the first of the month in which the kid turns 18.

    Let me add one other point as a single parent for many years, I don’t appreciate being lumped in with single mothers. Children of single father households have significantly better outcomes than single mother homes. The only households that produce better outcomes are those headed by married biological parents. I have six sisters, most of whom where single mothers for a significant part of their children’s’ lives. As we have all reached the point of having all adult children they are totally amazed at how well my children have turned out. Of course, this in comparison to how their children have done so the bar is set pretty low. One of my sisters had the decency and self-awareness to judge that her soon to be ex-husband was the better parent and gave up custody of her two children to him; she also paid CS. Those kids had a much better life due to her sacrifice. I respect her for that.

    As a single father due to widower hood let me add to the authors list of things I got sick of hearing. When I was first a widower I was constantly told how brave I was for raising my own children. What did these idiots think I would do otherwise; throw my children into the streets to fend for themselves? Our society really does believe that men are incapable of raising children. This is a complete turnaround from most of human history where it was assumed that the father was responsible for most of the child rearing after about age 5. This attitude changed sometime in the late 1800s. Only with extreme self-control did I stop myself from punching these idiots. But, what would have been the point; they would have remained idiots, only idiots with bruises.

    For the information of all it really was not hard to raise children on your own. My mother was the mother of 7, and responded to those who said she had such a hard row to hoe with, it doesn’t take any more to raise 7 than it does to raise 1; just 100% of everything you have. My attitude was the same; my kids got 100% of what I had to give them, married or single. They lost out on a mother’s contribution, but there is nothing I could do about that. The difference between Paul’s prescription to young widows to re-marry, and the absence of such advice to young widowers, is that most women are unable to love step children as their own, while most men can. I tried and found this out the hard way. If you want to argue the point, don’t do it with me; bitter experience has closed my mind on this issue.

  151. mikediver5 says:

    Boxer says:
    October 29, 2014 at 2:02 pm

    I have argued for years that single motherhood is child abuse. All baby mamas should have all their children removed from their custody, permanently, and they should be sterilized. I like the justifications used by the Stalinists and the Maoists, but I can come up with my own if needs be.

  152. greyghost says:

    Boxer

    Sadly, I don’t think your typical single mom on welfare has the money or discipline to send these kids to lessons, much less keep them on track for even a minimal production like this one.

    That was first world talking point production. Only privileged class spoiled brats make a production like that. As soon as that Chinese bank gets big enough and established enough to allow the Asians to go off the dollar for international trade we will see how that bratty production looks.

  153. Just Saying says:

    Your poor kids have to grow up without a positive male role model

    Something for which I am profoundly grateful – most of the women who share my bed all grew up without a strong “father” figure. So they look to me for approval of their actions – and I definitely approve when they are doing their best to keep me happy… And oh, so willing to do anything for that approval. Once upon a time, it saddened me – these days, I just enjoy it for all it’s worth. Not that long ago I actually gave one of my past lovers away at her wedding – of course my payment was to enjoy some loving attention the night before. But hey, it was a mutually beneficial arrangement. It wasn’t like the groom didn’t know what he was getting…

    Without all of those single mothers out their bringing up little girls who crave a “father figure”, my sex life wouldn’t be nearly as much fun. So to all of the single mothers out there – THANK YOU! Of course, the really great thing is that I could shout it from the roof-tops and women will keep delivering their daughters to my bed. Being male, it just get better and better the older you get…🙂 More money, and many more toys – especially the little girls… Yummy…

  154. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 11:18 am:

    Apologies! In hindsight my post wasn’t appropriate; you should delete it, if only so the trolls can’t find easy bait here. I’ll be more careful.

  155. This has come up again because my wife has asked that I help the next door neighbor with getting her storm doors on. She’s a young woman with a toddler who just frivorced her husband and he used to do the work…he was a carpenter or some other artisan.

    How ugly is this woman? Maybe you should stare at her ass and lick your lips when she’s around, and see if your wife changes her mind.

    Seriously, have women lost all basic self-preservation impulse? Women used to know that you didn’t let your husband go do some sweaty, manly work for the unmarried young thing next door. They didn’t even have to be taught that; it’s common sense.

  156. greyghost says:

    stringtheory
    I got this. You handled the subway thing perfectly. It was not your place to please some bitch and your boys got the perfect lesson. Outstanding especially the part about the wife getting up for the knocked up honey.
    The second case with the neighbor. best response would be “Is that your kid?” Well you need to get that kids father to hang them doors. Didn’t you just get divorced? Take some of that CS money and higher a husband for the day or start fucking a handy man” That is the perfect responds. Explain that to your wife and kids too. Little dread of reality never hurt marriage and helps the boys to know not to waste commitment on just any bitch out of her entitlement. Their mom gets that because she is a wife. Stay hard and never go soft. And save the good stuff for your wife and make sure your boys understand that she is treated well by you because she is a wife and not some bitch you have been fucking.

  157. greyghost says:

    Just Saying
    I like your attitude. The best correction for a mad world is a sexually active MGTOW.

    BTW TFH I wonder how that guy in Canada the surrogacy MGTOW/family single dad and his child is doing. I wonder if his kid has robbed a store (or fucking someone that does the same) yet.

  158. TWS says:

    Widows have very different outcomes with their daughters for sure than ‘single mothers’. Harpending wrote about research he did. Sailer has made some of the same observations, especially regarding the way widow has fallen out of use due to the rise of bastardy. Having widows separated from never marrieds makes the never marrieds feel bad because well they should. They slutted around and got caught.

  159. greyghost says:

    mikediver5
    Outstanding I don’t see why I catch so much from the MGTOW/family man surrogacy thing. You said it, men raised children ( I fully believe that) mothers are comforting helpers if she will allow herself to be comforting. Mothers and the feminine imperative are the only thing keeping that from being known. Because the actual results show father does know best.

  160. Cane Caldo says:

    @AR

    But he’s been told what to do, and he does it without grumbling to his leadership

    Your friend should address it with the leadership instead of gossiping to others while waiting for them to figure it out.

    @StringTheory

    A few months ago our family was on the subway. We were sitting down and a pregnant woman got on. Attorney, based on her attire and logo on her bag. She was obviously miffed that I refused to give up my seat despite my wife asking me to do so, so my wife made a big deal about being an example “for our boys” and gave up her seat to the woman and then apologized for my behavior. The woman sat down, glared at me, and I just gave her a slight smile and kept quiet. This caused a pretty big argument with my spouse later.

    This has come up again because my wife has asked that I help the next door neighbor with getting her storm doors on. She’s a young woman with a toddler who just frivorced her husband and he used to do the work…he was a carpenter or some other artisan. My wife wants me to set a good example for our kids.

    I’ve pretty much told our littles to treat our family members with “chivalry” for lack of a better term. I’m not sure my kids can really grasp my reasoning and struggle with how to set an example. Ideas?

    Your real problem is here: My wife wants me to set a good example for our kids. Those two situations aren’t the same except for the fact that in both cases your wife is operated under the delusion that her job is to raise and manage you. Understanding that you have allowed her to maintain this delusion either by ignorance or apathy, you should resolve to help your wife out by clearing away those clouds of delusion.

    Once you choose to fight then fight. At the first stop after my wife apologized to someone else for my behavior, I would have walked off the bus with my children in tow. If she opened her mouth in protest I would tell her she has lost the right to have her opinion heard by me until she apologized for her behavior and asked for my forgiveness. Public derision is unacceptable.

    In the second case of the frivorcing neighbor…resolve the first case first, and the second will take care of itself.

  161. Farm Boy says:

    A single father is not glorified, and does not receive government subsidy.

    I wonder which is more significant in terms of their dysfunction, the glorification or the subsidy.

  162. Farm Boy says:

    A single father is much more likely to know what values the kid needs to succeed

    So true. Not be able to exploit a V has that result.

  163. Farm Boy says:

    I help the next door neighbor with getting her storm doors on. She’s a young woman with a toddler who just frivorced her husband

    Of course your wife would want you to do it. “It’s for the children”.

  164. Gunner Q says:

    @Anonymous Reader,
    “But it gripes him to treat the woman with the bastard child the same as the woman whose husband died after a couple of years of cancer, for the obvious reason that one chose and one did not, as well as the way he reads the Bible.”

    If his conscience is bothering him then not only is he not to do it, but the church leadership is required by Paul to respect his conscience. He has Biblical reasons for being uneasy, too. Therefore, he should openly refuse to help the single mothers while performing the other work. If the church leadership shuts him down for that then it’s the leadership choosing to harm the legitimate widows, not him.

    Let me know if you need Bible references.

    TFH @ 4:32 pm:
    “The brain-gina interface of women is obsolete. Hence the love letters to serial killers (men who would have done well in 10,000 BC) and hatred for tech worker men (men who would have done poorly in 10,000 BC). ”

    I suspect serial killers weren’t any better for society in ancient Egypt than they are today… and the less dominant guys who just wanted to work & play were no less important.

    Sociopathy doesn’t make a man a better hunter, farmer or leader. It makes him a better thief, cuckold and murderer. The fact that women find sociopaths attractive despite the harm their kids will likely suffer is better proof for Christianity than evolution.

  165. Farm Boy says:

    “The brain-gina interface of women is obsolete. Hence the love letters to serial killers ”

    I suspect serial killers weren’t any better for society in ancient Egypt than they are today

    Maybe it is just a bug. An artifact that serves no useful purpose. Kind of like an appendix.

  166. Bluepillprofessor says:

    Maybe it is because women favor sex with thugs and killers which is what continues propagating this “bug.”

  167. SirHamster says:

    Kind of like an appendix.

    Losing the appendix has been linked to having more gastrointestinal disorders. It’s thought that it serves as a safe space for helpful gut bacteria.

    The concept of vestigial organs is an evolutionary myth based on an ignorance. “I don’t know what this part of a complex system of systems of systems does, so it must be useless.”

  168. ‘an overt, government subsidized ‘single mother’ has specifically removed not just the father, but all of the relatives who come with the father.’ wow.. never thought of it that way

  169. Farm Boy says:

    The brain-gina interface of women is obsolete

    I wonder if it can be cut…

  170. Bango Tango says:

    Even if there is “stigma” around being a single mother that will never stop women from reaching for the stars (5 minutes of alpha) and consequences be damned. As someone said earlier as long as women can vote they are the boss. If you’ve noticed the more advantages given women by the government the more oppressed they suddenly have become. They are still talking about the “wage disparity” that can be discredited in 5 seconds but these politicians can still say this shit with a straight face. A woman is basically never responsible for their choices if there is a man somewhere, anywhere in the picture. Women view men as potential molesters, dreamy cads, bad boy thugs or scenery. There is no way in hell women as a collective will ever change and with government guns backing them expect more Idiocracy on the way. It’s obvious this is why Muslim culture developed the way it did….duh. Too bad the Christians didn’t and don’t have the balls to put their women in check. Doh! Got birkahs?

  171. feeriker says:

    Seriously, have women lost all basic self-preservation impulse? Women used to know that you didn’t let your husband go do some sweaty, manly work for the unmarried young thing next door. They didn’t even have to be taught that; it’s common sense.

    “Common” sense ain’t anymore. When referencing the concept I’ve taken to putting a (?) after the adjective to denote that fact.

  172. BradA says:

    TFH,

    Any man who helps out a single mother and can be photographed doing such, is vulnerable to getting the ‘child-support’ judgement attached onto HIM.

    Can you provide some links for that?

  173. Exfernal says:

    @SirHamster
    So the current state with gaps in teeth diagrams for ruminants and elephants or lack of tail in primates happened overnight? Additional fingerbones for solipeds and so on?

  174. Exfernal says:

    ^ Aren’t additional fingerbones for solipeds vestigial?

  175. MarcusD says:

    Denmark’s school sex education programme has been so successful the collapsing birth rate is “approaching epidemic” levels, and children will now be taught how to successfully reproduce at school, and encouraged to have children younger to save the Danish people.

    The number of Danes born every year is steadily dropping as couples have on average only 1.7 children between them, and a fifth of all couples will never have children. In 2012, only 57,916 new Danes were born, compared to more than 65,000 in 2008.

    Although the total population is continuing to rise, this is because of significant immigration inflating figures, and expensive fertility treatment for older couples, which now accounts for one tenth of all born. Today, only 89 percent of Denmark’s population is considered ‘Danish’ by the Government, and over half of immigrant residents are from outside the EU.

    The Danish government is concerned that if present trends continue the population will collapse and is attempting to stave off disaster by encouraging couples to have more children, younger. The new campaign in Danish schools flies in the face of previous ‘sex ed’ classes with their focus on avoiding pregnancy, as it will teach children their fertility will begin to decline in their twenties, and leaving starting a family until thirty is too late.

    A spokesman for the Danish Family Planning Association said: “When you look at sex education for the oldest students, it’s largely about how not to have children, so there is a focus on prevention, the use of contraceptives and the option of abortion. That means that young people lack knowledge on fertility and pregnancy.

    http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/10/29/Denmark-Sex-Education-Birthrate-Epidemic

  176. MarcusD says:

    Modern liberal “wedding”:

    (That’s Anthony Burch)

  177. Luke says:

    Hermit says:
    October 29, 2014 at 4:18 am

    “5. It’s shame. Kids really need both their parents. Would you say that to a single parent whose partner passed away?
    8. Your kids are going to have some serious relationship issues.”

    Yes I would say that also in case of a deceased parent. My father passed away when I was a kid, I had grandfathers, uncles and everything but this didn’t change the fact that I grow up as a gamma with relationship issues.
    The only difference I see is that in case of death it’s not the fault of the parents.

    There’s way more difference than that. Two examples.

    1) A widow probably wasn’t doing things terribly wrong. She certainly was in the appropriate life situation for raising children, for which she and her late husband get the credit. Example setting comes to mind…

    2) Not only does a widow very likely NOT have contempt on some level for all men (as a single mother almost certainly does). She is likely to proudly hold up her late husband and his values and the example he set with his life to her children (and any grandchildren). This is IMO the real reason that children of widowed mothers on average do much better in life than do bastards, regardless of money issues. (And, it’s NOT family money during growing up that makes bastards and to a lesser but still large degree divorce orphans end up badly; look at Sonny and Cher’s mental case daughter Chastity as an example.)

  178. Even if there is “stigma” around being a single mother that will never stop women from reaching for the stars (5 minutes of alpha) and consequences be damned.

    That’s simply not true. It used to stop them quite a bit. Not all women in all cases, but most women used to moderate their own behavior when there was a strong stigma regarding fornication and illegitimacy.

    Women, being weak and unable to protect themselves, actually respond very well to consequences; the problem today is that there aren’t any.

  179. Looking Glass says:

    Since we’re on the widows/baby momma split stuff, a few quick points, as I’m the son of a widow.

    1) Dad being dead is *hugely* differential. There’s no anger or acrimony among the family on the point.
    2) Dad’s Order still reigns: no joke. It’s rarely stated, but it’s still there. You have an positive image (sometimes, in my brother’s case, of a better Man than he actually was). It’s the James Dean Effect.
    3) People treat you with a lot more respect. The instant you drop “Dad’s dead”, things change.

    The hurdles that exist, though, are a little more subtle:

    1) Money, for a lot of people. In our case, since Mom married well, it wasn’t much of a problem.
    2) Married Women view your Mother as a weird threat: it’s different than a baby-momma threat. There’s a passive level of unease as she’s a Woman that’s available and its not wrong for her to find another Man. (This one took some reflection on my childhood to finally understand)
    3) Grieving the loss is a long term process. Especially for children. You grieve the loss at each juncture of life.
    4) Your mother never completely moves passed. My Father was an Alpha (and physicist, I’ll let you work that out in your head), so my Mother is a true “Alpha Widow”. It’s rare these days, but she still misses him. Those are wounds that the scars don’t go away.
    5) You have to “invent” a Male Role Model role within your life. It took work, more than any child appreciates, but it’s doable. You just band together and get it done. The Lord is good, gracious and merciful. Something I try to remember every day.

  180. Dave says:

    Any man who helps out a single mother and can be photographed doing such, is vulnerable to getting the ‘child-support’ judgement attached onto HIM.

    Well, this must be a bit of an exaggeration, I suppose? Granted, America has some empty-headed judges who are too blinded by the feminist ideology to know what justice looks like. But this is over the top impossible. Let’s keep to facts, not sensationalism.

  181. greyghost says:

    Women, being weak and unable to protect themselves, actually respond very well to consequences; the problem today is that there aren’t any.

    The reason women go for cads and assholes is because they are covered. It is also the reason for no female moral agency. They don’t need it. When any one says women have no moral agency based on observation they ARE telling the truth.
    A man my size is physically capable of bench pressing 315 pounds, it requires that I work out and exercise to get there and I must continue to maintain it. Character is the same. When women are required to use good judgement (MGTOW does that) based on nobody coming to the rescue they get real virtuous. That natural wicked selfishness is a wonderful thing isn’t it?

  182. Dave, yes, it’s unlikely, but apparently it’s happened.

    But there are better reasons that a married man shouldn’t go help out the unmarried woman next door. All these are more likely than her hitting him up for child support based on the fact that he unclogged her toilet that one time:

    – She’s on the prowl for a new man, or just feeling lonely, and they end up in the sack.
    – Nothing happens, but he gets sweet on her and starts neglecting his wife and family.
    – Nothing happens, but she gossips that it does, in an attempt to break up his marriage or just cause general drama in her vicinity.
    – Nothing happens, but neighbors see him going over there and gossip, which causes him trouble.
    – Nothing happens, but his wife gets jealous (and yes, that can happen even if it was her idea) and it causes him grief.

    People used to understand that such situations are dangerous, regardless of whether anyone involved has evil intentions like charging an innocent man for child support. The best time to resist temptation is before you’re swimming in it.

  183. The reason women go for cads and assholes is because they are covered.

    Right. That’s another way of saying there are no consequences; whatever they do, someone will cover for them and make sure it comes out okay. (That’s not quite true, because laws and conventions can’t actually change reality, but it’s close enough that they mostly believe it is.)

    The point is, the “woe is us, nothing can stop these harlots” guy is wrong. A consequence like a stigma will change the behavior of women. Maybe they’ll still be attracted to cads, but if they know no one will cover for them if they sleep with one, they’ll be much more likely to restrain themselves.

    Our grandmothers wet themselves over guys like James Dean, but most of them didn’t go down to the bar and pick up their local version. Why not? Because there was a stigma, and they knew it could ruin their life. Now they think it won’t, and most of the time it doesn’t, at least not in a direct enough way for them to recognize.

  184. Bango Tango says:

    That’s simply not true. It used to stop them quite a bit. Not all women in all cases, but most women used to moderate their own behavior when there was a strong stigma regarding fornication and illegitimacy.

    Women, being weak and unable to protect themselves, actually respond very well to consequences; the problem today is that there aren’t any.

    If you read my full comment in context I said as long as women can vote right after saying stigma doesn’t matter to women. The fact is you can’t stigmatize women as long as they control the narrative by being able to vote and influence men with guns to set up the optimal sexual situation AF/BB for them. They’re not going to willingly give it up. EVER. Literally it’s like saying that IF the government paid for men’s optimal reproductive strategy and hired hookers or made rape legal with no stigma attached that men as a group would not fight to preserve it. Men as a group WOULD fight to preserve that and any man that said it was wrong or society would be better off by not doing that would be killed. Of course in reality you could never make rape legal because that goes against men’s basic evolved strategy of giving women what they want in order to reproduce.

    The only society that realistically comes close to reflecting men as a group’s optimal reproductive strategy is Muslim society where women have no say and are severely stigmatized and severely punished as a consequence for acting on their impulses. Surprisingly this works well for women in the long run because they are forced to deal with their hypergamy internally and not allowed to act it out in the real world and because women are social conformists they can take comfort in the fact that other women also have to deal with it unlike here where the impression every housewife has is there are all these women out there having alpha parties and living the life of a Bond girl. Some studies say that Muslim women are the happiest women in the world. I don’t know if that’s true or not…but what if it is? What are the implications of that?🙂

    The excuse women have always given that has allowed them to optimize their reproductive strategy and avoid consequences is by saying it will harm the innocent children and it’s “not their fault”. I have heard this so many f’ing times from liberals.This works well for them because it is in the immediate sense after the deed has been done, either partially or actually true. Of course over all in the long run children are absolutely devastated in this system of no consequences for irresponsible mothers as we know.

    Bottom line is women will not give up the chance at the alpha in a system where they can vote to avoid any severe negative consequences as a result of doing that. They could care less about you as a man or the Christian right “stigmatizing” them as bad. Men in the manosphere can pretend that stigma is changing and women will go right on chasing the alpha, voting for the goodies and the yes means yes laws and the government will keep providing it up to the point it collapses and only then might women feel some consequences, but at that point what difference will it make. We will all be screwed. Got birkahs?

  185. HawkandRock says:

    @MarcusD,

    Good gravy!! I challenge anyone to cite even a single redeeming thing in that fiasco. One single thing.

    These are the new American “adults.” The cultural decline over even the last 20 years is simply shocking. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around it.

    This country will not survive another 20 years in any form recognizable to anyone now over 40 nor does it deserve to. I’ll fight the good fight but I sincerely pity my children.

  186. Dalrock says:

    @Cail Corishev

    Even if there is “stigma” around being a single mother that will never stop women from reaching for the stars (5 minutes of alpha) and consequences be damned.

    That’s simply not true. It used to stop them quite a bit. Not all women in all cases, but most women used to moderate their own behavior when there was a strong stigma regarding fornication and illegitimacy.

    Women, being weak and unable to protect themselves, actually respond very well to consequences; the problem today is that there aren’t any.

    Even this isn’t correct. Not all women are responding the same way. Marriage rates and out of wedlock birth rates are very different when you look at class and education status. Nearly all college educated women still marry, and they have much lower divorce rates. Being a UMC baby mama doesn’t fly well, despite the Murphy Brown fantasy. The other UMC moms will all look at her as a failure, starting with the Lamaze class. Status is the force that holds today’s ex carousel riding UMC woman married to her child’s father, and what keeps her from getting knocked up out of wedlock. The problem is the forces in place today aren’t strong enough to hold all of society together. This is another case of the elites destroying order for lower classes and wondering what all of the fuss is about. It works just fine for them. Why can’t everyone just be like them?

    As you say incentives/consequences matter.

  187. The fact is you can’t stigmatize women as long as they control the narrative by being able to vote and influence men with guns to set up the optimal sexual situation AF/BB for them.

    Yes you can. Stigma is a social issue, not a political one. As Dalrock points out, it’s already coming back; you can tell by all the screeching in protest. I might even say it never totally went away; they just drowned it out for a while with careerism and day-care funding and you-go-girl cheering and colorful cell phones.

    I agree with you that women shouldn’t be allowed to vote, but saying we have to change that first is putting the cart so far before the horse he can’t even see it. The most traditional, hide-bound conservative people I know in real life, who are used to being called Nazis over their “extreme” right-wing beliefs, haven’t even considered that option.

    Stigmatization, on the other hand, can be applied anytime. You can do it in a small way today: if a woman expresses an opinion in your presence, calmly and confidently disagree with her and watch her scramble to reconcile the conflict. She may argue with you and try to change your opinion, but if you stay firm, it’ll bother her that you (in her mind now) think there’s something wrong with her.

    I doubt that it’s possible to take the vote away from women (or anyone) through the political process. (Has any democracy ever scaled back the vote, without crashing and being rebuilt from scratch?) But if that’s the goal — and I agree it’s a worthy goal — there are several steps that will have to happen first. Stigmatizing bad female behavior would have to be one of the early steps, because why would anyone even consider taking the vote away from people who can do no wrong?

  188. Gunner Q says:

    Dave @ 7:27 am:
    “Granted, America has some empty-headed judges who are too blinded by the feminist ideology to know what justice looks like. But this is over the top impossible. Let’s keep to facts, not sensationalism.”

    Read up on Gil Garcetti in Los Angeles. That puke was a women’s rights activist, extreme by Gloria Allred’s standards, whose crackdown on “deadbeat dads” resulted in the destruction of hundreds of innocent men. Under Garcetti, eighty percent of Los Angeles paternity judgments were assigned by default because the men named by single mothers were given only 30-day summons to contest parternity charges.

    Then Garcetti got elected to the Ethics Commission.

  189. Novaseeker says:

    This was unexpected by his wife and she went nuts. She acted so fruity that the judge had little choice but to give him custody. And she had to pay him child support from her small salary.

    After the divorce, she uses her half of the considerable assets to hire lawyers to challenge every thing that my BIL does. She blows through all of her money and starts to represent herself in court. A couple of contempt of court charges slowed her down some. Eventually all of the kids turned 18 and it was over.

    So for some women, revenge is more important than money.

    In that case it’s also because if that happens to a woman, her standing in the herd plummets to below zero. The reaction of other women to a woman who actually loses a custody battle is generally extremely negative — she basically becomes the equivalent of an axe-murderer, based on the idea that “she must be really, really messed up to have lost her kids like that”. So, having lost that precious social status with the herd, she has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by doing anything to reverse the situation and regain some of her intra-female respectability. Losing the kids like that is certainly a scarlet letter of large proportions on an intra-female basis.

  190. Novaseeker says:

    Even this isn’t correct. Not all women are responding the same way. Marriage rates and out of wedlock birth rates are very different when you look at class and education status. Nearly all college educated women still marry, and they have much lower divorce rates. Being a UMC baby mama doesn’t fly well, despite the Murphy Brown fantasy. The other UMC moms will all look at her as a failure, starting with the Lamaze class. Status is the force that holds today’s ex carousel riding UMC woman married to her child’s father, and what keeps her from getting knocked up out of wedlock. The problem is the forces in place today aren’t strong enough to hold all of society together. This is another case of the elites destroying order for lower classes and wondering what all of the fuss is about. It works just fine for them. Why can’t everyone just be like them?

    As you say incentives/consequences matter.

    Yep, exactly.

    Divorce rates are very low in the UMC/UMC+ because (1) social status hit on divorce and stigma is real (subtle, but real) and (2) most of these are in the category where losing the other big income would hurt lifestyle a lot even after CS (alimony not being that common because most of these are two high-powered, highly compensated spouses married to each other). And because these folks tend to be disproportionately bright, disciplined, future time-oriented and so on, married because they wanted to raise a family, and don’t like the stats about kids of divorced parents (which is also a large part of the stigma among UMCs — “why would they do that to their kids???”).

    So it works there. The problem is that it doesn’t work below the UMC level precisely because below that level people are bringing a different bag of tricks to the table, and there is less “there” there, in terms of the real cost of ending the marriage. Call it the difference between going from 120k to 60K plus CS as compared with the going from 400k to 200k plus CS. It’s just a much bigger lifestyle hit, in absolute terms, for the UMCs, and this also glues them together in a kind of golden handcuffs way. Also, they tend to pick spouses differently — like Sandberg suggests, they carousel a bit in the 20s and ten pick a very sensible husband around 30 and stick with him for the other reasons outlined. Below the UMC, the decision making is generally poorer, mate selection choices are poorer, and so on, so the approach doesn’t work that well. And the UMC/UMC+ have their heads in the sand about this, too, wondering why everyone can’t be like them (because … um…. they aren’t you, ok?).

  191. BradA says:

    TFH,

    Thanks for the links, though those all seem to imply other cases of cuckoldry. The one with the woman talking about suing the man who helped with childcare got mostly negative feedback.

    Though I agree it is a bad trend. I would be more concerned about false allegations given the state of society today.

    Dalrock,

    Your comments bring up an interesting thought: How dangerous is it to marry an UMC past carousel rider today? Is that a lower risk because of the other stigmas? Would that connection, if UMC status is maintained of course, be less risky?

  192. Cane Caldo says:

    @Nova

    So, having lost that precious social status with the herd, she has nothing to lose, and everything to gain by doing anything to reverse the situation and regain some of her intra-female respectability. Losing the kids like that is certainly a scarlet letter of large proportions on an intra-female basis.

    That’s probably thinking too hard about what you (we) see. A significant percentage of women have an emotional pain threshold that, beyond which, they don’t want anything more than to burn a brotha down. It’s not a misguided attempt to salvage, but a decided attempt to destroy. Dido, etc.

  193. Buck says:

    I agree that the only solutions left to save America are
    1) Red state secession
    or
    2) disenfranchise as many welfare/drug user/losers as possible.
    or both!

    This drug legalization could be just the thing. Simply say fine, you can do any drug you want, you simply cannot be a registered drug user and a voter too (to include prescription mood drugs, “mother’s helpers”). I guarantee you the losers will happily trade their right to vote for the right to get high. The side benefits; you dissolve the Democrat party, you fund Govt with drug taxes, you thin the herd of druggy losers by humoring their indulgence, you defund violent gangs. If science does its job you could lace the dope with mind and mood altering substances to control and track the druggy losers and sterilize them too via the drug conduit. Use their vice for a greater good, social Darwinism…allow stupid people to do stupid things and eliminate themselves and thus strengthen the gene pool!

  194. Dalrock says:

    @Novaseeker

    And because these folks tend to be disproportionately bright, disciplined, future time-oriented and so on, married because they wanted to raise a family, and don’t like the stats about kids of divorced parents (which is also a large part of the stigma among UMCs — “why would they do that to their kids???”).

    Exactly. People joke about how competitive UMC mothers are, fighting to get their kids into the right college prep preschool, the best tutors, etc. But the impact on the child’s life of which preschool he goes to is much smaller than mom deciding to toss a hand grenade into the family. There is no social research showing that not getting the best piano teacher dramatically raises the child’s chances of going to prison, etc. If they obsess over the small stuff in their competition with other moms to give their children the best, it only makes sense that creating (or allowing) a broken home is a massive failure in their intra-sexual competition.

    Plus, socially the divorced or never wed mom is an outsider. She isn’t part of the married mom club, and the other moms will forever find subtle ways to make this clear, even as said married moms read divorce fantasies on their kindle. We know from a slew of anecdotal accounts as well as the analysis of the Framingham data that following divorce the circle of friends is entirely reworked.

  195. Even this isn’t correct. Not all women are responding the same way.

    Good point. You can see how well women respond to consequences and stigma, because in the classes where the stigma is strongest and there are still (some) consequences for bad behavior, they’re better behaved. So we don’t even have to look back at our grandmothers; we can just look across the tracks.

  196. Dalrock says:

    @BradA

    Your comments bring up an interesting thought: How dangerous is it to marry an UMC past carousel rider today? Is that a lower risk because of the other stigmas? Would that connection, if UMC status is maintained of course, be less risky?

    It depends on how you define risk (and success). If not getting divorced is your only metric, UMC women are probably the best bet (with women who attended “some college” being the worst bet). Your marriage to that aging feminist ex carouseler (who may well not be attracted to you and view you with contempt) is very likely to be for life.

  197. mikediver5 says:

    Buck says:
    October 30, 2014 at 10:46 am

    I had not thought of it in those terms. I am in favor of most drug legalization, but only because the damage done by the war on drugs far exceeds any good it has done. I watched a history channel show about drugs in America and one of the talking heads was clearly in favor of legalization throughout the show. His final quote was, “If all the billions of dollars spent, and all the lives ruined, had resulted in a drug free country I would be all for it, but it hasn’t. Drugs are more readily available and cheaper on the street than ever before.” The kicker was that they ran the strip under this quote to show that he was a big wheel in drug enforcement for many years, now retired.

  198. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Many years ago, one of the Kennedy brothers got divorced. Based on his life later, there was probably grounds.

    Within months, his son was in trouble with drugs and the cops. Money is not an issue.

    THE GARBAGE GENERATION by Daniel Amneus should be available on line free. It is filled with the stats which show money is not an issue in those failed kids.

    ###
    @Pope/Popette in a recent encyclical:

    >>If the widow wanted benefits from the state (if benefits were even available), the state could contact the church she was married in to verify the records.

    There you go again turning marriage over to an institution which has shown it does not understand and cannot control marriage. The Mexicans’ Union Libre works very well when coupled with the Mexican family structure which pretty much eliminates the need for government funds in any significant quantity. It is very similar to the OT marriage.

    The best way to know if a couple is married is did they publicly declare themselves as married? Or, did their family do it for them? Period.

    Matrimony is a sacrament (thus from God) between a man and a woman. Also, period. Not between a man and a woman and the church, nor the government.

    ###
    Let me say again, I have done genealogy work on rural Mexico, and as a side issue put a couple years of death records, summarized, on a spreadsheet. In the 1870’s the average age of death varied from 8 in a smallpox year, to maybe 10 or more in a non-smallpox year. But, in every year, there were deaths of individuals over 90 years old. That is somewhat solid data, not conjecture.

    ###
    Actually, a woman need not be married to a deceased for her kids to get SS benefits. A newspaper article a few years ago reported SS officials that when a man dies, there are always women who come running forth claiming he was the father of her kids, to get SS.

  199. Honeycomb says:

    Some women find pleasure in being pregnant …

    http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2014/10/family_of_12_boys_wonders_will.html

    I love being pregnant. I’ve spent half my life being pregnant.Kateri Schwandt

    Great story.

  200. greyghost says:

    I like the talk on the influence of status. That is pure herd popularity. Kind of like watching “housewives of New Jersey”. Wicked selfishness also includes the need for status within their selected herd. Something to always keep in mind.

  201. Lyn87 says:

    Buck writes, “you can do any drug you want, you simply cannot be a registered drug user and a voter too…”

    I was thinking along those lines earlier today when I was reading a story about the pressure the Marines are facing to reduce the standards for females trying to pass the Infantry Officer’s Course, since none have made it past the initial cut. I hear feminists saying things like “Women can be as effective as men in combat” one second, then, “Women need special protections against DV because men are more capable of violence,” the next, then “Women can do anything men can do as well or better” a second after that. As we all know, feminism is about overturning the old social order that gave both men and women complimentary benefits and obligations. Feminism only considered male benefits and female obligations, while ignoring females benefits and male obligations, although by any rational measure men got the worst of the deal. But feminism seeks to – and has largely succeeded in – giving male benefits to females and eliminating female obligations. Under feminism, women get the rights of adults and the responsibilities and protections of children.

    I think the way to solve it would be to give people a choice at the age of majority (18 in most places). You could choose to be a Citizen or a Resident. A Citizen has all the rights that women have now and all the responsibilities that men have now – Citizens would be treated as adults. Residents would not have the same responsibilities as adults, but neither would they have the same rights. Want to vote, sign contracts, and have the right to initiate legal proceedings on your own behalf? No problem: just check the block marked “Citizen.” Pick up your draft registration right over there… and if you do something stupid while you’re drunk you can’t blame anyone else, cupcake… and if you do the crime you can’t claim diminished faculties – you have to do the time. You also won’t get Affirmative Action or set-asides… you’re an adult, and adults stand on their own two feet. Don’t want the responsibilities of citizenship? No problem: just check the box marked “Resident.” We won’t hold you to the same level of accountability as a Citizen, but you’ll forfeit your right to sign contracts, or initiate legal actions (including divorce) in your own name, have primary custody of minor children, or vote, though.

    A big part of our societal problem is that we let women have “Cafeteria Equality.” They can pick the parts of equality they like while reserving the right to climb back up on the pedestal whenever it suits them. In what other insane world could we have both female cops and the Duluth Model, for example?

    I suspect most men would choose to be Citizens and most women would choose to be Residents, which would solve most of the problem in an easy-peasy, non-patriarchal, “gender neutral” fashion that feminists would have to get behind or risk having their hypocrisy exposed even more than it already is. What’s not to like?

  202. greyghost says:

    Lyn87
    The equal rights amendment to the constitution actually had feminist against it because by constitutional law what you described as citizenship would by law be applied to all whether they wanted it or not. That would be bad ass to see in practice

  203. Lyn,

    I think the way to solve it would be to give people a choice at the age of majority (18 in most places). You could choose to be a Citizen or a Resident. A Citizen has all the rights that women have now and all the responsibilities that men have now – Citizens would be treated as adults. Residents would not have the same responsibilities as adults, but neither would they have the same rights. Want to vote, sign contracts, and have the right to initiate legal proceedings on your own behalf? No problem: just check the block marked “Citizen.” Pick up your draft registration right over there… and if you do something stupid while you’re drunk you can’t blame anyone else, cupcake… and if you do the crime you can’t claim diminished faculties – you have to do the time. You also won’t get Affirmative Action or set-asides… you’re an adult, and adults stand on their own two feet. Don’t want the responsibilities of citizenship? No problem: just check the box marked “Resident.” We won’t hold you to the same level of accountability as a Citizen, but you’ll forfeit your right to sign contracts, or initiate legal actions (including divorce) in your own name, have primary custody of minor children, or vote, though.

    This is excellent.

    Its a pipe dream that will never happen, but its excellent.

  204. myrealitie says:

    I think I am a little late to the party, but do you really believe shame is required to keep single mothers in check?

    Let’s recall the 1980’s/1990’s crack epidemic. It kind of petered out on it’s own when kids grew up seeing the demise of the adults in their neighborhoods. Now, this happened very quickly because the damage caused by crack addiction is much more fast and furious than the damage caused by single motherhood, but I still think we’ll see this happening in the coming years. In the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s it was hip and liberating to not need a man. Now, the tides are turning. We are all seeing the results of these choices, and it’s not pretty.

    Forceful cultural shaming is a very problematic mechanism. In my opinion the natural shaming that comes from letting people experiencing consequences is highly preferred. And yes, I am aware that the government shields women from consequences, and yes, that needs to change.

  205. I think I am a little late to the party, but do you really believe shame is required to keep single mothers in check?

    It is. But we don’t shame anymore.

    Its not just single motherhood, its everything. All the people that I know who welched on their mortgages, not one was shamed. Everyone they talked to (when I was in earshot) they said they understood. I didn’t. I chose not to associate with them. I wasn’t missed.

    Shame is required for a functioning, first world society. We don’t. That is why so many of our bedrock institutions are starting to crumble due to the unbareble weight.

  206. thedeti says:

    “Let’s recall the 1980’s/1990’s crack epidemic. It kind of petered out on it’s own when kids grew up seeing the demise of the adults in their neighborhoods.”

    No, the 1990s crack epidemic petered out when crystal meth took its place — cheaper, better, more available high.

  207. TFH,

    No UMC man is allowed to work less, even if the basic necessities of the family are met. The surplus goes not towards having more children (where it SHOULD go), but rather towards status symbols for the woman. Fancy cars, diamonds, and a more-expensive-than-necessary house take precedence over the man being allowed to work less and have lower stress. This is a massive resource misallocation, and quite misandric.

    I’d say most of that is true but I’d also say that much of that is predicated on the couple’s willingness to take their collectively hard-earned financial resources and fly under the radar. As for myself, I specifically ruled out more than 3 different girl friends from the wife-upgrade category because of their NEED to always keep up with the Jones’s. And how did I do this? I watched their spending habits and their behavior about their credit card debt. (That was my “fitness” test, a test they didn’t even know they were taking.)

    When I counsel young men about what to look for (red flags) in women as to who makes a good potential spouse vs one that you should run away from, a pretty good indicator is her liberal use of credit cards. Forget how much income she makes. Find out how much credit card debt she carried from month to month. If the balance is above zero but less than (say) $3000, I would call that a pink flag, something that he might want to change about her. If its more than $3000 bust still less than $15000, I would encourage him to tell her that maybe they need to talk about going their separate ways. If she would insist on knowing why, he can tell her but I would ask that he not reconsider his decision once he’s made it. Maybe he’ll help her realize that the only way she is entitled to that good man (the next man that comes along) is by changing her lifestyle? But she has to want to do that. If the credit card debt carried from month to month is over $25,000 (yes I have seen this) I usually counsel that young man to RUN AWAY and not even tell her what her problem is. She is pretty much beyond help.

    Massive credit card usage and massive monthly balances and credit card transfers is usually a pretty good single-girl lifestyle indicator that the man in question is signing up for marrying a misandric c-nt.

  208. Lyn87 says:

    I’m trying to reconcile two ideas in my head and could use some help. We know that divorce is much less uncommon in the UMC/UMC+, where the brides are mostly college graduates. We also know that a woman’s premarital sexual experience increases the chances that she’ll initiate divorce. We also talk about how so many college girls ride the carousel.

    Given that, it seems to me that the UMC/UMC+ divorce rate should be much higher than it is, since the women in that cohort are marrying late with high notch counts. What am I missing?

    The only thing I can think of is that the UMC/UMC+ girls aren’t riding the carousel as long or as hard as their low-rent sisters before they marry, and the “golden handcuffs” and social pressures do the rest. Is there data on this?

  209. greyghost says:

    The shame for single moms is not conventional. The shame is shows like Maury Polvich “you are not the father” Even thou Maury is a lap dog for the slut it is plain to see to all how messed up and a worthless burden she is.
    More and more black people are not defending it

    Charles Bartley made an awesome public statement on black education. The shame is coming slowly but surely

  210. Kiljoy says:

    I think I’ve read enough to know you guys are in great danger of losing ‘super sexy’ points… Why would you risk your ratings?

    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gPUUX1YsZUg

  211. Novaseeker says:

    Given that, it seems to me that the UMC/UMC+ divorce rate should be much higher than it is, since the women in that cohort are marrying late with high notch counts. What am I missing?

    The only thing I can think of is that the UMC/UMC+ girls aren’t riding the carousel as long or as hard as their low-rent sisters before they marry, and the “golden handcuffs” and social pressures do the rest. Is there data on this?

    The only data I have seen which may help is the data that suggests that the amount of education is also significant — that is, couples where both have advanced/professional degrees have the lowest rates of divorce, lower than two BAs, or one BA married to a tradesman (say, nurse and plumber) and so on. The higher you go, the more the impact seems to be.

    Personally I think that this reflects that the higher you go in terms of professional income/careers/education, the more you’re selecting a group of people who have higher discipline levels, more delayed gratification/time-orientation, less tolerance for/experience with failure, more determination and so on. Personality traits, in other words, which separate them from other people in general. All of these reduce the likelihood of a divorce, even though the marriages are late, and there are notch counts in play. It’s the total package of the people involved that makes a difference, and it makes more of a difference the higher you go (to a plateau point).

    I do think, though, that many in this group don’t hit the carousel as “hard”, as you say. Very few are massive party girls. Most will have done some serial monogamy, and maybe a ONS or two as “between guys”, and have a notch count of 5-10 depending on when they actually marry. And, again, when they do marry they tend to be very goal-oriented in the marriage as they are in other aspects of their life, with long-term financial, children-related and other goals that they are working towards.

    It’s hard to replicate this lower down the totem pole because the personality characteristics are less common. Not completely missing (there are couples who succeed there, too), but less common.

  212. myrealitie says:

    Lyn87 – Have you seen any evidence (beyond that dubious manosphere chart that goes around and that has no credibility) that there is a relationship between partner count and divorce for women? This is a VERY hard thing to measure because people lie in surveys…

    But in any event, I dispute that it’s true. As far as I can see, UMC women stay married because it is easier to stay married when money is not a point of contention and when the man you are married to is high status (attraction is higher) and also to retain their status as a married woman. Divorced UMC women have much less status in their circles than divorced middle class women do in theirs, even if they walk away with a great deal of money in the divorce.

  213. Novaseeker says:

    Because the low divorce rate is addressing women who are now in their 40s and 50s (they may not have ridden quite an expansive carousel back in the 80s and 90s, as slut culture was not quite as normalized). The modern college slut has a partner count that exceeds her age, and the divorce rate of this group cannot be measured for another 25 years.

    That’s possible, as well. It’s certainly true that the future of the YGG/GGW/hookup educated set is unclear at this point because it hasn’t happened yet. One of the interesting things to watch in years ahead is whether the UMC/+ rates of marriage start to decline and/or divorce rates start to spark up as more millenial UMC/+ hit the relevant age range.

  214. Lyn87,

    The only thing I can think of is that the UMC/UMC+ girls aren’t riding the carousel as long or as hard as their low-rent sisters before they marry, and the “golden handcuffs” and social pressures do the rest. Is there data on this?

    If I had to guess, it is based on the state in which they live. I always say, follow the money, it is always about the money. If it is a Western state (a community property state) where the alimony and wealth distribution is very easy to determine for a judge based on community property laws, then the UMC woman might be more inclined to divorce. On the East Coast or the upper-midwest where alimony is trending down (or going away entirely) it gets a bit dicier. Its riskier, especially if the husband is smart and willing to fight for the assets that he knows he paid for by him working (not her.)

  215. myrealitie says:

    I also very much agree with novaseeker’s points on the personality trait of conscientiousness as being an important explanatory factor.

  216. TFH,

    Most of what you say is true, but the silent misandry of the UMC and UMC+ is also unnoticed : the man is never, ever allowed to work less or take a lower-stress position if it pays less. The need for the wife to buy frivolous status symbols take precedence over any remote possibility of the husband scaling back (and spending more time with the kids).

    True. But I think much of this (maybe all of it) could be snuffed out by the clever young man if he fitness tests her on her credit card situation before the marriage 2.0 upgrade offer.

    If she is buying frivoulous status symbol bullsh-t NOW (as a young girl at mall) getting the latest swimwear, boots, nails done, best make-up, driving a leased Beamer at age 24, that is a pretty good indicator she doesn’t care about debt and will wind up being a c-nt of a wife. So be pre-emptive. Look for this things. Don’t just think with your dick. I know how difficult that is, I was a young horny man too, but I didn’t marry any one of these harpies that I see men in the manosphere complaining about. I did my homework.

    Some responsibility falls to the man. Be extra choosey who gets that ring.

  217. greyghost says:

    Part od the status of being Upper class is having that ring. I’m a married mother and Christian is huge. Remember the SAHM thing that was more of a social status thing on the caliber man they landed than some bullshit concern about the well being of the child. Much as the helicopter mom safety of my child thing going on now is not about raising a child but about showing how much a better mother she is than the next cow. Being married to a man of means allows them to enjoy being bitches with out the stress of working . My wife likes watching the real housewives shows with those UMC bitches and their chump husbands financing this foolishness. All those women do is set up lunches and gatherings at each others house and argue with each other for position in the herd. A divorce means they don’t get to play. To them that shit is big time serious

  218. thedeti says:

    “Given that, it seems to me that the UMC/UMC+ divorce rate should be much higher than it is, since the women in that cohort are marrying late with high notch counts. What am I missing?”

    TFH had a good bead on this. But I’m not so sure that I’d expect higher divorce rates among the UMC on up. Nova pointed out that the UMC and up cohort usually are college educated and have other indicia that they’ll pick one and stick with him. One is future time orientation. UMC on up, men and women both, have a mentality of long range planning, risk benefit analysis, and lack of impulsivity. If they have kids, and most of them do, they are extremely heavily invested in their kids.

    Another is asset accumulation. UMCers and the “rich” have a lot more to lose if there’s a divorce. Another is social stigma, especially for the women (the men not so much). A UMC on up woman takes a big status hit if she gets divorced. Everyone in the social scene will know the reasons for the divorce (both the real ones and the stated ones).

    And another is that because of all that, UMC on up folks tend to mate more assortatively based on SMV and MMV, from my observation. A 6 woman really does get a 7 or 8 man. And she knows deep down that she’s done the best she can, she probably would not have been able to do any better, and she could have done much worse.

    The last thing I surmise about this group is that all of the above doesn’t mean these people necessarily have happier marriages or better sex lives merely from outward looks. I’m sure they have the same issues and problems anyone else does – lack of attraction, waxing and waning sex lives, life stressors, alpha widowhood, etc. But outward appearances matter very, very much to this set. This set also realizes that the fact of the father/mother union, and the continuation of that union, really do bring short and long term benefits for themselves and the kids. Or, at least, a divorce would be much, much more painful and costly for everyone than even a bad marriage would be. And so, great effort is expended to maintain a sense or look of normalcy, decency and decorum, though there may be discontent or even turmoil beneath the surface.

    I’m not saying all of these marriages in the UMC on up are like this. What I am saying is that the mediocre ones and even some of the bad ones stay together for the sake of the kids, or to keep up appearances, or for material asset preservation. If there is cheating, it is done exceedingly discreetly and even if discovered results in divorce less frequently.

    If you’ve ever seen the movie “Ordinary People”, this is the kind of general mien and bearing I’m talking about. UMC to UC folks with the same kinds of problems that all people have, and a devastating accident resulting in the death of a child. But they do their very level best to stiff-upper-lip it through.

  219. Dalrock says:

    @Lyn87

    I’m trying to reconcile two ideas in my head and could use some help. We know that divorce is much less uncommon in the UMC/UMC+, where the brides are mostly college graduates. We also know that a woman’s premarital sexual experience increases the chances that she’ll initiate divorce. We also talk about how so many college girls ride the carousel.

    Given that, it seems to me that the UMC/UMC+ divorce rate should be much higher than it is, since the women in that cohort are marrying late with high notch counts. What am I missing?

    The only thing I can think of is that the UMC/UMC+ girls aren’t riding the carousel as long or as hard as their low-rent sisters before they marry, and the “golden handcuffs” and social pressures do the rest. Is there data on this?

    The low UMC divorce rate is despite their time on the carousel. It still harms them, but other forces keep the marriage together. Also, young women divorce at much higher rates than older women. So a UMC woman who marries at 30 not divorcing as often as a woman who marries younger isn’t that surprising. The woman who marries younger has more years to divorce, and is married during a much more tempting period of her life.

    But a big factor which is generally unspoken is IQ (it gets incorrectly buried with education). When the authors of The Bell Curve looked at divorce, they found that when you controlled for IQ, higher SES (Socio Economic Status) increased the risk for divorce. Higher IQ correlates strongly with future time orientation, conscientiousness, and altruism. I would also argue that having a social group made up of high achieving UMC women, the social culture will tend to discourage divorce (as I described above).

  220. thedeti says:

    Another thing one can see in the marriage union depicted in “Ordinary People” is that at one time, the two of them were very much in love. At the time of the events in the film, they’ve been married about 20 years and had two sons, one of them having just died in a boating accident. He still loves her and cares for her very much. He knows his wife is in pain but he has no idea what to do or how to help her. For her part, she seems to like her husband, but adopts a distant and cold attitude toward him for a lot of reasons that predated the elder son’s death. She allowed many resentments toward him (his parenting style, his aloofness at home; his work absences) to build up over time, damaging the marriage in the end to the point that it is likely unable to survive their son’s death.

  221. Larry J says:

    @mikediver5

    Thanks for the update. My father died 40 years ago. I know Social Security survivors benefits still exist but don’t know all of the rules. From your post, it sounds like you wife died about 19 years ago. My condolences, no matter how belated.

    Given the number of two income families, I’m a bit surprised (but not too much) that you didn’t get any survivor’s benefits for yourself. Did your wife work outside of the home? It’s possible that may make a difference. I honestly don’t know.

    It sounds like you did a good job raising your children. It isn’t easy with two parents but as you said, what choice did you have? Again, good job, sir.

  222. myrealitie says:

    @Dalrock – you make a very good point about a younger married woman being more likely to divorce because this period is a tempting period (lot’s of male attention), but i also argue that if she lacks experience this will be especially tempting. I know it’s not a popular view, but I do believe that anyone, man or woman, and when holding all else constant (IQ, SES, personality, etc). will tend to “outgrow” lots of partner switching and be inclined towards settling down.
    As a prototype, a woman who “rode the carousel” in college and then gets married at 30 to a high quality man is often just done with that prior period of her life and is less inclined to be tempted by it in the future. “Been there, done that.”

  223. Lyn87 says:

    Thanks for the responses.

    Since I’m typing now anyway, I’d like to address TFH’s point about women with notch counts in the 5-10 range:

    “Agreed, but this number is not low, in an absolute sense.

    Men have been inured into thinking that this number is acceptably low, simply due to the state of contemporary culture.”

    I agree 100%. The idea that any number higher than ZERO for a first-time bride is “acceptably low” is a failure of our culture. I was determined to marry a virgin: not a girl with a “few” notches on her bedpost… a virgin. I nearly dumped a girl who told me she had slept with ONE guy in college – and she was horrified by her own conduct (I broke up with her later anyway because I met someone I liked better – my then-future wife). A woman who is approaching double digits is not a “good girl who loves too much” or some such nonsense: she’s a slut, or perhaps a former one. I saved myself for marriage, but I didn’t save myself for a girl like that.

  224. Kiljoy says:

    Mind you.. And I apologise my last comment/link was a bit of a diversion and I don’t know much about Kasparian… and I’d say to her credit, she does allow a guest on a talk show to have the “last say” on the issue of the importance of a mother putting the child first here https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=a1Wm3UHxNJ0 At 20:00

  225. SirHamster says:

    @SirHamster
    So the current state with gaps in teeth diagrams for ruminants and elephants or lack of tail in primates happened overnight? Additional fingerbones for solipeds and so on?

    Lacking body parts that are present in a different animal are not examples of vestigial organs. It has to exist to be a “vestigial” organ.

    ^ Aren’t additional fingerbones for solipeds vestigial?

    They may serve no apparent purpose, but that is not the same as not having a purpose. Is the animal in better shape if you surgically remove those parts? If we can bio-engineer the “vestigial organs” out of an animal and improve its “fitness”, then I’ll believe the organs are actually useless. Note: Redundancy is not useless.

    The label of “vestigial” is based on ignorance. “I don’t know what this does. Must be a useless leftover from evolution.”

    Except, many examples of “useless” parts are not so useless after further study. It’s a wrong and outdated prediction from evolutionary science. Last debate I had with evolutionists, they disclaimed “vestigial organs” and “junk DNA”, so it’s amusing to still see these concepts floating in the wild.

  226. I think I am a little late to the party, but do you really believe shame is required to keep single mothers in check? [….] In my opinion the natural shaming that comes from letting people experiencing consequences is highly preferred.

    Shame IS a consequence, perhaps the most powerful one from a woman’s perspective. If a woman knows that the herd will ostracize her for an action, she’ll be likely to avoid it, even if it’s completely legal and won’t harm her financially. On the other hand, if an action will put her in the poorhouse but the herd is cheering her on, she’s more likely to go ahead.

    The ideal would be that she has to deal with all the consequences of her actions, but shaming is an important one of those. I’m not sure what you mean by “forceful cultural shaming,” unless you mean “I’m afraid someone will shame me.” We’re not talking about forcing anyone to shame anyone else.

    Again, the return of shame has to come first. Who’s going to vote to make life harder for single mothers if there’s nothing shameful about taking kids away from their father?

    (And no, the crack epidemic didn’t improve because people wised up; it improved because we threw loads of people in jail for using drugs. And because of the shift to meth and other drugs, like Deti said, though I don’t know how common meth is in former crack-heavy neighborhoods.)

  227. SirHamster says:

    To bring that tangent back to the overall discussion – what would happen if you could “surgically remove” the “brain-gina tingle” of the female sex? Do you end up with the equivalent of a eunuch?

    Is it innately a bad thing, or merely a corruption of the female sex drive?

  228. Farm Boy says:

    As a prototype, a woman who “rode the carousel” in college and then gets married at 30 to a high quality man is often just done with that prior period of her life and is less inclined to be tempted by it in the future. “Been there, done that.”

    “Been there, done that. And he just isn’t as good as Harley McGorgeous”

  229. Farm Boy says:

    what would happen if you could “surgically remove” the “brain-gina tingle” of the female sex?

    The world becomes a better place.

  230. As a prototype, a woman who “rode the carousel” in college and then gets married at 30 to a high quality man is often just done with that prior period of her life and is less inclined to be tempted by it in the future.

    Ah, another one who wants us to believe, despite all the evidence, that it’s a good thing for girls to ride the carousel for a few or a dozen years to get it out of their system. Myrealitie, meet IBB; IBB, meet Myrealitie. You guys should have lots to talk about.

    Just one question: why would that “high quality man” want to marry a 30-year-old with a couple dozen notches on her bedpost? Do you suppose he also drives a 12-year-old car that he bought when a rental place was done with it?

  231. myrealitie says:

    @Cail – this is not trivial, from my point of view. Shame restricts human potential, often causes lying (both to others and oneself), and instills a great deal of often unnecessary fear and discomfort even in innocents. I am not sure we would want to trade a shame free chaotic society for an orderly shame-filled one. The costs would be very high.

    I do concede though that a certain amount of social disapproval from bad decision making is appropriate. I guess I am distinguishing that from shame. In my mind, shaming is communicating that someone is completely unworthy and disgusting, where communicating that the person is not desirable to spend time with and low social status would be more than adequate.

  232. myrealitie says:

    @Cail – I don’t think riding the carousel is unequivocally better, but, like all things, it has plusses and minuses and is not the cause of divorces.

    A desirable UMC man, like someone above pointed out, is socialized to accept high “notch counts.” Men like this often find inexperienced girls odd and undesirable. Humans are very social and malleable, what can I say?

    If you prefer an inexperienced woman, I am not saying you shouldn’t. If your focus is religious conformity, this might be very important for you, and I wouldn’t try to convince you to stop caring.

    But if your focus is overall societal harmony, I don’t think this (casual sex early in one’s life) is the correct area of focus. Short sightedness, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of honoring of one’s commitments – these are the reasons that we have kids being raised in chaotic homes.

  233. Farm Boy says:

    Shame restricts human potential

    Yes it does. And this can be good. It might be used to restrict women such that their “slut potential” is never realized.

  234. Farm Boy says:

    I am not sure we would want to trade a shame free chaotic society for an orderly shame-filled one

    Lucky you. You wish is unfolding right before your eyes. Better yet — the situation will get even more chaotic.

  235. Farm Boy says:

    If you prefer an inexperienced woman, I am not saying you shouldn’t.

    It is not a question of skills, it is a question of her potential future loyalty.

  236. Lyn87 says:

    The costs would be very high.

    Really? As high as this?

    As high as the $17,800,000,000,000 we’ve accumulated in debt in the U.S. alone?

    As high as the cost paid by the children of divorce?

    I could go on, but after three links comments automatically go to moderation. If shame could get us to roll back the clock on the ways we deal with social problems, it would be cheap at 100 times the price.

  237. As a prototype, a woman who “rode the carousel” in college and then gets married at 30 to a high quality man is often just done with that prior period of her life and is less inclined to be tempted by it in the future.

    Oh, I can’t believe I forgot the best part of this bait and switch: since she’s “just done with” it, she won’t be tempted to have the nasty stuff with the “high quality man” she settles for either. That was part of a “prior period of her life,” which was really someone else. So not only does he get sloppy seconds, but he’s not allowed to heat them up before eating. What high quality man could resist?

    In my mind, shaming is communicating that someone is completely unworthy and disgusting,

    You should probably get some help with that, because that’s not what it means, and not what anyone here has indicated.

    If you prefer an inexperienced woman, I am not saying you shouldn’t.

    For someone who objects to shaming, that’s not a bad try.

  238. A desirable UMC man, like someone above pointed out, is socialized to accept high “notch counts.” Men like this often find inexperienced girls odd and undesirable.

    No they don’t. They tell you that when they’re trying to get you naked, because it makes you feel better about yourself and increases the odds of sex.

  239. myrealitie says:

    @Cail – your tone became nasty and condescending (and you ceased using actual logic) because I respectfully disagreed with you. I think I’ll continue on with my day now. Have a nice evening.

  240. SirHamster says:

    If you prefer an inexperienced woman, I am not saying you shouldn’t.

    Look, you could spend your money on a brand-spanking-new car, but it’ll be inexperienced.

    Come check out the used car lots.

  241. myrealitie says:

    He was not nasty and condescending? Really? When a person (and now this includes you also) become emotional and personal in arguments, it reveals an irrational and very rigid tie to a certain point of view. It’s not worth the effort to debate with someone coming from that place.

  242. myrealitie is a proven slut and slut apologist. Only a virgin is worth marrying, slutrealitie knows this. A virgin has got something to lose, whilst the slut has already given it away… she thinks that’s a positive… yea no, go fuck on someone else’s dime, slut.

  243. Once again, the disconnect between what a man might screw and what he might marry, rears its ugly head. Sluts, if that’s your thing, are for fucking not for marrying, no matter how many times feminists or slutrealitie try to tell us otherwise.

  244. Luke says:

    Myrealitie, if longtime posters here are condescending towards your posts, I suggest you need to make posts that have better premises and logic to them. Don’t expect respect for your posts that they don’t merit; we don’t “do” getting shamed into giving garbage thinking a charitable pass here.

  245. The Brass Cat says:

    Cail Corishev says:

    Stigmatization, on the other hand, can be applied anytime. You can do it in a small way today: if a woman expresses an opinion in your presence, calmly and confidently disagree with her and watch her scramble to reconcile the conflict. She may argue with you and try to change your opinion, but if you stay firm, it’ll bother her that you (in her mind now) think there’s something wrong with her.

    A stigma–social disapproval–will only influence women’s behavior when it is propagated by the Female Social Matrix. Women judge the rightness of their behavior by what the consensus-building FSM decides; the FSM enforces stigmas for women. If single-mommyhood is to be re-stigmatized the FSM will have to play a role.

    Men are largely unplugged from the FSM but we can influence it by vis-a-vis influencing the women in our lives. Voice your opinion on by-choice single moms. If you have influence you’ll get some women to do “soft stigmatization” such as declining to provide free babysitting. Through this action they are not enabling the lifestyle without outright denouncing it. The single mom in this example will have to look elsewhere for free babysitting thus spreading her burden onto additional people, sending a quiver through the FSM.

  246. The Brass Cat says:

    h/t to Ian Ironwood at The Red Pill Room for the FSM

  247. Bee says:

    A A 72,

    “THE GARBAGE GENERATION by Daniel Amneus should be available on line free. It is filled with the stats which show money is not an issue in those failed kids.”

    Here it is:

    http://www.fisheaters.com/garbagegeneration.html

    In addition to the stats he does a great job debunking promoters of matriarchal societies. He also exposes the flaws in George Gilder’s work on civilization.

    Another of his books:

    http://www.fathermag.com/news/Case_for_Father_Custody.pdf

  248. PokeSalad says:

    “Forceful cultural shaming is a very problematic mechanism. In my opinion the natural shaming that comes from letting people experiencing consequences is highly preferred. And yes, I am aware that the government shields women from consequences, and yes, that needs to change.”

    Welllllll, cultural shaming seems to have worked pretty well for smoking. In the course of a few decades, its gone from a commonplace activity across all classes and demographics to one looked upon as only being about one step removed from pedophilia.

  249. myrealitie says:

    @PokeSalad – people look down on smoking, but I personally haven’t heard anyone talk to a smoker the way some of the posters above talk to women who have a sexual history beyond their husband’s. So that was a nice illustration in the difference between something that people look down on and something that people shame (according to my working definition of “shame” I have no issue with public disapproval of an action.

    Shame is often used as a control mechanism for self gain or protection. This is another reason to be wary of it, in my view. I am sure the same people who took issue with my objection to shaming would defend men being shamed by women for playing video games instead of marrying and providing in the current legal climate, as an example.

  250. Slut, why you still here? Go away.

    Shaming sluts is right and proper and should be done by everyone with a working brain. Shame, name and devastate the slutted landscape. Sluts cannot bond, they don’t respect, they carry diseases, infest the policy making of government shifting it from production to welfare. They destroy children, marriage and the meaningfulness of life. They are a plague of parasites.

    Don’t marry them, don’t even give them money for a night out. Just shame them and then leave them to their own demise.

  251. Farm Boy says:

    I personally haven’t heard anyone talk to a smoker the way some of the posters above talk to women who have a sexual history beyond their husband’s.

    Perhaps there is a difference between adultery/formication and smoking a cigarette.

  252. Cane Caldo says:

    @Cail

    I’m not sure what you want to accomplish by speaking with MyReality, but if you want to get conservative-minded people on-board with letting consequences happen, or recognizing consequences then the idea MR vomited that needs to be addressed is this:

    Shame restricts human potential, often causes lying (both to others and oneself), and instills a great deal of often unnecessary fear and discomfort even in innocents.

    Shame doesn’t cause lying. Liars cause lying.

  253. Farm Boy says:

    Shame is often used as a control mechanism

    Indeed. For example, sluts are bad for society, and women’s behavior with respect to it should be controlled through shaming. It is much cheaper than using the law.

  254. Shaming sluts works, it destroys the slut and leaves the next group of women thinking it might happen to them. Shaming computer gamers doesn’t work because they see exactly what happens to a man who ‘mans up’ and marries a slut. You cannot shame a person into doing something that is obviously detrimental to their health..

    Once a slut, always a slut, no ring for sluts. No help for sluts, they need to be used as a lesson for others as to what happens to slutty sluts.

  255. Novaseeker says:

    So the notion of low divorce rates among smart/prosperous women seems to vanish among the absolute prettiest women of that group – the women who truly *should* have it all. In reality, only 33% of this group ended up ‘having it all’.

    That may be. The stable “assortatively matched” dual professional UMC/+ couples I have known (and there have been many, many of them, dozens in fact) are all middling in terms of SMV — lots of 5s and 6s, very few 7+ of either sex — and they generally stay married. Very few divorces in that group. The couple of 7+ women I have known in this set who were married, divorced and then remarried, upward, within the UMC/+ group, even if they had kids from marriage1. Again, not many there, and a very small sample size, but that’s what I’ve seen.

  256. myrealitie says:

    @Cane, you’re right, liars do indeed cause lying. I was lazy in my word choice.
    What I was referring to was the dynamic of subconscious rationalization that can repress someone deeply if they are trying to conform to societal standards to avoid aggressive shaming. This can occur in someone who simply rationalizes away aspects of themselves to conform (a sub human state in my opinion and much different than being acquainted with oneself yet only choosing moral self-expressions) or in someone after the fact to make themselves feel better. In either case, it is a sub-optimal organization of society in my opinion. It is very, very risk averse. It elevates order and rigidity above every other aspect of living, and it stunts human progress.

  257. Cane, to the extent that I had any goal, it was just to point out the lie she was selling. There’s just enough seeming logic in the idea of “she got it out of her system” that some guys might buy it if no one calls her on it, and she’s better than some at dressing it up as concern for men. But when you press her on it, it always boils down to, “Stop making us feel bad or we’ll act even worse!”

    I’ll let other decide whether I was nasty, but I’ll cop to condescending. I can’t help but look down on people who not only want us to accept widespread sin and all the damage it causes, but also insist that we applaud it.

  258. Farm Boy says:

    stunts human progress.

    Stunting human “progress” might be a good thing.

    Especially for the children.

  259. PokeSalad says:

    Well, she’s certainly proven herself an expert at rationalization.

    RE: smoking, I see you missed the sarcastic part of my post. I should remember that the typed word requires this to be more obvious.

  260. myrealitie,

    What I was referring to was the dynamic of subconscious rationalization that can repress someone deeply if they are trying to conform to societal standards to avoid aggressive shaming.

    Such as? I would like an example of this (no rhetoric, just a straight pure real-world example) before I concur that shaming is wrong.

  261. greyghost says:

    myrealitie
    What is the risk adverse stuff from being shamed. lets play this out….
    “Karen those guys said they want to do a train on us.” Karen: There’s too many of them there must be at least 8 guys there. besides that I don’t want to be known as the town slut. “are you risk adverse now? Your not following that creepy shaming crap are you? come on it will be fun.”

    Is that what you had in mind about the shaming stuff as a cultural guide. Also I do like the moral equivalence of the MGTOW playing video games. I guess a baby mamma’s bastard causes the same damage to society as a guy not putting out the effort to please a woman looking for a husband after a spell on the carousel.

  262. Novaseeker says:

    Such as? I would like an example of this (no rhetoric, just a straight pure real-world example) before I concur that shaming is wrong.

    I think what she is saying, although it isn’t completely clear to me, is that if, say, someone is gay, and the world heavily shames homosexuality, that person may rationalize that they are not gay, repress their gay-ness, and so on, and act as if they are not gay so as to avoid the shaming, instead of accepting that they are gay, and choosing not to act on their homosexuality (in the example of a Christian, for example), instead of marrying a woman and having a sham marriage because he is in denial of the fact that he is gay in order to avoid social shaming.

  263. greyghost says:

    Novaseeker
    Nothing wrong with good behavior. Would that work with a guy sexually aroused by children but chose not to act on it and live a sham life. I would say he was a good man and not a liar. Life is a bitch isn’t it? but that is what makes it so fun.

  264. myrealitie says:

    @Cail – thank you for acknowledging that you were condescending. I don’t view sex before marriage a sin. I don’t think it is a big deal at all. In my opinion (and my husbands opinion) sex is not the thing that defines our marriage, although we enjoy sex together plenty. And I enjoyed a lot of it before marriage before my husband. I avoided using my story as illustration of my point because it is anecdotal evidence (and not my only data point, btw), not because I am ashamed of it or was concealing it. But since you chose to go there, I will expand upon my point using myself in part as an illustration:

    Sex is not the main bonding mechanism between humans. Or first and strongest bond is to our mother. And we can have a bond like this with many family members, friends, and lovers throughout our lives if this is established well initially with our mothers. Having sex with lots of people does not destroy this fact. However, some women unfortunately have disrupted bonding experiences with their mothers, and this might contribute to later promiscuity.

    When a woman first experiences sex-induced infatuation, which is distinct from the kind of bonding that sustains kinship and marriage, it can feel very powerful. It can even feel deceptively spiritual. This fades, even if you marry the first person who induces it in you! When I speak of the benefits of having gotten lots of infatuations and sexual relationships out of my system, I mean that I wouldn’t be tempted by another one at this point in my life, as a married woman. I know it fades, I know it’s not really spiritual, and I wouldn’t be stupid enough to break my family up over it.
    That is not to say that a women who married as a virgin couldn’t also resist temptation through other means. But experience has been helpful to me, personally. It has also helped me keep a cooler head in choosing a husband. Prior to meeting my husband, i was very able to ignore “gina tingles” from various men who were trying to sleep with me and who would not have been matches because I had gotten my fill of infatuation earlier on in my life.
    Fortunately I was young enough and attractive enough to have been able to marry someone who I was just as attracted to (if not more) than anyone from my past but who also was very suitable for me to marry. I am sorry if some men on the board or elsewhere have had experiences with women who married them but would really rather be with another man. I empathize with that, and it has to suck. But it is not, by far, the case with all married women who were not virgins.

    I am not saying experience is necessary to pick a good husband and avoid temptation. But it can definitely be helpful. Especially if you had a difficult childhood (as I did, with a mother who was actually a widow) and had to learn how to function properly in relationships through trial and error.

    Also, another point that is often overlooked in this discussion, is that women who grow up poor but want to marry well really need to go through a long period of school etc. before having the chance to meet men of a higher status. My husband has a PhD, for example. I wouldn’t’ have had the chance to meet him in my early 20’s, and I wouldn’t have been happy with less.

    I want there to be societal harmony just as much as the next person. My agenda is not unlimited female gratification. I enjoy coming to this board because it discusses societal ills, which I am interested in understanding.

    Anyway, I must go back to my real life now🙂 I hope the angry hatefulness doesn’t carry over into your lives.

  265. fh,

    Shaming computer gamers doesn’t work because they see exactly what happens to a man who ‘mans up’ and marries a slut.

    Shaming computer gamers doesn’t work because the gamer is dealing from the absolute principle that by gaming, he has not harmed himself (or others.) There has been no real damage there.

    Shame generally only works (and it works well) if the person being shamed knows better than to act a certain way. I’ll give you an example: just recently a good friend of mine confided to me that he was approached by a young woman in his office after drinks to the possibly of the two of them having an affair. She said she doesn’t want to hurt his marriage, would never ask him to leave his wife and children, she just wants the sex. That’s it. My friend said he has been giving it some very serious consideration. I shamed the crap out of him. I told him that was a terrible thing he could do, think about your wife that you are supposed to love and how much damage you’d be doing to your children. Don’t do that. Just stop considering it right now before it is too late. And I upped the bet even further. I told him that if followed through on what he thinking about doing, that he and I could no longer be friends because I can’t be friends with someone that I don’t even know. And the man that I knew would never do this. That worked. He told the young woman that he was flattered but that he could never do this.

    We need a society that understands the difference between right and wrong and a willingness for people to shame one another to keep them on the straight and narrow road. But we also have to understand that if you shame, you better be right about what you are doing. Now a certain pastor who shall remain nameless tried to shame all MGTOW who refused to man up and marry sluts by saying “Men are like trucks. They drive straighter with a weighted load…” Those were his words to try and shame single men into taking on all the financial burdens of single moms who need them. Nice try. That type of shaming is never going to work #1) because the person who is doing the shaming has no leverage to get “the shamed” into altering their behavior but most of all #2) there is nothing wrong for a man to go full John Galt on a world that disgusts him. He is not harming himself or others.

  266. myrealitie says:

    Yes Novaseeker, that is exactly what I am saying.

  267. Novaseeker says:

    Nothing wrong with good behavior. Would that work with a guy sexually aroused by children but chose not to act on it and live a sham life. I would say he was a good man and not a liar. Life is a bitch isn’t it? but that is what makes it so fun.

    Well, from a Christian point of view, I would say that a homosexual man should not marry a woman — that would be a sham, and very unfair to the woman. Yet it still happens, although less often than it used to. The call for someone with that burden is chastity, from a Christian perspective — not marrying a woman and pretending you are not gay (and probably making her life a living hell in the process).

  268. Farm Boy says:

    person may rationalize that they are not gay, repress their gay-ness, and so on, and act as if they are not gay so as to avoid the shaming, instead of accepting that they are gay, and choosing not to act on their homosexuality

    But being a slut is so obviously wrong. What is the issue with her repressing her inner slut?

  269. @Cail – thank you for acknowledging that you were condescending. I don’t view sex before marriage a sin.

    Yes, obviously you consider condescension a greater sin than fornication, and lots of blah blah psychobabble as you strain to look reasonable and dispassionately curious. So naturally you picked out a Christian man’s blog which has a focus on things you think are incorrect or irrelevant, which is frequented primarily by people you disagree with, to spend your time on.

    I’m sure we all do that, right?

  270. Anonymous Reader says:

    myrealitie
    Lyn87 – Have you seen any evidence (beyond that dubious manosphere chart that goes around and that has no credibility) that there is a relationship between partner count and divorce for women? This is a VERY hard thing to measure because people lie in surveys…

    The dubious chart you refer to may be Social Pathologist’s analysis of GISS data, clearly showing the risk of divorce increasing for every sexual partner a woman has prior to marriage. It is not dubious, it is science. Your own experience provides you with one (1) data point, the GISS has a statistically significant number of data points and so it is science, and your perspective is anecdote.

    The GISS analysis provides probability, not certainty. On the one hand, a couple of women I know of who had multiple men in their lives prior to marriage wound up divorced. Verification. On the other hand, my friend whose 10+ year marriage was blown up last November was his wife’s first. Probability, not certainty.

    You can ignore or belittle or otherwise express contempt for science, but it won’t change the facts.
    And the facts are obvious. Alpha widows exist, for example. So promiscuity at the indivudual level may or may not have long term effects, but when millions of people are involved, it has aggregate effects.

    You can be as promiscuous as you want. Just don’t expect Dalrock to approve of that, and don’t claim on the one hand you want a peaceful world but on the other hand you want women to have no limits on their sexuality. We have the latter right now, and sure don’t have the former.

  271. Nova,

    Well, from a Christian point of view, I would say that a homosexual man should not marry a woman — that would be a sham, and very unfair to the woman.

    Well, from a Christian point of view, I would say that there is no such thing as homosexuality. There is “buggery” (which is what men have been doing with other men for three or four thousand years before Christ, the main reason why Sodom was smited by the Lord’s lightning bolts) but there was no term to define their sexuality based on their desire to enter other men. The whole concept of “buggery” made sense to primative man (who would enter ANYTHING with his penis) because for the giver, he got sexual release from the tightness and friction and a feeling of alpha power and dominance (which is the number one reason why beta men want so much to have anal sex with women, the feeling of alpha dominance), the receiver got sexual release from the anal stimulation. That didn’t make those men homos back in the day. There was no such thing as homos. These guys would get off on each other with a couple bottles of wine and then get off on their wives just 30 minutes later.

    I would say you should shame men who desire sex with other men because it is Biblical. “….man shall not lie with man, nor woman with woman, nor man with beast….” It’s right there in the Bible. God didn’t say that because he wanted to shame gay men into a life of celibacy. We can argue as to why that was important for God, but know that it is important. God stipulates that man shall lie with woman. Period.

  272. John Nesteutes says:

    @myrealitie

    Also, another point that is often overlooked in this discussion, is that women who grow up poor but want to marry well really need to go through a long period of school etc. before having the chance to meet men of a higher status.

    Men who grow up poor but want to marry really well need to… win the lottery?

    Why should poor women marry high status men?

    Anyway, I must go back to my real life now🙂 I hope the angry hatefulness doesn’t carry over into your lives.

    Not at all; Christ and Paul taught us to put away anger and hate. However, they also taught us that fornication means risking hellfire. God is disgusted with sexual sin for a variety of reasons. One reason would be the hordes of unwanted children, no fathers to care for them, that come to be. And another reason would be the mass murder of a society with a 30% abortion rate.

    Meanwhile you speak of “societal harmony” in a world full of violence, war, and fatherlessness.

  273. Anonymous Reader says:

    Returning to the question I asked yesterday, the answers were interesting, although several were quite predictable. I don’ t know if there’s a better church in the area or not, and I’m reminded of a joke from years gone by that is summed up by the punchline, “I found the perfect church for my family, but they won’t let me join”. I don’t know for sure what kind of politics are involved in the leadership of the church my friend belongs to, but it is certainly possible some of it is generational (coughBoomerLiberalscough) and so perhaps he’s waiting things out, in the expectation of having more of a role in leadership in a few years. Butting heads with leadership, telling them how wrong they are, that’s the same thing as looking for another church. Different people have different requirements for a church, and some people are more concerned about “community” and “unity” than about theological correctness. No idea whare he is on that issue, but he’s been in a couple or three different denominations in his life.

    The most useful idea IMO, I think it was Lyn87, is to separate out the work days. Work on helping the widows and spinsters on a designated day, taking the youth along. Work on the single mothers houses on a different day, and not a “widows / spinsters” day, just a general “help day”, but without the youth. The message probably isn’t obvious enough for some, but it would send a message nevertheless; this group of people is not the same as that group of people. We will help both groups, but not exactly the same way. Because one thing I have not said to him, not yet, is this: “What kind of message does it send to the high schoolers when y’all lump all the single women in your church together?” but some time I probably will have to bring it up, and it won’t be pleasant for either of us.

    I chose to put my friends’s case out there partly because it’s a micro version of society. My friend has a duty to obey the authority over him, but also a duty to follow the Bible as he reads it. The two are in conflict, and while having a big fight with leadership & storming out to find the perfect church might be emotionally satisfying in the short run, it would change nothing in the long run – some other man would then be tasked with work days for the “widows”. Altering the way that task is carried out in a way to alter the culture of his church won’t be as emotionally satisfying, but might bring some other changes in the longer run. Someone has to tell unmarried women with children “No, you can’t have this, it’s for widows” at some point. Perhaps this is one way to do it.

    Thanks again to all who replied, it was useful in various ways.

  274. JDG says:

    @Dalrock – you make a very good point about a younger married woman being more likely to divorce because this period is a tempting period (lot’s of male attention), but i also argue that if she lacks experience this will be especially tempting.

    Lot’s of experience will make her a greater risk for marriage.

    @Cail – I don’t think riding the carousel is unequivocally better, but, like all things, it has plusses and minuses and is not the cause of divorces.

    Do you have anything to back this up with?

  275. Hermit says:

    @Luke:

    Yes, I don’t want to deny that the character of a widow is much more suited to raise a children but she can’t do things she is not supposed to (like teaching to be a man with her example.
    My mother did the best she could but inevitably she filled me with a lot of things about women and their relationship with men that are simply not true.
    With my father I would have been less soft and more manly. My mother is no to blame of course.

  276. Anonymous Reader says:

    Dalrock
    The low UMC divorce rate is despite their time on the carousel. It still harms them, but other forces keep the marriage together.

    The current divorce rate also is backward looking. A 35 year old urban professional who is less likely to divorce rode her carousel ponies 10 to 15 years ago. What the YuGoGurrls of the last 5 years will look like in, say, 10 years from now might be different.

    However, as no one has pointed out, in these upper income groups it is not unusual for people to take separate vacations. Or work assignments out of town for months at a time. There’s more than one way for a man and woman to go their separate ways. The effects are surely less corrosive on children than an out and out divorce, but at the same time there are bound to be effects.

  277. feeriker says:

    @FH

    Shaming sluts works.

    Yes, apparently so. Look at how upset alternaterealitie has become with us. Of course, like most sluts, the ‘gina tingles she gets from being taken to task by men overpower any shame she feels, so one might indeed cancel the other out.

  278. Farm Boy says:

    ” I don’t think riding the carousel is unequivocally better, but, like all things, it has plusses and minuses and is not the cause of divorces.”

    Do you have anything to back this up with?

    A little hamster whispered it into her ear.

  279. Anonymous age 72 says:

    Eliminate gina tingles surigically? I think some of the Muslim countries do that.

  280. Boxer says:

    First TFH writes:

    Any man who helps out a single mother and can be photographed doing such, is vulnerable to getting the ‘child-support’ judgement attached onto HIM.

    Then Brad A asks:

    Can you provide some links for that?

    I think it’s important to be accurate when we talk about social and historical events, and have to call Brother Horseman back to the great google archive of the apocalypse, to point out that nothing he’s so far posted has supported his original contention.

    It’s actually sad that I had to go looking, to make sure this wasn’t true. His contentions aren’t true, mind you, but there are many stories which approach them somewhat.

    To repeat, there don’t appear to be any successful cases of child support orders attached to men who babysat for a skank ho single mom, or helped the bitch with yardwork (wouldn’t surprise me if these have been attempted though, lol).

    All the stories I’ve been able to uncover have to do with partners who have “assumed the role” of father. Ordinarily, this would be some new boyfriend who moves in with a babymama, lives with her for a year or three, and then in spite, she starts proceedings after she balloons up to 500 pounds and he wanders off. Men who marry a babymama and then adopt the thugspawn regularly get treated as the bio dad in court. These men have less sympathy from me. (Make of that what you will). The cuckold who doesn’t realize that the kid is his best friend’s offspring until the little tyke turns 6 or 7 often get hit with orders too.

    There are laws in specific places, namely Washington, California, and British Columbia, theoretically authorizing more than one child-support order. These laws are new, and usually apply to the gay community. Imagine two lesbos, Ann and Jane, who live together. Jane has a kid and already gets child support from the sucker she married a few years ago, Mark. When Ann gets sick of Jane’s shit, and moves out, she can be hit with a “de-facto parent” child support order. Hey, Heather doesn’t only have a daddy, but she has two mommies, also. It’s only fair that Jane gets to leech off of two people (with the attorneys on all sides taking very generous fees in the process).

    The best thing to do is not to help out a single mother (be the “help” chores, sex, or anything else), but if you must, for some ungodly reason, you should definitely not move in with her. That appears to be the benchmark for future financial pillage.

    I hope this has been helpful.

    Boxer

  281. greyghost says:

    Eliminate gina tingles surigically

    female circumcision or FGM for the PC types

  282. greyghost says:

    innocentbystanderboston October 30, 2014 at 4:59 pm

    What the hell was that? It doesn’t matter how intellectually sound and accurate it was that was a foul post.

  283. Anonymous Reader says:

    A while back Dalrock observed that the US has moved to a “child support” model of parenting. This is a penetrating and clarifying observation that goes a lot deeper than just frivorce / babymommas.

    I mentioned the marriage-centered family vs. the child centered family and author Rosemond who champions the first and warns of the second. But what is a child centered family, if not another version of the child support model? In the child centered family, concern for the child is paramount, leading to helicopter parenting but also it leads to valuing fathers primarlly for the money they bring in – it is not possible to have too much money when raising children. Helicopter mom becomes the “decider” for the family, and dad is primarily a source of money, secondarily other things. This has been observed off and on since the 90’s or late 80’s, but maybe it started earlier. The child centered marriage seems in some ways to parallel the rise of men’s-fault divorce.

    So it appears that the child support model extends into many, perhaps most, families (just as feminism does) and along the way reduces women to helicopters and men to walking ATM’s. The child-support model fits just fine with carouseling 20-something women, too, since the purpose of marriage is to have children to center around and therefore such trifling notions as loyalty to a man, or respect for him, simply don’t enter the picture. In fact, Game informs me that men who submit to this wrongheaded system are all but sure to betaize themselves, and thus induce contempt in their wives.

    Rosemond writes from a secular perspective, of course, in a Bible based perspective a marriage is supposed to center on God, however I see plenty of church going familes that are just as child centered as any agnostic ones. Perhaps that is one reason for the divorce rates we see in various different sub-sets of Christianity?

    One last thought: the child-support model of raising children clealry atomizes families, reducing them to the smallest possible unit, thereby removing one of the fundamental intermediarey organizations that exist between the individual and the state. So perhaps there is a real purpose to the child centered model, it just isn’t for public view.

  284. Boxer says:

    Hermit:

    My mother did the best she could but inevitably she filled me with a lot of things about women and their relationship with men that are simply not true.
    With my father I would have been less soft and more manly. My mother is no to blame of course.

    No, she’s not, but you point out something important.

    A healthy society will always contain a few people who are too dysfunctional to get along with their spouse, and thus divorce will never be totally eliminated. In prior generations, the pervasiveness of healthy families served as a sort of herd immunity for these unfortunate few, who had to grow up without a dad (or in some cases mom). The child would not see his own dad (or mom) but would see all his friends’ parents, his teachers and other authority figures, and everywhere around him he would see happy marriages, and be imprinted with the pattern he would strive for.

    The tragic inverse is true today. Even the lucky children who have both parents at home, still have to watch their friends’ parents acting like pimps and hoes, and have to get feminist twaddle in their teacher’s lectures, and etc.. We’re seeing the symptoms of this nonsense all around us today.

    Boxer

  285. Anonymous Reader says:

    The child support model also explains Stanton’s Heroes other support for single mothers[1]; if “family” is that which centers around a child, then “pro family” must perforce support the heroic single mother, becuause not to do so undermines support for the child. And the child is the center of the family, therfore to support the child is to support the family.This isn’t a conscious process, necessarily, all that is required is to accept the child support model, that the child s the center of the family. Many consequences flow from that premise, most especially the undermining of paternal authority not just within the family but also within the thinking of conservative feminists.

    This may be the mechanism that affects conservative churhces – a child-centered family consists of a child and at least one adult, so to fail to support the single mother is to fail to support family, and ironicallly “family comes first” is a motto I have heard from some churchgoing people.

    So the child-support model is perhaps really a child-centered model that has much larger influence than we previously thought.

    [1]The conservative feminists, both male and female, at National Review are great cheerleaders for single mother Bristol Palin. They seem to rationalize this simply: she did not abort, therefore she is a good person. Of course, she also did not give up the child to an intact one-man-and-one-woman family, which used to be the expected norm years ago, but…meh. Conservative feminists define themselves mostly in terms of abortion, not in terms of rational thought. She’s a kind of saint, and can do no wrong, because she did not have an abortion.

  286. greyghost says:

    The child support model may just be a default by-product of accommodating feminism. Kick the husband out, no fault divorce. Provide money. Not married out fucking everybody get knocked up provide money. Abortion on demand (we’re working on have somebody else pay for it other than the knocked up woman) Most of want we see today from conservatism to what is coming out of the church is accommodation of feminism being sold as family based and traditional.

  287. Bango Tango says:

    A stigma–social disapproval–will only influence women’s behavior when it is propagated by the Female Social Matrix. Women judge the rightness of their behavior by what the consensus-building FSM decides; the FSM enforces stigmas for women. If single-mommyhood is to be re-stigmatized the FSM will have to play a role.

    You are 100% correct about this but at the end of the day it can’t and it won’t. This is not because I don’t want it to work it is just the reality. As long as women are throwing themselves at the alpha, both man and State, the situation will get worse over time regardless of whether some UMC couples stay married or not. Men as a group are not interested in shaming women. Men as a group outside of the manosphere have 0 interest in putting their ass on the line and criticize women for anything they do. This is why Rollo is correct in his observation of open hypergamy. In the past the consensus among women was if your a slut or sleep with the bad boy you keep it on the quiet and deny it if it comes up. Now they are brazenly open about it and if ever questioned about it will always default to well it’s OK for a man to do that so tough! When they say “man” they are of course referring to the alpha apex fallacy man. That is the real reason they are unshameable in the current state of affairs. Women do not care about the average man at all and will never champion his cause at the expense of their own privilege. Women do consider their lives worth more then the average man’s because they possess the eggs and the eggs are finite. They know that society values them more then men and that is reinforced everyday in most cases by men. How in the world are you going to shame creatures like that in an age where men’s labor has been devalued by machines and women have just as much earning power as men?

    All the conversations I have had with women in real life, not bloggers on the internet, confirm this is true. They are unapologetic and will always always point the finger back at the man as the one responsible. And in many ways they are correct because the majority of men will always cow tow and give them what they want. I invite the men of the world to prove me wrong though.

  288. Bluepillprofessor says:

    @FB: “But being a slut is so obviously wrong. What is the issue with her repressing her inner slut?”

    /r/deadbedrooms

    Shaming is not going to happen and even if it did it will not be enough unless it is just the first trickle in the broken dam of what is left of this society. There is a reason why scripture calls for stonings, because that is the only level of “shame” that works- and that was before Birth Control.

  289. Dave says:

    Shame restricts human potential

    Just imagine if Hitler’s potential had not been restricted.

  290. Dave says:

    If you prefer an inexperienced woman,…..

    It is a myth to think that anyone needs tons of sexual experience before they get married. They don’t. For one, different people like different things in bed, and the fact that a woman has slept with Keith does not mean she knows how to please Harry sexually. Although, sleeping with tons of men may mean her eventual husband might desire what one or more of her past lovers wanted, but she has no way of knowing that, and her experience may actually be “wasted” on perfecting skills not desirable to her future husband.
    And it is even more complicated if one of her past lovers took her to some extreme sexual levels which her husband is unaware of, or not interested in. She will be left dissatisfied in her sexual life, and is ever besetted with a tempation to commit adultery.
    Of course, the genders can easily be reversed and the truth would still hold.
    If “A mind, once expanded by a new idea, never returns to its original dimensions”, what would you say about cloud nine passion with someone other than your spouse? Nothing less will be satisfactory.

    The fact is, any two virgins can become great lovers in a course of six months or earlier. All they need is open communication, willingness to learn new things, and plenty of practice. Sex is not rocket science. Even blind bats do it, and do it well.

  291. Dave says:

    Shaming is not going to happen and even if it did it will not be enough unless it is just the first trickle in the broken dam of what is left of this society.

    Actually, shaming is already happening and will continue on its trajectory. In the end however, it will not matter, because even worse perversions will soon become acceptable. It is so unfortunate that this period in history is being pummeled by so many evils all at the same time. It seems that all the filthiest demons from hell have been unleashed on human society. We do not recover from one before the next sea billows of filth engulfs society. All these are to prepare the way for the man of lawlessness; the man of sin; the Antichrist, who will oppose everything godly, and cause perversions and cult to prosper.
    Right at this moment, there are folks agitating for the “rights” of pedophiles. It is only a matter of time before the age of consent is lowered until pedophilia becomes acceptable “provided the parents are OK with it, and the couple love each other”. Of course, at first, there will be uproar; this will die down eventually, and pedophilia will become like homosexuality, and those who oppose it will be seen as “bigoted”.

    Next will be normalization of bestiality, as the world marches inexorably towards the moral and spiritual abyss.
    At the risk of sounding as if I support the actions of single mothers, I would say bastards are better than those engaging in all those perversions mentioned above.

  292. BradA says:

    TFH,

    I was looking for some evidence that a man could be hit with child support by having his picture taken replacing a screen door. I could see that we are not as far from that as we would like, but I did not find that in those links, though perhaps I missed it.

    I do think it is horrid that we could even have to fear that, but we are a lot farther towards it than we should be. It should be so ridiculous that it is not even a consideration, but it is too close to many truths today. Got to make someone pay is too widespread of a mindset.

  293. BradA says:

    Dalrock,

    Your marriage to that aging feminist ex carouseler (who may well not be attracted to you and view you with contempt) is very likely to be for life.

    That would certainly be one perspective. It is better to live on the corner of a housetop than with some women, per Proverbs.

    So you might be saved from frivorce, but not a bad attitude!

  294. MarcusD says:

    Right at this moment, there are folks agitating for the “rights” of pedophiles.

    I recall reading about a conference of “minor-attractedness” – it’s already begun.

    Interestingly, they publicly discuss the plan to follow the path that same-sex marriage took.

  295. MarcusD says:

    “Why would anyone send a kid – especially a son – to institutions that would do this? Would you send a black kid to institutions with disciplinary manuals written by the KKK?”

    -Glenn Reynolds on how universities now investigate sexual assault claims.

    http://pjmedia.com/instapundit/197447/

    http://www.nationalreview.com/article/391348/pathetic-privilege-kevin-d-williamson/page/0/2

  296. Kiljoy says:

    @ myrealitie “But if your focus is overall societal harmony, I don’t think this (casual sex early in one’s life) is the correct area of focus. Short sightedness, fiscal irresponsibility, lack of honoring of one’s commitments – these are the reasons that we have kids being raised in chaotic homes.”

    No, virtually all the world’s problems can be easily traced back to promiscuity. It perpetuates a culture that is very alienating for many, and the few who ‘benefit’ from it, usually do so only in the short term and only in the eyes of those who’s opinions are worth nothing.

    Theodore Dalrymple gives very disturbing insight into this phenomenon, that of social decay generally. His essay All Sex All The Time is online, and particularly relevant. For a less obvious example of the obvious:

    “Not all the malnourished are drug-takers, however. It is when you inquire into eating habits, not just recent but throughout entire lifetimes, that all this malnutrition begins to make sense. The trail is a short one between modern malnutrition and modern family and sexual relations.”

    Get the full breakdown here

    http://www.city-journal.org/html/12_4_oh_to_be.html

  297. slutrealitie’s merely gave another version of the often used “she’s got it out her system, now she’ll be the perfect wife” bullcrap. No, it makes no difference, either the woman understands why she has to be a virgin and keeps it, or she doesn’t and marriage is wasted on her.

    Slut, slut, slut, slutty slut slut, that’s myrealitie..

  298. Tam the Bam says:

    “A desirable UMC man, like someone above pointed out, is socialized to accept high “notch counts.” Men like this often find inexperienced girls odd and undesirable.”
    à la façon hamster pour monsieur: “If a rich guy doesn’t put up with my record of relentless leapfrogging up the greasy pole to alpha, that proves he’s worthless to all Real Women.
    And I wish the second part was true, but I just pulled it out of my arse, even more than the first. How could I possibly decide if they’re telling a known carouseller the truth? I was never one of those naive girls.”
    Stats or GTFO

  299. Tam the Bam says:

    Oh heavens to betsy it’s hamsters all the way down :-
    ” women who grow up poor but want to marry well really need to go through a long period of school etc. before having the chance to meet men of a higher status. My husband has a PhD, for example. I wouldn’t’ have had the chance to meet him in my early 20’s, and I wouldn’t have been happy with less. “
    A bizarre moment of clarity.
    Note the bolded bits well, parents of sons. This is the real reason for the existence of universities, apparently. A meat market of low value females who would normally be excluded from polite society. The forces/military are headed that way too now, I see.

    All a woman who grew up poor and wants to get to the top has to do is .. be beautiful, and go outdoors occasionally. The rest is social engineering.

    Soz, chaps, I suppose that means we’ll never be rid of the hungry attention-seeker now.

  300. Bango Tango says:

    No, virtually all the world’s problems can be easily traced back to promiscuity. It perpetuates a culture that is very alienating for many, and the few who ‘benefit’ from it, usually do so only in the short term and only in the eyes of those who’s opinions are worth nothing.

    Theodore Dalrymple gives very disturbing insight into this phenomenon, that of social decay generally. His essay All Sex All The Time is online, and particularly relevant. For a less obvious example of the obvious:

    Great comment. Yep, easily traced back to promiscuity. Got birkahs?

  301. Farm Boy says:

    My husband has a PhD, for example. I wouldn’t’ have had the chance to meet him in my early 20’s, and I wouldn’t have been happy with less

    So he was working hard to get his degree while you were out leveraging your youth for all that it was worth. And while you were at it, you obtained lots of “experience”.

  302. myrealitie says:

    @Kiljoy – You spoke well for what I ascertain to be the underlying (incorrect) belief of a large batch of this group when it comes to this to pick when you said:

    “No, virtually all the world’s problems can be easily traced back to promiscuity. It perpetuates a culture that is very alienating for many, and the few who ‘benefit’ from it, usually do so only in the short term and only in the eyes of those who’s opinions are worth nothing.”

    Normalized pre-marital sex is not alienating for many. There are sexually unappealing men and women in every cohort, and those people unfortunately and sadly may feel alienated. In truth, they would feel alienated in any mate matching system, but I suppose unconstrained choice is especially sad for this group.

    I was hoping to have an honest conversation about the merits of shaming as a mechanism for social order, but many of the posters here seem to spin their entire world views around their sexual and marriage marketplace helplessness and derivative anger. This is a very sad existence. I recommend accepting your misfortune gracefully, posters of this board, as would be the optimal course of action for unfair but unavoidable life circumstances.

    @Cail – the reason I read these posts and sometimes get involved in the comments is because, while I am neither Christian nor a man, I tend to agree that feminism has had negative impacts on society and I do not support a social system that doesn’t hold people accountable for their poor choices. My answer to this problem, though, is apparently too at odds with this group to foster a productive conversation in which the members of the group can contain their pitiable rage at having gotten dealt a crappy genetic hand.

    Whether it makes you angry or not, I’ve managed a to put together a beautiful life for which I am very grateful. Humility, acceptance, and keeping resentment and jealousy at bay have been very instrumental to me in my happiness and life success. Take note.

  303. HawkandRock says:

    @myreality: “Anyway, I must go back to my real life now🙂 I hope the angry hatefulness doesn’t carry over into your lives.”

    “Whether it makes you angry or not, I’ve managed a to put together a beautiful life for which I am very grateful. Humility, acceptance, and keeping resentment and jealousy at bay have been very instrumental to me in my happiness and life success. Take note.”

    Abundant evidence of your serene loveliness seeps out of almost every sentence you write.

  304. Farm Boy says:

    group can contain their pitiable rage at having gotten dealt a crappy genetic hand.

    I would dare say that the average IQ of the fellas around here is 120+.

  305. myrealitie says:

    @HawkandRock – and I did, I went out to dinner with my husband to celebrate his having completed something important to him. Now I am back at work, peppering my day with this amusement.

    @Farm Boy – Ummm where have you seen a positive correlation between particularly high male IQ and success with women?

  306. Farm Boy says:

    Myrealitie,

    You did marry a PhD it would seem.

  307. Farm Boy says:

    Apparently having genes that lead to intelligence is a “crappy genetic hand”.

    Civilization weeps.

  308. myrealitie says:

    Yes, in math actually, but he is especially handsome, funny, and has a very solid sense of self that with good boundaries. Women like him because they know he wouldn’t take crap for a moment. I would not say the same for the large majority of his colleagues. I feel bad for them often, actually. They are very smart and sweet and interesting. But they don’t attract women. I don’t make the rules, don’t shoot the messenger.

    Instead of trying to shame women into marrying and remaining faithful to weak, awkward men, the better thing to do would be to become as appealing as possible and to develop a strong inner character. Some people get an especially bad deal (women also! I have some amazing female friends who will never attract a man because they were born unattractive, which is very sad.), and people who get an especially bad deal should graciously accept that misfortune and seek to have a great life in other ways. Do people who get into car accidents or deal with infertility or develop cancer try to force changes on the entire world to make their conditions more bearable? No, life is a bitch. You have to make the best of the cards you were dealt. Stop shaming other people to make yourselves feel better. It’s the opposite of virtuous.

    I have a call in 2 minutes🙂 Perhaps I’ll be back later.

  309. Farm Boy says:

    Stop shaming other people to make yourselves feel better

    Since you are making this personal, I will point out that I am 6-2 and attractive to women. I have a unicorn of a lady friend who is not a modern women.

    For the longest time I searched. The problem was that most modern women start out as sluts and it goes downhill from there for them.

  310. HawkandRock says:

    “Stop shaming other people to make yourselves feel better. It’s the opposite of virtuous.”

    hahaha

    Satire is, indeed, impossible in this modern age.

  311. Entropy is my god says:

    myrealitie,

    If there is no absolute moral code, as defined by something greater than humanity and outside of it than there is no right or wrong. You do not believe in absolute morality:

    “@Cail – I don’t think riding the carousel is unequivocally better, but, like all things, it has plusses and minuses and is not the cause of divorces. ”

    Therefore nothing is wrong and nothing is right. By your own admission everything has only plusses and minuses. This is what you believe:

    Murder-Plusses and minuses
    Rape – Plusses and minuses
    Genocide – Plusses and minuses
    Slaver – Plusses and minuses

    May all of your hopes, dreams, and beliefs, come true. May you live forever in the world you long bring about.

  312. HawkandRock says:

    Myrealitie,

    You are a faux stoic but you could be on much worse tracks. I would suggest reading more. Start with Epictetus. Once you begin to identify the specific shortcomings of that philosophy, you’ll be on the right track. I am confident that if you put the work in, you’ll come around.

    If you decide otherwise, please understand that no one here (that I can see anyway) is begrudging you the wonderful life you have created for yourself. Enjoy it!

    The “y’all haters” meme is so shallow, tiresome and played out. You seem better than that to me.

  313. Farm Boy says:

    The “y’all haters” meme is so shallow, tiresome and played out

    I dunno. It still works with shallow, tiresome and played out people.

  314. Cane Caldo says:

    Take two…and…action!

    Take note of MyRealitie’s tactics of debate, and how the vicious abuse the virtuous against themselves; to jiu-jitsu the conversation. Here’s an example:

    Normalized pre-marital sex is not alienating for many. There are sexually unappealing men and women in every cohort, and those people unfortunately and sadly may feel alienated. In truth, they would feel alienated in any mate matching system, but I suppose unconstrained choice is especially sad for this group.

    I was hoping to have an honest conversation about the merits of shaming as a mechanism for social order, but many of the posters here seem to spin their entire world views around their sexual and marriage marketplace helplessness and derivative anger. This is a very sad existence. I recommend accepting your misfortune gracefully, posters of this board, as would be the optimal course of action for unfair but unavoidable life circumstances.

    While attacking the posters and Christianity, she mixes in aloofness, serenity, and pity; things which anyone concerned about morals cannot simply counter or absorb without leaving themselves open to a counter-attack of “Big Meanie”. Personally, I don’t care if someone thinks I’m a Big Meanie, but it is nevertheless true that in the eyes of others the battle will be swayed in sympathy of the one crying “Meanie”.

    But there is a way forward, and it is buried in this other comment of hers:

    @PokeSalad – people look down on smoking, but I personally haven’t heard anyone talk to a smoker the way some of the posters above talk to women who have a sexual history beyond their husband’s. So that was a nice illustration in the difference between something that people look down on and something that people shame (according to my working definition of “shame” I have no issue with public disapproval of an action.

    Well, MyRealitie is a liar. There continues to be a huge social and even gov’t funded anti-smoking campaign replete with shaming language:

    -extravagant taxes
    -huge ugly warning labels
    -smoking bans everywhere (even in many outdoor areas)
    -anti-smoking lectures at school
    -TV commercials about how smoking makes one ugly, sick, amputated, and of course dead
    -posters in public buildings
    -restrictions on tobacco marketing specifically to make it less appealing

    The opprobrium against smokers is MASSIVE, and it has worked. The one thing I left off the list that really made it possible to curb the acceptance of smoking was the reports of the dangers of second-hand smoke. Despite the (very) poor science behind those reports it was the threat of a smoke being inflicted on others that drove all the rest. How dare a nasty smoker inflict the penalties of his habit on others!

    So when MyRealitie says something like…

    I don’t view sex before marriage a sin. I don’t think it is a big deal at all. In my opinion (and my husbands opinion) sex is not the thing that defines our marriage, although we enjoy sex together plenty. And I enjoyed a lot of it before marriage before my husband. I avoided using my story as illustration of my point because it is anecdotal evidence (and not my only data point, btw), not because I am ashamed of it or was concealing it. But since you chose to go there, I will expand upon my point using myself in part as an illustration:

    Sex is not the main bonding mechanism between humans. Or first and strongest bond is to our mother. And we can have a bond like this with many family members, friends, and lovers throughout our lives if this is established well initially with our mothers. Having sex with lots of people does not destroy this fact. However, some women unfortunately have disrupted bonding experiences with their mothers, and this might contribute to later promiscuity.

    When a woman first experiences sex-induced infatuation, which is distinct from the kind of bonding that sustains kinship and marriage, it can feel very powerful. It can even feel deceptively spiritual. This fades, even if you marry the first person who induces it in you! When I speak of the benefits of having gotten lots of infatuations and sexual relationships out of my system, I mean that I wouldn’t be tempted by another one at this point in my life, as a married woman. I know it fades, I know it’s not really spiritual, and I wouldn’t be stupid enough to break my family up over it.

    …do not be distraced by the feigned politeness in her speech. It is only cover for an extended “fuck you”.

    Taking into consideration the two things I wrote above, it is useless to address this with MyRealitie herself. To expose the truths behind the lies and the faux serenity, we must talk to her husband and ask him if he feels the same way about MyRealitie’s past whoring, whore theory, and whore apologies.

    -Does he revel in her sexual history as she does?

    -When he thinks about her face contorted by the intrusion of another man’s penis into one of her orifices: Does he smile?

    -Is he as comfortable imagining her past lovers’ ejaculate in or on her as she is?

    -Does he ever find himself thinking: “I wish MyRealitie’s ex had bent her over a little harder, you know? Just one, last, good, howling, and explosive orgasm to remember him by!”

    -What’s it like to be, say, 19th?

    If he answers “Yes” to all those questions, then we may believe MyRealitie’s reality is not just a so much hot air. If he gets angry, demurs, punches, sulks, or merely says “No” then we know there is a a whole bunch more atmosphere within her; that the downplaying of sexual history that MyRealitie keeps serenely repeating is a just a cough to cover the sound of air being expelled from an over-stuffed twat.

  315. HawkandRock says:

    “I dunno. It still works with shallow, tiresome and played out people.”

    People who resort to the “haters gonna hate” line of discourse unintentionally identify themselves as people with very limited empathy and very limited self-perception. Others who possess these abilities instinctively recognize this and wisely tend to avoid such people. So while it is self-selecting and thus, serves to protect normal people of good will from disordered people, as a rhetorical strategy it is a complete dead end.

  316. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane Caldo (and nearly everyone else):

    Sluts like Myrealitie merely use the contraposition of the manosphere fallacy (virginity is everything!) to beat you fellas at your own game. Face it: You’re never going to win this argument, because there are plenty of examples in family hominidae that contradict the usual position that “if a woman is not a virgin, she’s a slut”. Many of the married bros on this board are likely married to women who had the proverbial college boyfriend. Both manosphere extremists and the usual slut-acceptance fans who show up here would have these women classified in the same bucket as the crack-addled street ho, who you can find on the corner down by the pr0n store you’ve (of course) never visited (I haven’t either). Aside from being an insult to all these women and their husbands, it’s also not very realistic.

    I always enjoy trotting out the bad examples of my own ethno-religious group to make points, so here’s one that I know to have an element of truth to it:

    http://www.newschoolers.com/forum/thread/471894/Strange-mormon-rituals-

    A great many of those “white, pure and delightsome” Mormon chicks who are married off in the temple, have long histories of various sexual acts. Of course, there was that party at the frat house where she had anal sex with all the brothers, one after the other, but hubby don’t need to know that, and anyway, that doesn’t count, cuz it wasn’t vaginal. And then there was that other time she sucked a guy off over by the dumpster behind the BYU library, but that doesn’t count, you know, it was just a “mouth hug”. Then there were all those incidents in high school, but she was just a kid then. Yup, she’s never slept with any guys!

    This nonsense is close to what men do here, occasionally. “Of course I’ve fucked lots of women, but I’m still a good Christian man, because in the old testament some of the wilder characters had sex with lots of chicks, and anyway I didn’t rape any virgins, so none of it counts, and the bible says I’m good to go as a worthy Christian husband!”

    A healthier society would hold up an ideal for people to aspire to, and would also allow for deviation, while maintaining a healthy respect for future behavior. This is what I like about Christianity (it’s something Mormons can’t seem to figure out). The whole “go and sin no more” idea is very powerful. Modern Christians have forgotten the “sin no more” part, but it’s right there in the text.

    Human beings aren’t machines, and life is full of gray areas. The sluts who show up here always seem to lead you brothers into their endless feedback loop of nonsense, because you’re buying into their beep-boop all-or-nothing frame.

    Boxer

  317. Boxer, that would merely make them liars, I don’t see your point… Are you merely saying that wanting a virgin is wrong? If so, that’s fine, still ain’t going to change anyone’s mind. A virgin is better than pretty much any other girl out there. And since marriage is really a bad deal anyhow, it’s either that or none, which learning to live with has become a little easier.

    Sin no more, sin no more. I would like to see these Christian guys here saying the above that you just accused them of though. Thanks.

  318. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Many of the married bros on this board are likely married to women who had the proverbial college boyfriend. Both manosphere extremists and the usual slut-acceptance fans who show up here would have these women classified in the same bucket as the crack-addled street ho, who you can find on the corner down by the pr0n store you’ve (of course) never visited (I haven’t either). Aside from being an insult to all these women and their husbands, it’s also not very realistic.

    But it’s not an insult to them. It’s the truth. The bros who married carousel riders married sluts. I don’t make it worse by refusing to ignore it. The Christian way of dealing with sin is confession, repentance and forgiveness; not ignorance. Each man and woman who have put themselves in that predicament must confront, repent, forgive, and work their way through it. They must crucify it. It is the continuation of a bad idea to simply let bygones-be-bygones.

    Human beings aren’t machines, and life is full of gray areas.

    That is a cop-out to steer people away from the responsibility of making good choices; to adjust their vision so that they can see the blacks and whites clearer.

    The sluts who show up here always seem to lead you brothers into their endless feedback loop of nonsense, because you’re buying into their beep-boop all-or-nothing frame.

    While your comment was addressed to me (and I always look for your comments to read as they are among my favorite) surely that last bit was not addressed to me.

  319. Boxer says:

    A stigma–social disapproval–will only influence women’s behavior when it is propagated by the Female Social Matrix. Women judge the rightness of their behavior by what the consensus-building FSM decides; the FSM enforces stigmas for women. If single-mommyhood is to be re-stigmatized the FSM will have to play a role.

    Women seek approval from high status people, in the same way men seek approval from high status people.

    It is still sort of a given that sluts are losers with no self-discipline, in roughly the same position as the chronic drunk, the petty shoplifter, and the dude who can’t stay employed. The only thing that’s really changed is the takeover of the media by corporate interests, who find this class (newly monied thanks to welfare programs) easily exploitable. They want to make welfare-mama feel good, so that she’ll buy a new android phone with her tax return (instead of paying the school fee for her kids). A positive spin on single-mommyhood helps that along.

  320. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane and feministhater (and everyone else):

    Are you merely saying that wanting a virgin is wrong? If so, that’s fine, still ain’t going to change anyone’s mind. A virgin is better than pretty much any other girl out there. And since marriage is really a bad deal anyhow, it’s either that or none, which learning to live with has become a little easier.

    I think every man should get the absolute best deal he can in marriage, so if virginity is one of your deal breakers, I absolutely support your demands. I just wonder what good it does to shame women who have, in biblical terms, “repented”. I mean real repentance here, not just the usual “Jesus loves me, so I can do whatever I want” nonsense.

    But it’s not an insult to them. It’s the truth. The bros who married carousel riders married sluts. I don’t make it worse by refusing to ignore it. The Christian way of dealing with sin is confession, repentance and forgiveness; not ignorance. Each man and woman who have put themselves in that predicament must confront, repent, forgive, and work their way through it. They must crucify it. It is the continuation of a bad idea to simply let bygones-be-bygones.

    I am often glad I’m not judged by the nonsensical stuff I did as a young man (much of which was, thankfully, never recorded). I guess I never murdered or raped anyone, but pretty much every other sin, crime and faux pas was at least considered as I was growing up.

    Example: I once started a fire in a trash dumpster. I imagine it cost the municipal government several hundred dollars, and in an alternate reality, this nonsense could have distracted emergency workers from a serious fire in which someone was killed (that would be hard to live with). At the time, my friends and I thought it was amusing. That makes me a former asshole, and I’m certainly not proud of being an asshole as a kid, but I hope it doesn’t make me an “arsonist” or “leader of a criminal gang” until I die.

    The real damage with this sort of dehumanizing argument comes in the hopelessness it brings to people who want to improve their lives, but don’t, because they feel it’s hopeless. If you’re telling people they’re doomed to be (whatever label goes with their least honorable moment) for ever, then what’s the motivation to become a better person?

    And no, the last part wasn’t directed at Cane, or anyone in particular. Just one of my random thoughts on a Friday morning.

    Best, Boxer

  321. Farm Boy says:

    The real damage with this sort of dehumanizing argument comes in the hopelessness it brings to people who want to improve their lives, but don’t, because they feel it’s hopeless.

    Odd that. That kinda sounds like many guys in their late teens and twenties.

  322. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    I am often glad I’m not judged by the nonsensical stuff I did as a young man (much of which was, thankfully, never recorded). I guess I never murdered or raped anyone, but pretty much every other sin, crime and faux pas was at least considered as I was growing up.

    Example: I once started a fire in a trash dumpster. I imagine it cost the municipal government several hundred dollars, and in an alternate reality, this nonsense could have distracted emergency workers from a serious fire in which someone was killed (that would be hard to live with). At the time, my friends and I thought it was amusing. That makes me a former asshole, and I’m certainly not proud of being an asshole as a kid, but I hope it doesn’t make me an “arsonist” or “leader of a criminal gang” until I die.

    Do/did you repent or not? Do you still hold forth that arson is an acceptable and even noble past time as MyRealitie does with whoring? You are carrying water for a woman who still believes acting like a slut is good. It doesn’t even sink to the level of juvenile indiscretion. She upholds it as some bizarre act of trying to love your mother! You are responding to what you feel is a problem instead of what has actually been written.

    The real damage with this sort of dehumanizing argument comes in the hopelessness it brings to people who want to improve their lives, but don’t, because they feel it’s hopeless.

    You, my friend, are smarter than this. It is because she is not a robot that she (and all of us) had the ability to choose what we did. You have perverted this truth into an argument for viewing people as inhumans who cannot distinguish.

    If you’re telling people they’re doomed to be (whatever label goes with their least honorable moment) for ever, then what’s the motivation to become a better person?

    That is another non sequitor, and far from your best work. First: We can all be more than one type of sinner–as I certainly have been. More importantly Christians characterize (doom) along the lines of confession, repentance, and forgiveness. What has not been confessed, repented, or forgiven remains in force…It belongs to you. Whoring belongs to MyRealitie because she has not repented of it and in fact still encourages others to do the same.

    That appraisal should not be shocking or even considered mean. It is exactly the same as if I had wrote that she “embraces sleeping around”, or “she embraces sexual experimentation”; which she absolutely does. On the other hand, you are attributing a regret to her that does not exist; as if she were some robot whose heart Boxer gets to program. My friend, you are the one dehumanizing MyRealitie.

    I do admit that there are some who–being confronted with their craven nature–prefer to give themselves over to their sin rather than to crucify themselves. That, too, is their fault and not mine or anyone else’s. Overeaters are fat because they eat too much, and not because others believed the overeater when he said he loves to stuff his face.

  323. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lurkders, take note the way myrealitie denounces shaming as a tool by attempting to shame men who disagree with her. It’s a nice example of the Female Imperative at work.

  324. Dalrock says:

    @Anon Reader

    Lurkders, take note the way myrealitie denounces shaming as a tool by attempting to shame men who disagree with her.

    She also is the poster child for something I’ve explained several times yet many can’t bring themselves to accept; large numbers of women see their time on the carousel as part of their ordained path to marriage. It is a form of courtship. They didn’t blow/bang those guys because they lacked self restraint. They did it all for you (future husband)!

    @Dalrock – you make a very good point about a younger married woman being more likely to divorce because this period is a tempting period (lot’s of male attention), but i also argue that if she lacks experience this will be especially tempting. I know it’s not a popular view, but I do believe that anyone, man or woman, and when holding all else constant (IQ, SES, personality, etc). will tend to “outgrow” lots of partner switching and be inclined towards settling down.
    As a prototype, a woman who “rode the carousel” in college and then gets married at 30 to a high quality man is often just done with that prior period of her life and is less inclined to be tempted by it in the future. “Been there, done that.”

    I can only assume that myrealitie’s husband is deeply grateful for each and every dick she sampled in order to prepare her to be the best wife possible. Had she not indulged in promiscuity during her most attractive years, she would certainly not have been able to remain faithful to her wedding vows later on.

    There persists as Cane notes above an unwarranted yet automatic assumption of repentance on the part of ex carousel riders. This is true even when the woman herself is very open about not being repentant (see myrealitie here, or Janine Turner in a previous post).

  325. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    Most of your latest reply depends upon the strawman that I’m speaking specifically about MyRealitie. I’m not, actually. I’m talking about all the women (and men too) who may have had a less than ideal childhood, who ought to be encouraged to become better people. The ho in question may fit into that category at some point, but I don’t think she does now.

    But it’s not an insult to them. It’s the truth. The bros who married carousel riders married sluts. I don’t make it worse by refusing to ignore it.

    I also have to wonder what good it does to condemn all the women who are now married and making a daily, conscious effort to be good wives, despite a perfect record in their teenage years. My own opinion is that if these women’s husbands are good with them, then you are wrong to call them sluts. Not only is it an insult to a brother who is doing the job of husband, but it’s also inaccurate.

    Do/did you repent or not? Do you still hold forth that arson is an acceptable and even noble past time as MyRealitie does with whoring? You are carrying water for a woman who still believes acting like a slut is good.

    I’m doing the opposite of carrying water for her. I’m actually telling you (and everyone else) how to easily defeat her transparent arguments. I’m also echoing the teachings of Jesus in John 8.

    MyRealitie and other sluts love men who use these absolutist arguments, because they tend to swell their ranks with dejected women who continue slutting it up, convinced that they are irredeemably broken. (Misery loves company — and aside from a “fuck you dad” reactionary emotional hangup from childhood, this is probably the greatest motivation of the slut crowd.)

    Absolutist arguments also inevitably devolve into a pointless legalism (what’s the definition of adultery? Adultery doesn’t apply to men. Jesus allows for sex, just not raping virgins!). Like the establishment poz Christians, who conveniently forget about the “go and sin no more” part of the text, in order to play up the “neither do I condemn thee” premise, the manosphere often deviates in the other direction.

    That is another non sequitor, and far from your best work. First: We can all be more than one type of sinner–as I certainly have been. More importantly Christians characterize (doom) along the lines of confession, repentance, and forgiveness. What has not been confessed, repented, or forgiven remains in force…It belongs to you. Whoring belongs to MyRealitie because she has not repented of it and in fact still encourages others to do the same.

    We definitely agree here. What would be the best way to get MyRealitie’s newest adepts to feel suitably embarrassed for their lack of self discipline, and encourage them to change? I think a careful and balanced reading of the text would lead us in the right direction.

    http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/8.htm

    This is the psychoanalytic brilliance of Christianity, in my opinion. People are malleable, and most people can derive satisfaction from self-improvement.

  326. feeriker says:

    Stop shaming other people to make yourselves feel better. It’s the opposite of virtuous.”

    Hahaha. Satire is, indeed, impossible in this modern age.

    Irony is apparently a lost concept too.

  327. myrealitie,

    I understand what you are trying to say about the men here being dealt bad hands in life and that is too bad. You are right. People with cancer do not want everyone else’s world to be thrown into a whirlwind where they are no longer able to do certain things just because the person with cancer can’t. And yes, there are some men here who DEMAND an unruptured hymen in their wife, or no wife, and because those men might be short, ugly, or stupid (or some combination of all three) they are likely to never-ever find that willing virgin which means a life excluded from the Christian marital mainstream. That is too bad for them. And yes, they know their life sucks.

    And I don’t fault you for being choosy and saying you would not have married any man with less than a PhD. That’s fine. One of the VPs at the office in which I work is sending his daughter to medical school NOT because she wants to be a medical doctor but INSTEAD, because she wants to marry one (and have children with ONLY a doctor) and he feels the best way to make that happen is to have her be surrounded by these people, to increase her chances. That is what medical school is turning into for women anyway, a very exclusive, expensive, high-end dating and match making service. It drives feminists crazy to hear that fact but it is what it is.

    Okay, all that aside, what good does it do you to come here and make these guys feel like shit? What are you hoping to gain by throwing your perfect married life in their face (see guys, I fucked the whole football team and later in life married a handsome rich tall doctor McDreamy with a porn sized cock so I have the power and you don’t, and this can happen for women no matter how much you hate it, ha-ha and fuck you) is that your goal? Because I don’t see anything in your posts beyong gloating.

    I’m happy for you. I am happy you have it all. You go grrrllll. Problem is, you are the 1% of women who will be able to pull this off and if the other 99% of the younger and virginal women in the world listen to you and choose to live their life the way you did (because it worked for you), they are most likely going to fail, be miserable, and they are likely to blame YOU later in life because they didn’t get the fairy tale.

  328. Farm Boy says:

    Irony is apparently a lost concept too

    Though hipsters believe that they have a monopoly on it.

  329. myrealitie says:

    “She also is the poster child for something I’ve explained several times yet many can’t bring themselves to accept; large numbers of women see their time on the carousel as part of their ordained path to marriage. It is a form of courtship. They didn’t blow/bang those guys because they lacked self restraint. They did it all for you (future husband)!”

    Actually, Dalrock, I did it for my myself, and I never claimed otherwise. In retrospect, I notice some interesting benefits that I did not anticipate, which I shared here. And my secular husband behaved exactly as I did prior to marriage, which is why he doesn’t spend time thinking about my past behavior.

    Today, we ritualize and pour intense energy into child rearing and the parent-child bond. We can’t imagine life without very close parent-child bonds. This suits our current way of life. Prior to several cultural and medical changes over the past few hundred years, this was much less true, particularly in agrarian societies where families had upwards of one dozen children, many of whom died in infancy and childhood.

    In the past, nearly all if not all societies ritualized sexual behavior between husbands and wives. Circumstances have changed (birth control), and humans adapted fine to it just as they functioned perfectly well without special and constant attention from their parents.

    Yes, there are many aspects of being human that are routed in genes evolved 10,000 years ago to facilitate success in environments of 10,000 years ago, and these cannot be changed to fit our current environment now matter how much we’d like. But we can’t underestimate the malleability of humanity. We are very socially and culturally adaptable.

    Sex just isn’t that big of a deal unless you make it a big deal by focusing on it. Holding it up as a defining feature of marriage, in my view, detracts from more central and critical components of marriage.

    The only argument that can be made against pre-marital sex is a religious one.

  330. Entropy is my god says:

    “The only argument that can be made against pre-marital sex is a religious one.”
    Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha HA HA HA HA!
    Yes, and gravity only exists if you will it too…..

  331. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer

    Most of your latest reply depends upon the strawman that I’m speaking specifically about MyRealitie. I’m not, actually.

    Straw man??? You engaged me–by name–in response to my comments. Those comments of mine were specifically concerning MyRealitie. The argumentative error is not mine.

    What would be the best way to get MyRealitie’s newest adepts to feel suitably embarrassed for their lack of self discipline, and encourage them to change? I think a careful and balanced reading of the text would lead us in the right direction.

    http://biblehub.com/kjv/john/8.htm

    This is the psychoanalytic brilliance of Christianity, in my opinion. People are malleable, and most people can derive satisfaction from self-improvement.

    You have profoundly misunderstood the text because you think it’s a psychoanalytic exercise about how to manage people, i.e, more of the wishful idea that you or I can reprogram people’s hearts. It’s not. It’s not even about the woman. It’s a revelation about Jesus. See here for more:

    https://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2014/06/16/newsflash-the-adulteress-is-dead/

    I’m doing the opposite of carrying water for her. I’m actually telling you (and everyone else) how to easily defeat her transparent arguments. I’m also echoing the teachings of Jesus in John 8.

    No, you’re not. Aside from missing the holistic point of the story of the adulteress in John 8, you’re also missing the ordinary fact that the woman is in danger, and not proclaiming that her adultery was righteous.

  332. myrealitie says:

    @innocentbystanderboston –
    Did you read the whole thread? I came to this thread to talk about the merits of shaming as a mechanism for societal change/order. I think I am against it, but I am not 100% sure it has no value, and I was trying to engage in a conversation about it to enhance my understanding. If you read far enough above you’ll see that clearly.
    Then someone (Lyn87) wondered why all of the highly educated college sluts were divorcing less frequently than the often less educated single moms.
    I offered that it is because there really isn’t a link between sexual promiscuity and the ability to maintain a marriage. Then several posters viciously attacked me for daring to defend sluts, in a nutshell.

    At that point, I shared details of my own life to illustrate my perspective, not before then.

    Plenty of women having plenty of sex before marriage avoid becoming a single moms. Plenty of them go on to have very nice and healthy families. I am from a slice of the culture where this is true, this is the world I live in. I didn’t manage to pull of a miracle. Your theories of the world are slightly wrong. Adjust them to reflect reality.

  333. Tam the Bam says:

    myrealitie is refreshingly candid about her membership of some kind of Natural Aristocracy.
    Defined by their genetic hand, whatever that means (scrupulously setting “intelligence” to one side, of course).
    She is therefore quite entitled to swish by in her carriage past the serfs hunched in the ditch, braying at them that it’s all just Nature’s Way, and can’t be helped, suck it up graciously, orcs. Behaviour means nothing. This is your fate.

    PS I really ought to broaden my circle. I’ve never met any PhD whose wife did literally nothing except potter around the house. Wouldn’t be tolerated. Invariably sharp-elbowed DINKIES the pair of them, and the care of any (squeaked out thru the fertility window) kids outsourced the minute they got boring and just a slog (about 6 mths., I’d observe)

  334. myrealitie,

    @innocentbystanderboston –
    Did you read the whole thread? I came to this thread to talk about the merits of shaming as a mechanism for societal change/order. I think I am against it, but I am not 100% sure it has no value, and I was trying to engage in a conversation about it to enhance my understanding. If you read far enough above you’ll see that clearly.

    Yes I saw that part.

    Then someone (Lyn87) wondered why all of the highly educated college sluts were divorcing less frequently than the often less educated single moms.
    I offered that it is because there really isn’t a link between sexual promiscuity and the ability to maintain a marriage. Then several posters viciously attacked me for daring to defend sluts, in a nutshell.

    They are not attacking you for defending sluts. They were attacking you for defending promiscuity.

    You see, you never pair bonded with your beloved husband because he was not your first. You were “ruined” from a Biblical sense from the pair bonding. A woman only pair bonds with the first man who enters her. Now that doesn’t mean you can’t have a wonderful and lifelong marriage, you can. But the men here are terrified of the laws of this country allowing wives to frivorce them for cash and prizes. They want a submissive wife who gives him headship, a wife who would never dream of taking advantage of that terrible unilateral divorce aw. That only comes with pair bonding. You get it? That is why they attacked you. You are the enemy. They don’t like promiscuous girls because for everyone there is, there is one less woman (in their mind) worthy of marriage. They think you are making the situation worse by justifying it. And now they are trying to shame YOU.

    At that point, I shared details of my own life to illustrate my perspective, not before then.

    Plenty of women having plenty of sex before marriage avoid becoming a single moms. Plenty of them go on to have very nice and healthy families. I am from a slice of the culture where this is true, this is the world I live in. I didn’t manage to pull of a miracle. Your theories of the world are slightly wrong. Adjust them to reflect reality.

    Yes, the most responsible promiscuous girl can pop a tiny unreproductive pill in her mouth each day, the same time every day and she will never be a single mom. I agree. Isn’t science wonderful? And yes those same formerly promiscuous girls (with an N-count of 100 or more) could give all that f-cking for conquest up, marry, stop taking that pill, and f-ck only one man. Yes, I grant you all that.

    But she will remember all those cocks. She will remember the first one, and the best one. She will never pair bond with her husband. And she will have headship in their marriage in the United States as he is now focused on always keeping her happy lest she invoke threatpoint. To these guys, that is marriage 2.0 and a horrible life (for the man) and that further makes you the enemy.

  335. myrealitie says:

    That chart has absolutely nothing to do with this conversation, which is why I ignored it the first time you posted it. I think it’s a roughly accurate chart, but it is simply irrelevant except to prove the point I was forced to make about about some of the men here earlier. Namely, the fact that greater than your reasoning abilities is your anger at women with sexual experience; all you are saying is “hahaha you aren’t going to be sexy forever” in an attempt to make me feel upset. But I am at peace with the world’s harsh truths, and I planned accordingly.

  336. myrealitie says:

    @innocentbystanderboston – “You see, you never pair bonded with your beloved husband because he was not your first.” WHERE ARE YOU GETTING THIS!?? There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history. I dare you to present some here, complete with references. Then I will proceed to laugh at the “study”‘s methodology.

    Ok, this has been fun, but I have to go finish up some work before the weekend starts.

  337. myrealitie says:

    Actually, @innocentbystanderboston, I have one last thing to tell you because maybe it will help you.

    A female’s sexual history has nothing to do with whether or the husband is the marriage’s leader. YOU have to be a good leader if you want that! Stop blaming it on the woman, it has nothing to do with her. If you have no backbone (and that is the NUMBER ONE thing a woman wants in a man, btw), that is YOUR FAULT. You are actually lucky, though, because you can develop a stronger character and a backbone, but an ugly woman can do less to attract and maintain a mate.

    I do agree that the laws are unfair, and that a man might be more concerned with not pissing his wife off than he should be to avoid unfair divorce. But I don’t think that is the main reason men don’t have backbones. They don’t have backbones because it’s easier to complain about sluts and divorce laws than it is to cultivate a strong inner character, which is very honorable and difficult.

    And don’t spew some crap about “why should men man up and marry sluts?”
    There are plenty of religious women around who are not sluts. Man up and attract one of them if that’s what you prefer!

  338. myrealitie says:

    Im having fun TFH, what can I say? Not cause gina tingles though.

    Please, give me some evidence. I am really asking you for some. I have not seen any credible evidence of this in my life.

    “There is tons of evidence posted all over the place. That is also why female virginity was a paramount requirement for marriage in ALL Western and Eastern societies until recently.”

    A much more plausible explanation for this was to ensure you weren’t marrying someone pregnant with another man’s baby. Today, that is irrelevant, because prior to marriage it is the eventual husband himself who is having sex with the woman using BIRTH CONTROL.
    Birth control changed everything.

  339. myreality,

    There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history.

    100% correct. There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history. That is because pair bonding between man and wife can only occur when she has NO past sexual history. And you know why? Because pair bonding is not what you and your husband share. It is instead what you and your husband have never had to share with others. The woman I lost my virginity to, when I told her that she said she NEVER wanted me to leave her because the mere thought of me being had by another woman…. would just devastate her.

    You want to emasculate your husband? You want to take him from beta all the way down to gamma? Here is a little test if you feel just evil enough, a test you could never conduct if the two of you pair bonded. The next time you have sex, why don’t you tell him (even while he is inside you) that he is not the best lover you have had in your life. That might very well be (short of cheating on him) the absolutely worst thing you could possibly do to him. Not only will you and he never pair bond, but now there will be a phantom to come between you and your husband in the bed you share.

    And if you think that is crazy, just imagine how it would make YOU feel if your husband said to you (as he is inside you) that you are not the tightest vagina that he has entered, that there has been other women who are much better lovers, that have given him more earth shattering orgasms? You think maybe that would be damaging to your marriage? It sure would. But when a couple pair bonds, they don’t have to worry about these things.

  340. Farm Boy says:

    There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history.

    I will lead off with some anecdotal evidence. My Dad was my Mom’s first, and they pair bonded for life.

  341. Entropy is my god says:

    myrealitie

    Does it hurt to be proved wrong by your god of science?

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/10/141001090238.htm

    Telegony is real. Every sexual partner matters. Your god says so.

  342. Entropy is my god says:

    How does your husband enjoy looking into the eyes of your former sex partners when he sees “his” children? Is that joy in his face?

  343. imnobody00 says:

    You are too harsh with myrealitie. As any non-mysoginistic person knows, you must take the promiscuity out of your system in order to have a good marriage. This is why marriages of yore (when promiscuity was completely shamed) lasted an entire lifetime while today’s marriages are lucky to last ten years.

    In fact, in my church, there is a counseling group to prepare people to have a happy marriage. The first thing that the bride-to-be is asked is: “Have you had a lot of sexual partners?”. If she says that her N is below two digits, the counselor tells her to get out of her system and go back to counseling when she has banged the entire football team (and then the baseball team). We are not going to let these marriages fail. Some jerks riding the girls like a pony and these girls will become a model of good wives.

    Some girls don’t have money to pay a room so we have some rooms in a building near the church for this purpose. While I walk through the corridor, I can hear women screaming of pleasure and screaming “Give me more!” and trying all the possible positions. They are also gang-raped because they have to get out gang-rape out of her system. I say to myself: “Now, these women are training themselves to be outstanding wives. We are doing a good job.

    What I don’t know is why these techniques are not tried to stop the divorce raising in America. More slutting around and American women will be the examples of the renaissance of marriage in the world.

  344. Farm Boy says:

    Here are some stats. “Divorce” is used as a surrogate for “not bonding properly”.

    http://freenortherner.com/2013/06/21/sexonomics-odds-of-divorce/

  345. Farm Boy says:

    Here is the Huffington Post,

    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5698440

  346. Boxer says:

    Dear Cane:

    Thanks for an interesting reply.

    Straw man??? You engaged me–by name–in response to my comments. Those comments of mine were specifically concerning MyRealitie. The argumentative error is not mine.

    I don’t know why you’d think I was specifically defending the latest skank-ho to beg for negative attention here. She’s just the latest version of a type that always seems to be dancing in the corner.

    You have profoundly misunderstood the text because you think it’s a psychoanalytic exercise about how to manage people, i.e, more of the wishful idea that you or I can reprogram people’s hearts. It’s not. It’s not even about the woman. It’s a revelation about Jesus. See here for more…

    That’s an excellent essay, which I missed, and it makes your position clear.

    I think part of the disconnect I have with some of you guys (not just you, but you’re included) is that I’m thinking materially about how to change the world-as-it-is, whereas you guys are concentrating on the world-to-come. There’s a lot of intersection, but you’re right to point out that they’re not always the same.

    From your perspective, the woman may be “dead”. From mine, she’s an example of a person who falls in with the lowest common denominator for whatever reason, who can be persuaded to come over to our side. It’s really an easy argument to make. To stop slutting around is to see an immediate improvement in many areas of your life. It sorta sells itself, provided people are willing to accept those who choose to improve themselves.

    While you may not see the primacy of the material dimension of the New Testament as important, I appreciate it. To be clear, I don’t disagree with you. I’m sure Jesus will cast me into the lake of fire after I die just like all the other harlots. In the mean time, I find the text useful for improving myself, and I’ll continue to think that we ought to use it to improve society, one individual at a time.

    Best, Boxer

  347. Boxer says:

    IBB, et. al:

    Again, you guys are falling into her frame.

    100% correct. There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history. That is because pair bonding between man and wife can only occur when she has NO past sexual history.

    There’s not zero evidence. There’s good evidence that pair bonding can occur in people with prior sexual history. There’s also good evidence that pair bonding is easier and more efficient between people without a history of slutting around.

    It’s also easy to make a really good case for the fact that being a ho is bad for your psychological, physical and emotional health. Thus, we can readily show that she’s encouraging a damaging lifestyle for the people she claims to champion. That’s really all this ho needs to be told. She can’t refute it, because it’s true, and she can’t lead you guys down the absolutist rathole either.

    Boxer

  348. Boxer says:

    Dear Greyghost:

    That was first world talking point production. Only privileged class spoiled brats make a production like that. As soon as that Chinese bank gets big enough and established enough to allow the Asians to go off the dollar for international trade we will see how that bratty production looks.

    You’re right. One set of the parents in the “FCKH8” video has been identified, and there’s a pretty good write-up here:

    http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8156-why-are-rape-and-exploitation-of-women-liberal-issues/

    (This is probably not a good forum to visit if you are sensitive. Very crass)

    Note the flabby, empty-eyed father, and the overweight mama whining about being molested as a child (calling Drs Freud, Jung and Adler…). Typical SWPL couple, representing the contemporary “white trash middle class” that’s taking over the USA.

    Boxer

  349. myrealitie says:

    Thank you, Farm Boy, I am actually going to hunt up the actual journal articles underlying these posts from the Huffington Post (lol) and other blogs. I hope you read the actual journal articles yourself before drawing your conclusions from Ariana Huffington.

  350. Farm Boy says:

    FYI,

    It was not written by A. Huffington. And since the Huffington Post is liberals, it would be natural for them to pooh-pooh the findings.

    In the end, guys see what they see. And all of the frivorces are not pretty.

  351. Bango Tango says:

    I like how Myrealitie gives the “I’m here because I’m concerned about the negative aspect of Feminism” disclaimer before launching into her real agenda, defending the female imperative by speculating that anyone who has a problem with promiscuity is just mad because they are unattractive and can’t find a mate (which should naturally just be everyone’s primary goal of course lol). Only a woman would make such a broad sweeping retarded statement like that. Look guys don’t worry about civilization, don’t worry about paying for women’s irresponsible choices, deal with your real problem , your anger that you are not attractive enough to find a holy loving and spiritual relationship to fill your inner soul with joy and peace.

    This is why even having a discussion with women is pointless. They need to be put in a birkah and made to clean toliet bowls somewhere. They are not evolved enough to have an opinion on anything of importance. Seriously.

  352. Why do you think the stigma is creeping back now? Shouldn’t it decrease?

  353. Boxer says:

    Why do you think the stigma is creeping back now? Shouldn’t it decrease?

    The stigma has always existed. In the past, there was a bit more of a buffer between polite society, where shit behavior like babymamas and thugs were openly suppressed, and the ghetto/trailer park, where the underclass was forced to stay. Polite society had the luxury of teaching their kids to feel sorry for the “downtrodden” and were confident in the knowledge that the same downtrodden would remain largely out of sight.

    In our present situation, polite society is less able to self-segregate. They see fatass babymama and her thirteen dirty, obese kids in tow (all fathered by different men) when they go to the market. They see Shamiqua bawling on tee-vee after Qway-von and D’metrionius have just been arrested for their fourteenth purse-snatching, and they realize that this dysfunctional crew lives just down the street. They also get to laugh and hoot as “Honey Boo-Boo” — a fat kid who thinks she’s a beauty queen — behaves like an imbecile on television. These minstrel shows further serve to illustrate the difference between the healthy and normal folks, and the skank-ho single moms.

    Boxer

  354. Robin Munn says:

    @myrealitie –

    There is zero evidence that pair bonding in humans has to do with prior sexual history.

    http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_R-WhB9g9eYk/TJDSr8V_ShI/AAAAAAAAAOg/VmMGTymAVcI/s1600/teachman

    Notice the nearly 30% drop in marriage stability for the first non-marital sexual partner. A woman who has sex with nobody but her husband has an 80% chance of her marriage lasting at least 5 years. A woman who has sex with only two people: her husband, and one other person: 53% chance of her marriage lasting at least 5 years.

    A nearly 30% drop for just one non-marital sexual partner. THAT’S the evidence you’re denying.

    I dare you to present some here, complete with references.

    Data source: the National Survey of Family Growth, 1995. Which has more recent data available now, but I haven’t found anyone who’s done this analysis on their more recent data. Yet.

    Then I will proceed to laugh at the “study”‘s methodology.

    The survey was of about 10,000 women (later surveys surveyed men too, but the 1995 survey only surveyed women), and asked hundreds of questions, from which all kinds of statistical analysis can be drawn. The U.S. government relies on this study’s data for most of its policy analysis.

    Go ahead and laugh now… if you want to prove yourself a fool. If you’re wise, though, you’ll look at the evidence and re-think your position.

  355. Robin Munn says:

    Oh, and the graph I just linked? It’s graph 15 from the PDF found here:

    http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2003/06/harmful-effects-of-early-sexual-activity-and-multiple-sexual-partners-among-women-a-book-of-charts

    The other graphs show things like the incidence of STD’s climbing as # of non-marital sex partners increases (graph 12), and the number of women who rate themselves “very happy” decreasing as you move from the “sex with nobody but her husband” cohort to the “had 21 or more sexual partners” cohort (graph 17).

  356. Bango Tango says:

    @Boxer. This one’s for you man.

    Shirley Q. Liquor – Who is my Baby Daddy?: http://youtu.be/-O4BbMisj6s

  357. Bango Tango says:

    What I don’t know is why these techniques are not tried to stop the divorce raising in America. More slutting around and American women will be the examples of the renaissance of marriage in the world.

    Indeed, indeed. But that will only be partially effective. Campaigns like FCKH8 are working on the next phase in building the perfect wife from the ground up by teaching little girls as young as 6 to start objectifying themselves and their bodies as sexual objects and blame men in general for whatever negative situations or feelings they experience in the future. I think we are well on our way to creating the most harmonious relationships between the sexes ever and the Utopia that follows. Let us rejoice. Thank God almighty we will be free at last.

  358. In 400 comments someone probably said this…

    The Christian derivative is:

    “Yes i know it can be hard on kids but im just gonna pray them through it”

  359. Boxer says:

    Dear Bango:

    Typical single-mom raised trash back at you. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy3HqF2kLso

    Why wouldn’t we look down on this sort of shit?

  360. Bee says:

    @Robin Munn,

    Good sources.

    “Go ahead and laugh now… if you want to prove yourself a fool. If you’re wise, though, you’ll look at the evidence and re-think your position.”

    More evidence of liberals and SJW’s engaging in a “War Against Statistics.”

  361. Farm Boy says:

    I wonder if she will be back…

  362. Boxer says:

    I wonder if she will be back…

    An identical character is due to appear sometime tomorrow. It may or may not have the same pseudonym, but it’s sure to ask all the same questions, express the same outrage, and stamp its feet and leave in a huff, in about the same time-frame.

    The dogs bark, and the caravan moves on.

  363. myrealitie says:

    Ok, Here is a list of the 3 papers referenced here, complete with direct-to-pdf links.

    1) National Marriage Project Study 2014: https://www.dropbox.com/s/g4oe6w8gpqo8n03/The%20National%20Marriage%20Project.pdf?dl=0

    2) The Heritage Foundation (lol) 2003 study
    https://www.dropbox.com/s/hcsqibwzealak5q/THE%20HARMFUL%20EFFECTS%20OF%20EARLY%20SEXUAL%20ACTIVITY%20AND%20MULTIPLE%20SEXUAL%20PARTNERS%20AMONG%20WOMEN-%20A%20BOOK%20OF%20CHARTS.pdf?dl=0

    3) The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth Growthhttps://www.dropbox.com/s/i33ik5r7oo4zg70/Premarital%20Sex%2C%20Premarital%20Cohabitation%2C%20and%20the%20Risk%20of%20Subsequent%20Marital%20Dissolution%20Among%20Women.pdf?dl=0

    Before I dive into this, a little bit more background about me: One of my undergraduate degrees is in applied mathematics and statistics. The other one is in psychology. I also once performed the statistical analysis on a 100+ variable epidemiological study and was the co-author on said paper. This was several years ago, and I do not do this kind of work any longer. I would not advertise myself as an expert statistician by any means. However, the 3 papers above have very serious and fairly easy to spot limitations that render them absolutely INCAPABLE of establishing a CAUSAL LINK between sexual partners and bonding and/or marriage outcome.

    To begin with, let’s talk about a hypothetical TRUE EXPERIMENT that would allow us to reject the null hypothesis that number of sexual partners has no bearing on marriage outcome/bonding ability. (Yes, that’s right, the burden of proof is on any proposed theory). We would have to take a large group of people which represented all of human kind, and we would have to split the group in two randomly so that we could be sure that there were no systematic differences between the two groups. Then, we would have to ASSIGN half of the people RANDOMLY to the promiscuity group, and half of the people to the virginity group. (Let’s not even get into the fact that we’d have to first operationalize “promiscuous” and probably have several levels of it). We’d have to then follow these people around for 30 or 40 years and measure relationship quality (we’d also need to operationalize that) along the way. We wouldn’t ask them about their feelings or about their opinions or about their memories. We would measure, perhaps ideally some kind of physiological variables deemed indicative of a strong bond, and we would look at divorce rates etc. If we found that the promiscuous group significantly differed from the virgin group, we would then have the very beginnings of establishing a causal link between promiscuity and marriage breakdown/lack of bonding. In this scenario, we would have EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL because we would have been working with 2 identical groups, where only one was assigned to the experimental condition of promiscuity. Any differences between the groups could then be attributed to that single manipulated variable and nothing else.

    Now, I am sure you can see that this is an impossible/unethical study to conduct. So, what are we left with? We are left with the possible opportunity to use STATISTICAL CONTROLS in order to cross off potential (an unlimited number, really) extraneous alternative explanations for an observed CORRELATION between promiscuity and marriage outcome. Let’s talk about the next best scenario. We would have to design a study where we again took a very large group of INFANTS representing all of human kind. In this study we would still NOT have an EXPERIMENTAL CONTROL GROUP. But if we wanted to do our best to establish a causal link between our variables, we would have to measure 100’s of other variables in our infants. How well bonded are they to their mother? What is their IQ? Their race? Their temperament? etc. etc. We’d have to follow them around and remeasure these things over time for many years, watching carefully and beginning to measure their educational outcomes and their sexual behavior over time as it emerged. Again, we could NOT ask them for their recollection of various things from their pasts, because that is completely unreliable. We would have to measure it for ourselves over time. Then, after about 50 or 60 years of doing this, we could finally measure their marriage outcomes/bonding success. We could then use statistics to achieve STATISTICAL CONTROL over SOME of the possible differences between the portion of this group that ended up being promiscuous and the portion of this group that ended up only every having sex with their spouse. There is no way we would have been able to measure every conceivable difference between these two groups, by the way, but at least in this scenario we’d have a decent data set from which we could attempt to illustrate that the SEXUAL ACT and not several possible alternatives is statistically related to marriage breakdown/lack of bonding.

    But do any of the above 3 studies succeed in collecting adequate information that the study authors could have used to acceptably isolate sexual activity itself? No, they did not. As you can see from above, doing so would be prohibitively expensive and time consuming. Why can’t you just ask people questions about the quality of their life prior to data collection? Well, for one, because people lie. Another reason is that people have terrible and very biased memories. The present influences your recollections.
    These are among the reasons I was so confidant that no one here would be able to present me with evidence that the sex act itself hurts a human’s ability to bond and have a good marriage. There are many other reasons as well, but the above is a good starting place.

    My hypothesis regarding the reason we sometimes observe a link between promiscuity and poor marriage outcomes is because low IQ, low conscientiousness (seeks instant gratification), and poor early bonding themselves often cause promiscuity. So when you see a prior slut leaving her husband, it is not because she was corrupted by sex with many people so much as she is probably some combination of low IQ, inclined towards instant gratification, and with a history of familial discord during the critical period of emotional development (infancy). But I can’t test my hypothesis anymore than you can test yours.

    In 30 years, we’ll have a little bit more insight into this (but still pitifully little) when we can observe the marriage outcomes of this current more promiscuous generation.

  364. tweell says:

    Ah, disqualification. It’s a prime SJW tool. Alas, it requires us to validate it.

    I’m a believer in the maxim that perfect is the enemy of the good. Your perfect study would cost billions and take decades. It isn’t going to happen, so we get what we have.

    Prove the study wrong, myrealitie.

  365. myrealitie says:

    @tweel – it is not an issue of “good” or “not good”
    It is an issue of: “what can i conclude from these datasets”?

    And you cannot conclude causality from a correlational study. You just can’t. Grow up.

  366. No slutrealitie, you don’t get it. We don’t have to prove anything to you. Either you get it or you don’t. I really don’t care much about sluts anymore, do what you gotta do.

    A woman, who understands what a wife is, doesn’t require a ‘study’ to prove why she shouldn’t go out and have sex with other men besides her husband. To ask for that is to remove all doubt as to your qualifications as a Christian wife.

    Go away slut, your kind is not welcome here.

  367. JDG says:

    So when you see a prior slut leaving her husband, it is not because she was corrupted by sex with many people so much as she is probably some combination of low IQ, inclined towards instant gratification, and with a history of familial discord during the critical period of emotional development (infancy)

    Just to be clear here, what percentage of sluts are likely to have a hi IQ, be self disciplined, and come from a fully functional family?

  368. Boxer says:

    It is an issue of: “what can i conclude from these datasets”? And you cannot conclude causality from a correlational study. You just can’t.

    Is that what that mindless blather, pages and pages long, was supposed to communicate? Why didn’t you just say it in three sentences, rather than three hundred?

    I think it should be clear that kooky isn’t here to argue in good faith, at this point. She’s just trolling you guys with Asperger’s style feminist wordsalad.

    Regards, Boxer

  369. myrealitie says:

    I think over the past several years, lot’s of them (well by your definition of slut, which is above say 2 partners). And divorce rates have not been increasing in kind.

  370. JDG says:

    I think over the past several years, lot’s of them

    And I should think very few, even by my definition of the term slut (N>1). My understanding is that these days very few individuals are self-disciplined, and very few families are fully functional, which goes hand in hand with my submission that most women in 1st world countries are indeed sluts.

  371. Farm Boy says:

    render them absolutely INCAPABLE of establishing a CAUSAL LINK between sexual partners and bonding and/or marriage outcome.

    In reality I really am only interested in the presence or absence of causal link intellectually. Operationally it makes little difference. If the stats show that women with lots of partners are more likely to divorce, then such women are not for me. It does not matter if the increase was due to “slutting around” or due to “increased adventureness” or whatever may be correlated with “slutting around”. You get divorce raped all the same.

  372. Farm Boy says:

    One of my undergraduate degrees is in applied mathematics and statistics.

    I wonder what the probability is that she would make me a sammich…

  373. Farm Boy says:

    It would seem that myreality wants the “perfect study”. Nothing else will do. She knew that these studies would not do that by definition. She could have written what she wrote above yesterday without even looking at the links.

    Myreality is a frequentist, I am a Bayesian, lets call the whole thing off.

  374. Boxer says:

    One of my undergraduate degrees is in applied mathematics and statistics.

    All that means is that she sat through a couple of semesters of adv. calc and modern algebra. Don’t fall for empty appeals to credential.

    I wonder what the probability is that she would make me a sammich…

    Judging from how often she’s here, P(E) approaches 1. She’s clearly sweet on all you guys.

    Boxer
    (BA, pure math, some lousy college, long time ago)

  375. JDG says:

    I should amend the following from my 6:05 pm post:

    … most women in 1st world countries are indeed sluts.

    to

    … most women in 1st world countries are indeed sluts (or former sluts).

    Although I suspect the probably is very low, I will ask anyhow:

    myrealitie will sammiches be forth coming? A sammich a day keeps the hamster at bay you know.

  376. Cane Caldo says:

    @Boxer, Farm Boy, et al.

    I would refer you back to my comments earlier. Particularly where I said it is useless to engage her, but you can learn something about their tactics. Statistical knowledge is not the problem. That anyone thinks the problem is evidence that they need to go back to Manosphere 101: The Power of Rationalization.

    The answer lies with MyRealities husband; not her. Put the proposed goodness of her actions (sexual history, etc.) in his face, and get his response. That is a great measure.

  377. JDG says:

    JDG says:
    November 1, 2014 at 6:37 pm

    probably = probability

  378. Robin Munn says:

    @Cane Caldo –

    I knew before I wrote my comment that myrealitie wouldn’t learn from it. But anyone with half a brain can now look at this thread and see me posting evidence that demonstrates a link (not a causal link, because you can’t get that from a statistical study, but that doesn’t matter in this case) between promiscuity and the inability to form a lasting marriage. And they can then see her dismissing that link because it only demonstrates correlation, not causation.

    Well, duh. You can’t get causal factors from a statistical study, unless it was that unique special snowflake of a study that she hypothesized (and then dismissed due to the very real ethical problems it would have). But it doesn’t matter what the cause is, if we can measure the effects. And the effects say that 80% of women who married their only sexual partner (which doesn’t tell us whether they slept together before the wedding) were still married five years later, while only 53% of the women in the N=2 cohort* achieved a marriage of at least five years. So if I want a marriage that lasts until one of us dies, it doesn’t matter whether the promiscuity is cause or effect: either way, it’s a clear indicator of inability to pair-bond strongly.

    As one XKCD comic put it, “Correlation doesn’t imply causation. But it does wink suggestively while mouthing, ‘Look over there!'” What myrealitie wants is for you to not look over there — ignore the slut behind the curtain — and think “Oh, we can’t prove that slutting it up causes divorce, so let’s just ignore all the correlation.” But by answering her call for evidence, her intellectual trickery (“You can’t prove causation, so you haven’t demonstrated any link at all despite all the correlation”) is exposed for the world to see.

    And that’s the benefit of engaging her, at least a little. Not that she’ll change her mind and repent like she needs to — though we should always hold out that offer, because after all, it didn’t seem likely that Saul of Tarsus would repent either, so we can never know for certain — but because by allowing her the chance to look like a fool in public, we reduce the likelihood that anyone else stumbling on this thread six months later will be deceived by her.

    * Or should that be N=1? My gut says that N should count total lifetime partners including spouse, so a woman who’s a virgin at marriage and then never cheats on her husband would be N=1, not N=0. But I’ve seen people use N as “lifetime partners not counting spouse”, too. Is there any consensus on which way to use N when talking about this?

  379. Robin Munn says:

    By “at least a little” above, I meant “don’t engage her for too long, but do respond once or twice so that others reading can see that her arguments are poor. After that point, they’ll have learned to dismiss her too.” I don’t mean that engaging her has just small benefits. It has quite large benefits for anyone new to the conversation — and thanks to Google and/or the Internet Archive, you can never know just when someone new will show up and start reading.

  380. Farm Boy says:

    Robin Munn,

    You said what I was saying, but better.

    I wonder if she will be back for another round….

  381. Cane Caldo says:

    @RM

    By “at least a little” above, I meant “don’t engage her for too long, but do respond once or twice so that others reading can see that her arguments are poor. After that point, they’ll have learned to dismiss her too.” I don’t mean that engaging her has just small benefits. It has quite large benefits for anyone new to the conversation — and thanks to Google and/or the Internet Archive, you can never know just when someone new will show up and start reading.”

    I’m not buying it.

  382. Pingback: Reformation day linkage and statistics. | Dark Brightness

  383. JF says:

    This is why, under the sanity of a Patriarchal System, the children are the property of the father. Not the mother. Not the State (as is now the case in the U.S. thanks to ungodly marriage licenses and ungodly birth certificates). The father. Women have never, and will never, have property right ownership of their children. It has
    always, and will always, be either the father (God’s way), or Caesar (the current predominant U.S. way).
    Rollo Tomassi has effectively shown that women have no, or very little, empathy
    towards their husbands. I have lived this horror myself and proven it be true more than once for myself.
    So where is the mother’s empathy directed? Her offspring? Apparently not; certainly not with modern Western Civ women.
    Only a father, WHEN HE IS GIVEN FULL AND RIGHTFUL PROPERTY RIGHTS CONTROL OVER THE FRUIT OF HIS OWN LOIN, can think rationally and unselfishly enough to put his children first.

  384. Kate Minter says:

    @TFH: There is no reason why an ex-wife cannot perform the actions you described a widow taking in order to benefit the children: refraining from demonizing, encouraging a continued relationship with him and his family, etc. I suspect that those women who view their divorce as akin to death do this naturally. The distinctions between various types of “single mothers” really has far more to do with selfishness than circumstances.

  385. rover77 says:

    It’s hard on her, but not on her kids….definitely the case..I suspect she has to share custody and that impacts her finances…the golden package divorce is starting to dry up..that may bring some change

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