Patriactionary: Women who hit the age of 40 without a husband or kids deserve to be alone and miserable the rest of their lives.

Be careful, ladies, or you too will LOSE DICK FOREVER! Borrowed from Easily Mused. (Click the pic to see more crying chicks.)

Over on Patriactionary, a proudly reactionary and patriarchal Christian blog, the blogger who calls himself electricangel is angry at himself – for not being an even bigger douchebag than he already is.

You see, he’s just heard from his wife that one of her friends isn’t happy about hitting the big 4-0. Apparently, his wife’s friend

broke down in tears, sobbing uncontrollably. What had hit her was the realization that she was 40, with no husband, no children, no prospects of either, and she was staring at a future of loneliness.

His reaction to this news?

I wish I could tell you that an evil smile of vengeance crept across my face, and the children this woman discarded were getting their revenge upon her. That this was payback for riding the cock carousel for years, always aiming at the guys she wanted, not the guys she could get.

But alas, hidden deep inside in his tiny misogynistic heart there remains a tiny fragment of sympathy.

But I cannot tell you anything other than how saddened I was at her tale, and how this sadness will rip out the hearts of so many women who did not set out to become lonely, childless spinsters, but whose families and societies removed the strictures on their behavior so that their own lack of self-control was left unbounded. This will be the ongoing social disaster of coming years.

I did say it was a tiny fragment.

But he still wants to use this woman’s story for his own ends.

In discussing this woman, I am insistent upon her becoming an object lesson to my wife, and especially for my wife to tell the beautiful, smart, virgin young women close to her about what happens to carousel riders. Life is a coin you may spend any way you like, but you may only spend it once. This woman spent it on an amusement park ride. Now the park is closing, she has been thrown off the ride, and faces 45 years of solitude.

Yeah, because no woman over the age of 40 is capable of ever finding a date or a mate.

Yeah, because her sadness at hitting 40 is going to last for the rest of her life.

Oh, and the bit about “the children this woman discarded?” She didn’t “discard” any children. She simply didn’t have any. She’s not “discarding children” any more than those with penises instead of vaginas are “discarding children” each and every time they masturbate to orgasm.

In the comments, not everyone is quite so restrained as electricangel.

“I don’t even know this woman and I’m pissing myself laughing at her,” writes one commenter going by the name Friendzone. “Fuck her.”

Take The Red Pill is equally unsympathetic:

I have NO sympathy for this woman whatsoever. Just like most Modern Women, she bought into the feminist deception with eyes wide open with never a thought about the future. Well the future has arrived and it looks a lot like a cold, lonely one for her – just like the cold, lonely youth and young adulthood that MOST men have had and continue to have.

Karma has come due, and the bicycles have realized that they don’t need fish, either.

When women like her are young, they treat decent men abominably – being as cruel and sadistic as they can be when rejecting an ‘unwanted’ man’s advances – simultaneously, they enjoy being ‘free whores’ for every player, dirtbag, and Alpha thug who crosses their path; then when they reach their thirties and are little more than ugly, repellent, diseased trollops (often with some thug’s illegitimate spawn or two in tow), they complain about ‘the lack of good men’.

Others adopt Electricangel’s more, er, mature approach. Will S. decides to be a pompous dick about it, while patting himself on the back for his enlightened attitude:

Indeed, it is proper to not gloat, but rather mourn what we have lost, as a society, and feel sorry for those who have made poor decisions – and try to help others not make such poor decisions, by pointing to unfortunate examples, that at least others might learn something from them.

Sometimes, schadenfreude is tempting, but we Christians do generally know better than that.

Because patronizingly exploiting someone’s (probably temporary) sadness to make other people feel shitty about their own lives is such a moral thing to do.  Is faux sympathy better than no sympathy at all?

Our friend Sunshinemary jumps on the “let this be a lesson to the rest of you sluts” bandwagon:

We need not mock such women, but we need to hold up their tales as cautionary examples to other young women. The older women themselves cannot face that their lives should serve as an example of what not to do, and they will rationalize it forever.

Electricangel expounds on his plan to use this woman’s apparent misfortune for his own ends:

I am using her as a vector to drop comments to my wife about the dangers of the carousel. Next is the overt suggestion that she talk to some young women about this friend specifically.

Uh, I guess you don’t let your wife read this blog, huh? Because if I discovered that someone close to me was talking about me in such a creepily manipulative and patronizing way, that person would no longer be a part of my life.

Electricangel replies to Sunshinemary:

Yes, those who did not prioritize children will have their genetic tendencies to that behavior removed from the gene pool. Women do not have the sexual options that men do, and not letting them know this early and often is crushing.

But they must be pointed to, and shown as examples. I understand people who will laugh at and mock them; I thought I would. It’s just the enormity of a waste of a life, and the lives she threw away, and the realization that this is just the tip of huge iceberg that has gripped me.

Yes, EA, you’re such a deeply moral person. Posting an “I told you so, you whores!” post on your blog is no doubt exactly the way The Lord would like you to handle this.

In a later comment, he reiterates his plan to use this woman’s story to increase the insecurities of his wife:

I do not feel guilty at all about using this woman’s example to drop pellets of manosphere logic on my wife. It has the side benefit of my wife starting to ask me (because she’s asking herself) “What do I do to bring value to the relatinship?” It is a good thing.

First it was a sad thing, now it’s a “good thing.”

How exactly is this better than gloating? No, scratch that. How is this different than gloating?

About these ads

Posted on August 17, 2012, in alpha asshole cock carousel, antifeminism, gloating, men who should not ever be with women ever, misogyny, patriarchy, reactionary bullshit, Uncategorized and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 847 Comments.

  1. I demand sexy, sexy pinups of all our trolls. If they are not provided I will draw them myself.

  2. Shaenon would you really?? Because that would be awesome

  3. Can you do NWO first? I’m hoping that you’ll find a way to incorporate a milking machine.

  4. And that steele person would have a Persian cat on his lap…as in Bond villain, not the Godfather.

  5. Actually, a “Trolls of 2013″ calendar might be good. We could send the proceeds to Anita at Feminist Frequency.

  6. Teddy: Personally,,I don’t believe that men and females have anything in common except sex and reproduction. There’s no need for all of this “dating” nonsense and expense. Just meet and have sex like the Masai of Kenya do.

    Men and females, and stupidly false ethnographic bullshit.

    What with the,”Stay on Topic. Stay on Topic” as you enter the trench in your X-Wing, I think we’ve hit a Trifecta.

    Wait… nope, we have, “Photos please” and a “you don’t understand simple English” defense.

    It’s an Exacta.

  7. Varpole: like most deluded feminists and politically correct zealots, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of Objectivist thought. It’s not amorality; it is perfect morality.

    So stupid is the answer. Still not explaining why the woman who wants to have her date pay is being immoral, rather than, “Objectivistically” looking out for her own interests.

    But if you think there is a “perfect morality”, you are a dolt and a poltroon; it takes a fool, or a Messiah, to think that people are perfectable.

    When the perfection involves being abusively selfish, it’s obvioiusly not a Messiah. Since Rand rejects the important aspect of the Categorical Imperative (the universality of rule), her system is arguably immoral; in that it allows for separate classes of action; and the exploitation of others. Since it does this in the pursuit of selfish motive it is Amoral.

    This is Ethics 101.

    You fail.

  8. testing testing…new computer….wordpress not believing I exist mutter mutter mutter!

  9. Argenti Aertheri

    Ok I’m still pages behind here, but this?

    “And btw, the reason that the picture is inaccurate is because it depicts a female who appears to be about 20. The average US female at 40 is a flabby overweight grey haired wrinkled menopausal wreck. Most of you girls on here are at least 40. Post your real pics and it will prove my point.”

    Hi Pell!

    I’m exactly 0 of those things btw, though I guess I’ve got a couple of greys (there was that entire sub-conversation about how I found those at 16 though, so yeah…)

    And you first on the pics, but please, no stock photos of celebs this time, k?

  10. Argenti Aertheri

    Unsurprisingly, the photos part was ninja’ed multiple times, as was the “hi Pell!” part…whatever, I’ll catch up eventually…

    Pell’s being Pell, Steele/Varpole said vile 5 times, NWO made no sense, the thread’s 700 comments strong…yeah, everything seems normal enough around here XD

  11. Just got back from my 10 year high school reunion, so unless I was held back for like…a couple decades, I’m pretty sure I’m still 27 (I’m a Fall baby, so I turn 18 late in the year).

    I would totally want to be a 40 year old flabby lady, though. Then none of these shitbrains would even acknowledge my existence beyond moaning and wailing about how I am allowed to exist.

    Scratch that. It is MY NEW GOAL to eventually BECOME a 40 year old flabby lady who enjoys and lives life to the fullest while the MRAs stew in the vile bile of self-righteous entitlement and bigotry.

    I win.

  12. Hello, I’ve been lurking a few weeks and love this site but haven’t said anything yet. I felt that this woman’s misery is a perfect reason for women to STOP caring about marriage/relationships so much. I know women who are constantly depressed because they can’t find a man to marry, and it’s sad the way they ruin their lives over it.

    I got divorced and will probably never get married again and I’m glad I don’t have children (especially with him). I have time to do other things I care about such as attend social events and join causes I care about, plus spend more time with friends, and my parents who I may not have around forever. Etc. You do not have to die in solitude because you don’t find a husband and have kids. Many women CHOOSE that life.

  13. Okay, can’t respond to everyone directly. As far as my original comment goes, I’m not trying to say that there’s a dichotomy between being hedonistic and settling down. Alternative lifestyles are beyond my purview as my only knowledge of them involved someone who was severely damaged emotionally so I’ll leave that alone because I’d be biased.

    I’m not assuming this women actually did sleep around in her 20s, I was more speaking to the all-to-coming articles from women reaching their late 30s or early 40s and wondering, “What happened? Why am I still single?”

    Many of these people spent time indulging themselves and “finding themselves”. This sort of self indulgence is narcissistic (probably not pathological, but all the same…)

    The point is, no you don’t need to settle down into a monogamous relationship. However, for the people who do desire to settle down one day, we’re setting them up for failure by telling them to go “find themselves” and sleep around for a couple of decades. This applies to men and women.

    The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships. When a woman is conditioned/chooses/etc to respond to more sexually aggressive men (the kind of men who are good for casual sex), she’ll be disappointed to find that these are also the men that just-so-happen to be terrible as intimate “partners” in more than a physical sense. What do you see a few decades later? Articles asking, “Where are all the good men?” And, “Why am I still single?” And women who are frustrated by their inability to have a relationship that lasts more than a few months.

    It’s not about judging people, or pushing my “morally superior” lifestyle on others. I just think this is good relationship common-sense that those who espouse “free love” didn’t bother to think about before they…..espoused.

  14. Many of these people spent time indulging themselves and “finding themselves”. This sort of self indulgence is narcissistic (probably not pathological, but all the same…)

    Citation needed. Why is casual sex any more self-indulgent than monogamous, committed sex? How, precisely, is it narcissistic?

    The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships.

    How? Citation needed. (Also, this whole sentence is completely nonsensical. “The problem with this thing being the norm is that it isn’t normal.” If something is accepted as the norm, it is, by definition, normal. Duh.)

    When a woman is conditioned/chooses/etc to respond to more sexually aggressive men (the kind of men who are good for casual sex)

    Why are sexually aggressive men “good for” casual sex in a way that other men are not? Are shy, gentle, or submissive people inherently terrible in bed? Citation needed.

    , she’ll be disappointed to find that these are also the men that just-so-happen to be terrible as intimate “partners” in more than a physical sense.

    Why would being good for casual sex automatically make you bad for relationships? Citation very much needed.

    It’s not about judging people, or pushing my “morally superior” lifestyle on others

    Yes, claiming that people who behave differently than you are “narcissistic,” not “normal,” and “terrible as intimate partners” does not sound like judging people at all! Especially without any evidence for those things other than your assertions!

    Seriously, dude. It is totally okay for you not to be into casual sex. It’s not my thing, either. But you are not offering any reasons for other people not to engage in casual sex that do not, fundamentally, appear to boil down to “Phil thinks people who have casual sex are icky.”

  15. Wow, Phil, that’s a whole lot of personal feelings masquerading as objective facts that you have there. I mean, if you wouldn’t want to settle down with a partner who’d previously had lots of casual sex then that’s fine, but when you start assuming that your feelings about that are universal and people who’ve previously had casual sex are inherently unsuitable as long-term partners that’s a bit silly. Especially given that in many countries a period wherein people have lots of casual sex or some casual relationships, or both, followed by eventually settling into a monogamous relationship is the norm*, and has been for at least 20 years.

    The flipside of the nasty assumptions that you’re making about people who’re “suitable” for casual sex is the idea that people who’re not suitable for casual sex but are suitable for relationships are by implication rather boring in bed. That’s not a very nice assumption to be making either, and given that you seem to be placing yourself in that group it makes me sad for you (and for your partner, if you have one).

    BTW, you might want to look up the word “narcissistic”, because it doesn’t mean what you’re trying to make it mean. It’s a diagnosable personality disorder, not just being a little self-indulgent or self-focused.

    *Not that doing something that isn’t the norm is automatically bad or wrong – Phil, are you paying attention? Being outside the norm is fine. But still, if you want to start talking about societal norms, in most industrialized countries a period of casual relationships, often including some casual hookups, followed by an eventual shift into long-term monogamous relationships is in fact the norm, ie. the most common relationship pattern.

  16. Phil, after responding to your last post I began to wonder whether your theories depend on dividing men into two groups: One group of “bad guys” who like one-night-stands but don’t want to marry or would make terrible husbands if they did, and another group of “good guys” who are the opposite. You just confirmed my suspicion.

    But in my experience, and the experience of most people here, men CANNOT be divided into these two groups. Most people I know, men as well as women, were dating around and sleeping around more or less when they were younger, and eventually settled into steady relationships/marriage. As Cassandra says, that’s really the most common pattern. Sleep around a bit first, serious relationship and eventually marriage later.

    Sure, you MIGHT sleep around and then never find Mr/Ms Right, but you MIGHT ALSO save yourself and never find Mr/Ms Right. Regardless of strategy there are no guarantees, so really… sleep around if you want to, save yourself if you want to.

  17. @Renne: Wholeheartedly agree. Marry if you DO find the right person, but if you don’t, be happy single rather then “settling” for someone who’s not exactly right for you.

    In the past, when the social pressure to marry was that much greater, there must have been an absolutely AWFUL amount of “settling” and sad marriages as a result.

  18. Also, that pattern I mentioned? It’s the same whether we’re talking about men or women. Which makes a lot more sense than the angry sexist dude theory where 90% of the women are fucking 10% of the men, those hypergamous bitches, just to spite you. Unless there are a whole lot more bisexual people than there are people who openly identify as bisexual (and I mean a LOT more), then there’s really no way that the resentful dude version of How Het Sex Works could work – unless both men and women are following similar patterns the numbers just don’t add up. The way it actually works is that most people of whatever gender date a few people, maybe have a few one night stands, sometimes not, depending on individual preferences, and then eventually most people find someone they really like and end up in a more serious relationship.

    Sorry if this is distressing for you, dude, but welcome to the 21st Century.

  19. Phil is spouting a whoooollle bunch of Natural Family dog-whistles here. The point of marrying your first partner is not because it’ll make you happier, but so that you can have more (white, Christian or at least not Jewish/Muslim) babies!

    And I concur with

  20. Phil is spouting a whoooollle bunch of Natural Family dog-whistles here. The point of marrying your first partner is not because it’ll make you happier, but so that you can have more (white, Christian or at least not Jewish/Muslim) babies! If you wait to find the “right” person you might not start breeding until your 30s IF AT ALL :-0

    And I concur with Renee and Dvarghundspossen, just getting married for the sake of.getting married is worse than being single. What makes a good marriage good isn’t the marriage, it’s the goodness.

  21. Double post GRR

  22. Donut Butthole

    Hey dudes, this is Mister Al. I’m not Wondering, despite popular consensus. I don’t really care if you believe me or not, but just fyi. I don’t do that stuff any more. Thanks.

  23. Hey guys I don’t do that stuff anymore but I still obsessively read the blog and feel the need to sockpuppet despite being banned.

  24. And yet, here you are.

  25. MRAL way to NOT prove your point. Also donut butthhole?? O_____________________o

  26. MR.AL way to NOT prove your point. Also donut butthhole?? O_____________________o

  27. Socking to say you’re not socking? Seek help, dipshit.

  28. “hellkell
    LOL, indeed, motherfucker. It’s nice of you drop by and project your sad-man-limped-dicked insecurities on me, but here’s the thing: both my husband and I are aware that we both had a healthy sex life before meeting, but since we’re secure individuals, we’ve never asked each other how many people we’ve had sex with. I haven’t hid a thing.
    MRAs are the only people I know who get so worked up about how many men a woman has slept with. I know you want someone with zero experience so your shortcomings won’t be so readily apparent, but too bad.”

    You sound pissed harlot? don’t be getting upset about your slutty past, we all forgive you. You ever thought about tying a mattress to your back? Lol

    And besides, I like slutty females, these are for fun like a hobby. Get over it. Since You are so Secure with your whorish ways, make sure you do your health checkups please.

    Too bad so sad. :(

  29. I felt that this woman’s misery is a perfect reason for women to STOP caring about marriage/relationships so much. I know women who are constantly depressed because they can’t find a man to marry, and it’s sad the way they ruin their lives over it.

    ABSOLUTELY!! “Married with children” is not, and nor should it be, a universal be all and end all of a life well-lived.

  30. @dyor
    Creepo meter has exploded! Dude stop jerking off on blogs and then talking about it. Didn’t your momma ever tell you not to take your dick out in public?

  31. dyor, sounds like you prefer people “with zero experience so your shortcomings won’t be so readily apparent.”

  32. I’ve only read this one article on Patriactionary, but I find it hard to believe that it isn’t satire. This is one of my (many) complaints about modern life: satire is dead. If Jonathan Swift were writing today, *A Modest Proposal* would not play; it just isn’t far enough from actual right wing dogma. Oh well.

  33. Jesus. I make it a point to cruise the interwebs anonymously, never posting, never commenting… but THIS? This is just disgusting, and I’m a 39 yr old man. THESE assholes need to be removed from the gene pool entirely.

  34. Yeah, dyor’s post is easy to decode: I have an investment in women staying desperate and scared and chaste…’cause if they’re not willing to settle, they might not pick me. They know what an orgasm feels like? Shit! That’s to much pressure to perform in bed!

  35. @Phil: I once enjoyed a few bouts of casual sex with a man who was in a sexually open relationship. He and his girlfriend had each other’s blessing to slut it up when the urge struck them. Counting back from now, they’ve been together for almost five years, and the casual sexing outside their relationship has been going on for most of it.

    So we have here at least two people who are suited to both maintaining a romantic relationship and indulging in casual sex! EXPLAIN!

  36. “So we have here at least two people who are suited to both maintaining a romantic relationship and indulging in casual sex!”

    0_0

    ARE YOU A WIZARD.

  37. Oh no! DYOR despises sluts! This means that in a hypothetical situation where I was non-married and looking for a husband, there’s this anonymous internet troll who wouldn’t want to marry me! The horror!

    … or not.

  38. @Psyche: Maybe Phil doesn’t think a relationship is serious if it’s open.

    But his thesis is already disproved by the millions of people who first date around and sleep around a bit and then get married, since, as Cassandra pointed out earlier, that’s pretty much the norm in today’s western world.

  39. DYOR, harlot? Seriously? Is that supposed to make me feel bad? You fail, but I’m sure you’re used to that feeling.

    I’m sorry you hate women with more experience than yourself, but the care and feeding of your boner is not mine or any other woman’s problem. However, your fixation with me is more than a bit creepy.

  40. Ya gotta love these guys that view sexually experienced women as sluts and harlots, great for fun….like a hobby….but not wife material, yet consider themselves perfectly suitable husband material after they’ve spent time (and some continue to do so, even after marrying chaste, pure, virginal “wife material”) indulging in their “hobby”.
    Hypocrite!

  41. Hypocrite with a serious projection issue. My original comment was pretty innocuous, and this dipshit read way more into than was actually there. I don’t get what the big deal is.

  42. Oh Pam, no self-respecting “slut” would give dyor the time of day. Sluts like to have fun, after all.

  43. Hypocrite with a serious projection issue.

    Yeah, he’s projecting his own Madonna/Whore Complex onto your husband (and, more than likely, most other men).

    My original comment was pretty innocuous, and this dipshit read way more into than was actually there

    Yeah, I think he read your original comment re “cock carousel” as meaning that you withheld, and are still withholding, from your husband information regarding your premarital healthy sex life, because (in DYOR’s Madonna/Whore Complex mind) if he knew, then boy oh boy, he’d drop you like a hot potato.

  44. @Pam and Hellkell: Pam’s right. It’s pretty obvious that he can’t fathom the idea that there are men out there who’ll happily get married to somebody who used to sleep around, and it’s just a NON-ISSUE to them.

    OOOOH suddenly I’m developing POWERS OF CLAIRVOYENCE! I already know what Dyor’s response is gonna be! Accusing Hellkell’s husband of being such a total omega-male that he simply couldn’t GET any other wife than Hellkell, and had to settle for this awful harlot!

  45. Oh, LOOK, just the ticket for NWO and all the other dudez who cannot control their booners and drool production glands at the sight of women:

    Only $6 for a pair of blurring glasses which will protect your eyes, your drool gland, and your manly bits from the sight of women.

    I love it! Don’t complain about what women wear: BLUR YOUR VISION, GUYZ!

  46. timetravellingfool

    @ithiliana- hooooleee crap, what a fantastic idea!!!!! Why has no one thought of this before?!!

  47. LOL at the thought of Mr. HK being an “omega.” Anyone who believes that alpha beta omega nonsense is beyond stupid.

  48. Right. I must give a warning here. Those of a delicate frame of mind (MRAs) should NOT read this disturbing and perverted post.

    Through appalling lack of foresight, I allowed myself to become a 37 year old single woman with a university education, great friends, lovely family, a couple of lovers, no pets and a good career. And yet, despite all this, I was happy. I know. Disgusting. How dare I?

    And then I met my now-boyfriend. Despite my advancing years, feminist inclinations and decades of sexual activity, I met someone depraved and deranged enough to reject his rights. We’re horrifically happy. He’s wonderful, easily the best friend and lover I’ve ever had.

    I understand that the plural of anecdote us not data, but for anyone who is interested, MRAs and their associated weirdos know nothing. I’m proof of that. Not only can women be happy at around 40, women can love and be loved, and so can men.

    The people who can’t are those whose hatred, prejudice, spite, entitlement, unkindness, resentfulness and bad will make them unlovable at any time of life. For the rest of us, life is for living however we find joy. Never believe anyone whose social commentary is clearly, blatantly, painfully, transparently designed to hurt others.

    They’re crazy stupid and they’re the very last people to comment on what makes human relationships work.

  49. My wife got married in her early twenties, decided that it was a huge mistake by her mid-twenties, divorced (no kids, thankfully) and spent the next decade gleefully riding the cock carousel, catching up on all the wild sex she’d missed out on earlier.

    And when she met me, she was totally upfront about this, telling me that she wanted to settle down in a monogamous marriage, but it had to be with the right person as she wanted it to be second time lucky. As it turned out, I was that right person, and we’ve been together over eleven years and married for ten. In fact, we spent a good couple of hours this morning just lying in bed and chatting about pretty much anything that popped into our heads. Oh, and laughing. A lot.

    We must be doing something wrong from an MRA perspective, but I really can’t think what.

  50. The Kittehs' Unpaid Help

    OMG those glasses … I am sooo looking forward to reading about some jerk wearing those and walking smack into a power pole …

  51. Phil:

    The point is, no you don’t need to settle down into a monogamous relationship. However, for the people who do desire to settle down one day, we’re setting them up for failure by telling them to go “find themselves” and sleep around for a couple of decades. This applies to men and women.

    Prove it.

    The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships. When a woman is conditioned/chooses/etc to respond to more sexually aggressive men (the kind of men who are good for casual sex), she’ll be disappointed to find that these are also the men that just-so-happen to be terrible as intimate “partners” in more than a physical sense.

    Prove it.

    It’s not about judging people, or pushing my “morally superior” lifestyle on others. I just think this is good relationship common-sense that those who espouse “free love” didn’t bother to think about before they…..espoused.

    Assumes facts not in evidence, as well as begging the question from the first unsupported assertion.

    I mean it. Prove the stuff you just said. I’d say the special pleading you did about “alternative lifestyles” applies to your understanding of sexual behaviors that don’t match the one you are espousing.

    Because their has never been a time when people didn’t fool around before getting married: A new bride can do in six months what takes a cow or a countess nine.

    New England Puritans practiced, “bundling”, where people who were courting spent the night in the same bed. There were lots of cases of prospective marriages failing after a couple of nights of bundling. These people then went on to bundle with other people, and eventually get married.

    I did a research paper on virginity, while I was in college, the number of cases of puritan brides with babies born far too early to be early births is astounding. No formal notice was usually taken if the speed of that first child wasn’t more than about six months after the wedding (one fellow, and his wife, were fined for having a child at five months. He was later appointed constable. He’d also been fined for, “masturbating against the church wall on a Sunday”. Puritans weren’t the prudes we think them to have been. They also thought that if a woman didn’t enjoy sex she couldn’t get pregnant, but I digress).

    I also did a semi-random survey (the, roughly 70 people I could get to fill it out). It wasn’t a terrible survey (the questions had to be run past my prof, who was a psychologist, it was a psych of sex class). The age ranges were 16-45, the “average” person had started having sex at 16 (I had a few virgins, one of whom was in the later twenties), the average for partners was about 2 a year. This was in the late ’80s. So people have been fucking in their teens since, at least the late fifties, based on a small, and not all that validly random sample.

    And they were settling down just fine as they got to their later 20s, and middle 30s. Which contradicts your theory.

    As to the nonsense about the “men who are good for casual sex”; how do you know? I know lots of women who like casual sex. I know a lot of them who pick the men they want to fuck, and then make the offer. They tend to turn down the “alpha” style of dude, because the have decided they aren’t worth the time/energy/drama that it takes to, or is generated by, fucking them.

    It is about judging people, and pushing your lifestyle on them. You think they are miserable because they didn’t do things your way.

  52. There are two problems. 1). The terms we’re using are fuzzy or getting mixedup. 2). I can’t point out things that I think are facts without you guys thinking I’m judging.

    There’s nothing I can do about 2, except point out that it’s useless to call me judgmental. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but if I am right then reality is reality regardless of how judgmental you feel I am for pointing it out.

    Well there’s another problem. I think that you guys think I’m being more black-and-white than I think I am. So to speak. It’s like you think we either have to have 1950s style idealism, or a sexual free-for-all. I think that’s a false dichotomy.

    I am not here advocating that we do away with the notion of casual sex. Obviously, people are going to have sex outside of monogamous relationships, no matter how our culture views casual sex. Once again, all I’m saying is that !!encouraging!! (didn’t want to use caps) casual sex and normalizing it has some unfortunate consequences. There are different kinds of men in this world, and while not everyone fits the mold, a general statement about men is that the men who are more sexually aggressive are also less relationship oriented. It is also true that if you’re just having fun and having casual sex, you’re going to be oriented (as a woman) generally speaking to then be attracted to these men (and vice versa). Sexually aggressive = more short term dating success. You ask for proof, but this almost obviously going to be true in general. But you can google “Dark Triad” for proof, or reference any of the hundreds of other studies done in this regard. Also, it’s common sense. Human nature being what it is, there are some pretty obvious side effects of telling people to be decouple their sexuality from their desire for relationships.

    As for open relationships and other such things, I don’t know about them. I imagine the number of people explicitly participating in these sorts of things are in the single digits percentage-wise, and not to sound dismissive but for the purpose of this discussion they’re basically irrelevant. We’re talking about the consequences for people who eventually desire to be in a monogamous relationship – since people in open relationships experience none of these consequences then they’re irrelevant.

    If we tell women to go out and explore their sexuality with men, what’s probably going to happen? Well according to data and common sense, they’re obviously going to signal their availability to men who are signalling their availability via sexual aggression (sexual assertiveness if you prefer).

    Allow me to snowflake for a moment to demonstrate by anecdote what I mean. When I was younger, I got into two terrible relationships. I wasn’t very sexually assertive, I generally waited for women to signal their interest in me and make the first move. Lo and behold these women were more domineering and controlling and would often belittle me in front of my friends. In other words, I was a “nice” guy, or if your prefer a pansy.

    After the second relationship, I realized that if I wanted my relationships to be different, then I had to change my behavior from the moment I met a girl I was interested in, because certain kinds of people are attracted to certain personalities and behaviors, so I decided that if I saw any potential in a partner, I would make the first move and continue to more actively participate in the relationship. Six months later, I followed through on the change and got into a great relationship.

    Obviously that doesn’t exactly parallel what we’re talking about, but the point is different conditions at the outset lead to different outcomes. That you guys would deny this is, frankly, baffling. Excluding non-typical relationships, for people who are seeking monogamy, if you tell them at the outset that they should make themselves sexually available, then they’re going to attract the kind of guy who is interested in his short term sexual interests. Can this lead to lasting monogamy? Sure. It does quite often, as a matter of fact. However, if “Where are all the good men?” articles are any indicator, as well as any of the numerous single-and-unhappy 30 and 40 year olds, then it obviously isn’t working for a lot of other people. It seems the feminist solution on this front is to be like, “Sorry, you played russian roulette with hook up culture and you lost. You may be lonely, but at least no one shamed you and your sexual choices so on balance you’re a winner even if you’re unhappy.”

    If I’m right, then these women thought that making themselves sexually available was a winning strategy, but found that instead it attracted the wrong kind of guy repeatedly. There’s your proof. If they didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    Did people in the past sleep together before marriage? Sure, but that was also before hook up culture was considered the norm. The puritan’s bundling is not a proper parallel to what we have today. They “bundled” in anticipation of a proper marriage, they didn’t move out of the house and then sleep with twenty people just for fun and to explore themselves. I don’t know that there is any historical precedent set for what we have, at least in any culture that’s still around or is independent of the larger culture that it’s a part of.

    This is why, by the way, pick up artists even exist. Yes, Game works. Why? Because men know they can exploit our sexually free society for their short term gain. And more and more men are starting to figure this out, since the movement is growing into a relatively large subculture.

    It also may be just a coincidence that our birth rate would decline so sharply while our openness to sexual variety would rise, but I doubt it. I don’t know that there’s any way to control all of the variables on that, however, so that will never be settled.

  53. Once again, all I’m saying is that !!encouraging!! (didn’t want to use caps) casual sex and normalizing it has some unfortunate consequences.

    Prove it.

    There are different kinds of men in this world, and while not everyone fits the mold, a general statement about men is that the men who are more sexually aggressive are also less relationship oriented.

    Dude, you don’t have to be aggressive to have casual sex. You just have to be open to the idea and know the right people.

    If I’m right…

    Big if.

    …then these women thought that making themselves sexually available was a winning strategy, but found that instead it attracted the wrong kind of guy repeatedly. There’s your proof. If they didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    What proof? Seriously, what actual proof have you offered? Unhappy women exist? Welcome to the whole of human history.

    The puritan’s bundling is not a proper parallel to what we have today. They “bundled” in anticipation of a proper marriage, they didn’t move out of the house and then sleep with twenty people just for fun and to explore themselves.

    They also hung people for witchcraft. Just puttin’ that out there.

    This is why, by the way, pick up artists even exist. Yes, Game works.

    No, it doesn’t. It’s a scam.

    Why? Because men know they can exploit our sexually free society for their short term gain. And more and more men are starting to figure this out, since the movement is growing into a relatively large subculture.

    More and more men are buying snake oil. It’s just any other self-help bullshit. PUA is a fraud, designed to generate ad revenue and sell books and seminars. PUAs lie. That’s all they do.

  54. As for open relationships and other such things, I don’t know about them. I imagine the number of people explicitly participating in these sorts of things are in the single digits percentage-wise, and not to sound dismissive but for the purpose of this discussion they’re basically irrelevant.

    “Not to sound dismissive, but I’m just gonna go ahead and dismiss them.”

  55. No, Phil, the problem is that you keep pointing out things that you believe to be facts, we keep pointing out that in our experience these are not actually facts and asking you to provide evidence to back up your assertion that these are facts, and you don’t have anything.

    Your “facts” are what we like to refer to here as “assdata”, in honor of the place where you pulled the information you are asserting from.

    But his thesis is already disproved by the millions of people who first date around and sleep around a bit and then get married, since, as Cassandra pointed out earlier, that’s pretty much the norm in today’s western world.

    Not just in the West – based on both personal experience and accounts from friends raised in various other parts of the world this patterns has also been observed in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and increasingly commonly in China. It’s almost like it’s fairly standard and unremarkable human behavior or something.

    They “bundled” in anticipation of a proper marriage, they didn’t move out of the house and then sleep with twenty people just for fun and to explore themselves.

    Anyone else picturing Phil as the dude in the painting American Gothic, complete with sour facial expression, when he says stuff like this?

  56. Hey, I think I understand Phil! I feel so smart! :)

    I think he’s arguing that “Women think that sleeping around will lead to a husband, because ‘hook-up culture’/feminism/???. And they’re wrong.”

    But, if so, his position is not defensible. I would be surprised to find anyone who says “casual sex leads to relationships, as naturally as the night follows the day”. What I see is people saying “casual sex is morally neutral or maybe positive, regardless of whether it leads to relationships”. And people saying “casual sex doesn’t really affect your chances of having a relationship later”. And some saying “relationships: not so much of an absolute positive good anyway”.

    Maybe some women do think that “if I sleep with him, he’ll marry me.” But that’s not a newfangled notion, and you can’t blame “encouraging casual sex” for it.

  57. Okay, I’m less certain than most people here seem to be that PUA techniques can’t work. I mean, lots of people have shaky self esteem. I don’t think it’s impossible at all that “negging” can work by making people a little extra insecure and therefore extra happy if you then compliment them on something and show them attention. Same goes for many other basic PUA advice.
    It’s still WRONG to try and manipulating people by playing on their low self esteem, but it can probably work. I really don’t see that as an argument against causal sex though. Better encourage women not to take shit from douchebags.

    Over to Phil’s latest post: Yes, you can find many women who complain about there being “no good men”, and who can’t find a long-term partner although they want one. This does not prove that their state is CAUSED by having causal sex when they were younger, or that women who DON’T have causal sex are more likely to find “a good man”. THAT’S the problem with your argument.

    My own theory (which I don’t pretend to be able to prove in any way) is that people today might be pickier and less willing to “settle” for somebody who doesn’t feel perfectly right, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It might be a bad thing if you’re picky to the point of being completely unrealistic, of course, and maybe more and more people are. But if so, I don’t think it has anything to do with causal sex, rather with an entire culture that yells at us that success and having exactly the life you dream about is always possible if you just try hard enough. And unless your pickiness goes to unrealistic levels, I think picky is good and “settling” is sad.

  58. And Phil, you also seem to deny the fact that there are women who DON’T have one-night-stands and yet don’t manage to find a long-term partner. What do you tell them? I guess “Sorry, you played russian roulette with abstinence and you lost”.

  59. Phil, casual sex only prohibits a long term relationship when:

    1) The people involved are only interested in casual sex, not a relationship

    2)One partner thinks sex will lead to a wedding, and the other partner thinks they want a relationship, but they aren’t ready to marry.

    3). One partner (often male) wants casual sex, but also feels that any partner he’s had sex with is now unworthy. Its Ceasars wife. Ceasar had a mistress for years (and slept with many other women). When he divorced his wife, the mistress thought shed be getting married to Ceasar. Ceasar told her that his wife ‘must be above suspicion’ and since she had willingly been his mistress for years, she wasn’t worthy of being considered above suspicion. Somehow the ‘above suspicion’ ideal never applies to men.

    Pointing to the dark triad. Well first off, the dark triad is applied to serial murderers, not to everyday people. And its contrversial, because the supposed traits exhibited are also exhibited bypeople who grew up in severly abusive homesbut grow up to be decent law abiding folk. Are you seriously going to tell me that bedwetting at the age of seven precludes a man from being a loving husband? Also, narcissism is on a scale and everyone exhibits it at certain times because in small doses its healthy.

    If I met a guy who had a new sex partner every night, or a new relationship every two weeks propose to me, I mighht look askance. Not because of the sex, but because people tend to date a lot more people while they are in the early stages of figuring out which people they are attracted to work best for them, and all the various skils related to having a loving, and respectful relationship. I might not think it too serious if I know the guy has had stable, healthy relationships in the past and that the partners he’s had recently were a concious decision to have fun. All of this assumes a fifties normative viewpoint, that didn’t exist even then.

    The entire point of the OP, is that the man is presuming that the woman has had sexual partners in the past, that he’s presuming her lack of marriage is a moral indictment against her for her sluttiness.

    So, there a plenty of men who think a woman having sex with one person she doesn’t marry is a slut (definitely this guy). Surveys were done that showed women are considered sluts if they had sex with five partners OVER A LIFETIME! But of course, that’s the standard for a woman. Men frequently have many more partners than that, even when they profess to believe that chastity is important for both sexes.

    As for poly, you may not be seeing those relationships, largely because a relationship can only be serious when people live together. There are a ton of poly relationships out there, and some where they are raising a family together. But you likely won’t see it because there are laws that make it punishable by imprisonment to live in poly relationships!

  60. @Phil

    “I wasn’t very sexually assertive, I generally waited for women to signal their interest in me and make the first move. Lo and behold these women were more domineering and controlling and would often belittle me in front of my friends.”

    So, what we’re saying here is that people who are sexually aggressive tend to be abusive or domineering? Or is that just women?

    Also, re: only aggressive men being good at casual sex: my painfully shy boyfriend has still managed to rack up an impressive number. Being a slut, for men and for women, is as easy as being a fine-ass human being who knows the right people.

    WAIT I FORGOT! We don’t count cuz we live an “alternative life-style.”

    Silly me. Imma just go back to my sex, drugs, rock and roll and committed relationships.

  61. 2). I can’t point out things that I think are facts without you guys thinking I’m judging.

    Phil, why don’t you actually try presenting some facts? Because so far all you’ve provided are opinions and judgment.

    You offered your own experiences as proof of your facts. How does that work exactly? Would you accept my experiences as proof that your “facts” are bullshit?

    I’m getting married next year. Not only is my romantic history a mix of serious relationships and what you might define as casual sex (I’m not sure how you’re defining casual sex beyond sex you disapprove of) but my relationship began with what we both thought would be casual sex. Really, when we decided to start seeing each other there was nothing more to it than a lot of laughs and a near preternatural sexual chemistry. We fell madly in love.

    Now we’re getting married.

    If casual sex precludes the forming of monogamous relationships and potential marriage, how is this possible?

  62. Phil, those women were abusive because they are abusive, not because they like sex. People are domineering because they are domineering, not because they like sex.

    If you were really laid back and unwilling to voice your opinions, some of the domineering *might* have been an attempt to compensate. But my guess would still be on the “this person is domineering” because I’m guessing that a person frustrated by someone elses relative lack of assertiveness would simply move on to a person who suits them better.

  63. I am not here advocating that we do away with the notion of casual sex. Obviously, people are going to have sex outside of monogamous relationships, no matter how our culture views casual sex. Once again, all I’m saying is that !!encouraging!! (didn’t want to use caps) casual sex and normalizing it has some unfortunate consequences.

    Oh no of course we wouldn’t want to do away with “the notion of casual sex” because then how could we possibly slut-shame women?

    /sarcasm

  64. Well I thought not “doing away with the notion of casual sex” had more to do with not getting laid. You can’t have casual sex if you really believe that you shouldn’t be having it. Unless you want to be a hypocrit, or you enjoy slut shaming.

  65. Well Phil, I don’t want to point out things that I think are facts without you thinking I’m judging. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but obviously,if I’m right, then it’s just common sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are using weasel words like there’s no tomorrow.

  66. I can’t point out things that I think are facts without you guys thinking I’m judging.

    LOLOLOLOLOL. Dude, the problem is, the things you are saying are NOT FACTS. Will someone get this guy a dictionary? Facts are things that can be readily proven time and time again, that do not have a number of very significant conflicting variables. The sun sets in the west and rises in the east. This is a fact proven by the repetition of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west since the beginning of the fucking world. “Women who sleep around never marry” is NOT a fact because it has been disproved umpteen bajillion times in umpteen bajillion different ways.

    Just because you “think” something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. It’s still just an opinion. And a stupid, judgmental one at that.

  67. There are two problems. 1). The terms we’re using are fuzzy or getting mixedup. 2). I can’t point out things that I think are facts without you guys thinking I’m judging.

    There’s nothing I can do about 2, except point out that it’s useless to call me judgmental. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but if I am right then reality is reality regardless of how judgmental you feel I am for pointing it out.

    I love this. “It’s pointless to call me judgmental, because if I’m right I’m right!” Uh, yeah, bro, we get that; the thing is, you’re not right. Duh.

    But if it makes you feel better, I won’t call you judgmental. I will call you a douchecanoe, though, you douchecanoe.

  68. Somehow the ‘above suspicion’ ideal never applies to men.

    Funny, that.

    Girls and women are slut-shamed for having had more than one sexual partner, yet boys and men are encouraged to sow their wild oats. Two great ideals that really seem to mesh well together. /sarcasm

  69. Phil: There’s nothing I can do about 2, except point out that it’s useless to call me judgmental. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but if I am right then reality is reality regardless of how judgmental you feel I am for pointing it out.

    What bollocks. If you are wrong then just ignoring is it a moral failing on our part. You don’t get to hand wave because there is a lot tied up in that “if”.

    If you are right, you don’t get to say, “If I am right you have to admit that I am right.” You have to show your work.

    And you bailed out at the very beginning; so we can pretty much say you are wrong.

    You said, you can’t speak to, “alternative lifestyles” and then defined everything other than get’s married to the first/second person they are interested in, or ends up miserable, as, “alternative”.

    That’s begging the question, palming cards and loading the deck.

    I am not here advocating that we do away with the notion of casual sex

    Coulda fooled me. In fact, re-reading what you said, you still fooled me.

    The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships.

    You are, straight up, saying that not condemning casual sex leads to “delegitimizing normal attraction” Whatever that bit of jargon means, it means that causal sex cannot be accepted a social norm if we want to, “Legitimize normal attraction”.

    Once again, all I’m saying is that !!encouraging!! (didn’t want to use caps) casual sex and normalizing it has some unfortunate consequences.

    Once again: PROVE IT.

    As for open relationships and other such things, I don’t know about them. I imagine the number of people explicitly participating in these sorts of things are in the single digits percentage-wise, and not to sound dismissive but for the purpose of this discussion they’re basically irrelevant.

    Let’s say it’s what, 5 percent? With an adult population of roughly 200,000,000 that would mean 10,000,000 people. This is your idea of basically irrelevant?

    The population of blacks in the US is 12 percent. The population of Jews is only 6. Are they basically irrelevant?

    Hell, the number of women in a year who get abortions is in the single digits, as a percent; so we can just say abortion is irrelevant, right?

    Which is to say that single digit percentages = irrelevant is a cheap way to dodge the issue; because you don’t really mean it.

    If we tell women to go out and explore their sexuality with men, what’s probably going to happen? Well according to data and common sense,

    Show us some data. The common sense you can keep, since (in this context) it just means, “What Phil wants to believe is the case.”

    Allow me to snowflake for a moment to demonstrate by anecdote what I mean. When I was younger, I got into two terrible relationships. I wasn’t very sexually assertive, I generally waited for women to signal their interest in me and make the first move. Lo and behold these women were more domineering and controlling and would often belittle me in front of my friends. In other words, I was a “nice” guy, or if your prefer a pansy.

    Cool story bro. What’s it’s relevance to the discussion? Because I wasn’t very aggressive (still ain’t, all things being considered: certainly the PUA/Alpha types you say are the ones who get the sex would say I was a pushover), and I’ve had a lot of relationships (not just one nighters), with women who put the moves on me, and weren’t “domineering and controlling”.

    In fact, the women I’ve been with who were more controlling were the one’s I was more aggressive in pursuing. I would speculate this might be because they were afraid I’d step out on them, because I’d been so aggressive.

    the point is different conditions at the outset lead to different outcomes. That you guys would deny this is, frankly, baffling.

    That you think we do is baffling. What we don’t accept is your contention that you know what the starting conditions are to get to a, “good” relationship. In part because you aren’t accepting the idea that starting conditions are unique. For you, casual sex = failure later in life.

    If I’m right, then these women thought that making themselves sexually available was a winning strategy, but found that instead it attracted the wrong kind of guy repeatedly. There’s your proof. If they didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.

    Then I’d say you have a crotch-level view of the world. Because you have no proof. If you are right, then you are right… that’s your argument.

    It’s no argument, and it’s certainly not supported by any evidence you’ve offered.

    They “bundled” in anticipation of a proper marriage, they didn’t move out of the house and then sleep with twenty people just for fun and to explore themselves. I don’t know that there is any historical precedent set for what we have, at least in any culture that’s still around or is independent of the larger culture that it’s a part of.

    Then you don’t know much. Read up on the twenties. Read some Nero Wolff novels (Rex Stout started writing them in the 1934).

    As to bundling… show me how people today aren’t having sex in the expectation they will end up married to someone.

    This is why, by the way, pick up artists even exist. Yes, Game works. Why? Because men know they can exploit our sexually free society for their short term gain. And more and more men are starting to figure this out, since the movement is growing into a relatively large subculture.

    Is it more than 5 percent? Because if it’s not larger than the people whom you can’t take into account because they are such a small percentage of the population, why should we grant you a special pleading?

    It also may be just a coincidence that our birth rate would decline so sharply while our openness to sexual variety would rise, but I doubt it

    Of course you would. See above re common sense.

  70. It also may be just a coincidence that our birth rate would decline so sharply while our openness to sexual variety would rise, but I doubt it

    Yes, how could there possibly be any societal development which would, say, allow people with uteri to *control* their pregnancies, and if there were, how could it make all fertile people less afraid of unwanted pregnancies/children, and more willing to have sex? It is truly a mystery how these things could be related.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 4,801 other followers

%d bloggers like this: