Ms. Marcotte is displeased. Sorry, not sorry.
Sex is chemistry, and it’s never casual.
Helen Fisher, Professor of Biological Anthropology, Rutgers University
My post criticizing Jaclyn Friedman’s piece My Sluthood, Myself resulted in a real (and still ongoing) debate among myself, my readers, and the sex-positive feminist community. Or as Jessica Valenti describes them, “the feminist badasses.” As of now, the comments on that thread are nearing 500 (and are hard to track, I’m sorry about that). While there has been some vitriolic spewing here, and a fair amount of condescending and dismissive snark, many of the commenters on both sides of the debate have engaged in civil, intelligent discourse. This can only be a good thing, as it promotes understanding. In any case, I appreciate the earnest and rather cerebral conversations that have been taking place. Thank you. I was particularly touched when Ex New Yorker characterized the usual debate at Hooking Up Smart as akin to sitting around the dinner table with family, arguing in good faith, and with affection.
I don’t think we’re kidding ourselves here, though. The views of the commenters are pretty well entrenched. But here’s the thing: the views of the other 99% of my readers are probably not entrenched. They seek a better understanding of a sociosexual environment that they are finding difficult to navigate. That’s how they find Hooking Up Smart. They google their questions, their disappointments and their frustration. They are looking for information, and support, and like Jaclyn Friedman, a way to get to Love. They are the readers that need to hear that cruising for sex online via Craigslist Casual Encounters is not a miracle, but a strategy that places their physical and emotional health at extreme risk. It’s also a strategy that is wholly incompatible with finding Love. (I’m prepared to be proven wrong on this. If any of you have endearing stories about Craigslist hookups resulting in committed, respectful love I would be extremely interested to know about it. I am already aware of the multiple homicides that have occurred in such hookups.)
In any case, I’ve had quite a bit of feedback from the Badasses:
Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon targeted me twice! Yay!
She says:
I kept trying to get Susan to define a “slut” for me, based on the universally understood idea belief that you’re a slut once your Number gets over a certain point. Realizing she wasn’t going to win any friends settling on a number, Susan dodged the question, saying instead, “I reject the concept of a #. Women should listen to their own instincts. If it makes you feel like crap, stop doing it.” But of course, she’s lying (or really, really fucking stupid), because she attacks Jaclyn for feeling good about her choices. If she doesn’t want women to feel like crap, she should be applauding Jaclyn’s piece, which had thrilling lines like:
I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me. Sluthood gave me the time and space to nurse a shattered heart.
First, let me say that I don’t really care for the word slut, as it has long-standing pejorative meaning. I prefer the word promiscuous:
adj.
This is a statement of fact and doesn’t make value judgments. I used the term slut and sluthood in my post in accordance with Ms. Friedman’s preferred nomenclature.
Second, I am unaware of any “universally understood idea belief” that defines promiscuity, or sluttiness by a specific number, or indeed by any numeric metric. The current generation of young women are particularly concerned about their numbers. It’s a frequent worry for readers. Mostly they’re concerned not because of what the Big Bad Patriarchy will think, but what the men they’re falling for will think.
Third, I stand by my statement that women should judge for themselves whether their choices are serving them well. I sometimes say that a slogan for HUS might be “How’s that workin’ for ya?” If you are getting what you want, it’s all good! You’ll get no haranguing from me.
Oh, about her calling me a fucking, fucking stupid liar? Turns out Ms. Marcotte was hired in 2008 to blog for John Edwards’ campaign (resisting jibe here about poor strategy) but resigned in two weeks after Terry Moran of ABC News accused her of engaging in hate speech, mostly directed at religion, particularly Catholicism. That same year she was forced to apologize after publishing a book containing “racist cartoons of ‘natives’ in a jungle setting.”
This is the mouthpiece of Pendagon. Enough said.
Now on to a particularly impressive coup!
High Priestess Jessica Valenti saw fit to dedicate a post to lil’ ole me on her personal website. I haven’t felt this giddy since I was Troop 476′s Brownie of the Year! Entitled Slut Shaming and Misogyny as Traffic Bait, it begins:
I guess I’m naively optimistic about people’s better natures, because I was straight up floored by this piece of shit post masquerading as well-intentioned criticism…Walsh is peddling in a pretty common (and tired) theme among bloggers who don’t really have shit to say – attacking someone who does. This kind of post is especially successful when you make it as salacious as possible, so Jaclyn was a perfect target. What truly bugs me is the way that Walsh – in her post and subsequently in comments, where she’s getting her ass handed to her – keeps insisting that she wrote this post to help young women. You know, cause she cares.
She lays out her grievances:
1. But let’s take a look at what she’s really done from a bloggy perspective. She’s featured a picture of Jaclyn – one that as far as I can tell isn’t publicly available.
The photo is Jaclyn’s Twitter profile pic, haha! What’s interesting, though, is that Ms. Valenti is defensive about Ms. Friedman’s looks. I tactfully refrained from any comments on her appearance, and deleted comments on my own blog that attacked her as unattractive.
2. She’s constructed a headline for her post that not only has the word “slut” in it, but that also features Jaclyn’s full name. This is search engine gold for anyone searching for Jaclyn’s work (a lot more people, I’m assuming, than search for Walsh’s). She’s created the post as slut-shaming traffic bait, no more.
Why is it inappropriate to use a title with the word “sluthood” to respond to a piece called “sluthood”? I could have called the piece Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Craigslist, but then I might have missed people who actually care about the conversation around Ms. Friedman’s piece.
A word about the traffic: Be careful what you wish for. Every blogger likes traffic, as it builds an audience and increases visibility. The temporary traffic bump produced by this kerfluffle will evaporate within days. Angry and strident feminists came marching into enemy territory, and they will pick up their bludgeons and depart once they have tired of pillaging. While I value and enjoy the debate, I don’t really expect any lasting benefit to Hooking Up Smart. But hey, you never know. Women are defecting from the sex pos camp all the time. I’m happy to take their refugees.
3. When we’re called whores, attacked and mocked online – those posts follow us forever. We take the hit so others don’t have to.
Such selfless nobility! For the record, I never used the word whore. I did not mock Ms. Friedman, I took specific issue with her proselytizing dangerous sex as a healing balm.
Finally, what you’ve all been waiting for, the piece de resistance.
A personal tongue lashing from Mickey Schulz of the National Organization for Women. Be still my beating heart!
Susan Walsh tells us it’s because all of us slutty slutty slut sluts are out there slutting it up, so no man will ever want, date or marry a “decent girl.” You know, decent girls: The ones who don’t have sex. Which, if you actually research Walsh herself, is diametrically opposed to what she did. She slutted it up, and then GOT MARRIED to one of her “one-night-stands.” ”Hey, Kettle, the Pot called. Guess what she said?”
I’m truly perplexed by this trotting out of my sexual history. This has been done a great deal in the comments of the revenge posts. It’s a great big AHA! What’s funny is that they found it on my own blog. I’ve been 100% open about from the start about my personal experiences. I’ve never said that I regret them, or offered value judgments one way or the other.
I don’t tell readers not to have casual sex. I encourage them to have sex that feels right to them. (Sound familiar, Badasses?) I am close to quite a few women who are promiscuous, and they seek my company and advice regularly. Because I do not shame them. I help them evaluate their objectives, and design a strategy to help them get what they want. I’m there for them either way. I’ve never told a single woman not to hook up. On the other hand, my friends know they can count on me to tell is straight. When I fear for their safety you can be sure I’ll say so clearly.
Ironically, this non-judgmental approach is unacceptable to sex-positive feminists. They want you to have casual sex, despite their claims to the contrary. If you don’t have a lot of casual sex, and like it, dammit, then the negative consequences of the Sexual Revolution will have to be looked at in broad daylight. The idea of women restricting access to their own bodies until they feel trust, affection or possibly even love before sharing the potent chemical experience of sex is anathema to the Badasses.
I will continue encouraging young women to think strategically about their sexual choices, and to honor their convictions in the face of strong pressure from other women to disconnect their emotions from sex. I’m all for Hooking Up. Just be Smart about it.
Note: I’m going to alter the comments format with this post, going to straight replies without nesting. It means you’ll have to use the @Name convention, but it should be easier to read and navigate.
Related posts:
{ 205 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 »
Remember when I said criticizing JF only feeds the fire of intra-female hate? Case in point. The most ironic thing about this crossfire between the blogs is that it is all occurring between women who are each of them equally convinced that she has womankind’s best interest at heart. Ladies, can’t we all just get along?
im amazed its taken this long to get the critics against this blog
its mysogynistic, patronising and insulting at times
i tried engaging in civilised debate months back and was met with abuse from the editor and some posters…..so i simply gave up…
its interesting to hear the word ‘entrenched’ used because thats precisely what Ms Walsh is.
im not saying I always disagree with her, becuase sometimes I do agree, its just the nature and charm that some possess with which to agree to disagree is something that alludes her.
note her reply to this (if she doesnt delete it) will likely contain a little joke, something faux concillitory and then a barely hidden insult before a dismissive farewell.
and as for her treatment of Friedman…well….beyond parody….
Interestingly, I predicted exactly this in a previous thread. There are battles that must be fought, they cannot be avoided. If they are avoided, they are only postponed to a later date that might lead to an even worse conflagration.
In my view, women have largely won the battles for educational and workplace equality of opportunity and RIGHTFULLY SO. So having accomplished that, the third rail is to essentially create an environment of female sexuality at complete odds with thousands of years of human evolution. Essentially, for the extremists and the ideologues to tell a 16-year old girl that it is perfectly fine to fuck 10 guys in a few months, that she should be proud and go fuck 10 more, and then 10 more after that and ignore that her inner soul is telling her what is she is doing is terrible for her mental and emotional value.
Susan has a tremendous amount of courage and fortitude for not dodging this battle and taking these nutcases head on. Frankly, I’m not sure I could have withstood this given the really just sick personal attacks she had to endure.
Susan,
I’m sorry to bring this up again…I don’t want to be a whiner…but this comment system is just whacked. There was a bunch of stuff I noted to respond to when I got home from work (your site is blocked at work so I checked in from my phone) and now it appears whether I use Firefox or Chrome, you simply cannot pull up all the comments from the previous blog post, maybe because of the quantity. Besides that, once you get to 500 comments trying to find the exact comment is like a needle in a haystack with this whole nested inside a nested system. I would implore you to consider to switching to some type of clean interface that lists the comments in chronological order like the Big Picture blog I linked to. Another one to look at is Roissy’s system which is very clean and functional and robust enough to handle hundreds and hundreds of comments. In my view, the chronological system is really superior for tracking and finding comments. People just need to learn the proper method of quoting the text in italics they are responding to.
Jess, are you the size queen from the penis size post? With all the faux links? That’s the only Jess I can remember deleting comments from. I hope not, because that woman had some serious issues. Please enlighten me as to your earlier attempts to debate.
I thought you were pretty hard on Ms. Friedman. She is clearly a person with serious issues- I think she would freely admit this- and she sounds sad about her inability to establish a stable, permanent monogamous relationship- I think she would admit this as well. She is trying hard to convince herself that lots of casual sex is an OK subsitute for this, and obviously not succeeding, although I don’t think she would admit that.
I feel sorry for her, at least partly because I have attachment issues myself. I still think it’s fair to criticize her, but coming from a place of empathy. Do her one night stands interfere with her pursuit of a permanent relationship? I think so. Is it wrong of her to rationalize them, and implcitly encourage others to do the same thing? While understanding where she’s coming from I would say yes.
Should she be doing something constructive for growth and healing rather than trolling for dick? Yes but that’s hard. The typical advice is “get therapy” but I don’t think it does that much good.
Omega Man´s last [type] ..Rules And Flexibility
Ah, Mike, sorry. I did make the change for this post, but neglected to save the new setting. All fixed now. The system should work exactly as you requested.
If people are hating on you, that means you’re doing something right. Upsetting three major feminist groups means you’re REALLY doing something right. Well done, Susan. I have my own cabal of stalkers and loony haters, but I’ve yet to achieve anything like this.
Ferdinand Bardamu´s last [type] ..The great non-white hope goes down
Dear Susan,
I’ve been keeping up to date with your blog as always, and while I don’t get involved in the discussions I just wanted to voice my support for you!
I don’t feel confident enough to get involved in debates about feminism yet, I don’t know if I can keep up with the lingo or if I know enough about any of it to hold up my side of the conversation. But I can say that I really agree with what you said about Jaclyn Friedman, and your stance on feminism. I read a book last week called Female Chauvinist Pigs by Ariel Levy. It was about females who embrace raunch culture, and believe it empowers women, (shows like Girls Gone Wild and the whole Playboy brand) and how this really is disempowering to women and proves that feminism still has a LONG way to go. It opened my eyes up to a lot of happenings that I don’t really face on a day to day basis and it made me feel stronger for not behaving in a way that the Female Chauvinist Pigs do, (claiming they have sex ‘like a man’ and in the process suggesting that ‘feminine’ qualities are weak, while rejoicing in the world of strippers and porn stars). I’ve always had trouble with my friends who like to hook up with lots of guys, and sleep with them and then can’t understand why they don’t have boyfriends. Because thats what most girls I know want; a boyfriend. They want to be adored and respected by one guy that they feel the same way about. Even girls I know who always said they didn’t want a boyfriend and enjoyed the hooking up scene have at some point broken down and admitted that they feel crap about themselves, when they thought they should be feeling free and strong. I don’t believe that ‘sluttiness’ is powerful or makes you feel strong. I believe it makes you feel empty and as if you have only your body to offer the world. Wasn’t what Jaclyn doing merely a distracting herself from her real pain, by behaving recklessly and promiscuously and relishing in the encouragement she got from other women? Other women who could probably be described as Female Chauvinist pigs. The type of women who say they are fascinated by porn stars or strippers, when really they are just hating other women to make themselves feel stronger.
Why do women feel that in order to be strong, they need to mimic a behaviour that men embrace? Why is being discerning about who you share your body with or wanting to find love considered to be weak? I think that it is because these women don’t know how else to really be strong. They feel threatened by people like you who aren’t afraid to admit that the situation today is not empowering for women. They can only feel strong by putting other women down!
Lots of young women are actually only involved in the hooking up culture because they want to be appreciated and validated by men. Its not because of their own sexual desire. Isn’t it more empowering to be true to yourself and what feels good for you (not just during the event but after), than to sleep around ‘like a man’, because if men can do it and enjoy it, women should be able to as well? Surely it is mainly men who are benefiting from that.
Anyway I think I’m still on my way to finding my position on all this. But I just wanted to tell you that your writing makes me feel strong. It makes me feel like there is someone out there who actually understands what women want and how the ‘hook-up culture’ is not somewhere where women are comfortable or powerful. I’m sure you get lots of emails and I don’t know if you remember, but I emailed you at the beginning of the year about a guy I liked and eventually started going out with. The truth is that every time I emailed you, I did know what to do. In my gut I knew that sleeping with him straight away would make me feel too exposed and vulnerable, and that it wasn’t what I really wanted but about what he wanted me to do. I knew that if he was behaving like he wasn’t sure about me, then I needed to pull back and let him know that if he wasn’t sure, I wasn’t hanging around and that I would go back out there to find someone who was sure. I knew all this stuff because its just simple when you respect yourself. I know that when I hook-up with random guys, I don’t feel good. I know that holding back and respecting how my mind and heart work does make me feel good. So here I am, four months into the most wonderful relationship and I want to say thank you! Thanks for your supportive emails and honest advice and thank you for writing a blog that makes me feel strong enough to do what feels right for me. I don’t feel embarrassed that my ‘number’ is a lot less than lots of my friends. I don’t feel ‘weak’ for acknowledging that being slutty makes me feel empty and used. I feel strong because I’m being true to myself. Thank you!!!
Love Michal
Susan, you SO outrank me. I’ve only ever been Jezebel’s Sexist of the Week.
grerp´s last [type] ..Sorry- I gave at the office
@Ferdinand
Ah, high praise! Thank you. I hadn’t really expected this sh*tstorm – naive I guess. I’d gotten quite used to my cozy little group. Forgot this is the blogosphere.
@grerp
Don’t be so modest! That is some serious cred. BTW, your insightful comments on this topic are much appreciated.
I fear you are about to learn the meaning of the old adage “If you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered in shit, but the pig enjoys it.”
They will bring out the entire traditional “feminist” playbook of demonizing anyone who differs with them. Each of your positions will be exaggerated and distorted. Positions will be ascribed to you that you don’t even hold. You will be portrayed as being the next coming of Anita Bryant. Or a female Rush Limbaugh.
The real question is where do these witches get all their funding? I suspect they extort it from universities, private foundations and even corporations who find it less painful to fund some benign sounding organization than to deal with their constant shit. Sort of like a protection racket. Perhaps attacking their funding sources to embarrass them makes more sense than going after them directly, because they absolutely LOVE this shit. My guess is that, right now, they are even more giddy than you claim to be. This is the sort of attention and battle that JF was trying to create when she wrote the piece. In fact, for all we know, the whole thing was fiction – or she did it just so she could write about it and have all her “home girls” fawn over her, attention whore that she is.
@Michal
Oh you have no idea what this means to me on this day. Your comment is beautifully written and renews my faith in what I’m trying to offer. Of course I remember you! I am thrilled that you got what you wanted, yay! Michal, you are young but wise. You have your self-respect intact and have shown great strength in holding to your values.
By the way, Levy’s book blew me away when I first read it. It was a major factor in my deciding to blog. She’s regularly derided by feminists, but she tells it straight, and there’s really no denying her observations or arguments. I’m really glad you picked it up. It’s a must read for young women – I think every high school should require it before Senior Spring Break
Test. Am I banned? Oooooh Noooooo.
@Passer By
Are you kidding? You’re indispensable to the operation. And keep that wine flowing. You get funny when you’re drinking
The picture that is coming into focus for me is this: Most young women are so unaware of their true instincts regarding sex and bonding that they compelled to spend 20 hours a day trying to figure it out – by endless chatting with each other or by endless disgruntled pseudo-debates in a forum like this. Simple, clear headed seeing of the thing itself seems to be almost totally beyond the natural capabilities of their mental wiring.
This silliness never happens in guy-land. Guy are quite conscious of their instinctual natures, it is just that by and large they are frustrated because they don’t know how or are otherwise unable to fulfill them.
What you are trying to do, Susan, is quite noble, imho, but you over estimate the insights that your targeted audience are capable of. The message you are trying to transmit takes a lot of patient teaching from a young age by patient elders to have any hope of overcoming the feral female id – which is apparently the same as a female baboon id – only facilitated by a stronger rationalization hampster.
Ok, I’ll try to recreate my comment and submit again. Not sure what happened.
I fear that you are about to learn the meaning of the old adage “If you wrestle with a pig, you both get covered with shit, but the pig enjoys it.”
They will likely unleash the full “feminist” playbook of personal attacks. Your actual positions will be distorted and exaggerated. They will ascribe positions to you that you never held. You will be painted as Anita Bryant mated with Rush Limbaugh. To some extent, I suspect this sort of fight and controversy is what fueled JF to write what she did. For all we know, it’s all fiction, or perhaps she did what she did just to be able to write about it. But, make no mistake, she gets off on the attention and the pats on the back from her “home girls.”
What I wonder is where they get their funding for this nonstop nonsense. I sort of suspect they get it by extorting private foundations, universities and even corporations, all of which find it less painful to toss them some coin than to deal with their nonsense, especially if the money goes to some benign sounding organization. But they must get money from somewhere to have such an army of shaming marms ready at all times to feign indignation and leap to action. So, perhaps it’s more fruitful to try to embarrass their funding sources. I mean, who funds an organization that more or less encourages a 16 year old girl to continue getting plowed by 9 different guys a year? I’m not suggesting this is a task you ought to undertake, but somebody should.
Just a thought.
I’ll get tanked and funny another night.
Shoot, I messed the above quote up. Clearly not that adept at computers.
I think what happened was women behaved like men in their careers to get to the top — and let’s face it, it worked / works (There’s still a raging debate over whether female “soft” skills are valuable in top management or if a more manly style still brings the big bucks. In my own experience, it’s the latter). Fortunately, there’s no biological restraint or negative consequences keeping women from achieving exactly what men do (beyond some complaints of a “manly” personality — but to each, their own, yes?)
In my opinion, women tried to emulate this success in their personal lives as well, not realizing that there wouldn’t be the same amount of success due to their own makeup. It was too entrenched before anyone realized the effects — we are now stuck with the hookup culture.
I think we will see two camps: the sluts and the “holding out” crew. Things will get more intense before they get better. But there’s going to be a market correction one way or another. Either American women as a whole won’t be smart enough to realize how to get what they really want and women who are “holding out” will be in higher demand for LTRs, or we as a group will pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and work to get what we want, like so many Americans before us. Because being a quality woman is work.
I really hope for the latter. Women are only now starting to understand why the feministas and the empty one-night stands aren’t making them feel empowered. I tend to think American women are too smart and too hard-driving to continue doing what’s not working for them once voices like Susan’s become stronger & lounder. This is where we differ from European countries that everyone bemoans we will start becoming (with the cheating epidemic and lack of marriage): people here believe in the American dream. There’s more mobility, both economically and socially. You can literally make it from rags to riches on your own sweat and blood, in a way that’s not possible in other countries. I think once shown the way to get what they want, American women will do the work they need to do. The biological incentive of raising children in a stable, loving environment is too strong not to.
Congratulations Susan!
I’m more than a little jealous. But you are the one who truly earned this honor.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@susan
If we continue the epic I’m ready to create more tales of epic lore in the battle of what’s right for the sexual soul.
@verie44
I think we will see two camps: the sluts and the “holding out” crew. Things will get more intense before they get better. But there’s going to be a market correction one way or another. Either American women as a whole won’t be smart enough to realize how to get what they really want and women who are “holding out” will be in higher demand for LTRs, or we as a group will pick ourselves up by our bootstraps and work to get what we want
I like your use of economic framing, but your model needs some tuning. “women as a whole” won’t act like a cartel. Or more accurately, they will act like any cartel where there is no enforcement mechanism; each will loudly encourage the others to hold out for a higher price, while busily selling what they have. I think that is what we already see today, right?
As I explained on my most recent blog post, serial LTRs are no longer the type of option they once were. There is too much competition from other women willing to under cut those who want to hold out for it. For a man the investment is too close to marriage without the benefits of stability. This is of course exactly why so many women want this type of arrangement. Some women will still be able to achieve this, but many will not.
So the divide won’t be between the sluts and the holding out crew, but instead more like between the sluts (as you put it) and the married crew. But since marriage as an institution has been legally and morally gutted, it may well turn out that only exceptional women are able to convince a man (at least a desirable man with options) that she is worth the risk.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
And by the way I called it on the first post I put on. After the chick that didn’t even know you were married spoke, I said a firestorm is coming. Well we don’t want no water let that mother burn! burn! burn! mother…..
I think the sad reality of the ideology of the “Feminist” movement has meant the marginalization of feminism. Feminism clearly isn’t about empowering women only; if it were, Phyllis Schlafly, who is an incredibly successful pundit with six (!) children, would be a feminist idol next to Gloria Steinhem (sp). It’s clearly a political movement first and foremost.
…
Of course, I think there may be a little bit of chicken little syndrome from some ladies here, too. Things aren’t *that* bad. If you know where to look, there are plenty of communities in America where people keep sex until marriage and stay married. There’s a lot of guys who could get more than they currently do but don’t for religious or ethical reasons. Hell, I have three friends who are very, very studly*** Christians, who turn away very attractive girls left and right and were only interested in LTR and have now decided against marriage entirely in order to become priests. Goodness gracious, I really don’t understand some of the difficulty women have finding quality men. I’m digressing from my original chain of thought, but–hell!–I met good religious, ethical, western men interested in LTRs when I lived in Communist North Korea and Islamic Saudi Arabia. (I don’t mean to imply that the only such men are Christian; it’s just for some reason I end up hanging around Christian men. They do make good friends. I should probably just convert …)
…
*** One of whom was so studly I knew he was attractive just by looking at him, which isn’t easy for a man to do. I since found out he makes money on the side by sitting in cafe windows with other models to tempt people to come in. The others are probably above average looking but are very socially adept.
@Rum
Thanks for leaving a comment. I can’t argue with your description of women parsing every aspect of male behavior for hours on end. We craft a narrative that ends with the glass slipper fitting just so. I’ve never objected to the hamster wheel metaphor – the first time I came across it I laughed with self-recognition. Of course, we are also in eternal service to our friends, helping them to reframe the picture in a way that makes them smile. Because we love them. We will go a long distance to see a smile on the face of a loved one – we’ve been trained for that since birth. It’s both nature and nurture, a blessing and a curse.
Having said all of that, in the relatively short time I’ve been blogging (< 2 yrs.) I have witnessed a large number of young women grab that wheel and stop its spinning. Is it a drop in the bucket? Yes. I don't deceive myself that I can change human nature in a way that say, the New York Times would remark upon. I'm just going at it one person at a time. You can see one moving testimonial right on this thread, from a reader who has written to me but never commented before. I've received many other private emails of support this week from young women who feel supported by my scribblings. I've already exceeded my initials goals by miles, so I guess I'll just keep doing what I'm doing.
@Passer By
I hadn’t ascribed such mercenary motives to JF in the writing of this piece. However, I’ve remarked before on the corner than sex bloggers paint themselves into. She says in her piece that she need not fear her sex life damaging her career – indeed it is her career. Lena Chen and Emily Gould, among others, have also had this experience. The problem is that this is a career choice that does not permit rethinking or recalibration along the way. Once a woman goes public about her sex life, no other identity is possible for her. It has dramatic implications for her career, but also for her personal life. There are very few men, I suspect, who would welcome the opportunity to share a life with a woman who makes her living writing about her sex life. How could she ever retire?
From the comments I’ve read on various blogs and Twitter, it’s clear that I have hurt JF’s feelings. She is indeed receiving special hugs for “my girl Jaclyn” and Jessica Valenti urged the troops to give Jaclyn some much needed love right now. I am sorry to have caused her personal pain, and it makes me wonder how on earth she can not realize that she’s harming herself. It’s just not possible to spill one’s guts online and expect to be coddled by one’s allies while keeping the dissenters at bay.
i stand corrected….not one insult…but 3
1. you are a size comment (not true)
2. you posted false links (not true)
3. you have serious issues (ie having the temerity to disagree with Ms W)
rather than hark back to an issue we are clearly never gong to agree on, my concern stems from the idea that Freidman did anything wrong.
most girls go through a spate of promiscuity at some pint in their lives. Sometimes as a drunken teen, or a popular student, or post divorce heartache or simply a high sex drive.
so what? each to their own. im enjoying a stable, commited relationship cos thats what i want. but i have a few younger friends who play the field and dont want to settle down for 5 years or so. They have safe sex and date attractive, together guys.
good for them. our great grand mothers never had the choice. you see feminism is about CHOICE.
not calling people sluts or saying they are damaged or anything else.
@PJL
Funny you should mention Phyllis Schlafly. I’ve thought of her when many of the feminists have belittled me for my “lack of credentials.” I don’t purport to have any. I’m just having a conversation. Sit down and stay for awhile, or walk on by, it’s up to you. Phyllis Schlafly was roundly villified for being a housewife instead of an intellectual, yet she was enormously influential. She’s kind of ancient history for most folks, though. I have been called a Sarah Palin wannabe on numerous sites. I think that’s pretty funny. I’m not a Sarah Palin fan, but I’ll take that comparison happily enough.
@verie
This is certainly the best case scenario from my perspective. Yet Dalrock makes some good points – I think his is probably the worst case scenario. I think we’ll see something in between. For starters, increasing media attention to the destructive legacy of sex pos feminism, followed by more and more defectors from the sex pos camp. This will provide at least another way for young women to think about their choices. There will be individual successes. In part this depends on women’s ability to suppress their hypergamous instincts – which will only lead to ruined happiness. Many women will never have the self-awareness to do this. They’ll just keep making the same mistakes. There are always winners and losers. There are always unintended consequences. There is always opportunity in the midst of chaos. Just grab a life raft and watch the firestorm.
And as always, remember: Everything changes. You will be surprised.
@Jess
OK, I can’t tell if you’re admitting to being that Jess – I guess you are. If so, then as I recall, you plastered the comment thread on penis size with at least a dozen links trying to prove that women want a big dick. I proceed to check out every single one of them, watching inane videos of women sitting around on some gossip show saying cruel things about men, and how small penises need not apply! That’s not even pseudoscience, it’s just crap. You also cited several sources that were funded by the porn industry. One “scientific” source you provided featured promotions for a large dick porn site. Honestly, you wasted a great deal of my valuable time. In fact, you are a key factor in my deciding to close that comment thread, the only post I’ve ever had to do that for. I let many comments stand on that post that dissented with my view, but none with spammy links. Your determination to win the argument over size was odd – as I recall you spent days, even months, returning again and again to the post. Of course, if you are not that Jess, then please accept my apologies.
I have no problem with women having safe, casual sex and dating attractive together guys.
I agree that every woman has a choice, and that is a good thing.
I do have a problem with women promoting behavior that includes trolling for anonymous sex online. A woman who does that has every right to take her chances in pursuing her objectives. She even has a right to tell other young women they should do the same. Or that promiscuity has healing powers. And I have a right to call BS on that. It’s all debate in the marketplace of ideas. And let’s be honest – if you could do a survey, and ask the western world for their opinion of Jaclyn’s strategy, 99.9% would condemn it as unsafe in every possible way. JF and her cronies are radical. Extreme outliers.
Congratulations! I knew you would get a ton of haters on that post because you’re a woman saying those things.
@Susan Walsh
Yet Dalrock makes some good points – I think his is probably the worst case scenario. I think we’ll see something in between.
.
I don’t think we are actually in disagreement. She made a black and white statement that we would see a split between sluts and those holding out. I said it would look more like sluts and those who marry. The part I’m very confident on is that women won’t act like an enforced cartel. There is no mechanism for this and this is less of a prediction and more of an observation of current reality.
.
I’m trying to assess which way the wind will blow. Strength of the wind is another question. It may be a breeze, or it might be gusty. I really don’t know. I think I’ve done a better job in qualifying things on my own blog, but even there this is a challenge and I’m probably not perfect there. I think the overall trends are probably going to prove right, but I can’t even point to hard data saying exactly where we are. Saying how far and how fast we will move from here would be a great way to make oneself look like a fool. But I think we do have some consensus on the likely direction of any movement.
.
I also think we will see great variance as to how much different communities/individuals experience these kinds of changes. And a highly sought after woman will probably not experience any challenges picking whatever spot on the spectrum she wants to be at, so long as she isn’t expecting to be there with the most highly sought out man.
.
There is always opportunity in the midst of chaos. Just grab a life raft and watch the firestorm.
And as always, remember: Everything changes. You will be surprised.
.
You need a mechanism to bill when you share the secret of life like that. Otherwise people won’t know it is the real deal.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
I am almost certainly the person you allude to. However, having looked back at the old posts you accused me and/or others of being the same person.
I only ever posted anything in my own name and never posted anything to promote anything. And just so the record is clear I regard the industry you mention a complete and total scam (just so you cant accuse me of a hinden agenda)
Its true one of the newspaper surveys had 1000′s of adverts on them but the womens opinions were genuine and countered your stance. I would also wish (at this point) to make clear I find that publication downmarket and sexist. (just so you cant accuse me of commercial self interest there either)
As for your final comments, you are doing it again, using subtle language to display disdain.
How many partners is slutty or unsafe? 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64?
The women you attack are not outliners…. good, enjoyable string free sex is marvellous!!
But if you are body concious, or wear your heart on your sleeve, its best avoided.
But millions of women are having a casual, varied and fulfilling sex life around the world. They are not outliners either.You really dont seem to have the faintest idea what its like out there.
Why not pick up the phone and call one of the London Health Centres and ask them about current STI epidemic. They are struggling to battle the promiscous society because sex is such fun and enjoyable. They are trying to say ‘be safe’ rather than ‘dont do it’ because they are realistic.
Perhaps their poster campaign should be ‘stop being a slut’.
And online dating? Why not? better than a blind date no? Women love sex just as much as men do. Provided you use a safe site and meet in public why is it less safe than sparking up a conversation at a bar?
If women follow your line of logic they will be wasting the best years of their sexual ‘career’. You are only young once. One day you might regret turning down the handsome advance from the tall guy at the fruit machine. Tomorrow the offers may dry up.
I say make hay whilst you can, reject the victorian hypocrisy and be safe. And is some guy (or women) rejects you for your passinate past- more fool them.
Actually, Susan, since you’re getting criticism left and right these days, I have to give you mine. Prepare yourself for the acrimony. It should be Hooking up SmartLY! I can’t tell you how much that bothers me. “Smart” modifies “Hooking up,” which is a verb phrase. Therefore, “smart” has to be an adverb, “smartly,” not an adjective, since it describes how you should hook up! Ahh! Get with the program you stupid, anti-feminist, woman hating, misogynist, sexist, Palin-loving, insulting, hypocritical, uncredentialed betrayer of the sex.
…
I’m joking about the names of course; but the grammar really gets my skin crawling.
@Dalrock
Haha! Thanks for the compliment. I was actually feeling sheepish about my mixed metaphor – life raft and firestorm. Ouch.
I agree with everything you say here. Certainly the point about cartels is absolutely correct – there is no enforcement mechanism, and we really wouldn’t want one. It’s really going to be survival of the fittest. We’re definitely on the same page there.
@Jess
You may have missed my previous post. Online dating and arranging sex with strangers for the same night on Craigslist Casual Encounters are not the same thing. Not even in the same galaxy.
Your use of the term “sexual career” speaks for itself. Yikes. I’m pretty sure you and I have nothing to say to one another.
@PJL
Haha, duly noted. I am aware of the grammar issue, and did consider it initially. Hooking Up Smartly doesn’t have quite the same ring, tho. Actually, it has a rather British sound, which I like. It would probably work quite well on your side of the pond. In any case, I’m in too deep now to even consider modifying it.
Off-topic: Roissy’s commenters are discussing the 80/20 rule. Check it out, Ms. Walsh!
http://roissy.wordpress.com/2010/08/04/yet-more-proof-that-a-few-men-are-getting-most-of-the-action/
Hollenhund, thanks for the heads up. I’m swamped, but will go over there and bookmark the comments for perusal later.
OK, so we have:
evasion, insult, deliberate misintrepatation, another insult, dismissal
well done
Susan, I wonder how many men leave positive comments on the blogs of your critics. I’d wager very few, if any. Shouldn’t that tell us something?
.
For my part, I have nothing to say to such nonsense. They’ve already lost the battle of the sexes, and seem to be doing their best to rationalize it. Vichy collaborators, the lot of them!
@jess
I’m struggling to find the evasion, misinterpretations, and insults you say Susan has engaged in. From what I have been observing(and I have been observing through emails, my gmail trash show it) this has been nothing but a debate of ideas, perspectives, and opinions. Or where am I wrong?
First of all Susan, I would like to congratulate you on your dust-up with Establishment Feminism, Inc. If the value of someone’s work can be measured by who their enemies are, then you have a lot to be pleased about.
As I’m sure you know, I agree with a lot of what you said about JF. That said, I worry a lot about the discussion around women finding relationships, using strategy, etc. because I find that the conversation is too sex-focused. Sure, being promiscuous damages many women emotionally, often puts them at physical risk, and probably hurts her chances for an LTR with the men who are generally considered most desirable, blah blah blah—all likely true. But I feel as if people are too quick to infer from this that if a woman makes better sexual decisions, or is less promiscuous then she will be all set for an LTR or whatever. This is like saying that the only thing preventing JF from finding a stable LTR with a man (assuming that’s what she’s looking for) is the fact that she’s been promiscuous. I don’t know her personally, but I’m willing to bet her ill-advised promiscuity is just the tip of the iceberg.
I think a woman’s character, how you relate to men generally, and how you treat the men around you are far more important. If you are a virgin and mean, dismissive, or selfish, or bitchy, unpleasant etc. then you’re going to have about as much success finding a quality guy as JF has had. Just whether or not you’re making smart sexual decisions really isn’t going to do it—but I see a lot emphasis on just this. It’s all about “how do I stop getting used sexually?” or “how do I avoid getting used sexually?” or “how do I get the kind of sex I find emotionally/physically satisfying?” etc— which are important themes to tackle, no doubt. But after women have avoided these particular minefields, there is still a lot personal, character growth that should happen that isn’t talked about much. You’ve addressed the character aspect on your blog with posts about female & male narcissism, etc—but I feel as if this is still often given the short shrift in conversations like this.
The reason why so many men (and to some extent, women) frown on promiscuity in the opposite sex is because it’s a reliable indicator of some fairly serious character defects, like selfishness, attention-whoring, a tendency to treat the opposite sex (and possibly people generally) as disposable, emotional unavailability, trust issues, etc. Sure, the evolutionary/biological aversion to promiscuous women is still there for many men, but these days the aversion is much more about what it says about kind of girl you’re getting. A lot times in these discussions about helping women to get what they want, no one asks has the courage or self-reflection to ask honestly ask why a good man would want them for an LTR—issues of personal character are glossed over to discuss something that women are more comfortable with: restricting/permitting access by men to sex. That conversation is necessary, but hardly sufficient.
Just my $0.02.
@Dalrock:
Disagree. It’s taking hold in places you’d least expect it (like, say, New York City for example). There’s a well-known blog in finance circles called dating a banker annonymous launched after the crash in 08. Check it out:
http://www.dabagirls.com/2009/12/21/sexual-revolution-and-feminist-wrong-grandma-right/
It’s a fairly new idea, just like this blog, but my friends have also been talking about it amongst themselves. The whispers of what Susan’s trying to do are spreading; I’m personally seeing it in my social circles.
@Susan & the gathered group of master-debaters:
Here’s an interview with a PhD researcher who’s studying ‘the booty call’ a.k.a. Hookup Culture a.k.a. slutdom: it’s from *Salon.com*, a very progressive, profeminist site:
http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/2010/08/05/booty_call/index.html
Pretty much validates ALL of Susan’s main points and the thrust of HUS, from a scientific perspective..
@verie44
Disagree. It’s taking hold in places you’d least expect it (like, say, New York City for example). There’s a well-known blog in finance circles called dating a banker annonymous launched after the crash in 08. Check it out:
.
Yes. I’ve seen that. Note the date of the declaration, and the lack of complaint by men in the area that any meaningful loss of supply has occurred. I had it in mind when I made my original comment:
.
more accurately, they will act like any cartel where there is no enforcement mechanism; each will loudly encourage the others to hold out for a higher price, while busily selling what they have. I think that is what we already see today, right?
.
@verie44
It’s a fairly new idea, just like this blog, but my friends have also been talking about it amongst themselves. The whispers of what Susan’s trying to do are spreading; I’m personally seeing it in my social circles.
.
As I said, there will be no shortage of talk. And a few individual women will no doubt try to seed the “strike” by setting an example. But just like labor unions, there is always the risk of strike breakers. It doesn’t take many to ruin the whole thing. Note how unions aren’t the norm. If the process was easy every job would be a union job. For fun, try organizing a union at your local employer (if you work for private non union industry).
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
dear escarondito
well…
insults:
1. she called me a size queen (im not)
2. she accused me of promoting big genital sizes (i never have)
3. she accused me of posting false links (ditto)
4. she said i had ‘issues’ (polite way of saying you are nuts)
5. in a previous thread she delighted in a poster insulting me in a gratuitious personal manner
evasion:
1. how many partners makes you a slut?
2. how many one night stands?
Maybe I missed her reply? If she has answered this I shall gladly recind the evasion comment.
misinterpretation;
she knew I was using catch all phrases for casual dating/on lining dating/overtly sexual hook ups and took advantage of it to try and make a point. ie to suggest im up for women meeting some dastardly demon in a dark alleyway. I suspect the lady in question took some precautions when using craiglist (including a condom I assume?)
dismissal:
she does this a lot. “well if you enjoy shagging 4 strangers a night bareback then good luck to you”. or “you are so mental we cant have a conversation”….that kinda thing.
The funny thing is I find myself agreeing with much on the blog and then I come across something so out of wack and so agressively argued that I feel the need to chip in. I’m not as stauch a feminist as some of the jezebel types and I have softened politically in the past 20 years but one does ones bit. If crap goes unchallenged it can have an impact.
Susan says: Third, I stand by my statement that women should judge for themselves whether their choices are serving them well. I sometimes say that a slogan for HUS might be “How’s that workin’ for ya?” If you are getting what you want, it’s all good! You’ll get no haranguing from me.
This strikes me as awfully disingenuous. There would be no controversy with feminists if Susan really were claiming that women are capable of judging for themselves if their choices or serving them well and that’s it’s a woman’s choices are fine if she is getting what she wants. Those are two very feminist statements, in fact.
But even embedded in this very paragraph is the clear implication that slutting it up can never work. (“How’s that workin’ for ya?” is a sarcastic phrase used to imply that someone’s actions are NOT working.) And certainly, in the Jaclyn Friedman post, Susan complains that “determined sluts” are somehow making life harder for women who are less enthusiastic about casual sex. Susan clearly does not think women are capable figuring these things out for themselves, and she clearly does not think that women should make the choices that serve them the best.
And there is more dishonesty in the above post — such as, the claim that Jaclyn was somehow searching for love in a Craigslist hook-up. No, Jaclyn was search for casual sex and she got it and she liked it! In other words, while clearly a dangerous action, Jaclyn was willing to take the risk; it worked and Jaclyn found the experience worthwhile. If Susan really believes women should decide for themselves what works for them, why is she telling women what risks to take or not take? Susan clearly believes that there is a one-size-fits-all answer to what risks are or are not appropriate, and what kind of sex is acceptable for women. She just won’t admit it — and when faced with feminist criticism, she folded like a cheap suit and tried to claim that she was endorsing a freedom-of-choice position for women all along.
Jess,
Susan’s already said she refuses to throw out numbers. I agree-
1) Times are changing so quickly that 20-30 partners for a 25-30 year old isn’t uncommon, who knows where it’ll stop.
2) Numbers dont’ tell the WHOLE story.
See dragnet’s comment above:
Errr apparently I screwed up the code, or my brackets didn’t register. First paragraph is dragnet, second is me. Mine repeated below:
There’s no line of demarcation for slut/innocent. A 16 year old that’s banged 10 guys says a lot about where she is emotionally and what kind of LTR partner she’ll make if she doesn’t reverse that trend right quick.
Pro-sex fem advocates can say “Look how healthy I am!!” all they want, but my experience has taught me otherwise. I’m sure many other guys out there would agree.
you hit the nail far better than me maggie.
the sarcasm thing… very well put indeed
Ok, Vera, I looked at the page you linked, and some of the other discussions there. Frankly, those women seem like far worse people than any player who would pump and dump them, and they deserve whatever they get.
@passer_by:
My point wasn’t to comment on who the women are, my point is to say that the idea is spreading. You would do well to avoid women like that, but women are catching on.
“You would do well to avoid women like that . . .”
I nominate that for understatement of the year.
Dear Sox
Last week we had a channel 4 program in the UK called the “Sex Education Show” that said 40% of 14yos were not virgins.
I would guess the figure is much higher for fellatio/touching etc
So many 16 yos probably have had 5+ sex partners imo
However even in this day and age a 16 yo who has had full sex with 10 boys would be a real worry in my view.
I would love to promote ‘touching’ instead of full sex for the 13yo-18yo group but its a campaign no one will win. And the harder you try the cooler full sex becomes.
But this thread is about adult female choices and whether its ever ok to have casual sex and then boast about it to your friends the following morning.
This has been going on for 10-15 years in every college in every western country on earth. For men this has been going on for the last 100 years+.
So what?
Did you change the nested comments, Susan? I can’t find when anyone replies to me.
First off, I don’t think your first comparison to a cartel is a good one at all — sex isn’t a homogenous good especially when taken with an entire person, personality and other factors, what each customer (a man) wants varies dramatically, and market demand varies dramatically as well per person, depending on whether they are taken out of the market by one person or are too busy with work, or whatever. Let’s not get too carried away with the economic metaphors, yes?
I personally think the idea of a sex strike as posed in that blog is ridiculous (I was just using it as an example to show that women are hearing these concepts and starting to talk about them). Of course not every woman is going to stop having sex. But a lot will when it’s not working for them. Talk is the precursor to action. It’s not yet action, but it’s also not the delusional “getting gangbanged is freeing” talk. Women are finally understanding that they’re built differently, and there’s not anything wrong with them for not being able to have sex like men. That knowledge in and of itself is really freeing. Incentives drive behavior, as Susan continues to say, and once more women realize that the incentives aren’t there (stable relationship & kids), they’ll stop the behavior.
As I said before, there will be a divide between the women who are holding out and the women who aren’t. I liken it to the women who go to college and do the hard work of achieving a degree and a good job for their long-term benefit vs. the women who party it up in high school and then struggle to get a job as a waitress (effectively paying for their poor career decisions for the rest of their lives). Not every woman will be smart enough to know what works long-term, but most men don’t strive to screw the bottom of the barrel indefinitely.
A single picture of me where you think I look crabby (I was actually listening to a man on a panel I was on speaking) =/ an argument. But if you think it does, here’s some counter evidence:
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs251.snc4/39875_421679754003_551114003_4602644_6652383_n.jpg
http://www.flickr.com/photos/majikthise/4523492932/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/majikthise/410264496/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/majikthise/2680161288/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/skepchick/3721432065/
Your tactics demonstrate an inability to reason properly, since you have to truck in selective evidence to establish a conclusion about me you know isn’t true, that I’m a dour, grumpy feminazi.
@verie44
First off, I don’t think your first comparison to a cartel is a good one at all
Then you must not like the labor union example either. Unions are a form of cartel.
.
Let’s not get too carried away with the economic metaphors, yes?
I think the metaphor is helpful, and you are the one who began it.
.
As I said before, there will be a divide between the women who are holding out and the women who aren’t.
.
It all depends on what they are holding out for. As I said, serial LTRs may become harder to find a buyer for. Same for marriage. But yes, for those women who have what men in this space are looking for there will be other options. This has been my point all along. What I disagree with is that women will act en masse (go back and read your original post) to change the landscape. Individual women will make better choices to form more lasting relationships with men in exchange for greater male investment. But there won’t be a sea change overall. Check out my recent blog posts for more info on what I’m describing if you are interested.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
Yes—I’ve made this point here before. Insofar as this (and like-minded) blog(s) is an attempt to spark a large-scale shift I think it will unsuccessful, but if the aim is to help individual women make better choices then that can be successful. God that sentence was awkward.
I think this might very well be true if women are just focusing on the sex supply side of the equation, and the character/personality side. Restricting the supply of sex by making better sexual decisions isn’t going to be enough to make men want to commit.
Should read: “and not the character/personality side.”
dear Susan, thank you for your blog and sharing your thoughts. as a (non-american) non-blogess i usually don’t comment, i enjoy reading and reflecting and thus “using” your input and thoughts for my personal self-improvement and self-development. and i couldn’t agree more with your summary, esp. your “I will encourage …” and this post.
xx Angelika, Germany
@Amanda
I didn’t mean to suggest that you were displeased all the time, just with me right now. That’s why I said sorry, not sorry. Anyway, I think you’re attractive in that picture, so don’t get your panties in a twist. At the risk of sounding weird, you and I look a lot alike. We could easily pass as mother and daughter. Sorry.
Susan, I thought you were quite kind to Ms Marcotte given the alternate photos she linked to. I can’t imagine which of those she would have been more pleased with. But I guess that is the point. She wouldn’t have been happy no matter how you handled it. Yet you still handled it with grace, which is to your great credit.
And I love the combo of the photo and the caption. I’m guessing you read The Economist.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
My attractiveness is not the issue. I don’t care if the troglodytes that find this reactionary nonsense amusing think I’m cute. The issue is you had no argument against me, so you found a picture that exploits a common, inaccurate stereotype of feminists as angry or sullen. There are some human beings of every stripe that are angry or sullen, but I’m not one of them. It’s just not my personality; I’m an annoyingly cheery smartass.
You don’t have evidence. You don’t have logic. You don’t have arguments. What you have are stereotypes. And the selective picture use is a classic example.
@dragnet
This is a great comment. I tend to think it goes without saying that someone with a lousy personality or character shouldn’t expect a LTR, but it needs to be said. I have tried to write about character for both sexes, but there’s more to it than that. As you say, it’s about how one makes an effort to appreciate and interact with another person. A person with unimpeachable integrity may still be unbearably boring.
Hamby has written some about how women can add to a man’s life in a way that makes him happier with her than without her. There’s lots of good stuff there. I’m sure you would have good recommendations too, so if you ever feel like laying out what it would take to flip you to monogamy, I’d appreciate your perspective.
And your readers took the bait and now are insulting my looks. See? No arguments. Just ad hominem attacks of the most 3rd grade sort: “You’re ugly and no one loves you!”
@verie
Just saw that link – what an awesome post! Don’t know how I missed it when it was new. I’ve been thinking about this kind of strategy. I call it my Lysistrata Project. I don’t really think it could work for the reasons Dalrock says, but we could perhaps get some great publicity out of it.
Is this true? Where? Point out the passage, Amanda.
I bet you look cute when you’re incensed
And your readers took the bait and now are insulting my looks. See?
I’m assuming this bit of hysteria is aimed at me. I wasn’t insulting your looks. I was saying that the photo she showed is more flattering than the alternates you linked to. You may well disagree, and that is fine.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
“You’re loveable enough, Hillar—er, Amanda.”
Too soon?
dan_brodribb´s last [type] ..Heart Way Update and Twitter News
@Susan
I call it my Lysistrata Project.
I was looking at the photo of the cows on that link, and it struck me that an alternate caption could be “Closing our legs ’til the cows come home”.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
I didn’t see where anyone insulted Amanda’s attractiveness (though I suppose it’s possible they did), and I’d agree with dragnet that I’d hit it. However, it’s hard for me to be sympathetic if they did, given that most of her followers routinely accuse any guy who disagrees with them on some point as being incapable of getting laid, having a small dick and/or issues with his mother. It seems seems to be part of the standard playbook of so-called “feminists” – not recognizable ones such as Amanda but just general internet poster types.
It’s noteworthy that she’s nice-looking and a feminist, because of the self-avowed feminists I know (I live in Boston) not many are physically attractive at all. I don’t think this useless information, I think there’s a reason for this. I saw a poll that said only 10 percent of women identified as feminists. Let’s be honest those 10 percent generally aren’t the hot ones.
Exactly. Picking on a man’s sexual value is standard feminist shaming language. Does this justify picking on Amanda’s looks? No…but payback’s a motherfucker.
@Dalrock & dragnet:
This doesn’t even make senes. If enough individual women make better choices, you have a large-scale shift. I still disagree with your prophecies of doom, but I’m not going to change your mind and you’re not going to change mine. It’s all opinions anyway, and not worth arguing about.
Like I said, I have heard things coming out of the mouths of the staunchest women’s lib, fem-studies majors that I never thought I’d hear. Sorry, but girls I know are starting to get it. It will take time, but I’m confident many more women will get it. I know I will continue to advise my friends to listen to what their souls say rather than the common knowledge.
@ verie44
Well…I don’t think enough individual women will make better choices to spark a large-scale shift in the aggregate. This should be clear.
This is a good thing—I’m glad that individual women are making better sexual decisions. I just don’t think the numbers will add up to sea change. You, apparently, do—hence our disagreement. I just hope you and your friends understand that just re-thinking their approach to sex isn’t the end of it. That may be enough to safeguard their bodies and emotional health, but that alone won’t get them the investment of desirable men. I talked a little bit about what else is necessary in my comments above.
@Amanda Marcotte
Reactionary nonsense? Yeah, like the peasants who stormed the Bastille. Get ready, Amanda, you’re going down.
Re stereotypes, you have amazing chutzpah to play that card, given your legacy of hate and racism.
@dalrock:
Yeah, about that. I spoke a bit about that a while ago. I pretty much only care about my friends’ emotional health, and I don’t care to become their mothers on their personality traits. Also, I’ve started to wonder about the traits that we agree on this blog are signs of a “high quality” woman will get women the investment of desirable men. I’m going to repost what I wrote to Athlone McGinnis in another post on the “desirable” traits in women. I actually am trying to figure this out myself right now.
“Even when some women demonstrate these [valuable] traits, some men don’t recognize them as good things. Not everyone reads Hookingup smart. There are men who have no idea what they actually need and who become the bitter MRA divorcees after the fact.
1. They value women who value materialistic things like sex & the city either because they’re materialistic themselves, or because they see it as a marker of a woman of a certain class. Some want to prove themselves & take a kind of pride that their wife can buy anything she wants and they can provide it.
2. They like the sexual experienced women because they’re dirtier (and probably initially better) in bed. Some guys marry the girl who’s the best in bed that they’ve had, and that may or may not be a girl with A LOT of partners, since different people tend to show you different things. Some of my girlfriends’ strategy to land a man falls in this category and it’s worked out for 2 of them.
3. They don’t pay attention to shit tests or realize what they are, and the idea is completely lost on them. They see the absence of these tests as low-maintenance, which translates to lower value in their eyes. Some guys seek out high-maintenance women because their mothers are that way or because they believe they’re better / more confident / more deserving.
Some men accept women who are the opposite of what you mention and reject women who demonstrate the good traits you talk about as low-class, bad in bed, low-maintenance (I’ve actually heard a man say that as an insult in regard to a woman). As long as this happens, what incentive do women have to not do these things? In fact, being the [desirable] qualities you mention can get you rejected just as quickly.
I’ve seen all of the above, actually more than I’ve seen men talking about women who are modest, have a low number of partners, and want a woman who is low-maintenance.”
This is what I wrote before, but it stands even now. I don’t know if it’s my social circle, NYC, or what, but many of the girls that I know who are married aren’t the best looking girls or demonstrate all or any of the traits that men are supposed to value. In fact, some of them are pretty bitchy & demanding. These guys they’re with are not manginas either, they’re in the “desirable man” category. So what gives, guys? I’d really like an answer to this.
@ Verie – i think Verie, that none of us knows as much as we think about what’s going on between men and women. Most of us pick one or two theories to hang our hat on–evo psych, socialization, True Love, biology, culture, or the phases of the moon and go with that.
And there’s truth to a lot of those things, and a lot of it does a good job of explaining things AFTER THEY’VE ALREADY HAPPENED or giving strangers advice over the internet, but when it comes to telling you what to do in a specific situation, none of them will help you more than your own heart and experience and judgement.
And even then we make mistakes.
One thing I have learned is, when it comes to Other People’s Relationships, it’s pretty hard to tell who’s satisfied and who isn’t. A couple can be married and have a terrible relationship and you would never know it. I’ve also seen couples who look like they have a terrible relationship and some how it works for them.
A few years ago a younger woman was getting engaged and she and the other young women asked an older woman who had been married for decades how she had known her husband was The One and the secret to their longevity and the woman replied, “Actually dear, it’s kind of a crap shoot.”
I don’t know if I find that disillusioning or inspiring, but the nice thing is, it means you’re free to blaze your own trail.
So I’d encourage you to explore what works for you, talk things over with people you trust, continue to be supportive and non-judgemental to your friends and see what happens.
dan_brodribb´s last [type] ..Heart Way Update and Twitter News
@ Verie – The kind of partner a man (or a woman for that matter) chooses and what characteristics attract him in her probably has to do with how mature he is himself. Hence: you probably wouldn’t want those men anyway who choose high-maintenance and demanding women.
@ Verie,
“This is what I wrote before, but it stands even now. I don’t know if it’s my social circle, NYC, or what, but many of the girls that I know who are married aren’t the best looking girls or demonstrate all or any of the traits that men are supposed to value. In fact, some of them are pretty bitchy & demanding. These guys they’re with are not manginas either, they’re in the “desirable man” category. So what gives, guys? I’d really like an answer to this.”
I have a theory. Now, say your average attractive man is attractive and desirable to 1/10 women. Maybe with game he’d get it up to 2/5 or something like that–the claims of game advocates vary widely from what I can tell. That means that your average man gets very used to rejection, no matter what. No, it doesn’t mean that we become crying sobs, because most of the time we get very used to rejection prior to any real emotional investment. We see. We like. We get shot down. Most of the time men will make light of it and get on with it. Because our job is to pursue, we experience relatively more rejection than women ever experience, if she’s smart. A woman on the other hand, especially if she’s attractive, will receive constant positive feedback from the 1/10 men who find her desirable and that’s a lot of positive feedback. You don’t ever deal with the 9/10 who find you unimpressive or fatuous or overrated, because they just don’t make a move. Men on the other hand, get used to this negative feedback. When you get a little bit of positive feedback, the overwhelming urge is to ignore all the warning signs of bitchdom. Unless you’re very successful with women–and most men aren’t by definition–you figure you take what you can get; because you sure don’t know about the 1/10 girls that like you and think you could do better. THEY don’t approach YOU–nor would you want them too. Hell, sometimes–I’m ashamed to say–I don’t approach certain very desirable women because I don’t feel like I’ve got a chance. There is some truth to the old canard of the prettiest girl at school not being able to get a date for prom. Who’s got the futzpa to ask? Personal example, the past few months I made three “moves,” got two shut downs, and one yellow light. There were two further girls who liked me but I decided to not make a move. They did not experience rejection like I did. All they know is some guy flirted a little with them and then stopped–darn: I’m sure he was just too shy.**
Basic moral: women tend to have an inflated sense of their dating worth and men tend to deflate their worth.*
*This could be self-aggrandizing BS, but it makes sense at the moment.
**This is never true.
Hi rev, thanks so much. That article was a gift in my inbox this morning – I just put a post up about booty calls. It has some interesting, and ironic, things in it.
Hi verie44
.
You mentioned me but were responding to a quote by Dragnet. He’s a nice guy so I’m sure he will get over the slight of being confused for me.
.
It sounds like where you live having a history of promiscuity, being bitchy, and being high maintenance is the way to attract the highest quality man. As you say, why do anything different? I don’t know your area, so I’ll have to take your word for it. With that said my advice would be to sleep around, get bitchy, and become really high maintenance. Before you know it you will find the man of your dreams.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
I noticed the Sexademic took on your Jaclyn Friedman piece. She has a point about how you (and a lot of other people who don’t understand epistemology) talk about science. She also didn’t read what you had to say very carefully, went into automatic, defensive mode, and started talking about slut shaming and calling you a “staunch opponent of casual sex.”
Also, people who use the word, “heteronormative”: WTF? I’m starting a new word. It’s called “dextronormative.” It speaks to the plight of left-handers living in a right-handed world. Have you ever tried using a pair of left-handed scissors with your right hand? It’s a bitch, isn’t it. Yeah, that’s what it feels like. Right-handers are a bunch of oppressive fascists! In some cultures, you eat with your right, and wipe with your left. That makes the left hand dirty and you must always keep it below the dinner table. They used to force left-handed kids to write with their right. In closing, assuming that someone is part of, or catering to a group that is a 90-95% majority, is oppressive to the minority.
@PJ
“They did not experience rejection like I did. All they know is some guy flirted a little with them and then stopped–darn: I’m sure he was just too shy.**
**This is never true.”
I strongly disagree. It may never be true for you, but it is constantly true for a lot of guys.
Folded like a cheap suit? I challenge you to go through my archives and read my work. I have never actually told women what kind of sex to have. I do, however, tell them what the research shows about male psychology. For short-term mating, sexual experience is a plus. For long-term mating, sexual inexperience is a plus. You’ll see, if you care to become informed, that my blog is heavily research oriented. I make no spurious claims, nor do I opine in posts without research to back me up.
As for promiscuous women making life harder for everyone else – yup. Girls Gone Wild have figured out that even if you’re a 6, you can snag a 9 for one night. Of course, he’d rather chew his arm off than wake her in the morning.
Dan, do I detect a bit of sass coming from you? HA! I love it, you surprise me.
Welcome, Angelika, thank you so much for introducing yourself! I’m actually curious to know about sexual mores in Germany. Is hookup culture entrenched there? I suppose it must be – for better or worse, American culture seems to get exported everywhere. It’s amazing when you think about it, the Sexual Revolution in the U.S. reverberated throughout the western world. Anyway, don’t be a stranger! I’d love to hear from you again!
Verie, I agree that women are bound to realize sooner or later that casual sex isn’t working particularly well for them. The question is, how much power will those women have in a marketplace where others are keeping the price of sex low? Grerp makes the point that women who remain chaste in addition to other positive qualities will find that it’s a seller’s market. I really don’t know – so many factors in play, and the possibility for many new developments. For example, what if there were another AIDS type epidemic? It’s a terrible thought to contemplate, but viruses are very opportunistic, and there are a lot of STIs being transmitted throughout the population. A mutation of some kind is possible, maybe even inevitable.
For now, I continue to believe a woman’s best strategy is to honor her own values and date men who are at or approaching the age to contemplate marriage. For example, with your avowed determination to remain a virgin until marriage, you’re going to be better off with guys approaching 30 than guys who are 24 or 25. It’s important to go fishing where the fish are.
Re the comments: the nested replies became very difficult for many to navigate. I’ve been trying for ages to find the best comment system, and here I am back to the basic features. Its advantage is the clean lines and chronological order. To address someone specifically, use the @name convention. And generally keep an eye on the emails for any that address you.
Amanda Marcotte:
.
“You don’t have evidence. You don’t have logic. You don’t have arguments.”
.
Sheer projection, 99-44/100% pure. A survey of your writing, on Pandagon and elsewhere, shows that it’s you who’ve got nothing, other than to screech “You’ve got nothing!” over and over at anyone who dares to disagree. Your writing is empty and worthless, just sloppy invective with a middle-school vocabulary, signifying nothing in the end.
.
“I’m an annoyingly cheery smartass.”
.
No, I’m afraid that what you really are is a vituperative moron. You’re a vicious and hateful ideologue presiding over a collapsing and bankrupt empire, like some bastard offspring of Rush Limbaugh and Kim Jong Il. It’s not worth another moment of my life to think about you — I’m writing here more out of respect for Susan — but when you do come on the radar I’m consoled by the thought that, since you are still so young, you will live long enough to understand just how hurtful, and yet pitiable, you have been in this mis-spent youth.
@Amanda
Troglodytes. TRAH-GLOW-DI- Wow, that’s a hard one. Are you trying to say that you’re, like, smarter than us or something?
Apparatchik.
grerp´s last [type] ..Sorry- I gave at the office
@dan_brodribb, PJL, dalrock / dragnet:
Those explanations of men not realizing their value aren’t good enough. I definitely don’t see that among the guys that have chosen these women — they had plenty of choices so my conclusion is that they wanted what these women had to offer. @dalrock: how is your comment helpful at all? You might as well not have even commented without some kind of explanation for why this is happening. Because if it’s happening in NYC, it’s happening elsewhere. I concluded what you basically echoed before you wrote it.
In any case, I’m just observing what I see. Like much of game (men listening to what women saying and then doing pretty much the opposite), I’m pretty determined to see for myself what is actually working IRL instead of the platitudes about a nice girl who cooks & cleans, has a feminine personality, is never argumentative, etc.
I observe the girls who have what guys here claim to want, but it seems like girls who are the opposite actually get the guys. It could be that you guys have no effing clue what you actually like just like women don’t seem to.
Oh, synthesis, I have missed your dry wit. It’s so good to see you. You know, I think the sexademic is OK, she’s got class. She doesn’t agree with me, and is shooting from the hip here, but what can you expect. Sex is her livelihood, as it were. I’m not a staunch opponent of casual sex. Casual sex just means sex without commitment. There are few relationships that take hold without that…I encourage women who take the plunge to understand the risks and potential benefits. The days are gone when a man will court a woman for sex. Today women court men with sex. It’s a bear market for commitment.
@verie44
I concluded what you basically echoed before you wrote it.
.
I merely said if what you asserted was true then you have clearly found the formula for finding the man of your dreams. Likewise if you tell me water runs uphill where you are, I won’t argue with you and will instead suggest you build your home on the lowest ground possible.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Stable Positions on the Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
These sluts are so pathetic. They can’t deal with the facts. You can’t turn a pickle back into a cucumber so they attack anyone like you Susan who points out that they’re pickles.
Sluts are dangerous. They’re probably STD ridden, stretched out, and incapable of relating to men with significantly lower partner counts than them aka beta men aka 70% – 80% of men. The great thing about the internet is that we know the real score with these sluts. They used to be able to slut it up then find a chump to clean up their mess and divorce later when they were tired of the chump. Men increasingly know the deal so they will not be the chump. I’m a lonely sexless virgin and I would rather stay a lonely sexless virgin for the rest of my life than get together with one of these (former or not) sluts. That’s how bad they are similar to how I explained here on my blog.
I’m sure there will be another STD epidemic like AIDS sooner or later. I will be laughing all the way to the bank.
white and nerdy´s last [type] ..I Pick Being Alone
We should not forget that feminists are trying to create an anti-male socialist totalitarian state. How long will it be before they try to get speaking the truth about sluts banned as “hate speech”?
white and nerdy´s last [type] ..I Pick Being Alone
@verie
From what I’ve seen, it’s clear that some men want high maintenance women. To be honest, I suspect this gets back to their relationship with mom, but I’m not a shrink. Perhaps it’s just a high level of neuroticism or risk-seeking behavior. Whatever the reason, there are men who want to be controlled/dominated by a woman. It’s not something I’d find attractive in a man, but there are probably excellent marriages with this dynamic. It’s about the match of psychological needs.
@white and nerdy
Hey, good to see you, but you have got to stop with the stretched out thing. That just isn’t true.
@Susan
I never claimed to have any experience with female anatomy.
white and nerdy´s last [type] ..I Pick Being Alone
Like the post Susan – but Amanda Marcotte – settle down. LOL!
A bit off topic here, but it does go to Ms Marcotte’s character, honesty, whatever you want to call it.
You should look into her writings about the Duke Lacrosse case, esp. after it was over, the AG of the state of NC said they were “factually innocent” -something so rare it is practically unheard of.
Let’s just say Ms. Marcotte will throw people under the bus for ideological reasons and leave it at that.
Verie said – “It could be that you guys have no effing clue what you actually like just like women don’t seem to.”
Sounds about right to me.
@ Susan – No sass here. It would be un-Canadian. We prefer snide, passive-aggressive remarks under our breath when we think no one’s listening.
@Clarence
Oh boy. The Duke lacrosse case has always made me see red. I’m going to have to dig up what she’s written. Brodhead, the president of Duke, showed his weakness and ineptitude when he caved to the Duke 88, and even went on to promote the Women’s Studies profs who spearheaded the attacks.
I am not entirely sure you have a strong grasp on what sex-positive feminism is: it is about choice, and supporting the choices of others. When you say that sex positive feminists are only out to encourage others to have lots and lots of casual sex you ignore the wide spectrum of folks who identify as such, be they asexual, queer, monogamous, non-monogamous, heterosexual, or whatever else. You should consider the diverse group of people that you are trying to pigeonhole into a cohort of hookup evangelists, because your writing erases their experiences.
You, on the other hand, cannot seem to handle that someone would deign to make different choices than you would in the same situation, and I don’t see how that makes you somehow less judgmental. I am confused by your characterisation of these responses to your judgmental and essentially slut-shaming piece as judgmental; you cannot criticise a woman’s personal sexual choices and claim that YOU are the one that provides a safe, non-judgmental and helpful place.
Also, your characterisation of sex and dating as a marketplace is offensive to those of us who dare to think of ourselves as more than a piece of meat. I’ve been with the same man for four years now in a mostly monogamous relationship, and I can tell you that our relationship was built on a negotiation of dreams, goals, lifestyles, cohabiting, non-monogamy/monogamy, sexual orientation/bisexuality, and all sorts of other things that arise in a long term relationship between equals. I don’t however, remember haggling over the price of my sluthood.
switchintoglide´s last [type] ..Edible Landscape Update
switchintoglide´s last [type] ..Edible Landscape Update
@Susan Walsh
@verie
From what I’ve seen, it’s clear that some men want high maintenance women. To be honest, I suspect this gets back to their relationship with mom, but I’m not a shrink. Perhaps it’s just a high level of neuroticism or risk-seeking behavior. Whatever the reason, there are men who want to be controlled/dominated by a woman. It’s not something I’d find attractive in a man, but there are probably excellent marriages with this dynamic. It’s about the match of psychological needs.
.
I think your explanation makes sense, and accounts for at least some portion of the guys going for low value women we observe. I think there are two other explanations to consider:
.
1) Flat out delusion. I read all the time on the web about how Divorcées with kids in their late 40s and early 50s are highly sought out by young high value men who prefer them over younger childless never married women, and that men at that age are the ones who struggle to find any dates. This isn’t some other corner of the web, but on the comments section of Roissy’s blog. I’m sure there are individual men and women who meet that description, but the delusion that this is the norm is undying and quite striking. So like I said earlier, if someone tells me water runs uphill in their neck of the woods, I’ll simply tell them to avoid floods by building on low ground. What else can you do here?
.
2) Guys who look perfect on paper, but really are low on the attraction scale. My wife and I were just talking about the former friend of hers I mentioned on another post (the one who divorced and now trolls for men at AA). Prior to this woman’s full downfall, she had a beta orbiter. Per my wife the guy was not bad looking, not short, had a really prestigious job, a very engaging and interesting personality, a great education (was a grad student) etc. On paper he was the perfect catch, yet he couldn’t even turn the head of this woman on her descent to omegahood. He was just too beta (beta in the bad way) to be attractive to women. He later married some awful woman who divorced him in a year or two. I think we all know guys like this. Folks who don’t understand game at all look at them and scratch their heads. Why can’t that great guy find a girlfriend/wife? Is he gay? When a guy like this manages to snag a bitchy high maintenance former carouseler, his value appears to jump immediately. Everything was perfect on paper minus a pretty(ish) woman in the picture. Now he has that, so pre-selection rationalization kicks in and many think he was some great catch who just liked bitchy slutty high maintenance women. Sure.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@switchintoglide
I can tell you that our relationship was built on a negotiation of dreams, goals, lifestyles, cohabiting, non-monogamy/monogamy, sexual orientation/bisexuality, and all sorts of other things that arise in a long term relationship between equals. I don’t however, remember haggling over the price of my sluthood.
.
When we bought our house it had really tacky wallpaper in the kitchen and master bath. It had been on the market for a year despite being reduced to a very attractive price compared to similar homes. My wife wouldn’t consider it at first until I explained that we could do what we wanted with those two rooms. Finally she imagined the home how we would change it and she started to really like the house. We got a great deal on the house, but we never haggled on the price of the tacky wallpaper. That would have been unkind of us. A year on the market with no offers forced the offer to first come down on the price all on their own and then accept our offer of a somewhat lower price than asking.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@Dalrock
“low value women”? Are you serious? That is one of the most sexist things I have heard all day. These people are not ASKING for your advice on their worth, and it is incredibly rude and presumptuous that you seek to impart your ‘sage advice’ at every turn.
Also, women’s sexuality is not to be bought, sold, appraised, and controlled solely by individuals with your particular set of values, in fact, it shouldn’t be treated as an object in a marketplace at all. Your comparisons of women to wallpaper and/or real estate are dehumanising and objectifying.
Just because people have sex lives outside of your moral boundaries doesn’t mean you need to be offering your two cents on OTHER PEOPLE’S CHOICES. Honestly there would be so much less bigotry in this world if people like you kept their nastiness and hatred to themselves instead of packaging it as ‘concern.’ If you really care about the welfare of others, stop being so judgmental and condescending.
switchintoglide´s last [type] ..Edible Landscape Update
@switchblade
i think you will find that susan has some disdain for choice.
unless its a choice she herself would approve of.
i think dalrock was using his metaphor loosely and perhaps actually means that a bartering process goes on subconciously.
susan and a few others employ the same phraseology and i agree with you; it does seem horribly reductionist and inhumane.
@switchintoglide
“low value women”? Are you serious? That is one of the most sexist things I have heard all day.
.
While I appreciate the compliment, I just realized I made a mistake. verie44 in her previous comment made the assertion:
.
Also, I’ve started to wonder about the traits that we agree on this blog are signs of a “high quality” woman will get women the investment of desirable men.
.
Since this was the statement I was rebutting, I really should have written “low quality women”. I’ll be more careful in the future. But in my defense, I did that to avoid writing out “bitchy, slutty, high maintenance women” longhand (which is who she said gets the best men). But since I have caused offense I will be sure to spell it out in the future.
.
By the way this is such a classic tactic: Try to shame the other side into being afraid to have a discussion. All words and terms they use become off limits, and they tie themselves up in knots trying to keep from offending. The joke being that it never can be enough.
.
For example you made the assertion that you negotiated about nearly every aspect of your relationship, but didn’t have to haggle about your sluthood. So I pointed out that sometimes haggling doesn’t occur out in the open, and those who might otherwise be interested can silently drive on by without mentioning what they didn’t care for. Instead of countering with a rational argument, you called me names and told me the same language you used was off limits to me. As if I’m going to run right over and tie myself up so that you can win an argument without having to think the whole thing through.
.
I guess I shouldn’t judge. I might do stuff like that if I lacked a logical argument as well.
.
FYI, In case you have lost your feminist playbook, your next move is to try to shame Susan into shutting anyone up who uses terms of discussion you don’t agree with.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@Dalrock,
I am not a feminist, haven’t been for awhile because it is a movement focussed on middle-class white concerns, and therefore not so high on my priority list as a poor, queer, anti-racism activist. Nice try though.
I am not ‘shaming’ you, I am calling you an asshole for feeling that your opinion on the worth of women, women who did not ask for your opinion, means anything.
I also think it is perfectly rational to think that you are an asshole if you feel that you are important enough, and so much more moral than the women you lord your opinions over.
I also struggle with your assertion that I am ‘irrationally’ shaming you, because according to your flawless logic, you can spew out comments like “low quality women” and maintain that you are a not a misogynist. I am quite sure that rhetoric which debases a particular already marginalised group based on irrational and arbitrary assessments of moral failings is bigotry. Jews were considered “low quality citizens” for supposedly ruining the economy of Germany before the holocaust–do you think that sort of rhetoric is either true, rational, or helpful to women? You are considering women who sleep around to be “low quality women”–you are tying their worth as humans and as partners to your narrow perceptions of their moral standards. Did women ask for your enlightened opinions?
switchintoglide´s last [type] ..Edible Landscape Update
its all here; victorian hypocrisy, women on women hatred, double standards
catchphrases: bitches, sluts, whores, high maintenance etc
heres a code for you:
bitch (a woman who wont accept disrectful male behaviour)
slut ( a women who dares to have sex outside marriage- heaven forbid they could compare penises and sexual skills!)
whore (see above)
high maintence (a women who demands an equal stake in the relationship)
One could go on. A good side effect of this blog is that it exposes a deep hatred of women that means that as a western soxiety we still have some ground to cover before we have true equality.
@switchintoglide
Your being in a happy, supportive relationship with all of the lofty ideals and negotiations does not preclude the existence of a “sexual marketplace” like we’ve been talking about. Others here have experienced things much differently than you, and your argument comes across as the equivalent of covering your ears and eyes and saying “nananananananana it doesn’t exist!”.
We’re all living, breathing, impulsive pieces of meat. Why is that such a troubling concept? People have capacity for good, for bad, whatever. People are also very, very selfish, especially when it comes to sex and relationships.
Everyone’s perfectly equal valuable as human beings, but we DO judge quality as mates. That’s what the mating game essentially is. The biggest problem with such relativistic arguments is the tendency of people to become militant in preventing others from possessing and sharing their own opinions and acting based on their own preferences.
@switchintoglide
I am not entirely sure you have a strong grasp on what sex-positive feminism is: it is about choice, and supporting the choices of others.
It really boils down to how we define supporting. Supporting might be:
1. saying it’s NOMB – everyone has the right to conduct their lives in the way they see fit
2. setting aside judgment to offer friends unconditional love
3. celebrating promiscuous behavior as valuable in some way
4. promoting promiscuity over chastity because it’s just so much cooler
5. proselytizing one’s own dangerous sexual experiences in order to receive much needed personal validation.
JF did 5 in her piece. She was shocked to be called out for it. She should expect much more of the same, as the debate against sex pos fem takes firm hold.
@switchintoglide
See? Choice. Don’t base your sexual decisions on what the Friedmans and Walshs of the world do. Decide for yourself. Listen to your gut.
Excellent advice. Part of what was so disturbing about Friedman’s piece is that she shared her gut feeling that what she had done was very wrong, and buried them by seeking approbation from friends as a way of soothing herself.
@jess
catchphrases: bitches, sluts, whores, high maintenance etc
heres a code for you:
bitch (a woman who wont accept disrectful male behaviour)
.
I love the premise. We can’t let those mens get too uppity! What about men who won’t accept disrespectful female behavior? The presumption being that women of course can never be bitchy, so the word can’t possibly have any valid meaning. I have yet to meet a woman who actually believes this. Women are on the receiving end of bitchiness from other women more than men are.
.
slut ( a women who dares to have sex outside marriage- heaven forbid they could compare penises and sexual skills!)
.
It strikes me that if karma exists you will fall in love with a man who has slept around and is obsessed with the variance of vagina tightness. A cross between a pickup artist and White and Nerdy.
.
high maintence (a women who demands an equal stake in the relationship)
.
This has all of the intellectual validity as saying that men can’t be assholes because women sometimes call them that. Just like bitchiness, women are the recipients of high maintenance personality women more than men. I’ve yet to meet a woman who hadn’t been on the receiving end of this kind of behavior from other women. Pretending it doesn’t exist doesn’t change reality. There really are high maintenance women, and no one wants to be around them.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@dalrock
@ susan
alright then… I will take the bait…
1. kindly define a ‘bitch’
2. please describe bitchy behaviour of someone in the public eye which is exclusively female in nature
3. please describe what high maintenance behaviour really is
ps you kind of answered your own question in your 1st para. A guy who wont accept poor behaviour is ‘strong, principled, assertive’, a woman exhibiting the same traits can sometimes recieve… shall we say…less complimentary appraisal.
I concede thigns have got better, Maggie Thatcher got more abuse in the 80s than she would today- I’m just saying its still not equal.
I suppose the closest thing to the male ‘bitch’ would be ‘asshole’ or ‘dick’ but I feel men are more genreoulsy appraised and ‘bitch’ has more invective when used by both sexes.
Susan, I think you are right, having looked at the article again, she did feel shame, but that shame is due to childhood indoctrination, that sex is wrong, having a one night stand is evil, what would daddy think? what would the church think?. Its very difficult to overcome these feelings. But these are not true ethical misgivings. Some catholic women never overcome sexual shame becuase its so imbedded. Such a criminal waste.
@switchintoglide
I am calling you an asshole…I also think it is perfectly rational to think that you are an asshole…Did women ask for your enlightened opinions?
.
I think you should know that words hurt switchintoglide, and that I cried myself to sleep last night after reading your mean and hurtful comments. Ok, maybe not cried myself to sleep, but I think you should know I really was crying on the inside. Well, not quite crying on the inside; but I’ll have you know that men are people too and when some stranger on the internet throws a temper tantrum and calls us names, it mostly just amuses us.
.
Anyway, I’ve recovered my self esteem now and want you to know that I’m still interested in hearing your logical argument if/when you get past the whole OMG he’s a man! thing.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
Why were my comments on this post deleted?
I noticed my comments on this post were deleted. I thought they were fair criticisms. Susan, can you tell me why you thought they were beyond the pale?
TRB:
I bet your comments weren’t deleted. Susan would ban you rather than delete comments, I’m sure. Perhaps they moved to one of the other pages on the thread. This blog has a new blogging thread system.
@dalrock
i clicked your click…most amusing…even though i identify as a feminist (but I have my own doctrine)
my father always said to me that the minute someone resorts to insults or anger they have lost the argument.
wise words indeed and so on that point I would heartily agree with you.
Jess
Jess,
I’m stunned. Glad we could find a point of agreement. Take care!
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@ switchintoglide
.
“Jews were considered “low quality citizens” for supposedly ruining the economy of Germany before the holocaust–do you think that sort of rhetoric is either true, rational, or helpful to women?”
.
Godwin’s law.
Okay, female Anti-Marketplace commenters, you get a brief essay.
On the sexual marketplace -
I know it might offend some women (and many men) to think of people ad naked apes, slabs of meat being bought and sold, but when it comes to mating, this is exactly the case.
As animals (in every sense of the word), much of our culture is geared to measuring and evaluating ourselves in reference to everyone around us. We do it constantly. It informs our sense of self.
When a man walks in the room, he’s measured against an internal and a “current” standard by women, and in a separate process, by the men.
Men absolutely do this with *all* women they ever meet. They determine first: is she attractive enough for me to put her into Category A? Yes or no? Then further refinements are made, gradations on the scale of interest. If she falls out of General Interest, then she becomes like the furniture – animated furniture, to be sure, but background nonetheless.
Women do the same with men. Men in Category A will get a different response to many actions than Category Other – many things that get a tingle in A will become “creepy” in Other.
Women do this with women: they’re conscious of their value as potential sexual partners for the highest value males (they only really value the highest value local males, of course). You can see this behavior within groups of women all the time. When a very young, pretty woman is hired in an office filled with middle-aged women who aren’t attractive, wait half a year and see how friendly the middle-aged women are with the pretty young newcomer, when all the males are giving attention to her. See who’s uncomfortable with the attention she’s getting. More than likely, it won’t be the newcomer.
Women attack each other over perceived Sexual Value all the time. It’s the constant theme of heterosexual female group existence. Half of teen female interactions are about this.
Snide comments, female – described negative behavior (what women call “Bitchiness” when referencing other women), coalition-forming to unseat the perceived high-value or most attractive females, comments about clothing, poisoned friendships and recommendations (“Really, your hair looks better short, … you should consider cutting it”), etc.
So to deny that there’s a raw, visceral, Market Value Assessment going on almost all the time is ideology. We’re animals. When it comes to sex, the reality of the raw market is never more true.
Denying this is unreasonable. It flies in the face of all human experience, and denies the factual realities that we have to navigate every moment of every day.
This may be the motivation behind the legitimation of the concept of “slut”. Some women want to behave a given way – without the traditional consequences.
They see these as unfair. I get that. More on unfairness.
Females who tart about are genuinely perceived, in all human cultures without exception, as of *lower perceived sexual market value*. Why? Because this is a deeply programmed instinct. And it’s because Males can’t know that their children are their own.
A child is always the child of the mother. It’s not… necessarily the child of the indicated father. This puts the male in a very difficult evolutionary position. He needs as many indications (think 100,000-2,000,000 years ago) that his children – and his woman – are his.
Therefore, sluts are seen as *risky bets*. Male brains are programmed on a basic level for three things:
- Sexual jealousy: Don’t touch my female(s). Get the fuck away.
- Shaming behavior: You’re my female. Why are you talking to him?
- if you’re not going to guarantee (through your behavior) that these offspring are mine, then *I’m going to invest less in you*. IE, I’ll fuck you, but I’ll *LOWER* your value in my eyes as a permanent partner of any kind.
Males therefore *DO* have, deeply programmed into them, a tendency to evaluate a female’s sexual history and include this as part of the measure of her worth. Usually, it’s directly tied to her level of attractiveness. A vastly superior female of the species may seem fine if she’s a total slut, because, on balance, the raw numbers balance out. But don’t underestimate the power of the Slut Effect. All males evaluate based on this. Some males want it – some males, outliers, are turned on by cuckoldry. But then again, some males are turned on by autoasphyxiation and shoes. Noting exceptions to these rules is not particularly useful, except to show how obvious the generalizations are.
Don’t mistake a man’s willingness to fuck a woman as a willingness to have a serious long-term relationship with one. Men are usually willing to fuck a wide range of women; but LTR’s are an entirely different story. Those require hitching your genes to someone (as part of the basic wiring psychology – not necessarily in actual fact or consciously).
And you’re going to change this deeply programmed behavior how? Through re-education? Not likely. It’d be like training us to not desire sex or to dislike oily foods with calories. It can likely only be done with some people, some of the time, and as it defies human nature, will need constant, rigorous reinforcement. And it will be unlikely to work on most people.
So Jacklyn Friedman will not be celebrated by most people as a Heroine for slutting it about . I’m sorry. Other women and most males will still evaluate her based on her behavior. This is one of those facts about human biology, like nipples for men and belly buttons, you’re just going to have to get used to.
All of this is rational game-theory evolutionary behavior. It’s not conscious.
BTW, females have similar but different motives to judge and shame, all of which makes perfect sense.
Whether or not it’s fair is irrelevant. The whole notion of “fairness” as it applies to the sexual marketplace is absurd. If human behavior can be unfair, it’s at its most cruel, brutal and unfair when it comes to sexual selection.
Sexual selection is so crucial, so identity-forming, so fundamental to the process of life that fairness doesn’t ever enter into the equation. And it’s all hard-wired, deeply programmed into the human brain. It’s where we’re the most Animal.
Fairness is, in short, irrelevant.
If it’s a double standard, where females don’t necessarily judge males in the same way or depreciate their sexual market value, and this is unfair, it’s a logical consequence of the realities of sexual mate selection and the differing strategies males and females need to follow in order to successfully breed.
Women don’t need to care as much about their men: Indeed, the more successful a man is in spreading his genes around, … the better for her potential offspring. She needs to sequester his resources, but a man who gets to fuck all the girls while still giving one woman his resources will be infinitely more valuable, gene-wise, to the woman who gets his resources AND his genes, that in fact male sexual prowess and men who are able to indicate through success that they’re GOOD at getting women will be more attractive, on balance, even for that mere fact. There’s a tradeoff, of course; there are two graphs, and the intersection point is what women want.
The intersection point for men is very different: it’s way, way, way to the left on the Sluttiniess scale (which increases to the right).
It’s utterly unfair.
Get over it. Deal with it. Get used to it.
No amount of reprogramming of society is going to make female sluttiness as acceptable as male sluttiness. And many of those *doing* the judging will be other females.
Nothing in the realm of sex is remotely fair – it didn’t evolve to be that way. Sex is fundamentally about mating yourself to the perceived highest value genes, and successfully producing offspring that go on to produce offspring. All sexual programming is related to this sole function. All life lives for this function. Fairness never enters into the equation. It things are fair, fine; what matters ultimately is not fairness. It’s reproductive success. If you want to read why things work in sexual relations, this thought has to be in the back of your mind at all times (if not in the forefront).
Stop thinking of us as blank slates, programmable machines. We’re more like computers: You can operate several operating systems, different software, etc., but the basic BIOS is ROM; under normal circumstances, without a full re-engineering, reprogramming basic human nature is impossible.
Your belief in the fundamental plasticity of basic human nature is what’s catching you.
It’s more like those rubber toys you could buy when I was young: the more you bend and squeeze them, the more they return to their original shape, in naked defiance of your attempts to mold and shape them.
“How many partners is slutty?” is a really, really dumb question. Susan chose to ignore it, not evade it.
The “slut” question is even worse than people asking how many dollars is rich.
@Average Joe
Actually, I’m planning to publish a post about this topic quite soon, so I don’t want to debate the question before I’ve thought about it carefully.
@Running Board
I did not delete your comments. I’ve checked the Trash and Spam just to make sure, but there’s nothing in there by you. Not sure what happened? If you recall the gist, let me know. Just in case you didn’t realize, you can click at the bottom of the comments, to go back and see older comments.
Update: They’re in another post – “I Earned a Denunciation from NOW”
@Gorbachev
Posts like yours remind me that I’m still too new to the theory to accurately summarize it, well done.
Too bad it’ll all be discarded as misogynist and reductionist in order to preserve their world view.
One thing I disagree with a little – I think reeducation has been somewhat successful insofar as men are increasingly more often shamed for expressing issues with promiscuity than women are for acting on it. Hence the large numbers of white knights out there saying a woman’s history is completely irrelevant.
@gorbechov
whilst i lament the reality of what you describe you have written quite brilliantly on the issue.
its certainly true that ‘fairness’ just doesnt enter into sexual attraction/satisfaction.
@average joe
i assume your remark was aimed at my earlier question about ‘slut’ qualification. I am clearly too dumb to understand why its a dumb question. To me it seems the most pertinent question of all, no? Is a ball park figure not unreasonable?
Clearly Susan is as dumb as me, as apprently she is going to address the issue in the coming days.
ps imo someone with $800, 000 net worth can claim to be rich (just my estimate)
Not only are you trying to irrationally shame Dalrock you are also irrationally comparing him (and all other men) to Nazis. Do you think that men are preparing concentration camps for women? Clearly the answer is yes or you would have never made this comparison.
The real question we should be asking is why you are so paranoid and why you and other feminists are trying to take away free speech (and freedom in general) from men.
white and nerdy´s last [type] ..I Pick Being Alone
@Sox
@Gorbachev
Posts like yours remind me that I’m still too new to the theory to accurately summarize it, well done.
Too bad it’ll all be discarded as misogynist and reductionist in order to preserve their world view.
The fundamental assumptions that feminism is based on is that males and females (and all humans) have no basic nature; that our behaviors are cultural in origin. In fact, while many specific behaviors are cultural, the actual facts amply illustrate how biology informs every aspect of human life. It sets the rules. It starts the trends.
Marxism relies on the perfectibility of the Human. We have to be subject to Social Engineering. Alas, the problem is we always regress to the norm. Biology always reasserts itself. Violence is largely a male phenomenon; males and females behave differently from birth, with an absolute truth that parents with children of both sexes can’t deny; status-seeking and competition are the basic psychological motivations we experience, along with group-identity and reciprocal / group altruism (we are social animals, after all).
Both the religious far-right and the feminist/marxist left need to deny the *animal* nature of humans. And the basic fact of animals: Programming and evolution.
Anything that has not acknowledged this is more akin to religion that reason. This is why marxist thought and feminism seem to profoundly unreasonable: They’re based on extremely irrational, fact-denying premises that have no bearing on reality.
It’s why most feminist projects have such massive, brutal unintended side-effects. Boys being feminized and rejected as unattractive by their female peers; “feminists” falling hook line and sinker for the Bad Boys while the male Gynocracy is rejected; the whole re-emergence of the Alpha Male Harems – a small number of males servicing the sexual needs of women in their prime, and then many of these women being rejected for permanent relationships in their early 30′s, when their physical attractiveness is waning fast – except by lower-sexual-status (lower value) males, who don’t have the sexual attractiveness but are willing to put up with slutty, past-prime women because it’s all they can really get.
While 20-40 year-old Alpha males bang all the hot 19-25 year-old women in series, like some sort of sexual gratification experiment.
Women don’t get this. Feminists especially. They’re part of the MEMEMEMEME generation: They *ONLY* see their own immediate desires.
They fault men for this, but glorify their own self-indulgence. It’s shameful.
What truly shocks is when the males refuse to play ball, or even other females: because the males may, indeed, have disparate interests that don’t cater to female needs. This is unsurprising to those with a background in evolutionary biology: Biology almost demands this.
But the refusal to acknowledge any facts outside of their own ideology intellectually dooms most feminist work. It’s a fad.
Much like creationism, crumbling day after day under the overwhelming weight of the increasing understanding of human and general biology that science is producing, these marxist-originated ideas will slip ever forcefully into the realm of forgotten history, a quaint fad of intellectual delusion.
Post-modernist thought got around the fact that reason and reality utterly demolished Marxist idealism by arguing that all knowledge is relative and content-free, and that only the argument mattered, and that it’s all just words.
In fact, there are facts. And there is reality. It’s just more self-denial that feminists rely on. It’s why they so easily manipulate facts and statistics (exactly like creationists) –
The GOAL is more important that how they get there. Intellectual honesty is irrelevant: like religious fanatics, they just KNOW they’re right, and will ignore facts they don’t like and silence their opponents using shaming or whatever tactic they can. it’s why leftists are so censorious in academia: the university climate is now, ironically, more censorious than the Soviet Union ever was, something former Soviet scholars find immensely amusing.
One thing I disagree with a little – I think reeducation has been somewhat successful insofar as men are increasingly more often shamed for expressing issues with promiscuity than women are for acting on it. Hence the large numbers of white knights out there saying a woman’s history is completely irrelevant.
These are beta males who ingratiate themselves. The vast majority of males instinctively don’t believe this stuff; they have other motivations. Feminists point this out and say that even though they have male supporters, they don’t really trust them. For good reason. The men are fighting their own instincts.
To this day, the vast majority of women don’t call themselves feminists, because gender-feminism (as opposed to equality-feminism) is rightly seen as corrupt and empty, something which the practitioners are unable to see (cognitive dissonance / false reasoning from false consciousness). Even equality-feminists, when being rational, don’t like the hard implications of biology, anthropology and genetics:
Inescapable and impossible to avoid, ultimately, but still uncomfortable.
Alas. You can believe the moon is made of cheese,… but it’s not.
@jess
@gorbechov
whilst i lament the reality of what you describe you have written quite brilliantly on the issue.
its certainly true that ‘fairness’ just doesnt enter into sexual attraction/satisfaction.
Fairness and equality have less than nothing to do with sex: Sex is all about reproduction. There are very good reasons that a female’s genes will help her choose a domineering, powerful male who takes control of her life. She will produce more successful sons, and her daughters will also carry his genes to their sons.
Remember: The females need to select for strong Sons as well as successful daughters. So their instincts profoundly work against the “fairness” instincts of their gender.
Sex is about RAW INSTINCTS. Nothing else.
There’s no room for ideology. It’s all raw evolutionary biology, all of it. Rape is not about power, or power alone: It’s a sexual reproductive strategy. We may not like this fact, or want to deny it, and we can work against it. But unless we acknowledge its true and very obvious and undeniable *biological* roots, as a potentially successful occasional reproductive strategy that’s carried in the genes of males and females (to give to their sons), how can we socially combat rape?
Seriously? If anything, the denial of the facts of human nature makes feminist projects impossible to implement successfully.
If we acknowledge, for example, that women are better at some things than men, and vice-versa, and they communicate differently, and have similar but sometimes opposed agendas – then maybe some feminist projects will be discarded for not making any sense, but others will be easier to implement.
Sociobiology has absolutely won every intellectual battle in this arena: sex. This is predictable. If it’s true for cockroaches and mice and chimpanzees, it’s going to be as true for humans.
This denial makes feminism and marxist-inspired Leftist arguments exactly like religion: irrational and based on notions with little relation to reality. And all the post-modernist denial of reason will not paper over the intellectual bankruptcy of the feminist left.
Take a good hard, cold look at the feminist left and follow the arguments back to first principles. You’ll find a lot of empty rhetoric and wishful thinking and a lot of failed projects.
“Indeed, the more successful a man is in spreading his genes around, … the better for her potential offspring.” How so?
@gorbecov
whilst i think there is a lot of merit and logic to what you say I’m not sure things a quite as clear cut as you indicate.
30 years ago most scientists thought ‘nurture was more influential than nature’. This fitted the feminist model rather neatly.
Now conventional medicine (particularly work by John Hopkins Centre) has overturned this idea. Now most beleive its a blend of both with nature taking the lead.
Therefore its not uncommon to think that traditional gender roles are fixed at a genetic level.
Whilst there is more than a grain of truth to this stance things are more complex.
Some anthropologists have strong evidence that ancient female humans had to be highly promiscous. In the animal kingdom there is evidence of pair bonding AND promiscuity, homosexuality AND bisexuality, rape AND courtship. With the exception of internet dating and arranged marriage almost anything goes in the animal kingdom. Anothe curve ball is that role reversal can occur eg the lioness being the hunter. Finally, throw in the fact that about 1% of any population has transgender people in and about 10-20% homosexual people in and you have a very complex picture indeed.
If some anthropolgists are right, certain behaviours by JF are actually more natural than marriage.
So whilst our genetic/enrvironmental heritage is key doesnt underestimate the power of childhood indoctrination and media influence.
In some cultures an obese female is seen as highly erotic- this doesnt happen in western society anymore.
So congrats are in order, and some previously thought of as smart gals really ought to reconsider their championing of ‘sluts’. It’s just stupid & silly on almost any dimension you’d care to mention. Cheers, ‘VJ’
sorry I forgot to mention that despite what I have written I have been a feminist for 25 years now not because of leftish leanings or deep political thought or polished anaytical debate but something far more instintive and perhaps even superficial.
I saw overt sexism and double standards every day and it just seemed so self evidently wrong I got involved in a bit of activism. Some of my career has involved female shelter work- I saw pretty grim stuff on a daily basis.
The violence to woman thing is still a terrible blight on our society and I’m not sure I agree with the idea its a sexual male imperitive. Every rape victim I have spoken to talks about terror, the violence, the humilation, the degradation, the verbal insults, the anger of the attacker, the knife of the attacker, when describing the assault. This has nothing to with normal natural urges. This has to do with a twisted psyche.
People forget how things have changed due to feminist activism. Let me tell you about a case from the early 90s that I was involved with- a girl very nearly died due to a savage rape in london. Although the guy got a heavy sentence the judge actually said she had an element of blame because she wore a short skirt and get this, so did her mother! Naturally the feminist lobby went beserk and it was cases like this that did change attitudes. Any judge saying that now would be struck off in the UK.
Even someone like the left’s arch enemy Maggie Thatcher did a bit for feminism just like Obama is doing his bit for racial equality. Bit by bit we march towards a civilised society where equality of rights is soverign. For me therefore, feminism is still valid and powerful, needed and envitable.
@ Jess
My remark was aimed at Marcotte, but it does seem to apply to you as well. Specifying a number is foolhardy. Women who ask “how many is slutty?” are generally either seeking rhetorical points (Pandagon types) or beneficial relationship advice (young females)… neither of which warrants a response involving digits. Hopefully Susan will reaffirm her initial instincts to “reject the concept of a #” as she contemplates the question/topic further… something dumb people rarely do.
And contrary to what feminists would like women to believe, not being a slut is pretty easy. Males see an enormous difference between a woman with 9 partners who over 36 years has collected friends, boyfriends, fiancés, and husbands and a woman who has collected 9 partners in 36 weeks of craigslist strangers. Similarly, singling out a number like 800,000 as “rich” without determining if those assets are liquid or for someone in Manhattan is pointless.
i take your point in that any figure will be of an arbitary nature but thats the case with all limits.
the age of consent for example.
i also take the point about marcotte being rheotorical…. i think she was making the point that to pigeon hole someone and call them a slut was lunacy.
you have yourself already got the ball rolling by saying 9 in 36 weeks is a slut.
for a college girl 9 men in an academic year is nothing at all- there are plenty of sluts by that formula.
you want more detail on rich? call it 600, 000 capital, 200, 000 liquid and any US city but NY.
@jess
People forget how things have changed due to feminist activism. Let me tell you about a case from the early 90s that I was involved with- a girl very nearly died due to a savage rape in london. Although the guy got a heavy sentence the judge actually said she had an element of blame because she wore a short skirt and get this, so did her mother! Naturally the feminist lobby went beserk and it was cases like this that did change attitudes. Any judge saying that now would be struck off in the UK.
.
Hi Jess. I know we are veering slightly off topic, but if there is an opportunity for civil discussion on a feminist issue I think that is more on topic than 99% of the rest of the thread.
.
My question to you would be how the changes you mentioned really help women. Will telling girls they should (or silencing anyone who says they shouldn’t) wear short skirts into bad parts of town at night, or to frat parties, etc really prevent rapes? Have savage rapes declined in London since the 90s? All that changed is the judge was silenced. The rapes still occur, and may be even more likely as a brutal but unintended consequence of misguided but well intended feminists. This is what Gorbachev was talking about regarding feminist policies.
.
I think you will struggle to find many men or women who aren’t highly motivated to prevent the kinds of violence and rape you describe in your post. The problem isn’t that feminism wants to solve these problems; we all do. The problem is that feminism starts by requiring that everyone deny reality as a first step before any other decisions or discussion can occur. This guarantees that good choices can’t be made, which brings us back to the original topic of the blog post.
Dalrock´s last [type] ..Location of Alphas- Betas- and Omegas on Monogamy-Hypergamy Continuum
@ Jess,
The origin of the number 9 is Jacklyn Friedman’s confession. She got the ball rolling, I’m just piggybacking. JF knew very well that being with that many guys, in that way, in such a short time was “slutty”, so I beg to differ with your assessment of such a fast pace being “nothing at all”. If such choices were truly “nothing at all” college women wouldn’t feel such a need to lie to potential boyfriends about high numbers or apologize for a “slut phase”, now would they?
I went to a ranked university and I can tell you first hand that the few girls with that many known(and trust me guys talk) hookups per year found it very hard to get someone who was willing to be her boyfriend. I also doubt that men feel that much differently even at party schools like Penn State. You do understand that the important take away here is not the amount of college women that have or haven’t slept with 9 guys in an academic year, but that such sexual proclivities are a big deterrent to men who might be interested in these women as a girlfriends or more??
jess says:
Some anthropologists have strong evidence that ancient female humans had to be highly promiscous. In the animal kingdom there is evidence of pair bonding AND promiscuity, homosexuality AND bisexuality, rape AND courtship. With the exception of internet dating and arranged marriage almost anything goes in the animal kingdom.
Jess, I laud you for noting this. I’m glad to see you thinking about things from a biological position.
I would,though, be careful about crediting too many diverse studies of comparisons with “the animal kingdom”; indeed, there are many different strategies for dealing with mate selection and reproduction. But the ones we need to concern ourselves with are not, say, birds or pigs or horses; we’re not just mammals or vertebrates. We’re also primates. And not just primates – the last (known) surviving Hominid, one of a long line of Great Ape relatives. We may seem unique and special now – but that’s because over the last 1,000,000 – 70,000 years, the last of the other related Hominid species have gone extinct. Barring Sasquatch or the Hairy Man of Vietnam, we seem to be the last hominid left.
So – while bonobos and Orangutans may give us some insight into different strategies, the truth is that they can best illustrate the principles of reproductive strategies and their effects on evolution (and vice versa). They may not illustrate anything specific among humans themselves, though. So the best place to look is actual human behavior, with comparisons to other animals. We need to basically reconstruct our own evolution.
Different Strategies At The Same Time
Of course, there are different strategies in evidence among modern humans, even the same human individual; it’s an uneasy equilibrium. Life forms aren’t permanent and unchanging: we’re always in a state of flux, with legacies from all of our ancestral stages. So we may, in fact, have evidence of several different strategies, and one thing about humans: we’re opportunistic. If things change, we have a multiplicity of programs to fall back on. Our evolution, especially our recent evolution, may emphasize one or the other, but there are other strategies in there we can use. But some things, in almost all situations, will always be the same.
Bear in mind: Some individuals break all patterns. It’s a statistical curve; there are individuals and outliers that seem bizarre. Of course. A small subset of men are really turned on by the anxiety that cuckoldry causes – the nervous energy hit they get. other men are enraged by it, most are disgusted. So don’t take a general rule to apply to all individuals.
At a distant point in the past, our ancestors were little rat-like things hopping under the feet of dinosaurs. Our mating strategies owe a lot to these little animals and their legacies, too. One of their legacies, BTW, is us.
For example, rape: it would seem odd for a deeply social animal to allow this, but not so. For “loser” males, it makes sense: it’s better than not reproducing, at all. And rape often results in pregnancy, though of course, nowhere near always. And for non-loser males, rape makes sense if some conditions are met: The male relatives of the female are nowhere to be seen (it’s in their strong interest to exterminate rapists who steal sex, because their related females are valuable genetically to them, too); there are no social consequences; the woman is isolated or alone.
Rape can’t just be about power or a conspiracy to oppress women. It’s a very sensible mating strategy for an individual who will otherwise lose out on the genetic lottery of propagation. This means: we will likely never get rid of rape. It’s in our genes. It’s in the genes of *women*, too, both to submit to it (hence the rape fantasies – big strong guy forces them) and to produce sons who have some potential to do it under some circumstances.
Sex isn’t about justice. It’s about sexual reproductive competition and success. Evolutionary biologists are comfortable talking about humans as lab rats and genetic machines; but many non-biologists are not, for obvious reasons. But the truth is the truth, and as uncomfortable as it is, it’s important to look at humans as nothing more than another animal species, and approach with a non-ideological, completely honest viewpoint. The goal is understanding what we do and why we do it , so that we can understand why things happen.
Not to say we should allow rape. Just because it’s natural, means nothing. Violence and mass death are also in our genes. But if we want to *understand* it, we need to understand why it makes perfect sense in some situations – from a Basic Human Psychology point of view.
In fact, it’s in part of *your* interest, as a woman, for some men to get away with rape. If one of your sons rapes a girl and gets her pregnant, … *your* genes have won the genetic lottery, too. And you’re a woman. Your genes are deeply interested in the sexual success of your sons. And your daughters. What you personally think *as a woman* is, of course, irrelevant. Your genes can manipulate you. Your genes exist not for womanhood or manhood, but for themselves. You just happen to be a woman, right now.
Remember: Your genes HAPPEN to be in a woman right now (you). But they’ve programmed you not for *YOUR* interests: They’re programmed you for Theirs. And they only care about continuity. They will as likely be transmitted to a Son as a Daughter – so they need to make sure you oblige them properly.
This is why clan-family structures are so universal among humans. By understanding this, we can help to reduce war and violence between groups.
Leftists try to “deny” any group identity. This is a mistake. It’s obviously too basic, too hard-wired. We SEEK a group identity, from a very young age. Instead, we should acknowledge that we are a In-group Out-group animal. But this doesn’t mean we give up trying to stop group warfare.
By understanding this basic human nature, we can then go on: Okay, children seem to bond most closely not with parents, but with peers. So, .. what if their peers are members of a wider society? Why not co-opt the Group Identity / Family Relatedness instinct, and *ENCOURAGE* group identity – to a *larger* group? Make it, … the Nation! Or Humanity!
This takes subtlety and patience and cleverness, but shows more promise than just denying the urge to belong to a group.
So instead of denying out basic natures, we should co-opt them. This is the mistake that feminists make. They seek to deny and change, instead of understand deeply and co-opt.
It’s why some feminist projects work very well, and some fail miserably. Fairness: men often agree, women should be treated as individuals. This appeals to our Fairness instinct. But men agree to this – so long as it IS perceived as fair. Overstep this or forget that men MUST be your allies, in all respects, and then you get reactionary movements.
Pair-Bonding
This would seem to deny the great opportunities in opportunistic mating. And polygamy: that would seem to make sense, but only if you can maintain social cohesion in a large group (lots of unhappy males result). There are other strategies, too. Confusing your males by fucking all of them: No male can risk killing the offspring and getting you pregnant again, because the child *might* be his.
Note that the more men the woman fucks, the lower the chances the child is any particular male’s, … So statistically, his reluctance to abandon her or kill the children goes down. The sluttier she is, … the less she’s worth to him, and her children.
So there’s always an equilibrium point in mating strategies. A woman fucking 1000 men is not the same as a woman fucking 8 over 30 years. All men feel this difference.
We make these judgments instinctively. It’s not rational. We feel genuine disgust, which is supposed to deter us from bothering with such a woman – a tramp, a whore – because she is, fundamentally, LESS USEFUL or valuable as a mate. Women do the same with weak or useless men. They discard these men as less useful. Same deal. Same instinct. Same reaction.
Multiples
We have multiple survival strategies: small groups, large groups, state societies (more recently), … how do our native instincts play out in every situation? Teasing out the facts from these factors can be hard, for sure.
On women being very promiscuous: The evidence for this is actually quite poor. What we’ve seen reconstructed is pair-bonding with occasional cheating.
Women naturally gravitate to the most powerful male, … the one who dominates them properly, and more importantly stands out among the other males. The evidence for this is overwhelming to the point of being an observable truth. It’s most true for women in their sexual heat/prime: 15-24 years old (bear in mind in our “natural” state, most individuals would be dead by 35 from a horrifying list of causes, from disease, to hunger, to predation (ouch), to parasites, to competition, to war). These women go nuts for musicians, artists, all the showy males – the effect Elvis or the Beatles had on *women* between 13-22 years old shows this precisely. These men could have serially fucked women and no woman would have objected – they just had to have that Man Give Me That Man! Her genes were telling her this was the Showy Impressive Male(s).
That behavior is raw, pure biology. And the MALE desire to be *that* male is excruciatingly strong – we all want that. Every man wants a harem. Most have discounted this from early age, and then a different mechanism sets in: Find the best single woman you can and invest hard, but keep your eyes open. We need multiple strategies, based on our status.
For women, getting a good man is good. However – it’s always good to spread the eggs around, … a bit. If that alpha turns out to be a dick, then you might be left on the hook for kids while he trots around to the other females. So it might make sense to find a lesser male who is willing to invest *all* of his resources into your kids, rather than an Alpha who invests a small portion of his resources among many females.
BUT: If you … DO… have a lesser male, … wouldn’t it be awesome (genetically) to get him to invest his resources, … but then have your children sired by the Alpha? Sneaky sneaky clever clever! This is a mathematical / statistical prize for a female.
IE: Cheat: Successfully. It benefits your genes.
IE: Sniff out cheaters (for males). It benefits your genes.
An arms race. Individuals need to mate with each other, … but their genes compete with each other. Greedy genes. It’s the very nature of all life.
Hence female hypergamy, with cuckoldry when possible.
This seems to be the rule with many animals that follow this pattern.
Investing in Women
It *may* make more sense for men to invest in their relatives, nephews and nieces by their female siblings, than in their own children, if their own children are not guaranteed to be theirs. So males often carefully guard not only their wives – but their sisters, as well. Their brothers are male allies, but are also potential rivals; their sisters are good genetic properties to be guarded and traded only to the right males.
Genetically, you can often be more sure of the relatedness of your sister’s children than you can of your mate’s. Notice how the danger of cuckoldry makes the statistics calculations in evolution all screwy. It means there’s no easy equilibrium. Our genes need to be programmed for a wide range of possibilities. It’s annoying for us.
It also makes Matrilinear societies sometimes as useful for men as for women: The men are usually still in charge, but the genetic line is passed down through the female. In a society where the male seed can’t be guaranteed, trusting to your own sisters makes a lot more sense.
The reason all of this keeps being passed down is that the interests of males and females are not – in the end – opposed. They may diverge between individuals and their genes, but, …
A woman can have daughters or sons. She NEEDS to charge those genes with the best strategies for survival and gene-propagation, REGARDLESS of whether or not she produces a son or a daughter.
So: Same for men. A man has to produce successful *daughters* as well as sons.
Making a daughter is great, because you’re guaranteed to get your own genes passed on. Making a son is risky: He might reproduce, or he might not. Iffy. If he’s strong, dominant, able to take women or make them swoon to him, … then it’s great. If not, then it’s a loss.
And for women: Should I produce a daughter, it’s in my interest for her to find a tough, strong male who can command other men. Why? Because then my Grandchildren will have his genes: I married my genes to a good males’ genes.
So my genes WANT to produce a daughter that will be able to sexually attract a strong male, and to submit gladly and loyally to him. But not too loyally: My genetic line will want her to keep a keen eye out for better opportunities, while keeping lots of resources for herself.
See where this is all going? There’s no natural equilibrium. It’s a WAR of interests. And note that the war between males and females is actually ONLY A PROXY war – the real was uses males and females as tools. The real war is the war to reproduce between different genetic lines. In fact, Maleness and Femaleness are just different tools in this war.
If I have a daughter, she should be sexually attractive; therefore more feminine and beautiful. BUT: She should ALSO be able to be sneaky and able to use genes from an Alpha and have her be clever enough to acquire resources – whatever way she can. My genes want my female children to be successful females – even if it costs other males.
So you see: We all carry in us all of the ingredients necessary to make successful males and females. Your genes may carry the ingredients necessary to make a successful rapist as a son; a nice, demure daughter who can convince men she’s a pure and innocent girl who will be loyal, but also cheat to get better genes when necessary – All the bad things we think of in the opposite sex are often successful mating strategies. They’re coded for this in both sexes. You code for them as much as I do.
The Most Important Thing
There’s no underlying “female” or “male” solidarity. Your genes are traitorous to other females. My genes are absolutely traitorous to other males. The fact that my genes are in a male is almost incidental to their interests: My maleness is just a tool.
You start to see actual written history when you look at the genetic tendencies that flow from the logic of mating. Most of our social patterns and our social constructs are obviously biological in origin. They come directly from the statistics of genetic competition and reproduction.
if you want to reform society, you absolutely need to deeply grasp WHY humans are this way, and realize just what you’re up against. Some of the things you want might be impossible; some might be possible, but require very subtle thought; some might be easy.
Feminism denies all of this at its peril. The same was true of marxism: As a famous man once said, “Communism: Great theory. Wrong species.”
Promiscuity
So promiscuous women were rewarded – sometimes.
I think there was lots of careful promiscuity at various stages, for sure; it’s an option. But we’re not talking about just what females want.
The males will not be ultimately happy with this (genetically). Women will always be judged as sluts. Why?
“Virginity is a commodity that preserves its value well.” (I think Elizabeth, the movie).
Many men find virginity attractive in and of itself. Being a virgin for a woman is rarely bad for her sexual attraction level; it’s almost always bad for men. A man who gets around is obviously better with women. Women like it more than men like slutty girls.
The logic of mating absolutely demands this. If it were anything else, I’d be shocked.
Remember, we’re not talking about fairness here. In this case, the desire for fairness (a basic human nature) – “more for me! Not Fair!”, the cry of all children – runs up against the more basic hind-brain program: SEXUAL VALUE. Sexual value wins out in the males, because it’s more basic and it’s in their interests.
We’re talking about *MALE* evaluations of Female Sexual Value.
A super-hot woman, of High Sexual Value, might be great – even if slutty.
BUT:
As a male, … think about it. Statistically, … am I better of fucking her and then dumping her, or keeping her on the side – and investing in a nice, secure, good girl. Should I take the genetic risk? When my brain makes a subconscious calculation and generates my instinctive response, … which one will it be?
Depends on the man, the stage in life, etc. – but you can guess what, statistically, it will be.
While I’m sure at *some* stage in our history, we had openly promiscuous females who mated with all the males, this was a long time ago and other patterns have asserted themselves since, and overlaid this program. Elements of it remain, of course.
But it’s been a very long time since we were monkeys.
Anothe curve ball is that role reversal can occur eg the lioness being the hunter.
Sure, this can happen; but we’re talking statistics, here.
Some females are bigger and stronger than me. Not that many.
Some men are tiny and weak. Not as many as females.
The fact that role reversal occurs sometimes is not germane to the debate. Its rarity proves the point.
Someone like Benazir Bhutto might be taken as an indication of how great Islamic women have it. Of course, the relevant piece of information here is that her name is Benazir *Bhutto*. Not that she’s a woman.
So outliers and exceptions need to be taken fully in context – and what lions, an apex predator, do have little bearing on us. Their societies are magnitudes of order less complex than ours, and we’re primates.
Finally, throw in the fact that about 1% of any population has transgender people in and about 10-20% homosexual people in and you have a very complex picture indeed.
Of course. The outliers and genetic errors and weird cross-wired strangenesses of biology don’t deny the statistics: of course there are weird effects on the edges. Homosexuality makes no sense genetically. Getting turned on by shoes makes no sense, either.
Wires get crossed all the time. Biology isn’t about absolutes: it’s about statistics. We expect odd things to abound, but for general rules to be exactly that: general. Not absolute.
This is the hardest thing for people to wrap their heads around, so don’t feel bad for not automatically picking this up. When it comes to chance and statistics, our natural thought patterns are shit. Pattern-recognition and reconstruction that goes on in our brain is useful for a lot of things, but when it comes to measuring the odds, and estimating through statistics our normal instincts are almost always wrong when we get anything remotely complicated.
If some anthropolgists are right, certain behaviours by JF are actually more natural than marriage.
Yes.
I absolutely agree. It is a definite female mating pattern. You are exactly correct.
HOWEVER
The MALE response to this is also entirely predictable.
Just because her behavior is natural, that doesn’t mean that men have to accept this naked female interest with equanimity. And they don’t. And the females allied with them – most females – will also feel the same way.
JF knows that society will rebuke her. She can try to change this – but there’s a gut reaction going on, deeper and more profound than the culture. She feels it herself, as you can tell by reading what she writes.
She gets strength from denying it – but you know, and I know you do, that it’s an act of defiant self-convincing.
Remember something: It always regresses to the mean. It always floats back to average. Genetics and programming will have their due.
Many men will say she’s being a heroine etc. – but in their guts, they’ll say: And I would never marry her or invest in her. They may still respect her as a person, and consciously appreciate the fairness argument.
You can call this sad, but deep down, they have placed her in Category 2: Maybe fuck, but don’t mate.
You may not like it, you may detest it. And that’s fair, and the demand for More For Me: Fairness is a basic human instinct, too.
But you’re up against a wall here. She has lowered her Mating value, if not her Sexual value. The two are related but not the same.
And other women will look at her and say, … Yuck. What a tramp. A Lower Value Female. I Am Better Than Her. She Tramped Around With Random Guys On Craigslist. Gross.
For so many reasons, this is a native, deeply programmed response. The depth of the convictions and the gut reaction people have about this shows it.
You can fight this like a trooper, but in the quiet moments when you’re alone and not trying to convince yourself, … you will instinctively understand this on a basic level, even if you don’t think it’s fair.
Start feeling those instincts. Not just the push, but the pull. Many of your instincts work against each other. And men have different programs. And we all live together. So think about it all carefully.
So whilst our genetic/enrvironmental heritage is key doesnt underestimate the power of childhood indoctrination and media influence.
Of course. But I also say: remember, the genetic program is underneath it all, silent, often, but there. That the social program takes its cue from the underlying genetic program is obvious.
You can change the social program – but if you’re going to work against the Human Animal, you’d better have your social deprogramming very carefully, subtly, thoroughly thought out.
Feminism has not done this on any level. It’s delusional because it won’t read the basic biological script. It’s why feminism appeals to fewer and fewer women, and reaction is growing among women themselves.
Feminism was idealistic but – like communism – had it wrong. Nice idea; wrong species.
Expecting men to accept whatever women dish out is absurd, as absurd as expecting women to accept whatever men dish out.
So women can slut it up: But this I absolutely guarantee you.
Men will reject such female behavior. And they will find endless female allies, for a host of reasons.
Just watch closely.
You can rage against it, but until you realize that your target is badly chosen, your rage will seem like a reedy voice in the bitter wind.
In some cultures an obese female is seen as highly erotic- this doesnt happen in western society anymore.
This was never true. The rubenesque virtue was the result of a few outlier men and their art, and it was even noted at the time that they were painting less than attractive women. Victorians and all people throughout history admired the slender, young women.
A few Goddess statues prove nothing; matrons were likely worshipped, but the men of those societies almost certainly wanted to fuck the nice hot young girls.
Fatness has never been in vogue. That’s been proven over and over again to be a myth. Sorry. That’s another bitter truth that it’s hard for feminists to swallow, …
But male appreciation of the female body is hard-wired. We can’t escape it. It can be manipulated around the edges, but the basic forms are absolutely programmed.
Same goes for women: Height. The single biggest factor that determines a male’s attractiveness. That’s the best example of the Human as Animal as ever there was.
Average Joe:
The one thing you do overlook is that many of the girls who take on threesomes and multiple guys in a week are not (at that time at least) looking for a boyfriend, let alone someone for a ltr. Those of the “slut” group who are active yet do want something more permanent tend to only want to settle with an “alpha”. Of course later on when they recover their senses or realize they just don’t “got it” for an alpha male – that’s when they lie to their partners and/or apologize for the “slut phase”.
sorry I forgot to mention that despite what I have written I have been a feminist for 25 years now not because of leftish leanings or deep political thought or polished anaytical debate but something far more instintive and perhaps even superficial.
I saw overt sexism and double standards every day and it just seemed so self evidently wrong I got involved in a bit of activism. Some of my career has involved female shelter work- I saw pretty grim stuff on a daily basis.
And this is a basic instinct, too. Females have had male allies in their quest for equality throughout history. And enemies among other females.
But equality of opportunity and results-equalism are two different things.
The fact is: Men and women are, while similar, fundamentally different. When we admit this and engineer things accordingly, far more people will be happy. This doesn’t mean forcing women to quit their jobs when they marry or forcing anyone to do anything.
It might mean not shaming women who stay at home, not trying to push women into math when they don’t want to go it, etc.
It might mean letting *individual* people fall where they may. Many women will be less represented in some areas, and men in others. I’ll bet that this will not result in equality –
But so little about humans is about equality, anyway. That’s natural and as it should be.
The violence to woman thing is still a terrible blight on our society and I’m not sure I agree with the idea its a sexual male imperitive.
Be careful here. Rape is a very clear sexual impulse in both sexes. The rampant power of the rape fantasy among women is legend (modified by: The male must be otherwise worthy) and it’s the one fantasy almost every woman I’ve ever been with has shared. They all wanted to submit, and all loved it when I took power and control. Being swept off her feet. Male power is a huge aphrodisiac for women. This *is* connected to rape: Obviously.
On the other hand, rape among men is not a huge thing; just some. But its reoccurence and persistence and its sudden revival at times speaks to a basic pattern. Every war ends up the same: soldiers are just bad news.
I’m not saying rape is good, just that it’s clearly something that bot sexes are programmed to do and to avoid and to punish (especially genetically-invested male relatives of the females who were raped). The biological undeniability of this is clear.
Why?
Something basic going on. Ask yourself these questions.
Sex is not about fairness. It never was. It never will be.
We need to legislate with this in mind. It shows how male conservatives have an interest in protecting their women from the wrong men; and how liberal males have an interest in preserving their women from attack.
The naturalness of rape and the instincts that cause it to happen need not excuse it. But we must understand it.
Every rape victim I have spoken to talks about terror, the violence, the humilation, the degradation, the verbal insults, the anger of the attacker, the knife of the attacker, when describing the assault. This has nothing to with normal natural urges. This has to do with a twisted psyche.
Again, you mistake it: it need not be “normal” for it to be “natural”. Not all natural things are morally acceptable (murder, political assassination), and not all natural things are common (genocide). They depend deeply on circumstances.
Some strategies and effects are only for use occasionally. I’m not saying it’s right: morality has nothing to do with human nature.
I’m saying it’s predictable for this t be an occasional strategy for reproduction when factors allow for it. Hence it’s in our code. Oh well.
Biology equipped us for many things.
People forget how things have changed due to feminist activism. Let me tell you about a case from the early 90s that I was involved with- a girl very nearly died due to a savage rape in london. Although the guy got a heavy sentence the judge actually said she had an element of blame because she wore a short skirt and get this, so did her mother! Naturally the feminist lobby went beserk and it was cases like this that did change attitudes. Any judge saying that now would be struck off in the UK.
I’m not excusing the rapist, and the judge does sound like he was a dinosaur. BUT:
When a girl dresses up, gets drunk, and goes to a frat party, and then grinds with a bunch of guys and goes upstairs with one and, inebriated, has sex: and then cries rape, …
Sure, the guy raped her. But to call his crime the same as a man who grabs a woman on the street, holds a knife to her throat and rapes her violently trivializes the violent rape. The frat girl was retarded and irresponsible and clearly placed no value on her own sexuality, and was used for it. In that case, there’s no question that morally she bears, if not blame, then some of the practical responsibility.
It’s this denial that pisses off many men and women. The judge you cited was an extreme case, and as such deserved parody and dismissal. But the whole “I can do ANYTHING and not be blamed for it! NA NA NA NA!” attitude is why a majority of women and most men despise feminists.
It’s childish and grossly irresponsible. The arguments are intellectually lazy and weak, and infantilize women.
You can’t have it both ways: Either women are independent and must take responsibility for their actions, and for the consequences in full, or they’re children and half-people that need to b cared for like incompetent wards.
Feminists try to have it both ways.
It’s why when we see a “good girl” (by whatever social code) get raped, we get angry and want to hang the male who raped her, beat the living tar out of him and toss his dead body into the ocean. But when we see a self-described slut tart it up and get drunk with a bunch of horny guys, and then cry rape – we think: What a stupid, useless slut. She had it coming for sheer stupidity. What the hell was she thinking? Irresponsible and playing with fire. If she didn’t want the men to take advantage of her, she should have realized that drunk males aren’t safe to be around for very fucking obvious reasons.
We can think this AT THE SAME TIME as we *refuse* to excuse the males. The nature of male sexuality is such that this is a wildly dangerous thing to do. If this is not obvious, then you know nothing of male sexuality. Most of the time, women appreciate this Power Attitude with male sexuality: They love big, strong, overpowering lovers (statistically) who command them sexually. They love to bask in male power.
The upshot: Men are dangerous if you don’t want to have sex. Make that clear and make your behavior strongly indicate this. Other men and women will gladly protect you. Look cheap and easy, and you just look like a hypocrite.
This is the source of most of the irritation in the rape debate.
If I put a gold box on the street and don’t guard it, and someone takes it, I’m called stupid. My complaints are laughed at. With good reason. The cops *may* look for the thief. After they laugh at me for a long, long time.
Exactly the same deal. If you don’t see the logic, then you need to examine your thought processes.
If a criminal robs you, he’s a criminal. But if you walk around a bad neighborhood waving $100 bills and saying, “You can’t get me hahahahaha”, then you’re just a social retard if you don’t expect to get robbed.
This is what annoys non-feminists: Feminists want the protection of the Group, but none of the Responsibilities as Individuals to be careful, and to indicate through their behavior that they are conscientious and careful.
There’s no right to engage in risky behavior and be free from consequences.
That said, rape is disgusting. My personal opinion. But it has to be taken in context, like any crime, no matter what it is. Feminists resist this.
Even someone like the left’s arch enemy Maggie Thatcher did a bit for feminism just like Obama is doing his bit for racial equality. Bit by bit we march towards a civilised society where equality of rights is soverign. For me therefore, feminism is still valid and powerful, needed and envitable.
The bulk of feminist arguments are vapid and empty. And they work at cross-purposes.
Here’s a thought experiment for you: Take feminist arguments right, right back to their philosophical beginnings, and examine them. You’ll find that on balance they’re shot full of holes and massive gaps in reason.
I agree that the motivation is good; but look at how men are denied access to their kids almost automatically in divorce, how families have collapsed, how sexuality has become a nearly valueless commodity, how there’s no longer any reason to have children, how boys are being hugely shortchanged in very female-centric schools -
None of these is a stated goal of feminism. They’re side-effects. Bad side effects. And the result of lack of foresight and reason, as well as responsibility.
@Dalrock
Hi Jess. I know we are veering slightly off topic, but if there is an opportunity for civil discussion on a feminist issue I think that is more on topic than 99% of the rest of the thread.
.
My question to you would be how the changes you mentioned really help women. Will telling girls they should (or silencing anyone who says they shouldn’t) wear short skirts into bad parts of town at night, or to frat parties, etc really prevent rapes? Have savage rapes declined in London since the 90s? All that changed is the judge was silenced. The rapes still occur, and may be even more likely as a brutal but unintended consequence of misguided but well intended feminists. This is what Gorbachev was talking about regarding feminist policies.
This is exactly the point for this thread. The unintended side-effects of feminism result in things that women don’t want. It’s sad but true.
Women don’t realize it.
I think you will struggle to find many men or women who aren’t highly motivated to prevent the kinds of violence and rape you describe in your post. The problem isn’t that feminism wants to solve these problems; we all do. The problem is that feminism starts by requiring that everyone deny reality as a first step before any other decisions or discussion can occur. This guarantees that good choices can’t be made, which brings us back to the original topic of the blog post.
And I think we’ve established that feminism has a hard time acknowledging reality.
As a result, the solutions always have disastrous side effects that were unintended but unavoidable.
Average Joe,
I went to a ranked university and I can tell you first hand that the few girls with that many known(and trust me guys talk) hookups per year found it very hard to get someone who was willing to be her boyfriend. I also doubt that men feel that much differently even at party schools like Penn State. You do understand that the important take away here is not the amount of college women that have or haven’t slept with 9 guys in an academic year, but that such sexual proclivities are a big deterrent to men who might be interested in these women as a girlfriends or more??
Women don’t realize that men have two basic categories for women they’re willing to bed:
1) Women I’d fuck
2) Women I’d keep as a GF/Mate
They confuse this all the time. Older women feel they have high sexual market value because many men are willing to fuck them. They confuse this with #2. They can easily get laid, but male companionship is harder to find.
The same way, men forget about women. They have two categories:
1) Men I’d fuck
2) Men who are friends
Men who end up in 2 usually keep trying to jump over to 1. They don’t realize that they’ve been categorized, same as women.
@ Gorbachev, “Indeed, the more successful a man is in spreading his genes around, … the better for her potential offspring.”
Is this why inner city ghetto children are doing so well?
@Map Quest
@ Gorbachev, “Indeed, the more successful a man is in spreading his genes around, … the better for her potential offspring.”
Is this why inner city ghetto children are doing so well?
The environment this is all coded for may not be the one these inner city ghettoes represent.
Irrelevant: Current environments don’t reflect evolved strategies over 1-3 million years.
And I think those inner-city kids are, in fact breeding, so in evolutionary terms, they’re doing well.
You just need to successfully reproduce, and your children do the same, etc. If you breed like rats, this is also successful.
Clarence,
College lesbians aren’t looking for boyfriends either, but I wasn’t really talking about women at the edges. Most college women who are promiscuous in the typical way… the way I have been referencing, would prefer having a boyfriend over being the campus booty call. If guys were actually offering something more permanent to these women, you would be surprised at the percentage that would jump at the opportunity to become girlfriends. What you seem to overlook is the male/female difference in erotic motives. Young men don’t really use sex as a way to land or keep a partner. The same is not true of young women.
@Gorbchev
Do you know of any good sources corroborating this?
When fat=beautiful, it’s because being fat is a symbol of wealth. That’s no longer true in Western societies, but being fat used to indicate you had money to buy plenty of food and you didn’t have to do any physical work for a living. Behold, the power of culture: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/3429903.stm
1 2 »
{ 9 trackbacks }