A Young Feminist Speaks Out Against Hooking Up

I say Bravo Steph

I definitely found this gratifying.

======================================================

But post-hookup something about me just felt done, over the whole thing. I’ve had much worse hookups with much lamer guys. I spend so much time thinking about hookup culture, talking about it, researching, etc., yet it took me three years to truly realize its shortcomings were not something that could be overcome if done the right way.

I always knew it was flawed and brewed a great deal of insecurity and crippling self doubt, but felt it was the only option. Even though I’ve had serious boyfriends in college I always viewed hookup culture as the main highway, one that must be taken and hopefully leads to some kind of fulfillment. It doesn’t. Any brief satisfaction is quickly replaced by a great deal of emotional fallout. Who hasn’t seen the sexiest, smartest of her friends white knuckling her cell phone, pleading with assorted deities that the overly coiffed, Ed Hardy-clad econ major sends her the obligatory text? It doesn’t matter that 3 days ago, she thought he was a tool, didn’t kiss very well, etc., the reassurance is what we’re after. The assurance that we are enough: smart, cool, different enough to attract someone, even if its not who we want. Despite our real feelings about these guys, whether we respect them or are repulsed by them, we beg, hope and need for them to like us.

And yes it’s good to hear her say that

The perspective on the hookup culture and its problems in this blog are strongly linked to the fact that men and women have different evolutionary agendas and that they are genetically wired to seek different things with regards to sex and commitment and to expereince hookups differently. This blog also holds the view that women are attracted to alpha males who can “lead” them in relationships and be rather dominant in the relationship. I wonder how after changing your mind about hookup culture you see these things diffrently and how to reconsile them with feminism?

Personally I started out with an almost gender neutral blank slate view of attraction as that was what I was thought in school and by society. HOwever, It has been my expereince that what is said by pickup artists, the manosphere and evoloutinary psychology about gender relations are true. WOmen are attracted to classic masculinity when I show it and unconciously or conciously punish me when I don`t lead in relationships etc. etc.

*finest wine
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

Blah! Blah! Blah!

Insightful…

Good on her imo. It’s not the kind of message that goes down well in her field and I don’t doubt that she’ll be strawman-ed to death with sound bites like internalised misogyny and socio-cultural constructions . Hmm, no. It’s called not debasing yourself for a tosser. I don’t think what you believe is at odds with feminism either, really. Maybe in the mind of the most fundamentalist sex-positive but a woman doing what’s best for her emotional health isn’t self-hating. *shrug*

Steph:

It has taken me this long to realize that in order for me to truly claim that women deserve respect, kindness and to have the sort of relationships they want, I have to stop participating in hookup culture.

Do women deserve respect? Of course.
Kindness? To a reasonable extent.
To have the sort of relationships they want? No. An LTR is not your birthright.

Gud, I think a LTR is what almost everyone was born for.

@ Yohami:

“Thing is, she and her friends are value takers. They are seeking for reassuring themselves, filling their self esteem, looking for validation through association with what they perceive as high value men and doing role playing, while ignoring their real feelings and needs, and the jar gets depleted shortly after because its broken. In other words, they are sick.

“If she finds the right man, but puts him in her current frame… if she takes the finest wine and fills her broken jar with it… its going to be depleted anyway.”

Yohami has hit on the most important part of this post. It isn’t enough to simply turn from hooking up. She has to ingest the rest of the red pill. She has to accept the realities of the current SMP and any possible consequences of her actions. I hope she does. Feminism and especially sex positive feminism is decidedly at odds with what we discuss here.

And Susan, I appreciate your reply to GudEnuf so I don’t want to come down too hard here. But it bears repeating that neither Steph nor anyone else is entitled to “the sort of relationship [she wants]” simply because she’s reformed away from the hookup culture. She’ll have to avoid not only hooking up, but the rest of the toxic influences of feminism as well.

However, having a LTR and finding a committed guy isnt going to fix her either. So I hope she looks deeper.
.
Like what went wrong with her parents and her childhood?
.

Aside from conscious effort to change, I’m not even sure it is possible to have both.

It is. I’ve known at least two. My father and my husband. I spend time over at Roissy and I hear a lot over there that all alphas are assholes and everyone else is beta. It’s simply not true. Rare? It seems depressingly so. But I don’t think this was always the case. I think it has to do with what Some Handle and I discussed the other day. I think many men are born with alpha tendencies naturally and it has been removed from them by their upbringings. However, I think it used to be just the opposite. Boys were born with alpha tendencies and then were taught to temper those tendencies and their fathers would show them how to respect and care for a woman, while maintaining their strength in order to raise and care for a family.

I know that this is the case with both the alphas in my life. It is what I hope my husband and I can teach our son.

Susan,

I like the new look. Very nice.

@ Susan

The article isn’t showing up for some reason. :/

Lol. I just noticed the happy lookin’ naked guy in the top left corner. This layout is awesome.

Although I agree that you should feel gratified, Susan, I’m of two minds about your e-mailer.

First, yes, it’s a good thing she’s recognized that some serious fallout comes from the hook-up culture. I hope that her new knowledge is timely.

But she’s hardly “flipped”. Commenter Some Handle accurately pointed out her attitudes about men (something she doesn’t seem to recognize in herself), and even Jennifer recognizes that she’s still half deceiving herself about the kind of man she wants. She’s still a feminist.

Yohami stresses that she takes (rather than gives) value, which may be true – I don’t know. Yet I see her talking about respect in those terms. She’s demanding it, which is something the last two generations have been trained to do reflexively. I can’t tell from her words if she’s ready to give it when she’s actually found someone who’s earned hers.

Lastly, I’m surprised that your emailer doesn’t recognize the role feminism has played in creating and maintaining the hookup culture. She seems to think that she can give up one and not the other. It’s not going to work out that way.
Joe´s last [type] ..Summertime Top Ten: Chuck vs. Subway/Ring Pt. 2

wow what a change in site style- i thought i was in the wrong blog!
.
re steph,
.
she seems perfectly nice but her story seems rather typical to me.
.
I went through a patch of ‘promiscuity’ a bit later in life than most but still had a blast. I really enjoyed the sex and my rich social scene at the time.
.
Now that I’m older, in an LTR with kids etc, the idea of clubbing and casual sex makes me shudder.
.
This is because through life your wants and needs change.
.
For Steph, the hook up scene just isnt her cup of tea any more. Its a personal thing. Its not evidence in either direction of whether the culture is good or bad.
.
and what modern feminist reads dworkin? I have always been slightly embarrassed by her….

Hi there, Pioneervalleywoman!

Despite my gender handicap, I’ve taken a couple of Women’s Studies courses at the university level. I love women, and I thought those classes would be a great way to see the “other side”, as it were.

I learned some stuff, was exposed to some different ideas, and was singled out, blamed, and yelled at a lot.

It was probably a wash, but it was a good lesson for me to understand that there are people out there who think certain things.

At any rate:

I’ve seen some similarities between economics professors and professors in your field. Some profs are like,”Okay, folks – there are two main schools of thought on this issue. School A is blah blah blah, School B is yadda yadda yadda. Know the differences and be able to explain X from both points of view for Friday’s test.”

Those are the good ones, IMO.

Other professors use their classes to advocate their own theories/biases. They say stuff like,”School A is how you should think about this stuff. School B is an outmoded, irrelevant theory espoused by dingdongs who are trying to blah blah blah. Explain why School A is correct in a five paragraph essay, due Friday.”

I’ve had classes from both types of teachers in econ and Women’s Studies.

From what you’re saying, I’ll wager that you’re one of the former types – the good ones. The latter type of WS prof was the one who called me a rapist, sexist, and an oppressor. That prof also insured that I will never again risk my GPA by taking a class in that field, as much as it fascinates me. Emphatically not worth it.

Don’t be blinded by your competence – there are some true assholes teaching your discipline, at least at my school.

If you have the time/inclination, could you elaborate on this statement you made?

“I find it interesting that when I teach these areas, the young women tend to find most intriguing the cultural/difference strand of feminism which is the most conservative of the old school feminist schools of thought.”

Thanks for your time.

Dogsquat

It makes me wonder why the self-esteem of so many women is in such disrepair. Perhaps it’s the extremely critical views of female beauty by the Fashion industry and media.

Dominated by feminists pals gay men…something that it doesn’t seem to ring any bells by feminists. When I was modeling there was not one more willing to call you “too short and fat” that a gay designer, even women designer and the few straight ones were a bit more civil. I’m not saying that gay men are bad but the beauty standards of the fashion industry are not mandated by straight men in any possible way. They have no power to select more variety of women in it than the gay men do, YMMV as usual.

Maybe it’s the fact that lots of women grew up in homes with distant or absent fathers, thereby never getting the fundamental male validation needed during adolescence. Who knows.

I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a big factor this is the first generation of women that come from 50% of divorce culture and the other 50% half of the household the man of the house is not allowed to exercise authority “Father Hunger” is a term for women that never had a father figure and spent their dating lives chasing for one. I would like to know how many of the hook up culture enthusiasts had a loving strong relationship with a father figure and how many didn’t. It would be interesting to see if there is a correlation.

Ah well, better to sexually satisfy a string of people rather than not satisfying anyone eh?

Susan re Poor hook ups,
.
Well if we are allowing personal reports and experiences again then fair play. Of course her experience isn’t universal. I have had one or to mediocre ones but generally I got pretty lucky.
.
I do know girls who got precisely the treatment steph recounted but I know other girls who enjoyed the casual scene, pretty much as I did.
.
I am not defending asshats, or manipulative behaviour. I think people should be straight with each other.
.
I got the impression from several paragraphs of steph that she wanted more than short term satisfaction and was looking for something more meaningful. I think that’s a well worn path.

@Esau

What I said isn’t an example of apex fallacy at all, because it takes into consideration all men, not just those at the top of the pyramid. I said that, in general, male validation is sought after heavily by some women. Plenty of women on this site have attested to being involved with all types of men (alpha, beta, omega, etc). Not all men were at the top of the pyramid. Not all men were super attractive/successful alphas. Some women have attested to being involved in “lackluster” hookups with “lackluster” men solely for the attention and not being alone.

I think you got things a little confused there.

Some women have attested to being involved in “lackluster” hookups with “lackluster” men solely for the attention and not being alone.

Lackluster is vague when applied to men. What is the luster that they lack? Are these homely looking guys? Nerds? Decent, shy types? Guys with lots of game up front but no long term potential? This is also a vague adjective when applied to hook ups. What is the luster that they lack? The big O? Meaningful intimacy? Erotic imagination?

It’s all well and good to say that women hook up with alphas, betas, omegas, etc… But we all pretty much know that (particularly in college, but even beyond) a small minority of guys is swimming in the vast majority of poon. The only major exceptions are the guys who are learning game.

Ms Walsh:

I’m not sure what you mean by the sameness/difference debate – are you referring here to sex differences as a social construct? I strongly believe that there are profound genetic/biological differences between males and females, and the denial of those differences has produced a generation (or two) of masculinized females and feminized males.

Dogsquat:

I’ve seen some similarities between economics professors and professors in your field. Some profs are like,”Okay, folks – there are two main schools of thought on this issue. School A is blah blah blah, School B is yadda yadda yadda. Know the differences and be able to explain X from both points of view for Friday’s test.”

Those are the good ones, IMO.

If you have the time/inclination, could you elaborate on this statement you made?

“I find it interesting that when I teach these areas, the young women tend to find most intriguing the cultural/difference strand of feminism which is the most conservative of the old school feminist schools of thought.”

Thanks for your time.

My reply:

Thanks for the welcome, and thanks Dogsquat for recognizing just what I do in the classroom.

I noted both comments together because the argument Ms. Walsh is making ties into the comment Dogsquat found intriguing.

Cultural/difference feminists–think Carol Gilligan, “In a Different Voice,” making the argument that men and women experience the world differently because of gender, whether that is due to immutable biological differences or socialization. That doesn’t make them unequal, but the biological differences do matter. The problems arise, though, when we act as though the biological differences are irrelevant, women are forced to meet a standard of equality predicated on maleness, but women are not men. Thus, they experience inequality and oppression.

This is the quandary, though, differences have traditionally been used to deny women equality even when it was irrelevant, ie., the right to vote in the 19th century. Yet, the problem many equal treatment feminists had with it meant that they wanted to ignore all the biology since it had been used to oppress.

However, cultural/difference feminists types today want to get recognition and even protection for the differences at the same time they recognize that there are instances when the biological differences are irrelevant to equality, again, like voting and owning property, both of which were once used in earlier periods to deny women those rights merely because they were women. At the same time, they can recognize the dominance perspective (a more radical feminist perspective–Catharine McKinnon) that women can be oppressed because of their differences, but they believe it all comes down to lack of respect for their femaleness.

So cultural/difference feminists were behind the types of legislation we take for granted today, pregnancy discrimination and family medical leave.

So how is it more conservative? For obvious reasons–equality but recognition of differences and even protection for women’s traditional roles and socialization.

Now here is something I find striking, reading the works of conservative Roman Catholic feminists who are embracing cultural/difference in the name of “complimentarianism”. When I read their materials, I just don’t think they actually realize it that they share some perspectives! I’m sure my secular colleagues would have a cow to actually think “those women” are actually feminists. Yes, they are, but just of a different stripe.

Now I don’t buy all aspects of complimentarianism, ie., the argument that refusing ordination to women is not discrimination, because women have a role which is different but not unequal–that sounds too much like the old 19th century protectionism–”we will discriminate against you and say it is for your own good.” If anything, I think women’s traditional roles can fit in well with ordination, which is why I’m no longer Roman Catholic, since I like the idea of knowing that if I chose to pursue ordination, I could do so, and because I have known some fantastic women priests.

Maybe not just “any” male, Esau, but tastes can vary.

Some cultural/difference feminist types would argue that women need protection in order to become equal, ie., in the workplace, through pregnancy discrimination and family medical leave.

Jennifer: Maybe not just “any” male, Esau, but tastes can vary.

Women’s individual tastes certainly can vary (though in practice it is not clear how much they actually do vary). But, that’s really quite beside the point. The question for any particular woman is, if “male validation” is so all-fire important to you, then why aren’t you hanging out in some single-male-dominated quarter where attention and validation are virtually guaranteed? If you’re not, then it must be the case, that not all men will suffice to provide said validation; and this in turn brings up the question: how many men, ie what fraction, could give you the validation you so desperately seek? If the answer is a minority, then it’s simply inappropriate to use the general phrase “male validation” or “male attention”; to be at all honest you have to use the phrase “preferred male attention/validation”, and that’s right back where I arrived. QED, again.

Perhaps this argument would be more agreeable to you without the strong binary, “does/doesn’t do it for you”? For instance, would you dispute the statement that, when it comes to delivering “male validation” for any specific woman, some men can do so more than others? ie not all men are equal in this regard? Once you agree to this, though, the argument is exactly the same in its essence; not all male attention is created equal, so effectively the general “male attention/validation” phrasing is still inappropriate.

s”o the argument that these “cultural/difference feminists” make is that women, being a different gender, have different requirements that need to be met in order to thrive in the workplace? I can get with that”

Awesome!

A couple of things come to mind when I first read the post. As mentioned by others, I agree it is positive to see a young woman break from the hookup culture and this should be celebrated. I also agree that this is only a part of the process of evolving beyond this system for the long-term. And not to minimize Steph’s realization, but I think that some of the celebration should be tempered by the fact that there are plenty of silent, perhaps frustrated, young women who already know the hookup culture to be the black hole that it is and thus choose not to participate. All while full knowing that doing so may have many social costs. My point – or question really, is at what point do we hold people responsible for their decision to engage in a certain behavior or set of behaviors in the first place, particularly when said person does so with the knowledge or even an intuitive sense that it is not what they really want or should be doing? I know college is a time of growth, exploration, and transition – but it is also a place where legal adults learn to engage in adult behaviors, so what of this continuum of time and circumstance – at what point does the individual get singled out for their decisions, regardless of other people?

I have always thought the concept of peer pressure to be limiting, primarily because of its inherent diffusive quality when it comes to personal responsibility, but this feels a little too much like a story of peer pressure – or choosing to play, and then choosing to not play. Which feels not quite as celebratory as those who know that it is always false to feel that “…it [insert anything] was the only option”.

Perhaps in this case it is more interesting due to her ties to feminist study, but it does get me wondering about the concept of checking in and out of the hookup culture and how this pattern might be viewed. In my experience, I’ve known women who had their ‘over it’ moment in college only to graduate, move to a new city and start working and discover that while the herd mentality may change, they suddenly find all kinds of reasons to engage in hooking up – and in fact, it can become easier to justify, e.g. too young to get serious, building a career, going off to grad school (I know there are biz and law school folks here who have discussed the prevalence of hook up culture in grad school). So while it is nice to see someone step out of this pattern early, it seems like placing the impetus for the behavior squarely on a culture or setting and not on individual choice gets slippery – that is, we celebrate a learn-through-experience and conscious decision to stop, but we often ignore much of the conscious decision to engage in the first place. The culture, environment, conditions will change, but the individual and the strength of her convictions, her ability to apply those in a variety of settings, and her ability to forego immediate gratification for the long-term are part of the other 90% that will decide whether or not she will be successful in navigating the path toward building a positive LTR/Marriage (assuming that is her goal).

Perhaps my comments here are better suited for a different post, but I am seeing this play out in my life and felt a connection. I am continually challenged to figure out the value and/or relevancy of past behaviors of women I meet. And many, if not most, have a story that starts very similar to Steph’s, but includes a few more iterations along the way…were the choices circumstantial or systemic? While I prefer women who chose not to engage in hookup culture – ever, I can relate much better with those who had the ‘a ha’ moment in college and were able to stay the course as opposed to those who seem to have had the ‘a ha’ moment once every 3 years.

Just because she’s stopped casual sex doesn’t mean she’s an entitlement princess. She knows people need respect and to earn it. Several men also need to learn that they, too, are not prizes for the opposite sex just because they can strut, nor do they deserve respect automatically, yet it’s quite a big priority for them.

Another carouseler who’s past her used by date and now looking for a beta shmuck to cushion the landing.

Hermes Trismegistus (Thoth, Enoch or whatever you want to call him) said that in the age to come man’s soul would be visible to all, oh what a glorious age that will be for men….

Also, Steph is 21 – hardly expired.

=============================================================================

Marion: You’re not the man I knew ten years ago.
Indiana: It’s not the years, honey, it’s the mileage.

In regards to all those who question my statement about the apex fallacy, I think you are missing the point. I said men because, indeed, plenty of women have had relations with men above her AND below her on the pyramid of attractiveness/value. I know women and have heard plenty of stories from women who got involved with men who really weren’t “in their league” just because he made her feel good about herself.

I’m not saying that it is a good thing, but to claim that it doesn’t happen is naive. I’m sure most men will attest to being involved with a woman who wasn’t as attractive as himself. The same applies to women. I myself dated a guy who no one thought I would ever end up with physically because he was so sweet. It came back to bite me in the ass later though when I found out he cheated on me, which I found laughable.

What I said makes sense in the fact that my comment isn’t an example of apex fallacy because it takes into consideration all men on the pyramid, not just the men at the top. As sad as it is, women do engage in “pity fucks”, just like men do.

Isabel,

But I think it’s pretty risible that people are attempting to speak on her behalf about her true intentions. God forbid a person tries to rectify their outlook on life whilst still young. Nope! She must be a lascivious ex-slut looking to capitalise on her next unwitting prey.

These are guys speaking out of resentment. It’s unfair, perhaps, but given the big shaft that most young men are given in the current SMP, it’s understandable. Understandable to me at least, because a few months ago, I would’ve been deriding Steph as an opportunistic ex-slut myself.

Too many men are raised to see the world through the old, pre-Sexual Revolution, frame. They play by the old rules and fail, and resent women for rewarding the small elite group of men at the top of the social pyramid. I see “game” as an attempt to help men catch up and succeed in the current SMP. But the transition is a very difficult one, because it requires a fair degree of humility to acknowledge and finally take responsibility for the fact that you’ve lived most of your young life as a fool.

About Nice Guys®

50 years ago, Nice Guys® were valued because they were seen as the larval state of what women really wanted, the Real Man®. The Real Man® was eviscerated by feminism for all of his flaws real and imaginary, which left the Nice Guy® nowhere to develop. Now suddenly women want the Real Man®
back. They’re tired of the two alternatives being the ManSlut and the Sniveling Supplicant.

They may have to agree to elements of the hated Patriarchy to be re-installed. As a pater, I can’t say that I am all that against patriarchy.

Now suddenly women want the Real Man® back.

Mule, Don’t read too much into what some are saying. Simply look at two things:
1.) Who are the most beautiful and desired girls out there? And,
2.) What guys are they choosing to be with at the peak of their attractiveness (i.e. most fertile)

Their penchant for “artists”, wanna-be rockstars, “bad boys”, etc. can be startling to the uninitiated.

Abbot,

cracks in the “casual scene” foundation are already appearing.

I’d say that the appearance of cracks (and cleavages and slits and turbid protuberances) have always been integral to the casual scene.

Um, yea, maybe not Steph’s dad, but society in general? yea.

do you think Stephanies father expected her to blow Ed Hardy’s fresh out of high school?
.
Um, yea, maybe not Steph’s dad, but society in general?
.
Here is a short list of that “society:”
.
Jaclyn Friedman, Amanda Marcotte, Jessica Valenti, Betty Dodson, Camille Paglia, Ellen Willis, Kathy Acker, Susie Bright, Gayle Rubin, Carol Queen, Annie Sprinkle, Avedon Carol, Rachel Kramer Bussel
.
If Steph’s dad were to go on a rampage [rightfully so], he would be chasing the above slime, ass paddle in hand. They are ruining your daughters. Enough is enough.
.

@ Abbott – “They are ruining your daughters. Enough is enough.”

Cosign this. I would also add that they are ruining our sons as well.

“They are ruining your daughters. Enough is enough.”

Cosign this. I would also add that they are ruining our sons as well.
.
What we have here is a self serving vocal mal-parented subversive group that preys on children and the young and impressionable. IOW, they are promoting feel-good sex because its easy to peddle and the audience is easy to sell to. Sex sells, and its a cheap shot. The goal is to devalue sexuality because these CREEPS believe that without value, sexuality cannot be used to divide women into slut piles and wife piles. Then, women can have their “casual scene” ruination while balancing careers and later when their precious “wants and needs change” men will just appear, all with loving and willing catchers mitts in hand. Nice fantasy. Do you want your children buying into this fuckload of mind and body control crap?
.
Let the witch hunt begin.
.

Susan, no preview?

Some Handle,

Was it society that wanted Madonna to act the way she did, or was she that wanted it?

Brittany Spears?

Carrie Bradshaw and the message that came from Sarah Jessica Parker (et al) via Sex and the City?

Were girls being force fed this stuff or were they lapping it up?

I was thinking about all this while I was out just now. First off, we as a society (and MSM in particular) sexualize kids (and esp. girls) well before they’re at an age where they can even understand what’s being done to them. And MSM does that because they know that the sexual impulse is buried in all of us (Rule #1 of the MSM: play to the lowest common denominator). So they amplify the importance of that impulse, they play on it, make it all encompassing. Madonna, Britney, and all the rest made themselves sluts, of course, but the MSM used them and uses others like them to snag their audience.

Think of it in terms of religions. Man creates God in his own imagine, and then God creates Man in his. People have imagined their own ideas of who or what God is, and then that image of God influences generations of people thereafter.

Marshall McLuhan said that the Medium is the Message, and I think that was probably one of the most important insights made in the 20th century. What is Religion except a medium through which we communicate values and morals? It’s a spiritual language. It’s the same with the “gods and goddesses” that the MSM give us today. We’ve created them, imbued them with power, and now they exert their power over us.

Speaking of media, think of the way clothing communicates to us. This is what set me off on my train of thought this morning. I saw a group of young college girls walking down the street and it occurred to me that when I was a little kid, girls dressed like that (belly showing, skin tight pants, hair and make up done up to a tee) would’ve been immediately tagged as sluts, and yet that’s the norm today. Clothing has become more and more promiscuous. I know the message I get when I see a hot 21 yr old girl walking around in pants that look painted on. Not so much that she’s a slut, but that, god, I’d love to have that ass…. And I thought about it, if that’s the message it sends to me, what’s the message that the current styles of clothing give to the girls who are wearing them? At the very least, that they’re sexual beings who OUGHT to be showing off their wares.

And what’s the message when parents take their little girls out shopping and buy these clothes for them? Buy clothes with flirty messages written across the asses of their pants, clothes that show some belly, clothes that show lots of leg, etc….

And we haven’t even touched on the feminist messages girls get in college and sexual freedom and all that shit.

So yea, I think that the society in general gives girls the message that they should be sexual, which in many cases translates to being slutty.

But, if you were forced to choose between her decisions being based more on who she is or on what society was dictating, which would you choose?

I know that I played the role of beta that was foisted upon me. I don’t think it was a natural role for me to play at all. Apparently that was the case with Yohami, too, who grew up well-fed on messages about being a beta, but eventually uncovered aspects of himself that were clearly not in keeping with that message.

Anyway, to answer your question, I’d say that they’re attempting (unsuccessfully) to communicate who they are through the language (sex, clothing, ideology, etc…) that society has taught them.

Take a really small case. Since I was in school, girls have been walking around with those shorts and pants with the writing across their asses. Now, the explicit messages on their asses are many: “princess,” “angel,” “flirt,” school names, team names, etc… But the implicit message is invariable: my ass is to be looked at. And that from an age at which many girls don’t even know the meaning of the word “ass.”

God, I am terrified now that my future daughter, with the disapproval of her family evident, will become a whore because of the Media.

Duh, YES. And you should worry.

And incidentally, I suspect that Sue is onto this whole media thing that you seem to be totally uninformed about, since she just published a post on the way sexual messages dominate popular music lyrics.

Right-on, Jesus. It’s not just the media, it’s the surroundings and the culture; it can be pretty darn hard to ignore messages you’ve been given your whole life. But yes, individual choice has mattered, and Steph MADE the choice to step out of it long before many others have. Susan and Isobel, brilliant.

Incidentally, I think the problem with the medium of hooking up is one of miscommunication. I think that the message that most girls try to give to guys when they hook up is: “I like you and I’d like to get to know you better.” The message that guys are receiving is: “I’m easy and willing to give you what you want without the encumbrance of a relationship.”

Of course, we’ve come to a point in our culture in which sex has become completely devalued to many women and to the few guys who get it easily. That’s been the ultimate message of the medium of hooking up. That’s why it’s possible for a girl to argue: “so what that I’ve fucked those guys, with you, I’ve shared my hopes and dreams and aspects of my personal life that I never would’ve with those guys.”

And that’s why your typical beta guy, for whom the medium of hooking up is essentially a foreign language, can listen to a girl make that argument and think, “that’s the stupidest fucking thing I’ve ever heard of.”

Interesting points but largely irrelevent. We are talking about social mores, not technological advancements so kindly return those goalposts to their original position, please.

Our society is responsible for virgin shaming and hyper-sexualisation of children via music and film. That much is obvious. When was the last time you hear a top 10 song that wasn’t about  hedonism?

Huh. It was only a few weeks ago when a French company hit the headlines for selling see-through lace underwear and thongs to four year old girls. And just before that, Vogue — French edition, surprisingly — had two 9 year old girls in fur and lipstick on its front cover and main fashion spread. And just before THAT,  parenting groups in the UK and Mumsnet teamed up against big name companies like Tesco and Asda for selling padded swimwear and vests to six year olds. Ever watched the Herbal Essences shampoo with the woman on the brink of orgasm in the shower…at bloody ylang ylang and jasmine shampoo?

http://www.google.co.uk/m/search?q=underwear+french+daily+mail+children&pbx=1&aq=f&oq=&aqi=-k0d0t0&fkt=24921&fsdt=38762&cqt=&rst=&htf=&his=&maction=&csll=&action=&ltoken=df2a0a73fa25

Yeah, you’re right. The media doesn’t push a sexual agenda at all.

But, if you were forced to choose between her decisions being based more on who she is or on what society was dictating, which would you choose?

I’m at uni now and if I so wished, I could waltz off right now to our union bar and hook up by sunset. The reason I won’t is because my parents explained and compared the benefits and drawbacks of hooking up, and I can’t see any point in it for me personally. None whatsoever. Unfortunately, a lot of girls learn about the negatives the hard way.

“so what that I’ve fucked those guys, with you, I’ve shared my hopes and dreams and aspects of my personal life that I never would’ve with those guys.”

.
In a few years, this will be the script as the last of these victims grovels for her future:
.
“Look, I really messed up. If I knew then that I was devaluing myself and injuring my chances with a man like you, I would have not participated. It was not worth it as it has not made a better person and on top of that, my entire romantic future is now questionable. I don’t blame you for detouring around me and women like me as you seek a proper woman for a wife and mother of your children. I beg you to give me a chance but fully understand and support your decision not to.”
.

Mahoney,

I know that I played the role of beta that was foisted upon me. I don’t think it was a natural role for me to play at all. Apparently that was the case with Yohami, too, who grew up well-fed on messages about being a beta, but eventually uncovered aspects of himself that were clearly not in keeping with that message.

Omega in my case. I was being fed with beta + shaming, and my body was rejecting it so I wasnt even functioning.
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

Interesting points but largely irrelevent. We are talking about social mores, not technological advancements so kindly return those goalposts to their original position, please.

Isabel, I am not putting up or moving any goalposts. As far as I am concerned, anyone can act anyway they want, as long it don’t scare the horses.

But, you asked, and I answered. We (the industrialized and/or western world) are now capable of things that we never were before. The industrial revolution basically invented the middle class and our general wealth has been growing, somewhat steadily, ever since.

Mary Wollstonecraft is an example of a woman who wanted to, basically, live a life not too different than a Carrie Bradshaw, but she simply could not afford it.

By the 1920′s, it was now possible for some girls (though, relatively speaking, still a definite minority) to “live out load”. These girls were sometimes known as the “flappers”. Decades before the 1960′s sexual/cultural revolution, wealthy girls in Manhattan (and a few other places) were radically changing their hair styles, clothing and mannerisms…and their politics were quite progressive. However, the Depression and WWII put a temporary end to that.

The minute that the economy started picking up in the mid to late 1950′s, we were right back at it (Joan Baez, Twiggy, Ken Kesey, etc.) and it just kept rolling along until Stagflation of the 70′s.

Wealth and Industry made things possible that never were before.

It was difficult for feminists to be feminists before modern appliances and conveniences (“So she buys an instant cake and she buys a frozen steak. And goes running…”).

This is why the Suffragettes could not really gain much force until after major industrialization.

Before, 99% of the western world could not afford to live out loud, now, many more can.

Some are much freer in the kinds of choices they make.

True, Jesus. I probably worded that wrong.

Quick question. Most places on Earth have Twitter, TV, Sex and the City etc and access to the internet. Most places on Earth also have a sizeable lady population with wants and needs.

If social values have barely a secondary influence as SH asserts, why don’t university students in Bahrain and China hook up as much as we do in the liberal West?

Why the disparity? After all, personal discretion and freedom comes first, no?

Our society is responsible for virgin shaming and hyper-sexualisation of children via music and film. That much is obvious. When was the last time you hear a top 10 song that wasn’t about hedonism?

Who is choosing to listen to Madonna, Brittany, R Kelly, etc.?

Who is choosing to watch Sex and the City?

Who is choosing to listen to Dave Matthews and Ben Folds?

Country Music?

Gangsta Rap?

Football?

Antiques Roadshow?

If it was up to “them”, all of the Hollywood busts would have been huge hits.

All of the cars that did not sell, would be more popular than BMWs.

All of the albums that flopped (didn’t 50 Cents second album absolutely underwhelm, I really don’t know) would have exploded.

My Name is Earl was on of the best funded and highly publicized shows in the last 10 years…it could not get an audience.

Every year we have “big” TV shows from big time producers with lots of sex and violence that absolutely flop.

We are making choices.

(Granted, so are “they”.)

So are these words of someone who´s been doing their will, or someone who has been following a herd?

Are you asking me what her words are or whether she was “brainwashed into thinking it was the only way one could behave in college”

Anyway, women usually blame everything except of themselves.

No argument here.

Some Handle,

Are you asking me what her words are or whether she was “brainwashed into thinking it was the only way one could behave in college”

Im asking you if these are the words of someone who´s been doing their free will or the words of someone who´s been following the herd.

To answer your question: everyone is brainwashed. Its called culture. Unless one goes through an usually painful and long process of critical thinking and isolation from society, you are not your own.
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

@ Some Handle

You ignored my previous points. Why are we selling thongs to little girls? Why are we using sexuality to sell clarifying shampoo?

Of course we’re making choices. There’s no guns or coercion involved when you decide to blow Fratty McFratterson in the toilets as far as I know. But when we make major decisions, we are heavily judged by them and our character and/or reputation is held up to scrutiny as a result. Some people have a stupidly weak resolve and will follow whatever the crowd deems acceptable. That is 100% their fault. It doesn’t excuse them in the slightest but it does give an insight as to why some people do what they do.

Homosexuality/pederasty was perfectly acceptable until it was marginalised by the advent of Abrahamic religion and medicalised by the. Edwardians. Now you can’t even mention it without someone bellowing “kiddy fiddlin’ faggot!!!!” in your ear. Anyway, you said it. Society got more prosperous, women got more promiscuous. Either way society had an influence.

Some Handle, you and I had a conversation the other day about how culture/media affected my friend and her husband and who I thought was trying to do the right thing by the other. You had this to say:

Stingray, honestly, it is BOTH there faults? Before you answer that question, I want you to think of this:
– Every After School Special
– (almost) Every Lifetime movie
– (almost) Every Hallmark movie
– Every Sitcom (Cosby Show [father is a well natured goof], Everybody Loves Raymond [hen pecked goof/husband], Home Improvement [father and husband s always doing something stupid], King of Queens [even worse than the others], etc)
– Every “Take Back the Night”
– Every school offering of “Date Rape” awareness sessions
– Every Oprah, Donahue, etc.
– God, this list goes on

Everyone of these things has the Father/Husband/Boyfriend as being the idiot/good-natured-dolt/bad-guy/selfish-prick/etc.

It is absolutely everywhere…which is why it is so often referred to as “taking the red pill”, because it is like getting smacked so hard your whole view of life does a 180.

So, I ask you your same question from earlier:

Were men being force fed this stuff or were they lapping it up in an attempt to pick up girls?

We are all affected by our own personal decisions AND by what we are feeding upon in the media and our current culture.

Some Handle,

You are ignoring my question for the third time. I gave you her quote and asking you if THESE are the words of a follower or not. Please respond.

If that is the case, then why did it change so radically throughout the last 50 years?

I dont see how “change” is related to “brainwash”. Please elaborate on that argument?
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

We are making choices.

Sure we’re making choices. But the choices we’re making are based on what is presented to us. Most TV is total crap, but you’ll find people flipping through channels looking for a choice to make. They could choose to turn it off and do something better. Read a book, make an exotic dish, invite friends over, volunteer for the community, comment on HUS, but usually they don’t.

As for kids, they’re basically clueless. I remember being mesmerized by half naked girls on MTV as a kid. Was I choosing to perv on sluts at 7? I suppose, yes, but certainly I was being fed those images long before I had the critical faculties necessary to make an intelligent choice. Everybody has those desires and urges, and it takes an incredibly strong moral principal to resist the onslaught, as now we have those messages on the trains and subways, on taxi cabs and billboards, in banners on websites,in magazines and newspapers, being pushed on us by friends, etc…

“Nevertheless, she is blaming society”

I think she was describing her peers more than society; that’s who the ultimate influence is.

Yohami, we can stand up to culture; sometimes our own instincts tell us to, sometimes our parents. As insidious as our own culture is, it’s not nearly as tight as, say, introverted cults where literally every person gives kids raised in them the same message,

Jennifer,

Yohami, we can stand up to culture

We can, so lets do!

Im just pointing to the tone Steph used in her post and the data she is providing since it seems to be some hair splitting about it. As I read it, she is putting the weight of her past decisions OUTSIDE of herself. Be it by convenience or truth, the blame is outside.

And this is what I said about standing up a few comments ago:

To answer your question: everyone is brainwashed. Its called culture. Unless one goes through an usually painful and long process of critical thinking and isolation from society, you are not your own.

YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

Why are we selling thongs to little girls?

Who is this “we”? Isabel, it is a tiny minority that is either,
1.) trying to sell them, and
2.) Wanting to buy them.

They are, in absolutely no way being forced or brainwashed into buying those things. That would be an extreme example of someone going ut and making a choice.

But when we make major decisions, we are heavily judged by them and our character and/or reputation is held up to scrutiny as a result. Some people have a stupidly weak resolve and will follow whatever the crowd deems acceptable. That is 100% their fault. It doesn’t excuse them in the slightest but it does give an insight as to why some people do what they do.

Well, I am lost.

Are you saying that these girls are being judged into blowing the guy or they are being judged against blowing the guy?

Now you can’t even mention it without someone bellowing “kiddy fiddlin’ faggot!!!!” in your ear.

Really? If you say so.

Isn’t the fact that she reads the writings of feminists on a regular basis actual evidence that she IS herding around with feminist ideologues?

So, is she choosing to read those books and take those classes, or was she herded into that as well?

Which actions of hers are choices, and which ones was she herded into?

To answer your question: everyone is brainwashed. Its called culture.

If we were brainwashed in [pick your favorite year], then why was our culture so different 50 years later?

This derisive attitude on the part of males is every bit as offensive as Brownmiller, Dworkin et al. It’s completely intolerant.

No one is owed love, I’m sorry. If a woman can disqualify a man for whatever reason, why not vice versa?

Some Handle,

Its not one or the other. The market controls and pushes choices, and the individuals choose from the available options. The market has the upper hand. The way to change the masses is to change the market.

In one hand you were pushed into going to school, pushed to learn language, pushed to learn a set of social skills, pushed into a moral code, pushed to share dreams aspirations and limitations, pushed to belong. In the other hand, you have chosen to do all of that, and you have done all of that because you have chosen to survive.

So, its both. The market limits your choices to Obama and Bush. Then you are “oh so free” to make your choice.

Who´s more attractive, Britney Spears or the female Supreme Court Justice? who´s being pushed into the market more? man, little girls are going to have trouble with that choice.

To go against the common choice you need to have the critical, rebel, isolated, broken, bad, black, individual, usually unhealty, drive in you. To turn that into something that works for society or even yourself… thats a rare thing. Expect the masses following the masses wherever they go, even if the masses are clearly jumping in the abyss. They are choosing to do so, for sure, just like soldiers choose to kill and kids choose to obey their parents and study for exams. But that kind of choosing is called “the herd.”

We have both sports cars and hybrids to choose from.

Go choose an electric, non contaminant car.
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

Some Handle,

If we were brainwashed in [pick your favorite year], then why was our culture so different 50 years later?

That question makes no sense, please elaborate.
YOHAMI´s last [type] ..You can’t go into war / hunt / monster killing / hard competition with tears in your eyes. Well, you can, and get defeated.

What makes Britney Spears any less a role model than Ray Romano?

I am not trying to define things for people. If someone sees Brittany as a Role Model and Ray Romano as a scourge on society, fine.

I was simply trying to use the parameters that general society was providing, as I saw them.

Why the hell would you want to pick Ray Romano as a role model?

[Nice Tone]

I was picking anyone. I barely watched the show. But, it was the most popular (family) sitcom of it’s time and put forth pretty conventional views and ideas.

But it was fed to you. Just as Britney Spears was fed to girls.

If Mr Verone was fed to the one set, then Mrs. Verone was fed to the other.

I was simply using the popular Family sitcoms (Cosby Show, Home Improvement, Everybody Loves Raymond) as examples of the Role Models that were being laid out for us.

I didn’t say anyone needed to follow anything.