The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women

A look at how women might view their sexual identity within a sex drenched culture.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This post is based on a conversation between TheDeti and NovaSeeker and is coauthored by Jack. Links to original comments are listed under References.
Reader’s Note: The theme for the month of August is Snickerdoodles! — Studies of Female Failures.
Length: 3,000 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes
Warning: Explicit language ahead.

“Never dishonor your daughter by making her a prostitute, or the whole country will turn to prostitution and be filled with people who are perverted.”

Leviticus 19:29 (GW)

Introduction

In the last couple posts, we examined the Sexual De-Evolution in the 20th century, and The Advent of Polysexuality. From this brief review, it should be duly noted that the purpose and applied practice of Christian ethics and morality were lost sometime in the late 1980s. Christian ethics are no longer taught except as “rules” (which are presumably made to be broken). So in a practical sense, there is no such thing as “sexual morality”. Even within the church, the elders and congregation alike turn a blind eye to all forms of illicit sex, divorce, and wifely insubordination. “Kids will be kids. Let them have their fun while they’re still young.” Meanwhile, abortion continues as a covert “back up plan” should any “accidents” arise.

Members of the younger generation who are growing up in this kind of environment are getting the implicit message that nearly anything goes. As such, young women, being the “gatekeepers of sex” that they are, have a smorgasbord of options to choose from.

Given this cultural setting and the ever present pressure to flirt with fleeting pleasures, the only things left to guide the young set in terms of their sociosexual choices are social conventions, family/peer influences, personal values, conscience, and conviction. The first two can be quite dark and immoral, while the last three (or four, in many cases) are fading from view.

The herd gathers at the feeding trough. So let’s consider how women might see this.

Motivations to Feed

Sex is central to the human experience for both men and women.

For men, because it is the primary way we connect to another human, and because it brings singular pleasure to us. We’re driven to have sex. The male sex drive is incredibly powerful. For us men, it’s fun, it feels good, and it connects us to the women in our lives.

For women, because motherhood is central to almost all women’s desires and experience, and we all know how almost all women become mothers. Women are as driven to procreate as men are to spread the seed far and wide. Most women have at least one child, and most childless women are not so by choice.

That’s all well and good, but that’s not all. From a nether’s eye view, there are a multitude of motivations for young women (and some men) to enter into various forms of sexual immorality. Following each motivation is the reason translated into colloquial statements.

  1. Affirmation, (N/A)
  2. Attention, (N/A)
  3. Burgeoning maturity coinciding with one’s life schedule, AKA “It’s The Right Time.
  4. Dopamine + Norepinephrine + Oxytocin, AKA “Feeling loved”
  5. Drugs/Drunkenness/Partying, AKA “Messing Around”
  6. Ego Rush/Validation, (N/A)
  7. Enticing/Controlling/Manipulating Men, (N/A)
  8. Feeling accepted/humbled/included/needed/wanted, etc.
  9. Having children, sometimes stated explicitly.
  10. Ignorance/Lack of agency, AKA “It just happened!”
  11. Making Money (e.g. OASIS, OnlyFans, prostitution, etc.), (N/A)
  12. Opportunity with a hawt Chad who pushes all her buttons, (N/A)
  13. Peer Validation, (N/A)
  14. Rebellion/Revenge, AKA “Just want to get back at _____.”
  15. Relaxation, AKA “NetFlix and chill”
  16. Releasing Anxiety/Tension, AKA “Get it over with.”
  17. Self-knowledge, AKA “Finding one’s self”
  18. Sexploration/Sexperimentation, AKA “Getting experience”
  19. Subcultural/Sociosexual Pressures, (N/A)
  20. Testing one’s SMV, (N/A)
  21. The raw pleasures of illicit sex, (various)
  22. YOLO / FOMO, (implicitly stated)

That’s an impressive list of reasons to have sex! What kinds of reasons or motivations are Christians giving their daughters NOT to have extramarital sex? I doubt it can compare to this list.

Fasting

Celibacy isn’t the worst thing we might ever have to live through, but it is very difficult. It is a lot to ask of a young woman in her early 20s to abstain, because they very much want sex with attractive men, and it is pretty much readily available to most of them. Most women can find men attractive enough, even if they’re very low betas she can get herself to “willing” for and she can use as beta bux plowhorse providers. But increasingly, more and more men are having to live as involuntary celibates, and (I suspect) more and more women are choosing to live as voluntary celibates (volcels). Male incels are such because they’re unable to attract women for one reason or another. Female volcels are such because they judge all their options as undesirable or unsuitable.

So if celibacy is insufficiently valued to attract some takers, then that opens the floodgates of sexual activity and engaging with the polysexual environment. Let’s take a look at what’s on the menu.

Sampler Platter

Polygyny is currently entrenched as the core feature of the SMP. Polygyny runs rampant in the form of soft harems**, but simply goes undiscussed. Some women don’t like soft polygyny, while some actually like it (they see the preselection as validating the man). Most women simply don’t mind it. They don’t prefer it, because their dream is to have that alpha guy become an alpha bux, and have him all to herself. Many women will cling steadfastly to this dream, even to their own demise. But most women know they can’t have that. As a result, most women view soft polygyny/soft harems as simple reality, as a cost of “doing business” in the SMP. Sharing an attractive man with other women is far more preferable to having an unattractive man* all to oneself – at least, when she isn’t getting either man’s resources. Her price for settling for an unattractive man is immediate, unfettered access to all his resources, for life, even if she chooses not to stay with him (as about half do).**

* An “unattractive man” is any man who is not a top 20%er alpha fux or alpha bux.
** The most common way this transfer of resources occurs is through legal marriage. This is why men have come to the conclusion that marriage is a bad deal.

Buffet Dining without a Smorgasbord

Polyamory is becoming something that an increasing number of people are willing to experiment with, simply because it is getting more and more “airplay” from the culture-shapers, and because of the ever growing permissiveness of the culture. However, it appears to be a lifestyle that only a select few are cut out for in the long term. This is because the requirements for continuing in this lifestyle include ALL of the following.

  • The person must have a sufficiently high SMV to attract partners. This rules out a significant number of men and a sizeable number of women.
  • Men know that dating is expensive and time consuming, but the polyamorous must possess enough money and leisure time to be seeing two (or more) other people in a similar fashion. So we’re talking about the UC and UMC now.
  • The person must have very high developed social and time management skills and the discipline that can enable them to hurdle the daily obstacle course of scheduling meeting times and other arrangements with two (or more) partners.
  • The person must have the ability to engage in sex without becoming too terribly attached to any one person. This rules out a large number of women.
  • The person must possess a great amount of emotional maturity to cope with continual drama, multiple heartbreaks, times of doubt when meetings are cancelled, and moments of jealousy when one partner prefers to spend more time with the other.
  • The person must have the social dexterity to successfully navigate the desires and jealousies of not just one, but two (or more) people.
  • It also requires one to find more than one partner with ALL of the above qualities — disciplined, leisure class, mature, skillful, suitable to one’s liking, agreeable about being involved with each other, and willing to engage in a polyamorous arrangement. This is a rather tall order, which is why most people who get involved in a polyamorous relationship meet each other at venues contrived specifically for this very purpose.

To look at polyamory positively, we might think it would provide the impetus for one to grow in all of the above areas, which would be beneficial for one’s personal growth, but the fact is that the grand majority of people just can’t make the cut and get their foot in the door.

Beta with an Alpha Appetizer (or Having Dessert First)

Polyandry, especially covert, longitudinal polyandry in the form of serial (pseudo) monogamy, is the core feature of both the sexual revolution and the AF/BB sexual stratagem, which has probably been going on since the 1950s or earlier. Rollo has covered this dynamic in excruciating detail, so I won’t elaborate too much here. The basic idea is that most women are more than attractive enough for most men, but most men are not sufficiently attractive for most women. Most women will get caught up in a series of sexual relationships with a few hawt chads (i.e. polygyny as described above), become alpha widowed, and then cannot find men of the same caliber, men they’re attracted to, who will marry them. Because the female drive to “nest” and reproduce is as strong and all consuming as the male drive to have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible while expending the least amount of effort possible, most women will eventually settle for a beta provider. Most women can get to “willing” and can settle for a beta provider long enough to marry and produce one or two children. This is why most men will eventually marry as well – because taking a wife ostensibly means as much sex as possible as effortlessly as possible, and he is willing to compromise variety for the ‘sure thing’.

Alpha with Beta on the Side

Open Polyandry is when a woman has more than one man at the same time. To varying degrees on a case by case basis, this is what is happening with the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (AKA OASIS, e.g. OnlyFans), which is a form of prostitution. OASIS is, by it’s nature, a transactional, open polyandry relationship. But whether men and women will be willing to enter into an arrangement of open polyandry, coupled with expectations of enduring love, sex, romance, and provisioning, remains to be seen. For more clues, you may want to read Why is the online amateur sex industry attractive to men? (2021-01-08).

From a woman’s point of view, I think open polyandry (that is not explicitly transactional) would be quite acceptable, depending on a few things.

  1. The woman can accept having two men in her life.
  2. The woman can find a man who passes her filters and who is agreeable to the arrangement. Rare.
  3. The woman has the upper hand in the relationship.

From what I have seen, some women can accept open polyandry, while others simply cannot. Opinions on this run strong, and there doesn’t seem to be a middle ground. However, I can see how some women would want to keep one man for romance, sex, and procreation, and keep the other as a work horse that stays under her thumb and out of her bed. But this would not be true open polyandry, but rather her having an Alpha with a personal (and literal) Waiter. Of course, this arrangement strays into the imaginary, as there is hardly any man who would agree to be a sex deprived lackey.

Her having a dominant role in the troika would of course screen out all the most desirable men, which is not preferred. So the possibility of a woman entering into non-transactional open polyandry may require some kind of compromise on her hypergamous filters, and this would depend strongly on individual traits and opportunities.

Dining Out or Eating Alone?

Our last post outlined the deep, drastic changes that are currently enveloping the SMP. The above discussion gives us a deeper understanding of the ins and outs. The people of any age who thrive in this kind of environment conform to one of the following.

  1. They insulate themselves from the process of constant change somehow by creating their own “arrangement” that shields them from the most austere and vexatious influences, at least in some ways, and for some time (nothing is bullet-proof against this culture). In the past, the family, church, and small community provided this shelter. But now, these backstops are compromised for the majority of people.
  2. They fashion themselves so as to be optimized for quick adaptation to constant change. Individuals who can do this must have the kinds of qualities (portable attractiveness vectors, portable abilities and skills that transcend economic and technological changes, portable personality factors that tend towards rising to the top of the froth in any context) which lend themselves to thriving in the precise circumstances where many will sink under the churn and flow of change. In doing so, they receive a double-return (at least) on their efforts, precisely because the constant waves of change are swamping and crippling so many who are not so agile, a situation which redounds to the benefit of the super-adaptive.

So again, we see the potential for a woman having a polysexual relationship devolve into the personal and occidental.

No 4 Star Dining Seats Available

It goes without saying that all of these options, aside from celibacy and monogamous marriage characterized by Headship, are non-Christian arrangements. Some would argue, based on the Old Testament, that polygyny might be acceptable, but separating this particular arrangement out of the rest and making it functional and acceptable is a long shot. Of note, polyandry constitutes adultery by the fact that the woman has multiple men, and most likely involves an inversion of Headship with at least one of the men. This would most definitely make it a non-Christian type of relationship.

I doubt that a majority of men or women will live this way for the foreseeable future. Marriage is slowing down a little and is being pushed further and further down the road for more and more people, but most people are still marrying at some point. The charts at Dalrock pointed this out. We still don’t have a marriage strike. Most men are marrying because that’s the only way they can get sex; and most women are marrying because that’s the only way they can have the lifestyles and child(ren) they want to have.

The bottom line is, I think, that among the religious class, they will still marry. But they will have to compromise, deeply, to do so. They will also have to get past their prior sexual experiences. Most Christian men and women have already succumbed to premarital sex and there are entire false theologies to justify it. Those who haven’t will be pressured relentlessly to have premarital sex.

From Soup to Nuts

As was described in our two previous posts, our culture has changed rapidly, within the living memory of those 50 and up. Dalrock has covered the postponement of marriage over the last decade or two. The economic pressures on women who are doing without have led to creation of the Online Amateur Sex Industry and Socialization (OASIS), which we covered in January and February of this year. The relational pressures have increased incidences of single motherhood and divorced women raising children. The uncertainty of it all has raised the frequency of cohabitation. Sexuality has been unmoored from relationships, from Christian sexual morality, and even from its prior cultural guardrails.

Since the 1990s, the SMP has been without any sort of sexual restraint, and screening criteria is mostly limited to carnal SMV markers with an ideological wish list on the side. Almost all women expect sex within the first few dates and lose interest and move on if the man does not push for sex within a certain timeframe ranging from days to weeks. Some women will even raise the issue and tell you that they do not want to wait to have sex. Of course, this interest is directed at the top 20% SMV men — only.

This has the effect of squeezing unattractive men out of the sex market (which is embedded in the marriage market). In essence, “Women’s Liberation” has led to “Men’s Liberation”. As the remaining majority of men find themselves without sex or women, they have no need to prepare for marriage or fatherhood, so they simply don’t.

What this means for women is that as they age, men of all stripes are increasingly unavailable for relationships, and competition for the few preferred men in any relationship market becomes fierce. This presses women in the marriage market either to do without or settle deeply — and as time goes on, more women are doing without. The quickly rising alternative for women is to establish their own economic independence somehow, and play around in the Polysexual Market Place (PMP) as long as possible.

Moreover, the current culture is one drenched in sexuality, and with every passing year, there is an ever-increasing degree of sexual “liberation”. Literally anything goes in sexuality now, and that will only increase as time goes on.

None of this will get better until women compromise more and until men see sufficient reason to give women anything. But in the meantime, the Biblical adage continues to apply.

“Never dishonor your daughter by making her a prostitute…”

In modern English, this verse could be translated as,

“Never dishonor your daughter by sending her off to a liberal arts college nor allowing her to open an OnlyFans (etc.) account…”

The risk is that if you do, she’ll likely be “converted” to feminism,* and/or be swept away in the poly/pan/demi/trans sexual marketplace that is slowly gaining transcendence.

“…or the whole country will turn to prostitution and be filled with people who are perverted.”

We are presently seeing the truth of this passage being played out in the west,* as was described in the previous post.

* pilledholyspirit called this process “Bimbofication” and said it was a fetish.

References

  1. TheDeti’s comment 5550
  2. NovaSeeker’s comment 5556
  3. TheDeti’s comment 5559
  4. TheDeti’s comment 5560
  5. NovaSeeker’s comment 5573
  6. NovaSeeker’s comment 5574

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Convergence, Courtship and Marriage, Decision Making, Desire, Divorce, Elite Cultural Influences, Fasting, Feminism, Food, Fundamental Frame, Headship and Patriarchy, Hypergamy, Internet Dating Sites, MGTOW, Incels, Models of Failure, Moral Agency, Organization and Structure, Polysexuality, Psychology, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Sexual Authority. Bookmark the permalink.

73 Responses to The Influence of Culturally Imposed Sexuality on Women

  1. redpillboomer says:

    “As was described in our two previous posts, our culture has changed rapidly, within the living memory of those 50 and up.”

    I can vouch for this! After just a few years of being red pilled, I’m still getting my head around all the changes that have occurred in my adult lifetime. I can see similarities in the SMP/MMP to when I was single in the 1980s because biology remains the same, but the culture has shifted a lot of what I knew as the SMP/MMP back then, to something very different now. For instance, it seemed like back in the 80s, the young women in their sexual prime (15-24, but really 18-24 because of age of consent laws), were looking to get married NO LATER THAN 25, so you’d see a large number of 23-25 year olds getting married, right after college for the girls who went to college (younger for the non-collegiate women). It was not as common to see a 28 year old getting married, although some of that was going on, it occurred more as the exception rather than the rule. I remember when I went to my 10th High School reunion, about 2/3rds of the women were married or engaged to guys they had been seeing for a few years in an LTR. Thirty something females getting married seemed like quite the outlier in those days. Now it seems to me, in today’s culture, if they get married BEFORE 25, the culture acts like, “What are you doing throwing your youth away? You’re too young to be getting married just yet! Get your career going, travel, and have your fun, then start getting serious about marriage and starting a family after 27-28 or so.”

    So, what it seems like to me, thoughts from all of you are welcome as feedback if I’m off in any way, the 15-25 age range for females, everything that used to go on in those years back-in-the-day, has now shifted to the 25-35 age range. In other words, 18-24 (the former prime marrying years) is now 28-34, and society seems okay with that arrangement except BIOLOGY does not play along. It still functions on it’s principles, e.g. in the ages 15-25 ALL females are at their peak beauty and fertility, after 25 their beauty and fertility has peaked and is beginning to decline; more slowly for some than others, but decline it inevitably does for all of them. Hence, the whole conceptualization of “Hitting the Wall” for females being inevitable and unavoidable. Yes, society is doing everything it can to TRY to make the 25-35 age range the prime years, however a lot of things, biology being only one, are conspiring to make it increasingly difficult for the women to ‘stick the landing;’ the way they want to, e.g. AF becoming AB. They will hit the wall sooner or later and will have their ‘epiphany’ that they are past their prime youth, beauty and fertility years, and then the mad scramble is on to try to salvage it. What’s really sad now in it’s own way, is the 35-45 year old women who are trying to salvage their situations and finding it very difficult to do in today’s SMP/MMP; hence the anger, bitterness, frustration towards men for not ‘being there’ for them now that they so desperately want/need them to engage with them in the MMP, that is if they still want to get married and start a family of their own.

    Liked by 2 people

    • thedeti says:

      “So, what it seems like to me, thoughts from all of you are welcome as feedback if I’m off in any way, the 15-25 age range for females, everything that used to go on in those years back-in-the-day, has now shifted to the 25-35 age range. In other words, 18-24 (the former prime marrying years) is now 28-34, and society seems okay with that arrangement except BIOLOGY does not play along.”

      You’re correct of course, and this was my experience too. It did depend on the circles you ran in, though. The surface change has been people’s attitudes toward marriage and what marriage is supposed to be, look like, and the purposes it serves, but the underlying purposes still haven’t changed.

      I turned 18 in 1986, graduated law school in 1993 at age 24. At that time, most women were trying to marry by 25. ​There was a smaller contingent of women I knew who married under the old 1940s-50s rules of marrying very young — they married by age 21, with varying degrees of success. About half of those marriages ended in divorce within 10 years.

      Most women I knew and ran around with were in college, though. They really did think they could “have it all” – job, marriage, kids., all at once. That was the “supermom” phenomenon we heard about in the 1990s. That has changed, now, I think, because more and more women have concluded, correctly, that you cannot “have it all”. Most of those women are opting for jobs and serial monogamy until they do marry. (Most women do not have “careers” – they have jobs.)

      Most women do marry eventually – around 85% of women have been married by age 40. That doesn’t mean 85% of women 40 and up are currently married, it just means they have been married at least once. Women still really really REALLY want to marry. What this reveals importantly is that women’s true attitude toward marriage is that it’s a status symbol. For women, now, marriage’s prime purpose is to score status points with other women.

      The main way women confer status on each other in the feminine social matrix is through the caliber of man a woman is able to get and keep. Women don’t confer status on each other through their jobs or their looks or even their children – it’s through the type and kind of man she can get to commit to her. In the feminine social matrix, it’s better to have gotten commitment and lost it or failed at it, rather than to have never gotten any commitment at all. All efforts to change this have failed.

      The point of all this is that on the surface, marriage’s purposes have been degraded from the noble to the vulgar. But at bottom when you get all the way down to it, it hasn’t really changed. Women still want marriage for status and security; and men still want marriage for sex.

      Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “There was a smaller contingent of women I knew who married under the old 1940s-50s rules of marrying very young – they married by age 21, with varying degrees of success. About half of those marriages ended in divorce within 10 years.”

        My experience is close to the 1940s-50s model. It has the outward appearance of traditional marriage and those women who marry early give lip service to this notion, but her foundation in the marriage is undoubtedly feminist. It’s why marrying early is a 50/50 long term proposition instead of 80% plus success. You trade the risks of AF/BB should you marry an older girl, for the risk of FOMO (discontent) because she hasn’t been through the meat grinder enough to help temper her views on life.

        Liked by 4 people

      • redpillboomer says:

        “Women still really really REALLY want to marry.”

        This is something that I’ve noticed being around my thirty year old son’s Millennial friends this past year; first at his wedding last November, and then this summer when we did our first family vacation together with the new side of the family. I noticed all the females ages 24 to 32 in his circle want to get married and are thinking about it. The 24 year old is already engaged and getting married in 2022 when she’s 25 or 26. The 22 year old is starting to consider it, but still ‘has time.’

        One 28 year old woman, who grew up next door as our neighbor (yes, the proverbial ‘girl next door’), confided to me during the wedding that she’s getting anxious. I think it was because she trusted me as my son’s dad, plus the atmosphere of a wedding, she opened up more than I’d normally expect from a girl her age. She’s good looking blonde with a very nice body (Chad approved), but I found out NO marital prospects. My first thought was, “How the h*ll not? There’s men your age all over the place at this wedding, how could you have NO prospects?”

        As I listened to her, I of course became privy to some of the highlights from her various twenty-something relationships that she’s had over the last decade. It was classic, serial monogamy, one Alpha after another. (AF anyone?) She didn’t reveal her N-count to me, but she did say, “I’m tired of sleeping with men who won’t commit!” I think she was in a melancholy mood because a girl a year younger than her, my son’s bride, was tying the knot, and she was no where near tying it. (Epiphany phase anyone?) It really occurred to me she had a moment of clarity that she “really really REALLY” wanted this, just like you said Deti… BUT, the “rest of the story…” has prevented her from gaining access to that opportunity.

        “What this reveals importantly is that women’s true attitude toward marriage is that it’s a status symbol. For women, now, marriage’s prime purpose is to score status points with other women.”

        She also confided in me that she didn’t want to be, how’d she put it, “The last one standing amongst her girlfriends, the one destined to be a bridesmaid forever.” One by one her friends were tying the knot or engaged to do it, and she was standing there, one of the best looking of the bunch, and might end up ‘odd chick out.’ Fascinating insider look into the female mindset when they realize all those hawt guys do not lead to what she “really really REALLY” wants — the status of being married.

        Liked by 2 people

  2. thedeti says:

    Yes, a lot has changed. What has not changed is human nature. What has not changed is female sexual nature. It’s easy to think that women have “changed” because the artificial restraints on female sexuality have all been removed. But women haven’t changed and their nature hasn’t either. All that’s changed are the social and cultural contexts in which those natures express themselves.

    Everyone lied to us about women. Well, the jig is up, the news is out, we finally found them. No one can lie anymore about women or their natures. Nothing is concealed any longer. Women love hot sex with as many attractive men as they can get, they will pick one for provisioning, and then cheat on him or demand the right to sleep around while using him for provisioning. If they can’t do that or are constrained against it, they’ll divorce rape him. If they can’t do that they’ll treat him like sh!t.

    Women can’t hide this now and they cannot lie about it anymore.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Deti –

      “Everyone lied to us about women. Well, the jig is up, the news is out, we finally found them. No one can lie anymore about women or their natures. Nothing is concealed any longer.”

      What I think is so interesting about this, is just how strong our God given natures as men and women are. Even through the decades of all major cultural institutions lying their collective heads off about female nature and also beating men to a pulp about their own masculine nature, the truth bleeds out. I’m not a music/movie buff so I’m probably understating this, but pop culture is celebrated when it shows women’s nature within the context of the right storyline and language. Off the top of my head: alpha widowhood, Strawberry Wine (Deena Carter), I Fall to Pieces (Patsy Cline); women’s sexual nature, Centerfold (J. Geils Band) every other AC/DC song in existence, That Summer (Garth Brooks). I’m sure y’all would be better than me at coming up with songs and movies that are celebrated and do a good job of accurately depicting women’s nature. All it ever takes is a writer who can channel the inner rationalization and put an emotionally positive spin on it.

      So the truth has been there all along. Now we are merely seeing it.

      Liked by 2 people

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I Feel Lucky by Mary Chapin Carpenter.

        Women in country music ironically have a Red Pill message while the men are Blue Pilled simps!

        Liked by 3 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        That’s a good one Lexet. There are a handful of male singers that have songs where the girls goes for the rebel. Ain’t Going Down (Til The Sun Comes Up) by Garth Brooks and What was I Thinkin’ by Dierks Bently is another. (He has a few others.)

        When It Rains It Pours by Luke Combs should be a RP anthem.

        Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      The incentives changed. As a society we adapted

      Liked by 2 people

  3. elspeth says:

    @ RPA:

    The reality about the state of things between the sexes (without the governance of strong moral/spiritual governance) has been laid bare for, well… ever. This Includes the reality about what women are truly capable of. I grew up hearing it, and even hearing men reference it.

    What happened was that media, pop culture, the church, and the general tenor of Western expression on these matters tilted in favor of women as sugar and spice and everything nice. But everyone also knew about Jezebel, Delilah, Cinderella’s stepmother, Mrs. Robinson, etc. That hope I commented about on another thread, combined with the increase in feminine influence and market power are what pushed us in this direction.

    We also mostly bought into the idea that women civilize men, which is a twisitng and bastardization of a deeper truth. Namely, that men build civilizations, and women build society, but what drives men to build those civilizations is their drive to protect and provide for their women and children.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “We also mostly bought into the idea that women civilize men, which is a twisitng and bastardization of a deeper truth.”

      Tennessee Whisky (Chris Stapleton)

      Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        I know the song. I also absolutely know of men that women have pulled off of some destructive life paths. It sometimes does happen, although not nearly as often as some folks like to pretend.

        It’s an unfortunate narrative. He has a great voice, though.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        The lyrics to that song are cringeworthy.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      No, what happened was a decided, concerted effort to conceal, lie about, sugarcoat, and otherwise keep from men the truth about women. The truth was always glossed over. “Jezebel? An INSANE woman!!” Delilah! A SLUT!! Not all women are like that! And they always got their comeuppances too!”

      “Cinderella’s stepmom? A fictional character from a fairy tale. Women aren’t really like that. Moms aren’t really like that! Mrs. Robinson? A fictional character from a movie! women don’t REALLY act like that! That kind of stuff appears only in movies because it makes for fun and interesting stories! It’s pure fiction!”

      “If there are women ‘like that’, they’re abnormal! They’re an aberration! Not all women are like that!”

      “Women don’t sleep around! If they sleep around, it’s because they’re slutty, stupid, crazy, broken, or damaged! And if they’re slutty, stupid, crazy, broken, or damaged, it’s MEN’s fault! Men do that to women! If women are sluts, it’s because bad men trick and dupe them into having sex! If women are crazy it’s because men drive them crazy! If women are damaged or broken, it’s because men did it to them!”

      “If a woman is a single mom, it’s because a man got her pregnant and left her! If a woman is divorced, it’s because her husband is a scumbag who left her! If she divorced him, it’s because he was so terrible to her that she had no choice but to leave him! If she cheated on him, it’s because he drove her to it!”

      “Women are wonderful! Women never lie! Women never lie about sex either ! If a woman says she was raped, you are REQUIRED to believe her! If a woman says she was molested, you MUST believe her! Because women never ever lie about sex! We can never ever believe what men say about anything, because men lie about EVERYTHING!!! Men ESPECIALLY lie about sex!”

      That was the education I, and millions of men like me, got about women, and this was given to us with the utmost seriousness and sobriety.

      Liked by 5 people

      • thedeti says:

        All these lies are still being perpetrated on men to this day. In my own life, it was “Sure, a few, a very, very few, women are like this. But this is only because men did it to them and made them this way. If men would just be nice and kind and get in touch with their feminine sides and do everything the way women want them to, there would be no problems at all.”

        Like

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “That was the education I, and millions of men like me, got about women, and this was given to us with the utmost seriousness and sobriety.”

        So you’re saying you met my dad?

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        RPA,

        I sometimes think SAM and I were raised by the last male American “misogynists”, LOL.

        * Tongue in cheek. neither of our dads hated women. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “So you’re saying you met my dad?”

        Brothers from another mother.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        “I sometimes think SAM and I were raised by the last male American “misogynists”, LOL.”

        Until you’ve actually been through this as a man, you have no idea at all. You have not the first idea what it’s like. Not even a little.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        I never meant to imply anything of the sort. I was simply noting, in contrast to RPA’s description of his father’s relationship advice, how far removed that narrative is from what my FIL said to his sons, what my dad said to my brothers, or even what my dad said to us girls.

        Even as an extremely devout man (esp. from my mid teen years onward), my father was quite blunt about the fact that girls like sex too (“…so be careful who you get a crush on”), that a woman will leave a broke man for one with money (“Love won’t make up for the fact that she ain’t had a new dress in a year”), that a woman will get the strategic drop on a man if she thinks she can (“…so don’t be that kind of manipulative, treacherous woman”), etc.

        I’ll spare you my FIL’s truism’s. This is place is tame by comparison.

        The point was, and this is my last word on it, that while the lies about women’s lack of sinfulness were being blared over the cultural loudspeaker, the truth was being discussed as well, and has always been readily available.

        I never meant to diminish the truth that most of GenX men were lied to brazenly and repeatedly about the nature of women and relationships. I agree with you on that.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        the truth was being discussed as well, and has always been readily available.

        Has always been readily available TO YOU and TO PEOPLE LIKE YOU.

        It was NOT “readily available”, or ANY kind of available, TO ME. And that is NOT my fault.

        Like

      • elspeth says:

        Nope. Not your fault, Deti. I think it was a class thing, actually.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        Class and race.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Elspeth – The truth may be readily available to see and read, but it is also so actively worked against by people who should know better that it is obscured to the point of not being readily available. For instance, if you survey 100 pastors about the end of 1 Peter 2 (where he writes that we as his children should live as slaves unto God and that earthly slaves should obey masters in reverence to God) and then the beginning of 1 Peter 3 where he turns to wives submitting to their husbands, maybe, just maybe you’d find one to admit the level of obedience wives are instructed to have. And that one would probably make a mad dash to Ephesians 5 to talk about husbands having to lay down their lives for their wives in a desperate attempt to keep the XX chromosome mob and their knights of no color from attacking with pitchforks and torches.

        Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “And that one would probably make a mad dash to Ephesians 5 to talk about husbands having to lay down their lives for their wives in a desperate attempt to keep the XX chromosome mob and their knights of no color from attacking with pitchforks and torches.”

        Specifically to eph. 5:21: “Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.”

        This one passage is said to negate verses 22-24 which are the “wives submit to your husbands” passages, and are said to amplify verses 25-28 which are the “husbands love your wives” passages. Because, after all, wives are not to submit to husbands unless the husbands submit to their wives, right? RIGHT??

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ deti

        “It was NOT “readily available”, or ANY kind of available, TO ME.”

        I can’t claim that. I heard a lot of truth about the dark side of female nature from my hedonistic NCOs when I was a young enlisted man. But, being a good little church boy, I thought, “That can’t be true! My pastor would never lie to me!”

        Sucker!

        At least I knew enough to avoid the harlots my peers chased.

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Culturally, there were mixed messages. There were movies like Fast Times at Ridgemont High and TV shows like Married with Children that were fairly RP. RP content creators use Married with Children memes all the time.

        We saw what happened all the time in HS. Girl sleeps with jerkoff guy – The next day, half the school knows she has saggy boobs or how bad she smells down there or whatever. Nice guy that gets ignored: “I wouldn’t do that to her! I’d love and cherish her and treat her like she’s the one thing in life I want!” Sucker.

        I remember one girl I was simping for… (Man – what a train wreck – glad that one didn’t work out!) Her boyfriend actually rolled her hair up in the car window while she was standing next to his car and drove off – dragging her. “I would never do that to her – how could he do that to such a wonderful girl!” She has a simp husband now – but roll-her-hair-up-in-the-car-window guy is on her Facebook Friends so she can keep an eye on what she missed out on.

        But there were BP counter messages from the culture. There were a dozen BP shows and movies for every RP one. For example, The Wedding Singer (Adam Sandler/Drew Barrymore). If I’m a poor romantic, sweet-guy, she’ll pick me over the rich, handsome jerkoff that cheats on her.

        So in the end you’re raised to think: “That’s just those messed up girls.” And in particular, I think most of our fathers gave us very BP messaging. I think the Boomers were raised this way too – not just GenX.

        We wanted to believe BP right? You want to think the women will love you for who you are. That they’ll pick a loving man over an unloving man. This guy wrote in my HS yearbook: “Stay sweet and the girls will love you to death!” We lied to each other. Elspeth said it – people want hope. So they lie and believe lies.

        Liked by 1 person

  4. feeriker says:

    She also confided in me that she didn’t want to be, how’d she put it, “The last one standing amongst her girlfriends, the destined to be forever bridesmaid.” One by one her friends were tying the knot or engaged to do it, and she was standing there, one of the best looking of the bunch, and might end up ‘odd chick out.’ Fascinating insider look into the female mindset when they realize all those hawt guys do not lead to what she “really really REALLY” wants, the status of being married.

    Example number 5,937,421,012,778,091 of women being genetically unable to grasp cause and effect.

    Given this girl’s background as shared with you, the most helpful piece of advice that you could probably have given her was “You’ve done EVERYTHING wrong that could possibly be done wrong in terms of landing a husband, and it’s very likely that you’ve ruined your prospects. You’re what we call an ‘Alpha widow,’ meaning that you will never be satisfied with any man who would actually marry you, as he will never compare to “the one that got away.” No man of any worth or self-respect wants to play that role.

    “The greatest good you could do for yourself and other women your age and younger is to serve as a living example of how NOT to go about landing a man for marriage and evangelize the truth.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • redpillboomer says:

      Wine and cats in her future, or a simp husband that she marries primarily for his resources and to get rid of the dreaded, shameful ‘still single’ tag as she ages into the wall and matriculates through her thirties. It’s a shame. I knew her and her sister as little girls, both cute as buttons, played together with my kids who were the exact same ages; same schools, same everything.

      The older daughter, two years older than her 28 year old sister, interestingly is married and has been for several years now. I met the guy at the wedding. He was intelligent, witty, good personality…(what I’d consider) AVERAGE LOOKING and SHORT, maybe 5′ 7″. She’s probably 5′ 3″ or so, and that shoots holes right there in the “He’s go to be at least 6′ tall with chiseled jaw and muscles on top of muscles, or I’m not interested” mindset. Daughter number one cashed in her chips and is doing well. Daughter number two, the better looking and sexier girl, so far has been left holding the empty marital bag. I wonder what her parents think of the situation? Probably beginning to get concerned a bit I’d imagine.

      Like

  5. feeriker says:

    “This one passage is said to negate verses 22-24 which are the “wives submit to your husbands” passages, and are said to amplify verses 25-28 which are the “husbands love your wives” passages. Because, after all, wives are not to submit to husbands unless the husbands submit to their wives, right? RIGHT??”

    Has anyone here ever asked churchian complementarians, of either sex, and either pastor or layperson, WHY Scripture would contain a verse that is immediately negated by another succeeding verse? And if this is indeed a case of negation, what does that imply about Scripture being inerrant?

    Liked by 4 people

  6. elspeth says:

    Somehow the conversation got steered towards the ways men are damaged by the lie that women don’t sin sexually unless men make them. I agree that this is a lie that has been promoted relentlessly for at least the last 70 years.

    However, the original thrust of this post was about the influence of cultural changes on women, not men, if I recall correctly. I figured that since I am acquainted with a lot of women across the age, educational, and socioeconomic spectrum, I’ll add one more thought that is 1) germane to the OP, and 2) from a female perspective.

    The over arching influence has been two fold. There was the out of control sexual free-for-all that first manifested on college campuses in the 60s (the sexual revolution wasn’t so revolutionary among women who didn’t go to college until maybe a decade later). Then, there were the women who divorced thier husbands in droves in the 70s, and were validated by men who seemed to have absolutely no problem wifing up other men’s ex-wives.

    The 80s, when I was a teenager, was probably the “best” of times, when women were able to be both sexually lax and still marry fairly well in their mid-20s. The full impact of the no fault divorce laws and child support model hadn’t hit yet. At least it hadn’t hit among men who had less money.

    There’s a lot of talk about women using OnlyFans and slutting it up and all that good stuff. But again, in my observation of middle class to UMC young women between 18-30, this is almost exclusively observed as a function of those who go off to live on a secular college campus for 4-5 years, and those who don’t. That isn’t to say that all of the ones who stay home are as pure as the driven snow, but the whole “slutting it up” thing is virtually nonexistent among those women in the middle/upper middle classes (if dad is present). Lower class women are a different breed entirely and have different motivations.

    I grew up in a working class environment, but with a father who (unlike the parents of most of the kids in my community), didn’t loosen the reins when I turned 16. Or even 20, actually, except maybe a little bit. I was “free” when I moved out at 21, promptly got myself into trouble, but fortunately ended up in a great marriage. Women who live with strong fathers and observant brothers (even the non-Christians that I know), just don’t feel the freedom to behave without restraints. I didn’t say they aren’t tempted. I said they are constrained.

    The down side, which is often overlooked, is this same constraining influence also limits their dating opportunities overall. This, combined with all of the overriding cultural and legal barriers to functional marriage, is also a factor in those women marrying later. That’s before you ever factor in the crappy job Boomer and Gen X moms did with their sons and daughters because they were enthralled with feminist dogma and all the “Hear me roar!” nonsense.

    So you have the dyed in the wool college experience indoctrinated feminist types who delay marriage until they get done with whatever it is they think they need to do before they can get married. We know some of those. And then you have the ones for whom the very nature of the current SMP/MMP means that even if they wanted to get married at 20 or 21, it just isn’t happening. We know several of those, and not all of them live in my house.

    I’m not going to get into the argument about why the decent girls don’t settle and exorbitant expectations, or any other stuff, because it’s counter intuitive. One the one hand it’s, “Adjust your expectations and settle already!” On the other it’s, “If she isn’t over the moon head over heels sexually attracted to him she shouldn’t marry him!” Not having that conversation.

    I just thought a balanced observation of how women are influenced, coming from a woman, might be useful. Because the reality is that while we are all wretched sinners (including women), we’re not all sinners in the same ways.

    Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      I would state it this way: Your risk is significantly lower (in an era where marriage is high risk) if the girl shows signs of being attracted to you. Scott’s way of putting it aside, I saw Cane Caldo describe something similar: if the girl doesn’t come to you (at least in terms of showing signs she really wants you) then it’s too great of a risk. We’re taught that men should pursue a woman but in real life it might be better if it happens the other way. Worked for me.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      Elspeth wrote,

      “I’m not going to get into the argument about why the decent girls don’t settle and exorbitant expectations, or any other stuff, because it’s counter intuitive. […] Not having that conversation.”

      If it’s counterintuitive, then that is precisely why this conversation needs to be had.

      “One the one hand it’s, “Adjust your expectations and settle already!” On the other it’s, “If she isn’t over the moon head over heels sexually attracted to him she shouldn’t marry him!”

      The apparent contradiction may be understood when we see that these maxims are directed towards different sets of audiences.

      “Adjust your expectations and settle already!” is directed towards aging women who have been around the spinner a few times. They know what kind of man they can expect to get a marriage proposal from, but they just don’t want to face up to reality. Taking “just one more spin” is much more alluring.

      “If she isn’t over the moon head over heels sexually attracted to him she shouldn’t marry him!” is directed towards men who are rather serious minded about committing to an LTR and are vetting a woman.

      Both men and women need to meet somewhere in the middle, and compromise to some extent if that is deemed necessary. But if you compare these two stances, you’ll see that the woman has a little farther to go.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        “I’m not going to get into the argument about why the decent girls don’t settle and exorbitant expectations, or any other stuff, because it’s counter intuitive. […] Not having that conversation.”

        “If it’s counterintuitive, then that is precisely why this conversation needs to be had.”

        Um, excuse me – I’ve been trying to have this conversation for about half a decade now, and all I hear from women is, “Not my fault” and “I didn’t do it”, and “NAWALT”, and “Do as I say, not as I did”.

        This conversation isn’t being had because women don’t want to face the truth. I’ve come here with solutions and been told, “Won’t work” and “Women can’t bang men over the head with obvious IOIs”. Well, hell. Then we’ll just keep going down the same path in this Mexican standoff we’ve had over the past 30 or so years.

        “On the one hand it’s, “Adjust your expectations and settle already!” On the other it’s, “If she isn’t over the moon head over heels sexually attracted to him she shouldn’t marry him!”

        “The apparent contradiction may be understood when we see that these maxims are directed towards different sets of audiences.”

        I disagree. ALL women are guilty of this because ALL women either are frequent fliers on the carousel, have taken at least a few spins on the carousel, or really really WANT to try out the carousel. Almost all women have tried the carousel out.

        The problem, as you say, is that women will not compromise. And frankly, why should they? They have all the SMP/RMP power. They can make any choices they want, with virtually no downsides at all.

        WOMEN need to fix this. WOMEN need to compromise. Men have done all they can do. Women need to meet us more than halfway now, after having taken 90% of the liberties over the past couple of generations.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        “I’ve come here with solutions and been told “Won’t work” and “Women can’t bang men over the head with obvious IOIs”. Well, hell. Then we’ll just keep going down the same path in this Mexican standoff we’ve had over the past 30 or so years.”

        To be fair, I keep offering a possible solution — join a Christian community that is already pairing off young men and women successfully — and all I ever hear from men (including men on this blog’s comments section) is, “That community doesn’t meet my exact specifications!”

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “To be fair, I keep offering a possible solution – join a Christian community that is already pairing off young men and women successfully – and all I ever hear from men (including men on this blog’s comments section) is, “That community doesn’t meet my exact specifications!”

        I disagree – what you’re hearing from men here is, “That community doesn’t exist at all”. There are none — not within 100 miles of my locale, anyway. Neither men nor women want to do this God’s way, really. Mostly, it’s because women will not compromise. As I said elsewhere, I’m not surprised women won’t compromise. Why should they? They have total power in the SMP/RMP. Women decide everything that happens in sexual relationships, from who gets sex, to when, to under what circumstances, to who gets commitment, to the contours and parameters of that commitment, to the duration of that commitment.

        When you have that much power and leverage, why should you compromise?

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar

        One reason for people not doing that is that this or that group isn’t your denomination or doesn’t teach what you believe. If you’re Catholic, you don’t just go and move to Branson to get your son a wife. Even less extreme differences (not just Prot. vs. Catholic) matter. Those communities are insular (and with good reason!). So you’d be (potentially) compromising your beliefs/lying to your children about your beliefs just for the sake of getting them a good spouse.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ deti

        “I disagree – what you’re hearing from men here is, “That community doesn’t exist at all”.

        Which is false. They do exist. And when I point to the ones I’ve visited, then it turns into, “Those communities don’t meet my exact specifications!”

        “There are none — not within 100 miles of my locale, anyway.”

        That’s why we’re going to move. We even set a deadline. If I can’t find an engineering position where we plan to move by our self-imposed deadline, then I’ll have to take a pay cut. Oh well.

        “Neither men nor women want to do this God’s way, really.”

        Agreed.

        “Mostly, it’s because women will not compromise.”

        They’re compromising in the communities I visited. When you attend church, and you see dozens of couples in the their 20s with arm loads of toddlers, and you find out they announce a wedding and/or a birth every Sunday, you know that women are compromising.

        @ Cameron

        “One reason for people not doing that is that this or that group isn’t your denomination or doesn’t teach what you believe. If you’re Catholic, you don’t just go and move to Branson to get your son a wife. Even less extreme differences (not just Prot. vs. Catholic) matter. “

        Yeah, I get that. I wouldn’t move to St. Marys, KS, for example, and I know you wouldn’t either, because you’re not SSPX. But, if I can stumble onto multiple communities entirely by accident, I’m confident that a faithful Catholic can find a faithful Catholic community intentionally.

        “Those communities are insular (and with good reason!).”

        Yeah. That’s why it’s important to get in as early as possible.

        “So you’d be (potentially) compromising your beliefs/lying to your children about your beliefs just for the sake of getting them a good spouse.”

        Joining any community would have to be a compromise to some degree, because when two people agree 100%, at least one of them isn’t thinking. The key, and the challenge, is to find a community that is an acceptable compromise. Kind of like marriage.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      This idea of Scott’s comes from the demonstrable reality that the average man is more attracted to the average woman than she is to him. And that people now marry for romantic love not necessity.

      Liked by 3 people

      • lastholdout says:

        Yes, character has been downplayed for tingles. Western Christian women have swapped agapé for romantic, mushy sentimentalism -–an emotional feeling based on superficialities: looks, income, life-style, what can be produced. The culture (media, peers, religious circles) overwhelms with contradictory messages that few women can withstand.

        Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible contrasts agapao with phileo:

        Agapao is chiefly of the heart (wholehearted, unconditional, devoted) while phileo is chiefly of the head (feelings, conditional, sentimental). Agapao “embraces the judgment and the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety.”

        {Note the contrast of agapao as “the heart” and phileo as “the head.” Our contemporary understanding of what consists the head and the heart would assign them to opposite definitions.}

        The willed love of agapé (“the deliberate assent of the will as a matter of principle, duty and propriety”) is what some describe with the old cliché “Fake it until you make it.” It is to do what the Lord requires of us, against what our feelings of anger, apathy, or pride would lead us to do—or not do. Eventually, the feelings succumb to the pattern laid down by the will. Cultures with arranged marriages lean on agapé. The feelings will grow. Chris Taylor’s story (https://forgivenwife.com/) is of how her willed love transformed her view of her husband. She, by her own will (by praying and seeking God’s will), moved her heart to the place it should be with him. If she had bought into the cultural messages, they would have been divorced. It can be done.

        So, where are the church leaders in all of this? [crickets]

        The thought that was brought up in a previous post of writing a book to teach young adults about marriage relations is a good idea. Maybe it’s time for a collective effort to write a book. There are some smart people here with very helpful insights. These insights have the potential to gain traction in a codified publication to make a difference in the Christian community.

        Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “Then, there were the women who divorced their husbands in droves in the 70s, and were validated by men who seemed to have absolutely no problem wifing up other men’s ex-wives.”

      I saw this with my older uncles and still see it with men in general. These men who wife up the divorcees are often either men who 1. were too low value to get a woman in their youth 2. Were divorced by their wives (my uncles) and their only choice was to wife up a divorcee.

      We know a guy who wifed up a drug addicted single mom with tats. She’s reasonably attractive and considerably younger than him. He wifed her up because he’s a bald 40 something year old and she was his last chance at a wife.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cameron232 says:

      “…but the whole “slutting it up” thing is virtually nonexistent among those women in the middle/upper middle classes…”

      I guess if the definition of “slutting it up” is OnlyFans and literal prostitution, then yeah I don’t think it’s the norm. But unless the girl is a virgin how do you know she’s not “slutting it up”, right? They don’t have a notch counter on their foreheads – they could have sex with 1 or 100, no one would know the difference. We live in pornoland now so no virginity means it’s reasonable to assume they’re “slutting it up”,/i>.

      I assume most of these MC/UMC girls aren’t virgins.

      Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        “But unless the girl is a virgin how do you know she’s not slutting it up, right? They don’t have a notch counter on their foreheads – they could have sex with 1 or 100, no one would know the difference. We live in pornoland now, so no virginity means it’s reasonable to assume they’re slutting it up. I assume most of these MC/UMC girls aren’t virgins.”

        There’s a reason why I pointed out that this distinction is a function of being tethered to home and family or not. Like our kids, I went to college while living at home. Both husband and I still live fairly close to where we grew up (though we’ve moved out a bit), but when we met, we were still closely bound to where we came from.

        I didn’t know this until later, but my husband had done a fair amount of recon on me by the time we finally started dating. He knew a lot of minor details that I had no idea he learned. Nothing earth shattering (my life was boring before him), just the kinds of things you pick up asking casual questions when you’re curious about someone. It never occurred to me that this was going on because as far as I knew, he was fully occupied with someone else, and we were just casual acquaintances who were becoming friends due to constantly running into each other.

        I have found that this is still fairly common, and hasn’t changed all that much over the past 25 years or so. People still do that kind of recon on people they are interested in. Except (and this is point that I was trying to make) unless there is no one around who really knows anything about that person.

        Unfortunately, in the era of shipping young people off to wherever, that’s more common than ever, which underscores your point. Most times you can’t know, not really. However, keep in mind that for most men in the real world, there is a massive difference between a girl who has had one or two boyfriends (and NOTHING else), versus a woman who has had 5 or 6 boyfriends, plus is known to go out, drink, and party a lot, which means who knows how many fly by nights she’s had? I am fully on board with the Christian ideal, and promote it passionately, but for the vast majority of men it’s not a matter of “virgin or slut”.

        But again, when everyone is a stranger in a place, you don’t know, that’s true. Nevertheless I still get the side eye -from dads as well as moms- when I suggest that I was better off having been sheltered and that my kids are better off having gotten their degrees while still living at home. They believe, despite all evidence to the contrary even in their own kids, that if you taught them right, then you just have to have faith. That’s dumb. EVERYONE needs accountability in their lives, regardless of age. But especially when young.

        shrug

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “There’s a reason why I pointed out that this distinction is a function of being tethered to home and family or not. Like our kids, I went to college while living at home. Both husband and I still live fairly close to where we grew up (though we’ve moved out a bit), but when we met, we were still closely bound to where we came from.”

        Except, it’s not. Girls with that kind of upbringing are still having casual sex, still partying, and still doing whatever they want. Girls from “good” two-parent homes.

        The amount of “recon” you can do on a girl doesn’t really matter — at the end of the day, girls do what they want and get what they want; and men take what they can get.

        The reason you’re wrong about this is because this is happening right under your nose and you don’t see it. You don’t see it because girls are really really good at keeping this quiet. There’s also no downside at all to having casual sex. They won’t be penalized for it, except to the extent that they eventually have to compromise and marry men they’re really not all that sexually attracted to; which they would have to do anyway. Most women end up married to the caliber of men at 33 they could have married at 23 – they all just ended up waiting. Or more accurately, she makes him wait.

        I know about all this because I spend time reading about, studying, and writing about intersexual dynamics and what men and women are really doing. I attend church with women who “lift holy hands” during praise on Sunday morning, but whom I know are letting men hoist their legs in the air on Friday and Saturday night. How do I know this? Because they talk about it and write about it on their blogs. Because they write about it in online ‘zines. Because they talk frankly about being sexually active and how ‘God has no problem with it’. Because of the clothes they wear and the language they use when they talk. Because of their social media presences.

        The “nice girls” from two parent families are out there trying out their SMVs and taking men for test rides. They are. We do ourselves no favors by denying this.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        “But unless the girl is a virgin how do you know she’s not slutting it up, right? They don’t have a notch counter on their foreheads – they could have sex with 1 or 100, no one would know the difference.”

        You answered your own question above.

        “We saw what happened all the time in HS. Girl sleeps with jerkoff guy – The next day, half the school knows she has saggy boobs or how bad she smells down there or whatever.”

        Slutty girls get a reputation, because guys love to brag about their conquests. But, that requires living in a community where families actually know each other, and that brings us right back to “That community doesn’t meet my exact specifications!”

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        @Oscar, I don’t think you can tell who does what with who based on next-day stories from guys. I found out lots of stories at 10 year reunion. Some more at 20 year reunion, etc. The daughter of the Methodist minister was f_cking guys on the church altar. It wasn’t obvious at the time and didn’t get around (she was a sloppy drunk ho’ at class reunion).

        The biggest distinction is the n=0 vs. n=1 notch count. The n=1 notch count produces a higher divorce probability than the n=5,6,….9 notch count.

        As a guy, you’re actually incentivized to go for the girl who is in the sweet spot of sluttiness. Slutty enough without being too slutty.

        “This girl’s too slutty! This girl’s not slutty enough! This girl’s just right!”

        Unless you marry a virgin which of course is the right answer.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        I also know this because I was there in college and law school in the late 80s and early 90s. I had premarital sex with some of those “nice girls”. My friends had premarital sex with a LOT more “nice girls” than I did. I was there. I saw what the “nice girls” were doing and who they were doing it with. The “nice girls” were right in there doing much of what the sluts were doing, only not as frequently and not with as many men.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        @ Cameron

        “I don’t think you can tell who does what with who based on next-day stories from guys.”

        Do you have better odds of knowing which girls are sluts in a Christian community where families know each other, or in an unconnected, unmoored place like your average college campus?

        For example, deti wrote:

        “I also know this because I was there in college and law school in the late 80s and early 90s. I had premarital sex with some of those “nice girls”. My friends had premarital sex with a LOT more “nice girls” than I did. I was there.”

        Yeah. That’s what happens in an unconnected, unmoored place like “college and law school”. That’s kind of the point.

        Do you want to improve your kids’ odds, or not?

        I’m not telling anyone what to do. I’m just saying that – other than death and taxes – there are almost zero guarantees in this life. Life is, therefore, mostly a matter of playing the odds.

        So, do you want to improve your kids’ odds, or not?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Oscar,

        Sure I agree that you can improve your odds. I’m not saying your solution is poo-poo. I do think there are limits to where people can just up and move and that people are then likely to compromise their beliefs just to improve your odds of getting a good spouse for your children.

        Fundamentalist Independent Baptists do a good job hooking their kids up and I’m happy for them. I would be a liar if I moved to their community and tried to ape their beliefs so that my son can marry Jessa Duggar.

        Like

      • Joe2 says:

        “But unless the girl is a virgin, how do you know she’s not “slutting it up”, right? They don’t have a notch counter on their foreheads – they could have sex with 1 or 100, no one would know the difference.”

        A girl can be a virgin and “slutting it up” at the same time because it all depends on the behaviors that would fall within the definition of “slutting it up.” A girl could engage in oral sex and mutual masturbation with 1 or 100 and still remain a virgin. Would such behaviors be considered “slutting it up”? I would think so, but others may disagree.

        Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      OK, this is all well and good. But this isn’t “balanced” at all because it’s little more to me than “Not women’s fault” and “Women are the victims in all this”, and “We can’t have the conversation that REALLY needs to be had here, because I think it’s ‘counterintuitive’.”

      Sure, there’s lip service to women being sinners (they are), and women sleeping around (almost all did and do), and women divorcing their husbands (they did for selfish reasons), and a few good dads constraining their daughters which then results in limited choices (but it doesn’t really because women can still get men, as most women do; or get really really REALLY lucky, like you did).

      With respect, E, we cannot draw ANY conclusions from your singular experience. Almost all women who have your early life experience end up as baby mamas. Most other women with good fathers like yours end up not dating at all (like the Daughters of Elspeth, or Devout Christian Women).

      “…the whole “slutting it up” thing is virtually nonexistent among those women in the middle/upper middle classes (if dad is present).”

      With all due respect, you could not be more wrong about this. I am one of those dads. I live in one of those communities and I am among the middle and upper middle classes. Your claim that “slutting it up” is “virtually nonexistent” among middle and UMC women on up is frankly ridiculous. Nearly ALL women are slutting it up. Nearly ALL women talk about going through a “h0 phase”. Nearly all women have had casual sex. That’s women across all demographics, ages, and SES.

      Sure, E, if by “slutting it up” you mean having 15 one night stands and taking a different guy home from the bar every other weekend, then yeah, most women aren’t “slutting it up”. But most women ARE having, or have had, casual sex. Most women have had a F-buddy or a friend with benefits at some point. Most women have had “situationships” where sex is happening but not much else. Most women have had at least one one-night-stand. Most women have had “casual vacation/spring break sex” that “doesn’t count” because “My friends don’t know about it”. Most women have had serial monogamy sex with a series of boyfriends or short term relationships lasting less than a few months.

      Two reasons I don’t believe you on this: (1) I can see with my own eyes what’s going on; and I can read the articles and surveys. Women across all demographics are reporting their sexual habits, and writing about them. For the purposes of these discussions, I believe them. (2) There’s no downside to “slutting it up”. Women can still get married, albeit to men they’re only kinda sorta attracted to. But most women have no problem with doing that, as long as they can get out of their marriages or cheat. Women have birth control to avoid pregnancy; and medications to avoid, cure, or control STDs. Women don’t take reputation hits when having casual sex. Hell, even women who claim to be Christians are having casual sex – no downside, mostly because they can easily keep it on the DL.

      I’d like to see women take some responsibility on this front and fess up to their conduct. Your post doesn’t get us there at all.

      Liked by 2 people

      • elspeth says:

        I’m going to respond to this because it is so very wrong, but then I’ll be out. It’s time for my August rush so I probably won’t be back until after Labor Day. But this is so wrong:

        “Almost all women who have your early life experience end up as baby mamas.”

        Very few girls who are raised nearly exclusively by their dads (or in homes where the dad is the badass in charge) end up baby mamas. You know why?

        Because they’ve been raised to be higher quality women so that even if they do get pregnant, like I did, the man who impregnated them is far more likely to marry her.

        And I’ve seen that happen enough times (especially among black women), that I know it’s true. We just went to a wedding celebration of a couple where I was sure and certain that boy would never marry, but… and she fits the pattern. Whether she’ll live to regret it, I don’t know, but he took the plunge.

        The problem (at least among black women) is that so few grow up with their dads at all in the first place.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Do you want to have this conversation here or on email?

        I’m not wrong. You’re talking about something else entirely.

        “Almost all women who have your early life experience end up as baby mamas.” is a reference to most black women who have premarital sex and get knocked up. Not just black women who get raised in 2 parent homes.

        Most white women who have premarital sex and get knocked up have abortions.

        Among black women from 2 parent homes, most of them who have premarital sex and get knocked up also have abortions. Baby mamas are usually themselves daughters of baby mamas.

        Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        I thought that bit was worth clarifying here on the blog, so I responded here where you first brought it up. There is a misconcpetion about how this plays out in black communities, but just the RP is old news there, this is also a different dynamic.

        Statistically though, the majority of black women’s abortions are among single motehrs who already have a kid(s) and don’t want more. It’s not the “good girls” getting abortions to keep their parents from finding out. The demographics are totally different. Those girls, raised by strong dads, usually end up wifed up by the men. This is especially true when the women are college educated. There’s an entire school of thought around this but I’ll not go there as it’s irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

        But you can check my math if you’d like.

        Okay, it’s been real.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        “Very few girls who are raised nearly exclusively by their dads (or in homes where the dad is the badass in charge) end up baby mamas. You know why?”

        Yes. It’s because most of those women have abortions. They have more access to money, and they’re scared to death of angering or disappointing their fathers.

        Like

      • info says:

        Ideally women who would make good wives will find good Husbands like a heat-seeking missile.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Elspeth wrote,

        “…the whole “slutting it up” thing is virtually nonexistent among those women in the middle/upper middle classes (if dad is present).”

        Deti wrote,

        “Sure, E, if by “slutting it up” you mean having 15 one night stands and taking a different guy home from the bar every other weekend, then yeah, most women aren’t “slutting it up”.

        As readers have probably already noticed, women have peculiar sensitivities about the “S” word (not to be confused with the “s” word, in lower case). They also have their own definition of what a s1ut is. It is a different definition from men’s use of this word, and it varies from woman to woman. I came across this difference a few years ago and wrote a series of posts about it.
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/hamsters-hierarchy-of-sluts/
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2017/10/13/bon-mot-of-slut-science/
        https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2017/10/15/list-of-slut-tells/
        Once you understand the different sex-specific definitions, it’s quite revealing (and entertaining) to watch women rave about the “S” word.
        (No, I am not making any inferences to Elspeth.)

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “…there is a massive difference between a girl who has had one or two boyfriends (and NOTHING else), versus a woman who has had 5 or 6 boyfriends…”

      Yes, a woman who had one other “boyfriend” (sex partner) is MORE likely to divorce than a woman with 5 or 6 “boyfriends.” That statistic is reproduced across three different decades (1980s, 1990s and 2000s) so isn’t likely to be an anomaly. Hard to say why but one of the proposed reasons is because the woman with one other “boyfriend” is likely to see him as the one that got away, etc. Only takes 1 man to make her an alpha widow.

      Liked by 1 person

    • cameron232 says:

      A close friend here at work just told me his young son (married at 21 a few years ago) is getting divorced. I just learned our HS valedictorian is getting divorced (Catholic, 4 kids, 20+ years of marriage).

      It sometimes seems no one makes it any more. Hard not to be blackpilled. You want to tell the kids, “Why even bother…???”

      Like

  7. Lastmod says:

    In college / undergrad (1988-1992):

    I went to a small, private, ‘older’ liberal arts college. About 600 students. It was the tradional New England college plan. You lived on campus all four years. You ate together at mealtimes. Brunch on Sunday. Once a month was a proper birthday dinner (dress up) and all the faculty, staff and administration celebrated all birthdays on campus during the meal, this meal was plated and bussed by the dining room staff.

    Basically, if you were the top guys on campus looks-wise (10%-15%) you could do whatever you wanted concerning women. You could have a girlfriend, kick your roommate out for the night so you could get private time with her (hanging a tie on the doorknob was code of ‘don’t come in’), and then go her room and do the same to her roommate with zero consequences.

    The girlfriend then would get “mad” at her roomate, not her boyfriend.

    Every other guy on campus either had to spend a full year trying to get the girl they liked to be his girlfriend…..and a large swath had to wait til summer back home to meet someone……or meet a gal from a different campus (usually at Middlebury College, Bennington College, Castleton State Colleg…the nearby colleges to mine)

    It was a small college. You had to be careful, a few guys were nailing pretty much every gal with zero consequence.

    My undergrad therefore consisted of the liberla arts tradition for most guys of drinking, dropping LSD and and actually studying.

    Heard the complaints back then from women “How come good guys don’t flirt with me?” Their logic back then was astounding to me. Most guys on my campus even back then were frozen out. If it had been a bigger college….maybe it would have evened itself out.

    In grad school…my Polytechnic was 90% men. The women that were there dated / partied with the hockey team

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      College was a different experience for me than most because I waited on my (future wife) girlfriend to finish HS and move away with me – we lived in an apartment.

      But we hung out with a two of my buddies (brothers) from HS so I saw their experiences.

      My buddy had various sexual experiences that all seemed debased or at least non-ideal. One girl had a boyfriend but she had my buddy stick his hand down her pants and you-know-what her – while her boyfriend was sitting right there at a table with us! I remember occasions when some lonely girl would crawl into bed with him – like she just didn’t want to be alone – and of course what followed.

      My other HS buddy, his girlfriend cheated on him and left him for some other guy. Funny cause they didn’t live together in sin the way my girlfriend (wife) and I did. He got a real sweet Christian wife though.

      Yeah, college was really debauched. I wouldn’t send my daughters to a Florida state university in a million years.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      The alternative music of the late 1980’s / early 1990’s though was astounding. It was a great time to be a college student…… for example…….. No illegal substances were harmed while listening to stuff like this back then.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Lastmod says:

      This report as interesting……from August 2020, featuring my now “closed” undergraduate in Vermont. No mention of “woke” agendas, or very progressive policies (my undergrad listed at 36K a year but was charging around 12K per year…how do you support this and keep open?????? The Board of Trustees should have been slapped and shamed publically for this). When I was there, in 1988 tuition was 22K.

      I served on my undergrads Board of Trustees from 1999-2003. It was tight, but we were keeping afloat. Very sad, a beautiful place now gone forever

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Between 1:40 and 1:45 of the clip you get pretty close to the truth of the finances of a modern college/university. The costs that keep going up are administrative (the number of deans and directors of special programs has increased drastically for most schools in the past 20 years) and construction for new buildings. What ever happened to the simple idea of living within your means? The middle class can’t keep up paying the higher tuitions because the return on the tuition investment is not there. Who can afford the loans at a 40k-50k per year private college when you finish with a liberal arts degree that might help you get a job paying 45k per year? A guy I know that is a few years younger than me was making 70-80k per year in the automotive trades by the time he was 24 or 25 and the education he paid for to get there required no loans.

        Like

      • Lastmod says:

        RPA…I agree…but not every man is supposed to be an engineer, or has a natural ability to “work on cars” or be an electrician. The arts college / university still plays a role, and is needed. Myself going into the trades at 18 would have been laughable. Not a carpenter. I didn’t have the aptitude to be an electrician. I wanted to be a school teacher….with the younger kids (k-6).

        Also…some people don’t care about “financial well being” if they love what they are doing. My best friend from college got a BFA. He makes a living off art. He has a studio now, does murals for hospitals, businesses, and does faux finish in homes. He has a great skill…and it took talent, time, and hard work. His rewards show. He is good at what he does, makes a very good living now and has had a PASSION for art.

        Not everyone is going to be an engineer, or a lawyer, or a doctor….. A vast level of the para-professional class is needed. Tech schools, and arts / liberal arts colleges do fill this role…. or should.

        Look, I have a BS elementary / special education. My solid backing in liberal arts got me into grad school. Helped me adapt for the field I am in now. Liberal Arts are important for a society to function.

        I agree with the cost, and the politicization of the college today (especially in the arts) but even at my Polytechnic….. which is one of the better ones in the USA…….. I remember sitting in a class in 1994 learning that “women ACTUALLY invented the Internet?”,/i> How???? “Oh, simple….. very simple….. The looms of Medieval Europe, women who wove tapestries…… You see, the weaving was an early form of the world wide web.”

        No one DARED question it. No dares spoke up. Why????????????????? If you want a decent grade you will keep your mouth shut. That’s why.

        So this is part of the reason why we are here now. But I am a supporter of the Liberal Arts and I believe in a well-rounded education.

        Like

  8. feeriker says:

    “No illegal substances were harmed while listening to stuff like this back then.”

    Now THAT’S a keeper! 😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣🤣

    Liked by 1 person

    • Lastmod says:

      I’m not proud of this, and I did know better……..and I have been clean since 2004, and I don’t encourage illegal drug use. I cannot make excuses, or justify it. I am lucky I came through it with most of my brain cells still somewhat intact (though I will admit…….when I am listening to my tax prep / accountant every year…..he starts using confusing financial terms…he says “You following me? I nod my head “yes” but inside I am saying “huh??????????????????????” I attribute loss of comprehension on stuff like this…and other areas to a frightening amount of LSD ingested from 1988-1992

      Even without the drugs……this still sounds good btw 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

  9. info says:

    Patriarchy incentivizes more high-status more “Alpha” behavioral patterns from more Men satisfying hypergamy and creating more Alphabux.

    Chastity channels all eroticism to the marriage bed between Men and Women without external distorting effects on Eros that would turn it into lust.

    Goes to show how they are timeless solutions to old problems. Thomas Aquinas and Augustine are likewise mistaken in the allowance of prostitution as a sewage system when God has chastity and wedlock as solutions.

    Augustine also as I stated considered sexual passion in marriage as being all lust. When in reality there is such a thing as healthy eros (Song of Solomon, Proverbs 5:17-19). Sex isn’t a mechanical duty as God designed and intended it.

    Like

  10. Pingback: Incentives for Bimbofication | Σ Frame

  11. Pingback: She don’t need no man! Except… | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s