Sluttiness and Game really are empowering, or crime does pay redux
April 5, 2014 § 51 Comments
I’ve made the point before that – even though morality means getting what you want teleologically – that because morality involves constraints on behavior, someone unconstrained by morality can, in the short term at least, achieve greater material prosperity than someone who is constrained by morality.
A woman who hikes up her skirt really can get more drinks and other gifts showered on her. A woman who dresses modestly really doesn’t get as much attention and validation. A woman who flaunts her sexuality really can have an easier time landing a prize husband than a woman who doesn’t, especially in a society which doesn’t frown upon that behavior.
Sluttiness and Game really are empowering for plain or boring women and nerdy or socially inept men – even if only on the margins, and even when the ‘effectiveness’ doesn’t exceed placebo. So typically they resent ‘naturals’ that is, people who are more successful than they are without sluttiness or Game. Criticizing sluttiness - and not just the kind of sluttiness that is proximately directed at fornication, but sluttiness more generally – feels disempowering to plain or boring women because it actually is disempowering to them. Criticizing Game - and not just the kind of Game that is proximately directed at fornication, but Game more generally – feels disempowering to nerdy or socially inept men because it actually is disempowering to them.
Property rights really are disempowering to the poor, at least proximately.
But that doesn’t mean that theft is good, or that Christians should participate in an arms race to the gutter.