Women have harems too

March 23, 2013 § 351 Comments

The term “slut” is a female-specific insult referring to a woman with loose sexual mores. Egalitarians are frustrated by the supposed fact that no insult with equivalent social sting applies to men, which, like all double-standards, is just not fair. The unfairness of it all has become so acute that, taking their cue from militant homosexuals, sluts now literally organize themselves into parades proclaiming their sluthood. The only way to rid themselves of the unfair and hypocritical stigma associated with their evil behaviour is to shout to the heavens that evil is good and good is evil. Otherwise they’d have to do that whole repentance thing; and what fun is that?

The manosphere, impressed by the unfairness of the double standard and doing its level best to help, has proposed that there actually is a roughly equivalent insult for men: coward. This is a useful comparison in terms of the social sting of the evaluation: a man labeled coward bears an approximately equivalent social sting to a woman labeled slut. It is also useful because sluthood is unladylike behavior and cowardice is unmanly behavior, generally speaking.

But sluthood refers to specific concrete behaviors and attitudes, while cowardice is a much more general category. Furthermore, cowardice is not a specifically sexual behavior. So we may be able to gain a deeper insight into what is going on in the modern dysfunctional intersexual dynamic if we look at the male side of the dance a bit more concretely.

The punch line for those who need a motivation to read my further rambling – or a reason not to – is that from an intersexual behavior standpoint, the male equivalent of a slut is the beta orbiter. Modernity has turned sexuality into a buffet: what used to be a loving commitment for life to a particular person, where sexual intimacy and provision formed the mutual society of a family, has turned into cafeteria sexuality wherein people are encouraged to assemble their ideal virtual mate from the disparate contributions of different real people. Like the slut who gives away her sexuality on the cheap, accepting sexual attention with no commitment or provision, the beta orbiter gives away his provision and commitment without any corresponding receptivity to his sexual attentions.

In what follows I will use the term “sexual attention” to refer to those interactive behaviors wherein a woman takes a man seriously as a potential mate. I will leave it deliberately vague; but it doesn’t have to imply escalation to intrinsically immoral behaviors. As usual on this subject I am attempting to clarify the theory: how well or comprehensively that theory corresponds to reality is something about which I’ve expressed any number of doubts myself, though I do think it is useful as a foundation for discussion.

The theory of hypergamy proposes that the top (say) 20-ish percent of men are more than willing to shower sexual attention on the top (say) 60-ish percent of women[1]. That doesn’t mean that the average male nine is generally willing to marry or commit to the average female six: just that he is willing to give her sexual attention. So at one point in the buffet line the average socially functional female six can scoop some male eight or nine onto her social plate.

Because the modern world is a sexual cafeteria the notion of monogomous pairing in marriage to one partner for life is largely dead, and as a result the modern woman can assemble her ideal virtual man from the disparate contributions of different real men. This results in a situation where most young women find it relatively easy to attract sexual attention “above their marriage grade”. They become accustomed to finding the men actually in their marriage grade unattractive.

Beta orbiting is a male behavior which is symmetrical to slutty female behavior: mirror image graphics could probably be drawn. (I haven’t thought through exactly what they would look like, but if there is interest I may give it a go). The key difference is found in the premise (goes the theory) that women are the gatekeepers of sexual attention, while men are the gatekeepers of commitment and provisioning. In the modern sexual cafeteria attractive women are generally willing to accept some providing attention from less attractive men, while rejecting their sexual attention. Attractive men, on the other hand, are willing to shower sexual attention on less attractive women while rejecting commitment to those less attractive women.

In addition to being a form of lie on the personal level this results in a very dysfunctional social dynamic, especially as virginity-at-marriage becomes almost nonexistent. Women become accustomed to sleeping with men who would never marry them; they find the men who are willing to marry them unattractive. And even when a woman has managed to stay chaste she has become accustomed to getting male sexual attention well above her marriage grade.

What this gets us to is a definition of slutty behavior that doesn’t require a reductionist accounting of certain kinds or numbers of sexual acts, and at the same time is not reducible to some ineffable interior disposition or attitude. Slutty behavior is when a woman accepts sexual attention from a man without any corresponding commitment and provisioning. This raises another interesting point: the female version of caddish behavior is the LJBF (lets just be friends) acceptance of the unrequited attentions of beta orbiters.

Just as the cad doesn’t feel a social sting for having his harem of sluts, LJBF-girl doesn’t feel a social sting for having her harem of beta orbiters. And what follows, I think, is that things will just keep getting worse unless and until fewer women engage in slutty behavior and fewer men engage in beta orbiting behavior. Shaming the cads isn’t going to work.

____________

[1] For the sake of simplicity my graphic only shows a single slice of what is actually a set of multidimensional gradients. The ‘picture’ viewed from the point of view of an average male nine and an average female six will look different from the picture viewed from the perspective of an average male seven and an average female four; but the relative shapes of everything, and the intersexual dynamic it generates, remain more or less how I’ve drawn it.

§ 351 Responses to Women have harems too

  • Opus says:

    I much like this essay. I wonder therefore whether just as a woman can sleep with a man out of her SMV league, the Beta Orbiter is likewise showering attention and resources on women out of his league i.e. sex would be on offer if he targetted less attractive women just as resources and commitment would be available if the woman responded to men in her own SMV bracket.

  • Zippy says:

    Opus:
    I wonder therefore whether just as a woman can sleep with a man out of her SMV league, the Beta Orbiter is likewise showering attention and resources on women out of his league …

    I am quite certain that I have seen this many times. And it will be as hard to convince the female cad that she is doing wrong as it is to convince the male cad.

    Mind you, very occasionally a slut will win her gamble for the lifelong devotion of the alpha; and likewise very occasionally a beta orbiter will win his gamble for the lifelong devotion of the supermodel. Everyone looks at the guy who won the lottery and imagines that as himself. If it were literally, demonstrably impossible for gamblers to win big then gambling wouldn’t be nearly as socially destructive as it is.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Beta orbiters are simply “get out of trouble” free cards for most sluts.

    If these culturally Anglo chivalrous white knights didn’t exist and enable wrong female decisions at every turn, a sizeable proportion of today’s women would change their behavior at some level.

    Without these specific betas, it’s just the omegas, the cads, the hopeless, the players, the bachelors, the crazies, and the never will get commitment from alphas and that’s what scares them.

    I’ve viewed a couple of macro statistics, and due to a combination of feminist affirmative action at all government and corporate levels, penalization of men at most levels (except for the most high status men who can escape from such horrors) and greater debt ending in bankruptcy, it’s not going to be pretty for most women in their teens and 20’s as they grow up.

    They are killing the goose which is laying the golden egg and creating the betas.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It was improbable to have it all in the past, and in the future it will be near impossible.

  • donalgraeme says:

    @ opus
    “i.e. sex would be on offer if he targetted less attractive women just as resources and commitment would be available if the woman responded to men in her own SMV bracket.”

    I don’t think so. Remember, women find only about 20% or so of men attractive, while the number is usually around or over 50% of women that men find attractive. A male 7 orbiting a female 7 means that while he is attracted to her, she is not attracted to him. Same if they are both 8s. In fact, one of the key qualities of being a beta orbiter is that you are not attractive to women. Perhaps if you had a male 7 showering attention on a 3 her hypergamous instincts might kick in and she would seize the opportunity, but I wouldn’t count it as a sure thing.

    To reiterate what I just pointed out, a man can be a beta orbiter with a women of equal SMV, or even higher (male 7, female 5).

    As for society improving if there were less beta orbiting men… while I think it may help, it won’t be a significant improvement. Female behavior is far more important to this dynamic than anything else, especially given the current environment. Remember, even without Beta Orbiters women have the state to provide protection, and assure them of provision as well.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    We are going to see some change in the future, and that’s due to the fall of these specific betas being unconsciously done by many of the sluts right now.

  • donalgraeme says:

    That sentence was supposed to read:

    “Remember, women find only about 20% or so of men attractive, while the number is usually around or over 50% of women that men find attractive.”

    Sorry for that.

    [Fixed – Z]

  • Zippy says:

    donalgraeme:
    It is true that liberal institutions attempt to replace the man in a woman’s life, to make sure she can remain independent and keep her moxie tanks topped. But I expect that in practice those institutional solutions make a poor substitute for a real man.

    And there is a corresponding attempt by liberal institutions to replace the woman in a man’s life: porn.

  • Dalrock says:

    Perhaps the worst form of beta orbiter is the one who willingly plays the role of the backup plan. Such men are extremely difficult to persuade away from their folly. They think they’ve found the grand shortcut to the SMP, and they just know it is going to pay off eventually.

  • donalgraeme says:

    “It is true that liberal institutions attempt to replace the man in a woman’s life, to make sure she can remain independent and keep her moxie tanks topped. But I expect that in practice those institutional solutions make a poor substitute for a real man. ”

    Of course they do, otherwise why would we be seeing all the “Man Up” articles out there? The State is a poor substitution here, as it is for many things, but that is another matter.

    “And there is a corresponding attempt by liberal institutions to replace the woman in a man’s life: porn.”

    Disagree. Porn is far, far older than the modern State. Older than leftism. As old as civilization in fact. (In the state of nature, many men have no other sexual outlet than porn.) If anything, Porn is something the Leftist State would and should oppose, because it discourages male productivity. Without excess production by men, the Welfare State is doomed (at least, doomed more quickly than otherwise).

  • Zippy says:

    donalgraeme:
    I’d suggest that social safety nets are not categorically new under the sun either. Both porn and safety nets have undergone massive qualitative and quantitative changes though, including with respect to the social acceptability of use.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m glad you differentiated between “sexual attentions” and “sex”. Some people don’t and then none of it makes any sense.

  • Vanessa says:

    My theory is that there’s an instinctive link to fertility. If the thought of him touching you makes your skin crawl, you don’t want him anywhere near you. Sex happens.

    So, if a woman surrounds herself with beta orbiters (men she finds unattractive, but that she milks for favors), then she’s doing something unnatural.

  • johnmcg says:

    Two objections:

    1. Beta orbiting behavior, while likely imprudent in almost every case, is not in itself sinful. Men are not required to reserve their provision and commitment to their wives in the same way that women (and men) are required to reserve their sexuality for their spouses. In fact, there are times when this is explicitly called for — military service, a good pastor for his parish, a father provides provision and commitment for his children.

    The error here it seems is lack of moderation and prudence. “Sluttiness” is lack of moderation in behavior that is intrinsically sinful. Beta orbiting is lack of moderation in behavior that is not intrinsically sinful, and may in fact be required in some instances.

    2. Hate to drag it out again, but since we just heard it last week, it does seem to me that in sparing the adulterer, Jesus was in part rebuking a strategic and selective shaming or confronting of sin.

    I suppose it’s possible some of us have our houses sufficiently in order that we can look out and determine which sins of others to confront. I can’t say I’m there yet.

  • Vanessa says:

    Having sexual intercourse with a man you aren’t married to is sinful. Letting men other than your husband see your bare ankles or speak to you isn’t, or at least we don’t usually see it that way. It’s a continuum of what men sacrifice and women allow.

    A man holding open the door and receiving a warm smile can already be a form of sexual interaction that motivates each person to repeat the behavior. Positive reinforcement.

  • Vanessa says:

    Women’s sexual attention isn’t limited to actual sex, is what I mean. Unless she’s throwing up the bitch shield or LJBF you, she’s at least neutral to the idea.

  • Vanessa says:

    Most women won’t admit that in public though, as they want to appear more selective to drive up their market price. Also, a lot of them aren’t that introspective, but you can tell by their interactions.

  • Vanessa says:

    Remember, women find only about 20% or so of men attractive

    Says who? That doesn’t even strike me as plausible. I find most normal-weight and virile amen at least mildly attractive unless they start whining or act like a total ass, and I don’t know any woman who feels differently. How else would the human race have survived until now?

  • Vanessa says:

    Men, not “amen”. Freudian slip.

  • Zippy says:

    John:
    “Sluttiness” is lack of moderation in behavior that is intrinsically sinful.

    I’d just reinforce what Vanessa wrote here: that wasn’t my understanding when I wrote the post. It is true that “sexual attention” can escalate to intrinsically immoral behavior, but I explicitly included non-intrinsically-immoral behaviors too. It is at least mildly slutty to date the bad boy whom she knows will never commit: “dating just for fun” is an at least mildly slutty behavior, as is exposing too much skin to men she would never marry, etc.

    This does of course suffer from the line-drawing problem endemic to many moral issues. But I know it when I see it.

  • Morticia says:

    I find about 50% of men under age 60 to be fairly attractive. This isn’t an estimate..I did the math.

    Whether or not I am typical is anyones guess..but I am willing to bet I am not that special of a snowflake.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s less that women don’t find most similar-age men attractive than that men are less sexually selective because of the double-standard. If a man finds three women attractive, he’ll sleep with whichever he can or even all three. Women have to choose one, so the most attractive one will usually win out.

  • Bene says:

    “Remember, women find only about 20% or so of men attractive

    Says who? That doesn’t even strike me as plausible. I find most normal-weight and virile amen at least mildly attractive unless they start whining or act like a total ass, and I don’t know any woman who feels differently”

    I agree with this. I find most men at least mildly attractive. I remember once when I was in high school I made a sarcastic comment at the tv about average people not being attractive and my dad heard me and told me “actually the average person is quite attractive.” and I said “I know that dad, duh!”

    Personality as it shows through the expressions of the face are most important to me in attractiveness. Much more important than whatever number a man would be assigned while he stands in a neutral position.

    I think if women these days weren’t so often obese and in sweatpants that the idea of men only finding 50% of women attractive would be laughable. The average person is quite attractive. Women only finding 20% of men attractive is ridiculous. But Alte is right, women have to choose and that probably changes the perception.

  • Morticia says:

    I like that I said “about” and then said “this isn’t an estimate”. LOL. I should have said this isn’t a rough estimate.

    I need more sleep.

    Yes, choosing one does complicate our ability to express our desires for all of them. I often lament that men are so terrible at sharing.

  • Vanessa says:

    Men are like ice cream. Sure, you usually prefer vanilla, but aren’t there some chocolate almond days and strawberry cheesecake days, too? And then the chocolate and strawberry guys think we don’t like them, but it’s just that it’s easier to imagine spending the rest of your life eating only vanilla, and vanilla threatened to break your face if he caught you tasting the other flavors. And you do so like having an unbroken face. Your nose just seems so well-placed right where it currently is.

    *sigh* Life is so unfair.

  • Vanessa says:

    What about alpha orbiters? I mean, they can easily “get laid”, but there’s still a bit of a bottleneck at the top of the woman pile, isn’t there?

  • Vanessa says:

    Is the difference between an alpha orbiter (I guess they’re called “interlopers”) and a beta orbiter, that the alpha is just waiting for his chance and the beta doesn’t have a chance?

  • Vanessa says:

    It is, apparently, next week already. LOL

  • Vanessa says:

    Or are alpha orbiters just more beta orbiters because the woman is so high-status that even most alphas seem beta to her? But that would imply that the alpha/beta thing was entirely relative, which is a feminine view of the system.

    It’s all so confusing.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’ve never had a beta-orbiter before, so I’m just trying to imagine what it’d be like. If I interact with a man, it’s that he’s:

    — just a casual acquaintance I happen to end up standing near,
    — a genuine friend (with some mutual sacrifice implied) or relative,
    — some sort of political or religious ally
    — or I just think he’s hot and haven’t managed to drag myself away yet.

    Or some combination of the above. I’m not really sure what the point of a beta-orbiter is, perhaps because I’m generally reluctant to ask people for favors. I can’t imagine keeping some guy I don’t really want around nearby, just to ask him to do stuff for me.

    I think I’m too anti-social for it. It must be an extrovert thing. Perhaps it’s more the habit of women who have gaggles of girlfriends that they don’t really like, as well. That’s just how such women interact with everyone, and not really something specifically sexual.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yes, I appear to be conversing with myself. Pay no mind, plz.

  • Vanessa says:

    My life would be so much easier if I had some beta orbiters. My lawn would be mowed, for one.

  • Vanessa says:

    I did have a young man help me set up a sound system this weekend, but his mom asked him to, so I don’t think it counts.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m picturing beta orbiters as a sort of unpaid handyman.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    FWIW, in college I definitely had several of the female equivalent of beta orbiters. I was friends with a group of women who would sometimes follow me home, cook meals, help with laundry, etc. A different group of younger girls would take me water skiing, to concerts, etc. But I rarely had a girlfriend. I took two gorgeous women to an academic award ceremony, one on each arm; I never dated either, though one jokingly asked me to marry her when I got back to my seat with the award.

    I’m not especially tall, or gorgeous, and I am certainly not naturally social and never considered myself successful with women. That’s why I’m pretty sure the manosphere types would classify me as sigma.

    A lot of what I read in the manosphere ends up striking me as a kind of bizarro world, because my personal experiences are really kind of a mirror image of it.

  • Vanessa says:

    Zippy, I know exactly what you mean. I must live in upside-down world, or something.

    Now I’m all depressed because I just realized that my total lack of beta orbiters explains why my life seems so much harder than most other women’s.

  • Vanessa says:

    My husband says I’m too nerdy for beta orbiters. I’m the sort of girl guys ask for favors. Always wanting to borrow my car or copy my homework.

  • Vanessa says:

    Or they want me to introduce them to my friend/sister/mom. Lots of that.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think that if beta orbiters are girls, then they’re just called “groupies”.

  • Vanessa says:

    According to Roissy, I’m a “classic beta”:

    -4 to 14: Classic beta. Your hot friends always gets hit on first, but if you really tramp it up you can snag a slightly better than average guy to take you home for a single night of commitment.

    So, I guess that means I’m beta orbiting my husband, so I’m like his perma-groupie. Sounds about right. LOL

  • Vanessa says:

    Have you tried his male test, Zippy? It’d be fun to see what score you got.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    I don’t know where it is.

  • Vanessa says:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/dating-market-value-test-for-men/

    I lose points on his female one because — among other things — I’m so old that I’m un-shagable, my IQ is too high, and I don’t do anal. I am also, I suspect, too self-critical. He takes off an additional 10 points at the end, which makes me:

    -39 to -20: You were born to cockblock. But you’ll manage to marry a table scrap.

    Oh dear. That does make me very sad.

  • Zippy says:

    Hmm. Your most recent comment has lowered my interest in taking the test to somewhere below zero. I have no idea why I would want to take those criteria seriously, and the entertainment value isn’t obvious.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s funny because it’s so terribly wrong. Obviously, most men wouldn’t prefer to beat themselves to death rather than date me. LOL Just bizarre.

  • Vanessa says:

    The gamers really like those quizzes. I took it a few years ago and complained about my result being way off, and they told me, “You can’t handle the truth!”

    None of their stuff reflects my reality at all.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    None of their stuff reflects my reality at all.

    It is certainly possible that much of it only applies to the interactions of loser men with slutty women.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yup. And that goes for pretty much everything they write. That’s why it’s entertaining to read it. I always feel like I need to grab some popcorn, while I watch their world from afar.

  • Zippy says:

    Morticia:
    I find about 50% of men under age 60 to be fairly attractive.

    Here is the Prophet Seinfeld on the subject:

  • Cane Caldo says:

    You might find something I wrote interesting. Some uncouth language within.

    http://canecaldo.wordpress.com/2012/08/30/on-axe-biting/

  • Elspeth says:

    I’m more like Mort. I can find something attractive about at least half of the men out there.

    I don’t know where that 20% meme came from. But maybe I’m just strange that way.

  • Vanessa says:

    No, you’re not strange. Women will go for the most-attractive man they can, just like men go for the most-attractive woman they can, but women will be more successful and therefore less likely to fall back on someone they find less-attractive.

  • Elspeth says:

    I actually HAVE had a beta orbiter, LOL. He waited around for years and he did get a relationship out of it, by the way, Nope, it didn’t last. Obviously.

  • Morticia says:

    I don’t know how universally true it is that men go for the most attractive woman they can get, unless we are defining “attractive” some way other than physical.

    No beta orbiters here. I had one but that lasted maybe less than a month.

    When I think of a beta orbiter I think of someone like Steve Urkel from Family Matters.

  • Vanessa says:

    I was thinking about that score some more. I’ve decided that it is pretty accurate, even if I get a low score.

    I don’t get hit on often, so I probably don’t have a very wide appeal. It’s just that the men who’ve taken a serious interest in me tend to be men I’m happy to date, so it leaves me with the false impression of having a high DMV.

  • Vanessa says:

    unless we are defining “attractive” some way other than physical

    I meant that they’ll go for whichever woman appeals to them most.

  • Vanessa says:

    He’s wrong about my marital prospects, though, obviously. But I was a big fish in a relatively small pond, so to say. I’m in a niche market. LOL

  • Vanessa says:

    But just waiting around for years doesn’t make you an orbiter, anymore than sleeping in the same house makes you a slut. He has to offer you something concrete in exchange for nothing on your part.

  • Vanessa says:

    I mean, I can’t complain that I went for years without even a date and get hit on maybe twice a year, and then simultaneously claim that I have a high DMV. Obviously, I don’t. The truth hurts. LOL

  • Vanessa says:

    This explains why I have no beta orbiters. What a depressing thread.

  • Morticia says:

    The thing a lot of men fail to understand about attractiveness is that personality and “swag” have more to do with it than height or how their face is arranged.

    Also.. when it comes to physical attractiveness proportion matters a lot. Size, height, weight need to be proportional. Not too skinny, not too fat, etc. Don’t be one of those body builders with a teeny tiny head.

    Compare Steve Urkel to the actor that played him..Jaleel White.

    I was in a gas station and overheard the attendant talking to his coworker about female attraction triggers. He said he read an article that told him he had an advantage because of his height. I think he was about 6’5. I heard this and quickly glanced his way for a once-over. I noticed that his hands were very small, and in-congruent with the size of his body. I think this probably null and voided his height advantage. I’d take a short guy well proportioned over a tall one that isn’t. And I can put my money where my mouth is on that one. I have ex-boyfriends that prove that I am not a height-ist.

  • Elspeth says:

    The thing a lot of men fail to understand about attractiveness is that personality and “swag” have more to do with it…

    Very true.

  • Morticia says:

    Vanessa- you don’t have beta orbiters because you chase them off. If you look back to your blogging days you will notice that you accumulated an adoring male fan base and is spooked you.

    Now stop with this self-loathing tangent or I will cyber-slap you

  • Vanessa says:

    Beta orbiting is creepy and unnerving to me. LOL That’s true. I can handle it for a bit, but it always makes me uncomfortable and I eventually snap and start ranting at them like a lunatic.

    Jaleel White is very dateable. They had to really ham it up and put him in strange outfits to make it at all believable.

    I’m also not a height-ist. I do like mass, though, and wide shoulders.

    We’re totally taking over Zippy’s thread. LOL

  • Vanessa says:

    Roissy’s whole blog is like one gigantic neg. No way to read any of it without sinking into self-loathing. LOL Now I remember why I avoid it.

  • Morticia says:

    Roissy over-emphasizes beauty but men eventually bore of beauty.

    The best way to land a man is to be interesting and not ugly. If you can avoid being ugly and boring the world is your oyster.

    This is why my average looks is a blessing. I am not in as much danger of over-calculating its value so I know that when someone likes me it is for other reasons and my looks are more of an accessory than the main attraction.

    I kind of feel sorry for pretty girls in a similar way I feel bad for kids from rich families..its so hard to tell what the person really likes you for..

  • Vanessa says:

    I accumulated the male fan base before anyone knew what I looked like. I’m just very entertaining. People tend to crowd around me anytime I speak, but they just like to hear me chatter at them.

    My life experience suggests that I get mad points for being quick-witted. It makes up for a lot.

  • Elspeth says:

    This is why my average looks is a blessing. I am not in as much danger of over-calculating its value so I know that when someone likes me it is for other reasons and my looks are more of an accessory than the main attraction.

    I relate. I had a small crisis when my husband first set his sights on me because he’d just left a girl who was objectively prettier than me. She just was. When he convinced me that he knew exactly what he was doing and why, it gave me a new way of looking at the whole issue. I don’t really wrestle with inferiority issues,.

    As for the OT, it may be that as usual, I am unclear on what the terminology being used actually means. I thought a beta orbiter was a guy who hung around a girl a lot in hopes of getting some. I never really related it to creepiness, but then again, I never really associated being “beta” with being objectively undesirable.

    Like I told the girls, I was more like a bank vault that seasoned thieves cased out trying to find the best way to get in. Thanks to dad, LOL.

  • Elspeth says:

    That should have read:

    I never really related it to creepiness, but then again, I never really associated being “beta” with being objectively undesirable.

    [Fixed – Z]

  • Vanessa says:

    I associate it with creepiness because I always wonder what they want from me. It’s incongruent behavior, which makes me nervous. If they’re engaging me in a good conversation, then they’re probably enjoying being entertained, but then it’s not really orbiting.

    I do wrestle with inferiority issues, but I tend to date guys who criticize me a lot. I’m negged to death. Women compliment me all the time, but men are generally in a competition to tell me how awful I am and how they’d rather chew their arm off than wake me up.

  • Zippy says:

    I wonder if “orbiting” isn’t a more characteristically female behavior than a male behavior: one of many things that has become turned inside out by modernity. So when men do it it has something of a visceral creepy valley effect: it makes them seem more androgynous.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yes, that seems accurate.

  • Vanessa says:

    Here’s why it creeps me out. It feels like subversive herding. Like they’re trying to pen you in or steer you in one way or another, but they don’t just come right out and do it. They’re stealthy about it and pretend to be lighthearted while they’re actually heavily invested and controlling.

    Negging has a similar effect, but it’s less overtly creepy and more simply underhanded. It’s so incongruous that it’s more confusing than creepy, as what they want and what they’re saying have no connection at all.

  • Zippy says:

    Morticia:
    Roissy over-emphasizes beauty but men eventually bore of beauty.

    “No matter how good she looks, some other guy is sick and tired of putting up with her sh**.” – Author Unknown

  • Vanessa says:

    “Show me a beautiful woman, I’ll show you a man who’s tired of f*****g her.” — line from Perfect Stranger

  • Elspeth says:

    but I tend to date guys who criticize me a lot.

    Well I don’t date (and neither do you V, check your tense LOL), but my husband can be pretty blunt in his criticism of me. He truly doesn’t hold anything back because he has standards he expects me to live up to.

    I used to feel put upon, now I appreciate it. I am a strange bird it seems.

  • Vanessa says:

    My husband criticizes me a lot, too. Every once in a while, he drops a huge compliment like a rock on my head, but usually he’s negging and teasing me. Last weekend I got all glammed up for a speech performance, and when I asked him, “How do I look?” he acted like it was a trick question.

    Before I heard about negging, I didn’t understand why so many men would go out of their way to be around me just to tell me how awful I was.

  • Vanessa says:

    Well, I don’t date anymore, but I get lots of, “Wow, you look like shit today!” or “Thinking isn’t really your strong point, is it?” kind of comments from men I hardly know.

  • Elspeth says:

    Every once in a while, he drops a huge compliment like a rock on my head, but usually he’s negging and teasing me.

    Mine too. It’s one of those things where you have to learn to decode their language.

  • Zippy says:

    Boys from a very young age will naturally tease the girls they like. It is a way of showing attention and even affection while maintaining status: beta orbiting without the beta.

    You may notice men doing this to each other also: we rag on our friends as a way of showing affection. The closer the friend, the more brutal the ragging.

    That many people seem to find this profound, and give it labels like “neg”, is a symptom of the death of masculinity.

  • Vanessa says:

    I try to decode, but it does sort of wear me down over time. Especially because I’m getting it from all over, and not just from him.

    My mommy thinks I’m pretty, so there’s that. LOL

  • Elspeth says:

    Oh, I was feeling a bit weary with it yesterday, so I get it. I even got the “why are you sensitive today?” LOL.

    He made it up to me though.

  • Vanessa says:

    They call it a “neg” because they’ve turned a natural and rather juvenile habit into a learned seduction technique. If you can just make a woman feel crappy enough about herself, she might let you sleep with her out of desperation. The more attractive she thinks she is, the worse you have to criticize her to make her feel that low.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    a natural and rather juvenile habit

    I don’t think it is juvenile – in the sense of being something that mature men outgrow – though: it is just a way that men interact with each other, and to a lesser extent with women. If a close (male) friend starts to get all complimentary it is kind of creepy and creates distance. But a bout of good natured mutual insults, or mixed compliment/insult a.k.a. neg, is something that only works with someone who is a good friend. A guy who is naturally (rather than artificially via Game) negging a woman is bonding with her personality, on the level of a friend.

    You can’t expect men to express intimacy in a feminine way; not if you aren’t trying to feminize them.

  • Vanessa says:

    It doesn’t feel like bonding because there’s nothing good-natured about it. The intent is often malicious.

    It also suggests an intimacy that might not be there, but that they are actually trying to artificially create through the criticism.

    For instance, if I see a man trying on a jacket in a store, I could go up to him and say, “That color is all wrong for you. It makes you look green. Try the red one, instead,” and he’ll instantly feel like we have some sort of emotional connection because I took a liberty with him. Con artists do this all the time.

    So, if some guy who’s just seen me at the library a few times comes up and says, “You look awful today,” he’s managed to establish a relationship by implying that he’s an expert on what I usually look like. I may never have spoken to him before, but I’ll find myself standing there, trying to figure out where we know each other from.

  • Morticia says:

    There is a subtle difference between a neg and an insult.

    If a guy says to me I have a big nose that is an insult. If he says to me “not everybody could pull off that nose like you do” he has both told me my nose is big but also complimented my appearance.

    Which is actually a better compliment than just saying I am pretty, because it shows me that he has made an accurate assessment and isn’t just desperately trying to flatter me.

    My husbands friends neg me all the time but it is very rarely hurtful and thankfully not so complimentary that it creeps me out.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    I’m not going to defend PUA’s “negging” as part of their sexual garbage collection function — it is the rough equivalent of the false friendship of the salesman trying to sell a bad product to a sucker (no juvenile jokes on the unintended pun, please). Any social dynamic can be used to tell lies, and I am not going to defend anyone telling lies using any means.

    But when it comes to “natural” negging as part of natural social interaction I think you may be trying to swim upstream. Men will show affection (again more to each other than to women, but also to women) by giving each other good-natured Hell. That’s just how we roll.

    If you think about it, it makes sense that masculine men would naturally act this way. With a close friend it bonds without creepy supplication. With others it is a natural, even unconscious DHV. With enemies it genuinely irritates. So how (generic) you respond to my negs tells me what I can expect from you.

  • Morticia says:

    I agree that having to codify masculine behavior does hint that instincts are gone for most.

    A couple of observations. I think it use to be rare for men to “neg” a woman’s appearance. I think it was more common to neg her behavior and it was just a given most women are pretty, and were even referred to as so in the way they were spoken to “Hello, pretty lady” was at one point just common courtesy, not a pick-up line.

    Well, at least I get that impression from the old movies I watch.

  • Vanessa says:

    Similar-age men I know personally don’t compliment me. They try to remain studiously neutral or go out of their way to say something nasty.

    They sometimes seem to feel the need to explain to me what they find unattractive in women. They don’t like black women or white women, they don’t like short women, curvy women, frivolous women or studious women, dark haired women, slutty women or prudish women, natural beauties or artificial ones, reserved women or unladylike women, gold-diggers or career women, modest or immodest women, or (my personal favorite) women with fake breasts. And then *drumroll please* they’ll lean over and say, “No offense.”

    They must teach that neg in Man School. Just name some quality that describes or even doesn’t describe her, and then say “no offense” and wait for her to start qualifying herself.

    There are a couple who tell me that I grow lovelier every time they see me, but they say that to EVERYONE, even their 80 year-old aunt. They’re just Latin that way.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    They sometimes seem to feel the need to explain to me what they find unattractive in women.

    I obviously can’t speak to your personal experiences. It is possible that we are considering multiple phenomena, some of which are natural masculine social behaviors and others of which are simply jackassery.

  • Vanessa says:

    Someone just pointed out to me that my lack of a college experience colors my views.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    Someone just pointed out to me that my lack of a college experience colors my views.

    It probably does.

    Even back in the 80’s college was filled to overflowing with sluts and playa’s; and liberal modernity was chemically attached to every oxygen molecule. People who went through that level of brainwashing end up thinking about the world in very provincial terms: as just one example, consider the neocon view that Muslims are just one revolution shy of becoming a modern liberal society like ours. Everyone want’s freedom!

    The sheer cussed provincialism of universalist liberal modernity is maddening. “I see provincial liberals; they are all around me; and they don’t know they are provincial liberals.”

    It is no surprise that frogs boiled in the college pot are incapable of seeing anything but frog soup.

  • Morticia says:

    No college here either…no wonder I am so “backwards”. lol

  • Vanessa says:

    I think men assume that if they make fun of my appearance I’ll just laugh it off, but I was a hideous preteen because of a car accident and various medical treatments and that colors my self-image to this day.

    Also, I think men tend to assume that other men are giving me compliments, but they all assume that. They think they’ve got an edge by negging me, but they ALL NEG ME, so it’s like… okay… you’re the third guy who’s asked me if I dressed in the dark today. Very original.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yeah, Morty. We both skipped college and married young and immediately started having babies. We live on a different planet from a lot of women, but men assume that we’re all on the same orbit.

    I remember how a girlfriend of ours put it.

    Our husbands think we walk around in Pretty Woman Land, where men shower us with compliments, jump to fulfill our every request, and lie down in the street so that we can walk on them without getting our dainty feet muddy.

    Yeah, sure.

    This is the mentality that colors the whole conversation.

  • joycalyn says:

    I wonder if beta orbiting is due to the over-presence of females in a boy’s life. I’ve taught other people’s children in multiple places over the years and inevitably there will be a boy or two in the group who feels bullied because the other boys are putting him in headlocks or refusing to use his real name in preference for an unwelcome nickname, etc. Then mom gets involved, female teachers get involved, and the offending boys are required to apologize for they know not what. And it’s impossible to convince the women that the boys were offering their friendship because it’s just mean and they shouldn’t be allowed to be mean. Then, of course, the boy who had trouble reading the friendship offers is left friendless because the other boys either ignore him or speak to him only when necessary. I’d so much rather deal with the first type of boy than the second. Boy boys can be a challenge, but aren’t difficult to love. Beta orbiters in training require lots of prayer to love. The sad thing is most of these boys do have dads, but I guess dad never got between the mother and son as is necessary.

  • Vanessa says:

    One of the most interesting things from the Roissy quiz for women is that at the bottom it says:

    “Unlike the men who took my Male Dating Market Value test, I do not expect *any* women to be completely honest with themselves taking the Female Dating Market Value test. The female ego is simply way too fragile to absorb the shock of such a brutal self-assessment. Therefore, I will be mentally subtracting 10 points from every woman who posts her score here in the comments.”

    If anything, I erred on the conservative (negative) side when answering the questions, as I always do, so when I saw that I just thought good grief. His assumption is that women suffer from chronic overconfidence. That we constantly have men fawning over us and telling us how wonderful we are and running to do our bidding, and that this skews our impression of our own attractiveness.

    If this is the sort of attitude these guys have, then it’s no wonder that their theories don’t make any sense to me and my interactions with them are such a total nightmare.

  • Vanessa says:

    That’s a good point, Joycalyn. Also, I’m wondering if beta orbiting is an American thing. I can’t recall a European man ever acting like that. I spent my late teens and twenties in Europe, so maybe I missed my big chance to collect a few. LOL

  • Zippy says:

    It is natural for boys to learn at mother’s knee, and I’m pretty sure natural negging behavior starts long before he would join Dad in the fields, on the hunt, in the garage, and in the workshop.

    Dad’s absence may be part of the picture, but I’d guess that at least part of what we are seeing is boys raised by feminists.

    I was raised by the sort of mother who wouldn’t hesitate to pull the pistol out of her purse (she usually had one) and shoot anyone who was threatening her kids. Non-feminist non-liberal moms can tell the difference between bullying and boys being boys — and how to channel the former into the latter rather than punishing the latter as the former.

  • joycalyn says:

    It is definitely a feminist view – an uncomfortable number of women I deal with view boys with strong suspicion, and this is among homeschoolers. I can’t imagine what it’s like among women who pride themselves on their feminism.

    It was recent revelation to me that men don’t apologize when they’ve done nothing wrong (I know, I think I should have noticed sooner as well :-D). Women tend to require apologies from children for other people feeling bad with the belief that you’re apologizing for hurting the other person’s feelings, not for doing anything wrong. I’ve been reflecting on the possible effects on a boy’s character to be forced to admit to doing wrong because he was relating in a normal way.

    It seems to me if a boy becomes accustomed to second-guessing himself to please the women it must have an effect on how he relates to them as an adult.

  • alan says:

    Joycalyn,
    Your last two comments are spot on. Any generalization or simplification merely amplifies your premise. Here are some personal observations to support your comments:
    *** Boys are surrounded by women in their early years. They form the bulk of a boy’s experience, soon resulting in distorted understanding and decidedly effeminate behavior. Beta orbiters just carry this pattern into “adult” life.
    *** If one woman – or girl is unhappy, all females in the vicinity become unhappy. Thus, a boy’s life will become VERY uncomfortable if he fails to comply with the feminine trope of a “good boy.” In an instant, he may be greeted with a veritable wall of disapproval. It’s a withering experience – even if he has done no actual wrong.
    *** Despite all of the modern fuss about bullying, boys will typically sort each other out in short order. Female intervention mostly delays and distorts the process.
    *** The ubiquitous suspicion towards boys is truly astounding. I have seen this for decades and cannot believe that it goes unchallenged. I’m making it my personal goal to combat this evil wherever and whenever I find it. I’ve already made several enemies – both within and without my own family. So be it.

    It seems to me if a boy becomes accustomed to second-guessing himself to please the women it must have an effect on how he relates to them as an adult.

    This is huge. Say it again and again – especially when you hear cries of, “where have all of the good men gone?” They have been trained to be followers instead of leaders. Ironically, the more reasonable and circumspect men have been culled from the pack of potential leaders, leaving more despotic types to carry the banner for men in general. It’s a lose-lose scenario.

  • alan says:

    Morticia and Vanessa,
    No college? Really? I didn’t see that one. Huh.
    By the way, you didn’t miss much that’s good.

  • Steve Nicoloso says:

    Remember, women find only about 20% or so of men attractive

    Says who? That doesn’t even strike me as plausible. I find most normal-weight and virile amen at least mildly attractive unless they start whining or act like a total ass, and I don’t know any woman who feels differently. How else would the human race have survived until now?

    Two words: structural alpha–arrange society in such a way as to make men higher status than they would be in a pure laizzes-faire bonobo sex market.

    And I think the 20% figure probably more accurate if you look at the pickiest decile or so of women, unmarried 18-25 yos (which in a sane world would be peak marriagability), which, and I mean no disrespect, not well represented in Zippy’s fangirl brigade.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’ve tried community college twice, but I dropped out after a semester both times. I was working full-time while attending evenings. I missed out on the college dating scene entirely, which is a mixed blessing.

  • Vanessa says:

    That’s true, Steve, but I wasn’t actually that picky when I was younger either. I wasn’t scraping the bottom of the barrel, but I also didn’t ever suffer from a surfeit of male attention. To put it delicately.

    I think there might just be something about the modern dating market (which I’ve never been in, cause I’m sorta old LOL) that makes women unusually picky. Maybe it’s the poor job prospects of young men now. The guys I dated all had steady, well-paid employment. And they were all slim. So many young men are fat and generally out of shape now. Unemployed, in debt, unfit, etc. I didn’t encounter any of that. And no supplicating behavior.

    And, of course, they were German. I think I missed a lot of the weirdness by just moving to a different country when I was 18.

  • alan says:

    I’ve tried community college twice, but I dropped out after a semester both times. I was working full-time while attending evenings.

    Generating income instead of amassing debt? Shame on you.

    I missed out on the college dating scene entirely, which is a mixed blessing.

    Bah. I know what you’re getting at, but the experience simply isn’t worth the price. Too much waste, immorality and sheer idiocy for the meager return of understanding what the “big deal” is. Put it in context of Romans 6:1-2, and skip it.

  • Zippy says:

    I second what Alan said.

  • alan says:

    Both of my daughters are in college and I grind my teeth about it, constantly. The options are lousy:
    *** Hold them back and shelter them, hoping that marriage works out in this crummy environment? While enduring a constant barrage of hatred from everyone for “limiting their choices” and “ruining their futures.” Fabulous.
    *** Toss them into the college meat grinder and hope that they emerge with some morality and sense intact — in addition to marketable skills? Hardly any better, I dare say.

    In my (meager) defence, they are in scientific disciplines, but I wonder where this will lead them. And I keep on praying for wisdom…

  • Vanessa says:

    I do sometimes lament that I don’t have the self-assurance and self-confidence of someone who spent years essentially beating men off with a stick. It sounds like a nice problem to have.

  • Vanessa says:

    STEM subjects are probably better, Alan. I was in engineering for about eight years, and the men mostly left me alone even though women are in the minority. It’s hard to compete with whatever they’re working on. I didn’t meet any real playas until I started hanging out with the finance and S&M guys.

  • alan says:

    Vanessa,
    That’s backward and you know it. The “in crowd” along with their minions (orbiters) don’t have confidence in the sense that you mean it.
    Their confidence is a mile wide and an inch deep. Prick them and they deflate, violently. Sometimes I enjoy tormenting them and watching the house of cards crumble. This should seem familiar to you…

  • Vanessa says:

    I don’t know. It might not be actually true, and their self-delusions might make it hard for them to deal with reality, but they seem pretty happy in those bubbles. Reality can be depressing.

  • alan says:

    A simple test: Is confidence from the inside or the outside?

    You won’t convince me that you want to live in a delusional bubble. Hah. Enjoy your own world. It fits you better. Leave the ego inflation to others — despite how happy they may seem to be. At any moment, the wind can shift and they will become utterly unhaaaaaaaappppy. Sink your roots deeply into the truth and bask in the price that was paid to redeem your soul. Man and his mercurial whims can’t hold a candle to that comforting fact. Who needs orbiters?

  • Vanessa says:

    Can’t I sink into the truth and have orbiters? Then I’d have a redeemed soul and somebody to dote on me. It’s seems so unfair to have to choose. LOL

    In all seriousness, Alan, one of the major drawbacks of women not going to college is that you often end up dating significantly older men. My confidence wasn’t very high to begin with, but it dropped like a stone after that and has never recovered. I’m finally starting to have a more realistic self-image, after being married for nearly a decade (hey, better late than never, eh?), but it doesn’t take much to have me back in baggy clothes and messy ponytails.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s less that I’d like orbiters than that I wish men didn’t assume that I have some. I feel like men are finishing a fight with me that they started with someone else.

  • Peter Blood says:

    I took two gorgeous women to an academic award ceremony, one on each arm; I never dated either, though one jokingly asked me to marry her when I got back to my seat with the award.

    They were Vanessa and Morticia, yeah?

  • Zippy says:

    Hah! I expect Vanessa and Morticia were in middle school at the time.

  • Vanessa says:

    Besides, he clearly wrote “gorgeous women” not “aging goth chicks”. Obviously can’t be us, duh.

    Everytime someone tells me that I’m unattractive, I add another pic to my gravatar profile. It makes me feel so delightfully spiteful and ironic. Unfortunately, I’ll soon have about 84 pics on the profile, at which point I’ll just start feeling depressed again.

  • Cane Caldo says:

    Boys from a very young age will naturally tease the girls they like. It is a way of showing attention and even affection while maintaining status: beta orbiting without the beta.

    You may notice men doing this to each other also: we rag on our friends as a way of showing affection. The closer the friend, the more brutal the ragging.

    That many people seem to find this profound, and give it labels like “neg”, is a symptom of the death of masculinity.

    Yes. I give those men a pass on inventing the term “neg” (when “tease, josh, etc.) already existed because parents, churches, and schools brutally punish any transgression of teasing. The boys who become betas are, for the most part, boys who are interested in keeping in line–so they internalize these teachings ( teasing is bad; fighting is bad; looking is bad; etc.) so to be thought well of.

    I think for some men, calling it a neg shortcuts that indoctrination.

  • Vanessa says:

    Beta orbiters are simply “get out of trouble” free cards for most sluts.

    If these culturally Anglo chivalrous white knights didn’t exist and enable wrong

    *sigh* It’s so depressing to see white knights and beta orbiters set as an equation.

  • Zippy says:

    Mort is 30-ish, right? Hell, she was probably in kindergarten in the late 80’s.

    Cane:
    Good point about taking a language-detour around the indoctrination. Postmodern problem, postmodern solution.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think she’s a year younger than me, so 31.

  • Zippy says:

    OK, so I was in high school when all y’all were born.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yeah, I figured you were much older. You have a paternal air. Thanks for letting me be emo today, guys. I’ll go back to being all smart and stuff tomorrow.

  • Zippy says:

    See, Vanessa, you too can do the neg. Hah!

  • Vanessa says:

    I am innocent until proven guilty.

  • Morticia says:

    V is the queen of the neg. Recently she called me “determined and contrarian” and said that I was attractive like a vintage bus. If she isn’t careful I might start to crush on her.

    I guessed Zippy at 42-45.

  • Morticia says:

    Zippy’s fangirl brigade

    I feel so dirty.

  • Vanessa says:

    LOL

    V is the queen of the neg.

    What can I say? It’s a gift.

    I like negs, but it depends upon the intention behind them and who’s giving them out. Also, they need to be balanced with compliments. I give fantastic compliments.

    My avatar is going to go full goth today. Just cause.

  • Vanessa says:

    Well, it was going to go goth. I picked this one out, and then my daughter said, “Mommy, why do you look so angry?”

    Nevermind.

  • Elspeth says:

    They’re just Latin that way.

    Yeah, it’s true. But run across a couple of flirty ones in one week and it’s great for the ego, LOL.

  • Micha Elyi says:

    The term “slut” is a female-specific insult referring to a woman with loose sexual mores. Egalitarians are frustrated by the supposed fact that no insult with equivalent social sting applies to men…
    Zippy Catholic

    I nominate “womanizer” as the counterpart insult with “equivalent social sting” against the target of the insult. Plus, from Team Women’s point of view, “womanizer” has the benefit of clearly marking out females as the target’s victim class thus adding to female Victim Power. The victims of the slut are less well defined although – whaddya know! – females can and do claim they are the slut’s victim class too. (Oh well, if it weren’t for double standards would Team Women have any standards at all?)

    The manosphere… has proposed that there actually is a roughly equivalent insult for men: coward. This is a useful comparison in terms of the social sting of the evaluation: a man labeled coward bears an approximately equivalent social sting to a woman labeled slut. It is also useful because sluthood is unladylike behavior and cowardice is unmanly behavior, generally speaking.

    First, let’s get clear that “the manosphere” is not a man, nor any individual, and does not have any defined leadership – such as a Pope, you may be familiar with the office, yes Mr. Zippy? – that can speak on behalf of “the manoshpere”.

    Words mean things.
    –Rush Limbaugh

    Even Rush “gets it” – to use a little 1970s feminist lingo. Now, we return you to our regularly scheduled comments.

    Because the sexes are not identically situated and have different sex-roles, reversing the man and the female in the same circumstances often does not produce situations that can in justice be treated as equivalent. For example, someone thinking at the level of a feminist might propose a Male Beauty Contest judged by females as a circumstance that would produce for men the same experience of objectification that feminists claim females suffer. However, when the experiment is enacted in Real Life only the SNAG sorts feel the ‘pain’. (Gentlemen are merely embarrassed, mostly for the females who insist on such a charade.)

    So when trying to find a genuine counterpart to “slut” one must first evaluate how the term is used within the terms of the female sex-role. Then we must hunt about to identify the counterpart men’s sex role and locate a counterpart insult within the terms of that sex role. The person who suggested the true equivalent to calling a female “slut” is calling a man “coward” was probably thinkng that “slut” attacks a female by packing accusations the female is unchaste, unladylike, and an unreliable protector of her man’s paternity of her issue. “Coward” attacks a man by accusing him of weak character, ungentlemanlike, and unreliable as a protector of a female.

    But sluthood refers to specific concrete behaviors and attitudes, while cowardice is a much more general category.

    I wouldn’t have put it quite that way. Rather, if the two terms are not sex-role counterparts it is because the term “slut” is much more narrowly involved with the sexual behaviors considered “bad” in the female sex-role than “coward” is with respect to the man’s sex-role.

    This is why I earlier suggested “womanizer” as a close (albeit imperfect) equivalent to “slut”. “Womanizer” labels a man as being unchaste, ungentlemanly, and an unreliable protector of a female’s honor – especially with regard to assuming paternity of his issue by her.

    [F]rom an intersexual behavior standpoint, the male equivalent of a slut is the beta orbiter. … Like the slut who gives away her sexuality on the cheap, accepting sexual attention with no commitment or provision, the beta orbiter gives away his provision and commitment without any corresponding receptivity to his sexual attentions.

    This is a very intriguing suggestion, Zippy. It is certainly a reversal – and an insightful one! – yet I don’t see it as a sex-role reversal. My immediate objection is that there is no place in men’s sex-role to be an unrequited dispenser of provision – whether as a soulless ATM machine or a taxpayer sucked dry by a polygynous sugar-daddy Welfare State. Another objection I have is that in your hypothetical situations the “beta orbiter” is sexually powerless whereas the slut is not. And the slut does not lack her own ability to provide herself an honest living.

    Your comparison of the slut with the beta orbiter can be “useful as a foundation for discussion” as you write elsewhere. The comparison certainly illustrates one kind of sexual powerlessness that a man but not a female can experience. And getting some females to realize that experiences of sexual powerlessness are by no means limited to females. That painful territory is divided 50-50 but in today’s world of widespread practice of gynolatry and female grabbing for Victim Power, the real experiences of men are ignored, blanked-out, and made invisible.

    One more thing; the beta provider is responding according to a female demand frequently made these days: “man up!” However, no one can say the slut is at all trying to “woman up!”

  • Micha Elyi says:

    Egh – finally killed that darn loose right-hand angle bracked “<” that was trailing “beta orbiter“. My apologies for the multiple near-identical posts.

    [I fixed the tag and removed the redundant posts, leaving the most recent comment in place under the assumption that it had the most recent edits. Hopefully nothing important got lost in the shuffle. -Z]

  • Zippy says:

    Micha Elyi:
    I nominate “womanizer” as the counterpart insult with “equivalent social sting” against the target of the insult.

    The problem with “womanizer” and the like is that it doesn’t socially sting like slut. Whether it should or not is another question: I think it should, and I personally find such men rather pathetic. But many men consider it a compliment.

    First, let’s get clear that “the manosphere” is not a man, nor any individual, and does not have any defined leadership

    Yes, antiessentialism, whatever. Islam and liberalism have no pope, but they still have an essence.

    My immediate objection is that there is no place in men’s sex-role to be an unrequited dispenser of provision – whether as a soulless ATM machine or a taxpayer sucked dry by a polygynous sugar-daddy Welfare State. Another objection I have is that in your hypothetical situations the “beta orbiter” is sexually powerless whereas the slut is not. And the slut does not lack her own ability to provide herself an honest living.

    You may have noticed that I wasn’t going for perfect symmetry, but complementarity: in both cases the man is the provider (of sexual attention or resources); the woman either accepts or rejects his provision. The modern woman does so selectively, building an ideal composite mate from the contributions of multiple men.

    A slut is sexually powerless inasmuch as she gets no commitment in return for opening herself to sexual attention. But it is true that our society is doing everything it can to make sure that the poor dears get male physical provisioning despite their failure to secure it voluntarily and ahead of time (we call this “marriage”) from the men they sleep with. Beta orbiters are another way — plus they fulfill a woman’s emotional needs in a way that a welfare check can’t achieve with the same punch. The slut divides her sexual needs into alpha and beta, and instead of getting both in moderation from one husband she gets each in thrilling excess from different men.

  • Vanessa says:

    “A slut is sexually powerless inasmuch as she gets no commitment in return for opening herself to sexual attention.”

    Really? I thought “slut” just means that she’s promiscuous. There’s no judgement being made as to the amount of commitment or provision she receives from the men she’s sleeping with. Perhaps she’s simply restless, unusually independent, or has unhealthy sexual habits.

    I’ve always wondered about this assumption because… if men will beta orbit in exchange for very little, can’t we assume that they’d offer more in exchange for actual sex? Perhaps she is unusually desirable. And how many men become infatuated after bedding a woman a single time?

  • Vanessa says:

    And couldn’t a slut be sleeping with a succession of desirable men who treat her well and remain faithful to her? Is poor treatment an essential part of sluthood?

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    I thought “slut” just means that she’s promiscuous.

    It is one of my points that slutty behavior isn’t limited to actual sexual acts. It is always slutty to solicit and accept male sexual attention – including, as discussed above, the kind of sexual attention which is licit for those who are courting – outside of the commitment track to marriage.

    if men will beta orbit in exchange for very little, can’t we assume that they’d offer more in exchange for actual sex? Perhaps she is unusually desirable.

    What is happening is that both men and women are trying to “optimize”. A man can be both cad and beta orbiter at the same time: he sleeps with the 3’s and 4’s he can get, giving them no commitment in return. He pines for and beta orbits the 8 he can’t get, but takes satisfaction in providing her with his beta traits: physical and emotional provisioning. He is alpha to the 3’s and 4’s that he doesn’t really want; beta to the 8 he really wants.

    This kind of man is “in between” on the scale: he isn’t the Omega, starved for any attention at all from the opposite sex. And he isn’t the uber-Alpha, capable of getting any woman he wants. He is relative Alpha and relative Beta, depending on the woman.

    I make no speculation as to how common this is, but it is a natural point on the continuums of the model.

    This is just what happens when amoral atomized liberal consumer society is applied to sexuality. Instead of treating others as whole human beings through courtship and marriage, people treat each other as specialized providers of particular needs in the sexual domain.

  • Zippy says:

    Used to be you would go to a mechanic. Now you go to a tire place, a muffler place, and an oil change place.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    And couldn’t a slut be sleeping with a succession of desirable men who treat her well and remain faithful to her?

    It is a good point that she may be rejecting commitment that actually is on offer. I think that fits the definition though: sluthood is soliciting and/or accepting male sexual attention separate from commitment.

  • Vanessa says:

    “Instead of treating others as whole human beings through courtship and marriage”

    I mostly focus on the virtuous nature of chastity, and the way such virtue ripples through society. The meme of miserable, misused sluts versus happy, loved wives is very unconvincing to me.

  • Vanessa says:

    That’s a clearer definition then. Yes, that one makes sense. I think a lot of women don’t view their own unchaste behavior as “bad” because it brings them tangible benefits and they don’t want to marry.

  • Zippy says:

    Right; but someone who doesn’t want to marry should not be “dating” at all, even if she keeps things from “going too far.” Dating without marriage in mind is inherently slutty.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The meme of miserable, misused sluts versus happy, loved wives is very unconvincing to me.

    It is unconvincing, but the modern Anglo version of a slut and how to treat them, as separate to whores and prostitutes (different class of sexual mores), is incorrect.

    Anglo people see a slut and what to help that poor little thing, she also can’t be judged. And you can’t even discuss about her past habits even once (that’s so insulting). She doesn’t deserve such “hatred” and you are a bigot if you try to actually help her.

    Anglo people also divorce virginity from chastity completely. Virginity and chastity are not the same, but they are related and interconnected. Like a tree, it may not be root, but it may be the branch and vice-versa.

    Sometimes I thank God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit that I grew up in a Latin based culture.

    There was no discussions of “virginity is not related from or to chastity” and no, that precious little Anglo slut deserves so much care and love while doing serial monogamy and eating no-fault divorce porn, and none of those creeps are going to rape stuff.

    I have issues myself, but not those strange issues.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    God Bless A Virgem Maria.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The song I placed above is not from the Roman Catholic Church, but is one way Latin based cultures transmit the ideal of the Virgin Mary.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    As one can see the woman, she possibly herself may not be a virgin/chaste, but there’s something else when she’s singing about the Virgin Mary and vice-versa.

    There’s no “Gosh, the Virgem Maria is horrible” or “I am better” or “Virgins divorced from chaste” or “Virgins vs. sluts” and there’s something (I can’t explain it but maybe somebody else can) that is lacking in the Anglo sphere.

    The whole Anglo Puritan Victorian baggage makes my head spin.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Again, and I am repeating like a broken record, virginity and chastity are not the same, are simply related, but there’s no need to thrash virginity.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I really need to get away from Anglo sexual mores.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    It poisons the mind.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Every time I start getting near the Anglo sphere, and these sexual mores start popping up, I get dizzy and feel odd.

  • JW says:

    So, only women can be sluts? Because it seems the vast majority of men would fall under the “slut” category. Alphas obviously. The Beta orbitor who possibly spreads his provisioning affections amongst several women who are above him on the scale. Or our we condoning sluttiness in men because that’s their God-given role?

    I think the real problem is one that Zippy talked about earlier. You’ve got the beta’s being sluts with women who are a couple notchs below them (maybe a 3-4 while he’s a 6) and then complaining when the alphas do the same with the 8’s that the betas are orbiting. We’re expecting the women to be virgins but don’t have any expectations for that for men. In fact, it looks like the manosphere is perfectly ok with a man bringing a porn problem with him into marriage.

    Like most women, I’m really glad that I don’t have to rely on a pornified would-be alph to provide for me. I don’t need to provision. If it makes men feel bad that I can provide for myself, I’m okay with that. It probably just means that they just want someone to treat poorly in the sex department and to boss around at home. It’s someone to steer well-clear off.

    I think there are God-given gender distinctions. I don’t find concrete “roles” anywhere in the Bible.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s easy to talk big about provision when you’re only fending for yourself and the welfare state and the law are still there to back you up. I know the true value of male provision, and its worth is steadily increasing.

  • Chris says:

    @JW. You don’t need a man… well, do you have a man-sized income? Raising kids is expensive, and that includes buying in help because there are only so many hours in the day. I turn down work to keep it fairly sane.

    I agree with V. here. The welfare state is going to fail. (only a fool beleives otherwise) and it will be a cold world if you don’t have a job… and two can live cheaper and scrabble more income.

    @ Zippy. The male equivelant of the slut is the cocksman or the cad.

  • JW says:

    Actually, yes, I have a man-sized income as do the vast majority of women I know. And while it would certainly be more difficult to provide for my children without my husband, I certainly don’t need him to be a provider. I need him to be a partner in life not a paycheck. And while he certainly would miss the sex I provide, I don’t really think that’s the reason he married me. The problem when we focus on one aspect of a human being as if that is the sum total of who they are “sex provider” or “monetary provider” is that we do ourselves and them a huge disservice. It’s lessens us as human beings. The Bible never suggests that a person’s value is based on what they can do for us (utility) but instead that as image-bearers of God, we have inherent worth. I really feel kind of sorry for relationships that are based primarily on utility — to me, this suggests that divorce is pretty much inevitable — once a person’s usefulness has failed (monetarily, sexual) then we can just toss them aside — unless, of course, we play mind games with them so that we can suck more usefulness out of them. But even that will fail over time. Women age, men lose jobs or become disabled, either could become ill. It’s nice to think that it’ll happen when you’re both old, so who cares — but what happens when you’re 40 and you become ill, lose your job, or …….? Right now men are whining because a woman can now divorce them — but let’s face the facts. Men, even in Jesus’ time were casting their wives off for no good reason. Now that the playing field is more fair, it’s not as simple to be a man. You don’t automatically get what you want just because you have an outy instead of an inny.

  • Chris says:

    @JW.
    Thank you for reminding me: I should have been more precise by what I mean by a man-sized income. It is enough to provide for a family by itself: generally (where I live) that is around twice the median wage.
    Your mileage will vary, but in provincial NZ you need to make around 60 — 80K to manage a middle class lifestyle on a tight budget in a modest (200K with 5% mortgage) house.
    Over here, working is not an option for wives: the family needs the income because the husband is making 50K if he is lucky from his first job. It’s wore in Auckland, the median house is 800K in a good suburb and you need to bring in around 100 -120K. that means that the husband is often working two jobs and the wife one. There are no arguments about who does the housework: it is the one who is not asleep.
    The destruction this does to families… over time, is huge.
    If you are going to be a solo Dad (I am one) you need to make that yourself plus a bit to hire in some help. Particularly if the children are young.

    Onto your other point. You miss the issue here. Most divorces NOW are organized by women. In ancient times, women did not divorce because they neither got the children nor got support. But with the house, alimony and chilamony, there is a perverse incentive to divorce. And Jesus made it quite clear, and this is consistent with the writer of the proverbs and the prophets, that God hates divorce.

    So do not try to say that the field is fair. Because marriage is not about sex and mutuality, it is about children. Raising children is totally unfair on the parents: they give continually. But it is a work that leads to redemption.

    Finally don’t try to proof text your assertions or refer to the traditions of the church: it will not work. The classical reformed position of the reformed church allows divorce but for divorce and wilful abandonment, and the Catholics allow it not at all.

  • Vanessa says:

    Oh, the “inny versus outie” argument. I know when I’ve been beaten. How can two thousand years of tradition and the rise and fall of civilizations hold up against so much wisdom?

  • Chris says:

    @ V. Puzzled. Either

    (a) Do we need to quote the law of Spengler — that at every time and in every society, men get the women they deserve, and vice versa?

    (b) you were negging JW.

    Or both. Or neither. I hope you and the BD and the kinder had a good Easter & you were not frozen, as it appears everyone in England and the Northern Plain is.

    [On, and happy belated Easter to our bloghost, He is risen indeed]

  • Mike T says:

    Right now men are whining because a woman can now divorce them — but let’s face the facts. Men, even in Jesus’ time were casting their wives off for no good reason. Now that the playing field is more fair, it’s not as simple to be a man.

    So what you’re saying is that in about 1-2 generations, it will be perfectly fine for men to start casting off their wives into abject poverty since right now it’s women’s turn to screw the men.

  • Mike T says:

    And no, men cannot be sluts anymore than a woman can be a stud. Both can be promiscuous, but unless you subscribe to a postmodern view of linguistics, men cannot be sluts because “slut” has a specific meaning that excludes men.

    @Zippy

    Q: Since postmodernists tend to believe that words have no inherent meaning (in the sense we can just redefine as convenient) doesn’t this mean that a postmodernist can never legitimately accuse an opponent of misinterpreting them or making a strawman without being a hypocrite?

  • Vanessa says:

    I was being sarcastic.

    Indeed, Mike. Turnaround is going to be a bitch. Men have now seen how disloyal women can be, and their memory will be long.

  • Vanessa says:

    What she earns is irrelevant. Most working women cannot earn enough on their own, without direct or indirect male provision, and that goes double for those with dependents. She tells them all to eat cake, I suppose.

  • Mike T says:

    To add insult to injury, the only reason arguments like the alleged chattel slavery of women for umpteen generations until the semi-modern times can persist is due to the poor historic records of life from those generations. Women will not be able to escape what is happening now unless there is a deliberate and successful effort to shove all of the stats, media, etc. down a memory hole. We live in the most analyzed, recorded society in history.

  • Mike T says:

    If “male sluts” were the same thing as “female sluts” then women with options would be avoiding them the way men with options prefer the least sluttiest possible. The fact that not only do women not typically avoid them, but a significant amount of them completely overlook confirmed male promiscuity shows a key difference there. Women will very often marry confirmed promiscuous men; the opposite is not true. Tell a typical man a woman he is dating has screwed 50 men and he’s more likely to retch than offer her a ring.

  • Mike T says:

    Or consider two cases. You have what (IIRC) was a good looking slut who claimed in a British paper to have 1,000 partners by the time she hit 30. Then compare her to Gene Simmons who, I think at one point, let slipped that he’s probably had at least that many women if not up to 4x that many (exaggeration likely, but not really unbelievable). Just think for a second. Can anyone realistically imagine a woman who is known to have had 1,000 partners pulling the male equivalent to the kind of women that Simmons, if he were single, could easily pull?

  • Vanessa says:

    Ten seems to be a sort of upper limit. Once you move past digit-counting, the numbers get abstract and the impression is just, “Wow, that’s a lot!” But some men have a virgin/slut dichotomy, which can actually make it hard to identify any patterns among those classified as “sluts” because it would lump 97% of women into one group.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I don’t know about men, but concerning women:

    Category 1 – Virgin is untouched.

    Category 2 – 1-2 Partners count is durable chaste monogamy, since she is not into temporary serial monogamy and chooses men well (most likely her family and friends help her in her choices, and she has an excellent network). Marries in her early 20’s.

    Category 3 – 3-10 is serial monogamy lasting several years to decades, depending on the woman. Marries in her late 20’s or early 30’s.

    Category 4 – Above 10 (and other double digits) is a ONS girl, hooking up girl. Doesn’t tend to marry, because she prefers the freedom of hooking up.

    Category 5 – Triple digit woman. Sex crazed or has an addiction.

    Most women are not prostitutes or whores (at least no directly), and few are in Categories 1 to 2, so I’m assuming that many women nowadays are in Category 3, with a large minority being Category 4, then Categories 1-2 (specific religious places, since even some are infected with Category 3).

    Category 5 is non-existent and is pretty much a freak show.

    Categories 1 to 2 don’t seem to be that common, outside of certain places or milieus.

    So in order of most common women:

    Category 3 followed by
    Category 4 followed by
    Categories 1 & 2 followed by
    Category 5

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Virgins (Category 1) marry too, but since they are in lower supply, with modernism and post-modernism having infected some religious places, most men would gape at them and think they are a freak show. So they tend to marry other virgin men (who are freak shows too).

    Virgin = Untouched

    There’s a weird strain in American Churchianity, were they copy Bill Clinton, who thinks that he didn’t have sex with that woman (Monica Lewinsky), because it depends on what the meaning of the word is, is.

    Apparently “oral sex” doesn’t count as sex.

    I think that oral sex is “sex”, albeit not the whole of it, and definitely not on the same level as coitus leading to procreation.

    Fetishes, pornography, BDSM and sodomy are not sex and are abominations or near it.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Words have meaning.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    And there’s some women in Categories 3 to 4, who don’t count that. “Opps, I banged that gorgeous European dude on vacation. That doesn’t count” or “I was drunk and I was date raped”.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I’m scratching my head. How can you not count that dude you banged while travelling around the world, when you were in college?

  • J.W. says:

    Well, the Catholic position is that there is only one form of “sex” and it’s for procreation. So, all those other ‘spicy’ things are not allowed.

    I think men are just being whiny. And women are pretty fed up with it. So, you don’t get the privelege that your dad was used to? — So what. Suck it up. If you want to marry a virgin, it’s probably a good idea for you to be a virgin, yourself. And frankly, if I were in the dating market — and it was some sort of trade-off where I was going to be forced to treat some other human being as “master”, I’d either not marry or I’d make sure he was making $500k a year and was a 9/10 on the scale in looks. Otherwise, I’d be pretty a-ok with getting a pet or two and doing without.

    Marriage is for kids, not sex or money. So the whole “game” concept is pretty unbiblical. It’s just an outlet for sleazy men to try to get sex. What’s new? And yes, men can be sluts. They actually want to be. It’s sad and pathetic and unchristian. Unfortunately, lots of women have been following this ‘leadership’ example set by men and are acting sad and pathetic themselves.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    J.W. how did you find this blog?

    Indeed, Mike. Turnaround is going to be a bitch. Men have now seen how disloyal women can be, and their memory will be long.

    Pretty much.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Oh, the “inny versus outie” argument. I know when I’ve been beaten. How can two thousand years of tradition and the rise and fall of civilizations hold up against so much wisdom?

    Civilizations, societies, rise and fall. It’s a cycle, not linear. Feminism is nothing new. It’s just more virulent, stationary and permanent in the present due to the forces of modernity and the Enlightenment, plus their baby post-modernism (who is disillusioned with modernity but can’t escape it).

    Progressives always vision in the whole evolutionary Darwinian strain. They are trying to evolve into something new, trying to reach that perfect utopia, forgetting that there is almost nothing new under the sun, and think that they are better before all of those “people in the past”. Those horrible backwards people.

    In general, macro evolution is a lie. Micro evolution (different types of dogs or different types of cats for example), not so much.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    *sigh* It’s so depressing to see white knights and beta orbiters set as an equation.

    Apologies. Not all beta orbiters are white knights, but some of them are.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The term “slut” is a female-specific insult referring to a woman with loose sexual mores. Egalitarians are frustrated by the supposed fact that no insult with equivalent social sting applies to men…
    –Zippy Catholic

    Isn’t coward the term for men?

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    To add insult to injury, the only reason arguments like the alleged chattel slavery of women for umpteen generations until the semi-modern times can persist is due to the poor historic records of life from those generations. Women will not be able to escape what is happening now unless there is a deliberate and successful effort to shove all of the stats, media, etc. down a memory hole. We live in the most analyzed, recorded society in history.

    It doesn’t matter to them. They will take a page out of Orwell’s 1984. He who controls the past, controls the future. He who controls the present, controls the past.

    So yes, they will try to make it go down a memory hole (I’m not joking). I don’t know how or why, but most likely burning (the visible) and deleting (the immaterial) whole sections of data, books, manuscripts, heritages, etc…

    But since there is so much incompetence nowadays, the aims may not be achieved.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    They can try to make everything go away from semi-modern times, but I don’t think many will buy it.

    There’s always something right now that records or saves records.

  • Vanessa says:

    Catholics acknowledge that there are different forms of sex, but only one form is valid.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Thank you.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    You do have a point about the limitations of reductionist economic models applied to sex; but it is equally true that all reductionist models have limited value. It is always a mistake to make reductionism an ideology rather than a tool.

    Nevertheless lots of people have lost their shirts betting against the market.

    As far as Christian marriage goes, a wife is definitely subordinate to her husband in terms of authority. If she doesn’t submit to his authority she is in rebellion not just against her husband, but against nature and nature’s God. (They may be “equal” in other senses, though in my view even using the term “equal” invites just the sort of reductionism you seem to be arguing against. They also do mutually submit to the good of each other and the family; but that is a change of subject from the subject of authority).

    People who propose otherwise are material heretics.

    Otherwise, I’d be pretty a-ok with getting a pet or two and doing without.

    It is possible that for many women that will be the only option, at least as long as the remnants of a civilization built by men lasts. After that even spinsterhood with cats won’t be an option.

  • Morticia says:

    I don’t buy that women will easily over look a man with a partner count of 50. The “Ick” threshold is higher for men but it isn’t non-existent. For most women I think the standard is “A few more than me is OK…but dozens more than me is not” From what I have seen women and men generally marry people of comparable sluttiness.

  • Chris says:

    @ JW. Zippy’s Catholic. I’m not. However, the teaching of my church historically was identical. Among the Prots, this was empahasised even more so: men and women are equal in dignity because both were created by God and both are redeemed by God, but in this world we are placed in positions and we have to work within them.

    And in a marriage, there has to be a leader, and the children need to submit to their parents. Classically, that included the selection of young men a women was allowed to court You had to ask permission, and earn that right.

    This included the father looking over your accounts and prospects and at times various characther tests.

    @Vanessa. The church allows sex for mutual pleasure, does it not? Ofherwise, why do we not have the best love poem in the world (Song of Songs) to quote?

    @ Zippy. My church became spineless on theological issues when the funadmentalists left. What is starting to happen is that — after two generations of women micromanaging their fertility — is that a subset of young women are saying (like the TC gals) no, I’m a gonna marry him young and have my kids while I am young. This is the tactic my mother’s generation (born during the last depression) did. They were younger than the war brides, and like hell were they going to wait.

    The teaching of the church, which saw divorce as a scandal and the sailors triald (rum, sodomy and the lash) as grossly perverted, led to a bunc of women who generally now as still married to their husbands, and are quite sane. Compared with the late boomers/ Gen X that I interact with.

    I still think Cocksman has a nice, Victorian, ring and the appropriate contemptuous connotations. It makes me think of that spineless cad, Flashman.

  • Chris says:

    Ach. Sentences ungrammatical. Sorry.

  • Zippy says:

    Chris:
    From my POV cads are if anything more contemptible than sluts, because they are engaged in a particularly pathetic form of submission to women. Roissyites pretend that they are manly simply because that is what women want.

    But society doesn’t structure itself around my POV. And maybe genuinely good women see sluts as worse than cads precisely because that’s how the world looks from the POV of a good woman — e.g. it bothers me more when Catholics behave badly than when (say) Anglicans behave badly.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    From what I have seen women and men generally marry people of comparable sluttiness.

    Great point. People don’t generally marry outside their categories, and if they do, it’s in a category similar to theirs. You can see men and women of categories 1 and 2 together, and even upper category 3 with lower category 4, or lower category 3 with category 2, but there’s little to none category 1 with category 5. Or category 2 with category 6 (four digit partner counts).

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Or category 3 with category 6. Most in category 6 end up with somebody from upper limit category 5.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    From my POV cads are if anything more contemptible than sluts, because they are engaged in a particularly pathetic form of submission to women. Roissyites pretend that they are manly simply because that is what women want.

    I view categories 4 and above to be kind of like the milieu of the feral female, whether it is in male version (cad) or female version (slut).

    Loss of self control, excessive promiscuity, impulsivity without thought, is pretty much a feral female.

    Am I right? Is this the feral female? Or is this wrong?

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    There’s a saying “Men civilize women. Women domesticate men.”

    Is this saying wrong or right?

  • Chris says:

    Feral is used in NZ: generally for those who do not work, do not have stable relationships (apart from their social workers and the courts) and do not raise their kids. It’s a far nastier term than white trash.

  • Vanessa says:

    Yes, Morty, mating tends to be assortative and premarital partner counts align.

  • Vanessa says:

    Chris, not solely for pleasure. Unitive and procreative.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m always astounded at the man hos who fantasize about marrying a virgin and living happily ever after. As if her purity is going to cure him of his depravity, rather than the mismatch creating a constant conflict in their marriage.

    They idolize women as much, or more, as the men they mock. That’s why they sound just as bitter. In both cases, they simply do not see women as complex beings. As fully human. That just sets them up for constant disappointment.

  • Chris says:

    Hey V… um, no. Virgins in my age group are those women who generally are either unmateable (intellectual incapacity or lack of any drive) or have chosen singleness as a religious vocation.

    The repentant divorcee or widow is more like it. Low N, but N is not zero. (in a Trad society, the same would apply: the idea of marrying a18 — 24 yr old chick, no matter how cute, hits the ick factor).

  • Chris says:

    Which, would be assortive mating BTW, and does fall within the grounds of Spengler’s Law. You generally get the mate you deserve.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The constant disappointment with cads is that they don’t seek God nor his Church, they ask and imitate women. And thereby, never move beyond their mistakes.

    Cads are like the male version of feral females. Instead of asking God to help and guide them, they ask female virgins to cure them of their depravity.

    The only thing they get right though, is that female virgins aren’t quite feminine by nature and are more masculine minded (contrary to stereotype, masculine women aren’t typically sex crazed and promiscuous).

    I still don’t get why cads don’t seek God and his Church. A man is a man. A woman is a woman.

    Even a female virgin, is not the same as imitating a virgin man, or a celibate man.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Virgins in my age group are those women who generally are either unmateable (intellectual incapacity or lack of any drive) or have chosen singleness as a religious vocation.

    Interesting. I’ve seen female virgins with no lack of drive, but I wouldn’t say they are intellectually incapable. Where I come from, female virgins are typically more masculine minded and more into philosophy, theology or any of the STEM areas. I think this would fall under singleness as a religious vocation. They usually go there.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    I never got the idea that female virgins are usually feminine. Ever. They are usually masculine.

  • Chris says:

    Alcest, I’m divorced, and celibacy is my cross. I don’t like it. But I am quite aware of what sex does to me. I get oneitis and sex goggles instantly. V is correct: there is a unitive part to sex (as well as procreative until you get to around my age). Oneitis is not a bug in sex, it is a feature. It is designed to bind a man and woman together, so in his eyes you are always that 20 year old sylph he married.

    Our society, however, is perverted. It denies the effects — on both men and women — of breaking those bonds. We may be able to prevent pregnancy (at the cost of the an increased mortality rate for women) and some STDs, but we cannot prevent a broken heart.

    In this world’s system, I’m very beta and therefore seen as a chump to be exploited. The world is going to perdition. I’d rather be righteous than an nice Alpha member of THAT herd.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Our society, however, is perverted. It denies the effects — on both men and women — of breaking those bonds. We may be able to prevent pregnancy (at the cost of the an increased mortality rate for women) and some STDs, but we cannot prevent a broken heart.

    In this world’s system, I’m very beta and therefore seen as a chump to be exploited. The world is going to perdition. I’d rather be righteous than an nice Alpha member of THAT herd.

    Agreed.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Betas aren’t chumps. Alpha cads are more despicable.

  • Mike T says:

    I’d rather be righteous than an nice Alpha member of THAT herd.

    You can just as easily be a beta member of that herd too. Alpha, beta, etc. are not statements of spiritual condition, but rather socio-sexual status. A lot of the righteous men of the Bible would come off alpha to the average churchian beta male. Exhibit A would be David. Heck, the imagery of Jesus in the Book of Revelation is about as non-beta as you can get with Him marching an army against mankind and putting every last unrepentant sinner to the sword in a righteous judgment.

  • Vanessa says:

    Alpha, beta, etc. are not statements of spiritual condition, but rather socio-sexual status.

    This.

  • JW says:

    Except for David had a harem and murdered another man so he could have the guy’s wife. I’d call him a cad and murderer. The only way he was righteous was because he repented. In fact, the vast majority of men in the Bible had huge unholy flaws that God chose to overlook (which leaves me hopeful regarding the plans He has for me, btw).

    “Submission” isn’t up to a man to decide — it’s between a woman and her God (or a man and his God). There’s been only only living man-god on earth, and he died on a cross (thus it isn’t one of you fellows or my husband).

  • JW says:

    Zippy — What!? Gonna deny me my cats!

  • Chris says:

    JW: you have to argue with St. Paul, with the teaching of the Fathers, and with Jesus teaching about obedience to the father. Zippy and Vanessa between them can give you chapter and verse of the Catechism.

    But you are rich, you are wise, and you need nothing.

  • Chris says:

    Zippy, I think we hate being called a cad because we are male, and it reflects on a combination of sneakiness, duplicity and rank cowardice that mean that no man will have you on his team or group (willingly) and all men wil try to keep you away from your sisters.

    In villages, to quote Auruni, Cads get their ass handed to them. In big towns, they gravitate to the most meat-markety nightclubs.

    We could become cads, but choose not to. For a woman, slut is a good parallel.

  • Mike T says:

    “Submission” isn’t up to a man to decide — it’s between a woman and her God (or a man and his God).

    Indeed. And if a woman refuses to submit to her husband and cannot show how submission would lead her to sin, that’s solid grounds to argue for an annulment since she clearly did not intend to be a Christian wife.

  • Mike T says:

    I think JW is just incensed that for all of her posturing, she knows that most men could be just as happy with a Starbucks barista as with a high-earning woman like her. High-earning men don’t need another paycheck, they need a companion. Most high-earning women are business partners, not companions.

  • Vanessa says:

    “she knows that most men could be just as happy with a Starbucks barista as with a high-earning woman like her”

    Even a completely uneducated woman like myself has a chance, as long as she’s young, fertile, pretty, bright, pleasant, and a good housekeeper.

    As I was saying elsewhere, men who have demanding jobs don’t want to have to compete with their wife’s employment. Also, men do select for intelligence, but a “career” isn’t the only indicator for that.

    My husband specifically avoided women who seemed too ambitious, as he wanted a housewife. The same goes for all of his friends. All well-educated, all earning six figures, all married to housewives or women who work part-time. The younger men know what they want and what they are worth, and they aren’t going to tolerate any feminist nonsense.

  • J.W. says:

    Lol. That last made me chuckle a bit. “Incensed” — huh. Ok. So if my husband would rather have had an uneducated starbuck’s employee (or would have been as equally as happy with one), guess what? I most likely wouldn’t have been interested in him. You could call him a “Beta” and say I was just looking for an “Alpha” or somesuch. But the truth is that quality wants quality. Why would an intelligent, educated, high-earning man select for himself an uneducated, not-as-intelligent, coffee-slinger unless he had some major confidence issues? Would I, as an intelligent, educated woman really want someone who would be content with such a person? — No, not really. I think there’s this misconception that an intelligent, educated woman won’t be interested in sex and so a guy better just go for the marginally intelligent waitress to make sure he “get’s some” after marriage. Young men and women both know what they want. I’m thinking neither ideal is a marginally educated, less intelligent coffee slinger — even if they look good.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    she knows that most men could be just as happy with a Starbucks barista as with a high-earning woman like her.

    Most men aren’t high status anyways. So it’s almost like compatibility. If I work here or there, do I want to marry a woman who will belittle me for not being high-status, high-earning, big network or whichever? Nope.

    Ponds are different, but most ponds aren’t part of the elite.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    How on earth did J.W. find this website? Was it through Jezebel? A PUA website?

  • Zippy says:

    Men will sometimes claim that they want women with degrees who can earn, just like women will claim that they want help with the dishes. And they do want those things – for reasons which have nothing to do with sexual attractiveness. They aren’t the kind of thing that creates sexual energy and bonds man and wife even in small doses; and in excessive doses they are relationship killers.

    Men are mainly attracted to prettiness and a pleasant personality. Intelligence is in the mix too, though not as important. When it comes to sexual attractiveness, career achievement (not to be confused with intelligence) in a woman is worth somewhere between nothing and a significant negative.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    The reason career achievement is neutral to negative, is because it’s a very masculine quality. And unless you’re a homosexual, it’s not on top of the list regarding sexual attractiveness in the opposite sex.

    It kind of messes up the sexual polarity I think.

  • Zippy says:

    I should say that I don’t think it is career achievement per se that is unattractive in a woman. It is all of the nearly-universal concomitants.

  • Vanessa says:

    If both of you have career ambitions, but want to have children, then one or both of you will have to cut back. If he’s very serious about his own career, he’s going to be wary about that, and prefer someone who will happily take the backseat.

    Also, women who work full-time have both elevated testosterone and cortisol levels, which makes them more aggressive. Some (most?) men don’t want that. Women who are more homebound tend to be more docile, and therefore more pleasant.

  • Vanessa says:

    But the truth is that quality wants quality.

    This is undeniably true. You could also make it more universal and simply state that mating is assortative. Where you are wrong is in thinking that a career-focus is something that men perceive as raising a woman’s quality.

  • J.W. says:

    That’s the problem with generalities. I think you wrongfully assume that career-focus for a woman means something that it likely does not. Having the intelligence and persistence to succeed at something that is difficult is desireable. It’s only a small segment of men who are woefully unmasculine that really find an intelligent woman off-putting. They would be better off with a waitress or high-school drop out. Compatible. If a man isn’t seeking a counter-part for himself, but someone he can feel superior to, then he’s not really much of a masculine man (at least not in the ideal Godly sense). And if a woman accepts a man who is less intelligent or less capable than herself, then she isn’t really living up to her true feminine self (utilizing the unique gifts that God purposefully gave her).

    In a sense, I agree. If a man isn’t intelligent, or motivated or skilled then it certainly makes sense that he wouldn’t find those things appealing in a spouse. The only universal that both men and women really seem to “desire” physically is an attractive mate. Women have a lesser drive for this than men; but the whole concept of “Game” is the horror behind women capitalizing on the fact that while both sexes desire physical beauty — men are driven far more by this than women and are at a dissadvantage (in this one little arena) versus women.

  • A Lady says:

    Wow, it’s super super rude to presume that being a waitress means a woman is both stupid and inferior and that any man who chose her must needs be ‘unmasculine’. Do you not read over what you post? The condescension towards 90+% of woman (and men, as well) is staggering. And this despite the fact that your own posted efforts offer little indicator that you possess the supposed cleverness that makes you smarter (and apparently in this ‘better’) than a waitress or ‘coffee-slinger’.

  • Vanessa says:

    It’s only a small segment of men who are woefully unmasculine that really find an intelligent woman off-putting.

    Nobody is saying that men select against intelligence, although they do select for similar intelligence. Most married couples are within 20 IQ points of each other.

    You are the only person here making this assertion because you cannot fathom that there are intelligent women who are content to follow their husband’s lead. You are presenting wifely intelligence and wifely submission as opposites on the spectrum, rather than as complementary factors. There are many intelligent women who have more interest in the home than in the workplace, even if they do work for pay.

    Being a ball-buster who is obsessed with her independence isn’t really something limited to the upper classes, you know. The ghetto is full of the same sort of woman. Hillary and Shanaynay have a lot in common, and both are decidedly unattractive. That men actively select against them should be obvious, even to you.

  • Vanessa says:

    I never sold coffee, but I did spend a summer working at a deli and there was a dint of peddling Spanish fashions to gentlemen. In short, I have proven that I know the value of hard work and that I don’t mind getting my hands dirty or wearing my soles out in service.

    This is, perhaps, something men will find attractive in a prospective wife.

  • Zippy says:

    Ugly is the new beautiful. Masculine is the new feminine. Sheeplike “feminist merit badge” careerism is a sign of intelligence and independent thought.

    And if it is stated with a condescending enough attitude that makes it true.

  • Zippy says:

    Look at that feminist merit badge. Isn’t it sexy?

  • J.W. says:

    Actually, it was another poster who brought up waitress/coffee-slinger. I was jut running with that analogy. I don’t know that having intelligence and a career makes one a “ball-buster”, but – ok. And, nope, I never said that submission was counter to intelligence. That’s never a position I posited.

    In fact, as Vanessa seems to agree, people will likely choose a mate that has similiar intelligence as themselves. Like I said. Compatible. I never used the word “inferior” — that really is an insulting word. Of course “ball-buster” is kind of insulting, too.

    And, not being a huge fan of HIllary (I’m assuming you’re referring to Mrs. Clinton) I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to point out that she’s been married for 20-something years. Obviously, her intelligence and college degree didn’t disqualify her from a marriage proposal — and to a future President, I might add. So how is it that “men are actively selecting against them”?

  • Vanessa says:

    What is fascinating is that she is describing her wifely virtues as if she were a husband. She is ambitious, highly-credentialed, brilliant (we’ll just have to take her word for it), determined, persistent, skilled. She hasn’t mentioned how tall she is or how much she can bench-press, but I’m sure we’d all be similarly impressed.

    Can she cook and keep house? Is she pretty, or even beautiful? Is she kind and generous? Is she frugal, shrewd, and well-informed? Is she interested in the liberal arts, so that she can educate her children? Is she devout and faithful? What sort of mother is she and how fertile is she?

    These are things she thinks take a backseat to her degree.

  • Zippy says:

    Rumor has it that Sports Illustrated is going to replace the Swimsuit issue with a career trolls issue.

  • Vanessa says:

    I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to point out that she’s been married for 20-something years.

    To a cad and probable rapist who has spent that entire time trying to escape her bed. I’m surprised that I need to explain that no man on the planet envies her husband his wife.

  • J.W. says:

    If a man is “all that” — intelligent, good-looking, christian, educated …. then it makes sense from a biological standpoint (procreation) that he’d want someone who also is intelligent, good-looking, christian, educated (the same would hold true for a woman, as well) to have children with. Really, do you think that men or women are going to choose someone who is unintelligent & unattractive to have children with if they’ve thought things through? If my IQ is 165, then do I really want to marry someone who’s IQ is 110 (average)? If I’m really attractive, am I really going to go for someone who is physically unattractive? — Probably not. At least if I want to have children with them and I’ve given it any real thought…

    So, let’s say that a man has “thought things through” and he has decided that he’d much rather have a wife who is less than brilliant and who is just OK in the looks department but who is willing to cook & clean for him at home all day (and call him “master”) than have one who is brilliant and good looking but who’d rather hire someone to do household tasks. This is going to be the mother of his children. Biologically, it makes far more sense to have a higher likelihood of intelligence/looks in your children than to choose the likelihood that, at best, they’ll be average in both departments. Not just that. But who’s teaching your kids? — the brilliant mom who can discuss science, religion, and is well-read or the one who had a hard time with earth-science in 9th grade and hasn’t read a non-fiction book since high-school?

  • Vanessa says:

    Rumor has it that Sports Illustrated is going to replace the Swimsuit issue with a career trolls issue.

    LOL

    Yes, every man is very impressed with a woman’s ample resume. That’s what the kids are calling them nowadays.

  • Vanessa says:

    “If my IQ is 165”

    I call BS. You clearly don’t know how IQ tests are scored.

  • J.W. says:

    LOL. Yes, I do. Do you?

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    It appears that you keep equating careerism with intelligence, wit, fortitude, independent thought, and other desirable (even when not particularly sexy) traits. In my experience they are often, especially in women, inversely correlated.

  • Chris says:

    Back onto topic (I think). The more attrractive women will have people orbiting them. Particularly if they have a bunch of guys to whom they have siad LJBF and then let them hang around. The argument (thesis) is that this is a soft harem of emotional support without the need for all that messy bonking.

    Is it other people’s experience that this is something that happens in workplaces? There are a bunch of women I have deliberately friendlisted because I work with them and (since I am serious about my career) I know that making a pass at them could be career suicide. The correct approach, in these days of politically correct sensitivity, to any person at work is one of great caution and suspicion.

    But I make coffee for them. Literally. However, I also make coffee for my male colleagues, as part of team building. I’ll help them, but I’ll help the (rare) male colleague as well.

    I will confess that I tease them by using their titles a LOT. Mainly because calling them “Dr” embarrasses tthem — which again is fairly universal in NZ: we tend to work by first names.

    Is work now the place of the soft harem for women? and is that why JW is so wound up?

  • A Lady says:

    My point, such as it is J.W., is simply that being a waitress is no sign in itself of intelligence and additionally that most people in general cannot select on ‘intelligence’ (except in the most technical and relative sense) because most people…aren’t.

    To quote you:
    “It’s only a small segment of men who are woefully unmasculine that really find an intelligent woman off-putting. They would be better off with a waitress or high-school drop out. Compatible. ”
    That is a big implied ‘waitresses r dum lol’ from you, J.W. And that’s rude.

    You clearly subscribe to college credentials=intelligence, which has not been conclusively the case as long as there have been colleges and degrees.

  • Chris says:

    JW: college credentials above the masterate are inversely correlated with raw intelligence (the “G” factor), FWIW. I must add that I am quite skeptical of the idea of a G factor.

  • J.W. says:

    I agree that 165 is high (when my husband looked it up, he told me that my score would be on-par with Einsten). It could have been a fluke. I haven’t take another IQ test since. No need. The truth is that I’m no Einstein. I don’t have the creativity that he exhibited, obviously. Nor do I have the particular drive to do too much with my IQ that’s way outside the norm. I find myself bored easily, though. Anyway. You could easily substitute 145 for the 165 and get the same point that I was making.

  • Elspeth says:

    Having the intelligence and persistence to succeed at something that is difficult is desireable.

    Like educating a houseful of children, managing the family budget, helping him administratively with his business enterprises, and still managing to look halfway decent while doing it?

    All of these things meet that criteria and none require a college degree.

  • Zippy says:

    A Lady:
    That is a big implied ‘waitresses r dum lol’ from you, J.W. And that’s rude.

    She claims she picked up on the waitress-contempt theme from another commenter. But Mike T’s comment was complimentary toward pretty baristinas with nice personalities, not contemptuous of them.

    Masculine men don’t naturally find the things valued by feminism attractive in women. The feminist response is sour-grapes contempt, and the “threat” of depriving those pathetic men (who they can do without, high five!) of the awesome awesomeness of feminists through spinsterhood with cats. Sour grapes.

  • Vanessa says:

    All of these things meet that criteria and none require a college degree.

    But they’re all things that don’t matter, E. Only a loser would value such talents in a prospective wife.

  • J.W. says:

    Lol. No, I picked up the waitress as “nothing more than being pretty” theme from Mike T. A pretty waitress is great. Lots of pretty single waitresses out there. If you want to train your daughter to be a pretty waitress, more power to you. Not sure if it’s the sure-fire plan to win her an attractive, intelligent, wealthy man. But hey, it might just work. But what if it doesn’t? What if she ends up as the cat-lady? Then she’ll be a waitress cat-lady, which is so much better than being a college-educated well-paid cat-lady?

  • Elspeth says:

    But they’re all things that don’t matter, E. Only a loser would value such talents in a prospective wife.

    A woman is only as wife worthy as the number of degrees behind her hyphenated name. LOL.

  • J.W. says:

    So, it seems to me that a few folks have their dander up because they’re not college educated and choose not to be. Hey, that’s your choice and if that’s what you want to do, obviously it’s working for you. The point of contention that seems to exist is the assertion that a man would rather have a pretty waitress as a wife rather than a pretty college-educated woman, all things being equal. I call that bunk.

    …. Or the assumption is that the waitress is very pretty and the college educated woman must be hideous. Obviously this doesn’t hold true for real life as there are a good number of pretty co-eds in the world. Or the pretty waitress is nice and kind and the college educated career woman isn’t. Or the pretty waitress is sexually available to her husband while the career woman couldn’t possibly be. Or …

  • A Lady says:

    J.W., why are you splitting (constructing obviously false dichotomies as a form of ego protection)? Pretty isn’t incompatible with smarts, and smarts aren’t incompatible with working a service job. And there is no sure-fire plan to win an attractive, intelligent, wealthy man (although the waitress route has a decent success rate). Also, attractive, intelligent and wealthy don’t necessarily run together as often as many try to pretend.

  • Elspeth says:

    Actually J.W, I am college educated. I have just found it incredibly useless and yet this man paid off all the loans on my useless degree because he decided I was worth that.

    All the things that I do, which was part and parcel of the list I offered not to mention being an excellent cook, I still could have done without the degree.

    I am not against college education for women. I have 3 daughters living at home and attending college right now. What we do not want is for them to think that their value as a wife is tied up in whatever degrees they earn.

    Because it isn’t.

  • Elspeth says:

    Oh, and I was a waitress working my way through college when I met my husband.

    I’m no Einstein, but I’m intelligent enough.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m currently the only woman here who does not have a college degree. My intelligence isn’t in question, though. Especially not as in question as a woman who claims to have a higher IQ than Einstein. Super-genius feminists predominate on the interwebs, but they are surprisingly thin on the ground, all of their precious bits of paper notwithstanding.

    What if she ends up as the cat-lady?

    Cat lady tendencies increase with years of education.

    As for college degrees, there is one sure-fire way to make them sexy: hold onto them while wearing absolutely nothing else.

  • Chris says:

    @JW
    You are missing the point. It is not what your IQ is — 2 sd above mean is required to hang around Zippy, and mnay of the commentators here are closer to 3 sds above mean (if you say your IQ is 165 that instantly makes me think the test has a mean of 110 or 115 such not 100 as the original Binet did).

    It is not tne number of degrees you have. I have three, or four, depending on how you count them. Or your research productivity, which, for my sins, I have to measure 😦

    The topic was attractiveness. This is measured by the gender you want to be attracted to. My qualification in talking about that is (a) heterosexuality and (b) a Y chromosone. Achievements are neutral. Arrogance about them is unattractive.

    I was married to a highly driven, career focuses woman. Not again. Not because I do not like career focused or intelligence. I find competence highly attracive). But because dealing with someone who competes all the time and is proud of being a strong independant person drains you of energy, rather that restores you.

    Today’s lectionary reading is about producing fruit in our lives. It is within the text to discuss children here. It is within the text to discuss wisdom and influencing others here. It is not in the text to crow about degrees, or job titles, or IQ. I do thank you for the text though: it made a good exemplar for today’s lectionary note on what not to do.

    Stop being patronizing to a bunch of women whom I respect, to my Papist friend who runs this place, and go do some reading. Many of the people you are arguing with here have everything you see as making you rich and wanting nothing. You forget that you, like all of us, are poor, in rags, weak, and stupid by other measures. Such as God’s.

  • J.W. says:

    Elspeth — I submit that no-one’s value as a spouse is tied up in a college degree, regardless of gender. But, that’s not the point. The point is the assertion by some that being educated places a woman in an undesireable light. That educated, intelligent men would rather have a pretty waitress rather than a pretty college educated wife.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    all things being equal.

    All things are almost never equal. If we are going to invoke ceteris paribus, a woman with a full time professional career simply cannot be as good a wife and mother as a woman who devotes her time and energies to the latter. Laws of physics and all that.

    As I’ve pointed out in entirely different situations, all other things equal ceteris paribus doesn’t make for a very good real world argument.

  • Elspeth says:

    The whole IQ thing just washes over me because mine is comparatively low (120) compared to the rest of the crows here at Zippy’s. Oh well.

    As for college degrees, there is one sure-fire way to make them sexy: hold onto them while wearing absolutely nothing else.

    LOL, Vanessa. I guess you have a point.

    Gotta go sweep some floors- for the second time today 😉 .

  • Vanessa says:

    The point is the assertion by some that being educated places a woman in an undesirable light.

    No, that is not our assertion. We are asserting that men don’t care much about it at all, that it is no substitute for more highly-valued qualities, and that there is good reason for this. Namely, that men don’t desire the same things in women that women desire in men.

    Furthermore, please stop equating professional credentials and career ambition with education or intelligence.

  • A Lady says:

    J.W., have you and your giant brain ever heard of the term ‘bluestocking’? Overeducation reducing a woman’s marriageability has been around a long time.

  • Vanessa says:

    The whole IQ thing just washes over me because mine is comparatively low (120)

    Your husband will be so disappointed to find that out. And here he picked you out for your talent in discrete mathematics.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Look at that feminist merit badge. Isn’t it sexy?

    Love the word “feminist merit badge”. Sums it all up nicely.

    What is fascinating is that she is describing her wifely virtues as if she were a husband.

    Touché. Lack of sexual polarity (androgyny), sex inversion or homosexuality? Take your pick.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Namely, that men don’t desire the same things in women that women desire in men.

    That’s the crux of the problem. Forgive me for saying this, but projection is typically a female quality. And various women are projecting what they find attractive in men, unto themselves. Or projecting towards men, what they are feeling inside.

    This springs up again and again, from the whole wealth inequality stuff, to the welfare state, to date rape and sexual harassment, to etc.

  • Zippy says:

    Vanessa:
    And here he picked you out for your talent in discrete mathematics.

    (Man choose Woman) = m! / (w! (m-w)!)

    If you weren’t silly housewives you would get it.

  • Zippy says:

    alcest:
    Love the word “feminist merit badge”. Sums it all up nicely.

    I got it from Dalrock.

  • J.W. says:

    I’ve been married for 20 years. My husband actually thinks I’m quite feminine — as in “I’m so glad you’re feminine”. I am smart. I didn’t describe myself as brilliant (not really sure where that came from). I did say that my IQ was measured at 165 and that average on that scale was 110. So, the only thing you actually know about me is my IQ… And a few opinions/ideas that I espoused regarding the generalities of attraction (not just physical) between men and women seeking spouses. I’m not seeking a spouse. So I’m not in the brilliant, college educated, pretty, unmarried category that we were hypothetically discussing. My husband thinks I’m pretty — “Wow, you’re so beautiful” — but he’s biased. I don’t really care too much what other men think or women, really. I have 4 children, 2 of whom attend private Catholic school (middle and high school) and the other 2 are in college.

    I do think that it’s absurd to say that a reasonably intelligent and competent man would be turned off by a well-educated and intelligent woman. It’s just not true in real life. You put 2 single women in a room, both of whom are good looking, same age, no kids, etc — and one of them is college educated and the other is a waitress …. are you really trying to go there with “the guy would definitely choose the waitress”?

    But, we have digressed way off topic. Back to that. I see nothing wrong with platonic friendships between adult males and females, if they are unmarried. If a guy is being nice to a woman because he hopes to have a sexual relationship with her and she’s not interested; I just don’t see an issue with it. Actually, it seems quite appropriate. You can’t say that there’s something wrong with a woman going after looks and then also decry a man trying to woo a woman with something other than looks. A woman should have a “harem” of available men to choose from. It’s called dating. And as long as there is no sexual hanky-panky going on, it’s the socially acceptable method by which 2 adults choose spouses.

    Not too sure what you mean by a harem at work. That seems odd to me. If you are doing something nice for someone because of their gender, as long as it’s not sexual in nature — I’d just think it’s a nice gesture. I’ll make coffee at work in the morning, too. There’s an empty pot & I make the next one. I’m the boss, so it’s not like it would be my default duty or something. It’s just common courtesy.

  • A Lady says:

    Shorter J.W. “I don’t care what anyone thinks of me, so I will provide a massive flattering biography and continue splitting”.

  • Mike T says:

    Lol. No, I picked up the waitress as “nothing more than being pretty” theme from Mike T.

    Which just goes to show that IQ, once at or above average, has no correlation with reading comprehension or ability to avoid strawmen.

  • J.W. says:

    Wow. You guys are just pretty well bent on being abusive to anyone who slightly disagrees with you. How do you get along in the world, if that’s your approach? Someone mentioned that you knew nothing about me, so I provided a little information. Should I have mentioned that I have morning breath or what? Should I have lied to you? So weird, that you seem really invested (bitter) regarding someone you don’t know. If it’s any consolation, I could stand to lose about 10-15 pounds. Does that make you feel better? — though, I’ve got to be honest again — I have a super flat stomach and a huge chest, so no-one (ie my husband) notices the extra 15 pounds. I am starting to get some wrinkles between my eyes — you could harsh on me for those, if you want to. Also, generally speaking, I let the clean laundry pile up at home in the “laundry chair” for about a week or so before I get around to folding it and putting it away. I rarely unload the dishwasher at home, too. I hate doing it and so make the kids do it. There you go! Criticize away. I’m sure you’ll get some satisfaction from savaging a stranger on the internet. Perhaps you could come up with some more colorful/hateful names?

    (They like me! They really, really like me!!)

  • Mike T says:

    Obviously, prettiness, intelligence, education, sweetness, etc. are not inherently tied together. A man has to decide what things he values in a woman. If he values intelligence and education at a premium, he’ll find that many American women with those traits in spades are not particularly pleasant, agreeable and looking to be traditional wives. Such a man may very well find that the price of having an intellectual conversation is dealing with an insufferable b$%^h.

    As women, like men, are packaged and balanced differently, it is quite possible that an intelligent, highly-educated man could find a beautiful woman of average intelligence to have plenty of good things going for her that make up for anything she’s lacking. It is quite possible that she might be incredibly agreeable and flexible such that the life they have together just flows together seamlessly. Obviously there is nothing inherently correlated to intelligence about this, but it has been my experience that the more intelligent and educated a woman is, the more stubborn and difficult she often is.

    The reality for women is that this flexibility does not exist for a typical woman. A high-earning, high-status woman would be almost completely incapable of being genuinely happy with a solid, blue collar man of god. She could simply never see him as her equal in a material sense, and she would be right. Men don’t need equals for wives.

  • Mike T says:

    Wow. You guys are just pretty well bent on being abusive to anyone who slightly disagrees with you.

    This is how we show you we like you.

  • A Lady says:

    Shorter J.W. “Now I will proclaim how conventionally hottt I am while declaring other commenters bitter and jellis!”

  • Vanessa says:

    LOL Pix or it didn’t happen.

  • J.W. says:

    Ah. And there we have it. “Men don’t need equals for wives.” — No, I suspect that for a non-christian, you wouldn’t need someone you consider to be “equal” to share your life with. The Catholic take on this is much different.

  • Zippy says:

    Here are some thoughts on the various uses of the label “equality”.

  • A Lady says:

    Oh, is J.W. also a Doctor of the Church now too? We await your next screed with bated, jellis breath.

    OK, I am laughing too much to continue. Y’all have fun with this dame, she is a font of pure humor value.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    J.W., don’t pervert Roman Catholicism into something it isn’t.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Maybe Zippy can “game” her or something.

  • Zippy says:

    A Lady:
    Oh, is J.W. also a Doctor of the Church now too?

    She was rather dismissive when I cited the Catechism of Trent.

  • Vanessa says:

    I think she’s just a reverse-troll, trying to make feminists look bad. That’s my current theory.

  • Mike T says:

    No, I suspect that for a non-christian, you wouldn’t need someone you consider to be “equal” to share your life with.

    (wife == husband) == false; //false

    If you know what I mean.

  • J.W. says:

    A Lady — I don’t think you’re jealous. I think you are, perhaps, a little bitter. Neither is particularly becoming. What’s it matter to you if I am attractive or rich or smart — does it impact you, even a little bit? No. Just as it doesn’t impact me one bit if you are a perfect “10” in the looks department, cook gourmet meals, are fluent in 3 languages, and are happy at home. Great if you are. That would be a good thing. I’m not wishing bad things upon you. I just think that when we make generalized statements that they should, generally, be true.

  • Mike T says:

    Well, false if you’re a liberal. Otherwise it’s true.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    I just think that when we make generalized statements that they should, generally, be true.

    Agreed. And generally speaking, careerist women are poorer wife material and less attractive than non-careerist women. (Note the absence of mention of intelligence). College to some extent and careerism to a greater extent tend to destroy a woman’s suitability for marriage.

  • Vanessa says:

    “What’s it matter to you if I am attractive or rich or smart”

    It doesn’t. We’re not bitter, we’re completely underwhelmed.

    If you’re going to be such a tiresome, feminist cliché, you could at least be decorative or a bit more entertaining. Without pics or something funnier than your persona, we’ll all lose interest eventually.

  • Vanessa says:

    “If you know what I mean.”

    LOL I do, actually. Talk nerdy to me.

  • Vanessa says:

    Oh, alright. I’ll start the nerdy jokes. My husband called me up this morning to voice his frustration with a foreign bus system.

    CAN bus, that is.

  • Vanessa says:

    Encyclical duels… now it’s getting entertaining.

  • Zippy says:

    I’m so wacky that I get my Creed from the Council of Nicea.

    Hermeneutic of discontinuity is three flights down on the right.

  • Vanessa says:

    But doesn’t Catholic doctrine carry an expiration date? If not, that whole Bible thingy might seriously cramp my style.

  • Mike T says:

    But doesn’t Catholic doctrine carry an expiration date?

    No, silly, only we Protestants (ie non-Christians according to JW) have sunset clauses in our doctrines!

  • Mike T says:

    What I find interesting about JW is that she obsesses about equality while denigrating people who marry those less intelligent than them. She seems to think it is a personality flaw for a man to put a lower premium on intelligence in a woman over other factors. A man with an IQ of 165 who marries a pretty, sweet, submissive, fertile and domestic women with an IQ of 115 is defective to her. I think this speaks to some instinct in her which sees that woman as genuinely inferior to her therefore a man who prefers that woman must be inferior because he cannot handle JW or is afraid to. It couldn’t possibly be that no matter what JW is personally, many women in her alleged position are not nearly as nice and amicable as she claims to be.

  • Mike T says:

    FWIW, contra her argument about IQ equality between mates, my parents have probably a 15-20 IQ point difference favoring my mother. My estimated IQ is nearly identical to my mother’s IQ.

    Genetics are a flip of a coin as much as anything else. Plenty of high IQ families that get a kid with mental problems ranging from depression or severe ADHD to autism or even retardation.

  • Chris says:

    @Zippy

    I’m so wacky that I get my Creed from the Council of Nicea.

    This prot stands with you there. JW, you better assume that most of the guys on the other side of the Tiber have some understanding of the church fathers, though I must confess I have difficulty concentrating when Augustine keeps on going about stealing fruit from an orchard.

    Hermeneutic of discontinuity is three flights down on the right.

    Difficulty with a magesterium: it allows for a cafeteria approach. Christ does not. And to be fair, The RCC would argue they do not. You have to do some serious hamsterbation to justify a non traditional position when it comes to marriage and call yourself a Catholic. Unitarians on the other hand… (well, they are heretics)..

    @Vanessa. Well the bus could be completely obsolete. Like S100, and having to deal with CP/M.

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m so wacky that I get my Creed from the Council of Nicea.

    Oh really? When was this council, perhaps I was in town? I’ve been to Nicea and they have most excellent beaches, but it can be a bit crowded when the Parisians show up for summer break.

    Or am I misspelling that?

  • Vanessa says:

    Chris, can you believe that part of the microcontroller had fallen off? LOL!

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m currently battling my way through improbable possibilities and demonstrative enthymemes, and I must admit that you guys are so much more interesting. *sigh* Nothing a fifth cup of coffee can’t cure.

    “the poet should prefer probable impossibilities to improbable possibilities” Quotes to chew on.

    So, if I were writing a play, I’d say that it is a preferable turn of events that JW would have a sudden epiphany and accept that her husband chose her for her looks and general chattiness than that she’d stop being so annoying and misquoting Catholic teaching.

  • J.W. says:

    Mike (my favorite name, btw) — Most people aren’t nearly as nice as they claim to be. It’s the human condition. I’m not really a “nice” person. I’m pretty straighforward at work as it calls for a certain degree of callousness to deal with a variety of staff members and clients without getting too personally involved in the outcome of exchanges. Sometimes you just have to lay it out for people, because, well, that’s your job. At home, I wouldn’t say that I’m all that “nice” either. I’ve got 3 teenagers and 1 middle schooler. You’ve got to keep things pretty tight or things will go awry. I’m nice to my husband, but he’s nice to me — so that’s easier. I’m a laid back kind of person, naturally, so I don’t get too upset over most things. Experience has taught me that there are very few things that are really worth getting upset about. Very few.

  • J.W. says:

    I haven’t misquote Catholic teaching at all — as I haven’t quoted it at all. I did link a letter from Pope John Paul II — which would be pretty hard to misquote, since its a link.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    You certainly haven’t shown that JPII repudiated Trent (or any earlier or later expressions of doctrine, for that matter). You’d have to show your work – including making explicit your hermeneutic of discontinuity – if that was your intention.

  • Vanessa says:

    Aargh! She got me on a technicality. I am beaten.

    Shall we do the syllogism structure next?

    Syllogism:

    Being ugly is awful.
    JW is not ugly.
    Therefore, JW is not awful.

    Oh wait… oh dear. I think I’ve got it all wrong. My logic seems a bit off.

  • Vanessa says:

    LOL I think I’m actually going to use that one. It doesn’t make good sense, but it’s funny.

  • Vanessa says:

    Oh, I know! How about:

    Masculine men find intelligent women attractive.
    Intelligent women all have college degrees.
    Therefore, masculine men do not find women without college degrees attractive.

  • Vanessa says:

    Here’s another:

    Men need equals for wives.

    Therefore, men married to their equals are happier.

    Sorry, I can’t think of a minor premise for that one. Perhaps JW will help fill that in.

  • Vanessa says:

    One more, please humor me: illustrative parallel example.

    It is unwise to marry an overeducated woman who can’t cook or keep house. That is like purchasing a clock that can’t tell the time or a boat that leaks water.

    You’re very welcome.

  • Vanessa says:

    Okay, I lied. One more: fable.

    There once was a brown hen who fancied herself the favorite of the rooster. She spent days honing her cry: cock-a-doodle-doo! She worked hard at keeping the other hens in line, paraded around the perimeter of the coop yard, and occasionally challenged other roosters to fights, all in order to prove her roostering credentials and impress the rooster of her dreams. She noticed him observing her efforts, and preened.

    Then, one morning, she awoke to find the rooster had fertilized another hen’s eggs. The horror! When she confronted the rooster as to why he did not reward her roostering prowess with a nest of chicks, he calmly answered, “I’m a rooster. I don’t mate with other roosters, I mate with hens. She seemed like a very henny-hen to me.” She was livid and told him that he just wasn’t rooster enough for her.

  • Black_Rose says:

    (Man choose Woman) = m! / (w! (m-w)!)

    If you weren’t silly housewives you would get it

    I got it; it’s the binomial coefficient. I know my PDFs, despite being afflicted with disomy X , but the Barr bodies do regulate gene dosage.

    BTW, is there some bias that prevents women who are housewives from knowing that even when controlling for M or g?

  • Black_Rose says:

    In other words is there something inherently masculine about knowing the binominal coefficient?

  • A Lady says:

    No, sweetie.

  • Vanessa says:

    Definitely not. That’s high school algebra.

    I did think it was clever of him to select a formula that included the word “choose”. LOL Very fitting.

  • Chris says:

    @ BR: no, but you need to realize that the choice about trad and non trad relationships, like divorce, is binary.

    @ Vanessa. I know I married an over educated woman, but do you need to rub it in that much? EW and Bill Price DID make the same mistake 😦

  • Vanessa says:

    I’m not rubbing it in, I’m just practicing.

    I think I need to revamp the parallel:

    It is unwise to marry an overeducated woman who can’t cook or keep house. That is like purchasing a designer clock that can’t tell the time or a yacht that leaks water. Flashy and overpriced, but rather useless.

  • J.W. says:

    You made a funny, how clever. Of course, your story doesn’t actually hold true in the real world (dang! If only it had, I’d really have been taught my lesson, now wouldn’t I!) Selecting a husband who can’t (or won’t) cook and clean is pretty akin to your analogy, above, if you want to think of it in those terms.

    Personally, I just keep my husband around for the sex. ….. well, and the companionship, humor, cooking, cleaning, interesting discourse, nice paycheck, loving spirit, great head of hair …. but mostly, the sex.

  • Elspeth says:

    @ JW:

    You’ve been outwitted by the housewife with no degree, ROFL.

  • Vanessa says:

    LOL She’s also completely missed the fact that she’s not my primary audience.

    At any rate, I think EW’s post today really ties into this discussion. It’s excellent advice for marriage-minded men, from start to finish. An excerpt:

    …we both married talented and intelligent women who over-valued career and work…and who later resented both the career impact of children and a less-than-egalitarian division of childcare responsibilities subsequent to children. Unbeknownst to our youthful selves, feminism sets a trap for unwary women and men, one which (generalizing greatly here) sets the average woman’s innate desire for home and family and children in opposition to the secular values of career and materialism…and then tells them they can and should have it all.

    Frustration and unhaaapiness usually follow in short order, testing the mores and values of women with the promise of more of that elusive happiness, underwritten of course by a soon-to-be-ex-husband about to be person-trafficked for financial gain. Lesson learned: Michael Noer was right: don’t marry career women, who generally tend to be less happy in marriage than their more traditional counterparts.

  • Morticia says:

    This thread managed to make me feel really good about being an uneducated moron. This might be a first.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Morons aren’t at the lowest. They are dull normal people and near average.

    Idiot —> Imbecile —> Moron —> Normal/Average —> Above Average —> Genius

  • Morticia says:

    Thanks, Alcest. You really know how to flatter.

  • buckyinky says:

    Whatever Pope John Paul II intended by Mulieris Dignitatem, it appears that many prominent Catholic women have taken it as the green light to think like Marxists.

  • J.W. says:

    I do feel sorry for both men and women in “traditional” marriages. So, so caught up in “utility” — using one another. There’s no room for grace or acknowledgement of a covenant. No substance to the relationship beyond “what’s (s)he doing for me?” It seems to be a grasping relationship. He dominates his unequal wife while she “proves” herself by being useful to (though lesser than) her husband.

    It is so contrary to what the Bible (and the Catholic Church) teaches that it is disturbing. It’s without Grace.

  • Zippy says:

    “If I only had a brain …”

  • buckyinky says:

    At the risk of psychologizing JW, she provides a comment that displays this very way of thinking. History (i.e., “tradition”) is replete with man oppressing woman.

  • Morticia says:

    Don’t waste your pity. There are those that need it more.

    Traditional marriages..like egalitarian ones…are happy or unhappy based on the affection both spouses have for the other.

    A husbands authority is no more a burden than a parents authority is over a child. Some parents abuse their authority, as do some husbands..but the solution isn’t to reject husband authority. That just creates a different set of problems.

  • Mike T says:

    I do feel sorry for both men and women in “traditional” marriages. So, so caught up in “utility” — using one another

    Statistics show that’s actually the modern marriage where everything is “equal.” Few wives are more unhappy than the modern “equal” wife who finds that her husband doesn’t do at least 50% of all possible tasks around the house.

  • Elspeth says:

    I do feel sorry for both men and women in “traditional” marriages. So, so caught up in “utility” — using one another. There’s no room for grace or acknowledgement of a covenant. No substance to the relationship beyond “what’s (s)he doing for me?” It seems to be a grasping relationship. He dominates his unequal wife while she “proves” herself by being useful to (though lesser than) her husband.

    Yes, J.W. your perception and analysis of a “traditional” marriage is quite far from what the Bible teaches.

    Most traditional marriages however, look nothing like what you describe. Since the Bible clearly and repeatedly asserts that the husband is the head of his wife and family, I’d like to know how you figure your interpretation of Christian marriage is closer to the Christian ideal.

    You, as Morticia noted, left out the affection, and you left out the grace also even though you included the word in your comment.

  • J.W. says:

    The ideal of a “traditional” marriage is one that negates both grace and affection. Notice how I put “traditional” in quotations — because, frankly, what is being espoused as “traditional” today is anything but. The dichotomy of having one person who is subserviant to and lesser than another person and the lesser person being utilized as a “tool” — who can easily be replaced if the functionality of that tool is compromised is not a historically accurate representation of christian marriage.

    The seemingly modern version of “traditional” marriage denies the interdependence of the two people involved.

  • Elspeth says:

    You are such a feminist that you have acquired the tendency that they have of changing the definitions of words.

    How you have come to conclude that having anyone in the lead position relegates everyone else to the status of an easily replaceable “tool” is beyond me.

    I was joking with my husband quite recently and said to him, “You wouldn’t know what to do without me”. His reply was, “That’s actually very true.” Yep. Sounds like he views me as easily replaceable as his old pipe wrench.

    This is a fruitless discussion. It took me a minute to get that, but I do now.

  • A Lady says:

    J.W., the dynamic you’re describing is modern woman-led ‘egalitarian’ marriage. And the wife replaces the husband when he fails to serve her purposes sufficiently. Your own description of your husband fits the definition you gave of what you falsely represented as ‘traditional’ marriage.

  • J.W. says:

    A Lady. I was being facetious. Funny how nobody thought a thing about it, though, and assumed that using someone for sex was A-Okay.

  • Zippy says:

    J.W.:
    one person who is subserviant to and lesser than another person

    That’s the way liberalism views all natural authority: as in effect creating a class of subhumans. The ultimate violation of one’s humanity is to be subject to human authority.

    When liberalism encounters the reality that authority must be exercised in the real world, though, every solution becomes a Final Solution.

  • A Lady says:

    J.W., silence isn’t assent.

  • J.W. says:

    An egalitarian marriage is one in which both parties are free to exercise their particular gifts, talents, and natural dispositions to the benefit of the family structure, regardless of what those talents are. There are no firm boundaries dictated by gender. No one is “replaced” as both are fully invested (and vested) in the family structure. How many times have complimentarians listed off “duties” as a definition of who their spouse is: cook, housekeeper, bread-winner, boss, subordinate as fixed and determined by gender rather than traits specific to the individuals involved? What happens in the complementary world-view when a man or woman strays outside of the “role” dictated by their gender? — they are shamed, criticized, contemptible. — That’s the problem. Complementarians want to fit all pegs into round holes without acknowledging that some pegs aren’t meant to be crammed into a hole that doesn’t fit. Plenty of square and hexagons in the mix of both genders. Solutions here seem to be directed along the lines that those square pegs should either pretend to be round or are somehow unworthy of marriage. Not realistic. It’s all very userery — people as tools to be used.

  • Zippy says:

    That’s right. Everything is juuuuuuuussst fine in the world of modern liberal egalitarian marriage.

  • Vanessa says:

    There are no firm boundaries dictated by gender.

    Yes, egalitarian marriage led directly to gay marriage. First, make man and wife interchangeable, then leave one out entirely.

  • A Lady says:

    J.W., here’s a match to light that charming straw-man on fire.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    Yes, egalitarian marriage led directly to gay marriage.

    There is something indeed quasi-homo about J.W.’s arrangement and views. I thought I overreacted by referencing homosexuality, but it was right.

  • Chris says:

    There are no firm boundaries dictated by gender.

    Yes, egalitarian marriage led directly to gay marriage. First, make man and wife interchangeable, then leave one out entirely.

    You need to add that egalitatrian marriage removes the idea of duty and over emphasises personal happiness and self fulfilment, which meant that marriage became something fungable. The loss of lifetime marriage except in extremis opened the door for an androgynous model.

  • J.W. says:

    If you are leaving one person out entirely — then you wouldn’t be married, you’d be single. The idea of egalitarian marriage doesn’t remove the idea of duty (I think responsibility to be a better term as duty is something put on to you rather than responsibility being something you take on yourself). Anyway. There isn’t an androgynous model (unless your referring to homosexual unions — though that’s a misnomer, as well). You’ll notice that in egalitarian marriages folks haven’t adopted some sort of uniform dress & haircut for both genders so that people kind of look like a man and kind of look like a woman. We look just like everyone else (though, to be honest — not the long skirt wearing no hair-cutting segment of fundies/pentacostals). Nothing androgynous about physical appearances. So, if a specific role or function is to only be performed by a man or a woman — then we’d need to be pretty clear that men only do THIS and women only do THAT, ever. If you’r a single man and men don’t cook or clean — looks like you’ll have to hire someone until you find a wife or better yet — you’d best just live with your parents. Women don’t work or self-regulate their lives — best make sure you have someone (perhaps dad or a brother) supporting you and directing you until you marry. And if you don’t marry — well, looks like you’d best just set up shop at your parent’s house because you’re never leaving. Are you actually advocating this (for both genders)? Let’s not do halfway. Either both men and women have descrete, fixed roles their entire lives or they don’t.

  • Mike T says:

    @J.W.

    A very simple explanation would be that you cannot have a division of labor when you have only one laborer. At least not a division in the sense that ordinary people mean it. Technically, if you have 3 tasks divided by 1 worker that is still a division of labor but it necessarily means 1 worker is doing the same work load as 3 workers splitting the same set of tasks.

  • Mike T says:

    And the reason I chose 3 tasks is to show that this argument will scale to include polygamy and distribution of effort.

  • Chris says:

    JW, there is a difference between two people working as androgynous partners (both grumbling the other cannot do tasks properly and two people working in a compementary fashion.

    I think you can get away with being androgynous before you have kids, Apart from in bed, and in the church (there are specific duties for husbands y’know). But when you have small kids, you end up having to work in a complementarian fashion.

    You simply cannot have it all. My generation DRANK that Kool-Aid, and the consequences for us, now that we are in middle age (I’m of the Punk generation, that does not fit into the Boomers or Gen X) is that we are not with companions, we have become single, with a nice dose of pauperization from the family courts as some form of hot sauce on a shit sandwich.

    My generation screwed up. Do not do likewise.

  • There’s actually a bit of irony with the waitress versus career woman meme as for most men, both women are going to be awash in the same level of feminism. In effect if one plays by stereotypes, at least the career woman will fit some of the middle class demands that some men want from their wives. There are plenty of elitistist who are unwilling to date down lest they feel shame from their friends and family.

  • alcestiseshtemoa says:

    There’s actually a bit of irony with the waitress versus career woman meme as for most men, both women are going to be awash in the same level of feminism.

    You’re messing up the underclass ghetto woman, with the working/lower middle class waitress.

    Under class ghetto women are quite feminist, the upper middle class is as feminist, but the working class is perhaps the least liberal.

    You see a ghetto woman, you get a feral woman, a single mother or both.

    You see an upper middle class woman, you see either a barren career woman or one who managed her baby rabies and snagged someone.

    You see a working class waitress, you see a woman who is okay to work with, has her flaws and all, but isn’t a pain. She’s okay with both sexes and is neutral to okay about kids.

    There are plenty of elitists who are unwilling to date down lest they feel shame from their friends and family.

    Of course.

  • thebigpappy says:

    Very nicely crafted article. There is an older word that resembles the insult “beta orbiter” : pussy whipped.

  • […] The male equivalent of the slut is the beta orbiter. […]

  • oogenhand says:

    Reblogged this on oogenhand and commented:
    A friend of mine developed the idea of the Anti-Harem against Islam.

  • anonymous says:

    I wonder therefore whether just as a woman can sleep with a man out of her SMV league, the Beta Orbiter is likewise showering attention and resources on women out of his league i.e. sex would be on offer if he targetted less attractive women

    Nah. A female 6, who can pull male 9s for flings but not for marriage, generally has beta orbiters who are 6s. Not 2s.

  • […] and young adulthood. On the side of slut-shaming (that is, shaming of actual sluts), there is this post (and related) by the Zippy […]

  • Opus says:

    I think one of the problems for sluts is that they tend to be confident, and thus they carry all before them; the world is their oyster and they are going to swallow it whole. Men are cads and have high partner counts so why shouldn’t they too. No one ever suggests that they ought to ease up on indulging their desires, or points put that with the rarest of exceptions men do not have high partner counts: if a man suggests it he looks like a bitter loser and if a woman, she is merely jealous of her rivals success. It is only when – as time passes – the promiscuous woman begins to notice, that when she hints at something more long-term, the men make their excuses. Thus: there are no good men.

  • […] also suggested that beta orbiting behavior in men corresponds to slutty behavior in women; that some women have “harems” of beta orbiters in much the same way that some men have […]

  • […] because one decides not to misuse sex in the same way.  In fact, as Zippy Catholic explains in Women have harems too, the man who offers romantic love inappropriately is in some ways the male equivalent of a […]

  • […] put the protagonist into a pornographic scene. This is usually fornication and adultery, but an emotional affairs[1] will do. Once in awhile sex and love between a husband and wife is depicted, but by-and-large […]

  • chubnut says:

    Game and hypergamy are new phenonomen on the internet like so many other ploys to take advantage of people in fragile situations, like asking a girl for a date. Its like porn on the net is 95% male so this nonsense applies to the insecuries of 95% of males trying to do a better job of dating. Of course it makes a lot of sense from a certain stand point if you meet an unfortunate woman who has issues.

    My annoyance with all this is it paints women with the same brush, evil, egotistical maneaters. Yes there are nasty women out there, just as there are many bad men but how does this nonsense take into account women of different psyches, maybe not so intelligent and so forth.

    Human personalities are far too complex for a sudden rise in these internet fueled theories. as usual they prey on the insecure and when it comes to insecure feelings. sex and intimacy is the most fragile.

  • Zippy says:

    chubnut:

    Yes there are nasty women out there, just as there are many bad men…

    I think though that bloggers like Dalrock make a perfectly legitimate point that our society is more than willing to acknowledge the (real) moral failings of bad men, but devotes tremendous amounts of energy to rationalizing away the real moral failings of bad women.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

What’s this?

You are currently reading Women have harems too at Zippy Catholic.

meta

%d bloggers like this: