Over on Patriactionary, a proudly reactionary and patriarchal Christian blog, the blogger who calls himself electricangel is angry at himself – for not being an even bigger douchebag than he already is.
You see, he’s just heard from his wife that one of her friends isn’t happy about hitting the big 4-0. Apparently, his wife’s friend
broke down in tears, sobbing uncontrollably. What had hit her was the realization that she was 40, with no husband, no children, no prospects of either, and she was staring at a future of loneliness.
His reaction to this news?
I wish I could tell you that an evil smile of vengeance crept across my face, and the children this woman discarded were getting their revenge upon her. That this was payback for riding the cock carousel for years, always aiming at the guys she wanted, not the guys she could get.
But alas, hidden deep inside in his tiny misogynistic heart there remains a tiny fragment of sympathy.
But I cannot tell you anything other than how saddened I was at her tale, and how this sadness will rip out the hearts of so many women who did not set out to become lonely, childless spinsters, but whose families and societies removed the strictures on their behavior so that their own lack of self-control was left unbounded. This will be the ongoing social disaster of coming years.
I did say it was a tiny fragment.
But he still wants to use this woman’s story for his own ends.
In discussing this woman, I am insistent upon her becoming an object lesson to my wife, and especially for my wife to tell the beautiful, smart, virgin young women close to her about what happens to carousel riders. Life is a coin you may spend any way you like, but you may only spend it once. This woman spent it on an amusement park ride. Now the park is closing, she has been thrown off the ride, and faces 45 years of solitude.
Yeah, because no woman over the age of 40 is capable of ever finding a date or a mate.
Yeah, because her sadness at hitting 40 is going to last for the rest of her life.
Oh, and the bit about “the children this woman discarded?” She didn’t “discard” any children. She simply didn’t have any. She’s not “discarding children” any more than those with penises instead of vaginas are “discarding children” each and every time they masturbate to orgasm.
In the comments, not everyone is quite so restrained as electricangel.
“I don’t even know this woman and I’m pissing myself laughing at her,” writes one commenter going by the name Friendzone. “Fuck her.”
Take The Red Pill is equally unsympathetic:
I have NO sympathy for this woman whatsoever. Just like most Modern Women, she bought into the feminist deception with eyes wide open with never a thought about the future. Well the future has arrived and it looks a lot like a cold, lonely one for her – just like the cold, lonely youth and young adulthood that MOST men have had and continue to have.
Karma has come due, and the bicycles have realized that they don’t need fish, either.
When women like her are young, they treat decent men abominably – being as cruel and sadistic as they can be when rejecting an ‘unwanted’ man’s advances – simultaneously, they enjoy being ‘free whores’ for every player, dirtbag, and Alpha thug who crosses their path; then when they reach their thirties and are little more than ugly, repellent, diseased trollops (often with some thug’s illegitimate spawn or two in tow), they complain about ‘the lack of good men’.
Others adopt Electricangel’s more, er, mature approach. Will S. decides to be a pompous dick about it, while patting himself on the back for his enlightened attitude:
Indeed, it is proper to not gloat, but rather mourn what we have lost, as a society, and feel sorry for those who have made poor decisions – and try to help others not make such poor decisions, by pointing to unfortunate examples, that at least others might learn something from them.
Sometimes, schadenfreude is tempting, but we Christians do generally know better than that.
Because patronizingly exploiting someone’s (probably temporary) sadness to make other people feel shitty about their own lives is such a moral thing to do. Is faux sympathy better than no sympathy at all?
Our friend Sunshinemary jumps on the “let this be a lesson to the rest of you sluts” bandwagon:
We need not mock such women, but we need to hold up their tales as cautionary examples to other young women. The older women themselves cannot face that their lives should serve as an example of what not to do, and they will rationalize it forever.
Electricangel expounds on his plan to use this woman’s apparent misfortune for his own ends:
I am using her as a vector to drop comments to my wife about the dangers of the carousel. Next is the overt suggestion that she talk to some young women about this friend specifically.
Uh, I guess you don’t let your wife read this blog, huh? Because if I discovered that someone close to me was talking about me in such a creepily manipulative and patronizing way, that person would no longer be a part of my life.
Electricangel replies to Sunshinemary:
Yes, those who did not prioritize children will have their genetic tendencies to that behavior removed from the gene pool. Women do not have the sexual options that men do, and not letting them know this early and often is crushing.
But they must be pointed to, and shown as examples. I understand people who will laugh at and mock them; I thought I would. It’s just the enormity of a waste of a life, and the lives she threw away, and the realization that this is just the tip of huge iceberg that has gripped me.
Yes, EA, you’re such a deeply moral person. Posting an “I told you so, you whores!” post on your blog is no doubt exactly the way The Lord would like you to handle this.
In a later comment, he reiterates his plan to use this woman’s story to increase the insecurities of his wife:
I do not feel guilty at all about using this woman’s example to drop pellets of manosphere logic on my wife. It has the side benefit of my wife starting to ask me (because she’s asking herself) “What do I do to bring value to the relatinship?” It is a good thing.
First it was a sad thing, now it’s a “good thing.”
How exactly is this better than gloating? No, scratch that. How is this different than gloating?
Teddy: Personally,,I don’t believe that men and females have anything in common except sex and reproduction. There’s no need for all of this “dating” nonsense and expense. Just meet and have sex like the Masai of Kenya do.
Men and females, and stupidly false ethnographic bullshit.
What with the,”Stay on Topic. Stay on Topic” as you enter the trench in your X-Wing, I think we’ve hit a Trifecta.
Wait… nope, we have, “Photos please” and a “you don’t understand simple English” defense.
It’s an Exacta.
Varpole: like most deluded feminists and politically correct zealots, you demonstrate a profound misunderstanding of Objectivist thought. It’s not amorality; it is perfect morality.
So stupid is the answer. Still not explaining why the woman who wants to have her date pay is being immoral, rather than, “Objectivistically” looking out for her own interests.
But if you think there is a “perfect morality”, you are a dolt and a poltroon; it takes a fool, or a Messiah, to think that people are perfectable.
When the perfection involves being abusively selfish, it’s obvioiusly not a Messiah. Since Rand rejects the important aspect of the Categorical Imperative (the universality of rule), her system is arguably immoral; in that it allows for separate classes of action; and the exploitation of others. Since it does this in the pursuit of selfish motive it is Amoral.
This is Ethics 101.
You fail.
testing testing…new computer….wordpress not believing I exist mutter mutter mutter!
Ok I’m still pages behind here, but this?
“And btw, the reason that the picture is inaccurate is because it depicts a female who appears to be about 20. The average US female at 40 is a flabby overweight grey haired wrinkled menopausal wreck. Most of you girls on here are at least 40. Post your real pics and it will prove my point.”
Hi Pell!
I’m exactly 0 of those things btw, though I guess I’ve got a couple of greys (there was that entire sub-conversation about how I found those at 16 though, so yeah…)
And you first on the pics, but please, no stock photos of celebs this time, k?
Unsurprisingly, the photos part was ninja’ed multiple times, as was the “hi Pell!” part…whatever, I’ll catch up eventually…
Pell’s being Pell, Steele/Varpole said vile 5 times, NWO made no sense, the thread’s 700 comments strong…yeah, everything seems normal enough around here XD
Just got back from my 10 year high school reunion, so unless I was held back for like…a couple decades, I’m pretty sure I’m still 27 (I’m a Fall baby, so I turn 18 late in the year).
I would totally want to be a 40 year old flabby lady, though. Then none of these shitbrains would even acknowledge my existence beyond moaning and wailing about how I am allowed to exist.
Scratch that. It is MY NEW GOAL to eventually BECOME a 40 year old flabby lady who enjoys and lives life to the fullest while the MRAs stew in the vile bile of self-righteous entitlement and bigotry.
I win.
Hello, I’ve been lurking a few weeks and love this site but haven’t said anything yet. I felt that this woman’s misery is a perfect reason for women to STOP caring about marriage/relationships so much. I know women who are constantly depressed because they can’t find a man to marry, and it’s sad the way they ruin their lives over it.
I got divorced and will probably never get married again and I’m glad I don’t have children (especially with him). I have time to do other things I care about such as attend social events and join causes I care about, plus spend more time with friends, and my parents who I may not have around forever. Etc. You do not have to die in solitude because you don’t find a husband and have kids. Many women CHOOSE that life.
Okay, can’t respond to everyone directly. As far as my original comment goes, I’m not trying to say that there’s a dichotomy between being hedonistic and settling down. Alternative lifestyles are beyond my purview as my only knowledge of them involved someone who was severely damaged emotionally so I’ll leave that alone because I’d be biased.
I’m not assuming this women actually did sleep around in her 20s, I was more speaking to the all-to-coming articles from women reaching their late 30s or early 40s and wondering, “What happened? Why am I still single?”
Many of these people spent time indulging themselves and “finding themselves”. This sort of self indulgence is narcissistic (probably not pathological, but all the same…)
The point is, no you don’t need to settle down into a monogamous relationship. However, for the people who do desire to settle down one day, we’re setting them up for failure by telling them to go “find themselves” and sleep around for a couple of decades. This applies to men and women.
The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships. When a woman is conditioned/chooses/etc to respond to more sexually aggressive men (the kind of men who are good for casual sex), she’ll be disappointed to find that these are also the men that just-so-happen to be terrible as intimate “partners” in more than a physical sense. What do you see a few decades later? Articles asking, “Where are all the good men?” And, “Why am I still single?” And women who are frustrated by their inability to have a relationship that lasts more than a few months.
It’s not about judging people, or pushing my “morally superior” lifestyle on others. I just think this is good relationship common-sense that those who espouse “free love” didn’t bother to think about before they…..espoused.
Citation needed. Why is casual sex any more self-indulgent than monogamous, committed sex? How, precisely, is it narcissistic?
How? Citation needed. (Also, this whole sentence is completely nonsensical. “The problem with this thing being the norm is that it isn’t normal.” If something is accepted as the norm, it is, by definition, normal. Duh.)
Why are sexually aggressive men “good for” casual sex in a way that other men are not? Are shy, gentle, or submissive people inherently terrible in bed? Citation needed.
Why would being good for casual sex automatically make you bad for relationships? Citation very much needed.
Yes, claiming that people who behave differently than you are “narcissistic,” not “normal,” and “terrible as intimate partners” does not sound like judging people at all! Especially without any evidence for those things other than your assertions!
Seriously, dude. It is totally okay for you not to be into casual sex. It’s not my thing, either. But you are not offering any reasons for other people not to engage in casual sex that do not, fundamentally, appear to boil down to “Phil thinks people who have casual sex are icky.”
Wow, Phil, that’s a whole lot of personal feelings masquerading as objective facts that you have there. I mean, if you wouldn’t want to settle down with a partner who’d previously had lots of casual sex then that’s fine, but when you start assuming that your feelings about that are universal and people who’ve previously had casual sex are inherently unsuitable as long-term partners that’s a bit silly. Especially given that in many countries a period wherein people have lots of casual sex or some casual relationships, or both, followed by eventually settling into a monogamous relationship is the norm*, and has been for at least 20 years.
The flipside of the nasty assumptions that you’re making about people who’re “suitable” for casual sex is the idea that people who’re not suitable for casual sex but are suitable for relationships are by implication rather boring in bed. That’s not a very nice assumption to be making either, and given that you seem to be placing yourself in that group it makes me sad for you (and for your partner, if you have one).
BTW, you might want to look up the word “narcissistic”, because it doesn’t mean what you’re trying to make it mean. It’s a diagnosable personality disorder, not just being a little self-indulgent or self-focused.
*Not that doing something that isn’t the norm is automatically bad or wrong – Phil, are you paying attention? Being outside the norm is fine. But still, if you want to start talking about societal norms, in most industrialized countries a period of casual relationships, often including some casual hookups, followed by an eventual shift into long-term monogamous relationships is in fact the norm, ie. the most common relationship pattern.
Phil, after responding to your last post I began to wonder whether your theories depend on dividing men into two groups: One group of “bad guys” who like one-night-stands but don’t want to marry or would make terrible husbands if they did, and another group of “good guys” who are the opposite. You just confirmed my suspicion.
But in my experience, and the experience of most people here, men CANNOT be divided into these two groups. Most people I know, men as well as women, were dating around and sleeping around more or less when they were younger, and eventually settled into steady relationships/marriage. As Cassandra says, that’s really the most common pattern. Sleep around a bit first, serious relationship and eventually marriage later.
Sure, you MIGHT sleep around and then never find Mr/Ms Right, but you MIGHT ALSO save yourself and never find Mr/Ms Right. Regardless of strategy there are no guarantees, so really… sleep around if you want to, save yourself if you want to.
@Renne: Wholeheartedly agree. Marry if you DO find the right person, but if you don’t, be happy single rather then “settling” for someone who’s not exactly right for you.
In the past, when the social pressure to marry was that much greater, there must have been an absolutely AWFUL amount of “settling” and sad marriages as a result.
Also, that pattern I mentioned? It’s the same whether we’re talking about men or women. Which makes a lot more sense than the angry sexist dude theory where 90% of the women are fucking 10% of the men, those hypergamous bitches, just to spite you. Unless there are a whole lot more bisexual people than there are people who openly identify as bisexual (and I mean a LOT more), then there’s really no way that the resentful dude version of How Het Sex Works could work – unless both men and women are following similar patterns the numbers just don’t add up. The way it actually works is that most people of whatever gender date a few people, maybe have a few one night stands, sometimes not, depending on individual preferences, and then eventually most people find someone they really like and end up in a more serious relationship.
Sorry if this is distressing for you, dude, but welcome to the 21st Century.
Phil is spouting a whoooollle bunch of Natural Family dog-whistles here. The point of marrying your first partner is not because it’ll make you happier, but so that you can have more (white, Christian or at least not Jewish/Muslim) babies!
And I concur with
Phil is spouting a whoooollle bunch of Natural Family dog-whistles here. The point of marrying your first partner is not because it’ll make you happier, but so that you can have more (white, Christian or at least not Jewish/Muslim) babies! If you wait to find the “right” person you might not start breeding until your 30s IF AT ALL :-0
And I concur with Renee and Dvarghundspossen, just getting married for the sake of.getting married is worse than being single. What makes a good marriage good isn’t the marriage, it’s the goodness.
Double post GRR
Hey dudes, this is Mister Al. I’m not Wondering, despite popular consensus. I don’t really care if you believe me or not, but just fyi. I don’t do that stuff any more. Thanks.
Hey guys I don’t do that stuff anymore but I still obsessively read the blog and feel the need to sockpuppet despite being banned.
And yet, here you are.
MRAL way to NOT prove your point. Also donut butthhole?? O_____________________o
MR.AL way to NOT prove your point. Also donut butthhole?? O_____________________o
Socking to say you’re not socking? Seek help, dipshit.
“hellkell
LOL, indeed, motherfucker. It’s nice of you drop by and project your sad-man-limped-dicked insecurities on me, but here’s the thing: both my husband and I are aware that we both had a healthy sex life before meeting, but since we’re secure individuals, we’ve never asked each other how many people we’ve had sex with. I haven’t hid a thing.
MRAs are the only people I know who get so worked up about how many men a woman has slept with. I know you want someone with zero experience so your shortcomings won’t be so readily apparent, but too bad.”
You sound pissed harlot? don’t be getting upset about your slutty past, we all forgive you. You ever thought about tying a mattress to your back? Lol
And besides, I like slutty females, these are for fun like a hobby. Get over it. Since You are so Secure with your whorish ways, make sure you do your health checkups please.
Too bad so sad. 🙁
ABSOLUTELY!! “Married with children” is not, and nor should it be, a universal be all and end all of a life well-lived.
@dyor
Creepo meter has exploded! Dude stop jerking off on blogs and then talking about it. Didn’t your momma ever tell you not to take your dick out in public?