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?
dyor, sounds like you prefer people “with zero experience so your shortcomings won’t be so readily apparent.”
I’ve only read this one article on Patriactionary, but I find it hard to believe that it isn’t satire. This is one of my (many) complaints about modern life: satire is dead. If Jonathan Swift were writing today, *A Modest Proposal* would not play; it just isn’t far enough from actual right wing dogma. Oh well.
Jesus. I make it a point to cruise the interwebs anonymously, never posting, never commenting… but THIS? This is just disgusting, and I’m a 39 yr old man. THESE assholes need to be removed from the gene pool entirely.
Yeah, dyor’s post is easy to decode: I have an investment in women staying desperate and scared and chaste…’cause if they’re not willing to settle, they might not pick me. They know what an orgasm feels like? Shit! That’s to much pressure to perform in bed!
@Phil: I once enjoyed a few bouts of casual sex with a man who was in a sexually open relationship. He and his girlfriend had each other’s blessing to slut it up when the urge struck them. Counting back from now, they’ve been together for almost five years, and the casual sexing outside their relationship has been going on for most of it.
So we have here at least two people who are suited to both maintaining a romantic relationship and indulging in casual sex! EXPLAIN!
“So we have here at least two people who are suited to both maintaining a romantic relationship and indulging in casual sex!”
0_0
ARE YOU A WIZARD.
Oh no! DYOR despises sluts! This means that in a hypothetical situation where I was non-married and looking for a husband, there’s this anonymous internet troll who wouldn’t want to marry me! The horror!
… or not.
@Psyche: Maybe Phil doesn’t think a relationship is serious if it’s open.
But his thesis is already disproved by the millions of people who first date around and sleep around a bit and then get married, since, as Cassandra pointed out earlier, that’s pretty much the norm in today’s western world.
DYOR, harlot? Seriously? Is that supposed to make me feel bad? You fail, but I’m sure you’re used to that feeling.
I’m sorry you hate women with more experience than yourself, but the care and feeding of your boner is not mine or any other woman’s problem. However, your fixation with me is more than a bit creepy.
Ya gotta love these guys that view sexually experienced women as sluts and harlots, great for fun….like a hobby….but not wife material, yet consider themselves perfectly suitable husband material after they’ve spent time (and some continue to do so, even after marrying chaste, pure, virginal “wife material”) indulging in their “hobby”.
Hypocrite!
Hypocrite with a serious projection issue. My original comment was pretty innocuous, and this dipshit read way more into than was actually there. I don’t get what the big deal is.
Oh Pam, no self-respecting “slut” would give dyor the time of day. Sluts like to have fun, after all.
Yeah, he’s projecting his own Madonna/Whore Complex onto your husband (and, more than likely, most other men).
Yeah, I think he read your original comment re “cock carousel” as meaning that you withheld, and are still withholding, from your husband information regarding your premarital healthy sex life, because (in DYOR’s Madonna/Whore Complex mind) if he knew, then boy oh boy, he’d drop you like a hot potato.
@Pam and Hellkell: Pam’s right. It’s pretty obvious that he can’t fathom the idea that there are men out there who’ll happily get married to somebody who used to sleep around, and it’s just a NON-ISSUE to them.
OOOOH suddenly I’m developing POWERS OF CLAIRVOYENCE! I already know what Dyor’s response is gonna be! Accusing Hellkell’s husband of being such a total omega-male that he simply couldn’t GET any other wife than Hellkell, and had to settle for this awful harlot!
Oh, LOOK, just the ticket for NWO and all the other dudez who cannot control their booners and drool production glands at the sight of women:
Only $6 for a pair of blurring glasses which will protect your eyes, your drool gland, and your manly bits from the sight of women.
I love it! Don’t complain about what women wear: BLUR YOUR VISION, GUYZ!
@ithiliana- hooooleee crap, what a fantastic idea!!!!! Why has no one thought of this before?!!
LOL at the thought of Mr. HK being an “omega.” Anyone who believes that alpha beta omega nonsense is beyond stupid.
Right. I must give a warning here. Those of a delicate frame of mind (MRAs) should NOT read this disturbing and perverted post.
Through appalling lack of foresight, I allowed myself to become a 37 year old single woman with a university education, great friends, lovely family, a couple of lovers, no pets and a good career. And yet, despite all this, I was happy. I know. Disgusting. How dare I?
And then I met my now-boyfriend. Despite my advancing years, feminist inclinations and decades of sexual activity, I met someone depraved and deranged enough to reject his rights. We’re horrifically happy. He’s wonderful, easily the best friend and lover I’ve ever had.
I understand that the plural of anecdote us not data, but for anyone who is interested, MRAs and their associated weirdos know nothing. I’m proof of that. Not only can women be happy at around 40, women can love and be loved, and so can men.
The people who can’t are those whose hatred, prejudice, spite, entitlement, unkindness, resentfulness and bad will make them unlovable at any time of life. For the rest of us, life is for living however we find joy. Never believe anyone whose social commentary is clearly, blatantly, painfully, transparently designed to hurt others.
They’re crazy stupid and they’re the very last people to comment on what makes human relationships work.
My wife got married in her early twenties, decided that it was a huge mistake by her mid-twenties, divorced (no kids, thankfully) and spent the next decade gleefully riding the cock carousel, catching up on all the wild sex she’d missed out on earlier.
And when she met me, she was totally upfront about this, telling me that she wanted to settle down in a monogamous marriage, but it had to be with the right person as she wanted it to be second time lucky. As it turned out, I was that right person, and we’ve been together over eleven years and married for ten. In fact, we spent a good couple of hours this morning just lying in bed and chatting about pretty much anything that popped into our heads. Oh, and laughing. A lot.
We must be doing something wrong from an MRA perspective, but I really can’t think what.
OMG those glasses … I am sooo looking forward to reading about some jerk wearing those and walking smack into a power pole …
Phil:
Prove it.
Prove it.
Assumes facts not in evidence, as well as begging the question from the first unsupported assertion.
I mean it. Prove the stuff you just said. I’d say the special pleading you did about “alternative lifestyles” applies to your understanding of sexual behaviors that don’t match the one you are espousing.
Because their has never been a time when people didn’t fool around before getting married: A new bride can do in six months what takes a cow or a countess nine.
New England Puritans practiced, “bundling”, where people who were courting spent the night in the same bed. There were lots of cases of prospective marriages failing after a couple of nights of bundling. These people then went on to bundle with other people, and eventually get married.
I did a research paper on virginity, while I was in college, the number of cases of puritan brides with babies born far too early to be early births is astounding. No formal notice was usually taken if the speed of that first child wasn’t more than about six months after the wedding (one fellow, and his wife, were fined for having a child at five months. He was later appointed constable. He’d also been fined for, “masturbating against the church wall on a Sunday”. Puritans weren’t the prudes we think them to have been. They also thought that if a woman didn’t enjoy sex she couldn’t get pregnant, but I digress).
I also did a semi-random survey (the, roughly 70 people I could get to fill it out). It wasn’t a terrible survey (the questions had to be run past my prof, who was a psychologist, it was a psych of sex class). The age ranges were 16-45, the “average” person had started having sex at 16 (I had a few virgins, one of whom was in the later twenties), the average for partners was about 2 a year. This was in the late ’80s. So people have been fucking in their teens since, at least the late fifties, based on a small, and not all that validly random sample.
And they were settling down just fine as they got to their later 20s, and middle 30s. Which contradicts your theory.
As to the nonsense about the “men who are good for casual sex”; how do you know? I know lots of women who like casual sex. I know a lot of them who pick the men they want to fuck, and then make the offer. They tend to turn down the “alpha” style of dude, because the have decided they aren’t worth the time/energy/drama that it takes to, or is generated by, fucking them.
It is about judging people, and pushing your lifestyle on them. You think they are miserable because they didn’t do things your way.
There are two problems. 1). The terms we’re using are fuzzy or getting mixedup. 2). I can’t point out things that I think are facts without you guys thinking I’m judging.
There’s nothing I can do about 2, except point out that it’s useless to call me judgmental. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but if I am right then reality is reality regardless of how judgmental you feel I am for pointing it out.
Well there’s another problem. I think that you guys think I’m being more black-and-white than I think I am. So to speak. It’s like you think we either have to have 1950s style idealism, or a sexual free-for-all. I think that’s a false dichotomy.
I am not here advocating that we do away with the notion of casual sex. Obviously, people are going to have sex outside of monogamous relationships, no matter how our culture views casual sex. Once again, all I’m saying is that !!encouraging!! (didn’t want to use caps) casual sex and normalizing it has some unfortunate consequences. There are different kinds of men in this world, and while not everyone fits the mold, a general statement about men is that the men who are more sexually aggressive are also less relationship oriented. It is also true that if you’re just having fun and having casual sex, you’re going to be oriented (as a woman) generally speaking to then be attracted to these men (and vice versa). Sexually aggressive = more short term dating success. You ask for proof, but this almost obviously going to be true in general. But you can google “Dark Triad” for proof, or reference any of the hundreds of other studies done in this regard. Also, it’s common sense. Human nature being what it is, there are some pretty obvious side effects of telling people to be decouple their sexuality from their desire for relationships.
As for open relationships and other such things, I don’t know about them. I imagine the number of people explicitly participating in these sorts of things are in the single digits percentage-wise, and not to sound dismissive but for the purpose of this discussion they’re basically irrelevant. We’re talking about the consequences for people who eventually desire to be in a monogamous relationship – since people in open relationships experience none of these consequences then they’re irrelevant.
If we tell women to go out and explore their sexuality with men, what’s probably going to happen? Well according to data and common sense, they’re obviously going to signal their availability to men who are signalling their availability via sexual aggression (sexual assertiveness if you prefer).
Allow me to snowflake for a moment to demonstrate by anecdote what I mean. When I was younger, I got into two terrible relationships. I wasn’t very sexually assertive, I generally waited for women to signal their interest in me and make the first move. Lo and behold these women were more domineering and controlling and would often belittle me in front of my friends. In other words, I was a “nice” guy, or if your prefer a pansy.
After the second relationship, I realized that if I wanted my relationships to be different, then I had to change my behavior from the moment I met a girl I was interested in, because certain kinds of people are attracted to certain personalities and behaviors, so I decided that if I saw any potential in a partner, I would make the first move and continue to more actively participate in the relationship. Six months later, I followed through on the change and got into a great relationship.
Obviously that doesn’t exactly parallel what we’re talking about, but the point is different conditions at the outset lead to different outcomes. That you guys would deny this is, frankly, baffling. Excluding non-typical relationships, for people who are seeking monogamy, if you tell them at the outset that they should make themselves sexually available, then they’re going to attract the kind of guy who is interested in his short term sexual interests. Can this lead to lasting monogamy? Sure. It does quite often, as a matter of fact. However, if “Where are all the good men?” articles are any indicator, as well as any of the numerous single-and-unhappy 30 and 40 year olds, then it obviously isn’t working for a lot of other people. It seems the feminist solution on this front is to be like, “Sorry, you played russian roulette with hook up culture and you lost. You may be lonely, but at least no one shamed you and your sexual choices so on balance you’re a winner even if you’re unhappy.”
If I’m right, then these women thought that making themselves sexually available was a winning strategy, but found that instead it attracted the wrong kind of guy repeatedly. There’s your proof. If they didn’t exist, then I wouldn’t have a leg to stand on.
Did people in the past sleep together before marriage? Sure, but that was also before hook up culture was considered the norm. The puritan’s bundling is not a proper parallel to what we have today. They “bundled” in anticipation of a proper marriage, they didn’t move out of the house and then sleep with twenty people just for fun and to explore themselves. I don’t know that there is any historical precedent set for what we have, at least in any culture that’s still around or is independent of the larger culture that it’s a part of.
This is why, by the way, pick up artists even exist. Yes, Game works. Why? Because men know they can exploit our sexually free society for their short term gain. And more and more men are starting to figure this out, since the movement is growing into a relatively large subculture.
It also may be just a coincidence that our birth rate would decline so sharply while our openness to sexual variety would rise, but I doubt it. I don’t know that there’s any way to control all of the variables on that, however, so that will never be settled.
Prove it.
Dude, you don’t have to be aggressive to have casual sex. You just have to be open to the idea and know the right people.
Big if.
What proof? Seriously, what actual proof have you offered? Unhappy women exist? Welcome to the whole of human history.
They also hung people for witchcraft. Just puttin’ that out there.
No, it doesn’t. It’s a scam.
More and more men are buying snake oil. It’s just any other self-help bullshit. PUA is a fraud, designed to generate ad revenue and sell books and seminars. PUAs lie. That’s all they do.
“Not to sound dismissive, but I’m just gonna go ahead and dismiss them.”
No, Phil, the problem is that you keep pointing out things that you believe to be facts, we keep pointing out that in our experience these are not actually facts and asking you to provide evidence to back up your assertion that these are facts, and you don’t have anything.
Your “facts” are what we like to refer to here as “assdata”, in honor of the place where you pulled the information you are asserting from.
Not just in the West – based on both personal experience and accounts from friends raised in various other parts of the world this patterns has also been observed in Japan, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and increasingly commonly in China. It’s almost like it’s fairly standard and unremarkable human behavior or something.
Anyone else picturing Phil as the dude in the painting American Gothic, complete with sour facial expression, when he says stuff like this?