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?
Hey, I think I understand Phil! I feel so smart! 🙂
I think he’s arguing that “Women think that sleeping around will lead to a husband, because ‘hook-up culture’/feminism/???. And they’re wrong.”
But, if so, his position is not defensible. I would be surprised to find anyone who says “casual sex leads to relationships, as naturally as the night follows the day”. What I see is people saying “casual sex is morally neutral or maybe positive, regardless of whether it leads to relationships”. And people saying “casual sex doesn’t really affect your chances of having a relationship later”. And some saying “relationships: not so much of an absolute positive good anyway”.
Maybe some women do think that “if I sleep with him, he’ll marry me.” But that’s not a newfangled notion, and you can’t blame “encouraging casual sex” for it.
Okay, I’m less certain than most people here seem to be that PUA techniques can’t work. I mean, lots of people have shaky self esteem. I don’t think it’s impossible at all that “negging” can work by making people a little extra insecure and therefore extra happy if you then compliment them on something and show them attention. Same goes for many other basic PUA advice.
It’s still WRONG to try and manipulating people by playing on their low self esteem, but it can probably work. I really don’t see that as an argument against causal sex though. Better encourage women not to take shit from douchebags.
Over to Phil’s latest post: Yes, you can find many women who complain about there being “no good men”, and who can’t find a long-term partner although they want one. This does not prove that their state is CAUSED by having causal sex when they were younger, or that women who DON’T have causal sex are more likely to find “a good man”. THAT’S the problem with your argument.
My own theory (which I don’t pretend to be able to prove in any way) is that people today might be pickier and less willing to “settle” for somebody who doesn’t feel perfectly right, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. It might be a bad thing if you’re picky to the point of being completely unrealistic, of course, and maybe more and more people are. But if so, I don’t think it has anything to do with causal sex, rather with an entire culture that yells at us that success and having exactly the life you dream about is always possible if you just try hard enough. And unless your pickiness goes to unrealistic levels, I think picky is good and “settling” is sad.
And Phil, you also seem to deny the fact that there are women who DON’T have one-night-stands and yet don’t manage to find a long-term partner. What do you tell them? I guess “Sorry, you played russian roulette with abstinence and you lost”.
Phil, casual sex only prohibits a long term relationship when:
1) The people involved are only interested in casual sex, not a relationship
2)One partner thinks sex will lead to a wedding, and the other partner thinks they want a relationship, but they aren’t ready to marry.
3). One partner (often male) wants casual sex, but also feels that any partner he’s had sex with is now unworthy. Its Ceasars wife. Ceasar had a mistress for years (and slept with many other women). When he divorced his wife, the mistress thought shed be getting married to Ceasar. Ceasar told her that his wife ‘must be above suspicion’ and since she had willingly been his mistress for years, she wasn’t worthy of being considered above suspicion. Somehow the ‘above suspicion’ ideal never applies to men.
Pointing to the dark triad. Well first off, the dark triad is applied to serial murderers, not to everyday people. And its contrversial, because the supposed traits exhibited are also exhibited bypeople who grew up in severly abusive homesbut grow up to be decent law abiding folk. Are you seriously going to tell me that bedwetting at the age of seven precludes a man from being a loving husband? Also, narcissism is on a scale and everyone exhibits it at certain times because in small doses its healthy.
If I met a guy who had a new sex partner every night, or a new relationship every two weeks propose to me, I mighht look askance. Not because of the sex, but because people tend to date a lot more people while they are in the early stages of figuring out which people they are attracted to work best for them, and all the various skils related to having a loving, and respectful relationship. I might not think it too serious if I know the guy has had stable, healthy relationships in the past and that the partners he’s had recently were a concious decision to have fun. All of this assumes a fifties normative viewpoint, that didn’t exist even then.
The entire point of the OP, is that the man is presuming that the woman has had sexual partners in the past, that he’s presuming her lack of marriage is a moral indictment against her for her sluttiness.
So, there a plenty of men who think a woman having sex with one person she doesn’t marry is a slut (definitely this guy). Surveys were done that showed women are considered sluts if they had sex with five partners OVER A LIFETIME! But of course, that’s the standard for a woman. Men frequently have many more partners than that, even when they profess to believe that chastity is important for both sexes.
As for poly, you may not be seeing those relationships, largely because a relationship can only be serious when people live together. There are a ton of poly relationships out there, and some where they are raising a family together. But you likely won’t see it because there are laws that make it punishable by imprisonment to live in poly relationships!
@Phil
“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.”
So, what we’re saying here is that people who are sexually aggressive tend to be abusive or domineering? Or is that just women?
Also, re: only aggressive men being good at casual sex: my painfully shy boyfriend has still managed to rack up an impressive number. Being a slut, for men and for women, is as easy as being a fine-ass human being who knows the right people.
WAIT I FORGOT! We don’t count cuz we live an “alternative life-style.”
Silly me. Imma just go back to my sex, drugs, rock and roll and committed relationships.
Phil, why don’t you actually try presenting some facts? Because so far all you’ve provided are opinions and judgment.
You offered your own experiences as proof of your facts. How does that work exactly? Would you accept my experiences as proof that your “facts” are bullshit?
I’m getting married next year. Not only is my romantic history a mix of serious relationships and what you might define as casual sex (I’m not sure how you’re defining casual sex beyond sex you disapprove of) but my relationship began with what we both thought would be casual sex. Really, when we decided to start seeing each other there was nothing more to it than a lot of laughs and a near preternatural sexual chemistry. We fell madly in love.
Now we’re getting married.
If casual sex precludes the forming of monogamous relationships and potential marriage, how is this possible?
Phil, those women were abusive because they are abusive, not because they like sex. People are domineering because they are domineering, not because they like sex.
If you were really laid back and unwilling to voice your opinions, some of the domineering *might* have been an attempt to compensate. But my guess would still be on the “this person is domineering” because I’m guessing that a person frustrated by someone elses relative lack of assertiveness would simply move on to a person who suits them better.
Oh no of course we wouldn’t want to do away with “the notion of casual sex” because then how could we possibly slut-shame women?
/sarcasm
Well I thought not “doing away with the notion of casual sex” had more to do with not getting laid. You can’t have casual sex if you really believe that you shouldn’t be having it. Unless you want to be a hypocrit, or you enjoy slut shaming.
Well Phil, I don’t want to point out things that I think are facts without you thinking I’m judging. I’m either right or I’m wrong, but obviously,if I’m right, then it’s just common sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about and are using weasel words like there’s no tomorrow.
LOLOLOLOLOL. Dude, the problem is, the things you are saying are NOT FACTS. Will someone get this guy a dictionary? Facts are things that can be readily proven time and time again, that do not have a number of very significant conflicting variables. The sun sets in the west and rises in the east. This is a fact proven by the repetition of the sun rising in the east and setting in the west since the beginning of the fucking world. “Women who sleep around never marry” is NOT a fact because it has been disproved umpteen bajillion times in umpteen bajillion different ways.
Just because you “think” something is a fact doesn’t make it a fact. It’s still just an opinion. And a stupid, judgmental one at that.
I love this. “It’s pointless to call me judgmental, because if I’m right I’m right!” Uh, yeah, bro, we get that; the thing is, you’re not right. Duh.
But if it makes you feel better, I won’t call you judgmental. I will call you a douchecanoe, though, you douchecanoe.
Funny, that.
Girls and women are slut-shamed for having had more than one sexual partner, yet boys and men are encouraged to sow their wild oats. Two great ideals that really seem to mesh well together. /sarcasm
Phil: 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.
What bollocks. If you are wrong then just ignoring is it a moral failing on our part. You don’t get to hand wave because there is a lot tied up in that “if”.
If you are right, you don’t get to say, “If I am right you have to admit that I am right.” You have to show your work.
And you bailed out at the very beginning; so we can pretty much say you are wrong.
You said, you can’t speak to, “alternative lifestyles” and then defined everything other than get’s married to the first/second person they are interested in, or ends up miserable, as, “alternative”.
That’s begging the question, palming cards and loading the deck.
I am not here advocating that we do away with the notion of casual sex
Coulda fooled me. In fact, re-reading what you said, you still fooled me.
The problem with accepting casual sex as the norm is that it delegitimizes normal attraction that can lead to fruitful relationships.
You are, straight up, saying that not condemning casual sex leads to “delegitimizing normal attraction” Whatever that bit of jargon means, it means that causal sex cannot be accepted a social norm if we want to, “Legitimize normal attraction”.
Once again: PROVE IT.
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.
Let’s say it’s what, 5 percent? With an adult population of roughly 200,000,000 that would mean 10,000,000 people. This is your idea of basically irrelevant?
The population of blacks in the US is 12 percent. The population of Jews is only 6. Are they basically irrelevant?
Hell, the number of women in a year who get abortions is in the single digits, as a percent; so we can just say abortion is irrelevant, right?
Which is to say that single digit percentages = irrelevant is a cheap way to dodge the issue; because you don’t really mean it.
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,
Show us some data. The common sense you can keep, since (in this context) it just means, “What Phil wants to believe is the case.”
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.
Cool story bro. What’s it’s relevance to the discussion? Because I wasn’t very aggressive (still ain’t, all things being considered: certainly the PUA/Alpha types you say are the ones who get the sex would say I was a pushover), and I’ve had a lot of relationships (not just one nighters), with women who put the moves on me, and weren’t “domineering and controlling”.
In fact, the women I’ve been with who were more controlling were the one’s I was more aggressive in pursuing. I would speculate this might be because they were afraid I’d step out on them, because I’d been so aggressive.
the point is different conditions at the outset lead to different outcomes. That you guys would deny this is, frankly, baffling.
That you think we do is baffling. What we don’t accept is your contention that you know what the starting conditions are to get to a, “good” relationship. In part because you aren’t accepting the idea that starting conditions are unique. For you, casual sex = failure later in life.
Then I’d say you have a crotch-level view of the world. Because you have no proof. If you are right, then you are right… that’s your argument.
It’s no argument, and it’s certainly not supported by any evidence you’ve offered.
Then you don’t know much. Read up on the twenties. Read some Nero Wolff novels (Rex Stout started writing them in the 1934).
As to bundling… show me how people today aren’t having sex in the expectation they will end up married to someone.
Is it more than 5 percent? Because if it’s not larger than the people whom you can’t take into account because they are such a small percentage of the population, why should we grant you a special pleading?
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
Of course you would. See above re common sense.
Yes, how could there possibly be any societal development which would, say, allow people with uteri to *control* their pregnancies, and if there were, how could it make all fertile people less afraid of unwanted pregnancies/children, and more willing to have sex? It is truly a mystery how these things could be related.
This is nonsense. I am alone, 40, and have never had a one night stand or been easy. I just have had two loves leave me. Not everyone who gets here is what you say, you small minded fool.
Who art thou talking to, oh great necromancer who brings forth threads from times long past? Verily, thy comment maketh little sense in regard to Meister David’s sermon. Methinks thy fie at women who delight in matters of erotic nature through words like “easy” betray thy patriarchal bias. Forsooth.
I think Rose is responding to the douchebag I was quoting in the post.
But yeah, there’s nothing wrong with being “easy.”
@David Futrelle: Yeah, probably. I just had a knee-jerk reaction to the word “easy”, which I’m so sick of. I need to get some sleep.
Ninja’d. Curses! Foiled again!
There is no shame in being ninjaed by the Dark Lord.
I want to live up to 40 and be childless. I’m a very nurturing person and great with kids. I love kids! Until I become weary and hand them off to their parents so I can go home and BE ALONE. I also tried the dating thing once, I ended up being repulsed by him after 3 weeks and it wasn’t even because he was a bad person or anything. I just find the human body in sexual display to be abhorrent. I just stared at him in a curious fashion and couldn’t bring myself to have sex with him because I found it repulsive. Plus I like keeping my clothes on. Women don’t rattle my chain, either. Sex is for everyone else of age except me and those like me. It is too intimate for my taste and I prefer to wander alone. I can arm my own furniture, change my oil, and hike alone. Would it be nice for someone to help me fix something up high considering I’m only 1′ below average height, nope. It’s why I’d rather buy a ladder and call it a day. Plus, I’d hate to wake up to the same person every day. Talk about monotony. I’d rather live alone and not break anyone’s heart. Now that, that would be cruel. Not me refraining from spreading my seed, that is a service to the world. Considering I spend 1/3 of my life helping others who truly need it. I have an abundance of love and giving all my excess time and love to just one person and those who share my DNA is ridiculous in my opinion. IN MY OPINION.
Imelda, all that’s cool.
However, I’d suggest a hiking buddy (not a bf/gf, but just someone to hike with you). Lots of stuff can go badly on trails.
Heart attacks, strokes, appendix, falls, twisted ankles, sudden inclement weather, bears (where I am), moose (back where I used to be), all sorts of stuff.
You don’t have to have a buddy, but it’s a good thing to have.
If no buddy, keep some flares/glow lights, and a phone/radio, just in case.
(Sorry for the long spiel. We get lots of hiking accident calls, around here.)