Let’s take another stroll through the strange wonderland of Men Going Their Own Way, that small and bitter tribe of men who boldly declare their independence from women, then spend the rest of their lives obsessively talking about them.
Today, let’s look at the thoughtful discussion that ensued when one such fellow known as TDG asked his Brothers in Going Their Own Way why, of all the women they have Gone Their Own Way from (but not really), they tend to prefer women who are “chaste.”
For women, I’m guessing the main reason they weren’t so slutty before the 1950s, was because of the fear of having a bastard womb turd, but the pill changed all that and now they can have as many dicks as they like.
Now, I wont ever marry again and my ex-wife was a virgin and all that went to shit, but here’s my question;
Why do men want women that are chaste…?
I understand on a visceral level, that if a woman has had too many dicks, I can never care for her more than a cum rag, but I’m curious if that is societal conditioning or something that is innate to men…
Thoughts gentlemen…?
Unsurprisingly, the gentlemen of the MGTOW HQ forum did indeed have many thoughts on the subject. (I’ve bolded the most intriguing bits.)
ManWithAPlan had an economic explanation:
Because by going through the “bad boy” phase, they fuck away their only worth. There are three things I look for in a woman (mainly). Attractiveness, fertility and youth. If a woman is attractive and young, but can’t have kids, most men will treat her as a cum rag. If she’s fertile and young, but not attractive, she’s still no good to most men. If she’s old and attractive, she’s back to being a cougar and a cum rag.
Multishadow brought in biology:
[B]iologically speaking women represent a fertile ground for man to plant his seed, and no one wants to plant his seed in a garbage dump.
Second, a man must work to earn a woman, and then invest in her.. and no man wants to work for what others gain for free, or for what was freely given out in the past. There is also resentment for a female gaining sex freely, when a man must work for it.
And that is the third issue, people in general have a distaste for those who are gluttons for pleasure. … It is one thing to obtain sex when you want it, but if your only purpose in life is laying around having sex.. it is like watching an obese person eat.
That’s right: people who have a lot of sex are basically sex fatties. And no one likes a fatty, right?
Aldenhamil suggested that chaste women were a better bargain for frugal men:
Just having random sex is one thing and any old cum dumpster will usually do, but settling down with a woman, having children, and providing for them is something altogether different. It’s a massive investment of time, energy, and resources. Men naturally lean towards frugality and appreciate getting the most bang for their buck. When it comes to women>children>family, it’s a better bet to invest in a woman who isn’t swinging from every cock in town. …
Men instinctively know that whores make poor long-term investments, but they also instinctively know that all women will become whores if given the opportunity. The whole situation is a bit of a clusterfuck, really. It was a problem for Bronze Age societies, and it’s still a problem long after we’ve managed to put human beings in outer space.
Ghost Rider noted that “chaste” women won’t have had a lot of other guys to compare you to, so chances are good she won’t know how mediocre you are in bed:
From my observations, the more men a woman has been with, the greater the chance that she is carrying at least one torch if not more for some guy that dumped her. I believe the term is alpha widow. Seen quite a few times where a woman dumps hubby to get back with a guy she was carrying a torch for, or at least conduct a torrid affair with the guy when he came a calling.
In addition, she is more likely to get back on the cock carousel trying to recapture what she thought she had when she was younger. Also, a woman who hasn’t ridden the cock carousel is a lot less judgmental in the bedroom because she isn’t comparing you to the hundreds of guys she’s been in the sack with. If you’re an average guy, you’re probably not at the same level as the alpha thug with the huge cock that fucked the shit out of her all night. If you’re dumb enough to get married/remarried, who the hell needs that shit in addition to everything else.
Demonsgate, meanwhile, seems to be more terrified of being judged by other guys than by the women he dates:
Real simple because in my younger days when I walked into a bar or restaurant with a twat I didn’t want all you bastards laughing saying yep we all fucked her and this fool is dating her. Who wants to be that guy?
Mongolking answered TDG’s question with his own question:
I think the larger question is “Why Do We Want Them… At All?”
Given that this discussion is taking place on a forum devoted to Men Going Their Own Way, this seems like a reasonable enough question.
And I’ll give you all an answer: If you hate women so much you regularly describe them as “cum rags,” “cum dumpsters,” “garbage dumps,” “whores,” “twats,” or any of the other horrible things said by guys in this thread about women in the equally awful comments I didn’t quote, you should take that Going Your Own Way shit a little bit more seriously. Go your own way. Go a long way, off a short pier.
These don’t even really make me angry anymore. I don’t know what it is, but today I started reading and what washed over me was a feeling that these guys are just a bunch of pathetic losers and quitters. What a bunch of bitter old hens, clucking about what could have been.
Michelle C. Young: “Teal deer” is tl:dr. That stands for Too Long: Didn’t Read.
Something’s a teal deer if its a long, horribly written screed, usually without paragraph breaks, like what RP is spewing all over the comments here. A teal deer is a pain in the ass to read.
Sometimes people will put tl:dr: at the end of their post, especially if the post is long one, as a way to summarize what they said. Like what I’m going to do right now:
tl:dr: “Teal deer” is Internet slang for a comment that’s too long.
Just because you can’t bond with a child, because you blame the parent(s) of that child, does not give you any reason to call that child a “womb turd,” or that you should approve of anyone else calling that child anything so dehumanizing.
You can’t bond with the kid? Fine. He’s still HUMAN, and deserves basic human rights. If you can’t find it in yourself to acknowledge his humanity, then please go far, far away.
Also, there have been many cases throughout history where the man has brought his illegitimate children into his marital home and expected his wife to love and care for them. And guess what? Some women were able to love and care for them, and some women were not. Because human beings are individuals, and some are more compassionate than others.
Personally, I dream of marrying a divorced man, or widower, with children, because I would totally love to be a step-mother. All the benefits of having a child to raise without the health-destroying pregnancy. WIN! And for decades now I have wanted to adopt.
Unfortunately, due to my long-standing health issues, giving birth is too darned dangerous, and adopting is not an option, because of draconian adoption rules. They won’t give a child to someone who isn’t young and in tip-top shape. Basically, infertility is the ONLY health issue adoptive parents are allowed to have. Bleh.
Unless I can find some pregnant woman who specifically chooses to give her child to me, and only to me, I won’t be able to adopt. But I could be a step-mother to a man with children of his own.
Of course, I only want that if I love HIM, first. After all, I plan to live with my husband for as long as we both shall live, but kids leave the nest when they grow up.
Or maybe I’ll just wait until I’m dead and pop out little ghost-babies. Now I want to play The Sims.
The cockatoo is totally winning that dance-off. And here is a bird moonwalking.
Oh, please. We’ve seen your posts here before. No argument, no matter how well-reasoned or well presented, would have persuaded you to reconsider your irrational misogyny, so no one here felt inclined to waste much time trying. That doesn’t mean you won; it means you weren’t even worth playing with.
Out of curiosity, are there any conditions under which you would change your opinions about women? If the answer is “no”, then why should anyone even bother debating you?
Except Jack, of course.
Since we’re citing fiction as fact: tell that to Menelaus. Or Quasimodo. Or watch Casablanca.
One wonders if you even think men are capable of love.
Then maybe her current partner should step up his game.
Michelle,
If you are in the US, foster to adopt programs have kids who are available for something called “special needs adoption”. Check it out.
@RandomPoster – your quote:
“First, obviously Rose’s husband was not the same person as her fiancée. Second, I never stated that Rose was damaged goods and furthermore you drew the wrong conclusion. I stated that nobody wants to be like Rose’s husband, who despite spending a lifetime with her turned out to only ever be number two in her heart, if any number at all, compared to her ex, who she knew a week or so at most. Third, I said the it is a general rule (concede admittedly there may be exceptions) that the guy who gave a gal the most sexual pleasure ever, is her own personal all-time champion of her heart; i never said the guy the gal lost her virginity to, though of course, there are those who do memorialize forever the very first time. Fourth, art reflects life and to cite an example, romantic literature by adult women for females of all ages, from both east and west, north and south, reflects this idea ex. Twilight (Hah!) Now, women may not be as affected negatively as men at sharing their mate, since the institution of polygamy via harems is as ancient as mammalian life itself, but men are different; it takes a relatively rare type of male to engage in polygyny or what is known as the reverse-harem.”
Sorry, I have no idea how to block-quote that.
OK, point by point, here.
1) Rose thought about her Titanic lover at the last most likely because she was on the ship trying to find and raise the Titanic at the time. She spent a long time with her husband, the father of her children, and I’m sure that she thought about him a lot. In fact, she probably thought about him waaaaay more than Titanic-boy, because they had shared waaaayyyyy more together, and she was forever surrounded by reminders of him. Then, she goes on this ship, to find the Titanic, and those memories are triggered, and they just happen to be the memories triggered at the times she died. But what pictures did she bring with her on her trip? What pictures were important enough for her to pack for a trip? Me, I don’t even bother to pack pictures for a short trip, but she packed pictures about her LIFE, not a week on a boat decades ago. Oh, I know. She didn’t have pictures from the trip. Right. No drawings, or newspaper clippings, either, though. Just sayin’.
2) The guy I pined about for decades – we went on one date, and did not even kiss. We did, however, spend a lot of time hanging out together, and were good friends. We even wrote (snail mail) over the course of a few years, until he got engaged to someone else (whom he did not marry, as anyone who heard him talk about it could tell the relationship was too shallow to live), and I decided to break off the letters, out of respect for his fiancee. Sexual pleasure had absolutely nothing to do with my pining. And, yes, I am a woman. So, go figure. I must be a freak of nature.
3) Twilight is one of the most horrific examples of “romance,” that I have seen, and I read a lot of romantic literature, and watch lots of romantic shows. The movie does have lots of pretty things to enjoy, and I have to admit that the way that final battle went down was pretty nifty. As a fantasy with battles and strategy and some inter-cultural politics, it is interesting. As a romance – ZOMGWTAFBBQ!!!!elventyone!!!!!! GAAAH! No, seriously, that is the most messed-up romance I have ever seen. GHERK.
4) Polygyny means multiple women. It is often used instead of polygamy which actually means multiple lovers/spouses regardless of gender. Polyandry means multiple men. So, the “reverse-harem” would actually be polyandry. As for women not being as negatively affected by sharing their mate – have you ever talked to women who are/were involved in a polygamous relationship or culture? The ones who find it to be positive are actually rather rare.
Mind you, there are people who embrace poly-relationships, regardless of gender, and can and will have “group marriages” or the like, where all members of the relationship are adults, fully aware of what they’re doing, and fully consenting. The vast majority of polygyny families, however, do not follow that dynamic. Mostly, the wives are pushed into it at a young age, and don’t know what they’re getting into, and are very unhappy about sharing their husband.
So, yeah, women’s hearts are hurt by infidelity in their men just as much as men are. When fidelity is expected and promised, infidelity is reeaaalllllllyyyyyy hurtful, regardless of gender.
It never compares to rape, though, even though you made that comparison. Yuck.
I rather feel like swearing right now, and since I don’t like to swear, I’m going to stop reading anything you posts. Bye, now.
No, seriously: do you even think men are capable of love?
I think you mean polyandry (“multiple men”). Polygyny means “multiple women”, which would be the regular harem (except that “harem” used this way is incorrect, but that horse has been out of the barn for centuries now)
Sagamanus, do you have a link? As a feminist and Pagan/witch, that sounds right up my alley, lulz-wise.
It also reflects what the artists (and the people who decide which art gets made and sold) think people will pay for. Let’s not forget that.
Cloudiah, my extensive research on females has produced a good deal of data consistent with your findings. Also, females love to sit in boxes. And poop in them, although happily these tend to be different boxes. 50% of females enjoy licking beards. 100% love canned food. They are only intermittent television watchers, and are less interested in shows than in objects on the screen with clearly defined edges.
So if you’re out there, TV producers, you need to start making shows featuring a lot more objects with clearly defined edges! The females of America demand it!
Hmmm…..*strokes invisible beard*
My studies of the behavior of females is quite different from yours. Yes, some of the females in my house poo and sit in boxes,etc. However, the others mostly chase tennis balls, fart and chew affectionately on each other for fun. They do follow me from room to room though. Mostly, I like them. Mostly. Other times they lick the lenses of my glasses or bark at every knock at the door like the devil himself were on the other side.
Iiiiiiiiinteresting.
@Howard Bannister
“Twilight is, right down to the bones, a Mormon ‘this is the right way to be a virgin’ story. Right down to the very bones.
It’s proscriptive morality, not an observation on the nature of people.
And does it strike a chord? Welp. Yes, yes, it does. By and large among people raised in Purity culture.”
Again, sorry I don’t know how to block quote.
As a woman who was born and raised, and still is, a Mormon, I just don’t get it. Never did. Maybe it’s because I was raised “in the mission field,” as opposed to “Utah Mormon.” I did notice that when I moved to Utah for college, I had to deal with a lot of culture shock. Cultural Mormonism is a strong force, all right. No denying it. NCMOs blew my mind. I never engaged in one, because I just can’t wrap my head around getting all cuddly with someone I don’t love. I think that’s more ME than Mormon, or at least not BYU-student Mormon. Although, I also didn’t get my roommate’s assertion that one should not even kiss until the wedding. That seems remarkably silly, to me. Also, nearly impossible to achieve, if you are in love and engaged, and soooooo close to being officially wed that you can just taste it. Unless you have a long-distance engagement, kissing is nearly inevitable. That is, if you are actually physically attracted to your fiancé, and/or have a libido at all. I have often wondered if the “no kissing until the wedding” folk were actually asexual, or just terrified of the whole thing.
However, back to Twilight, I never got the “this is the right way to be a virgin” vibe from this. Even looking at it from Edward’s view, as he was the one who wanted to remain virgin until the wedding night, I still don’t think this is “the right way to be a virgin,” as he would come into her room at night and watch her sleep, and we have heard countless times not to allow ourselves to be alone with only a member of the opposite sex in the room. Also, we have been taught to put ourselves AWAY from the temptation, and not climb into the girl’s window and loom over her, wallowing in the temptation.
Really, Edward just wallows in it. Ugh. So creepy.
Meanwhile, Bella keeps pushing for sex. The Mormon culture on sex tends more toward the “men are horndogs/women are gatekeepers” paradigm. Young women are taught that they need to take responsibility not to arouse the young men, in order to keep the YOUNG MEN pure. Young men are taught to sing a hymn, and not to defile some other man’s future bride. Young women are taught not to be “licked cupcakes,” and, ummmm, do the young men get the licked cupcake lesson? I really hate the licked cupcake lesson.
So, I’m really curious. How did you read it so differently? Granted, I only watched the movies, so maybe I there was something in the text that didn’t make it to the screen. Or maybe we both simply interpreted it differently. I’d love to hear more of your thoughts on the matter, because I generally think your comments are smart and on-point.
Are you Mormon, too?
People often respond to long walls of text with “tl;dr”, short for “too long; didn’t read”. But if you say “tl;dr” out loud, it sounds kind of like “teal deer”. Thus, “teal deer” refers to huge walls of text one can’t be bothered to read.
My Jade is the queen of misandry. She’s even named after a leader of a polyandrous matriarchy who figuratively wears the pants in her relationship, despite not wearing clothes.
My research indicates that males and females both like boxes and pooping in boxes and following me room to room while whining if they are left out. They also adore sharing computer chairs and fighting with the opposite sex. However, males are found of sleeping on top of the couch while female prefer to lie on their backs on the floor. Also, females like grooming other’s people’s hair more than males, who are more interested in looms.
According to my personal studies, females sleep most of the day. When females are hungry they caterwaul at you until you put kibble in their dish. Females are also furry and bite your hand when you overstimulate them.
Michelle, I don’t know how it is in your area, but here in Oakland California (where my husband and I live), the county Social Services agency has training programs for would-be foster/adoptive parents. Adopting a child from foster care has a different set of standards than private adoption. Thing is, most would-be adoptive parents in the US are holding out for healthy white infants, the demand for which vastly exceeds the supply. So private adoption tends to be highly restrictive and very expensive.
My husband and I are the fathers of two wonderful boys, both of whom are on psychiatric medication and have been in therapy since the age of five. Some parents, I have heard, would have significant problems with such things.
Regarding “Twilight”, I have read that “50 Shades of Gray” started out as “Twilight” fanfic. That is just another indictment of Stephanie Meyers and her crimes against literature.
@Howard Bannister
“PS: like, 9/10ths of the love story in Twilight comes before any sex at all. It’s sort of the point.”
OK, now I get your point about the Mormon virginity thing.
I’ve seen the whole “romance before sex” thing done so very well elsewhere, though, that it never even occurred to me. Granted, it is more of a rarity in modern cinema, but since I like old movies that have nothing to do with Mormon, or even purity culture, I just completely missed that part.
Yeah, Mormons do focus on falling in love without sex, and that sex is the great reward when you finally do commit to marriage. That, I think, is why I view married love as so much MORE than just sexual compatibility, and that although sex is important, I know that if I love someone enough to marry them, sexual disappointment will be a minor blip in the relationship, especially when you consider that our mortal lives are just a blip in the eternities, and we hope for so much more in Heaven.
Personally, I look forward to banging like a bunny with my eternal companion in Heaven, whoever he may be.
I’m not very reverent right now.
This weekend I learned that Chuck Barris was a CIA assassin the whole time he was the producer of The Dating Game.
Oh wait, that one’s true.
Lea, when I was in high school, and wanted to take up romance-writing as a career, I bought the publisher’s guide (the Pink Pages, I think they were called), and it actually listed, by publishing line, which sexual encounter had to occur on or before what page. As in, page 23 for the first sexual encounter, page 52 for the second sexual encounter, page 112-135 for the weekend of sex, etc. Ugh. I was so turned off at that, I decided to avoid the whole genre.
I was deeply upset when Signet Regency closed, because they kept things proper for the times, that is, no sex until after the wedding. Of course, their books ended at the wedding, or at the engagement, soooo … Anyway, I liked that particular line, because I never had to worry about getting hit with a sex scene I didn’t want to read.
On the other hand, if I picked up a book from another line, I knew just what pages to just skip right over, before I could get back to the actual plot. So, knowing the formula has its advantages.
As far as my own stories, I have decided to write what I want, when I want, and when my books are finalized, I won’t bother with one of those Pink Pager publishing houses. I’ll just self-publish as ebooks.
My square pegs don’t fit in their round holes.
Oh Michelle…
Those are some high expectations.
I know someone who wrote gay porn for little porno mags, and the sex had to happen by the top of page 2 of the manuscript.
Michelle,
Yeah. That’s why my grandmother gave it up too.
Seconding Lea.
It really is a minor blip – if the person isn’t great in bed they can learn. After all, sex isn’t just penetration. So frankly, I’d rather marry someone who’s bedroom prowess was subpar but that I loved dearly than someone who was a god in the sack but I didn’t care about. Sexual abilities can be learned over time. You can’t force emotions.
Lots of relationships between people who really did love each other have floundered because of sexual incompatibility.
Not trying to belittle anyone’s preferences in finding someone to share their life with, this is just my feelings on the matter; everyone is obviously more than welcome to go about their romantic and sexual lives however they like within the constraints of humane and moral behavior (that is, stay away from the kiddies and anyone else who can’t consent). But I think there’s more to sexual compatibility than can be learned. Not saying that it’s the end-all, be-all of a relationship, because there’s a lot to a relationship that’s more than purposefully-learned behaviors, but I’d hate to be married to someone and not have that spark.
That’s me, though; everyone’s entitled to their own priorities and methods of living their lives.