I’m so incredibly sad. I’m living a life full of regret. I am now married to the most wonderful man – he is every woman’s dream:Some women are focusing on the lying. And while I'm not excusing it, the observable fact of the matter is that if a woman isn't a virgin, she's probably lying about sex to some extent, if not necessarily 10 less than the actual number. That being said, adding 10 to the number reported is probably a much more reasonable approach than taking a woman at her word about it.
First impressions: handsome, muscly, tall, the alpha male, excellent communicator. Lasting impressions: loving, caring, kind, the provider, amazing lover.
Women throw themselves at him.. And he chose to be with me.
Unfortunately I didn’t save myself for him. I was promiscuous when I was single and my sexual past is putting a HUGE strain on our relationship. It is the ONLY thing we fight about. He loves me and cares for me, but he doesn’t respect me. I hope and pray that we can get through this. Your past DOES matter and it will always come back to haunt you.
When my husband and I first started dating he told me that he had issues with promiscuous women, and he asked me what I was like when I was single. I didn’t reveal to him my exact number, I simply said, “I haven’t slept with many guys”. Amongst my circle of friends it was considered a below average number, but on a global scale I now realise it’s a very high number.
At the time he was satisfied with my answer.. But 6 months later the topic came up again. He wanted an exact number. I did what many women do, and I lied. I told him 10 less than the actual number.
Now, it's understandable that it bothers women that men hold their pasts against them much more severely than women hold men's pasts about them. But that's just the way it is. Trying to shame men and calling them insecure isn't going to accomplish anything; even if there is sufficient social pressure to cause them to remain silent and not say anything about the way the "phantom fucks" trouble them, it's not going to change the fact that it troubles them any more than a man quitting his job and staying home to play PS/3 all day is going to trouble his wife whether she says anything about it or not.
Honesty is always the best policy when it comes to sexual history, especially since there are a myriad of ways that the truth can eventually come to light. If it causes you to lose out on someone you really like, better sooner than later. And don't think that the passage of time is necessarily going to help, as the knowledge of having been knowingly deceived over all that time will actually tend to harden a man's mind against a woman.
116 comments:
As some posts indicated over at HUS, lying appears to be a successful strategy: she gets the man. Nancy 'blew it' (so to speak) by confessing. Unlike many women, she was troubled by her deceit. I don't think that is the norm.
If it comes out later, she can pull a Bill Clinton: deny, deny, deny. Or use shaming language. Given that 2/3 of divorces are initiated by women, she may simply pre-empt any move he makes by initiating divorce. Cash and prizes as Roissy says.
I think the default position for any man out there is to assume the woman he is sweet on is a slut. If she is, no worries, no attachment. If she is not, he gets the gold.
Mind you, short of the woman being a virgin, most guys have trouble knowing if a woman is lying. They do it all the time. As you said Vox, if there is an advantage to lying, a woman will do it every. single. time.
- Apollyon
I was listening to the Bob & Tom radio show this morning. It's a pretty typical goofball morning show, but Tom normally provides the older, curmudgeonly voice of reason. Not this morning, when they were discussing this very issue. Everyone on the show was agreed that when you enter a new relationship, your past is irrelevant -- it has no bearing on your future and you certainly shouldn't tell your partner about it. In fact, a boyfriend (and really, that's what we're talking about here, not men's pasts) who insists on knowing your past is probably some kind of creep.
Of course, it's probably a coincidence that the people on the show have averaged about 2 divorces a piece.
I'd rather have a "looser" honest woman than a lying "prude" anyday.
How sincere is the regret over skanking it up vs. getting to have others tell her that her man is insecure and she's okay being the slut she was (is?)?
Nope, I'm not biting. If he'd bought her story and it never came up again, she'd probably sleep just fine at night.
Between the "innocent" rationalizing women do effortlessly and the outright lies they are all too willing to tell, I'm getting awfully cynical about the female character.
I just noticed: she lowered her number by 10 and he's still very bothered by it. Probably safe to say it was more like 30->20 than 12->2. And when you remember that even the "real" number she has in her head probably leaves out "accidental" one-night stands, times that she only did oral, and other events that women tend to discount, the number he's angry about is probably quite a bit more than 10 low.
She also said that her N was below average for her circle of friends, so she didn't think it was high, even before subtracting 10 from it. Suffice to say, she had some fairly slutty friends. One wonders if this guy investigated the circle of friends at all -- always a good thing to do.
Nothing better than being shacked up with a wife full of sadness and regret. SIGN ME UP!!!
Honestly in this situation the man messed up by sticking around.
Also I have yet to see a woman who has a high n that has a genuine cheerful attitude. Most of them have terrible attitudes for the most part.
dude being mad at a woman for being what she is.
Eventually we reach a point where men will have to assume all women are gold digging sluts.
Will men employ women when the very business they do is potentially antagonized by the very scum that turns her on?
So it's ok to shame a woman for her number but it's not ok to shame a man for being insecure? Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either.
"I'd rather have a "looser" honest woman than a lying "prude" anyday."
As would most men.
You think Batman gives a damn how many men the girl he's with has screwed? No. Because Gotham is crying out to him.
Because he's The Goddamn Batman.
lying is the absolute foundation of the western matriarchies, and it is the foundation of modern female tactics and behaviour across contexts, not just interpersonally -- deceit by womens' proxy institutions of government, media, law, and especially schools and academia . . . cesspools of female lies, whether collective or individual (e.g., "Campus Rape Culture")
most of our national policies -- especially domestic policy -- are based on lies, and that is simply axiomatic in a gynarchic culture
if lies are sufficienty funded and enforced, their systems can last... for a little while
then reality takes over again
Ashley: that being said, I would prefer a virgin over either.
And the guy wasn't wrong in any way for being angry over her sluttiness or her lying about it.
I was only pointing out what others would say in support of this skank. Sorry for not being more clear.
And she really is a skank. She knows it and he knows it. She's the truly insecure one in the picture because she knows she doesn't measure up to the standards of a guy that she thinks is a great catch.
His biggest failing is not dumping the lying whore when she revealed both her whorish ways and her lies. His preference for a less-whorish woman is only sensible.
"I'd rather have a "looser" honest woman than a lying "prude" anyday."
Too bad what you will get is a lying slut.
So it's ok to shame a woman for her number but it's not ok to shame a man for being insecure?
I like how people use the word "insecure" when they really mean "prudent". If she'd lie about that when she knew it was important to him, what else would she lie about?
Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either.
Then why are you pushing so hard for slut-shaming to stop, unless the shame *gasp* actually works?
Hint: It worked in the past.
Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either. - Ashley
Yes, it does. It can often be the only thing that will make a woman realize how disgusting she is. A woman can read thousands of pages of statistics and empirical evidence regarding the consequences of her choices and never internalize it. She is not concerned because she's different. Have you never heard of solipsism?
The only way to let her know how vile and wretched her behavior is, is to shame her and call out her deepest emotions about it. And really, it's not just about that slut that it should be done. Those who have not yet jumped aboard the carousel need to read the very real responses men have to this behavior.
" her number"
You make it sound like sex isn't that important.
" Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either."
The woman referenced in the OP would disagree with you.
The worse thing isn't the lying, but the man decided to stay with the woman who lied. He had all the information he needed to breakup, yet he still stayed. My feeling is the relationship probably won't last. Despite everything she put the man through and his decision to stay and marry her, she will still consider any doubt to be a lack of loyalty and commitment. She still wants unconditional love. Woman want perfection. She can't get perfection.
She will be the first to bail. This is my experienced prediction. The man will be screwed a second time.
Every man wants a slut, he just wants her to be HIS slut.
ANDREW DICE CLAY: Hey, is that your chick there?
GUY IN THE AUDIENCE: Yeah!
DICE: Damn she’s pretty hot!
GUY: Yeah,..
DICE: You been together a while?
GUY: About 6 months.
DICE: Nice. She faithful to you?
GUY: Oh yeah.
DICE: She good in bed?
GUY: *nods head enthusiastically*
DICE: She suck a good dick?
GUY: (laughing) Ohhh yeah,..heheh,..
DICE: I suppose the next question would be, “How do you suppose she got that way?”
Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either.
That's part of the big lie: "Don't bother trying to put the toothpaste back into the tube. Just lie back and accept things the way they are." No, it won't make much difference if it's just guys on blogs doing the shaming. And it's too late for the women who have already racked up an N in the dozens and thought they could write it off to youthful experimentation.
But if guys start telling women, "You know, I like you, but I just can't see myself settling down with a woman who's been around that much," you can bet it'll start to have an effect on the ones young enough to do something about it. And if older women started doing the shaming again, as they used to, instead of excusing it and egging each other on to more and more depravity, that would have a huge effect.
One lie, all lies.
The problem is the number AND the lying.
The number is the problem because she'll probably have a hard time bonding to her husband. It's not just the sex, it's the obvious shame and regret she feels over it, and over her lying to her husband.
The lying is the problem too. She lied about something fundamental to their relationship. He can never fully trust her. And he would be a fool to fully trust her. He will always have to keep one eye on her. He will question her honesty and her character. He will always have to run tighter game on her to keep her in line. He will at times have to go full on asshole.
He will not get to relax and enjoy his relationship. Most of the time it will be work. There will be this or that emotional crisis to deal with; this or that emotional baggage to deal with.
He will always wonder what else she has lied to him about, and when the other shoe will drop. He will always have to play the "trust but verify" game with her. They will have peace at times, but it will always be an uneasy, volatile peace.
deti
So it's ok to shame a woman for her number but it's not ok to shame a man for being insecure? Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either
What about shaming men for having a low number? Is that also not ok?
What about lying?
10 years sexual promiscuity of
3 lovers a year (including pump'n'dump assholes) +
7 sexual experiences a year
IE 100 guys been there
That said there is no point to being bitter about her lies. We all do it in some manner. If there is an advantage to poisoning the well, the well will be poisoned. Substitute lying.
Michael Maier -
"that being said, I would prefer a virgin over either."
That is your choice and your right, but good luck. There aren't many virgins left, that are legal anyway.
"And the guy wasn't wrong in any way for being angry over her sluttiness or her lying about it."
I don't think he's wrong on either part, actually. I was out of line on HUS when I referred to him as insecure. But the truth remains, they shouldn't have been together in the first place. She lied and shouldn't have. He wants a woman with a lower number and she is not that, so she should have been honest with him so he could have made an informed decision on whether or not to be with her from the star.
“I was only pointing out what others would say in support of this skank. Sorry for not being more clear.
And she really is a skank. She knows it and he knows it. She's the truly insecure one in the picture because she knows she doesn't measure up to the standards of a guy that she thinks is a great catch.”
Her lying is one effect of slut shaming. If we didn't shame women for their number, she probably would have felt no shame in telling the truth. Shaming, like calling women skanks and lying whores... doesn't stop the action, it stops what women are telling people. You are feeding the problem.
Signe,
“I like how people use the word "insecure" when they really mean "prudent". If she'd lie about that when she knew it was important to him, what else would she lie about?”
Ok then, “prudent.” Why is it ok to shame a woman for being promiscuous but not ok to shame a man for being prudent?
“Then why are you pushing so hard for slut-shaming to stop, unless the shame *gasp* actually works?”
See my comment above about slut shaming. And no, it shouldn't work. Slut shaming has negative effects on both men and women, and now even children since shaming language has leaked from women who are actually promiscuous to young girls who develop breasts earlier or larger than their classmates. You remember this when your 9 year old daughter comes home asking why kids in her class are calling her a whore for no real reason at all.
"Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either."
Fine lets not shame people that kill other people by calling them murderers. How about people that steal stuff...don't you dare call them thieves...it'll hurt their feelings. Don't label people that have sex with children pedophiles...that's shaming language.
SarahsDaughter,
"Yes, it does. It can often be the only thing that will make a woman realize how disgusting she is. A woman can read thousands of pages of statistics and empirical evidence regarding the consequences of her choices and never internalize it. She is not concerned because she's different. Have you never heard of solipsism?"
Bullying women into "realizing how ***disgusting*** they are." Do you even know what you just said there? If anything, all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt. If you really think this is the way that women should feel about themselves, as disgusting people, then I urge you to seek professional help.
Just think about it, you disgusting, vile, wretched, pig. Feel better, whore?
Ashley:
Your comparison of shaming sluts (conduct-based descriptor) with shaming early bloomers (biology-based descriptor) is absurd.
Hypergamy cannot be eliminated, but it can be addressed, controlled, contained, harnessed, and guarded against. Slut shaming worked great to control and rein in hypergamy. A woman who gained a reputation as a slag or a slut almost never got married, or if she did, the man who accepted her was low value. She would have to take what she could get, or take nothing at all. She was then consigned to a life of poverty or working for herself, or depending on her brothers for support.
It worked because the younger girls saw what happened to the sluts. It also worked because we had a society that codified and enforced it.
deti
"Fine lets not shame people that kill other people by calling them murderers. How about people that steal stuff...don't you dare call them thieves...it'll hurt their feelings. Don't label people that have sex with children pedophiles...that's shaming language"
Really?
Her lying is one effect of slut shaming. If we didn't shame women for their number, she probably would have felt no shame in telling the truth. Shaming, like calling women skanks and lying whores... doesn't stop the action, it stops what women are telling people. You are feeding the problem.
Men don't like a high number and that's all there is to say. Women like men with a high number and men like women with a low number. Lying will only get you into trouble.
They're denigrated for a reason. They're more likely to cheat and have very little respect for themselves.
Shaming helps weed out the losers and untrustworthy.
And I know of no one who calls a girl a slut because she has large breasts.
There is no excuse for lying. Tell the truth and accept your spot at the bottom of line because the good guys you passed over but now suddenly want do not want you. Live with the consequences of your actions and accept reality. Don't lie.
Just think about it, you disgusting, vile, wretched, pig. Feel better, whore?
It doesn't really hurt unless someone has something to be ashamed about.
Shaming, like calling women skanks and lying whores... doesn't stop the action, it stops what women are telling people.
Repeating it won't make it any more true. Why do you think there was less promiscuity in times when it was more universally condemned? Of course it's not going to "stop the action" of a woman whose N is already 50; she's already done the damage. Lying is her only recourse.
But why on earth would you think it won't affect younger women who still have an N worth bragging about? You obviously understand that words can have negative effects on people, so why can't you admit they can have positive effects?
If slut shaming works so fabulously, then why are there still so many slutty slut sluts?
If slut shaming works so fabulously, then why are there still so many slutty slut sluts?
Outside these parts, whose doing any shaming?
Ashley:
"Bullying women into "realizing how ***disgusting*** they are." Do you even know what you just said there? If anything, all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt. If you really think this is the way that women should feel about themselves, as disgusting people, then I urge you to seek professional help."
Ashley, that's not the spirit in which the comment was intended.
I think it's safe to say SD intended that the woman should feel disgusted BY HER CONDUCT.
deti
The fact that this same subject of women's N and how important it is to men continues to surface; and women's astonishment at what a big deal it is, continue to amaze me.
We have women who say "don't you dare shame sluts!" not because it doesn't work, but because they don't want to be made to feel bad about their life choices. They demand acceptance and embrace of their poor choices.
We have women who really don't get that it isn't possible for them to rack up Ns of 20, 40, 50 and more, and not have some problems because of it.
It must be because the slut is all fun and good times, sex all around.....
until it comes time for her to demand commitment from someone. Then all the men who had sex with her before balk, because they know very well she has more mileage on her than a Peterbilt and more baggage than a Pullman.
deti
Ok then, “prudent.” Why is it ok to shame a woman for being promiscuous but not ok to shame a man for being prudent?
You'd shame someone for being prudent?
And no, it shouldn't work.
Do you need the difference between "should" and "is" explained to you again?
Slut shaming has negative effects on both men and women,
Why, because the alpha boyz don't get all dat booty if women are ashamed to be sluts?
and now even children since shaming language has leaked from women who are actually promiscuous to young girls who develop breasts earlier or larger than their classmates.
You're thirty years behind the times, sweetie. This is not news. Also, kids have this notorious gift for using words they don't understand.
You remember this when your 9 year old daughter comes home asking why kids in her class
Her homeschooling class? If the kids in my (possibly future) daughter's class are using that term at her, there's gonna be some swats handed out.
are calling her a whore for no real reason at all.
If she's developing boobs at nine, she has bigger problems than being called names.
Or am I engaging in "stupid shaming" now?
"all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt"
Yes, the very emotions necessary in order for a woman to be fully aware of the consequences of her behavior and for empathetic onlookers (readers) to see and know they don't ever want to be talked about like that. Your ignorance of the nature of women is fascinating.
Yes, deti, her conduct, once she wakes up and realizes how badly she has messed up her life should make her want to hurl for days. Pleading with God to forgive her. You've written so much excellent advice over at ssm's place (http://thewomanandthedragon.wordpress.com/)
*It's spread out over two posts, "Advice for a former slut," and "the division of labor."
I could reword this to say this:
"Now, it's understandable that it bothers men that women hold their future against them much more severely than men hold women's futures about them. But that's just the way it is. Trying to shame women and calling them shallow isn't going to accomplish anything..."
My point? Men value a woman who has self-restraint and has demonstrated it in her past behavior. Women value a man who has a future. There's nothing inherently wrong about those value structures.
SD:
So right. "Nancy"'s conduct should make her literally rend her garments, sit in sackcloth and ashes and thank God that ANY man was willing to marry her.
Thanks for the shout out.
deti
Yes Ashely...really. That's called rhetoric.
And Stingray is right about not being hurt by something I'm not ashamed aboyt...I as a man have actually been called every name in the book by women. I laughed it off because I'm know I'm not what those women call me.
The best ones are when women call me a hooker...then I get to tell them that insult doesn't bother men.
If anything, all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt. If you really think this is the way that women should feel about themselves, as disgusting people, then I urge you to seek professional help.
I think this pretty well sums up why the Left hates Christianity so much. They're completely against any thought, feeling, or idea that leads us off the amusement-park plantation--or out of the brothel, as the case may be.
"all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt"
So it would be better to let her continue in a pattern of self-destructive behavior.
If that is case...then we should let alcoholics continue to drink themselves silly and drug abusers shoot anything they want into their body.
So Ashley...how high is your number?
Marriage and kids is a fool's errand. My real concern is making it N+1.
It doesn't really hurt unless someone has something to be ashamed about. - Stingray
Even when someone, like me, has a lot to be ashamed about, it doesn't hurt.
Goats given freely can't be "got."
and thank God that ANY man was willing to marry her - deti
As I do every day. Grace is a very humbling gift.
The age would be prevalent here, if she is close to 30 or over then her fabulous husband is simply her beta backup schmuck.
No one wants to be someone's stolen base.
I can't comment on 50+? Ns...but if this man had properly vetted his wife his situation would be very different. My brother-in-law told me something years ago, that courtship is really a weeding-out process. Find out if you're compatible early on, and if not, move on and be thankful it ended early. Whatever disclosure is necessary - personal references, background checks, credit histories, interviews with family and friends etc...For a marriage to work there needs to be trust. For trust to be established and grow both parties need full disclosure BEFORE HAND...only then can husband and wife feel secure. Here's my sins, here's my weaknesses, love me or leave me...
I know it sounds totally unromantic, and quite frankly, it is. But, romance never has a chance if you're married to a slut or a cad. I have heard that Jewish matchmakers are pretty thorough before arranging marriages ensuring that both parties have not only similar values but also are physically attracted to one another, and have complimentary personalities, and this is smart. When entering the most important contractual obligation of one's life, a person can't afford to be "romantic", he will only be a chump. A solid foundation at the outset will ensure not only romance, but fecundity and joy.
Rabbits everywhere...
Realmatt, I never said she was justified in lying. But how far is anyone going to deny that slut shaming doesn't have a role in her lies?
"Men don't like a high number and that's all there is to say. Women like men with a high number and men like women with a low number"
I strongly disagree with these generalizations.
"They're denigrated for a reason. They're more likely to cheat and have very little respect for themselves."
And they are less likely to cheat and have more respect for themselves by being called vile, disgusting, wretched whores? Yeah, slut shaming has made me realize how disgusting I have been with in my past and that makes me respect and value my body, my life, and my future husband enough to stop slutting around, said no woman ever.
"And I know of no one who calls a girl a slut because she has large breasts."
Do you not read the news? Virgin preteen girls committing suicide after being slut shamed, ring a bell?
Stingray,
"It doesn't really hurt unless someone has something to be ashamed about."
Maybe not for you.
Cail Corishev said...
"Repeating it won't make it any more true. Why do you think there was less promiscuity in times when it was more universally condemned?"
What times are you referring to?
"Of course it's not going to "stop the action" of a woman whose N is already 50; she's already done the damage. Lying is her only recourse."
She wouldn't have lied had she not been shamed, js.
"But why on earth would you think it won't affect younger women who still have an N worth bragging about? You obviously understand that words can have negative effects on people, so why can't you admit they can have positive effects?"
Certain words have negative effects and other certain words have positive effects. I have yet to see any headlines on how bullying and calling women disgusting whores is changing promiscuous women everywhere.
Anonymous,
"We have women who say "don't you dare shame sluts!" not because it doesn't work, but because they don't want to be made to feel bad about their life choices. They demand acceptance and embrace of their poor choices. "
Did they tell you this? How do you know that is why?
AARGH! Virginity is really valuable, moreso in women. I'm not sure which is worse, student loan debt, or women convinced by the feministas to lose their virginity.
What is the only thing a woman can give to a man which costs nothing. In fact is an investment in her fundamental dignity? And I would ask the same of the man. This is one of the few things that is symmetrical. A virginal husband and wife entering into marriage will be different and have an advantage.
But to go to society, if virginity is not a virtue, should we not alter the statutes such that rape is treated just like any other theft-of-service and treated as a theft of an equivalent market rate? If not, then it is more profound (note I'm not even talking as a Christian here). Yet what gives it it's profundity?
Susan is likely headed for divorce. No contrition, repentance, no forgiveness. It would be much better to admit the exact number in tears, sackcloth, and ashes, rather than to lie. There is a line from "Excalibur", "When you lie you murder some part of the world". The death rattle is audible to the spirit if not to the flesh. The only sin which cannot be forgiven by God or Man is the one not repented of.
But to return for a moment to marriage among virgins, for men, what if the first woman you saw naked was your wife on your wedding night? What if your first experience was not the airbrushed pornography but this living and breathing woman? For woman, what if the first person you experienced ravishing you was your husband?
Sex is a language. It communicates. It lies when it is out of context. Blessed John Paul II's theology of the body says we are telling lies with our bodies when we do such things. Read it. It might save both your marriage and your soul and that of your spouse.
O/U on Ashley's N?
I'll take 30 and the over
Her lying is one effect of slut shaming. If we didn't shame women for their number, she probably would have felt no shame in telling the truth. Shaming, like calling women skanks and lying whores... doesn't stop the action, it stops what women are telling people. You are feeding the problem.
No, that's not why she lied. She lied because he said that he could only marry a girl of N or less. And her number was way, way above the N he deemed acceptable. No "slut shaming" required.
Ashley, are you really trying to encourage men typing comments on a blog to not speak freely about their true opinions of sluts? A blog that a slut can choose to read or not? It is not bullying, it is honesty. That a slut gets her feelings hurt by the truth is her own problem.
Why are her feelings more important than having the truth expressed? Do you pretend you can change how men view slutty women?
Went back to Susan's blog for the first time since I left - pleasantly surprised at the direction she's taken, but alas the comments are a mess.
One valid issue that came up that needs to be addressed (it's akin to the price discrimination problem the other direction) is the concern expressed by some of the low-N women there about high-N women landing quality husbands/marriages.
In general, a healthy marriage requires both the man and the woman having plausible grounds to believe that he's the best man she's ever had/who's had her. That's what "secure" means in that context. It satisfies both her instinctive hypergamy as well as his instinctive need for fidelity on her part.
Obviously, the easiest way to guarantee that will be the case is if he's the only man she's had/who has had her. Of course, a woman with no experience is prone to wonder/wander, and thus so will be her man, absent practice in making and practicing faith commitments.
Other generations recognized that such experience can be gained without p-in-v, so it is unlikely that the rising generation will follow it predecessor in its (trained) ignorance of that option. Serial monogamy (past, say, the age of 18) precludes young women from gaining said experience, so that rising generation is unlikely to return there, and shouldn't, which is where Susan and I disagree.
As for the high-N woman who still lands on her feet - it can't work as a norm but is does work in the current environment, due to feminist suppression of the expression of female interest in men (straight guild price-fixing behavior at this point). The high-N woman is akin to the scab who crosses the picket line. In a free labor market, the employer may not have chose the scab, but given the lack of alternatives, he's forced to do so and make the best of it.
The other out a high-N woman has is grasping the red pill. In doing so, she recognizes that just because some high-value men have had her (sex) she has not in fact had them (real commitment), so she can plausibly see the man she does eventually get as the best she's had, and as importantly, he can see himself that way as well.
This avoids the "dreaming of alpha" problem and allows real pair-bonding.
I'm at a loss for why this is an issue. There are already reasonable explanations why men prefer a low (or non-existent) N count, ranging from science and nature (see: oxytocin and inability to bond) to personal preference.
I won't speak for every guy, but I prefer a woman who doesn't sleep around. A man has a right to that standard. If that means that no woman meets that criteria for him, then he can choose not to commit to any long term until his standards are met.
For men who sleep around, and want a pure girl, I understand there is a difference. A man has to put himself on the line, initiate, and pay for sex. A woman can just say yes or no. With that said, I'll just say to be mindful of your own role within the sexual marketplace.
I'll let you take that as you will. Perhaps I won't call it hypocritical, but its no more ridiculous than overweight, average girls telling me they will only date skinny, above-average looking guys.
In sum, everyone has a right to their standards. You can call me insecure, a slut-shamer, or you can shame me for my choice to forego promiscuity on my own end. But I'll tell you that if you have a high count, I won't be calling you 'girlfriend,' nor will my opinion change as to not hurt anyone's feelings.
A self-avowed slut who OWNS IT is okay; that's respectable in my book. In that respect much like Desiderius says. Women like this usually get men for who they are, and are a pleasure to be around.
A woman who sleeps all over but is clueless about herself and her relationships, soon to post a "where are all the REAL men" POF advertisement, well, that's different.
Ashley said: "So it's ok to shame a woman for her number but it's not ok to shame a man for being insecure? Trying to shame women and calling them sluts isn't going to accomplish anything either. "
False dilemma. Typical rhetorical flimflammery from a woman.
Unfortunately (perhaps - at least for the legions of high-N women hitting the wall as we speak), this can't work as a norm (as GBFM so eloquently has expressed).
The high-N itself represents a massive droit du signeur problem, and is a flat-out deadweight loss in marital happiness/parental fitness on the societal level.
Post-crash, high-quality women have already sussed this out and are likely avoiding the carousel as Susan has persuasively argued.
Still, to clear the loss, these women will need to give up the career-first/no-dating/no-possibility-of-early-marriage/rejecting-the-too-soon-good-man norm.
My guess is that they are already doing so (hence the expressed desire for actual dates - unlike their older sisters, they may well mean it) but the men, warned by their older siblings just burned, are not cooperating, and the feminist overseers are frantically attempting to keep all involved on the old plantation.
Even Susan wavers.
Among my high school students, I see generous terms of surrender being negotiated.
It's not complicated. It's very simple actually.
No man is entitled to sex, and no woman is entitled to male investment and commitment.
A man who wants to get sex from women must be sexy, based on whatever criteria women choose to define sexiness.
A woman who wants investment and commitment from men must be worthy of it, based on whatever criteria by which men choose to measure worthiness.
It doesn't matter if we like the criteria or not. It doesn't matter how unfair we think it might be for the opposite sex to judge us harshly for our looks, our bank account balances, or our sexual histories.
For example, I might think that it's stupid that Brooklyn Decker chooses to sleep with Andy Roddick instead of me. But at the end of the day it doesn't matter. I don't get to define what "sexy" is for Brooklyn; she decides that for herself.
Likewise, sluts and high N women don't get to decide what "commitment worthy" means to any man; each man has the right to decide that for himself.
" If we didn't shame women for their number, she probably would have felt no shame in telling the truth."
There *is* no shame in telling the truth.
You need to widen your social circle. Someone who is genuinely guilty, regretful, and ashamed doesn't cover it up with lies. She tries to make it right somehow. A good person doesn't hide , but confesses. That is because they know lying makes things worse. Someone who lies to a potential mate (unless she fixes it shortly thereafter) is showing borderline sociopathy. She is willing to deceive for personal gain. Someone who acts like that cannot be feeling genuine shame. She only feels bad once she's caught. If a murderer showed remorse only after he was caught, no one would take him seriously. So, why should we take your assertion here seriously? I'm sorry, but that's just the way guilt and sorrow work. One tries to make the best of things after mistakes were made. One shows contrition. One is *willing to take responsibility for their actions*. One shows that they *give a damn*. One tries to minimize the damage. A woman who would lie was not successfully "shamed".
Nancy here actually admitted (before they got married!) to what she has done. She could have covered it up with even more lies but she came clean (eventually), and she is warning other women not to do make the same mistakes she has. Does she do this under the belief that it could prevent others from making the same mistakes? Of course, she does. She has been there. You would have me believe you are more an authority on her life than she is. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that.
"Shaming, like calling women skanks and lying whores... doesn't stop the action, it stops what women are telling people. You are feeding the problem."
I don't know whether you even agree that there is a problem. You seem to have a very cavalier attitude, and you don't understand what it means to feel sorrow, guilt, or shame.
Dudes that don't want a slut just need to go the reverse method and say that they want a woman with a lot of experience so they don't have to waste a lot of time getting them up to speed. At least 10 guys, better yet 20. Do I hear 30? Any he needs details so he can show off his superiority over them (and it kinda turns him on). Once she gets to #3, the guy that was dating her older sister in high school, he can press on.
Dudes that don't want a slut just need to go the reverse method and say that they want a woman with a lot of experience so they don't have to waste a lot of time getting them up to speed. At least 10 guys, better yet 20. Do I hear 30? Any he needs details so he can show off his superiority over them (and it kinda turns him on). Once she gets to #3, the guy that was dating her older sister in high school, he can press on.
"It doesn't really hurt unless someone has something to be ashamed about."
I will have to agree with Ashley on this one. Judgements, name-calling and shaming hurt many people, regardless of whether it has any truth in it. If a bully victim feels bad about being called stupid and ugly, he/she isn't necessarily those things. In fact, it seems like bullies pick on the randomest things to make fun of (eyes too small, or funny way you walk, or just cuz you're quiet).
However, as we become adults, we simply must overcome this. Thick skin is a necessity. Perhaps even a moral obligation to ourselves. If we let our decisions be affected by other people's view of us, just because we feel shameful, then we don't have control over our lives. Perhaps then we'd be better off under someone's authority, who will prevent us from things we might regret...
Once you're an adult, you don't answer to anyone, except the law (and God, if you're religious). You must admit when your actions were wrong, and when they were right. Not because people shamed you, but because YOU realize it. Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong. It's something you need to figure out, and act accordingly.
Sarah said: "I don't know whether you even agree that there is a problem. You seem to have a very cavalier attitude, and you don't understand what it means to feel sorrow, guilt, or shame."
This assumes that what is on offer is actually real regret over the past action(s), not simply feeling sadness that her now husband has a problem with it. I Feel sorry you don't like the fact I burned your house down is not the same as feeing actual guilt over the arson. This is also complicated by the fact that real repentance is difficult or impossible. How do you make up for this once its done? In this respect it is not like theft but more like murder - once it is done it is done and can't be undone. I have no idea what would fix this in his mind.
@loveashley.net on January 23, 2013 at 1:20 PM --
If anything, all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt. If you really think this is the way that women should feel about themselves, as disgusting people, then I urge you to seek professional help.
Why are sexual sins the only ones you that think people should proclaim with pride?
And since sexual since usually get accompanied by sins against loyalty and honesty, and by a large measure of selfishness, why does the sparkling purity of illicit sex whitewash these accompanying sins too?
@Matthew Demigod (*Mensa membersip pending) on January 21, 2013 at 3:21 PM --
What happened to Gandalf the Gray just when you thought he was done for?
"If you strike me down, I shall become more powerful than you could possibly imagine."
Mensa candidacy *rescinded*. You just attributed a quote from Ben (Obi-Wan) Kenobi of Star Wars, a Jedi Knight, to Gandalf (Mithrandir) of Lord of The Rings, an angel in the guise of a wizard (Istari).
@Emma on January 24, 2013 at 2:47 AM -
Once you're an adult, you don't answer to anyone, except the law (and God, if you're religious). You must admit when your actions were wrong, and when they were right. Not because people shamed you, but because YOU realize it. Sometimes people are right, sometimes they are wrong. It's something you need to figure out, and act accordingly.
OK, will you apply this very generous standard to a man being sexually unfaithful to his woman?
Or to young men pressuring (using high-pressure salesman tactics and emotional manipulation) into going further than the woman had originally intended to?
Or to the geeks and less-than-rich-and-handsome young men honorably asking a girl for a date ( and not pressuring for sex, which is like, you know, so wrong) ?
Desiderius wrote: Among my high school students, I see generous terms of surrender being negotiated.
I see the same among my high school students as well. It fills me with hope.
Yes, if you're an adult, you take responsibility for your actions. Amoral people are often the type that blame everyone else for their offences. Unless you're a sociopath, being 100% honest with yourself will lead you to being much better behaved.
My standard is not generous. It only says that everyone should take responsibility for their actions, and own them. If you regret it, don't try to resist the shamers by doing more of the shameful behavior. If you don't regret it, and think it was right, don't think of shamers, they shouldn't even register.
If, however, you keep doing things just because of public opinion, you'd be happier giving up your rights and living under a smarter person's authority.
Thank you for the good writeup. It in fact was a amusement account it.
Look advanced to far added agreeable from you! By the way, how can we communicate?
Also see my page - boligityrkia.net
This is probably obvious to most of you, but for anyone who doesn't understand why guys don't like sluts...
A woman's natural, instinctive, tendency is to emotionally bond with her sexual partners. When she has sex with a guy once, or maybe for a week or two, and then never sees him again, she has to cut that part of herself off, to make herself numb to that natural bonding instinct. If she does this 20+ times, she's repeatedly disregarded her feminine insticts to the point that she may well have killed them. At best she's damaged and no longer how she was wired to be.
Therefore, it's going to be harder for her to bond to any man in her life the way she's meant to bond. A potential husband recognizes this, that's she's probably incapable of being as loyal as she should be, or even as loyal as she might want to be.
Prior sluts are more likely to cheat on their husbands. As men we get this, even if we can't explain why. That's why we value a low N and always will no matter how much we're told we shouldn't.
Perhaps then we'd be better off under someone's authority, who will prevent us from things we might regret...
We used to call such people "fathers".
The point of slut-shaming is, in fact, that people--ESPECIALLY us women--consider the opinions of our neighbors when we make our decisions. That's a feature, not a bug. Legitimate shame is the right and proper application of peer pressure, enforcing moral standards in the community and deterring (though not preventing always) people from straying beyond the acceptable.
Bullying is just some jackass getting his kicks from making someone else feel small.
What scares me is how so many people are against the very idea that people should feel shame--from feminists to MRAs to whoever else is peddling man-as-an-island-ism or whatever you call it. Inure people to shame and you inure them to one of the best controls there is for people who don't have firm principles (which is most of 'em).
Magister Wood said...
"Desiderius wrote: Among my high school students, I see generous terms of surrender being negotiated."
I see the same among my high school students as well. It fills me with hope.
Would either of you mind expanding a bit on these terms? What you are seeing?
Some of us don't have high school students to observe.
Whose shame is worse? In general, society decided the virgin is shameful, the non-stud is shameful, religion is shameful, fathers are shameful, and motherhood is shameful. These ideas are running in conflict with a woman's base desire of getting married. If she wants to be married, she'll know what to do, but she is conflicted with the idea. Many women don't know what to do until too late. They are working on their education, careers, and sexual experience. By the time they are ready, the marriage market has moved on.
Ok then, “prudent.” Why is it ok to shame a woman for being promiscuous but not ok to shame a man for being prudent?
Promiscuous = Bad
Prudent = Good
You should shame (prevent) bad behavior but in your world, you should also shame (prevent) good behavior?
More evidence of the female imperative. "Prudent" is a universally good thing, unless someone being prudent towards you puts you at a disadvantage, then, relative to you, prudent is bad, therefore, needs to be shamed (discouraged).
How the female mind works.
The thing about Game is that in order to generalize there is no accounting for the quality of a particular woman's character and integrity nor any respect for her ability to make good judgements about sex.
It's a blind spot but probably a necessary one. Most women are ignorant, selfish, self-centered assholes.
More evidence of the female imperative. "Prudent" is a universally good thing, unless someone being prudent towards you puts you at a disadvantage, then, relative to you, prudent is bad, therefore, needs to be shamed (discouraged).
Actually, that's just evidence of human nature, which is selfish and hypocritical.
Signe,
It was more addressing comparing two things that are apples and oranges.
You can "shame" two bad things but you cant "shame" a bad thing and a good thing at the same time with out it making sense.
I will also say that women are more prone to acting selfish and hypocritical (especially the hypocritical since men have firmer ideas and adherence, in general relative to women, of the "ideal".
Masculine traits are honor, duty, respect, loyalty. When men are more "selfish and hypocritical" (and yes, these are human characteristics) they are rejecting the traditional masculine values.
I would separate Selfish and Hypocritical. Men are less hypocritical and therefore, mechanisms in place to better control their selfishness. I believe all humans operate in self interest. Men, i would argue, tend to have more people benefit from their self interest.
For example, as a generalization, men will enact laws that benefit society while women enact laws that benefit women. Of the two, who is more selfish?
Where is all this slut shaming? I don't see people on the street pointing at women and yelling "Slut!" and hate hooting. Men discussing what they want in a wife certainly doesn't qualify.
Tomassi wrote:
DICE: I suppose the next question would be, “How do you suppose she got that way?”
---I LOVE that bit! Nicely done, Rollo. Always a classic & a relevant reference. :-)
How many guys actually care about "the number"? I never did; does that make me unique or just unusual?
Loveashley.net wrote:
Bullying women into "realizing how ***disgusting*** they are." Do you even know what you just said there? If anything, all it does is causes them to feel shame, regret, and guilt. If you really think this is the way that women should feel about themselves, as disgusting people, then I urge you to seek professional help.
--- Wow, and to think humans (male or female) should be held to account for THEIR vile actions....LOL...ghastly!! If it walks like a duck, etc....
Geez, Ash....please realize that people need to take accountability for their own actions, good or bad. Yes, she is SUPPOSED to feel disgusted with herself.....as a direct result of her OWN BAD BEHAVIOUR! - again...wow.
@Rex Little:
Are you looking for marriage or something ... less committal?
For example, as a generalization, men will enact laws that benefit society while women enact laws that benefit women
Like the MRM's much-beloved proposal to strip all men of their parental rights until they pony up for a DNA test?
Not looking at the moment, been married for 21 years. When I was single I never cared about the number. My wife's was at least 5 (counting those she was married to or lived with before me), and I would guess her actual number was 5-10 more. But I never asked.
But did you understand the effect of "N" with respect to pair-bonding, divorce risk, etc at the time? Don't think the androsphere existed 21 years ago! *laugh*
(i.e., if you knew then what you know now, would your attitude to a "potential wife's N" be the same?)
Not looking at the moment, been married for 21 years. When I was single I never cared about the number. My wife's was at least 5 (counting those she was married to or lived with before me), and I would guess her actual number was 5-10 more. But I never asked.
I am glad for you both. No sarcasm. It's good to remember that what looks like a bad risk can sometimes pay, and that dedication can always trump inclination.
But you do realize that you two are an exception to a general rule, though, right?
Actually I regret the marriage, for reasons having nothing to do with anyone's sexual history. I really was just wondering what I asked originally, which is whether there are many other guys who care as little as I do (or did when I was in the game) about the number. I offer no opinion about whether it is or is not wise to do so.
Rex Little: I didn't care about numbers and either did my husband. What I have learned in the past year since I've learned about Game is that "the number" matters very much to those in it.
So yes, you are either unusual or not yet indoctrinated by Game. Pick your poison.
I’m not a big fan of shaming. In other words, I don’t like the idea of emotionally manipulating people specifically for the purpose of making them feel shame. On the other hand, I don’t like the idea of emotionally manipulating society so that people don’t feel shame either. Shame is an authentic emotional reaction when we're reminded of what we've done wrong.
The same is true with respect to shame at being unchaste. Outside the vocations of father, husband, pastor, etc, it's not our job to go around slut-shaming. At the same time, it's nobody's job to eliminate slut-shame: the feelings of unchaste women when they are reminded that what is good and what felt good are not synonymous. Nobody has the responsibility to refrain from commenting about the relevance of multiple sexual partners in a spouse so that the unchaste don't feel bad.
"I really was just wondering what I asked originally, which is whether there are many other guys who care as little as I do (or did when I was in the game) about the number."
For the woman I want to get married to...yes because of all the inherent risks it brings in this day and age. Divorce is more than enough reason to choose a lady very carefully.
If she's already a slut...no I don't care about how high her number is because I won't commit to her anyway. She's already picked a lifestyle and must accept the consequences.
Sex is adhesive--it serves to emotionally and physically bind a man and a woman together in a relationship. But like any adhesive, it gets weaker when you start attaching and detaching it over and over again. A consequence of too many partners is an inability to experience sexual intimacy with people.
The people who aren't bothered by numbers tend to be the ones with high numbers themselves. They can't really experience sexual intimacy in the same way they used to, but at the same time, it doesn't really occur to them that something like that should matter.
"Damaged goods" may be an old-fashioned phrase, but it's also an accurate one. People contemplating committing to one person for the rest of their lives should know what they're getting into in this regard.
Outside the vocations of father, husband, pastor, etc, it's not our job to go around slut-shaming.
So until you've already consummated it, boys, you'd better man up and marry those whores.
People contemplating committing to one person for the rest of their lives should know what they're getting into in this regard.
But don't you dare make her feel bad about it.
Take the chip off your shoulder, Signe. If you tell a girl to buzz off because of her history, she may naturally feel ashamed. That's not the same thing as manipulating her into feeling shame, and I think my posts made that clear.
1/0 (1 divided by zero) is infinity. That is the difference between virginity and the various levels of "experience".
Shaming is one of the only moral ways to influence behavior. By outright refusing to do it, we surrender our influence over others.
Unless we resort to pure reason, which works real well on 22 year-old women.
"Unless we resort to pure reason, which works real well on 22 year-old women"
Amen, brother! Shame is pretty effective when applied properly, and is probably more comfortable than a chastity belt...
Emotional manipulation = reason to a young woman.
ACTUAL reason = blahblahblahblah to the typical young woman.
Reason takes years for both men and women to respond to, especially in light of their hormones and stupidity at that age.
But it is usually easier to reason with a man.
Emma said...
"It doesn't really hurt unless someone has something to be ashamed about."
I will have to agree with Ashley on this one. Judgements, name-calling and shaming hurt many people, regardless of whether it has any truth in it.
Will women ever stop "creeper shaming"? What about the feelings of those unfortunate men with poor sociosexual skills? Will women stop judging them harshly, hurting their feelings and refusing to have sex with them?
"Creeper shaming" does nothing to help these men or the women who engage in the shaming behavior.
"Would either of you mind expanding a bit on these terms? What you are seeing?"
Greater gender differentiation and tuning out/discrediting of efforts to eliminate it.
I think there is a recognition that tough times are on the way, and for them may already be here regarding their future employment/earning opportunities, so there's a greater sense of urgency toward getting the practice in cooperative partnering between the sexes that is necessary to have a successful marriage in the future.
A good marriage is a great boon during tough times, and I think they get that in their bones. All the other bullshit takes a back seat.
@Signe
"Like the MRM's much-beloved proposal to strip all men of their parental rights until they pony up for a DNA test?"
what a very strange take on this issue you have. How about taking this version for a spin, see if it reflects reality a little better;
"not force men to shoulder the responsibility for children until it is proven that those children are theirs"
Any man not wishing for the test to be carried out? I wish them well and hope that their faith in their partner is well founded.
A little more 'trust, but verify' might cause women to clean up their act a little. Society would benefit from that.
Why is it that so many women have a hard time understanding why men despise cuckoldry? women who leave hospital with the wrong child get pretty miffed about it, in those circumstances assuming the parental responsibility for only the appropriate children matters to women. somehow, according to many women, this is not supposed to be the case for men. Such women disgust me, that society allows these ideas to flourish disgusts me more.
Signe,
"What scares me is how so many people are against the very idea that people should feel shame--from feminists to MRAs to whoever else is peddling man-as-an-island-ism or whatever you call it. Inure people to shame and you inure them to one of the best controls there is for people who don't have firm principles (which is most of 'em). "
I agree with this - people who don't have strong foundations need something to hold them all in check. I never dispute this. What I'm saying is that we should be better, and only feel shame when we go against our principles. The society will shame you for many things, a lot of them having nothing to do with bad actions. In these parts of the internet, people view shame as a good thing. But one can also be shamed into doing bad things, or not standing up for good things. One can be shamed into being like everyone else, and everyone else can be an anti-family feminist, for example. Shame is a way to control herds, so I understand why MRAs encourage others not to be easily shamed.
Desert Cat,
"Will women ever stop "creeper shaming"? What about the feelings of those unfortunate men with poor sociosexual skills? Will women stop judging them harshly, hurting their feelings and refusing to have sex with them? "
I'm not really against shaming. I'm against people letting themselves be controlled by other people's shaming language when it has no logic in it.
I was just saying words can hurt, regardless of whether they make sense. I don't think I want to shame those men. I'd rather they were directed towards places where they can learn better sociosexual skills. Although some mild shaming can work. I heard men reading Roosh's "Compliment&Cuddle" experience shame and vow to never do those things again.
Just because reason doesn't work doesn't mean that shaming will. Honestly, now, how effective have recent attempts at shaming been? Mostly I just see it creating a greater sense of solidarity among sexually barbaric women. I'm not saying dialectic will work, I'm saying that rhetoric won't do much either--particularly this kind of rhetoric.
When women are shamed, they naturally seek out people to emotionally validate and support them and condemn the shamers. Slut-shame worked in the past because women had to remove themselves from polite society in order to find that validation--there was a high cost to it. This is obviously no longer the case. Shame might maintain a social ethic, but it does not create one.
You'll probably ask, "then what is the solution?" Maybe there isn't one--at least, not one that we can bring about on our own. Maybe our best bet is to civilize our own wives and daughters, openly adhere to and defend sexual morality, marry well (or not at all), and otherwise let women experience the consequences of their bad decisions. When this society finishes committing suicide, the next one will fare better the more virtuous people there are to have a hand in building it.
Incredible insight. Thanks for sharing that post Alphagame. Definitely going into a Best of the Manosphere soon. It's not intentional that 'Virginity vs Sluttery' has my highest number of posts, but that's the topic of some of the most useful information out there!!
Just1Z:
"Why is it that so many women have a hard time understanding why men despise cuckoldry? women who leave hospital with the wrong child get pretty miffed about it, in those circumstances assuming the parental responsibility for only the appropriate children matters to women. somehow, according to many women, this is not supposed to be the case for men. Such women disgust me, that society allows these ideas to flourish disgusts me more. "
That's a damn excellent point.
What woman would say that it would be okay with them for the law to FORCE them to raise someone else's child due to a hospital mixup even after they know for a fact it's not theirs?
Hypocrisy at its finest.
I'm all for DNA testing. After all, it's in the child's best interests to know its real DNA / health history and donor profiles, etc.
Honestly, now, how effective have recent attempts at shaming been?
From whom?
Shaming works best when it is received from someone in an authoritative position who is revered/respected by the individual. My mother's words, "shame on you." fell on deaf ears because she participated in the precise behavior I did and had proven herself untrustworthy. The difference was in our age, so I was taught these things are reserved for older individuals. Forbidden fruit.
For sluts, the shame needs to come from that which she covets. If she's looking for a relationship with a hot alpha, she will be shamed/influenced by him outright telling her she doesn't stand a chance with him because she's just a slut. She needs to see that he behaves differently towards quality, chaste women. No, she can't change her past but she can proceed with humility and a commitment to stopping the behavior.
If she witnesses the kind of marriage she wants to have, she will be shamed and influenced by being told (from the couple who have that marriage) it isn't available for her unless she changes her behavior. Even if this angers her, if it's something she truly desires, she'll double down to prove them wrong and in doing so...change her behavior.
The shaming of Sandra Fluke by Rush will never affect Sandra Fluke, it will, however, affect those who respect Rush. A conservative woman on birth control will double down that she does not need the state to pay for it. If she respects Rush, she will never want him to speak shamingly of something she does. If it's something she used to do, that's fine. She's seen the light and can join the bandwagon.
Coddling sluts does not work. And it's a pity those who have the platform to do so concern themselves more with approval than they do actually helping sluts, even though they know the long term consequences of being a slut. Yes, some sluts will run away from that which makes them feel bad. But it gets in their head. If everyone she is drawn to is saying the same things about sluts she will internalize it and begin the process of changing.
Consider how successful this approach has been for feminists. Those in authoritative positions are masters at rhetoric. "Shame on them who appeal to biblical authority (Misogynist!! Racist!! Homophobic!!)"..and voila, the talking points are set in stone. And the seed of doubt is placed into mind of the hesitant virgin who is vacillating on whether or not to explore her sexuality.
It does matter even if you think it doesn't. My stbxw and I both had multiple partners before marriage. While I didn't have a problem with her number, because I was so in "love", the problem came later as she is really unable to "pair bond" like a normal woman with less past sexual history. Our divorce will be final soon..... beware.
what a very strange take on this issue you have. How about taking this version for a spin, see if it reflects reality a little better;
"not force men to shoulder the responsibility for children until it is proven that those children are theirs"
Any man not wishing for the test to be carried out? I wish them well and hope that their faith in their partner is well founded.
I have an interesting take because I look at it from the perspective of a "bundle of rights".
You see, the phrase "mandatory paternity testing" means that fatherhood is not legally conferred--and therefore not legally recognized--until a man goes through the time and expense of a DNA test.
What comes with this bundle? Let's see:
- right of access;
- right to make decisions on behalf of child;
- right to have any say whatsoever in the child's life;
- right to administer discipline;
- right to custody of the child
Among others. Now, I anticipate your response will be a snide "OMG but all Mommy has to do is go to court", but here's the deal: she has to go to court. She has to go get the complicity of a court in order to take away his rights that already exist as a matter of law. It requires an affirmative act on her part.
Let's say you get what you think you want. Okay, now you can't have any of your rights until you do the paternity thing. Oops, wait a minute; changes to parental status are handled by the courts.
Now, instead of Mommy having to go to court to take away Daddy's rights, all she has to do is say "no". Now Daddy has to go to THE SAME COURT to GET his rights. Hey, look! That's the same mean ol' feminist judge who doesn't like men, and he's begging her for his Daddy privileges (because they're not rights if the court has to bestow them)!
Oh, and meanwhile? You know what happens when you make a product or service mandatory? Prices go UP. Uh-oh, looks like Middle Class Dad can't buy his rights anymore. Only rich dads get their kids now.
A little more 'trust, but verify' might cause women to clean up their act a little. Society would benefit from that.
Enforced by law? How about "don't marry a slut"? How about allowing men to challenge paternity rather than assuming all children are bastards and making men jump through more hoops to have what's theirs?
Why is it that so many women have a hard time understanding why men despise cuckoldry?
I don't. I also understand that when you get the government involved in things, ESPECIALLY a crappy broken family-court system and a sometimes-unreliable test (ask the crime labs about that), you make it worse, not better. More laws mean more power to women, dimwit.
in those circumstances assuming the parental responsibility for only the appropriate children matters to women
Laws also have a peculiar effect on society. People start to align their beliefs about things accordingly. That in mind, imagine the effect of making it a point of law that a child is assumed to have no father until someone buys his rights and pleases the court.
Oops.
somehow, according to many women, this is not supposed to be the case for men. Such women disgust me, that society allows these ideas to flourish disgusts me more.
Yeah, and the people who actually see how your proposal is just handing more power to the courts and to women make you so mad!
Oh, and furthermore...
Single women sometimes list no father on the birth certification because they'd like them some welfare benefits for baby.
Now imagine if ALL women were given the option not to list a father.
Your taxes just spiked, buddy.
Among others. Now, I anticipate your response will be a snide "OMG but all Mommy has to do is go to court", but here's the deal: she has to go to court. She has to go get the complicity of a court in order to take away his rights that already exist as a matter of law. It requires an affirmative act on her part.
And I should add this:
This still does not strip him of all rights. He is still the father and retains at least the potentiality of rights. In order for his paternity to be completely severed and render him completely and permanently unable to be involved in his children's lives, he has to sign away his rights or the court has to meet a very high standard to do it involuntarily.
For clarity's sake.
That this is abused right now because of the mess the laws are does not mean that you need more laws that unscrupulous people can and will use against you. It means you need to straighten them back out to what they used to be when they were more just.
Men diminished their SMV when they become manwhores. This truth is heresy in the manoshpere, but the prudent, chaste women are repulsed by a man's history of ONS and promiscuity.
I think certain men and women are equally repulsed by a high "n" count.
And equally repulsed by those lying about it.
I am a woman with a very low "n" count, and thought I had a man with the same. When push came to shove and he confessed how many he was using at just one time, that thoroughly repulsed me, beyond words...
Annie, that is observably untrue. You were upset that he was lying, but you were not repulsed by the idea that you had a man that was attractive to many women.
The passion with which you attack his SMV is evidence. Obviously, a man with low SMV by definition is not racking up a higher N. You are being irrational in your attacks. He is a liar, but a lying stud, not a lying "manwhore."
Or are you suggesting that after you tossed him out he was unable to find a woman?
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.