Thursday, September 26, 2013

The importance of slut-shaming

This study on different sex-based susceptibilities to corruption both explains the fallacious, but oft-held male idea of female moral superiority as well as the societal imperative to slut-shame women in order to prevent civilizational devolution:
Previous research has suggested an association between a politician’s gender and their likelihood to engage in corrupt behavior. A World Bank study from 2001, for instance, found that “one standard deviation increase in [female participation in government] will result in a decline in corruption... of 20 percent of a standard deviation". This perception has been behind some well-publicized campaigns, such as Mexico City’s plan to employ all-female traffic cops in some areas.

But the new study by political scientists Justin Esarey and Gina Chirillo of Rice University argues that this effect is highly dependent on institutional context. In a political culture “where corruption is stigmatized, women will be less tolerant of corruption and less likely to engage in it compared to men,” they write. “But if corrupt behaviors are an ordinary part of governance supported by political institutions, there will be no corruption gender gap.”

That could be because women face a different level of incentive to not be corrupt. Voters, in general, tend to punish female politicians more harshly for corrupt behavior, and their political positions in general are more tenuous. “When voters find out men have ethics and honesty issues, they say, ‘Well, I expected that,’" Celinda Lake, a U.S. Democratic party pollster told the New York Times last year. . “When they find out it’s a woman, they say, ‘I thought she was better than that.'

All this is to say, when you take consequences out of the picture, there’s not that much difference in behavior. Esarey and Chirillo describe an experiment conducted “in the United States and Burkina Faso where they found that, compared to men, women are equally likely to accept bribes in the absence of monitoring but are substantially less likely to accept bribes when being monitored.”
This suggests - not proves, but suggests - that absent social pressure to remain chaste, women will behave as badly in the sexual sense as men.  Which is what we have largely observed in the post-sexual revolution decline in female moral standards.  The fact that female behavior is not yet, on average, quite as bad as male behavior is likely in part due to the fact that some sexual double-standard still exists.

Female susceptibility to social pressure is why slut-shaming is so effective. This is also why feminists, being anti-civilizational barbarians, are so focused on preventing both men and women from slut-shaming.  Of course, the same tactic can be used against them by relentlessly pointing out that they are rude barbarians at war with both decency and civilization itself.

So, never apologize for making a woman feel bad about her sexual history or hesitate to do so. In doing so, you are defending civilization.

45 comments:

finndistan said...

"that absent social pressure to remain chaste, women will behave as badly in the sexual sense as men."

The only men behaving badly in the sexual sense are the ones that can.

Any woman has the option to behave badly.

What is absent is not only social stigma, but if taken to the extreme:

No risk of pregnancy from sex.
No need to give birth if there is a pregnancy.
No risk of starving if there is birth.
No risk of STD.

Again taken to the extreme for men:

No risk of pregnancy from sex, given that he found a girl who will have sex with him.
If pregnancy, no say in the matter.
If birth, no say in the matter.
If STD, can be cured.

But again the biggest difference is,

Also,
"The fact that female behavior is not yet, on average, quite as bad as male behavior is likely in part due to the fact that some sexual double-standard still exists."

A man behaving bad is a man who can,
A woman behaving bad is a woman who will.

This is the only double standard.

We need to stop calling the slut stud thing a double standard. this just gives the phrase legitimacy.

You'd know better Vox, Dichotomy? Duology? Divide? Standard?

Is it a double standard if it arises from two different requirements meeting two different criteria judged from two different choices?

"So, never apologize for making a woman feel bad about her sexual history or hesitate to do so. In doing so, you are defending civilization. "

A million progressive hamsters just went lemmings off the cliff.

The CronoLink said...

Women, for the most part, are followers so they will follow, no matter the moral quality of their leaders.

IrishFarmer said...

The only reason there's a double standard of shaming in this regard is because women like experienced guys. Otherwise, they'd try and shame guys too. But men are disgusted by the thought of boldly going where everyone has gone before. Well, some guys aren't, but chances are those guys aren't swimming in options either.

If women want to fix the double standard, all they have to do is completely rewire all of their brains so that they find different things attractive.

Crowhill said...

Very interesting, and I agree that sluts should be shamed. So should players.

cailcorishev said...

A man seeks the approval of individual men he respects; a woman seeks the approval of womankind. If the herd says, "Wear a dress and look as pretty as you can and marry a doctor and make babies," most women will try to do that. If the herd says, "Get a degree and a job and gain plenty of sexual experience before you settle down at 35," most women will try to do that. What the herd says, goes, most of the time.

Weouro said...

Fashion slaves

JLT said...

Huffpo on how the dating carousel is like picking a jar of jam at the megamart:

Dating Is the Worst, and Other Scientific Facts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/katherine-fritz/dating-is-the-worst-and-other-scientific-facts_b_3972843.html

Peabody said...

If standards are good, then double standards are twice as good, right?

loveashley.net said...

As long as men will be sluts, women will be sluts. Life is hard, I know.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

As long as men will be sluts, women will be sluts. Life is hard, I know.

Because it's the man's fault that a woman can't keep her legs closed.

Vox said...

I agree that sluts should be shamed. So should players.

You're completely missing the point of the study. Shaming players doesn't make any difference. Shaming sluts does.

Weouro said...

As long as men will be sluts, women will be sluts.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. Which is why until recent decades women's sexuality was strictly controlled and virginity was prized.

CarpeOro said...

Ah yes, the old "women are just like men. Because" rears it's head. You go grrrl.

finndistan said...

Society can control women's sexuality;
Women do control men's sexuality...

Jack Amok said...

Previous research has suggested an association between a politician’s gender and their likelihood to engage in corrupt behavior.

I get the impression that there's about a 40-year period where any sort of "research" about women is just complete made-up BS. A great deal of our future depends on re-learning stuff our great-grandfathers (and a fair number of our great-grandmothers) knew.

Crowhill said...

Vox, I thought you were a logical guy. I agree that sluts should be shamed. I also believe players should be shamed. I did not say that the second point has anything to do with the study.

River Cocytus said...

Shaming players doesn't change their behavior, however, so I guess it makes one feel better for having done it?

cailcorishev said...

Crowhill, men are shamed constantly in our society, for a wide variety of things. When I was watching football last weekend, every other commercial seemed to take a turn at it. Were you worried that, if one article about shaming women went by without evening up the score with a reminder about the perfidiousness of men, we'd all forget and the world would turn to round-the-clock woman-bashing?

The thing is, "society" as a whole can't effectively shame men. A man doesn't give a crap what society thinks; at worst, a stigma against something will cause him to keep it private. Only another man whom he respects can inspire shame in him.

Women are the opposite: the approval of the herd almost always means more than the approval of any one person. A woman's lifelong mentor can tell her she should do something (homeschool, for example) and give her a laundry list of reasons to do it, but if all the other women in the neighborhood or at church disagree, she will find it very hard to go her own way. She may not even like any of them, but she won't want to oppose their group will. And when you expand the herd to include TV, magazines, and the entire government/corporate/academic structure, all sending her the same you-go-girl instructions, she's in trouble.

So if you can get society to re-stigmatize bad behavior by women, women will stop most of that behavior. Do the same thing regarding men's behavior, and they'll laugh at you. If you want to pick on men to keep it fair, you'll have to go after them one by one.

Trust said...

Women are shamed when you call them sluts. Men are shamed when you call them pussies. Why so many people act like the genders are basically the same is beyond me.

Crowhill said...

cailcorishev, I absolutely agree that men are shamed constantly in our society.

However, I also believe that men should be leaders and set the agenda. Sometimes I get a very wimpy sense from manosphere blogs and comments that "if women only acted the way they should, everything would be fine." (I'm not accusing Vox of that.)

Men should lead the way. Men should set the moral tone and enforce it -- on women and on other men.

MarkyMark said...

Women have moral standards? Women are CAPABLE of that?! I'm not so sure; otherwise, women and their sexuality would not have been controlled throughout history...

Retrenched said...

A slut is a woman with the sexual morals of a man.

A coward is a man with the courage of a woman.

Double standards are a fact of life, and they're never, ever, ever going away.

Wyatt Frost said...

lol at shaming players. Like a guy is going to be "shamed" for screwing a bunch of pretty girls.

Vox said...

I also believe players should be shamed. I did not say that the second point has anything to do with the study.

True, you didn't. But since we are not discussing your beliefs, but the study, the point is relevant. Especially since your belief that players should be shamed is irrelevant, given that player-shaming is ineffective.

Video game playing and porn viewing are also shamed. Hasn't reduced much consumption of either, has it.

HanSolo said...

Very interesting post. Women want to stay part of the herd (for protection and resources) and so they care more than men about avoiding being cast out of the herd. Thus shaming is a very useful tactic to keep women in line. Unfortunately, the feminists and raunch queens have taken control of the largest female herds and shame women that don't fall in line with them!

As to men these days, most follow the female herd in order to try to get sex.

HanSolo said...

@Crowhill

Who are the men that are actually able to be players? They tend to be the more attractive or the more charismatic or the wealthier. Basically, the upper level of men. Shaming them will have little effect on them. You think that shaming Alex Rodriguez will get him to stop womanizing? He'll just say F U and bang another hotty.

You might convince a few players to stop playing, via religion or realizing that hogging all the women for themselves leads to societal collapse, eventually, maybe. But really, the most effective way is to get women to shut their legs. Without the easy casual sex then players will realize they better grab a hot wife while they can.

Marry off the top men to the top women and the rest will follow suit.

HanSolo said...

A good point by cail. Men are more hierarchical and will tend to only fear shame of higher up men. So only top men could successfully shame players...but most of the top men these days love feminism and raunch culture. They get tons of pussy, votes, workers and consumers out of current society.

Perhaps a collapse is needed to shake the apex males into making society work for all men again...a beta revolt, perhaps led by an opportunistic or idealistic alpha or sigma; or enough men just checking out leading to an economic decline.

I talk about a lot of these issues in my post on the hierarchy of the herd:

http://www.justfourguys.com/hierarchy-of-the-herd/

Trust said...

I read a comment recently that if women reached the wall at 300 instead of 30, they'd bang bastards and ignore gentlemen for 298 years, then spend 2 years bitching about the lack of gentlemen.

Our society is as close to a hypergamous utopia as has ever existed. Women commonly extort support from decent men while servicing alpha bastards and feminists have never bitched more.

It's about as absurd as a pro sports team demanding the rules be changed to their liking, then crying foul when the other team changes their strategies accordingly.

tz said...

Fewer sluts = fewer players, or at least opportunities.

Women were and are worse off - pregnancy and STD and even emotionally when they behave badly. Before antibiotics and the pill and abortion, they could play, but would often pay - dearly. That was a restraint. The rationalization hamster (you need to get and update Sunshine Mary's animation) can only spin so fast.

Reformed sinners tend to try to impose the greatest guilt and shame which can help.

Trust said...

I think Sandra Fluke illustrates female incentives and feminists confusion perfectly. She was given a national stage at the Democratic Convention accusing mostly beta males of engaging in a war on women and demanding they supplement her sex life by providing her birth control. I doubt she or those like her even considered limiting their sex partners to men who will help with birth control cost, or who at least think they are worth the 50 cent cost of a condom. Oh nooooo. Alpha thug wants sex, won't help with birth control, won't buy condom, just wants to masturbate with her vagina.... the villains must be the bastard beta men who are otherwise invisible to her who want to spend their money on their kids braces instead of her carousel rides.

It's pretty hilarious actually.

mmaier2112 said...

Retrenched said...

A slut is a woman with the sexual morals of a man.

A coward is a man with the courage of a woman.

Double standards are a fact of life, and they're never, ever, ever going away.


Well said, sir.

Crowhill said...

Based on what I've read, many "red pill" men had a change. They used to be wimps, then they wised up.

Even if it's true that shaming a player won't change him, shaming a player may stop some men from aspiring to be one.

tacticaltoolbox said...

As Vox was saying, shaming really doesn't work. But what I have found works is the usual: men protecting their daughters directly and threatening any man who dares to cross the lines set by fathers. Haven't met a player yet that doesn't respect a 230gr. FMJ or JHP. If he's too stupid to be impressed, I guess he'll be too dead to care otherwise.

But this is the key, each man needs to protect his own daughter. Expecting society to do that is like asking the fox to guard the hen house. Doing it himself is hard work and certainly will deviate from the societal norm of school, college, and what is considered a woman's right to freedom. But such is the cost of civilization. No one said it was easy.

HanSolo said...

@tactical

How does killing a man help things really in today's society? The killer, the father, will be sent to prison and thus won't be able to protect his daughter anymore. And if she was a willing partner, which she likely was, then even though one sex partner is dead she'll find others.

Until you change what the apex people (mostly males but some females) want by force or the ballot box or threat of economic collapse, things are likely not to change too much.

tacticaltoolbox said...

@ Han

Tell me, if douche bags start dying for touching men's daughters, will the remaining douche bags stop? Secondly, I want to be judged by a jury of my peers, i.e. douche bag killing fathers. :-)

To give you better context, what man touches my daughter when I am right there? That is to what I was referring in how it isn't easy to protect your own daughter yourself. You have to be there physically to do it. It changes life. It changes a civilization. It does greatly help, though, to get one's daughter behind the whole "remain chaste until marriage and let daddy find a husband for you" thing. Like I said, civilization ain't for the faint of heart. That's why not anyone can do it.

evilwhitemalempire said...

http://i0.wp.com/www.antifeministtech.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/that-slut.jpg

Tommy Hass said...

"As Vox was saying, shaming really doesn't work. But what I have found works is the usual: men protecting their daughters directly and threatening any man who dares to cross the lines set by fathers. Haven't met a player yet that doesn't respect a 230gr. FMJ or JHP. If he's too stupid to be impressed, I guess he'll be too dead to care otherwise."

The funny thing is, if this faggot ever met a "player" face to face, he would be wetting his pants in sheer terror.

Yes you shitstain, murder an innocent man because your stupid cunt of a daughter is too much of a slut to keep her legs closed. You will be raped regularly in prison by big bubba and your daughter will devolve even further. That is if the family of the guy you killed (lets pretend for a second you'd actually have the guts to do that) don't destroy your family in revenge.

Has it ever occurred to you to, I dunno, punish your daughter for her sluttitude? You know the one who is actually related to you?

Flaming faggot.

cailcorishev said...

Sometimes I get a very wimpy sense from manosphere blogs and comments that "if women only acted the way they should, everything would be fine."

On this particular topic -- rampant promiscuity and its effect on marriage and society -- that's pretty much true. If women kept their legs together while unmarried and were loyal and obedient to their husbands after marriage -- not perfect, but generally acting as they should, as they did over a century ago -- it wouldn't matter whether men wanted to be players or not. A man who wanted to sleep around would have to resort to prostitutes or dangerous affairs. Women are the gatekeepers of sex, and if they close the gates, men will get in line and do what it takes to get in.

I'm less optimistic that men can lead the way on this. That would only work if a strong majority of men could "enforce it," to use your words; but that means going all the way back to patriarchy, ending women's suffrage, giving men the legal right to control sexual access to their daughters and wives with force if necessary, and so on. That's not going to happen just because some of us decide to be men again, because men aren't the gatekeepers of sex. It only takes a small number of players to reward all the women for being slutty, and together they'll always outvote those of us who want to return to patriarchy. If you're advocating armed rebellion, fine, but no action by men short of that will change this much.

Conscientia Republicae said...

I love how Tommy Hass talks as if he actually knows Tactical Toolbox personally, and knows for a fact that TT would either shit his pants in terror or engage in flaming faggot behavior.

Black Poison Soul said...

Do we want to defend our current civilization?

Michael Maier said...

Tommy's posts are tiresome, but he does put the burden where it belongs: on the woman. Girls get the behavior they are willing to endure. If a girl tells a player to get lost and refuses to entertain him, he will move on.

If she spreads and he takes advantage, that's on her. I'd say so even were she my own daughter.

I remember a guy here posting that he told his daughter that if she went off and spent a vacation with her boyfriend in hotel rooms, he considered her married and he was done taking care of her. I like that stance a lot.

subject by design said...

When a man protects his daughter, he does it with his presence. The reason he could shoot a man who was making a move on her is because he is right there. Obviously, the fact that he is right there is why he won't have to shoot anyone. Women cannot defend themselves from douche bags. They are not designed or equipped to resist them. It is pointless to dream about women keeping their legs closed and doing their part to maintain civilization. Since the beginning of time men have known that women cannot be left to run around unchaperoned, but in our time, we somehow got the idea that women have evolved into being able to resist and to defend themselves. A man may not save everyone's daughters and preserve what civilization is left, but the protection of his own daughter is completely within his power. Whining about how society will never accept it or that you are helpless to protect and defend your daughters unless and until the majority supports you is noting more than a weak excuse. There are men right here in the U.S. doing just that. And I hope that as more do it, others will grow a pair and begin to do it, too. Stop blaming your daughters and the douche bags and take an active roll in the situation.

Laughingdog said...

@tactical

"Haven't met a player yet that doesn't respect a 230gr. FMJ or JHP. If he's too stupid to be impressed, I guess he'll be too dead to care otherwise."

So what do you intend to do when the player knows how to use his better than you do, especially if you threatened him in advance?

tacticaltoolbox said...

@ Laughing and Tommy Hass:

Both of you guys need to take a little break and re-read what I am saying and what I am not saying. First off, I semi-outlined that much about what fathers do for their daughters needs to change. The first thing that men need to do is restrict the daughter's free run of the town, college, institutionalized school (not for sons either), etc. She is either in his presence or in the presence of someone he trusts and who can protect her morally and physically. This kind of protection, players tend to stay away from this. Should they be stupid enough to actually try to make moves whilst I am present (notice she won't be in bars, or anything of the sort--I don't follow her around, she follows me), then I am more than happy to oblige their little fingers. I think most juries would see things my way because I also have my daughter's cooperation. Now I know what you're thinking: "Well, in that case..." Yes, in that case I have everything freaking sewed up and that's because I'm the kind of man who can lead women and command their respect. They agree with me because I am intellectually persuasive and they also know from whence cometh their physical protection, moral guidance, and provision.

Now, if either of you two name calling mental midgets care to visit me, touch my daughter (she's 20 and single and not a troll) or wife, and see how decisive I can and will act, bring it on. Otherwise, you can stop calling names and enter the discussion like men (should you decide to grow a pair).

John said...

Great blog..........!
For funeral photo designing template & make your photo more attractive and good looking please visit my site
http://elegantmemorials.com/

Post a Comment

NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.