It’s 2014, so Andi has the right—like any other Bachelor or Bachelorette or human being—to have sex for a myriad of reasons besides love. Plus, the show is also constructed to make her develop feelings for more than one man at a time, so it shouldn’t be shocking that she kisses or sleeps with or does whatever with multiple men.Sure she does. And since everyone else possesses the freedom of speech, anyone who thinks she is exercising that right without sufficient discrimination has the right to call her a slut for doing so.
Women can cry about double-standards all they like. It won't do any good due to the fact that the double-standard arises from their divergent own rules of attraction. Women favor men with sexual experience. Men disfavor women with sexual experience. It's not rocket science.
Want to get rid of the double-standard? Fine, then stop having casual sex with men who aren't virgins. Going to go with that strategy? No, I didn't think so.
51 comments:
I agree with you on this. You have the right to criticize. And they have a right to criticize you for slut shaming. Freedom of speech is great, isn't it?
It is not so much that we think they shouldn't criticize us for slut shaming so much as it is that their arguments against it are stupid.
But we have to be careful in our use of our freedom of speech, they might retaliate with cat pictures.
After all, the men are allowed to be “players.”
Women love "players". It should be called The Carousel Game.
If they don't like slut-shaming, they could try not being sluts. It's so crazy it might work!
Logic is, like, totes sexist. And stuff. H8RS!!1!
Too true, Vox. But I'm willing to bet there are enough thirsty betas and white-knighting Churchians waiting in the wings to 'wife up' these sluts so they never have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
That's what recent history shows, Laguna. Past performance isn't a guarantee of the future, though, and even the thirsty betas are beginning to notice the difference between a slut's words and her deeds after a ring is put on it. The truth is also much more available, that's part of what this website does.
When my son asked me about women, and why they did what they did, I could answer him truthfully, and point him towards alpha game, heartiste and dalrock for more information. He is going his own way, as he is autistic and with a speech impediment. Tall and handsome doesn't cut it if you can't act alpha and he simply cannot do so.
Men are starting to figure this out. Spread the truth as you can, every man that gets the red pill makes a slut lose her free ride.
Yeah, Andi has the "right" to have sex with whoever she wants. But she doesn't have the "right" to be praised for making stupid choices. This is symptomatic of our culture as a whole, that is being facetious when it demands "tolerance." The "tolerance" for which the whore and homosexual lust is actually praise and adulation for their deviant choices.
Just because you can do something, doesn't mean you should be glorified for it.
IMO the one thing we can say at this point is that women do not get to decide what men think of sluts. Feminism has been trying to do that for years - it almost worked too. Many women have been able to slut around and then find a provider later on.
But men have been watching. And talking, and blogging and debating.
The pool of men willing to 'wife up those sluts' is shrinking, especially amongst those men with options - the ones women want. Only small numbers at this stage but already enough to trigger a whole host of 'where have all the good men gone?' hand wringing articles.
The irony is that most men love sluts - as a man some of the best times you will ever experience will be with a slut. It's promiscuity men loath. We want our women to behave like a slut - the important thing is that she be just 'our' slut. I think this is the issue that really underlies feminist's obsession with sluts - they fear not the removal of the ability to behave like a slut; they fear that men's natural preference for low N women be widely accepted.
The irony is that most men love sluts - as a man some of the best times you will ever experience will be with a slut. It's promiscuity men loath.
Exactly. To further the point with an analogy: Everybody wants a Ferrari, but nobody wants a sports car with 100,000 miles on it. The problem feminists are running into is that you can't track a car (repeatedly) and then sell it, without warrantee, as new.
But this poses a secondary problem. Sure, these women are starting to experience headwinds in the marriage arena. If the blogging and the debating and the coverage is any indication, though, modern men appear more than happy to play the short game indefinitely. Why buy the Ferrari when you can rent it? Given the Millennial stock of women and the legal system, I see no justifiable reason not to play it short in a market that clearly punishes male long-term investment. The one exception would be those of us who are Christian and therefore (in theory) excluded from the short market altogether. We, it would seem, have to play with risk.
Gee it's almost like men and women are different or something...
Of course, the flip side of the double standard is that men cherish and adore female virgins, while women ridicule and shame male virgins. But I don't see anyone trying to judge or condemn women for ridiculing virgin men, or demanding that women cherish male virgins as men cherish female ones.
The one exception would be those of us who are Christian and therefore (in theory) excluded from the short market altogether. We, it would seem, have to play with risk.
That is one factor among many which explains why so many more Churchians are female. Practicing non-hypocritical Christian men, especially traditional Catholics, suffer in ways similar Christian women do not -- as both have low N, the women are automatically favored by outsiders over the men. The men, if they're lucky, also tend to be targeted by aging sluts hunting for beta bux due to their more guileless, gullible, socially awkward natures. In many ways, such Christian men are in the same boat as Asian American men. Game is not just recommended for them, but an absolute necessity, despite the fact that many Christian men would be horrified at many of the methods and implications of Game.
But I don't see anyone trying to judge or condemn women for ridiculing virgin men, or demanding that women cherish male virgins as men cherish female ones.
It would only actually work if male virgins weren't overwhelmingly Deltas, Gammas, and Omegas. In this day and age, when premarital sex is viewed as no big deal by an overwhelming majority, the number of ALPHA men who are virgins is infinitesimal.
"...despite the fact that many Christian men would be horrified at many of the methods and implications of Game."
Not surprising, considering that the attitudes and mindset behind Game seem to directly contradict large chunks of New Testament teaching, including but not limited to Philippians 2.1-11, Galatians 5.22-26, 1 Corinthians 13.1-13, and so on. And the fact that the many of the foremost advocates of Game, like Heartiste, Roosh, etc. advocate a lifestyle that could hardly be more contrary to how a Christian is called to live. Sure, you can say that Game is a tool that can be used for good or evil, but when your go-to guys for teaching are so contrary to Christ, would you really be surprised that many men are not going to be receptive to the message? Or for that matter, be caused to stumble in regards to sexual temptation by the implied consent that comes from a Christian, presumably in authority, who introduces this kind of thing? It seems that, at best, this is a situation that needs to be approached from a Romans 14 perspective.
Look, I've been following the posts about Game with interest for as long as Vox has been writing about it. I'm open minded about all this and have adopted various ideas from the theory into my own behavior. I've read hours of material by the usual-linked authors on these sites. But increasingly I believe that the lifestyle and behavior in which the Game teaching has been cultivated is at odds with being a disciple of Christ. There are two ways to live: the Fleshly way, in which relationships are give-and-take, based on subtle manipulation of your partner; and the Gospel way, rooted in grace, in which both the husband and wife give to each other unconditionally. The realization I've come to, over these past few years, is that I don't want to live according to the corrosive Fleshly way of relationships. I want to live the Gospel way, whatever that entails, even if it doesn't net me the highest socio-sexual rank in the tri-county area. And even though I'm sure some aspects of Game will help, I want to marry a girl who has a Gospel mindset, who doesn't require me to act abusive and manipulative to maintain her attraction for me.
Despite this, I think there is merit in Game teaching. I think it's dead-on in its evaluation of the problem with modern women. I think that some of the positive advice for men, in cultivating boldness in approaching, being proactive, emotionally stable, developing good body language, etc. is good stuff. But this is such a new area of thought, including a lot of things that went unsaid in previous generations, that many areas are still murky. It would be splendid if Vox eventually wrote some sort of book on this subject, from a Christian perspective - not only am I certain it would be interesting material in itself (even if I didn't ultimately agree with it) but it would make a better resource to recommend to friends and family than telling them to go to Roosh.
Really, I like the basic concept behind Game - behavior and lifestyle modification to increase your appeal to women - but so much of the Androsphere comes across as reactive rather than proactive. I think reactive articles like this one are entertaining, but I understand why some people dismiss a lot of Androsphere blogging as bitter guys whining, even when I think their conclusion is mistaken.
Kyle,
You'll note that Roissy is referred to by Vox as "The Dark Lord". We Christian men would obviously not become followers of Roissy. We take what he has that is of value and move on.
I think the problem here is feminism has pushed all behavior, including Christ honoring male behavior, into Roush and Roissy's cornern and into the realm of teh evil patriarcheez.
Andi is also a 27 year old Jewish lawyer from Atlanta. Parents are Hy and Patti Dorfman, and her sister is Rachel Dorfman.
Poor Josh doesn't know what he's getting himself into.
@Kyle
Actually, I don't think Christianity and Game are at odds at all, in fact. The objections you raise about Game being un-Christian could just as easily be raised against disciplining your child, for example. In other words, being charitable and spoiling your woman with unconditional love are not equivalent. You may have unconditional love for your parents, and brothers and sisters, but not for your wife, especially since she won't have it unconditionally for you. Game (or, more broadly, "being a masculine man") may keep it as close to unconditional as humanly possible, but the love between husband and wife is not in itself unconditional. If it was, the divorce plague wouldn't exist.
@Conscientia
Actually, Roissy calls himself the Dark Lord, but it's used in a highly sarcastic way because the truths about sexuality he writes about are so unpleasant. I don't see him adopting the term through being a total player, but due to all these unpleasant truths. The very subtitle of his blog is "where pretty lies perish".
Good points, Corvinus.
IMO and experience, the Religious TradCons and the Third Gender/Feminists are merely opposite sides of the same coin. That coin of course being an ill culture diseased by grossly maladapted sexual politics.
Both ignore what is and objective reality in an attempt to enforce a specific agenda.
It's a fascinating thing to watch and be a part of.
I had to call out Roissy on this but he had no response.
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/women-prefer-jerks-and-men-prefer-nicegirls/#comment-594110
https://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2014/07/28/roissys-stupid-pua-site/
You owned this thread, Kyle. "Managing a (potential/actual) wife" is an entirely different issue than what you were talking about, and it's a shame that Corvinus didn't want to read the scripture you cited, or to do anything more than "react" to a carefully chosen slice of your post.
In Sodom, the good men do not try their best to be viewed as having a "high value" by the women of Sodom. They may become monks; they may travel elsewhere; they may be noble and just get rejected for decades. But they do not follow the ways of the Deceiver, and try to make themselves cunning and manipulative and selfish like him, in order to score more often.
...nor do they accumulate as much money as they can just because "money exists." Doing the right thing does not mean "being pragmatic" or "accepting lesser evils." It's difficult to follow Christ because most of the people in the world don't want to. You can't justify your own sin by blaming it on a need to "keep up" with the other sinners, even if they're far worse than you are.
High Arka, do you own a straw man factory? You consistently misrepresent us. I fear our earlier session was not as effective as I had hoped.
@ Corvinus
Yes, I agree with all of that. And I'm not saying that it would accomplish anything really -- I'm just pointing out that the double standard goes both ways, and that we as a society tend to only worry about double standards when they favor men. The ones that favor women.... well, we just accept them as a fact of life without questioning them.
@High Arka
You do know what happened to the Shakers, right? Also, Matthew 10:16.
In relation to this post, more to illustrate on the right to be a slut
The texts are in Filipino.
here's a summary of what the guy is saying:
Girlfriend (allegedly)sends him pics of her with her new guy dating while he is working overseas(the erring man is a seaman). Girlfriend had access to erring man's car. She lets her new guy drive it.
Andi is also a 27 year old Jewish lawyer from Atlanta.
Run, Forrest, RUN!!!!!!!
Unconditional love is very important in marriage. Why should you have more conditions on your love for a wife than a sibling or parent? That is not a recipe for success.
It does not mean what many of you imply though. You still need to guard yourself even when you love unconditionally. Jesus loves the Church unconditionally, but acts according to the actions of those that make up the church.
Note as well that women want alphas, not necessarily sexual experience. The two are often equated, but they do not have to be the same, especially for a godly man.
Christian men who walk in the proper frame will do much better overall. Those who do not will continue to be overrun. Learning the principles of game is vital for that reason alone. Game and Roissy are not synonymous either.
Brad. Marriage is a contract. Hence the conditional love. You choose to be in that contract.
Being the child of your parents was not a choice you made.
Kyle: I want to marry a girl who has a Gospel mindset, who doesn't require me to act abusive and manipulative to maintain her attraction for me.
Absolutely vet and marry a woman with a Gospel mindset AND prepare to live with a flesh and blood woman. Or, are you prepared to put aside your flesh and blood in marriage? Men and women are not the same biologically, so, be clear about your expectations of your Christian wife, that one of her commitments is to provide you sex - with grace and love on her part, not grudgingly or in grim obligation (though that's preferred to no sex) - when you desire, decide, and request. You might consider employing the principles of game at times - just to keep in interesting for her - which, btw, is not synonymous with be "abusive or manipulative." Indeed, it is far more subtle and will vary based on getting to know what makes your particular female respond. The concepts of Game address the broad strokes of how women generally behave, but you're gonna have to pay attention to what your particular female does and how she responds. She'll change it up, just because that's what many of us women do: black is white, white is black.
re: unconditional love, now there's an interesting and challenging can of worms.
We do love conditionally - everyone, I think. As Christians, we are charged to love with grace. However, we must not enable bad behavior: unconditional love does not mean endlessly turning the other cheek. Allowing bad behavior to fester is not love and usually emanates from weakness or fear, not love and grace.
Too true, Vox. But I'm willing to bet there are enough thirsty betas and white-knighting Churchians waiting in the wings to 'wife up' these sluts so they never have to suffer the consequences of their actions.
And THAT is the problem.
We have too many desperate and stupid guys who always come up with some stupid excuse like "fat girls need lovin', too." or whatever to justify pursuing women who aren't worth the time of day. I always ask them, "when was the last time you heard a girl say, 'Guys living under a bridge need loving, too" ???
@Tobias,
> Marriage is a contract.
That is not a correct statement. Read the beginning of Genesis for the way God made marriage. It is a bonding for life. We have perverted that today, but it is ultimately far more than a contract.
@Iowahine,
Exactly. Unconditional love is not unconditional acceptance of actions.
Kyle,
> I want to marry a girl who has a Gospel mindset, who doesn't require me to act abusive and manipulative to maintain her attraction for me.
Then scratch off ever getting married. No women, especially in today's world, will maintain such a love without a firm inner commitment and possibly not even then. You are lazy. You don't want to do the work to make it easier for her to maintain her commitment.
You cannot make any specific woman behave with these techniques, but you can make it much easier and wishing it was not so will not let the realities of life go away.
I am not saying it is a man's fault if his wife goes bad. That is her choice. But he can help or hinder such actions through those of his own.
Kyle, I should also add that I am not promoting abusiveness and such at all, just maintaining the right frame and doing the right things. I can't recall Vox or someone like Dalrock advocating such either, so you seem to be making quite the straw man.
but it is ultimately far more than a contract.
Just as Man is made in the image of God, so marriage is made in the image of the covenant between Christ and His Church. That covenant is what a man and his wife are to emulate in their marriage.
That is not a correct statement. Read the beginning of Genesis for the way God made marriage. It is a bonding for life.
You're wrong. Remember that Jesus Christ did provide one requirement for divorce.
We have perverted that today, but it is ultimately far more than a contract.
Yes, we perverted marriage today. It still does not change the fact that it is a contract.
"Not surprising, considering that the attitudes and mindset behind Game seem to directly contradict large chunks of New Testament teaching, including but not limited to Philippians 2.1-11, Galatians 5.22-26, 1 Corinthians 13.1-13, and so on. And the fact that the many of the foremost advocates of Game, like Heartiste, Roosh, etc. advocate a lifestyle that could hardly be more contrary to how a Christian is called to live. Sure, you can say that Game is a tool that can be used for good or evil, but when your go-to guys for teaching are so contrary to Christ, would you really be surprised that many men are not going to be receptive to the message? Or for that matter, be caused to stumble in regards to sexual temptation by the implied consent that comes from a Christian, presumably in authority, who introduces this kind of thing? It seems that, at best, this is a situation that needs to be approached from a Romans 14 perspective." - Kyle
Did your best professor share your moral views? I just finished reading Rules for Radicals, a book literally dedicated to Satan. I learned something from it, primarily how my enemy thinks. But a thinking man can separate the wheat from the chaff. If you cannot, stick with children's stories as they'll work better for you.
Any Christian man who believes that he will not have to deal with and handle a devout Christian woman's fleshly nature is very seriously mistaken.
Any Christian man who believes that his devout Christian wife will not make full use of favorable divorce laws against her husband should she decide that such is to her advantage is very seriously mistaken.
Any Christian man who believes that his devout Christian wife will love him unconditionally is very seriously mistaken. All love between human beings is conditional. All of it.
Any Christian man who believes that he will not have to bring some alpha to his relationship with a devout Christian woman is very seriously mistaken.
Think on this, good Christian men. Your lives, and the lives of your children, may well depend upon it.
Tobias,
> You're wrong. Remember that Jesus Christ did provide one requirement for divorce.
You have not validated that it is a mere contract. Jesus said that it was treated as a contract in The Law due to their hardness of heart, not what it really was. Note that the disciples asked why anyone would marry if it was so binding. You need to read a bit more it seems.
You have not validated that it is a mere contract. Jesus said that it was treated as a contract in The Law due to their hardness of heart, not what it really was. Note that the disciples asked why anyone would marry if it was so binding.
Yes, I did. You are still wrong. Jesus provided one requirement for divorce, or ending marriage: adultery.
You say so yourself, it is binding. Contracts are binding until it is violated. With marriage violated, it is grounds for divorce or ending of the marriage.
The marriage can therefore be ended even when husband and wife are still alive.
Iowahine: this is pretty much my perspective, actually. And I do owe it to Game that it opened my eyes to previously unquestioned assumptions about female behavior. I don't mean to make it sound like I'm in denial about what women are actually like. But I do think there is a clear and observable difference between a girl with a Gospel worldview and a Fleshly worldview, who was been changed by the Holy Spirit - though there are many in church who have not. There is no way to completely mitigate the risk of the things Deti describes, but if you marry a Gospel-centered girl, the risk is greatly reduced. And I know because among my own family and friends I see healthy relationships that defy the unfortunate societal norm.
But I am under no illusion that no work is involved, as Brad seems to think. I simply think it's a wiser long-term course of action to choose a Girl who by nature of her character requires less Gaming rather than more.
I know that Vox etc. don't advocate abuse - the problem is that it can come across that way to people who could otherwise benefit from the message.
The man is the head of the woman. This is a role that requires leadership. A man who fails his wife, who fails to lead her in the area of sexual attraction and romantic love is not doing her any favors, and, in my opinion, is not loving her. I want to be spiritually minded and I want to love my husband, but sexual attraction certainly makes my duty much easier. Isn't my husband doing me a favor by helping me be sexually attracted to him? How could that be anti-gospel?
Interestingly enough, I vaguely recall the first season of the Bachelor had a woman that was unwilling to go to bed with the Bachelor out of wedlock. He passed her over for one who did, but I vaguely recall all the real world events for the "couple" were down hill from there. My wife and sister both have watched the show and I have seen it occasionally from time to time. Perhaps someone could clarify, but wasn't it NOT assumed the women or men would use their alone time to have sex earlier on? I don't really watch it other than a couple of minutes on rare occasions, but it seems like a given now. My how standards erode.
“But I do think there is a clear and observable difference between a girl with a Gospel worldview and a Fleshly worldview, who was been changed by the Holy Spirit - though there are many in church who have not. There is no way to completely mitigate the risk of the things Deti describes, but if you marry a Gospel-centered girl, the risk is greatly reduced. And I know because among my own family and friends I see healthy relationships that defy the unfortunate societal norm.”
Tread carefully, Kyle. I’ve met many a woman at church who claims to be a “Gospel-centered girl”. Comes from the right family, married parents, attends church, volunteers at the church soup kitchen, loves puppies. She can fake it – she says all the right things, speaks all the Christianese, talks about how much she loves Jesus, about how “her” Holy Spirit guides her every step.
Remember that when you see her dancing on the tables in the bars; or posting the 337th picture to her Facebook page. Remember all that talk when you hear of her spending $400 on makeup, or you see her doing a Walk of Shame home on a Saturday morning.
Remember all that when you have the Talk with her, and her partner count comes out (and that’s what she will cop to). Remember that the first time you have a fight and she trots out “NAWALT!” and “You’re JUDGING me!”
Every once in a while, a guy, usually a Christian, gets a taste of the red pill and seems to be getting it, then suddenly he spies some of the dark implications and reacts like the whole thing was a trick that he barely escaped, so he sets out with an army of straw-men and other fallacies to prove that Game is Eeevul. Such men are like ex-smokers and ex-drinkers, far more extreme and determined in their evangelism than any White Knight who never encountered the red pill in the first place. They can't be reasoned with, because they've already decided that Game proponents are completely dishonest or suckered, and so beyond reason. You can spot them by the way they'll start out by claiming to have some reasonable doubts about Game, but soon shift to declaring it "obviously wrong" and name-calling, quickly making it obvious that they were spoiling for a fight from the start.
Kyle – Church girls (self proclaimed Gospel believing HS centered or not) will act in accordance with the flesh if it benefits them in the short term. I once saw a study that showed the divorce rate for church going marriages were more than secular marriages. One observation I have personally made is that secular women are probably better marriage partners due to their not being continuously indoctrinated by the gyno-centric beliefs the modern Christian Church promotes. Secular women also seem to not have the shame associated to sex as the Christian girls do. Having a good moral compass is not exclusively in the Christian domain.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.