Summary: The pioneers of fourth generation feminism seek to expand the government’s power and use it to restructure relations between men and women. This is one front in the gender wars. Calls for explicit consent for each step, from kissing to sex, were just the first step. Here is a new proposal. It is no stranger than those that were considered equally odd in the past, and are in force today in some parts of America. After that will come new proposals for yet more government regulation of our lives.
He says that he is a brain surgeon. And rich.
“Now we are haggling about the price.“
By Dalrock, 17 November 2018.
Reposed with his generous permission.
The Washington Post has an amazing opinion piece by Irina D. Manta (professor of law at Hofstra).
The case for cracking down on Tinder lies,
“There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.”
This is an interesting claim, since the basis of our sexual morality is that no one should be expected to do anything they don’t want to do. Our moral paradigm is that sex is for pleasure, and nothing should get in the way of women and men having sex when and with whom they want to, and nothing should compel a man or woman to have sex if they don’t desire it.
Manta isn’t arguing that women are coerced into sex they didn’t want (at the time). She is arguing that women of a certain age stop engaging in sex for pleasure and start trading sex for the hope of obtaining financial security. This is why she is calling it fraud and not rape, not unlike a prostitute willingly trading sex for money only to find out later that her John’s check bounced.
“New laws in the dating area should focus on lies that are clearly false, are not easily discoverable before sex takes place, and have a potentially large dignitary or emotional impact. Lies related to physical appearance would thus typically not be punishable, while ones about marital status, fertility circumstances (say, existing children or the ability to have future children) or employment may lead to sanctions.”
Not surprisingly, all of the examples she offers of sexual fraud involve older women having sex with men they were mislead into believing were attractive as potential future husbands. As Manta notes, she understands this situation well. She points to her own wedding announcement at the NY Times. The announcement explains that she met her husband in 2017 via online dating, and was 37 when they married in May of 2018. While I’m confident that Ms. Manta didn’t hit her late 30s and set out to use sex with men she wasn’t attracted to and barely knew as an enticement to bag a husband, no doubt she encountered many women who were doing just that. I can only assume that her empathy for women who chose a different sexual strategy than she did has lead her to nobly fight to enshrine the Alpha F***s and Beta Bucks (AF/BB) strategy into law on their behalf.
“…we punish low-level shoplifting, or false claims in commercial advertising, more harshly than we punish most forms of sexual deception, despite the suffering and harm to one’s dignity the latter brings. For a woman in her late 30s or early 40s who wants to marry and have children, the opportunity cost of a fraudulent relationship can add another dimension to the pain in the form of diminished fertility.”
Manta argues that such a law is needed to make it safe for women to have transactional sex with men they know next to nothing about, men who are well outside their own social circles.
“There have always been people who tell lies to get sex, but apps make it easy to deceive victims on an unprecedented scale, and in relative anonymity, well outside the perpetrators’ social circles.”
Ironically, her complaint is that men making themselves appear more attractive for marriage (vs men making themselves appear more sexually attractive) increases women’s search costs for a husband. Yet the very women she claims are being victimized will (as a group) have spent a decade and a half raising men’s search costs for wives.
The male sexual strategy she wants to criminalize is what I dubbed Revenge of the Nerds back in 2010, and is a rational response to women’s Alpha F**ks – Beta Bucks (AF/BB) strategy.
“But salmon face a unique problem. Their route and timing are known in advance, and this makes them easy prey.
“If I were a bitter beta I might decide I had a different choice other than ‘Take it or leave it’. He knows women of a certain age and a history of promiscuity are going to be looking for a sucker nice guy like him to marry and settle down with. What if he decides to con the conwoman? All he has to do is what comes naturally to him. He may want to learn a little game to make him seem more interesting, but he doesn’t have to move to full alpha status.
“All he has to do is put himself out there in places where these women are looking for marks, and look like a better mark than the others. Since some of the remaining betas will be manning the picket line and the alphas are busy with the new crop of carousel riders, this probably won’t be too hard. Then he just strings her along for a while, or maybe strings several along all the while talking the provider talk and enjoying the ride. And since she is in full blown (pardon the pun) bag a husband mode, she’s going to be giving him the best sex she can to seal the deal. After a while she’s bound to get wise to the jig, but then another
salmon carouseler should be jumping into his mouth bed to fill the void.”
Novaseeker noted that Manta is getting eviscerated in the comments section, and this isn’t surprising. To start with, she is trying to formalize the AF/BB strategy into law, but the strategy relies on denial. Key to the AF/BB strategy is pretending that the woman didn’t shift sexual strategies once her youth and fertility were all but gone. Such women can’t come out and say they are shifting from having sex with the kind of men they are sexually attracted to (sex for pleasure) into a strategy of having sex with men they don’t want to have sex with but think would make a good husband. Otherwise, the man who mans up and marries a woman in her late thirties after she tires of having sex with other men looks like a chump and his bride looks like a whore!
Imagine if Bumble and Tinder created checkboxes for women to indicate that they only will have sex with men they hope to entice into marriage, and they have a strict one penis at a time policy. This would make enforcing Manta’s law much easier, but none of the “victims” would want to check such a box.
Even worse, Manta is saying that a man’s marriage vow has substantial financial value to a woman. Otherwise, why would she argue that a woman should be able to sue a man for $10,000 for giving her the false impression that he would be a good man to use sex to extract such a vow? And if a fertile successful man’s potential marriage vow is worth $10,000 in sexual favors, imagine what his actual vows are worth, especially once his fertility is converted into children!
In the unimaginable event that Manta has children with her new husband and then decides to divorce him and take his assets, children and part of his income, this logic would mean that she has defrauded him and owes him a phenomenal amount of money! He after all gave her something of great value, something she would pay $10,000 just to hope to create the opportunity for him to make such a vow. In that case she would have defrauded him of what he hoped to receive in exchange for his vows, and she would have used her own formal vow to do so.
Notes- H/T Novaseeker. Bear photo licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported by Dmitry Azovtsev.
These articles are easy to mock. Much as people in the 1970s mocked the movement for gays’ rights. And people in 2000 mocked early writings about fourth generation feminism – now flowered as regulations for affirmative consent to each stage of physical intimacy and #MeToo (“believe the women, even without evidence“). Feminists have gained political power. Now they are using it.
More by Dalrock about the West unleashing women
- Losing control of the narrative.
- Is Marcos evil for conning women looking to trade sex for financial security?
- Sexual MarketPlace (SMP) searching costs and the unmourned death of courtship.
He is a married man living with his wife and two kids in the Dallas/Fort Worth area. He is very interested in how the post feminist world impacts himself and his family, and uses his blog to explore these issues. See his website.
For More Information
Ideas! For shopping ideas, see my recommended books and films at Amazon.
If you liked this post, like us on Facebook and follow us on Twitter. See all posts about society and gender issues, about feminism, about marriage, and especially these …
- Forms to sign before having sex. Progress or madness?
- See universities’ programs to regulate sex. The apps are amazing!
- The unexpected response to the sexual harassment crisis.
- Misadventures of a young woman in modern America.
- The disastrous results of trying to “have it all”.
- “Celebs Go Dating” shows young women in action.
- Women unleash their rage! Beta males revolt!
Books rich with insights about modern women
Rage Becomes Her: The Power of Women’s Anger by Soraya Chemaly (September 2018). She her on NBC News explaining “why we need to rethink the way we think about women’s anger, and how we can use it for social good.”
Why Women Should Rule the World by Dee Dee Myers (2008).
55 thoughts on “We need more government regulation of dating!”
I describe fourth wave feminism as women seeking superiority over men. They’re quite open about it. Here’s a fun example, showing how far the idea has spread.
“How To Prepare Our Sons for the Matriarchy” by Jenny Hoople at The Good Men Project – “We must not leave our boys behind even as we raise up our girls.” “The Matriarchy doesn’t mean women over men, it means strong women leading all of us in rebuilding a society …”
The author is not fully on board with the program, giving clear statements about the Matriarchy with assurances that it won’t be a matriarchy. But clear thinking has seldom been an characteristic of feminists (unlike, for example, women in physics or medicine).
Here is the accompanying image. It captures the nature of the article quite well, and the intent of those pushing for a Matriarchy.
I confess I don’t read all of your frequent posts speculating about the end of marriage, family, and civilization as we have known it and related topics. So maybe you have expressed thoughts about “Incel” culture before. But the idea that the government should try to prevent men from lying for sex seems no more “ridiculous” to me–on face value–than the proposal that the government should pay for men to have sex if they are “involuntarily celibate.” So would like to know which you think is more ridiculous and why. Thanks.
The following excerpt provides some context for my question. “What a woman-led incel support group can teach us about men and mental health” By Aja Roman at VOX — “I thought incels were easy to demonize. Then I talked to an incel support group.”
“As awareness has grown around this troubled community and its outbursts of targeted misogynistic violence, so has speculation about what, if anything, can help its members. New York Times columnist Ross Douthat wrote a piece in May, “The Redistribution of Sex,” arguing that a “right to sex” — that is, the right to have some sort of sexual intercourse regardless of where you fit in a social hierarchy — will eventually become an established part of a liberal society. Douthat intended his piece to be a sort of balm, giving hope that one day technology and regulation would “address the unhappiness of incels, be they angry and dangerous or simply depressed and despairing.“
“But if that’s what he was intending, he forgot to ask actual incels how they feel about having their unhappiness assuaged by the powers that be. The answer might have surprised him — and most people — because incel culture is inherently built around the rejection of the idea that one’s unhappiness can ever be remedied.
“The incel community is notorious for rampant misogyny, violent rhetoric, and fatalistic attitudes toward modern relationships — attitudes that frequently serve as a gateway to the alt-right — but it’s also rife with depression, a nihilistic communal celebration of low self-esteem, and a widespread resistance to seeking therapy and getting treatment for mental illness. In fact, questions about how to meaningfully help men mired in incel culture before they become radicalized or violent reflect larger cultural questions about how we’re serving the mental health needs of all men in modern society.
“To better understand how “self-help” works in a community that is obsessed with hopelessness, I spoke to five members of the incel community — including two women, for women surprisingly form an increasingly vocal part of the incel community, whether as incels themselves or allies who seek to create a community of support within a culture that often teaches its members that support is a hopeless pipe dream.
“While it was clear from these discussions that the nihilism of inceldom feeds its extremist toxicity and misogyny, I also found examples of members being kind and supportive of each other’s mental health, even as they wrote off their own chances for happiness.
“This suggests that there may be a much more direct way to reach members of the incel community, and it’s simultaneously much simpler and much harder than anything Douthat proposed, with his brief mentions of sex robots and liberated sex workers. Outreach for incels shouldn’t start with enabling the community’s violent misogyny or its collective sense of entitlement to the bodies and emotional support of women. It should start with improving men’s access to mental health treatment — and, crucially, their faith that it can do them any good.”
Wow—hardcore “whataboutism” in the first comment. You must really have struck a nerve, LK—usually it takes a little back and forth to get the blood flowing.
How about giving a comment/insight/rebuttal/etc to what was actually said in the article? Yes, it’s tempting to immediately shift the conversation to more ideologically-preferred terrain–but if you feel that much psychological discomfort at being confronted with the reality of the post then allow me to suggest that you retain the services of a qualified mental health professional at once.
Yes, this is the common tactic on the Left. Either pick a few words about a trivial point, and engage on that as if it was the full article. Or, as with Thomas, pick something totally unrelated.
This is logical. Discussion of the gender war quickly brings us to terrifying news about our society. Denial or escapism are the preferred modes of discussion – quite naturally – for almost everybody.
I don’t understand your question. Women hating men is OK in our culture. They proudly do so in op-eds. On the fringes of feminism they talk about reducing the number of men to 10% of the population.
To feminists, hating women is a mental health issue. That’s feminist logic. QED.
Tell us when you see an article in a major paper or law journal proposing “that the government should pay for men to have sex if they are ‘involuntarily celibate.'” Then we’ll discuss it.
Dear Dr. Drag and LK, You both clearly put more thought into my question than I did, which I posted just before falling asleep.
But by over-thinking it, and then injecting your own unwarranted assumptions about me and my motives for posting my question, I can understand why neither one of you really understood my question, much less were able to answer it.
LK asserted I cherry-picked a few words about a trivial point, which would mean the title of LK’s post was trivial. So I doubt he really meant what he said in that regard, since he did not specify the few words he thinks I cherry-picked.
Meanwhile, Dr. Drag asserted I did not post “a comment/insight/rebuttal/etc” about what was actually said in LK’s post, which is somewhat closer to accurate–IF the title of LK’s post had nothing to do with the substance of LK’s post.
So let me attempt to clarify: it was the title of LK’s post–“We need more government regulation of dating!”–that triggered my memory of the proposal that the government should pay for those who are involuntarily celibate to have sex. Simple as that. No hidden agendas or ulterior motives.
Just a thought experiment attempting to stimulate discussion about the past, present, and potential future roles of government in regulating or not–for better or worse, and in what ways and to what degrees–marriage, family, and courtship or even dating and sex not intended to result in any of the aforementioned.
In other words, my deeper question might be phrased as follows: Should dating, courtship, marriage, having children, and just having sex be treated legally as rights or privileges, and in what ways under what circumstances should they be regulated by governments.
But if, after clarifying the intent of my question, others still feel it misses the point or is otherwise beyond the scope of this post, I won’t be surprised.
Your reply is more puzzling than your original comment.
“LK asserted I cherry-picked a few words about a trivial point”
False. I said “Or, as with Thomas, pick something totally unrelated.” This post has nothing at all to with “What a woman-led incel support group can teach us about men and mental health.” You didn’t event attempt to relate it to the post.
@ Thomas B
I mean, I guess.
But rather than show up and interrogate LK, why not bring something to the table first? What do YOU think of Irina Manta’s proposal (which is, you know, the actual subject of the post)? What do YOU think of Ross Douthat’s op-ed?
Great question…how about answering it yourself? Surely you already have some thoughts on it—why not supply them here? Why not put your cards on the table, stake out a position and engage meaningfully rather than just showing up and subjecting the blogger to an interrogation?
You’ve clearly read/thought about this stuff…so why not weigh-in? What are you waiting for?
After re-reading LK’s first response to my comment, he is correct that he did not claim I personally cherry-picked something from his post. His contention is that what I said was “unrelated” to his post. But for the reasons I explained above, I still agree to disagree. Re Dragnet’s response to my comment, unless s/he claims to be omniscient as well as a mental health expert–who somehow knows me better than I know myself–simply posing the question I asked does not constitute unwarranted or irrelevant “interrogation” of LK, IMO, nor does it imply that I have thought at length and in depth about my own question and possible responses to it.
As I said in my second comment, I was simply suggesting more thought and discussion might be more productive about whether or not dating, courtship, marriage, having children, and just having sex should be treated legally as rights or privileges, and in what ways under what circumstances should they be regulated by governments. So, in response to Dragnet’s request, I am sharing the following as food for further thought. This is the initial result of a simple internet search, and these sources are offered for consideration in the context of the larger FM discussion about the possible futures of marriage, family, dating, and sex, of which this conversation is just one part, IMO:
Here’s how the American family has changed in the past 50 years …
Jun 15, 2018 – Here’s how the American family has changed in the past 50 years … We took a look at Census statistics from 1960 to the present
Meet the families of 2030: the factors shaping future generations …
Nov 20, 2013 – As the make up of family units change, Fiona Bennie predicts what families of the future might look like and asks how brands can play a part.
5 Visions For What Families Will Look Like In 2030 – Fast Company
Nov 22, 2013 – What kind of family will you have in 20 years? … has come up with a vision of what family will look like in 2030–and how brands can respond to …
What will the family of the future look like? | World Economic Forum
May 12, 2016 – No sooner had his seminal book World Revolution and Family Patterns … can draw on to guess at how family life might change in Europe over the years. … Marriage, sex and parenthood would be separated, and we would see a … the first time women account for more than 50% of all international migrants.
This Is What the Modern American Family Will Look Like by 2050 – Mic
This Is What the Modern American Family Will Look Like by 2050 …. A recent Pew report predicted that robots and artificial intelligence will be included in “wide segments of daily life” by the year 2025, potentially serving as … 0:50 min Nov.
Predicting state of the U.S. family? Can you look ahead 50 years and …
https://www.enotes.com › Homework Help › Social Sciences
However, based on current trends, the family 50 years from now will be a different thing … It’s hard to predict what the economy will be like in 50 years
9 Different Visions Of What Families Will Look Like 50 Years From Now
Jul 13, 2015 – Family is a moving target. Our ideas about what constitutes a “normal” family have changed a lot since the 1960s, and there’s no reason to …
How Will The World Change Over The Next 50 Years? – Product Hunt
May 17, 2016 – Where we are now will seem like ancient history in five years.
This Is What Life Could Look Like 200 Years from Now | Best Life
Mar 21, 2018 – 200 years ago, the technology of our generation would be dizzying to any … it might seem crazy to predict what things might look like in 200 years. … the time horizon that people will have to provide for their families will …. 50 years, within two centuries, it looks likely to shift from a novelty to unexceptional.
What Will Families Look Like In The Future? 12:10
ThinkTank YouTube – Jul 28, 2015
What Future America Will Look Like in 2060 8:30
The Rubin Report YouTube – Apr 17, 2014
Thanks for the links, man—will try to review them when I get a moment.
And as I’ve said before—you’ve obviously done some extensive reading on these issues…I’d really like to hear your own thoughts about the question you posed above.
In all sincerity–no pressure.
The author sees, and endorses, the idea that we are all merely means to each other. All our relations with each other are market transactions, trading relationships. IN particular, sex is a transaction like any other in which we buy and sell it in exchange for various considerations.
She then takes the logical next step, which is, how do we make the sexual market work to the same, mainly acceptable, standards that the market for other goods and services works to. And the conclusion is that we should in law treat the purchase of a TV or a toaster and the negotiation over having sex as the same kind of transaction and subject to the same kind of rules.
And then everything will be fine, or at least much better. What’s love got to do with it, after all? People will know what they are buying and will have to be honest about what they are selling, this is just about what we do for the next couple of hours. It is the extension of prostitution to all sexual relations. All are trading transactions, some we pay in cash, some we pay in kind.
No, it won’t be fine, it will not even be better. The idea, and the fact that the Washington Post sees fit to print it, shows that relations between the sexes in America are in worse state than one could have imagined. What has happened is that in the name of liberation from taboos and repression we have run into a state equally or more dehumanized than our first.
The repression and sexual ignorance of the 1950s was really life-denying in many aspects, and the cause of much human misery for both men and women. It too had a sort of inhuman emphasis on the sexual act as an isolated and unconnected thing. We have however escaped from it only at the price of keeping the isolation, and substituting for repression the freedom of making the thing as easy and guilt free, but also as dehumanized, as something like buying a tin of beans.
What we see in the piece is that the author is so integrated into this culture that it doesn’t even occur to her that there is any alternative way of looking at it. But there is, its sex in a relationship. Its non-transactional and non market traded sex. The practical advice one would give is: try to figure out if you are dealing with a trader, and if so, leave. And meet your lovers in a social context where you get to know them first.
(1) “All our relations with each other are market transactions, trading relationships. ”
In feminist theory, they are above all power relations. Most of third and fourth wave feminism comes from this assumption.
(2) “The repression and sexual ignorance of the 1950s was really life-denying in many aspects, and the cause of much human misery for both men and women.”
How so? Other than for homosexuals, of course.
(3) “What we see in the piece is that the author is so integrated into this culture that it doesn’t even occur to her that there is any alternative way of looking at it.”
Of course she sees alternatives. They are called forms of “false consciousness” for women, and “patriarchy” (oppression of women) for men. That is, they are thoughtcrime. To be stomped out to build a new world.
You probably had to be there and live through it. It varied with class and country of course. When the sixties finally arrived late in the decade which gave them their name, it was like April in Canada. One day you were wrapped up in heaps of quilted clothes trying to avoid frostbite and keep out of the wind. Two days later you were walking around in a T-shirt worrying about sunburn.
And thinking to yourself, did I ever really go through that for the last four months?
The revolution of attitudes has been so complete and far reaching that its probably impossible to imagine what it was like if you didn’t live through it. But take as an example, Lady Chatterley was banned in the UK until the famous trial in the sixties. Similar things in the US. Ulysses, for the sake of the last chapter. And that was the tip of the iceberg. Freud’s account of women. The concept of frigidity applied to women with perfectly normal and healthy sexual responses. Restriction of contraception and contraceptive advice. A host of restrictions on conduct in daily life which today would seem incomprehensible.
Read Wayland Young, Eros Denied. That was the ice starting to break up, in the early sixties.
Things improved greatly. The shame, guilt, repression and ignorance lifted. But when one reads the article that prompted this thread it seems that what has replaced it is equally inhuman, just less inhibited about the physical act. Your point, its the language of power, is probably correct. But one is left wondering, what’s love got to do with it?
Your comparison is subjective, starting from a belief and giving reasons. The current range of “conditions” about sex (all those therapists!), anxiety about sex, and declining frequency of sex suggests that an objective analysis might come to the opposite conclusion as yours.
As usual in science, conclusions about such things need to be done on the basis of actual research – not folk wisdom.
Yes, it is subjective – its a comment after all on the culture of a period, and such things necessarily have a strong subjective element. I don’t know of any objective studies. One would have to interview a sample of people who are now in their mid to late seventies or early eighties, and compare their testimony to that of a sample of today’s 25-30 year olds. I don’t know of anyone who has done that.
It must have varied with class and country and ethnicity. But its what I and my peers experienced. When I talk to old acquaintances from that time, there is exactly what I record, the amazed disbelief as we look back at the cold of the winter we lived through.
If it is wrong for a man to lie to get sex, isn’t wrong for a woman to use make up, push up.bras, etc. To show she is more attractive than she really is?
As pointed out by many in the comments to that article, both men and women lie during dating. It’s just life.
But this kind of extension of the law will give the government more power, reaching even deeper into our private lives. Much as do the regulations about “affirmative consent” at each stage of physical intimacy. The success of these programs shows that there are few visible limits to our tolerance for government power. We’re sheep. But we can change. Being sheep is a choice.
“To show her more attractive than she is”. You could look at it that way but I see a woman dolling herself up as a positive, as a part of the attractiveness package. I think it’s a nice quality when women want to look as pretty as they can be. I don’t see it enough these days.
I agree, and will state it more strongly. Go to your local college. Lots of overweight young women. Even more dressed like ninja: dark loose clothes, little or no makeup, and bad hair. They are no in the game.
As they grow older, they dress up in disguises – for work, for clubbing. Once married, they often (usually) revert to their base state.
It’s part of Girls’ Game, the system that rules gender relations today.
“If you can’t afford a customer to walk, you can’t afford to stay in business!” Pawn shop saying. Comes from customers who will not buy at a decent price, but must have a great price. It has a corollary “When you put something out for sale, don’t fall in love with it.”
This is something both sexes should remember. Looking at the language of purchase that she is using, I would say it supports quite visibly, that women past 30 don’t understand their true market value. Nor, apparently what the AF/BB strategy has meant to their personality, though I think spiritual nature. People tend to do what they have done and are familiar with. I think women that falling in love with the carousel and over estimating their SMV (sexual market value) are getting exactly what they should get in a transactional market: Cats.
I find it unsurprising that those who have done so well with the legal system should want to use it again, now that the customers are finding the current transactional market problematic. Note, she did not come to the conclusion that everyone should be honest from the start. Reminds me of another good saying that few listen to: “Date only those you would marry.”
It also helps to remember other good advice: “Sex will get someone in your bed, but won’t keep them there” and ” Big breasts (good figure, good looks, etc.) will get someone’s attention, but won’t keep it.
The real bottom line: Girls’ Game has worked spectacularly well for Gen Z and early Millennial women. The late Millennials and Gen Z women are, naturally, attempting to follow this golden path.
This is a milder version of truly revolutionary words by Sheryl Sandberg (COO of Facebook) in her best-seller Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (2013).
The Census data so far indicates only a slow increase in never marrieds at all ages. We don’t know what causes this: women delaying marriage, men’s increased distinterst, both? There is no evidence of the “men’s strike” — many men refusing to marry women when women seek it at 28 – 35. The rising screams of protest at men “refusing to commit” and being like “Peter Pan” suggests that this may have begun, although not yet visible in the data.
That is hasn’t come doesn’t mean it won’t come.
Thanks LK; I was assuming that many were sitting down to a bed of consequences.
In my defense, as you point out, it is generational. Which usually has meant it is blindingly obvious, only once it has become noticeable at all. Am not psychic, it just looks like a good bet at this time.
Using market language, I see a bubble in women’s evaluation of their SMV in their later years.
My apologies. My comment was unclear (these are all written in haste). I was agreeing with you, and speculating at why women behave as they do.
“The rising screams of protest at men “refusing to commit” and being like “Peter Pan” suggests that this may have begun, although not yet visible in the data.”
some people think that when women complain about men not committing, they really just complain about the top 20% (in the SMV); they could easily find a men if they lowered their inflated expectations and they would be fine.
That’s a good point, and might be true. When going this far beyond the data, I prefer not to speculate.
All we know is that marriage rates are slowly falling throughout the 20 – 40 age range. There is no inflection point in the early 30s that would show a “marriage strike” by men.
“Why” is the most important and most difficult question to answer. Everyone has their own preferences in these things. I strongly oppose telling “just so” stories. Such as Kipling’s “How the Elephant got his trunk.” It is imo important to know what we don’t know.
Why Is she forgetting the question all promiscuous women should ask first in order to protect future childbearing: what diseases do you have?
It is amazing they never consider that every major religion has proscriptions agains premarital sex especially for women.
I don’t believe current disease rates create a severe problem for women who use sensible precautions.
I beg to differ:
I don’t think sex is for pleasure — I think sex is for procreation and if procreation needs to encourage its participants, it issues pleasure as a drive. In the same sense, selling a fruitless sex or offering a fruitless sex to unsuspecting participants should have legal consequences! Well, you could ban pornography as well you ban drugs — I can imagine another idiot president of US declaring WAR ON PORNOGRAPHY as a fruitful continuum to what has been the encouraging WAR ON DRUGS and especially, as is THE WAR ON TERROR!
I really liked the comment about women in sense of lying about themselves by wearing the make-up or “enhancing bra” etc. Well, I would go a step further — if you consider lying for sex a crime, you should also consider some of the following: a physical appearances such as: the tits job: “Your honor, I really thought those tits were meant for my off-springs and not to lure me into a relationship with this evil woman-person.”
The more senseless and extreme charges they charge us with, the more of the same sorts our responses are to be! We can’t lose…
Removed by Administrator
Wow. So the government should have its role in every personal interaction, each followed by police and courts investigating an endless series of “he said, she said” stories – with no witnesses. Perhaps you would like cameras and recorders everywhere to record everything. Or perhaps you like forms to record consent at every step.
Hell is people like you. 1984 on wheels.
Got to love your certainty – “It’s simple!” – about the most complex of human interactions. It is the mark of a true ideologue. In past lives were your a Catholic inquisitor, a Puritan judge, or a commie or Nazi political officer. Perhaps today you are a US campus “judge” in a sexual assault kangaroo court?
Your kind has always been with us. But in functioning societies, your kind is kept under control.
Joyce’s reply was unfortunately eaten by the spam filter. But it contained this gem.
“You have much to learn about sexual assault.”
This is classic fourth gen feminism. Whatever the discussion, if you disagree with them you become a supporter of “rape” or “sexual assault.” This is an especially daft example, as her comment – and this post – we about lying on social media and on dates. Nothing remotely like sexual assault, excerpt to feminists for whom words are weapons – not means of communication.
This makes discussions with them quite futile.
I have always wondered why they leave out the men and boys who have been raped. Guess rape only counts if you are female and vocal about it.
Perhaps Joyce was raped and can not bear to educate the rest of us. I don’t know. I am curious about what we can learn third hand from rape. It could be important.
Which is why words and conversation is more useful than dictates.
We see the true values of feminists when discussing male rape. For example, in prisons (see this article). It’s usually either ignored — or applauded. I’ve often seen prison rape mentioned on TV shows as a natural consequence of prison – usually by police as a threat to nice white guys. Often done by women in law enforcement (one way they show their big balls). This is esp seen in very feminist shows such as “Castle” and “NCIS LA” (“very feminist” in TV land is pretty far out).
Removed by Administrator
As I said above, it’s a standard trope of feminists to shift the conversation. In this case from “lying while dating” to “rape and sexual assault” – conflating the two. It gives the impression that dialog is fruitless.
This is an example of how those on the Left debate: relying heavily on category errors. Another related favorite tactic is giving rebuttals to things not said. The Right tends to rely on confident statements of made up facts (e.g., faux history, faux economics, fake quotes). There is probably some deeper significance to these distinctive behaviors, but that’s over my pay grade.
Sidenote: I apologize for the spam filter eating your second comment. I saw it the long list of spams – but only after I hit the “empty” button.
Joyce, I did see your comment. I apologize for not making my statement about men and boys more coherent and more to your point. It was incorrect and uncalled for for me to claim “always.” Especially since I did read the statement about men and women. I just took it to apply to the sentences that follow. I point out that technically you did not point out what happens to boys, and girls for that matter. But perhaps you included that statement in the post that got deleted.
I still do wonder about the inequity concerning men and boys with what I have been reading. I have not read your books, so I can’t legitimately put you in a corner with those I do not see giving discussion of the scope of rape as it occurs.
My problem is with the following sentences and why I don’t think you have addressed that it works for men and women alike. Let me change it to show why I have problems.
If you can understand this principle, you’ll understand why wearing makeup, high shoes, push-up bras, perfume, smiling, slits and splits to get laid is a crime. It’s not a class A/B felony, the way violent rapes are charged, but its still a crime, and it is about seduction.
Your comment only seems to make illegal what men are bringing to the game and not women. Also, the time and actions that lead from the initial to final results are skewed with respect to expectations. Let’s add something that is a transgenerational crime: a women who marries, promises until death do us part, then thinks that a man should have to keep on paying yet no sex, when she only wanted a kid and not what it takes to stay married. There are men’s version of this as well. Children suffer in both.
Your last sentence for sexual assault is correct; I question how we apply it fairly since men and women do tend to have differences in expectations, yet one species. If it causes childern to suffer, I cannot think of it as not a crime.
Removed by Administrator.
Got to love how you shift a discussion of lying while dating – done by both men and women – into a discussion of sexual assault. Goebbels would be pleased, if he is reading the internet from Hell.
What about the subtitle do you not understand? “There should be a legal penalty for obtaining sex through fraud.”
And let me assure you, you can delete my comments all you want after slandering me, I keep very good records and have a webpage of my own where your type of ignorance is revealed to the public. I don’t mind discussion- I mind lies and slander. Consider yourself amply warned.
In other words, according to prof. Manta and the WaPo, every woman should be a whore.
I think that’s why they want to stop “slut-shaming” and refer to professional “sex workers.”
“Whore” is patriarchal conceptual oppression. Thoughtcrime.
In other words, according to prof. Manta and the WaPo, every woman should be a whore.
Yes, I do think this is the essence of the piece. Not that they should sell sex for cash or favors. But the idea does seem to be that sexual relations are stand-alone transactions to which a framework of rules should apply about entering into them.
A more biologically informed approach would be that sex between humans, as with the Bonobos, serves a variety of important purposes in affectionate relationships. What is going wrong is trying to treat it as a standalone activity, no more personal than buying any random good or service.
From your article:
We used to call this “marriage.”
I predict that the result of this new set of laws which will surely pass is that more men will engage in porn and sexbots or fly to Thailand to relieve themselves with sex slaves. Fewer men, even alphas, will have sex with American women. The risks are too high. What justice this will bring to the world!
I will encourage my three sons to marry women from the church as I have done but will educate them about modern manjaws like Irwin D. Manta.
We are clearly in Glubb’s “collapse phase,” to wit — from “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival” by Sir John Glubb (Wikipedia), 1976.
We need to be realistic about the Sign of the Irwin D. Manta: it is nothing less than an indication of collapse. Men are retreating from the public sphere and from marriage.
We see the results of 4th wave feminism in the decrease in rates of sexual activity and in the declining rate of marriage. We see the effects of feminism in this (its a paradox only to hard-core leftists):
“The Paradox of Declining Female Happiness”
Betsey Stevenson and Justin Wolfers
NBER Working Paper No. 14969, May 2009
“By many objective measures the lives of women in the United States have improved over the past 35 years, yet we show that measures of subjective well-being indicate that women’s happiness has declined both absolutely and relative to men. The paradox of women’s declining relative well-being is found across various datasets, measures of subjective well-being, and is pervasive across demographic groups and industrialized countries. Relative declines in female happiness have eroded a gender gap in happiness in which women in the 1970s typically reported higher subjective well-being than did men. These declines have continued and a new gender gap is emerging — one with higher subjective well-being for men.”
Check your spam filter, Larry
Bonobo behavior is not at all normative for humans. We are made in the image of God by God with a conscience. Monkeys fling excrement, practice polygamy and murder other tribes of monkeys as necessary.
Allan Bloom discusses important perspective at length in his great Closing of the American Mind. One excerpt:
Bonobo behavior is not at all normative for humans.
Agreed. But it is a fact, as anyone who has been in a long term sexual relationship will recognize, that in that context sexual intimacy has a role in the relationship that goes far beyond procreation. Take the sexual contact away, and intimacy of all kinds almost always suffers.
The failure to recognize this is what strikes me as profoundly wrong about the current transactional approach.
We are made in the image of God by God with a conscience. Monkeys fling excrement, practice polygamy and murder other tribes of monkeys as necessary.
Alas, so do we!
We are however endowed with a conscience, that is true, so that most of us know these things are wrong, and that we must struggle both personally and politically to behave ethically. But look at the history of the 20C, look indeed a contemporary Yemen or Syria… Better than monkeys? More organized that’s for sure….
Removed by Administrator
Lots of confidently stated mistakes in your brief comment!
(1) “Kummer cannot claim that any portion of my statement went to ‘spam’. It was sent WordPress to WordPress.”
The Akismet software used by WP to block spam works in strange ways. But comment threads would be impossible without it. In the last six months, it has blocked 9,737 spams to the FM website. But it is software, not magic. It makes errors, often weird ones.
Last Tuesday a comment of mine – using an Administrator-level WP id – went into the bin at Climate Etc (another WordPress site). It was brief, had no objectionable words, and no links (the most common triggers). Neither I (operator of a largish WP website for 11 years) or the operator of Climate Etc could see why that happened. Gremlins.
Sometimes comments don’t appear for 10 minutes or more. Perhaps Akismet is thinking about it, or consulting a higher authority in cyberspace.
For a few months last year, Akismet would occasionally and randomly toss comments straight into the trash. I discovered this accidentally (who checks the trash bin?), and had to send two dozen emails of apology. I reported it to WP, and they blamed “gremlins.” After a while, Akismet got bored playing with me and turned its attention to annoying someone else.
(2) “He could not receive a ‘partial’ transmission.”
Let’s replay what I said: “I saw it the long list of spams – but only after I hit the ’empty’ button.” I remembered one line of its text, and posted that.
Total B.S. I have a good lawyer. Don’t do it again.
Editor’s note: This is a serious violation of the comment policy for the FM website. I have permanently banned this person (the first ever). I have also deleted all previous comments, least someone else incautiously reply to them and get her legal attention.
Some examples of the mysterious workings of the Akismet spam filter.
Askismet sometimes puts good comments in the spam trap. I usually retrieve them. If it takes me a long time to do so, I sometimes mentioned it in a comment – so the commenter knows what happened.
Examples where I mentioned comments caught in the trap: here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.
Sometimes I don’t see the comment (careless, or too busy to check) in the spam trap, and it is lost when the trap clears itself.
LK: I am sure you remember that one of the new trends is to sue to keep us under control as you pointed out with some of the approaches to McIntyre, RJP jr, etc.
Strange, I thought if she actually addressed the post we could have had a better conversation.
Please do not discuss this. Any invocation of attorney’s puts the subject off the table.