HereAndGone
2mo ago
Christianity was different in that it put restrictions on male sexuality, as well as female sexuality. Now there was a new standard for men to live up to.
Matthew 5: 27 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ 28 But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lustful intent has already committed adultery with her in his heart."
Matthew 19: 3 And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one's wife for any cause?” 4 He answered, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.” 7 They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce and to send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. 9 And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery."
1 Timothy: 3 The saying is trustworthy: If anyone aspires to the office of overseer, he desires a noble task. 2 Therefore an overseer must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, sober-minded, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not a drunkard, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money.
...12 Let deacons each be the husband of one wife, managing their children and their own households well. 13 For those who serve well as deacons gain a good standing for themselves and also great confidence in the faith that is in Christ Jesus.
1 Corinthians 7: Now concerning the matters about which you wrote: “It is good for a man not to have sexual relations with a woman.” 2 But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband. 3 The husband should give to his wife her conjugal rights, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4 For the wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does. Likewise the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Do not deprive one another, except perhaps by agreement for a limited time, that you may devote yourselves to prayer; but then come together again, so that Satan may not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
...10 To the married I give this charge (not I, but the Lord): the wife should not separate from her husband 11 (but if she does, she should remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband), and the husband should not divorce his wife."
So men must be as chaste as women; no whoring around, no mistresses, no divorce-remarry-divorce-remarry, no casual sex.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
"Every man's woman, every woman's man" 😀
HereAndGone
2mo ago
The romance recession cannot be accepted as an issue, because the only solution that comes to mind is rolling back of progress
Fifty seven years on, and Humanae vitae looks better and better. Everyone was expecting, especially in the wake of Vatican II, that finally, finally, the Catholics would get with modern times and accept birth control (after all, the Anglicans had given in on this as far back as 1930).
Instead, Paul VI went "nuh-uh", everyone was horribly disappointed, and the teaching of the Church remained unbroken. And now, all these decades past the Sexual Revolution, we're looking at the problem "but why is nobody dating? having sex? having babies? getting married? staying married? how did this happen after all the liberty and joy we were promised?"
Humanae vitae (Latin, meaning 'Of Human Life') is an encyclical written by Pope Paul VI and dated 25 July 1968. The text was issued at a Vatican press conference on 29 July. Subtitled On the Regulation of Birth, it re-affirmed the teaching of the Catholic Church regarding married love, responsible parenthood, and the rejection of artificial contraception. In formulating his teaching he explained why he did not accept the conclusions of the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control established by his predecessor, Pope John XXIII, a commission he himself had expanded.
Mainly because of its restatement of the Church's opposition to artificial contraception, the encyclical was politically controversial. It dogmaticized a conservative interpretation of traditional Church moral teaching on the sanctity of life in the context of human intervention in fertility and the procreative and unitive nature of Catholic conjugal relations.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
“If I make a Bumble profile, I am more likely to get a boyfriend”
I do wonder about that. How many people who are now on Bumble are looking for proper relationships, versus at the beginning? Dating apps may also be seen as the last refuge of the hopeless, or that men are using them to hook up/cheat while in relationships:
Shares in Bumble crashed 30% this month [August 2024] after a bad earnings report. Match Group, the Dallas-based owner of Tinder, Match.com, OkCupid, Hinge and others, has reported a decline in its total number of paying users, for seven straight quarters. According to Pew research, nearly half of all online daters and more than half of female daters say their experiences have been negative.
The same study found that 52% of online daters said they had come across someone they thought was trying to scam them; 57% of women said online dating is not too or not at all safe; and 85% said someone continued to contact them after they said they weren’t interested.
...Allie Volpe, Vox writer and author of a recent article advocating for finding romance offline, says her single friends in Philadelphia are burned out by online dating.
“People are sensing that it has become so impersonal, and such a numbers game, that people feel there are infinite options out there, we’re not really that nice to people on the apps any more,” Volpe says.
“People are looking for organic ways to meet each other,” she adds. Running clubs and sewing circles, for example. “At least in person you can tell them, ‘hey, I’m not interested’, but online you feel like you have no control on the other side, and they have the means to contact you, that’s kind of scary.
“It can be kind of weird on the apps to go from stranger to being potentially romantically involved immediately,” Volpe adds. “It can be jarring, and that doesn’t happen when you’re meeting somebody face to face.”
But Volpe volunteers that the situation is confusing. “The pandemic normalized the dating app experience because you couldn’t go places or meet them in a bar because they weren’t open. For gen Z, maybe their first dating experience was during the pandemic. So they’ve never dated except online, and don’t know where to go where there are people they don’t know.”
HereAndGone
2mo ago
I think women do judge men more harshly when it's based on photos, because women are accustomed to "this is how you must look to be attractive in a photo" while men seem to go "I combed my hair, that's good, right?"
First impressions are unkind, but if you're trawling through hundreds of images, things that are small flaws in themselves build up to make choices harder.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Why is 3/4 terrible but 6/7 is average? I admit, I have no grasp of numbers.
Yeah, I can't imagine who sees that line and thinks "exactly my type!" though there may be matches from girls just looking for some fun but nothing serious. Nikola, for instance: that would be fun if intense but short experience, but definitely not long-term boyfriend material, much less husband. Much too aware of how good he looks and poses like a romance cover model. He'd be kissing your hand and handing over a bouquet of thirteen red roses while at the same time setting up a date with six other women for the rest of the week 😁
Niko seems like a nice young man but he badly needs advice on "not a polo neck with a blazer with jeans, dear, and clear the paper bags off the table before taking the photo, and don't smile so hard, you look nervous not relaxed".
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Right to spousal support started because, in the ideal world of "women do not work outside the home", once divorced a woman had little to no chance of income of her own. If you threw her out for a newer model, it was considered only fair to save her from ending up on the streets until she got a job or married again.
"The idle parent" shows your lack of comprehension of how a household works.
No one gives a shit who fucked who, and even less how the paramour dressed.
Funny, I thought the entire point of the rant about women was that men very much would give a shit if their wife fucked another man, and if she dressed like a slut. Or if she left her nice hardworking ordinary guy husband for a bad boy who looked cool but was trashy.
McKenzie was not at fault in the divorce, Jeff was: he broke up the marriage not because they had grown apart or because she was a bad wife and mother, but because he went through a midlife crisis and fell for a trashy vamp whose only assets are the plastic tits she constantly flashes.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
There's a reason nearly all settled states had extremely coercive (by modern standards) treatment of women through most of history.
Also acceptance of men having mistresses, legalised (in many societies) prostitution, concubines, etc. That's not a stable family dynamic because the coercive control of women also means men wanting to break out of the rigidity of marriage and family life. If you need prostitution because "men have needs" then you need women to break the taboos on sexual promiscuity through choice, circumstance, poverty, etc. (e.g. families selling daughters to brothels in time of bad harvests or economic need). It also incentivises women to have affairs when married.
You can structure a society like that, but men won't like the society that says "women marry early, have lots of kids, don't get an education, and don't interact with men outside of their family" because we see that men break the social rules by seeking out prostitutes, concubines, etc. which, in a society that runs perfectly on "women are chaste and non-sexual and under the control of the man of the house and only have one male sexual partner, their husband, in their entire lives" would not generate exceptions like prostitution, affairs, etc.
"My wife is chaste and doesn't even think of another man ever than me in her entire life, also I have the right to fuck the maidservants in my house whether they're willing or not" is not consistent in its view of female sexuality. It's certainly coercive but it's also incoherent.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Work, go home, play games until she has dinner ready, watch a movie, fuck, maybe play more games, go to bed.
Eternal childhood, except ersatz mommy lets you fuck her.
The simulacra will thus be unnatural as a thing women acquire as a relational prosthesis; why would she pay for what, for good reason, she gets free?
If men want the easy girlfriend, why do you think women won't want the easy boyfriend? Always attentive, romantic, spontaneous, does his fair share of the housework and emotional labour, isn't the messy real life guy who requires compromises: "To put in such effort to settle for someone less attractive, less responsive, more burdensome, more risky, to settle for something human when She can have something machine-perfect."
Harems will re-emerge, they will be the only option for most women, so they will be easier. Between simulacra and harems, female sociopolitical power will collapse. They will lose too much leverage with too many low-status men, while high-status men will each become a little king with his court of concubines who will certainly have no power.
Time share in a high status guy versus a whole robo-boyfriend? Some women may take that deal, but if you think "little kings" will reign over powerless concubines, I suggest you watch some Chinese harem drama series. Men can and will be subtly manipulated in such situations.
as countries most adopting simulacra and bespoke children grown in vats enjoy golden ages while their men break productivity records, why would a country not produce as many sons as possible and as few daughters as necessary?
If AI is doing all the work and all the thinking and all the research and all the planning and all the productivity, why does it matter if the human in notional charge has XY or XX chromosomes? We won't need "ah, but men are more adventurous, more risk-taking, make the big breakthroughs in science" when the AI is super-intelligent and doing all the research work. Link this in with
As AI and simulacra come from almost all labor, the newly jobless will need placation else promiseless young men become bored and at-risk for chaos.
And can you not see that governments may prefer a society comprised of the more tractable half of the population. If young men are chaos risks, then tilt the reproductive balance for more daughters, fewer sons. This also means the harem scenario is more viable, since you will now have fewer men automatically making them more desirable (if having a robo-boyfriend or girlfriend is coded as low-status from the adoption by the lowest third of men as envisioned, then having a real human boyfriend is high-status). Or perhaps women will be happy to have a time share in a real human boyfriend so long as the majority of their needs are being met by their robo-boyfriend.
This may in fact break the socio-economic power of men, since the new society can be truly egalitarian: it doesn't matter if the president is a man or a woman, the real power is with the AI. Women can be just as productive as men, particularly if reproduction is done by artificial wombs etc. No more nine months growing a new human and having to take time off for baby raising! Perhaps, in a majority female society, men will now be the decorative, pampered sex whose purpose is to be charming, attractive, cultured, and raise the status of the woman/women they are accompanying.
One outcome is as likely as the other.
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Oh yeah. I've always been a social conservative, but the rank of feminists lining up to joke about how they'd strap on the kneepads for the Presidential blowjob so long as Bill kept abortion legal, and throwing Monica under the bus, after the protests about patriarchy, sexual harassment, imbalance in power dynamics, inappropriate boss-employee relationships and the rest of it?
So after that shining example of what really mattered, why should I believe them when they screamed about Kavanaugh and rape, or any of the fifty other offences? Trump allegedly assaulted E. Jean Carroll in a department store? You lot defended a guy old enough to be her father using his position to have an affair with a young woman in the Oval Office and who then tried logic-chopping his way out of it by "it depends what 'is' is" when under oath about "did you have sex with her?"
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Impeachment and removal. Vance too if he won't behave himself.
And then what? Install Kamala as the Real President?
HereAndGone
2mo ago
HereAndGone
2mo ago
Here's a genuine question, because I do think men and women have different attitudes to sex, relationships, love, the whole package (e.g. the stereotypical excuse of the cheating husband when caught "it was only sex, I really love you, honey!")
Average guy on here, if you had fifty women throwing themselves at you, would you pick the top ten most attractive ones or would you sleep with all fifty?
I'm asking because I see a certain amount of resentment in comments (not necessarily on here) about women being too picky and they get loads of matches on dating apps and they only reply to the most desirable ones. Well, if you had a selection of possible sexual/romantic partners vying for your attention, would you reply to Number Fifty on the list as well as Number One, or would you just select out Numbers One Through Ten of the ones you personally find hottest and ignore the rest?
I'm not trying to gotcha anyone or point fingers, I'm honestly curious.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
Yeah. But of course we've had it dinned into us "oh marriage is a big commitment, you need to be sure you're (sexually) compatible, live together first to find out". Maybe that worked out when the end goal was "probably going to marry this person" but now it's "well of course we'll live together, might get married, might not, probably we'll break up and move on to new partners".
I'm not going to say "slippery slope" but social conditions erode over time if not maintained, or if weakening of the boundaries happens. Back when cohabiting was rare, there was still the expectation of marriage as the end point. So living together was expected to end with a ring and kids. Over time as cohabitation became more accepted, marriage moved more and more out of the picture. You can't change something and expect it to remain at that one single change point forever, because it won't.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
the lack of desire of South Korean women to marry and have children is more that they perceive it as being a shit deal for them
How many men would take the bargain of "you'll have to get married and have a kid, preferably a son, and pour resources into that kid to succeed by getting into the limited range of jobs deemed socially acceptable; this will mean no childhood for the kid but that's the price to pay. you also have to work. you also have to do all the housework and childrearing, because your husband will be working more than he is at home, will have obligations outside of official work hours, and the rare time he is home, all the domestic labour is on you because that's a woman's duty. also you will have an interfering mother-in-law who will expect you to obey her every command because respect for seniors and preserving family harmony is important."
HereAndGone
3mo ago
I don't know if I believe the 80/20 thing, but part of the problem is the divide between what men want from sex (sex), what women want from sex (intimacy) and that there are men who want love and romance and women who want sex and no strings attached.
The plaint is that it's easy for women to have sex, that a single woman can just go out and hook up with a guy whereas a single guy has to jump through all kinds of hoops. Yes. Think about that. Men have such low/no standards that "a standing prick hath no conscience" so if the woman isn't actively repellent, they'll sleep with her. That's where we get the "a woman can have sex just for the asking" part.
Meanwhile, women want (I'm not going to deny it) casual sex too, but a lot of women want "sex AND", where it may be as simple as "sex with the hot/desirable guy" or more complicated with "sex with the guy I'm hoping will commit" or "sex turned into feelings and now I can't leave even though I know this is just a fling for him".
HereAndGone
3mo ago
And the same goes for women: if you don't put out for the guy, he will dump you. It's a long, long time since I was a teenager, but the advice columns in the girls' magazines were full of "my boyfriend wants to have sex with me but I don't want to have sex but he says he'll leave me if I don't".
Sexual Revolution was not good for everyone.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
If you leave any virgins around, they are not going to be virgins when you come back; they are going to get popped by some other cad.
'Tis an old complaint!
Go and catch a falling star
By John Donne
Go and catch a falling star,
Get with child a mandrake root,
Tell me where all past years are,
Or who cleft the devil's foot,
Teach me to hear mermaids singing,
Or to keep off envy's stinging,
And find
What wind
Serves to advance an honest mind.
If thou be'st born to strange sights,
Things invisible to see,
Ride ten thousand days and nights,
Till age snow white hairs on thee,
Thou, when thou return'st, wilt tell me,
All strange wonders that befell thee,
And swear,
No where
Lives a woman true, and fair.
If thou find'st one, let me know,
Such a pilgrimage were sweet;
Yet do not, I would not go,
Though at next door we might meet;
Though she were true, when you met her,
And last, till you write your letter,
Yet she
Will be
False, ere I come, to two, or three.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
How many 22 year old men really really want to be married and having kids versus 'these are my prime years, time to have fun before I settle down'?
There are men who want to marry early, but not the majority of them. And there are women who want to marry early, but again I would say not the majority of them. It's 2025, both sexes want fun and freedom before they're too old to enjoy themselves and have to settle down to adulting.
McKenzie Bezos and Melinda Gates became billionaires... by divorcing billionaires.
What man would want that particular risk AFTER he went to the trouble of accumulating the wealth in order to be able to get the woman in the first place.
A woman would have to be worth that risk.
Oh for hell's sake. McKenzie Bezos helped Jeff when he was establishing Amazon and she was in the steady job earning the money while he chased his dream. Then the marriage ended because HE, not she, fell for the next door slapper* and blew up his marriage (apparently they are finally getting married because she just threw a huge hen party recently).
I think in that case she's entitled to every penny of the divorce settlement. I'm not familiar with Melinda Gates' case but again that seems to be Bill not being able to keep it in his pants. The men in these examples are the cheating liars, not the women. Pick a different scare story than "oh no, if you wreck your marriage to the woman who raised your kids and was there in the early years before you became rich and famous because you chased a blow-up Barbie doll, you might even have to pay a fair share of alimony! clearly women are all only gold diggers!".
*This is what she considered appropriate to wear to a presidential inauguration. But go ahead, tell me how poor Jeff was taken advantage of by his rapacious wife.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
At least twice as many as there are marriageable and marriage-minded women are out there.
Well yeah, if every guy from twenty to eighty is only willing to marry a woman aged twenty to twenty-nine, there's gonna be a shortage of Jills for every Jack.
HereAndGone
3mo ago
The 'living together for years' thing is driven by male preferences.
That's the one thing that drives me mad when I see women complain about "so we've been living together for ten years and I think it's time he proposed but he says he's not ready for marriage and now he's talking about breaking up".
Of course he's not! He's been getting the benefits of marriage without being married for ten years! And you enabled that! If you're not planning on marrying within a couple of years, or if you're not one of the people who don't ever want to marry because it's just a piece of paper/it's a repressive relic of the patriarchy/our arrangement suits us as it is, then you should ask him to put up or move on. Don't hang on for ten or more years hoping that one day out of the blue he'll decide to move out of his comfort zone and do the romantic proposal, because he won't. Why should he?
HereAndGone
3mo ago
But if you were talking to a 23-25 year old women who admits to 6, 7, 8 whatever, what does that imply about her decision-making?
Make that a 23-25 year old man, and what does that imply about his decision-making? You can't have it both ways: you can't have "the guys get to sow their wild oats but then there is a crop of fresh virgin brides when they decide to settle down", or else you get "the fresh virgin brides are snagged by the 40-50 year old successful men leaving the 23-25 year old guys to be incels".
Unless we had a sex ratio where there's one man for every two, three or four women, we are not going to get "Joe gets to sleep with a ton of hot chicks while he's young and randy before he settles down to be a family man husband and father aged thirty, but Josie only has one boyfriend since high school who she marries, or if he breaks up with her, she then finds a guy at college and marries him aged twenty-three". The numbers will not work out. Joe, Bob, Bill, Sam, Phil, Ben and Tom can't sleep with ten girls each unless those ten girls all sleep with ten guys each to keep the access equitable. Certainly Joe can sleep with ten girls if he's hot and rich etc. but that means Bob, Sam, etc. don't get to sleep with those girls or only get to sleep with one or two girls instead of the ten they envy Joe for getting.
That's the point I want to get across: both sexes do not get to eat their cake and have it. Joe can't have a stream of girls to have fun with and then settle down with a maiden bride because there aren't enough spare women for each man to have a string of sexual adventures but each girl he sleeps with only sleeps with two or three men over her dating life. Josie can't sleep around like a guy and not face consequences because the good old double standard and when she wants to settle down to be a family woman wife and mother aged thirty, the men in her age range will still be looking for the twenty-three year old maiden bride instead.
I mean, why do you think women wear makeup and dye their hair blonde? Nature has not given us all equal good looks, so you maximise what you have. You make your lips redder than nature did, you smooth out your complexion to be even and flawless, you emphasise your eyes, etc.
More options
Context Copy link