domain:mgautreau.substack.com
is to make it so that you can have as much sex with your wife as you want, consent be damned, legally
Which is why this was the historical norm in the first place.
Divorce meaning the man loses most of their assets is, quite literally, a pension plan for when a sex worker has had enough of the job. That this means they're grossly overpaid and encouraged to retire that way is a problem not unique to sex workers, but it does come from the same philosophical place as other pension systems do.
4bpp
Now I am become a Helpful, Honest and Harmless Assistant, the destroyer of jobs
14m ago
In what way is a beehive "male-created"?
TequilaMockingbird
Brown-skinned Fascist MAGA boot-licker
15m ago
The fundemental problem the hereditarians face is that thier entire edifice rests on an assumption that biology, psychology, and anthropology are not only rigourous and mechanisistic, but sufficiently understood that outcomes can be manipulated in a near deterministic manner. This is manifestly not the case.
Sure biology may be more rigorous than psychology which is in turn more rigourous than anthropology, but none of them are even in the same zip code (much less the same ballpark) as electrical engineering.
FtttG
27m ago
Fair enough. If I'm accused of seducing women via lies and deception, it's a charge I'd strongly rebut. If I'm accused of having had sex with women I had no interest of pursuing a serious romantic relationship with - guilty as charged.
ControlsFreak
29m ago
The only historical precedent which has to do with natural children is the legal presumption that a woman's husband is the father of her children, absent other evidence.
What do you make of prohibitions on marriage between sufficiently close relatives? ...what do you make of exceptions to those prohibitions when one of the two individuals could demonstrate that they were sterile?
TowardsPanna
29m ago
Wish I could utterly root and de-bloat and de-spyware my samsung android phone, but I think I need it bloated for bank apps to function.
Crowstep
31m ago
I always found it strange for activists to complain about emotional labour (rather than simply describing it neutrally). I mean sure, most emotional-labour heavy jobs are predominantly female, but that's because those are the jobs women want. A woman doesn't become a nurse because she likes changing bedpans, she becomes a nurse because she likes caring for people. The emotional labour is the main appeal of the job.
The fb-word is a slur and offensive to the community of men experiencing relationship expectation mismatches with women, demeaning the challenges they face in their lived experiences and further entrenching casual misandry. *crosses arms and turns away*
There’s a motte-and-bailey. If asked to define fuckboy, I suspect chicks would say something along the lines of what you described: A guy who obtained or obtains sex by lies and/or deception. However, in practice they extend it to any guy who merely banged them without unilaterally preregistering a guarantee of commitment and no commitment ensuing thereafter (shocked pikachu).
Thus resulting in ex-post hoe maddening. principal_skinner.jpg: “Is it possible I have some accountability in the matter? No, it’s the men who are evil.”
Barfknuckle
48m ago
“wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce
wat
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
48m ago
Any man who must say "I am the king" is no true king.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
49m ago
a male-created space, dominated by women, that the males don't even get to stay in
Seems like a perfect metaphor to me.
The former is a foundational axiom of the latter. People latch on to genetic determinism as "obvious" and "true" because they reject the validity of non-material/non-quantifiable explanations.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
52m ago
Or in other words, more proficient [sex] workers tend to end up with more lucrative exclusivity agreements.
Which is why it's understandable that a generation of people who just take being well-off/stable for granted will deny this dynamic exists.
hydroacetylene
58m ago
Women who treat them as jobs are otherwise known as gold diggers(barely more positive connotation than the word it rhymes with) or trophy wives(neutral connotation), and most of these women have a high but not above a normal upper class standard of living because rich husbands put their much younger wives on allowances and make them sign prenups and all that.
Women who treat them as investments are the ones who come out ahead, and this is the historical attitude you’re referencing.
kky
58m ago
Women used to provide much, much more in terms of money, back when spinning was a thing, and “wife-selling” was a well-known Anglo practice of soft divorce for when things really weren’t working out.
Plus, consider that the law back then was basically decided on a village-by-village basis, and you can see that for a woman to straight-up defect would not be to her benefit.
EDIT: reading back, you didn’t mention historical aspects. So take this as color as opposed to rebuttal.
N=1, but the only prostitute I’ve ever known in person was a friend of a friend who whored herself out essentially because she watched too much porn and Internet goon-brained herself into a female coomer. No economic privation or tragic backstory needed.
As four decades of Doomsday Argument arguments show, there are legitimate difficulties on inferring the shape of a distribution from a single sample, but there you go.
She didn’t hate men though, so this does not support the whole of the thesis.
hydroacetylene
1hr ago
I don’t disagree- but note that she isn’t particularly mohammedan, herself. In fact she rejects her ‘conservative, patriarchal upbringing’. I don’t know if she makes the salat or whatever, I think she’s having trouble keeping different religions straight in her head. This appeals to a part of her audience, obviously, but treating Islam and Christianity as interchangeable is not, here, due to her affinity for Islam.
I will go on record as saying that there should both be a pretty high social expectation on women to keep providing regular sex to her husband... AND that a husband should have a little leeway when it comes to extracting that commitment.
And my point is mostly that the guy has been waiting for sex will get some on his wedding night and honeymoon, and if the woman doesn't give it to him in short order I'd say that's grounds for annulment.
Years down the road, well, that's a different situation. But we don't want men to conclude that the only way they can expect regular sex is to keep leading women along for a few months at a time and swap them whenever they get too attached.
Not really looking to reinstate the rule of thumb but if a guy is otherwise upholding his end, he should indeed have some 'remedies' available if the sex dries up.
I'll be careful how I say this, but I've found that womens' desires are often finicky in the sense that they will be completely uninterested on a basic desire level right up until the act is in motion, then it flips like a switch. So a guy should probably be allowed to toss his wife over his shoulder and carry her to the bedroom and engage in some active foreplay, even if he has to stop before penetration.
Yes, its more complex than that, wife stops taking care of herself, guy gets schlubby, kids come in the mix, so not going to pretend there's a panacea, but yes, there should absolutely be a socially acceptable expectation that a wife is having sex with her husband on some regular interval.
On the more wacky front, I've wondered if we should be dosing married couples with Oxytocin since pretty much all the literature available shows that it makes couples more interested in each other (although I'd not be surprised if this would fail to replicate.)
Couple shows up at the doctor's office saying they've not had sex in months, he hands them a spray bottle: "Take two snorts each and call me in the morning."
roystgnr
1hr ago
Aellas entire dataset is just her own experiences
Her largest survey had over half a million respondents.
whatihear
1hr ago
I don’t think that’s true at all. There are plenty of materialists who think things are environmentally determined. This is liberal blank slateism in a nutshell. The opposite of genetic determinism is environmentalism in almost all debates on intelligence. This is actually the first time that I’ve encountered someone saying that variations in intelligence originate from something non-physical like the grace of God (this seems like what you are saying, but maybe you mean something else, it does seem like an odd thing for God to do to me).
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
1hr ago
True cultured men know the mark of being an intellectual gentleman is to only be attracted to obvious signs of intelligence like girls wearing glasses.
Counterpoint: being attracted to women for stereotypically-masculine traits is childish and gay.
[Note that by "childish and gay", that's "this is how attraction works when your age is only measured in single digits" and "not confident/socially capable enough to trust you can dominate a more feminine woman", respectively. It's also preferring more "universal" traits than specifically masculine ones, if you prefer that framing.]
whatihear
1hr ago
Yeah totally agree. Before I believed in god, I was a superveniance functionalist (now I’m confused). I think qualia are just one more superveniant thing in that frame.
A lot of people who are not materialists and also don’t believe in god cite qualia as the reason why, so I was trying to make the case in a way that would appeal to those people. It was sloppy and I regret the error, since I don’t actually think that makes sense.
MadMonzer
Temporarily embarrassed liberal elite
1hr ago
Women who treat romantic relationships as jobs end up with richer husbands, and therefore a higher material standard of living, than comparably hot women who treat romantic relationships as a source of emotional validation. Taking advantage of this fact is frequently not insane - and was in fact "just common sense" for most of human history.
LOL, not even close. I'm suggesting that biology is stuck in a mechanistic paradigm and needs to move beyond it to make progress. I'm not saying this "proves souls" or anything whacky, though I doubt we would be in the same ballpark of what we think "souls" are.
More options
Context Copy link