domain:savenshine.com
FCfromSSC
Nuclear levels of sour
12m ago
If not, where do traditions even come from in the first place?
Traditions start as innovations, then become traditions.
The problem here is the claim that one is not innovating when one RETVRNS.
One is not innovating when one adopts another's innovation either, though.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
12m ago
LARP, Cargo Cult, Skin Suit, The Purpose of a System is What it Does, The Cruelty is the Point, Master/Slave Morality are all terms that are just used as boo-lights when they're used as conclusions or insults without extensive structural arguments justifying why they are true. They're clever memes someone heard and want to apply all over the place wherever their opponents gather.
To whit, I've heard LARP applied to online groups, who clearly fail the LA; to actual violent terrorists who clearly fail the RP; and to everyone in between. It's mostly meaningless, just meant to associate your enemy with losers in capes.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
12m ago
Before I respond in any kind of more substantive way, I will throw out there that I don’t think we’re really at crossed wires.
Polygamy is illegal in the United States. My take is that relationships that would be polygamous under a different legal regime just retitle themselves as polyamorous and go without the official legal imprimatur of marriage despite being long-term mutual households, and being essentially patriarchal “one dude, multiple women” setups. That’s what I mean about them being polygamy on the euphemism treadmill. It’s just patriarchal (which is good, IMO!) dynamics accruing to themselves some woke cover. It’s all very fascinating to me, honestly.
To me, harem-type setups have something distinctly different about them, in essence, compared to the types you mention above.
ThisIsSin
Cainanites and Abelists
14m ago
Otherwise, it seems self-evident to me that God would not have made something so fundamentally part of our nature feel good to us if he didn't intend for us to enjoy it
Counterpoint: It also feels good to dominate other human beings, but I don't believe God intended for us to enjoy that.
Now, match "domination" to "sex", combine that with the degree that marriage is inherently an exclusive prostitution agreement for sociobiological reasons, mix that with a generally-productive instinct for men to do this sexually more often... and now you know why traditionalists have an emergent, adversarial relationship with sex. For progressives, mix that with the female zero-sum social game, and the result is "yes, all men do that for power reasons, and they all do it on purpose".
Yep, that's my worry exactly. If a professional knows your legal name, or could easily learn it, then any so-called ““““confidentiality””” seems to just become a marketing gimmick meaning they probably won't publish you as a case study, post about it on social media, or talk about you on-the-record with medical professionals not working at the same provider.
DiscourseMagnus
17m ago
It occurs to me that the term "serial monogamy" is very directly analogous to "crony capitalism". Or "social justice", for that matter.
newcomputerwhodis
19m ago
Yeah, I'll just endorse this. Reading the OP I kept being struck by a "huh? no, that's not what happens..." feeling - that the description of having difficulty believing the thing you're doing is stupid did not resonate at all with me personally nor many of the peers of my youth as I understood them. It seems to me that while maybe not the standard reaction of the majority, it's still quite common for performative pretense to have no effect or a negative effect.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
20m ago
If not, where do traditions even come from in the first place?
Traditions start as innovations, then become traditions.
The problem here is the claim that one is not innovating when one RETVRNS.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
23m ago
The Amish are grandfathered in and you could not create a similarly isolated group from scratch.
You can join the existing Amish. Pretty easily actually, if you are earnest about it, you can head to a Mennonite-adjacent community, buy a farm, and you'll be accepted within a few years or so in most cases. I suspect this is more common among the Trad community than its detractors think, but that such folk naturally are never heard from again in public.
erwgv3g34
24m ago
From "More Ominous than a Strike" by Dalrock:
Dr. Helen has a thoughtful post up asking if the title of her book [Men on Strike] is an accurate description of men’s response to the changes in the law and culture. While the title of her book is extremely effective in opening the discussion (which is what it needs to do), it isn’t an accurate description of problem we face in the West. A strike can be negotiated with; offer them a bit more and they’ll get back to work. Better yet, offer a few of them a side deal and break the cohesion. True strikes require moral or legal force to avoid this sort of peeling off. The problem for the modern West is far worse. What we are seeing isn’t men throwing a collective temper tantrum, noble or otherwise. What we are seeing is men responding to incentives. Even worse, inertia has delayed the response to incentives, which means much more adjustment is likely on the way.
There was an old joke in the Soviet Union to the effect of:
We pretend to work. They pretend to pay us.
The problem for the Soviets was this wasn’t a movement. They knew how to handle a movement, and Siberia had plenty of room above ground and below. The Soviets were masters at coercion through fear, but the problem wasn’t a rebellion, it was that they had reached the limits of incentive through fear. In the short and even medium term fear is a very effective motivator. But over time if overused it loses some of its power, especially when it comes to the kind of productivity which requires creativity and risk taking. Standing out is risky; you don’t want to be the worst worker on the line in a fear based system, but you also have reason to fear being the best worker on the line. This doesn’t happen so much by conscious choice, but due to the influence of the incentive structure on the culture over time. Conscious choices can be bargained with, and threats of punishment are still effective. The culture itself is far harder to negotiate with. No one is refusing anything. So the Soviets had no choice but to assign quotas, and severely punish those who failed to meet them. But while the quota/coercion system keeps production running, it works against human nature. If you become the best producer you end up being assigned a larger share of the quota burden; from each according to his abilities. Over time the logic of this works its way into the culture, as everyone gets just a little more inclined to go with the flow and not do more than required. The problem is while momentum causes the response to be slow, it also means it is very difficult to deal with once you have enough of it to recognize.
The problem we presently face in the West is similar. While we have a small number of men who have decided to slack off as a form of protest, the far more insidious risk to our economy is the across the board weakening of the incentive that a marriage based social structure creates for men to produce at their full potential. We’ve moved from a mostly reward based incentive structure to a model the Soviets would have been proud of.
You can see this at the micro level with a man whose wife goes Jenny Erikson on him. The courts understand that throwing a man out of the home and taking away his children naturally reduces the man’s normal incentive to work to support his family. How could it not? It isn’t that most men in this situation will stand by and watch their children starve, but they won’t be motivated to produce quite as much. You can confiscate a percentage of his income in the form of child support, but he no longer has the incentive to fight his way quite so high up our progressive tax structure. This is why the courts have to assign the man an income quota he has to meet, Soviet style. Imputation of income isn’t incidental to the child support family model; it is essential to the function of the model. Note that this doesn’t mean the courts have to formally calculate an income quota for each man who ends up in the new child support family structure; in most cases the man has already assigned himself a quota based on past production. All the family courts need to do in most cases is make sure he doesn’t fall below this quota.
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
26m ago
I think bringing up the Benedict Option is a bad counter-example, since the trope-maker, Rod Dreher is a pretty damning case study of all this. There's nobody who publically committed themselves harder to this idea, yet he failed to even superficially create even sustainable parts of this project in his own life. The book he wrote, was a cherry picked set of anecdotes, cobbled artificially into a picture he wanted to paint, not an examination of the concept in earnest.
How do you mean regarding Rod?
atelier
Jimmys: unrustled
27m ago
I do, he's not monogamous or celibate. But I think the interesting question is, What about serial monogamy?
FiveHourMarathon
Wawa Nationalist
32m ago
It’s just regular old polygamy on the euphemism treadmill.
I guess we're at crossed wires here on the definition of and the distinction between Polygamy and Polyamory. Polygamy refers to having more than one spouse, while Polyamory refers to having more than one lover. Polygamy refers only to situations in which one is, at minimum, establishing a mutual household if not claiming marriage; while Polyamory refers to any kind of relationship structure in which one party approves of the other party having an additional lover. I'm not sure what your working definition is; as far as I can tell (meant without insult) it's something like "Annoying thing that Annoying cucks on the internet won't stop Annoying me about." Which might be a good definition for most of the times you've run into it online!
Where I've run into IRL couples who label themselves Poly, the most common types in order of appearance are:
-- Theoretically "open" relationships with a 1PP where the woman is supposedly Bisexual and free to sleep with other women but never really has the get up and go to find a woman; and the man is free to sleep with other women in the case of a threesome but isn't hot enough to find one easily while his wife is kind of half-assing it; and it never happens and they're always nosing around "poly" and "kink" and "Queer" events trying to find a third. These are the ones everyone else complains about because they're annoying.
-- The above, but the couple is hot and/or rich and the woman is genuinely bisexual, and therefore find thirds regularly, who they include as an auxiliary member in their relationship for a period of time before shuffling them out. In this case, a 1PP is the stable equilibrium, because a hot woman can find other women about as easily as a hot man can find other women.
-- True "Open" relationships in which both partners are free to pursue other lovers as they choose and are doing so. They tend to just be a glide path to breaking up, or very loosely attached to begin with. Tend to break down due to gender imbalances, because a woman of any given quality can find a man much more easily than a man of a similar quality can find a woman.
-- Polyandry in which one woman and multiple male partners play house. Normally a degenerate form of the above, in which the men are theoretically empowered to look elsewhere but don't.
In all cases, the defining aspect of a polyamorous relationship is the acceptance on the part of one's partner that one is allowed to have additional lovers.
The_Nybbler
In the game of roller derby, women aren't just the opposing team; they're the ball.
50m ago
They're not really on strike, though. In a strike, the workers are hurting themselves in the short term for benefits in the longer term. And they're coordinating it. The boys here have left the job because the working conditions are terrible and the paychecks aren't coming.
urquan
I saw under the sun that in the place of justice, even there was wickedness.
52m ago
· Edited 46m ago
I read it as: it's one spouse's duty to release the other's demons.
You should read it like this: It’s one spouse’s duty to help the other fulfill their sexual needs, so that they aren’t tempted to have sex outside the marriage. Millions of dead bedrooms, affairs, resentments, and divorces speak to the wisdom of this provision. If you hate the idea of a sexless marriage, like most people do, St. Paul is simply agreeing with you!
It’s true that Christianity places a high premium on celibacy. But the married have their calling and their vocation, which Paul, though he advises celibacy to those who will accept it, also praises in the highest terms, as an image of Christlike love. And the superiority of celibacy over marriage is also a provision confirmed by experience: not all wish for marriage, not all wish for the responsibility of a relationship. And where the celibate are not celebrated, they are vilified, rejected: see hatred directed towards spinsters, incels, communities not knowing what to do with single people with no interest in marriage, etc.
You can view the Christian approach to sex, particularly historically, as repression. You can view it that way, and even twist yourself into knots interpreting the holy text through the most uncharitable angle, rather than trying to grasp, with sincerity, what was meant and what is understood by it. You’re free to do so. But given what has happened — the conflicts, social upheaval, bitter divorces, mass loneliness, party culture, hookup culture that has resulted from unrestrained sexual norms — I would rather advise looking at Christian sexual norms as a bulwark against grave danger.
You can disagree, or you can even offer a more refined ethic that prizes sexual restraint without restricting sex to marriage, but what I often see is people criticizing Christian moderationism towards sex and offering as its alternative the spirit of the 60s, which is facing mass rejection because it holds up a carrot of free love and sexual pleasure, but gives few people what they actually want. St. Paul, by contrast, says: “you should love one another as yourself, and you should make it an important part of your life — even a duty! — to aid your spouse in fulfilling their sexual needs.” In what sense is this not wisdom?
Rov_Scam
53m ago
It's still irritating and anachronistic. It's like describing Da Vinci as an LGBTQ+ artist.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
56m ago
On the contrary: cite me somewhere in the Bible (or authoritative interpretation of it, e.g. Catholic Tradition) which says that sex is bad and not to be enjoyed. The burden of proof is on you here, especially given that the evidence you already cited (Paul) doesn't say what you claim it does. Otherwise, it seems self-evident to me that God would not have made something so fundamentally part of our nature feel good to us if he didn't intend for us to enjoy it. Much like the taste of good food or the beauty of nature are meant to be enjoyed in their proper context, so is the pleasure of sex. It makes no sense otherwise.
BreakerofHorsesandMen
1hr ago
Aquinas views sexual pleasure in marriage as necessary, natural and good. Going to the sex act with one’s spouse strictly for the pleasure is a sin, but sexual pleasure within marriage and the marital act is a positive.
DiscourseMagnus
1hr ago
I personally suspect that this is not actually a modern innovation on harems per se, and that the reason we don't have extensive records of it in the ancient world is that it was considered irrelevant trivia, not that it was considered forbidden. Contrary to male homosexual behavior (which is likelier to be an outright aberration that natural selection simply has trouble weeding out, comparable to mental illness), it seems like the most obvious context that female homosexual behavior would evolve for - particularly given that women are much likelier to be bisexual than men.
Tree
1hr ago
I read it as: it's one spouse's duty to release the other's demons. It's not about you, it's not about having fun, it's a means to an end. I have my own biases, but I don't buy the christian counseling websites spin of 1 corinthians 7 to be a 60s hippy pro-sex message. Cite me some pre-20th century catholic authority that encourages sexual pleasure in marriage.
Pynewacket
1hr ago
that or they are excellent at rationalizing their biases.
Not necessarily.
Jesus may have been earnestly delusional. We certainly get a lot of schizophrenic self-proclaimed messiahs nowadays; why would the original article need to be anything more or less than the most successful one in history? C.S. Lewis used to say the "Jesus was insane" hypothesis could be dismissed by looking at the overall coherence and sensibleness of his teachings whenever he wasn't declaring himself the Son of Man. But that doesn't track with my, or many others' experiences talking to the mentally-will but well-educated. (See Scott's "Professor T" story for anecdata that's at least adjacent.) Grant that crazy attracts crazy, and whoever originated the more fantastical miracle stories may have likewise just been psychotic at the time, or something.
Granted, it's likely that someone deliberately made something up at some point, but even then I'm not sure I'd call it LARPing if they were attempting to perpetrate actual fraud against would-be followers. A hoax isn't the same thing as LARPing.
SubstantialFrivolity
I'm not even supposed to be here today
2hr ago
They're not exactly "encouraged to enjoy sex with their spouse", that's new age degeneracy. It's better to abstain and pray according to the church fathers.
That's not true at all. For one thing, the Song of Solomon (in the Old Testament!) is really sexual (I mean, by biblical standards) and is a good example that the Bible considers sex between married couples to be a praiseworthy thing to be enjoyed.
But also, your cited verses directly work against your claim. Paul never claims that sex is disgusting or bad, and in fact explicitly says that couples should engage in it! He does say it is better to be single and focus on God, but acknowledges that not everyone is equipped for that. If you choose to read disgust into that, that's your interpretation and not something supported by the text.
TitaniumButterfly
2hr ago
I mean, boys are both stunted (obviously) and also on strike.
That's an interesting point, but is it not also plausible that dominating other people is pleasurable because it taps into an impulse which God does intend that we enjoy? In that case the good feeling of dominating others would ultimately be something which is corrupted by sin, much like how sex outside of marriage still feels good but isn't part of God's plan.
More options
Context Copy link