domain:npr.org
In my opinion and recollection feminist used to have a sex negative valence - it was associated with ugly women who hated men, bull dyke lesbians etc.
It seemed to switch valence in the 90s I think.
I would recommend using, or picking up, a pair of decent work gloves. I've done four or five car door repairs, and every single time I've either cut up my hands or gloves. Even if it's miserably hot, they'll be worth making sure it's not your fingers.
Where are you getting this? I’ve seen zero conservatives squarely blaming men for not getting married.
How much do you hand around old school church-going (Protestant) conservatives — typically age 50+ — IRL? Because that's the main place I've seen it. Also preacher blogs. (And some younger religious conservatives blogging from the Eastern European or Latin American country they moved to.)
He didn't really break out until mid-March of this year. He was getting some local coverage before that, and it's very interesting how much of that is puff pieces with little actual 'when what where why' behind them, but even the actually newsworthy stuff wasn't NYC-wide newsworthy.
Interesting quote; but isn't just copy-pasting a long quote (with a link to source), adding no comment of your own, pretty low-effort for the Motte?
One word that has more or less dropped out of common parlance is seducer. It means, roughly, a man who lures women in on false pretenses.
Big problem with this analysis and those like it: these men don't seem to be promising anything, like at all, and these women are still laying with them.
right wing atheism is hedonic self indulgence.
Well, this right wing atheist isn't exactly generating a bunch of hedons these days, nor indulging in much of anything (except being poor and miserable)…
Didn't we have a previous article from this lady? A couple of points-
-
Serious mohammedanism seems worse for women than serious Christianity at any equivalent point along the fundy vs liberalism spectrum. Of course I would say that, but I suggest this woman talk to some ladies living in conservative Christianity.
-
It comes as no surprise to me that women are not by and large fans of low commitment sexual activities, nor that many women value the attention they get more than anything.
-
This is not a new problem. The age old refrain of the cad is 'I swear I'll marry you, I just can't wait'. This is just the modern iteration. Of course, when you reject men having the authority to protect women from this, you also reject them having the responsibility to do so.
-
There is, in fact, a middle ground between 'women are virgins until their wedding night' and 'sex then have a date if the man liked it'. I reject it entirely but it clearly exists. I don't consider any point on this continuum a stable equilibrium but lots of people wind up there.
As to what this woman's solution is, might I suggest that an onlyfans star writing about this on her substack might have motives other than sincerely seeking a solution to a problem?
There is no law that a woman can enforce on the basis that her seducer had promised marriage.
There are laws still on the books in a few(mainly deep southern)states. But more to the point, statutory laws seem to get used as an implied threat behind this sometimes.
Women laying with popular men is the feminine form of the 'nice guy' who orbits, hoping to transform a sexual relationship into an emotional one. Some of them do understand, eventually, that the sexual appeal is the stronger card they have to play (which is why they suddenly become frigid after a girlhood of being a slag) but a lifetime of using their strongest card has inflated their sense of self worth, and neglecting the other aspects of their personal lives hits home all at once.
Any good explanation of how they were converting it to USD?
They sell it to ghetto stores, who sell it to ghetto dwellers, probably using SNAP, unlawfully.
The RCC's moral theology manuals actually condemn courting(a term used because in not every culture is this done by going on dates) for too long without engagement and require a bishop's permission for abstinence within marriage. Of course manualism is deeply unfashionable these days but there is nothing else to inform the zeitgeist; even Jesuits will recommend against teenaged but not college aged dating on those grounds, albeit only if asked and taking care not to outright condemn anything.
The middle ground is probably something like 'have sex after he meets your parents and they don't pitch a fit about him'. I don't think it's either a stable equilibrium or feminism compatible.
I remember sex negative feminists growing up. Girlbosses but no bikinis, that sort of thing. I think it's just a generational barber pole.
Women could be pleasant.
If all you have to offer is what's between your legs, and men flee as soon as they get it, I mean, sure one option to create a pussy cartel. The other is women would just be pleasant. Be nice, be warm, be loving, create a positive atmosphere. And maybe change your preferences in men too.
But that codes too "Stepford Wives", and women have rejected it for the political prospect of being a boss bitch and unchecked neuroticism.
But I will say, because it's quite an interesting detail, that violent, destructive riots by black people in the 20th century has been a largely northern phenomenon in the U.S. Southern law-and-order has been much less coddling of such things,
Southern cities are also much less segregated, that might have something to do with it.
What about people who collect guns to eat organic food(a good portion of hunters rambling on about the health benefits of venison) or who drink tea while they watch football?
Tribal tendencies are just tendencies. I think we all know that but I also think the causation goes the other way; people who think driving a pickup truck is a marker of a respectable man belong to a particular culture, and it's a culture that Trump appeals to. People who seek solace in Buddhist practices divorced from spirituality belong to a different culture that really cares about LGBT rights.
My concern is that I’ve never really heard of a secular society with those kinds of restrictions on sexuality; the only places that successfully curtail premarital sex do so explicitly through a religious point of view.
Confucianism. You could ad-hoc define it as a religion along with communism, liberalism, etc., but then the statement is tautologically true.
Confucianism as not-a-religion is a pretty modern frame; while westerners have been confused about it for a while it does include substantial ritual/preternatural commitments as traditionally practiced. See 'Chinese rites controversy' for further information.
It's clearly possible to dangle a relationship in front of a girl who likes you without referring to the possibility directly, men do it on accident all the time.
This guy was grating to read but it sounds like there might be a lot more wrong with him than gender nonconformity? He keeps circling back to 'messing with sex hormones changes things' but see also puberty.
I was responding to what this poster said, what was discussed in the article, and what you yourself said above:
This is not a new problem. The age old refrain of the cad is 'I swear I'll marry you, I just can't wait'
Is there something between the lines here that I'm missing? Do you consider a man promising nothing and promising marriage to be basically the same thing? Where does women's personhood enter in to this equation?
I'd say they'd suck less for the average woman, if they were capable of setting up boundaries.
Prettymuch. The average woman is likely capable of getting into a stable relationship with a pretty good guy from a dating app if they just jiggle their preferences a bit. The average guy has to go on a massive path of self improvement to get attractive enough to then actually start meaningfully 'dating' then can maybe look at dealing with it.
Also look up the "triple tradition." Confucianism, much like modern humanist atheism, succeeded because it was deeply embedded in the Buddhist and Taoist religious frameworks.
I mean, of course she's wrong about this point. An unregulated sexual marketplace (assuming all individuals are as free as possible from physical and economic coercion) privileges women over men for much the same reason that an unregulated free market privileges large corporations over workers. I assume that most of the commentariat here is already familiar with this analysis.
But the thing is that you can know she's wrong without even doing a full analysis of why she's wrong, because you can see that she fundamentally doesn't understand why people around her act the way that they do. She admits that she's confused by the actions of both men and women around her and she doesn't have a comprehensive theory to explain their behavior, so she resorts to mystifying explanations that are grounded in morality and "mental illness" (a synonym for throwing your hands up and saying "idk"), instead of seeing the people around her as rational actors who are doing the best they can within the constraints laid out for them by biology and decision theory.
Also I have to comment on this:
because it's just so wild that she would use this phrase without even a hint of irony or reflection. Thanks to "J. Allen" for mentioning it in the comments under her post. ("Men don't worry about whether we're centering women--most of us are in some form or fashion." -- lol, exactly). She talks about the "male centered woman" like it's a unique affliction that only burdens women, but her friend from New York whose entire social life revolves around setting up and going on dates with women isn't a "female centered man" because...?
More options
Context Copy link