Every so often there’s a visible glitch in the feminine Matrix. Usually these come in the form of some notable men making an obvious push back against the fem-centric social undercurrent. When these ‘glitches’ are brought to the notice of femcentrism the predictable social response is to resort to the standard shaming schemas and brandings of ‘misogyny’ of the offenders and moving on.
I was going to use super bowl commercials as a convenient illustration, but in the recent decade even these have been sanitized and reformatted to serve the feminine imperative. But this commercial is something else. Naturally it’s a european TV spot; the thought of doing a spot like this would never enter the minds of fem-centric American ad agency creatives.
A few years back Harley Davidson brushed the surface of the dynamic this commercial taps into. They had a campaign with the tag lines of “Go ahead, we’ll wait ’till you ask your wife.” and “Your wife called, she said it was OK.” all referring to men purchasing a new motorcycle. In Harley Davidson’s instance the sales motivation was male shaming with the intent of questioning the men’s “manhood” in who really makes the decisions for them. Women get a knowing snigger from it, and men are pressured to buy with the reminder of how truly controlled they are by the women in their lives.
Where the Harley campaign had an element that women could positively relate to, this commercial pushes past this dynamic and exposes in no uncertain terms the ugliness of fem-centrism. I can’t be sure, but my guess is that most of the reactions these men’s wives had were genuine. With the exception of the woman at the end smashing the windshield (dramatization) it looks as if most reactions were shot unbeknownst to the women. The producers wanted a visceral effect and they got far more than they probably bargained for. The commercial has since been excoriated by women, the advertising community, and was of course pulled by Toyota. Women didn’t like what the mirror reflected back at them.
The dichotomy here is that hypergamy propels women toward the most dominant, decisive, Alpha their capacity to arouse can afford them, but their need for long term security conflicts with entrusting a man with decisions that directly affect her. The solution then is to socially limit or eliminate a man’s ability to make decisions based on his (a masculine primary) frame. When one woman in the clip screams, “You are so selfish!!” you’re seeing the visceral reflex of the feminine imperative clashing with the masculine imperative.
If and when a new masculine-primary social paradigm evolves, expect the feminine social reaction to be equally as hostile.
November 17th, 2012 at 9:34 pm
They Myth of Monogamy video series. What’s your take?
http://www.jujumamablog.com/2012/07/31/the-myth-of-monogamy-video-series/
November 17th, 2012 at 10:47 pm
Yes, marriage is a raw deal for men. No argument here. But my problem with the “pump them, dump them, leave them, buy cars” approach is that you can’t do it forever because it robs you of your prime biological directive / greatest joy in life: reproduction / children. We can’t throw out the steak just because the utensils are broken, fellas.
The “pump them and dump them forever” advice is the male equivalent of the “Sex And The City ride the carousel and follow hypergamy forever” advice for women.
November 17th, 2012 at 11:01 pm
But yeah, cohabitation is where it’s at.
If you really, really, really want to get married, then you need to make sure you have enough game to keep her hypergamy in check until she hits the wall at least, then find a nice young virgin to get that extra bonding power, then get a few lawyers to fix you up a solid prenup. It sounds crazy but it’s not impossible.
November 18th, 2012 at 12:20 am
What’s your take on this relationship advice in the Boston Globe?
About a year ago, a friend introduced me to his wife’s friend, and we hit it off. I’m 29 now, and she’s 26. We dated, things went extremely well, and things have progressed to the point where we are both extremely happy and have been considering moving in together this summer when our leases end. All in all, a very normal, healthy, mutually respectful relationship that makes us both very happy.
A few weeks ago, however, she dropped a bomb on me. She told me that when she was in college she was pretty casual about relationships. When I asked what that meant, she told me that she had probably been with about 35 guys. I was floored. I had always assumed she had a typical dating past, and that she was a nice girl. She assured me that she had completely changed after college, but I still have no idea how to process this information. I’m pretty sure that if I knew this from the start, I never would have given her a chance. Needless to say, I’m really weirded out.
This is a woman who, until two weeks ago, I could easily have seen myself marrying. She’s been so incredibly great to me, but now I don’t know who I’m dating. I would love to get past this and go back to feeling the way I used to, but I don’t know if that’s possible. I’m also afraid that if I end it over this, it’ll be the biggest regret of my life. She makes me so happy and it’s probably the best relationship of my life, but I’m now seeing her as damaged goods. I try to rationalize why her number isn’t that crazy or out of whack, but then I snap back into it and remember that I don’t know a single woman who did anything remotely like that in college. This is just foreign to me.
CONFLICTED
And Meredith’s answer:
Your words: “I’m pretty sure that if I knew this from the start, I never would have given her a chance.’’
Aren’t you glad you didn’t know? Had you vetoed her based on a number, you wouldn’t be in an amazing, happy relationship.
How many partners would have been OK? Five? Twenty? Thirty-four? What’s your cutoff for damaged goods?
Your girlfriend knows herself well. She had a good time in college, grew up, and now wants a real partner. She chose you, trusted you enough to disclose her past, and now she’s being called damaged goods. Might I suggest that a woman who slept with only three people but didn’t understand her own motives might be more damaged – less capable of an adult relationship?
My point is, if she doesn’t feel damaged, she’s not. Please don’t label her that way. Nothing has changed about her. She’s the same woman you fell for. If anything, you should be flattered. She has experienced a variety of men and you’re the guy she wants to cohabitate with. Her experiences turned her into the woman you chose. For that reason, be thankful that she lived the life she did. Don’t ruin this – for her or yourself.
MEREDITH
November 18th, 2012 at 1:17 am
Men are polygamous, women are hypergamous. One man with several concubines. More women than men. Monogamy is just a mate guarding tool to bind the highest value male, thats my opinion.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:38 am
Haven’t read all the comments yet.
One of my first impressions was that the reason the girl was getting angry is that a sports car is a symbol for the mans sexual independence. It will attract other girls and is saying “I’m still on the market”.
After marriage wives turn into matrons, and chop off their hair, signaling that they are no longer on the market. I think they used to wear head scarves also for that purpose. The guy is expected to trade in the sports car for a sedan or mini van. He’s supposed to become all about the family.
Getting a sports car is a big middle finger to “togetherness”, and is a exclamation point of independence. A big fuck you to his girl being his mommy. It screams out “I have sexual freedom, and there is nothing you can do to take that away from me”.
And the 2nd thing that popped out was that for things to get that bad that the women would have such undisciplined reactions meant that the guys were inept at maintaining discipline within their relationships. That they had no clues about maintaining hand and dominance – that it took bringing things to a painful point to make such an obvious stand.
In my life I have things structured so that the woman has no say, and expects no say. As she is a woman, she’ll still have the same emotional reactions of jealousy and financial insecurity if she sees me buying and expensive toy – I saw that last time I bought a keyboard and guitar – but despite the emotional flare up, she’ll moderate it, and be less overtly my enemy about it.
Managing the frame and maintaining high levels of hand in relationship are crucial life skills. I hope the internet age will tilt the battle in mens favor. All we ever needed was some training and guidance.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:53 am
“because it robs you of your prime biological directive / greatest joy in life: reproduction / children. ”
Speak for yourself. I’ve had a very joyous life, and some of those joys had to do with my own progeny, but not that many and not the greatest of them.
My greatest joys have had to do with dating pretty young women.
I can (just barely) imagine that for others the joys would be higher with children, but then I can’t imagine that those guys get as much joy as I do out of women.
November 18th, 2012 at 4:34 am
MM says: ‘Never marry. Pump them. Dump them. Leave them.’
Because those are the only two options available in life?
November 18th, 2012 at 5:35 am
Listen up. No one will have a solution. No body can tell you a Truth. No rule will be exempt from exceptions.
The law is written. Written. Write it. Your own.
If you love someone, love them. Unconditionally. Outcome Independence – in other Word’s.
If you want to fuck someone, then find a way to fuck them. I.E., let them come to you. Patience rewards those who wait. Always.
So does proactive persistence. It beckons those who you want to come forward.
So you can either move ahead or pretend to fall behind. Either way we’re all gonna be in the same boat. And only a handful of us are going to know what we’ve done and what we’re doing while it’s being enacted, while the rest carry on.
Mark Minter has written some things.
I doubt Rollo is married.
Heartiste seems to be in a Christ-is state of making sure he’s heard.
The Manosphere is dead.
Time to move on fellas.
There’s better things to do.
Thanks Shark.
November 18th, 2012 at 6:21 am
@Hopeless Romantic
With that many partners she is a high risk, do the resaerch! your ideological esoteric utopian disneyesque fairytale has hit the ground and been smashed to pieces simple fact of the matter is 35 is a high count, you risk her not being able to fully bond to you, just because “she’s not like that anymore” is a rationalisation for i’ve had my fun and now i need to nail some dude down for long-term provisioning. If she made you wait for sex you can bet she did not make those other guys wait. And meridth’s answer is ripped wholesale from the feminist script: see below
“My point is, if she doesn’t feel damaged, she’s not. Please don’t label her that way. Nothing has changed about her. She’s the same woman you fell for. If anything, you should be flattered. ”
She cannot tell if her bonding ability is damaged ill bet it is. Know you should not be flattered your SMV is obvisiously higher so she has qualified her self to you be releasing the number count. Enter this at your own risk but be prepared for the worst case scenario. There is always more pebbles on the beach
November 18th, 2012 at 6:55 am
@xsplat
Would you give your life for your own children? Or would you give your life for the young girls you date? Which one is the stronger biological impulse? Which one is the source of joy that is to be guarded with your life?
November 18th, 2012 at 8:11 am
That’s a clever sleight of rhetoric, Adam. But that flourish of misdirection doesn’t change the fact that for me, the joys are hundreds of times greater in love and sex affairs with pretty young women than they are with offspring.
Fucking girls doesn’t seem to be threatening anyones life, so luckily I don’t have to choose. It would not be good if someone were to have their life dependent on me not fucking girls.
November 18th, 2012 at 8:12 am
No source of joy is worth it to be guarded with your life, except for life itself. There’s always another source of joy to be found.
Also, from a biological impulse perspective children will/should be sacrificed before adults if they are not of child rearing age. A child without parents will have a hard time to grow up and be able to procreate, while parents without child will be able to procreate immediatly. And once the children are fertile they are able to stand on their own, so not worth guarding anymore, unless the parents have become unable to procreate.
As a man you should do whatever you want in life as long as it stays within the boundaries of building a culture/society. This means you can get children, buy a ferrari, marry, live in a trailer, have several LTRs, etc, or any combination. As long as you commit to it and keep hand. Always keep hand. In whatever you do.
The problem I see in even the (this) redpill community is that men are not willing to be ruthless enough, maybe towards women, but not towards life itself. Heartiste has been talking about the Dark Triad again recently and in my opinion the most important attribute there is Machiavellianism. Ruthlessness a man should have to be able to stand on his own, make it on his own, control his life on his own, and then selects others to join him in that life without relinquishing control. Always be in control, always keep hand.
This ruthless attitude also breeds confidence. It’ll give you the feeling you can handle any or most situations, which projects confidence, which will allow you to handle any or most situations, which projects more confidence, etc.
Mark Minter has some good points and has found this ruthlessness the hard way. He is bitter towards women because of that. But he now does know that life doesn’t have shit on him and became a free man because of it. Enjoying himself more than he has ever before.
But because of his bitterness there are some sharp edges to his essays which do not contribute to a controlled lifestyle. Read past those and there is a lot of wisdom there.
November 18th, 2012 at 10:36 am
I wouldn’t give much a damn if my husband bought an expensive new car, as long as it’s his money he’s spending and not mine.
The first time I heard of a couple doing this “my money your money” bullshit I knew marriage was officially dead. It doesn’t matter anyway because what’s yours is yours and what’s his is half yours as soon as he signs the papers, but just the idea of having your money completely separate seems like it defeats the purpose of two sharing a life together. Why not just be roomies?
muscleman-
I agree with you to an extent that if the men were more masculine and in control of their relationships there would be less of this kind of reaction, but you have to remember what kind of society we live in. This kind of situation and behavior is the norm. Women have to play along with the script to an extent or they risk being ostracized. They eat, breathe, and shit this fem centric garbage 24/7 since birth so chances are she’s going to have a bad reaction when her husband makes a frivolous “SMV boosting” purchase at the expense of the wife and family.
Basically what I am saying is that even if the guy is “alpha” in many cases the woman is STILL going to have a bad reaction to things like this, even if it is a token reaction that is easily resolved by the man asserting dominance.
November 18th, 2012 at 10:36 am
“Third, Mark Minter has experience. Heed it. Yes, his experience is only one set of possible experiences, and there are many other people who’s knowledge and experience should also be taken into account, but Mark’s is still real-world experience. Again, heed it, because it is far from an isolated case. For example: http://whoism3.wordpress.com/2012/11/17/confessions-of-a-reformed-incel/
If a person who is aware of all this still decides to marry, more power to them. It’s their choice, but at least (we can hope that) they are going into it eyes wide open and better prepared than otherwise. Best of luck to them, but don’t say you weren’t warned.”
We simply need to know how much game Mark had when he got married. Probably 0, and I would surely not blame him for that. Do you really think Game, with the frame control and the screening potential it gives you, won’t make a big change? Come on.
Hell, you realise this blog is written by a married man, father of a daughter, and mostly happy about it?
November 18th, 2012 at 11:33 am
“After marriage wives turn into matrons, and chop off their hair, signaling that they are no longer on the market.”
In my culture its different. Single women dress and look plainer than married women, who are expected to be decked out and keep up their hair to look nice for their hubbies.
“He’s supposed to become all about the family.”
Of course. There’s no point in getting married unless you’re into becoming all about the family. The purpose of marriage IS family. There really is no point in a couple who can’t have or don’t want to have kids in getting married.
November 18th, 2012 at 11:46 am
What culture do you call your own, Hopeless? Are clandestine affairs considered more or less socially acceptable?
I think the notion of monogamy for married men is not natural for many guys, and they only do it out of a lack of options and the poor logistics that come with work and the commute back to the burbs. A lot of guys work for success and use success to get that 2nd apartment. Men are success objects, and it used to be culturally accepted that we’d take advantage of that. In some places it still is.
The image of a guy like Don Draper having a sports car is congruent with what role we’d expect him to play. No reason why that role can’t again become known as an option.
November 18th, 2012 at 12:09 pm
I may very well be wrong about this, but I’ve always been under the impression that the red pill is the acknowledgement of hypergamy and learning how to control it to serve your ultimate biological imperative — reproduction. It seems like some of you see the red pill as life itself and not just a tool you use to achieve the purpose of life.
November 18th, 2012 at 2:34 pm
“You do know that this would be the end of civilization if every guy followed this advice.”
And I think that’s a bit of what we need.
Don’t think there are enough of us on this planet yet? Have you seen all the graphs? I’m not a catastrophist but we are running out of room and resources, FAST. There is simply NO WAY we’re going to continue our current standard of living, en masse in the West (let alone the rest of the world joining us) past the middle of this century.
Do you know what happens in a laboratory when rats are allowed to overpopulate? Sexual deviation, disease, cannibalism, collapse. Sound familiar?
As a man, knowing that I am entrusted with the preservation of Rational Thought (just as women are entrusted with the continuation of Life), I acknowledge that we need to do something about it.
Our Western, fem-hijacked, nicey-nicey on the outside, solipsistic, “every-snowflake-is-precious-and-equal-and-should-be-provided-for-with-whatever-resources-we-have” mindset is seriously flawed. It is a BUBBLE – the conceit of the pampered – and its chief hypocrisy is that it has ONLY come into existence on the backs of people elsewhere. It will break down, and the longer it lasts the uglier it will be.
Of course, it still comes down to competition and evolution. We know we need to keep our population in check – or Malthus will do it for us – but for the individual, I MUST get mine in there, dammit!
And that’s why guys like me, who’ve not yet become fathers, are conflicted. Guys who ARE fathers know it in their bones… if their marriage self-destructs, they can afford to adopt any stance they want, and I don’t blame them for it. But they’ve finished that part of the race.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:06 pm
“Are clandestine affairs considered more or less socially acceptable?”
Not acceptable. However most people would not divorce over it because divorce is extremely stigmatized, for both sexes. At the same time our homes, families and society is set up in such a way that privacy is almost unheard of so the logistics of cheating, for either spouse, are extremely hard to navigate. Although I’m certain it does happen to some extent.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:20 pm
D-man, you’re right. The world doesn’t need any more of the kinds of narcissitic parasite snotty nosed fat ass kids that the demographic the Manosphere addresses would produce.
Compared to how innocent and respectful of elders kids are in some other countries, its hard for me to see some of these spoiled brats as even human.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:45 pm
Not what I said, Hopeless.
Your “narcissitic parasite snotty nosed fat ass kids” are examples of the societal miscalibrations the ‘sphere is attempting to address.
November 18th, 2012 at 3:58 pm
“Your “narcissitic parasite snotty nosed fat ass kids” are examples of the societal miscalibrations the ‘sphere is attempting to address.”
Bollocks. The Sphere wants a return to “family”.
November 18th, 2012 at 4:18 pm
Hopeless Romantic is some kind of ‘Indian Race Troll’.
He might be THE ‘Indian Race Troll’ that trolls Roosh V Forum and the other forums as well.
November 18th, 2012 at 4:41 pm
Some guys want a return to family, and seek red-pill knowledge to establish and then maintain it. I support that.
Some guys seek to use red-pill knowledge to rebalance the scales of the open, unmarried SMP towards their own hedonistic purposes. And why not? Pulling back the lens, a parasite on a parasite is good for the host.
Keep your bollocks. That’s the message: whatever you choose, keep your balls.
November 18th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
“Some guys want a return to family, and seek red-pill knowledge to establish and then maintain it. I support that.”
Bollocks. Here’s what you wrote (which I AGREE with)
“You do know that this would be the end of civilization if every guy followed this advice.”
And I think that’s a bit of what we need.
Don’t think there are enough of us on this planet yet? Have you seen all the graphs? I’m not a catastrophist but we are running out of room and resources, FAST. There is simply NO WAY we’re going to continue our current standard of living, en masse in the West (let alone the rest of the world joining us) past the middle of this century.
Do you know what happens in a laboratory when rats are allowed to overpopulate? Sexual deviation, disease, cannibalism, collapse. Sound familiar?
As a man, knowing that I am entrusted with the preservation of Rational Thought (just as women are entrusted with the continuation of Life), I acknowledge that we need to do something about it.
November 18th, 2012 at 7:42 pm
mark minter’s blatherings are solipsism brought forth in its purest form, useful only as an example of how best not to think
November 18th, 2012 at 8:30 pm
Hell, you realise this blog is written by a married man, father of a daughter, and mostly happy about it?
Yeah, a happily married man, father of a daughter, and mostly happy about it, who has highlighted Mark Minter’s comments and even used one as an entire blogpost?
We simply need to know how much game Mark had when he got married. Probably 0, and I would surely not blame him for that. Do you really think Game, with the frame control and the screening potential it gives you, won’t make a big change? Come on.
Yes, because game conquers all, and all men have or will gain the knowledge and frame that Rollo have. Hey, you know what? I’ve got a blog full of women looking for LTR and marriage that just might suit you. It’s called “Hooking Up Smart.” After all, if you have enough game, you should be able to man up, marry and keep one of those sluts.
Do you realize how stupid you sound?
Again, Mark Minter’s comments are real life experience. They are not the only type of experience, nor should they be swallowed whole with no other opinions. But they are experience, and while raw and angry, they also contain much truth. Ignore them at your own risk.
November 18th, 2012 at 8:34 pm
Yeah, I can see how somone who’s looking for it could choose to see those two things as contradictory. I did say that guys like me are conflicted. But hey, I’m vast, I contain multitudes.
If status-flaunting consumerism is partly to blame for our current mess, that feeds into why the commercial Rollo posted is so salient: it’s clear that women feel more exclusively entitled to it. And they feel men should be shamed for it.
November 18th, 2012 at 8:48 pm
There’s no such thing as an “ultimate biological directive.” Reproduction isn’t a directive, it’s an oddsmaker that determines which genes and innate behaviors most proliferate. If something tends to increase reproduction, it tends to become more common. That doesn’t mean you have some kind of internal “directive” to reproduce. It means the behaviors that are inherent and common across societies are there because they tend to result in reproduction.
For example, raping women tends to increase reproduction in some situations, which is why it’s a universal behavior across cultures. But that doesn’t make it either good or an “ultimate biological directive.” And you’re not any less of a dumbass for raping somebody just because you might reproduce, just like you’re not any less of a dumbass for getting married even though it makes you miserable for the rest of your life because you think your life was pointless if you don’t pop out a bunch of carbon copies of yourself.
November 18th, 2012 at 8:58 pm
“For example, raping women tends to increase reproduction in some situations, which is why it’s a universal behavior across cultures.”
Not all cultures.
November 18th, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Name any culture in which rape doesn’t exist from any point in human history. It’s considered a universal behavior by evolutionary psychologists:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_universal
And “nuh-uh” is universally considered a dumb argument.
November 18th, 2012 at 9:23 pm
Not each and every culture has been studied so how can “they” say its “universal”. But back in college we studied some tribes that supposedly had no rape and no word for rape either.
But more importantly, is this the same Mark Minter that you guys talk about here?
http://offender.fdle.state.fl.us/offender/flyer.do?personId=32163
November 18th, 2012 at 10:27 pm
“Again, Mark Minter’s comments are real life experience. They are not the only type of experience, nor should they be swallowed whole with no other opinions. But they are experience, and while raw and angry, they also contain much truth. Ignore them at your own risk.”
Game DOES make a HUGE difference, we’ve all read a ton of “field reports” of married guys doing incredibly well once they change their behaviour.
I read and completely understand Mark’s point of view. I never said that we should discard everything he said. Not at all. But he is obviously well over the top right now, and I’m pretty sure being involved in the manosphere will eventually make him nuance his point of view. He won’t turn SOFT, he will simply see that there’s good in women just as much as there is good in men. YES, women need to be tamed and need to be framed HARDCORE, definitely, but rejecting the very idea of LT commitment and family just because of these facts is simply throwing the baby with the bathwater.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:15 am
It’s a little late in this post for a comment.
This is more a message to Rollo. This is reference to your previous post on “Casualties” about soldiers that commit suicide due to women.
Here is a link to a USAToday article that cites record numbers of suicides this year among soldiers.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/11/18/navy-suicides-army/1702403/
And from the article:
“While post-traumatic stress disorder was not a factor in large numbers of suicides, data show, among nearly 85% there were failed relationships, something linked to frequent separations.”
“Still, at at least a third of soldiers who killed themselves this year never went to war, and some leaders draw a correlation with societal stress, perhaps related to the poor economy.”
Or more perhaps related to women.
November 19th, 2012 at 6:05 am
I agree with both Mark Minter and RedPillWifey.
A married man (in a real marriage, 1.0 ) has a responsibility towards his wife to spend responsibly. This goes together with the wife’s commitments towards her husband, and is all part of the exchanges which make marriage work. This does not mean he needs her permission for discretionary purchases, but he also cannot spend freely just because he earns the money. I also agree with the other commenters who said that a big ticket purchase with no warning is never a good idea.
If the woman has let herself go and is a burden in the marriage, then she obviously loses this claim on the man. He can spend whatever he wants, and owes her nothing.
Yes, this serves the feminine imperative, but within the bounds of traditional marriage, that is fine. Marriage is meant to serve both the masculine and feminine imperatives.
RedPillWifey argues from a perspective of what a real marriage looks like, while Mark Minter reminds us that today, no matter how traditional the structure of the marriage relationship is, there is no expectation at all that the woman will keep up her end. Obviously many do, but that is something which they do on their own, and which they can stop doing whenever they want. Even in a “red-pill” marriage, there is never an ongoing expectation of the wife keeping up her end until the end of the marriage of natural causes.
RedPillWifey is correct that as part of “marriage” man cannot surprise their wives with large-ticket purchases. But Mark Minter is correct that this marriage no longer exists, even for couples who are apparently respecting it. Today, regardless of how a couple is interacting, the wife is freed from any ongoing or socially enforced expectations, and her claim on her husbands resources is correspondingly less, even in the strongest tradional marriage.
November 19th, 2012 at 11:54 am
@Blah123
False. Reproduction is the end goal of every living organism and everything that men and women do is motivated by the urge to reproduce. That means rapists are also motivated by it.
November 19th, 2012 at 1:19 pm
“Yes, this serves the feminine imperative, but within the bounds of traditional marriage, that is fine. Marriage is meant to serve both the masculine and feminine imperatives.”
Marriage is meant to serve the offspring’s imperative and the imperatives of both parents become secondary at that point. The problem is that marriage to you people has no other purpose than self gratification of either spouse. You don’t know what “for the sake of the kids” means. Its a foreign concept to you. In this way you are more childish than your own children.
““While post-traumatic stress disorder was not a factor in large numbers of suicides, data show, among nearly 85% there were failed relationships, something linked to frequent separations.”
“Still, at at least a third of soldiers who killed themselves this year never went to war, and some leaders draw a correlation with societal stress, perhaps related to the poor economy.”
Or more perhaps related to women.”
Its foolish for a spouse, whether wife or husband, to assume that their other half is going to be faithful if they are out of town much of the time. Are many spouses in such situations faithful? Sure. But why assume that’s the way it is or *should* be.
Proceed with caution.
November 19th, 2012 at 3:47 pm
Adam,
I think it’s wrong to say someone is motivated to do everything for reproduction. They are not consciously or even subconsciously motivated (not necessarily), it’s just that they evolved to do things that lead to reproduction. Things like enjoyment of sex, gathering as many resources as possible, trying to look good, etc.
When you speak of goals, you can’t talk about natural processes, which aren’t persons with consciousness, and can’t have goals. Persons can have goals however. And those persons’ goals can sometimes go along behavior that leads to reproduction, and sometimes their goals go against that.
November 19th, 2012 at 8:37 pm
Reproduction isn’t everything’s “goal” and it’s not the motivation for everything you do. It heavily influences what general behaviors are, but that doesn’t mean anything. Why do I like sex with women in their twenties with hourglass figures? At the end of the day, because I’m more likely to reproduce if I do. So what? I don’t have an urge to reproduce, I have an urge to do things that happen to increase my odds of reproduction.
Your philosophy is self-evidently crazy. Why isn’t rape good, if your only purpose is to reproduce? Why don’t you abandon your family and spend all your time going from country to country donating sperm? That increases your odds of reproduction a lot more than having a family. Why don’t you divorce and start a second family, and then a third? More reproduction! Why not pay poor Indian women to have baby after baby after baby? More copies! There’s no ultimate point to it, so why not just enjoy yourself?
And re: rape not being universal because someone studied some culture they don’t remember in college where they didn’t have a word for it, I studied that too. It was Samoa, as described by Margaret Mead in a book that is now recognized to have been totally inaccurate, in part because she didn’t recognize that the Samoans she was talking to were fucking with her as a joke.
November 19th, 2012 at 11:27 pm
Brilliant.
November 20th, 2012 at 1:02 pm
Woman: Take it back.
Man: No.
Win!
November 26th, 2012 at 10:31 pm
[…] […]
November 28th, 2012 at 8:01 am
Related: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2238435/Swedish-toy-firm-Top-Toy-forced-gender-neutral-Christmas-catalogue.html