The Changing Sexual and Cultural Mores

by Whiskey on January 26, 2010

Read more of Whiskey at Whiskey’s Place.

Two recent stories illustrate the changing sexual mores of women. In one, a now 20 year old woman alleges that age 16, she was forced into sex with a supervisor when she worked as a Starbucks barista. The kicker? That the woman acknowledges she had sex with 12 other men, 7 before she met her alleged sexual harasser (who pled guilty and served several months in prison). The other is one of Tiger Woods mistresses tawdry retelling of her affair with the celebrity golfer. What these stories show is a very big shift in female sexual behavior. Which is changing the culture radically. Making in particular, older men and women absolutely clueless about how families (mostly don’t) form.

In the first story, we have the remarkable news that an otherwise ordinary, attractive but not jaw-droppingly beautiful young woman, had sex with 7 men by age 16! And went on to have sex with another four men (without coercion). This is a sea change in female behavior. Moreover, the young woman in question does not feel shame at such a high partner count (much of done underage, I must add). The plural of anecdotes is not data, of course, but what is most telling is the lack of shame and indeed, pride at the high partner count. Certainly there seems to be no social pressures or control to keep young women from having many sexual partners. The AIDS crisis is long past, ads for Valtrex and other medications make STDs socially acceptable (notice the attractive young women in relationships getting approving smiles from their hunky partners and doctors), and there is no sense of social shame making women with many partners less desirable. Indeed, the lack of shame points to a defacto “woman shortage” where any woman, who is halfway attractive, can get some sort of relationship with a man no matter how many prior partners (indicating a bad bet for the current relationship).

In the second, we have a lack of shame by Woods mistress. Indeed, much of the story is filled with female bragging about sex in all sorts of places, and the thrill of having sex with a celebrity:

” It was a thrill to be the secret lover of such a famous star. In front of TV cameras he acts shy and professional, but away from that he is very macho, cocky and has a huge eye for the ladies.”

“As a sportsman he is in great shape, but he is also very well endowed. He kept on complimenting me on my figure and kissed me all over.

“That first time he was very dominant and knew what he wanted and what he was doing. By the time we finished I looked like a rag doll, but we both had big smiles on our faces.”

Despite being the first billionaire sporstman, Woods was not generous to Mindy. She said: “He did not buy me anything, not even a meal.”

Mindy said that after a while she fell deeply in love with Woods, but he made it clear he only wanted a physical relationship.

“I really did fall for the guy,” she said. “I began to dream that I would some day be the next Mrs Woods. I really did think that he would want to be with me. He is such an attractive guy and what woman wouldn’t be attracted to him. Of course it probably helped that he is worth millions.”

Writer Julia Baird in Newsweek echoes many of these assumptions young women make when she urges young women not to settle. Criticizing the book by Lori Gottlieb “Marry Him: the Case for Settling for Mr. Good Enough,” Baird asserts that women should not compromise on passion and sexual attraction. Indeed, Richard Whitmire, author of “Why Boys Fail” in a Wall Street Journal piece, itself from a New York Times Magazine article, notes the case of one Rachel Downtain, 36, attractive, single, and searching for a sperm donor instead of a husband (she won’t compromise). Downtain’s real complaint? She can’t get Mr. Big from Sex and the City to marry her.

Contrary to Whitmire’s naïve, chivalrous older male view of women, the operational sex ratio is driven by women’s hypergamy. Women desire generally, the highest available man for a mate. Even a waitress can get a celebrity like Tiger Woods to have sex with them (marrying them is a different story, of course). Women can and do delude themselves over the power of their sexual attraction, “dreaming” as in Mindy Lawton’s case, that they will get the superstar over the current wife. Feeling no shame at that, either, and facing no social condemnation (the dog that isn’t barking, so to speak). There were plenty of men available for Rachel Downtain, in her twenties. They merely lacked the superior status of all the “Mr. Big” types that Downtain obviously preferred.

What has happened is the sexual revolution, encompassing the pill and condom, reducing risks of pregnancy and disease, along with urban anonymity, a consumerist approach to sex (conspicuous consumption), and critically, lack of social condemnation by other women AND potential partners lead women to have a lot more sexual partners than they did in times past.

Why can’t Rachel Downtain find a husband? Because she lived like Mindy Lawton, and the Starbucks barista, pursuing and catching their own many, Tiger Woods-types, during the peak of her attractiveness. Now, many partners later, and significantly older, she isn’t very interesting to the Alpha Male types she desires. She’s unwilling to sacrifice by marrying downward, to a man less attractive or status-laden. Even those types of relationships don’t work out when the man is significantly younger. Ashton Kutcher notwithstanding.

What this means is that the fundamental way in which families formed has changed. Instead of most men and women marrying equally, and forming families, in a middle class America, we have a “Brave New World.” One in which women (and significantly, underage girls), have many partners (most of them the typical Alpha Male, from Tiger Woods to “the Situation” on “Jersey Shore”), and then finding few Alpha males wanting to marry them, forming single mother families.

The graph below, taken from the “Lex” column of the Thursday, Jan 21, 2010 Financial Times shows how household formation has fallen off the cliff. If a man lacks the asshole cocky nature of say, “the Situation” (which women love), his only play is that of provider. However, employment for those 25-44 years (almost 75% of the job losses have been male) has fallen off the cliff. Employment of that age group is down 8%, since the start of the recession, again almost all of them men. If past recessions are any guide, finding jobs for that age group and new entrants into the labor force will take between six and fourteen years.

Household Formation from the Financial Times

Household Formation has fallen off the cliff


[Click Image to Enlarge]

The “Beta Male” is not even on the playing field. Given downward pressure on wages for those employed, and uncertainty in employment as the economy teeters on the precipice of a double-dip recession. Instead we are shambling towards a new model, one characterized by short-term hook-ups, driven by sexual desire (by the women for guys ranging from “the Situation” to Tiger Woods types), and not much else. Women just don’t like marrying down, or even equal, if they can find a man who is Alpha to have sex with, and don’t face social condemnation for single motherhood, or even not marrying an ordinary, same-status guy in their twenties. This is our new reality. And it is already shaping our culture.

Two interesting movies, show how romance leading to marriage is now dead. The George Clooney, “Up in the Air” centers on the impossibility of traditional romance OR marriage among the yuppie professional set. Clooney plays a man who travels around the country to lay people off, and lives to collect frequent flyer miles and live anonymously. He meets a woman (Vera Farmiga) with whom he has an affair, to the point of taking her to his sister’s wedding, and a young female co-worker dumped by her boyfriend by text message. After falling for the woman (Farmiga), Clooney shows up at her home, only to discover she is married with young kids, and that he was just an escape. Clooney remains an empty, anonymous professional firer, living for frequent flyer miles. Because, intriguingly, marriage is redefined to mean “stuff at home” while men and women have affairs in the workplace. The dream of marriage and family Clooney’s character chases is as empty as his frequent flyer miles. Marriage is redefined as “cheat but don’t get caught.”

The other is “(500) Days of Summer”, which bills itself as “not a love story.” It spends nearly all of the movie with the young male protagonist, Joseph Gordon-Levitt, in love with a young woman (Zooey Deschanel, daughter of cinematographer Caleb Deschanel) who likes his attention and devotion but exploits him for her own emotional validation. In the end, Deschanel’s character is engaged to someone else. While it takes Gordon-Levitt’s character to begin greater career success to get a date. [Indeed, he meets a woman called "Autumn" while applying for a more prestigious job interview, and makes a date. It is implied, however, that his character must win the job and the woman lose, for the date to occur.] The whole point of the movie is the Gordon-Levitt character learning that “true love” does not exist, and killing his romantic impulses by becoming adult and cynical about relationships.

What this means is social reality (family formation is for the middle-rich, the upper class but not ridiculously wealthy) is making culture reflect the reality. Movies, the purveyor of “Its A Wonderful Life” images of family and the sanctity thereof, now do not even believe that George Clooney can get married (OK, they have a point there), or even an earnest young guy get a girlfriend. Given how culture is a lagging indicator, this is a big shift. America is moving to a single-mother dominated family structure. Like Chav Britain or ghetto Black America. The nuclear family is dead, not even Hollywood believes it can exist in its old form given female hypergamy and relaxed sexual mores. Both “Up in the Air” and “(500) Days of Summer” wear their cynicism about love and relationships on their sleeves. At best both are for other people who exist outside the yuppie world of professions and upper middle class life.

At best, this is what America will become, a nation of cynics who know, because they’ve lived it, that sex and love are conditional, fleeting, short-term, and so not worthy of commitment or sacrifice. The cost of no real social control for female and Alpha Male sexuality (women do not desire Beta Males so their control is irrelevant) is quite high. As satisfying as it is for most women to have many, many Alpha males (young girls aged 16 do not rack up seven sex partners if they do not like it), the ultimate cost is male cynicism and lack of investment. Removal, even. As women and families and children become something for the upper class rich or a few Alpha Men with significantly younger women.

{ 62 comments… read them below or add one }

Krauser January 26, 2010 at 03:48

Reading the link it doesn’t sound like she was forced into anything. The article linked is chock full of shaming language, such as how it’s preposterous the bring into court the idea that a woman is a slut when the case is about possible sluttish behaviour. It’s not like they were actually inventing lies about her – they were just deposing her under oath to verbalise the actual truth of her behaviour. And note the article freely mentions hearsay about the “pervert” managers without worrying if it harms their reputation. Those accusers aren’t even under oath.

And nothing at all about how women might only get these jobs because of their sex appeal, or how they use their sex appeal to get an easier ride at work at the expense of other males.

As a personal anecdote, I was chatting to a friend who has recently gotten a Japanese fuck buddy. The girl is 24 years old and has admitted to 50 sexual partners. And this as a Japanese girl, where sluttiness is relatively less than the West. Already she is ruined as a wife.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
zeegee January 26, 2010 at 04:19

there was this girl, who told me she had 120 partners, by 25.

When I told her “Fuck, that is 11 soccer teams!”, she got angry and told me “You are disgusting”

What? I am disgusting? It is blaming the doctor for your abortion, it is blaming the pilot for you missing the flight.

“I fucked 120 guys” not disgusting
“11*11 = 121″ is disgusting?

Shall I have said 60 single tennis matches?, 20 basketball teams?

It was ok for her to choose to do 120 men, but it was not ok for me to choose to see it for what it is.

Seemingly freedom for a man to think does not go as far as the freedom for a woman to do.

An addition to the article, it seems the loss of female sexuality’s value is speeding up.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 04:37

All value is subjective and is determined by the individual. I value the skanks at a little less than a dollar. It appears other men are placing similar value on the ameriskanks. Don’t you ladies have anything pleasant to offer aside from a pet beaver?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Krauser January 26, 2010 at 04:52

Western women:

Sexual value: Quite high, but falling
Relationship value: low
Marriage value: zero

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 26, 2010 at 04:52

Are we sure about this trend of women choosing alphas (as alluded to in the article)? It’s always been my observation that women’s choices are remakably arbitrary…. I mean, what can we expect from one slut treating 120 dudes? I bet there’s more junkies, drunks and losers among those 11 soccer teams than successful high-flyers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 04:59

Migu January 26, 2010 at 04:37
” Don’t you ladies have anything pleasant to offer aside from a pet beaver?”
Migu, that is exactly the point. They don’t. On the Sydney Morning Herald relationships blog Bachelor for Life has ask for ONE reason a man might marry. 8 months later he’s still waiting. I asked for ONE thing a relationship with a woman could offer me that is of value over and above just dating a string of hot women. 6 months later I’m still waiting.

In the west women are a liability now. They are worse than worthless. In Australia there is no co-habitation requirement for a woman to start gaining rights. An allegation of an affair and a magistrate that says she is your ‘wife’ for family ‘law’ purposes is all it takes. Simply put, western women are being manipulated to be so horrible no sane man would live with one. They are getting their ‘freedom’ and ‘liberation’ from ‘male oppression’ and replacing it with guvment oppression. Just stop paying your income taxes. Why should you pay for their babies that you did not agree to have?

Of course, the good thing about women being totally shameless about being so sexually aggressive is that it is easy to get laid and the performance is better than it used to be. Just wrap it up tight to help avoid diseases!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3
Migu January 26, 2010 at 05:14

Global,

I’ve come to the same conclusion. Sex is as easy as mcdonalds and usually cheaper too. Marginal returns ladies marginal returns. To our female posters here same question. One good reason? Convince the never married bachelor I have an open mind

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Epoxytocin No. 87 January 26, 2010 at 05:30

codebuster:
I bet there’s more junkies, drunks and losers among those 11 soccer teams than successful high-flyers.

You appear to believe that “junkies, drunks and losers” and “alphas” are mutually exclusive categories (and that “alphas” and “successful high-flyers” are basically the same thing). Back to first principles for you.

Downtain’s problem is that she is looking for a successful, moneyed man who is ALSO an “alpha”.
She would have no trouble at all finding a successful, moneyed man; the real problem is that most men with money are betas.

Also.

For the love of God.
Repeat after me.

TIGER WOODS IS NOT AN ALPHA.

Tiger Woods is a beta.
If he’s even that high.

Viz.:

* Look at his pathetic lack of balls in the face of the bitch who attacked him with a deadly weapon. An alpha does not apologize to a bitch who attacks him with a deadly weapon. He kicks her to the curb, whether or not he suffers some financial damage as collateral.

* Look at the (lack of) quality of most of the women he’s banging, typified by Rachel Uchitel (a washed-up party girl in her mid-thirties), Mindy Lawton (a 5 on a good day), and Jaimee Grubbs (whose face looks like a “Don’t let this happen to you” pic on a site warning of the dangers of cheap plastic surgery).

* Look at the fact that he is clearly not in control in these relationships (frantic messages, etc.), even though he’s punching way below his metaphorical weight. Shameful.

* Look at the fact that he still hasn’t shown his face in public, for two months.
Etc.

* Look at their selling him out as soon as they get the chance.

Tiger is not an alpha. Sorry, guys.

Tiger may be a “paper alpha” by virtue of having a shitload of money, but it’s abundantly clear that none of these women would give him the time of day if he weren’t the world’s richest athlete.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
AfOR January 26, 2010 at 05:53

TFA article mentions in passing, and then skips past, one of the main drivers for this phenomenon, “urban anonymity”.

In days gone by a women could be the “village bike” if she chose, but once the label was acquired, there was no way to lose it, short of permanently emigrating from that locale.

Unfortunately in the past two generations we have seen the rise of the “metropolis as centre of the universe” in the media mind, New York is broadcast to Podunk, even though the “New York” in question will be a largely fictitious portrayal of a borough that may stretch as far as two city blocks…

This isn’t limited to social and sexual mores, it applies to everything, if everyone in those two blocks has a job, the media asks “what recession?” even though Podunk has an adult unemployment rate of 30% and those in work haven’t seen a wage rise in a decade.

Ten years ago I was complaining that magazines expressly published for a target audience that was 10 to 15 year old girls were essentially full of soft porn and (I kid you not, if you have not read these things, you should) instructions on how to give a good blow job.

Of course we have also seen the rise of the internet, which means essentially that porn is available for free to all who want it, so while two generations ago a young man might have left school having seen half a dozen second hand “wank mags” in today’s world however by the time they reach their teens they have all seen videos of gang bangs and bukkake babes.

Social mores, and therefore society, have moved on.

The young people of today have been programmed differently than those of yesteryear, the only issue here is that many of the older generations fail to grasp the extent of these programming differences.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Amateur Strategist January 26, 2010 at 06:13

AfOR, If I may say so… your post sounded very Whiskeyesque, in a good way.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 06:15

@firepower

On the news later term abortion provider shot dead.

Wonder if this might change some minds.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 06:28

So apparently the guys who killed the doctors before had an impact since very few are left who do it.

Apparently violence works.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 06:33

And it doesn’t take very many men to sacrifice themselves to have a huge impact.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 26, 2010 at 06:38

This is directionally sound, but a bit overblown.

It’s true that marriage is becoming the province of dual educated dual higher income couples – the middle rich, as Whiskey describes them. This small (but influential) demographic has high marriage rates and low divorce rates – marriage is working in this slice of the population. The main reason for that, in my view, is that these couples have more to lose upon divorce. Betsey Stevenson, a feminist economist at Penn, describes these as “consumption marriages” – the sheer power of the dual income fueling a consumption lifestyle that cannot be replaced by only one of the two incomes is the binding practical force that keeps the marriages together. W shouldn’t be fooling ourselves into believing that these marriages are any “better” than other marriages are – these people are still having affairs, they still have the same time and intimacy issues as other couples, and so on. But they tend to break up less over these things, simply because the cost of breaking up is higher for them. There is a tipping point, however – for the truly rich, there is no such disincentive to divorce, because there’s plenty of money to go around after the divorce to maintain everyone’s lifestyle. So the demographic is not the truly rich, but the middle rich, or the “working rich”. Mostly degreed professionals in larger urban metro areas.

For everyone else, marriage is dying, because it makes little sense. In order for marriages to work, you need a “brass tacks” foundation – some very pragmatic reason that acts as a glue to strongly encourage people to stay together when the shit hits the fan, as it tends to do at one time or other during the course of a marriage. Marrying for love and so on is fine, but love, being an emotion which is subject to rising and falling, and ultimately subject to change, is simply not a firm enough pragmatic foundation to sustain marriages through difficult times. In marriage 1.0, the practical glue was the division of labor between husband and wife. That is now irrelevant, because of the social changes which have mooted that division and made it anachronistic. For the couples in the middle rich demographic, the dual consumptive power fueling a desired lifestyle replaces the division of labor as the powerful pragmatic encouragement to get and stay married. For everyone else — there really isn’t a strong practical reason to do either. As you move down the socio-economic tree below the middle rich, you get to situations where there just isn’t enough “there” there for people to get and stay married – most of the time, people are as better off remaining unmarried, or getting divorced, than they would be as married, in this larger demographic. And because the culture no longer shames serial cohabitation as a lifestyle choice, it’s a much more attractive option for people than marriage is in most demographics other than the middle rich. That’s not likely to change because, again, there really isn’t a solid “brass tacks” type reason for people in this large demographic to get or remain married. Marrying for love and divorcing when time gets tough is the rule here because the penalty for not doing so is weak at best.

As for women’s overall behaviors, there’s definitely a range. Not all women are sluts and racking up tons and tons of partners. However, because the culture no longer really shames this behavior like it used to, for women who wish to behave this way there is a broad license to do so. And even if only 20% of women are behaving this way, that skews the entire market because, generally speaking, if sex is being “given away” like that, men are going to be bending over backwards to try to become one of the guys to whom this broad sexual access is being given. In the process what happens is that many of the other girls get overlooked if they don’t want to play the casual sex/ must fuck by date three type of game going on. When there is a decent amount of promiscuity taking place in the market, it can ruin it for those men and women who don’t wish to be promiscuous.

The situation relating to someone like Downtain is a bit different. We don’t know whether she was a slut in her 20s – that’s just speculation. In my experience, there are plenty of women who end up like Downtain who were not promiscuous in their 20s – they are simply very, very, very picky. To me that is a separate issue from the promiscuity issue. We do have many women who have very high expectations and needs for relationships, and in some cases that is going to make it harder for them to find mates – because they’ve narrowed the pool so much by their own expectations which exclude most men. The bad news for women like Downtain, and contra Baird, is that Gottlieb is right. For all of the glamorizing and lionizing going on, the reality is that it sucks being a single mother, and Gottlieb is simply being honest about this – honest in a way that other women find uncomfortable precisely because they know that it rings of truth. Again, as I said above, marrying for love is fine, but the day-in/day-out of marriage is about pragmatics much more than it is about romantics – and even moreso when the kids come along. It’s about running a household together and shaping the lives of other human beings together. Sure, a strong emotional bond between the parties is essential, but pragmatics are much more important for making a marriage actually work and last. Women like Baird are not doing women any benefit when they deny the reality of what Gottlieb is saying and instead continue to play up the romantic mythology peddled by Hollywood and the popular culture. Marriage is, above all, a pragmatic institution, and therefore one which must be approached in a pragmatic manner, rather than an idealized, romantic manner. Women like Downtain often learn the hard way that the things that are important five to seven years into a marriage are completely different than the things she may have found important in selecting a mate before getting married. Gottlieb is the voice in the wilderness here, preaching the truth – and women like Baird are basically sticking their fingers in their ears and saying “la la la la” because they do not want to accept that reality.

And, yes, Gottlieb is also right that feminism lies at the core of the problem. It’s disingenuous in the extreme for Baird to suggest that this is not the case. The culture of feminism clearly DOES tell women that they are not to make compromises and that they can and should have it all. We’ve all heard that message, even on the guys’ side of the ledger. But, again, it’s uncomfortable for women like Baird to admit this, and easier instead to simply refer to women like Downtain and Gottlieb as “unlucky”. That’s a telling choice of words, really. What it suggests is that women should hold out for Mr. Big because there’s always a chance you might “get lucky” and win him over to a commitment. This is precisely the attitude we see among the segment of young women who throw themselves at cads in an effort to win one into a commitment – maybe I’ll get lucky and “flip” him into being my own personal, committed to me, cad. Perhaps understandable behavior for a 20 year old woman, but for an educated older woman to be suggesting that this is an acceptable relationship strategy for finding a marriage partner is disingenuous in the extreme and very unhelpful for women. Yet Baird insists on it, because for her it is much more important to deflect any criticisms of feminism, even when honest people like Gottlieb have so clearly stated their case.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 07:06

“For everyone else, marriage is dying, because it makes little sense. ”
Not only does it make no sense it is actually a pretty stupid idea. The further I get away from being ‘married with children’ the more the phrase strikes me ‘what was I thinking’? I was a brainwashed beta who thought raising a family was one of the best things a man could do. Like my dad told me. Nope.

Ony part of the hypocrisy of women I find amusing is how they are so ‘independent’ and ‘self-sufficient’ yet pretty much EVERY woman you talk to in their 30s is looking to get ‘married’ which we all know is code for ‘children and make a slave of hubby’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Comment_Whatever January 26, 2010 at 07:11

On the other hand, sometimes a woman will be so frustrated she’ll be blunt. Which means she’ll say, truly, that men aren’t quite what they used to be. Maybe soy or other estrogen-like food. I’m serious on about that. Maybe the constant humiliations of modern daily life. I’m REALLY serious on that one. Maybe louse upbringing leading to major insecurities and hormonal changes, again serious.

Sophia, of Girl Game, who is in her early 20s, complains that her, maybe fourth?, partner, is complaining about having sex more than once a day. Or even once a day.

I mean REALLY! He has a young, attractive woman who wants to have sex more than once a day! Shouldn’t he be able to handle that, for christ-sake? They couldn’t be more than a few months into the relationship.

She should check weight-lifter sites for “diets that raise testosterone, or just get him weight-lifting. It has a definite, measurable, effect on sex drive.

But still, that’s wrong. What the heck happened to his sex drive?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 07:26

Epoxytocin No. 87 January 26, 2010 at 05:30
Only men who have no idea what an alpha is would call Tiger an alpha. He’s way down the list. Great golfer, no doubt. Great talker, no doubt. But he’s not alpha material. That’s not ‘bad’, I am not alpha either. It’s just who we choose to be. Being alpha can be a real pain in the arse.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
codebuster January 26, 2010 at 07:46

@Globalman

Only men who have no idea what an alpha is would call Tiger an alpha.

Or women… women have no idea about men. They make a lot of assumptions and they indulge in a lot of fantasies and imaginings, but no, they haven’t a clue about the male condition or men’s motivations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 07:49

What do you mean codebuster women know everything about men and what a real man is just ask one

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 07:51

The further I get away from being ‘married with children’ the more the phrase strikes me ‘what was I thinking’?

This. I’m thankful everyday that I broke the engagement. Every day. Didn’t spend a dime on a wedding, and I got full refund on the diamond.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Migu January 26, 2010 at 07:52

But still, that’s wrong. What the heck happened to his sex drive?

She did

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
zed January 26, 2010 at 08:01

I’m thankful everyday that I broke the engagement. Every day. Didn’t spend a dime on a wedding, and I got full refund on the diamond.

Reminds me of something my doctor said to me at least 30-35 years ago. I was in for a routine physical and he asked if I was married. When I said I wasn’t, he said “Every night and every morning get down on your knees and thank god that is the case!!” He was in his late 60s and going through his second ugly divorce.

For several years I made a running joke of it – when people would ask why I wasn’t married, I would just say “Doctor’s orders.” ;)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gx1080 January 26, 2010 at 08:02

So basically, what man, on his right mind, would marry a woman with a much higher number of previous sexual partners and way past her prime, huh?

Better question, what kind of man would consider such a creature worth of being something else besides a cum bucket?

Dear Motherfucking God, I’m amazed that something so simple escapes to so many women. But then again, lack of a capability of analyzing your own behaviors and their consequences on relationships with other human beings is a characteristic of both men and women. I mean, guys that read and understand even the basics of Game (that being, how women actually think) aren’t many.

The irony that such self-absorbed individuals aren’t capable of looking on the mirror would be interested, but the pure lazyness of searching a truth beyond the status quo is epidemic.

PS: Novaseeker, try using paragraphs more often. It would make your posts more readable.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 08:12

””””””who is in her early 20s, complains that her, maybe fourth?, partner, is complaining about having sex more than once a day. Or even once a day.”””””””””

It does depend on woman too. I mean the chick I am with now inspires me to have sex around once a day but my wife inspires me to have sex till my dick is bleeding he he he

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
SteveinTX January 26, 2010 at 08:18

I mean REALLY! He has a young, attractive woman who wants to have sex more than once a day! Shouldn’t he be able to handle that, for christ-sake? They couldn’t be more than a few months into the relationship…
But still, that’s wrong. What the heck happened to his sex drive?

Maybe he is just not that into her…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 08:29

zed January 26, 2010 at 08:01
“For several years I made a running joke of it….when people would ask why I wasn’t married, I would just say “Doctor’s orders.”
GOLD for Zed…that’s really funny. Nowadays as I make my way around I tell all the young men I meet not to co-habit or marry. I just tell them to check it out for themselves and talk to guys who are divorced to find out the real truth about being married.

I LOVE the way that the femnazis then say ‘Hey, why ask a FAILURE how to be married’. I call the men who are divorced and still around to talk about it the SUCCESSES because they have managed to get OUT of such a crap arrangement and still survive.

Dick Masterson has the last word on this. Marriage: For fucksake don’t do it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 08:33

“But still, that’s wrong. What the heck happened to his sex drive?”

My experience of eastern women tells me western women are also pretty crap at sex and making love. On the couple of occasions I have had a whole weekend with my favourite lady friend she has made it a point of some honour for herself to make sure I have one more orgasm than my ‘best ever’ weekend with my ex which is when I was a 20 year old….I just turned 46.

If she can get me to orgasm more times than my ex could 26 years ago how good do you think this woman is? I can tell you. Pretty good. Still. If I did that every day I would never get any work done.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 08:37

Gx1080 January 26, 2010 at 08:02
“I’m amazed that something so simple escapes to so many women.”
Um..GX….women are so dumb they can’t even understand the concept that if they hurl abuse at men for 40 years we are not going to like them any more…that we will eventually get fed up and stop. I mean. Women are so dumb they don’t know to stop poking a dog with a blunt stick.

On a blog the other day a woman said ‘you have to do something and get the experience of it to know it is not good for you’. So I asked her if I told her that a hot plate was hot and not to touch it or it would burn her would she touch it. She said ‘Yes’. Now…how stupid is that? Exactly?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
MNL January 26, 2010 at 08:38

I’m hearing references to the idea that women with a greater number or variety of sexual partners have less successful marriages later on. This makes intuitive sense. I’ve heard the anecdotes. …And it may even apply to both genders (i.e., to men also). But can anyone support this with data? A rigorous longitudinal study? Something that controls for other variables? Anything even in the GSS or elsewhere that can, say, correlate a greater number or variety of pre-marriage sexual partners to an increased probability of divorce, greater cuckolding, or lowered marital satisfaction later on?

I don’t necessarily disagree with the thesis. I’m just looking for the data. Is it a demonstrated conclusion anywhere or does it remain an intuitive hypothesis, something only supported anecdotally?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Novaseeker January 26, 2010 at 08:41

I have not seen data on it so far.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Globalman January 26, 2010 at 08:51

MNL January 26, 2010 at 08:38
You think would be honest about this? That data you got might be reliable?

I can say this. I felt this was true for me when I was young. More women would mean harder to bond with just ONE woman. Now I have been dating lots of women? There is no way in hell I will ever limit myself to just one woman in the future. Variety is the spice of life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
dragnet January 26, 2010 at 09:39

Interesting post, and nice follow-up comment by Novaseeker.

And you’ve got to admit—that in this current environment, the guys who knuckled down, field-tested, and modeled Game did an incredible service to Men. In fact, if you’re not alpha, it’s probably your only shot if you still live in the US.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
MNL January 26, 2010 at 09:51

I may have answered my own question regarding # of sex partners and marital (and sexual) satisfaction. A quick Google search amazed me with the volume of studies out there–all with a not-so-pretty conclusions. I’ve included a sampling below.

Quibble if you want with each study’s individual shortcomings or my own quick take-aways below, but the point is: I certainly could find NO studies to suggest sluttish behavior is actually a positive thing. The studies that rise to the top of a Google search all point to negative consequences of a high #of sexual partners prior to marriage or co-habitation (and the negatives are not just for women, though women seemed to be mentioned more).

I may be wrong but I also seemed to notice a good many studies are done under the auspices of exploring the consequences of divorce on child development and sexual behavior. I wonder if “divorce” is a more NIH or NSF-worthy (i.e., more politically correct) subject than say, researching male and female “sluttishness” by itself.

It all casts a bit of cold water on the thought that a higher number of sexual partners is an “empowering accomplishment” for women. Gimme a break! Solipsism at its finest.

link1 I quote, “For women, younger onset of sexual activity and larger number of premarital partners was related to lower marital satisfaction”.

link2 Says, “Risk factors associated with sexual experience [i.e., sexual dysfunction] included the number of lifetime sex partners” [Edit: Shows that a greater# lifetime partners is a risk factor for sexual dysfunction among women; see table #3 for the logit parameter confidence intervals that all exclude zero]

link3 Says that, “Perceived risk, commitment to monogamy, and communication were all important correlates” …to having multiple partners. I need to get the full paper but this appears to be saying that “commitment to monogamy” is lower for those who’ve had a greater number of partners.

link4 Google won’t let me copy/paste the abstract text, but the study shows that children of divorced parents have an increased #of sexual partners and greater negative attitudes towards marriage. This suggests there’s a positive correlation between #sex partners and negative marriage attitudes–albeit moderated by parental conflict. Not a good sign.]

link5 Ditto!

link5 Abstract says that, “Cohabitating males and females had been involved with more sexual partners, were less satisfied with their sexual experiences… than were married males and females.” Suggests keeping your legs closed a bit longer? …And don’t get me started on co-habitation. The study findings there are that couples who co-habitate before marriage have a greater likelihood of eventual divorce. Ironic but true.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
Greg January 26, 2010 at 09:52

Feminine honor and virtue are possible only when controls are imposed on their behaviors.

I realize a lot of you men are squeamish about the idea of controlling women — perhaps some or many of you wish to play noble hero and prove how nice you are with them. Or maybe you are just guilt-ridden for being stronger than women.

In any case, when women have almost limitless choices and freedoms, they begin to lose shame and embarrassment.

Stripped of any restraints or controls, women are basically children in adult bodies, unable to tell right from wrong — unless and until YOU the man take control and educate her — and set limits on her behavior.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 2
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 10:12

””””’Stripped of any restraints or controls, women are basically children in adult bodies, unable to tell right from wrong — unless and until YOU the man take control and educate her — and set limits on her behavior.””””””’

Word

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Krauser January 26, 2010 at 10:27

Loving Globalman’s posts today. Don’t necessarily agree, but his anger adds purity to the prose .

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 10:34

The Changing Sexual and Cultural Mores

by Whiskey

We’re always talking about “changing” and “changes”
as if it’s currently in transition and
we can suddenly charge in like the cavalry and
head ‘em off at the pass
and save the wagon train.

You fail to realize that Change has already occurred.
The homesteaders have been scalped.

Documenting each new defeat does nothing to combat an enemy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Xamuel January 26, 2010 at 10:52

Are we sure about this trend of women choosing alphas (as alluded to in the article)? It’s always been my observation that women’s choices are remakably arbitrary…. I mean, what can we expect from one slut treating 120 dudes? I bet there’s more junkies, drunks and losers among those 11 soccer teams than successful high-flyers.

Who says junkies and drunks can’t be alpha? :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 11:24

To our female posters here same question. One good reason? Convince the never married bachelor I have an open mind

Your average Western woman? Umm… I draw a blank. Sorry. They usually can’t even cook or keep house. And by the time they decide to marry, their ovaries are all dried up.
Someone like Hestia would probably be a safe bet, but they’re relatively rare and in high demand (you notice that she’s not 48, childless, and living alone with cats). And the laws suck so much that if you buy a lemon, it’ll squeeze you dry.

TFA article mentions in passing, and then skips past, one of the main drivers for this phenomenon, “urban anonymity”.

Excellent point. I wrote about extended families here, and I see the collapse of extended families as one of the root causes of moral relativism. The more anonymous and isolated people are, the more depraved and amoral they become.

Marriage makes sense as part of a large, traditional, extended family. Small, isolated nuclear families are inherently unstable, as they are wholly dependent on the whims of two people. Americans used to substitute extended families with religious communities, but now that so many don’t attend religious service regularly, that glue has melted.

In the process what happens is that many of the other girls get overlooked if they don’t want to play the casual sex/ must fuck by date three type of game going on. When there is a decent amount of promiscuity taking place in the market, it can ruin it for those men and women who don’t wish to be promiscuous.

Which leaves the third option: leave the marketplace and go set up a different one. This is what conservative religious communities (Muslims, Orthodox Jews, Orthodox Catholics, Evangelics, etc.) have done, and it works relatively well. Sometimes there’s spill-over into the general market, but as long as you manage to high-tail it back before racking up too many partners, you can join up. Although you’ll have to bow, scrape, and undergo purification rituals (like being “born again”) to gain readmission.

On the news later term abortion provider shot dead.
Link, please? I think they’re just discussing the old case from last year, as it’s going to trial now.

Didn’t spend a dime on a wedding, and I got full refund on the diamond.
This confused me. Firstly, normally the engagement ring belongs to her after you give it to her (it’s a sign of your serious intent, that’s why it’s supposed to be expensive). Secondly, the father of the bride usually pays for the marriage (her family’s sign of serious intent).

MNL,

Here is an analysis of GSS data that suggests that divorce rates are correlated with sexual mores, including premarital sex and number of partners. I haven’t read the whole thing, though.
I bet The Audacious Epigone or Half Sigma have blogged about it, too, but I can’t be bothered to comb through their posts right now. I wrote about a related topic, the marital horizon.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 11:35

”””’On the news later term abortion provider shot dead.
Link, please? I think they’re just discussing the old case from last year, as it’s going to trial now.”””

No link was just watching it but they were interviewing another doctor and he was scared shitless. Talking about recieving death threats and such. So really once it gets bad enough it is easy to change the system by removing heads.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
21Guns January 26, 2010 at 11:36

To our female posters here same question. One good reason? Convince the never married bachelor I have an open mind

Don’t ask me, I don’t wanna get married either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
slwerner January 26, 2010 at 11:41

Black&German –
“I wrote about a related topic, the marital horizon.”

I think you’re on to something with this Marital Horizon concept. It seems to fit with many young people today.

Sometime back, on Novaseeker’s blog (IIRC) I comment on an article about young women who were going (regularly) to sex clubs. One of the women interviewed noted that she intended to get married someday, but that it was years down the road, so she was going to enjoy herself until that time. Sounds like she fits right in with your observations.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 26, 2010 at 11:42

So really once it gets bad enough it is easy to change the system by removing heads.
Yes, but shhhhh. We’re not supposed to openly talk about it. Bad publicity and could hurt the larger cause.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 26, 2010 at 11:48

Gunslingergregi January 26, 2010 at 06:15

@firepower
Wonder if this might change some minds.

Lincoln didn’t free the slaves by talking to The South.
We didn’t out-debate the Japanese off of Saipan.

I can only think of one group that talked itself into victory, but it’s opponent was beset on all sides (by all opponents) and merely capitulated on its own.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
MNL January 26, 2010 at 13:12

Thanks Black & German. I’ll take a look at the link.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Whiskey January 26, 2010 at 19:57

Great links MNL. Great comments Nova and others. Yes to the urban anonymity. It is indeed a great driver of this behavior, but so too are the lack of condemnation of female promiscuity.

What I find telling is that UP IN THE AIR has a woman who is unabashedly cheating on her husband, making the very idea of commitment by the Clooney character who falls for her, useless. Why commit if your wife will be out banging strangers. And NONE of the reviews has any sort of condemnation for this behavior.

Indeed, THE UNIT, MERCY, DESPERATE HOUSEWIVES, all feature “empowered cheating wives” (come to think of it, so does HEROES) who “gain strength” by screwing their husband’s command officer, a sexy hunky doctor, and the pool boy respectively. Heck, GILMORE GIRLS has the lead characters cheating, the daughter with a married man, the mother on her blue collar fiancee with a rich, inherited wealth good-for-nothing.

Look at FUNNY PEOPLE. The wife there cheats on her husband and has no real consequences. Same with SPANGLISH. Both movies aimed substantially at women.

Women don’t condemn cheating, it is the “new normal.” Leaving aside urban anonymity, women are now “proud” of cheating. They like it, take pride in it, find it “liberating.” Not all women, of course, but the dog that is not barking in the night-time is that NO WOMEN are outraged by these storylines or behaviors or stories. Rachel Uchitel and Rielle Hunter are tabloid heroines, not icky people that women detest.

Words Twice January 26, 2010 at 20:08

Whiskey January 26, 2010 at 19:57: Women don’t condemn cheating, it is the “new normal.”

Unless the person doing the cheating is Tiger Woods.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 20:15

Whiskey…with all do respect, you watch too much TV. ;-)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Hawaiian Libertarian January 26, 2010 at 20:16

* I meant “due respect.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin January 27, 2010 at 00:24

@Whiskey

“Heck, GILMORE GIRLS has the lead characters cheating, the daughter with a married man, the mother on her blue collar fiancee with a rich, inherited wealth good-for-nothing.”

My favorite Gilmore Girls line: (Rory, to her mother) “Why don’t you wear your Porn Star T-shirt?”

See, this is family entertainment. The daughter is encouraging the MILF to be a cocktease. Solidarity!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin January 27, 2010 at 00:41

I have this odd vision in my head off what the USA will look like in 2050:

Eighty percent of families are single parent families. Not because of divorce, but because the children were conceived by one biological parent without a partner being on the scene. This includes fathers who have grown a child using artificial wombs and spliced genetic material.
With the exception of religious communities, the sexes have pretty much given up trying to get along in a shared parenting situation.
Robotic nannies and bodyguards and ubiquitous surveillance have made it easier for one parent to raise a child.

Virtual reality porn has killed off the striptease industry, because men are too jaded to bother paying for some chick to take her clothes off. Prostitution has expanded to fill the gap and around 20% of 20 year olds and now registered with online escort matching services, mostly on a part-time basis. The cops still go after streetwalking, but policing online call girls is logistically impossible. Besides, there are too many well-connected college students working part-time as hookers to risk stepping on the parent’s toes.

The obesity epidemic has been defeated by nanotech implants that regulate metabolism and divert excess calories to the breast and butt. As a result any girl who can afford $1000 per year now looks good in a bikini, and thinks she deserves to date NBA all-stars.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
ThousandMileMargin January 27, 2010 at 01:08

Sci-fi speculations….

If there’s a biotech revolution over the next 50 years, this means many problems relating to “the woman question” have an engineering solution.

Women are crap mothers? Grow babies in an artificial womb from spliced genetic material, and develop robot nannies that tell great stories to mind the kids.

Too many fat chicks? Invent a nanotech implant that regulates metabolism and estrogen levels, leading to flat stomachs and full breasts for any girl with a little spare cash.

Women washed up at 35 due to too much booze? Invent a system that boosts liver function, regnerates wrinkled skin, maintains hormone levels and delays menopause – so they still look good at 50.

Exagerated female opinion of own worth? Hookers too expensive? Well, if every woman under 50 with a spare $1000 now looks good naked thanks to regulating nanotech implants, there is going to be a sudden oversupply of hot chicks. It’s hard to have a big head when every girl in your class is an 8.

Women still only want Alphas? Well, if the porn industry comes up with something like a Star Trek holodeck, virtual sex may become indistinguishable from actual sex.

The funny thing is that most of these developments would be invented to cater to a female market. Women will want robotic nannies. Infertile women will want artificial wombs, and when artificial wombs become superior to natural wombs, many women will choose to have their embryo transfered to one to avoid the risks and burden of a natural pregnancy.

Women will jump at a no-effort magic pill solution to weight issues, they will jump at a technology that creates full natural breasts out of excess fat. They will rejoice when technology to preserve youthful skin into their 50s is available.

They will want all these things in order to compete with other women. But when everyone is special – nobody is. The eventual result is that beauty becomes commonplace.

Imagine the balance of power in the “war between the sexes” when every woman is an 8, but men no longer need a woman to have a family.

Men may be able to get along perfectly fine in total disengagement from woman. No cohabitation, no shared familes, no alimony, no child support, no divorce, no marriage. The only thing women will have to offer in exchange for attention will be a no-committments fling.

The Great Divorce, one might say.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
samseau January 28, 2010 at 11:55

MNL

“I’m hearing references to the idea that women with a greater number or variety of sexual partners have less successful marriages later on. This makes intuitive sense. I’ve heard the anecdotes. …And it may even apply to both genders (i.e., to men also). But can anyone support this with data?”

The only information I can find is from

http://inductivist.blogspot.com/2009/09/alphas-betas-and-marital-status.html

However, I don’t really know how this guy gets his numbers…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
samseau January 28, 2010 at 11:57

Oh, he gets it from GSS:

http://www.norc.org/GSS+Website/

And I forgot to mention above; “alphas” (people who have lots of sex) are less likely to be married and stay married.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Joker's Wild January 29, 2010 at 01:37

I was a 11 years old, the first day of middle school I was asked by a girl who I shared a table with if I wanted to have sex after school. She pulled out a condom, whild she had a big all teeth visible grin on her face.

Senior year of high school, I was a starter on the varsity basketball team, a freshman manager , decided it was a good idea for her to try to bed me. Her words were, ” My parents won’t be home this Sunday, why don’t you come over ?” I looked away, then looked at her again, she then said, “You can put it any hole you want to? ”

I told her , “Sure, I’ll come over” . I told her I needed to go now because I promised my friends that I’d play football with them at lunch. I started took a step away from her to indicate that I was ready to leave.

She told me, ” Wait, ” yelling in my damn ear, as if were a shiny new toy about to be taken away from her.

She then proceeded to ask her friend for a pen. She wrote her number down and said, “Call Me?”, with a look of anger, and lust in her eyes.

I never called and to this day I’m thankful I never did.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Firepower January 29, 2010 at 08:27

ThousandMileMargin January 27, 2010 at 00:41

I have this odd vision in my head off what the USA will look like in 2050:

You’re probably right on track, but whites are now squarely in the minority. Their middle class jobs have been relegated to keeping Los Internetados running and providing their 15 year-old daughters to NBA (and now, FIFA) stars.

White elites will live in gated, heavily protected high-rise luxury apartments in Manhattan so they can continue manipulating America’s dwindling share of the stock market. These lucky few will be given “Master Blaster” status ala Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Black&German January 29, 2010 at 08:39

Selber Schuld. Nobody stopped them from breeding. You don’t reproduce, you die out. Survival of the fittest. A people that is incapable of making babies is obviously not the fittest, by definition.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2
3Dog January 31, 2010 at 12:34

@Black&german

Human beings are going to go extinct, future generations of “humans” will be nothing like us, we won’t recongize the world they live in just like someone from 50,000 years ago would not recognize our world. Human lives are incredibly short. Most people existing today are morons and incredibly stupid, almost everything complained about at the spearhead could be summed up by people having exceptionally low IQ and bad mutation/characteristics. Those who deserve to survive don’t, and those who are malevolent and/or ignorant outbreed those who are intelligent.

Either way technology will go a long way to eliminating human flaws, I wouldn’t be surprised if individual minds become obsolete and future descendants have more of a hive mind, due to the efficiency and survival reasons, the computational speed needed to solve surviving in this universe against exploding stars and the dangers of space are quite large..

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
chris February 1, 2010 at 08:49

novaseeker says:

Not all women are sluts and racking up tons and tons of partners

Really?

Seriously, why do women feel the need to respond with the “not all” claims?

What drives women to see ALL in an artical that describes a couple of instances?

What logical disconnect causes this flaw?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1
Oilsands February 11, 2010 at 20:48

Trees do not grow to the sky.

A trend that cannot continue, won’t.

It may be that societal trends move in a circular direction , not linear. We are quite arrogant and naive to believe that Western Culture ( such as it is ) will continue to move in the same direction unhindered. That older more experienced cultures have nothing to offer us.

There is a reason, I submit, that Arabic / Muslim , Hindu and Confucianist societies have placed restraints and obligations upon men and women EVEN up to this time. They have successfully stood the test of time. We are obviously and evidently failing rapidly and dissolution is upon us in the West.

It would seem more likely that our future may be modeled upon the Successful, with allowances for technological influence.

No one wants to really come out and say it, so I will . The West is Finished. As we have known it, and it’s cultural and strategic influences , are in steepening accelerating decline. Where is the future capital available for Western society — generally and in the mean — to provide technological solutions? In pockets yes, overall .. no chance.

Demographics say no. Conservative family replacement versus Liberal elimination says no. Lack of Big Daddy – Husband Government to provide for the Strong Independent Wimmin says no.

But you know, history shows that when you’ve fallen, it can take a long time to get back up again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Brandon October 4, 2010 at 20:29

“Ashton Kutcher notwithstanding.”

LOL

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Devar November 24, 2010 at 09:39

“The result of feminism is sexual promiscuousness in females. their sexual choices will create a new clan of alpha males who will breed abundantly. weak males should now be eliminated: usually through suicide”

I read this comment on a porn site

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 3 trackbacks }

Previous post:

Next post: