A Couple of Quick Questions

I am writing a shorter post today, using this opportunity to poll my readers for their thoughts on certain subjects.

“No Rings for Sluts”

My last post, which contained a story worth reading, even if it might not be true, got me thinking about the subject of marriage, the carousel and female premarital sex in general. In the comments of that post a discussion took place about the effects of premarital sex upon that woman’s chances of marrying (and its impact on whom she can marry). There seemed to be a general consensus that the subject of the post, a certain “Eva”, would suffer some consequences but they would probably be tolerable for her. Much of the reason for the minimal consequences would be the fact that for most men, she wouldn’t stand out as a bad marriage prospect. Since very few men have taken the “Red Pill” (I need to take the time think of a new metaphor), most guys will simply miss or underestimate the red flags that popped up all over the place in Eva’s story.

Which got me thinking… what if most men did understand the dangers of a woman like Eva, or a woman who was on the carousel? What would it mean? In some circles there is already a sentiment of “No Rings for Sluts!”, but this is still a minority position. Suppose that this changed, and that the overwhelming majority of men were aware of the risks. Further suppose that because of this, that same overwhelming majority of men refuse to marry a woman who has engaged in premarital sex. Would this change the way that women behave? Would there be a massive shift in female behavior, so that many or most women no longer engage in that kind of conduct? A few bloggers around these parts have advanced such theories before, Sunshine Mary being one of them.

This leads to the first poll, which asks readers to state what they believe the impact on female behavior will be if men will not marry women who engage in premarital sex:

My answer would be that a small minority of women would not engage in premarital sex. It would have a positive effect, but not a very large one. More women, perhaps a larger minority, would initially follow this path but once a tempting opportunity arises they will quickly give it up. After which they will simply stay on the carousel. Of course, those who disagree are free to mention why in the comments.

Unplugging the Carousel

Given that men simply refusing to marry women who engage in premarital sex may not enough to end the carousel as we know it, this invites the question:  What will actually pull the plug on the carousel? Here are a few ideas (one being a repeat from above, for those who disagree with me):

1) The return of social stigmatization of premarital sex (aka, “slut shaming”).

2) Changing our legal structure so that unmarried women (especially those with kids) don’t receive the kind of benefits, protections and opportunity boosts that bring them close to the level of married women.

3) Men, en masse, decide that they will not longer marry women who have engaged in premarital sex (“no rings for sluts”).

So, which of these options would have the greatest effect in terms of bringing the carousel to an end (at least, for most women)?

That ties up this post. Thanks to everyone who participates and comments.



Filed under Alpha Widow, Marriage, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Sunshine Mary, Women

60 responses to “A Couple of Quick Questions

  1. I think Lon’s got something there with the college trap, too. We can always help guide younger folks away from the mistake of useless degrees and debt. That would probably help quite a bit.

  2. I’d go a step farther and posit that it isn’t in most men’s nature to behave that way.

    Agreed. When I did the flowers and poems thing in my beta days, I thought I was being myself — a nice guy. But in hindsight, I can see that I really wasn’t. I was trying to buy their interest, or in a subtle way trying to guilt them into responding positively. Sort of, “If I just ask her out, she might turn me down; but if I hand her a dozen roses first, maybe she won’t be able to be that mean.” Of course, I had good intentions: “It’s just to get her to go out, and then she’ll get to know me and want me for myself, blah blah blah.” But there’s no question it was manipulative.

    I think women sense that, as easily as my dog smells bacon cooking, and that’s why they find the spectacle of an orbiter being “nice” for no particular reason so repellent. They smell that something isn’t right; he’s not acting like a man.

  3. I finally have a chance to respond to everyone.

    Regarding the choices…

    I agree with everyone that no choice (save the collapse, which I added for kicks and giggles) would accomplish everything necessary to reform the situation. But I wanted to gauge people’s reactions about what would be the most important element of the overall solution.

    Regarding values…

    I would like to emphasize that values only accomplish only so much. Biblical Christianity is a hard, difficult religion to follow. The narrow path, and all that. So don’t count on that many people actually choosing to live it. Sure, a lot of folks will be attracted to the message of hope and salvation initially, but how many will actually stick around? For many, they will be as seeds that fell on rocky soil. Changing values alone is not enough. More will be needed to make an enduring difference.

    Regarding sexual attention for sluts…

    I know what you are getting at Sigyn, but it wouldn’t work. Men are wired to give attention to women, especially women who display certain features. Convincing men to not reward such women with attention is extraordinarily difficult. Much more so than I think convincing men not to marry sexually promiscuous women.

    @ Jack

    Shame works. It does. I haven’t had the chance to employ it directly, but I’ve seen enough to know it is terribly effective against women.

    @ EOF

    You are correct that promiscuity has always existed. But it was far and away less common before than now. But the problem is as you note, it is celebrated.

    As for that man who says no big deal, well, that is what the culture teaches these days. If men knew more about the consequences of female promiscuity, they would likely change their tune.

    @ Lon

    Thanks for the great comment. I would never recommend that parents send their children off to college these days, at least, not until they are already married. Perhaps if it is a son who has demonstrated some true wisdom and discernment before. But for women I consider the dangers too great. Yes, some Christian women can and do resist it. But only those of exceptionally strong character. And they are few and far between.

    @ AR

    STDs becoming immune to antibiotics is going to a MAJOR shocker in the near future. If anything will bring about a change in behavior, its that.

  4. Matamoros

    You have to remember that the two biggest bombs women dropped on men back when premarital sex was not societally accepted were (after doing the deed):
    1. You’ve ruined me, so you have to marry me, and,
    2. I’m pregnant, so absolutely have to marry me.
    Premarital sex on women’s side was always a tool to get the ring.
    So to think that women won’t engage in it, is awfully naive when it is their best bargaining chip.

  5. an observer


    Men produce; women consume, and the status quo of government and the church implicitly and explicityly maintains the carousel. Govt transfers wealth from men to women, by inducement and by force. An extensive civilisational reset will be needed to change this.

    Obviously that kind of change would not be pretty. Straus and Howell would call it a fourth turning; Doug Casey might call it the Greater Depression; choose your terms.

    The slow seep of red pill knowledge may take decades to achive mainstream consciousness, if it ever did. And by then, a new set of lies would have arisen in the popular consciousness, to take its place.

    Premarital fornication and marriage are virtually unrelated topics for the secular majority. A couple that live togther soon qualify as defactos, and the govt makes redistrubution of assets avaiilable to the woman on separation. They may as well be married, it can be just as damaging to the man.

    And once a woman falls pregnant, he is on the hook for twenty years and more, which government enforces. Until the culture changes to force women to accept responsibility for their actions, or strips them of rights, i don’t have much hope for the west.

  6. I know what you are getting at Sigyn, but it wouldn’t work. Men are wired to give attention to women, especially women who display certain features. Convincing men to not reward such women with attention is extraordinarily difficult. Much more so than I think convincing men not to marry sexually promiscuous women.

    Are we only supposed to do things that are easy? Taking the easy road is what got us here in the first place.

    You tell us women not to put out, to be demure and quiet and yet somehow “available”, to walk that extremely fine and difficult line of being both sexual and chaste. If you (men in general) continue to reward those women who do the exact opposite, what’s the point? Let your actions and your words be the same, or else we’ll go on ignoring your words and responding to your actions. That’s what we’ve been doing, and that’s what we are created to do.

    Not only don’t give sluts rings, don’t date them. Don’t ONS them, don’t FWB them. Don’t (at least openly) obsess over Hottie McHotterslut in her newest movie. Just because a gate is open, that doesn’t mean you HAVE to walk through it. You’re not without moral agency.

    No, it’s not easy in this time of moral decay–but neither is chastity for women. If you want to encourage purity, then don’t reward corruption by validating it, even temporarily!

  7. @ Sigyn

    Looking back, I slipped up and argued from a practical, “what would work” standpoint. That wasn’t the point of this inquiry. From a theoretical standpoint, you are absolutely correct that men not paying attention go slutty women would work. It would require real effort though, to the point of social enforcement. But it would have a dramatic effect.

    And in case you were curious, I have already adopted this approach. But sadly my efforts are futile in the grand scheme of things.

  8. DJ

    @Donalgraeme the effort of an individual are never futile in the grand scheme. An ocean is made of drops of water as is an avalanche to be great requires the individual particles. God sees every effort and sometimes a pebble is all that’s needed to start a rock slide. Never discount the power of one individuals choice to resist because when God is on your side evil will fail, honestly it already has just doesnt realize it yet….Besides thing worth doing are rarely easy.

  9. Larxene

    I voted for “changing the legal structure”, assuming it was possible. However, as have been argued by some of the commentors, it is not a plausible or probable action.

    We need to eliminate a lot of things to achieve the desired effect:

    – things that remove the consequences of sex: abortion and contraceptives.
    – laws for women’s “protection” and “provision” (i.e. hypergamous) needs, so that they only need to seek “procreation”: no fault divorce, child custody, alimony, all sorts of welfare associated with being a single parent, etc.
    – the notion of equality, in effect eliminating female suffrage, giving females equal consideration at workplace, higher education for women.

    We can only hope.

  10. Pingback: Why Christian Men Choose Not to Get Laid Before Marriage | The Reinvention of Man

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s