The Male Hamster In Action- Exhibit # 1273

Men have a Rationalization Hamster, just like women. It is a more reclusive beast than the female variant, true, but it exists all the same. Most of the time it keeps its head low and maintains a low profile, such that we don’t notice when it is at work at its wheel. But occasionally it gets revved up and engages in a full-fledged, undisguised rationalization that can rival anything the female Hamster can accomplish.

An example of such a moment took place recently in Dalrock’s post “From celibate boyfriend to celibate husband (true love doesn’t wait).” A commenter left this, one of the most brazen and hilarious examples of male Hamsterization I have ever seen. Unsurprisingly, if you switched out a few words here and there the comment would be pretty much indistinguishable from what the average female troll leaves at Dalrock’s blog. If you have some free time, check it out.

Advertisements

77 Comments

Filed under Red Pill, Sin, Temptation

77 responses to “The Male Hamster In Action- Exhibit # 1273

  1. @ FBNF

    That’s just it ~ the fact that we were all given a concsience and have Natural Law written on our hearts (and are therefore without excuse before God) just proves the male hamster exists too. In order to go from that state where we know deep down that something is wrong, to the point where we have ourselves convinced that it’s not wrong…. that takes a LOT of rationalization (aka hamsterization). Therefore, to be convinced that fornication is not wrong (either for a slut or a PUA) is to have a wildly spinning hamster. Unless I’m misunderstanding what the hamster is, you just proved the point I was trying to make before.

    They have a different philosophical viewpoint than you. You might consider their viewpoint wrong based on your understanding of natural law (and you might indeed be correct in your understanding of natural law). But that doesn’t mean they’re hamsterizing. Hamsterizing means coming up with an ex-post-facto justification for that which you want to do. Not doing something based on a logical and consistent (but arguably wrong) a priori philosophy.

  2. happyhen11

    Bear with me. I am trying to understand this thinking as it is so far from my own that it is difficult.

    So in essence, if PUA’s have a personal code they apply only to themselves in matter of sexual ethics and they stay true to that code, there is no hamster, no justification, no rationalization.

    I suppose that one must adhere to a rule that sex is merely the swapping of fluids and a short period of happiness and physical pleasure to work with this proposition, as even non-Christian faiths believe that sex is spiritually unitive as well as procreative… thus cleaving to one’s spouse, establishing a new home with the woman/en who share your bed regardless of the formalities of marriage ceremonies and also the outrage of a wife being unitive with another man even after the procreative element has been eliminated.

    So a man can in his “heart of hearts” believe that having sex with 100 women in a year is morally acceptable if the women were “willing” partners? He is subject to no emotional repercussions/consequences due to this activity because men are not effected in any way by having sex with numerous women to whom he has no commitment, no emotional attachment? He can step out of this lifestyle and into a marriage marred by no baggage, unlike women who we know for a fact can not due to if nothing else biological and hormonal bonding issues? Hence the ability to justify applying two sets of rules to the two sexes concerning sexual mores, sexual activity, and then marriage.

  3. This has been an interesting conversation. Unfortunately, I am very pressed for time and cannot jump in. I just wanted to say this:

    Sir Nemesis is on the the right track. It has little to do with philosophy, and everything to do with justifying one’s actions through convoluted and illogical arguments.

  4. Feminine But Not Feminist

    So in other words, it’s where you STILL know that doing something is wrong at the time and/or after doing it, so you try to rationalize it away to rid yourself of responsibility and/or guilt for doing it? Like how a woman will consent to having sex with some random man, will feel guilty afterwards, decide that she must have been raped, and therefore thinks she is no longer responsible for what “happened to her”, while conveniently overlooking the fact that she didn’t kick, scream, cry, beg and plead for him to stop, fight, cause as much bodily harm to the man’s “tool” as possible, and run away if possible (which is what you would make every effort to do if you were truly about to be raped)?

  5. happyhen11

    I wouldn’t go quite that far FBNF. The false rape accusations doesn’t just rationalize (it is really a good thing for me and/or God wouldn’t hold this against me) but it essentially says her agency was stolen from her and thus there is absolutely nothing she could have done to prevent what was DONE TO HER by a CRIMINAL. She is merely a victim of this bad bad thing that happened to her. I don’t think PUA’s view themselves as victims (but I could be wrong). I think they openly revel in their agency, their conquests, and take full credit for their behavior (that is part of the whole lifestyle). They have somehow moved the moral goal posts to suit their particular desires. I don’t know that there is a true female equivalent.

  6. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ happyhen,

    I wasn’t looking to start a discussion about rape, nor was I suggesting that there aren’t true rape victims out there who were physically overpowered by a man/men even though they made every effort to get away. I was using an example that I see written about in the ‘sphere a lot to make sure I was interpreting SirNemesis’s explanation of what hamsterization is correctly, especially after Donal said that he is on the right track.

  7. mdavid

    Happy, I’m grinning that you think I might be a pagan :-). I try hard to stay fair to people who don’t share my views, so I’m probably hard to spot.

    FBNF, I’m not “defending” anybody, not PUAs nor sluts. I’m merely skeptical that many PUAs or sluts in this era find their behavior wrong.

  8. mdavid

    Happy, Bear with me…So in essence, if PUA’s have a personal code they apply only to themselves in matter of sexual ethics and they stay true to that code, there is no hamster, no justification, no rationalization.

    If they even have a “code” as such…is it a sin that I eat well when others are starving? Moral codes are rarely black and white without institutional guidance.

    I think the birth control discussion is apt here. I’m fairly well read in theology, Church history, and the bible (especially certain Greek manuscripts of Eastern tradition). I know more than a bit about most Christian religions (I’m even familiar with the EO bible books not in my bible and have attended Eastern Churches that are still Catholic). And in all honesty, I find the EO position on birth control and divorce to be so outrageously hamsterish I merely have to laugh. Please don’t be insulted, I’m not trying to argue here, I’m merely saying that as an educated guy who tries to be fair to every view I think folks like you and your EO pastors are engaging in a serious sin. But only if you are aware of it And I don’t think you are. So, just like the PUA,I don’t accuse you nor think you are somehow a bad person. I merely think except by the grace of God, there go I.

  9. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ mdavid,

    Fair enough. Though I never meant to suggest that they do find their own behavior to be wrong. I know they have themselves convinced that it’s not wrong.

    I’m sorry all ~ I’ve been in a very down mood today and I think it has spilled over into my comments…

  10. mdavid

    FBNF, I’ve been in a very down mood today and I think it has spilled over into my comments…

    I think your comments (and Happy’s too) have been clear, fair, and interesting. Hope you feel better soon.

  11. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ mdavid,

    Interesting, eh? Cool 🙂 …. and thank you.

  12. For the record, from what I understand of the EO position on both contraception and divorce, I agree with mdavid. It is convoluted at best, and unsupportable at worst. In fact from what I have read from some EO sources on divorce, it seems like the position is disturbingly similar to why Moses allowed divorce- the hardness of their hearts- and thus inconsistent with what Jesus taught (and Paul reaffirmed).

  13. @ FBNF and happyhen

    Regarding false rape allegations… there are different kinds. But one way there can be rationalization is by the following:

    1) Woman has sex with a man, perhaps under the influence of alcohol
    2) Woman does not enjoy sexual experience and/or remember it as good
    3) The woman, perhaps when she is sober, realizes she wouldn’t normally have had sex with the man she had sex with
    4) Woman remembers that sex is supposed to be fun and enjoyable and make you feel good afterwards
    5) Woman realizes she doesn’t feel good about the sex
    6) Woman, trying to reconcile that the sex didn’t make her feel good with the fact that sex is supposed to make her feel good, comes to the conclusion that something is wrong
    7) When point #6 is considered in light of point #3, woman comes to the conclusion that she was raped

    The rationalization is basically:
    consensual sex= fun and makes you feel good
    rape= terrible thing that makes you feel awful and isn’t fun
    her sexual event= not fun
    her sexual event= rape

  14. Regarding PUAs…

    Those who rationalize what they are doing are those who say that God (or some other, higher power) condones what they are doing, or that they are somehow benefiting the greater part of society. Those who are simple agnostics or atheists aren’t rationalizing anything- they don’t believe they are doing anything wrong at all because they don’t believe in an authority which states otherwise.

  15. @Happyhen @FBNF

    What is there to rationalise when, instead of keeping their gates* shut, the gatekeepers open them** to their barbaric invaders? Or in any case, who are wont to do more of the rationalising — the gatekeepers or the barbaric invaders?

    * Bonus question 1: Who are the gatekeepers of sex?
    Bonus question 2: Who are responsible for putting their city in such a compromising position where the barbaric invaders are just outside the gates?

  16. @ chokingonredpills

    Opening the gates? Heck, they’ve invited the barbaric invaders in. Eventually once the barbaric invaders are done sacking the place they’ll remember to shut the gates and ask the local guys to clean up the mess.

  17. @ FBNF

    I’m sorry all ~ I’ve been in a very down mood today and I think it has spilled over into my comments…

    😦

    I’ve thought about what kind of actionable advice to give you when it comes to finding a guy, but not really sure what I can provide. My go-to advice consists of improving physical looks and showing that you’re available. I’m sure you’ve done the former and have maximized your physical fitness and dress, etc., and if you’ve been rejected by guys, it means you’ve actively approached them, so you’re certainly showing you’re available and even putting yourself out there.

    Sorry I can’t give you any useful advice. I’ll be wishing you the best of luck and keep you in my thoughts. (No prayers for us atheists…)

  18. happyhen11

    “For the record, from what I understand of the EO position on both contraception and divorce, I agree with mdavid. It is convoluted at best, and unsupportable at worst. In fact from what I have read from some EO sources on divorce, it seems like the position is disturbingly similar to why Moses allowed divorce- the hardness of their hearts- and thus inconsistent with what Jesus taught (and Paul reaffirmed).”

    Forgive my late response. I was at liturgy for the Commemoration of The Beheading of the Holy Glorious Prophet, Forerunner, and Baptist John.

    I appreciate that Catholics do not really understand the finer distinctions of Orthodox theology just as I do not understand the finer details of their faith. It would be foolish of me to think an in depth understanding of a religion and its praxis can be attained when I have never participated in it. Book learning and observation can never replace the revealed knowledge of the faithful through the sincere leading of the Spirit, the sacraments, and the submission to her faithful priests and clergy. And not being Equal to the Apostles like the Holy Thekla or Nino, I am a poor teacher and do disservice to God to think otherwise, forgive me a sinner.

    All this said, I do not wish to be a part of any inter-denominational discussion on praxis and doctrine as that seldom creates good will and more often creates strife. If you genuinely would like to discuss Orthodoxy praxis and it’s teachings, your best bet is an Orthodox priest in the flesh or a trip to a monastery to speak with the brothers there.

  19. @ Happyhen

    You are correct- this blog is not the place for an inter-denominational debate. Normally I would be the one to correct folks for going off topic, and here it is me who is helping lead the charge.

    I do think that I will take you up on your offer though, and will try to talk with an Orthodox priest when I get a chance. There are a couple of EO churches somewhat close by that I’ve been meaning to visit for a while, and its about time I actually did visit them.

  20. Elspeth

    I’m merely skeptical that many PUAs or sluts in this era find their behavior wrong.

    This is exactly true. I have known people who sincerely had absolutely no idea that having sex outside of matrimony was a sin before they encountered Christianity and felt convicted. And I believe them when they say that.

    It is hard for us to imagine, but in this era there are people who live their entire childhoods/young adult lives with no exposure to Christian or religious teaching. From children they are defacto atheists at best or some weird amalgamation of feel good “spiritual” platitudes about “love” at worst. The people who say, ‘I’m not religious, but I’m very spiritual. And yes, I think the latter is markedly worse than the former.

    But these people have no frame of reference for abstaining from sex if they feel they are in love. Or even in heat.

  21. happyhen11

    “There are a couple of EO churches somewhat close by that I’ve been meaning to visit for a while, and its about time I actually did visit them. ”

    Thank you for understanding. We do indeed have so much in common and so much to be thankful for in that commonality. I pray your visit will be uplifting and edifying. I know my visits to your church have given me much joy.

  22. happyhen11

    “But these people have no frame of reference for abstaining from sex if they feel they are in love. Or even in heat.”

    Not unlike the pagans of old and those who seem to and maybe unknowingly mimic those beliefs now, those to which mdavid refers. It is a very valid point.

  23. mdavid

    Happy, I brought up the birth control issue ONLY to make a point of how honest people often disagree on what serious sin is. Not to debate the issue itself.

    I do reject your view that I cannot understand sin logically until I’ve “lived” out the religious experience itself. That furry creature’s size exceeds anything I’ve seen a PUA conjure before as it makes all discussion meaningless.

  24. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ Donal,

    That’s a pretty good “rape” rationalization, which is the kind I was talking about in my comment (I’m not sure what other kinds there are though). I probably should’ve written it out myself, instead of jumping straight to the conclusion, as I think I gave the wrong impression of it (based on Happyhen’s reply to me).

    @ Choking,

    Good point… except in cases of actual and not rationalized rape, the gate keeper (woman) has the final say in whether or not to let the barbaric invaders (PUAs) in, or to defend their fortress with arms.

    @ SirNemesis,

    Wow, I must be getting very predictable if it was that obvious by my comment that I was dealing with yet another Good-Christian-Man rejection (he really is good – was even very kind and gracious while doing the rejecting). Though I don’t approach much (I’ve only done so with a few from around here, not in person… I’ve tried but freeze up). I do put lots of effort into my appearance and try to seem approachable though. Thank you for the thoughts 🙂

  25. @ FBNF

    Wrt. approaching in person and freezing up, that’s understandable (we men know all about that heh). Some suggestions: if you don’t know the guy, just try to introduce yourself and have some innocuous conversation so that you can become acquainted with him. If you do know the guy, I suggest showing interest by actively trying to spend time with him and conversing with him, especially one on one (or better yet if in a group, singling him out by looking at him more, talking with him more, etc.). If you’re bolder still, you can ask the guy to go to some event/activity with you – this way you have plausible deniability about being romantically interested in him.

    As for online, consider talking to chrisdotcode over at the red pill chatroom (he’s not always on that chat but he’s on for a lot of the day): https://kiwiirc.com/client/servercentral.il.us.quakenet.org/theredpill/servercentral.il.us.quakenet.org/
    He’s waiting till marriage and actively looking. Not sure how open he is to someone long distance (he’s in NYC), but I know he’s willing to find someone from online (he has tried to ask out girls from the redpillwomen chat room before). He’s protestant though (I don’t know if you’re catholic).

  26. Feminine But Not Feminist

    @ SirNemesis,

    Thank you for the advice. The issue I have is that I am terribly shy, plus very introverted (70% “I” score on Myers-Briggs)… not a good combination. I’ve been getting better about it little by little through much effort and forced bravery (though I wish I had more of it). Thank you for the tip about that guy also… unfortunately, I am in process of converting from a Protestant to a Catholic, so I’m now restricted to Catholic men, whether already converted or in process of doing so. If he were Catholic, I would definitely do differently, especially with him saving himself for marriage like that. I very much appreciate the thought! 🙂

    @ Donal,

    I’m sorry I thwarted your thread yet again (I’m bad for that it seems, even when I don’t intend to do it but something I say snowballs). I figured I should respond to SirNemesis since he was kind enough to offer me some advice. But I will stop there so I don’t take your thread more off-course. I know you like your threads tidy. Sorry again!

  27. @ FBNF

    I forgive you… this time. =)

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s