Quote Of The Day- October 7th, 2014

Today’s QOTD comes from Novaseeker, from this thread at Dalrock’s:

There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying. No way.

Source here.

Advertisements

21 Comments

Filed under Churchianity, Feminism, Men, Red Pill, Sex, Women

21 responses to “Quote Of The Day- October 7th, 2014

  1. I found this quote significant because it gets to the heart of a common agreement between feminists and traditional conservatives, and why the two now overlap so much. I am rather busy at the moment, so I invite my readers to expand upon this basic concept here in the comments.

  2. theshadowedknight

    As usual, they put short term advantages over long term drawbacks. What this means is even less commitment from men to women, as the informal pairings will decline in the same manner that marriages did.

    The Shadowed Knight

  3. Elspeth

    So long as men and women reproduce, there will be people writing the laws in ways that they deem are “in the best interest of the child”.

    But I don’t really think this is going to reduce the number of informal pairings all that much. I don’t think the marriage decline is as much about men making conscious decisions to eschew marriage, or even conscious decisions not to work hard because there are no marriageable women to work hard for. If this economy suddenly roared to life, men would start back going to the altar no sooner than they see a family as affordable. I truly believe that. I’ve seen too many men who have burned and should know better marry a second or third time, thoroughly convinced that *this time* will be different.

    The inconvenient truth of this corner of the web is the Average “Blue Pill” Bob is still going to desire, meet, fall in love with, and optimistically pair off with Average Annie. Whether he gets her when she’s young and idealistic, or older and jaded, it is still going to happen because men are attracted to women and we are hard wired to idealistically pair off. Despite all the mounting evidence that indicates the high risk move it is, most men will still do it if they can see the possibilities economically to make it happen.

    Whether he makes it official or not, yes, he is going to have to pay the piper on behalf of the years and children she gave him. Noveseeker is right about that.

  4. Elspeth:

    I think you’re correct about this, mostly. Most men are blue pill. Most men want sex, and the only way for most blue pill men to get even a shot at sex is to marry. I don’t advise it; and I’d advise that only religious men marry, but there it is.

    The only way to avoid paying the piper, so to speak, is not to impregnate any women, not even a wife.

  5. Nova’s quote is right, because at bottom women still see this as an exchange — her sexual access for his resources, and vice versa.

    There’s another name for that, you know.

  6. @ deti

    Marriage is the form through which prostitution is legalized and regulated for the better functioning of society. Unfortunately for America, while conservatives were focused deregulating industry, liberals started deregulating the sex trade, with catastrophic results for society.

  7. DJ

    Sex is an inherently risky action, because children are not the expected outcome. If children became the expected outcome then the risk is removed, A lack of realistic expectations seems to be the problem.

  8. mdavid

    There is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman and then being able to get away without paying. No way.

    Sorry, but this statement is BS. Not up to Nova’s usual standards. Society already “tolerating” this. It merely demands men don’t have kids to keep their freedom and cash.

    Any guy with an ounce of brains can get a vasectomy for under $1,000 (for nothing if you are poor enough). Then screw away with the state’s blessing. I know lots of men having sex on the regular who aren’t paying anybody; hell, women buy them gifts. These men are nothing special, just normal looking guys who have decent jobs. They get cut then proceed to have many a 3 yr LTR with desperate 30 yo’s. The only men I know who don’t get laid on the regular are those whom are a) too moral, b) too antisocial, or c) too ugly. Women are going to sleep with men, and they will either be in harems or pair off. So most men not in the bottom 1/3 are getting laid on the regular, and most importantly, the only men paying for it are those too morally old-fashioned, or too stupid, to get with the times.

    This blog is starting to remind me of boomers who are trapped in 1960. Folks, the times have already changed. Look at the birth rate in the Western world. Men are slow learners, but the word is out.

  9. mdavid

    Elspeth, If this economy suddenly roared to life, men would start back going to the altar no sooner than they see a family as affordable. I truly believe that. I’ve seen too many men who have burned and should know better marry a second or third time, thoroughly convinced that *this time* will be different.

    This is often true for the lower IQ set. But we know it’s untrue in the macro sense as the wealthier our nation has become, the less children we have. There is an inverse correlation between wealth and children. Sure, one sees a short term child/marriage boost in a good economy because of the feel-good mood change. But that’s a cyclical change, not a secular one. Intelligent (and wealthy) men are Just Saying No to kids over the long haul, and the rest of them just don’t think ahead until it’s too late.

    Yes, most people would love to be part of a family. But every year the number of children raised in happy homes gets fewer, and more and more men shudder at the idea of raising kids. Fewer and fewer women are good mothers and wives every year. Look at Japan & Italy: 1.3 kids per women. Germany: 1.4. White US: 1.8. It’s only a matter of time.

    http://hailtoyou.wordpress.com/2012/10/07/the-usas-total-fertility-rates-by-race-1980-to-2010/

  10. Elspeth

    All that you say may be right mdavid, but it neglects something very important: that most people are at best average IQ.

    We like to focus on the smart people -perhaps because we consider ourselves among the more intelligent set- but the reality is that most people are fairly common and run of the mill. So it matters what those people do.

    Yes, most people would love to be part of a family. But every year the number of children raised in happy homes gets fewer, and more and more men shudder at the idea of raising kids. Fewer and fewer women are good mothers and wives every year.

    All of that is true, and yet smart men marry women (divorcees even!) all the time. I just look around me (in my mostly white, nice community full of reasonably intelligent people) and see no real evidence of a marriage strike brought on by anything other than bad economic conditions.

    But I may be wrong. It wouldn’t be the first time.

  11. mdavid

    Elspeth, there is truth in what you are saying, especially for those born before 1980. But one thing is clear: it’s not a temporary economy thing unless we’ve been in a 50 year recession. Since that’s how long the West has been declining in birth rates.

    Examine the graph I linked to; over the last 10 years US birth rates have been in free-fall for all groups. Things HAVE changed. Obesity rates (20 yrs). Tattoos (10 yrs). Men’s under-performance (30 yrs). Muslim expansion into Europe (20 yrs). Hispanic expansion into America (30 yrs). We can destroy a civilization in a single generation that it took over 1,000 years to build. It’s over, folk, accept it. Traditional people should give up on 1950, quit moaning about feminism, and start creating their own institutions to survive a new Dark Age.

  12. Elspeth

    You’re right about the birth rates. I have in recent years encountered numerous young couples (<30) who have been married for years without children and are unsure when they will be ready to have any.

    I'm not sure where that trend fits into the conversation. I suppose it is the easiest set up for a man who wants the comfort of a marriage relationship. He misses out on some of the risks that come after supporting a SAH wife/mother and children for years since the wife is usually quite gainfully employed as well.

  13. The American economy and society has been declining for 50 yearsl. Look at measures of inequality, median real wages for men, and age of first marriage.

  14. mdavid

    I’m not sure where that trend fits into the conversation.

    Nova said there is no way society will tolerate men having sex on the regular with a woman without paying. Well, the primary method to extract cash from men is to have their children. Otherwise, women have little power to steal from them. My point: the average guy has figured all this out and went on child strike. The proof is the empty nursery. But consequence-and-cost-free sex? Society makes it cheaper than ever before in the history of mankind.

  15. Thanks for the responses everyone. The post was something of a Rorschach test, I’ll admit. A few quick comments:

    1) mdavid is right that overall society is tolerating men having sex with women and not paying for it, at least, in so far as the sex doesn’t result in children. However, that doesn’t mean that TradCons like it. Or that they wouldn’t do something about it if they could. Many feminists feel the same way. They would, if they could, change society so even if children didn’t result men would still have to pay in some circumstances. I would argue that it is their relatively low numbers overall that is largely responsible for the lack of such laws.

    2) Deti hit on something else I was thinking- namely that there is a certain commodification of female sexuality going on by Trad-Cons. The whole notion that men shouldn’t be able to “get away [with] it” often breaks down to the rationale that they are wrong because they aren’t paying for it.

    3) Elspeth, I think you are incorrect that the economy is driving the decline in marriage. That may explain some of it, but not all of it. There is more going on than that. Marriage, as an institution, is simply not valued like it used to be. Especially by younger people (trust me, I see it all the time).

    4) @ DJ

    Sex is an inherently risky action, because children are not the expected outcome. If children became the expected outcome then the risk is removed, A lack of realistic expectations seems to be the problem.

    This is interesting, because for the longest time children were the expected outcome. It is only recently that we separated the idea of sex and protection. And the consequences of this are all around us. I think that far from removing the risk, children being the expected outcome increase the risk. What changes is the uncertainty. There would be none, and that changes people’s perceptions of risk.

    Right now, because of the uncertainty created by contraception, the perceived risk of sex is greatly lessened. Laws like what novaseeker was talking about try and change the perception of risk by removing uncertainty. They apply certainty by law, rather than have it happen because a woman gets pregnant.

    [I might be reading your wrong. Are you speaking for those who have that mindset, or for yourself? I can see either as a possibliity.]

  16. DJ

    DG
    The point of sex is reproduction and when the end goal is acknowledged, the risk is assumed. When people mentally seperate the reality , reproduction from sex, acting as if it is a type of recreational activity. They increase the perceived risk, because they are simply acting recreationally, and fail to realize they are participating in a reproductive act.
    I was simply noting what mindset would generate the thought you quoted.
    Did I answer your question?

  17. Novaseeker

    1) mdavid is right that overall society is tolerating men having sex with women and not paying for it, at least, in so far as the sex doesn’t result in children. However, that doesn’t mean that TradCons like it. Or that they wouldn’t do something about it if they could. Many feminists feel the same way. They would, if they could, change society so even if children didn’t result men would still have to pay in some circumstances. I would argue that it is their relatively low numbers overall that is largely responsible for the lack of such laws.

    This is the key.

    There is such a thing as “social lag”, mdavid. It has been “tolerated” in the very short term, but laws like the ones in BC and NZ are indicators that this tolerance is wearing thin. Keep in mind these laws are neutral as to whether there are children involved — if you pass the time threshold for shacking up together, she gets cash and prizes when you split up. That’s cash for sex, plain and simple, irrespective of children, vasectomies, etc. And it’s coming to fruition in some of the most sexually liberal places on the planet (check the stats: EnZedi women are pretty much the most promiscuous in the world). So, yes, there has been short-term tolerance of shacking up like this, but that is due to social lag. These kinds of laws are designed to create benefits for women based on providing sex (where children are not involved) in a cohabiting situation for longer than a certain period of time. They’re supported by feminists as well, under the rubric of “preventing exploitation” (e.g., she deserves to be paid for putting up with his dirty laundry for a couple of years, or, God forbid, even doing the laundry once in a while during that time), again, irrespective of whether there are children involved. It isn’t relate to children, it’s related to compensating women for extended sexual and/or domestic services. There’s a visceral sense that this is just, and it was social lag that tolerated it for a while. Now that it appears to be becoming the new norm for relationships, we will see these laws proliferating precisely to prevent men from sliding in and out of these cohabiting sexual relationships without financial cost to themselves as if they had been married.

    So, yes, it’s been “tolerated” for a few decades, which in the grand scheme of human history is half an eyelash blink, and now the law is catching up to that development, due to its proliferation. The behavior — shacking up — will still be tolerated, but the idea of men getting away with it without financial pain in comparison to a divorce is going to go by the wayside, slowly but surely, as the marriage rate declines. And, again, it is irrespective of children. It has to do with living together and sex.

  18. Novaseeker

    I think perhaps the context of the quote was missing. The context was a discussion around the new laws in BC and NZ which treat a cohabitation relationship of greater than X amount of time as a marriage for legal purposes (including property and related distribution upon break-up). This would obviously not apply to non-cohabitating casual sexual arrangements — and the context of my comment was not relating to those, but to cohabitating sexual relationships.

    It’s different from the old common law marriage idea because that generally (1) required the couple to hold themselves out as husband and wife to everyone else for (2) a quite long period of time. These laws require only a short period, and have no requirement that the couple hold themselves out as husband and wife to others. It’s more a strict liability type approach.

  19. mdavid

    Nova, There is such a thing as “social lag”, mdavid. It has been “tolerated” in the very short term, but laws like the ones in BC and NZ are indicators that this tolerance is wearing thin.

    Look, I understand the argument. I merely disagree. As a trad, you miss the skill non-trad men are demonstrating in response to these new conditions. Not only are men boycotting children, they are boycotting responsibilities and wealth creation. And the few men who do play wealth creation game anymore are becoming too smart to get caught in the female web. Sure, the dumb ones will always be with us,but they are slaves anyway.

    Hell, these laws will actually benefit the average man as they continue to underperform women at work. Why not get your balls cut, keep your wealth in cash, date her past the minimum time and dump her for her assets to move to the next meal ticket? Sounds gravy to me! These laws would also give men the social excuse to dump her before the time arrives. Hey, the government made me do it! It’s a sexual war out there, and men have a lot of cards to play once they get in the swing of things. Women are quite helpless, actually, completely dependent on male stupidity.

    I believe your (and Dalrock’s) misunderstanding of the situation is due to the emotional trauma traditional men feel to getting screwed over by the law. Guess what? Most men are merely going to be less traditional about marriage without religious protection. The traditional religious cultures of the future will respond to this and shame women who pull these stunts…and men won’t play the family game until they get this protection. Muslims, Trad Catholics (the headscarf type), Trad Mormons, & Mennonites (Amish) are good examples here. Protestants probably won’t survive well due to their lack of cultural unity (they’ve always relied upon the broader culture they inherited from European Catholics) which is now dying. But we shall see. I’d love to be wrong.

  20. @ DJ

    Yup, you answered the question. Thanks.

  21. “Deti hit on something else I was thinking- namely that there is a certain commodification of female sexuality going on by Trad-Cons. The whole notion that men shouldn’t be able to “get away [with] it” often breaks down to the rationale that they are wrong because they aren’t paying for it.”

    Yes, and Nova followed up on it in his usual excellent manner. When you get all the way down to it, there really is an exchange mentality in the works. Women believe they’re supposed to “get something” in return for giving up sex to a man. This applies whether it’s a ONS or a marriage. If she doesn’t get something, then it’s “unfair”. An injustice has been done, as Nova pointed out; and that injustice has to be righted. The way to “right” the wrong is to make him pay, somehow, some way.

    It isn’t just tradcons, either – feminists wanted no fault divorce which has morphed into a system of “his fault” divorce, which requires him to pay alimony and CS in punitive, confiscatory amounts.

    Feminists and tradcons like the current system because it gets men to the same place the same way but it serves differing interests. Feminists like the current system because it’s “right” and “just” and “fair” according to their worldview. Tradcons like the current system because it’s a “stick” to make men do “the right thing” for women and children, and to make them live up to Biblical ideals. The Churchians can’t seem to get the Word to do it; so they’re using feminist and Marxist-devised constructs from the world to browbeat and goad men into “being moral”.

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