(And So my college friend from a few posts back is in for an interesting day tomorrow.
He updated me today that the friend of a friend who was looking to branch swing (being blue pill this was news to him) that he was sexting on Faceboook but stopped talking to and who he hasn’t responded to for months has friended his wife on FB and is going to have his wife (who does waxing) wax her who-ha tomorrow.
Um, yeah… how cray is that?
He says he DGAF. But knowing the guilt ridden blue pill churchman guy he is, I wonder. I hope if it all melts down he is true to himself. If he is, it may be for the first time in his life.
I did warn him the FB gal has a motive here, and that’s to blow up his life so she can use him as a resource. His wife (who also sounds more cluster B by the moment— she tried to run him over w a car and regularly physically and emotionally abuses him, sadly — I 100% believe his actions are not the way out btw — but I can also see why he would be wide open to this other gal working him) also doesn’t want to lose her resource (He is a union craftsman making $70+ per hour 40 hrs. a week guaranteed whether he works or not, plus bennies and retirement. Who-ha waxing don’t pay that!)
[OT: Plug for young men to consider a union trade — I hear the halls are empty and have jobs unfilled! They will train!]
Anyway, I did implore him to be safe and maybe consider changing the locks and texting his wife he’s done, send someone for her things. Shits hit the fan, go w it. He said that was his thinking, already.
If he’s going to be the villain anyway, may as well go all in. Go big or go home, right? The people who matter will understand and the people that don’t will no longer be part of his life.
They have no kids. But the do have a dog, that she got for him shortly after she tried to run him over w her car. He said maybe they could share custody of the dog. I was like, “AYFKM?!?!” Fuck her. It’s his dog.
Maybe he is a jerk, maybe not. Maybe I am a jerk, maybe not. But being physically abused is a no in my book. Tried to run you over w a car? Ummm, yeah should have filed charges and a restraining order and then for divorce when that perfect out presented itself — but I understand abuse victims (and yes they can be and are male) don’t always see the forest for the trees they are mired in.
Anyway AWALT. Cautionary tale. No woman sextes a guy (married or not) wo expecting something. Much less gives it up in person. She may say no strings but trust me, the strings are there. Always.
Women trade sex for resources. Like it or not. Admit it or not. It’s as old as time. AWALT.
Any woman would be stupid not to, IMHO. Controversial? Yes. Bad advice woman to woman? No. (Not that I am advocating this level of frat but it’s a shit test and a mighty one.)
Red pill men get this — that milk ain’t free. Not even from a professional (but it may be more openly admitted and for a known price… maybe.)
Just know AWALT. Why? Survival. That’s why. It’s baked into the sauce.
What do you think? Please share in the comments.
Notes From a Red Pill Girl 
A cliche from somewhere: Most people would rather improvise in the face of disaster than exert the pains necessary to avoid it in the first place.
And then there are the ones who create the disaster by doing stuff on Facebook (or elsewhere) that can get back to the wife without much trouble. Is she listed on his FB page as his spouse, with a link to her page? Many are.
He doesn’t want her. But he is still there. Inertia? But actively creating drama for himself. He don’t need no computer games (current post at Spawnys Place). He creates his own. Way better. And the “kills” are real, not computer generated. Hot stuff.
When he could be out buidling a quality life for himself. But that is not as much fun as what he is doing now. A version of the guy sitting in his mother’s basement, whiling away the time doing feats of daring that amount to nothing that you could use as collateral for a loan. We could argue that college friend makes good money so he must be building something. But does that really count when it is only half his or less when she gets tired of him?
I wondered the same Richard, if perhaps the FB gal thing wasn’t a way to create the crisis? I have for sure seen people have affairs as a way to force an ending they for whatever reason can’t just end on their own.
He did not seem too disturbed by it, almost reigned. Maybe that is what he was hoping for all along?
Yeesh! What a mess.
Please tell him that he needs to find a male friend or close family member that he should start staying with/store his belongings. He also needs to start putting money in a divorce fund/legal fund. (Separating accounts, etc). Its going to get ugly for this guy. He needs to reach out to one of the guys at the hall too. Direct him to look into RP stuff too. (Show him these messages if you dare)
Good suggestions freemattpodcast. Will pass them along!
Also I believe he owns and owned the home from before they married, so I think that is not community property but I am not exactly sure… but true freemattpodcast, he should start thinking ahead and understanding how to protect himself.
As far as I know he did not meet w this gal in person but they did carry on online and exchange photos. He did not keep hers but I am betting she’s still got his.
He tried to go there w me but I shut it down. I am in a relationship first thing, second thing I would not get involved w a married guy even if I wasn’t. He’s respected to boundary and I try to be supportive as a friend while encouraging him to reach out to guy friends and also to a male counselor I know who is actually good and I think could help him see he’s dealing w now not just one but two cray cray gals.
He’s so desperate I worry he’ll get sucked in by another harpie but hopefully not. I have sent him some Roosh links. He’s dyslexic and not a reader so I didn’t think Rollover would work, he’s good and probably better in this case but not the easiest reading.
Maybe Terrence Pop? Or can anyone recommend a red pill video person vs. blog?
I would suggest Popp’s videos. I can do some research and get back with it.
If he’s sending incriminating photos and sexting over Facebook he is either 1)dumb or 2) hoping to get caught, for whatever reason. This is like a chick-level drama skill set.
Kind of weird that Roger brought up duct-taping his rear and then we got on the subject of waxing and this guy (whose wife does waxing) starts hitting you up.
Well, weird to me anyway.
Or is he hitting on the waxer? Maybe I got that part confused. Well, either way…
Nope it’s not free. Nor should be it.
His wife is a waxer and the gal he’s been chatting up but now has blocked reached out to his wife as “friends” on Facebook and is going to get waxed today by her. Nutty! I looked the gal up and no surprise — lots of selfies!
@freemattpodcast he says they have separate accounts, otherwise she would spend it all!
I did suggest he reach out to some guy friends, get his sentimental stuff safely elsewhere, and brace himself for two cray X-rays battling over who gets to seize his resources! Yikes!
As they say, never put your dick in (or show your dick to) crazy!
Right on, RPG. Let me pour some popcorn into the machine. This is going to get interesting.
When it’s in matrimony it works…when it’s outside of that that’s where all the mud and backstabbing happens.
Was this while they were married or before?
I ask because if it was before…he should have left. If it was during…he should have seen the hundreds of red flags before it got to that. No woman tries that tactic without giving you plenty of warning she’s emotionally unstable.
It works until they decide matrimony is optional.
When Phyllis Schlafly said that the Equal Rights Amendment was stupid and unnecessary because all it would do would reduce the portion of men available to each woman to marry, it seemed like the most stupid and bigoted thing that anyone could say.
To all self-respecting American women Phyllis Schlafly and her idea were targets of scorn and derision. To sons of Baby Boomer feminist mothers, Phyllis Schlafly and her idea were just another element of the loathsome patriarchy that we had sworn to smash.
Well I’ll be damned. The woman was goddamn right. That is the red pill. Women are so incapable of overcoming their hypergamy that allowing women to have good job is simply counterproductive for society.
My previous girlfriend was a doctor that I had known in college. One evening when we were talking about how she was working half time as part of her divorce settlement, she mentioned that she made more money working half time than I did working full time. So I make good money. She makes 2.5 times my good money.
I should have just picked up my bag right then and there and walked out of her house.
She is also screwed. At the time she was 47 years old with four kids. What man making 3 times good money would take her on? Any man making three times good money would never choose her as his best option. Congratulations to her. She’ll never have a man (or have sex) again. And her loneliness is the result of her inability to overcome her hypergamous instincts.
For men here is the simple option: Just deal with hookers living hand-to-mouth. I’ve never had it so good.
Could it be that College Friend gets off on thinking about wife touching FB Gal where he has not (the waxing)? Could FB Gal be testing out wife for her receptivity to a threesome? Could FB Gal be finding out from Waxer Wife where College Friend lives, the better to pursue him in real time? Or to cut off certain appendages (how dare you ignore me?)?
Got a good script for a Novella going here. Write it up and sell it online. Bet you’d have buyers.
Roger, reminds me of a similar situation I encountered a few years back. I’m a car buff and was driving up the road about 3 yrs ago when I was coming up behind on what I thought was a BMW 5 Series M car, in Black. M5’s are pretty rare around these parts. V8, 400+ horses. Wide tires. Sweet ride. Never seen on in person. Most cost $80-$100K.
So I drive up and pull alongside and check it out. And its some 40 something blond talking on her cell phone behind the wheel. All dolled up in “Lady Lawyer” attire. Perfectly styled business outfit probably worth $2k alone.
You probably seen the type on TV. Has personal trainer so she doesn’t get fat. Spends thousands each year on clothes and makeup. And works 14 hrs a day. Probably makes $200K which is great money around here … better than 99% of the men, which of course was her goal.
And all I thought to myself was … Lady, by buying a car like that … you just guaranteed that you’ll never … ever … get another man.
Sad part is … she’s too stupid to realize why. And if anyone were ever try to tell her why, she’d deny it anyway. When hypergamy kicks in, the brain goes off. Useless trying to tell women like that where they are going wrong.
Kinda like this blog in a way. We all respect Bloom for the work she puts in. Yet we all realize how pointless it really is. I’ve boiled it down to the following formula … most of the time I use it to describe liberals but most women are liberals these days, so essentially its the same thing. Its the DENY REALITY syndrome.
You know, REALITY, like how 1 + 1 = 2. In real life, it equals 2. It will always equal 2. It doesn’t matter how much you deny it. Doesn’t matter how much you deflect the issue. How much you lie, cheat, steal or blame it on men or the patriarchy. Doesn’t matter if you call reality a racist or call it a homophobe. A Nazi. A Hitler. You can throw a hissy fit and investigate for 2 years or 20 and threaten to Indict or Impeach. And despite all the bullshit. 1 + 1 = 2. It does, it will and it always will.
What works much better is for everyone is to just admit that 1 + 1 = 2. But since they will never do that, its just better to ignore them and just move on.
As for the woman in the Black M5 … I just shook my head and went on my way. Nice car, stupid lady … you know … just acknowledged reality.
I agree. Using stories like this for inspiration, you could spin off some excellent RP fiction that could influence younger generations for the better.
On the topic of inspiring literature, Elspeth has a new post covering the common courtship tropes described by Jane Austen.
https://readingbetweenthelife.com/2019/04/24/jane-austen-queen-of-the-romance-tropes/
Guess I should have stated the obvious. RPG is correct – Men, you don’t get the milk for free. Never have. Never will. There is a manosphere saying that is much like Trumpism … it may be ugly and repulsive, but its also correct. All women are whores. They will trade sex for money … like an actual whore. But they will also trade sex for other things, like status, commitment, marriage, etc. But as men, you will have to give up something to get sex. That’s how nature works. That AWALT. All women are like that. All women think like that, behave like that. If you want access to sex, then pay up and give me what I want. Yes, AWALT. Its baked into their dna and they don’t even know that they are acting that way. As as stated previously if you dare point out what they are actually doing … they will deny it till the cows come home. NOPE. Not them. They don’t act that way. But they do … AWALT … the RPG is spot on.
Clark Griswald seemed to like an expensive car. 😆
Heh, thanks for the link to Elspeth’s Jack. I thought she’d stopped blogging long ago, good to see she’s still there.
Feminist says all women are whores:
“Nope it’s not free. Nor should be it.”
Well, she’s at least concise.
@earl they have been married almost 10 years. I believe the car incident happened about a year ago. He says the first year or so was good but then the verbal tirades began, followed by her starting to get physical. She’s had the financial issues all along, started several businesses but then lost interest of changed directions, filed backtuptcy, nearly bankrupted her parents. They were friends for several years and then mutual friends and her family pushed them toward marriage around age 35 for him, she was awkward and heavy, he was very shy and the typical blue pill nice guy. Owned his own home and had a good union job. She pursued him. She’s lost a lot of weight, he said she got a gastric bypass a few years ago, told everyone it was a hysterectomy. I am starting to suspect she’s got narcissist personality disorder or something, seems like a lot of gaslighting and other tells, the other gal sounds borderline personality disorder and has gone from wanting him to now wanting to destroy him when he didn’t provide the branch swing she claimed “God wanted” (ha!) for them both, but of course I only hear his side so hard to really know the true picture as I knew his wife in our 20s but have not seen her in years. Back then she was spoiled and living off her parents, always going from this to that.
It sounds like things did not explode today so I am unsure if the one gal chickened out or didn’t keep the appointment… but it sounds to me like she’s looking to break them up, maybe another way of trying to get what she wants… if he won’t leave his wife get the wife to leave him?
That’s kind of a let down.
Please feel free to embellish on events if anything…er, fanciful comes to mind.
Just make something up.
This story has too much potential to just…leave at that.
And Roger made all that popcorn. 😆
I’ll start a story:
He came home to a vat of boiling water filled with pubic hair…
(you’re welcome)
Bloom’s friend doesn’t have the strength to stay and put that bitch in her place and he doesn’t have the balls to dump that bitch and bang 10 more. Not sure there is anytging anyone can do for him until his balls drop
—————
Nothing in this world is free but pussy can be had on the cheap if a man has frame and value. The chick that is making some dude wait is also the chick who got fucked in the sleeping compartment of a semi after sharing a milkshake and some stop light conversation while out riding around
Go straight to the link at the bottom if you prefer. My words set the stage for why the link intrigues me.
Some time ago, I introduced here (I think) the idea of a man with a rifle standing in the bed of a pickup truck, facing backwards. If the truck was moving forward at the same speed that a bullet comes out of the barrel of the rifle, the bullet should simply drop to the ground where the fellow pulled the trigger. If the truck was going slightly faster than the speed of the bullet, the bullet would leave the barrel more slowly, if at all.
I used that mental image as a springboard to think about the Big Bang, as it is a stand-in for talking about the speed of light. If the bang happened and sent two suns in the opposite direction at only slightly more than half the speed of light, the light from the two suns would never meet – because they are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. Any planets orbiting the sun speeding left would likewise not be visible to an observer on the planets orbiting the sun speeding right. But God could say “let there be light” , slow down the speed of both suns to below half the speed of light, and, voila – everyone could see each other.
That was an idea that always fascinated me from the time of my teens, and there is more thinking involved than what I have presented here. But, today, I find my early thoughts vindicated. For the moment, anyway, scientists have concluded that the expansion away from the center, where the Big Bang took place, is increasing in speed. Folks used to think that the acceleration was slowing down, and eventually the whole thing would collapse on itself back at the center, and start all over. They don’t think that any more. In fact, they have concluded that the expansion is accelerating and that galaxies are moving away from each other at faster than the speed of light. That means, if we are standing still, or moving in the opposite direction, those galaxies are there, but we cannot see them. The light emitted will never reach us.
I know for some, this information (and the thoughts it inspires) is far less interesting than a pot of boiling pubic hair. For me, all that boiling pot inspired were thoughts of killing lice and/or crabs, and wonder if there were any humans attached to the hair in the pot. I find the information at this link much more stimulating.
Perhaps you’ve heard of the church – visible, and invisible. Well, this link will introduce you to the new concept of the Universe – visible, and invisible
I felt the same Liz. It’s only a matter of time, I am afraid.
So last we talked he said she’s being nice to him (his wife.) then he adds, probably Bc she got caught making a $500 and then a $700 withdraw out of his (not joint) account! Apparently she said she needed the account data for tax reasons, and “wasn’t sure it went thru.”
Apparently this came out Bc he was worried a stranger had hacked his account. Wonder what else he doesn’t know?
I feel for the guy, I do, but I also know only he can save himself. I hope he does. I guess time will tell.
@ Ton you are right, he’s playing w fire he doesn’t understand. In both cases.
Funny just earlier today I was thinking, “I bet Ton would not have those problems. Instead he’d have the start of a harem.”
Frame. Rollo Tomassi rule number one. You own it or they do. Yep.
she got caught making a $500 and then a $700 withdraw out of his (not joint) account!
I wonder how she did that? If he doesn’t trust her and has to keep separate bank accounts, kind of defeats the point to share the password. And if he didn’t, the bank wouldn’t honor her request…not without a power of attorney anyway.
I agree Liz, sounds weird. But he said she told him she needed the info she used to do it for the taxes? I told him maybe he should report it to the bank and let them explain!
This guy sounds pretty dumb, Bloom.
Agreed Liz, I can’t tell if he has Stockholm syndrome or what? I almost asked him if maybe he was a masochist, but then stopped Bc the answer was already painfully clear.
It’s working for him in some way. Maybe dysfunctionally but hey why be functional? (Joke!)
Someone once said and I find it very true, most problems are caused by user error.
Per the boiling pot….pretty common pop cultural reference, but just in case it was missed what I was referencing:
Bloom – someone gave me this link when i was first introduced to TRP … it might be easier to read for a dyslexic.
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/p/the-red-pill-primer-for-boys.html
@Liz said: just in case it was missed what I was referencing
When Bloom said that FB gal was going to meet up with College Friend’s wife, my mind immediately went to the Fatal Attraction triangle, wondering if that is what this was developing into. Liz, if you had stopped at “boiling pot”, I would have got the reference. What threw me was the reference to pubic hair in the boiling pot. If that part was in the movie, I don’t remember it. I only remember the rabbit. Anyway, upon re-reading that part of my writing, it occurs to me that someone could interpret it as being critical. It wasn’t meant to be. I thought “a vat of boiling water, filled with pubic hair” was a magnificent lead-off to a story. Got my thoughts to spinning, wondering how the pubic hair would be explained (hence my question about whether they were connected to a body) – since I didn’t think of the Fatal Attraction connection.
But – really – boiling pots aside: think about the implications of the article I linked to. The Big Bang theory was predicated, in large part, on the belief that the outward expansion was slowing down. Gravitational pull being what it is – when the expansion slowed enough for the pull to take over, everything would collapse back upon itself into a dense ball of matter, ready to be fired off by the next Big Bang. It was that speculation on everything falling back on itself because of gravity that gave rise to the Big Bang theory in the first place (simple explanation)
And that idea was crucial. A Big Bang throws all matter away from the center and outward. So there is little chance of galaxies crashing into each other as they are all moving out and away from a central location.
But if the rate of expansion is increasing, rather than slowing, all bets are off as to what set everything into motion. We cannot continue to say with certainty that all matter is moving out and away from some initial, central location. We don’t know what set everything into motion. Which allows, at least for the creative minds, for the idea that galaxies from the opposite side of us, that are too far away for their light to have hit us yet, might at some point in the future get close enough to us to strike us with their light and suddenly become visible to us. New night sky for everybody. Not only that, but their suns and planets might start crashing into ours as the new galaxies come whizzing through our own. With no certainty of a central explosion that threw everything out and away, we cannot be certain that there is any rhyme or reason to the direction in which galaxies are traveling. Therefore, we cannot be certain that there are no galaxies, which we cannot see at the moment, that will come crashing through ours at some point in the future. At some point, and for some folks, these new possibilities fire the imagination in ways that pots of boiling pubic hair just don’t. Not that boiling pubic hairs don’t make for a good beginning to a story.
Now – how do we turn all of this stuff about galaxies we can’t see into an interesting story about College Friend and FB gal and CF’s wife? Maybe FB gal can play the part of the galaxies that have been coming at us for a while, but we didn’t know it because we couldn’t see them. But now they are here and are crashing through our own stuff willy nilly.
Richard, it wasn’t a hare story, it was a hair story….
(har har har….*cough* never mind)
See..If one was a mechanic and the other went in for an oil change I’d have said a boiling pot of Mobile 1. A honey distributor a boiling pot of bees. A cuniculturist….a eh, boiling rabbit.
God, I hate it when a joke goes wrong.
See, even now I’m thinking how funny the word cuniculture is and how I can weave that into a cunticulture quip.
Just how I’m wired.
Please disregard.
This!!!
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/first-person/article-im-feeling-lonely-in-this-hyper-connected-world/
Brilliant description!!!
We have lost the ability to connect, to be community, to reach out.
More than hypergamy, mgtow, divorce, etc. This has caused the rifts in Everything.
If you can no longer talk to a shopkeeper or bank teller or a stranger in a coffee shop then how are we ever going to make meaningful connections.
For a spouse, a gym buddy, a mentor, a tool guy?
The days of dating a friend of a friend, of “I know a repair guy”, of hey wanna learn to hunt with my buddies, hey neighbor over the fence. All gone.
Now we swipe for mates, order food by phone, shop by pushing buttons, get a minor repair by hiring from a gig site.
Us farmers may be the last breed that still talks to each other. Largely because a bad calving at 3:00 am you need to call buddies and the farmer next door cause no facebook friend is gonna help with that.
Hell even if the neighbor is an asshole you ask for his help and he gives it cause next time its him asking.
Huxley, Orwell, Heinlien. Saw it coming.
Sad article. This is why I try to be kind to people on the day to day. You never know when just a kind word can make a difference. People actually become ill and die when they lose human connections and hope. That’s why communities that revere elderly people where they remain relevant and contribute have the highest longevity. They’e done studies and this true in very diverse communities around the globe with different lifestyles and habits.
Ame
Ian’s best article. Too bad he ghosted several years ago.
THE cautionary tale, exactly what happens.
http://theredpillroom.blogspot.com/2013/03/youre-just-going-through-stage.html
Wow that article really was sad.
There are options you’d think though! There’s always book clubs you can join that are fun… knitting clubs… strange-I-don’t-understand-what-they’re-really-THERE-for-clubs… I don’t know! Why do some elderly people seem to seek these things out, and then some write articles like that one?
And there are gyms they could join and then go to daily… and classes where people talk to each other. Art classes, even. That poor lady, I wonder if she’s tried to really get involved beyond just meeting random strangers while doing errands… ?
Sure I talk to people while on errands, but I don’t look for those moments to actually give me purpose 😦 I know this sounds awful, but someone like that needs to be more intentional in actually getting involved in something long-term.
….
Church was, and largely still is, one of the best places to get into groups where everyone is a lot more involved in each other’s lives.
And maybe it’s just us, but we have a neighborhood online group where neighbors post stuff constantly about whatever is going on, or simply on their minds. It can actually be really entertaining LOL!!! And they do meet-up in person for things. It isn’t as good as it is in a small town, but it may be better than expecting strangers not even in your own neighborhood to be interested in you 😦 Poor lady.
Just ranting on… I’ve seen a lot of elderly ladies in groups like the above mentioned, but especially in church groups.
Even if you aren’t the religious type, being in an elderly Bible study or something like that is probably a good idea because they tend to really care about you. I’ve been in those groups it was mostly MUCH older women, and the desire to take care of each other was amazing to watch in real life.
You need help with something over the weekend and you’re a widow? We’ll get you one of our husbands over to help you.
You need someone to take you to a dr apt this week and your daughter can’t or had to cancel? We can send So-in-So and they’d really love to help you out!
Endless stuff like that happened… and it’s free to join 😉 😀
Still not as good as a society that values the elderly and gives them proper place in the family as respected people (like Liz mentioned keeping them active and having a role to play in their community/family). But better to have a group where they know and check-in on you, than nothing.
On that neighborhood site… there’s a lot of people like this 😀
Like … constantly… everyday…. We have neighbors acting like this!!!!! Hence the entertainment 😀 I love them!
I would not agree that trading sex for resources is a good idea for women, except possibly in the context of sex work, where at least the nature of the transaction is clearly defined and also includes clear boundaries. But in one’s personal life? I’m just not seeing why a woman would want to do that. For myself, I would not want to create a dynamic where I am servicing the man rather than having a mutually satisfying sexual experience. Unfortunately, I think we still do have a deeply rooted sense of that trade in our culture even today and the result is that women often view sex as a chore, which means they are less into it, which results in sex often falling off horribly among married couples, creating a situation of stress, pressure and resentment. If we could get away from the “women servicing men” way of thinking about sex and more towards a model of mutual pleasure, it could potentially resolve a lot of misunderstanding and friction between men and women.
Hmmm, does it ever even enter your head that most males are hardwired to provide not only provision but also protection? And that our species literally could not have possibly developed without that hardwiring?
“I would not agree that trading sex for resources is a good idea for women, except possibly in the context of sex work, where at least the nature of the transaction is clearly defined and also includes clear boundaries. But in one’s personal life?”
It is very hard for women to separate their sexual experiences with their “personal lives.” LOL…
bg
Is your comment addressed to me? If so, could you please explain how your point (assuming you are correct) is relevant to what I said? I am not following the connection.
Humans are a pair bonding species. Males supplying provision and protection and females being largely receptive to sex throughout the year strengthened that bonding. That ancient unspoken but understood covenant between the sexes allowed the necessary slow development of helpless infants and their mothers..
Great try b g!!!! I applaud your efforts 😀 Wisdom is timeless, but the ignorant refuse to see (or admit) it.
What b.g. said, in a longer format.
@Catherine said: I would not agree that trading sex for resources is a good idea for women …
This is not a political issue. This is a survival issue. As a group, men are stronger than women. And before the discovery of oil made engine-powered plowing possible (the past 150 years or so out of the thousands that came before), that male strength was necessary in order to wrestle a harvest out of a ground that did not yield its harvest easily. The labor-saving devices that oil has made possible obscure what was the reality for men and women for thousands of years.
If we don’t eat, we don’t survive. If we can’t encourage those who create the harvest to share some of their food with us, we will not eat. And we won’t survive. So societies develop customs that encourage the sharing of what we have with others, in exchange for them sharing with us what they have – that we might all not just survive but flourish. Each produces what they can best produce, and produces enough to share some with others, for a price. The history of mankind. This is the reality of the cliche “it takes a village”.
If a woman had not the strength to wrestle a harvest out of the ground in the pre-oil days, what else might she have had to offer to convince the one who can create the harvest to share some of it with her?
Catherine – your statement that I quoted above might work so long as we have oil to power machines. But your comment did not work for women before oil was discovered, and it will no longer work again when the cost to harvest the next barrel of oil is greater than what the market will pay for that barrel of oil.
And then there is the issue of protection. Marauding bands of unattached males can carry off unprotected women and rape them at will. An informed woman might consider that it is in her best interest to offer sexual access to someone who can and will protect her from that possibility. Same thing for when a women is pregnant. She is particularly vulnerable at that point to those who would do her harm. Trading something she has for the protection a man can offer to her and her child would seem like a good bargain.
We can go on for quite a while with these kinds of facts of life. Or we could just summarize the reality of the world forever by saying what no woman wants to accept: women survive only at the pleasure of men. If men and oil were to disappear tomorrow, women as a group could not produce enough food to keep themselves alive long-term. Once the existing stores of food were consumed, the female population would shrink down to the size that food which grows naturally and is easily harvested (fruit trees, grasses, etc.) could support, and no more. I’m tempted to include sources of protein, such as chicken eggs, etc in this list of easily harvestable food – but think through what it takes to capture, house, and feed the chickens and I think women as a group would not be able to do that consistently without the help of men and machines.
There is the politically-correct. And there is life lived on the ground without the machines that the energy from oil makes possible. Those two are worlds apart. And you can’t eat politically-correct.
An unpleasant, real-life look at the point made in my previous post:
I grew up in a church where missionaries would come from Africa and India and show slides. I can remember back as young as six or seven, seeing slides of burning pyres where the husband had died (of old age or accident) and the custom was to burn the body. The missionaries never showed pictures of this next scene, but said it was customary for the man’s widow to throw herself on her husband’s burning pyre (Sati) and perish. At that young age, I thought that was quite a sign of devotion. When I got older and learned about how difficult life is just to get a harvest out of the ground and warmth or cooling for the home without the power that oil gives – I understood that the widow had other motivations. If there were no other family members available to give her what she needed to survive, she would likely die of hunger or exposure to the elements, or by way of an animal attack. Throwing herself on her husband’s pyre and perishing was a logical response to the unsolvable problem of her not being able to keep herself alive by herself.
Through those slides and the stories the missionaries told, this point was impressed on me at an early age: in cultures without the power that oil gives, the survival of the women very much depends upon the strength of the husband and sons in her life. Without husband or sons, or other generous family members, her survival was not guaranteed. In those circumstances, I think patriarchy was viewed a bit differently than today. (This is the issue being addressed in 1st Timothy 5, particularly Verse 8.)
Search Wikipedia on Sati – or read through this link:
The Practice of Sati
I certainly wouldn’t want to have sex with someone I wasn’t attracted to just for money, much less to do it for my entire life. But I can see why women had to do it in earlier times. It’s sad to think that a lot of these women probably never had really satisfying sex for their entire lives.
We don’t have to do that now and shouldn’t…but it does make sense to choose someone who can make enough money that the wife can stay home with kids for at least a few years. But women who are always demanding more-more-more from their husbands are rarely happy at least from what I have seen. Might have mentioned here, I have a good male friend who is in a difficult marriage…he makes a LOT of $, if not top 1% probably at least top 2 or 3%, but his wife is always complaining that she needs more. She’s never worked outside the home for very long, and doesn’t have skills although she does have a degree. Sad situation. (They have 2 kids)
Stephanie
LOL, oh I think she fully understood what I was saying, she just didn’t like it ;-D
@Richard, African values (that aren’t Christian) are so foreign to us, that it could be some misconstrued devoted act, but you’re probably right that it was the knowledge that she would be perishing anyway.
I remember reading various accounts from different missionaries who’ve gone over there, including one of my own pastors growing up, on just how different they think and see life.
One of the major things I’ve seen over and over again, is that many of their tribal cultures seem to hold the same belief that you shouldn’t enjoy life, or look like you’re enjoying it too much because of the envy from other villagers and even (they believed) evil spirits.
Many of them actually believe that if you enjoy life too much or have too much goodness in your life, that you’ll be punished for it by evil spirits attacking you. This one belief has MAJOR effects on how they view their spouse, their children, their houses (they don’t decorate typically, or make it look too nice because of this fear).
When the missionaries come, the Africans usually tell them about this strongly held belief when they see how joyful and happy the missionaries are.. and how they decorate things naturally to make things look more beautiful.
For the women who throw themselves on the pile of ashes… think about how much differently they could see things if they had produced lots of children, had a community who would take in widows (Biblical commandment), and sons that would help take care of an aging mother? If they embraced joy, instead of despair?
—
Related… 😀 We recently went out to visit my Great Great Grandparents’ old house, built in 1852, and still in good conditions due to various people in the family and out, buying it and fixing it up inside/outside. This pair of great greats had 12 children (!!!) and lived a very productive Christian life in this small little town.
We have an insight into what kind of parents they were, because a couple of the children dedicated monuments in the town in memory of their, “loving parents.” One of their sons wrote a 20 page document about his parents and their life in that town. It’s just so apparent how much the children still loved them into adulthood.
Sooo in relation to what Richard was saying… when my G-G Grandmother’s husband died, she only had a few years left herself, but she was determined to live joyfully… and turned their house into an inn where artists and writers would come to stay at due to the town being so beautiful. And even in her old age, she was very good at running this inn! Just soooo sweet ❤
Life didn't have to stop, granted her husband also made sure he provided for her so that she'd even HAVE a house to work with, but still, the attitude of the Africans is one of despair… compared to a strong Christian faith and belief that Christ came so we could live life in all it's abundance… and with joy!
Beautiful anecdote about your Great Great Grandparents, Stephanie! ❤
My brother in law and nephews spent a lot of time in Africa (and also parts of South America, and Cuba) doing missionary work. They're very good people….they say it was very rewarding. I knew a couple (they volunteered with me a while back) who lived in Haiti for many years (working at a Christian academy, after he retired from the military). They said it was their favorite place to live, ever. Which sounds crazy now…she said before Clinton tried to "save" it with his catastrophic policy decisions, it was poor but the people were wonderful. They had to flee after Clinton became president. Not something you'll read about in the news.
Side note about Sati (which was not always voluntary):
I'm reminded of the words of Admiral Napier, who ended the practice: "This burning of widows is your custom; prepare the funeral pile. But my nation has also a custom. When men burn women alive we hang them, and confiscate all their property. My carpenters shall therefore erect gibbets on which to hang all concerned when the widow is consumed. Let us all act according to national customs."
Richard (and I suppose bg),
Your take on what may have occurred as humanity evolved millenia ago doesn’t address my comment (even assuming you are correct). My comment is directed to Red Pill Girl’s contention that it is a good idea TODAY for women to trade sex for resources. In our industrialized, extremely safe society, women are well able to accumulate their own resources and assure their own protection without selling “sexual access” to a male provider and protector. It seems to me that in such a situation, women in general would be better served not to engage in transactional sex but rather to seek relationships in which sex is seen as a collaborative activity geared towards mutual pleasure and the expression of love. It also seems to me that the vast majority of men would surely prefer it that way. Who wants a sex life that’s a chore? And who wants to have a sex life with someone for whom it’s a chore? I know many men are open to having sex with prostitutes, but my experiences with men indicate that men also want to be truly desired and to give pleasure.
That said, Laurel’s point is well taken. Some couples may have a vision of a family life in which the woman (or occasionally the man) dedicates herself to raising their children. In such a case, the other partner (usually the man) provides “the resources” to support that lifestyle. That is quite different than women trading sex for resources. In that instance, the woman and man are each contributing their labor towards a mutually shared vision of the family life they want to have. Sex in such an instance need not be viewed as a trade of sexual access for resources, but rather a mutual giving and receiving of pleasure and love.
Richard,
As for your theory of women’s total, abject helplessness and enslavement to men centuries ago when humanity lived a less mechanized life, your vision is overly simplistic. It’s one of those things that might seem self-evident on its face – after all, men are biologically much stronger physically than women – but when you look at the evidence, the assumptions you make based on that fact turn out not to be supported.
For example, in hunter gatherer societies, which live in the manner most approximating our early forbears, the women gather the vast majority of calories consumed by the tribe, thus allowing the men to conserve their energy for hunting expeditions. There is even one theory that women live longer than men because elderly women were needed to care for the young children while their mothers were off gathering. But the point is that, in our original state of nature, women and men both contributed the providing of food and women were certainly capable of gathering sufficient food to survive. I also question your assumptions about women’s alleged incapacity for the physical labor of farming. While sex differences in size and strength are undeniable, it’s not as if women are helpless. Female slaves in the American South were certainly forced to perform, and did perform, hard physical labor in the fields.
Your theory of the inevitable trade of sex by women in exchange for resources also ignores the existence of the clitoris and the female orgasm. If sex were something women simply had to provide in order to survive, there would be no need for women to have evolved with the capacity for sexual pleasure (INTENSE sexual pleasure, I might add). And under the scenario you posit, I doubt men would have evolved to be as turned on as they are by female desire and sexual pleasure.
Your claim that women exist only at the pleasure of men is alsosimplistic. Yes, it is true that men are much physically stronger than women. But your assumption of female helplessness is misplaced. Consider that virtually no societies subjugate women merely by the use of physical force. Virtually every patriarchal society, even the truly brutal ones like ISIS and the Taliban, heavily rely on INDOCTRINATION to subdue women, to convince women that God wants them to be subject and that it’s a good thing to be subject. If subduing women by force were so easy, there would be no need to make up elaborate stories preached from pulpits to convince women to submit.
Why is that so? Because the sexes in times of traditional gender roles are heavily interdependent. Men rely on women not only to for their labor in gathering resources but also in having and caring for children. Does it make sense to entrust a class of people who are unwilling sex slaves with the care their children? I wouldn’t.
Humanity has been an enormously successful species in large part due to our ability to form cooperative, bonded groups and units. Sex as a mutually beneficial, pleasurable activity – rather than just something women provide to men – helps cement the bond between parents that facilitates the intensive teamwork of providing and caring for children.
@Catherine said: But your assumption of female helplessness is misplaced.
I did not say, nor did I assume, nor do I believe, that women are helpless.
Catherine – the phrase women are helpless is a meaningless, generic phrase unless it is followed by the completion of a phrase of the sort in terms of … or when it comes to ….
My comments were aimed at a very specific situation: the effort that is required to stay alive in the absence of the power that oil provides. The fallout from that “required effort” drove social structures up until about 150 years ago. When the cost of harvesting the next barrel of oil is greater than what the market will pay for it, we will begin to revert back to what was before, in terms of the effort required to stay alive and the attendant social structures.
This is not a political point. It is a point about reality. Consider reality on the ground, not political slogans.
Catherine, you explained how women were useful even thousands of years ago, since they went out and gathered the carbohydrates that the men needed to give them energy for the extended hunt:
** Point 1: I did not claim that women were not useful, nor did I claim that they were helpless. I asked you to consider what the reality on the ground is without the power that oil gives us. In that context, which was and will probably be again, it takes an enormous amount of strength to stay alive. Strength that men as a group have and women as a group do not. If a man refuses to share his harvest, no woman would stay alive (note that roots and berries are not available year round). What might a woman have that could convince a man to share his harvest? My response to that question that I gave above is, in essence, no different from the point you are making about coming together and sharing in a loving relationship. Here’s what I have that you need. This is what you have that I need. Let’s share. No partnership (whether personal or business) can ever succeed if one member to the partnership adopts the attitude of “give me what you have that I need but I’m giving you nothing in return”. Catherine, there seem to be far more marriages of that sort than there are of the sort that you describe.
** 2.) Without the strength that men as a group posses, the women out picking berries will be attacked and carried off by other tribes. At which point, their usefulness to the men of their tribe ends. Which was the point I was making. I grant you your point that the women were useful in gathering calories that would give their men stamina for the hunt. But my point was that your point is irrelevant in the face of this fundamental truth of life: we don’t get to keep what we can’t defend. The women’s usefulness to the men ends when they are carried off. And they are carried off because the women do not have the strength to defend themselves against marauding men. In the majority of instances, that defense is going to come from the men, not the women – because, as a group, the women do not have the strength required to defend against marauding males.
Do not look at political slogans. Look at reality on the ground in the absence of the power that oil gives. Who is going to wrestle the harvest from the ground? Who is going to keep the women from being carried off (by man or wild beast)? In the main, it will be the men, because they are generally stronger than the women. And moreso when the women are pregnant and/or have children underfoot that must be tended to. And it is useful to understand that our form of government cannot be sustained when the power that oil gives goes away. We will devolve (evolve maybe??) again into tribes, tribes that rule themselves. At which point, government will not be there to take resources from men and give them to women. Women will have to learn how to get those resources by using their own abilities to pursuade – which brings us back to the point being discussed: In the absence of the power that oil provides, how does a woman stay alive? Her most potent tool for attracting resources to herself is her sexual availability. From that truth does much trouble arise. Then. And now.
Conclusion: If I am the one keeping you alive, I get to set some restrictions on your behavior: make yourself useful around the village (no work / no eat concept); don’t hoard all the food, leave some for others; don’t be out petting the lions; don’t be sneaking off to get pregnant with men of other tribes; etc. All of the restrictions boil down to “don’t make me work harder than necessary to provide food and shelter, and don’t make me risk my life in order to rescue you from the danger that you intentionally place yourself in.
Mental exercise, wherein women can get pregnant without men, but will only give birth to girls: If oil and men disappeared tomorrow, what will the world look like in 100 years?
There have been a number of surveys conducted where women are asked where various things come from, what it takes to produce them. In many instances, the women could not come up with the right answer. They did not know. To the extent that a woman does not know all of the instances where the power of oil is used from the very beginning to the very end of the production process, that woman won’t be able to answer the question I’ve posed in this mental exercise. They simply do not know all of the places that both oil and men are necessary in order for a given thing to exist. Accordingly, such a woman cannot know or understand how dangerous it would be for her to get her wish when she campaigns to get rid of oil and men.
Unscrupulous folks are manipulating this truth for political gain.
Catherine probably believes an all-female village would be capable of survivng and treating each other well.
Most women, and that’s a big deal the, “most,” part, would NOT opt to be ruled by an all-female tribe.
Semi related 😀 … Liz, I get it that the Admiral blamed men de facto as forcing Sati upon helpless women, but in those matriarchal tribal systems of Africa (and even to some extent, India since they were Hindu priests doing this in his case) it usually is the women driving those kinds of things.
Hence female genital mutilation… it’s all female driven by the elder females of that matriarchal structure putting immense pressure and even forcing the fellow women to do that to their daughters.
“** 2.) Without the strength that men as a group posses, the women out picking berries will be attacked and carried off by other tribes. At which point, their usefulness to the men of their tribe ends. Which was the point I was making. I grant you your point that the women were useful in gathering calories that would give their men stamina for the hunt. But my point was that your point is irrelevant in the face of this fundamental truth of life: we don’t get to keep what we can’t defend. ”
Richard, this point was VERY easy to see… anyone not seeing this, is refusing to see or admit it.
@Catherine said – in her last paragraph:
Humanity has been an enormously successful species in large part due to our ability to form cooperative, bonded groups and units.
True.
I’m taking issue with your perception of how those cooperative, bonded groups and units were formed. This entire conversation – here and in the world at large – turns on a correct understanding of how those cooperative, bonded groups and units come to be.
Sex as a mutually beneficial, pleasurable activity
Again, concept is true. It’s the reality on the ground that is the issue.
Over time, women have demonstrated that they don’t know or understand what it takes to wrestle a harvest from the ground, create shelter, create tools, labor-saving devices, and baubles that catch the eye. and provide a defense againt those who would come and take what we have. Because of this, then and now, those who squander resources, refuse to help with the work of the village, and intentionally place themselves in harms way (perhaps because they don’t know it is dangerous?), put the village in real danger. For the sake of all, that cannot be allowed. So restrictions on behavior are imposed.
When such restrictions are placed on females, sexual access to the female is immediately cut off, unless it is forced on her (not talkiing rape here). When the women truely don’t understand why what they are doing is dangerous, and the men do and so impose restrictions, the women truely do not understand the need for the restrictions. They conclude that the men are being arbitrary and mean and abusive.
It is at this point that sex as a mutually beneficial, pleasurable activity stops. The formation of the cooperative, bonded groups and units stops, and the war between the sexes takes over. Every where. Every time. Because men and women do not think alike. And men come to understand that women are attracted to the barbarians. And men know that the village will not survive when the women open the gates to let the barbarians in.
History shows over and over that social stability requires that men place restrictions on women. So the mutually beneficial, cooperative units are held in place only when there are restrictions imposed.
In the main, history shows, it is those restrictions that helps cement the bond between parents that facilitates the intensive teamwork of providing and caring for children. (And I understand that creating and enforcing these restrictions can be done well or badly.)
Too many women do not understand why opening the gates to the barbarians creates a danger for the village. Therefore, too many women do not “see” the reality of the previous paragraph. This is the main, legitimate theme of the conversation in the manosphere. What do we need to know about the differences between the way men and women think in order to keep the village defended and thriving? When the enemy is about to shove his shiv through your liver, asking <can't we all just be friends is not the right response. Knowing the way reality on the ground actually works is the only thing that can help the defenders of the village mount a proper defense.
Random thought from Dalrocks on the cause of spinsters who let the clock run out
aka not in a ltr by 35. (Not mine)
“Are you suggesting that the girl writing this article could not get a marriage proposal from this ‘male buddy’ within weeks? That proposal is not coming because the girl does not want it.
Of COURSE that proposal is not coming because the girl does not want it. He is her ‘long term male buddy’ and he already knows that is as far as it will ever go. So there will be no proposal. He’s not an idiot. He’s just a beta-orbiter. Best thing he could do is stop orbiting her.
And the men that she would LOVE to get a proposal from, those wont be coming either because those men can’t be bothered. Free love is getting him too many opportunities to get laid. Why should he settle down and risk everything he has to offer?”
P.s. chose 35 because at least two years to get new man to alter then 2 years to get man to want kids =39. After 39 fertility and Downs risk fall off a cliff.
Another random thought. (Again not mine)
“Why women confuse smv and mmv.
Smv gets you a date and laid once maybe twice with guy x
Mmv gets you a date and laid once maybe twice A Week for two months with guy x.
If he isn’t coming back regularly for at least two months he is not fucking you, he is fucking WITH you.”
“For example, in hunter gatherer societies, which live in the manner most approximating our early forbears, the women gather the vast majority of calories consumed by the tribe, thus allowing the men to conserve their energy for hunting expeditions. “
Please cite several studies stating this.
Richard
Good steady debating! Let’s remember she is a feminist and therefore tends to employ exaggerations, falsehoods, and half truths. In my 70+ years, I have yet to meet an honest one.
Stephanie
LOL, I see that you are also seeing right through her ;-D
Please cite several studies stating this.
You realize progressives have had virtual total control of academia for decades?
Isn’t it interesting that this is the conclusion that she came to?
Does it make sense to entrust a class of people who are unwilling sex slaves with the care their children?
Richard,
This is a fascinating discussion so I thank you for that. A few responses in no particular order:
(1) You deny making a claim of women’s abject helplessness, but I think that is a fair way of characterizing your statements that “women exist only at the pleasure of men” and that women would be incapable of surviving without oil and men. Those are the claims I was addressing.
(2) You mention marauding tribes carrying off the women. But you also posited a world in which no men exist. That was what I was addressing. You assume that women could not survive in a world without men, but I question that assumption. If hunter-gatherer tribes survive with women gathering 80% of the tribes calories, then obviously women can, in fact, feed themselves. I would also question your assumption that women would be incapable of farming or hunting or fishing. I notice that I was asked (by someone else) to cite studies yet you were not asked to cite studies supporting your assumptions.
As for the marauding tribes, yes, I imagine that without higher tech weapons an all-woman group would lose to an all-male group in most instances. You cite that as a reason that men should be able to rule women – i.e. “hey, we are protecting you from a marauding tribe!” As you point out, that probably is why most societies have been patriarchal. But then the question becomes why the women should be loyal to the men in their tribe. If my choice is a bunch of guys ruling over me from my tribe versus a bunch of guys ruling over me from another tribe, why prefer one over another? Why should I be loyal to my tribe if I am a subject rather than a full citizen in the tribe or group? Is the argument that “hey, we will subject you less brutally than the marauders over there?” Basically, “we can do this the easy way or the hard way?” Okay, but then don’t tell me that women are the ones who created your imaginary war between the sexes.
(3) You referred to women who want to get rid of men. What are you talking about?!?!?!?
(4) Most importantly, what does anything you are saying have to do with the subject at hand? The issue I commented on was whether women should trade sex for resources in our society IN OUR SOCIETY TODAY. Nothing you said relates to our society today. And even looking at the primitive conditions you posit, you have acknowledged my point that women contribute all sorts of things besides sex, such as resources including food, necessary labor, and child care. Whether in a primitive society or our complex, industrialized society, sex needn’t be traded for anything but sex.
(5) If sex were just a trade for survival for all women, then there would be no need for the clitoris or female orgasm, nor would men have what appears to me to be a strong drive to please women sexually.
(6) I am not sure if this is what you are saying but do you not believe that mutually pleasurable, loving sex is possible? 😦
Having just paid an enormous tax bill, I LOL at Richard’s idea that the government transfers resources from men to women.
Stephanie says,
“Catherine probably believes an all-female village would be capable of surviving and treating each other well.”
AND TREATING EACH OTHER WELL. Who are you hanging out with?!?
I am being slightly tongue-in-cheek but not completely. It must terrible to distrust people of your own sex so much. I personally have never experienced a problem with women working together – but of course, I live and work in very egalitarian communities. I suppose in situations where women are competing with each other to have men provide for them, they are more likely to undercut each other That problem goes away in egalitarian or matriarchal groups.
Having managed a 500 bed ltc facility for a decade with a workforce of over 200 women and 14, count em, 14 men (mostly in maintenance so not being faught over)
The statement “That problem goes away in egalitarian or matriarchal groups.”
All I can say is
Ahahahhahahaahahahahahahah (god cant breathe) hahahahahaa.
And even if they got along and you had female engineers, tradespersons, farmers.
Even remove war threats. And give you a fenced in range of pasture, livestock and planted fields.
Women cannot physically crank out the physical work required in a ten hour day. Period. Just a question of muscle mass and the endurance given by testosterone.
(Wore my wifes fitbit on a 6 hour day at the barn. Said I walked 24,000 steps, climbed over 12 stories in elevation and much of it was carrying 40-60lb hay bales or water buckets in each hand. Thats in 6 hours. And I did that 5 days a week.)
And dont say machines etc. cause they break and need fixing. How many of you ladies can go break loose the lug nuts on your car with just a breaker bar? Let alone pull a tranny with just a chain block.
Feminism dies when the lights go out. Replicant Fish.
Liz
“You realize progressives have had virtual total control of academia for decades?”
Yeah, I realized that cultural Anthropology was rotten with feminism back in the mid 60’s, Margaret Mead et al. I switched to physical to finish the year, then changed my Faculty to Science and Math to get rid of the nasty critters completely.
But I kept up my interest in it, I actually got to meet Jane Goodall by accident during a flight across Canada. I bought her a Scotch, and she bought another one for me. She only had one, she is not very big and a complete lady. She laughed at my questions and said they were basically what Leakey had asked her years ago. I liked her ;-D
@ Catherine I understand what you are saying and am not advocating women be unwilling partners. I think you might be taking things too literally. What I am saying is this guy was foolish to not realize this married woman who started sexting him thru Facebook would be happy to just have a long term sexting thing. Not that I am saying that couldn’t happen, but to not consider maybe she had a motive and would expect something more was niave.
So far it doesn’t sound like she’s contacted his wife. Maybe she was just trying to scare him into unblocking her. But as I said to him when he was acting like this all came out of nowhere, “if you play w fire…”
I don’t have time to do a thorough search for all the posts based on women not liking working for other women (or the countless comments from **women** agreeing), but this is a pretty well known thing, even in the secular, non-red pill world. If you want to find those comments, maybe even doing a google search would help you.
I’ve personally worked with some great women, but that’s not the norm from what I’ve seen.
And regarding matriarchal systems (broad scale… think African cultures and to some degree Indian since they have a lot of, “soft-power,” to get the men to do what the women actually want. I’d have to really look into it more, but it seems like the entire culture suffers under a female-driven system. Latin American cultures are also largely matriarchal… and they really all suffer for it.
Native Americans were also known for being matriarchal familial structures. Sure the men “led,” but the women were a driving force using their soft-power. There’s a lot of stories of how horrifically cruel Indian women were, especially to their female captives… BECAUSE it was a female-driven, pseudo-male headship thing set up.
Oooo something I just remembered… if you truly are interested in learning about how women are treated in matriarchal set-ups… look into how Indian (from India) mother-in-laws treat their daughter in laws.
Lots of abuse… the mother-in-law completely runs the show.
❤ This song ….
For the strong women
Bet you wish someone would send his love for you out to the world like TruthSurge did.
Rumour has it that is his wife of several decades in the video.
And this one just to show his emotional range.
.
For the strong women
Bet you wish someone would send his love for you out to the world like TruthSurge did.
Rumour has it that is his wife of several decades in the video.
The video above.
If he’s going to be the villain anyway, may as well go all in. Go big or go home, right
………
The Ton life yo
LOL RP was on his game up there. Damn fine work
Red Pill Girl,
You are right that I did not respond to what you said in the context of your story about the guy with the abusive wife and the sexting-partner-turned-stalker. I agree with you that your friend needs to get out of his abusive marriage ASAP. And that his sexting partner is clearly seeking to abuse him in some way. She is probably trying to blow up his life out of vindictiveness or out of a delusional hope of getting him for herself. Terrifying!
What I was responding to was this: “Women trade sex for resources. Like it or not. Admit it or not. It’s as old as time. AWALT.
Any woman would be stupid not to, IMHO. Controversial? Yes. Bad advice woman to woman? No . . . ”
Again, I was looking at your statement in a vacuum without much consideration for the story about the psycho wife and the psycho stalker, so perhaps in that context I am missing some nuance that is still unclear to me.
I would agree that there is no such thing as “no strings attached” because whenever two people are in relationship – whether it is a romantic relationship or a one-night-stand or a friendship – there are expectations on both sides of SOMETHING. There are no blow job fairies who come down out of the sky for the sole purpose of someone else’s pleasure (though many may enjoy the act itself.)
Where I start to lose you, I think, is that I think when we start to express it in terms of a “trade” and that women are inevitably trading “sex,” for “resources” it starts to sound like (a) something ugly and cynical rather than just the way any interaction works between two people; and (b) as if, women do not have sexual needs, desires or pleasure of their own but rather use sex as a bargaining chip. That may not be what you were trying to convey (I am not sure) but I think that your word choice plays into common ideas that I would argue should be re-examined.
As for the rest of the thread about what might have happened or what might happen in some hypothetical reality other than ours where we are all scrapping for bare survival, it is still bizarre to me that this was even raised in response to my comment. My comment was based on today’s world. I suspect Richard accumulates his resources in the same way I accumulate mine – by making things happen from behind a desk, rather than literally digging ditches, growing food, or fighting off invaders. But somehow the fact that most (but not all) of the other people who ditches, grow food, and fight invaders are men is relevant why? And is this fact somehow supposed to change my position in our society today but not Richard’s?
Stephanie.
The horrific mother-in-cultures you describe are not our culture. And, in fact, the cultures you describe such as India are highly patriarchal cultures.
Invariably, when I meet women in our society who complain that women are incapable of getting along with each other, they are almost always from more conservative and thus more patriarchal segments of our society/
I do think another issue is that when women in work situations display emotionalism or gossip or fail to work cooperatively with each other, we take it as representative as some inherent flaw in women as a sex. In contrast, when men display the exact same behaviors, we don’t call it what the same thing (emotionalism, gossip, backbiting) and we don’t take those behaviors as representative of their sex. I have gone to school, lived and worked in a number of all-female groups, male-dominated groups, and mixed groups throughout my life, and I have never noticed that women are any better or worse at functioning effectively together than men.
Where I start to lose you, I think, is that I think when we start to express it in terms of a “trade” and that women are inevitably trading “sex,” for “resources” it starts to sound like (a) something ugly and cynical rather than just the way any interaction works between two people; and (b) as if, women do not have sexual needs, desires or pleasure of their own but rather use sex as a bargaining chip. That may not be what you were trying to convey (I am not sure) but I think that your word choice plays into common ideas that I would argue should be re-examined.
……….
Reality is ugly and cynical and women turn to certian men to fulfill their sexual desires and other men for provision and protection. Which is also ugly and cynical but accurate
Well, yeah, SFC Ton, no one denies that cheating exists. Men ALSO turn to certain women to fulfill sexual desires and to other women for THEIR provision, the building of their homes, and the bearing and care of their children. Indeed, isn’t it men who are so known for this that there is even a term for it – “the Madonna-whore complex”?
But that does not describe every relationship between a man and a woman. It does not describe every man or every woman. And it doesn’t follow that women are inevitably trading sex for resources.
I am glad that you recognize that women do have their own sexual desires and needs .
Catherine,
“I am glad that you recognize that women do have their own sexual desires and needs”
Is there any substantial group of people of either sex, in the US in the last 30 years, who would disagree with this?
David Foster,
Actually, almost every article you read about sex – especially hand wringing articles about the hook up culture in college – is framed in terms of young women seeking something, anything, other than sexual gratification. It’s constantly posited that girls and young women are seeking boyfriends, connection, status, emotional gratification, or nearly anything other than actual sexual gratification when they “hook up.” Yes, of course, all of those other desires are in the mix for women, and for men too, but somehow there still seems to be a tendency to want to seek almost any explanation for young women having sex other than the sex itself. And we often still hear people talking about sex as something women do FOR men (as in this post at issue – a trade for resources).
Sure, I think if you point out that women like sex for itself too, people will agree. But then the unexamined assumption in many other discussions appears to be otherwise.
I have to point out that the fact that somebody *likes to do something* does not all mean that they will not engage in trade of resources for that something. Professional baseball players really love to play baseball, but they really do want to get paid for it. High-level programmers like writing code, and will often do it for fun, but still, most of them want to get paid when they can.
These analogies don’t by any means prove that such trade is taking place in this case, of course, but they do demonstrate that liking sex doesn’t automatically and tautologically mean that they won’t trade sex for resources.
“The horrific mother-in-cultures you describe are not our culture.”
It’s strange that you frequently try to qualify things based only on your own culture (assuming American) almost as if the possibility of looking beyond yourself and learning about what others’ life experiences are like is too hard for you? And you’re supposed to be close to 50 right?
Let me try to explain to you about those cultures, at least from the ones I’ve spoken to or seen up close.
I used to help answer questions at an online forum years ago, before we had children and I had some more time to do things like that. In the marriage section, we had LOTS of women from those kinds of cultures complaining about their mother-in-laws and the treatment they’d receive. Even if you search for it now, you’ll find tons of examples of what I’m saying on reddit, online help forums, etc. The treatment here in America was bad because they brought their matriarchal culture with them, but it was even worse sometimes in their home country (they’ve made serious documentaries about this if you care to watch them, but I can see you’re not interested in really finding this stuff out so I’m sure you won’t).
The men in almost every scenario were completely incapable of standing up to the women in their culture. It’s amazing to me how feminist it all seemed in that they glorify the woman, and in Latin America, they openly pray to Mary much more to God or Jesus, because they wanted a Female Goddess.
For the Indian people I’ve known personally and talked to online, the husbands at times would allow their own mothers to even dictate their sex life! The men acted like little boys, doing everything their mom wanted far into adulthood and it is expected for the “new wife,” to come in last place in his heart compared to his mom and other family members. This is considered, “normal,” and accepted. Even the elder fathers have no control over how embarrassing their wives act.
These cultures may have been pseudo-patriarchies, but it was laughable to think these men had any power to say, “no,” if not for the tragedy it produced in families to have these very messed up women controlling everything. It was most definitely not a true patriarchy like in Biblical times.
Again, you can search for example in the here and now, or watch some documentaries if you truly want to seek truth out for yourself.
Catherine
For example, in hunter gatherer societies, which live in the manner most approximating our early forbears, the women gather the vast majority of calories consumed by the tribe, thus allowing the men to conserve their energy for hunting expeditions. “
Please cite severalstudies stating this.
Sure, I think if you point out that women like sex for itself too, people will agree. But then the unexamined assumption in many other discussions appears to be otherwise.
Not anywhere I can recall.
Not here, but you’ve chosen that interpretation for some reason.
bg, again, academia has been over-run by progressives. They have an entire degree program dedicated to “studies” that “state” this. Finding “evidence” for “hunter/gatherer equality” (helps this was largely before written language) on the internet is incredibly easy. Why ask for spam?