Miserable sluts in mud huts.

Welcome to the feminist love shack, baby. (image source)

Research on female sexuality is so anxiety-provoking for feminists; they need to spin everything to look like it supports the sex-positive feminist ideology of empowerment through sluttery and the shucking off of monogamous marriage, but reality is just so darn misogynistic that it keeps coming back to bite them in the bohunkus, requiring faster spinning by the feminist rationalization hamsters.  Let us consider two recent studies which would support a return to biblical sexual morality but which feminists have desperately tried to spin as meaning the opposite.

First, we have a recent study out of UCLA and the University of Texas which found that college-aged women are more likely to regret a one-time sexual encounter, whereas men are more likely to regret not taking a sexual opportunity. Women’s biggest sexual regrets were: losing their virginity to the wrong partner, cheating, or moving too fast sexually, while men regretted not making a move on a potential partner and a lack of sexual adventurousness…

Gosh, whatever could be causing women to feel so regretful after casual sex?  I would say it is conviction by the Holy Spirit, but secular researchers have another take on it:

One thing that is fascinating about these emotional reactions in the present is that they might be far removed from the reproductive consequences of the ancestral past. For example, we have reliable methods of contraception. But that doesn’t seem to have erased the sex differences in women’s and men’s responses, which might have a deep evolutionary history.

This makes perfect sense in terms of natural selection.  Slutty women would have had a hard time securing provisioning and protection from a man because paternity of the children would have been uncertain, and men generally don’t want to invest in other men’s children; men who expend energy to provide for the continuation of another man’s genetic line would be weeded out of the gene pool.  Whether you are a Christian or a secular atheist, the conclusion is the same: women do regret slutty behavior and with good reason.

Oh, but that conclusion doesn’t fit with sex-positive feminism.  Enter the rationalization hamster of feminist Jill Filipovic; in The only shameful thing about sex is justifying outdated views with ‘science’, she explains why this study got it all wrong:

While evolutionary biology traffics in real, science-backed facts, evolutionary psychology is largely a project of backward-looking guesswork, and often an attempt to chalk up complex social phenomenon to evolution…people love having their biases confirmed, and because alleged scientific confirmation of an “evolutionary” reason for social inequity handily gives us an out for having to deal with injustice. If women have actually emotionally evolved to feel sexual shame absent social context, then what’s the point of pushing back on a social context that sexually shames women?

…even as we study our own motivations and feelings, we are operating within a set of cultural assumptions and values that – being thickly swaddled in them – we cannot fully see. Which helps psychologists who fancy themselves evolution experts to conclude that their own personal preferences, or the current norms of their culture, are universal and explicable by evolution alone.

Her argument seems to be: researchers at UT and UCLA only fancy themselves to be knowledgeable about their subject matter, and furthermore, they probably secretly want to influence social norms to make them more judgy of slutty women; personally, it has not been my experience with professors in liberal college towns that they are secretly trying to dupe women into loving the Patriarchy™.   Ms. Filipovic goes on to assure women that feeling miserable after casual sex isn’t due to the fact that we are biologically different from men; rather, it’s just that we’ve been socialized to feel shame:

…the disconnect between a cultural ideal – that sex is best within the confines of marriage – and the biological and social reality – that human beings physically desire sex and that we have had sex outside of the confines of marriage for all of human history – is perhaps a better explanation of any attendant negative emotions attached to premarital sex than an evolutionary guessing game.

Not only that, but if women are feeling ashamed, then what we need is more money for feminist anti-slut-shaming “education”:

That so many women are making sexual choices shrouded in shame and regret is a public health problem that policy-makers have an obligation to take on…

Ms. Filipovic ends by reassuring all the single ladies that they absolutely should continue getting their freak on with random men:

Sexual regret isn’t about sex itself. It’s about all the ideas we attach to sex, and particularly to sexual women. We’d be much better off squaring our sexual ideals with reality rather than pushing a set of social mores that not only put our physical and mental health at risk, but mean too many of us are having bad sex and regretting what should be one of the most fundamentally pleasurable activities.

So, ladies, if you are feeling miserable and ashamed after your latest casual hookup - as research study after research study finds that you will –  don’t take that to mean you should stop hooking up.  You just need to free your mind from all that bad patriarchal social conditioning!  Yes, I am sure that will work.  Or not.

Science has established that women feel awful after casual sex, and feminists have explained that this has nothing whatsoever to do with women being different than men; it’s all society’s fault!  Except, apparently, when it isn’t: did you know that being miserable sluts is actually in our genes?  That’s right, evolutionary scientists say so, and suddenly feminists love them some evolutionary psychology.

In an article recently published in Evolutionary Anthropology,  Choosy But Not Chaste: Multiple Mating in Human Females, behavioral ecologist Brooke Scelza explains how women engage in multiple mating and actively seek out multiple partners as an “evolutionary strategy.”  Naturally this caused the feminists at Jezebel to gasp:

 According to science, we’re all sluts. Who wants to heave the first “told ya so”?…we fuck who we want and we have our reasons.

But before we get too excited, ladies, and run out to jump the UPS man, let’s look at what this article actually says.  First, it goes through some studies on non-human primates in which the females are sexually aggressive and solicit multiple male partners – langurs, lemurs, capuchin monkeys – and let us not forget that

bonobo females will have sex with everybody at pretty much any time they feel like it.

If you’ve been paying attention for the past forty years, you have noticed that Western women are increasingly doin’ as the bonobos do:

Scelza explains that not only do human females seek out multiple sexual partners as an evolutionary strategy, they opportunistically shift that strategy depending on the environmental context…

But notice which social groups Dr. Scelza uses in her research:

In 1633, the French missionary Paul Le Jeune wrote from northeastern Canada to his Jesuit order about the great difficulties he had in converting the indigenous Montagnais people to Christianity. “The inconstancy of marriages and the facility with which they divorce each other, are a great obstacle to the Faith of Jesus Christ,” he complained. However, what was even more alarming to Le Jeune’s Christian sensibilities was the tendency of married women and men to take lovers, many of whom would openly raise together the children from these affairs. In one telling exchange with the village shaman, Le Jeune condemned such “savage” and “licentious” behavior:

I told him that it was not honorable for a woman to love any one else except her husband; and that, this evil being among them, he himself was not sure that his son, who was there present, was his son. He replied, “Thou hast no sense. You French people love only your own children; but we all love all the children of our tribe.” I began to laugh, seeing that he philosophized in horse and mule fashion.

The anthropological literature has a rich tradition of privileged white men expressing shock and indignation over the sexual behavior of other cultures. However, even from the field’s inception, it was well understood that Western-style monogamy was anything but the norm. The American ethnographer Lewis Henry Morgan, for example, wrote in his 1877 book Ancient Society that a flexible marriage system was common for “primitive” societies and was one that “recognized promiscuity within defined limits.” …Darwin was forced to admit in The Descent of Man, “It seems certain that the habit of marriage has been gradually developed, and that almost promiscuous intercourse was once extremely common throughout the world.”

And yet, monogamous marriage did evolve in human society and civilization flourished.  What can we learn from that?  Nothing at all, feminists assure us; Dr. Scelza has plenty more examples of slutty societies, starting with this Namibian tribe:

…Brooke Scelza interviewed married women among the Himba, seminomadic pastoral people who live almost exclusively on livestock. These Himba women…would be entered into arranged marriages at a young age. However…while their husbands traveled long distances managing the herds, female adultery was commonplace back home. Out of 110 women interviewed, fully one-third said that they sought out extramarital affairs that resulted in the birth of at least one child. Because there is no social stigma attached to these liaisons in Himba society, both women and men discuss them openly.

But wait, there’s more!

… Previous studies have reported evidence of female infidelity in small-scale societies such as the !Kung of South Africa, the Ekiti of Nigeria, the Vanatinai of New Guinea, the Tiwi of Northern Australia, the Tsimane of Bolivia, and the Yanomami of Brazil. In addition, 53 societies can be classified as having systems of “informal polyandry” in which women have simultaneous sexual relationships with more than one man. In many South American societies, such as the Ache, Bari, Canela, Mundurucu, and Mehinaku, it is believed that it takes the semen of several men to produce a baby.

Are you noticing a pattern with these non-monogamous cultures?  We’re not talking about people with electricity and indoor plumbing here.  Or even houses, for that matter:

A Himba domecile in Namibia…hey, where is her iPhone? (image source)

What is it about monogamous pair bonding and the luxuries of Western Civilization?  It’s almost like they go hand and hand.  But never fear, feminists have been working hard on that issue since No Fault divorce became the law of the land:

This is perhaps not so different from the common situation of American children who receive support from both their biological father and current stepfather. As long as the biological father contributes support, such children might well gain by having two fathers.

Or, as a great poet once said

Alpha fux and beta bux, that is how we roll!

But despite the misery that casual sex imparts to women and the poverty single mothers and their children face, the male feminists of Salon want women to remember:

In many societies today, including our own, women who are overtly sexual and pursue multiple male partners often experience moral outrage and “slut shaming” of a kind that is entirely unheard of in other parts of the world. While these cultural attitudes used to look toward science for justification, that position is becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile with the biological evidence…

Yes, among the many things that are “entirely unheard” of in the Third World hellhole societies in Dr. Scelza’s research are slut-shaming and luxuries like houses, plumbing, and electricity.  Personally, I would prefer slut-shaming, happy women and a prosperous society to rampant female promiscuity resulting in miserable women and wide-spread poverty, but that’s probably just my patriarchal social conditioning talking.  No doubt this research is what led noted feminist Miley Cyrus to conclude:

It’s our party. We can love who we want.

Feminism: Turning women into miserable sluts in mud huts.

Edited to add: I’ve just now looked in at Chateau Heartiste and found that CH has written up the Scelza article as well, drawing nearly identical conclusions to mine.  Great minds…

When Women Stop Loving Beta Males

165 thoughts on “Miserable sluts in mud huts.

  1. The Real Peterman

    Yet another reason why being anti-feminist isn’t being anti-women. Feminists want to get women to do things that won’t make them better off, and might even make their lives worse. Not to mention the fact that Jill Filipovic is a known idiot.

  2. sunshinemary Post author

    Feminists want to get women to do things that won’t make them better off, and might even make their lives worse.

    Yes. And I loved the way feminists believe in evolutionary psychology when it supports feminist objectives but reject evo psych when it doesn’t support feminist ideals.

    On a side note: I’ve added a twitter for my blog:

    @SunshineMarySSM

  3. Happyhen

    Not to mention life expectancy/violence/communicable disease in these primitive cultures (my anthropology professor would be marking my paper down for using that western bias word, “primitive”). Funny though, in those societies a woman’s job also requires she a) make babies, b) take care of babies, and c) take care of the home and everything that means including some pretty strenuous, labor intense jobs. It’s not all fun and games in third world hell hole mud huts. Feminists want the party hardy promiscuity but shirk the other responsibilities, even with all the luxury of modern first world convenience.

    The aptitude of humans for unrepentant self indulgence at the expense of society and our fellow man never ceases to shock me. Lord have mercy.

  4. Jana

    I don’t know what kind of woman would prefer to engage in meaningless sex and be alone rather than to be in a committed, loving relationship with one man. The choice is obvious and only a special kind of fool would pick the first one.

  5. Bucho

    “So, ladies, if you are feeling miserable and ashamed after your latest casual hookup – as research study after research study finds that you will – don’t take that to mean you should stop hooking up….”

    “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Albert Einstein

  6. Peregrine John

    Curious that these same women call men all sorts of inventive names for exercising the same “right” to fuck around that they insist women have.

    So science isn’t Science! until it’s approved by a cultural norm? Oh, dear. Someone needs to explain to Li’l Miss Jill that “Well, nuh uh!” doesn’t count as reasoned or persuasive argument.

  7. Farm Boy

    We are not to mud huts yet. Fuzzie’s comment on modern women not really being feral because they are heavily subsidized is spot on.

    Once again, it a question of “short term fun” vs. “long term gain”. Society used to strongly incentivise the latter; now it does the former.

  8. bike bubba

    The surprise to me is that anyone is surprised that sleeping around leads to disaster. It’s not like the vulnerability of women due to childbearing is any secret (at least to the sane), and it’s not like any sane person will fail to realize that a 100% STD infection rate among the promiscuous poses a hazard, and are we to truly believe anyone is unaware that meeting people drunk in bars is an issue?

    But here we are, carreening (with government’s aid and abetting) towards mud huts. Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

  9. Flaming Man of Iron

    I think there is some argument for cultural norms. Many people here have not been to cultures with sanctioned promiscuious behavior.

    For example, in the south pacific, there is island where people actually believe that God can’t see in the dark. Guess what happens at night? People sleep around.

    Also in the south pacific, traditionally a woman can’t get married until she’s had a child. Usually the father would have been on of her uncles. Since it’s part of the culture and there’s no shame, it isn’t as traumatizing as it would be in the West.

    I agree with the argument that we can’t exactly go back in time by studying just our culture – and college students at that. If we want make claims about this, one would have to do a much wider ranging study from MANY countries to get a good assessment about instrinisic evolutionary consequences.

    Please don’t get me wrong, I’m totally against promiscuous behavior in men & women… It’s just that I want the science that “proves it” to be not full of holes.

  10. sunshinemary Post author

    I agree with the argument that we can’t exactly go back in time by studying just our culture – and college students at that. If we want make claims about this, one would have to do a much wider ranging study from MANY countries to get a good assessment about instrinisic evolutionary consequences.

    Sure, I would agree with that. However, we can get a lot of information by comparing and contrasting social norms that have evolved in a given society with respect to sexual behavior and the relative successfulness of that society. It’s worth noting that the examples you gave also come from poor, Third-World type cultures. Ms. Filipovic is saying we should throw out our socio-sexual norms because evolutionary psychology is flawed; it very well may be flawed, but that doesn’t change the fact that non-monogamous cultures seem to function worse than monogamous ones do. Just comparing children from single mothers versus married couples in instructive; children of single mothers do worse on every measure of well-being that has ever been studied, including economic, social, educational, cognitive, emotional, criminal, etc ad nauseum.

    Even so, come, Lord Jesus.

    Yes, exactly.

  11. nightskyradio

    Miserable sluts in mud huts
    Doin’ as the bonobos do

    Is this a Bikini Kill song?

    Nah, it actually has a rhythm.

    as a great poet once said…
    Alpha fux and beta bux, that is how we roll!

    I still wanna make a song out of “One Cock Rule.” I’m thinking a rap/metal fusion with a little industrial thrown in.

  12. zykos

    @Flaming Man of Iron:

    Please don’t get me wrong, I’m totally against promiscuous behavior in men & women… It’s just that I want the science that “proves it” to be not full of holes.

    What exactly do you want the science to prove? That promiscuity is bad for everyone, everywhere and under all circumstances? That’s not going to happen.

    People all seem to miss the same thing with Evo Psych, which only confirms my suspicion that most people only “believe” in evolution, and don’t actually understand it (which puts their intellectual level on par with the creationists). What this study tells us is that, in the sample population, which is statistically representative of the US population, which is itself statistically representative of what we call Western Civilization, women feel bad about casual sex. The reason? Selection of these traits throughout its history, shaped by its environment which both shaped AND was shaped by its culture. If you understand Evo Psych, you’ll see It’s impossible to separate culture, environment and genetics, they all affect one another.

    As SSM pointed out, there is a link between technological advancement and monogamy. The causality is irrelevant: until 1960, there was no technologically advanced civilization where promiscuity was the norm. With a sample size the size of our planet, I think the safe conclusion is that it is very unlikely that such a model could thrive in the long term. That’s the conclusion we can make, and it ought to be enough.

  13. bike bubba

    Help me out here, Flaming Man of Iron; tell me about the homes used by these promiscuous South Pacific cultures. Tell me about their great technological achievements, and…..

    Oh, they live in reed and wood huts and are still basically in the Bronze age? Seems to me that works pretty well with our hostess’ thesis, no? Again, even among robust polynesians, ’tis hard to get around the fact of female vulnerability, no?

    BTW, if we ever discuss homosexuality, you might want to choose another moniker. Just sayin’.

  14. bike bubba

    Zykos, I’d argue that (as usual really) the evolutionists are a few steps below the creationists, scientifically speaking, in this regard. If indeed there are no examples of advanced promiscuous cultures prior to 1960, we have a strong argument that (a) no culture can advance without monogamy and (b) evolutionarily speaking, no culture can achieve monogamy without the very advances that monogamy creates. Just a tiny little problem with the premises, don’t ya think?

    The creationist, on the other hand, simply notes that monogamy existed from the start, ensuring the species’ survival, and that the large portions of the world that don’t practice monogamy have–as is evidenced by their pagan religion–walked away from God’s design. It’s far more tenable, really.

  15. Martel

    @ Happyhen: “Feminists want the party hardy promiscuity but shirk the other responsibilities, even with all the luxury of modern first world convenience.”

    Exactly. The reason our societies work and primitive ones stay primitive is that monogomy gives most males some genetic stake in what’s happening around them. When “we all love ALL the children”, every dude knows that he’s working his tail off to support one or two dude’s kids (who probably spends all day in the sack with the babes instead of out in the field). This means that eventually they’re not going to give a damn and wander away, or you’ve got to enslave them.

    A slave will never be as productive as a father working for the sake of his own son. Slaves don’t produce iPhones, either.

  16. Earl

    Don’t forget that feminism is also turning women into miserable sluts in mud huts who can’t afford abortion, birth control, nice shoes, dental care, or mocha lattes.

    AAAAANNNNDDDDDD they have no HR, EEOC, EEO, or policemen to call when the men from the neighboring huts want new girls to mix their drinks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End_of_the_Spear

  17. nightskyradio

    Martel – The reason our societies work and primitive ones stay primitive is that monogomy gives most males some genetic stake in what’s happening around them. When “we all love ALL the children”, every dude knows that he’s working his tail off to support one or two dude’s kids (who probably spends all day in the sack with the babes instead of out in the field)

    Tragedy of the Cum Dumpsters… er, of the Commons.

    I’m in a strange mood today.

  18. Escoffier

    Mary, you might be interested in the “controversy” over Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead.

    The short version is that Mead, a proto-feminist and leftwing ideologue, went to Samoa in the 1920s and wrote a book claiming that all Samoan girls slept around vigorously in their youths, there was no jealousy, their parents knew, society condoned, etc. But eventually they married and had kids with no ill effects.

    Many years later her findings were totally debunked. But then the pro-Mead side tried to debunk the debunker(s). The war was fought to a standstill. IMO, the debunkers have the better case.

    In any event, the book was arguable THE foundational text justifying the carousel. Published in 1928, when sexual mores were getting very loose in America (as a relative historical matter, not in comparison to how bad they are now), it was seized by the intelligentsia and feminists as “proof” that sluttery was not only not harmful but a positive good. The book did tremendous damage to our culture.

    The Great Depression, ironically, bought us a reprieve as people started to behave better sexually. But Mead was later a Founding Mother of the SR, giving it the imprimatur of “science.”

  19. bike bubba

    I remember that one, Escoffier. Evidently the young men figured Mead out rather quickly and started telling her what she wanted to hear, and she didn’t ask around to figure out if they were pulling her leg, or something like that.

    Survival is a great way of getting people to figure out basic morality, IMO.

  20. Escoffier

    It was actually more the girls who lied to her, but yes, that’s the heart of it.

    Beyond this, even if everything Mead wrote was true, it still confirms rather than refutes Mary’s basic point: promiscuity is anti-civilization. Life in Samoa in 1928 was not something most of us would choose.

  21. zykos

    @bike bubba:
    I don’t have much love for the creationists because they’re trying too hard. And you don’t need to be a creationist to believe in monogamy, or even to be a Christian. There’s nothing wrong with treating the rules of nature, including natural selection, as God’s design. I agree with you that there it seems like monogamy breeds civilization, but not definite ones, and frankly, I don’t care. I’m just happy to say “our civilization has evolved around the nuclear family and has pioneered space travel”, and leave it at that.

  22. Just Saying

    “women do regret slutty behavior”

    True, but ONLY if it is found out by others. This is why I do as well as I do – the women know that I’m not talking. So it’s “cost-free” sex, and every woman wants to up their experience without having any repercussions. That is why I thank Feminism – I really don’t have to do anything other than be myself, and provide young women with the opportunity – since they all think they are missing something. So as long as they know that a photo of them won’t be sent around, or their name won’t be circulated, they are more than willing to do whatever you want. Sure she’ll regret it if anyone were to ever find out, but as long as no one does – it didn’t happen in her mind.

    Look at all of the women that scream “rape” after willingly having sex – the video of the woman getting oral sex when waiting in line, comes to mind. Yeah – she said it was rape when the video shows she was pulling his head between her legs and moaning. So she was trying to excuse her slutty behavior. That is how women think – they WANT to be sluts, they just don’t want men, or other women, to KNOW they are sluts. So if she feels safe, and that no one will ever know the things she’s done – she’ll do things she wouldn’t have dreamed of doing any other way. All of her sick fantasies – to be tied up, beaten, choked, kidnapped, “raped”, etc.. Most women have those fantasies, and they will act on them. Bless their black little hearts… (And other more colorful areas….)

    Heck, I cannot count the number of times I have had unprotected sex with a woman who makes her boyfriend wear a condom. They get off on “being bad” – it turns them on to know that they are having unprotected sex with someone old enough to be their father and making their boyfriend wear a condom. She just want him as a cover for her sluttiness – so if she gets knocked up, he’ll take the blame. Women can be very dependable when you depend on them to blame others for their actions. Heck, that is what Feminism is based on – blaming others for her own choices.

  23. Rollo Tomassi

    Wow! SSM using evolutionary and scientific evidence to support a premise? Next you’ll be telling me women love opportunistically, while men love idealistically. I kid, I kid.

    While I do endorse a lot of your postulations here (especially with regard to the brain scan studies that Aunt Giggles has gone into vapor lock about) you still need to consider that while it seems like monogamy may have given rise to a higher order of human culture, our evolutionary backgrounds and the vestiges of them today are what influenced this rise.

    http://therationalmale.com/2013/02/05/vestiges/

  24. sunshinemary Post author

    Wow! SSM using evolutionary and scientific evidence to support a premise?

    I fight fire with fire. But just for the record, I’m using “evolution” here to describe the changes in a species as it adapts to its changing environment (i.e. microevolution) and also to refer to how our social structures have changed/evolved. In terms of macro-evolution, suffice it to say I am a biblical creationist.

    Next you’ll be telling me women love opportunistically, while men love idealistically. I kid, I kid.

    Never! And so long as Deti keeps his mouth shut, no one can ever prove that I’ve ever said your idea *might* have a (small) kernel of truth to it in some situations.

  25. redpillsetmefree

    That is how women think – they WANT to be sluts, they just don’t want men, or other women, to KNOW they are sluts.

    Bingo.
    Every day we have a Golden Phrase of the Day, and this one wins the prize for 12.5.13.

  26. Miserman

    Feminists will never follow the truth wherever it leads because woman no longer submit to leadership and therefore are free to follow their own paths.

  27. Rollo Tomassi

    For sake of evolutionary argument consider that pheromones influence women living in close proximity to each other to synchronize their menstrual cycles – another evolutionary mechanism believed to ensure multiple fertilities and communal support for social animals.

    By itself that might seem like some quirk of human biology, but when you consider the cyclic nature of women’s ovulation and their mating preferences for Alpha traits (in the proliferative) and Beta traits (in the secretory) during this cycle a more complete picture comes into focus. These predisposition are analogous to women’s pluralistic sexual strategy that had to be just as secret as their fertility cycle.

    So, if unilateral monogamy were the more advantageous sexual strategy why would it be then that evolution would select-for women with the biological capacity to synchronize their ovulation? In other words, what species-survival advantage would this synchronization provide for humans?

    The theory is twofold. First, it provides virtually simultaneous access to a greater number of ovulating females to the men with the Alpha traits that women prefer during that phase of their menstrual cycle. Second, women impregnated by the same Alpha(s) would tend towards common social support and resource sharing due to carrying the superior genes of a common Alpha during the physical rigors of gestation. You could also postulate that this selected-for polygyny would socially bond this mated group to ensure better survival (i.e. familial bonding) and lessen the need for the Alpha’s parental investment.

    Beta men would still be useful cuckolds with regards to support in parental investment since once these women had become pregnant, thus halting their ovulatory cycle, their predisposition would be for men with Beta traits (the same ones attractive during her secretory phase). When you look at women’s social dynamics and pluralistic sexual strategies in terms of how and why women’s ovulatory peculiarities predispose them to what they do you can get a clearer picture of what was evolutionarily successful for our species.

    Evolution has selected-for discretely promiscuous, hypergamic women with the capacity to convince Beta cuckolds to support their breeding efforts with Alpha men. Secretive polygyny is the order of human sexuality.

  28. Farm Boy

    Next you’ll be telling me women love opportunistically, while men love idealistically.

    We just had that discussion. Women have to think of their kids, so they have no use for principles other than expediency.

    Guys are expendable; they can afford the luxury of having principles.

  29. Edward Waverley

    Zykos: “If you understand Evo Psych, you’ll see It’s impossible to separate culture, environment and genetics, they all affect one another.”

    These exact same insights, which are incontrovertibly true, can be arrived at through Christianity, which worldview requires them.

  30. Pingback: The Red Pill Playa | RedPillPushers

  31. bike bubba

    Zykos; and the evolutionists don’t try too hard? :^) Seriously, if you can read Dawkins and the late Stephen Gould without coming to that conclusion,……

    And Rollo, the hypothesis of ovulation synchronization leading to greater cuckoldry is pure horsefeathers. Fact of the matter is that even the horniest horndog can only produce so much seed, and ovulation only lasts a day or so. So synchronizing this receptive time actually works to ensure that women will be driven not to the “dominant male” (say Al Gore, “I am Alpha Male”), but rather to their husbands.

    Whatever our beliefs about our origins, it appears that in this regard, the species is designed for monogamy.

  32. Cranberry

    And Jared Diamond thinks returning to native-type lifestyles a la Papua New Guinea’s Asaro people would benefit humanity to no end. Nevermind that they still burn witches for imagined crimes; I’m sure the promiscuous feminists will be the last ones to end up in the fires.

    The myth of the Noble Savage simply will not die.

  33. FuzzieWuzzie

    All these mud huts made me think of paternal investment. Advancing from the one room single stoy hall to multiple furnished rooms and multiple stories by virtue of the introduction of chimneies, requires a subtantial ramp up in paternal investment. Investment on that scale would necessitate assurances from the wife that the offspring were his. Could this be another reason why advances in technology are linked to hard monogamy?
    BTW, Lucy Worsley does have an excellent four part series on the home. You can find it on youtube.

  34. Cranberry

    Will Scelza undergo female circumcision to participate in our new sexually free utopia? The Himba she’s so enamored of practice it, so there must be something 100% right about it. Right?

  35. Edward Waverley

    “did you know that being miserable sluts is actually in our genes? That’s right, evolutionary scientists say so, and suddenly feminists love them some evolutionary psychology.”

    Again, evolutionary psychology has neither a monopoly, nor a first-dibs claim, on this insight. Nothing could be more biblical than to note the inborn depravity of mankind. However there’s a critical difference in how Christians interpret the genetic proclivity we humans have for making ourselves miserable. Whereas evolutionists argue that, for example hypergamy, is explained as an optimal mating strategy, Christians recognize that the motivation lies in the invincible desire to break the law.

  36. FuzzieWuzzie

    I don’t think we could have made the transition from hunter-gatherers to an agrarian society without hard monogamy at the foundation. There’s a reason and it is simple-it works.
    Upstream someone said that these polyandric cultures were at the Broze Age level. That’s an exaggeration, they’re Stone Age.

  37. Miserman

    Jason, are you a prophet, sent by God? Are you an apostle? If so, can you perform miracles to validate your prophetic status, such as giving sight to the blind and raising the dead? No? Then perhaps you should be careful about accusing someone of being a liar against God.

    ssm: I’m at work and don’t have time to carefully read comments, but I think he is trolling my site. I have removed his comments for now until I can look at them more closely later.

  38. Miserman

    Jason, SSM is doing quite a good job at exposing the evils inherent in the feminist culture that is infecting American life, including the church. In fact, many Christian men lack the persistence and intelligence that she has displayed. Personally, I am grateful for SSM’s work and I hope she continues to expose this rancid evil that so many men and women have come under.

  39. bike bubba

    Jason, weren’t you cordially invited a few days back by our hostess not to carry on the 30 Years’ War here? And I must admit that I’m having trouble seeing the virulent Mariolatry she espouses, too.

    Cranberry, you are having WAY too much fun with this topic. Ewww…..but that said, it reminds me of a “National Geographic” article without much text, but where the photographer found his muse in the breasts of nursing mothers. I felt like I was reading, shall we say, a magazine of a different sort.

  40. Farm Boy

    i clearly see you are a cowardly liar who is destined for eternal hell fire

    So certain, are you?

  41. Martel

    Rollo is both right and wrong. We’re designed to survive with secret polyamory. We’re designed to thrive under monogamy.

    Man is an animal, but he’s made to be more than that.

  42. Peter Blood

    It’s just that I want the science that “proves it” to be not full of holes.

    The only proofs are in mathematics, which is not science but logic. Nothing in science is ever “proven”.

    There is no “science” truth out there just waiting to be dug up. There are only hypotheses, data, and interpretations, all of which are freely manipulated as needed by a magical priesthood of “scientists” who are eager to please their masters.

  43. Carlotta

    Dear Ms. Feminist,

    I do not want to be you.

    Thank you for providing endless examples of reasons why including your latest where you reveal that you have the sexual hygienic practices of indiscriminate animals and find desperate poverty and a total lack of civilization a good trade off for the free practice of your unbelievably low standards.

    Again, I do not want to be you.
    But you go ahead and carry on. I hear they eat their own fecal matter sometimes too.

  44. earl

    “That is how women think – they WANT to be sluts, they just don’t want men, or other women, to KNOW they are sluts.”

    Is it weird when a woman calls me a slut or a hooker…I tell her “thanks for the compliment”.

  45. earl

    Thought expirement…was feminism created so that your middle class male would be taken down…that way the elite overlords would have less competition for power.

    Because slutty women seem to do a better job of destroying a civilization than war does. The gap between the rich and poor seems to increase yearly.

    If that is their goal…then my tip of the cap to them. That’s a good strategy.

  46. Martel

    @ Carolotta; “Again, I do not want to be you. But you go ahead and carry on. I hear they eat their own fecal matter sometimes too.”

    You’re missing the entire point. It’s ALL about tingles, Tingles, TINGLES!!!!!!!!

  47. bike bubba

    Miserman, google Daniel Patrick Moynihan’s comments on AFDC, where he noted that government imposed “father out of the home” correlated really well with the suppression of whole societies. Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell (one of whom SHOULD HAVE BEEN our first black President IMO) write a fair amount about this, too.

    Carlotta: :^). Add to it “please don’t do it in my country so I have to pay the bills for your whoredom.”

  48. agoodROI

    Another study, from a year or two ago, from The Social Pathologist having to do with number of partners increasing the risk of divorce. I think you may have even blogged about it.

  49. Emma the Emo

    Heh. Actually, evolutionary psychology is an accepted part of psychology. It’s not just about sex either. It’s about why we fear social rejection, why we can be introverts or extraverts, why we care about family members more than about other people, why we have the fight or flight reaction, etc.
    But of course a feminist would think evopsych is not true, their own education consists of their own version of psychology called Women’s Studies. Look at real psychology textbooks and gender studies textbooks, you will feel the difference.

  50. Keoni Galt

    Does anyone have any links to decent articles tying the success of civilization to the sexual practices of its denizens?

    Article? How about an entire book?

    Dr. Daniel Amneus – The Garbage Generation

    “The patriarchal family, whose linchpin is female chastity and loyalty, makes men work. That is why civilization must be patriarchal and why it slides into chaos, as ours is doing, where family arrangements become matrilineal.”

  51. FuzzieWuzzie

    From the recesses of memory, the nearest thing to “Tingle Bell Rock” was a hit from the disco era called “Ring My Bell”. Not going to link, as it is best forgotten.
    Carlotta, it sounds like you are mad at feminists. Good for you!

  52. thecivilizationalist

    Hi SSM,
    Long time reader here, first time commenter.
    I have recently started a blog dealing with the elements that need to come together to make a civilization work. One of my blog posts deals with the related topic of life in the pre-civilized world .
    I would very much appreciate it if you (and other readers here) could visit and share your comments.

  53. JDG

    Next you’ll be telling me women love opportunistically, while men love idealistically.

    As a general rule I thought this was commonly understood around these parts.

  54. JDG

    You’re missing the entire point. It’s ALL about tingles, Tingles, TINGLES!!!!!!!!

    This brings up a question that I have been meaning to ask. Are tingles addictive? And if so shouldn’t we treat them as something that can cause addiction?

  55. zykos

    @Edward Waverley: Christianity contains a simple model derived by simple people, which nevertheless is remarkably accurate to describe the world. Sciences provide a more refined and precise model, and social sciences try their best to skew the data until it fits. That’s the main difference between the ancient religions and leftist ideologies: the former derive their beliefs from their (crude) observations, while the latter derive their observations from their beliefs.

    @bike bubba: Dawkins is a mediocre biologist who was nevertheless smart enough to understand that he would be much more famous bashing an unpopular group of people than trying to come up with scientific innovations. He’s not even talking about evolution anymore, just how atheism needs to be evangelized. And frankly, there’s not much more one can say about evolution: natural selection is well understood, the stats check out (mostly), so I’m sure he’s also bitter someone was there before him.

  56. Rollo Tomassi

    Fact of the matter is that even the horniest horndog can only produce so much seed, and ovulation only lasts a day or so. So synchronizing this receptive time actually works to ensure that women will be driven not to the “dominant male” (say Al Gore, “I am Alpha Male”), but rather to their husbands.

    You mean the “husbands” our hunter-gatherer tribal ancestors had no clue they were married to? The evolutionary problem then, as it is now, was hypergamy: finding the best male who embodied the best attributes of physical (genetic) prowess and provisioning that a woman could attract. Rarely do the two exist in the same male – evolutionary solution: physical mutations that facilitate cuckoldry and polyamory.

    Monogamy is only a very recent cultural variance in the course of humanity. I’m not saying it isn’t beneficial, just that you can’t unevolve 100,000+ years of sexual selection and psychological firmware in human beings overnight. Even in the confines of monogamy, nature will find loopholes and workarounds to effect what’s always worked for us (i.e. soft polygamy).

  57. dannyfrom504

    enjoy the party now ladies, but when you slam into the wall i shan’t be caring about the cobwebs growing in your womb. i’ve run into a few girls that were sluts back in their 20′s that LJBF’ded me. they’re single, in their 30′s, and no one is willing to do anything more than sleep with them.

    you can’t teach an old ho new tricks.

    one of these sluts mentioned how i had a crush on her. i replied, “that was almost 7-8 years ago, i’ve since wised up.” she didn’t like that at all. lol.

  58. Keoni Galt

    Note the following excerpt from The Case For Father Custody –

    “Patriarchal marriage exists to reassure the man that if he marries he can have a family. Society formerly said to men: If you want a family, if you want a meaningful reproductive role in which you will be provider for your family and socializer of your children, able (with the assistance of your loyal wife) to integrate them into a stable and civilized society, get an education, earn money, acquire stabilizing assets—a home, a pension, an annuity, a stock portfolio—and support the patriarchy which makes civilization possible.

    Society today says to women: If you want to escape from sexual law-and-order and your marriage vows, if you want to be liberated to return to the Female Kinship System, if you want to exclude men from any meaningful reproductive role while keeping them as studs—get educated, represent yourself as a victim, and demand compensation for your sufferings. The judge will understand.

    Telling women they have a right to be promiscuous undercuts the male role and deprives males of the reassurance they need. The poor male is confronted with a sixty percent divorce rate and virtual assurance that the law will side with his wife against him, deprive him of his children and property and future income. Why should he take on such fearful odds? He shouldn’t, and increasingly he doesn’t. This is why there are so many bachelors, so many demoralized men. This is why so many women ask where the men are, and turn to the government for help in the form of Affirmative Action, welfare and other conferred benefits. This explains “the coming white underclass” and its demoralization. It explains the emoralization of young males, who see what happens to their fathers.

    That was written in 1999.

    It amuses me to see the same ideas and concepts are continually discovered and re-discovered over and over again by new comers to the MAndrosphere, and discussed like they are some revolutionary new ideas.

    [ssm: Good stuff!]

  59. Rollo Tomassi

    For Christians who have a tough time mouthing the word “evolution” I suggest this book.

    It’s fantastic. Miller criticizes a number of prominent evolutionists such as Dawkins, Wilson, and to a lesser extent Gould for using evolution to advance atheistic or strongly agnostic philosophical views. Miller’s point is not to prove the existence of a monotheistic deity so much as it is to show that a belief in evolution can be very compatible with the belief in God.

  60. FuzzieWuzzie

    Tarted up women and demoralized men, which is the greater challenge?
    Perhaps, since the two are linked, a solution for the former might help with the latter.
    About evo-psych, it does seem to based on a lot of deductive reasoning and speculation. How will evidence be found to confirm or deny?

  61. Dominic

    I realise that this is but tangentially related to your post, but I would to propose a theory formulated by Alexander Pruss, a Christian philosopher, whereby we can both believe that Genesis 1-3 can be taken as literally as might please any fundamentalist, and still believe in evolution and the Big Bang was responsible for the creation of the world and mankind through the use of a “Just-So Story”

    The essence of his “Just-So Story” postulates that evolution and the big bang occured “postlapsarian”, or after the Fall. To quote a segment of his original article,

    The story is simple. First, everything happens exactly as it is described in Genesis 1-3 interpreted literalistically. Everything, including a light-studded dome (“firmament”), with waters above and below, creation in six days, vegetation without any sun or moon. Eve is literally taken from Adam’s side, and so on. (If we’re going literalistic, let’s go all out!) Then Adam and Eve sin, exactly as described in Genesis 3. All this happens in a universe–Paradise–where all of this is possible by the laws of nature.

    God then kicks them out of Paradise. In the process, he destroys their bodies (i.e., he stops sustaining their existence) and puts their souls in stasis. But in Paradise, there was a law of nature that when the forbidden fruit is eaten, a Big Bang will occur (this could also be a miracle), initiating a 14 billion year process leading to some pretty clever apes in a universe better suited to sinners like Adam and Eve. God then takes the matter of two of these clever apes (if animals have souls, he de-souls them first, or perhaps he simply miraculously ensures that these two never get souls) and instills Adam and Eve’s souls in this matter.

    And so all the science as to what has happened in the material universe since the Big Bang is right. (Of course, science doesn’t talk about souls.)

    In a sense, this maybe sort of cheating, but I thought it was an intriguing possibility.

    I have made some attempts to clean up Pruss’s account, tighten the tale a little, add more detail to it and place it within a broader theological context here

    http://rationalityofaith.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/how-we-can-both-accept-creationism-read-genesis-1-3-literally-and-accept-the-big-bang-theory-and-evolution/

    I do hope that you might consider it.

    [ssm: I'll read your link, but this doesn't really square that well with what is written in Genesis.]

  62. Julian O'Dea

    Margaret Mead and the Heretic by Derek Freeman, who worked here in Canberra for some time.

    ” In this work Derek Freeman provides evidence that Mead made a series of errors in her analysis of the Samoan people. Over years of research, Freeman found the Samoan people – far from inhabiting an island paradise – were intensely competitive, with high rates of rape and murder, prizing virginity and were deeply intolerant of pre-marital sex.”

    Margaret Mead apparently did not live with the people, but with the local whites and collected stories from the local girls. This was despite the fact that participant anthropology was well-established by then by the likes of Malinowshi and Cort-Haddon.

    I assume that low paternity certainty produces low investment in children and less incentive to work hard to provide. Societies with promiscuous women are likely to be economically undeveloped. The men won’t invent and work hard. And women are certainly not going to take up the wealth-creating themselves.

  63. sunshinemary Post author

    Yes, I’ve followed the controversy over Mead’s work for awhile. On a related topic, there has been a lot written over the past several years delving into Kinsey’s work – sloppy methodology, possibly fabricated data…I suspect we know less about human sexuality than we think we do. Social science researchers not infrequently have agendas. I’ll have more to say on that topic in a future post that I’ve been working on, though.

  64. Julian O'Dea

    I have a comment in moderation on Derek Freeman and Margaret Mead. Freeman was an interesting and controversial character, whose attack on an American icon (Freeman was born in NZ but worked at the Australian National University) caused huge offence in American academic circles.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derek_Freeman

    The only comparable anthropological controversy I am aware of was the recent case involving Napoleon Chagnon and his critic Patrick Tierney/

    Social (cultural) anthropologists are strongly on the Left politically, studies have found, and they can generally be relied upon to take a feminist position if there is one to be taken.

  65. Julian O'Dea

    The main critique of Kinsey has been that his male population may have been sourced in a prison and that one of his “sources” was a particularly vile paedophile. He was reportedly a strange man himself who masturbated in ways that a description would make your eyes water. The problem is that his critics are kind of strange themselves and I am not sure what to think. He would have a field day with modern American women though.

  66. Julian O'Dea

    It is funny if Mead got the Samoans so wrong because she later described the Manus Islanders in similar terms to the way Freeman described the Samoans.

    She seemed to have had a habit of liking to compare groups and contrast them. Some of her claims were kind of odd. She had one supposedly gentle wife-dominated group of men in New Guinea who, it was later pointed out, were famous as headhunters.

  67. Artisanal Toad

    I think I’ve come to the conclusion that I like sluts, but only in groups of 3 or more. My dating experiences (exclusively within the church) have led me to the conclusion that actually finding a *real* Christian woman is like trying to build a 747 out of parts available in an automotive junkyard. It ain’t happening. Therefore, come to me all ye who pay lip service, for verily I will require lip service from thee… and lots of it.

  68. Martel

    @ zykos: “Christianity contains a simple model derived by simple people, which nevertheless is remarkably accurate to describe the world. Sciences provide a more refined and precise model, and social sciences try their best to skew the data until it fits. That’s the main difference between the ancient religions and leftist ideologies: the former derive their beliefs from their (crude) observations, while the latter derive their observations from their beliefs.”

    I agree with your observations concerning leftism, as well as the idea that there is a “simple” aspect to Christianity.

    However, at present I’m re-reading an in-depth study of Genesis, and I must take issue with the notion that it’s somehow unrefined. There’s meaning behind every word choice & every nuance. It’s more insightful into human nature than anything ever written and forces the thoughtful reader to examine the very nature of life itself in a whole new light (and I’m pretty well-read).

    Even the seemingly irrelevant parts we tend to gloss over (i.e. the genealogies) contain reams of hidden meaning. The incident of Judah and Tamar, the rape of Dinah (and subsequent revenge), the manner in which Joseph interprets dreams, all have amazingly eternal implications.

    Abraham’s “education” from simple follower of God’s commands to Master Patriarch is elaborate and precise. The Tower of Babel describes the dangers of totalitarianism & technology with remarkable prescience. Was Joseph the forerunner of an economic philosophy? What about the relationship between Leah & Rachel, and what does it tell men about women?

    Marriage, brotherhood, government, mass vs. individual retribution, rivalries between sisters and/or wives, property rights, false rape accusations, loyalty, parental favoritism. All of this and more is examined in remarkable depth in one supposed collection of “desert fairy tales”.

    Moreover, the book I’m reading approaches it from the angle of secular philosophy. Although the author refuses to postulate that it’s the “word of God”, I can’t help but read his observations and conclude anything else.

    And that’s just Genesis.

    I understand the value of simple faith, and there IS a simple layer of Christianity, accessible to even those with low IQ’s. Nevertheless, there’s also plenty of mind-candy for the intellectually inclined that I’d gladly put up against any thinker who’s ever lived.

  69. Carlotta

    @ Martel

    You get your tingles if you catch a man on his way up while you are young and gorgeous.

    [ssm: +1]

    As for not in my country…too late.

  70. an observer

    Published in 1928, when sexual mores were getting very loose in America

    Much like the money supply, I note. The same pattern applies today. Cooincidence?

  71. Artisanal Toad

    @Julian
    What can I say? I calls them as I sees them. The respectable widow who goes on a date with you and you find out she’s gone commando… and then doesn’t want you to stop checking the plumbing? Hmmmm? The woman you talk into a date at church and at the end of the date she basically asks you to drag her out of the car and take her to bed? Hmmmmmmj? Depending on who you ask, I’m either doing something right or something wrong…. Or maybe it’s the environment.

  72. pukeko60

    @Edward, agree about Dawkins.

    @Toad. There are red pill women in the church but they tend to be smart. and married. The best bet are the ex professional or military types — who have been too busy getting credentials and now find them hollow.

    I am aware that our socirty is favouring party animals over engineers –but that has always led to societal destruction.

    However, when one of the leaders in research psychology says today (in the Australian, Julian) that we need to ease up on men…. and I know she advocated strongky for wimen, then the change is coming.

    Because we cannot afford to have s baby mamma matriarchy. society becomes too poor, too violent –we have seen the end of the progressive experimenf and it is called Detroit.

  73. Martel

    @ an observer: “‘Published in 1928, when sexual mores were getting very loose in America’ Much like the money supply, I note. The same pattern applies today. Cooincidence?”

    Nope. The creation of the Fed coincided with the Amendments of the Progressive Era, none of which would have passed were it not for the Feminine Imperative beginning to truly take hold on our government.

    This and World War I stabbed the West in its heart, and the Roaring Twenties were how this manifested itself culturally..

    @ Carlotta: “You get your tingles if you catch a man on his way up while you are young and gorgeous.”

    Are you suggesting that my cooties thesis isn’t “scientific” enough for you?

  74. John Pryce

    I don’t give a damn if women want to be promiscuous; I only give a damn when they expect me to help pay for the consequences of their choices.

  75. Artisanal Toad

    @pukekeo60
    Was in the Marines for 8 years, infantry. Don’t get along well with former military wenches, except for one, her callsign was #wickedbitch. We clicked, bigtime. I *loved* calling her “bitch” in public.. She did too. Today, the attention I get in church is from married women, almost exclusively. I don’t go to church unless I have a wingman (I have an attractive cousin who loves it) because of the uncomfortable results otherwise.

  76. freebird

    Oh happy day!
    I finally found a logical flaw in one or Rollo’s writings.
    It is the very first I am aware,this has taken years!

    I also agree that synchronization of the fertility cycle is going to result in the “alpha” being able to impregnate less,and more diversity will be introduced into the gene pool by breeding with others.

    Women are prone to mating with ‘the other,’ out race,out society,out moral fabric constraints.

    Always seeking MORE diversity not less.

    BTW:
    Stopped in Freeland with dad on the way back from Saginaw VA hospital. to a mickey D’s,there was a Thia girl working there,perhaps 18 years old,and she was HOT HOT HOT compared to her AW mates close by,when she got my entire focus the other gals working where steaming,even though said gals would only disqualify me for CERTAIN.

    They did not want the female ‘other’ to have resources of ANY kind.

    OTH
    (some) women will eek many diverse (male) mates for many reasons.

    I sad to know American culture will destroy that sweet young gals mind and future,but what can an old fart say to a sweet young nibbling?

  77. Martel

    @ John Pryce: “I don’t give a damn if women want to be promiscuous; I only give a damn when they expect me to help pay for the consequences of their choices.”

    This is the rub. Were random faceless men not REQUIRED by law to “pay for the consequences of their choices”, they wouldn’t make quite so many crappy choices. The welfare state institutionalizes the Feminine Imperative and make us all play along. Instead of having to be really sweet to sucker some beta into supporting her as she gets boinked by her personal trainer, she just has to vote Democrat.

    Obviously, we also need a spiritual revival, but a hell of a lot of our problems would be solved if we simply stopped paying people to screw up.

    Of course, if we say “we’ll no longer pay for your birth control”, in response we hear “YOU’RE DEPRIVING ME OF MY RIGHT TO BIRTH CONTROL!!!!!”

    This stems from a misinterpretation of “rights” wherein we assume that we have the “right” to another man’s labor (more detail here: http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/04/02/the-right-rights/ and http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/04/04/another-right-angle/ ).

    Furthermore, “freedom” incorporates both the “freedom to” (power) and “freedom from” (liberty). There’s some overlap, but they are NOT the same. When a lefty hears “freedom”, she doesn’t think “freedom from oppression”, she thinks “I can DO”, or POWER. Thus, if your refusal to pay for something means she can’t have it, you’re taking away her “freedom” and infringing on her “rights” as a woman.

    If anyone’s in the mood for more depth, http://alphaisassumed.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/liberty-to-the-people/

    This is how free markets and cultural conservatism work together. Each needs the other.

  78. FuzzieWuzzie

    Artisanal Toad, I have heard that women over age forty have only a twenty percent chance at marriage. From another source, next to impossible. Could the women that you are seeing be acting as a aggressively as they can get away with?
    I’ve only heard about this second hand and, not seen it first hand.

  79. Julian O'Dea

    AT:

    “What can I say? I calls them as I sees them. The respectable widow who goes on a date with you and you find out she’s gone commando… and then doesn’t want you to stop checking the plumbing? Hmmmm? The woman you talk into a date at church and at the end of the date she basically asks you to drag her out of the car and take her to bed? Hmmmmmmj? Depending on who you ask, I’m either doing something right or something wrong…. Or maybe it’s the environment.”

    Well, I am no expert, but my limited experience suggests that they are behaving like women. The only thing that keeps a woman’s panties on and her legs together is fear of consequences.

    Women are unbelievably sexual in the right circumstances. Even I have seen incredible things, and I am no Lothario and never have been. I have no idea where the idea of the modest woman came from.

    As for calling a woman “bitch”, you should have heard what I called my wife in fun this morning, and we have a good relationship of late. Women lap that stuff up.

  80. freebird

    Say The Herd becomes aware of the newer phenomena of male scarcity of commitment,they note that (let’s guess) %10 of the gals,or one in ten is not finding a resource mate.

    Thus begins the fissure in the herd solidarity,as in-herd competition increases.

    Now we have the added synergistic effect of herd-breaking (worse than in the past)
    combined with increased scarcity of male commitment.
    Thus begins what the statisticians refer to as “The Waterfall effect.”
    or
    “The avalanche effect.”

    We used to see the avalanche effect in overdriven transistors and tubes,once overdriven distortion and overheating comes into play,making the real load increase by orders of magnitude considering the time axis.

    So yeah,things could change really fast once the climate is stressed beyond it;s safeguards/coping mechanisms/heat sinks.

  81. freebird

    That is to say,said overdriven elements went into thermal runaway,and where destroyed.

    We only used mil-grade transistors to overload,as your run of the mill consumer component would self destruct before giving a good show.

    Perhaps some elements of the herd are prone to failure under pressure quicker than other,hmm,now who would that be?

    Surely not the mousey inhibited homely girls?

    (What I hereby officially dub as the first definition of
    “beta girl”
    she is the first girl left out when the competition is running hot and men are running cold.

    The tables have turned already.

    Thank you Lord for an early Christmas present.
    Poor homely girl all alone by a Charlie Brown evergreen.

    Sooooo
    How’s it feel to need?

  82. freebird

    Cool beans.
    Let’s say most of the fems in a semi-closed eco-system synchronize.
    The alpha male(s) are too far and inbetween,and also,they have an increased obligation load per conquest as the ‘betas’ are striking.
    Thus a third factor is added in our stress increasing equation,now I consider a fourth.
    Let’s make a list,shall we?
    1.Scarce alphas
    2.Scarce commitment from all men
    3.Greater load on alphas
    4.lessor load on betas
    5.reduced herd solidarity
    6.increased herd back-stabbing and resource (mate) theft,resulting in less in-herd confidence and co-operation=increase in rate of breakdown of herd solidarity.
    7.The increased competition results in quicker lay times for men,and thus even less male motivation to commit.

    Those are just off the top of my tired head tonight,I tell you the avalanche can damn well occur,female solidarity will only last as long as there are enough resources to placate the vast majority of the herd.

    Or as a dairy farmer would say:
    “I’ve got to get another bull,half my cows are not producing milk.”

    He does not have another bull on his farm,he has got to take and sell some of his cows to go buy a bull from another eco-system.

    If those cows don’t produce milk for the next farmer,then it’s BBQ time!

  83. Lee Lee Bug

    @Fuzzie Wuzzie
    I have heard that women over age forty have only a twenty percent chance at marriage.

    I’ve heard the same stat. But, older single women can still snag husbands if they’re pretty and feminine. One of my high school friends got married last weekend at age 44. She had given up on meeting Mr. Right but her family never stopped praying for God to put someone in her path.

    She’s tall and thin with a beautiful face, long hair, all the physical qualities men supposedly desire. She’s also dedicated to her career as a conservative Republican lobbyist in D.C. and she does a lot of volunteer work for Catholics for Life. I think that her high-powered career and the fact that she refused to have premarital sex made it hard for her to find someone, especially as she got older.

    She finally met a nice divorced dad from Nebraska with three kids online and they were engaged within a few months. She always wanted children and is thrilled to have an instant family.

    Another friend who is 41 just got engaged this week. She’s always been a party girl so I’m not sure if she was looking that hard for a husband. She found one after losing about 50 pounds over the past two years and getting into incredible shape .

  84. FuzzieWuzzie

    You can’t have “beta girls” in a tournament social order among humans. You can among wolves. Only the alpha couple mates. The rest of the wolves in the pack provide sustinence for their puppies. With humans, all females have reproductive access so, the term “beta” can’t apply.

  85. FuzzieWuzzie

    Freebird, we don’t know what a sexual/marriage marketplace crash would look like. At a guess, it would take far less than ten percent of women unable to find mates to set off a panic.
    To the single girl lurkers, at present, market forces are in your favor, take advantage and lock one down. To add to that, you aren’t getting any younger. To add to this, should you lock one down, plan on keeping him. It’s not at all like boying a car.

  86. Aurini

    Shame: Africa… where the web of life is spun from cheaper thread!

    Shame: Africa… where elephants have a graveyard and men are left to rot where they fall!

    Shame: Africa… where pestilence, carnage, and rapine are not disasters but a way of life!

    Shame: Africa… dark flame that lures the ruthless human moths who lust for easy riches!

    Shame: Africa… home of the fierce t’ungala warriors who have no word for “mercy”… or “wheel” or “calendar” or “disinfectant” or “light bulb”, “printing press”, “steam engine”, “fork”, “can opener”, “telescope”, “toiler paper”, slow down, you’re rolling it too fast! I can’t read it if you roll it so fast!

    Shame: That’s better.

    Shame: It is written that a wise man was once asked “What are the four principle products of Africa?” and, without hesitation he replied, “Gold, ivory, diamonds, and blood!”

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0073691/quotes

  87. JDG

    JDG: Tingles are what results when cooties go untreated.

    LOL! I can still remember running from girls who were chasing me. We (me and the other boys) didn’t want to get their cooties.

  88. Happyhen

    “I understand the value of simple faith, and there IS a simple layer of Christianity, accessible to even those with low IQ’s. Nevertheless, there’s also plenty of mind-candy for the intellectually inclined that I’d gladly put up against any thinker who’s ever lived.”

    True. Having been slowing moving through some writings of the Church Fathers, I find myself rereading as much as reading. It is mind blowing and I know I don’t even nick the surface of the truth they are trying to impart. The depth of thought is so amazing. I am hoping to get “On the Incarnation” by Saint Athanasius with a preface from C.S. Lewis for Christmas. It is on my wish list.

  89. Tired Guy

    As a Samoan that knows his history, I can tell you now that Mead had it all wrong. Samoa was a horrible place to live in before the missionaries introduced christianity. It was only when England brought in its idea of ‘religious and racial tolerance’, and foisting upon us the Indian immigrants that much of the progress ceased.

    I know this because my great-grandfather was one of the first German-trained and educated Samoans, and thus he was in charge of modernising the country. As a side note – the German Empire preferred to train and educate native nobility and send them back. This helped both the native population, who gained economically, and the Emperor, who gained loyal troops.

  90. zykos

    @Martel: By “unrefined”, I’m referring to the general and broad description of the world, which does not always match in detail with scientific discoveries, and which some atheists use as a justify their rejection of the value of the rest of Biblical truths. I in no way wish to imply that there isn’t a deeper meaning, especially when it comes to the nature of humanity, available in the scriptures.

  91. Martel

    @ zykos: “I in no way wish to imply that there isn’t a deeper meaning, especially when it comes to the nature of humanity, available in the scriptures.”

    Fair enough, and if I seemed like I thought you were belittling Scripture, I apologize.

    The beauty of Scripture is that it’s simultaneously simple and complex, yet True.

  92. Aservant

    I could hardly make sense out of that woman’s drivel.

    What is so amazing, and to a point, frightful, is that these women don’t realize that the more they carry on, the more so many men just want to re-enforce the evil patriarchy.

    Count me in.

  93. hoellenhund2

    I very much doubt women actually care about the level of civilization they’re living in. They are passive about this matter, as they are about everything else. A few decades from now, millions and millions of impoverished single mothers and their thugspawn will inhabit the run-down, decaying cities of the West. They will occasionally look at the empty ruins of skyscrapers and bridges, wondering how were they possibly built, they will spend lots of time complaining about the lack of so-called eligible men, the lack of indoor plumbing, electricity, heating etc., which they heard were normal commodities a long time ago. They will bitch, moan, complain and gossip, but the idea of eliciting productive and civilized behavior from average betas will never occur to them. Not only won’t they do anything about their own misery, they won’t even try to get average men do something about their misery. That’s their nature – base and mindless.

  94. pukeko60

    @Tired guy. It was the NZers who ran western samoa… the US colonised American Samoa.

    I agree Mead got it wrong, and the violence of the culture was only partially modified –I have seen hymnals used to clout kids on the head (in church, in Mangere, 45 years ago).

    I also remeber my Mum coming back from a church meeting where a Samoan lady had stated social welfare would destroy the culture.

    45 years later, I think she was right. If was not colonialism that did the damage but the domestic purposes benefit.

  95. Dominic

    ssm: I’ll read your link, but this doesn’t really square that well with what is written in Genesis.

    Pruss story is a very sketchy and crude abstraction mean to illustrate the possibility of an event rather than make it cohere with the Genesis 1-3 account. In my polishing, I retain only the main idea, i.e. postlapsarian big bang and evolution, while formulating a radically different story with much richer and substantive detail to try to account in detail for the Genesis 1-3, with special attention trying to make it follow Genesis 3:16-24 closely.

    All I ask is for your patience in reading it through. :)

  96. Tired Guy

    @pukeko60 – British rule (through New Zealand) only started in 1914. However much of the groundwork for Cristianity in Samoa was laid down by the German Empire (1899 to 1914).

    Yes, many of the missionaries that went to Samoa were from England, however they had a tendency to be headhunted. It was under Governer Solf that missionaries were able to spread the word.

    As for violence, yes, the culture has been modified. Now we only beat idiots and wayward children.

  97. JDG

    What is so amazing, and to a point, frightful, is that these women don’t realize that the more they carry on, the more so many men just want to re-enforce the evil patriarchy.

    Count me in.

    Me too!

  98. Opus

    Were women to have the same sex drives and desires that men have and to act on them as men will then this would be paradise on earth, in fact something like what goes on in a Homosexual Bath House – but it doesn’t. They are always playing hard to get or claiming that they are not that type of girl or demanding I put a ring on it or that I am an abusive bastard. What, you will ask, of those girls who really put it about? My experience is that they are no different, in fact they are even worse, as they get themselves into even bigger scrapes and need bigger excuses and rationalisations. For some reason those two birds (otherwise unknown to each other) that I picked up when returning on the cross-channel ferry at the Jubilee comes to mind, I know not why.

    By the way I have a theory about women who go off to exotic places to be superior to the natives, namely that what they really want is to have sex with them. In fact it is a theory with supporting evidence as one of my exes did just that and later confessed that that was her ultimate motive. Is this what Mead did?

  99. pukeko60

    I need mind bleach.
    I have seen pictures of Mead.
    And I am pretty sure no Matai was ever that desperate.

    Perhaps the only people she talked to were fa’fafanine.

    (tired guy excuse mySamoan spelling. For the rest of you.
    , Matai is chief and head of family, and fa’fafanine are men who live as women, and are not to be disrespected, if you value having all your appendages intact)

  100. Tired Guy

    No excuse required Pukeko60, you’re quite right on many points.

    I just find this post by Sunshine Mary to be extremely truthful, perhaps moreso than she realises. Samoa’s history should be a warning for anyone who thinks that a matriarchy is a good thing. We’ve had both a strong matriarchy and later a strong patriarchy, and it shows.

    Even now, with some feminist ideas being brought in (mostly with the Indian immigrants), those families that follow feminist ideas are very easy to spot. They are the ones with no electricity, constantly at the church asking for money, and having black eyes after being caught stealing.

    I have seen “sluts in mud huts” with my very own eyes.

  101. earl

    Let the sluts have their mud huts. I don’t want them destroying the mansion I’m trying to build.

  102. Maeve

    It really is ironic that, when you get right down to it, feminism was supposed to be about making things better for women but instead it has resulted in widespread impoverishment for women – and not only from a financial standpoint either.

  103. Ton

    The problem with trying to prove monogamy with civilization is, it also ties into the frost line IQ stuff, plow vs hoe culture and a couple of other things that are slipping my mind right now.

  104. Ton

    You are higher then a junkie on meth if you think wifing up a military chick is a good idea. Not sure its a good idea to wife up a chick who has been to college but I know damn well you don’t want a military broad

  105. Zippy

    I haven’t read the comment thread yet, but is it any wonder that sexual libertines appeal to the unnatural practices of uncivilized savages in an attempt to justify their perversions? This appeal is protected by political correctness, an emergent liberal regime under which we white devils are not permitted to observe that savages are savages; because anything unflattering said about a non-white culture is racist.

    [ssm: An excellent point with which I fully agree.]

  106. Edward Waverley

    “Published in 1928, when sexual mores were getting very loose in America

    Much like the money supply, I note. The same pattern applies today. Cooincidence?”

    That’s called a Cohen-incidence actually.

  107. Farm Boy

    because anything unflattering said about a non-white culture is racist.

    But is not “flattering” or “non-flattering” a judgement call?

    We are not supposed to judgemental

  108. Edward Waverley

    Dominic: “Pruss story is a very sketchy and crude abstraction mean to illustrate the possibility of an event rather than make it cohere with the Genesis 1-3 account.”

    What all such thought experiments are actually designed to do is to undermine or proscribe the authority of God and His word so that human autonomy can be given the upper hand. Unless a person has been regenerated by God, all men, being inherent covenant breakers, will seek some way to “be as gods, knowing [that is deciding for themselves the meaning of] good and evil”.

    When Christians feel the need to modify or update the historic understanding of Scripture in order to make the Bible square with trendy science or to make it more palatable to humanists, they reveal how shaky their foundations are.

  109. Edward Waverley

    Julian O’Dea: “The main critique of Kinsey has been that his male population may have been sourced in a prison and that one of his “sources” was a particularly vile paedophile. He was reportedly a strange man himself who masturbated in ways that a description would make your eyes water. ”

    Kinsey was an NWO hustler extraordinaire with massive perversions of his own which he wished to parlay into a book deal and fame. With the help of the evil Rockefeller foundation, he was able to accomplish just that. The two Jones’, E. Michael Jones of Culture Wars and James Jones who did a Kinsey bio, have shown the wicked depths of Kinsey’s obscenity and exposed the ideology of his so-called research. Kinsey’s findings were quickly baptized as Science in the MSM and he is now held as a saint among the Left. See here:

    “Just what Professor Kinsey meant by ‘physical research’ has become much clearer with the publication of James Jones’s biography of the great entomologist from Bloomington. Kinsey was a homosexual, a sado-masochist and an exhibitionist, a man, in Jones’s words, ‘who, as he grew older, pursued an interest in extreme sexuality with increasing compulsiveness.’ Kinsey, it should be remembered, staked his reputation on the accuracy of his scientific sampling technique. Now it turns out that the basis of his science was homosexual compulsion; Kinsey was driven by a compulsion to witness bizarre sexual behavior, to engage in it himself, and then to justify it by claiming that large segments of the population were doing it too. Now, it turns out that Kinsey cooked his own books and in Jones’s own words, that Kinsey’s ‘methodology and his sampling technique virtually guaranteed that he would find what he was looking for.’

    Kinsey, it is now obvious, was looking for a way to justify his own homosexual behavior. So Kinsey’s ‘science’ was nothing more than a front for his compulsions.”

    I’ll spare you the details that Michael Jones then provides of Kinsey’s kink but you can read more here if you’re so inclined. culturewars.com/CultureWars/Archives/cw_recent/entomologist.html

  110. ianironwood

    It’s telling that the same thing that feminist say about EvoPsych – “You can’t PROVE that!” is the same thing the guilty party always says when they know they’re about to get caught.

    [ssm: Welcome, Mr. Ironwood! I really appreciate your blog, by the way.]

  111. fightforlove

    I really regret not being more sexually adventurous in my college/20s age. Wish I could make up for it now.

  112. bike bubba

    Regarding Rollo’s claim that monogamy is new, exactly how would one prove that, anthropologically speaking? Reality is that most digs dig up bones with no DNA in refuse pits and graveyards, and so in the unlikely case someone was able to figure out relationships between the buried, they’d guess that the child buried next to his mother had an Oedipal complex.

    I’m going to stick with the hypothesis that, being essential to this “survival” thing, monogamy is pretty ancient.

  113. Elspeth

    And then of course Bike, there is also consideration of the places on the globe where polygyny still exists as the normal order of things. Can you think of one of those places where you’d want to live and raise a family?

    I can’t. Monogamy is a simply superior both for family stability and societal order and stability. This makes since considering that it is the Biblical ideal.

  114. Pingback: If Society Were Left to Sluts, We’d Be Living in Mud Huts

  115. Mark G

    “I haven’t read the comment thread yet, but is it any wonder that sexual libertines appeal to the unnatural practices of uncivilized savages in an attempt to justify their perversions?”

    I think the originator of all this is Rousseau who preached the superiority of uncivilized savages while at the same time in his personal life having multiple children that he abandoned.

    [ssm: Yes. Didn't his mistress abandon something like six of his children as newborns at the local church orphanage? Back then, I believe that nearly all foundling infants died. And his ideas inspired the French Revolution...need we say more?]

  116. bike bubba

    Utah? :^)

    On the other hand, after googling the “Wives of Brigham Young”, I’ll pass….we are talking about some serious ugly, except for the women who divorced him (Ann Eliza Webb) and become an opponent of polygamy.

  117. Farm Boy

    I went on a tour in Utah and the Mormon tour guide claimed that Brigham Young had so many wives because he took in lots of widows.

  118. grey_whiskers

    Martel December 5, 2013 at 9:39 pm

    (snip)

    I understand the value of simple faith, and there IS a simple layer of Christianity, accessible to even those with low IQ’s. Nevertheless, there’s also plenty of mind-candy for the intellectually inclined that I’d gladly put up against any thinker who’s ever lived.

    He who does not receive the Kingdom of God like a little child shall never enter it.
    When I was a man, I put away childish things.
    For by grace you have been saved by faith; it is the gift of God, not by works, lest any man should boast.

    If Christianity were complex enough, that it took an IQ of 160 to understand it;
    if God required intellectual knowledge as a prerequisite to salvation, rather than *trust* –
    who then could be saved?

    Akin to the “bright man’s burden” of intellectuals and atheists, the subtle truths of the universe, simply must, Must, MUST be amenable to the character and personality of the autofellatory intellectual atheist.
    Because rationality.

    But note, there is plenty of room under the Mercy to exercise one’ mind, should one be so inclined, and should He allow you : “when I became a man I put away childish things” –
    but it is not required for Salvation.

    How Merciful of Him!!!

  119. grey_whiskers

    @Happyhen December 6, 2013 at 1:32 am

    “I understand the value of simple faith, and there IS a simple layer of Christianity, accessible to even those with low IQ’s. Nevertheless, there’s also plenty of mind-candy for the intellectually inclined that I’d gladly put up against any thinker who’s ever lived.”

    True. Having been slowing moving through some writings of the Church Fathers, I find myself rereading as much as reading. It is mind blowing and I know I don’t even nick the surface of the truth they are trying to impart. The depth of thought is so amazing. I am hoping to get “On the Incarnation” by Saint Athanasius with a preface from C.S. Lewis for Christmas. It is on my wish list.

    IIRC it was G.K. Chesterton’s biography of St. Thomas Aquinas which recounted that when Aquinas was asked what he thanked God for, he answered, “I thank God that I have understood every word I ever read.”

    Put *that* next to your comment on the Church Fathers. :-)

  120. Carlotta

    Not sure its a good idea to wife up a chick who has been to college but I know damn well you don’t want a military broad.

    And yet I have done both and Christ has redeemed me and I make use of my training from both to be a dedicated Wife and Mother.

    @ Martel
    Tingels do not equal cooties. I dont want to think about cooties. Bleeech.

    I am not mad at feminist. I pity them FW.

  121. hoellenhund2

    “And then of course Bike, there is also consideration of the places on the globe where polygyny still exists as the normal order of things. Can you think of one of those places where you’d want to live and raise a family?”

    Technically speaking, I’m pretty sure the Arab monarchies of the Gulf are relatively proper places to form and raise stable families in a morally sound environment.

  122. Happyhen

    “We may be sure that the characteristic blindness of the twentieth century – the blindness about which posterity will ask, “But how could they have thought that?” – lies where we have never suspected it… None of us can fully escape this blindness, but we shall certainly increase it, and weaken our guard against it, if we read only modern books. Where they are true they will give us truths which we half knew already. Where they are false they will aggravate the error with which we are already dangerously ill. The only palliative is to keep the clean sea breeze of the centuries blowing through our minds, and this can be done only by reading old books.”
    ― C.S. Lewis, On the Incarnation

    “The Lord did not come to make a display. He came to heal and to teach suffering men. For one who wanted to make a display the thing would have been just to appear and dazzle the beholders. But for Him Who came to heal and to teach the way was not merely to dwell here, but to put Himself at the disposal of those who needed Him, and to be manifested according as they could bear it, not vitiating the value of the Divine appearing by exceeding their capacity to receive it.”
    ― Athanasius of Alexandria, On the Incarnation

  123. Bob Wallace

    “The reason our societies work and primitive ones stay primitive is that monogomy gives most males some genetic stake”

    I’d say it’s easier explained by the desire for love that genes and DNA and RNA and evo-psych, which are concepts generally by people who don’t understand them. Which is why some people think can be used to explain everything.

  124. Pingback: The theory of feminine devolution. | Sunshine Mary

  125. Brent

    Miser: More on Unwin. Remember this guy was a liberal–and still honestly recorded what he observed over 80+ societies investigated. He concluded time and time again that repressed feminine sexuality correlates to strong and illustrious civilizations.

  126. Edward Waverley

    “How many of you are familiar with J.D. Unwin’s name? Anyone? Well, no one, and I’m not surprised because J.D. Unwin was a humanist to the core, a modern scientist, whose work was so devastating to his associates that they have ignored it. In fact, Unwin, after spending most of his life developing his research, spent his last years in trying to find some loophole in it so that he could find some way to make an end run around the fact that he had discovered. Unwin, as a young anthropologist, was very cynical of the Christian perspective he encountered from many people, “Well, if the culture declines morally, it will collapse.” He felt there was no correlation between morality, in particular, sexual morality, and culture.

    So, he began to study every culture of which there was any data. Every culture in the ancient world, every culture in the modern world, every primitive tribe. Then he began to set down their sexual regulations and standards, and then their cultural level. To his progressive dismay and amazement, he found that there was a mathematical correlation between the two. In other words, if in a culture there was neither premarital nor post-marital chastity, that culture was at a dead level. There wasn’t ability to count beyond ten, or the fingers of one’s hands. In some culture in South America, they don’t count past three. Their cultural achievements were so primitive that they had only the rudest kind of shelter. Their ability to think abstractly was exceedingly limited. They were at a dead level, culturally. If, however, into a culture sexual regulations began to enter so that there might be say, post-marital chastity, there would be an immediate step upward in the cultural level, until when you came to a culture that had both premarital and post-marital chastity, then you had science and high culture in civilization. He found that there was a mathematical correlation between the two. He found, moreover, that if you had a radical breakdown, total breakdown, in three generations, you could go from the top to the bottom, from a highly sophisticated scientific culture to the dead level where you couldn’t count beyond the fingers of your two hands.

    Now this was very upsetting to Unwin, and you can understand why his work has been neglected, but it does tell you something about the nature of the universe, does it not? It is structured, and the structure is a very obviously scriptural kind of structuring. The soul that sinneth it shall die, and the culture and the civilization that sins, it, too, shall die.”
    ~ R.J. Rushdoony, “The Philosophy of the Christian Curriculum”

  127. Ironthumb

    Same reason why Moses found the society that forbade promiscuity and encouraged marriage as a standard.
    Jesus should have agreed to stone the adulteress – they make society suffer as a whole,
    Same goes to why God wants the thieves, and the ones who don’t respect their parents be put to death – these are people who will one day destroy society; destroy Israel in their case.
    YHWH bless science!

  128. nightskyradio

    Edward Waverley – December 5, 2013 at 3:01 pm
    NightSkyRadio wrote: “I still wanna make a song out of “One Cock Rule.” I’m thinking a rap/metal fusion with a little industrial thrown in.”

    Fulfilled: http://vimeo.com/72866364

    Nice start, but needs more cowbell. And epic guitar.

  129. Edward Waverley

    “So how did Unwin attempt to find the loophole? What approachhes did he take?”

    The usual ones among Leftists, primarily chanting that “Correlation does not establish causation”. In Unwin’s day, even the most devout atheists labored under such a profound Christian hangover that they were compelled to publish even those results which flew in the face of their humanistic assumptions. Their ostensible commitment to Truth Itself (which they borrowed from Christianity in order to get their anti-God worldview off the ground) led them into some unfashionable conclusions, but they always expected to find palatable explanations for the uncomfortable findings ex post facto. With today’s leftists it is not so. Such are incapable of even registering their own presuppositions. Instead they exaggerate whichever data prop up their ideology while concealing any which contradict it. That’s why I so strongly prefer the scientific and cultural pronouncements of the older atheists. Their work is vastly more honest than that of their progeny.

    But as SSM notes in the next post, more recent sex research is always invariably biased by political correctness. CS Lewis sums up the modern atheists nicely: “Atheism in its modern form has come down in the world and now dabbles in dirt.” – ‘Surprised by Joy’

  130. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2013/12/11 | Free Northerner

  131. Georgina

    I am so saddened by what I just read! I respect your view point whole heartedly and have no objections to your ideas of anti feminism ( although we may not see eye to eye, I have read your blog as I appreciate and feel I can learn from a range of view points) But the derogatory way you write and speak about people from countries and societies you clearly know very very little about is saddening. To an American audience I am sure what you have said (as evident in the comments) wont cause any negative response, but for me your ideas have completely lost any punch when you speak so ignorantly of other cultures. You cross a very different line with comments like ‘where is my iphone’… I really encourage you to start broadening your horizons and not view the world from your American perspective, its shameful to value material wealth in such a way that you devalue societies who do not. Just because a tribe such as the Himba lack material goods does not classify them as living in poverty. Your understanding of what poverty is, what it means to have a good life, the value you put on non essentials and luxuries as some how making another persons life less desirable or valued purely because they lack and do not crave the consumerist lifestyle. As I mentioned before I am not mentioning your ideas on anti feminism, this has nothing to do with it but the real lack of understanding has made this pieace come across very derogatory and I am sorry to say ignorant and rude. I am not sure if it is purely a lack of understanding, some very misplaced judgements or a case of just picking up on the way the ‘ developing world’ has been portrayed to you through the media, your education and your circle but please please please try and broaden your scope and look at some of the beautiful lessons you could possibly learn about places outside of your ‘world’, what could you learn from non consumerist behaviours, from traditional knowledge and cultures. I am not sure how coherent my reply has been to be honest reading this post has really upset me as I am shocked that even though we have the most powerful tool the internet some people are still stuck in ideas of ‘primitive, backward people’ I work with such people daily and I am sad that they are being depicted as such as it is so far from the truth. God does not judge people on their material wealth or the view any culture as superior. Just because your ideas of Christianity are rooted in your American culture does not make Christianity only applicable to those with American culture. I hope this does not offended and reach out only to try and promote a kinder, more informed out look in the future. Lots of good wishes to you

  132. Farm Boy

    I am not a fan if materialism, but living in mud huts seems stupid.

    The whole point of the post is that culture and morals matter, and more specifically, the reward system that a society sets up. As to whether it is first world, or third world, the same principles apply.

  133. sue

    oh boy, more of the same old same old self righteous blather. one thing for sure, feminism has indeed crept into the “Christian” community-female pharisism is evidently quite rife on these christian?? sites. and furthermore, no child of the Lord oughta be flinging about that four-letter s word – the for real term is unwed mothers – these gals are people. get off yer high horse honey.

    [ssm: There is only one way to become an unwed mother: spread your legs for a man to whom you are not married. Not all sluts are unwed mothers, but all unwed mothers are sluts by definition. They can, however, become repentant, but one cannot repentant of a sin which one will not acknowledge. You actively prevent women from repenting of their sin when you falsely cover it with euphemisms. Why would you try to prevent women from repenting of their sins when they will perish in hell if they do not? You must really hate women. That's sad. I will pray for you now to be freed from your hatred of women.]

  134. bike bubba

    Regarding “no child of the Lord oughta be flinging about that four letter s word”, are we then to assume that the Holy Spirit was wrong when He inspired the Prophets to call Israel a whore, describing her righteous acts as “used menstrual rags”?

    I’m thinking that Biblically, Hebrew (and to a degree Greek) are rather earthy, and it’s the modern church’s misfortune to simply assume that the earthy descriptions which convey a concept clearly are “corrupt” per Ephesians 4:29. Matthew Henry (commentator), on the other hand, describes it as being not edifying.

    Now we may question how calling a girl a “slut” is edifying, but here’s the kicker; if she is befouling herself through fornication, that may be the earthy (but not corrupt) description she needs to come to repentance.

Comments are closed.