On Older Women Virgins

Just another post that would probably be buried otherwise. Italicized portion is a quote from another commenter, to whom I am responding as briefly as I know how. (Not very.)

In any event, my point is close to the topic. The reaction of most commenters to this essay is to advocate for men to date younger women who are more traditional. Women in their late 20s who have followed Christian sexual morality, but not yet married, are another option. They are also much less “damaged” than the average 30-year-old woman.

This has been discussed before, although I don’t recall where (I don’t think it was at Dalrock’s, sorry I don’t remember the venue!) I will just try to sum up what I recollect for you.

As has already been stated, women who remain virgins into “old” age do exist, but are pretty rare. ANd, as with all women (indeed, all potential spouses), should be vetted carefully. There are simply different concerns to look out for. On the one hand, you may have a woman who is truly committed to chastity, and purity with a future spouse, and eager to lay some love on a husband once she finds him, and has just been REALLY UNLUCKY dating/courting-wise. This was admitted to be possible, but pretty unlikely. It was more likely to be a sign of one of two things (as I recall): either she’s totally frigid, or she has turned her chastity into a virginity obsession. Third option which comes to my mind: she is a “technical” virgin, virgin-in-vagina-only :P

The “frigidity” case is rather similar to a recent post of Dalrock’s wrt “true love doesn’t wait” – basically, she is able to keep her virginity so late (and through such a hormonal, sexual stage of life) because she has very little or no sex drive, and is a dangerous bet for marriage on account of the fact that she will be less likely to want to fulfill her marital duties. Even if she didn’t start frigid, and was once eager to marry, battling and stamping out her sex drive for so many years could easily leave an indellible mark.

The viriginity-into-an-idol was also sorta-kinda discussed recently, in the “slutting made her a better Christian” article. Essentially, the girl has devoted so much thought an energy into maintaining her virginity that it becomes a major part of her identity, and transitioning into non-virgin, sexual and willing wife is difficult or impossible: bad marriage material for essentially the same reason, slightly different rationale.

And the third option (which may have been discussed, I don’t recall) and is probably not what you had in mind, but just to be thorough, is that she is a “virgin” only insomuch as she has never had P-in-V sex, but has done plenty of other things. These are perhaps worse than a regular slut, in that they will likely have all the baggage of a high N, while still claiming the moral high ground.

A la: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UfpVY_ZHGDg

In any event, there’s still a high risk for 27+ year old women virgins to be pretty damaged, although they may be damaged differently than the high N gals that are their peers. Best bet continues to be a young girl with a low N, ideally 0. Screen carefully, and be aware that there are still risks.

Because Nobody Reads Long Youtube Comments:

Here’s one I posted to a video by atheist Jaclyn Glenn, on her video . As a nota bene, I watched a few of her other videos, and so make references to them in an effort to be more persuasive. I believe the comment can stand on its own (just ignore personal references) so here it is.

Hello Ms. (?) Jaclyn Glenn! I am sorry to hear you didn’t sleep well the other night. I think we can all sympathize!

I absolutely understand the frustration in hearing a smart person say dumb things. I would like to point out, as I am sure you know, that all people in all camps are prone to this sort of behavior, but it is especially grating coming from people of whom you have reason to believe should know better. May I suggest that this is the best time, then, to consider avoiding an amygdala hijack and ask the person to clarify their meaning? (Obviously Twitter isn’t a great forum for that, so I’m not trying to fault you, just being rhetorical ^-^)

These catch phrases about “Atheism requires Faith” are just as silly as the atheist catch phrases, which you rightly pointed out (in your recent video on converting Christians to Atheism) are bad form in a genuine debate or outreach effort. While both sides think that their catch phrases are a true, if exaggerated, characterization of each other, I think if we could all calm down, we’d realize that we both know the issues are more complicated than “God has no more evidence than the FSM” and “Atheists have blind faith.” Let’s just unpack these two examples:

With regards to the “God has no more evidence than the FSM (or fairies, or Santa, etc)” I would hope most atheists are well aware of the distinctive differences, so I will briefly point out the long tradition of belief in God vs. FSM, a long history of rational argumentation in favor of a God (argumentation which you may consider to be flawed in aspects, but it nevertheless exists, and is convincing, and was sufficient proof for many men of substantial intellect and experience) vs FSM, and the relative lack of evidence we would expect to find of fairies etc. vs. what would expect to find of God (I recognize this last one is controversial, but I am simply trying to illustrate differences, not engage in the debate as such – I appreciate everyone’s understanding, and perhaps we can debate some other time).

As to unpacking the “Atheists have blind faith,” meme, I think most Christians (and religious people) will intuitively recognize that the “faith” they here accuse atheists of is of a mightily different character than that practiced by religious folk. I think no religious person is confused enough to think that atheists are praying to Not-God that He doesn’t exist, as you and others have parodied. I believe most people, when questioned on this, would suggest the “faith” (perhaps better termed “acceptance”) displayed by average Atheists that creation could come ex nihilo, or by random, indescribably unlikely chance or by some mechanism that we have no understanding of – anything BUT a Creative God. Moreover, the “faith” (again, perhaps better termed “acceptance”) that the average atheist has that anything worth knowing or understanding can be “seen”, measured, quantified, and known empirically. This, I believe, is more the position of “materialism” than strictly defined “atheism” but there has been significant overlap of the two in my experience, and I imagine many people would agree. In this respect, atheists are “blind” to the existence of all unquantifiable, immaterial phenomena. As a brief example, you described in a recent video (about religion and bad relationships) your feelings vis a vis security, love and heartbreak. But materialism would tend to indicate that these are merely chemical phenomena, evolutionary adaptations, and nothing more. While atheism is not strictly the same as materialism, most Christians recognize the two often go hand in hand, just as you rightly indicated in your video about Feminism that, while the dictionary definition of feminism says one thing, the practice of feminism is often quite different.

Now, I might personally add another element to that of the “blind” nature of this claim, but I am not sure my correligionists would agree, so please take this as simply one person’s perspective. It has been my experience, particularly with regards to PopSci, that many people, atheists and theist alike, will “take on faith” any claim made with reference to science, without taking the time to verify it. So, when one reads on article on About.Com, HuffPo, USAToday, or whatever popular source, it is rare they will then go on the check and verify the citations, see that what the article claims “studies show” is, IN FACT, what the “studies show,” consider the methodology, the quality of the study, the sample size, the quality of the study and its peer reviews, etc. I have been guilty of this myself.

Please consider, how is accepting such studies, based on the overarching claim of “It’s science!” after they have been “translated” for common consumtion from the original information, to technical scientific journals, to less technical scientific publications (i.e. “popSci” materials and shows) and finally to general materials, which are then posted in summary form to your facebook wall, where you read half the original article – how is this vastly different to the criticism that Christians are dumb or misinformed for accepting their Bible on faith? Both these scientific claims and the Bible are “peer-reviewed”, both circumstances trust “wiser” authorities to have already gone through the arduous verification process for us, to have “done the math” and “checked the details” for us, and we generally trust that the translations of science and the Bible have been made faithful (ie with respect and fidelity to) the original source, and both are based on claim to supreme authority (the authority of God, which has been misused by people seeking power, and the authority of Science, which has also been misused by people seeking power).

I say this with no intention to “debunk” science: it is abundantly clear that science has been effective in many of its claims. I only wish those on the “science” side of the fence could be equally generous in recognizing the vast civilizing and stabilizing force that many, if not all, forms of religion have been.

Atheists are right in pointing out that many (not all) religious people have been very lax in their understanding of their world and their faith, but I have seen the same sort of willful avoidance of truth or reason in atheists as well. Many atheists, whether they mean to or not, hide this with a smokescreen of claims to greater rationality or IQ, but the fact of the matter is that many of them are arguing the same old points that philosophers going all the way back to Plato have wrestled with, without making any reference or acknowledgement of this history – they act is if no one has ever considered the “problem of Evil” before they brilliantly suggested it, and, to our great shame, most modern Christians have not been properly equipped to handle these ancient, but by no means unconsidered philosophical questions. We ALL need to be better educated on our own history and the nature of our world so as not to stumble against these challenges.

TL;DR: Christians should stop being dumb! Atheists should stop being dumb! There are answers out there to hard questions if you would just take some time to look!

On Love, Kindness, and being Nice

Love is kind, and patient, and we all know the verse.  But one thing love isn’t (always) is nice.  We often conflate love with niceness, because being nice is, well, nice.  Nice is pleasant; nice is agreeable.  However, nice is not a virtue, and while love should be kind and gentle, it should not always be nice.

The thing about love is that truly loving behavior sometimes requires us to become uncomfortable, and to make other uncomfortable, because not to do so would be far worse.  

As a very simple example, say you were to see a young child reaching their hand out to touch a hot burner.

You would not likely think to yourself, “well, it wouldn’t be nice to say no.  He probably has a perfectly good reason for doing that.  It’s not really my place to interfere.”

No, it’s far more likely you would immediately stop the child, and scold him for the attempt.  It would not be fun for you, and if questioned, the child will certainly say he would never have wanted to be scolded.  Scolding for bad behavior isn’t “nice”, but it is surely more loving than allowing a child to burn himself.

And so, when we witness others in sin, lovingkindness means that we should, gently, compassionately, but nevertheless firmly call them out on it.  For while confrontation can be painful, and no one “enjoys” an intervention, it is better to help out brothers and sisters in Christ extricate themselves from sin than to allow them to continue, at great cost to themselves (though they may not recognize the cost). 

So, I try not to post many comments around the sphere unless I feel like I’m actually saying something that hasn’t been said yet. I don’t want to be part of the chorus, or just be another “great job!” (as nice as those are) because most of the places I lurk get plenty of discussion already. Those authors don’t need any “great jobs” from little ole’ me: they know they are doing well. And I don’t want to clog up discussions that already break 200+ comments frequently, just to say “bravo” (however well-deserved it usually is).

As a young lady, I try to be very conscientious of the fact that while I may not be altogether unwelcome in the manosphere, it is certainly not FOR me. Men are talking, and they don’t need fangirls, or sycophants, or shaming.

Still, I do sometimes chime in. Usually by the time I’m able to add something, though, it’s deep in the conversation, and liable to get lost. This would be fine if I yapped a lot (as I am wont in real life) but since I try to only offer new or different points, I’m usually pretty proud of my rare posts, and would like them to be preserved somewhere. So, I will probably archive many of them here, if only for my own vanity’s sake.

That said, this one is in response to a comment on SunShineMary’s post Theory of Feminine Devolution, and I have quoted the commenter to whom I was specifically addressing:




The interesting thing is that men don’t show this degenerate behavior. Even if you remove all social control from a group of men, they will form their own hierarchy, code of conduct and morality with a clear sense of right and wrong. Men are fundamentally builders, creators and fixers.

I think the key we should all focus on here is that men don’t show this degenerate behavior (i.e. bonobo-like). This comment is clearly framed to paint men as wholly superior (the foundation of society – builders, creators, etc) and women as completely useless to society. However, men DO show degenerate behavior, but, to continue the analogy, theirs is the brutal, war-like nature ascribed to chimpanzees.

This is Mansterationalized by those who responded to another commentor’s point re:prison society as still having “rules, hierarchies” etc, but while this is the case, is this seriously a good faith argument that men in such situations are not “degenerate”? They are simply degenerate differently, that doesn’t make them “civilized”.

Men are builders, creators, and fixers BECAUSE it is a way to impress women when you are not the brute force alpha. Society, civilization, gadgets all exist because men want to impress women to get access to sex. This is why alphas don’t bother with these things (they don’t need to do more than grin right to get laid) and why many men are dropping out of creation/building etc – there are no guarantees on return anymore. But just as most women will degenerate as explained above with out the incentive/discipline of an alpha-enough man, so will men often degenerate into cave/basement dwellers content to eat, fap and sleep without the appeal/incentive of an attractive enough woman.

Please note that I don’t mean to say no man will bother himself unless poozy is on offer, but over time, over generations, the average man will decline just as (but not in the same way as) the average female. We can already see this in the rising PUA and MGTOW movements, and the rise of men, not formally affiliated with either, who are just dropping out in general. This is exacerbated by the rising penetration of video gaming, and the increasingly immersive game designs. (This is not meant to shame gamers, as my husband and I both are; merely pointing out that video games, by design, make it easier to avoid, ignore, or replace a boring/uncomfortable reality with a much more appealing one).

Again, I don’t mean to shame anyone with this post except the guy who suggested that men aren’t capable of being degenerate. I consider the PUAs, MGTOW and unofficial drop outs to be acting rationally (whether or not morally) in light of the legal circumstances.This does not excuse ANYONE’S behavior (male or female). It only goes to show that men and women BOTH degenerate when society gets out of whack, but that they degenerate differently.

I do hold that men are able to do many things much better than women can, and I agree that women need men more than men need women. I even agree that women mostly need men if they are to be disciplined, where as men can mostly be disciplined with or without women (sometimes much better without – e.g. military). BUT the notion that only women will naturally degenerate, that men are too good, too pure, too dedicated to building to likewise degenerate, is patent nonsense. It may be slower, it may be different, but it is degeneration.

I’d also like to state that it is not my original assertion that men create to attract women. I believe I read it on Rational Male or Chateau Heartiste, but so far I haven’t been able to dredge up the original article. I believe I remember enough to back the assertion up, but I did not want to take credit for an idea more intelligent and studied people than I put forth.




Thus ends the last of the comment. In closing, I will just add that I have been lurking the ‘sphere for over two years. I think the men here are right about a lot of things, and I support a great deal of what is said here. I have been making efforts to be a more submissive wife myself because of the ‘sphere, and have a happier home and life because of it. I have even become Christian after discovering Dalrock, SSM and others. I recognize that the men hereabouts have been shamed quite enough and are rightfully, righteously angry. However, there is a certain point where anger clouds judgement. I do not often call it out; it’s certainly not my place to do so, and I know just as easily as I can throw around the word “bitter” it will be responded back to me “shaming language”. But after the Mark Minter saga, I think there’s something to be said for occasionally having a reality check.

Yes, things are bad, really bad. But we must not become so clouded by emotions, even very much appropriate emotions, that we cease to see the forest for the trees. I called out this poster because he seemed (by the wording of his post and subsequent responses to others) to believe that men are not prone to excesses and degeneracy in the way women are. But just because it is not the same way doesn’t mean it’s not there. We don’t need to address this much here; it’s already everywhere else. It is good and right that the manosphere is more focused on educating men on the faults of women, which are so glossed over everywhere else. But just because we focus here on things which are not talked of elsewhere doesn’t mean we should forget that we’re all human and prone to faults. We should not be knocking women off pedestals just to put men on them.

On Comments, and Degeneration

Atheists and Christians: Everyone’s got a Strawman

So, I’ve been watching a bunch of YouTube videos propagandizing for BOTH sides.  The biggest commonality?  Well, same as the commonality to almost all YouTube self-made videos.  These people should not be allowed to speak their minds, record it, and put it out there for the world to see (and mock).  Of course, I tease when I say “allow”, but certainly the ease with which we can put ourselves out their for the world to see has had many interesting, and many unintended repercussions.  But this is a discussion I’m sure we’ve all seen, even been privy to, before, and is not really the meat of this post.

In seriousness, the mistakes many of these people make are three fold: they don’t take the other side seriously, they don’t do sufficient research on the opposition, and sometimes even on their OWN side, and they judge the beliefs of the other side by its adherents, rather than the strength of the beliefs.  This all works towards the creation of a straw-man argument, wherein the speaker believes they have proved/disproved everything, but really they have shown nothing.  They change no one’s mind, because those in agreement don’t know enough to see the fallacy, and those in disagreement recognize the misrepresentation, and go on believing as they do, because the speaker has not actually addressed them.

All of this, I daresay, could be easily remedied by doing more research.  Not all of this need be arduous, life’s-work kind of research, but enough to be truly conversant with the subject matter: both your view, and the one you mean to debunk.  Now, I am, of course, biased.  I am a Christian, albeit a new one.  But I was, myself, taken in by these fallacies, particularly that of judging a faith by its adherents, rather than it’s own merits.  I could see so many Christians out there who didn’t really know much at all about their faith, didn’t live differently in any observable, meaningful way, that I thought, “Well, why bother?”  And what’s more, I was often more knowledgeable than the average Christian about Christianity, and so I assumed that if the followers couldn’t be bothered to understand their faith properly, it must not be worth looking into.

The thing is, while one’s beliefs should make a difference in a person’s life, not everyone really lives like that, so you can’t judge a faith based on the quality of its adherents. After all, look at all the amazing art, literature, and discoveries that have come from Christianity – the same Christianity that so many Americans pay lip service to, but don’t really live by. Why discount all of that on account of one (modern) wayward flock? Yet, this is what I did (even as I appreciated all these things).

Now, it is easy to find that many atheists “debunk” Chrisitianity based on the appearances of the followers, or the actions of outspoken outliers. Because some “Christians” use the Bible as a crutch to defend their own prejudices, many atheists see the Bible as only being a weapon, a tool of oppression. Any yet, part of the revolutionary nature of the Bible is that it actually uplifted and sanctified all people, and while making allowances for some of the practices of the day, it made requirements of humane treatment. Just because I can beat someone to death with a hammer doesn’t mean that all hammers are dangerous and oppressive. It just means that hammers should be handled with respect to their proper purpose, and a certain reverence for the inherent risks involved in making a mistake. Likewise, the Bible is not oppressive, or meant to be used as a weapon. Like a hammer, the Bible helps us to build a better civilization and a better life, but it can be used against people. This happened even in Jesus’ time, with Pharisees obeying the letter, but not the spirit of the law. Jesus spoke against this, and all good faith Christians should do likewise, but since we don’t see that very much, the idea of a Bible as a weapon goes uncontested, giving atheists the appearance of being correct.

But it’s not just atheists, either. Christians make many assumptions about atheists as well, and although they may be true of many practitioners, or the most vocal practitioners, we do ourselves a great disservice when we “debunk” atheism on the grounds of these assumptions, and not on the actual tenets (or, perhaps it is better said, “lack of tenets”) of atheism. For those of us who want to seriously promote Christianity against atheism, we must clearly set ourselves apart from others by demonstrating the ability to think critically, rationally, to examine the others side’s actual case and show compassion to the people who accept it. They know that we believe them to be, at best, misguided. They expect many of us will see them as downright evil. If we do think they are misguided, and we truly want to help them, we must go to them where they are, and consider what is actually going to have an effect on them, rather than just mouthing platitudes.

A Total Reframe

It’s not that I wrote a single post for this blog, and then got bored, or tired, or forgot about it. No, my reason for starting, then abandoning this poor, lonely wordpress site is far from that. The truth is, I was (am) a young woman, who was full of ideas. I was convinced that I was full of good advice and could help a ton of people: all I needed was to get my voice out there. Then, as I read more and more in the manosphere, I realized I didn’t know jack shit, and what I did know was either wrong, or misguided, or completely elementary.

So, I decided it was best to lurk for a good long while, and post the occasional comment to my favorite sites only when I felt I truly had something new to offer. My goal was not to become the commenter everyone knows from constant comments, but to slowly gain respect by commenting only when I had something to say. I didn’t want to word-vomit on other people’s blogs, nor did I feel confident in starting my own after I realized how little I knew.

However, I recently read Matt Forney’s article “Why You Should Start a Blog”, and, well, here I am. I’ve always been a voracious reader, and, for my age, a talented writer. Of course, looking back on things I wrote in junior high and even most of high school can now make me cringe (and cringe SO HARD), but, for my age, it was pretty good. Still, I like writing; I’d love to be able to publish my writing one day (that is – publish in a way that I can make money from it). If I’m ever going to do that, I need to keep practicing, rather than wait for “the perfect story” to come to mind.

That’s why I will endeavor to post regularly on this blog now. I no longer have any pretensions of knowing it all, or even providing anything new. I expect much of what I post here, at least for a while, to simply be reactions to other bloggers, or out and out ramblings. If anyone can be helped by anything I have to say, great. I love helping people, and, well, my original ambition may be tempered by my lack of knowledge, but that doesn’t mean the desire to help is not there. I’ve merely realized it will take more than armchair psychology to be effective.

And on a side note, I had not realized that pop “literature” was really so bad. I knew Twilight was crap, and that the Fifty Shades books were fanfictions of crap, dressed up with new names, but, not having read them… Well, I just assumed that the authors at least had a basic sense of flow and pacing, so on. Having just read a few excerpts, however… I mean, wow. If these people can do it, I sure fucking can. When a coworker asked me what I thought of Fifty Shades, I jokingly replied that I was writing better porn in high school. Now that I read some of it… I think my “joke” was entirely accurate. I’ve got the cheesy romance down. All I need is a plot element, and I should be in good shape to cash out.

The Difference Between Realism and “Settling”

No one wants to here they should “settle.” In a time where most of us have grown up with Disney princesses, technology that grows so rapidly it is hard to imagine anything as being impossible anymore, helicopter parenting styles that allowed us to try anything and never risk true failure, we believe that we can have or do anything we want – anything at all.

And what’s more, “settling” brings to mind images of letting go of everything we ever wanted. When we think of “settling” we imagine giving up on everything and just taking the very first option that presents itself, no matter how obviously, patently miserable it will make us.

But is that what “settling” is really about? Is it good advice to settle, or is settling a recipe for endless drudgery?

I think it all comes down to how you look at it. There is a lot of psychological baggage behind the word “settle” and if you feel you are only settling, that you are just taking what you can get because you can’t do any better, then yeah, you are probably destined for misery. Because there will always be that lingering wonder, that curiosity, that doubt that will always whisper, “I could have got more. I could have waited. My dream man was right around the corner, if only I had been patient.” When you “settle” for less than what you wanted (expected, in your heart of hearts) then you will feel eternally cheated of your due.

But on the other hand, what if you don’t settle? What if you wait and wait and wait and Mr. Perfect never comes around? Sorry to say it, but neither you nor I nor anyone is a Disney Princess(c) for real. And there is no perfect Prince Charming who is going to sweep you off your feet with his bulging biceps into his six figure salary life where you will retire together and take trips abroad every year. If that’s what you are waiting for, everything else will feel like settling. STOP waiting for that.

Being realistic means taking real stock of your options and of what you personally offer. Figure out what’s really important to you, and then look for it, everywhere, to the exclusion of all else. You should pick one, maybe two traits that you can’t live without, and seek out those. Realize that even when you find the guy with that/those trait/s, he will have some flaws, and learn to be peaceful with that – because you ALSO have flaws that he will have to make his peace with.  If you can’t find anyone that’s up to your standards, maybe you need to consider if YOU are up to the standards that sort of person has.

You don’t have to change, but keep in mind if you always do what you always did then you’ll always get what you always got.  If you want better, then you had better BE better.

You don’t have to give up all your hopes and dreams, but you should bring them in line with reality. That funny, dorky guy could very well be the one who’s actually meant to sweep you off your feet, but you’re too preoccupied daydreaming to even notice him.

 

* Note: this goes for most anything that involves a search process and selection process: jobs, cars, college, careers.  I’ve been reading a lot of relationship blogs lately, so that’s how the post came to be, but, like much advice, it can be applied in many different ways.