Monday, August 2, 2010

Piece of Advice #61: Do NOT embrace your inner slut

Jaclyn Friedman just posted a piece at feministe.com entitled, "My Sluthood, Myself" revealing in detail how she healed herself from her last bad breakup by having sex with 9 different men she picked up through Craigslist Casual Encounters.  Her argument is that she needed sex and affection, but she kept trying to get it through relationships that she entered into because she so desperately needed sex and affection.  In bypassing any attempt to find meaning or closeness in sex, she was able to get what she wanted and journey to a better mental place where she needed a relationship less and was therefore more able to seek out a more positive one.

The high points:

1) She knew what she was doing was physically dangerous and did it anyway.
I’m telling you this because sluthood is scary. Because we’ve been taught to fear it all our lives, and that training doesn’t just go away because we understand the agenda behind it. And because there are real risks involved. Society likes to punish slutty women. And so do a lot of individual men, some of whom frequent Craigslist Casual Encounters.
But had she been beaten or raped, no doubt she would have blamed the "rape culture."  Because Jaclyn is a firm believer in this rape culture and is never a victim blamer.  Even when there is no victim, such as when positing a hypothetical situation during a CNN interview.  There still might have been a victim because people place themselves in dangerous situations, but they are never at fault, even at a theoretical level.  Because people - women specifically, in her worldview - have to be free to make the stupidest decisions ever and be protected from any bad outcome.  Friedman's motto appears to be: "Creating the feminist utopia of tomorrow with every avoidable rape and assault today."

2) She wants other women to feel as free to be a slut as she does.
It’s a choice we should all have access to because it has the potential to be liberating. Healing. Soul-fulfilling. I’m telling you this because sluthood saved me, in a small but life-altering way, and I want it to be available to you if you ever think it could save you, too. 
3) She wants you to offer emotional/verbal/physical/legal/whatever backup for other self-actualizing sluts:
I’m telling you this because sluthood requires support. Because any woman who indulges these urges carries with her a lifetime of censure and threat. That’s a loud chorus to overcome. A slut needs a posse who finds her exploits almost as delicious as she finds them herself, who cares about her safety and her stories and her happiness but not one whit about her virtue. A slut alone is a slut in difficulty, possibly in danger. 
One can not help wondering, given #2 and #3 above and the overwhelming number of positive comments this piece generated, whether feminists are now operating on the idea that if we are all of us sluts, we are none of us sluts.  If there's nothing in the cupboard to eat but oatmeal, we'll all happily eat oatmeal.  And without sugar or even milk.

There are so many things I disagree with in Jaclyn Friedman's message here, but even if you don't, take this away: if this is what the dating pool now looks like, think of the market value a slim, chaste, not certifiably insane young woman has by her sheer scarcity.   Supply.  Demand.

67 comments:

  1. The two words that are giving me more pause than any others are "soul-fulfilling." What does it say about your life when random Craig's List hook-ups are soul-fulfilling?

    Just keep beating the drum, Jaclyn. You're not as miserable as you feel when you're at home alone with multiple pints of Ben and Jerry's.

    ReplyDelete
  2. HEH??????? 9 casual encounters are more soul fulfilling than investing in knowing someone deeply even if it ends. Something doesn't compute here.

    ReplyDelete
  3. So we know she is an aging slut who isn't attracted to feminist men. How long before her next message is "Where have all the good men gone?" Where she whines about how no man will "man up" and marry her?

    ReplyDelete
  4. While we are offering words of caution, I think one to men is in order. Don't use Craigslist Casual Encounters!

    ReplyDelete
  5. In case any men didn't get the full message about the dangers of Craigslist, here is a picture of her with other er full figured women (Not Safe For Your Lunch): http://www.bigmoves.org/images/rc_poster_med.jpg

    She is also a Calendar Girl (Feb): http://www.bigmoves.org/merch_calendar.html

    ReplyDelete
  6. Sorry grerp. Reading about her bringing out her inner slut evidently brings out my inner Al Bundy.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Yeah, dalrock, I'd say the Not Safe For Lunch crack about her appearance is basically mean. She self identifies as fat, though:

    "About me: I’m a white Jewish queer able-bodied fat cisgender femme from the real Jersey Shore."

    Which means calling her fat isn't mean, but a mere observation or a compliment? I get confused.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Being a woman who at nearly age 40 has, as Roissy puts it, "hit the wall," I'm inclined to go easier on other women who've hit it. Aging is unavoidable. She leveraged her assets very poorly when she had them, though. And I think the advice she's giving to women is criminal.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Being a woman who at nearly age 40 has, as Roissy puts it, "hit the wall," I'm inclined to go easier on other women who've hit it. Aging is unavoidable.

    The difference is all she has to offer is her raw sexuality, and that ship sailed some time ago. Plus it is one thing to age and gain weight with grace, and another thing entirely to tart yourself around in a pathetic attempt to change the supposedly malleable concept of sex appeal. If I started posting pics of myself in a spedo and bragging about sexual conquests, I would have every reason to expect to be heckled too (but no worries).

    ReplyDelete
  10. Grerp, it's just too funny that you and I channeled each other today. The haters have already found me - I hope you won't draw them here, I know you've had your fill of that. Of course, I figured it was inevitable. The feminist corps all have their Google alerts set up to catch any commentary.

    Good post!

    ReplyDelete
  11. This is sad on so many levels. And instead of opening her eyes she embraces her delusion with greater abandon.

    Someone needs some hardcore mental help. And her advice will encourage others to follow in her twisted footsteps.

    ReplyDelete
  12. dalrock - I definitely take your point. I think what bothers me is that women often exhibit attention seeking behavior, though not to Jaclyn's extreme, and men reward them with their attention. The pretty, flirty girls get lots of head turns, even on the web, just for posing in front of a camera semi-clothed. But instead of discouraging this as a form of narcissism, we tolerate it unless and until the girl hits the wall. Then it's, "Shut up. You're not hot anymore." Jaclyn is obviously a gigantic attention whore, but instead of saying this type of behavior is undesirable as a rule, we're making it dependent on appearance. I'd rather puncture her on what she's saying than on how much weight she's carrying or how many wrinkles she's accumulated. Personally I'm sure I would have found her just as annoying when she was at her physical peak.

    Susan - I saw you were getting it over there at Hooking Up Smart. Sorry! Last time I looked, though, you had a regular commenter giving it right back, so good on them. :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Men in the Roissysphere insist that "looks don't matter to women" and that they can be old, out-of-shape, balding and bitter and still be considered "hot" not only to women their own age but to YOUNGER women, whom they feel entitled to, so I Jaclyn is just the female version of that.

    Perhaps Roissy and her should hook up?

    ReplyDelete
  14. The rationalization is strong in this one.

    These are not the whores you are looking for...

    ReplyDelete
  15. Lots of interesting jabs at her weight and age, here. Lots of puritanical nonsense. Let the woman do as she pleases.

    ReplyDelete
  16. As a born-again spirit-filled Christian I hope she follows this path right to its logical conclusion.

    These people are too far gone to be of any use to anyone, other than as an example.

    Therefore, the bigger example she makes of herself, the happier I am.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I take a lot of issue with her saying that she's devalued sex so other people should too so she isn't alone. She made her choice and if she can't live with it then maybe she should re think it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "Because people - women specifically, in her worldview - have to be free to make the stupidest decisions ever and be protected from any bad outcome."

    This is the crux of the matter and the profound weakness of the feminist ideology. While women should be free to make their own choices, consequences are the result, both good and bad. We protect children from bad consequences, adults operating with free agency and open eyes do not need such protections. It's sadly ironic that the "I am strong and independent woman" concept always seems to fall apart when a bad consequence rears its ugly head.

    ReplyDelete
  19. I find your talk of the "market value" of a woman and Jaclyn not properly "leveraging her assets" when she was young to be pretty weird. Do you expect a man to "trade up" when his assets "increase in value" as well? And what happens in the event of a market crash? Everyone's assets plummet in value and the whole system breaks down! Where do you stand on the question of government bailouts?

    ReplyDelete
  20. Oh, please. I don't see Jaclyn claiming that her behavior is without potential consequences. She appears to be well aware that hooking up with people from Craigslist could place her in the clutches of an axe murderer. She went into that situation with her eyes wide open. And nowhere did she advise women to troll Craigslist for sex; she simply described her own experience. For her, that risk proved to have a worthwhile benefit. Many of us would not find the benefit worth the risk. It is a matter of individual preference.

    I agree with Evan that your talk (and Susan's) of women's market value is bizarre (and degrading too). Those of us who had sex for fun before marriage weren't worrying about our "market value" because we don't think of ourselves in those terms. My "Doomed Harlot" handle is a joke, but it seems that you actually view all women as whores.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Read the post properly, people.

    She does not expect other women to follow in her footsteps and become "sluts". All she says is that she wants other women to support her, which I interpret as let her do her thing and not judge her.

    I would not do what she does, but it's her life and her choice, so more power to her.

    Besides, it's not as if some of the male commenters on this site are in any position to judge anybody else on their promiscuity.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anon@3:21

    I would not do what she does, but it's her life and her choice, so more power to her.

    Frankly I couldn't care what she does with her life, but if you expect me not to have an opinion on the matter or voice it, you're wrong.

    Her actions have definitely decreased her market value to most men. By choosing to be a slut she has made herself more unattractive and while she is free to live her life as she pleases I'm quite free to disapprove of it. Why are women, or men for that matter, obligated to support her? Most people find promiscuity a turn off for a variety of reasons. This is an attempt by her and her femmorrhoid friends to try and change human nature yet again by shaming people who don't agree with her. This is an outright attempt at thought control: she is free to act like a slut but I'm not free to pass judgment on her behaviour: What a load of crap.

    As a male commentator even if I'd slept with thousands of women(and I haven't) I'd still have a right to think independently and negatively view her sluthood. Repeat after me: Men and women are not the same. Gender is not a social construct. All the cultural modification in the world is not going to grow you a new pair of genitals. What men like and what women like are different, and the difference is hard wired. Sluthood is not an attractive feature in the woman. You're free to believe otherwise, you're free to live in fantasy land.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Social Pathologist: You are arguing with feminist fundamentalists whose views are not based on either reason or science. Expect nothing except their shaming scorn and righteous anger.

    You *can* though chuckle over how they've become what they profess to hate. The irony, it is sweet and delicious!

    ReplyDelete
  24. Jaclyn and Roissy are the perfect match.

    Do they live in the same area?

    She's not even 40 yet so that should make him happy.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Social Pathologist:

    I wonder why women are supposed to be so worried about their so-called "market value"? Unless a woman is actually trying to sell herself for money, "market value" is an irrelevant concept. Most women are just trying to find someone compatible. A man who tsk-tsks a woman's sexual behavior is just as off-putting to her as she is to him. The contempt is mutual.

    You frame this as shaming men for their preferences. But you aren't expressing a mere preference, like an attraction to blondes for example. You are expressing active social disapproval. I think it is legitimate to shame men for expressing a double standard. You don't get to sleep with women and then despise them for sleeping with you. And you certainly have no reasonable basis to complain when women don't find that attitude a-ok.

    Besides, men's (supposed) preferences don't always carry the day. If you are seriously looking for an untouched virgin bride -- well, lots of luck with that.

    ReplyDelete
  26. I wonder why women are supposed to be so worried about their so-called "market value"? Unless a woman is actually trying to sell herself for money, "market value" is an irrelevant concept. Most women are just trying to find someone compatible.

    Doomed Harlot - you cannot be serious. Most women are not looking for just anyone compatible. Unless how you define compatible and how I define compatible utterly diverges. I could have thrown a rock in high school and hit a guy I could probably have lived with without wanting to kill, esp. given the homogenous character of my high school population. But women don't want just anyone. They want someone tall, good looking, with a full head of hair who makes or has the potential to make a good income and who shares the same values (I hesitate to say it, but that may be the actual order of preference for attributes). They want a "catch." This type of man has high market value in that any number of women want him and will compete for him.

    If he doesn't have any of those but is highly socially dominant, women will also scramble for his attention. Combine social dominance with all of the above, find yourself a producer, and you can host your own reality TV show.

    Market value is not about the exchange of money. It's about what you can get for what you've got in any number of situations.

    ReplyDelete
  27. @ Doomed Harlot
    A man who tsk-tsks a woman's sexual behavior is just as off-putting to her as she is to him. The contempt is mutual.

    You are misconstruing the situation. The double standard is real, like it or not. And women are as likely to hold it as men. This after all is what Jaclyn was hoping to change with her article.

    She is a feminist "Rock Star". Male Rock Stars have groupies elbowing each other out of the way for the chance to be the next pump and dump. Some even get their own reality show, complete with hooker bus. Female rock stars have to troll the depths of craigslist to find a willing partner. Shame me, rail at me, it doesn't matter. You know when young women read about her trolling craigslist for sex they say one word; ew!

    Besides, men's (supposed) preferences don't always carry the day. If you are seriously looking for an untouched virgin bride -- well, lots of luck with that.

    I appreciate the wish of luck. If what you are saying is that I and grerp's husband hit the jackpot, I concur.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Grerp,

    But you yourself admit that sharing the same values is important. That's what I was getting at when I mentioned compatibility. Ms. Friedman's "market value" among men who embrace a double standard is irrelevant. Why would she care about her market value with men she would never want to be with anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  29. Dalrock,

    I am not sure I am getting your point. Is it that many people, male and female, still believe in the double-standard? So what? Are you trying to claim this belief is universal? That any woman who sleeps around is doomed to die alone with her cats? Because that is not true.

    Yes, I agree that many people still hold to the double standard and I believe the double-standard should be vigorously criticized. But I don't believe the double-standard is a universal view. And I don't understand the idea that a woman should be desperately trying to conform to the standards of some sexist guy so that she can then spend the rest of her life with him. I love men (believe me, I love men) but it is not as though the life-long company of some guy who despises me would be such a great prize. There are plenty of fish in the sea, and plenty of men (indeed probably most married men 50 and younger) have married women who have a sexual past. My own husband didn't think twice about it.

    ReplyDelete
  30. @ Doomed Harlot
    Why would she care about her market value with men she would never want to be with anyway?

    By men she would never want to be with, are you talking about Feminist Men?

    There is a type of feminist guy who is so eager to fall over himself to be deferential to women and to prove his feminist bona fides and flagellate himself in front of you, to the point that it really turns me off. And it makes me sad, because politically, these are the guys that I should be sleeping with! You know what I’m talking about?

    ReplyDelete
  31. Yes, I think sharing values is important, more important than anything else, and, yes, I'm sure Jaclyn doesn't want to be with someone who doesn't ascribe to her worldview or value what she values. So, in essence, if the person's she with won't affirm her sluthood (her words), then she'd pass on dating him. But the pool she's got to choose from is so tiny because of additional factors. All things being equal, men will choose a thin woman over a fat woman. All things being equal, men will choose a young woman over an older woman. There were probably some enthusiastically feminist men out there she could have found and formed a LTR with in college, say. But most of them are off the market now or perhaps have married and divorced and are no longer interested in dating or LTRs.

    The things she is passionate about and the lifestyle she embraces are only enthusiastically cheered by people just like her - feminist activist women. That weeds most guys out right there before you even get to age, physical appearance or sexual experience. And she stated in a previous interview, "Fucking while Feminist" that she gets turned off by men who identify too strongly as feminists. So. She has a real challenge to confront in the dating world.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Dalrock,

    Wait, are you trying to say that Jaclyn would never want to be with feminist men? Because that ain't what she says in the link! She said that anyone she winds up with "would have to be a feminist on some basic level."

    She was specifically asked about whether she has ever been disappointed in a feminist guy. The quotation you pasted is a response to that specific question and she describes ONE KIND of feminist guy she doesn't like. And not only that, but she and the interviewer agree that this kind of feminist man is not yet very comfortable with feminism and hasn't yet internalized it.

    Soo, that quotation doesn't prove what you think it proves.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Grerp,

    I think you are moving the goal posts a bit here. We were talking about the fact that a woman like me or Jaclyn is not going to want to be with someone who embraces the notion that we should be shamed for having sex. Now suddenly you are claiming that the only suitable candidates for us are men who are enthusiastically engaged in activist feminism.

    Look, Jaclyn said any potential partner has to be a feminist on some basic level. I would say that an appropriate man must respect women's rights to dignity or equality. This is actually a pretty low bar, and plenty of men meet it just fine.

    ReplyDelete
  34. @Doomed Harlot
    The quotation you pasted is a response to that specific question and she describes ONE KIND of feminist guy she doesn't like.

    Right. Just ONE KIND: The kind of feminist man she has dated.

    Theoretically, when she closes her eyes another type of man exists and is interested in her. I can't argue that she will never find him. I wish her the best. In the meantime (based on her own description of her dating life) she will choose between spending years alone, dating women, or craigslist.

    On the bright side, she should have plenty of time to write more books on Female Sexual Power.

    ReplyDelete
  35. @Doomed Harlot
    And I don't understand the idea that a woman should be desperately trying to conform to the standards of some sexist guy so that she can then spend the rest of her life with him. I love men (believe me, I love men) but it is not as though the life-long company of some guy who despises me would be such a great prize.

    Agreed. And if you ever find someone actually making that argument, please let me know so I can tell them they are wrong.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "harlot"...classic, good word.
    nothing says empowered like fucking random strangers to "get over" your ex.

    get over the ex by getting under another dude who no doubt has no respect for you since he only had to log on to craigslist to fuck you. wow.

    ReplyDelete
  37. She only claims she slept with one guy from craigslist, nor does she advocate doing so. The other eight are not detailed. Please read the article again.

    ReplyDelete
  38. She only claims she slept with one guy from craigslist... Please read the article again.

    At your thoughtful request, I did:

    I went back to the CL well trying to find more men like B. with little success. He was, perhaps, a needle in a haystack that I never thought would contain a needle in the first place. There were bushels of disgusting replies, some other flirty email exchanges, a few dates that didn't make it past the first cocktail, and a scant handful of sexual encounters

    So the official count is 1 handful + 1

    ReplyDelete
  39. Dalrock, people have been arguing exactly that. Otherwise, why would people be advising her not to engage in certain behaviors that would reduce her "market value" with a certain kind of man? The clear implication is that it is somehow in her interest to behave in ways that are attractive to those men. But her only prize for doing so would be the esteem of men whose values she finds repugnant.

    In any case, I am actually skeptical of the notion that men have more respect for women who act as sexual gatekeepers. The real way for a woman (or a man) to ensure respect is to not tolerate disrespectful behavior. If your date starts putting you down or ordering you around, you tell him or her that this behavior is unacceptable. If your date persists in behavior you find disrespectful, you walk. A man may not like the fact that a woman has slept around, but that is different than not respecting her.

    ReplyDelete
  40. @Doomed Harlot
    why would people be advising her not to engage in certain behaviors that would reduce her "market value" with a certain kind of man? The clear implication is that it is somehow in her interest to behave in ways that are attractive to those men. But her only prize for doing so would be the esteem of men whose values she finds repugnant.

    Oh, I see the misunderstanding. This site isn't offering advice to Jacyln Friedman. The advice is to a young woman with her whole life ahead of her. A woman who hasn't yet made the slew of bad choices that Jaclyn made to get into her current miserable situation. I thought that was pretty clear, but it is good to clear it up.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Feminists are truly contradictory and vicious. All in all they will most likely end up as spinters with their 50 cats.

    http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2010/06/generation-of-women-living-blind-to.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. @Elizabeth
    Feminists are truly contradictory and vicious. All in all they will most likely end up as spinters with their 50 cats.

    I can't disagree, but keep in mind that the loud carping from the 40 and never married crowd is a fraction of 10% of women. Roughly 90% of women marry by their late 30s. Given all of the hype, I was surprised when I looked at the census data. They just happen to be a very loud fraction.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hi Dalrock.

    So the "advice" is for young women. But you are still assuming that these young women desire to marry a man who thinks a woman's chastity is extremely important (and perhaps holds to a double standard). But the hypothetical young woman in question presumably doesn't hold those values or she wouldn't be considering the possibility of sleeping around in the first place. So we are still back to the same question as to why young women in general are supposed to be worried about meeting the standards of conservative men.

    The vast majority of American women have premarital sex:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16287113/

    Yet, as you point out, 90% are married by their late 30s. Bear in mind also that the 10% of unmarried women include gay women, women who prefer to stay single, or women who had the chance to marry but preferred to stay single rather than marry the particular men who were available. Sluthood is therefore hardly a predictor of the ability to get a husband.

    ReplyDelete
  44. @Doomed Harlot
    The vast majority of American women have premarital sex:

    There is a huge leap between "had premarital sex" and "embraced their inner slut". What percent of those counted as having premarital sex still had only one partner (married the person they had premarital sex with)? Of the remaining, how many just one or two other partners before marriage and in the context of committed monogamous LTRs?

    Per the CDC (I haven't traced this fully back from Roissy via Vox to the actual data, but it looks right to me):

    Median number of male sexual partners in lifetime, for women 25-44 years of age, 2002: 3.8
    Percent of women 25-44 years of age who have had 15 or more male sexual partners, 2002: 11.4%

    NOTE: Includes partners with whom respondent had any type of sexual contact (anal, oral, or vaginal intercourse)


    So half of all women had sexual contact with 2.8 or fewer men other than their eventual husband before they married. If these women were sluts, I would say they lack initiative.

    Also, with marriage 2.0 men need to be more careful than before. The legal deck is stacked against them. Men with options are going to be more choosy, as they should be.

    Sluthood is therefore hardly a predictor of the ability to get a husband.

    If just getting a husband is the goal, you are probably right. A pretty enough woman can most likely find some guy willing to marry her. But if she wants a husband who has other good options available, she needs to bring her best game to the table. Having slutted it up in the past won't help her compete with other women, and likely will hurt in this regard.

    I think you also have to factor the woman's priorities. If slutting it up is a key life goal and marriage is secondary, I would advise she get out there and start slutting. Time's a wasting; get out there and do every man who will have you while you are as hot as you will ever be. If marriage to the highest quality man (a man with options) is her highest priority and slutting it up not that exciting to her, then maybe she should think first. I don't think this is contrary to what grerp is saying.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Respectable Wife (formerly known as Doomed Harlot)August 5, 2010 at 12:47 PM

    OK, so having sex with a couple guys before marriage doesn't make a woman a slut? Imagine my relief! (I have changed my handle in response to this news.)

    But if we are to express social disapproval of sluts, then the amorphous definition of sluthood is a problem. If having a couple of partners before marriage is okay, when exactly does one cross the line into sluthood? And who gets to decide? These questions are exactly why I support my more sexually adventurous female friends. Their freedom to sleep around without social ostracism protects me and other women from arbitrary social disapproval.

    Dalrock, I also don't understand your claim that refraining from sluthood somehow makes a woman more likely to garner a higher quality man. "Quality" is a subjective term. By definition, a man who believes in double standards or in slut-shaming would not be a "quality" husband for me or Jaclyn, regardless of what other qualities or options he may have. So again, there is no reason to take such a man's opinions into account when making sexual decisions.

    What I am getting at is that a choice of mate is highly idiosyncratic. Grerp's idea of a "high quality" man is going to be radically different from mine. We are not going to be "competing" for the same men.

    I do appreciate your recognition that a woman's personal priorities are important. There are plenty of women who are not interested in marrying or pair-bonding. (I myself was among them for many years.) Of course, you mean to be dismissive by characterizing slutting it up as a "key life goal." In fact, slutting it up is usually (certainly in my case) to be incidental to a life of other endeavors, such as professional, charitable, artistic or political activity.

    ReplyDelete
  46. DH/RW - While I agree with Susan that embracing your inner slut is bad, I would go farther than she would. I think casual sex is bad. It's bad for many women because of the previous considerations we've discussed here and over there - exposure to STDs and pregnancy, higher likelihood of bonding during sex and therefore hurting when it goes no further, and the potential of further limiting the pool of men available to her for a LTR. But it's bad for society too. All that casual sex is producing quite a lot of unintended pregnancies. A woman with an unwanted pregnancy has three hard choices: abortion, adoption, or single motherhood. I'm against abortion; I think it's baby killing. Placing your child for adoption I imagine is like ripping your heart from your chest and mailing it to Guam, although I will always be grateful to my son's birthmother for choosing to make the sacrifice of carrying to term and relinquishing instead of aborting. The third option - single motherhood - is more and more popular. We are currently hovering at 40+% illegitimacy, and it is this trend that will shake what stability American society has left. Seriously, with the high divorce rate and the high illegitimacy rate, childhood becomes more insecure by the day. By the DAY. More poverty, more abuse, more molestation, more crime, more suicide, all of the bad outcomes increase when you destabilize or opt out of the family unit.

    You can decide to rank the welfare of the individual or the welfare of society first. I'm for the second even if it means my personal freedoms are curtailed. When you make meeting the individual needs of every single person out there paramount, you have social anarchy.

    Put me down for a "no" on that option. But don't worry. No one is going to listen to me.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Respectable Wife,

    Thanks for the discussion. I'm confident neither of us changed our positions, but at least I understand where we disagree.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Respectable Wife / Doomed HarlotAugust 5, 2010 at 3:37 PM

    Grerp,

    I agree with you that it is important to refrain from spreading STDs and from creating an unwanted pregnancy. But I think that the argument that casual sex is the culprit for those things is grossly overblown. Practicing safe sex and using (or better yet, doubling up on) birth control should cover one's ethical obligations. (Other ethical obligations that I adhered to were never forcing or pressuring anyone into sex and never misleading a partner as to my degree of emotional investment.)

    That said, I think your argument about STDs and pregnancy is fair enough, even if I don't agree with it. What I really object to is: (1) The double standard and related to that, the notion of women as sexual gatekeepers; (2) The notion that a woman is the "supply" side in some kind of sexual marketplace; (3) The notion that women are too dumb to figure out what risks they are or are not willing to take; (4) the notion that oxytocin = falling in love; and (5) the notion that women constantly need "advice" as to what is good for them, as if there is only one set of universal right answers and again, as if they are too dumb to figure out what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Why would she care about her market value with men she would never want to be with anyway?

    That's not the problem, the problem arises when she has devalued herself to the man she wants to be with". Lots of guys, even the pro-feminist ones, find a slutty past history a big, big turnoff.

    It's quite surprising to see just how man liberal men are actually perplexed as to why they feel that way: They know it shouldn't matter yet it does.

    You're quite right that a woman like JF would not want someone like me. I'm educated, bourgeoisie and as perfect an example of the patriarchy as you can get. But here's the rub, a man like me does not want anyone like JF. She's miserable being alone, I'm more than happy not having her in my life.

    ReplyDelete
  50. ''But here's the rub, a man like me does not want anyone like JF. She's miserable being alone, I'm more than happy not having her in my life.''

    Ironically this is what I also think when I imagine players or ''bad boys'' and the like.

    Gamers/PUA's/''Bad boys''/etc don't desire women whom are modest, virgins, women with low partner numbers and I'm more than happy as well for them.

    http://alcestiseshtemoa.wordpress.com/2010/08/01/the-myth-of-the-player-whom-marries-a-virgin/

    ReplyDelete
  51. My only issue is that she feels she needs to export the toxic MeMeMeMe to everyone else.

    It's so transparently narcissistic it's almost not worth responding to.

    ReplyDelete
  52. "Yes, I agree that many people still hold to the double standard and I believe the double-standard should be vigorously criticized. But I don't believe the double-standard is a universal view."

    There is no "double-standard". The idea that women who are sluts do not make ideal long-term mates is biological in nature and is,in fact, common sense. Can a man who is a child abuser make a good parent? Of course not. The idea is ludicrous.


    Not only that, the reason males who have sex a lot are celebrated culturally is because it is HARD for the vast majority, 60% of men to get laid often, whereas a woman fucking 1000 men is easy, as this woman demonstrated. All she needs to do is have no willpower and bowed legs that spread easy.



    So why should men want to marry a woman who likes to fuck lots of random guys, knowing that they may cave to this preference down the road?

    I absolutely spit at the idea of being forced,by you, to make stupid decisions that will cost me DEARLY later on.

    And if you are going to sit there and tell me that women don't despise male virgins as much or probably more than males dislike female sluts, I will spit on you as well.

    How about taking that old biblical proverb to heart and "remove the beam from thine own eye first" before attempting to change how MEN think?

    Oh,that's right, that would require admitting that females have inherent biases too.

    I seriously doubt you feminists are ever going to start telling women that they should fuck "creepy virgin" guys in order to make things "equal", so why should I have to marry a diseased slut who fucks my brother or mailman at the first opportunity?

    There is no "double standard", and if there were, it would be every bit as much the fault of women as it is of men. You women are the ones that keep slinging "can't get laid" around as an insult to any man who disagrees with you, are you not?

    ReplyDelete
  53. "Grerp's idea of a "high quality" man is going to be radically different from mine. We are not going to be "competing" for the same men."

    Actually,you are. 20% of the pool of American men, to be exact. Most women want to fuck a man who fucks other women, this is called "social proof". The idea that "if she likes him, there must be something worth liking". Like it or not, that is one of the key ways women select men to pair with. And since these women are ALL competing for a few men who are already with women or who were known to be successful with women, that means that you, and grerp, and every other woman are competing for the SAME EXACT MEN.

    No woman's idea of a "high-quality man" differs radically from any other, it just seems that way because women spend hours discussing minutiae. Therefore when she says, I want a man who has green eyes, and you say I want a man with blue eyes, you think you are discussing radically different men, when in fact, overlapping commonalities exist.

    For instance most women want a man who is tall, that narrows down the pool of men quite a bit, most women want a man who is funny, there's another big slice taken out of the pie. And when a woman is arrogant enough to believe that she "deserves" all of these qualities in a SINGLE MAN, you're talking about the top 10% of men WORLDWIDE.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Respectable Wife/ Doomed HarlotAugust 8, 2010 at 9:16 AM

    Anonymous at 6:55 a.m.

    Actually, I am not trying to change men's preferences. I am saying that it is wrong to subject a woman to more shaming and social disapproval for sleeping around than a man who behaves in the exact same manner. I didn't say you had to marry Jaclyn Friedman. (Similarly, I would not want to marry a man who demanded a level of "purity" from his wife that he himself could not match. It is a good thing you and I aren't getting married.)

    You mentioned that the ridicule of men who remain virgins for longer than usual. I agree with you 100% that it is wrong to shame people (men or women) for merely choosing to remain virgins or for being unable to get laid. Your point has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however.

    Back on point, I totally disagree that all men experience the same negative feelings about women who sleep around as you. Male tastes are diverse and vary among cultures and sub-cultures. In Saudi Arabia, many men would find a non-virgin bride unacceptable (to the point of probably killing her). In contrast, most American men I know expect that a woman they marry will have had prior sexual experiences with other men. And in certain subcultures, no one blinks an eye at the most extreme promiscuity in either sex. Even porn stars get married.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Respectable Wife/ Doomed HarlotAugust 8, 2010 at 9:41 AM

    Anonymous at 7:09 a.m.

    Your comment made me laugh, just because it was so specific as to the amount of available, acceptable men -- only 10-20%! My whole community must be in the top 10-20% of attractiveness WORLDWIDE since pretty much everyone where I live is married.

    That said, I would agree that there are only a small percentage of men suitable to any given woman. For example, I married a man who is physically attractive to me, kind, funny, and feminist. I am pretty sure Grerp would not have wanted to marry my husband because she would not have wanted to marry a feminist. I am pretty sure I would not have wanted to marry Grerp's husband for similar ideological reasons. We were not competing for the same pool of men because we would rather have stayed single than marry someone with different values (or at least I assume Grerp would feel that way).

    I think one thing I have found aggravating in this discussion is the idea that women should conform their behavior to the supposed standards of men OTHERS find "high quality." But women are not statistics and your idea of what women believe to be "high quality" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the preferences of a given individual woman.

    Besides, the world is a big place. My pool of acceptable men probably WAS quite small (maybe 1-2% worldwide????). But who cares? You join communities of like-minded folks and suddenly the percentage of acceptable men is much, much higher.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Resectable Wife / Doomed HarlotAugust 8, 2010 at 9:58 AM

    Hi Dalrock, I just saw your last comment. Much obliged. This has been fun!

    ReplyDelete
  57. "Actually, I am not trying to change men's preferences. I am saying that it is wrong to subject a woman to more shaming and social disapproval for sleeping around than a man who behaves in the exact same manner."

    Why? You are comparing two entirely different behaviors. On the man's part, he is displaying his natural fitness as a mate by overcoming initial female resistance to sex. On the woman's part, she is displaying a lack of willpower and the inability to choose the best mate. You're basically saying that's it's wrong to not subject apples and oranges to the same test.


    "I didn't say you had to marry Jaclyn Friedman."

    No,you are saying that you would enable women to behave as she did, possibly encouraging more women to behave in such a way, thereby making it impossible to marry someone who is not LIKE Jaclyn Friedman. Well,fuck that. I'll move to a Buddhist monastery first.

    "(Similarly, I would not want to marry a man who demanded a level of "purity" from his wife that he himself could not match. It is a good thing you and I aren't getting married.)"

    I think I just threw up in my mouth a little.

    "You mentioned that the ridicule of men who remain virgins for longer than usual. I agree with you 100% that it is wrong to shame people (men or women) for merely choosing to remain virgins or for being unable to get laid. Your point has nothing to do with the topic at hand, however."

    WRONG. My point has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand. You see, if you are going to liberate women from social disapproval for acting like sluts, thereby making sure that women receive no social disapproval for either camp they fall in,slut or virgin, then YOU PERSONALLY have to stop shaming men for not being Casanova,Don Juan types. If something is wrong, it is wrong, if it is right, it is right.

    Personally, the situation we have now makes sense to me, but if you think it is unfair that women receive social disapproval for being sluts, then you must admit that the opposite side of the coin, that men are shamed for NOT getting laid, and this shaming being done BY WOMEN, is equally wrong, and you must change this as well. Or else you have a situation where women receive 100% of the choices and validation for those choices and men receive 100% of the blame and 0% of the choices.

    ReplyDelete
  58. @RW/DH
    I think one thing I have found aggravating in this discussion is the idea that women should conform their behavior to the supposed standards of men OTHERS find "high quality."

    You're 1)underestimating the number of men who prefer non-promiscuous women and 2)denying the fact that there is any unified standard of what makes a man (or person) "high quality" as a dating prospect. That's fine, but statistics and observable reality disagree.

    It's like a stereotypical nice guy beta type saying, "I'm not looking for a girl that prefers douches, she's not 'high quality' to me, a girl who likes guys like me is 'high quality". The problem with this view is it really amounts to a delusion. How about we define quality as someone with the most options for who to date, someone who can and will be the most discriminating in their choice? One view represents reality, the other represents how things *should* be.

    It's like the job market. For the sake of argument I'm comparing promiscuity to a DUI. Why? Because it's potentially self destructive and risky, and while it may not mean I'm a bad person, it definitely is something I may be judged on. If I don't get a job because of it, I might say, "well I don't want a job with a company that cares about that anyway". It's a totally disingenuous statement, albeit a great coping mechanism. So in order to make myself feel better, I go out and advocate driving drunk to all my friends. Hell, if enough people get DUIs, we might be able to alter the norm and get rid of this unfair judgment! They should be valuing my other qualities!

    The double-standard is alive and well and it's not going anywhere. Sure, you're lowering the bar by incerasing the average number of partners a woman's been with, but all that does is put things on a sliding scale where guys prefer the least promiscuous types on average for LTRs. How many woman will have to suffer before they realize the folly in all of this?

    What I find extremely ironic is how often moral judgments and arguments are asserted by the postmodernist and feminists camps- fairness is a moral construct. They argue that morality is completely relative and no one should be judged, then procede to judge (and demonize) those who disagree. Feminism cannot function without the auspice of moral superiority.

    ReplyDelete
  59. Sox said...

    *giant bitchslap of truth*

    Brilliant.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Hi anonymous at 3:27 a.m. I'll respond to some of what you said.

    1) I don't see how overcoming female resistance to sex makes a man a better mate, especially if he is sleeping with a lot of women. All it does is make him more likely to pass on his genes, which means "success" in biological terms but not so much in social terms. I thought one reason for slut-shaming was to prevent unprepared-for pregnancies, a rationale that would apply equally to Don Juans.

    I also don't see how women who sleep around are showing a lack of willpower or an inability to choose a good mate -- or why that's anyone else's business. I am sure if I had wanted to lead a life of celibacy, I would have had the willpower to do so, but I wasn't trying to stay celibate. It's not like most young woman are saying, "If only I could have stayed a virgin, but I caved in the face of a man who overcame my resistance." Such an idea would be howlingly funny to the many of us who actively sought opportunities for sex.

    Ultimately, your view of sex is really depressing. You seem to view sex as a constant battle that can end up only in a win-lose result. The man is supposed to try to have sex with a woman who keeps him at bay. If she caves, then he wins and she loses, and the man gets to disdain her for doing something you both wanted to do. If the woman refuses sex, she wins -- but she doesn't get to have sex and neither does the man. Some victory.

    How about a win-win model? Two people find each other attractive and have sex with each other. Win-win! Everyone's happy! I just don't see what's so awful about that. That's how I always thought about sex growing up. If the men were feeling differently, then I feel sorry for them.

    2) I am not impressed with the notion that feminist encouragement will cause every woman to act like Jaclyn Friedman, thus driving you to a Buddhist monastery. I think female preferences are diverse, just as men's are. Just because women are free to act like Jaclyn Friedman doesn't mean they will. I don't believe Ms. Friedman should be shamed for finding a partner on craigslist, but that doesn't mean I would want to do the same thing if I were single.

    Besides, I don't think you have a right to have women conform to your preferences in a mate, any more than I have a right to have men conform to mine. We shouldn't get to dictate to other people how they manage their sex lives, but we don't have to marry them either. Staying single is a valid choice.

    3) I am not sure why you think I am personally shaming men for not getting laid. I have never done that in my life. I already said that I don't approve of shaming people for their sexual choices or their lack of sexual success. I agree that it is bad to shame men for not being Don Juan. Sexual shaming is bad no matter who the victim is. I am not sure what more you want from me on this issue.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Sox,

    What you are missing though is that "not adhering to anti-feminist double standards" is an independent criterion by which feminist women judge men. It's not like I committed DUI and hope to find someone who will tolerate that. A feminist who sleeps around isn't just looking for tolerance. It is that someone like me would never WANT to marry someone who thought in terms of anti-feminist double standards even if that man were willing marry me. It's a dealbreaker.

    Your invocation of the dreaded moral relativism is a strawman. I never said no one should be judged. I just disagree with you as to what kind of behaviors warrant judgment and I have defended my position.

    ReplyDelete
  62. I agree with what you mean about the "inner slut" business, but rape is a sensitive topic for me. Especially with victim blaming.

    As it is, victims most often blame themselves. Yes, in retrospect, or from a third person perspective, or from the perspective of someone thirty years older, from a different time and place, with different ideals.

    I'm sure that with the wisdom they have no, every rape victim would have done something differently. Right now, they need to find a way to live in the now with what has happened.

    I'm sure there were 100's of times in your life you put yourself in danger without thinking of it. You walked alone once (during the day or at night). You forgot to lock your door. Your friends may have left you somewhere. You were living in a bad neighborhood because you couldn't afford better places to live. You got into a taxi at night. You took some form of public transport at night. You were alone with a male friend you were not interested in having sexual encounters yet.

    Why weren't you raped? There is no complex formula to calculating it, nothing for you to do. Every day you wake up alive, you're lucky. Because techbnically, a shooter can run into your workplace, open fire, and kill you all. You can work in a building that gets a plane crashed into it by terrorists. You could have been gang raped walking home from school at age 13, like one of my friends was.

    The only reason any of us is relatively safe is because we operate under the assumption that these things are wrong. That no one puts themselves in a position where they are ASKING to be murdered. Where they are ASKING to be raped.

    Has anyone looked at a victim's dead corpse and said,"She was asking to be killed?" But they seem to have no qualms blaming rape victims.

    Cute double standard there. But it's ok, I don't expect you to be rational. You are, after all, a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  63. The misconception here is that engaging in sluthood means it's public knowledge. With the exception of sexting with your face in the frame a woman's sexual history is what you tell a guy. Unless he goes private detective or has been in here circle long enough and knows the guys she's f*cked a woman's sexual history is what she tells him.

    There's even surgeries to implant a hymen.

    ReplyDelete
  64. You can't implant a hymen. It's surgical reconstruction

    ReplyDelete
  65. @brightstormyday
    Has anyone looked at a victim's dead corpse and said,"She was asking to be killed?" But they seem to have no qualms blaming rape victims.

    Sex is a human/animal drive, murder is not.

    Cute double standard there. But it's ok, I don't expect you to be rational. You are, after all, a woman.

    Don't quit your day job.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Reading this made me sick to my stomach, especially the bit about the victim blaming. I can't understand how some people think like this.

    ReplyDelete