Susan Walsh assesses the writings of “sex-positive feminist” blogger Tracy Clark Flory.
It is well worth the read.
Susan Walsh assesses the writings of “sex-positive feminist” blogger Tracy Clark Flory.
It is well worth the read.
…leads 22-year-old cheerleading assistant coach–who lists herself as ENGAGED–down the path to promiscuity.
While I gave up pedestaling long ago, I still found this tidbit unpleasantly surprising.
Gentlemen….if she starts talking about taking a trip to the Caribbean–without you, of course–let’s just say that it’s a VERY BAD SIGN.
And to the ladies who are into this sort of thing….don’t kid yourselves. If there’s something instructive about this article, it’s that, while you may be getting the attention you crave, the locals over there have special names for you.
Yes, they’ll ravage your body and even take payment for their pleasure. Just remember, though: to them, you’re just an affluent slut. A “milk bottle”.
Over here, though, you are worse than a slut. If you pay for it, then you are as much of a loser as any man who pays for it.
HT: Vox Day.
This had me in stitches.
The quote of the year:
There is only one fundamental rule of sexual attraction. No man can fake an erection. If he’s got one, you’ve still got it. Perhaps not quite as much as you once did, but it’s all you need.
What Lisa Dierbeck has written here is both priceless and ominous.
Amazing how, even from a secular perspective that is removed from Biblical mores regarding sexual ethics, she’s found herself not far from the truth.
Keep moving rightward, Lisa. You’re almost there.
This should also serve as a warning to college-aged women who are getting pressured from all sides to jump on that carousel. You want to know where that leads? Read Dierbeck.
Lisa, sadly, is now 40.
If she aspires to marriage, her baggage puts her behind the 8-ball.
If she aspires to motherhood, her most fertile years are behind her.
Like Kate Bolick, even if she takes great care of herself, her peak days of attractiveness are also now behind her.
This is the price of parental amorality.
Contrast that with those married, conservative Protestant women, who enjoy sex more than any other demographic group.
Who is the idiot here? I’d submit that it is the man, Steven Silverstein.
While Kendra Platt-Lee certainly qualifies as a “gold-digger”–and Steven Silverstein is fortunate to be getting ditched now rather than after the wedding–he was a complete idiot for moving in with her and giving her access to his money.
Hopefully, he learns his lesson.
Just remember, ladies: folks like Kendra are doing you a disservice.
HT to Vox Day. This is what happens when a man breaks up with a woman, and still tries to remain friends with her.
Vox Day has an excellent take on what I call the Maureen Dowd defense:
I about choked on my coffee when I read this piece by “Sigrid”, in her attempt to attack Susan Walsh:
Your argument(s) (and I use “argument” loosely) about female promiscuity and its correlation to a litany of negative individual/societal outcomes notwithstanding, I find your tacit (0r perhaps not so tacit) support of “slut shaming” deeply disturbing. As a PhD student at a large university with two two nieces and one nephew in their first years of college (representative of your primary audience), I cringe that their earnest navigation (whatever that may look like) through the inevitably disorienting and murky terrain of their sexuality and sociality should be so crudely measured on a loaded and psychologically damaging binary of shame vs. exaltation. And I would posit that, indeed, it is the rhetoric and discourse emanating from that binary that exacts the profound negative toll on all of us. To “shame” anyone (although in your case you have a particular penchant for females, it seems) is cruel and counterproductive.
I admit, I’ve only recently become acquainted with this site, and I have yet to investigate whether you are a proper journalist, a working scholar in the academy, or a self-appointed pundit, but if either of the two former, you should be careful to so readily employ sweeping phrases such as “we all know” and unqualified pronouns (i.e., “they”, “few”…example below). Who, exactly, is “we all” and “they,” I ask?
“Fifteen years later, we all know that few found “newer, truer, less sexist and more ecstatic ways of being sexual.” They found ways of being sexual that were risky, superficial, awkward and unsatisfying. The sexual double standard is as prominent as ever, being biologically determined and therefore immutable. If anything, men have become hypersensitive to female promiscuity, warily inquiring about a woman’s number before investing one ounce of emotional energy.”
In addition, do you feel any responsibility to justify your claims to causality/correlation?
“…female promiscuity is not a problem “for one reason or another.” It is directly responsible for the near disappearance of fulfilling and intimate cross-sex relationships among young people in college, the mistaken and tragic sense that most college students have of themselves as sexual “losers,” the rapid rise of sexually transmitted diseases in the U.S., and the creation of a “spinster class” of women now in their 30s and 40s.”
I am an unattached woman in my thirties, and I just want to thank you for answering with such unflinching confidence that my status as a…what do you call it?…”spinster”?…. is the fault either of my own “promiscuity” (in my case, a drawn out virginity followed by a personal decision that I’m generally uncomfortable with casual sex, and am better in committed, monogamous relationships, though I’ve experimented some), or a cult of young women who actively engage in casual sex (oh…and maybe their “man-whore” partners…yes, lets *not* forget those). Who knew the answer (which happens to *also* explain the rise of STDs in the US!) was so readily at my hands?! I’m sure your readership breathlessly awaits the quantitative and qualitative data sets you’ve marshaled to support this “argument.”
Maybe if I include a photo, you can size me up and further illuminate me on my “spinster” status with some added commentary based on my haircut, fashion sense, posture, or general appearance, in the same way you did my colleague, Extragiraffe, who, far from a “douchebag” or “frat boy,” is a kind and incredibly decent human being, a respected and decorated academic-in-training who is well-read in feminist theory/praxis, and a thoughtful discussant on a range of issues pertaining to gender and sexuality. If I wasn’t already put off by your crude category-building and your amateur sociology, your sophomoric, evasive, and baseless response to my friend solidifies that I will discourage everyone I know (but particularly my nieces and nephew and their peers) from ever taking your web site or its logics seriously.
Here is my 1000 mph assessment:
(1) Extragiraffe is more than likely pulling a Hugo Schwyzer and embracing feminism only insofar as to land bed partners. (Russ and myself observed a fair amount of that dynamic at Southern Baptist Theological Cemetary, during days when the feministas were making their last stand.)
(2) Susan Walsh is right: don’t forget about the manwhores. Both sexes have their share in this mess.
(3) Sigrid has provided a great illustration of WHY MEN DON’T GIVE AN AIRBORNE RODENT COPULATION ABOUT WOMEN’S “SUCCESS”!!!!
I’m going to be blunt here, Sigrid, but, if the only two women left on this earth were you and a crack whore with AIDS, and God told me I HAD to marry one, I’d be gambling on a cure for AIDS.
You might do well to learn from Walsh on this one, Sigrid…
While Walsh has an MBA from Wharton, she doesn’t use her credentials in any attempt to show that she is smarter than everyone else in the room. She simply lets the facts speak for themselves, and provides insights into factors that have made life hell for men and women. I don’t agree with her all the time, but she’s right most of the time.
And that brings me to another point: YOUR CREDENTIALS MEAN LITTLE TO NOTHING OUTSIDE OF ACADEMIA! Those of us who work for a living couldn’t care less what you are doing in an establishment that has little connection to the real world. Fact is, Walsh’s MBA from Wharton is worth more than the PhD you don’t even have yet.
Oh, and you may not want to speak too soon about that PhD: the ranks of the academy are littered with folks–smarter than you–who got shot down just short of their dissertation defenses. Even in soft fields like education…
I’d kick you even harder, but I have real work to do. Hat tip to Vox Day and Munson for their smackdowns, though.
The results of it were a little surprising. I’ll let Vox’s words speak for themselves and leave it to the reader to draw his or her own conclusions.
There were 232 male and 59 female responses that were usable. I had to throw out a few that didn’t provide meaningful responses, such as those that answered “N” for a question concerning which the possible answers ranged from A to E. I also omitted the responses of a few polyamorous snowflakes; since the objective is to examine normal human fidelity the behavior of those who define the concept differently is of neither interest nor use.
32% never married. 8% reported their own marital infidelity, 14% reported marital infidelity on their husband or ex-husband’s part. 31% of all women, married and unmarried, reported cheating on one or more pre-marital boyfriends. Of those who were unfaithful in marriage, 100% cheated on other boyfriends who were not their eventual husbands.
Female sexual infidelity rose considerably with increased sexual experience. None of the married women with 1-3 partners reported cheating, 20% with 4-9 partners did, as did 43% of women with 10+ partners. (There was an insufficient number of married women in category E, reporting 20+ partners, to be meaningful, so I included them with category D here.) There was no discernible pattern relating female sexual experience to male infidelity.
24% never married. 15% reported their own marital infidelity, 24% reported marital infidelity on their wife or ex-wife’s part. 28% of all men, married and unmarried, reported cheating on one or more pre-marital girlfriends. Of those who were unfaithful in marriage, 65% cheated on other girlfriends they did not eventually marry.
The risk of both marital cheating and marital betrayal rose with male sexual experience. 3% of the men with 1-3 partners reported cheating and 14% reported betrayal, 12% of the men with 4-9 partners reported cheating and 30% reported betrayal, 28% of the men with 10-19 partners reported cheating and 31% reported betrayal, and 43% of the men with 20+ partners reported both cheating and betrayal.
The risk of divorce also rose with male sexual experience, although less smoothly. Whereas only 6% of the men with between 1-9 partners were divorced, 13% of the men with 10-19 partners and 35% of the men with 20+ partners were divorced.
Now, there superficially appears to be somewhat of a chicken-or-the-egg problem here, as one could argue that divorce and female infidelity precedes promiscuous male behavior. But the reports of premarital behavior tends to preclude this possibility, because men with 1-3 partners average one-half the number of serious premarital girlfriends and one-twentieth the number of betrayed premarital girlfriends as those with 10+ partners.
Infidelity is neither as rampant as is commonly assumed nor does it lead to divorce in the majority of cases. More of the men here than the women have experienced marital infidelity, nearly one quarter, which is unsurprising given a betrayed man will tend to be more inclined to swallow the red pill of Game. Both male and female cheaters tend to marry cheaters, but there is a surprising amount of premarital infidelity even among the relatively inexperienced. However, that premarital infidelity is less likely to translate into subsequent marital infidelity.
I was also surprised to see that the more sexually alpha a man is, the more likely it is that he will be betrayed by his wife. This is directly contra conventional Game theory, although both Athol and Roissy have theorized that while most women seek ALPHA, those with a surfeit of it may develop a craving for BETA. Alternatively, it could simply be a tit-for-tat reaction to habitual Alpha infidelity, or it could be the explanation towards which I incline, which is that because ALPHAS will tolerate higher Ns than lower rank men, they will tend to marry higher rank, higher N women who not only possess a greater proclivity to stray, but are subject to more frequent and determined attempts to seduce them. Of course, it could simply be a combination of all three of these factors.
I also noticed that female infidelity was somewhat more predictable than male infidelity, which is to say that her premarital behavior tends to be more in line with her marital behavior. Men tended to show more variability, as unlike women, there were men who were unfaithful in marriage who had never been unfaithful before marriage. This may or may not be because women with high N are less likely to marry than their male counterparts; only 43% of women in the N=20+ category had ever married versus 64% of men.