The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
"He Asked Permission to Touch, But Not to Ghost"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

From the New York Times:

He Asked Permission to Touch, but Not to Ghost

A culture of consent, one woman argues, should be less about self-protection and more about genuine care for the other person.

By Courtney Sender
Sept. 7, 2018

Summary: 30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. She is impressed he asks permission for every step of the process, like an Antioch College RA in 1994. He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. She feels hurt, despite all the permissions she gave. She decides our Society must change so that guys don’t love her and leave her so fast.

… But in the days and weeks after, I was left thinking that our culture’s current approach to consent is too narrow. A culture of consent should be a culture of care for the other person, of seeing and honoring another’s humanity and finding ways to engage in sex while keeping our humanity intact. It should be a culture of making each other feel good, not bad.

And if that’s the goal, then consent doesn’t work if we relegate it exclusively to the sexual realm. Our bodies are only one part of the complex constellation of who we are. To base our culture of consent on the body alone is to expect that caretaking involves only the physical.

I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person, the entire person, both during an encounter and after, when we’re often at our most vulnerable.

Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”

Courtney Sender is a writer in Boston.

I think a lot of people these days would like to bring back Victorian mores, although most of them, like this lady, would be offended to be told that.

When I was a kid, there was a lot of emphasis on how crazy the prudish Victorians were and how much harm they did to human happiness by limiting sex.

But the Victorians had their reasons.

Also by Courtney Sender, in a blog called AGNI:

Against “Unlikeable”: On the Occasion of What Happened

ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2017 BY AGNIMAGIN ESSAYS
by Courtney Sender

When my novel manuscript was rejected in early 2016, I knew that Hillary Clinton would lose the election.

 
Hide 357 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Maybe Courtney’s address was unknown to the “ghostarbeiter”?

  2. Also by Courtney Sender:

    When my novel manuscript was rejected in early 2016…

    …it was the work of a ghost. Specifically, this one:

    • Replies: @the one they call Desanex
    Met her on Tinder
    She’s a solid (((Sender)))
    She said “You better surrender.”

    Met her on Tinder
    She’s a solid (((Sender)))
    She said “You better surrender.”

    Slippin’ and a slidin’
    Peepin’ and a hidin’
    Won’t be yo’ fool no more.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGq5hquIgp4

  3. She vainly wishes for this

  4. So sad.

    Girls are fruitcakes.

    Get drunk with their girlfriends, look a stranger up on their cell phone, meet up, hook up, screw on their first meeting, and then feel hurt that he didn’t act like a boyfriend.

    Women are sheep lacking all self-awareness. If their girlfriends tell them they should “go for it”, they do.

    A year from now she could be wearing a black Muslim gunny sack, doing whatever her Arab boyfriend orders her to do, popping out three or four sprogs, and be perfectly happy that a man is in charge.

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?

    • Agree: L Woods
    • Replies: @black sea
    A week or so ago, someone posted a comment here that went straight to the heart of this woman's-- and many another woman's -- dilemma. The comment went something like this.


    These three things are unrelated:

    What a woman thinks she wants.
    What a woman says she wants.
    What a woman wants.
    , @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.
    , @unpc downunder
    Yes ladies you're all whores and fools. All of you. No buts, no exceptions. The (gay?) radical right has spoken. I don't care if you've swung to the nationalist populist right and started voting for Trump, Le Pen and Salvini, we don't need your cootie covered voting slips. We'll simply abolish democracy and go straight to absolute monarchy.
    , @Anon
    And old codgers spend their days cruising the internet for stories about young women so they can get off ranting about sex and sluts and tattoos and sex and messy hair and sex and one night stands and sex and sex and sluts and chortling away that young men can easily get one night stands which the old codgers couldn’t do in 1955 unless they paid a prostitute.
  5. When did the NYT start publishing erotica? It seems like, not so long ago, this sort of degenerate display of solipsism written by a post-wall feminist thot would have been left to Salon or HuffPo.

    • Replies: @Lot
    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.
    , @Lagertha
    sex sells. NYT is getting desperate...so get ready for "slow erotica" articles to entertain NYT biggest demographic: 68+...the ones who still read newspapers.
    , @anon
    Her hair is OK but not great.

    Just for fun, she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School. -Her website[?]
     
    Not a plus.

    Verdict: F*ck her and chuck her. At least Antioch didn’t spring for dinner and a movie. A man has to stay on budget.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    written by a post-wall feminist
     
    Huh? The wall was built? I wasn't paying attention...

    Or do you mean the one in around Israel?
  6. I’m still trying to understand what this chick is complaining about. A 24 year old had sex with her on two different occasions, gave her polite pleasure then moved on before the age difference got to be a problem. I assure you this woman would also have complained if he’d wanted a serious relationship which is why she’s still hooking up at age 30 instead of getting married. Ignore her. She’s as fickle as she is demanding.

    • Agree: NickG, RadicalCenter
    • Replies: @Nicholas Stix
    You've nailed her. She'll probably also complain about men being commitment-phobic.

    Back in 1993, I dated a woman for a few weeks. She would always complain about men she’d had brief affairs with being “unwilling to commit.” She was engaging in pure projection, as it turned out. She broke it off, the way she apparently always did.

    "I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person."

    What she calls “consent” is merely a ritual abasement of a male sex partner. What did she care about him? The last thing in the world she’s concerned about is “care for the other person.” (“Care” is a big feminist slogan these days. Feminist propagandists have devoted entire books to “feminist ethics of care.”)

    The guy played her. He went through all of the rituals she required, and now she regrets that she can’t charge him with morning-after rape.
    , @clyde
    If he stuck around for round 3, 4 ,5 he would have been called clingy and dependent. She would have found ways of calling him stupid and immature.
    , @Desiderius
    When she was 24 she would have complained about anything serious, which is why she’s still single at 30. But now she’s hitting the wall so she likely wouldn’t complain now.
    , @RadicalCenter
    I clicked Agree with your assessment and criticism of the woman. But the man was wrong to use her in that way, as well.
  7. Well, I suppose before she has sex next time she could sign a contract and make a vow with the guy in front of witnesses to nourish and cherish each other for the rest of their lives… kinda like, getting married I suppose.

    But who am I kidding, this isn’t the fifties anymore! Interesting to me how my grandparent’s on both my Mom and Dad’s side got married very young in the 50′s, one set has been married over 50 years and counting, the other were married for 59 until my grandma passed away.

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Today, outside of most Muslim countries, a few African and Asian countries, and Haiti, spousal rape is illegal, so your wedding no longer counts as a permanent admission of consent.
    , @anonymous

    Q: What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
    A: A U-Haul.

    Q: What does a gay man bring on the second date?
    A: What second date?
     

    A gay man told me this joke so I'm allowed to repeat it. No really.
  8. There are plenty of Google images of this woman flashing a big, pearly smile to the world.

    The smile of woman is a strange thing, a timeless instance of much remarked-upon feminine wiles. They can present a perfectly convincing picture of happiness and contentment even though their lives contain nothing of the sort. When a man fake-smiles, he just looks like Eric Idle taking a dump.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption. Dr. Thomas Szasz thought that this smiling imperative, offspring of the effeminate West’s obsessive image-consciousness, was a contributor to male pattern baldness. Whether or not that is true, it certainly contributes to male unhappiness.

    I doubt Victorian men had to reflexively smile at others to just to get through their day. Another of the many reasons why theirs was a happier time.

    • Replies: @Henry's Cat
    You sound like a lot of fun.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption.
     
    And no true Scotsmen neither...
    , @Chrisnonymous
    I feel a lot less like smiling now that I'm bald.
    , @Sean
    Smiling was considered rude back then unless you knew the person .
  9. This sounds like an extension of the concept of “sex under false pretenses” as a form of rape. Which, if you’re going to apply it this liberally, describes every successful hookup ever — if the woman sticks around long enough, she’ll find out the guy isn’t nearly as cool as he presented himself the night she met him. Charlie Kaufman put it best: “Everyone is disappointing the more you know them.”

    • Replies: @Anon
    There used to be laws in many countries making it illegal to “ seduce a woman with false promise of marriage”

    Men use love sex to get love
    Women use sex to get love.
  10. I wonder how many men she ghosted?

    It’s one of those things you’ve got to deal with as a man. Nothing wrong about it, and for an emotionally healthy dude, just a minor annoyance. But for women to whine about being ghosted themselves and showing sensitivity to people you aren’t interested in is… supremely hypocritical, to say the least, given the realities of online dating. I don’t mind shutting up and accepting the lumps as men are expected to do, but I will get irritated if you insist on me continuing with the sucky parts of being male and intend on revoking the fun parts about being male, too. One way or the other, but not both.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    but I will get irritated if you insist on me continuing with the sucky parts of being male and intend on revoking the fun parts about being male, too.
     
    What are the fun parts of being male?
  11. All the guys who can successfully get sex off Tinder are filled with options. They have no incentive to settle down. Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    It isn't that they don't understand the marketplace aspect of sex, it's that they don't like it.

    It used to be that men were the ones who understood but did not like it, because society had enforcement mechanisms for violators. The very poor and the very rich did not, then as now, give a shit. Middle class men were toast if they knocked a girl up and did not marry her, their relatives would disown them, it could get them fired under pretexts, it definitely could drive them to leave town or commit suicide. It did more than once.

    Women are subject to enforcement mechanisms, too, but they are more along the line of hard immutable reality than simple social mores. Finding a worthy husband and having his children is for most of them the only way out of either single motherhood (which sucks, even if you are a millionairess-ask Big Little Miss Muffett, who turns 67 today, and shows it) or barren doe cat ladyhood, (which also sucks, as Stevie and Debbie will admit if asked in the right way). And once you've rode the carousel awhile or had someone else's kid, your marriageworthiness to any desirable male is piss poor.

    The shoe is on the other foot, but it's still a shoe.
    , @James Forrestal

    Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.
     
    Of course. Though it's really two different "marketplaces" -- sex, and long term relationship/ marriage. It should be obvious (but apparently it's not) that a woman of average attractiveness who is open to casual sex has a considerably higher value in the "sexual marketplace" than in the "relationship marketplace" (easier for her to get casual sex from a given man than to get commitment). While for the average man, of course, it's the opposite. (And part of what makes the woman less valuable in the relationship marketplace is this very promiscuity/ openness to casual sex).

    It's not really a question of understanding, though. It's more that they "feel" that if they can get a particular man to sleep with them on a casual basis, then they "should" be able to get commitment from that same man.

    It's as if you "felt" that if a particular woman was willing to vent to you about her problems with other men, and willing to allow you to do favors for her/ buy her things, that you "should" be able to get her to sleep with you. This particular misperception has been known to occur as well (but tends to be treated with rather more intense mockery than its female equivalent).

    To be fair, much of this issue is likely the product of years of exposure to relentless "we're all the same (apart from the victim status hierarchy), and "gender" is fluid anyway, so..." propaganda.

    Edit:
    @Lot
    Looks like @Brutusale beat me to the MySpace angle point.

    , @L Woods
    The odds may be good, but the goods are very odd.
  12. I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person, the entire person, both during an encounter and after, when we’re often at our most vulnerable.

    Dumb … uh … let’s keep it polite “woman”.

    What you’re asking for is called “marriage”. It includes all that and–most importantly–looking after the children that are born as well.

    And here’s a couple of pro-tips:

    1) You do not make yourself a great pick for marriage by sleeping around. Guys–for very good evoluntionary reasons–care about sexual betrayal and for marriage want a woman who radiates “faithful”.

    2) You do not make yourself a great pick for marriage by waiting until the prime of your sexual attractiveness has peaked and you’re on the downslide. Guys contemplating marriage will tend to prefer women have at least a good chunk of their prime sexual attractiveness still to come. (We’re mostly not as stupid as Prince Harry.)

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    "Caring about the entire person" is an idealized form of marriage which many people have never had. There have always been abusive and neglectful spouses. While I would like to see our culture take marriage and extramarital chastity seriously, it's undeniable that fewer people today are chained to toxic spouses than in the past.

    As for your "2", I agree that men who want kids tend to prefer women not too long out of high school, but "almost 30" is a lot younger than almost-37 year old Meghan Markle, at least from a fertility perspective. And obviously this girl has never wanted 12 kids, nor would she likely want to marry a man who did, so your point is rather moot.

  13. Colin Quinn has a bit parroting exactly what you’re saying Steve. We’ll have Victorian dating rules in 20 years.

    • Replies: @Dave Pinsen
    That would make for another successful prediction by Neal Stephenson.
  14. This is part of a much larger pattern (a pattern, that I, for one, have long noticed . . . just sayin’), namely that young people today are having far less sex than older generations did at their age. Actually, there is some evidence that sex for young unmarried white women may be at its lowest point since . . . The Middle Ages. As in the Medieval Middle Ages. As in the 1400′s.

    The respectable mainstream media is – at very long last – beginning to sit up and take notice at this precipitous decline.

    Here, for example, is Politico’s take on the real issue:

    “The ongoing cultural shifts in attitudes toward sex and relationships may make some men so hesitant to express interest or affection that relationships and marriage take a noticeable downward turn. “In the complicated dance of courtship, someone has to make a move, and the way one conventionally discovers if one’s attraction is returned is to brave some gentle physical contact and perhaps accept rebuff,” wrote the novelist Lionel Shriver. She added, “I am concerned that we are well on our way to demonising, if not criminalising, all male desire.” In other words, taken too far, the emerging sexual counter-revolution could put a chill on romance, relationships and marriage if sizable numbers of single men become afraid to initiate relationships with women.

    Perhaps the least surprising, but most damaging, consequence of the recent decline in sex is that the nation’s birth rate continues to fall to near record lows. In the wake of the Great Recession, births in the United States plunged. But even as the economy has improved, births have continued to decrease since 2014 among women under 30. These birth declines among young women have far outpaced modest birth increases among women 30 and older. This has brought the projected total fertility rate to a 38-year low in the United States: 1.77 children per women for 2017.”

    But don’t worry, says Politico. Their solution?

    More immigration.

    (I’m not kidding. They wrote that. It’s not an I-Steve parody.)

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/why-young-americans-having-less-sex-216953

    • Replies: @Anon
    320 million people are about 100 million too much. After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids the sudden turn is unbelievable. Zero population was the Holy Grail among the liberal intellectuals.

    I went to a museum once There was a group of girls about 12 in school uniforms. A woman said to me just viciously, “ Look at them. Catholics. They’ll be having 4 or 5 kids in 10 years. I told her the uniform was for Katherine Burke’s a non sectarian private school. The bitch just ranted on about Catholics having children.

    I knew a baby sitter who took of 4 kids at her own house. Every once in awhile she’d be accosted in the way to and from the playground about the sin she’d committed by having so many kids. That was the San Francisco Psych Clinic of course. Liberals are really rude. Just impose their Trump hatred in the middle of a conversation or tell you to ride a bike or eat quinoa.

    They’re all hateful Calvinists.

    The zero population people were pretty nasty to people with young children. I hope they’re all lonely old maids with no kids and grandkids to take care of them and only social security because they hopped from one non profit to another and got divorced a couple times so no pension from a husband or her jobs.
  15. @AndrewR
    When did the NYT start publishing erotica? It seems like, not so long ago, this sort of degenerate display of solipsism written by a post-wall feminist thot would have been left to Salon or HuffPo.

    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.
     
    I'm usually with you on these things Lot.

    But what i'd say here is that her photos--which of course she's putting up ones that look good (they motably omit any way to judge her mid-section/weight)--show a a pretty typical looking young (by my old guy standards) woman who is indeed moving from being "attractive"--because prime 20s young and fertile--to indeed being "post-wall" where she's just another 30-something woman who longer catches men's eyes.

    That's precisely what "the wall" is about. Sure, she isn't going to have any problem getting men to bang to her. That's not a high bar! But guys are no longer reacting to her like they did when she was 25.
    , @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me
    , @Brutusale
    PR photo?! You're a pretty smart guy and should know better. Me, I may not be so smart, but I'm in an industry that runs on Photoshop in the design phase. I haven't believed a graphic representation as being true since 2003.

    FGAS is real.

    https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Fat_Girl_Angle_Shot

    Talk to anyone who's been in the online dating wars. Most of the profile photos are works of fiction.

  16. A saboteur among the senior leadership at NYT seems a lot more likely than one in the Trump admin.

    • Replies: @J.Ross
    This was my suspicion too, although I am open to the idea that this is a trick to pacify apoliticals. Amid all the blather about conspiracy theory and fake news is the Crisis of Authority (nominal authorities abdicating responsibility but still wanting respect) and the fact that certain initial claims will be almost always accepted absolutely, not only by interested groups but by the general public (put an exotic sexual detail in a rumor and everyone will act "in the know"). The reason journalists are not supposed to violate the multiple basic journalistic precepts that the New York Times violated is because now you're not doing journalism, not even editorializing; the self-styled paper of record is just a guy with a printing press making an extraordinary (and obviously self-interested) claim.
    ----- Anonymous aggrieved New York Times senior editor
    OH SEE WHAT I DID THERE
  17. @miss marple
    I'm still trying to understand what this chick is complaining about. A 24 year old had sex with her on two different occasions, gave her polite pleasure then moved on before the age difference got to be a problem. I assure you this woman would also have complained if he'd wanted a serious relationship which is why she's still hooking up at age 30 instead of getting married. Ignore her. She's as fickle as she is demanding.

    You’ve nailed her. She’ll probably also complain about men being commitment-phobic.

    Back in 1993, I dated a woman for a few weeks. She would always complain about men she’d had brief affairs with being “unwilling to commit.” She was engaging in pure projection, as it turned out. She broke it off, the way she apparently always did.

    “I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person.”

    What she calls “consent” is merely a ritual abasement of a male sex partner. What did she care about him? The last thing in the world she’s concerned about is “care for the other person.” (“Care” is a big feminist slogan these days. Feminist propagandists have devoted entire books to “feminist ethics of care.”)

    The guy played her. He went through all of the rituals she required, and now she regrets that she can’t charge him with morning-after rape.

    • LOL: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Anon
    How could she admit she had sex 2 nights he didn’t call and she puts it in a newspaper? I’d be too embarrassed to tell anyone. It was a generation ago but I noticed feminazis and liberals were very naive about men. They seem to think that every lecher in a bar is a nice guy who wants a good long term relationship leading to marriage.

    I learned about men first year of college. Horny beasts. Pests. Do young men still brag about their sex lives and even lie they had women who actually rejected them? Probably.

    It’s really pathetic those 50 year olds who married a short time once or twice and still think Prince Charming will come.
  18. @AnotherDad

    I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person, the entire person, both during an encounter and after, when we’re often at our most vulnerable.
     
    Dumb ... uh ... let's keep it polite "woman".

    What you're asking for is called "marriage". It includes all that and--most importantly--looking after the children that are born as well.

    And here's a couple of pro-tips:

    1) You do not make yourself a great pick for marriage by sleeping around. Guys--for very good evoluntionary reasons--care about sexual betrayal and for marriage want a woman who radiates "faithful".

    2) You do not make yourself a great pick for marriage by waiting until the prime of your sexual attractiveness has peaked and you're on the downslide. Guys contemplating marriage will tend to prefer women have at least a good chunk of their prime sexual attractiveness still to come. (We're mostly not as stupid as Prince Harry.)

    “Caring about the entire person” is an idealized form of marriage which many people have never had. There have always been abusive and neglectful spouses. While I would like to see our culture take marriage and extramarital chastity seriously, it’s undeniable that fewer people today are chained to toxic spouses than in the past.

    As for your “2″, I agree that men who want kids tend to prefer women not too long out of high school, but “almost 30″ is a lot younger than almost-37 year old Meghan Markle, at least from a fertility perspective. And obviously this girl has never wanted 12 kids, nor would she likely want to marry a man who did, so your point is rather moot.

  19. “30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. … He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. ”

    I’m not sure if this scenario is one step above or below garden variety prostitution.

    • Replies: @O'Really
    well, she had to write a whole article in order to get paid...
  20. anon[205] • Disclaimer says:

    consent doesn’t work if we relegate it exclusively to the sexual realm

    Why bother with consent at all? Its all driven by the fact that women are at a physical disadvantage and need protection. Men are getting me too’ed and all she can think about is extending physical safeguards to her feelings. Emotional rent seeking.

    In the emotional realm, I’m sure Courtney can dish it out from a position of equality.

  21. @whyamihere
    Well, I suppose before she has sex next time she could sign a contract and make a vow with the guy in front of witnesses to nourish and cherish each other for the rest of their lives... kinda like, getting married I suppose.

    But who am I kidding, this isn't the fifties anymore! Interesting to me how my grandparent's on both my Mom and Dad's side got married very young in the 50's, one set has been married over 50 years and counting, the other were married for 59 until my grandma passed away.

    Today, outside of most Muslim countries, a few African and Asian countries, and Haiti, spousal rape is illegal, so your wedding no longer counts as a permanent admission of consent.

  22. This reminds me of a wonderful column by Miss Manners : “Starting a romance the morning after.”
    She spends a few paragraphs wondering what is unclear about the term “one-night stand,” then graciously offers to explain the difference between that and courtship. Specifically, “there are stages of courtship that cannot be skipped if any kind of romance is to ensue. Getting to know something about another person’s background, opinions, and tastes is essential, in addition to memorizing the features so as to be able to recognize the face by daylight.”

  23. Or wishes it was something else.

  24. @Big Bill
    So sad.

    Girls are fruitcakes.

    Get drunk with their girlfriends, look a stranger up on their cell phone, meet up, hook up, screw on their first meeting, and then feel hurt that he didn't act like a boyfriend.

    Women are sheep lacking all self-awareness. If their girlfriends tell them they should "go for it", they do.

    A year from now she could be wearing a black Muslim gunny sack, doing whatever her Arab boyfriend orders her to do, popping out three or four sprogs, and be perfectly happy that a man is in charge.

    Why in heaven's name did we ever gift them the vote?

    A week or so ago, someone posted a comment here that went straight to the heart of this woman’s– and many another woman’s — dilemma. The comment went something like this.

    These three things are unrelated:

    What a woman thinks she wants.
    What a woman says she wants.
    What a woman wants.

    • Agree: Colin Wright, bomag
    • Replies: @Coemgen
    She wants to be both fickle and demanding.
    , @Joe862
    Women want what they're told to want. The problem is that if what they're told to want doesn't make them happy they can't be happy since they choose between getting what they want that doesn't make them happy and getting what could make them happy which isn't what they want. It's men's job to convince them to want what will make them happy. I hope that doesn't sound sexist.
    , @Neuday
    Fat, dumb, capricious and avaricious is no way to go through life.
  25. @Big Bill
    So sad.

    Girls are fruitcakes.

    Get drunk with their girlfriends, look a stranger up on their cell phone, meet up, hook up, screw on their first meeting, and then feel hurt that he didn't act like a boyfriend.

    Women are sheep lacking all self-awareness. If their girlfriends tell them they should "go for it", they do.

    A year from now she could be wearing a black Muslim gunny sack, doing whatever her Arab boyfriend orders her to do, popping out three or four sprogs, and be perfectly happy that a man is in charge.

    Why in heaven's name did we ever gift them the vote?

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?

    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly “left”? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve’s OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn’t start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:

    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]

    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]

    Women also voted more conservative in ’60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in ’64-’72. Women were back to voting for Republican in ’76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan ’80 and especially ’84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.

    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of “women voting left” being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn’t always so…and it need not always be so.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    Women also voted more conservative in ’60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49.
     
    I wonder if we would have been spared Hart-Celler, or (more likely) just delayed it.
    , @Anonymous
    Stevenson's running mate in '52 was Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, who was conservative and a segregationist. Stevenson won the deep South in '52.

    In '54, the Eisenhower administration supported Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in schools, while Stevenson opposed federal court intervention in segregation, saying about Brown that "we don't need reforms or groping experiments." Stevenson won the deep South again in '56.
    , @YetAnotherAnon

    "When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly “left”? "
     
    When the culture (as defined by mass media, literature, art, the organisations around one) was small-c conservative, women on average voted more small-c conservative than men. Now the 'left' has cultural hegemony, women on average vote more left than men. It's 'go along to get along' writ large.

    For educated women this is amplified by the 'left' lockdown on academia.

    I put 'left' in brackets because of course the left no longer worries itself about pay and conditions for the average worker (that racist, chauvinist pig). They worry that there aren't enough women in the boardroom (that these women will be the privately educated sisters and daughters of the men in the boardroom is no biggie).
    , @Almost Missouri
    Thanks, that was illuminating.

    Still, I wonder if those "reverse" gender gap stats aren't just an artifact of the Sailerian marriage gap?
    , @HA
    "When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly “left”?"

    Steve Sailer can chime in for himself, but as he has pointed out many times (do a search on "sailer gap married single", or even just "sailer gap"), the answer probably lies in dis-aggregating single and married women (and the extent to which a woman in either category is anticipating switching) and analyzing their voting patterns separately.

    Put simply, back when women were more likely to be married, or at least regarded marriage as their eventual default status, women voted differently.

    (See also Mary Eberstadt's articles and book on how declining birth rates lead to greater secularization -- and presumably a more leftist political agenda. But around here, people are notorious for trying to pretend that religion is irrelevant, or else is simply overwhelmed by genetics or "Aryan-ness" or whatever -- so that, e.g., an Islamic Europe would have not been any different from a traditionally Christian one, since European-ness is the overriding factor. Curiously, that conviction never seems to apply to other ideologies like Communism or fascism -- only religion.)

    , @AnotherDad

    We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of “women voting left” being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn’t always so…and it need not always be so.
     
    A bunch of stuff rolled in "externally"--essentially the insane post-War and then 60s prosperity and the birth control pill--that would have been a challenge on it's own.

    But the other thing is this was the start of the great (minoritarian; tear it all down) revolution.

    Jewish 2nd wave--i'm oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle--is a very different beast then the WASPy-- women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands--1st wave.

    Those women voting before the revolution were overwhelmingly married women, essentially "helpmates" voting the same--on whatever social/economic, religious/ethnic basis--as their husbands (or maybe for a year or two their fathers), with the slight Republican skew being from more older WASPy women around.

    With the Jewish 2nd wave, the family was put under direct assualt and women are both yet another "oppressed" minority struggling against the evil white gentile master and are economically another interest group attached to the state\taxpayer teat for soft-jobs, regulation, welfare.
  26. @Lot
    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.

    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.

    I’m usually with you on these things Lot.

    But what i’d say here is that her photos–which of course she’s putting up ones that look good (they motably omit any way to judge her mid-section/weight)–show a a pretty typical looking young (by my old guy standards) woman who is indeed moving from being “attractive”–because prime 20s young and fertile–to indeed being “post-wall” where she’s just another 30-something woman who longer catches men’s eyes.

    That’s precisely what “the wall” is about. Sure, she isn’t going to have any problem getting men to bang to her. That’s not a high bar! But guys are no longer reacting to her like they did when she was 25.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    But guys are no longer reacting to her like they did when she was 25.
     
    Indeed--and this is a big reason why men need fixing. Sure, you can get them to do what you want when you're 24 and smokin' hot, but what about when you're 45 and hefty? Sailer's Law needs adapting to Real Life, not just journalism. Men need to stop chasing young hot women and do what we older ladies tell them to do. Then--and only then--will we have sexual equality. If only Hillary had won!!!
  27. It’s been apparent for a while that the Sexual Revolution has reached its Napoleonic phase.

  28. She’s not worth a lengthy response. I’ll use one word-whore.

  29. Prediction: Miss Sender’s next few 24 year old Tinder dates will be sure to say how much they deeply care – before sleeping with her and never calling her again.

    • LOL: Anthony Wayne
  30. When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly Left?

    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.

    Women never again voted more R than men after favoring Ford over Carter in ’76.

    Carter not only brought back draft registration after a five-year halt, he was the first major politician to suggest it apply to women as well. Women seem to have ignored, forgotten, or forgiven him for that.

    No Republican president supported this, Clinton kept his mouth shut about it, and Obama supported it but was coy and passive about it. What Trump thinks is anybody’s guess, but in all his swipes at Ted Cruz he never questioned Cruz’s angry opposition to the idea.

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976

    A couple of states allowed those who turned 18 by New Year’s Eve to vote in November. But not Steve’s.

    Jimmy Carter was old enough to vote for FDR in 1944. He wouldn’t have been in the other 47 states.

    • Replies: @Hail

    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.
     
    Marriage is the single strongest candidate. Another is education, and the extension of "jobs" to "(good) careers; as good as any man's or better."

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don't make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman's best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was:


    Iowa, Exit Poll 2016
    [Actual Result: Trump wins by +10]

    White college-grad. men (18% of voters)
    33 Hillary
    60 Trump [+27]

    White non-college-grad. men (24% of voters)
    29 Hillary
    67 Trump [+38]

    White college-grad. women (22% of voters)
    52 Hillary
    41 Trump [-11]

    White non-college-grad. women (26% of voters)
    47 Hillary
    49 Trump [+2]

    Nonwhites (10% of voters)
    63 Hillary
    25 Trump [-38]
     

    Both Iowa white men and women get knocked left by holding a college degree by similar amounts; men 11 points towards Hillary, women move 13 points towards Hillary. The 'marriage gap' would also surely come into play here, but the women's education-/career-drive as a cultural anchor today is directly causal to the marriage gap, anyway (I believe).
  31. BTW, the feminists really have moved the ball, made some sort of cultural “progress”.

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.

    Very few men of my generation would want to marry a woman who had announced in the NYT that she took random strangers home for sex. And women–whatever their actual sexual behavior–were fully aware of that fact. But this gal seems to think it’s a non-issue, and she’ll find her wonderful guy for “genuine caring” regardless.

    “Progress”

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @International Jew

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.
     
    Yup. I'd hate to be her father.
    , @3g4me
    @31 Another Dad: "Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts."

    My husband said almost exactly that!! (I've been reading him the comment thread.) What ever happened to privacy? Who in their right mind would consider discussing their sexual encounters and related romantic disappointments in a major publication for mass consumption? Answer: A woman who takes a younger stranger immediately home to bed. And yes, I've had women tell me that I just don't understand "dating" in the internet age, and that men - real men, of course - would never judge a woman as promiscuous for doing what Miss Sender did.

    You literally cannot talk to these women or tell them any differently. They are convinced the problem lies not with themselves, but with MEN - and they are determined to remake humanity and human attractiveness and relationships and sexuality to ensure that the fault never, ever lies with themselves.
  32. I think I snorted. “When you asked about the sweater, that was my yes from the waist up.”

    LOL! Bet she went to Jewish summer camp:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-woke-war-on-comedy/#comment-2418276

    from her Linked in:

    Courtney Sender
    Freelance writer, Adjunct professor (Yale, JHU, MICA)
    Current: Yale University Careers, Maryland Institute College of Art, Center for Social Organization of Schools
    Previous: Germany Close Up, Crimson Summer Exchange, Yale Undergraduate Career Services
    Education: The Johns Hopkins University
    I have extensive teaching, writing, editorial, and research experience both domestically and abroad. My fiction appears in The Kenyon Review, Glimmer Train, American Short Fiction, and others; my essays in Salon, xoJane, and The Los Angeles Review of Books.
    I am taking on freelance copywriting and copyediting, as well as tutoring. (B.A. English, Yale; MFA Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars.)
    Specialties: Holocaust studies, Religious studies (Judeo-Christian), Secondary and post-secondary teaching/tutoring, Freelance copywriting, Editing, Copyediting.
    Work/research abroad: Barcelona, Spain; Copenhagen, Denmark; Beijing, China; Hong Kong; Berlin, Germany; London, UK

    Holocaust studies? Has she heard of Ron’s website?

    “My fiction appears in …”

    No doubt Sarah Jeong swallowed it whole.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Kenyon Review gag.
    , @DFH
    Do people read what women like this write? If so, who?
  33. If this woman is elected, she is guilty of treason

    Alabama was threatened with economic obliteration if they elected Roy Moore. It is time that the Right returns the favor.

    • Replies: @Anon
    What woman what election???
  34. Queen Victoria had 9 children in a 21 year marriage. Charles II the ‘Merry Monarch’ had 8 illegitimate children in all.

    So much for the Victorians.

    • Replies: @Mr. Anon

    Queen Victoria had 9 children in a 21 year marriage. Charles II the ‘Merry Monarch’ had 8 illegitimate children in all.

    So much for the Victorians.
     
    Queen Victoria had all nine children with the same father within the bonds of marriage. The Victorians were not anti-sex, they were just anti-talking-about-it.

    Charles II was not a Victorian. He lived during the bawdy Restoration Era.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_comedy
  35. @nebulafox
    I wonder how many men she ghosted?

    It's one of those things you've got to deal with as a man. Nothing wrong about it, and for an emotionally healthy dude, just a minor annoyance. But for women to whine about being ghosted themselves and showing sensitivity to people you aren't interested in is... supremely hypocritical, to say the least, given the realities of online dating. I don't mind shutting up and accepting the lumps as men are expected to do, but I will get irritated if you insist on me continuing with the sucky parts of being male and intend on revoking the fun parts about being male, too. One way or the other, but not both.

    but I will get irritated if you insist on me continuing with the sucky parts of being male and intend on revoking the fun parts about being male, too.

    What are the fun parts of being male?

  36. @Danindc
    Colin Quinn has a bit parroting exactly what you’re saying Steve. We’ll have Victorian dating rules in 20 years.

    That would make for another successful prediction by Neal Stephenson.

  37. Well, in a way she’s right. What she seems to want is a culture in which, in order to have sex, one has to get married first, but she’s doing it the wrong way. You get the commitment first, and open your legs later.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    Well, in a way she’s right. What she seems to want is a culture in which, in order to have sex, one has to get married first, but she’s doing it the wrong way. You get the commitment first, and open your legs later.
     
    Agree with your "thrust" here.

    But lets be clear, what you describe is not what she actually wants.

    Old Courtney wants what all feminists want. She wants to do whatever the hell she wants--including casual sex--but then have men behave exactly as she wants--including old fashioned, "genuine caring"--when she wants them to.

    This is the rock solid essence of "feminism": Complete freedom for women to do what they want … and … men behaving completely as women want.
  38. I think a lot of people these days would like to bring back Victorian mores

    Victoria’s Secrets for her, Victorian Mores for him, at least in attachment to her sluttiness.

  39. @AnotherDad
    BTW, the feminists really have moved the ball, made some sort of cultural "progress".

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women--even when emoting about their difficulties with men--would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.

    Very few men of my generation would want to marry a woman who had announced in the NYT that she took random strangers home for sex. And women--whatever their actual sexual behavior--were fully aware of that fact. But this gal seems to think it's a non-issue, and she'll find her wonderful guy for "genuine caring" regardless.

    "Progress"

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.

    Yup. I’d hate to be her father.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    Yup. I’d hate to be her father.
     
    Years ago-- too many-- Jennifer of JenniCam posted a picture of herself standing between her parents. Her dad looked so sad.
    , @RadicalCenter
    YES. How depressing that would be.
  40. “May I have your consent to call you sporadically, sometimes late at night and then not for a few weeks after, then maybe on Labor Day weekend if I get bored?”

    “What, no! I mean, I guess. I don’t know. Did you say Labor Day?”

    • LOL: ben tillman
  41. @MikeatMikedotMike
    "30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. ... He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. "

    I'm not sure if this scenario is one step above or below garden variety prostitution.

    well, she had to write a whole article in order to get paid…

    • Replies: @ThirdWorldSteveReader
    Paperwork just creeps on everything nowadays.
  42. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jay Fink
    All the guys who can successfully get sex off Tinder are filled with options. They have no incentive to settle down. Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.

    It isn’t that they don’t understand the marketplace aspect of sex, it’s that they don’t like it.

    It used to be that men were the ones who understood but did not like it, because society had enforcement mechanisms for violators. The very poor and the very rich did not, then as now, give a shit. Middle class men were toast if they knocked a girl up and did not marry her, their relatives would disown them, it could get them fired under pretexts, it definitely could drive them to leave town or commit suicide. It did more than once.

    Women are subject to enforcement mechanisms, too, but they are more along the line of hard immutable reality than simple social mores. Finding a worthy husband and having his children is for most of them the only way out of either single motherhood (which sucks, even if you are a millionairess-ask Big Little Miss Muffett, who turns 67 today, and shows it) or barren doe cat ladyhood, (which also sucks, as Stevie and Debbie will admit if asked in the right way). And once you’ve rode the carousel awhile or had someone else’s kid, your marriageworthiness to any desirable male is piss poor.

    The shoe is on the other foot, but it’s still a shoe.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon, 3g4me
    • Replies: @anonymous
    Well put, and the only result they'll like is when all men are slaves.

    And then, of course, they won't like that either.
  43. “May I have your consent to call you sporadically…?”

    “As long as you use a sporadicide…

    “Did you say Labor Day?”

    “Don’t use that word!”

  44. @International Jew

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.
     
    Yup. I'd hate to be her father.

    Yup. I’d hate to be her father.

    Years ago– too many– Jennifer of JenniCam posted a picture of herself standing between her parents. Her dad looked so sad.

  45. This just gives me shivers of sadness. This idiot (unaware) woman encountered a male virgin! And, she is bad at sex (even if she brags that she has 10+ years of experience, but now a 30ish cougar, and all) that she does not even realize that her whole article exposes a male 24-year- old virgin! Male virgins are rare, and she totally missed it – of course not surprising, since most Millennial women are indoctrinated to believe all white guys (fratty, fratty, frat boys) are rapists and users.

    She should feel good that he considered her “fuck-worthy” to return for a second “lesson.” OMG! – the whole piece she wrote is boiler-plate behavior (and speech) of male virgins – “the ones who studied too much”…and could not get girls when they were surrounded by them on their campus.

    Cougars should start having more self-esteem (should take lessons from Stormy, and all the other bimbos of yore, of Bill and the Donald). Cougars (granted; I will say that Ms. Sender is a kind and thoughtful cougar, perhaps a youngish sensitive, cougar) should feel proud if they find true love with young bucks.

  46. There is an old fashioned promise that you will stick around and care for someone:

    It is called marriage.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Twinkie
    It used to be scandalous to break off an engagement, let alone a marriage.

    Traditional morality works.
    , @Lagertha
    I just had this conversation with my sons. I told them they must leave the West Coast (eventually) for family formation!...or being able to actually, afford to live. They have agreed that they will leave for overseas and elsewhere...in a few years.

    I spent some time in California this summer...the first time I ever felt that dystopia has arrived in California (the people love to brag about being in the vanguard), and seems to be interminable. The homeless are like zombies hobbling over from every corner of every cute town - and they aggressively ask for money. And, to really aggravate me where I want to club them, they have dogs!!!!! - these people have no right to have pets. Also, bad drivers on every hwy - no one uses signals!; people text like crazy while driving.

    I saw that California (SF down to Central Coast) was soooo much more poverty-like....homes that need roofs/siding...old cars, beaten up cars next to weathered houses blocks down from "tourist center."..and yes, boats that were in the water when Burt Reynolds was hot. I was glad to get back to sleepy New England (to edit stuff & start the moving process)...but I worry that my children are on the left coast. SF in particular, was disgusting...and creepy. I saw so many ugly young people - I hate tattoos!

    , @YetAnotherAnon
    Yes, the marriage service was a public vow to love and cherish each other "for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health".

    https://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html

    First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

    Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ's body.

    Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.
     
  47. Courtney holds an MFA from the Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars

    Worthless.

    B.A. from Yale University

    Worthless.

    she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School.

    Worthless.

    Why has this oxygen-theiving humanoid been given an international platform in the NYT?

    • Replies: @Anon
    And with all those degrees all sh can write about is the eternal wail
    “ why didn’t he call”? When my friends asked that, I always replied “ because he doesn’t want to”
  48. Victorian men went to brothels and Victorian women turned to each other. Grow up.

  49. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is an old fashioned promise that you will stick around and care for someone:

    It is called marriage.

    It used to be scandalous to break off an engagement, let alone a marriage.

    Traditional morality works.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    it is horrible (for both people) to break-off an engagement; but, often it leads to the lasting marriage, albeit later.
  50. It’s happening!!!!

    https://amp.theguardian.com/technology/2018/sep/08/donald-trump-threatens-267bn-more-tariffs-on-chinese-goods

    From a US Factory Owner: The Chinese Cheat, Steal Design and Intellectual Property

    https://www.npr.org/2018/09/07/645605000/this-company-likes-some-of-trumps-tariffs-on-china-but-not-others

    Jeb Is Sad.

    Americans who want jobs making things like their fathers and grandfathers will be happy.

  51. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is an old fashioned promise that you will stick around and care for someone:

    It is called marriage.

    I just had this conversation with my sons. I told them they must leave the West Coast (eventually) for family formation!…or being able to actually, afford to live. They have agreed that they will leave for overseas and elsewhere…in a few years.

    I spent some time in California this summer…the first time I ever felt that dystopia has arrived in California (the people love to brag about being in the vanguard), and seems to be interminable. The homeless are like zombies hobbling over from every corner of every cute town – and they aggressively ask for money. And, to really aggravate me where I want to club them, they have dogs!!!!! – these people have no right to have pets. Also, bad drivers on every hwy – no one uses signals!; people text like crazy while driving.

    I saw that California (SF down to Central Coast) was soooo much more poverty-like….homes that need roofs/siding…old cars, beaten up cars next to weathered houses blocks down from “tourist center.”..and yes, boats that were in the water when Burt Reynolds was hot. I was glad to get back to sleepy New England (to edit stuff & start the moving process)…but I worry that my children are on the left coast. SF in particular, was disgusting…and creepy. I saw so many ugly young people – I hate tattoos!

    • Replies: @Anon
    Central California is farms. That means poor farm workers and welfare people. It seems to be the trend that the first generation men work and their women have kids and go on welfare. Second generation women go on welfare and the men don’t go to work and get by on the women’s welfare and the $300 a month welfare for single adults.

    They never get married so the women can get the welfare. But they are long term life long common law type solid relationships.

    If you really want to see the awfulness of Ca. Take the train instead of driving. Some of the scenery is nice, but the backyards and trashy shabby light industry is awful. Can’t they paint the little factory or warehouse and clean up the yard?

    You must have been east of Van Ness in SF. Downtown??? West of Twin Peaks is fine. We used to call SF The Psych Clinic. We didn’t mean just the homeless crazy people. We meant the county supervisors and all the movers and shakers Mayor Judges Congress critter.
  52. @anony-mouse
    Queen Victoria had 9 children in a 21 year marriage. Charles II the 'Merry Monarch' had 8 illegitimate children in all.

    So much for the Victorians.

    Queen Victoria had 9 children in a 21 year marriage. Charles II the ‘Merry Monarch’ had 8 illegitimate children in all.

    So much for the Victorians.

    Queen Victoria had all nine children with the same father within the bonds of marriage. The Victorians were not anti-sex, they were just anti-talking-about-it.

    Charles II was not a Victorian. He lived during the bawdy Restoration Era.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_comedy

    • Replies: @Anon
    Then there was Augustus the strong of Saxony more than 300 children by dozens of women. He was the King who turned Dresden from an ordinary town into a spectacular glorious city with the wonderful museums.

    It is good to be a King.
  53. Wow. The Honeycombs were really ahead of their time:

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Wow, the legendary Burns Black Bison guitar.

    Heavy, mechanically complex tremolo, but a sound like nothing else.
    Not everyone loved them-Pete Townshend said "Burns guitars are rubbish"-but they had their fans. Elvis played a 12 string green sunburst one in some unwatchable Elvis movie, Chris Stein used them in Blondie's heyday, lefttwat folkie Billy Bragg favored the Steer model that predated today's popular thinline acoustic-electrics. Most famously , they were used by Cliff Richard's Shadows, who like our Ventures started on Fenders and switched after Fender pissed them off (Ventures famously went to the Mosrite company.) Neither Semie Moseley nor James Ormston Burns had a damn lick of business sense, but they built some weird yet cool guitars.
    , @Logan
    There's something you don't see every day. A female drummer!
  54. Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”

    Does Ms. Sender imagine that most men would say yes to the question “Is it okay if I marry you and then eventually divorce-rape you because I mistakenly thought I could trade up?”

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    That is the internal, unspoken strategy, yes. For all of them. How does that make you feel?
  55. @Twinkie
    It used to be scandalous to break off an engagement, let alone a marriage.

    Traditional morality works.

    it is horrible (for both people) to break-off an engagement; but, often it leads to the lasting marriage, albeit later.

  56. Option 1: Sex is about love and commitment
    Option 2: Sex is a consequence-free recreational activity

    It’s pretty effing amazing the number of people who think it can be both. If you treat sex as recreational activity then that is the kind of people you will attract. If you treat sex as about love and commitment then you will attract people who (for the most part) believe in that, too.

    If this girl had held off even four weeks, and gotten to know the object of her desire and expected him to put in the time and energy to demonstrate his commitment before going to bed, the odds that he was in it for more than just sex would have increased dramatically. Make him wait, oh, six months and they would have gone up a whole lot more.

    • Replies: @Logan
    Exactly!

    Another example of this cognitive dissonance is the simultaneous holding of two other entirely contradictory beliefs.

    Belief 1: Sexual assault is the most horrific crime against a person that can be committed, except murder, and we're not even too sure that's an exception.

    Belief 2: Aligns with your Option 2. Casual sex is no big deal at all. Sexual activity has no real deep significance.

    If #2 is true, then #1 must be false. If engaging in sex is so not a big deal that you can routinely climb into bed with someone half an hour after meeting, then clearly whether you engage in it or not carries no great emotional baggage. If that's true, then forcing someone to engage in sex can cause no more emotional damage than forcing them to engage in any other casual activity, such as, perhaps, driniking coffee together.
  57. @AndrewR
    When did the NYT start publishing erotica? It seems like, not so long ago, this sort of degenerate display of solipsism written by a post-wall feminist thot would have been left to Salon or HuffPo.

    sex sells. NYT is getting desperate…so get ready for “slow erotica” articles to entertain NYT biggest demographic: 68+…the ones who still read newspapers.

  58. No permission to ghost?
    Hasn’t she heard that if you have ghost, you have everything?

  59. So it’s not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?

    • Agree: Trevor H.
    • LOL: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    So it’s not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?
     
    Perfect.
    , @anonymous
    Bullseye.
    , @Stebbing Heuer
    An astute comment.

    But please don't give them ideas.
  60. @Anthony Wayne
    A saboteur among the senior leadership at NYT seems a lot more likely than one in the Trump admin.

    This was my suspicion too, although I am open to the idea that this is a trick to pacify apoliticals. Amid all the blather about conspiracy theory and fake news is the Crisis of Authority (nominal authorities abdicating responsibility but still wanting respect) and the fact that certain initial claims will be almost always accepted absolutely, not only by interested groups but by the general public (put an exotic sexual detail in a rumor and everyone will act “in the know”). The reason journalists are not supposed to violate the multiple basic journalistic precepts that the New York Times violated is because now you’re not doing journalism, not even editorializing; the self-styled paper of record is just a guy with a printing press making an extraordinary (and obviously self-interested) claim.
    —– Anonymous aggrieved New York Times senior editor
    OH SEE WHAT I DID THERE

  61. The journalist makes a compelling case that she is not capable of entering any relationship where the other party is not already mostly concerned with her interests.

    Politicians, credit card companies, other drivers, employers and pretty much anyone outside of her family home, also aren’t mostly concerned with her interests.

    Thus someone from her home needs to mediate her relationships with all of those organisations.

    Perhaps her father could step up?

    Anything else would be sexist, misogynist rape.

  62. @Kylie
    So it's not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?

    So it’s not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?

    Perfect.

  63. @Reg Cæsar

    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly Left?
     
    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.

    Women never again voted more R than men after favoring Ford over Carter in ’76.
     
    Carter not only brought back draft registration after a five-year halt, he was the first major politician to suggest it apply to women as well. Women seem to have ignored, forgotten, or forgiven him for that.

    No Republican president supported this, Clinton kept his mouth shut about it, and Obama supported it but was coy and passive about it. What Trump thinks is anybody's guess, but in all his swipes at Ted Cruz he never questioned Cruz's angry opposition to the idea.

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976
     
    A couple of states allowed those who turned 18 by New Year's Eve to vote in November. But not Steve's.

    Jimmy Carter was old enough to vote for FDR in 1944. He wouldn't have been in the other 47 states.

    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.

    Marriage is the single strongest candidate. Another is education, and the extension of “jobs” to “(good) careers; as good as any man’s or better.”

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don’t make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman’s best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was:

    Iowa, Exit Poll 2016
    [Actual Result: Trump wins by +10]

    White college-grad. men (18% of voters)
    33 Hillary
    60 Trump [+27]

    White non-college-grad. men (24% of voters)
    29 Hillary
    67 Trump [+38]

    White college-grad. women (22% of voters)
    52 Hillary
    41 Trump [-11]

    White non-college-grad. women (26% of voters)
    47 Hillary
    49 Trump [+2]

    Nonwhites (10% of voters)
    63 Hillary
    25 Trump [-38]

    Both Iowa white men and women get knocked left by holding a college degree by similar amounts; men 11 points towards Hillary, women move 13 points towards Hillary. The ‘marriage gap’ would also surely come into play here, but the women’s education-/career-drive as a cultural anchor today is directly causal to the marriage gap, anyway (I believe).

    • Replies: @AnotherDad

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don’t make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman’s best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.
     
    Hail, this is a stunningly good paragraph.

    There are actually two points--related--in here:

    1) The sociological observation--that you, I and a lot of other people have had--about young women pursuing self-esteem, status in a way that's actually useless, damaging to society and ... doesn't actually make most women particularly happy.

    2) And--a point that i've meant to hammer home to my daughters--that young women often seem confused that their careerist pursuit--which they very much value in men--is really not of any particular interest to men (other than as marker for intelligence or conscientious or other genetic traits). While their focus, obsession and pursuit of it can be turnoff for and destabilizer of relationships with quality men.
    , @Reg Cæsar

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was...

     

    ...not broken down by marital status? That's suspicious right there.
  64. ok, so, I wrote about young male virgins, earlier…the guys who do not want to be labled INCELS.
    Yeah, I am a mom and almost, shit (it sucks) go, so what do I know? well, I know stuff:

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff…getting a girl to like you: Listen…smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people. Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time…but you learn, and that is the key.

    • Replies: @Stebbing Heuer
    Whiskey - get in here!
    , @El Dato
    when being a virgin become a problem and source of derision exactly?

    pensive_pepe.jpg
    , @Anonymous

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff…getting a girl to like you: Listen…smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people.
     
    Sincere question: What does being honest have to do with the other things you list? Don't the two sometimes conflict? What are some examples of being honest?

    Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time…but you learn, and that is the key.
     
    What are some things one learns about sex?
  65. Anon[217] • Disclaimer says:

    “sex sells. NYT is getting desperate”

    Just another example of #getwokegobroke. Females like being females. They aren’t into feminist nonsense. Unfortunately, our elites don’t seem to understand this fact, so they have turned away a large paying demographic – on television (Dr. Who), in comics books, and in movies. Expect more media outlets, desperate for cash, to rediscover this fact…until the democrats gain control of the government, that is, and start subsidizing the legacy media, which I predict they will do at some point.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Look at the success of Rich Crazy Asians book and movie. It’s a basic Cinderella. Heroine and serious boyfriends are middle class college assistant professors. He’s best man at a Singapore wedding invites her.

    She discovers her middle income boyfriend belongs to one of the riches families in Asia. Look at the English royal family weddings. The female population of the world is enthralled.

    The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc.

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.

    The whole feminist thing was to get cheap docile female labor and double the workforce to lower wages. Back to 1810 Britian when women and children worked dragging loads of coal in the mines.

    That’s all.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Most prestige media is already subsidized, if not (directly) by the government. But yes, the billionaires and foundations will turn the task (and expense) over to the government to run on autopilot for them as soon as they are able. NPR and PBS are already there.

    Ironically, the bloggers/youtubers/fringe press were the only ones actually making money at media, if not very much money. Not coincidentally, they were also the only ones occasionally reporting actual facts. This may or may not be related to why Google decided that so many of them had to be demonitized, in accordance with Google's new directive: "Do be evil."

  66. Summary: 30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. She is impressed he asks permission for every step of the process, like an Antioch College RA in 1994. He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. She feels hurt, despite all the permissions she gave. She decides our Society must change so that guys don’t love her and leave her so fast.

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring, given to the gal in a sudden death moment for the relationship. She either accepts it, or the guy returns it to the jeweler and moves on to the next prospect. Women understood that they had to remain chaste for their husband to be, and men knew that if they were going to mess around before marriage they had better wear a rubber hat so they could pass the blood test for the marriage license. The implication is that young men and women arrive in marriage in a similar life stage with age differences no more than three or so years. Blue collar men and women 18 – 21. College graduates 23 – 25.

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple. By age thirty, people are aware that they are on a plateau. A lot of doors are closing, and life doesn’t seem so magical anymore. Women notice the first bags and wrinkles — not to mention chin hairs. Guys notice that their hairline is receding and their gut is growing. It’s easy to take in stride when you have a committed marriage partner, but if you are still dating on Tinder like some teenager, then you are probably sad and neurotic.

    So, Courtney Sender missed her chance. She is not as young as she feels; she is thirty. She is not a blushing youth. And every man from 18 to 80 will find a 20 year old woman more attractive than her — it’s a human chemistry thing. So, she should come to terms with the fact that she will die childless and alone. But she can make the most of her situation by joining a religious order and spending her time with other women who have beards.

    • Replies: @AnotherDad
    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit--which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.
     
    Howeve my one--rather strong--objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring ...
     
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common--and essentially worthless--rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It's just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they've got a marketing scam to warn people off "blood diamonds". I'm not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost ... but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women--or at least many women--being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn't play along. I strongly recommend--not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.
    , @anon
    Poor Courtney, it’s like a liver punch to the heart.
  67. whoa. double is on Ron & Steve. I will confess Charlie’s dad was part of my HS years in the crazy 70′s. And, Charlie’s dad was a lovely man as is his son.

  68. @WowJustWow
    This sounds like an extension of the concept of "sex under false pretenses" as a form of rape. Which, if you're going to apply it this liberally, describes every successful hookup ever -- if the woman sticks around long enough, she'll find out the guy isn't nearly as cool as he presented himself the night she met him. Charlie Kaufman put it best: "Everyone is disappointing the more you know them."

    There used to be laws in many countries making it illegal to “ seduce a woman with false promise of marriage”

    Men use love sex to get love
    Women use sex to get love.

    • Replies: @Steve Sailer
    I was thinking of the 1969 bestseller "The French Lieutenant's Woman" in which when the Victorian gentleman breaks off his engagement (in one version of the complicated story), he gets sued for Breach of Promise.
    , @anonymous
    You forgot to edit your post to make sense. Maybe:


    Men use love to get sex.
    Women use sex to get love.
     
  69. Anon[772] • Disclaimer says:

    “Very few men of my generation would want to marry a woman who had announced in the NYT that she took random strangers home for sex.”

    I think it’s a desperation play as the pool of available men shrinks over time; they get older while the number of takers goes down. These girls think this is what guys want because they have been indoctrinated to believe the worst sorts of things about men: “they only want sex, so if I act like a slut I’ll get the guy of my dreams.” If they really wanted a desirable man, they could make a lot of progress by dumping the extreme liberalism/feminism, something that is a huge turn off for most straight white guys, despite what virtue signalling male feminists claim on the subject.

  70. @Anon
    There used to be laws in many countries making it illegal to “ seduce a woman with false promise of marriage”

    Men use love sex to get love
    Women use sex to get love.

    I was thinking of the 1969 bestseller “The French Lieutenant’s Woman” in which when the Victorian gentleman breaks off his engagement (in one version of the complicated story), he gets sued for Breach of Promise.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    It was such a sad movie. Hmmm? what was going on in the states the months that this movie was released in the 80's????
    , @anon
    See Townshend, Peter; “A Legal Matter”, 1965, U.K.
  71. It’s unintentionally funny in a way any ‘Heartiste’ reader would appreciate:

    As the snow fell outside, we sat close on my couch while he talked touchingly about poetry.

    By the same woman:

    The Solidarity of Fat Girls

    Fiction? — I don’t think so!

    Enough said.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    What is funny in it?
  72. Anon[241] • Disclaimer says:

    She decides our Society must change so that guys don’t love her and leave her so fast.

    I sense that a new Sailer’s law is gestating.

    The most traumatizing rapes are those where the man asks and is given consent for every action, but then later takes it upon himself to decide to end the relationship without permission.

    If this were a campus relationship she could fix his wagon good. Is it time to make Title IX into state law? Wait, they’re already halfway there in California:

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/in-theory/wp/2015/10/13/why-we-made-yes-means-yes-california-law/

    Sponsored by Sen. Kevin de Leon. Where have I heard that name? Oh, yeah, a male feminist who was #metoo’d:

    https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article192859954.html

    He announced a run for Feinstein’s seat. Then a harassment scandal broke under his roof.

  73. Summary: 30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately.

    The only problem I see here is that Ms. Modern didn’t give us all her number. Then she could try us all out, one at a time, until she found some fool to stay put.

  74. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    I just had this conversation with my sons. I told them they must leave the West Coast (eventually) for family formation!...or being able to actually, afford to live. They have agreed that they will leave for overseas and elsewhere...in a few years.

    I spent some time in California this summer...the first time I ever felt that dystopia has arrived in California (the people love to brag about being in the vanguard), and seems to be interminable. The homeless are like zombies hobbling over from every corner of every cute town - and they aggressively ask for money. And, to really aggravate me where I want to club them, they have dogs!!!!! - these people have no right to have pets. Also, bad drivers on every hwy - no one uses signals!; people text like crazy while driving.

    I saw that California (SF down to Central Coast) was soooo much more poverty-like....homes that need roofs/siding...old cars, beaten up cars next to weathered houses blocks down from "tourist center."..and yes, boats that were in the water when Burt Reynolds was hot. I was glad to get back to sleepy New England (to edit stuff & start the moving process)...but I worry that my children are on the left coast. SF in particular, was disgusting...and creepy. I saw so many ugly young people - I hate tattoos!

    Central California is farms. That means poor farm workers and welfare people. It seems to be the trend that the first generation men work and their women have kids and go on welfare. Second generation women go on welfare and the men don’t go to work and get by on the women’s welfare and the $300 a month welfare for single adults.

    They never get married so the women can get the welfare. But they are long term life long common law type solid relationships.

    If you really want to see the awfulness of Ca. Take the train instead of driving. Some of the scenery is nice, but the backyards and trashy shabby light industry is awful. Can’t they paint the little factory or warehouse and clean up the yard?

    You must have been east of Van Ness in SF. Downtown??? West of Twin Peaks is fine. We used to call SF The Psych Clinic. We didn’t mean just the homeless crazy people. We meant the county supervisors and all the movers and shakers Mayor Judges Congress critter.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I was only typing about the coast...and about 20 miles inland.
    , @Lagertha
    slo down. I live in the East Coast - my sons are out there, now. We have the same problems in Mass, NH(small coast) CT, RI, NJ, NY, VT, NH............California is the only state that has bragged about being oh so, soooo ok with homeless and, the none insured people for close to 3 decades. You all will soon, pay for them.
    , @Flip
    Victor Davis Hanson has several interviews on YouTube where he talks about how awful inland California has become due to Mexican immigration.
    , @Lagertha
    I feel bad that I ripped-in to what is clearly, sensitive, for you - I try to sense other people's sense of place. I do love California, I just hate to see: the lack of respect for land, whether it is 10 or 4000 miles away. Land is everything.
    , @Lagertha
    Love of land: https://youtu.be/bzzKPwGhgXs
  75. The real issue here is that a young, naive, vulnerable 24-YEAR-OLD boy was raped by a GASLIGHTING, MANIPULATIVE 30-YEAR-OLD older woman. Males that age CANNOT give consent. All sex with them by older women is RAPE by the woman. Arrest this rapist immediately!

  76. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Mr. Anon
    Wow. The Honeycombs were really ahead of their time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUpOerfT2I

    Wow, the legendary Burns Black Bison guitar.

    Heavy, mechanically complex tremolo, but a sound like nothing else.
    Not everyone loved them-Pete Townshend said “Burns guitars are rubbish”-but they had their fans. Elvis played a 12 string green sunburst one in some unwatchable Elvis movie, Chris Stein used them in Blondie’s heyday, lefttwat folkie Billy Bragg favored the Steer model that predated today’s popular thinline acoustic-electrics. Most famously , they were used by Cliff Richard’s Shadows, who like our Ventures started on Fenders and switched after Fender pissed them off (Ventures famously went to the Mosrite company.) Neither Semie Moseley nor James Ormston Burns had a damn lick of business sense, but they built some weird yet cool guitars.

    • Replies: @Ganderson
    Cliff Richard:

    https://youtu.be/LVPAP62TvRY
  77. @The Wild Geese Howard

    Courtney holds an MFA from the Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars
     
    Worthless.

    B.A. from Yale University
     
    Worthless.

    she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School.
     
    Worthless.

    Why has this oxygen-theiving humanoid been given an international platform in the NYT?

    And with all those degrees all sh can write about is the eternal wail
    “ why didn’t he call”? When my friends asked that, I always replied “ because he doesn’t want to”

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    And with all those degrees all sh can write about is the eternal wail
    “ why didn’t he call”?
     
    Exactly.

    It is obvious, even to someone as dense as me, that the guy got everything he wanted from their brief relationship and has pulled up tent stakes and moved on.

    Then again, I only hold two degrees to Ms. Sender's three Ivy League degrees. What could I possibly know?
  78. @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    Women also voted more conservative in ’60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49.

    I wonder if we would have been spared Hart-Celler, or (more likely) just delayed it.

    • Replies: @Hail

    I wonder if we would have been spared Hart-Celler
     
    FWIW:

    NIXON: All of the Jewish families are close, but there's this strange malignancy now that seems to creep among them. I don't know, the radicalism. [...] The Jews are born spies. You notice how many of them are? They're just in it up to their necks.

    HALDEMANN: Well, got a basic deviousness, that --

    NIXON: Well, also, an arrogance, an arrogance that says...He puts himself above the law.
     
    Richard Nixon, July 5, 1971, in conversation with H.R. Haldemann & Ronald Ziegler.
  79. This “asking consent for everything” trick is the latest rage in the Pickup Artist community. Chateau Heartiste had a big post on it.

  80. @Steve Sailer
    I was thinking of the 1969 bestseller "The French Lieutenant's Woman" in which when the Victorian gentleman breaks off his engagement (in one version of the complicated story), he gets sued for Breach of Promise.

    It was such a sad movie. Hmmm? what was going on in the states the months that this movie was released in the 80′s????

  81. @whyamihere
    Well, I suppose before she has sex next time she could sign a contract and make a vow with the guy in front of witnesses to nourish and cherish each other for the rest of their lives... kinda like, getting married I suppose.

    But who am I kidding, this isn't the fifties anymore! Interesting to me how my grandparent's on both my Mom and Dad's side got married very young in the 50's, one set has been married over 50 years and counting, the other were married for 59 until my grandma passed away.

    Q: What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
    A: A U-Haul.

    Q: What does a gay man bring on the second date?
    A: What second date?

    A gay man told me this joke so I’m allowed to repeat it. No really.

    • LOL: jim jones
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Do gay men not go on second dates? Why not?
  82. @Anon
    There used to be laws in many countries making it illegal to “ seduce a woman with false promise of marriage”

    Men use love sex to get love
    Women use sex to get love.

    You forgot to edit your post to make sense. Maybe:

    Men use love to get sex.
    Women use sex to get love.

    • Replies: @Flip
    I've usually seen it as "commitment" rather than "love."
  83. @Anonymous
    It isn't that they don't understand the marketplace aspect of sex, it's that they don't like it.

    It used to be that men were the ones who understood but did not like it, because society had enforcement mechanisms for violators. The very poor and the very rich did not, then as now, give a shit. Middle class men were toast if they knocked a girl up and did not marry her, their relatives would disown them, it could get them fired under pretexts, it definitely could drive them to leave town or commit suicide. It did more than once.

    Women are subject to enforcement mechanisms, too, but they are more along the line of hard immutable reality than simple social mores. Finding a worthy husband and having his children is for most of them the only way out of either single motherhood (which sucks, even if you are a millionairess-ask Big Little Miss Muffett, who turns 67 today, and shows it) or barren doe cat ladyhood, (which also sucks, as Stevie and Debbie will admit if asked in the right way). And once you've rode the carousel awhile or had someone else's kid, your marriageworthiness to any desirable male is piss poor.

    The shoe is on the other foot, but it's still a shoe.

    Well put, and the only result they’ll like is when all men are slaves.

    And then, of course, they won’t like that either.

  84. @Dumbo
    Well, in a way she's right. What she seems to want is a culture in which, in order to have sex, one has to get married first, but she's doing it the wrong way. You get the commitment first, and open your legs later.

    Well, in a way she’s right. What she seems to want is a culture in which, in order to have sex, one has to get married first, but she’s doing it the wrong way. You get the commitment first, and open your legs later.

    Agree with your “thrust” here.

    But lets be clear, what you describe is not what she actually wants.

    Old Courtney wants what all feminists want. She wants to do whatever the hell she wants–including casual sex–but then have men behave exactly as she wants–including old fashioned, “genuine caring”–when she wants them to.

    This is the rock solid essence of “feminism”: Complete freedom for women to do what they want … and … men behaving completely as women want.

    • Agree: Chrisnonymous
    • Replies: @sabril
    I agree, but I think the bigger picture is that (1) for the most part, human minds harbor a lot of unreasonable and contradictory desires; (2) one of the big differences between adults and children is that adults are aware when a desire is unreasonable and don't demand that it be accommodated; (3) Most, perhaps all women never really make the transition from childhood to adulthood; and (4) what's unfortunate is that society takes women like this seriously.

    I mean, a child could write a rant about how every day should be Christmas but it wouldn't get published in the New York Times. But when that child is a physically mature female, it's a different story.
  85. anonymous[337] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad

    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.
     
    I'm usually with you on these things Lot.

    But what i'd say here is that her photos--which of course she's putting up ones that look good (they motably omit any way to judge her mid-section/weight)--show a a pretty typical looking young (by my old guy standards) woman who is indeed moving from being "attractive"--because prime 20s young and fertile--to indeed being "post-wall" where she's just another 30-something woman who longer catches men's eyes.

    That's precisely what "the wall" is about. Sure, she isn't going to have any problem getting men to bang to her. That's not a high bar! But guys are no longer reacting to her like they did when she was 25.

    But guys are no longer reacting to her like they did when she was 25.

    Indeed–and this is a big reason why men need fixing. Sure, you can get them to do what you want when you’re 24 and smokin’ hot, but what about when you’re 45 and hefty? Sailer’s Law needs adapting to Real Life, not just journalism. Men need to stop chasing young hot women and do what we older ladies tell them to do. Then–and only then–will we have sexual equality. If only Hillary had won!!!

  86. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anon
    "sex sells. NYT is getting desperate"

    Just another example of #getwokegobroke. Females like being females. They aren't into feminist nonsense. Unfortunately, our elites don't seem to understand this fact, so they have turned away a large paying demographic - on television (Dr. Who), in comics books, and in movies. Expect more media outlets, desperate for cash, to rediscover this fact...until the democrats gain control of the government, that is, and start subsidizing the legacy media, which I predict they will do at some point.

    Look at the success of Rich Crazy Asians book and movie. It’s a basic Cinderella. Heroine and serious boyfriends are middle class college assistant professors. He’s best man at a Singapore wedding invites her.

    She discovers her middle income boyfriend belongs to one of the riches families in Asia. Look at the English royal family weddings. The female population of the world is enthralled.

    The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc.

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.

    The whole feminist thing was to get cheap docile female labor and double the workforce to lower wages. Back to 1810 Britian when women and children worked dragging loads of coal in the mines.

    That’s all.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri

    "The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc."
     
    A big constituency, for sure.

    Other constituencies:

    - Bulldykes who wanted to bully younger submissive women into "partnership".

    - Andrea Dworkin.
    , @Anonymous

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.
     
    How so? And what was the chain reaction for those alleged consequences?
    , @The Practical Conservative
    In the books (there's 3), they make about 150k/yr apiece. Not quite "middle class".
  87. Millenial women hitting 30 has been a constant source of amusement.

  88. They used to publish stories like this in a magazine called Penthouse. Men were generally described as having members the size of fire hydrants and the women always had at least thirty orgasms.

  89. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    Stevenson’s running mate in ’52 was Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, who was conservative and a segregationist. Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.

    In ’54, the Eisenhower administration supported Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in schools, while Stevenson opposed federal court intervention in segregation, saying about Brown that “we don’t need reforms or groping experiments.” Stevenson won the deep South again in ’56.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Thank you. Spending a few minutes again reading about these campaigns makes for a startling contrast to those of today. It has been a race to the bottom.
    , @Hail

    Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.
     
    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. '64, he'd have won the South.

    Would a President Stevenson have ordered Operation Wetback? (Honest question).

    Adlai Stevenson
    - Born, 1900, Los Angeles, California "to a prominent Illinois political family" (his grandfather was Vice President under Cleveland, among other political relatives)
    - Religion: Unitarian
    - raised in Bloomington, Illinois
    - Princeton, 1918-1922 (BA)
    - Northwestern, ca. 1924-1926 (JD)
    - 1948: first political victory; easily wins the Illinois governor race

  90. @JimB

    Summary: 30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. She is impressed he asks permission for every step of the process, like an Antioch College RA in 1994. He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. She feels hurt, despite all the permissions she gave. She decides our Society must change so that guys don’t love her and leave her so fast.
     
    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring, given to the gal in a sudden death moment for the relationship. She either accepts it, or the guy returns it to the jeweler and moves on to the next prospect. Women understood that they had to remain chaste for their husband to be, and men knew that if they were going to mess around before marriage they had better wear a rubber hat so they could pass the blood test for the marriage license. The implication is that young men and women arrive in marriage in a similar life stage with age differences no more than three or so years. Blue collar men and women 18 - 21. College graduates 23 - 25.

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple. By age thirty, people are aware that they are on a plateau. A lot of doors are closing, and life doesn't seem so magical anymore. Women notice the first bags and wrinkles -- not to mention chin hairs. Guys notice that their hairline is receding and their gut is growing. It's easy to take in stride when you have a committed marriage partner, but if you are still dating on Tinder like some teenager, then you are probably sad and neurotic.

    So, Courtney Sender missed her chance. She is not as young as she feels; she is thirty. She is not a blushing youth. And every man from 18 to 80 will find a 20 year old woman more attractive than her -- it's a human chemistry thing. So, she should come to terms with the fact that she will die childless and alone. But she can make the most of her situation by joining a religious order and spending her time with other women who have beards.

    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit–which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.

    Howeve my one–rather strong–objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring …

    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common–and essentially worthless–rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It’s just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they’ve got a marketing scam to warn people off “blood diamonds”. I’m not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost … but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women–or at least many women–being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn’t play along. I strongly recommend–not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Medieval people had engagement rings but they weren’t expensive. Like a thin ring with 2 hearts or clasped hands
    Calvin and Knox disapproved of even wedding rings so they disappeared for a few centuries.

    Those biggish diamond rings were just a scam. The blood diamonds myth was created by the S African cartel
    when diamonds were discovered in other countries.

    Nowadays women contribute to the cost of the rings. Better to spend 5 to 10 K on a set of rings than some ridiculous polyester dress made in Cambodia by slaves that’s worn once.
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent point, AD. About 10 years back I read an on-line short book written long ago (lat 1970's?) by a guy named Edward J. Epstein about the whole deBeers diamond scam. The scam is (at least was at that time) vertically integrated from the mines through the diamond brokers in NYC, London, and Amsterdam.

    There is even a part addressing your question about the sales of artificial diamonds:

    To be sure, General Electric recognized that it would be possible to develop catalysts that would accelerate the time needed to produce gems and to engineer more efficient presses that would allow more diamonds to be grown in the same cycle. However, even if it were possible to mass-produce gem diamonds at costs comparable to those of industrial diamonds, there would be a more serious problem. If the public realized that diamonds could be manufactured in unlimited quantities in a factory, the entire market for diamonds might suddenly collapse. A senior General Electric executive who was involved in the decision not to manufacture gem diamonds explained to me, "We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention. The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become. Then the mystique would be gone, and the price would drop to next to nothing." General Electric decided not to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in presses to produce gem diamonds. Although their chief rivals had decided not to go ahead with manufacturing, it now became a war against time for the De Beers cartel. The science and technology that made it possible to manufacture real diamonds threatened to create a supply of diamonds that was beyond the control of De Beers.
     
    Last summer I wrote 3 posts about this huge scam, which were half-way taken from this illuminating book - You've got a friend in the diamond business, and here's Part 2 and Part 3.
    , @Achmed E. Newman

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.
     
    It's amazing to learn (or was for me) that this diamond engagement thing has only been a standard practice in America since after WWII (per Epstein), and deBeers was involved in marketing via Hollywood.

    The whole blood-diamond problem can turn out to be a "man's best friend", as this is a great way to get out of the deal, per my 3rd link above:


    Here's what you tell your young lady:

    "Listen, I'd love to buy you that big diamond we saw at Jarrod, and yes I know it makes you horny (for a while). It's just that, sob sob ..."

    "Yes? What's wrong, honey... wait, you've GOT THE MONEY, don't you?!"

    "Yes, it's not that ... it's just ... well, the terrible conditions in the mines in these countries in Africa ... I'm so concerned. There are murders every day. Rape! Genocide! I can't be part of this ... no way!"

    "Ohhh.... "

    "Yeah, I think I should get you a ruby instead. Sure, they're, cough, cough .. a little bit, cough, cough, cheaper, but they come from different African countries where all the miners do is kick the ever-lovin' shit out of each other."
     
    , @Anonymous
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common–and essentially worthless–rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It’s just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    Did you yourself indulge the scam?

    (Now they’ve got a marketing scam to warn people off “blood diamonds”. I’m not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost … but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women–or at least many women–being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn’t play along. I strongly recommend–not.)

    I am unsure what exactly you are recommending people do?
    , @Lagertha
    I crazily have generations-old-rings that will make fine rings for my sons....the only problem is: what if they choose awful, SJW women? Is it wrong to say to your son: "no, I just can't let you marry that." Of course, we are years, perhaps a decade or more from that time, phew. But, it seems awful that so many young women are leftists. None of them have gf's now, so time will tell.
  91. anon[206] • Disclaimer says:
    @AndrewR
    When did the NYT start publishing erotica? It seems like, not so long ago, this sort of degenerate display of solipsism written by a post-wall feminist thot would have been left to Salon or HuffPo.

    Her hair is OK but not great.

    Just for fun, she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School. -Her website[?]

    Not a plus.

    Verdict: F*ck her and chuck her. At least Antioch didn’t spring for dinner and a movie. A man has to stay on budget.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School.
     
    This explains:

    When my novel manuscript was rejected in early 2016, I knew that Hillary Clinton would lose the election.
     
    It was an Omen of the upcoming Devils' Work.
    , @Anon
    I could have told her her that if she’d said no and no and no he’d hang around long enough for a relationship to develop.

    Fuck and chuck. That’s men. These liberal women are so naive about men.
  92. @Kylie
    So it's not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?

    Bullseye.

  93. @Steve Sailer
    I was thinking of the 1969 bestseller "The French Lieutenant's Woman" in which when the Victorian gentleman breaks off his engagement (in one version of the complicated story), he gets sued for Breach of Promise.

    See Townshend, Peter; “A Legal Matter”, 1965, U.K.

  94. @JimB

    Summary: 30 year old woman invites 24-year-old guy she sees on Tinder over to her apartment. Sleeps with him immediately. She is impressed he asks permission for every step of the process, like an Antioch College RA in 1994. He comes round once more for sex, then disappears. She feels hurt, despite all the permissions she gave. She decides our Society must change so that guys don’t love her and leave her so fast.
     
    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring, given to the gal in a sudden death moment for the relationship. She either accepts it, or the guy returns it to the jeweler and moves on to the next prospect. Women understood that they had to remain chaste for their husband to be, and men knew that if they were going to mess around before marriage they had better wear a rubber hat so they could pass the blood test for the marriage license. The implication is that young men and women arrive in marriage in a similar life stage with age differences no more than three or so years. Blue collar men and women 18 - 21. College graduates 23 - 25.

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple. By age thirty, people are aware that they are on a plateau. A lot of doors are closing, and life doesn't seem so magical anymore. Women notice the first bags and wrinkles -- not to mention chin hairs. Guys notice that their hairline is receding and their gut is growing. It's easy to take in stride when you have a committed marriage partner, but if you are still dating on Tinder like some teenager, then you are probably sad and neurotic.

    So, Courtney Sender missed her chance. She is not as young as she feels; she is thirty. She is not a blushing youth. And every man from 18 to 80 will find a 20 year old woman more attractive than her -- it's a human chemistry thing. So, she should come to terms with the fact that she will die childless and alone. But she can make the most of her situation by joining a religious order and spending her time with other women who have beards.

    Poor Courtney, it’s like a liver punch to the heart.

  95. @Hail

    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.
     
    Marriage is the single strongest candidate. Another is education, and the extension of "jobs" to "(good) careers; as good as any man's or better."

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don't make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman's best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was:


    Iowa, Exit Poll 2016
    [Actual Result: Trump wins by +10]

    White college-grad. men (18% of voters)
    33 Hillary
    60 Trump [+27]

    White non-college-grad. men (24% of voters)
    29 Hillary
    67 Trump [+38]

    White college-grad. women (22% of voters)
    52 Hillary
    41 Trump [-11]

    White non-college-grad. women (26% of voters)
    47 Hillary
    49 Trump [+2]

    Nonwhites (10% of voters)
    63 Hillary
    25 Trump [-38]
     

    Both Iowa white men and women get knocked left by holding a college degree by similar amounts; men 11 points towards Hillary, women move 13 points towards Hillary. The 'marriage gap' would also surely come into play here, but the women's education-/career-drive as a cultural anchor today is directly causal to the marriage gap, anyway (I believe).

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don’t make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman’s best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.

    Hail, this is a stunningly good paragraph.

    There are actually two points–related–in here:

    1) The sociological observation–that you, I and a lot of other people have had–about young women pursuing self-esteem, status in a way that’s actually useless, damaging to society and … doesn’t actually make most women particularly happy.

    2) And–a point that i’ve meant to hammer home to my daughters–that young women often seem confused that their careerist pursuit–which they very much value in men–is really not of any particular interest to men (other than as marker for intelligence or conscientious or other genetic traits). While their focus, obsession and pursuit of it can be turnoff for and destabilizer of relationships with quality men.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    While their focus, obsession and pursuit of it can be turnoff for and destabilizer of relationships with quality men.
     
    How does it destabilize?
  96. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Paul Jolliffe
    This is part of a much larger pattern (a pattern, that I, for one, have long noticed . . . just sayin'), namely that young people today are having far less sex than older generations did at their age. Actually, there is some evidence that sex for young unmarried white women may be at its lowest point since . . . The Middle Ages. As in the Medieval Middle Ages. As in the 1400's.

    The respectable mainstream media is - at very long last - beginning to sit up and take notice at this precipitous decline.

    Here, for example, is Politico's take on the real issue:

    "The ongoing cultural shifts in attitudes toward sex and relationships may make some men so hesitant to express interest or affection that relationships and marriage take a noticeable downward turn. “In the complicated dance of courtship, someone has to make a move, and the way one conventionally discovers if one’s attraction is returned is to brave some gentle physical contact and perhaps accept rebuff,” wrote the novelist Lionel Shriver. She added, “I am concerned that we are well on our way to demonising, if not criminalising, all male desire.” In other words, taken too far, the emerging sexual counter-revolution could put a chill on romance, relationships and marriage if sizable numbers of single men become afraid to initiate relationships with women.

    Perhaps the least surprising, but most damaging, consequence of the recent decline in sex is that the nation’s birth rate continues to fall to near record lows. In the wake of the Great Recession, births in the United States plunged. But even as the economy has improved, births have continued to decrease since 2014 among women under 30. These birth declines among young women have far outpaced modest birth increases among women 30 and older. This has brought the projected total fertility rate to a 38-year low in the United States: 1.77 children per women for 2017."

    But don't worry, says Politico. Their solution?

    More immigration.

    (I'm not kidding. They wrote that. It's not an I-Steve parody.)

    https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/02/08/why-young-americans-having-less-sex-216953

    320 million people are about 100 million too much. After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids the sudden turn is unbelievable. Zero population was the Holy Grail among the liberal intellectuals.

    I went to a museum once There was a group of girls about 12 in school uniforms. A woman said to me just viciously, “ Look at them. Catholics. They’ll be having 4 or 5 kids in 10 years. I told her the uniform was for Katherine Burke’s a non sectarian private school. The bitch just ranted on about Catholics having children.

    I knew a baby sitter who took of 4 kids at her own house. Every once in awhile she’d be accosted in the way to and from the playground about the sin she’d committed by having so many kids. That was the San Francisco Psych Clinic of course. Liberals are really rude. Just impose their Trump hatred in the middle of a conversation or tell you to ride a bike or eat quinoa.

    They’re all hateful Calvinists.

    The zero population people were pretty nasty to people with young children. I hope they’re all lonely old maids with no kids and grandkids to take care of them and only social security because they hopped from one non profit to another and got divorced a couple times so no pension from a husband or her jobs.

    • Replies: @anonymous

    After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids
     
    Well yeah, but...
  97. • Replies: @Desiderius
    Harvard Divinity is no doubt proud.

    Not sarcastic. How messed up is that that?

    Destroying yourself to own the Fundies.
  98. @Anon
    Central California is farms. That means poor farm workers and welfare people. It seems to be the trend that the first generation men work and their women have kids and go on welfare. Second generation women go on welfare and the men don’t go to work and get by on the women’s welfare and the $300 a month welfare for single adults.

    They never get married so the women can get the welfare. But they are long term life long common law type solid relationships.

    If you really want to see the awfulness of Ca. Take the train instead of driving. Some of the scenery is nice, but the backyards and trashy shabby light industry is awful. Can’t they paint the little factory or warehouse and clean up the yard?

    You must have been east of Van Ness in SF. Downtown??? West of Twin Peaks is fine. We used to call SF The Psych Clinic. We didn’t mean just the homeless crazy people. We meant the county supervisors and all the movers and shakers Mayor Judges Congress critter.

    I was only typing about the coast…and about 20 miles inland.

    • Replies: @Anon
    You saw the best part. Take away the ocean and it’s a beige desert of drab tract homes
    , @Lagertha
    yes - sad. So many are moving away to states like Texas and even, South Carolina.
  99. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Nicholas Stix
    You've nailed her. She'll probably also complain about men being commitment-phobic.

    Back in 1993, I dated a woman for a few weeks. She would always complain about men she’d had brief affairs with being “unwilling to commit.” She was engaging in pure projection, as it turned out. She broke it off, the way she apparently always did.

    "I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person."

    What she calls “consent” is merely a ritual abasement of a male sex partner. What did she care about him? The last thing in the world she’s concerned about is “care for the other person.” (“Care” is a big feminist slogan these days. Feminist propagandists have devoted entire books to “feminist ethics of care.”)

    The guy played her. He went through all of the rituals she required, and now she regrets that she can’t charge him with morning-after rape.

    How could she admit she had sex 2 nights he didn’t call and she puts it in a newspaper? I’d be too embarrassed to tell anyone. It was a generation ago but I noticed feminazis and liberals were very naive about men. They seem to think that every lecher in a bar is a nice guy who wants a good long term relationship leading to marriage.

    I learned about men first year of college. Horny beasts. Pests. Do young men still brag about their sex lives and even lie they had women who actually rejected them? Probably.

    It’s really pathetic those 50 year olds who married a short time once or twice and still think Prince Charming will come.

  100. @Anon
    320 million people are about 100 million too much. After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids the sudden turn is unbelievable. Zero population was the Holy Grail among the liberal intellectuals.

    I went to a museum once There was a group of girls about 12 in school uniforms. A woman said to me just viciously, “ Look at them. Catholics. They’ll be having 4 or 5 kids in 10 years. I told her the uniform was for Katherine Burke’s a non sectarian private school. The bitch just ranted on about Catholics having children.

    I knew a baby sitter who took of 4 kids at her own house. Every once in awhile she’d be accosted in the way to and from the playground about the sin she’d committed by having so many kids. That was the San Francisco Psych Clinic of course. Liberals are really rude. Just impose their Trump hatred in the middle of a conversation or tell you to ride a bike or eat quinoa.

    They’re all hateful Calvinists.

    The zero population people were pretty nasty to people with young children. I hope they’re all lonely old maids with no kids and grandkids to take care of them and only social security because they hopped from one non profit to another and got divorced a couple times so no pension from a husband or her jobs.

    After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids

    Well yeah, but…

    • Replies: @Anon
    Well yeah but what?
  101. @anon
    Her hair is OK but not great.

    Just for fun, she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School. -Her website[?]
     
    Not a plus.

    Verdict: F*ck her and chuck her. At least Antioch didn’t spring for dinner and a movie. A man has to stay on budget.

    she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School.

    This explains:

    When my novel manuscript was rejected in early 2016, I knew that Hillary Clinton would lose the election.

    It was an Omen of the upcoming Devils’ Work.

  102. @anon
    Her hair is OK but not great.

    Just for fun, she also has a degree from the Harvard Divinity School. -Her website[?]
     
    Not a plus.

    Verdict: F*ck her and chuck her. At least Antioch didn’t spring for dinner and a movie. A man has to stay on budget.

    I could have told her her that if she’d said no and no and no he’d hang around long enough for a relationship to develop.

    Fuck and chuck. That’s men. These liberal women are so naive about men.

    • Replies: @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.
  103. @Kylie
    So it's not enough that he asks for her permission to touch her, he should also ask for her permission not to touch her?

    An astute comment.

    But please don’t give them ideas.

  104. @Lagertha
    I was only typing about the coast...and about 20 miles inland.

    You saw the best part. Take away the ocean and it’s a beige desert of drab tract homes

  105. @Anon
    Central California is farms. That means poor farm workers and welfare people. It seems to be the trend that the first generation men work and their women have kids and go on welfare. Second generation women go on welfare and the men don’t go to work and get by on the women’s welfare and the $300 a month welfare for single adults.

    They never get married so the women can get the welfare. But they are long term life long common law type solid relationships.

    If you really want to see the awfulness of Ca. Take the train instead of driving. Some of the scenery is nice, but the backyards and trashy shabby light industry is awful. Can’t they paint the little factory or warehouse and clean up the yard?

    You must have been east of Van Ness in SF. Downtown??? West of Twin Peaks is fine. We used to call SF The Psych Clinic. We didn’t mean just the homeless crazy people. We meant the county supervisors and all the movers and shakers Mayor Judges Congress critter.

    slo down. I live in the East Coast – my sons are out there, now. We have the same problems in Mass, NH(small coast) CT, RI, NJ, NY, VT, NH…………California is the only state that has bragged about being oh so, soooo ok with homeless and, the none insured people for close to 3 decades. You all will soon, pay for them.

    • Replies: @Trevor H.
    The nation--once the world's finest--is devolving toward third world status. Some parts are falling apart faster than others, but that's where it's all headed.
    , @Anon
    Some say that California and other warm state’s homeless migrated from the north east so they don’t freeze to death during the winter.

    Some say many things.

    Maybe we’re Buddhists or Hindus at heart. Can’t solve a problem, embrace it.

    5 largest economy in the world I guess we can provide health care to the world. We’re already the old age pension system of China.
  106. @Big Bill
    So sad.

    Girls are fruitcakes.

    Get drunk with their girlfriends, look a stranger up on their cell phone, meet up, hook up, screw on their first meeting, and then feel hurt that he didn't act like a boyfriend.

    Women are sheep lacking all self-awareness. If their girlfriends tell them they should "go for it", they do.

    A year from now she could be wearing a black Muslim gunny sack, doing whatever her Arab boyfriend orders her to do, popping out three or four sprogs, and be perfectly happy that a man is in charge.

    Why in heaven's name did we ever gift them the vote?

    Yes ladies you’re all whores and fools. All of you. No buts, no exceptions. The (gay?) radical right has spoken. I don’t care if you’ve swung to the nationalist populist right and started voting for Trump, Le Pen and Salvini, we don’t need your cootie covered voting slips. We’ll simply abolish democracy and go straight to absolute monarchy.

    • Replies: @Cloudbuster
    Thanks for chiming in, Lancelot.
    , @S. Anonyia
    These bitter dudes would be mad about absolute monarchy too because the King/court would get too much attention from women and the monarchs would probably sponsor attractive female artists/writers/actresses/musicians as was the case in the age of absolutist monarchs from the 1500s-1700s.

    Also women’s fashions tended to be extravagant during absolutist monarchies. These cootie haters would probably prefer Sharia style burlap sacks or frumpster prairie gear.
  107. @Anon
    If this woman is elected, she is guilty of treason

    https://twitter.com/amylittlefield/status/1037159937305206784

    Alabama was threatened with economic obliteration if they elected Roy Moore. It is time that the Right returns the favor.

    What woman what election???

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    Looks like Rachael Rollins, the overcompensating quatroon Dem candidate for DA of Suffolk County MA.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/09/fifteen_crimes_rachael_rollins_wouldn_t_pursue_as_da

    It's another one of the these Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-style primary upsets where a youngish PoC knocks off the older whiter incumbent in a traditionally Dem district. Then the party and voters face a conundrum: pretend that we actually meant all that SJW blather we advocated for decades and back this obviously crazy platform, or stay home, or ... switch sides?

    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/07/boston-suffolk-county-district-attorney-rachael-rollins/

    So the question is, will Boston vote for explicit anarcho-tyranny, so long as it comes in a Democrat wrapper?

    Survey says ... yes.

  108. @Lagertha
    https://youtu.be/nfs8NYg7yQM

    ok, so, I wrote about young male virgins, earlier...the guys who do not want to be labled INCELS.
    Yeah, I am a mom and almost, shit (it sucks) go, so what do I know? well, I know stuff:

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff...getting a girl to like you: Listen...smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people. Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time...but you learn, and that is the key.

    Whiskey – get in here!

  109. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Big Bill
    So sad.

    Girls are fruitcakes.

    Get drunk with their girlfriends, look a stranger up on their cell phone, meet up, hook up, screw on their first meeting, and then feel hurt that he didn't act like a boyfriend.

    Women are sheep lacking all self-awareness. If their girlfriends tell them they should "go for it", they do.

    A year from now she could be wearing a black Muslim gunny sack, doing whatever her Arab boyfriend orders her to do, popping out three or four sprogs, and be perfectly happy that a man is in charge.

    Why in heaven's name did we ever gift them the vote?

    And old codgers spend their days cruising the internet for stories about young women so they can get off ranting about sex and sluts and tattoos and sex and messy hair and sex and one night stands and sex and sex and sluts and chortling away that young men can easily get one night stands which the old codgers couldn’t do in 1955 unless they paid a prostitute.

  110. @Anonymous
    Stevenson's running mate in '52 was Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, who was conservative and a segregationist. Stevenson won the deep South in '52.

    In '54, the Eisenhower administration supported Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in schools, while Stevenson opposed federal court intervention in segregation, saying about Brown that "we don't need reforms or groping experiments." Stevenson won the deep South again in '56.

    Thank you. Spending a few minutes again reading about these campaigns makes for a startling contrast to those of today. It has been a race to the bottom.

  111. Notice that all these young women assistant associate editors don’t live in New York but Boston Portland and other towns? It’s just free lance piece work. Maybe I’ll make some sexual fantasy soap opera up and submit it? Wonder what the Slimes pays, probably not much

  112. @anonymous

    After the scorn my mother and I endured because we had more than 2 kids
     
    Well yeah, but...

    Well yeah but what?

    • Replies: @anonymous
    Do you really want this one explained, out here in public??
    , @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    You said you and your mother were scorned by liberals because you had two children. The other guy was simply pointing out that that's hardly surprising, as virtually all people, not just liberals, would scorn you for knocking your mother up even once, let alone twice.

    You probably meant your wife, not your mother. He was humorously pointing out your error.

  113. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit--which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.
     
    Howeve my one--rather strong--objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring ...
     
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common--and essentially worthless--rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It's just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they've got a marketing scam to warn people off "blood diamonds". I'm not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost ... but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women--or at least many women--being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn't play along. I strongly recommend--not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    Medieval people had engagement rings but they weren’t expensive. Like a thin ring with 2 hearts or clasped hands
    Calvin and Knox disapproved of even wedding rings so they disappeared for a few centuries.

    Those biggish diamond rings were just a scam. The blood diamonds myth was created by the S African cartel
    when diamonds were discovered in other countries.

    Nowadays women contribute to the cost of the rings. Better to spend 5 to 10 K on a set of rings than some ridiculous polyester dress made in Cambodia by slaves that’s worn once.

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    relax about rings/dresses,etc. (women who love you don't fucking care!) But, please, all you men, stop being so neurotic about women...yes, seriously. I love men, but so many of you are so much more foolish and too generous than you should be.
  114. 2506374

    finally. hahaaaa

  115. @Achilles

    I think I snorted. “When you asked about the sweater, that was my yes from the waist up.”
     
    LOL! Bet she went to Jewish summer camp:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-woke-war-on-comedy/#comment-2418276

    from her Linked in:

    Courtney Sender
    Freelance writer, Adjunct professor (Yale, JHU, MICA)
    Current: Yale University Careers, Maryland Institute College of Art, Center for Social Organization of Schools
    Previous: Germany Close Up, Crimson Summer Exchange, Yale Undergraduate Career Services
    Education: The Johns Hopkins University
    I have extensive teaching, writing, editorial, and research experience both domestically and abroad. My fiction appears in The Kenyon Review, Glimmer Train, American Short Fiction, and others; my essays in Salon, xoJane, and The Los Angeles Review of Books.
    I am taking on freelance copywriting and copyediting, as well as tutoring. (B.A. English, Yale; MFA Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars.)
    Specialties: Holocaust studies, Religious studies (Judeo-Christian), Secondary and post-secondary teaching/tutoring, Freelance copywriting, Editing, Copyediting.
    Work/research abroad: Barcelona, Spain; Copenhagen, Denmark; Beijing, China; Hong Kong; Berlin, Germany; London, UK
     
    Holocaust studies? Has she heard of Ron's website?

    "My fiction appears in ..."

    No doubt Sarah Jeong swallowed it whole.

    Kenyon Review gag.

  116. @Mr. Anon

    Queen Victoria had 9 children in a 21 year marriage. Charles II the ‘Merry Monarch’ had 8 illegitimate children in all.

    So much for the Victorians.
     
    Queen Victoria had all nine children with the same father within the bonds of marriage. The Victorians were not anti-sex, they were just anti-talking-about-it.

    Charles II was not a Victorian. He lived during the bawdy Restoration Era.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoration_comedy

    Then there was Augustus the strong of Saxony more than 300 children by dozens of women. He was the King who turned Dresden from an ordinary town into a spectacular glorious city with the wonderful museums.

    It is good to be a King.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    I'd like some stats on STDs for that case.
    , @Flip
    Ibn Saud founded his own country through conquest and had over a hundred children.
  117. Future crazy cat lady in training.

  118. @Anon
    Medieval people had engagement rings but they weren’t expensive. Like a thin ring with 2 hearts or clasped hands
    Calvin and Knox disapproved of even wedding rings so they disappeared for a few centuries.

    Those biggish diamond rings were just a scam. The blood diamonds myth was created by the S African cartel
    when diamonds were discovered in other countries.

    Nowadays women contribute to the cost of the rings. Better to spend 5 to 10 K on a set of rings than some ridiculous polyester dress made in Cambodia by slaves that’s worn once.

    relax about rings/dresses,etc. (women who love you don’t fucking care!) But, please, all you men, stop being so neurotic about women…yes, seriously. I love men, but so many of you are so much more foolish and too generous than you should be.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    so much more foolish and too generous than you should be.
     
    What do you mean?
  119. @AnotherDad
    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit--which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.
     
    Howeve my one--rather strong--objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring ...
     
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common--and essentially worthless--rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It's just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they've got a marketing scam to warn people off "blood diamonds". I'm not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost ... but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women--or at least many women--being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn't play along. I strongly recommend--not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    Excellent point, AD. About 10 years back I read an on-line short book written long ago (lat 1970′s?) by a guy named Edward J. Epstein about the whole deBeers diamond scam. The scam is (at least was at that time) vertically integrated from the mines through the diamond brokers in NYC, London, and Amsterdam.

    There is even a part addressing your question about the sales of artificial diamonds:

    To be sure, General Electric recognized that it would be possible to develop catalysts that would accelerate the time needed to produce gems and to engineer more efficient presses that would allow more diamonds to be grown in the same cycle. However, even if it were possible to mass-produce gem diamonds at costs comparable to those of industrial diamonds, there would be a more serious problem. If the public realized that diamonds could be manufactured in unlimited quantities in a factory, the entire market for diamonds might suddenly collapse. A senior General Electric executive who was involved in the decision not to manufacture gem diamonds explained to me, “We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention. The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become. Then the mystique would be gone, and the price would drop to next to nothing.” General Electric decided not to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in presses to produce gem diamonds. Although their chief rivals had decided not to go ahead with manufacturing, it now became a war against time for the De Beers cartel. The science and technology that made it possible to manufacture real diamonds threatened to create a supply of diamonds that was beyond the control of De Beers.

    Last summer I wrote 3 posts about this huge scam, which were half-way taken from this illuminating book – You’ve got a friend in the diamond business, and here’s Part 2 and Part 3.

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I already knew the outlines of the DeBeers scam, but EJ Epstein sure fills in a lot of colorful detail. I particularly liked the story Emperor Bokassa treasuring the big but worthless diamond in the shape of Africa. "It's a two tier market," says the exec. Yeah, but maybe not quite the way he means.

    Another interesting facet (heh) is that up until recently--since the internet more or less--even people who should have known better, e.g., executives at big banks, seemed completely clueless that there was a big international multibillion dollar scam going on right under every (married) person's nose.

    Speaking of executives, that GE guy's excuse for not producing high quality industrial diamonds seems fishy.

    “The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become,"
     
    That's true of every manufactured thing. By that logic, GE should just close up shop and forget about everything. It is hard not to wonder if there wasn't some extra-market and even extra-legal pressure applied to him.

    “We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention."
     
    Perhaps, but not in the way he is implying.
    , @Anon
    That happened to pearls not long ago early 20th century. A Japanese created artificial pearls by putting little round beads in oysters and waiting a few years.

    Before that pearls were very expensive.

    It’s a scam but no one has to buy one.

    My engagement ring has a biggish diamond. I didn’t ask for it. It’s not my favorite cut. I didn’t even see it till he gave it to me. He bought that biggish diamond for one reason.

    He and his brothers and friends were all getting married and it was a masculine status thing among them to compete to buy the biggest diamond.

    A few years later they competed to see who could buy the biggest houses in the most expensive neighborhood.

    I don’t think any women I know actually asked for a diamond engagement ring, even the Jewish ones. That just isn’t done in certain circles.
  120. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:

    Off topic

    The Temple institute in Jerusalem has been breeding cattle trying to produce a Red Heifer for a long time so they can grab more American money to build the third temple.

    Finally, for the first time in 2,000 years a truly red heifer was born today 9/7 . Evangelical Christians and Jews rejoice because the rabbis will burn it use the ashes to purify something and the messiah will come down from the sky just like those religion class pictures.

    I hope they kill her before they burn her.
    Let’s sic peta vegetarians and the animal lovers on the rabbis. Save the Red Heifer

    I googled it. This one is really red. It seems many rabbis have discovered red heifers. But the supreme synod of judging degrees of redness decided those heifers were Auburn not really red.
    They bred this one and it’s truly red. They think. They’ve already woven the fabric and made the robes and accessories according to the directions in the Bible.

    Oh that Evelyn Waugh were still alive and could write a book about the red heifer and making the robes and the third temple.

    • Replies: @El Dato
    Extreme facepalm.

    The last time these idiots dabbled in Golden Calf idiolatry they got what they deserved, good & hard because the supervisory system was QUITE unhappy with the show (at least according to that Charlton Heston vehicle)

    Maybe a countrywide Ebola outbreak would be just the thing to whip them into shape.
    , @Almost Missouri
    >Googles the Red Heifer photo...

    That's it? I had at least half a dozen of those back in my farming days! Some were even more red.

    Jeez (literally), I hope no one takes this too seriously.
    , @DFH
    Christ already dealt with this sort of nonsense

    “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
     

    Matthew 24:36
     
  121. Anonymous[407] • Disclaimer says:

    Blow out all the candles, blow out all the candles
    “You’re too old to be so shy,” he says to me so I stay the night
    Just a young heart confusing my mind, but we’re both in silence
    Wide-eyed, both in silence
    Wide-eyed

    Cause we both know I’ll never be your lover
    I only bring the heat
    Company under cover
    Filling space in your sheets
    Well I’ll never be a lover
    I only bring the heat
    Company under cover
    Filling space in your sheets, in your sheets

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    Joni was red-pilled before her time.

    Go down to the pick up station
    Craving warmth and beauty
    You settle for less than fascination
    Few drinks later you're not so choosy
    When the closing lights strip off the shadows
    On this strange new flesh you've found
    Clutching the night to you like a fig leaf
    You hurry
    To the blackness
    And the blankets
    To lay down an impression
    And your loneliness
     
    And

    You've had lots of lovely women
    Now you turn your gaze to me
    Weighing the beauty and the imperfection
    To see if I'm worthy
    Like the church
    Like a cop
    Like a mother
    You want me to be truthful
    Sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though
    And I need your approval

    Still I send up my prayer
    Wondering who's there to hear
    I said, send me somebody
    Who's strong, and somewhat sincere
     
  122. @AnotherDad
    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit--which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.
     
    Howeve my one--rather strong--objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring ...
     
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common--and essentially worthless--rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It's just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they've got a marketing scam to warn people off "blood diamonds". I'm not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost ... but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women--or at least many women--being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn't play along. I strongly recommend--not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    It’s amazing to learn (or was for me) that this diamond engagement thing has only been a standard practice in America since after WWII (per Epstein), and deBeers was involved in marketing via Hollywood.

    The whole blood-diamond problem can turn out to be a “man’s best friend”, as this is a great way to get out of the deal, per my 3rd link above:

    Here’s what you tell your young lady:

    “Listen, I’d love to buy you that big diamond we saw at Jarrod, and yes I know it makes you horny (for a while). It’s just that, sob sob …”

    “Yes? What’s wrong, honey… wait, you’ve GOT THE MONEY, don’t you?!”

    “Yes, it’s not that … it’s just … well, the terrible conditions in the mines in these countries in Africa … I’m so concerned. There are murders every day. Rape! Genocide! I can’t be part of this … no way!”

    “Ohhh…. ”

    “Yeah, I think I should get you a ruby instead. Sure, they’re, cough, cough .. a little bit, cough, cough, cheaper, but they come from different African countries where all the miners do is kick the ever-lovin’ shit out of each other.”

  123. @Anon
    Then there was Augustus the strong of Saxony more than 300 children by dozens of women. He was the King who turned Dresden from an ordinary town into a spectacular glorious city with the wonderful museums.

    It is good to be a King.

    I’d like some stats on STDs for that case.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Never thought of that. The women either got married after the liaison with Augustus or were married. So the STDs must have spread far and wide. Couldn’t have been gonnorhea causes sterility in women or chalmedia miscarriages.

    Spell check doesn’t have those 2 diseases.
    , @stillCARealist
    STI's. Disease just sounds so icky. It's Infection now.

    But, as you say, those little viruses and spirochetes and bacteria and arthropods will always be with us thanks to the Augustuses of the world.
  124. @Anon
    Off topic

    The Temple institute in Jerusalem has been breeding cattle trying to produce a Red Heifer for a long time so they can grab more American money to build the third temple.

    Finally, for the first time in 2,000 years a truly red heifer was born today 9/7 . Evangelical Christians and Jews rejoice because the rabbis will burn it use the ashes to purify something and the messiah will come down from the sky just like those religion class pictures.

    I hope they kill her before they burn her.
    Let’s sic peta vegetarians and the animal lovers on the rabbis. Save the Red Heifer

    I googled it. This one is really red. It seems many rabbis have discovered red heifers. But the supreme synod of judging degrees of redness decided those heifers were Auburn not really red.
    They bred this one and it’s truly red. They think. They’ve already woven the fabric and made the robes and accessories according to the directions in the Bible.

    Oh that Evelyn Waugh were still alive and could write a book about the red heifer and making the robes and the third temple.

    Extreme facepalm.

    The last time these idiots dabbled in Golden Calf idiolatry they got what they deserved, good & hard because the supervisory system was QUITE unhappy with the show (at least according to that Charlton Heston vehicle)

    Maybe a countrywide Ebola outbreak would be just the thing to whip them into shape.

    • Replies: @Anon
    I read a bit more. The Supreme Synod of judging redness also inspects the heifer. If there is just one White hair she’s not a perfect red.

    Sounds like a great job no? Judging a couple heifers a year. The heifer thing doesn’t sound monotheistic. It’s more like an old pagan animal worshipping religion.

    When I become supreme dictator of the universe I’m going to put big signs up in that damn wall stating it’s a retaining wall built by the Roman’s and has nothing to do with any mythical temple
  125. @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    “When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly “left”? “

    When the culture (as defined by mass media, literature, art, the organisations around one) was small-c conservative, women on average voted more small-c conservative than men. Now the ‘left’ has cultural hegemony, women on average vote more left than men. It’s ‘go along to get along’ writ large.

    For educated women this is amplified by the ‘left’ lockdown on academia.

    I put ‘left’ in brackets because of course the left no longer worries itself about pay and conditions for the average worker (that racist, chauvinist pig). They worry that there aren’t enough women in the boardroom (that these women will be the privately educated sisters and daughters of the men in the boardroom is no biggie).

  126. @Intelligent Dasein
    There are plenty of Google images of this woman flashing a big, pearly smile to the world.

    The smile of woman is a strange thing, a timeless instance of much remarked-upon feminine wiles. They can present a perfectly convincing picture of happiness and contentment even though their lives contain nothing of the sort. When a man fake-smiles, he just looks like Eric Idle taking a dump.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption. Dr. Thomas Szasz thought that this smiling imperative, offspring of the effeminate West's obsessive image-consciousness, was a contributor to male pattern baldness. Whether or not that is true, it certainly contributes to male unhappiness.

    I doubt Victorian men had to reflexively smile at others to just to get through their day. Another of the many reasons why theirs was a happier time.

    You sound like a lot of fun.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption.

    And no true Scotsmen neither…

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    russians are best men!
  127. @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJP7cERT9nc

    Blow out all the candles, blow out all the candles
    "You're too old to be so shy," he says to me so I stay the night
    Just a young heart confusing my mind, but we're both in silence
    Wide-eyed, both in silence
    Wide-eyed

    Cause we both know I'll never be your lover
    I only bring the heat
    Company under cover
    Filling space in your sheets
    Well I'll never be a lover
    I only bring the heat
    Company under cover
    Filling space in your sheets, in your sheets
     

    Joni was red-pilled before her time.

    Go down to the pick up station
    Craving warmth and beauty
    You settle for less than fascination
    Few drinks later you’re not so choosy
    When the closing lights strip off the shadows
    On this strange new flesh you’ve found
    Clutching the night to you like a fig leaf
    You hurry
    To the blackness
    And the blankets
    To lay down an impression
    And your loneliness

    And

    You’ve had lots of lovely women
    Now you turn your gaze to me
    Weighing the beauty and the imperfection
    To see if I’m worthy
    Like the church
    Like a cop
    Like a mother
    You want me to be truthful
    Sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though
    And I need your approval

    Still I send up my prayer
    Wondering who’s there to hear
    I said, send me somebody
    Who’s strong, and somewhat sincere

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    These songs are all so sad

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEpMj-tqixs

    Humans are made to be unhappy on no, unhappy on yes.
  128. I wonder if this 24 year-old dude was actually trolling the 30 year-old writer by exaggerating this PC consent garbage? She no doubt let it be known in her Tinder profile that she was a feminist SJW and perhaps our young shitlord decided to have a little fun at her expense?

    • Replies: @Poke646,0
    I bet he's glad that the slut wrote of their encounter. At least she can't have regrets and claim rape.
  129. @miss marple
    I'm still trying to understand what this chick is complaining about. A 24 year old had sex with her on two different occasions, gave her polite pleasure then moved on before the age difference got to be a problem. I assure you this woman would also have complained if he'd wanted a serious relationship which is why she's still hooking up at age 30 instead of getting married. Ignore her. She's as fickle as she is demanding.

    If he stuck around for round 3, 4 ,5 he would have been called clingy and dependent. She would have found ways of calling him stupid and immature.

    • Agree: YetAnotherAnon
  130. @Anon
    I could have told her her that if she’d said no and no and no he’d hang around long enough for a relationship to develop.

    Fuck and chuck. That’s men. These liberal women are so naive about men.

    No, they’re not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They’re using a casual sex “dating” app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to “keep their options open” which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It’s extremely mercenary behavior and it’s why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn’t have sexual liberalism.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent comment, Saxon!

    Like Joe out o' Buffalo said, bring back the gold border.
    , @Trevor H.
    Good clear thinking.
    , @The Wild Geese Howard

    It’s extremely mercenary behavior and it’s why the marriage rates are so down.
     
    We live in a time and culture where it makes sense for a young man to have strategies for hiding his assets and managing his eventual divorce before he enters marriage.
    , @Hail

    What they want is to “keep their options open” which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to [sleep around with impunity]
     
    Solution?
    , @James Forrestal

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.
     
    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the "Chesterton's Fence"* approach -- rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, "oppressing" da wimmenz for no reason. It's easier than any sort of deep analysis -- and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of "cultural evolution" -- societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level... because they didn't work, or at least didn't scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-"evolved" solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the "clever sillies" issue -- the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to "solve" issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.
    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these "irrational," "unfair," "oppressive" institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    , @Intelligent Dasein

    So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn’t have sexual liberalism.
     
    Sadly, you got very close to having an actual insight there, and then you blew it. Those things you've ignorantly dismissed as the "religious gobbledygook" are the real and concrete reasons for not having sexual license. And since you've already admitted that the men who adverted to such descriptions "knew the most" about the subject, it is, on your own acknowledgement, patently absurd to reject their preferred idiom, their stated reasons, their grasp of salient characteristics, and the undeniable fact that from time immemorial they have expressed themselves in precisely these terms and no others.

    There cannot be any such thing as a morality that is not informed by ultimate, immaterial causes, for reasons that are both manifold and undeniable. For instance, the virtue of justice---that being the equitable treatment owed to rational beings, the act of judging and apportioning to others their due---is by its very definition annexed to morality. But justice nowhere appears as a matter of mere sense experience. It is an idea which, though activated by sense perceptions, contains an essential supersensuous element. The divination into the nature of this element leads inevitably to the threshold of metaphysics.

    Similar to the above is the reality of God Himself. It requires only the proper use of man's natural reason to prove the existence of God; revelation and supernaturalism are not required. Therefore those who deny the existence of God are implicitly denying the validity of the reasoning process itself. For to reason means to accept that the terms of a proposition have a meaningful and objective existence. To accept this existence means to acknowledge the operation of a formal cause. To admit the existence of formal causes means to recognize a certain immateriality in the conception of the thing, which redounds immediately to the immateriality of the active intellect. Being immaterial, both the active intellect and the conceptions it cogitates partake of a changeless foundation, without the existence of which thought would not be possible. But that which both exists and is changeless is a necessary being. This necessary being we call God.

    There must be a first or necessary cause to serve as the source of those intellectual forms by which reasoning is to take place. Therefore to reject God does not mean simply rejecting some more or less probable hypothesis, but rather it unweaves the very web by which all cognizable reality is held together. By a like reasoning process, the existence of objective moral standards---the very coherence of the idea that goodness can be properly predicated of men or actions---depends upon an unsurpassed, transcendent goodness to which the relative goodness of creatures is only analogous.

    Thus, it's not as if the religious condemnation of sexual licence is something superfluous or mythical that must be done away with so that the "real" reasons can come forth. These are the real reasons. The practical effects of sexual mores---such that they reduce violence and jealousy, and conduce to the formation of happy families, strong races, and prosperous societies---are derivative and, apart from their metaphysical grounding, would little merit to be called goodness at all. They would instead be a species of devious and subtle slavery to which the appropriate response would be the John Nash solution: Convince everyone else to follow the rules so that I myself may benefit maximally by breaking them. But since every player in the game knows that every other player would benefit by playing the John Nash strategy (and he knows that I know that he knows....etc.), a paranoid suspicion of the rules and desperate determination to break them no matter what becomes obligatory. This is the inevitable end state of merely practical morality.

    The spiritual act of adhering to the moral good is literally the imitation of the absolute goodness of God. That is the power of the commandment; that is why it cannot be flexed or broken for special circumstances. And it is only under the impact of such a law that morality can be observed, or its observance rendered beneficial.
  131. @YetAnotherAnon
    Joni was red-pilled before her time.

    Go down to the pick up station
    Craving warmth and beauty
    You settle for less than fascination
    Few drinks later you're not so choosy
    When the closing lights strip off the shadows
    On this strange new flesh you've found
    Clutching the night to you like a fig leaf
    You hurry
    To the blackness
    And the blankets
    To lay down an impression
    And your loneliness
     
    And

    You've had lots of lovely women
    Now you turn your gaze to me
    Weighing the beauty and the imperfection
    To see if I'm worthy
    Like the church
    Like a cop
    Like a mother
    You want me to be truthful
    Sometimes you turn it on me like a weapon though
    And I need your approval

    Still I send up my prayer
    Wondering who's there to hear
    I said, send me somebody
    Who's strong, and somewhat sincere
     

    These songs are all so sad

    Humans are made to be unhappy on no, unhappy on yes.

  132. “Do young men still brag about their sex lives and even lie they had women who actually rejected them?”

    This is a common trope (men brag about sex, women are discreet) that is in absolute contradiction to every conversation and experience I have ever had in my life-not just in my life and amongst my friends (who may be unusually reticent-I don’t know), but amongst casual friends, acquaintances, and so on.

    In my experience, women talk about everything, and men talk about nothing. I know more about the sex lives (and sexual abilities) of my wife’s friends and their husbands (who I know only casually) than I do about my best friend-in fact, about any friend, close or casual, I have ever had. I know this because the wives talk, and then my wife tells me!

    Its fun and titillating, but I wonder if I have to tone down my own behavior: if those folks knew what I’m like in the sack (and I have to presume they do…), I think they’d be disgusted with me…

    joe

    • Agree: Logan
  133. @Anon
    Well yeah but what?

    Do you really want this one explained, out here in public??

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Come on, it was just a typo!
    , @Anon
    I have no idea what you are talking about.
  134. @Anon
    "sex sells. NYT is getting desperate"

    Just another example of #getwokegobroke. Females like being females. They aren't into feminist nonsense. Unfortunately, our elites don't seem to understand this fact, so they have turned away a large paying demographic - on television (Dr. Who), in comics books, and in movies. Expect more media outlets, desperate for cash, to rediscover this fact...until the democrats gain control of the government, that is, and start subsidizing the legacy media, which I predict they will do at some point.

    Most prestige media is already subsidized, if not (directly) by the government. But yes, the billionaires and foundations will turn the task (and expense) over to the government to run on autopilot for them as soon as they are able. NPR and PBS are already there.

    Ironically, the bloggers/youtubers/fringe press were the only ones actually making money at media, if not very much money. Not coincidentally, they were also the only ones occasionally reporting actual facts. This may or may not be related to why Google decided that so many of them had to be demonitized, in accordance with Google’s new directive: “Do be evil.”

  135. @Achilles

    I think I snorted. “When you asked about the sweater, that was my yes from the waist up.”
     
    LOL! Bet she went to Jewish summer camp:

    http://www.unz.com/isteve/the-woke-war-on-comedy/#comment-2418276

    from her Linked in:

    Courtney Sender
    Freelance writer, Adjunct professor (Yale, JHU, MICA)
    Current: Yale University Careers, Maryland Institute College of Art, Center for Social Organization of Schools
    Previous: Germany Close Up, Crimson Summer Exchange, Yale Undergraduate Career Services
    Education: The Johns Hopkins University
    I have extensive teaching, writing, editorial, and research experience both domestically and abroad. My fiction appears in The Kenyon Review, Glimmer Train, American Short Fiction, and others; my essays in Salon, xoJane, and The Los Angeles Review of Books.
    I am taking on freelance copywriting and copyediting, as well as tutoring. (B.A. English, Yale; MFA Johns Hopkins Writing Seminars.)
    Specialties: Holocaust studies, Religious studies (Judeo-Christian), Secondary and post-secondary teaching/tutoring, Freelance copywriting, Editing, Copyediting.
    Work/research abroad: Barcelona, Spain; Copenhagen, Denmark; Beijing, China; Hong Kong; Berlin, Germany; London, UK
     
    Holocaust studies? Has she heard of Ron's website?

    "My fiction appears in ..."

    No doubt Sarah Jeong swallowed it whole.

    Do people read what women like this write? If so, who?

    • Replies: @Almost Missouri
    I've wondered that too.

    Sadly, the answer seems to be impressionable young women all across the world.
  136. @Lot
    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me

    • Replies: @MikeatMikedotMike
    If that's the best photo going around she's a prewall six at best. Post wall I'm thinking she'll be up there with Kathleen Turner or Kelly McGillis. WNB, WNM.
    , @Almost Missouri
    Somewhat evident in this photo, more so in other photos, is the crazy eyes, what Heartiste calls the "Thousand C*ck Stare".

    She's been giving it away for free for so long, she can't understand why she can't get a man to pay for it with blood and soul. It's a mystery.

    , @Jim Christian

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She's 'solid', thick. She's probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she's whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She's been at it at least since age 15, which means she's been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she's drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she's up for anything, bank on it that she's been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she's an all-access girl since Sex In The City put "ass on the menu", with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she's been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she's not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman's history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she's unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn't go away), she'll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there's the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: "Better you than me, Pal". I only say that because I've been that guy and I know it happens. It's a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It's the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.
    , @James Forrestal

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    Plus:

    1. MySpace angle.
    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=myspace%20angles
    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/myspace-angles

    2. Excellent job on makeup/ lighting/ exposure.
    , @Lot
    Agree those are some crazyeyes.

    I was talking about this photo, in a link to one of the first comments:

    https://agnimag.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/sender_horizontalheadshot.jpg
    , @Rocks Off
    Her problem is not so much the wall. Her problem is that she is no doubt chubby, bordering on fat. She probably only has head shots on her Tinder profile, just as she does on Google Image, a sure tell she is overweight. Even her head shots scream "fat face". Chubby chicks get banged a couple times by high status dudes and then they move on. Often chubby chicks are very skilled at oral sex. So if a guy with options may tap it once or twice knowing that there will at least be a reasonably good happy ending but will no doubt be disgusted by her body and certainly not want to risk taking her out in public where his friends might see her with him...
  137. @black sea
    A week or so ago, someone posted a comment here that went straight to the heart of this woman's-- and many another woman's -- dilemma. The comment went something like this.


    These three things are unrelated:

    What a woman thinks she wants.
    What a woman says she wants.
    What a woman wants.

    She wants to be both fickle and demanding.

  138. @Anon
    Off topic

    The Temple institute in Jerusalem has been breeding cattle trying to produce a Red Heifer for a long time so they can grab more American money to build the third temple.

    Finally, for the first time in 2,000 years a truly red heifer was born today 9/7 . Evangelical Christians and Jews rejoice because the rabbis will burn it use the ashes to purify something and the messiah will come down from the sky just like those religion class pictures.

    I hope they kill her before they burn her.
    Let’s sic peta vegetarians and the animal lovers on the rabbis. Save the Red Heifer

    I googled it. This one is really red. It seems many rabbis have discovered red heifers. But the supreme synod of judging degrees of redness decided those heifers were Auburn not really red.
    They bred this one and it’s truly red. They think. They’ve already woven the fabric and made the robes and accessories according to the directions in the Bible.

    Oh that Evelyn Waugh were still alive and could write a book about the red heifer and making the robes and the third temple.

    >Googles the Red Heifer photo…

    That’s it? I had at least half a dozen of those back in my farming days! Some were even more red.

    Jeez (literally), I hope no one takes this too seriously.

  139. @Anon
    Off topic

    The Temple institute in Jerusalem has been breeding cattle trying to produce a Red Heifer for a long time so they can grab more American money to build the third temple.

    Finally, for the first time in 2,000 years a truly red heifer was born today 9/7 . Evangelical Christians and Jews rejoice because the rabbis will burn it use the ashes to purify something and the messiah will come down from the sky just like those religion class pictures.

    I hope they kill her before they burn her.
    Let’s sic peta vegetarians and the animal lovers on the rabbis. Save the Red Heifer

    I googled it. This one is really red. It seems many rabbis have discovered red heifers. But the supreme synod of judging degrees of redness decided those heifers were Auburn not really red.
    They bred this one and it’s truly red. They think. They’ve already woven the fabric and made the robes and accessories according to the directions in the Bible.

    Oh that Evelyn Waugh were still alive and could write a book about the red heifer and making the robes and the third temple.

    Christ already dealt with this sort of nonsense

    “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.

    Matthew 24:36

  140. @Rocks Off
    I wonder if this 24 year-old dude was actually trolling the 30 year-old writer by exaggerating this PC consent garbage? She no doubt let it be known in her Tinder profile that she was a feminist SJW and perhaps our young shitlord decided to have a little fun at her expense?

    I bet he’s glad that the slut wrote of their encounter. At least she can’t have regrets and claim rape.

  141. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    If that’s the best photo going around she’s a prewall six at best. Post wall I’m thinking she’ll be up there with Kathleen Turner or Kelly McGillis. WNB, WNM.

  142. @Lagertha
    slo down. I live in the East Coast - my sons are out there, now. We have the same problems in Mass, NH(small coast) CT, RI, NJ, NY, VT, NH............California is the only state that has bragged about being oh so, soooo ok with homeless and, the none insured people for close to 3 decades. You all will soon, pay for them.

    The nation–once the world’s finest–is devolving toward third world status. Some parts are falling apart faster than others, but that’s where it’s all headed.

  143. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    Excellent comment, Saxon!

    Like Joe out o’ Buffalo said, bring back the gold border.

  144. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    Good clear thinking.

  145. A culture of consent should be a culture of care for the other person, of seeing and honoring another’s humanity and finding ways to engage in sex while keeping our humanity intact.

    Hmmm, like…., so…… Don’t be a slut?

  146. I just checked that AGNI article. A ‘writer’ whose references are Gone Girl, Game of Thrones, Hamilton and Mohsin Hamid (“As more migrants penetrate London, hostility between the migrants and the native-born increases, including attacks and mob rule. The migrants are eventually sectioned off in a ghetto with minimal food and electricity called “Dark London”. After a raid to clear out migrants goes wrong…“).

    I can see her works becoming modern classics… ;-)

  147. @Anon
    Look at the success of Rich Crazy Asians book and movie. It’s a basic Cinderella. Heroine and serious boyfriends are middle class college assistant professors. He’s best man at a Singapore wedding invites her.

    She discovers her middle income boyfriend belongs to one of the riches families in Asia. Look at the English royal family weddings. The female population of the world is enthralled.

    The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc.

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.

    The whole feminist thing was to get cheap docile female labor and double the workforce to lower wages. Back to 1810 Britian when women and children worked dragging loads of coal in the mines.

    That’s all.

    “The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc.”

    A big constituency, for sure.

    Other constituencies:

    - Bulldykes who wanted to bully younger submissive women into “partnership”.

    - Andrea Dworkin.

    • Replies: @Tim
    I don't agree that the sexual revolution was "for" men who just wanted to have sex without a relationship--and bullying bull dykes. I think it CREATED these people.

    When you can have sex for free, then, why not. Next thing you know, your 40 years old, walking around in your bachelor's apartment in your underwear farting on yourself.

    And girls aren't dykes, they BECOME dykes by getting screwed over by all the guys who have sex with them, then never call.
  148. @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    Thanks, that was illuminating.

    Still, I wonder if those “reverse” gender gap stats aren’t just an artifact of the Sailerian marriage gap?

  149. If, even after asking permission for every move (lol), it still feels “dehumanizing”, she must have let him do some truly degrading stuff.

    On Pornhub, the most depraved girl has a feminism tattoo. When you have rape on the brain, that’s probably how you like it.

  150. @unpc downunder
    Yes ladies you're all whores and fools. All of you. No buts, no exceptions. The (gay?) radical right has spoken. I don't care if you've swung to the nationalist populist right and started voting for Trump, Le Pen and Salvini, we don't need your cootie covered voting slips. We'll simply abolish democracy and go straight to absolute monarchy.

    Thanks for chiming in, Lancelot.

  151. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    Somewhat evident in this photo, more so in other photos, is the crazy eyes, what Heartiste calls the “Thousand C*ck Stare”.

    She’s been giving it away for free for so long, she can’t understand why she can’t get a man to pay for it with blood and soul. It’s a mystery.

  152. @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    “When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly “left”?”

    Steve Sailer can chime in for himself, but as he has pointed out many times (do a search on “sailer gap married single”, or even just “sailer gap”), the answer probably lies in dis-aggregating single and married women (and the extent to which a woman in either category is anticipating switching) and analyzing their voting patterns separately.

    Put simply, back when women were more likely to be married, or at least regarded marriage as their eventual default status, women voted differently.

    (See also Mary Eberstadt’s articles and book on how declining birth rates lead to greater secularization — and presumably a more leftist political agenda. But around here, people are notorious for trying to pretend that religion is irrelevant, or else is simply overwhelmed by genetics or “Aryan-ness” or whatever — so that, e.g., an Islamic Europe would have not been any different from a traditionally Christian one, since European-ness is the overriding factor. Curiously, that conviction never seems to apply to other ideologies like Communism or fascism — only religion.)

  153. @anonymous
    Do you really want this one explained, out here in public??

    Come on, it was just a typo!

  154. @Mr. Anon
    Wow. The Honeycombs were really ahead of their time:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OuUpOerfT2I

    There’s something you don’t see every day. A female drummer!

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    There’s something you don’t see every day. A female drummer!
     
    Her name was Ann (‘Honey’) Lantree and she worked as a hairdresser assistant, hence the punning name of the group Honey combs. It was a number one hit in England (and a one hit wonder) and has some sonic similarities to Telstar which was recorded in the same apartment.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryrEPzsx1gQ
    , @Flip
    Karen Carpenter was a drummer.
  155. @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent point, AD. About 10 years back I read an on-line short book written long ago (lat 1970's?) by a guy named Edward J. Epstein about the whole deBeers diamond scam. The scam is (at least was at that time) vertically integrated from the mines through the diamond brokers in NYC, London, and Amsterdam.

    There is even a part addressing your question about the sales of artificial diamonds:

    To be sure, General Electric recognized that it would be possible to develop catalysts that would accelerate the time needed to produce gems and to engineer more efficient presses that would allow more diamonds to be grown in the same cycle. However, even if it were possible to mass-produce gem diamonds at costs comparable to those of industrial diamonds, there would be a more serious problem. If the public realized that diamonds could be manufactured in unlimited quantities in a factory, the entire market for diamonds might suddenly collapse. A senior General Electric executive who was involved in the decision not to manufacture gem diamonds explained to me, "We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention. The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become. Then the mystique would be gone, and the price would drop to next to nothing." General Electric decided not to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in presses to produce gem diamonds. Although their chief rivals had decided not to go ahead with manufacturing, it now became a war against time for the De Beers cartel. The science and technology that made it possible to manufacture real diamonds threatened to create a supply of diamonds that was beyond the control of De Beers.
     
    Last summer I wrote 3 posts about this huge scam, which were half-way taken from this illuminating book - You've got a friend in the diamond business, and here's Part 2 and Part 3.

    I already knew the outlines of the DeBeers scam, but EJ Epstein sure fills in a lot of colorful detail. I particularly liked the story Emperor Bokassa treasuring the big but worthless diamond in the shape of Africa. “It’s a two tier market,” says the exec. Yeah, but maybe not quite the way he means.

    Another interesting facet (heh) is that up until recently–since the internet more or less–even people who should have known better, e.g., executives at big banks, seemed completely clueless that there was a big international multibillion dollar scam going on right under every (married) person’s nose.

    Speaking of executives, that GE guy’s excuse for not producing high quality industrial diamonds seems fishy.

    “The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become,”

    That’s true of every manufactured thing. By that logic, GE should just close up shop and forget about everything. It is hard not to wonder if there wasn’t some extra-market and even extra-legal pressure applied to him.

    “We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention.”

    Perhaps, but not in the way he is implying.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman
    Let me try to answer that, AM. If it were wheat, capacitors, rolled steel, or whatever else, sure, a bigger supply means prices will go down some. However, money will still be made on every additional bushel, piece, or ton, or you would slow down production and wait for inventory (around the world) to decrease until you CAN make money. There is real wealth in each of these commodities, so, once the price gets low enough, someone will buy them even above normal demand just as a storage of wealth (and way to make a profit later).

    The diamond business is different. There is really not much actual wealth in these stones.* If GE went about making an equal number to the market of natural stones, for example, I'd think that the market would just collapse completely, as that control of this tightly-controlled product is gone. People would really wonder how much GE could sell it for, even with a hefty profit. They might be able to make 100 x as much as deBeers sells for less than the cartel charged. There's no inherent value to create a base price. Does that make sense? That's the way I see it, after I thought about your question.

    .
    .

    * One could say the same about gold - "you can't eat it," " It doesn't have many uses." etc., but then it's just a great form of money - unchangeable, divisible, compact, of very-limited supply, etc. Diamonds don't have any of those qualities, except possibly the last, but only deBeers knows that!
  156. @Mr. Anon

    Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”
     
    Does Ms. Sender imagine that most men would say yes to the question "Is it okay if I marry you and then eventually divorce-rape you because I mistakenly thought I could trade up?"

    That is the internal, unspoken strategy, yes. For all of them. How does that make you feel?

  157. @AnonyBot
    Option 1: Sex is about love and commitment
    Option 2: Sex is a consequence-free recreational activity

    It's pretty effing amazing the number of people who think it can be both. If you treat sex as recreational activity then that is the kind of people you will attract. If you treat sex as about love and commitment then you will attract people who (for the most part) believe in that, too.

    If this girl had held off even four weeks, and gotten to know the object of her desire and expected him to put in the time and energy to demonstrate his commitment before going to bed, the odds that he was in it for more than just sex would have increased dramatically. Make him wait, oh, six months and they would have gone up a whole lot more.

    Exactly!

    Another example of this cognitive dissonance is the simultaneous holding of two other entirely contradictory beliefs.

    Belief 1: Sexual assault is the most horrific crime against a person that can be committed, except murder, and we’re not even too sure that’s an exception.

    Belief 2: Aligns with your Option 2. Casual sex is no big deal at all. Sexual activity has no real deep significance.

    If #2 is true, then #1 must be false. If engaging in sex is so not a big deal that you can routinely climb into bed with someone half an hour after meeting, then clearly whether you engage in it or not carries no great emotional baggage. If that’s true, then forcing someone to engage in sex can cause no more emotional damage than forcing them to engage in any other casual activity, such as, perhaps, driniking coffee together.

  158. @DFH
    Do people read what women like this write? If so, who?

    I’ve wondered that too.

    Sadly, the answer seems to be impressionable young women all across the world.

  159. @Anonymous
    Wow, the legendary Burns Black Bison guitar.

    Heavy, mechanically complex tremolo, but a sound like nothing else.
    Not everyone loved them-Pete Townshend said "Burns guitars are rubbish"-but they had their fans. Elvis played a 12 string green sunburst one in some unwatchable Elvis movie, Chris Stein used them in Blondie's heyday, lefttwat folkie Billy Bragg favored the Steer model that predated today's popular thinline acoustic-electrics. Most famously , they were used by Cliff Richard's Shadows, who like our Ventures started on Fenders and switched after Fender pissed them off (Ventures famously went to the Mosrite company.) Neither Semie Moseley nor James Ormston Burns had a damn lick of business sense, but they built some weird yet cool guitars.

    Cliff Richard:

  160. Anonymous[268] • Disclaimer says:

    Victoria was a notorious prude because her father and uncles were notorious rakes. Her son, Edward, became a notorious rake because his mother was a notorious prude.

    Similar: Churchill and Franco were exemplary family men who never fooled around despite unlimited opportunities. They both had fathers who were notorious philanderers.

    • Replies: @Fred Boynton
    Among WASPs a rake is any man who's predominantly heterosexual.
  161. @Anon
    And with all those degrees all sh can write about is the eternal wail
    “ why didn’t he call”? When my friends asked that, I always replied “ because he doesn’t want to”

    And with all those degrees all sh can write about is the eternal wail
    “ why didn’t he call”?

    Exactly.

    It is obvious, even to someone as dense as me, that the guy got everything he wanted from their brief relationship and has pulled up tent stakes and moved on.

    Then again, I only hold two degrees to Ms. Sender’s three Ivy League degrees. What could I possibly know?

  162. @Intelligent Dasein
    There are plenty of Google images of this woman flashing a big, pearly smile to the world.

    The smile of woman is a strange thing, a timeless instance of much remarked-upon feminine wiles. They can present a perfectly convincing picture of happiness and contentment even though their lives contain nothing of the sort. When a man fake-smiles, he just looks like Eric Idle taking a dump.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption. Dr. Thomas Szasz thought that this smiling imperative, offspring of the effeminate West's obsessive image-consciousness, was a contributor to male pattern baldness. Whether or not that is true, it certainly contributes to male unhappiness.

    I doubt Victorian men had to reflexively smile at others to just to get through their day. Another of the many reasons why theirs was a happier time.

    I feel a lot less like smiling now that I’m bald.

  163. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    It’s extremely mercenary behavior and it’s why the marriage rates are so down.

    We live in a time and culture where it makes sense for a young man to have strategies for hiding his assets and managing his eventual divorce before he enters marriage.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    We live in a time and culture where it makes sense for a young man to have strategies for hiding his assets and managing his eventual divorce before he enters marriage.
     
    I can't fathom the boys get married at ALL. Jesus, I went to three weddings up here the past year or so. The boys are all skinny, one marrying an Asian chick engineer, cute girl. But two of the three brides were obese, outweighing their new husbands by at least 100 pounds. Also, the boys were 27-30, the fat ones were mid-late 30s. What the hell does THAT mean? Eventually, disgusting fat-body women find husbands? Younger husbands, to boot. Engineers, fairly wealthy guys, educated guys, all of them, the town is full of them. What are the boys thinking? Only conclusion I can reach is the numbers of the fat are overwhelming and some guys will marry anything. But they'll wind up divorced.
    , @Lagertha
    All men should have a pre-nup....and women, if they are wealthy. My observation is that most men, the last 20 years or so, marry women 5-10 years younger than them. If you are in your late 30's, you should be stable in your career/location. However, it is better to marry a woman 5-10 years younger because they are more fertile and have the energy to have children. Plus side: they can return to their career in their 40's when the kids are in HS and on to college.
  164. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me

    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She’s ‘solid’, thick. She’s probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she’s whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She’s been at it at least since age 15, which means she’s been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she’s drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she’s up for anything, bank on it that she’s been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she’s an all-access girl since Sex In The City put “ass on the menu”, with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she’s been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she’s not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman’s history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she’s unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn’t go away), she’ll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there’s the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: “Better you than me, Pal”. I only say that because I’ve been that guy and I know it happens. It’s a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It’s the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.

    • Agree: AnotherDad
    • Replies: @Anon
    this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She’s been at it at least since age 15, which means she’s been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she’s drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she’s up for anything, bank on it that she’s been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea.

    Oh, and she's had at least two black men. I'm sure "some of her best friends are black!"
    , @The Wild Geese Howard

    And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman’s history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out?
     
    I think Courtney and many other young women need to believe they are like Kate Moss, who managed to crank out a healthy daughter despite her legendary appetite for booze, cocaine, and men.
    , @JMcG
    I am going to print this out and hand it to my kids a little before I think they’ll need it.
    , @Jim Don Bob
    JC, that was awesome.
    , @Hail

    College. It’s the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off
     
    Does this mean to imply that women who never attend college today are more traditional? It seems to me that the problem is pretty much society-wide, encompassing as many (?) of those who never go to college as those who do.
    , @Lot
    "Young women these days are sluts" is contradicted by tons of evidence like declining abortion rates and higher age of first sexual experience.

    Millennial girls are the most chaste generation since the Silents.
    , @Anonymous

    Because she’s unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn’t go away)
     
    Why can't the promiscuity go away?

    What is it about college that ruins them?
  165. @Anon
    What woman what election???

    Looks like Rachael Rollins, the overcompensating quatroon Dem candidate for DA of Suffolk County MA.

    http://www.bostonherald.com/news/local_coverage/2018/09/fifteen_crimes_rachael_rollins_wouldn_t_pursue_as_da

    It’s another one of the these Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez-style primary upsets where a youngish PoC knocks off the older whiter incumbent in a traditionally Dem district. Then the party and voters face a conundrum: pretend that we actually meant all that SJW blather we advocated for decades and back this obviously crazy platform, or stay home, or … switch sides?

    https://theintercept.com/2018/09/07/boston-suffolk-county-district-attorney-rachael-rollins/

    So the question is, will Boston vote for explicit anarcho-tyranny, so long as it comes in a Democrat wrapper?

    Survey says … yes.

  166. @black sea
    A week or so ago, someone posted a comment here that went straight to the heart of this woman's-- and many another woman's -- dilemma. The comment went something like this.


    These three things are unrelated:

    What a woman thinks she wants.
    What a woman says she wants.
    What a woman wants.

    Women want what they’re told to want. The problem is that if what they’re told to want doesn’t make them happy they can’t be happy since they choose between getting what they want that doesn’t make them happy and getting what could make them happy which isn’t what they want. It’s men’s job to convince them to want what will make them happy. I hope that doesn’t sound sexist.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ydDTZoROew
  167. @Lagertha
    https://youtu.be/nfs8NYg7yQM

    ok, so, I wrote about young male virgins, earlier...the guys who do not want to be labled INCELS.
    Yeah, I am a mom and almost, shit (it sucks) go, so what do I know? well, I know stuff:

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff...getting a girl to like you: Listen...smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people. Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time...but you learn, and that is the key.

    when being a virgin become a problem and source of derision exactly?

    pensive_pepe.jpg

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    apologies for the lateness of my response. I fully support virginity, like never before. Why: everyone is too distracted to understand human nature, today...finding someone to build a life with. I want my son to stay a virgin if he can't find a compelling partner. My other children lost their virginity with typical sign-of-the-times which young people go thru in HS - however, they may never marry those girls/women. So, being a male virgin is powerful, as it is for the girls/women who have not met the one. I think that hanging on to your virtue in the 2000's is totally normal. All my friends who were Virgin brides or husbands, are still married and much happier than anyone else of my generation, even if there were great calamities; cancer or something....people fought harder for their connectedness (their marriage) because it involved so many people. It is all about the inner circle of people who care about you...and who you care about - that is life...that is it!
  168. @Henry's Cat
    You sound like a lot of fun.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption.
     
    And no true Scotsmen neither...

    russians are best men!

  169. I’ve just dipped into the NYT piece.

    “sex makes me feel unsafe, not because of the act itself but because my partners so often disappear afterward, whether I waited hours or months before the first time”

    Oh dear. One is tempted to feel sorry for her.

    “At first I couldn’t believe he didn’t answer, and then I was devastated. My roommates didn’t understand why I was so much more hurt than usual.

    “Because he kissed the soft part of my arm,” I said. “And then he disappeared.”

    They looked at me blankly.

    “Because he asked for my consent, over and over. So sex felt like a sacred act, and then he disappeared.”

    “A sacred act?” one roommate said, laughing. “Girl, you sure don’t treat it like one.””

    It would take a Dalrock or a Roissy to deconstruct this.

  170. I see that she is a writer. Perhaps she should read some romance novels before lecturing the rest of us on how love is supposed to work.

  171. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    What they want is to “keep their options open” which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to [sleep around with impunity]

    Solution?

    • Replies: @Saxon
    Well there isn't one aside from the repeal of no fault divorce laws which allow a woman to openly cheat and laugh in the man's face and still get everything in divorce, as well as ending handouts which incentivize really dysfunctional sexual behavior.

    Things are so bad in this regard that in many countries you have men who can prove with DNA test that children they've been duped into raising as their own are not even theirs but are still on the hook paying for them.
  172. Summary: 30 year old woman [Courtney Sender]

    Courtney Sender on what she would require out of reincarnation:

    In all worlds I’d have stayed Jewish, and a daughter, and a writer. I’d have sung showtunes in the car and in the shower. That’s it. Those were the only constants I required to remain identifiably my self.

    There it is.

    But is it (((Courtney Sender))) or Courtney (((Sender)))?

    [from "In other lifetimes all I've lost comes back to me," Adroit Journal, Issue 26, 2018.]

  173. He scored the hookup on Tinder, and didn’t return to Sender.

  174. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me

    Plus:

    1. MySpace angle.

    https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=myspace%20angles

    https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/myspace-angles

    2. Excellent job on makeup/ lighting/ exposure.

  175. @Almost Missouri
    I already knew the outlines of the DeBeers scam, but EJ Epstein sure fills in a lot of colorful detail. I particularly liked the story Emperor Bokassa treasuring the big but worthless diamond in the shape of Africa. "It's a two tier market," says the exec. Yeah, but maybe not quite the way he means.

    Another interesting facet (heh) is that up until recently--since the internet more or less--even people who should have known better, e.g., executives at big banks, seemed completely clueless that there was a big international multibillion dollar scam going on right under every (married) person's nose.

    Speaking of executives, that GE guy's excuse for not producing high quality industrial diamonds seems fishy.

    “The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become,"
     
    That's true of every manufactured thing. By that logic, GE should just close up shop and forget about everything. It is hard not to wonder if there wasn't some extra-market and even extra-legal pressure applied to him.

    “We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention."
     
    Perhaps, but not in the way he is implying.

    Let me try to answer that, AM. If it were wheat, capacitors, rolled steel, or whatever else, sure, a bigger supply means prices will go down some. However, money will still be made on every additional bushel, piece, or ton, or you would slow down production and wait for inventory (around the world) to decrease until you CAN make money. There is real wealth in each of these commodities, so, once the price gets low enough, someone will buy them even above normal demand just as a storage of wealth (and way to make a profit later).

    The diamond business is different. There is really not much actual wealth in these stones.* If GE went about making an equal number to the market of natural stones, for example, I’d think that the market would just collapse completely, as that control of this tightly-controlled product is gone. People would really wonder how much GE could sell it for, even with a hefty profit. They might be able to make 100 x as much as deBeers sells for less than the cartel charged. There’s no inherent value to create a base price. Does that make sense? That’s the way I see it, after I thought about your question.

    .
    .

    * One could say the same about gold – “you can’t eat it,” ” It doesn’t have many uses.” etc., but then it’s just a great form of money – unchangeable, divisible, compact, of very-limited supply, etc. Diamonds don’t have any of those qualities, except possibly the last, but only deBeers knows that!

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    There is some natural inherent logic to the idea that gem diamonds differ from locomotives or turbines in that their value is only in scarcity, but my guess is that GE was offered a quid pro quo by some faction of the usual suspects. Core GE businesses of the time like jet engines, fluorescent lights, vacuum tubes, et al needed rare earth and high energy metals, so that is probably where a smoking gun might be found.
  176. @anonymous

    Women also voted more conservative in ’60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49.
     
    I wonder if we would have been spared Hart-Celler, or (more likely) just delayed it.

    I wonder if we would have been spared Hart-Celler

    FWIW:

    NIXON: All of the Jewish families are close, but there’s this strange malignancy now that seems to creep among them. I don’t know, the radicalism. [...] The Jews are born spies. You notice how many of them are? They’re just in it up to their necks.

    HALDEMANN: Well, got a basic deviousness, that –

    NIXON: Well, also, an arrogance, an arrogance that says…He puts himself above the law.

    Richard Nixon, July 5, 1971, in conversation with H.R. Haldemann & Ronald Ziegler.

  177. @Anon
    Well yeah but what?

    You said you and your mother were scorned by liberals because you had two children. The other guy was simply pointing out that that’s hardly surprising, as virtually all people, not just liberals, would scorn you for knocking your mother up even once, let alone twice.

    You probably meant your wife, not your mother. He was humorously pointing out your error.

    • Replies: @Anon
    “ after the scorn my mother and I endured because we had MORE than 2 kids”

    She had 5 I had 4.

    You guys remind me of Jake in 2 1/2 men looking for dirty innuendoes everywhere. Oh look, golf balls giggle giggle.

    FYI There is no way, even with modern fertility tech that my mother and I could ever ever ever have children together.

    Think about it. How did I recognize that the girls in the museum wore Burke’s not Hamlin or St Rose or Notre Dame uniforms?
    , @Achmed E. Newman
    I get the joke, but it only works based on the premise that Anon-#257 is a man. She is a woman. If you say anything about women on here, she will be glad to write you back, but she's got great comments otherwise.
  178. @Anonymous
    Stevenson's running mate in '52 was Senator John Sparkman of Alabama, who was conservative and a segregationist. Stevenson won the deep South in '52.

    In '54, the Eisenhower administration supported Brown v. Board of Education, which ended segregation in schools, while Stevenson opposed federal court intervention in segregation, saying about Brown that "we don't need reforms or groping experiments." Stevenson won the deep South again in '56.

    Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.

    Would a President Stevenson have ordered Operation Wetback? (Honest question).

    Adlai Stevenson
    - Born, 1900, Los Angeles, California “to a prominent Illinois political family” (his grandfather was Vice President under Cleveland, among other political relatives)
    - Religion: Unitarian
    - raised in Bloomington, Illinois
    - Princeton, 1918-1922 (BA)
    - Northwestern, ca. 1924-1926 (JD)
    - 1948: first political victory; easily wins the Illinois governor race

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.

     

    But he did, in 1948, and lost 4 1/12 of those states.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/350px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png
    , @Desiderius
    Of course not.

    Religion: Unitarian

    That’s all you need to know.
    , @Anonymous

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.
     
    Not exactly true. Truman lost some of the deep South in '48 to Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. That's why Stevenson had Alabama Senator and staunch segregationist Sparkman on the ticket in the following election.

    My point is that contemporary political alignments don't map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties in the 50s, and in some respects each party was more or less conservative or liberal than the other party.
  179. @Reg Cæsar

    Also by Courtney Sender:

    When my novel manuscript was rejected in early 2016...

     

    ...it was the work of a ghost. Specifically, this one:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PU5xxh5UX4U

    Met her on Tinder
    She’s a solid (((Sender)))
    She said “You better surrender.”

    Met her on Tinder
    She’s a solid (((Sender)))
    She said “You better surrender.”

    Slippin’ and a slidin’
    Peepin’ and a hidin’
    Won’t be yo’ fool no more.

  180. @Anon
    Central California is farms. That means poor farm workers and welfare people. It seems to be the trend that the first generation men work and their women have kids and go on welfare. Second generation women go on welfare and the men don’t go to work and get by on the women’s welfare and the $300 a month welfare for single adults.

    They never get married so the women can get the welfare. But they are long term life long common law type solid relationships.

    If you really want to see the awfulness of Ca. Take the train instead of driving. Some of the scenery is nice, but the backyards and trashy shabby light industry is awful. Can’t they paint the little factory or warehouse and clean up the yard?

    You must have been east of Van Ness in SF. Downtown??? West of Twin Peaks is fine. We used to call SF The Psych Clinic. We didn’t mean just the homeless crazy people. We meant the county supervisors and all the movers and shakers Mayor Judges Congress critter.

    Victor Davis Hanson has several interviews on YouTube where he talks about how awful inland California has become due to Mexican immigration.

    • Replies: @YetAnotherAnon
    https://www.city-journal.org/html/do-we-want-mexifornia-12236.html


    https://www.city-journal.org/html/mexifornia-five-years-later-12987.html
    , @Anon
    Victor Davis Hanson and his family have been California farmers more than 100 years. It’s first and foremost farmers that bring in the Hispanics.

    I agree with what he says about what the Central Valley Hispanics have done. But he’s a hypocrite. He needs to put the blame on the employers, his fellow farmers, not the Mexicans.

    I drive up and down the valley several times a year. No matter the time of year I never see many farm workers. Just machinery sitting waiting for planting or harvest. Sole exception is strawberry season. Then I see pickers but that just about 2 months.

    Orchards the pickers can come for a couple months and then go back home with enough money to support the family for a year. But that means the farmers would have to build and maintain decent housing for the workers. So the farmers prefer the pickers stay in California and live in housing the women and kids welfare pays for.
    It’s farmers dumping their workers on the welfare system.

    I’ve been reading articles that ICE raids workplace arrests 50 illegals. Why not arrest the employers. The Justice Department could just rewrite that regulation that scrutinizing documents is discrimination. It’s not a law, just an administrative regulation.
  181. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.

    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the “Chesterton’s Fence”* approach — rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, “oppressing” da wimmenz for no reason. It’s easier than any sort of deep analysis — and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of “cultural evolution” — societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level… because they didn’t work, or at least didn’t scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-”evolved” solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the “clever sillies” issue — the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to “solve” issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.

    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these “irrational,” “unfair,” “oppressive” institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    Extraordinary comment, and one that would be wasted on virtually everyone with power and influence in our foolish society.
    , @Hail

    evil menz throughout history, “oppressing” da wimmenz for no reason
     
    Good ten-word synopsis.

    Cf. AnotherDad:

    Jewish 2nd wave–i’m oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle–is a very different beast then the WASPy– women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands–1st wave.
     
    , @International Jew
    Every working computer programmer knows, or should know, our version of Chesterton's Fence: never rewrite software from scratch:
    https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/
    , @AnotherDad
    Thanks JF. I'm not sure i'd heard the whole Chesterton's fence thing before, though it tickled enough neurons that maybe you or another commenter had brought it to my attention before.

    The thing that I figured out as a somewhat mature but still young man--and the way I've put this to my kids:

    Both genes and culture have evolved.

    Our various culture practices--mores, traditions--especially around critical things like marriage are not arbitrary but are the way they are because down through the centuries doing them that way "worked"--i.e. was a society/culture that could survive and reproduce itself.


    The thing i came to understand later, reading Steve--but blatantly obvious once you understand it--is that in fact it is gene/culture co-evolution. Different peoples, different races, nations, tribes, castes are evolved with--fitting--their culture that is evolving with them.

    They have the physiology--things like lactose tolerance or alcohol tolerance--but more importantly the mental infrastructure--IQ, conscientiousness, cooperation, time preference, ability to restrain violence, etc. etc. etc.--that "work" with the culture--it's modes or production and organization--in which they live.

    Gene-culture co-evolution. That's the essence of "who we are".
    , @sabril
    Good post, but I think you are giving the reformers too much credit. For the most part, the reformers are selective in which fences they want to tear down. It's only those which impose a special burden on women.

    So their motivation is not to get rid of outdated or obsolete rules, their motivation is to secure as much power and status as possible for women as a group, even if it's at the expense of men as a group or society at large.
    , @Logan
    One of the odder facts about modern life is that highly-educated and "modern" people, those who most enthusiastically accept and promote the idea of evolution in biology, are the same people who insist in other realms that evolution must be replaced by top-down command structures.

    In economics, capitalism/free markets, or whatever you want to call the system, is at least partially an application of the same processes seen in biological evolution. Yet these people who are so big on biological evolution insist that economics must be controlled and guided to prevent disaster.

    In social mores, tradition/custom not only should not be respected, it can and should be thrown out simply because it's old. We will develop our own procedures, again often imposed by those with power, in new modes.

    Creationists, at least the American version, reject biological evolution, but, oddly, at least in America are a lot more likely to accept results of the evolutionary process in other areas. But their "command biology" at least has an omniscient God in charge, whereas the Evolutionists want to put themselves in charge of completely remaking economies, societies, etc. Whether they admit it, even to themselves, or not, they are not God. They're humans as foolish as any others, often not fit to run their own lives, much less the lives of everybody else.
  182. If you can’t trust a guy you met on Tinder who can you trust?

  183. @anonymous
    You forgot to edit your post to make sense. Maybe:


    Men use love to get sex.
    Women use sex to get love.
     

    I’ve usually seen it as “commitment” rather than “love.”

  184. @AnotherDad

    Well, in a way she’s right. What she seems to want is a culture in which, in order to have sex, one has to get married first, but she’s doing it the wrong way. You get the commitment first, and open your legs later.
     
    Agree with your "thrust" here.

    But lets be clear, what you describe is not what she actually wants.

    Old Courtney wants what all feminists want. She wants to do whatever the hell she wants--including casual sex--but then have men behave exactly as she wants--including old fashioned, "genuine caring"--when she wants them to.

    This is the rock solid essence of "feminism": Complete freedom for women to do what they want … and … men behaving completely as women want.

    I agree, but I think the bigger picture is that (1) for the most part, human minds harbor a lot of unreasonable and contradictory desires; (2) one of the big differences between adults and children is that adults are aware when a desire is unreasonable and don’t demand that it be accommodated; (3) Most, perhaps all women never really make the transition from childhood to adulthood; and (4) what’s unfortunate is that society takes women like this seriously.

    I mean, a child could write a rant about how every day should be Christmas but it wouldn’t get published in the New York Times. But when that child is a physically mature female, it’s a different story.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @anecdeedy

    Most, perhaps all women never really make the transition from childhood to adulthood
     
    I'm a woman and I agree. I came across this sentiment some years ago in the manosphere and now I see evidence of it everywhere. It's interesting being a woman and having privileged access to the goings-on in my own head that produce this sort of arrested development. I would say that it arises due to a couple of things in female psychological make-up:

    1) the "rationalization hamster" (hate this dumb coinage but it's useful) is as built-in as color vision. All activity generates a parallel running 1st-person voiceover that has continuity and consistency with one's own self-image. Bad behavior instinctively spurs creative explanations that paint oneself in a good light.
    2) Corollary of #1 is that one is constantly modeling how things appear to other people. Overactive theory of mind and status-monitoring, keeping track of how this looks to person X, person Y, person Z. Thinking too intently about appearances can slip into mistaking it for reality.
    3) wanting other people to have certain mental states. It's not enough for other people to behave in certain ways; their behavior is merely evidence of whether they're thinking certain things. Thus, "If you really loved me, you would have ..."

    I see these mental habits in other demographic groups too, not just women generally speaking. Maybe it's the human norm. Sometimes I wonder if white men aren't some kind of cognitive and behavioral exception within the global context. They built the modern world and became so socially dominant as to set the standard for what constitutes an adult, and the rest of us are like children in comparison.
  185. @Lot
    Her PR photo is very much not post-wall.

    PR photo?! You’re a pretty smart guy and should know better. Me, I may not be so smart, but I’m in an industry that runs on Photoshop in the design phase. I haven’t believed a graphic representation as being true since 2003.

    FGAS is real.

    https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Fat_Girl_Angle_Shot

    Talk to anyone who’s been in the online dating wars. Most of the profile photos are works of fiction.

  186. @Anon
    Then there was Augustus the strong of Saxony more than 300 children by dozens of women. He was the King who turned Dresden from an ordinary town into a spectacular glorious city with the wonderful museums.

    It is good to be a King.

    Ibn Saud founded his own country through conquest and had over a hundred children.

  187. @AndrewR
    When did the NYT start publishing erotica? It seems like, not so long ago, this sort of degenerate display of solipsism written by a post-wall feminist thot would have been left to Salon or HuffPo.

    written by a post-wall feminist

    Huh? The wall was built? I wasn’t paying attention…

    Or do you mean the one in around Israel?

    • Replies: @AndrewR
    "wall" is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak
  188. Anonymous[255] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    https://youtu.be/nfs8NYg7yQM

    ok, so, I wrote about young male virgins, earlier...the guys who do not want to be labled INCELS.
    Yeah, I am a mom and almost, shit (it sucks) go, so what do I know? well, I know stuff:

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff...getting a girl to like you: Listen...smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people. Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time...but you learn, and that is the key.

    Biggest clue to happiness and lasting stuff…getting a girl to like you: Listen…smile, be nice. Be kind, say they are pretty. Think they are worthy. Being honest is hard for 99% of people.

    Sincere question: What does being honest have to do with the other things you list? Don’t the two sometimes conflict? What are some examples of being honest?

    Just be nice and muddle thru (speaking for virgins). Sex is always awkward (if virgin) for the first time…but you learn, and that is the key.

    What are some things one learns about sex?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    Was away a few days; answers for you:

    Being honest means being vulnerable which is the only way to reach intimacy...not to be confused with the act of intimacy. But, when you allow yourself to be vulnerable (she may not like you, but you risk feeling humiliated) you connect in an intimate way; you find that you have a connection with that person....you want to see her again.

    Sex and how to have sex, the range, moods, quality, timing is very broad. There is a good book I let some HS boys (son's friends) pass around that I have which is amazing. If I find it somewhere in one of my boxes , I will print out title/author - remind me. HS boys all told me that this book was amazing - I bought it years ago when I was accused of being "boring." There is a lot to learn.

  189. @Jay Fink
    All the guys who can successfully get sex off Tinder are filled with options. They have no incentive to settle down. Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.

    Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.

    Of course. Though it’s really two different “marketplaces” — sex, and long term relationship/ marriage. It should be obvious (but apparently it’s not) that a woman of average attractiveness who is open to casual sex has a considerably higher value in the “sexual marketplace” than in the “relationship marketplace” (easier for her to get casual sex from a given man than to get commitment). While for the average man, of course, it’s the opposite. (And part of what makes the woman less valuable in the relationship marketplace is this very promiscuity/ openness to casual sex).

    It’s not really a question of understanding, though. It’s more that they “feel” that if they can get a particular man to sleep with them on a casual basis, then they “should” be able to get commitment from that same man.

    It’s as if you “felt” that if a particular woman was willing to vent to you about her problems with other men, and willing to allow you to do favors for her/ buy her things, that you “should” be able to get her to sleep with you. This particular misperception has been known to occur as well (but tends to be treated with rather more intense mockery than its female equivalent).

    To be fair, much of this issue is likely the product of years of exposure to relentless “we’re all the same (apart from the victim status hierarchy), and “gender” is fluid anyway, so…” propaganda.

    Edit:

    Looks like beat me to the MySpace angle point.

    • Replies: @sabril
    Agree. And you can be pretty confident that this girl dates UP on Tinder. i.e. she's about a 4/10 or 5/10 and this man she banged is probably a 7/10 or an 8/10. Guys who are 4 or 5 out of 10 in looks get very little interest on Tinder.

    Probably if she dated her looks-matches, she would not get pumped and dumped. For whatever reason, most girls have a hard time understanding that if you date up in terms of looks, it's very unlikely that the man will commit to you. The mathematics of the situation just won't allow it.
  190. @eah
    It's unintentionally funny in a way any 'Heartiste' reader would appreciate:

    As the snow fell outside, we sat close on my couch while he talked touchingly about poetry.

    By the same woman:

    The Solidarity of Fat Girls

    Fiction? -- I don't think so!

    Enough said.

    What is funny in it?

  191. @Hail

    They stopped getting married, and started getting jobs, often in fields tied to public funds.
     
    Marriage is the single strongest candidate. Another is education, and the extension of "jobs" to "(good) careers; as good as any man's or better."

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don't make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman's best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was:


    Iowa, Exit Poll 2016
    [Actual Result: Trump wins by +10]

    White college-grad. men (18% of voters)
    33 Hillary
    60 Trump [+27]

    White non-college-grad. men (24% of voters)
    29 Hillary
    67 Trump [+38]

    White college-grad. women (22% of voters)
    52 Hillary
    41 Trump [-11]

    White non-college-grad. women (26% of voters)
    47 Hillary
    49 Trump [+2]

    Nonwhites (10% of voters)
    63 Hillary
    25 Trump [-38]
     

    Both Iowa white men and women get knocked left by holding a college degree by similar amounts; men 11 points towards Hillary, women move 13 points towards Hillary. The 'marriage gap' would also surely come into play here, but the women's education-/career-drive as a cultural anchor today is directly causal to the marriage gap, anyway (I believe).

    The Trump-Hillary vote split by Race, Gender, and Education in Iowa 2016 was…

    …not broken down by marital status? That’s suspicious right there.

    • Replies: @The Practical Conservative
    It's from CNN's exit polls and they do break down marital status. It's not much different though, since white married women under 40 are overwhelmingly college educated white women.


    White married mothers are increasingly voting like white unmarried women because they all are out of the same collegiate pool.
  192. @Hail

    Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.
     
    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. '64, he'd have won the South.

    Would a President Stevenson have ordered Operation Wetback? (Honest question).

    Adlai Stevenson
    - Born, 1900, Los Angeles, California "to a prominent Illinois political family" (his grandfather was Vice President under Cleveland, among other political relatives)
    - Religion: Unitarian
    - raised in Bloomington, Illinois
    - Princeton, 1918-1922 (BA)
    - Northwestern, ca. 1924-1926 (JD)
    - 1948: first political victory; easily wins the Illinois governor race

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.

    But he did, in 1948, and lost 4 1/12 of those states.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar
    By the way, the GOP hasn't changed much since '48. Thomas Dewey's platform was derided as

    Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

  193. @anonymous

    Q: What does a lesbian bring on the second date?
    A: A U-Haul.

    Q: What does a gay man bring on the second date?
    A: What second date?
     

    A gay man told me this joke so I'm allowed to repeat it. No really.

    Do gay men not go on second dates? Why not?

  194. @Reg Cæsar

    written by a post-wall feminist
     
    Huh? The wall was built? I wasn't paying attention...

    Or do you mean the one in around Israel?

    “wall” is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    “wall” is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak
     
    Well, it's also a runners' term, and marriage is a marathon, isn't it?
    , @Diversity Heretic
    I think it means when a person's sexual/romantic/dating market value declines to zero; they are invisible to any member of the opposite sex with options. Women's attractiveness peaks at about the time of highest fertility, generally in their early 20s. Sexual market value generally falls pretty fast after 30-32, although some women may hit the Wall as early as their twenties (obesity and alcohol) while some can maintain a measure of sexual market value into their forties, if they stay normal weight and make an effort to keep themselves up otherwise. Since the criteria for men's sexual market value are much more varied, their collision with the wall could be as early as their teens or as late as their seventies.
  195. @Anon
    Look at the success of Rich Crazy Asians book and movie. It’s a basic Cinderella. Heroine and serious boyfriends are middle class college assistant professors. He’s best man at a Singapore wedding invites her.

    She discovers her middle income boyfriend belongs to one of the riches families in Asia. Look at the English royal family weddings. The female population of the world is enthralled.

    The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc.

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.

    The whole feminist thing was to get cheap docile female labor and double the workforce to lower wages. Back to 1810 Britian when women and children worked dragging loads of coal in the mines.

    That’s all.

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.

    How so? And what was the chain reaction for those alleged consequences?

    • Replies: @Anon
    Women were used for short term sex.

    The doubling of the workforce meant the average earner couldn’t afford a wife house and kids.

    The capitalist funded radical organizations convinced men to trade easy sex for decent wages.

    The sexual revolution was just a front for the low wages revolution.
  196. @Reg Cæsar

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.

     

    But he did, in 1948, and lost 4 1/12 of those states.

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2f/ElectoralCollege1948.svg/350px-ElectoralCollege1948.svg.png

    By the way, the GOP hasn’t changed much since ’48. Thomas Dewey’s platform was derided as

    Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman

    Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.
     
    That sound a lot better than any platform out of either major party since the time of Reagan.
  197. Anonymous[255] • Disclaimer says:
    @AnotherDad
    Very well said, Jim. And i particularly liked this bit--which is very true:

    By marrying relatively young, a couple get to enjoy years of high energy and powerful sexual attraction at the beginning which bring children and joy: these become part of the rich history of the couple.
     
    Howeve my one--rather strong--objection is this:

    There is this thing called marriage where the guy has to pony up three months gross salary for an engagement ring ...
     
    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common--and essentially worthless--rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It's just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    (Now they've got a marketing scam to warn people off "blood diamonds". I'm not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost ... but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women--or at least many women--being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn't play along. I strongly recommend--not.)

    But bottom line: this has nothing to do with marriage, nor with the traditions of marriage between western men and women.

    This is/was a deBeers marketing scam for selling common–and essentially worthless–rocks at ridiculous prices, successful mostly in the US, in no small part to product placement in Hollyweird movies, which happened as a new medium to be highly impactful. It’s just a big sleazy marketing scam by a sleazy cartel.

    Did you yourself indulge the scam?

    (Now they’ve got a marketing scam to warn people off “blood diamonds”. I’m not clear how they keep jewlers from selling man-made diamonds for a fraction of the cost … but somehow they are keeping this scam limping along. And, of course, women–or at least many women–being women, get all whiny if a guy doesn’t play along. I strongly recommend–not.)

    I am unsure what exactly you are recommending people do?

  198. @miss marple
    I'm still trying to understand what this chick is complaining about. A 24 year old had sex with her on two different occasions, gave her polite pleasure then moved on before the age difference got to be a problem. I assure you this woman would also have complained if he'd wanted a serious relationship which is why she's still hooking up at age 30 instead of getting married. Ignore her. She's as fickle as she is demanding.

    When she was 24 she would have complained about anything serious, which is why she’s still single at 30. But now she’s hitting the wall so she likely wouldn’t complain now.

  199. @AnotherDad

    It is a sociological puzzle that our society demands women do things that don’t make them happy but from which they cannot escape and with which they become obsessed: pursuing these things and becoming very proud of them dominates the woman’s best years, and they come to base their identities around things (education, career) that the men they want to attract care nothing about, around things (in fact) which actually disincentivize stable relationships with men. Not good. Way out, unclear.
     
    Hail, this is a stunningly good paragraph.

    There are actually two points--related--in here:

    1) The sociological observation--that you, I and a lot of other people have had--about young women pursuing self-esteem, status in a way that's actually useless, damaging to society and ... doesn't actually make most women particularly happy.

    2) And--a point that i've meant to hammer home to my daughters--that young women often seem confused that their careerist pursuit--which they very much value in men--is really not of any particular interest to men (other than as marker for intelligence or conscientious or other genetic traits). While their focus, obsession and pursuit of it can be turnoff for and destabilizer of relationships with quality men.

    While their focus, obsession and pursuit of it can be turnoff for and destabilizer of relationships with quality men.

    How does it destabilize?

  200. @Hail

    Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.
     
    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. '64, he'd have won the South.

    Would a President Stevenson have ordered Operation Wetback? (Honest question).

    Adlai Stevenson
    - Born, 1900, Los Angeles, California "to a prominent Illinois political family" (his grandfather was Vice President under Cleveland, among other political relatives)
    - Religion: Unitarian
    - raised in Bloomington, Illinois
    - Princeton, 1918-1922 (BA)
    - Northwestern, ca. 1924-1926 (JD)
    - 1948: first political victory; easily wins the Illinois governor race

    Of course not.

    Religion: Unitarian

    That’s all you need to know.

    • Replies: @Achmed E. Newman, @njguy73
    Q: How do you terrorize a Unitarian?
    A: Burn a question mark on his lawn.
    , @Hail
    Maybe,

    but

    Richard Nixon was a Quaker.
  201. @Lagertha
    relax about rings/dresses,etc. (women who love you don't fucking care!) But, please, all you men, stop being so neurotic about women...yes, seriously. I love men, but so many of you are so much more foolish and too generous than you should be.

    so much more foolish and too generous than you should be.

    What do you mean?

    • Replies: @Lagertha
    I don't elaborate my thoughts for Anonymous people - just too tedious and annoying. I don't have energy for anyone who is so vapid and pathetically weak, that they can't even come up with a handle. Get a life.
  202. @unpc downunder
    Yes ladies you're all whores and fools. All of you. No buts, no exceptions. The (gay?) radical right has spoken. I don't care if you've swung to the nationalist populist right and started voting for Trump, Le Pen and Salvini, we don't need your cootie covered voting slips. We'll simply abolish democracy and go straight to absolute monarchy.

    These bitter dudes would be mad about absolute monarchy too because the King/court would get too much attention from women and the monarchs would probably sponsor attractive female artists/writers/actresses/musicians as was the case in the age of absolutist monarchs from the 1500s-1700s.

    Also women’s fashions tended to be extravagant during absolutist monarchies. These cootie haters would probably prefer Sharia style burlap sacks or frumpster prairie gear.

    • Replies: @Anon
    Hey look, the man-haters are forming a little bitch circle. Why don't the two of you get together with Anon 257/Rosie/Alden and drink each other's period blood, complain about your husbands, or whatever else it is that gets you bitter old hags off.
  203. They’re all hateful Calvinists.

    Someone pointed out Bono was a member of the White,Anglo-Saxon,Witchburners Church of Ireland.

    • Replies: @Hail

    Bono was a member of the...Church of Ireland
     
    Wiki sez:

    Bono was...raised...with his brother...by their mother, Iris (née Rankin), a member of the Church of Ireland, and their father, Brendan Robert "Bob" Hewson, a Roman Catholic. His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic. Although Bono was the second child, he also attended Church of Ireland services with his mother and brother.
     
    I have hardly ever heard of a quid-pro-quo deal like that re: children's religions.

    "Okay, let's agree to raise the first child [x] religion and the sexond child [y] religion."
  204. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    Agree those are some crazyeyes.

    I was talking about this photo, in a link to one of the first comments:

    • Replies: @Lot
    Looking a bit like 1986 Madonna here.
    , @Anon
    No double chin thin neck prominent collar bones what can be seen of her chest is very flat. Maybe she just has a chubby face like Filipinos. Leonardo DiCaprio is very thin but has a round face.
    Who cares.
  205. @Almost Missouri

    "The sexual revolution was for the benefit of men who just want sex with no companionship friendship etc."
     
    A big constituency, for sure.

    Other constituencies:

    - Bulldykes who wanted to bully younger submissive women into "partnership".

    - Andrea Dworkin.

    I don’t agree that the sexual revolution was “for” men who just wanted to have sex without a relationship–and bullying bull dykes. I think it CREATED these people.

    When you can have sex for free, then, why not. Next thing you know, your 40 years old, walking around in your bachelor’s apartment in your underwear farting on yourself.

    And girls aren’t dykes, they BECOME dykes by getting screwed over by all the guys who have sex with them, then never call.

  206. @black sea
    A week or so ago, someone posted a comment here that went straight to the heart of this woman's-- and many another woman's -- dilemma. The comment went something like this.


    These three things are unrelated:

    What a woman thinks she wants.
    What a woman says she wants.
    What a woman wants.

    Fat, dumb, capricious and avaricious is no way to go through life.

  207. @Hail

    Why in heaven’s name did we ever gift them the vote?
     
    When, exactly, did educated White women begin voting strongly "left"? An answer to this (quantifiable) question may also provide insight into Steve's OP implied-question of why women turned against traditional morality.

    Women didn't start voting for the Communist Party as soon as they got the vote in the 1920s or 1930s; quite the opposite: the evidence says they actually voted somewhat more conservative than their men, from 1920 until 1980. Here is Gallup pre-election polling data, starting with the politically halcyon Eisenhower days:


    1952 President

    Men
    47% Stevenson
    53% Eisenhower [+6 for Ike]

    Women
    42% Stevenson
    58% Eisenhower [+16 for Ike]
     


    1956 President

    Men
    45% Stevenson
    55% Eisenhower [+10 for Ike]

    Women
    39% Stevenson
    61% Eisenhower [+22 for Ike]
     

    Women also voted more conservative in '60 for Nixon; had women only voted, Nixon would have won 51-49. There was no appreciable gender gap in '64-'72. Women were back to voting for Republican in '76 (Ford over Carter).

    The gap we recognize today (women voting noticeably further Left) seems to have opened up with Reagan '80 and especially '84, by which time young-adult Baby Boomers were starting to make up a substantial share of the electorate. Women have never again voted more Republican than men since.


    1984 President

    Men
    36% Mondale
    64% Reagan [+28]

    Women
    45% Mondale
    55% Reagan [+10]
     

    As a sidenote: Steve Sailer (born Dec. 1958) was ineligible to vote for president in 1976 due to being a few weeks too young; he turned 18 a few weeks after Carter won against Ford. By his telling, he was an acute observer of society and politics already from the early 1970s, and if so he will have some first-hand recollection/sense of the very tail-end of this sixty-year period when women voted more conservative than men in America. We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of "women voting left" being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn't always so...and it need not always be so.

    We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of “women voting left” being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn’t always so…and it need not always be so.

    A bunch of stuff rolled in “externally”–essentially the insane post-War and then 60s prosperity and the birth control pill–that would have been a challenge on it’s own.

    But the other thing is this was the start of the great (minoritarian; tear it all down) revolution.

    Jewish 2nd wave–i’m oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle–is a very different beast then the WASPy– women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands–1st wave.

    Those women voting before the revolution were overwhelmingly married women, essentially “helpmates” voting the same–on whatever social/economic, religious/ethnic basis–as their husbands (or maybe for a year or two their fathers), with the slight Republican skew being from more older WASPy women around.

    With the Jewish 2nd wave, the family was put under direct assualt and women are both yet another “oppressed” minority struggling against the evil white gentile master and are economically another interest group attached to the state\taxpayer teat for soft-jobs, regulation, welfare.

    • Agree: Hail
    • Replies: @Anon
    We used to be married to husbands.
    Now we’re married to the state and grant hustlers.
    , @L Woods
    Don’t exculpate the first wave. It was the thin end of the wedge and very much in error.
  208. Steve,

    I am of the view that this is the same as all those women in college who are pissed that the guy didn’t bother to call them after they had sex and launch sexual assault investigations under Title IX.

    That is, the outcome wasn’t what they wanted so the retroactively labeled it rape or sexual assault.

    Let me explain. Women have largely been in charge of sex for a long time. That is, for various reasons they were in control of access to sex. One of those reasons is selection. They have used it to attract and then bind a man to them.

    However, because of feminist indoctrination and the ready availability of contraception (condoms and the pill) men, especially college men, have obtained extraordinary sexual freedom.

    Unfortunately, that leaves women feeling resentful after the act because they expect, in their genes, that giving sex to a guy will bind him to her.

    On the other hand, in this case maybe he detected a bit of the crazy in her and you know what they say!

  209. A world made of clowns, by clowns, and for clowns.

  210. @miss marple
    I'm still trying to understand what this chick is complaining about. A 24 year old had sex with her on two different occasions, gave her polite pleasure then moved on before the age difference got to be a problem. I assure you this woman would also have complained if he'd wanted a serious relationship which is why she's still hooking up at age 30 instead of getting married. Ignore her. She's as fickle as she is demanding.

    I clicked Agree with your assessment and criticism of the woman. But the man was wrong to use her in that way, as well.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    Nah, he decided the sex wasn't worth the craziness. And the problem is that as women get older, both the sex and the craziness get worse.
  211. @International Jew

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.
     
    Yup. I'd hate to be her father.

    YES. How depressing that would be.

  212. @James Forrestal

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.
     
    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the "Chesterton's Fence"* approach -- rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, "oppressing" da wimmenz for no reason. It's easier than any sort of deep analysis -- and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of "cultural evolution" -- societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level... because they didn't work, or at least didn't scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-"evolved" solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the "clever sillies" issue -- the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to "solve" issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.
    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these "irrational," "unfair," "oppressive" institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    Extraordinary comment, and one that would be wasted on virtually everyone with power and influence in our foolish society.

  213. @Jay Fink
    All the guys who can successfully get sex off Tinder are filled with options. They have no incentive to settle down. Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.

    The odds may be good, but the goods are very odd.

  214. @Intelligent Dasein
    There are plenty of Google images of this woman flashing a big, pearly smile to the world.

    The smile of woman is a strange thing, a timeless instance of much remarked-upon feminine wiles. They can present a perfectly convincing picture of happiness and contentment even though their lives contain nothing of the sort. When a man fake-smiles, he just looks like Eric Idle taking a dump.

    The best men smile rarely and never for public consumption. Dr. Thomas Szasz thought that this smiling imperative, offspring of the effeminate West's obsessive image-consciousness, was a contributor to male pattern baldness. Whether or not that is true, it certainly contributes to male unhappiness.

    I doubt Victorian men had to reflexively smile at others to just to get through their day. Another of the many reasons why theirs was a happier time.

    Smiling was considered rude back then unless you knew the person .

  215. @James Forrestal

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.
     
    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the "Chesterton's Fence"* approach -- rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, "oppressing" da wimmenz for no reason. It's easier than any sort of deep analysis -- and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of "cultural evolution" -- societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level... because they didn't work, or at least didn't scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-"evolved" solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the "clever sillies" issue -- the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to "solve" issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.
    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these "irrational," "unfair," "oppressive" institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    evil menz throughout history, “oppressing” da wimmenz for no reason

    Good ten-word synopsis.

    Cf. AnotherDad:

    Jewish 2nd wave–i’m oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle–is a very different beast then the WASPy– women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands–1st wave.

  216. @DFH
    https://joyland-magazine.s3.amazonaws.com/media/images/author/images/courtney-sender.jpg

    This picture screams 'charging towards the wall' to me

    Her problem is not so much the wall. Her problem is that she is no doubt chubby, bordering on fat. She probably only has head shots on her Tinder profile, just as she does on Google Image, a sure tell she is overweight. Even her head shots scream “fat face”. Chubby chicks get banged a couple times by high status dudes and then they move on. Often chubby chicks are very skilled at oral sex. So if a guy with options may tap it once or twice knowing that there will at least be a reasonably good happy ending but will no doubt be disgusted by her body and certainly not want to risk taking her out in public where his friends might see her with him…

    • Replies: @Thea
    It’s nit her looks. It’s her behavior. Her lack of self awareness and sense of personal responsibility leads her to repeat the same male-commitment repelling behavior.


    Ugly women used to find marriage just fine.

    , @William Badwhite
    the old joke: fat chicks are like mopeds - fun to ride but you don't want your friends to see you on them
  217. I’m surprised you didn’t use this to mention The Ghost Writer again. I have watched it since you first mentioned it and thought it was pretty decent, although I did see or at least strongly suspect the plot twist that was revealed at the end, early on in the movie. The movie was crafted well enough that it was still compelling.

  218. @Society of Jewish Wisdom
    They’re all hateful Calvinists.

    Someone pointed out Bono was a member of the White,Anglo-Saxon,Witchburners Church of Ireland.

    Bono was a member of the…Church of Ireland

    Wiki sez:

    Bono was…raised…with his brother…by their mother, Iris (née Rankin), a member of the Church of Ireland, and their father, Brendan Robert “Bob” Hewson, a Roman Catholic. His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic. Although Bono was the second child, he also attended Church of Ireland services with his mother and brother.

    I have hardly ever heard of a quid-pro-quo deal like that re: children’s religions.

    “Okay, let’s agree to raise the first child [x] religion and the sexond child [y] religion.”

    • Replies: @Society of Jewish Wisdom
    It was common in mixed marriages in Ireland (though contempttaletellers would tell you it never happened under some religious decree)
    , @Flip
    I've read that in Germany it used to be the practice in Protestant/Catholic marriages that the daughters followed their mother's religion and the sons followed their father's.
  219. @Flip
    Victor Davis Hanson has several interviews on YouTube where he talks about how awful inland California has become due to Mexican immigration.
  220. I have to say he committed the perfect bang-n-run.

    He disarmed her completely by asking for permission …

  221. @Anonymous
    Victoria was a notorious prude because her father and uncles were notorious rakes. Her son, Edward, became a notorious rake because his mother was a notorious prude.

    Similar: Churchill and Franco were exemplary family men who never fooled around despite unlimited opportunities. They both had fathers who were notorious philanderers.

    Among WASPs a rake is any man who’s predominantly heterosexual.

  222. I finally read the whole thing. The two hours reading poetry such a sweet kisser is reminiscent of those 180 page Romance novels cranked out in 4 days according to a standard formula.

    I think she made the whole thing up to make some point. Although her point isn’t obvious.

  223. @Hail

    Bono was a member of the...Church of Ireland
     
    Wiki sez:

    Bono was...raised...with his brother...by their mother, Iris (née Rankin), a member of the Church of Ireland, and their father, Brendan Robert "Bob" Hewson, a Roman Catholic. His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic. Although Bono was the second child, he also attended Church of Ireland services with his mother and brother.
     
    I have hardly ever heard of a quid-pro-quo deal like that re: children's religions.

    "Okay, let's agree to raise the first child [x] religion and the sexond child [y] religion."

    It was common in mixed marriages in Ireland (though contempttaletellers would tell you it never happened under some religious decree)

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    It was common in mixed marriages in Ireland (though contempttaletellers would tell you it never happened under some religious decree)
     
    What is a "contempttaleteller"?
  224. The ‘Ibsen woman’ who ‘instead of children … has soul-conflict’. What young men are intensely interested in is no guide to how long they will stay interested once they have got it. But that sexy son quality (a serial sex bandit with the proven genetic wherewithal to give her a super-stud son to spread her own genes) is what attracted her.

    With Victorian mores the sexually driven man had his actual reproductive success limited along with his ability to demonstrate his genetic quality with a string of seductions. Now women can more easily determine exactly who has the goods. Warren Beatty said the only woman who ever turned him down was Kim Novak, (and she is said to have accommodated Wilt Chamberlain).

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    Now women can more easily determine exactly who has the goods.
     
    What exactly are "the goods"? What are women looking for?
  225. @Saxon
    No, they're not naive at all. They just want fried ice. They're using a casual sex "dating" app to find guys. A lot of them probably have 3 digit cock counts racked up.

    What they want is to "keep their options open" which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to monkey-branch as the term goes at any given time. It's extremely mercenary behavior and it's why the marriage rates are so down. No one wants to commit to these kinds of women who make up a huge percentage of the pool because the legal system rewards this kind of socially destructive behavior, almost as if by design. The key components that keep this from meeting real hard consequences that would make this a naturally disastrous type of behavior are the legal system and all sorts of socialized handouts.

    The whole whining about the guy not wanting anything serious is just crocodile tears. As Roger Devlin has put it, a lot of these types of women spend their youths providing harems to a small number of unusually attractive men.

    It's almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them -- probably because most of them were "naturals" and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects. So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn't have sexual liberalism.

    So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn’t have sexual liberalism.

    Sadly, you got very close to having an actual insight there, and then you blew it. Those things you’ve ignorantly dismissed as the “religious gobbledygook” are the real and concrete reasons for not having sexual license. And since you’ve already admitted that the men who adverted to such descriptions “knew the most” about the subject, it is, on your own acknowledgement, patently absurd to reject their preferred idiom, their stated reasons, their grasp of salient characteristics, and the undeniable fact that from time immemorial they have expressed themselves in precisely these terms and no others.

    There cannot be any such thing as a morality that is not informed by ultimate, immaterial causes, for reasons that are both manifold and undeniable. For instance, the virtue of justice—that being the equitable treatment owed to rational beings, the act of judging and apportioning to others their due—is by its very definition annexed to morality. But justice nowhere appears as a matter of mere sense experience. It is an idea which, though activated by sense perceptions, contains an essential supersensuous element. The divination into the nature of this element leads inevitably to the threshold of metaphysics.

    Similar to the above is the reality of God Himself. It requires only the proper use of man’s natural reason to prove the existence of God; revelation and supernaturalism are not required. Therefore those who deny the existence of God are implicitly denying the validity of the reasoning process itself. For to reason means to accept that the terms of a proposition have a meaningful and objective existence. To accept this existence means to acknowledge the operation of a formal cause. To admit the existence of formal causes means to recognize a certain immateriality in the conception of the thing, which redounds immediately to the immateriality of the active intellect. Being immaterial, both the active intellect and the conceptions it cogitates partake of a changeless foundation, without the existence of which thought would not be possible. But that which both exists and is changeless is a necessary being. This necessary being we call God.

    There must be a first or necessary cause to serve as the source of those intellectual forms by which reasoning is to take place. Therefore to reject God does not mean simply rejecting some more or less probable hypothesis, but rather it unweaves the very web by which all cognizable reality is held together. By a like reasoning process, the existence of objective moral standards—the very coherence of the idea that goodness can be properly predicated of men or actions—depends upon an unsurpassed, transcendent goodness to which the relative goodness of creatures is only analogous.

    Thus, it’s not as if the religious condemnation of sexual licence is something superfluous or mythical that must be done away with so that the “real” reasons can come forth. These are the real reasons. The practical effects of sexual mores—such that they reduce violence and jealousy, and conduce to the formation of happy families, strong races, and prosperous societies—are derivative and, apart from their metaphysical grounding, would little merit to be called goodness at all. They would instead be a species of devious and subtle slavery to which the appropriate response would be the John Nash solution: Convince everyone else to follow the rules so that I myself may benefit maximally by breaking them. But since every player in the game knows that every other player would benefit by playing the John Nash strategy (and he knows that I know that he knows….etc.), a paranoid suspicion of the rules and desperate determination to break them no matter what becomes obligatory. This is the inevitable end state of merely practical morality.

    The spiritual act of adhering to the moral good is literally the imitation of the absolute goodness of God. That is the power of the commandment; that is why it cannot be flexed or broken for special circumstances. And it is only under the impact of such a law that morality can be observed, or its observance rendered beneficial.

    • Agree: Twinkie
    • Replies: @Saxon
    The problem with simply saying "because God" is that it's an easily challenged argument, and it's why we've ended up where we are now. Next to no one really knew WHY these norms existed, and so when the subversives began to attack them they really didn't have a hard time simply dismissing them as hokey old-fashioned, outmoded beliefs and superstitions, because almost no one had an actual intellectual defense of them.

    Yes, perhaps understanding the mechanical reality of why these rules exist is not in and of itself enough alone to get people to do things, but it's not as if the church has done its job in protecting them. What with the churches now promoting homosexuals, racemixing, mass immigration and all other forms of calamitous destruction.

    We used to also have real enforcement of these rules, a real cheater detection system that would harshly punish these transgressions. Death penalties were not uncommon. It was not uncommon for laws to allow a man who caught his wife with another man to be permitted to kill both of them and walk free.

    , @AndrewR
    What a dull, content-free comment.
  226. Anon[349] • Disclaimer says:

    I hope Ms. Sender and the un-named 24-y/o Tinder dude both got tested for STDs the next day.

    Oh, and I bet he’s black.

    There was a popular self-help fem book a few years ago – “He’s Just Not That Into You.” Then made into a movie starring Ben Affleck, Jennifer Aniston, and Drew Barrymore.

  227. @El Dato
    I'd like some stats on STDs for that case.

    Never thought of that. The women either got married after the liaison with Augustus or were married. So the STDs must have spread far and wide. Couldn’t have been gonnorhea causes sterility in women or chalmedia miscarriages.

    Spell check doesn’t have those 2 diseases.

  228. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @El Dato
    Extreme facepalm.

    The last time these idiots dabbled in Golden Calf idiolatry they got what they deserved, good & hard because the supervisory system was QUITE unhappy with the show (at least according to that Charlton Heston vehicle)

    Maybe a countrywide Ebola outbreak would be just the thing to whip them into shape.

    I read a bit more. The Supreme Synod of judging redness also inspects the heifer. If there is just one White hair she’s not a perfect red.

    Sounds like a great job no? Judging a couple heifers a year. The heifer thing doesn’t sound monotheistic. It’s more like an old pagan animal worshipping religion.

    When I become supreme dictator of the universe I’m going to put big signs up in that damn wall stating it’s a retaining wall built by the Roman’s and has nothing to do with any mythical temple

    • Replies: @Logan
    You'll have to throw out a whole bunch of classical history regarding Herod's incredible building projects. You can argue, if you like, about whether Solomon's Temple existed, but not about Herod's Temple.
  229. @AnotherDad

    We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of “women voting left” being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn’t always so…and it need not always be so.
     
    A bunch of stuff rolled in "externally"--essentially the insane post-War and then 60s prosperity and the birth control pill--that would have been a challenge on it's own.

    But the other thing is this was the start of the great (minoritarian; tear it all down) revolution.

    Jewish 2nd wave--i'm oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle--is a very different beast then the WASPy-- women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands--1st wave.

    Those women voting before the revolution were overwhelmingly married women, essentially "helpmates" voting the same--on whatever social/economic, religious/ethnic basis--as their husbands (or maybe for a year or two their fathers), with the slight Republican skew being from more older WASPy women around.

    With the Jewish 2nd wave, the family was put under direct assualt and women are both yet another "oppressed" minority struggling against the evil white gentile master and are economically another interest group attached to the state\taxpayer teat for soft-jobs, regulation, welfare.

    We used to be married to husbands.
    Now we’re married to the state and grant hustlers.

  230. @Lot
    Agree those are some crazyeyes.

    I was talking about this photo, in a link to one of the first comments:

    https://agnimag.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/sender_horizontalheadshot.jpg

    Looking a bit like 1986 Madonna here.

  231. Anonymous[291] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Let me try to answer that, AM. If it were wheat, capacitors, rolled steel, or whatever else, sure, a bigger supply means prices will go down some. However, money will still be made on every additional bushel, piece, or ton, or you would slow down production and wait for inventory (around the world) to decrease until you CAN make money. There is real wealth in each of these commodities, so, once the price gets low enough, someone will buy them even above normal demand just as a storage of wealth (and way to make a profit later).

    The diamond business is different. There is really not much actual wealth in these stones.* If GE went about making an equal number to the market of natural stones, for example, I'd think that the market would just collapse completely, as that control of this tightly-controlled product is gone. People would really wonder how much GE could sell it for, even with a hefty profit. They might be able to make 100 x as much as deBeers sells for less than the cartel charged. There's no inherent value to create a base price. Does that make sense? That's the way I see it, after I thought about your question.

    .
    .

    * One could say the same about gold - "you can't eat it," " It doesn't have many uses." etc., but then it's just a great form of money - unchangeable, divisible, compact, of very-limited supply, etc. Diamonds don't have any of those qualities, except possibly the last, but only deBeers knows that!

    There is some natural inherent logic to the idea that gem diamonds differ from locomotives or turbines in that their value is only in scarcity, but my guess is that GE was offered a quid pro quo by some faction of the usual suspects. Core GE businesses of the time like jet engines, fluorescent lights, vacuum tubes, et al needed rare earth and high energy metals, so that is probably where a smoking gun might be found.

  232. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Anonymous

    It was bad for all women and the majority of men who want marriage home kids.
     
    How so? And what was the chain reaction for those alleged consequences?

    Women were used for short term sex.

    The doubling of the workforce meant the average earner couldn’t afford a wife house and kids.

    The capitalist funded radical organizations convinced men to trade easy sex for decent wages.

    The sexual revolution was just a front for the low wages revolution.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    The doubling of the workforce meant the average earner couldn’t afford a wife house and kids.
     
    What evidence do you have for this claim? Do you mean he could not afford to have his wife stay home?
    , @Thea
    From the oligarchs point of view, this was the point. But why did ordinary men & women sign up? Surely not all men wanted this for their daughters
  233. The late Tom Wolfe wrote a great article called “The Great Relearning” wherein he describes how modern westerners are being forced to relearn the old social institutions they gave up during the tumultuous ’60s. He gave the example of hippies who had given up on washing and bathing and subsequently caught diseases so old they didn’t have Latin names: they had to relearn the merits of basic hygiene. Perhaps someday the author of this article will relearn the old social convention called “dating.”

    • Replies: @Logan
    Perhaps someday the author of this article will relearn the old social convention called “dating.”

    Except it isn't old. The social convention of a respectable young man and woman going off alone together to engage in dinner and a movie, or whatever, is pretty darn recent.

    Not very easy to find documentation, and the practice emerged at very different times in different countries and social classes. Prior to the emergence of what we call dating, there was courtship, of which dating, at least originally, is/was a subset. In many/most areas, courtship was a far more restrictive process, and can be seen in one of its stricter forms in the movie The Quiet Man. In many societies, a young woman who violated any of the strictures on courtship could find herself locked out of "a good marriage."

    I couldn't prove it, but I suspect "dating," in the meaning described above, was rare in respectable American circles till 1900, and quite possibly till after WWI. Then American movies spread it all over the world and got it widely accepted as normal, people either not realizing or forgetting that it was very new.

    It is probable dating could not really emerge till after the motorcar became widely available.

    Of course, the meaning of the term keeps changing. At one point it started to include meeting random people in bars and going home with them. Apparently it now refers to sleeping around, which idea was not necessarily included in the original definition.

  234. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Flip
    Victor Davis Hanson has several interviews on YouTube where he talks about how awful inland California has become due to Mexican immigration.

    Victor Davis Hanson and his family have been California farmers more than 100 years. It’s first and foremost farmers that bring in the Hispanics.

    I agree with what he says about what the Central Valley Hispanics have done. But he’s a hypocrite. He needs to put the blame on the employers, his fellow farmers, not the Mexicans.

    I drive up and down the valley several times a year. No matter the time of year I never see many farm workers. Just machinery sitting waiting for planting or harvest. Sole exception is strawberry season. Then I see pickers but that just about 2 months.

    Orchards the pickers can come for a couple months and then go back home with enough money to support the family for a year. But that means the farmers would have to build and maintain decent housing for the workers. So the farmers prefer the pickers stay in California and live in housing the women and kids welfare pays for.
    It’s farmers dumping their workers on the welfare system.

    I’ve been reading articles that ICE raids workplace arrests 50 illegals. Why not arrest the employers. The Justice Department could just rewrite that regulation that scrutinizing documents is discrimination. It’s not a law, just an administrative regulation.

  235. @anonymous
    Do you really want this one explained, out here in public??

    I have no idea what you are talking about.

  236. Anon[349] • Disclaimer says:
    @Jim Christian

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She's 'solid', thick. She's probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she's whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She's been at it at least since age 15, which means she's been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she's drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she's up for anything, bank on it that she's been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she's an all-access girl since Sex In The City put "ass on the menu", with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she's been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she's not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman's history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she's unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn't go away), she'll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there's the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: "Better you than me, Pal". I only say that because I've been that guy and I know it happens. It's a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It's the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.

    this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She’s been at it at least since age 15, which means she’s been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she’s drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she’s up for anything, bank on it that she’s been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea.

    Oh, and she’s had at least two black men. I’m sure “some of her best friends are black!”

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    Oh, and she’s had at least two black men. I’m sure “some of her best friends are black!”
     
    I'm already a sexist, misogynist prick for this. Now you want to throw in racist? Meh, ok!

    Here are the ones that call me sexist:
    http://www.bostonherald.com/sites/default/files/styles/gallery/public/media/ap/2018/09/08/3c1fb6b27ecf494b88b63a230e5fdf17.jpg?itok=YWF0cA7n

    Party girls celebrated by Boston Herald last night. Ye Gods, lots of hamster wheels spinning in this one: http://www.bostonherald.com/lifestyle/style_fashion/2018/09/women_celebrate_size_inclusivity_at_alternative_fashion_week

    Besides, I don't know who's racist. I see only fat White Beckies. No women of color in the background. Does that make the Great White Whales pictured racist? I rest my case.

  237. @Buzz Mohawk
    There is an old fashioned promise that you will stick around and care for someone:

    It is called marriage.

    Yes, the marriage service was a public vow to love and cherish each other “for better for worse, for richer for poorer, in sickness and in health”.

    https://www.pemberley.com/janeinfo/compraym.html

    First, It was ordained for the procreation of children, to be brought up in the fear and nurture of the Lord, and to the praise of his holy Name.

    Secondly, It was ordained for a remedy against sin, and to avoid fornication; that such persons as have not the gift of continency might marry, and keep themselves undefiled members of Christ’s body.

    Thirdly, It was ordained for the mutual society, help, and comfort, that the one ought to have of the other, both in prosperity and adversity. Into which holy estate these two persons present come now to be joined. Therefore if any man can shew any just cause, why they may not lawfully be joined together, let him now speak, or else hereafter for ever hold his peace.

  238. @El Dato
    I'd like some stats on STDs for that case.

    STI’s. Disease just sounds so icky. It’s Infection now.

    But, as you say, those little viruses and spirochetes and bacteria and arthropods will always be with us thanks to the Augustuses of the world.

  239. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    You said you and your mother were scorned by liberals because you had two children. The other guy was simply pointing out that that's hardly surprising, as virtually all people, not just liberals, would scorn you for knocking your mother up even once, let alone twice.

    You probably meant your wife, not your mother. He was humorously pointing out your error.

    “ after the scorn my mother and I endured because we had MORE than 2 kids”

    She had 5 I had 4.

    You guys remind me of Jake in 2 1/2 men looking for dirty innuendoes everywhere. Oh look, golf balls giggle giggle.

    FYI There is no way, even with modern fertility tech that my mother and I could ever ever ever have children together.

    Think about it. How did I recognize that the girls in the museum wore Burke’s not Hamlin or St Rose or Notre Dame uniforms?

  240. @40 Acres and A Kardashian
    You said you and your mother were scorned by liberals because you had two children. The other guy was simply pointing out that that's hardly surprising, as virtually all people, not just liberals, would scorn you for knocking your mother up even once, let alone twice.

    You probably meant your wife, not your mother. He was humorously pointing out your error.

    I get the joke, but it only works based on the premise that Anon-#257 is a man. She is a woman. If you say anything about women on here, she will be glad to write you back, but she’s got great comments otherwise.

  241. @Reg Cæsar
    By the way, the GOP hasn't changed much since '48. Thomas Dewey's platform was derided as

    Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

    Agriculture is important. Our rivers are full of fish. You cannot have freedom without liberty. Our future lies ahead.

    That sound a lot better than any platform out of either major party since the time of Reagan.

  242. @Desiderius
    Of course not.

    Religion: Unitarian

    That’s all you need to know.
  243. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lagertha
    slo down. I live in the East Coast - my sons are out there, now. We have the same problems in Mass, NH(small coast) CT, RI, NJ, NY, VT, NH............California is the only state that has bragged about being oh so, soooo ok with homeless and, the none insured people for close to 3 decades. You all will soon, pay for them.

    Some say that California and other warm state’s homeless migrated from the north east so they don’t freeze to death during the winter.

    Some say many things.

    Maybe we’re Buddhists or Hindus at heart. Can’t solve a problem, embrace it.

    5 largest economy in the world I guess we can provide health care to the world. We’re already the old age pension system of China.

  244. Anonymous[276] • Disclaimer says:
    @Hail

    Stevenson won the deep South in ’52.
     
    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. '64, he'd have won the South.

    Would a President Stevenson have ordered Operation Wetback? (Honest question).

    Adlai Stevenson
    - Born, 1900, Los Angeles, California "to a prominent Illinois political family" (his grandfather was Vice President under Cleveland, among other political relatives)
    - Religion: Unitarian
    - raised in Bloomington, Illinois
    - Princeton, 1918-1922 (BA)
    - Northwestern, ca. 1924-1926 (JD)
    - 1948: first political victory; easily wins the Illinois governor race

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.

    Not exactly true. Truman lost some of the deep South in ’48 to Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. That’s why Stevenson had Alabama Senator and staunch segregationist Sparkman on the ticket in the following election.

    My point is that contemporary political alignments don’t map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties in the 50s, and in some respects each party was more or less conservative or liberal than the other party.

    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    My point is that contemporary political alignments don’t map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties in the 50s, and in some respects each party was more or less conservative or liberal than the other party.
     
    In one of his more useful pieces, Ta-Nehisi Coates elaborates:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism/275113/
    , @Hail

    contemporary political alignments don’t map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past
     
    Definitely.

    I think it's fair to say, anyway, that the elements of the 1950s-era Democratic Party that would soon produce Hart-Cellar, and forty years later would produce Barack Obama out of nowhere in the early 2000s for the IL Senate run, eventually giving us the first affirmative-action presidency, were already ascendant, nationally, by 1952. The Republicans of this era had Robert Taft and drunken Joe McCarthy, with non-South Middle America in between; the Democrats had some of the urban-Catholic machines, the White South, the increasingly-irrelevant memory of the New Deal, and the long shadow of communist spy Alger Hiss and his sympathizers.

    Speaking in averages, for the average woman in the USA in 1952 and 1956, Eisenhower was the more conservative choice.
  245. @Lot
    Agree those are some crazyeyes.

    I was talking about this photo, in a link to one of the first comments:

    https://agnimag.files.wordpress.com/2017/09/sender_horizontalheadshot.jpg

    No double chin thin neck prominent collar bones what can be seen of her chest is very flat. Maybe she just has a chubby face like Filipinos. Leonardo DiCaprio is very thin but has a round face.
    Who cares.

  246. Anon[257] • Disclaimer says:
    @Achmed E. Newman
    Excellent point, AD. About 10 years back I read an on-line short book written long ago (lat 1970's?) by a guy named Edward J. Epstein about the whole deBeers diamond scam. The scam is (at least was at that time) vertically integrated from the mines through the diamond brokers in NYC, London, and Amsterdam.

    There is even a part addressing your question about the sales of artificial diamonds:

    To be sure, General Electric recognized that it would be possible to develop catalysts that would accelerate the time needed to produce gems and to engineer more efficient presses that would allow more diamonds to be grown in the same cycle. However, even if it were possible to mass-produce gem diamonds at costs comparable to those of industrial diamonds, there would be a more serious problem. If the public realized that diamonds could be manufactured in unlimited quantities in a factory, the entire market for diamonds might suddenly collapse. A senior General Electric executive who was involved in the decision not to manufacture gem diamonds explained to me, "We would be destroyed by the success of our own invention. The more diamonds that we made, the cheaper they would become. Then the mystique would be gone, and the price would drop to next to nothing." General Electric decided not to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in presses to produce gem diamonds. Although their chief rivals had decided not to go ahead with manufacturing, it now became a war against time for the De Beers cartel. The science and technology that made it possible to manufacture real diamonds threatened to create a supply of diamonds that was beyond the control of De Beers.
     
    Last summer I wrote 3 posts about this huge scam, which were half-way taken from this illuminating book - You've got a friend in the diamond business, and here's Part 2 and Part 3.

    That happened to pearls not long ago early 20th century. A Japanese created artificial pearls by putting little round beads in oysters and waiting a few years.

    Before that pearls were very expensive.

    It’s a scam but no one has to buy one.

    My engagement ring has a biggish diamond. I didn’t ask for it. It’s not my favorite cut. I didn’t even see it till he gave it to me. He bought that biggish diamond for one reason.

    He and his brothers and friends were all getting married and it was a masculine status thing among them to compete to buy the biggest diamond.

    A few years later they competed to see who could buy the biggest houses in the most expensive neighborhood.

    I don’t think any women I know actually asked for a diamond engagement ring, even the Jewish ones. That just isn’t done in certain circles.

  247. It’s all so complicated.

  248. @Desiderius
    Of course not.

    Religion: Unitarian

    That’s all you need to know.

    Q: How do you terrorize a Unitarian?
    A: Burn a question mark on his lawn.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Don’t believe the hype.

    Often in error, never in doubt.
  249. @kissinger
    https://twitter.com/CourtneySender/status/1016751473454141442

    Harvard Divinity is no doubt proud.

    Not sarcastic. How messed up is that that?

    Destroying yourself to own the Fundies.

  250. @Jim Christian

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She's 'solid', thick. She's probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she's whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She's been at it at least since age 15, which means she's been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she's drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she's up for anything, bank on it that she's been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she's an all-access girl since Sex In The City put "ass on the menu", with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she's been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she's not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman's history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she's unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn't go away), she'll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there's the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: "Better you than me, Pal". I only say that because I've been that guy and I know it happens. It's a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It's the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.

    And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman’s history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out?

    I think Courtney and many other young women need to believe they are like Kate Moss, who managed to crank out a healthy daughter despite her legendary appetite for booze, cocaine, and men.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian

    I think Courtney and many other young women need to believe they are like Kate Moss, who managed to crank out a healthy daughter despite her legendary appetite for booze, cocaine, and men.
     
    That's a fair take to which I reply (because I ALWAYS have an answer, I've been there and I'm realistic) yeah, they didn't detail Kate Moss' likely IVF expense having a kid. But the women follow celebrity, they copy everything. The (((producers))) and Reiners in Hollywood and New York know all this. When they wanted more divorce, they gave us All In The Family. When they wanted more drug use and promiscuity, they gave the kids Fast Times at Ridgemont High. When they wanted more single motherhood, they gave us Murphy Brown. Of course, they didn't tell the slags that couldn't find husbands the actual costs, only that no mother needs a husband to have kids. When they wanted to test and advance the capacity of women to demean themselves with men, they gave the girls Sex In The City. And as we know from LA Ink, if you want the women tattooed and ugly, just put it on TV. Anything you want more of, just put it on TV and women will copy.

    They present these behaviors of the rich and famous as "to be done", leaving out the fact of the rich and famous' resources and the high cost of it all. Then the little people sample these behavioral wares and it isn't so much fun because when the collector comes-a-calling, there's nothing in the till. It is only then the true cost comes due that their foolishness becomes apparent..

    But what do I know? I'm just a misogynist. Who am I to 'judge"? I should understand that Girls Just Wanna Have Fun: https://youtu.be/PIb6AZdTr-A

  251. @AnotherDad

    We are now past thirty years, and approaching forty years, of “women voting left” being seen as obvious and inevitable. It wasn’t always so…and it need not always be so.
     
    A bunch of stuff rolled in "externally"--essentially the insane post-War and then 60s prosperity and the birth control pill--that would have been a challenge on it's own.

    But the other thing is this was the start of the great (minoritarian; tear it all down) revolution.

    Jewish 2nd wave--i'm oppressed being a housewife, men are oppressing me (just like the gentiles keeping me out of their country club), fish/bicycle--is a very different beast then the WASPy-- women should be educated, should vote as full and complementary citizens with their husbands--1st wave.

    Those women voting before the revolution were overwhelmingly married women, essentially "helpmates" voting the same--on whatever social/economic, religious/ethnic basis--as their husbands (or maybe for a year or two their fathers), with the slight Republican skew being from more older WASPy women around.

    With the Jewish 2nd wave, the family was put under direct assualt and women are both yet another "oppressed" minority struggling against the evil white gentile master and are economically another interest group attached to the state\taxpayer teat for soft-jobs, regulation, welfare.

    Don’t exculpate the first wave. It was the thin end of the wedge and very much in error.

  252. It’s heartbreaking that America’s young women have been raised to believe that being free prostitutes is liberating and meaningful behavior. Really devastating.

    They keep trying to make fornication safe, fun and benefit them somehow and it simply cannot be done.

    • Replies: @Desiderius
    Those women have not been raised.

    Literally.
    , @Lagertha
    The messaging to young girls/women since about 2000 has been ramped-up by media/newspapers/fashion industry/Hollywood that they will be fulfilled without having to be "tied down to a man"... that they deserve the best, whatever that is. And, every rotten Hollywood movie still shows only beautiful women winning. Ordinary women just don't get it. And, ordinary guys, are frustrated and depressed - intimacy or the lack of, is the #1 reason for all these anxiety disorders Millennials have.

    My sons are in their 20's. Last year, I made some comment here, that the Trump effect will bring a legion of cat ladies in my sons' generation - the Pussy-hat-wearers. Therefore, I have urged them to look for traditional women, often in the "flyover states" who are 5-10 years younger than them, once they reach their 30's - in fact, move to those states. The Millennial women are already, a lost cause, especially on the coasts or big cities in general. There are already, 30+ age, old maids in my neighborhood....still living with parents, or, subsidized by their parents.

  253. @Rocks Off
    Her problem is not so much the wall. Her problem is that she is no doubt chubby, bordering on fat. She probably only has head shots on her Tinder profile, just as she does on Google Image, a sure tell she is overweight. Even her head shots scream "fat face". Chubby chicks get banged a couple times by high status dudes and then they move on. Often chubby chicks are very skilled at oral sex. So if a guy with options may tap it once or twice knowing that there will at least be a reasonably good happy ending but will no doubt be disgusted by her body and certainly not want to risk taking her out in public where his friends might see her with him...

    It’s nit her looks. It’s her behavior. Her lack of self awareness and sense of personal responsibility leads her to repeat the same male-commitment repelling behavior.

    Ugly women used to find marriage just fine.

    • Replies: @Jim Don Bob
    I had a neighbor once who was not much in the looks department, but she was friendly, cheerful, and kind to everyone, especially her husband. I recommended her policy to my daughters.
  254. @Hail

    Bono was a member of the...Church of Ireland
     
    Wiki sez:

    Bono was...raised...with his brother...by their mother, Iris (née Rankin), a member of the Church of Ireland, and their father, Brendan Robert "Bob" Hewson, a Roman Catholic. His parents initially agreed that the first child would be raised Anglican and the second Catholic. Although Bono was the second child, he also attended Church of Ireland services with his mother and brother.
     
    I have hardly ever heard of a quid-pro-quo deal like that re: children's religions.

    "Okay, let's agree to raise the first child [x] religion and the sexond child [y] religion."

    I’ve read that in Germany it used to be the practice in Protestant/Catholic marriages that the daughters followed their mother’s religion and the sons followed their father’s.

    • Replies: @Hail
    Interesting.

    I know Germany in the 19th and well into the 20th centuries kept records of religious-identity of marriage pairings and religious-identity of children (a question demographers took special interest in), and may still to this day, so this could be confirmed in that data.

    ___________

    You got me curious. I tracked down a googleized demographic study of the Bremen census of 1900 ("Die Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1900 im Bremischen Staate, Volume 2" [here]). Just one small city, but it may give some general insight.

    Bremen, 96.5% Protestant in the days when Bismarck was orchestrating German unification (1860s), had fallen to 92.5% Protestant and risen to 6.5% Catholic by year 1900, according to the census. I would speculate that a modest but disproportionately-male labor influx, likely from Poland, caused this shift. (This seems corroborated by the fact that there were so many Catholic Husband - Protestant Wife [CH-PW] couples in Bremen than vice-versa by 1900).

    The city's census for 1900 counted 26,636 total married couples, of which most [90%+] were Protestant-Protestant marriages. (This is for the core city of Bremen, a 'downtown' call it, and not adjoining communities.)

    The mixed-religion marriages:

    552 "Protestant Husband - Catholic Wife" [PH-CW] mixed marriages [2.1%]
    1,093 "Catholic Husband - Protestant Wife" [CH-PW] mixed marriages [4.1%]

    There were 528 minor sons of PH-CW couples, of which,
    - 417 were Protestants [79%]
    - 111 were Catholics

    There were 585 minor daughters of PH-CW couples, of which,
    - 447 were Protestants [76.5%]
    - 138 were Catholics

    There were 1,155 minor sons of CH-PW couples, of which,
    - 959 were Protestants [83%]
    - 196 were Catholics

    There were 1,119 minor daughters of CH-PW couples, of which,
    - 944 were Protestants [84.5%]
    - 175 were Catholics
     
    Observations:

    - German-Protestant cultural confidence was sailing along confidently at this time: 81.7% of mixed-marriage children were raised Protestant. If a child's religious-identity was decided by coin flip, i.e., keeping the exact ratio of parents' religion, it would of course be 50-50, not 80-20. (In our era, in the United States, I note anecdotally that mixed-religion marriages in which one partner is Jewish also seem to be about 80-20 in favor of raising children Jewish; it's all a matter of perceived prestige and cultural power; Protestant-German prestige was nearing its peak when this census was taken, before the blundering misadventure of the 1914 war.)

    - Protestant women in Catholic Husband - Protestant Wife (CH-PW) pairings were more likely to pass on Protestant religious-identity to their children than were Protestant men who were married to Catholic women. Evidence for women's influence in religion being more important.

    - There is indeed a small (1.5 to 2.5 point) bump favoring father-son and mother-daughter religious-identity-continuity in these mixed marriages.

    - Both the above are present and notable, but totally overshadowed by the 80-20 overall Protestant-Catholic religious-identity gap favoring Protestants in Bremen at this time.

    - The child totals strike me as low for Germany in 1900. This is probably explained by: [1] These are not final fertility counts, by moment-in-time child counts; young couples who have had no children yet are included; [2] They are for an urban area, Bremen City; [3] German demographers of this time noted that mixed-religion marriages had markedly lower fertility. Another demographic stud, "Über die Fruchtbarkeit der christlich-jüdischen Mischehe: Ein Vortrag" [here], from the same era, gives the following TFRs for Prussia in the period 1875-1900,

    - Catholic-Catholic marriages [mostly Poles, presumably]: 5 children
    - Protestant-Protestant marriages: 4 children
    - Jewish-Jewish marriages: 3.8 children
    - Catholic-Protestant marriages: 3.1 children
    - Christian-Jewish marriages: 1.7 children
     
    By the way, the Bremen City 1900 mixed-religion marriage data also includes five Jewish Husband - Christian Wife [JH-ChW] couples (combined 17 children), and eight Christian Husband - Jewish Wife [ChH-JW] couples (combined 24 children). (Jews were called 'mosaisch' [Mosaic] in this census.)

    The children's religious-identities were given as:

    Jewish Husband - Christian Wife, minor sons: 10
    - 4 Protestant
    - 2 Catholic
    - 4 Jewish [40%]

    JH-ChW daughters: 7
    - 2 Protestant
    - 1 Catholics
    - 4 Jewish [57%]

    ChH-JW sons: 12
    - 11 Protestant
    - 1 Jewish [8%]

    ChH-JW daughters: 12
    - 11 Protestant
    - 1 Jewish [8%]
     
    So thirteen Jews were married to Christians (accounting for <0.1% of marriages in Bremen City in 1900), and of their collective 41 children, only ten were raised Jewish. Jewish women, at least in this small sample, did not pass down their Judaism; Jewish men did, but only at a 50-50 rate (8 of 17). I would also note that there were 132 Jewish-Jewish married couples in Bremen City counted by the census, so Jewish outmarriage was at only 5%.
  255. @Jim Christian

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She's 'solid', thick. She's probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she's whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She's been at it at least since age 15, which means she's been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she's drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she's up for anything, bank on it that she's been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she's an all-access girl since Sex In The City put "ass on the menu", with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she's been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she's not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman's history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she's unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn't go away), she'll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there's the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: "Better you than me, Pal". I only say that because I've been that guy and I know it happens. It's a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It's the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.

    I am going to print this out and hand it to my kids a little before I think they’ll need it.

    • Replies: @Jim Christian
    They'll tell you it was written by someone who hates women. Tell them no, it was written by a perfectly rational observer of women, circa 2003-present. Seems like that was the jumping-off point.
  256. @James Forrestal

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.
     
    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the "Chesterton's Fence"* approach -- rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, "oppressing" da wimmenz for no reason. It's easier than any sort of deep analysis -- and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of "cultural evolution" -- societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level... because they didn't work, or at least didn't scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-"evolved" solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the "clever sillies" issue -- the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to "solve" issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.
    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these "irrational," "unfair," "oppressive" institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    Every working computer programmer knows, or should know, our version of Chesterton’s Fence: never rewrite software from scratch:

    https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

    • Replies: @James Forrestal
    Good analogy.

    Mostly lost on me, because what I remember about programming amounts to a few html tags and "Don't use GOTO where you can use GOSUB - RETURN." But still...
  257. Truth is, she is probably lucky that the guy slept with her twice. I rarely returned to the scene of the crime if a woman caved on the first try…but that’s just me.

    • Replies: @Peripatetic commenter
    There's a very good reason for this.

    If she was that easy, she would likely be easy for other guys when she was in a relationship with you.

    It's an evolved response for males who are expected to invest huge resources in a woman.
  258. @Buffalo Joe
    Truth is, she is probably lucky that the guy slept with her twice. I rarely returned to the scene of the crime if a woman caved on the first try...but that's just me.

    There’s a very good reason for this.

    If she was that easy, she would likely be easy for other guys when she was in a relationship with you.

    It’s an evolved response for males who are expected to invest huge resources in a woman.

  259. anonymous[572] • Disclaimer says:

    Remember the hatchet job done on Aziz Ansari by one of his dates? Well, there are similarities to Sender’s hatchet job. Here’s what I think is happening and I’m assuming that Sender’s Tinder hookup is a liberal, too. These leftist women date these leftist men who they think are woke feminist males. The reality is that they are scumbags, that’s why they’re leftists. They deserve each other.

  260. Kind of retro. ‘I made love to a hipster, in my Maidenform bra.’ By Mildred Smith, women’s college graduate.

  261. @JMcG
    I am going to print this out and hand it to my kids a little before I think they’ll need it.

    They’ll tell you it was written by someone who hates women. Tell them no, it was written by a perfectly rational observer of women, circa 2003-present. Seems like that was the jumping-off point.

  262. @AnotherDad
    BTW, the feminists really have moved the ball, made some sort of cultural "progress".

    Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women--even when emoting about their difficulties with men--would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.

    Very few men of my generation would want to marry a woman who had announced in the NYT that she took random strangers home for sex. And women--whatever their actual sexual behavior--were fully aware of that fact. But this gal seems to think it's a non-issue, and she'll find her wonderful guy for "genuine caring" regardless.

    "Progress"

    @31 Another Dad: “Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts.”

    My husband said almost exactly that!! (I’ve been reading him the comment thread.) What ever happened to privacy? Who in their right mind would consider discussing their sexual encounters and related romantic disappointments in a major publication for mass consumption? Answer: A woman who takes a younger stranger immediately home to bed. And yes, I’ve had women tell me that I just don’t understand “dating” in the internet age, and that men – real men, of course – would never judge a woman as promiscuous for doing what Miss Sender did.

    You literally cannot talk to these women or tell them any differently. They are convinced the problem lies not with themselves, but with MEN – and they are determined to remake humanity and human attractiveness and relationships and sexuality to ensure that the fault never, ever lies with themselves.

    • Replies: @Saxon
    Women writing articles like this and publishing them in papers has been the norm for at least 15 years. They just phrased things a bit differently. They would talk about having had their fun and being ready to settle down "but where are all of the good men"? This is of course after they spent the ages of 13-35 and even up to 45 living some hedonistic lifestyle and at best chasing guys way out of their league.

    It's something the earlier manosphere guys would comment on since the articles were very regular appearances.
    , @sabril
    I think that a lot of these women are truly mentally ill -- borderline personality disorder. Women with borderline personality disorder tend to be very promiscuous, childish, manipulative, and dishonest. Something like 1 in 30 women has been diagnosed with BPD, but the actual figure is likely to be higher since BPD sufferers typically have poor self-awareness and refuse to get treatment for their mental health problem.

    BPD doesn't affect your basic cognitive abilities, so a BPD sufferer could potentially be a successful writer. Basically a BPD sufferer is a 10 year old child with an adult body and an adult intellect.

    Anyway, I'm not trying to diagnose this Sender person remotely, but there's obviously something very wrong with you if you use a hook-up app to hook-up and then publicly complain that your hook-up was interested only in a hook-up.

    As noted above, the real tragedy is that our society is so gynocentric that nutty women like this are taken seriously, given a platform, and given input into public policy decisions.
    , @Anonymous

    And yes, I’ve had women tell me that I just don’t understand “dating” in the internet age
     
    What do they tell you about how dating works these days?
  263. @The Wild Geese Howard

    And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman’s history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out?
     
    I think Courtney and many other young women need to believe they are like Kate Moss, who managed to crank out a healthy daughter despite her legendary appetite for booze, cocaine, and men.

    I think Courtney and many other young women need to believe they are like Kate Moss, who managed to crank out a healthy daughter despite her legendary appetite for booze, cocaine, and men.

    That’s a fair take to which I reply (because I ALWAYS have an answer, I’ve been there and I’m realistic) yeah, they didn’t detail Kate Moss’ likely IVF expense having a kid. But the women follow celebrity, they copy everything. The (((producers))) and Reiners in Hollywood and New York know all this. When they wanted more divorce, they gave us All In The Family. When they wanted more drug use and promiscuity, they gave the kids Fast Times at Ridgemont High. When they wanted more single motherhood, they gave us Murphy Brown. Of course, they didn’t tell the slags that couldn’t find husbands the actual costs, only that no mother needs a husband to have kids. When they wanted to test and advance the capacity of women to demean themselves with men, they gave the girls Sex In The City. And as we know from LA Ink, if you want the women tattooed and ugly, just put it on TV. Anything you want more of, just put it on TV and women will copy.

    They present these behaviors of the rich and famous as “to be done”, leaving out the fact of the rich and famous’ resources and the high cost of it all. Then the little people sample these behavioral wares and it isn’t so much fun because when the collector comes-a-calling, there’s nothing in the till. It is only then the true cost comes due that their foolishness becomes apparent..

    But what do I know? I’m just a misogynist. Who am I to ‘judge”? I should understand that Girls Just Wanna Have Fun:

  264. @James Forrestal

    Women do not understand the marketplace aspect of sex.
     
    Of course. Though it's really two different "marketplaces" -- sex, and long term relationship/ marriage. It should be obvious (but apparently it's not) that a woman of average attractiveness who is open to casual sex has a considerably higher value in the "sexual marketplace" than in the "relationship marketplace" (easier for her to get casual sex from a given man than to get commitment). While for the average man, of course, it's the opposite. (And part of what makes the woman less valuable in the relationship marketplace is this very promiscuity/ openness to casual sex).

    It's not really a question of understanding, though. It's more that they "feel" that if they can get a particular man to sleep with them on a casual basis, then they "should" be able to get commitment from that same man.

    It's as if you "felt" that if a particular woman was willing to vent to you about her problems with other men, and willing to allow you to do favors for her/ buy her things, that you "should" be able to get her to sleep with you. This particular misperception has been known to occur as well (but tends to be treated with rather more intense mockery than its female equivalent).

    To be fair, much of this issue is likely the product of years of exposure to relentless "we're all the same (apart from the victim status hierarchy), and "gender" is fluid anyway, so..." propaganda.

    Edit:
    @Lot
    Looks like @Brutusale beat me to the MySpace angle point.

    Agree. And you can be pretty confident that this girl dates UP on Tinder. i.e. she’s about a 4/10 or 5/10 and this man she banged is probably a 7/10 or an 8/10. Guys who are 4 or 5 out of 10 in looks get very little interest on Tinder.

    Probably if she dated her looks-matches, she would not get pumped and dumped. For whatever reason, most girls have a hard time understanding that if you date up in terms of looks, it’s very unlikely that the man will commit to you. The mathematics of the situation just won’t allow it.

    • Replies: @Flip
    There is no way that a 24 year old guy is going to marry a 30 year old woman. She was fishing in the wrong pond.
  265. @njguy73
    Q: How do you terrorize a Unitarian?
    A: Burn a question mark on his lawn.

    Don’t believe the hype.

    Often in error, never in doubt.

  266. @Thea
    It’s heartbreaking that America’s young women have been raised to believe that being free prostitutes is liberating and meaningful behavior. Really devastating.

    They keep trying to make fornication safe, fun and benefit them somehow and it simply cannot be done.

    Those women have not been raised.

    Literally.

  267. @Jim Christian

    This picture screams ‘charging towards the wall’ to me
     
    She is approaching a direct hit with The Wall at high velocity. No collarbones because: chubby. Round, chubby man-jawed face, thick neck. She's 'solid', thick. She's probably a sweaty thing owing to her onset obesity, maybe pre-diabetic. We know she's whiny, too. In an age of free love, she has a price. And that price is dropping, fast. And is she PISSED.

    But a man thinking of her must consider also, when you look closer: this is a woman with LOTS of sexual experience, she writes repeatedly of all that. She's been at it at least since age 15, which means she's been on toxic hormonal birth control for at least 15 years. Along the way she's drunk lots of alcohol because men buy drinks and plenty of them. Some of her men have cocaine and weed, so she also has a history of drug use. Raves were the trend, she also has Disco Biscuit encounters. Progressive, sexually-active Beckies like her, she likely has an abortion or two or more under her belt. Because she's up for anything, bank on it that she's been plucked for the Warts of HPV, syphilis, a chlamydia outbreak or three, figure two bouts of gonorrhea. Not to be gross, but she's an all-access girl since Sex In The City put "ass on the menu", with all the problems resulting from THAT. All the over-the-counter meds you see advertised on TV for spastic colons and constipation help them with that, not to mention a new route for STDs.

    Lastly, consider her mentally challenged mien. Anyone want to bet she's been gobbling the M&Ms of the depressed for 20 years? And she's not special, this is all 30-35 year old Feminist Democrat Progressives as a class of women in big cities everywhere, except everything is amped-up in the NYC playground. And so, considering the entire, big ugly picture of this woman's history, why would a thoughtful guy trust this woman to court her conventionally, put a ring on it, marry her and then start in on the long, long process of IVF to MAYBE have a shot at having a baby in her poisoned, ruined, toxic stew of a womb? How the hell does THAT come out? Because she's unstable and promiscuous (because that doesn't go away), she'll bank a divorce for cash and prizes one day, nearly assured. Then there's the other thing.

    Everywhere you go with her, some man she banged in the past, saying hi, thanks for the memories and his signal to you clear: "Better you than me, Pal". I only say that because I've been that guy and I know it happens. It's a great relief to see someone else with these floozies and realize in another universe, that poor bastard coulda been me. College. It's the college that ruins them. While it starts far, far younger, college finishes them off. And this is the result.

    JC, that was awesome.

  268. Anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    “These leftist women date these leftist men who they think are woke feminist males. The reality is that they are scumbags, that’s why they’re leftists. They deserve each other.”

    I think leftist women date leftist men because that’s what they want – or say they want – superficially. But biologically, they want the Republican Chad who won’t take their crap. When Ansari turned out to be a weakling nerd male feminist beta who only wanted sex – awkward – the girl got offended and fled. She then later felt guilty over being so stupid, so she decided to ruin him to make herself feel better. If Ansari had been Tom Brady, it would have been cool with her.

  269. Pictures or it didn’t happen.

  270. @RadicalCenter
    I clicked Agree with your assessment and criticism of the woman. But the man was wrong to use her in that way, as well.

    Nah, he decided the sex wasn’t worth the craziness. And the problem is that as women get older, both the sex and the craziness get worse.

    • Replies: @Anonymous

    And the problem is that as women get older, both the sex and the craziness get worse.
     
    Why does the sex get worse?
  271. Anon[184] • Disclaimer says:

    “‘Pussy Hat’ Design Withdrawn After Activists Insist Some Women Have Penises”

    Is anyone really sure this isn’t some kind of elaborate psy-op to destroy feminism by the deep state? I mean, wouldn’t feminists demand expensive things like free child care, more maternity leave, and free college tuition? And we all know how the upper crust hate hate hate paying higher taxes. Isn’t the FBI famous for planting disruptive moles in organizations?

  272. @Thea
    It’s nit her looks. It’s her behavior. Her lack of self awareness and sense of personal responsibility leads her to repeat the same male-commitment repelling behavior.


    Ugly women used to find marriage just fine.

    I had a neighbor once who was not much in the looks department, but she was friendly, cheerful, and kind to everyone, especially her husband. I recommended her policy to my daughters.

  273. @International Jew
    Every working computer programmer knows, or should know, our version of Chesterton's Fence: never rewrite software from scratch:
    https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/

    Good analogy.

    Mostly lost on me, because what I remember about programming amounts to a few html tags and “Don’t use GOTO where you can use GOSUB – RETURN.” But still…

  274. @AndrewR
    "wall" is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak

    “wall” is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak

    Well, it’s also a runners’ term, and marriage is a marathon, isn’t it?

  275. @Hail

    What they want is to “keep their options open” which in other words means they want to lock down a guy and have him around to do things for her and pay for things while she retains the ability to [sleep around with impunity]
     
    Solution?

    Well there isn’t one aside from the repeal of no fault divorce laws which allow a woman to openly cheat and laugh in the man’s face and still get everything in divorce, as well as ending handouts which incentivize really dysfunctional sexual behavior.

    Things are so bad in this regard that in many countries you have men who can prove with DNA test that children they’ve been duped into raising as their own are not even theirs but are still on the hook paying for them.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Then there are the dumbbells that donated sperm for turkey baster lesbian babies and had the mothers then sue the for child support and WIN. States have decreed that even though no sex occurred, and they had an agreement for the man to be a sperm donor and no more, because they didn't go to a doctor and have it done that way (and, pay medical fees) it's as though he busted inside her the regular way.

    "The plain meaning of the term “medical technology” does not encompass a kitchen implement such as a turkey baster."

    What a bunch of shit, but that's the deal.
  276. @Intelligent Dasein

    So most of what you have in older writings is just a bunch of mysticism and religious gobbledygook and not a lot of the real concrete reasons for why you shouldn’t have sexual liberalism.
     
    Sadly, you got very close to having an actual insight there, and then you blew it. Those things you've ignorantly dismissed as the "religious gobbledygook" are the real and concrete reasons for not having sexual license. And since you've already admitted that the men who adverted to such descriptions "knew the most" about the subject, it is, on your own acknowledgement, patently absurd to reject their preferred idiom, their stated reasons, their grasp of salient characteristics, and the undeniable fact that from time immemorial they have expressed themselves in precisely these terms and no others.

    There cannot be any such thing as a morality that is not informed by ultimate, immaterial causes, for reasons that are both manifold and undeniable. For instance, the virtue of justice---that being the equitable treatment owed to rational beings, the act of judging and apportioning to others their due---is by its very definition annexed to morality. But justice nowhere appears as a matter of mere sense experience. It is an idea which, though activated by sense perceptions, contains an essential supersensuous element. The divination into the nature of this element leads inevitably to the threshold of metaphysics.

    Similar to the above is the reality of God Himself. It requires only the proper use of man's natural reason to prove the existence of God; revelation and supernaturalism are not required. Therefore those who deny the existence of God are implicitly denying the validity of the reasoning process itself. For to reason means to accept that the terms of a proposition have a meaningful and objective existence. To accept this existence means to acknowledge the operation of a formal cause. To admit the existence of formal causes means to recognize a certain immateriality in the conception of the thing, which redounds immediately to the immateriality of the active intellect. Being immaterial, both the active intellect and the conceptions it cogitates partake of a changeless foundation, without the existence of which thought would not be possible. But that which both exists and is changeless is a necessary being. This necessary being we call God.

    There must be a first or necessary cause to serve as the source of those intellectual forms by which reasoning is to take place. Therefore to reject God does not mean simply rejecting some more or less probable hypothesis, but rather it unweaves the very web by which all cognizable reality is held together. By a like reasoning process, the existence of objective moral standards---the very coherence of the idea that goodness can be properly predicated of men or actions---depends upon an unsurpassed, transcendent goodness to which the relative goodness of creatures is only analogous.

    Thus, it's not as if the religious condemnation of sexual licence is something superfluous or mythical that must be done away with so that the "real" reasons can come forth. These are the real reasons. The practical effects of sexual mores---such that they reduce violence and jealousy, and conduce to the formation of happy families, strong races, and prosperous societies---are derivative and, apart from their metaphysical grounding, would little merit to be called goodness at all. They would instead be a species of devious and subtle slavery to which the appropriate response would be the John Nash solution: Convince everyone else to follow the rules so that I myself may benefit maximally by breaking them. But since every player in the game knows that every other player would benefit by playing the John Nash strategy (and he knows that I know that he knows....etc.), a paranoid suspicion of the rules and desperate determination to break them no matter what becomes obligatory. This is the inevitable end state of merely practical morality.

    The spiritual act of adhering to the moral good is literally the imitation of the absolute goodness of God. That is the power of the commandment; that is why it cannot be flexed or broken for special circumstances. And it is only under the impact of such a law that morality can be observed, or its observance rendered beneficial.

    The problem with simply saying “because God” is that it’s an easily challenged argument, and it’s why we’ve ended up where we are now. Next to no one really knew WHY these norms existed, and so when the subversives began to attack them they really didn’t have a hard time simply dismissing them as hokey old-fashioned, outmoded beliefs and superstitions, because almost no one had an actual intellectual defense of them.

    Yes, perhaps understanding the mechanical reality of why these rules exist is not in and of itself enough alone to get people to do things, but it’s not as if the church has done its job in protecting them. What with the churches now promoting homosexuals, racemixing, mass immigration and all other forms of calamitous destruction.

    We used to also have real enforcement of these rules, a real cheater detection system that would harshly punish these transgressions. Death penalties were not uncommon. It was not uncommon for laws to allow a man who caught his wife with another man to be permitted to kill both of them and walk free.

    • Agree: AndrewR
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    We used to also have real enforcement of these rules, a real cheater detection system that would harshly punish these transgressions. Death penalties were not uncommon. It was not uncommon for laws to allow a man who caught his wife with another man to be permitted to kill both of them and walk free.
     
    In the US, and particularly parts of the Southwest in general and West Texas in particular, the law did not specifically countenance it, but if a man walked into a room and caught another man in the actual act of copulation with his wife, particularly if it was in his own house and especially in his own marital bed, he could kill them both on the spot, but it had to be on the spot and not a premeditated trap, he had to claim surprise to himself in the discovery. This wasn't specifically codified, but prosecutors would not prosecute because juries would not convict, and no one bitched "jury nullification". It was expected.
    , @HA
    so when the subversives began to attack them they really didn’t have a hard time simply dismissing them as hokey old-fashioned, outmoded beliefs and superstitions, because almost no one had an actual intellectual defense of them.

    I don't have a hard time dismissing the alternatives that the subversives came up with in the 60's and 70's as hokey old-fashioned, outmoded beliefs and superstitions either. You don't have to be Roman Polanski to realize that it was in hindsight, not the best advice. So where does that get us? As far as I can see, Mike Pence may be a moron and a tool of the Koch brothers, but I'd put up his quasi-Victorian "never meet a woman alone" or whatever the policy is against what Harvey Weinstein -- the self-described child of the 70's -- came up with by following those beliefs and superstitions. To the extent you find whatever the foundations of his policy to be unconvincing, the onus is on you at this point to come up with something that satisfies not only your criteria of credibility, but actually leads to a civilization comparable to the one we inherited.

    Sexuality (or any other appetite or bodily function, for that matter) is always going to be hard to reconcile with any morality worthy of the name, and it will be easy to take potshots at it and convince any number of fools and gadflies that the grass is greener elsewhere. Big deal. If you have anything better to offer, you prove it.
  277. @3g4me
    @31 Another Dad: "Even a few years ago, college educated middle class women–even when emoting about their difficulties with men–would not write articles, to be published under their own names, advertising that they are sluts."

    My husband said almost exactly that!! (I've been reading him the comment thread.) What ever happened to privacy? Who in their right mind would consider discussing their sexual encounters and related romantic disappointments in a major publication for mass consumption? Answer: A woman who takes a younger stranger immediately home to bed. And yes, I've had women tell me that I just don't understand "dating" in the internet age, and that men - real men, of course - would never judge a woman as promiscuous for doing what Miss Sender did.

    You literally cannot talk to these women or tell them any differently. They are convinced the problem lies not with themselves, but with MEN - and they are determined to remake humanity and human attractiveness and relationships and sexuality to ensure that the fault never, ever lies with themselves.

    Women writing articles like this and publishing them in papers has been the norm for at least 15 years. They just phrased things a bit differently. They would talk about having had their fun and being ready to settle down “but where are all of the good men”? This is of course after they spent the ages of 13-35 and even up to 45 living some hedonistic lifestyle and at best chasing guys way out of their league.

    It’s something the earlier manosphere guys would comment on since the articles were very regular appearances.

  278. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon
    Well there isn't one aside from the repeal of no fault divorce laws which allow a woman to openly cheat and laugh in the man's face and still get everything in divorce, as well as ending handouts which incentivize really dysfunctional sexual behavior.

    Things are so bad in this regard that in many countries you have men who can prove with DNA test that children they've been duped into raising as their own are not even theirs but are still on the hook paying for them.

    Then there are the dumbbells that donated sperm for turkey baster lesbian babies and had the mothers then sue the for child support and WIN. States have decreed that even though no sex occurred, and they had an agreement for the man to be a sperm donor and no more, because they didn’t go to a doctor and have it done that way (and, pay medical fees) it’s as though he busted inside her the regular way.

    “The plain meaning of the term “medical technology” does not encompass a kitchen implement such as a turkey baster.”

    What a bunch of shit, but that’s the deal.

  279. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Saxon
    The problem with simply saying "because God" is that it's an easily challenged argument, and it's why we've ended up where we are now. Next to no one really knew WHY these norms existed, and so when the subversives began to attack them they really didn't have a hard time simply dismissing them as hokey old-fashioned, outmoded beliefs and superstitions, because almost no one had an actual intellectual defense of them.

    Yes, perhaps understanding the mechanical reality of why these rules exist is not in and of itself enough alone to get people to do things, but it's not as if the church has done its job in protecting them. What with the churches now promoting homosexuals, racemixing, mass immigration and all other forms of calamitous destruction.

    We used to also have real enforcement of these rules, a real cheater detection system that would harshly punish these transgressions. Death penalties were not uncommon. It was not uncommon for laws to allow a man who caught his wife with another man to be permitted to kill both of them and walk free.

    We used to also have real enforcement of these rules, a real cheater detection system that would harshly punish these transgressions. Death penalties were not uncommon. It was not uncommon for laws to allow a man who caught his wife with another man to be permitted to kill both of them and walk free.

    In the US, and particularly parts of the Southwest in general and West Texas in particular, the law did not specifically countenance it, but if a man walked into a room and caught another man in the actual act of copulation with his wife, particularly if it was in his own house and especially in his own marital bed, he could kill them both on the spot, but it had to be on the spot and not a premeditated trap, he had to claim surprise to himself in the discovery. This wasn’t specifically codified, but prosecutors would not prosecute because juries would not convict, and no one bitched “jury nullification”. It was expected.

  280. @Anonymous

    If Mickey Mouse attached a D to his name before ca. ’64, he’d have won the South.
     
    Not exactly true. Truman lost some of the deep South in '48 to Dixiecrat Strom Thurmond. That's why Stevenson had Alabama Senator and staunch segregationist Sparkman on the ticket in the following election.

    My point is that contemporary political alignments don't map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties in the 50s, and in some respects each party was more or less conservative or liberal than the other party.

    My point is that contemporary political alignments don’t map perfectly with the electoral politics of the past. There were liberals and conservatives in both parties in the 50s, and in some respects each party was more or less conservative or liberal than the other party.

    In one of his more useful pieces, Ta-Nehisi Coates elaborates:

    https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/04/a-history-of-liberal-white-racism/275113/

  281. @James Forrestal

    It’s almost as if our traditional sexual mores were constructed the way they were for a reason, but the problem is that like with a lot of things the people who knew the most about them wrote the least about them — probably because most of them were “naturals” and not intellectuals who could really create coherent thoughts on these subjects.
     
    The people who knew the most about the rationale for traditional sexual mores are long-dead, and too few people have the sense to take the "Chesterton's Fence"* approach -- rather than even attempting to understand the reason for them, they prefer to take the simplistic approach of attributing them to an all-encompassing conspiracy involving all of the evil menz throughout history, "oppressing" da wimmenz for no reason. It's easier than any sort of deep analysis -- and no attempt at a sociological explanation in the current year can be taken seriously without some sort of oppressor/ victim narrative, anyway.

    To look at it another way: regarding traditional societal mores (or other aspects of societal structure) as the product of one-time, top-down, conscious design may be the wrong model anyway. Another way to achieve the same result (that, until recently, advanced societies were governed by similarly restrictive sexual mores) is that they are simply an emergent property of advanced societies, or the product of a kind of "cultural evolution" -- societies without these features did not last, or at least did not make it to any advanced level... because they didn't work, or at least didn't scale.

    Some of this disdain for traditional, organically-"evolved" solutions to problems of human behavior/ societal structure may trace back to what Bruce Charlton calls the "clever sillies" issue -- the tendency of people with above-average levels of abstract intelligence to overuse that facility to "solve" issues that have already been addressed by a combination of instinct and societal structures whose origins may be unclear to casual analysis.
    https://medicalhypotheses.blogspot.com/2009/11/clever-sillies-why-high-iq-lack-common.html

    But these "irrational," "unfair," "oppressive" institutions are the emergent product of hundreds (or thousands) of years of endlessly repeated interactions of human instincts with the problems of forming large-scale, advanced human societies. Are they optimal? Perhaps not. Are we likely to end up with better solutions by blindly sweeping them away, and designing a utopia from the ground up, based on the concept that the old rules only existed because everyone in human history prior to the current year was simply evil, and motivated by hatred? Highly unlikely.

    * “In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

    “This paradox rests on the most elementary common sense. The gate or fence did not grow there. It was not set up by somnambulists who built it in their sleep. It is highly improbable that it was put there by escaped lunatics who were for some reason loose in the street. Some person had some reason for thinking it would be a good thing for somebody. And until we know what the reason was, we really cannot judge whether the reason was reasonable. It is extremely probable that we have overlooked some whole aspect of the question, if something set up by human beings like ourselves seems to be entirely meaningless and mysterious. There are reformers who get over this difficulty by assuming that all their fathers were fools; but if that be so, we can only say that folly appears to be a hereditary disease. But the truth is that nobody has any business to destroy a social institution until he has really seen it as an historical institution. If he knows how it arose, and what purposes it was supposed to serve, he may really be able to say that they were bad purposes, that they have since become bad purposes, or that they are purposes which are no longer served. But if he simply stares at the thing as a senseless monstrosity that has somehow sprung up in his path, it is he and not the traditionalist who is suffering from an illusion.”

    Thanks JF. I’m not sure i’d heard the whole Chesterton’s fence thing before, though it tickled enough neurons that maybe you or another commenter had brought it to my attention before.

    The thing that I figured out as a somewhat mature but still young man–and the way I’ve put this to my kids:

    Both genes and culture have evolved.

    Our various culture practices–mores, traditions–especially around critical things like marriage are not arbitrary but are the way they are because down through the centuries doing them that way “worked”–i.e. was a society/culture that could survive and reproduce itself.

    The thing i came to understand later, reading Steve–but blatantly obvious once you understand it–is that in fact it is gene/culture co-evolution. Different peoples, different races, nations, tribes, castes are evolved with–fitting–their culture that is evolving with them.

    They have the physiology–things like lactose tolerance or alcohol tolerance–but more importantly the mental infrastructure–IQ, conscientiousness, cooperation, time preference, ability to restrain violence, etc. etc. etc.–that “work” with the culture–it’s modes or production and organization–in which they live.

    Gene-culture co-evolution. That’s the essence of “who we are”.

  282. @AndrewR
    "wall" is a manosphere term denoting the point at which a woman is past her fertility/attractiveness peak

    I think it means when a person’s sexual/romantic/dating market value declines to zero; they are invisible to any member of the opposite sex with options. Women’s attractiveness peaks at about the time of highest fertility, generally in their early 20s. Sexual market value generally falls pretty fast after 30-32, although some women may hit the Wall as early as their twenties (obesity and alcohol) while some can maintain a measure of sexual market value into their forties, if they stay normal weight and make an effort to keep themselves up otherwise. Since the criteria for men’s sexual market value are much more varied, their collision with the wall could be as early as their teens or as late as their seventies.

  283. @Logan
    There's something you don't see every day. A female drummer!

    There’s something you don’t see every day. A female drummer!

    Her name was Ann (‘Honey’) Lantree and she worked as a hairdresser assistant, hence the punning name of the group Honey combs. It was a number one hit in England (and a one hit wonder) and has some sonic similarities to Telstar which was recorded in the same apartment.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    This was, as with "Telstar", a Joe Meek project. Meek was a really weird dude who wound up offing himself and his landlady in a bizarre incident:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Meek


    Robert George "Joe" Meek (5 April 1929 – 3 February 1967[5]) was an English record producer, sound engineer and songwriter who pioneered space age and experimental pop music. He also assisted the development of recording practices like overdubbing, sampling and reverb.[6] Meek is considered one of the most influential sound engineers of all time, being one of the first to develop ideas such as the use of recording studios as instruments, and being recognized for his individual identity as an artist.[7]

    Meek's charting singles he produced for other artists include "Johnny Remember Me" (John Leyton, 1961), "Just Like Eddie" (Heinz, 1963), "Angela Jones" (Michael Cox, 1963), "Have I the Right?" (the Honeycombs, 1964), and "Tribute to Buddy Holly" (Mike Berry, 1961). The Tornados' instrumental "Telstar" (1962), written and produced by Meek, became the first record by a British rock group to reach number one in the US Hot 100.[8] It also spent five weeks at number one in the UK singles chart, with Meek receiving an Ivor Novello Award for this production as the "Best-Selling A-Side" of 1962. He also produced music for films such as Live It Up! (US title Sing and Swing, 1963), a pop music film. Meek's concept album I Hear a New World (1960), which contains innovative use of electronic sounds, was not fully released in his lifetime.

    His reputation for experiments in recording music was acknowledged by the Music Producers Guild who in 2009 created "The Joe Meek Award for Innovation in Production" as an "homage to [the] remarkable producer's pioneering spirit".[9] In 2014, Meek was ranked the greatest producer of all time by NME, elaborating: "Meek was a complete trailblazer, attempting endless new ideas in his search for the perfect sound. ... The legacy of his endless experimentation is writ large over most of your favourite music today."
     

    At the time of his death, Meek possessed thousands of unreleased recordings later dubbed "The Tea Chest Tapes". His commercial success as a producer was short-lived, and he gradually sank into debt and depression. On 3 February 1967, using a shotgun owned by musician Heinz Burt, Meek killed his landlady Violet Shenton and then shot himself.

    Also from Wikipedia:


    The group started in November 1963 as an amateur band founded by Martin Murray.[1][2] Its members were Murray, a hairdresser, his salon assistant Honey Lantree,[5] her brother John and two friends.[1] Originally they called themselves the Sheratons.[6]

    The group played dates in the West End of London, and at the Mildmay Tavern,[7] a North London pub.[2] Among those attending an appearance of the band in February 1964 were aspiring songwriters Ken Howard and Alan Blaikley.[1] Howard and Blaikley would become a prolific British songwriting team, writing songs recorded by Dave Dee, Dozy, Beaky, Mick and Tich, the Herd, Lulu and even Elvis Presley, but in 1964 they had just started their career.[8] They got into conversation with the group, which appeared interested in a few songs the duo had just written.[1] The group had already arranged an audition with indie record producer Joe Meek.[1] The audition resulted in a recording of Howard and Blaikley's "Have I the Right?".[9] Meek himself provided the B-side, "Please Don't Pretend Again".

    Meek used his apartment at 304 Holloway Road, Islington, as a recording studio. Three UK No. 1 hits were produced there: "Johnny Remember Me" by John Leyton, "Telstar" by The Tornados and "Have I the Right?".[9]

    Conspicuous in "Have I the Right?" is the prominence of the drums, whose effect was enhanced by members of the group stamping their feet on the wooden stairs to the studio. Meek recorded the effect with five microphones he had fixed to the banisters with bicycle clips.[1] For the finishing touch someone beat a tambourine directly onto a microphone. The recording was also somewhat speeded up.[10]

    "Have I the Right?" was released in June 1964 on the Pye record label. Louis Benjamin (1922–1994), Pye's later chairman,[11] renamed the group as "The Honeycombs", a pun on the drummer's name and her job as a hairdresser's assistant.[12] The sales started slowly, but by the end of July the record started to climb in the UK Singles Chart.[1] Honey Lantree's status as a female drummer in a top band was as unusual then as it is now, and some questioned whether she was just a visual novelty, despite her genuine drumming ability.[13] At the end of August the record reached No. 1.[14] "Have I the Right?" was also a big success outside the UK, hitting No. 1 in Australia and Canada,[15] No. 3 in Ireland, No. 5 in the US[16] and No. 2 in the Netherlands.[17] Overall sales of the record reached a million.[2] The Honeycombs also recorded a German version of the song: "Hab ich das Recht?" Both the English and the German versions reached No 21 in the German charts: the English one in October, the German one in November 1964.[18]
     

    Meek was the subject of various documentaries and the Joemeek brand of studio equipment was named after him.

    http://www.barrycleveland.com/jm-about/

  284. @Logan
    There's something you don't see every day. A female drummer!

    Karen Carpenter was a drummer.

    • Replies: @Rosamond Vincy
    Sheila E.
  285. @Flip
    I've read that in Germany it used to be the practice in Protestant/Catholic marriages that the daughters followed their mother's religion and the sons followed their father's.

    Interesting.

    I know Germany in the 19th and well into the 20th centuries kept records of religious-identity of marriage pairings and religious-identity of children (a question demographers took special interest in), and may still to this day, so this could be confirmed in that data.

    ___________

    You got me curious. I tracked down a googleized demographic study of the Bremen census of 1900 (“Die Volkszählung vom 1. Dezember 1900 im Bremischen Staate, Volume 2″ [here]). Just one small city, but it may give some general insight.

    Bremen, 96.5% Protestant in the days when Bismarck was orchestrating German unification (1860s), had fallen to 92.5% Protestant and risen to 6.5% Catholic by year 1900, according to the census. I would speculate that a modest but disproportionately-male labor influx, likely from Poland, caused this shift. (This seems corroborated by the fact that there were so many Catholic Husband – P