Adultery Rates by Race and Sex
RSS
Search Text Case Sensitive Exact Words Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
Filtering through the archives, it looks as though it has been over a decade since we’ve put together posts on rates of extramarital sex by ethnicity, and those were presented in a clunky table rather than in graphical format. You’ve come far Ness, so it’s time to rectify that infidelity to the reader:
GSS variables used: EVSTRAY(1-2), RACECEN1(1)(2)(4-10), RELIG(1-2,4-13)(3), SEX, HISPANIC(1)(2-50)
I think I read somewhere (Razib Khan’s blog?) that class (income by proxy) played a role in percentages of non-paternity, with lower class women having a higher rate.
Would it be possible to see this data broken down by income as well?
Lower: 16.2%
Working: 14.0%
Middle: 11.2%
Upper: 14.2%
(Social class isn't the same as income, but it's a lot easier to assess in the GSS).
Asian women, the most loyal … as many of us have long known
Subhead: Waifus Hardest to Hit
Wait, how can men of every ethnicity be committing adultery more than the respective women? Who are these “extra” men committing adultery with? Other men?
Or is it a case of the smaller number of adulteresses each committing adultery with many adulterers? Regardless of the answer, ewwwww…
Men, including married ones, are more likely to use prostitutes than women are. A lot of those men are married; few of the prostitutes are.
I’m fascinated by what seems to be the different response given by Jews here, when compared to the question “Is adultery always wrong?”
It seems more inconsistent than the black response because you can know a thing is wrong and still do it, but if you think it’s not always wrong, then that makes it much easier to do.
It seems to me that if you are willing to lie to your spouse on such a level, then your response to a survey is dubious.
Or is it a case of the smaller number of adulteresses each committing adultery with many adulterers? Regardless of the answer, ewwwww...
Theoretically, non-married & “free”, i.e. not in the relationship women.
It seems more inconsistent than the black response because you can know a thing is wrong and still do it, but if you think it's not always wrong, then that makes it much easier to do.
It seems to me that if you are willing to lie to your spouse on such a level, then your response to a survey is dubious.
I don’t think skydiving is wrong, but I don’t do it.
More seriously, I think this is reflecting the standard upper-middle-class (and higher) combination of official nonjudgmentalism and conservative behavior (commented on by many a conservative). Thanks to the 60s, nobody wants to say relations between consenting adults are wrong, but adultery leads to divorce, and divorce to division of assets and kids (which might hurt their chances at Harvard–much as everyone here loves to hate on the elites, and rightly so in many cases, they do look after their offspring most of the time.)
Jews are richer (duh) and live in big cities (duh), so their responses load on those of the well-off and liberal. (They also had a huge role in making those responses part of the culture, of course.)
The problem, of course, is that the lower class absorbs this but doesn’t have the sense to realize their betters are lying to themselves and others, and sleeps around, with the attendant broken families.
So are Asian men (among men in any case).
Yeah, but they’re only a couple percentage points below whites/hispanics, yet Asian males are actually the most likely to adulterate relative to their group’s females. 16.9% vs. 4.8? Wow.
I’d guess that higher-IQ (and/or more neurotic) people are more likely to overthink questions in the format “is X always wrong,” mentally changing it to “can you imagine some scenario where X wouldn’t be wrong?”
My takeaway is that greater impulsivity (and lower conscientiousness?) is likely the cause of different rates of infidelity, moreso than any difference in moral convictions.
If your husbands addicted to heroin and running the streets, and you haven't seen him in months, is it really "adultery" to get involved in another relationship?
To what extent is there an Asian underclass to speak of?
Maybe the Asian women enthusiasts are onto something
And likely disappointed on both counts.
Wait, does this data control for whether permission was granted?
A lot of whites, for instance, are okay with open relationships or the like. Can’t imagine South Asians or East Asians being so receptive.
Strange to see the Jewish numbers so low. The post on approval of adultery had them approving of it more than most other groups.
I'm ripping that off from another thread I haven't gotten to responding to yet because it's a great way to make sense of these patterns.
Maybe the Asian women enthusiasts are onto something
And likely disappointed on both counts.
Would it be possible to see this data broken down by income as well?
I just did a quick look based on education level(DEGREE) the differences weren’t that large and it was a zig zag; low for high school dropouts high for high school grads low for college grads high for people with a graduate degree.
It seems more inconsistent than the black response because you can know a thing is wrong and still do it, but if you think it's not always wrong, then that makes it much easier to do.
It seems to me that if you are willing to lie to your spouse on such a level, then your response to a survey is dubious.
I am against adultery as much as anyone because it distorts the sexual market. I especially have a problem with husbands who cheat, wives who stay in their marriages knowing their husbands cheat, and women who sleep with married men. I don’t know of anyone, including conservative Christians, who has such animosity towards these groups.
Any form of polygamy, soft or hard, is an existential threat to social stability and performance of the bottom half of men.
Rather than the tired socon rhetoric of GayPride being a threat to family formation, the rise of no-fault divorce and de-facto abolition of criminal penalties for adultery are more on point.
It's also probably the sole part of Peterson "enforced monogamy" that has any hope of being legislated.
And likely disappointed on both counts.
Spotted the jilted white/Jewish woman!
Asian women are the most desired women in America and the world.
https://i.imgur.com/HFBVPPN_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
10 years older is the upper limit for most women, so men peaking at 45-50 only means they get a lot of attention from 35-40 and older. Time is cruel. If Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp look washed-up and bound to have mostly nostalgic value to fans, the rest of guys have even less reason to look forward to their silver fox days. If they stay sober and have the right bone structure their face may actually age better than these actors', but they're probably not as rich, so the odds still aren't in their favor. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, old Time is still a-flying.
Men's age preference is supposed to offend women in redpillers' imagination, but in fact no one is shocked that the cosmetology industry is all about faking early 20s. Cosmetics and plastic surgery discussions between women in thematic communities are brutally naturalistic. Every sagging patch of skin you notice, they already know the medical name of it and the tricks how to lift it back. If there is an offended reaction to some outspoken youth-loving guy - it's not because they're deluded about their looks, it's that they don't want a member of the audience peeking backstage.
Wasn’t it Charles Murray who said that the upper US classes “talk Sixties and live Fifties” ?
https://unherd.com/thepost/elites-dont-preach-what-they-practise/And here is a comment from Steve Sailer in 2013:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2013/04/23/charles-murrays-coming-apart-and-the-measurement-of-social-and-political-divisions/#comment-145238
From the perspective of beta male empowerment, social sanctions, if not criminal penalties, against extramarital sex would need to be recovered.
Any form of polygamy, soft or hard, is an existential threat to social stability and performance of the bottom half of men.
Rather than the tired socon rhetoric of GayPride being a threat to family formation, the rise of no-fault divorce and de-facto abolition of criminal penalties for adultery are more on point.
It’s also probably the sole part of Peterson “enforced monogamy” that has any hope of being legislated.
So 30 years of rap music has had a social impact on those who perform and listen to it.
A lot of whites, for instance, are okay with open relationships or the like. Can't imagine South Asians or East Asians being so receptive.
Really? A lot? Surely not. Yuck.
They’re probably more likely to use prostitutes.
On an online dating service.
Only because Asian female rate is so low.
I meant for each racial/ethnic group. Not by class for the gen pop.
For White women high school drop outs, high school grads and women with graduate degrees have similar levels with lower levels for women with bachelors degrees.
For black women high school grads have the highest rate bachelors holders the lowest with high school drop outs and and women with grad degrees in between.
For White men high school grads have a higher rate of cheating everyone else is about the same.
There aren't adequate for Hispanics Asians or black men.
Lower: 18.9%
Working: 14.1%
Middle: 11.8%
Upper: 10.4%
Any form of polygamy, soft or hard, is an existential threat to social stability and performance of the bottom half of men.
Rather than the tired socon rhetoric of GayPride being a threat to family formation, the rise of no-fault divorce and de-facto abolition of criminal penalties for adultery are more on point.
It's also probably the sole part of Peterson "enforced monogamy" that has any hope of being legislated.
Fukk “social sanctions.” Those will only be applied to women. Criminal penalties would be fine with me, though. Wife empowerment.
Some of the comments around these parts are the sorts of things you'd have expected in Salem Massachusetts back in the good old days.
So you have finally noticed that your fellow travelers on the right (WNs included) think that it is much "worse" when a woman commits adultery than when a man does?
Ours is not a society where men hold primacy in marriage. Incidence of divorce confirms it.
The terms "bastard" and "cuckold" have different powers.
Lol this age graph.
https://i.imgur.com/HFBVPPN_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
10 years older is the upper limit for most women, so men peaking at 45-50 only means they get a lot of attention from 35-40 and older. Time is cruel. If Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp look washed-up and bound to have mostly nostalgic value to fans, the rest of guys have even less reason to look forward to their silver fox days. If they stay sober and have the right bone structure their face may actually age better than these actors’, but they’re probably not as rich, so the odds still aren’t in their favor. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, old Time is still a-flying.
Men’s age preference is supposed to offend women in redpillers’ imagination, but in fact no one is shocked that the cosmetology industry is all about faking early 20s. Cosmetics and plastic surgery discussions between women in thematic communities are brutally naturalistic. Every sagging patch of skin you notice, they already know the medical name of it and the tricks how to lift it back. If there is an offended reaction to some outspoken youth-loving guy – it’s not because they’re deluded about their looks, it’s that they don’t want a member of the audience peeking backstage.
These data are interesting, but without more information on the circumstances of the extramarital relationship, it doesn’t mean much. How much of lower Asian female cheating has to do with lower Asian male pathology?
If your husbands addicted to heroin and running the streets, and you haven’t seen him in months, is it really “adultery” to get involved in another relationship?
To what extent is there an Asian underclass to speak of?
https://i.imgur.com/HFBVPPN_d.webp?maxwidth=640&shape=thumb&fidelity=medium
10 years older is the upper limit for most women, so men peaking at 45-50 only means they get a lot of attention from 35-40 and older. Time is cruel. If Brad Pitt and Johnny Depp look washed-up and bound to have mostly nostalgic value to fans, the rest of guys have even less reason to look forward to their silver fox days. If they stay sober and have the right bone structure their face may actually age better than these actors', but they're probably not as rich, so the odds still aren't in their favor. Gather ye rosebuds while ye may, old Time is still a-flying.
Men's age preference is supposed to offend women in redpillers' imagination, but in fact no one is shocked that the cosmetology industry is all about faking early 20s. Cosmetics and plastic surgery discussions between women in thematic communities are brutally naturalistic. Every sagging patch of skin you notice, they already know the medical name of it and the tricks how to lift it back. If there is an offended reaction to some outspoken youth-loving guy - it's not because they're deluded about their looks, it's that they don't want a member of the audience peeking backstage.
This point is too subtle for most of these manosphere half-wits to understand. They really think they’re going to spend their fifties beating off (lol) 20 year olds with a stick.
Nous vivons à 20 ans d'écart
Notre amour est démesuré
Et j'ai le cœur au désespoir
Pour ces années
Car lorsque mes yeux seront clos
D'autres yeux vont te contempler
Aussi je lutte avec ce mot de ma pensée ...
https://www.paroles.net/charles-aznavour/paroles-qui
But this destiny is for special people, not for the "pussy pussy pussy send nudes" crowd.
Limiting it to those born in the US
For White women high school drop outs, high school grads and women with graduate degrees have similar levels with lower levels for women with bachelors degrees.
For black women high school grads have the highest rate bachelors holders the lowest with high school drop outs and and women with grad degrees in between.
For White men high school grads have a higher rate of cheating everyone else is about the same.
There aren’t adequate for Hispanics Asians or black men.
As usual, the reality is middle ground. Men’s biological clocks, while real, are not as sharp as a woman’s because we don’t give birth (that elementary fact from which all other basic inter-sex relations realities stem), and there is an unmistakable shift in who has the power in the dating game when you transition from your 20s to your 30s. But the man still needs to be an attractive, accomplished dude to net a quality woman, and the older you get, the more stringent this is going to become. If you want to date younger, that’s fine, but you’d better be ready to compete with younger guys, with all that implies.
Put another way, if you are a 33, 34 year old man and want to date a woman who is 29, 30 years old, that’s reasonably achievable assuming you’ve taken care of yourself. If you are 50 years old and want to date a 25 year old, for most guys, you’d better have millions of dollars in the bank if you want that to happen: and the kind of woman who that attracts is not going to be a great long term partner.
(As a side note, this is a huge part of the problem of keeping women in science in the States. A man can start a family in his late 30s without any trouble, provided he has a fertile partner. Whereas if you are a single, childless woman at the same age, biology is going to force you to make some hard, quick, “now or never” decisions if you want kids. I should also note that there are countries that reconcile maternity to scientific careers a lot better than the US does. Germany and Israel are standouts in particular, and China’s gotten way better here over the past decade.)
>If your husbands addicted to heroin and running the streets, and you haven’t seen him in months, is it really “adultery” to get involved in another relationship?
Unless the woman herself is a total basketcase, which is often the case, she’ll typically leave well before it gets to that point. A lot of men will put up with being with a woman distinctly below their level. It doesn’t usually happen the other away around, for all the reasons you’d expect.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they're rich cougars.
It doesn't matter how little you have going for you if you're rich.
She’ll be a great long term partner as long as the guy maintains frame and keeps up with the lifestyle. Which is exactly the same as any relationship.
Any form of polygamy, soft or hard, is an existential threat to social stability and performance of the bottom half of men.
Rather than the tired socon rhetoric of GayPride being a threat to family formation, the rise of no-fault divorce and de-facto abolition of criminal penalties for adultery are more on point.
It's also probably the sole part of Peterson "enforced monogamy" that has any hope of being legislated.
Homosexuals have become the new black people in terms of media representation: people overestimate how numerically frequent they are.
Polygamy, on the other hand, would effect everybody. It’d be vastly socially destructive in a modernized society, unless you are ready to resort to never-pretty measures to neutralize the inevitable population of surplus males: and I don’t think those measures would go over well in a culture completely not used to them. “Give them more porn and weed” is not a realistic long term sustainable answer, and brings its own socially deleterious effects.
I don’t care about the philosophy of it all: one does not pose a threat to societal stability, the other does. That’s more than enough in my books to tolerate one and curtail the other. If the lawyers say otherwise, well, one more example why the US needs to put an end to rule-by-lawyer.
Oh, I don’t know about that. Hope springs eternal, and many women get trapped in the sunk cost fallacy. I have seen women put up with totally unacceptable crap for years before finally giving up and moving on.
Maybe we could stone adulterers to death. And adulteresses (we have to be fair and make sure both are treated equally).
Some of the comments around these parts are the sorts of things you’d have expected in Salem Massachusetts back in the good old days.
We impose criminal penalities for failure to pay child support, I feel its fair to impose them for adultery as well.
If people want "consensual non-monagamy" they can forego the legal benefits of marriage.
An attractive, accomplished dude. Or a rich one.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they’re rich cougars.
It doesn’t matter how little you have going for you if you’re rich.
As an aside, the best film I’ve ever seen about a younger man, older woman romance is White Castle with James Spader and Susan Sarandon.
I’m not sure how reliable these kinds of surveys are. People lie.
Any form of polygamy, soft or hard, is an existential threat to social stability and performance of the bottom half of men.
Rather than the tired socon rhetoric of GayPride being a threat to family formation, the rise of no-fault divorce and de-facto abolition of criminal penalties for adultery are more on point.
It's also probably the sole part of Peterson "enforced monogamy" that has any hope of being legislated.
I see little benefit to empowering the bottom half of men.
Many women feel the same. Wait, when you say the bottom half ...
I’ve seen women excuse away truly awful behavior, too, from relatives to friends. But I’ve noticed there’s a difference between them and their male counterparts: generally speaking, the woman deeply, deeply loves the man, and is often under the illusion that said man can be transformed solely through their love and attention. Men, on the other hand, will do this with women they might not be particularly enthusiastic about if they perceive their odds on the dating market are not going to be good.
(Whenever I’ve talked to women about what dating is like as a man, I got the impression that they never really absorbed that dating is not “fun” for average men. It’s something you want to get over with ASAP: get in, find the first reasonable woman who says yes, and get the hell out. I guess this shouldn’t be shocking: I still have to actively remind myself that unsolicited attention would get very annoying if I received it constantly from 13 years old onwards…)
To use a manosphere term, women have more options than their male counterparts at a similar “SMV” level. That’s just biology at work, so it is nobody’s fault, but it is reality: a cursory survey of any online dating website will illustrate this explicitly.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they're rich cougars.
It doesn't matter how little you have going for you if you're rich.
>An attractive, accomplished dude. Or a rich one.
They don’t need help regardless of their age, any more than truly beautiful women do.
For a guy who might have been awkward and penniless at 20 but who has his act together and has accumulated a lot of resources by 30, very different story.
>Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they’re rich cougars.
Oh, I can *personally* vouch that this isn’t true…
Those will only be applied to women.
So you have finally noticed that your fellow travelers on the right (WNs included) think that it is much “worse” when a woman commits adultery than when a man does?
I see little benefit to empowering the bottom half of men.
Many women feel the same. Wait, when you say the bottom half …
Just a c-p that somehow puts all this in perspective:
My wife has the Triple Negative BRACA II gene. Diagnosed and found spot on her Birthday 2016, She then had to endure double mastectomy, hysterectomy, removed gall bladder, IV port installed and removed, reconstruction and 3 months of red devil chemotherapy, lost her gorgeous hair, constant vomiting, all in 8 months of 2016. She is the very definition of a HERO, BRAVE, COURAGEOUS and FIGHTER. Now 4 years removed and in remission. ALL GLORY TO GOD IN THE HIGHEST FOR HEALING AND THANK YOU CLEVELAND CLINIC for the excellent care of my love, my life and my best friend.
So you have finally noticed that your fellow travelers on the right (WNs included) think that it is much "worse" when a woman commits adultery than when a man does?
You think I wasn’t aware of that?
And they actually think there is a rational justification for it. That is, they think adultery by a woman harms a man more than the reverse. That may have been true at some point, but it isn’t now that there are paternity tests that can establish that your husband is the father of another woman’s baby.
Imagine your husband (i.e. you) being required to send a check to your husband’s mistress every month.
Put it this way - I think that if it's the wife committing the adultery the odds that the marriage will eventually break up are probably higher than if it's the husband committing the adultery.
There's no actual moral difference between adultery committed by a man or a woman. But as I've explained elsewhere my view of morality is strictly pragmatic and utilitarian. For example I don't see a moral problem with a man (or a woman) committing adultery if their spouse agrees to permit it and if they're confident they can keep the extra-marital sex purely on the level of sex. I also don't see a moral problem with a married women visiting prostitutes if his wife permits it.
And on the subject of sexual morality, as for prostitution, I can see problems with it but for me they're practical problems rather than moral problems. As long as the woman is not coerced into prostitution I have no moral problems with it.
I guess you could say the same about my view of adultery - the problems I see with it are practical rather than moral ones. For most couples it's something that will pose a serious threat to their marriage but if a married couple comes to an arrangement by which it can happen without wrecking the marriage then I see no objections to it. I think open marriages are mostly likely to fail but if two people can make it work good luck to them.
I'm not a Christian so for me personally it would be irrational to view sexual morality in Christian terms.
I’m not talking about the individuals. They, and others, think that it is more harmful to “society” when women commit adultery than when men do.
It would be interesting to find an original source for that quote. Hear is an article talking about a variant:
https://unherd.com/thepost/elites-dont-preach-what-they-practise/
And here is a comment from Steve Sailer in 2013:
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2013/04/23/charles-murrays-coming-apart-and-the-measurement-of-social-and-political-divisions/#comment-145238
That goes a long way toward explaining the Black homicide rate. . .
I accept the reality of sincere love of a 20-something for a man of great talent and wit. Like an intern and her professor (who is not rich, at least not in every country). It’s a tragedy because one will leave another too soon (and she will not dance on his coffin celebrating inheritance), but it’s somewhat beautiful because they dare to love in defiance of Time itself.
Nous vivons à 20 ans d’écart
Notre amour est démesuré
Et j’ai le cœur au désespoir
Pour ces années
Car lorsque mes yeux seront clos
D’autres yeux vont te contempler
Aussi je lutte avec ce mot de ma pensée …
https://www.paroles.net/charles-aznavour/paroles-qui
But this destiny is for special people, not for the “pussy pussy pussy send nudes” crowd.
Another example of extreme cope posting
She’ll be a great long term partner as long as the guy maintains frame and keeps up with the lifestyle. Which is exactly the same as any relationship.
She’ll be a great long term partner as long as the guy maintains frame and keeps up with the lifestyle. Which is exactly the same as any relationship.
You missed nebulafox’s point, which is that prostitutes generally aren’t known for loyalty. Any man dumb enough to marry a girl young enough to be his daughter richly deserves everything he gets when she takes him to the cleaners.
Samuel Johnson in the 18th century:
It’s simply astonishing how you always find a way to blame men.
Ours is not a society where men hold primacy in marriage. Incidence of divorce confirms it.
The terms “bastard” and “cuckold” have different powers.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they're rich cougars.
It doesn't matter how little you have going for you if you're rich.
This is far less common. “Sugaring” is overwhelmingly male. Female sex tourism is also an (multiple?) order of magnitude lower than the male variant.
Some of the comments around these parts are the sorts of things you'd have expected in Salem Massachusetts back in the good old days.
Even a symbolic jail sentence of a week/month would be meaningful, imo.
We impose criminal penalities for failure to pay child support, I feel its fair to impose them for adultery as well.
If people want “consensual non-monagamy” they can forego the legal benefits of marriage.
Ours is not a society where men hold primacy in marriage. Incidence of divorce confirms it.
The terms "bastard" and "cuckold" have different powers.
How exactly did I blame men? And what did I blame them for? All I said is that I don’t like the old double standard and don’t want to go back. It’s a matter of simple justice.
How does divorce prove that men “don’t have primacy in marriage”? I’m not saying they do, by the way. I’m just asking you to explain your reasoning.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they're rich cougars.
It doesn't matter how little you have going for you if you're rich.
I disagree. Cougars will date if not marry beta or semi-beta young men who have trouble pulling attractive young women but will not turn down a reasonably fit 30s-40s woman. If she’s down for lots of sex, you can look past the smile lines. These kind of couple can work fine as a short term relationship, but have troubles over the long term.
As an aside, the best film I’ve ever seen about a younger man, older woman romance is White Castle with James Spader and Susan Sarandon.
They still look like little boys though.
I don’t think adultery by a woman necessarily harms a man more than the reverse. I think adultery by a woman often harms the woman (and especially the marriage) more than the reverse. Woman are not (in general) programmed to enjoy casual sex without emotional complications. Men (to a large extent) can enjoy casual sex without emotional complications. Of course there are exceptions among both men and women.
Put it this way – I think that if it’s the wife committing the adultery the odds that the marriage will eventually break up are probably higher than if it’s the husband committing the adultery.
There’s no actual moral difference between adultery committed by a man or a woman. But as I’ve explained elsewhere my view of morality is strictly pragmatic and utilitarian. For example I don’t see a moral problem with a man (or a woman) committing adultery if their spouse agrees to permit it and if they’re confident they can keep the extra-marital sex purely on the level of sex. I also don’t see a moral problem with a married women visiting prostitutes if his wife permits it.
And on the subject of sexual morality, as for prostitution, I can see problems with it but for me they’re practical problems rather than moral problems. As long as the woman is not coerced into prostitution I have no moral problems with it.
I guess you could say the same about my view of adultery – the problems I see with it are practical rather than moral ones. For most couples it’s something that will pose a serious threat to their marriage but if a married couple comes to an arrangement by which it can happen without wrecking the marriage then I see no objections to it. I think open marriages are mostly likely to fail but if two people can make it work good luck to them.
I’m not a Christian so for me personally it would be irrational to view sexual morality in Christian terms.
The social contract dictates that a responsible man who plays by the rules of society should have a more than reasonable chance of getting and staying married. In post-industrial Western society, this claim cannot be verified. So it is not surprising that "beta rage" is increasing along with general social disengagement.The john is exploiting the prostitute. The prostitute is exploiting the john. The pimp or madam is exploiting the prostitute. It's exploitation all the way down. Consent is a lie made of liberal pablum.
If we are going to tolerate prostitution, the only reasonable method is a state-run brothel. Such will ensure quality control, safety standards, minimum of exploitation, and diversion of profits away from sex workers and organized crime, and into the Treasury.It is the mos maiorum, to privately not agree is one thing, but to attack it publicly has brought society to the brink.
Everybody knows this. I’m not sure what your point is.
Put it this way - I think that if it's the wife committing the adultery the odds that the marriage will eventually break up are probably higher than if it's the husband committing the adultery.
There's no actual moral difference between adultery committed by a man or a woman. But as I've explained elsewhere my view of morality is strictly pragmatic and utilitarian. For example I don't see a moral problem with a man (or a woman) committing adultery if their spouse agrees to permit it and if they're confident they can keep the extra-marital sex purely on the level of sex. I also don't see a moral problem with a married women visiting prostitutes if his wife permits it.
And on the subject of sexual morality, as for prostitution, I can see problems with it but for me they're practical problems rather than moral problems. As long as the woman is not coerced into prostitution I have no moral problems with it.
I guess you could say the same about my view of adultery - the problems I see with it are practical rather than moral ones. For most couples it's something that will pose a serious threat to their marriage but if a married couple comes to an arrangement by which it can happen without wrecking the marriage then I see no objections to it. I think open marriages are mostly likely to fail but if two people can make it work good luck to them.
I'm not a Christian so for me personally it would be irrational to view sexual morality in Christian terms.
It’s about norms, and de-norming. Marriage is supposed to have certain religious and property qualifications, which modernity has perverted. Tolerating soft polygamy is not much different than hard polygamy, only that the losers don’t see an open betrayal.
The social contract dictates that a responsible man who plays by the rules of society should have a more than reasonable chance of getting and staying married. In post-industrial Western society, this claim cannot be verified. So it is not surprising that “beta rage” is increasing along with general social disengagement.
The john is exploiting the prostitute. The prostitute is exploiting the john. The pimp or madam is exploiting the prostitute. It’s exploitation all the way down. Consent is a lie made of liberal pablum.
If we are going to tolerate prostitution, the only reasonable method is a state-run brothel. Such will ensure quality control, safety standards, minimum of exploitation, and diversion of profits away from sex workers and organized crime, and into the Treasury.
It is the mos maiorum, to privately not agree is one thing, but to attack it publicly has brought society to the brink.
As for the property qualifications, you're confusing polygamy and adultery. They are not the same thing.True, but not very relevant to a discussion of adultery. I don't think that toleration of adultery in certain circumstances is going to have a huge effect on a responsible man's chances of getting married.How? He has something she wants (money). She has something he wants (her lady parts on a temporary basis). They come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. How is that exploitation? If you have a lawn mower that I want and I offer you money for it are we exploiting each other?I have no great problems with that. Except for the part about diverting the profits away from the sex workers. That would certainly be exploitation. They should be entitled to the fruits of their labours. There's also the minor problem that what do you do if your town doesn't have a state brothel? It would be simpler to just licence prostitutes, and allow the price to be decided between the prostitute and her client. Diverting profits away from organised crime would definitely be a good thing.
By the way, I detest the PC term sex workers. They're prostitutes.
We impose criminal penalities for failure to pay child support, I feel its fair to impose them for adultery as well.
If people want "consensual non-monagamy" they can forego the legal benefits of marriage.
You’re living in a dream world. You actually think you can recreate the Puritan society of the 17th century? You actually want a totalitarian theocratic police state and you think people in general would welcome that?
The social contract dictates that a responsible man who plays by the rules of society should have a more than reasonable chance of getting and staying married. In post-industrial Western society, this claim cannot be verified. So it is not surprising that "beta rage" is increasing along with general social disengagement.The john is exploiting the prostitute. The prostitute is exploiting the john. The pimp or madam is exploiting the prostitute. It's exploitation all the way down. Consent is a lie made of liberal pablum.
If we are going to tolerate prostitution, the only reasonable method is a state-run brothel. Such will ensure quality control, safety standards, minimum of exploitation, and diversion of profits away from sex workers and organized crime, and into the Treasury.It is the mos maiorum, to privately not agree is one thing, but to attack it publicly has brought society to the brink.
We no longer live in a religious society. That’s the reality. You might not like it but you can’t change it. You cannot impose a religious view of marriage on a non-religious population. It ain’t gonna work.
As for the property qualifications, you’re confusing polygamy and adultery. They are not the same thing.
True, but not very relevant to a discussion of adultery. I don’t think that toleration of adultery in certain circumstances is going to have a huge effect on a responsible man’s chances of getting married.
How? He has something she wants (money). She has something he wants (her lady parts on a temporary basis). They come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. How is that exploitation? If you have a lawn mower that I want and I offer you money for it are we exploiting each other?
I have no great problems with that. Except for the part about diverting the profits away from the sex workers. That would certainly be exploitation. They should be entitled to the fruits of their labours. There’s also the minor problem that what do you do if your town doesn’t have a state brothel? It would be simpler to just licence prostitutes, and allow the price to be decided between the prostitute and her client. Diverting profits away from organised crime would definitely be a good thing.
By the way, I detest the PC term sex workers. They’re prostitutes.
Women’s adultery is definitely much worse than men’s. For a variety of reasons.
Let’s see. I get married. I work my butt off. I accumulate property and children. My wife is seduced (let’s say) by another man. Wife divorces me. She gets the house. And the kids. And new boyfriend moves into the house and is telling the kids to call him “Dad”.
But this is not criminal? I am not entitled to damages for this foul and destructive behavior?
Now, instead of marriage, let’s say that a partner and I had built a business. But then a third party – perhaps a competitor – comes along and offers inducements to my partner to break the contract, destroying my business and impoverishing me.
Should I be entitled to sue the third party for damages? Should there potentially be criminal charges? I believe yes to both.
The social and legal message should be this: Leave other people’s spouses alone. And their kids. And everything they have spent their lives building. There is plenty of unattached snatch out there. Go sniff around that.
Fact is, it should be legally possible to sh00t such scum.
If you look at my comments the furthest I've gone is to say that I don't think it's necessarily a major problem if a husband has sex outside of a marriage if his wife is prepared to permit him to do so. Conversely I don't think it's necessarily the end of the world if a wife has sex outside of a marriage if her husband is prepared to permit her to do so.
It's a long way from that to a situation where someone actually steals someone's wife (or husband).
The situation you've described is clearly reprehensible and destructive. But it's not the situation I described.
Human behaviour and human emotions and human sexuality are complicated things. It's difficult to make hard-and-fast rules that will apply successfully to every case.
I don't advocate adultery. I agree it's a dangerous game to play and in most cases it's likely to end very badly. It's just that I can see circumstances where, paradoxically, it may be the lesser of two evils. In certain circumstances, if for example a wife really no longer wants to have sex with her husband and is prepared to allow him to have sex outside of the marriage, it may be a choice between allowing a husband some latitude for playing around or watching the marriage disintegrate altogether.An understandable feeling in the particular circumstances you've described. But in a civilised society it's not advisable to allow people to go around shooting people.
I can't see that there's any sane realistic way that adultery could ever be regarded as a criminal matter. It's not going to happen no matter how much some people might like to fantasise about it.
Do you think that all breaches of marriage vows should be criminal matters?
It’s a civil matter.
If you look at my comments the furthest I’ve gone is to say that I don’t think it’s necessarily a major problem if a husband has sex outside of a marriage if his wife is prepared to permit him to do so. Conversely I don’t think it’s necessarily the end of the world if a wife has sex outside of a marriage if her husband is prepared to permit her to do so.
It’s a long way from that to a situation where someone actually steals someone’s wife (or husband).
The situation you’ve described is clearly reprehensible and destructive. But it’s not the situation I described.
Human behaviour and human emotions and human sexuality are complicated things. It’s difficult to make hard-and-fast rules that will apply successfully to every case.
I don’t advocate adultery. I agree it’s a dangerous game to play and in most cases it’s likely to end very badly. It’s just that I can see circumstances where, paradoxically, it may be the lesser of two evils. In certain circumstances, if for example a wife really no longer wants to have sex with her husband and is prepared to allow him to have sex outside of the marriage, it may be a choice between allowing a husband some latitude for playing around or watching the marriage disintegrate altogether.
An understandable feeling in the particular circumstances you’ve described. But in a civilised society it’s not advisable to allow people to go around shooting people.
I can’t see that there’s any sane realistic way that adultery could ever be regarded as a criminal matter. It’s not going to happen no matter how much some people might like to fantasise about it.
Do you think that all breaches of marriage vows should be criminal matters?
If you look at my comments the furthest I've gone is to say that I don't think it's necessarily a major problem if a husband has sex outside of a marriage if his wife is prepared to permit him to do so. Conversely I don't think it's necessarily the end of the world if a wife has sex outside of a marriage if her husband is prepared to permit her to do so.
It's a long way from that to a situation where someone actually steals someone's wife (or husband).
The situation you've described is clearly reprehensible and destructive. But it's not the situation I described.
Human behaviour and human emotions and human sexuality are complicated things. It's difficult to make hard-and-fast rules that will apply successfully to every case.
I don't advocate adultery. I agree it's a dangerous game to play and in most cases it's likely to end very badly. It's just that I can see circumstances where, paradoxically, it may be the lesser of two evils. In certain circumstances, if for example a wife really no longer wants to have sex with her husband and is prepared to allow him to have sex outside of the marriage, it may be a choice between allowing a husband some latitude for playing around or watching the marriage disintegrate altogether.An understandable feeling in the particular circumstances you've described. But in a civilised society it's not advisable to allow people to go around shooting people.
I can't see that there's any sane realistic way that adultery could ever be regarded as a criminal matter. It's not going to happen no matter how much some people might like to fantasise about it.
Do you think that all breaches of marriage vows should be criminal matters?
I have had the pleasure of sitting at sporting events with an innocent mother and home wrecking stepmother watching within feet of each other, air so thick with tension you could slice it with a knife.
Innocent spouses who are subjected to such indignities are entitled to some sort of satisfaction IMO. Society should show solidarity with injured spouses.
There never was a very good argument for deregulating sexuality, and still isn’t. The claim was that “you can’t regulate morality.” That’s absurd. That’s precisely what the law is supposed to do.
Of course, you are correct that people nowadays would not support anti-fornication or adultery laws.
You have to strike a balance. Where there is clearly defined real harm to an individual (rape, sodomy, etc) the law might be appropriate. In other cases I think it's inappropriate. When it comes to pre-marital and extra-marital sex I think there are too many grey areas for the law to be the appropriate solution. If a woman leaves an abusive husband and moves in with a really nice guy and doesn't wait for her divorce to come through she has technically committed adultery. Should she be prosecuted? If a man's wife is presumed lost at sea but has not yet been declared legally dead should he be prosecuted if he starts a new relationship?Apart from nutjob religious communities like the Puritans has any western society ever made fornication actually illegal? Even adultery has usually been considered a civil matter.
Do we really want the police busting a young engaged couple for not waiting for their wedding night? Do we really want them both thrown in jail? Lots of things are undesirable but they're not appropriate matters for the police.
If some people here had their way we'd see women arrested because their skirts were too short.
As for the property qualifications, you're confusing polygamy and adultery. They are not the same thing.True, but not very relevant to a discussion of adultery. I don't think that toleration of adultery in certain circumstances is going to have a huge effect on a responsible man's chances of getting married.How? He has something she wants (money). She has something he wants (her lady parts on a temporary basis). They come to a mutually satisfactory agreement. How is that exploitation? If you have a lawn mower that I want and I offer you money for it are we exploiting each other?I have no great problems with that. Except for the part about diverting the profits away from the sex workers. That would certainly be exploitation. They should be entitled to the fruits of their labours. There's also the minor problem that what do you do if your town doesn't have a state brothel? It would be simpler to just licence prostitutes, and allow the price to be decided between the prostitute and her client. Diverting profits away from organised crime would definitely be a good thing.
By the way, I detest the PC term sex workers. They're prostitutes.
Thank you for this:
I quite agree. I don’t think we should have profits, but if we’re going to, for heaven’s sake the girls ought to be able to keep their own money.
I certainly agree with that.
Regulating sexuality isn’t easy. There are obviously some areas of sexuality where the law has to be involved but the problem is that using the law is using a blunt instrument to try to solve problems that often need a more flexible approach. But clearly when it comes to rape and some other matters using a blunt instrument is justified.
You have to strike a balance. Where there is clearly defined real harm to an individual (rape, sodomy, etc) the law might be appropriate. In other cases I think it’s inappropriate. When it comes to pre-marital and extra-marital sex I think there are too many grey areas for the law to be the appropriate solution. If a woman leaves an abusive husband and moves in with a really nice guy and doesn’t wait for her divorce to come through she has technically committed adultery. Should she be prosecuted? If a man’s wife is presumed lost at sea but has not yet been declared legally dead should he be prosecuted if he starts a new relationship?
Apart from nutjob religious communities like the Puritans has any western society ever made fornication actually illegal? Even adultery has usually been considered a civil matter.
Do we really want the police busting a young engaged couple for not waiting for their wedding night? Do we really want them both thrown in jail? Lots of things are undesirable but they’re not appropriate matters for the police.
If some people here had their way we’d see women arrested because their skirts were too short.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._ZiherlI appreciate this concern, but it's not really warranted. Prosecutorial discretion, and failing that, jury nullification, is adequate to protect defendants in situations such as that.
Hmmm…
https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/a-white-teacher-speaks-out/
The difference is due to the hormone, vasopressin. That is the bonding hormone present in the males of almost all mammalian species. While Africans produce vasopressin, they do so in lower levels than do white males. After mating, this hormone is released from the male’s pituitary gland. It bonds the male to the female. This results in higher likelihood of monogamy and also what biologists call, “mate guarding”. Males of high vasopressin species, like wolves, will fight rival males to maintain breeding rights with a particular female. Males of low vasopressin mammals, like dolphins, do not fight rival males over a female and instead take turns.
African humans, like dolphins, are prone to “running a train” on a woman. This happens with far greater frequency among black men than white men, because of our hormonal differences.
"In normal human subjects on controlled salt intake, the basal secretion of vasopressin, indicated by plasma vasopressin levels and urinary excretion of vasopressin, was higher in men than in women and in blacks than in whites."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002962915365757
I've known plenty of blacks who have had no problem holding a family together. And some of them served prior time in jail for drug dealing and other harder offenses. Now I'm talking mostly Muslim guys (plenty who converted in prison and changed their life around), so my sample might be biased. But shouldn't their hormones being off-kilter make them utterly incapable of a normal monogamous married life?
Peace.
https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/a-white-teacher-speaks-out/The difference is due to the hormone, vasopressin. That is the bonding hormone present in the males of almost all mammalian species. While Africans produce vasopressin, they do so in lower levels than do white males. After mating, this hormone is released from the male's pituitary gland. It bonds the male to the female. This results in higher likelihood of monogamy and also what biologists call, "mate guarding". Males of high vasopressin species, like wolves, will fight rival males to maintain breeding rights with a particular female. Males of low vasopressin mammals, like dolphins, do not fight rival males over a female and instead take turns.
African humans, like dolphins, are prone to "running a train" on a woman. This happens with far greater frequency among black men than white men, because of our hormonal differences.
That’s a nice theory…where did you come up with it? Every science resource I find on racial differences for vassopressin states that blacks have higher amounts, for instance:
“In normal human subjects on controlled salt intake, the basal secretion of vasopressin, indicated by plasma vasopressin levels and urinary excretion of vasopressin, was higher in men than in women and in blacks than in whites.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002962915365757
I’ve known plenty of blacks who have had no problem holding a family together. And some of them served prior time in jail for drug dealing and other harder offenses. Now I’m talking mostly Muslim guys (plenty who converted in prison and changed their life around), so my sample might be biased. But shouldn’t their hormones being off-kilter make them utterly incapable of a normal monogamous married life?
Peace.
* races do exist. How we shall classify them is quite different question - do Japanese & Chinese belong to one race? Just, it seems that there are at least 4-5 "big races", with many subraces
* races do differ in their profiles, characteristics & propensities (here, they mostly talk about IQ, but more important are other physical & psychological characteristics)
* as far as blacks go, we can see that they are very successful & gifted in some (many?) sports & entertainment. They do not, as a group, excel in other areas, especially those specific & crucial to modern civilization. Individuals may be talented in any field, but as a group- it is, I think, evident that one will not find many blacks in arts (high profile), sciences (exact & social), demanding jobs in technology, military, economics,... unlike Italians, Chinese, Swedes, Russians, Vietnamese,...
* all black-inhabited areas tend to "go chaotic" with time- in the US, Brazil, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe's black ghettos. Individual blacks may be successful, prominent & respectable figures- just there are no functioning mostly black modern societies, anywhere. This is a simple empirical truth, and I tend to agree with Fred Reed (although he writes only on the US): https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/
I don't see any future for the black race. They will either be isolated from relatively "successful" races like whites & Asians, or they'll destroy human civilization - if not contained.
Perhaps genetic engineering has something in store for them, but, that remains highly speculative.
"In normal human subjects on controlled salt intake, the basal secretion of vasopressin, indicated by plasma vasopressin levels and urinary excretion of vasopressin, was higher in men than in women and in blacks than in whites."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0002962915365757
I've known plenty of blacks who have had no problem holding a family together. And some of them served prior time in jail for drug dealing and other harder offenses. Now I'm talking mostly Muslim guys (plenty who converted in prison and changed their life around), so my sample might be biased. But shouldn't their hormones being off-kilter make them utterly incapable of a normal monogamous married life?
Peace.
I just copy-pasted a comment. You may be right about vasopressin (I haven’t given it much thought). Be as it may, to me, it is evident that:
* races do exist. How we shall classify them is quite different question – do Japanese & Chinese belong to one race? Just, it seems that there are at least 4-5 “big races”, with many subraces
* races do differ in their profiles, characteristics & propensities (here, they mostly talk about IQ, but more important are other physical & psychological characteristics)
* as far as blacks go, we can see that they are very successful & gifted in some (many?) sports & entertainment. They do not, as a group, excel in other areas, especially those specific & crucial to modern civilization. Individuals may be talented in any field, but as a group- it is, I think, evident that one will not find many blacks in arts (high profile), sciences (exact & social), demanding jobs in technology, military, economics,… unlike Italians, Chinese, Swedes, Russians, Vietnamese,…
* all black-inhabited areas tend to “go chaotic” with time- in the US, Brazil, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe’s black ghettos. Individual blacks may be successful, prominent & respectable figures- just there are no functioning mostly black modern societies, anywhere. This is a simple empirical truth, and I tend to agree with Fred Reed (although he writes only on the US): https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/
I don’t see any future for the black race. They will either be isolated from relatively “successful” races like whites & Asians, or they’ll destroy human civilization – if not contained.
Perhaps genetic engineering has something in store for them, but, that remains highly speculative.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQrZLcASJwMy daughter's high school French teacher loves to travel to Senegal almost every year.Their numbers aren't in a total nosedive, I'd worry far more about whites if I was you.Well, if whites and yellows decide they don't want anything to do with them - that's OK, they aren't the only ones on the planet. There are still plenty of other brown people around they can work with. Of course, you might also consider browns to have been unsuccessful at civilization...to each his own.I'm not an expert on the subject; I was just pointing out that it seemed the actually data contradicted some of your earlier conclusions, that's all. I guess whoever you may have gotten it from isn't much of an expert either.Peace.
Have you also ever considered the possibility that the problems with blacks in the US might have something to do with America's cultural and social dysfunction?
Because if you're trying to make a racial argument you have the problem that some blacks are doing just fine, and some whites are doing very badly.
You might also want to consider the possibility that there are immense cultural and social differences within both the US black population and the US white populations. Which might, you know, offer a plausible non-racial explanation?
* races do exist. How we shall classify them is quite different question - do Japanese & Chinese belong to one race? Just, it seems that there are at least 4-5 "big races", with many subraces
* races do differ in their profiles, characteristics & propensities (here, they mostly talk about IQ, but more important are other physical & psychological characteristics)
* as far as blacks go, we can see that they are very successful & gifted in some (many?) sports & entertainment. They do not, as a group, excel in other areas, especially those specific & crucial to modern civilization. Individuals may be talented in any field, but as a group- it is, I think, evident that one will not find many blacks in arts (high profile), sciences (exact & social), demanding jobs in technology, military, economics,... unlike Italians, Chinese, Swedes, Russians, Vietnamese,...
* all black-inhabited areas tend to "go chaotic" with time- in the US, Brazil, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe's black ghettos. Individual blacks may be successful, prominent & respectable figures- just there are no functioning mostly black modern societies, anywhere. This is a simple empirical truth, and I tend to agree with Fred Reed (although he writes only on the US): https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/
I don't see any future for the black race. They will either be isolated from relatively "successful" races like whites & Asians, or they'll destroy human civilization - if not contained.
Perhaps genetic engineering has something in store for them, but, that remains highly speculative.
Sure, no problems there.
Likewise, no problems.
The jury is still out on that one as far as I’m concerned since modern civilization is so young. Of course, inability to adopt to modern civilization may itself be an advantage in the long term; the jury is still out on that too.
There are, just not perhaps to standards some Europeans consider acceptable.
I mean, for example, I have a friend from Senegal, his wife has been bugging him to move back to Senegal (around Dakar). Doesn’t seem too bad:
My daughter’s high school French teacher loves to travel to Senegal almost every year.
Their numbers aren’t in a total nosedive, I’d worry far more about whites if I was you.
Well, if whites and yellows decide they don’t want anything to do with them – that’s OK, they aren’t the only ones on the planet. There are still plenty of other brown people around they can work with. Of course, you might also consider browns to have been unsuccessful at civilization…to each his own.
I’m not an expert on the subject; I was just pointing out that it seemed the actually data contradicted some of your earlier conclusions, that’s all. I guess whoever you may have gotten it from isn’t much of an expert either.
Peace.
Please.
https://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2020/04/03/what-i-learned-in-the-peace-corps-in-africa-trump-is-right/
What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right
https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/18419.jpeg
As regards, I suppose, fertility rates- lower achieving races & cultures will have, in not so distant future, find themselves to be unsustainable & superfluous. With technology development, cyborgization & genetic engineering- along the template of idealized white race, earth does not need more than 1 to 2 billion people.
https://www.amren.com/news/2016/08/a-white-teacher-speaks-out/The difference is due to the hormone, vasopressin. That is the bonding hormone present in the males of almost all mammalian species. While Africans produce vasopressin, they do so in lower levels than do white males. After mating, this hormone is released from the male's pituitary gland. It bonds the male to the female. This results in higher likelihood of monogamy and also what biologists call, "mate guarding". Males of high vasopressin species, like wolves, will fight rival males to maintain breeding rights with a particular female. Males of low vasopressin mammals, like dolphins, do not fight rival males over a female and instead take turns.
African humans, like dolphins, are prone to "running a train" on a woman. This happens with far greater frequency among black men than white men, because of our hormonal differences.
I think you mean oxytocin, not vasopressin.
* races do exist. How we shall classify them is quite different question - do Japanese & Chinese belong to one race? Just, it seems that there are at least 4-5 "big races", with many subraces
* races do differ in their profiles, characteristics & propensities (here, they mostly talk about IQ, but more important are other physical & psychological characteristics)
* as far as blacks go, we can see that they are very successful & gifted in some (many?) sports & entertainment. They do not, as a group, excel in other areas, especially those specific & crucial to modern civilization. Individuals may be talented in any field, but as a group- it is, I think, evident that one will not find many blacks in arts (high profile), sciences (exact & social), demanding jobs in technology, military, economics,... unlike Italians, Chinese, Swedes, Russians, Vietnamese,...
* all black-inhabited areas tend to "go chaotic" with time- in the US, Brazil, the Caribbean, Africa, Europe's black ghettos. Individual blacks may be successful, prominent & respectable figures- just there are no functioning mostly black modern societies, anywhere. This is a simple empirical truth, and I tend to agree with Fred Reed (although he writes only on the US): https://www.unz.com/freed/oncoming-racial-doom-the-clash-of-cultures/
I don't see any future for the black race. They will either be isolated from relatively "successful" races like whites & Asians, or they'll destroy human civilization - if not contained.
Perhaps genetic engineering has something in store for them, but, that remains highly speculative.
I know this might be a shocking and novel thought but have you ever considered that people from societies with different cultural and social practices might have, you know, different cultural and social practices? That maybe, just maybe, culture and society might have an effect on – culture and society!
Have you also ever considered the possibility that the problems with blacks in the US might have something to do with America’s cultural and social dysfunction?
Because if you’re trying to make a racial argument you have the problem that some blacks are doing just fine, and some whites are doing very badly.
You might also want to consider the possibility that there are immense cultural and social differences within both the US black population and the US white populations. Which might, you know, offer a plausible non-racial explanation?
Race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.
So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.
Forensic anthropology is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006
Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).
These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….
As far as modern societies go, I completely agree with much maligned Jared Taylor:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
.................
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
There is not much to add.
Except, perhaps, this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly0L4QHFjhs
Race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.
So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.
Forensic anthropology is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006
Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).
These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….
As far as modern societies go, I completely agree with much maligned Jared Taylor:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
.................
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
There is not much to add.
Except, perhaps, this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly0L4QHFjhs
We've been trying to "end inequality" for over half a century now, which is about 3 whole generations in the 'hood. Our overlords are still in full "blame Whitey" mode despite nothing working to uplift the black undertow. It doesn't matter whether it's culture or genes, because most blacks have deep contempt for "actin' White" and won't even if they could. Most likely they simply can't, and trying to be something they can't be is a job they refuse to undertake. We should stop trying and just go our separate ways.The IKAGO argument writ large. Exceptions are exceptions; averages matter. AAMOF, when determining the characteristics of entire societies, the average is practically the ONLY thing that matters.
Yeah, it is oxytocin.
Have you also ever considered the possibility that the problems with blacks in the US might have something to do with America's cultural and social dysfunction?
Because if you're trying to make a racial argument you have the problem that some blacks are doing just fine, and some whites are doing very badly.
You might also want to consider the possibility that there are immense cultural and social differences within both the US black population and the US white populations. Which might, you know, offer a plausible non-racial explanation?
I’m not talking about the US. And I’m not new to the topic. You’re free to agree or disagree, but I’ve formed an opinion on the issue long since:
Race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.
So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.
Forensic anthropology is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006
Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).
These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….
As far as modern societies go, I completely agree with much maligned Jared Taylor:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
……………..
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
There is not much to add.
Except, perhaps, this..
Have you also ever considered the possibility that the problems with blacks in the US might have something to do with America's cultural and social dysfunction?
Because if you're trying to make a racial argument you have the problem that some blacks are doing just fine, and some whites are doing very badly.
You might also want to consider the possibility that there are immense cultural and social differences within both the US black population and the US white populations. Which might, you know, offer a plausible non-racial explanation?
I’m not talking about the US. And I’m not new to the topic. You’re free to agree or disagree, but I’ve formed an opinion on the issue long since:
Race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.
So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.
Forensic anthropology is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006
Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).
These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….
As far as modern societies go, I completely agree with much maligned Jared Taylor:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
……………..
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
There is not much to add.
Except, perhaps, this..
My argument is that culture rather than race is an equally plausible explanation for many (maybe even most) group differences in behaviour. It seems fairly obvious to me that populations with different cultures and social mores are going to behave differently. Have you noticed that the Amish don't behave the way other white people behave?
Culture denialists seem to be remarkably resistant to anything other than racial explanations.
Race consciousness is as old as humanity is, if we judge by historical records. Race is, basically, looks & culture of a human collective. It is not something “constructed”- which is a misnomer, implying something like mechanical work or elaborate mental schemes; race consciousness was present among old ancient peoples, if we are to judge from the records (Egyptians, Hebrews, Indians, Chinese, Greeks,…). In Hebrew Bible or OT, in passage written perhaps 700 to 400 BC, we read: Can an Ethiopian change his skin or a leopard its spots? (Jeremiah); Sanskrit word for caste is “varna”, which means most often color- northern “Aryan” invaders had erected a stratified social system to shield themselves from the conquered, darker populations (probably ancestors of Dravidian peoples); Aristotle also clearly differentiates between various races.
So- there is nothing “socially constructed” about it. It has been just growth & crystallization of awareness of the others, various human collectives having gone though that during historical encounters with other, frequently inimical groups. The fact that 19th C ideologues like Gobineau et al. did develop various racial theories has nothing to do with that past, nor with more modern investigations.
Forensic anthropology is almost unanimous that races do exist, as corroborated by their practice – even when some anthropologists show uneasiness about that concept:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1738862 , https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002/ajpa.21006
Re genes- racial differences between groups are bigger than differences between males & females of the same race. “Social constructs” ideologues also have a problem with the fact that races frequently necessitate different medical treatment for various illnesses (as do, of course, different sexes re dosage etc.).
These “big” races (5-8, say) can further be divided into many subspecies (for instance, Japanese are visually & genetically clearly different from the Tibetans).; also, 19th C popular idioms (Celtic race, Alpine race, Nordic race,…) do not, in a significant way, alter the fact: there are at least 5 big human populations which differ in looks, some physiological & psychological traits, as well as in other variables & functions described by life sciences, psychology, sociology, culturology, ….
As far as modern societies go, I completely agree with much maligned Jared Taylor:
https://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/an-open-letter-to-cuckservatives/
An Open Letter to Cuckservatives
.................
You tell yourself that the things you love about America–and I love them, too–are rooted in certain principles. That is your greatest mistake. They are rooted in certain people. That is why Germans, Swedes, Irishmen, and Hungarians could come and contribute to the America you love. Do you really believe that a future Afro-Hispanic-Caribbean-Asiatic America will be anything like the America your ancestors built?
Let’s consider your principles. Do you dream of a traditional, religious, free-market society with small government, low taxes, and no gun control, where same-sex marriage is illegal, and abortion, divorce, prostitution, and illegitimacy are scorned? There are such places: the tribal areas of Pakistan and Somalia.
And what about countries that violate your principles–with high taxes, huge government, clogged markets, a weak church, strict gun control, and sexual license of all kinds? There’s Scandinavia. And yet if you had to leave the United States you’d much rather live in Denmark than in Waziristan.
Do you see the pattern? Even when they violate your principles, white people build good societies. Even when they abide by your principles, non-whites usually don’t.
There is not much to add.
Except, perhaps, this..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly0L4QHFjhs
That’s pretty obvious.
Whether race is socially constructed or not is irrelevant to my point.
My argument is that culture rather than race is an equally plausible explanation for many (maybe even most) group differences in behaviour. It seems fairly obvious to me that populations with different cultures and social mores are going to behave differently. Have you noticed that the Amish don’t behave the way other white people behave?
Culture denialists seem to be remarkably resistant to anything other than racial explanations.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVQrZLcASJwMy daughter's high school French teacher loves to travel to Senegal almost every year.Their numbers aren't in a total nosedive, I'd worry far more about whites if I was you.Well, if whites and yellows decide they don't want anything to do with them - that's OK, they aren't the only ones on the planet. There are still plenty of other brown people around they can work with. Of course, you might also consider browns to have been unsuccessful at civilization...to each his own.I'm not an expert on the subject; I was just pointing out that it seemed the actually data contradicted some of your earlier conclusions, that's all. I guess whoever you may have gotten it from isn't much of an expert either.Peace.
Senegal?
Please.
https://blog.canberradeclaration.org.au/2020/04/03/what-i-learned-in-the-peace-corps-in-africa-trump-is-right/
What I Learned in the Peace Corps in Africa: Trump Is Right
As regards, I suppose, fertility rates- lower achieving races & cultures will have, in not so distant future, find themselves to be unsustainable & superfluous. With technology development, cyborgization & genetic engineering- along the template of idealized white race, earth does not need more than 1 to 2 billion people.
Have you also ever considered the possibility that the problems with blacks in the US might have something to do with America's cultural and social dysfunction?
Because if you're trying to make a racial argument you have the problem that some blacks are doing just fine, and some whites are doing very badly.
You might also want to consider the possibility that there are immense cultural and social differences within both the US black population and the US white populations. Which might, you know, offer a plausible non-racial explanation?
Have you ever considered the possibility that the problems with cultural and social dysfunction in the USA might have something to do with blacks? I mean, seriously. Even in a time when sex outside of marriage was literally criminal in many places, blacks wrote blues songs like “Hey lady, your husband is cheatin’ on us”. In Africa, blacks have the same sort of social and political dysfunction that they have everywhere else. You refuse to entertain the notion that the arrow of causation could point the other way, that eons of evolution under radically different conditions (both physical and social) has created what are behaviorally two substantially different and socially incompatible species. The chimpanzee and bonobo are inter-fertile, but so different socially they are classed as separate species. We need to admit that Europeans and S.S. Africans are too.
We’ve been trying to “end inequality” for over half a century now, which is about 3 whole generations in the ‘hood. Our overlords are still in full “blame Whitey” mode despite nothing working to uplift the black undertow. It doesn’t matter whether it’s culture or genes, because most blacks have deep contempt for “actin’ White” and won’t even if they could. Most likely they simply can’t, and trying to be something they can’t be is a job they refuse to undertake. We should stop trying and just go our separate ways.
The IKAGO argument writ large. Exceptions are exceptions; averages matter. AAMOF, when determining the characteristics of entire societies, the average is practically the ONLY thing that matters.
Would it be possible to see this data broken down by income as well?
Percentages of women who’ve committed adultery by social class (N = 12,952):
Lower: 16.2%
Working: 14.0%
Middle: 11.2%
Upper: 14.2%
(Social class isn’t the same as income, but it’s a lot easier to assess in the GSS).
Or is it a case of the smaller number of adulteresses each committing adultery with many adulterers? Regardless of the answer, ewwwww...
I suspect men are more likely to cheat with unmarried women while women may actually be more likely to want to cheat with married men. Marriage is a status booster that makes men look more attractive to women; from a man’s perspective though marriage is an obstacle that makes the potential cost of getting with a woman higher than it would be if she were single.
Men, including married ones, are more likely to use prostitutes than women are. A lot of those men are married; few of the prostitutes are.
A lot of whites, for instance, are okay with open relationships or the like. Can't imagine South Asians or East Asians being so receptive.
It implies that open relationships would be counted as adultery (as they should be, given the definition of “adultery”).
The liberal upper classes practice what they don’t preach; the grungy dirt people preach what they often fail to practice.
I’m ripping that off from another thread I haven’t gotten to responding to yet because it’s a great way to make sense of these patterns.
Men, including married ones, are more likely to use prostitutes than women are. A lot of those men are married; few of the prostitutes are.
The same reason men use prostitutes is the same reason we can’t (usually) become prostitutes: we’d happily do it for free.
There is a pretty strong pattern that emerges among non-Hispanic whites:
Lower: 18.9%
Working: 14.1%
Middle: 11.8%
Upper: 10.4%
You bat 1.000 with your comments, man. They’re always sober and perspicacious, without exception. Thanks very much.
Of course the same applies to women. Cougars only attract men if they're rich cougars.
It doesn't matter how little you have going for you if you're rich.
Men don’t care about women’s wealth much at all. Cougars don’t attract men much at all, and the ones who do are the ones who age exceptionally well.
So you have finally noticed that your fellow travelers on the right (WNs included) think that it is much "worse" when a woman commits adultery than when a man does?
They’re both bad, but it is morally worse when a woman commits adultery than when a man does because the temptation is harder to resist for a man than it is for a woman. This is Biology 101.
In any event, if you claim that adultery is worse when women do it, you are also taking the position that women, by nature, are more virtuous than men. I'm ok with that. Some of your other readers might not be.
By this reasoning the fanatical ascetic who starves himself to death is the epitome of morality.
But arguing that there's a moral difference is dubious. Using the word moral gets people over-excited. I'd say it's simply more likely to lead to practical problems. It's more unwise for a woman to commit adultery because the consequences are more likely to be more serious.
Of course it depends on what your definition of morality is and whether you see morality as having a religious basis.
My argument is that culture rather than race is an equally plausible explanation for many (maybe even most) group differences in behaviour. It seems fairly obvious to me that populations with different cultures and social mores are going to behave differently. Have you noticed that the Amish don't behave the way other white people behave?
Culture denialists seem to be remarkably resistant to anything other than racial explanations.
>Culture denialists seem to be remarkably resistant to anything other than racial explanations.
Of course, culture is more important than race. Do white and black Americans behave the same as Europeans or Africans? One doesn’t have to be a Gould-believing blank-slatist who doesn’t a to understand this.
Living in Singapore, there’s a big-if not talked about in official media-tension between local Singaporean Chinese and more recent immigrants from the PRC. They might look the same. They do not behave or think the same. And this dynamic is arguably even more pronounced with the non-Han minorities, whose co-ethnics in Indonesia and India are still on the “developing world” template. (Malaysia’s reasonably well developed, but that’s mostly thanks to the ethnic Chinese, who’ve been causing a brain drain for decades due to the bumi laws.)
The sheer incoherence and hypocrisy of the Official Narrative on race has led some people who reject that to over-correct and becoming biological determinists. People are prone to do this in general because people are prone to go with the flow of their environment: I’m sure the last decade has radicalized a lot of liberals who in 2010 might have been willing to listen to economic arguments for reasonable limits on immigration.
There's also the increasing tendency for every political, social or cultural issue to become extremely polarised. To an absolutely insane degree. Nobody wants to be a moderate any more, on any issue. And of course the increasing tendency for every issue, every debate, every discussion, every subject, to be intensely politicised.
You have to strike a balance. Where there is clearly defined real harm to an individual (rape, sodomy, etc) the law might be appropriate. In other cases I think it's inappropriate. When it comes to pre-marital and extra-marital sex I think there are too many grey areas for the law to be the appropriate solution. If a woman leaves an abusive husband and moves in with a really nice guy and doesn't wait for her divorce to come through she has technically committed adultery. Should she be prosecuted? If a man's wife is presumed lost at sea but has not yet been declared legally dead should he be prosecuted if he starts a new relationship?Apart from nutjob religious communities like the Puritans has any western society ever made fornication actually illegal? Even adultery has usually been considered a civil matter.
Do we really want the police busting a young engaged couple for not waiting for their wedding night? Do we really want them both thrown in jail? Lots of things are undesirable but they're not appropriate matters for the police.
If some people here had their way we'd see women arrested because their skirts were too short.
Absolutely. Several states still have antifornication statutes on the books, but they are unenforceable now.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._Ziherl
I appreciate this concern, but it’s not really warranted. Prosecutorial discretion, and failing that, jury nullification, is adequate to protect defendants in situations such as that.
The Victorians, for all their reputation for moral severity, would have been appalled by such a notion.
Perhaps we could pass a law that no-one can have sex without a police officer present to ensure compliance with all relevant laws. If any laws are infringed the cop can draw his gun and instruct the offenders to back away from the bed slowly.
Or have TV cameras installed in all the nation's bedrooms so that government officials can monitor all sexual activity. That way only government-approved sex will be possible.
Rosie, take a few deep breaths and think about what you're proposing.
For the overwhelming majority of human history, men couldn’t guarantee that a kid was theirs: we aren’t the ones who give birth. Having sex always implied a risk of pregnancy before the invention of birth control. And from a biological perspective, being duped into raising a child that isn’t yours is pretty much the absolute worst case scenario for a male. It’s why men can potentially get violent when they are cuckholded: it releases the ugliest primal instincts there are.
It’s not hard to see why restrictions on female sexuality are as old as civilization itself. I’m not saying they were fair: but they were not irrational. And as much as anything, the tacit acceptance of prostitution served as not just a release method, but a way of deflecting attention from taken women.
It seems the absolute worst case scenario would be to have no children at all. That's why lits of people (both men and women) pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt kids that ...aren't theirs.
Is it worse for men to get fat than women, on that same reasoning? Just curious.
In any event, if you claim that adultery is worse when women do it, you are also taking the position that women, by nature, are more virtuous than men. I’m ok with that. Some of your other readers might not be.
Not sure I follow re: corpulence. Yes, women tend to more easily put on extra pounds than men do and tend to be optimally healthier at a higher body fat percentage, but the differences are nowhere near as wide as the differences in sexual appetites are.
That’s a rather sad way to look at it, kind of pathetic actually, to the point I can barely relate.
It seems the absolute worst case scenario would be to have no children at all. That’s why lits of people (both men and women) pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt kids that …aren’t theirs.
As I said, it may not reach your level of acceptable civilizational index and will likely never (on the whole) get past much of the US in the late 1800s when plenty of people defecated outside (maybe they were also not civilized according to your benchmarks). Much of Senegal is quite rural, they have herds and many people get water from local wells to this day. But cities like Dakar and Touba are not like that.
Much of Africa is resource rich and can feed plenty of people, it just has to be efficiently utilized. And, since much of their development index is so low, half a small village likely uses less resources per year than an urbanite Parisian. So they can likely not sustain a growing population at European levels of energy consumption and material prosperity, but they can at their levels for a while yet.
I guess we’ll have to see how that pans out. It’s their issue to work out anyway.
The earth doesn’t need any people – it was doing just fine before we showed up also.
Peace.
I know of white converts that are more conservative and have bigger families than plenty of Pakistanis I know and I know of Pakistani ex-Muslims that live no-family-no-kids lives that are indistinguishable from liberal hedonists.
What’s more important in the divergent trajectory; birth race or adopted culture? You decide.
I don’t know if it’s like this any more, but growing up, I remember Cubans in the US and native Cubans in Cuba having similar differences.
My guess as well.
Peace.
It seems the absolute worst case scenario would be to have no children at all. That's why lits of people (both men and women) pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt kids that ...aren't theirs.
>That’s a rather sad way to look at it, kind of pathetic actually, to the point I can barely relate.
Of course you don’t. Can I relate to the primal fear of being physically overpowered by the opposite sex?
The unequal male and female contributions to our ancestor pool is very well-documented, and no matter how much more advanced we are technologically or socially, these kinds of biological considerations take tens of thousands of years to change. The manifestations-thankfully, for anybody who values basic civilization and the idea of man as something better than a glorified ape-are what has changed, not underlying human biological impulses and evolutionary incentives.
> That’s why lits of people (both men and women) pay tens of thousands of dollars to adopt kids that …aren’t theirs.
As I’ve alluded to, the advent of birth control and DNA technology has in resulted in radical, unprecedented changes in sexual and family behavior. But most people still want their own kids: the underlying desire to see your genetics go on is the strongest biological impulse there is. Why else do people do it when it is such a drag on your “rational” interests?
And I doubt that any amount of technology is going to change that. It is deeply illuminating that many 50-something couples who don’t have kids end up treating pet animals as ansatz children.
It is not a desire. It is operating in the background. Most men desire as much sex as they can get (part of the explanation for homosexual behavior) and the by-products are called children.
I’m not trying to be difficult, but how is that relevant to this particular conversation? Historic cuckoldry rates are very low.
>I’m not trying to be difficult, but how is that relevant to this particular conversation?
Because when it comes to mating and reproduction, more than any other human phenomenon, biology prompts our behavior. That means that we are relying off of evolutionary templates from realities that were in force tens of thousands of years, and those templates differ for men and women. How applicable they are in today’s society is largely irrelevant, because evolution is a slow process.
This is at the core of why many men react very, very negatively to the merest hint of the possibility of raising another man’s kids unknowingly, no matter how rationally unlikely this is. Plenty of other, more social factors on top of that, but underneath it all is cold evolution. After all the work of securing a mate in the first place, you are going to be investing decades of all the resources you can acquire in your family: raising another man’s kids means not only this is a dead end, you’ll be wasting all the time and resources you could be advancing on your own line to another man’s.
Somewhere deep in your brain, for most people, that imperative biological motive to reproduce is still there. On a biological level, the considerations for men and women are just plain different, so the primal “triggers” are different, too. Women generally don’t have to worry about getting a partner in the first place, or worry that the kid isn’t theirs: they have to worry about getting a quality partner, with good genetics and good resources and who will stick around to invest in their children. From a biological perspective, women are crushed from being cheated on not because it represents a threat to their bloodline: but because it is a sign that the man is not invested in her. It’s probably just as devastating because of all the emotions that lie on top of the biological imperative, but that core is different, and one reason why men get violent and women get depressed.
I do not like biological reductionism, because I believe men are better than apes. But we’re deluding ourselves if we don’t think primitive biological considerations don’t apply to us *at all*, above all in this area, despite all our advances.
Thanks, but to be honest, I think they are second rate at best, because I haven’t used quantitative data much.
Lower: 16.2%
Working: 14.0%
Middle: 11.2%
Upper: 14.2%
(Social class isn't the same as income, but it's a lot easier to assess in the GSS).
Thank you, but I wanted to see those numbers for each racial group.
>What’s more important in the divergent trajectory; birth race or adopted culture? You decide.
Both matter. If parents with IQs of 135 try to turn an adopted kid with an IQ of 95 into a scientist or a doctor, you are setting everybody involved up for frustration.
But while your parents and your society can’t play God and change your genetics-at least for now, considering what the Chinese are getting up to…-what they can do is ensure you are 15, 20% brighter than you are normally. Repeated enough on a society wide scale, everybody is improved, and a cumulative positive effect gets going. It’s in everybody’s interests: your quality of life goes up tremendously if people doing the daily work have IQs of 100 rather than 80.
It goes without saying it works the other way around, too. Wrong environment, and your brain will decay within the boundary limits that it is capable of. (Become an addict, and your IQ will sharply decline in practice. Trust me on that one.)
Is not American Islam known to be more liberal than European and Islamic World Islam in general? Also does Islam hold less of a ethnic character in America?
At the ground level, most of the religious-oriented folks that I have come across are not interested in Islam becoming a brown-ethnic identity:
"In “creating” Muslim organizations and leaders and “expanding their influence,” the key goals of the Soros-linked foundations are: reframing the community as primarily a racial or ethnic identity group rather than as a religious group; emphasizing the community’s support for Democrat-friendly political issues; and weakening the community’s traditional religious teachings such as defined gender roles and the prohibition on same-sex sexual relations....In contrast, the agenda of the progressive left foundations and nonprofit groups described herein is to refashion Islam as a secular identity group centered on ethnic “brownness,” and whose moral compass is the progressive wing of the Democratic party rather than Islamic religious sources."
https://muslimmatters.org/2017/09/20/how-the-progressive-left-wants-to-change-islam-in-america/
Hope that helps.
Peace.
Headline: Adultery Rates by Race and Sex
Subhead: Waifus Hardest to Hit
I’ll post just this short comment because I’m not satisfied with AE’s (or Unz’s) moderation policy, which allows only 2-3 comments & then…forbidden. Sorry guys, but this is not the way to conduct fruitful discussion, so I’m dropping the issue.
Race denialists are, basically, in the denial. Race & culture are intimately intertwined & almost inseparable. Even the most exportable culture is not susceptible to assimilation by other, visibly different groups.
Now, when most people talk about culture, they seem to think about popular entertainment, food & something similar. True, some forms of that level of culture are almost universal (for instance, pop music & dressing), but even in that area, most are not- for instance, American Football is basically alien to everyone outside of the US; the same goes for various types of music or ethnic foods.
One truly universal culture is science, and I mean exact sciences. We all see that these are dominated by whites & their descendants, plus mostly east Asians in recent decades & some south Asians. Just check Fields medals, Nobel prizes, Wolf prizes, Millennium prizes, Kyoto prize, Abel prize,… Africans, Native Americans and, among religious cultures, Muslims & Hindus seem to be placed rather lowly.
I doubt that in next decades the trend will be much different. Alright, I’m lying- I’m certain it won’t be.
As for high, or in some aspects traditional cultures, it is evident that cultures are not susceptible to “race mixing”.
You can’t have a black in the role of Hamlet, or a white man in the role of Shaka Zulu- without looking ludicrous. French or Swedes can make acceptable adaptations of “Anna Karenina” or Casanova’s memoirs- but not Nigerians or Egyptians.
Then, there are religious traditions- outside of Christian culture, most of Dante, and much of Bach (except the tunes) is incomprehensible. These are different cultural codes.
But, let’s not waste time on speculations. Who thinks that blacks, anywhere in the world, can build sustainable modern societies with technological & economic infrastructure, high levels of literacy, low levels of promiscuity, high levels of punctuality, relatively low levels of corruption, stable & elastic modern social structure capable of innovation, empirical investigation & rational discourse…. I have the Eiffel tower to sell.
Seriously, I agree it's an absurd policy. It's not AE's policy though. I'm not sure whether he can do anything about it.
In any event, if you claim that adultery is worse when women do it, you are also taking the position that women, by nature, are more virtuous than men. I'm ok with that. Some of your other readers might not be.
you are also taking the position that women, by nature, are more virtuous than men.
He’s taking the position that women who overcome their biological desire to mate with higher status men, and instead mate with the lowest status man available is more moral and virtuous.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
Not even wrong.
By this reasoning the fanatical ascetic who starves himself to death is the epitome of morality.
By the way, when it comes to culture, things may be both hilarious & absurd ..
the underlying desire to see your genetics go on is the strongest biological impulse there is.
It is not a desire. It is operating in the background. Most men desire as much sex as they can get (part of the explanation for homosexual behavior) and the by-products are called children.
Presumably, in time, natural and/or memetic selection will see to it that producing children per se DOES become a much stronger human desire, or at least it will operate by discouraging the use of birth control. Hopefully it will not achieve this by seeing to it that we're just too dumb to make consistent use of birth control, but nature will do what it has to do.
It is not a desire. It is operating in the background. Most men desire as much sex as they can get (part of the explanation for homosexual behavior) and the by-products are called children.
People do have a desire to produce children per se, and to specifically raise their own children instead of someone else’s, but I’ll agree that it’s not nearly so strong a desire as sex, and it appears to be somewhat culturally dependent (in more pro-natal cultures it tends to be associated with status).
Presumably, in time, natural and/or memetic selection will see to it that producing children per se DOES become a much stronger human desire, or at least it will operate by discouraging the use of birth control. Hopefully it will not achieve this by seeing to it that we’re just too dumb to make consistent use of birth control, but nature will do what it has to do.
That would describe almost all of us, so whatever.
Not even wrong.
WTAF?
Have you turned libertine now, iffen?
And no, your conclusion does not follow. Virtue lies in a mean.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
In general? Likely. It is a bit more fragmented and there is a lot of influence at the top by ethnic immigrant elites, many of whom ally with Left-liberal side of things because they are afraid of losing perks.
Yes – again because of the fragmentation. You have many sub-communities, but there is a lot of cooperation and overlap. There is nobody with the numbers currently to hold the scepter. How that will change in the future is up for grabs. For instance, within the last 10-15 years, it is estimated that Muslim Latinos have increased by 700%; a phenomenal growth when compared to any other Muslim group, including Arabs, Indo-Pak-Bengalis, etc.
At the ground level, most of the religious-oriented folks that I have come across are not interested in Islam becoming a brown-ethnic identity:
“In “creating” Muslim organizations and leaders and “expanding their influence,” the key goals of the Soros-linked foundations are: reframing the community as primarily a racial or ethnic identity group rather than as a religious group; emphasizing the community’s support for Democrat-friendly political issues; and weakening the community’s traditional religious teachings such as defined gender roles and the prohibition on same-sex sexual relations….In contrast, the agenda of the progressive left foundations and nonprofit groups described herein is to refashion Islam as a secular identity group centered on ethnic “brownness,” and whose moral compass is the progressive wing of the Democratic party rather than Islamic religious sources.”
https://muslimmatters.org/2017/09/20/how-the-progressive-left-wants-to-change-islam-in-america/
Hope that helps.
Peace.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicomachean_Ethics
I do have a touch of the libertine, but don’t put me in there with those sewer dwelling libertarians.
The question was whether adultery by females was more damaging to society than adultery by males. Most men, and it seems, some on the dissident right, says yes because…
I question this. Give me some reasons why.
If a society insists on making it a one-sided affair and winks at men doing it and ostracizes women for doing it, eventually the women are going to get pissed off and demand an end to the hypocrisy. And the only defense men will have (no matter how many biological rationalizations they put in front of women) is "muh D**K" - which, simply stated, isn't going to be an argument women will abide by for long.
Adultery (and fornication for that matter) if it is going to be ostracized or punished, should go both ways. Men should have the fortitude to keep it in their pants, self-control at that level should be considered a positive masculine quality.
I know I expect my boys to fall in line with this just as much I do my daughter.
Peace.
In practice this means carrots for men and sticks for women. In the case of adultery, the claim is that men are entitled to assurance of paternity, and society is obligated to provide that by taking a harsh, punitive approach to women who stray, while recognizing that "boys will be boys."
Once you understand the basic assumptions behind "men's advocac" as we see it in the dissident right, it all becomes very clear.
It takes two to tango.
If a society insists on making it a one-sided affair and winks at men doing it and ostracizes women for doing it, eventually the women are going to get pissed off and demand an end to the hypocrisy. And the only defense men will have (no matter how many biological rationalizations they put in front of women) is “muh D**K” – which, simply stated, isn’t going to be an argument women will abide by for long.
Adultery (and fornication for that matter) if it is going to be ostracized or punished, should go both ways. Men should have the fortitude to keep it in their pants, self-control at that level should be considered a positive masculine quality.
I know I expect my boys to fall in line with this just as much I do my daughter.
Peace.
They take the view that men’s particular interests are always perfectly aligned with the common good. They do this by claiming that women have obligations to society but men do not. Therefore, prosocial behavior on the part of men must be “incentivized,” whereas women should be simply be punished for nonconformity.
In practice this means carrots for men and sticks for women. In the case of adultery, the claim is that men are entitled to assurance of paternity, and society is obligated to provide that by taking a harsh, punitive approach to women who stray, while recognizing that “boys will be boys.”
Once you understand the basic assumptions behind “men’s advocac” as we see it in the dissident right, it all becomes very clear.
The carrots-for-men and sticks-for-women approach is justified with the claim that women are only good for catering to men (either as wife or prostitute). To the extent we are not doing that, we are dead weight, useless mouths, parasites. They are often quite explicit about this. Any woman who is earning her own living has a "make-work job" that corporate America concocted precisely for the purpose of "outbidding" them so they can't use their "provisioning ability" to get a wife.
Because, you know, it's obvious that corporations just love to pay wages, salaries, and benefits, to as many and as generously as possible.
Innate sexual differences explain some of our behaviors and there are obvious differences. For example, we have female groupies and trophy wives. My question wasn't about these differences. My question was a solicitation for rational reasons as to why adultery by women should be considered more damaging to society than adultery by men, and I am still waiting.
In practice this means carrots for men and sticks for women. In the case of adultery, the claim is that men are entitled to assurance of paternity, and society is obligated to provide that by taking a harsh, punitive approach to women who stray, while recognizing that "boys will be boys."
Once you understand the basic assumptions behind "men's advocac" as we see it in the dissident right, it all becomes very clear.
BTW, iffen, I should mention that this is why manosphere guys are constantly going on about how useless women are.
The carrots-for-men and sticks-for-women approach is justified with the claim that women are only good for catering to men (either as wife or prostitute). To the extent we are not doing that, we are dead weight, useless mouths, parasites. They are often quite explicit about this. Any woman who is earning her own living has a “make-work job” that corporate America concocted precisely for the purpose of “outbidding” them so they can’t use their “provisioning ability” to get a wife.
Because, you know, it’s obvious that corporations just love to pay wages, salaries, and benefits, to as many and as generously as possible.
The carrots-for-men and sticks-for-women approach is justified with the claim that women are only good for catering to men (either as wife or prostitute). To the extent we are not doing that, we are dead weight, useless mouths, parasites. They are often quite explicit about this. Any woman who is earning her own living has a "make-work job" that corporate America concocted precisely for the purpose of "outbidding" them so they can't use their "provisioning ability" to get a wife.
Because, you know, it's obvious that corporations just love to pay wages, salaries, and benefits, to as many and as generously as possible.
Further peeling away the onion, the claim that women are useless is in turn justified by the bizarre notion that evolution equipped men (but not women) with all sorts of transferable skills that make them capable of thriving in a modern economy where they don’t have to hunt bison anymore.
Mysteriously, women acquired nothing in the way of transferable skills or desirable traits from evolution. I call this “manosphere creationism.” Somehow, we turned out to be good for caring for, looking after, and protecting children, but not one single other thing.
When they do admit that we evolved anything desirable from millennia of motherhood, that is used as a justification for excluding us from various things. Not long ago, a guest on Millenniyule actually said that women shouldn’t be professors, because our high conscientiousness makes male geniuses look bad! It’s very much a no-win situation.
"I don’t know of any action that is closer to God than showing piety to your mother." - stated by Ibn Abbas (ra) in Imam Bukhari's Adab al-Mufradhttps://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/61FyxycA9wL._AC_SY741_.jpgPeace.
The rise of women in universities has led to the exclusion of the genius class due to that demand for conformity. That has led the universities to fail in what is their most critical social function.
In any event, if you claim that adultery is worse when women do it, you are also taking the position that women, by nature, are more virtuous than men. I'm ok with that. Some of your other readers might not be.
When it comes to checking their sexual urges, yes, women are obviously more virtuous than men. Look at porn usage rates by sex!
Not sure I follow re: corpulence. Yes, women tend to more easily put on extra pounds than men do and tend to be optimally healthier at a higher body fat percentage, but the differences are nowhere near as wide as the differences in sexual appetites are.
Which is more damaging is a separate question. But it is harder for men to resist cheating if the opportunity arises than it is for women to. Women must be the restrictive sex. When that restraint is absence, we get gay male sexuality writ large. And if men are as restrictive as women, we get lesbian bed death!
In practice this means carrots for men and sticks for women. In the case of adultery, the claim is that men are entitled to assurance of paternity, and society is obligated to provide that by taking a harsh, punitive approach to women who stray, while recognizing that "boys will be boys."
Once you understand the basic assumptions behind "men's advocac" as we see it in the dissident right, it all becomes very clear.
They do this by claiming that women have obligations to society but men do not.
Meet the intruder at the gate? Plunge the toilet? Put a roof overhead and food on the table? Go down with the ship if the lifeboat is full?
The obligations are different but complementary, because men and women are different but complementary.
If that was all that women did, that would be sufficient. People who don’t understand this or appreciate this have forgotten the meaning of the word “mother”:
“I don’t know of any action that is closer to God than showing piety to your mother.” – stated by Ibn Abbas (ra) in Imam Bukhari’s Adab al-Mufrad
Peace.
I suspect that it is less that men find it harder to resist, per se, and more that most men don’t get remotely as many opportunities as your average woman. This isn’t to deny biological realities of testosterone, but let’s be fair: women have the realistic option of having casual sex whenever they want, and if they are attractive, with whoever they want. Even unattractive women have a range of options here in a way that most men just don’t.
It’d take a superhuman to not be tempted by that prospect when young.
If in exchange for these things, you’re going to demand that we accept subordination, then don’t bother. I’ll plunge my own damned toilet. I already do all the scrubbing.
K whatever.
You can go on all you want about what we “should” do, but you have to recognize that we are not all-powerful. We have needs just as compelling as men’s need for sex, and men take advantage of same.
Liberal isn’t the right word for it: absorbable is more accurate. I’ve talked to guys from the Middle East and the subcontinent about this subject back when I did physics, including Muslims. The universal sentiment seemed to be that Europeans were a lot more PC and nice on the surface, you were always “the exotic foreigner” to them: there was always a sense that you were there kind of as a prop. Americans were more rough around the edges, but they also were more likely to actually accept you as just another one of the guys with time. And you could “become” American in a way that wasn’t possible in Europe, if you were inclined.
Muslims in America are geographically dispersed, do not belong to a cohesive ethnic or national group, are one of the more socioeconomically affluent demographics within the United States. Nearly all speak English, many are well educated and noticeably patriotic. This isn’t universal: the Somalis in Minnesota are a counterexample of a “European” style Muslim minority within the US. But it is generally the rule. Most Muslims in America see no contradiction between their faith and their citizenship. You’ll have to ask the Democrats why they think this is a bad thing and we should imitate Europe here.
Muslims in Europe are concentrated within urban ghettos, often belong to the same ethnic/national demographic and bring over baggage as a result, and are generally a blue-collar bunch. This is, again, by no means universal: plenty of French Algerians who migrated in the 1950s are quite well assimilated and are not fans of newer arrivals, not least because many are urban shopkeepers who deal with petty crime, as one example. I’ve met Muslim dudes who’ve worked in European militaries, even. Nevertheless, it’s pretty clear that Muslims in Europe are a lot more like Central Americans in the US than the co-religionists, if we’re looking at socioeconomics. This has natural cultural effects when Pakistanis who emigrate to Britain tend to come from the most backwards parts of the country and bring their ghetto habits (cousin marriage) with them, in contrast to their bourgeois or “tiger parent” counterparts who end up in the States. And this makes sense when you consider geography, and thus where cheap labor comes from, the former empires being an additional factor for Britain and France, of course.
>Not long ago, a guest on Millenniyule actually said that women shouldn’t be professors, because our high conscientiousness makes male geniuses look bad! It’s very much a no-win situation.
If you don’t like misogyny, have you ever considered… not hanging around the alt-right?
Rosie likes the WN part, but can't come to grips with the fact that it's a package deal.
Someday, little White children will recite epic poetry about how Rosie the Great saved White nationalism by driving out the misogynist fiend by force of logic.
Lower: 16.2%
Working: 14.0%
Middle: 11.2%
Upper: 14.2%
(Social class isn't the same as income, but it's a lot easier to assess in the GSS).
They’re the percentages of women who will admit to having committed adultery. What the actual figures are is anybody’s guess. All we can say is that the actual percentages are likely to be considerably higher. They may be much much higher. We don’t know.
Race denialists are, basically, in the denial. Race & culture are intimately intertwined & almost inseparable. Even the most exportable culture is not susceptible to assimilation by other, visibly different groups.
Now, when most people talk about culture, they seem to think about popular entertainment, food & something similar. True, some forms of that level of culture are almost universal (for instance, pop music & dressing), but even in that area, most are not- for instance, American Football is basically alien to everyone outside of the US; the same goes for various types of music or ethnic foods.
One truly universal culture is science, and I mean exact sciences. We all see that these are dominated by whites & their descendants, plus mostly east Asians in recent decades & some south Asians. Just check Fields medals, Nobel prizes, Wolf prizes, Millennium prizes, Kyoto prize, Abel prize,... Africans, Native Americans and, among religious cultures, Muslims & Hindus seem to be placed rather lowly.
I doubt that in next decades the trend will be much different. Alright, I'm lying- I'm certain it won't be.
As for high, or in some aspects traditional cultures, it is evident that cultures are not susceptible to "race mixing".
You can't have a black in the role of Hamlet, or a white man in the role of Shaka Zulu- without looking ludicrous. French or Swedes can make acceptable adaptations of "Anna Karenina" or Casanova's memoirs- but not Nigerians or Egyptians.
Then, there are religious traditions- outside of Christian culture, most of Dante, and much of Bach (except the tunes) is incomprehensible. These are different cultural codes.
But, let's not waste time on speculations. Who thinks that blacks, anywhere in the world, can build sustainable modern societies with technological & economic infrastructure, high levels of literacy, low levels of promiscuity, high levels of punctuality, relatively low levels of corruption, stable & elastic modern social structure capable of innovation, empirical investigation & rational discourse.... I have the Eiffel tower to sell.
All you have to do is wait an hour for the timer to reset.
In practice this means carrots for men and sticks for women. In the case of adultery, the claim is that men are entitled to assurance of paternity, and society is obligated to provide that by taking a harsh, punitive approach to women who stray, while recognizing that "boys will be boys."
Once you understand the basic assumptions behind "men's advocac" as we see it in the dissident right, it all becomes very clear.
You make some good points, Rosie, but you have to fight this manosphere without me. I place the threat from there somewhere between the threat from Nazis and WNs. All three are nothing-burgers.
Innate sexual differences explain some of our behaviors and there are obvious differences. For example, we have female groupies and trophy wives. My question wasn’t about these differences. My question was a solicitation for rational reasons as to why adultery by women should be considered more damaging to society than adultery by men, and I am still waiting.
If you don’t like misogyny, have you ever considered… not hanging around the alt-right?
Rosie likes the WN part, but can’t come to grips with the fact that it’s a package deal.
If a society insists on making it a one-sided affair and winks at men doing it and ostracizes women for doing it, eventually the women are going to get pissed off and demand an end to the hypocrisy. And the only defense men will have (no matter how many biological rationalizations they put in front of women) is "muh D**K" - which, simply stated, isn't going to be an argument women will abide by for long.
Adultery (and fornication for that matter) if it is going to be ostracized or punished, should go both ways. Men should have the fortitude to keep it in their pants, self-control at that level should be considered a positive masculine quality.
I know I expect my boys to fall in line with this just as much I do my daughter.
Peace.
Are you saying that adultery by either sex is equally damaging to society and the idea that female adultery is more damaging is incorrect?
Of course...maybe that’s also partially because I’m not morally opposed to a man being able to have more than one wife if he can legitimately take care of both of them and their children, so take that into consideration.
Alright y’all, with that - Ramadan calls. I gotta review Quran for the nightly prayers since I’m going to be leading at home this year. See you after - inshaAllah.
Stay safe.
Peace.
This is the working definition I'm using:It differs from, for instance, the Roman definition:
I certainly have. My dilemma is this: I have six White children who need advocates just like children of other races do. Even if I didn’t have White children, I would still care about White people.
Someday, little White children will recite epic poetry about how Rosie the Great saved White nationalism by driving out the misogynist fiend by force of logic.
Yes. That will be the inevitable result.
Of course…maybe that’s also partially because I’m not morally opposed to a man being able to have more than one wife if he can legitimately take care of both of them and their children, so take that into consideration.
Alright y’all, with that – Ramadan calls. I gotta review Quran for the nightly prayers since I’m going to be leading at home this year. See you after – inshaAllah.
Stay safe.
Peace.
That’s simply truth. The external challenges have changed radically; the internal ones are the same.
Because men dealt with all of that, without your input.
You should be glad for that, because you men did it for you.
Even there you get it wrong. Your high conscientiousness makes you herd animals, demanding consensus instead of challenging it. The essence of genius is going where no one has gone before, finding new things and bringing them to the public over the objections of keepers of the status quo. A female genius doesn’t look like you; she looks like Temple Grandin, who sure ain’t mom material.
The rise of women in universities has led to the exclusion of the genius class due to that demand for conformity. That has led the universities to fail in what is their most critical social function.
Yes, I agree with that.
There’s also the increasing tendency for every political, social or cultural issue to become extremely polarised. To an absolutely insane degree. Nobody wants to be a moderate any more, on any issue. And of course the increasing tendency for every issue, every debate, every discussion, every subject, to be intensely politicised.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_v._ZiherlI appreciate this concern, but it's not really warranted. Prosecutorial discretion, and failing that, jury nullification, is adequate to protect defendants in situations such as that.
When fornication becomes a matter for the courts you really are living in a police state. It’s a totalitarian concept. It’s only thinkable in either a rigid theocracy or a Huxleyan totalitarian society.
The Victorians, for all their reputation for moral severity, would have been appalled by such a notion.
Perhaps we could pass a law that no-one can have sex without a police officer present to ensure compliance with all relevant laws. If any laws are infringed the cop can draw his gun and instruct the offenders to back away from the bed slowly.
Or have TV cameras installed in all the nation’s bedrooms so that government officials can monitor all sexual activity. That way only government-approved sex will be possible.
Rosie, take a few deep breaths and think about what you’re proposing.
Perhaps a better way to go about this is to grant legal allowance for fathers to handle the situation or even grant them legal assistance. This means anywhere from; fathers should be able to physically handle any young males that approach their daughters (given they can provide evidence that they have requested the male to back off) to the law interdicting the advances of young males on behalf of the father if the father petitions the law and provides evidence he has asked the male to back off. This is akin to a restraining order and something that should be able to be fast-tracked.
But that would mean the society has to shift back to a patriarchal mode, which I'm really not sure is possible once you lose it. All the king's horses and all the king's men may not be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
OK - this time, I'm out.
Peace.
Fornication laws aren't really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, you have an open and shut case. There's no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
No, I can’t go along with that. Morally there’s no difference. The difference is a practical one due to the differences between male and female sexuality. If a woman commits adultery it is more likely to permanently damage or destroy the marriage because the adultery is more likely to be emotionally motivated rather than purely physically motivated. So if a woman commits adultery she is more likely to be risking her marriage.
But arguing that there’s a moral difference is dubious. Using the word moral gets people over-excited. I’d say it’s simply more likely to lead to practical problems. It’s more unwise for a woman to commit adultery because the consequences are more likely to be more serious.
Of course it depends on what your definition of morality is and whether you see morality as having a religious basis.
The rise of women in universities has led to the exclusion of the genius class due to that demand for conformity. That has led the universities to fail in what is their most critical social function.
Big fat lie. If anything, men are more prone to bullying, and therefore more likely to silence dissidents, as when Galileo was condemned for “heresy.”
Lol. Yes, I guess the men could go out hunting and stay at camp and protect children at the same time!
Amazing creatures, you are! You can be in two places at once.
I think it’s more likely to be damaging to the marriage. Possibly more damaging to the woman because her emotions are going to be in greater turmoil. But more damaging to society? I don’t think so.
Race denialists are, basically, in the denial. Race & culture are intimately intertwined & almost inseparable. Even the most exportable culture is not susceptible to assimilation by other, visibly different groups.
Now, when most people talk about culture, they seem to think about popular entertainment, food & something similar. True, some forms of that level of culture are almost universal (for instance, pop music & dressing), but even in that area, most are not- for instance, American Football is basically alien to everyone outside of the US; the same goes for various types of music or ethnic foods.
One truly universal culture is science, and I mean exact sciences. We all see that these are dominated by whites & their descendants, plus mostly east Asians in recent decades & some south Asians. Just check Fields medals, Nobel prizes, Wolf prizes, Millennium prizes, Kyoto prize, Abel prize,... Africans, Native Americans and, among religious cultures, Muslims & Hindus seem to be placed rather lowly.
I doubt that in next decades the trend will be much different. Alright, I'm lying- I'm certain it won't be.
As for high, or in some aspects traditional cultures, it is evident that cultures are not susceptible to "race mixing".
You can't have a black in the role of Hamlet, or a white man in the role of Shaka Zulu- without looking ludicrous. French or Swedes can make acceptable adaptations of "Anna Karenina" or Casanova's memoirs- but not Nigerians or Egyptians.
Then, there are religious traditions- outside of Christian culture, most of Dante, and much of Bach (except the tunes) is incomprehensible. These are different cultural codes.
But, let's not waste time on speculations. Who thinks that blacks, anywhere in the world, can build sustainable modern societies with technological & economic infrastructure, high levels of literacy, low levels of promiscuity, high levels of punctuality, relatively low levels of corruption, stable & elastic modern social structure capable of innovation, empirical investigation & rational discourse.... I have the Eiffel tower to sell.
The comments limitations are necessary because we’re naughty children and if we’re allowed to we’ll eat all the sweeties at once and then throw up on the couch. Fortunately Nanny is there to stop us from doing that.
Seriously, I agree it’s an absurd policy. It’s not AE’s policy though. I’m not sure whether he can do anything about it.
The Victorians, for all their reputation for moral severity, would have been appalled by such a notion.
Perhaps we could pass a law that no-one can have sex without a police officer present to ensure compliance with all relevant laws. If any laws are infringed the cop can draw his gun and instruct the offenders to back away from the bed slowly.
Or have TV cameras installed in all the nation's bedrooms so that government officials can monitor all sexual activity. That way only government-approved sex will be possible.
Rosie, take a few deep breaths and think about what you're proposing.
Sorry, last take, because this was a solid comment:
I 100% agree with this assessment and also 100% back legal punishment for fornication, but by the Shariah standards, it has to be done so blatantly that 4 adult males have to be able to witness the act of the penis penetrating the vagina or anus so that there is no doubt whatsoever (one of the lesser Hanafi opinions I recall is that the 4 males cannot have seen the penetration from the same angle, but it has to have been from different angles to prevent any doubt). There is no way in the Shariah to prosecute (for legal fornication) even a couple that were openly copulating in the middle of a public thoroughfare partially obstructed by a sheet; maybe you could get them for indecent exposure or something to that affect or some other legal violation, but you couldn’t prosecute them for the Shariah punishment of fornication which would result in public flogging. And this example is far, far less common than a couple sneaking off to have at it in a car or behind the bleachers or something, you cannot do a thing about that as far as I know and to try to legally prevent that would be a legal nightmare and 100% result in a frightening religious police state. So just keep in mind that a proposal to legally punish casual fornication may be something that even the Shariah is NOT willing to go for.
Perhaps a better way to go about this is to grant legal allowance for fathers to handle the situation or even grant them legal assistance. This means anywhere from; fathers should be able to physically handle any young males that approach their daughters (given they can provide evidence that they have requested the male to back off) to the law interdicting the advances of young males on behalf of the father if the father petitions the law and provides evidence he has asked the male to back off. This is akin to a restraining order and something that should be able to be fast-tracked.
But that would mean the society has to shift back to a patriarchal mode, which I’m really not sure is possible once you lose it. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men may not be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
OK – this time, I’m out.
Peace.
The Victorians, for all their reputation for moral severity, would have been appalled by such a notion.
Perhaps we could pass a law that no-one can have sex without a police officer present to ensure compliance with all relevant laws. If any laws are infringed the cop can draw his gun and instruct the offenders to back away from the bed slowly.
Or have TV cameras installed in all the nation's bedrooms so that government officials can monitor all sexual activity. That way only government-approved sex will be possible.
Rosie, take a few deep breaths and think about what you're proposing.
Doom, this is really just a silly slippery slope argument.
Fornication laws aren’t really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I’m concerned, you have an open and shut case. There’s no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
Another problem - how on earth could you ever give someone a fair trial? How would you prove that fornication took place? It's almost certain that neither of the two people involved would be willing to co-operate. What would your evidence be? Would you subject the woman (who might well be entirely innocent) to the humiliation of a forcible medical examination? Even that would only provide evidence if the police were called to the scene almost immediately. How would the cops respond so quickly?
Another problem - are you going to punish both partners? What if one claims to have been seduced? Would that be a defence? If so, every single person you try to prosecute will claim to have been seduced. How on earth would a court determine what constitutes seduction?
To be honest, pretty much the same arguments would apply to any attempt to criminalise adultery. Proving adultery as a criminal matter would require much more stringent evidence than was ever required to establish adultery as grounds for divorce in civil courts. It wouldn't be enough for the cops to say that Mrs X and Mr Y checked into a hotel together. You'd need to prove that intercourse actually took place. And do you really want cops peering into bedroom windows?
All this time I thought you were commenting from the US. Evidently that isn't the case. Or you're just misinformed. Again.
The liberteenies have been winning "muh legal POT" for years. Regulations vary from state to state, but I've driven by obvious marijuana dispensaries in more than one place in the last 4 years.
From wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_StatesNow, blackpilled dfordoom frets about a horrrrible dictatorship required enforce a law: is the state of Virginia a dictatorship? Because an anti-fornication law was on the books there for years. I think it was repealed this year, but maybe COVID slowed that down. In any event it was tossed by the state supreme court 14 - 15 years ago.
There used to be anti-sodomy laws in the UA as well, but those have probably been fading out in the US since the 1970's, and in any event probably weren't enforced all that often. It's a philosophical debate whether an unenforced law is really a "law" or not, but...meh.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/7/virginia-fornication-law-repeal-one-step-closer-to/I don't understand why the law wasn't zapped when the VA SC overturned it, but whatever. Tony Kennedy's opinion in Obergefell has a long reach. I'm pretty sure that any US anti-fornication laws would run into Obergefell and fall apart.
However, there is a place where fornication is punishable by law. Now, that law comes along with some social and cultural baggage. But...if Rosie or any other woman wants to be protected by a law against fornication, Aceh can be reached by airliner once the COVID situation dies down.
https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/indonesian/six-caned-03102017162345.htmlWhat a pity that Whiskey wasn't aware of this comment subthread, I'm sure his contributions would be a real treat!
Perhaps a better way to go about this is to grant legal allowance for fathers to handle the situation or even grant them legal assistance. This means anywhere from; fathers should be able to physically handle any young males that approach their daughters (given they can provide evidence that they have requested the male to back off) to the law interdicting the advances of young males on behalf of the father if the father petitions the law and provides evidence he has asked the male to back off. This is akin to a restraining order and something that should be able to be fast-tracked.
But that would mean the society has to shift back to a patriarchal mode, which I'm really not sure is possible once you lose it. All the king's horses and all the king's men may not be able to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.
OK - this time, I'm out.
Peace.
If that’s what “patriarchy” means, sign me up! I see no reason whatsoever why a father (or a mother FTM, but hopefully both acting in concert) shouldn’t have the right to keep men away from his minor daughter. Moreover, I’m not sure that minority should end at 18. Adolescence is a real thing, and it lasts into the twenties.
I’m not taking a concrete position here. I’m just saying that I consider your proposal negotiable and worthy of consideration.
Maybe it would be safer just to ban sex. Of course married couples could apply for a special licence to have sex for the purposes of procreation. So if you have two children you'd get to have sex twice in your life. Surely that's enough for anybody.
Look I have no problem with people wanting to live their own lives by extreme Puritanical rules. That's up to you. But don't try to impose such extreme views on others. We don't need police forces to have special Chastity Squads.
Fornication laws aren't really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, you have an open and shut case. There's no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
BTW, Doom, I should add, I’m not really anxious to reinstate sex laws, though I see no particular harm in doing so.
My chief concern is not going back to the unjust double standard of old, which would be the practical result of the restigmatization of premarital sex that aggrieved reactionaries demand.
And I'm perfectly relaxed about fornication, for both men and women. If it's consensual then it's nobody else's business.
I'm also in favour of prostitution being legal for women as long as it's a free and open transaction between a prostitute and her client. I don't think women should be stigmatised for it. Male homosexual prostitution should of course be illegal on the grounds that it's a public health issue, so it is society's business.
Adultery usually involves two people, each of whom will usually be complicit in the act and intentions of the other.
This is the working definition I’m using:
It differs from, for instance, the Roman definition:
Doesn’t the merit of doing so depend upon the subject?
I think we’re on the same page. Women, including attractive married ones, get hit on regularly. They are in effect ‘resisting’ every time they don’t escalate. Men, including attractive married ones, get hit on far less often. When they do get hit on, their resistance-to-escalation rate is going to be lower than the attractive married woman’s resistance-to-escalation rate.
Of course...maybe that’s also partially because I’m not morally opposed to a man being able to have more than one wife if he can legitimately take care of both of them and their children, so take that into consideration.
Alright y’all, with that - Ramadan calls. I gotta review Quran for the nightly prayers since I’m going to be leading at home this year. See you after - inshaAllah.
Stay safe.
Peace.
Very best!
Seriously, I agree it's an absurd policy. It's not AE's policy though. I'm not sure whether he can do anything about it.
Yes, it’s Ron’s policy. He has explained his reasoning before. His site, his rules.
Fornication laws aren't really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, you have an open and shut case. There's no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
Or the state wants to bust you for a perceived more serious crime but cannot prove said serious crime and so nails you on the easier charge.
Of course...maybe that’s also partially because I’m not morally opposed to a man being able to have more than one wife if he can legitimately take care of both of them and their children, so take that into consideration.
Alright y’all, with that - Ramadan calls. I gotta review Quran for the nightly prayers since I’m going to be leading at home this year. See you after - inshaAllah.
Stay safe.
Peace.
I am. Polygamy has no place in a modern, industrial society, not unless you want ugly results, because all those excess men have to go somewhere: or you’ll poach other country’s women to take care of them, as is happening in much of East Asia, thus migrating the problem. Part of the deal of civilization is that there are times where a higher authority must encourage-and if necessary, legislate-acceptable behavior. This is something I’m deeply uncomfortable saying, given my complete distrust of our current elites, but nevertheless, I couldn’t care less about abstract philosophy, I want what works.
(Libertarianism has always struck me as somewhat Don Quixotic for a reason. Not necessarily wrong-headed, but rather averse to reality.)
Nonetheless, to you, my good sir:
الله يسلمك
Fornication laws aren't really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, you have an open and shut case. There's no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
Even worse. You’d be giving the state sweeping powers and allowing them to enforce the laws selectively. When you allow the police to enforce laws selectively they enforce them against people or groups they don’t like.
Another problem – how on earth could you ever give someone a fair trial? How would you prove that fornication took place? It’s almost certain that neither of the two people involved would be willing to co-operate. What would your evidence be? Would you subject the woman (who might well be entirely innocent) to the humiliation of a forcible medical examination? Even that would only provide evidence if the police were called to the scene almost immediately. How would the cops respond so quickly?
Another problem – are you going to punish both partners? What if one claims to have been seduced? Would that be a defence? If so, every single person you try to prosecute will claim to have been seduced. How on earth would a court determine what constitutes seduction?
To be honest, pretty much the same arguments would apply to any attempt to criminalise adultery. Proving adultery as a criminal matter would require much more stringent evidence than was ever required to establish adultery as grounds for divorce in civil courts. It wouldn’t be enough for the cops to say that Mrs X and Mr Y checked into a hotel together. You’d need to prove that intercourse actually took place. And do you really want cops peering into bedroom windows?
With a jury of your peers, burden on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offense charged.You would almost never be able to prove it, which is precisely why your concerns are unjustified.
Perhaps what we need is for chastity belts to make a comeback. On her 21st birthday a woman’s father could give her the key to unlock her.
Maybe it would be safer just to ban sex. Of course married couples could apply for a special licence to have sex for the purposes of procreation. So if you have two children you’d get to have sex twice in your life. Surely that’s enough for anybody.
Look I have no problem with people wanting to live their own lives by extreme Puritanical rules. That’s up to you. But don’t try to impose such extreme views on others. We don’t need police forces to have special Chastity Squads.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piGlaGBWHHA
Another problem - how on earth could you ever give someone a fair trial? How would you prove that fornication took place? It's almost certain that neither of the two people involved would be willing to co-operate. What would your evidence be? Would you subject the woman (who might well be entirely innocent) to the humiliation of a forcible medical examination? Even that would only provide evidence if the police were called to the scene almost immediately. How would the cops respond so quickly?
Another problem - are you going to punish both partners? What if one claims to have been seduced? Would that be a defence? If so, every single person you try to prosecute will claim to have been seduced. How on earth would a court determine what constitutes seduction?
To be honest, pretty much the same arguments would apply to any attempt to criminalise adultery. Proving adultery as a criminal matter would require much more stringent evidence than was ever required to establish adultery as grounds for divorce in civil courts. It wouldn't be enough for the cops to say that Mrs X and Mr Y checked into a hotel together. You'd need to prove that intercourse actually took place. And do you really want cops peering into bedroom windows?
Exactly the same way you do in any other case.
With a jury of your peers, burden on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offense charged.
You would almost never be able to prove it, which is precisely why your concerns are unjustified.
You do realise that once you get your anti-fornication anti-adultery laws on the books the first person to be prosecuted will be Donald Trump. Followed by every other political or public figure that liberal prosecutors decide would be fun to harass.
And every actress in Hollywood who has ever missed out on a movie rôle she really wanted will be just itching to come forward to accuse the producer of being a fornicator.
It's a recipe for encouraging score settling. A bit like the witch trials in Salem, which were nothing but people taking the opportunity to settle scores with neighbours they didn't like.
Now I agree with you pretty much on that point. While I’m personally quite relaxed about adultery if the other spouse is prepared to agree to it or has indicated that they are prepared to turn a blind eye to it I’d apply that principle to both men and women (in other words if people want to have open marriages I think that’s their business). I do think that a woman committing adultery is probably putting her marriage at greater risk but if she and her husband are prepared to accept that risk then again that’s their business.
And I’m perfectly relaxed about fornication, for both men and women. If it’s consensual then it’s nobody else’s business.
I’m also in favour of prostitution being legal for women as long as it’s a free and open transaction between a prostitute and her client. I don’t think women should be stigmatised for it. Male homosexual prostitution should of course be illegal on the grounds that it’s a public health issue, so it is society’s business.
With a jury of your peers, burden on the prosecution to prove each and every element of the offense charged.You would almost never be able to prove it, which is precisely why your concerns are unjustified.
What we really need are more useless, unnecessary unenforceable laws on the books that will only ever be used to harass people that either the cops or the state decide they’d like to harass.
You do realise that once you get your anti-fornication anti-adultery laws on the books the first person to be prosecuted will be Donald Trump. Followed by every other political or public figure that liberal prosecutors decide would be fun to harass.
And every actress in Hollywood who has ever missed out on a movie rôle she really wanted will be just itching to come forward to accuse the producer of being a fornicator.
It’s a recipe for encouraging score settling. A bit like the witch trials in Salem, which were nothing but people taking the opportunity to settle scores with neighbours they didn’t like.
You have to consider the idea f antifornication laws within the context of a system that provides rock-solid procedural rights to criminal defendants, and rightly so IMO. What little sense of patriotic feeling I have left toward the USA is based on it almost exclusively.
This is the working definition I'm using:It differs from, for instance, the Roman definition:
I guess that we can assume that the Roman leadership thought that adultery committed by women was bad for society, but adultery by men was not harmful to society.
My opinion, and I am open to argument, is that adultery by either the husband or wife are equally harmful in our current age. And further, I don’t carve out a special pleading for men because of our sexual nature. Degree of difficulty in adhering to an ideal does not impact the effects of not reaching the ideal.
It would seem that, by that logic, there would never be a scenario wherein women were not the problem.
When women are the problem, women are the problem.
When men are the problem, women are still the problem.
You can't argue in that fashion and reasonably expect others not to dismiss you as a misogynist.
Reason #200 why I am against WNism, and alt-right ideology.
Why can’t white people commit less adultery? Every single fact I read about race realism has confirmed to me that I am right to make friends with Jews and Asians, and to copy their behavior.
You do realise that once you get your anti-fornication anti-adultery laws on the books the first person to be prosecuted will be Donald Trump. Followed by every other political or public figure that liberal prosecutors decide would be fun to harass.
And every actress in Hollywood who has ever missed out on a movie rôle she really wanted will be just itching to come forward to accuse the producer of being a fornicator.
It's a recipe for encouraging score settling. A bit like the witch trials in Salem, which were nothing but people taking the opportunity to settle scores with neighbours they didn't like.
Of course, they wouldn’t be able to use prior conduct, because ex post facto laws are unconstitutional. Going forward, people would have to be more discreet.
Private citizens don’t get to bring criminal charges, so any would-be harasser would have to convince the State to bring such a case, which they are unlikely to do unless they have a lot of extra time on their hands.
You have to consider the idea f antifornication laws within the context of a system that provides rock-solid procedural rights to criminal defendants, and rightly so IMO. What little sense of patriotic feeling I have left toward the USA is based on it almost exclusively.
Very big of you. Among others, a major problem with such special pleading is that, at the end of the day, it amounts to an argument that men are the problem, therefore women are the problem for failing to compensate for men’s problem.
It would seem that, by that logic, there would never be a scenario wherein women were not the problem.
When women are the problem, women are the problem.
When men are the problem, women are still the problem.
You can’t argue in that fashion and reasonably expect others not to dismiss you as a misogynist.
Maybe it would be safer just to ban sex. Of course married couples could apply for a special licence to have sex for the purposes of procreation. So if you have two children you'd get to have sex twice in your life. Surely that's enough for anybody.
Look I have no problem with people wanting to live their own lives by extreme Puritanical rules. That's up to you. But don't try to impose such extreme views on others. We don't need police forces to have special Chastity Squads.
For an unfortunate few, these puritanical measures will lead to more sex, not less:
Someday, little White children will recite epic poetry about how Rosie the Great saved White nationalism by driving out the misogynist fiend by force of logic.
Romans seem to have regarded adultery with a married woman primarily as an offense against the family and specifically against the dignity of the head of the family.
I would tend to agree; my point, in fact, was that “male adultery” is also committed by a woman and “female adultery” is also committed by a man (again, as I said, most of the time).
Fornication laws aren't really meant to be zealously enforced. They are meant to denormalize and punish only the most flagrant behavior.
Imagine a guy sweet talks a girl into sex, then he goes and tells this whole soccer team in the locker room. As far as I'm concerned, you have an open and shut case. There's no need for any sex minders or anything ridiculous like that.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,and as far as I know, there has been no draconian escalation of totalitarian police-minding of the kind you describe. Basically, nobody bothers you about it unless you make a public nuisance o yourself, and/or get caught with while getting busted for some other crime.
As of right now,marijuana is illegal,
All this time I thought you were commenting from the US. Evidently that isn’t the case. Or you’re just misinformed. Again.
The liberteenies have been winning “muh legal POT” for years. Regulations vary from state to state, but I’ve driven by obvious marijuana dispensaries in more than one place in the last 4 years.
From wiki:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_dispensaries_in_the_United_States
Now, blackpilled dfordoom frets about a horrrrible dictatorship required enforce a law: is the state of Virginia a dictatorship? Because an anti-fornication law was on the books there for years. I think it was repealed this year, but maybe COVID slowed that down. In any event it was tossed by the state supreme court 14 – 15 years ago.
There used to be anti-sodomy laws in the UA as well, but those have probably been fading out in the US since the 1970’s, and in any event probably weren’t enforced all that often. It’s a philosophical debate whether an unenforced law is really a “law” or not, but…meh.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/feb/7/virginia-fornication-law-repeal-one-step-closer-to/
I don’t understand why the law wasn’t zapped when the VA SC overturned it, but whatever. Tony Kennedy’s opinion in Obergefell has a long reach. I’m pretty sure that any US anti-fornication laws would run into Obergefell and fall apart.
However, there is a place where fornication is punishable by law. Now, that law comes along with some social and cultural baggage. But…if Rosie or any other woman wants to be protected by a law against fornication, Aceh can be reached by airliner once the COVID situation dies down.
https://www.benarnews.org/english/news/indonesian/six-caned-03102017162345.html
What a pity that Whiskey wasn’t aware of this comment subthread, I’m sure his contributions would be a real treat!