July 7, 2013

"I do see the problem that if the sex drive is easily satisfied outside of marriage..."

"... it becomes difficult for any given woman to ask for much in a marriage, but I don't see this as a reason to lower her standards." That's the last sentence to my previous post. Maybe you disagree with me. The Fairness-to-Men Doctrine requires me to give rebuttal time to Jon Lovitz:

56 comments:

traditionalguy said...

And remember, it's never too late to raise your standards.

edutcher said...

Well, that means white women go into the same bucket as black women.

Get it on the run and live the Life Of Julia.

The problem is that Woman's Right To Orgasm the feminists proclaimed so loudly leads them down the road to disaster if that's more important than being hooked on that Federal heroin (as Dr Walter Williams once alluded).

You want men to be better?

You'd better be willing to go without outside marriage, which is what you said yesterday and goes back to Social Conservatism.

rhhardin said...

Sex drive is a little wrong.

It's an obsession in the brain that's the problem, that goes away for a while after sex owing to a hormone rush that turns it off.

Hence the possibility of the male joke that you don't pay a prostitute for sex, you pay her to go away afterwards.

Getting rid of the obsession is why you want maintenance sex in marriage, if you want the marriage to continue. The obsession will go somehwere, why not the honorable place.

The obsession turns on when boys no longer find girls icky, even though any clear-headed analysis shows that they remain icky.

And it goes away after you get old enough, as Aristotle remarked.

It's like being unchained from a maniac.

This may or may not be mediated by Elvin Bishop fooled around and fell in love. It can happen.

Renee said...

Young women are not fighting back, by placing these guys in the friend zone. Men are upset.

Inga said...

"Men are upset."

Women aren't worried.

Which makes men more upset.

ndspinelli said...

I've known father's who have only daughters who have changed their views on women based upon this imbalance. Some become subdued and compliant to the women in their lives. I've seen others become hostile toward women when they weren't prior to this imbalance. But, it works both ways. I have a college friend who married a young woman who grew up in an all female family[3 sisters]. She and my friend had 3 boys and she is a miserable woman. It's all about balance. And, if nature/God doesn't provide that balance, it's incumbent upon us to seek it via socialization, friendships, church, clubs, etc. Or, we can choose to be miserable. To each their own.

rhhardin said...

Armstrong and Getty, after introducing their friend and guest Clark Howard of personal finance fame, for the first question asked

So, is it better to get married or pay for a prostitute?

ndspinelli said...

The imbalance of teachers being almost exclusively female is a contributor to this malaise. Our public schools lack balance and boys have suffered. The data is quite clear.

Renee said...

Why it may sound ambiguous, women can say no to a man's advances without being pressured socially that she is a prude/cold/tease.


If a man pressures himself on a woman and he can't get a clue, just treat him like a gay male friend.


edutcher said...

Inga said...

Men are upset.

Women aren't worried.


If women weren't worried, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

rhhardin said...

My own opinion is that even arranged marriages working is unsurprising.

Men and women can inhabit the same space pretty easily.

Without a rights discussion ever coming up.

madAsHell said...

The TIger Woods Rule: Sex outside of marriage is going to be expensive.

Glen Filthie said...

Liberalism and feminism is all about lowering standards. They want a society where the most marginal people can get over the bar too.

Social engineers and lawyers have made a mockery of marriage through easy divorce, promiscuity and homosexuality...and now this social experiment ends the way we conservatives always knew it would.

There is a reason that classical, monogamous marriage arose the way it did. It is the best deal for men, women and the entire family. There are exceptions to that...but they are the exceptions.

Renee said...

I should note the 'friend zone' is now utilized in high school/college.

Older women, it doesn't work that well. Because they're have to be less picky.

Chip Ahoy said...

Here's me, Athena herself.

And to be fair, here's opposition, a cartoon.

Your commenters do better back there at responding than an SNL skit written for humor.

Gahrie said...


Women aren't worried.

Which makes men more upset.


Yeah, because no woman's magazine/talk show/coffee club has ever discussed the issue of "where are all the good men" and no woman worries in her thirties about her biological clock.....

rhhardin said...

Women's answer is get the biological clock replaced.

Get a really accurate one, while you're at it. You can be the time lady.

rhhardin said...

One woman had a biological clock so good that she could tell longitude.

rhhardin said...

Get a grandfather clock.

They go over 80.

Hagar said...

I remember the opening scenes of "E.T." and thinking that with a wife like that, Mexico is not far enough.

Nathan Alexander said...

The bottom line is that men are willing to man up, and have for millennia.

The controversy has arisen when women who refuse take any responsibility for their own choices try to shame men into continuing the imbalance. And the shaming attempt uses language the women would never endure being directed toward themselves.

Men are willing to man up. Men would just like:
1) the imbalance to not continue to widen
2) a little gratitude for our sacrifices

Neither of these are compatible with feminism.

Hence the hysterical shrieking from Inga, Ms. Althouse, Sandra Fluke and others like them.

Old Dad said...

"The TIger Woods Rule: Sex outside of marriage is going to be expensive."

Yep.

Human beings should have instructions to include:

WARNING: Attempting to engage in a relationship with this creature, especially a sexual relationship, will be difficult, expensive, dangerous--and possibly satisfying, but always difficult and expensive. Proceed with extreme caution.

Inga said...

Hysterical shrieking? It's an all male choir Nathan.

As I said yesterday, what a strange premise for conservative males to glom onto, a "union" of disaffected men. So they see women as having authority over them? Is that what is causing so much angst? Women don't want or need authority over men, in fact it's a turn off, as much of a turn off as men being authoritarian over women.

Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically. If there are inequities in family court in custody situations, men have a legitimate complaint there, hopefully they can channel their energy against women into changing it.

Stop with the silly union analogies, Men on Strike. It is ludicrous.to expect women to go back to the bad old days. Men could face the fact that women and men can come together with mutual respect for each other. No one, not men, not women need to lower their standards.

If some males can't accept that, there are plenty of others of equal worth who can. The premise of Dr. Helen's book that we will be facing a future in which the majority of men don't marry is laughable.



Christopher said...

"Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically."


Stop forcing men to foot the bill and maybe they would.

Gahrie said...

So they see women as having authority over them?

No, we see the government exerting authority over us.

Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies

The government exerts quite a bit of control of both men and women's bodies except when it comes to abortion.

and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically.

Forcing a man to pay child support by definition is not economic autonomy.

Ann Althouse said...

"Your commenters do better back there at responding than an SNL skit written for humor."

Even without seeing the character. Lovitz is relying for his humorous effect mostly on looking awful.

Christopher said...

Jon Lovitz has always been one of the more unappreciated SNL cast members.

Lem said...

Your commenters do better back there at responding than an SNL skit written for humor.

It's my observation that managers get themselves thrown out of games and do other seemingly erratic things superficially engineered to motivate their players.

There's something happening here
What it is ain't exactly clear
There's a woman with a gun over there
Telling me I got to beware


Rh quoting an Elvin Bishop song could not be let passed unattended to.

SomeoneHasToSayIt said...

Multiple sexual partners (over time), which as a male I can say is monkey brain quite desirable, is actually quite a bad deal in the long run.

Some ONE of them, is going to be remembered as "the best", unforgettable, and the odds of ending up with the best - who also thinks YOU ARE they best THEY'VE had, are not high.

And this creates a permanent, even if at an non-conscious level, issue.

I once heard this analogy. Imagine that you take an annual trip to some tropical isle, the highlight of which is sitting on the beach and watching a perfectly lovely sunset. You think the experience cannot be improved on. Then, one time, someone with you has a fine and rare Cuban cigar, which you partake of AS the sun is going down, and it beats all the previous cigar-less sunsets.

It was a mistake for you to have done this, as you can always find the sunset, but won't always have the cigar, and now all previously totally satisfying cigar-less sunsets no long have the optimal magic they once did, and you can't get it back.

Sexual playing around is like that. And just as unwise.

Bob Ellison said...

We are probably moving toward an anti-feminist culture.

I grew up in a feminist era. My mother did some work for the ERA (click on the link, younglings). My teachers were mostly feminists and beta males.

It took a long time, perhaps thirty years, for me to realize that we are in a strange era. The Mommy Wars, the incredibly fake and stupid "war on women" conjecture, the strange American obsession with abortion-on-demand, the occasional anecdote about some girl who wants to play left tackle on a football team, and the wide spread of women breaking into men's caves while men are never allowed into women's caves...these things are strange. This cannot last.

I have come to realize that this is a fake era. The people living today will not recognize what comes in the future, and they will hate it. It's too late for us. But with Islamism promoting misogyny (with great success!) and Western men starting to grumble that they're sick and tired of getting tossed around, the end of this era is nigh.

Nathan Alexander said...

If some males can't accept that, there are plenty of others of equal worth who can. The premise of Dr. Helen's book that we will be facing a future in which the majority of men don't marry is laughable.

See? Hysterical shrieking that she doesn't care, it isn't important, and it is all men's fault, anyway.

Just can't pull of any sort of calm poise, can you? Everything you say on this subject has a barbed hook in it somewhere, some vitriol for someone.

Renee said...

"Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically."


If you concentrate on the relationship, then you don't have to worry about all these control issues.

edutcher said...

Most of the "control" was in feminists' propaganda.

Renee said...

Well it takes up a lot trust to give up control, both male and female, and trust is a lost virtue. Because we can't trust our sexual partner, we resort to controlling measures.

Sexual freedom is just an illusion.

Isn't it.

Shouting Thomas said...

A lot of women, like Inga, suffer from the personal moral failings of bitching and nagging.

Althouse suffers from these moral failings, too, but to a lesser degree. Who can forget the past couple of years of bitching at us that we've persecuted the gays, and nagging at us to talk correctly so as to never hurt the feelings of sainted gays?

It's been a bravura performance of bitching and nagging concealed as "intellectual discourse." Women are good at this.

The great oppression of women never happened, but just as our daddies told us, women like to bitch and nag. Giving them stuff does not stop the bitching and nagging.

Inga will continue to bitch and nag at men. You can count on it. The question is whether it's worth giving the shit back to her.

As they say, when you get down in the shit to wrestle with pigs...

Probably, the best thing to do with the bitches and nags is to give them nothing, including a response.

The Crack Emcee said...

Commenting in good faith is getting tricky around here.

I'll try to be sexier,...

AprilApple said...

"Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically."


The illusion that "Men are controlling women's bodies" only happens in democrat campaign ads.

Now Gosnell - HE had some nice control over women's bodies.

Renee said...

Oh yes, the Pope.

The Pope is so controlling demanding the sex should be in a loving and trusting relationship that accepts the needs of children mutually by woman and man.

Total control freak over women.

rhhardin said...

The backbone of society is the married, committed couple who channel their sexuality into making and growing the next generation.

That's the penis of society.

kentuckyliz said...

I want to step outside the battle of the sexes frame of this argument, which btw I find to be a refreshing break from Zimmermania.

Let's look at the political forces and changing technology.

1935 ADC created in the Soc Sec Act--originally for widows and orphans but not single unwed mothers; white women not expected to work but black women were
1960 The Pill approved in US
1962 ADC renamed AFDC out of a concern that ADC discourages marriage
LBJ Great Society
1968 Griswold v CT creates right to privacy (against laws prohibiting or restricting contraception)
1968 King v Smith SCOTUS strikes down "man in the house" rule (no welfare if married or cohabbing)
1970 Goldberg v Kelly a welfare recipient/applicant can have a hearing--presumption is entitlement, removes from sole discretion of the state welfare workers
1970 Gov. Reagan (CA) signs first no fault divorce law
1972 Eisenstadt v Baird extends privacy to "unmarried couples"--removes marital requirements for obtaining contraception
1973 Roe v Wade (using right to privacy from Griswold)
1970's outsourcing/offshoring jobs from the US begins--making it hard for working class men to support families (HS education or less, low skill, mfrg)
1970s divorce boom
1976 peak welfare participation
1984 Charles Murray Bell Curve--welfare creates dependency, encourages high fertility, and has dysgenic effects
1980s (specific year?) DNA testing for paternity starts (replacing blood and serological testing--DNA 99.99% accurate)
1985 no fault divorce available in all states
1996 Clinton's welfare reform replaces AFDC with TANF--requires custodial parent to pursue child support, which is paid first to the government
1990s on Internet/WWW increases offshoring of nonmanufacturing jobs--IT, services, etc.
1993 Hermesmann v. Seyer (KS SC) state SC rules that minor male must pay child support even if law says he is not yet age of consent; the woman was also a juvenile and therefore could not be charged with statutory rape, but the SC split the criminal aspect from the civil aspect (child's right to child support)--cited as precedent in other states
1995 a male victim of statutory rape is required to pay child support (Nathaniel, CA)
1996-2012 paternity fraud court cases
2006 abstinence education programs begin

And I don't have the space to post rates of unwed motherhood overall and by race skyrocketing through this time.

When did unwed motherhood lose its shame? Can we even pinpoint it?

All this political, economic, legal, and technological stuff is the backdrop to individual choices.

kentuckyliz said...

I forgot to mention Humana Vitae 1968. LOL

deborah said...

"And it goes away after you get old enough, as Aristotle remarked.

It's like being unchained from a maniac.

This may or may not be mediated by Elvin Bishop fooled around and fell in love. It can happen."

O saints be praised.

kentuckyliz said...

Tammy Wynette D-I-V-O-R-C-E song 1968

Loretta Lynn The Pill (song) 1975

Anyway I was going to flesh this out more but I have other things to do....

Chip S. said...

I don't see this as a reason to lower her standards.

The intellectual defect of most lawyers is their apparent inability to understand the concept of equilibrium in social interactions.

While the optimal standard of behavior for any woman (or man) is certainly a matter of individual values, the tradeoff each person faces is dependent on the choices made by all other people. As the opportunity cost of a given type of behavior rises, fewer people choose it.

Posner's Sex and Reason would've been a useful starting point for a discussion that minimized the rant quotient over the past few days of rage.

Like so much in the law, this extended argument really has its basis in a failure to apply the Coase Theorem properly.

Inga said...

Nathan, with hearing only your side of your sad story, you do have my sympathies. What I said in my earlier comment which you seemed to gloss over is this:
----------------
"If there are inequities in family court in custody situations, men have a legitimate complaint there, hopefully they can channel their energy against women into changing it."

7/7/13, 10:58 AM
--------------------

kentuckyliz said...

I will say one last thing--I am an auntie, and worry about my nieces and nephews--their behavior and the behavior of others that they may be subjected to. One nephew barely escaped the disguised (to him) yet plain (to us) desire of his HS sweetheart to get knocked up. I had to educate my sister about child support laws (grandparents assets aren't raided) but the flip side of that coin is inheritance rights and they have a large and valuable farm of which an illegitimate child would hold equal inheritance rights with any legitimate children heirs. So even when the kid is grown up and the child support payments are over, later on they will be a partner in this undivided property with a large group of heirs. Business partners for life and beyond (because their heirs would inherit their share). That would be the true nightmare that keeps on giving.

Sofa King said...

"If there are inequities in family court in custody situations, men have a legitimate complaint there, hopefully they can channel their energy against women into changing it."

It may have escaped your attention that it is mostly women of the man-shaming type who are preventing it from being changed.

n.n said...

Whether male or female, it is possible to consider both perspectives equally, distinguish between intrinsic and incidental differences, and discern the non-negotiable behaviors which they engender.

Augie Fartro said...

Wow, the Phil Hartman voice over at the end of that clip reminded me - there's probably no better example of someone making a bad call in selecting a marriage partner. His 3rd wife was not the charm.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
As I said yesterday, what a strange premise for conservative males to glom onto, a "union" of disaffected men. So they see women as having authority over them? Is that what is causing so much angst? Women don't want or need authority over men, in fact it's a turn off, as much of a turn off as men being authoritarian over women.

Men should concentrate on their own bodies, quit trying to control women's bodies and stop the hostility to women's autonomy, physically and economically"

You are literally incabably of uttering anything but your talking point. You autonomy shouldn't necessarily entitle you to 18 years of child support simply because you made a choice.
Saying that a man should be able to opt out JUST LIKE A WOMAN is not CONTROLLING A WOMAN'S BODY or HER CHOICE. She could still choose to have a baby or not have a baby.The economic argument is the one where the woman controls the man, not the other way around. Based on her choice not his. If you are for autonomy then dont make others pay for your choice which you make alone.

campy said...

If a woman chooses to live off your income, jr, you are by definition "interfering with her choice" if you don't fork it over.

jr565 said...

"Yeah, because no woman's magazine/talk show/coffee club has ever discussed the issue of "where are all the good men" and no woman worries in her thirties about her biological clock....."

My biological click is ticking like this!

jr565 said...

Autonomy means self goverment, not self government but then another party has to pay for your choice.

ndspinelli said...

ChipS, I had to Google Coase Theorem. You're much too smart for this blog. Annie was beating her ample chest about "kicking ass" yesterday! You kick hers regularly. I bet she had to look up Coase Theorem also but would NEVER admit it.

jr565 said...

Inga wrote:
Stop with the silly union analogies, Men on Strike. It is ludicrous.to expect women to go back to the bad old days. Men could face the fact that women and men can come together with mutual respect for each other. No one, not men, not women need to lower their standards.

If some males can't accept that, there are plenty of others of equal worth who can. The premise of Dr. Helen's book that we will be facing a future in which the majority of men don't marry is laughable.

I think the argumnent she's making is that men seem to not be marrying to the degree that they used to. And here are some of the reasons why (in her opinion). It's not a strike per se, so much as there is less incentive to marry than remain single.
Did you ever hear the phrase "why buy cow when you can get the milk for free"? The incentive to buy a cow is less when milk is so cheap.

She lays out six primary reasons why men may not marry to the same extent. You should think about those reasons, and then wonder wonder if singledom doesn't provide them with a better deal - nore aoutonomy, more space, more sex. Its an incentives argument. Men get a better deal (or perceive they get a better deal) remaining single than not. Not all men, but the men shying away from marriage.

steve said...

What Lovitz doesn't realize is that most women would prefer to share a high-value man than settle for a loser like him. In the words of Heartiste, "Five minutes of alpha is worth five years of beta."